First point; yeeeees. But not quite. You misunderstand the (6d) loophole.
But to be clear (6d) only applies to certain methods of distribution. Sony distributed on a CD which is more than "offering access". 6d also specifies the "same place" and "equivalent access". For instance 6d could apply to offering ftp access to the binary and specifies that you fulfil the requirements if you put the source alongside it.
Pointing to a URL at a different place does not fulfil this, and is fraught with danger to the person with the liability to ensure source distribution; if they don't have control over where the source is being distribtued from how can they ensure that they fulfil the license terms?
Further it is not enough to offer access to "newer versions" of the library, you must offer access to the _same_ source. Which is why for.rpm packages it is important to distribute the.spec file, but by distributing the.src.rpm it is EASIER to be SURE you have fulfilled the license agreement, sometimes the.spec is not enough and it takes thoughtful examination of the.spec file to be sure.
So there are *) requirements *) sensible codes of practice
The most sensible code of practice to fulfil the requirements is to distribute the source side-by-side with the binary. The only safe "pointer to the source" you can provide is a mailing address and an offer for 3 years. Any other "pointer to the source" must point to the same place the binary was distributed from.
I only entered into this discussion to counter claims that the US should govern the internet "because (we) invented/built/paid-for (it)"
My initial entries into this discussion all queried who was "we" and what was "it", suspecting that the nature of (we) and (it) either changed so much from the "invented/built/paid-for" days or were so vague so as to make the claim too weak to consider.
ARPANET is a basis for the internet, and I note from your example that you have used class, or type definitions. The internet that is being argued about is an instance, and the debate has been over who has the authority, the type designer or the instantiator.
Interesting, anyway I don't think we disagree except over unintentional details of the debate, you did raise a good point on why the US has and should retain government.
The motive behind my entry was to contradict the annoying (and careless) exulting of some of the American readers, but I can't deny your point:-) You have brought light and understanding to an increasing frictional debate. And I also agree that the annoying exulting was "in fun" rather than "honest claim" and if it was UK readers exulting I may have just chukcled and moved on (depending how my mood took me).
On the way home, considering your point I realised this: The French did not revolt "in-case" their leaders behaved badly but "because"; there is some wisdom in the rest of the world not revolting merely "in-case" ICANN/USA abuses authority (*cough*, some slack cut here)
So I'll be patient and supporting (and guarded) and hope for the best. The "US" haven't let us down so badly yet!
I know it does. but not within the scope of the disputed claim which is that because of ARPANET it should be an American private company that governs the internet. To maintain such a claim is to ignore the also HUGELY relevant BUILDING work that was done by OTHER companies and countries.
You made a good point which I agree with, it is because the ROOT of the co-operation is still in the US that the US should still govern the internet. And that has nothing to do with who built how much of it, or where the first part was built, except as much as the same history also caused the ROOT OF THE COOPERATION to be there.
I keep capitalising INTER because I'm trying to give a hint that the internet is an inter-network and is more than arpanet.
"The internet is no more ARPANET than you and your cousins are your grandad."
More senseless babble
You've finally addressed the real reason why US keeps governent of the internet. I never argued this reason I only argued against foolish babble like "because we paid for it" and "because we invented it"
But it worries me that you can't see what is meant by the statement: "The internet is no more ARPANET than you and your cousins are your grandad." any why you call it senseless babble.
That statement encapsulates the repeated error in this debate. The ARPANET is all WAS and no IS, and can never be a reason to retain government any more than that your grandad has the right to dictate to you on the grounds that you exist because of him. The internet is not the arpanet, only a descendant just as you and your cousins are not your grandad.
So you are right in your reason that the US should (and will) keep government as long as it is the root of the co-operation, but your closing comment leaves me thinking that you think it was just another way of saying "cos (we) invented (it)"
Except that the only two people who told me I was incoherent were unable to respond to my points and resorted to personal attacks. I'm immune to them because if I am a fool I am willing to look like one.
If I am a troll to you, so be it.
The other readers will decide if that reflects more on me than on you - or not; and I don't fear their judgement.
I can only conclude that you have suddenly realised that ARPANET != INTERNET and WE != UNITED STATES and have decided to go home.
Dude, you really hate detail don't you. You are still confusing internet/arpanet and we/united-states and this is getting in the way of your understanding that my point IS internet != arpanet and we != united states.
My first post in _this_ thread was "what is this _it_ you paid for"? And with you, like with gmuller, "it" switches from ARPANET to INTERNET in the blink of an eye without you even noticing.
The other falacy I am addressing is the "we". All you really mean is that YOU and the ARPANET people (NOT the INTERNET) are subject to the same governemt. Woweee! Oh, and your ancestors helped pay for the ARPANET. Which isn't the internet.
If practical hands on developing and paying money and signing up users did not make me more involved, then living in the same country as the "cradle" (which is not even the baby) hardly makes them more involved."
Nope. All of those thing you claimed make you more involved,
if you say so, in which case I will re-render my claim to your apparent understanding
then tried to claim don't make you more involved,
You got that right. As you insist that my involvement is significant in claiming government of the internet then I will render my claim thus for your benefit: if Americans funded by the American Government involvement in the creation of ARPANET justifies government of the INTERNET by private american companies under the juristiction of the said American Government, then the creation and funding of parts of the INTERNET by other national governments and orgaisations certainly justifies THEIR government of the internet.
I believe it is on similar grounds that the British colonists based their claim for Independance from a German King who ruled the British Colonies at the time. I am willing to bet you will focus in the DIFFERENCE here and not the SIMILARITY (which would be why the point is made)
then tried to claim AGAIN that they DO make you more involved, exist because of the resources expended intitally by the UNITED STATES.
I don't recollect such a claim. However I'm not ignorant enough to believe that the possibility of my small involvement depends only on the US work with ARPANET or US work on parts of the internet as you seem to believe. My involvement was based on UK telecommunications companies (Telinco) and an American Network Marketing Company who we advertisied for initially.
Without that effort, you wouldn't have an internet to claim you were more involved in, then change your claim, then change it back.
Learn the difference between a demonstration by falsehood. I was suggesting that any aparrent claim I had (though stronger) was not enough, so their weaker claim was not enough. If you suggest my stronger claim was enough then on the strength of that claim, I claim those rights to government of the internet which with your confusion of we/us internet/arpanet enjoy to deny!
So lets see who is babbling then (and remember even if you can't admit it, all the slashdot readers can still make their own judgement):
"Even the American builders of bits of the internet are only in a small way the "United States" above being private companies and individuals, some of whom though eomployed or paid for by US companies are NOT American."
What? The foundation of the internet, you named it yourself, ARPANET, was funded by American taxpayer's dollars, not private companies. Sure, it's only a "bit" of the internet, but it's a big bit, being that the rest couldn't have happened without it.
So I'm commenting on how much the builders of bits of the internet (not arpanet) are the "United States" And you say the the foundation of the internet, ARPA net was funded by American tax payers. You admit its only a bit, but essential.
Now arpanet being an essential little bit has only TINY relevance to whether or not the builders of the INTERT-net are the "United States" Who is babbling? You know for a fact that the internet is international built and owned by many companies and nationalities.
"So the fine debating device here I used was to take the broad label "united states" where koreaman LIKES to use it and apply it in the same way and just as broadly to areas where he (and you) DON'T like to use it."
You can call it a fine debating service, I call it a feeble attempt to cover your ass.
And THAT is a poor debating device. You call it a feeble attempt to cover my ass because it's all you have got left to say that won't embarrass you, and you would rather not address the point. My point there was that a vague definition of "us" "we" and "united states" makes for very poor logic in the situation in which it was invoked. Looks like you didn't like me pinning down what was meant by "united states" in that statement.
So by disagreeing with my (obviously vague and inaccurate statement) do you also disagree with koreaman when he says that the United States build the internet and by implication ought to run it?
Right now the only thing anyone should agree on is that you are floundering.
You say I am "just covering my ass" and "floundering", but it looks like you are "babbling" to me. In one case you have addressed the point (first time) but you missed it even then. You didn't even try the other two times.
So who is babbling?
You are looking at ARPANET (which has nothing to do with YOU personally) through a temporal magnifying glass and trying to transfer the freely-given ownership of arpanet THEN to the INTER-net now.
You don't even realise that the INTER-net is merely a co-operation of networks based on the ARPA-net protocols and organisational pattern.
The internet is no more ARPANET than you and your cousins are your grandad.
Lioner: We paid for it so this is correct. (moderated "funny") Samjam: "What is this "it" that _you_ paid for?" flyinwhitey:"My taxes paid for ARPANET"
samjam: "Were you paying taxes in the days of ARPANET?"
Logical fallacy
wth? This is no falacy, its the whole point of my position. Someone claims that because "we" paid for "arpanet" "we" get to govern the INTER-net. And yet they didn't even pay for ARPANET. You didn't even pay the taxes that paid for the cradle of the internet, how can _you_ claim particular involvement the INTERNET above the involvment of anyone else in anyother part of the world. You don't even have involvement in the American ARPANET part of it other than your ancestors who are related to you paid some taxes the precursor. My whole point (and in the phosphor posts) is that the "we" bit is the falacy.
And in the other post I claimed that owning and operating an ISP did NOT make me more involved, I started out hinting owning an ISP would give me more authority but then took the position that it did not, and so that "some americans" building ARPANET or even some of todays internet did not inolve the postee to any degree either.
If practical hands on developing and paying money and signing up users did not make me more involved, then living in the same country as the "cradle" (which is not even the baby) hardly makes them more involved.
So yes I am making up "arguments" as a go along (don't we all) but I'm not changing my position which is what I think you meant.
"As soon as ICANN do something that enough people disagree with, their authority will vanish."
They already have and it didn't.
You are wrong in both directions 1) Obviously not, or it would have 2) It actually has to some degree, hence the creation of the Pacific Root a while back
(I'm surprised you didn't pull me up on the use of such a self-qualifying claim). ICANN effective authority will vanish as quickly as RIAA effective authority has vanished. It just remains to see what enforcement ICANN will manage, and as any split is more likely to be along country lines that technological lines it will be very interesting to watch.
I'm glad that you qualified "it" as the cradle of the internet, but its not the cradle of the internet thats disputed is it?
I didn't lose, I wasn't involved any more than you were, and ICANN have no more respect for you as an American than they do me, so you hardly "won" in any useful sense.
As soon as ICANN do something that enough people disagree with, their authority will vanish.
If a unilateral orgainsation who care no more for you than any other internet user pleases you by being governed by the laws of your home country, so be it. Does it get you anywhere?
Dude I'm not talking ABOUT white phosphor and I'm not quoting the independant, and I'm not even talking ABOUT the US military. I already know about the story and the bogus story here.
I'm querying what koreaman means by "United States" when he says "United States built the thing" cos the internet or ARPANET or whatever was not built by the United States any more than the "United States" contracts out torture or the "United States" used white phosphor on civilians.
All these things to whatever degree thay actually happen are done by people who to some degree may act under a label and/or authority of the United States. Read on...
Just as much as the US did not bomb "civilians" with white phosphor, neither did the US build "the internet".
Even the American builders of bits of the internet are only in a small way the "United States" above being private companies and individuals, some of whom though eomployed or paid for by US companies are NOT American.
So the fine debating device here I used was to take the broad label "united states" where koreaman LIKES to use it and apply it in the same way and just as broadly to areas where he (and you) DON'T like to use it.
So by disagreeing with my (obviously vague and inaccurate statement) do you also disagree with koreaman when he says that the United States build the internet and by implication ought to run it?
Lets face it, most of the internet that exists was paid for by private companies with their own money, replenished by re-selling use of "it".
I've owned and run my own ISP which puts me a legup over you and I'm not so vain as to say that any of "it" belongs to me apart from the bit of "it" that is inside my house. It is an INTER-net.
Indeed. Was that "built the thing" as in "work for hire" or "we had the idea first"?
Both are irrelevant, it's always "who has IT now" that counts, and lets just look at how much control ICANN actually has.... hmmm It has absolutely no respect anywhere and slight residual power that is likely to evaporate as quickly as it is used for anything significant in opposition to the rest of the world.
When you say "United States Built the thing" do you mean the same way as in "United States killed Iraqi civilians using white phosphor" and "United States contracts out tortue of suspects to other countries" or in the same way as "United States gave lots of help to Tsunami victims"
Just for the record, much of the internet was built and is owned outside of the USA. Don't forget what "inter" means, it strongly implies co-operation. And thats not co-operation in the sense that "man is co-operating with the police but has not been charged".
"point to a website" is NEVER enough to fulfil the GPL or the LGPL unless the "a website" is the same place of the same website where the binary was distributed from. In this case the binary was distributed on a CD, so pointing to a website is never enough.
"Saying "we have used unmodified versions of the LGPL library XY, and that you can obtain them from the website of the project which was at __url__ as of __date__" is NOT enough.
If you don't provide source at the same point of distribution you MUST provide the source by MAIL for 3 years. Only providing by a website at a point which was not the point you distributed the binary from is NEVER enough and also foolhardy if it is not your website because then you cannot make sure the source (or the SAME source) stays there.
The requirement to distribute the source to the LGPL code is included in the LGPL license, see: LGPL Clause 4 whic states:
4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange.
If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
There is a clear requirement to re-distribute the source even if you didn't change the library.
If you think I am wrong, please cite your authority or source.
I suspect someone will lose a job over this. It's a shame, they probably don't "deserve" it, for just being stupid.
But I'm also glad Sony have really fouled things up and brought the whole issue of DRM a and it's limits to the international conciousness.
I also fear that this may provoke the more exploiting "copyright holders" to be more radical just as their legal tactics have provoked decentralized file sharing and possibly now the "darknet" type stuff.
Because if you don;'t distribute the source with the binary then YOU have to make the SAME source available to all 3rd parties for 3 years.
And how are you going to do that when the project author changes the version available on sourceforge so that the version you used isn't available anymore?
The only admin-low way to abide by the GPL is to distribute the source WITH the binary. Anything else puts a severe admin burden on the redistributor, esp. if you start shipping multiple versions of the library over time.
I think a.spec file must be included because it is a LOT of shell scripts, some of which form the pre-install and post-install scripts which form part of the package. Also because it contains the instructions for building and often for enabling/disabling various options in what is compiled. Sometimes it even defines helper functions that help the compile.
But mostly because the.rpm (or.deb) is a derivative work, and it's source is usually a.spec file (or equivalent) and as a deriviative work its distribution is governed by the GPL or LGPL
If Sony don't provide the source they must make THE source available to all third parties for at least 3 years. This is an obligation they must fulfil.
You have to track your releases and make sure you keep the source of each release seperately so you can give people the source to the version they had.
Too many people consider only casually the obligation that the GPL puts on them. GPL is not an easy way out.
It's easy to receive GPL software because the burden is on the distributor, but you must understand and fulfil the burden when you are the distributor. With most commercial software you pay some money before you receive it but you still have to follow the license guidelines.
Is it too often for me to say again that too many people distibute binary packages to open source software and distribute the source they compile to make the binary package but do not distribute the source to making the binary package; i.e. the.spec file, or the dev-src equivalant.
They've used their time machines, hence the suits now, but around year 2000 was as far back as they could go.
They couldn't go back any further because there wasn't sufficient intellectual density to create the singularity needed at the destination to open the wormhole.
The intellelectual density of music execs and lawyers is sufficient in this age.
This is becauset here is approximately ONE major windows target* and the suppliers prefer to supply binaries.
Of course, you knew this, but thats how it is.
If the free supplier of your free software who doesn't take any money doesn't want to provide a binary for your personal choice (out of a few hundred) of release of distro, that's up the them.
Of course you knew this too, which is why you "prefer" to do it from windows as you say. You reasoning makes sense.
I'm not trying to pastronize you, I'm just trying to give a _comprehensive_ "yes, thats how it is, how could it be different"
Of course some software isn't available and comes in a "we prefer ubuntu" form straight from the author, but I still like to build my non-distro packages from source.debs just to be sure I have the source.
It's surprising how many people provide binary.deb packages and no source. Sometimes the source to something, sometimes the source to something that was included in the.deb binaries, but rarely the entire deb source thats needed to rebuild the.deb. Surprising given the debian social policy that redhat guys are a little better at this, but I think rpm -ta helps a lot.
I second this; I did Smartphone 2002/2003 work for Orange for a couple of years.
I was very busy, and every now and then I had a go on symbian only to get "wth? Now what?"; the whole symbian thing was an incomplete model of a cut-down psion3 system, which made sense in the psion3 but not a symbian phone. Anyway, I never got very far in the little time I didn't have. Never mind "dip a toe in" with symbian you had to nearly drown before you could get anywhere.
Smartphone on the other hand was a doddle, there was no more to "know" than made sense, the tools were readily available and logical; the api's happened to be familiar (from my windows delphi days) and it really wasn't very hard to get going, not to mention the convenient emulators.
There are lots of smart symbian developers out there and I don't want to comment on whether or not they are smarter then me:-) but I bet they would find smartphone easier to manage.
Having said all that the real hard thing with smartphone was getting technical details out of microsoft, how many times I wished I had "the source", so linux phones, with the well designed base system would be a real boon.
Slashdot Mirror
If we had properly welcomed our new DRM overlords this would not have happened!
AGGHH
Sam
First point; yeeeees. But not quite. You misunderstand the (6d) loophole.
.rpm packages it is important to distribute the .spec file, but by distributing the .src.rpm it is EASIER to be SURE you have fulfilled the license agreement, sometimes the .spec is not enough and it takes thoughtful examination of the .spec file to be sure.
But to be clear (6d) only applies to certain methods of distribution. Sony distributed on a CD which is more than "offering access". 6d also specifies the "same place" and "equivalent access". For instance 6d could apply to offering ftp access to the binary and specifies that you fulfil the requirements if you put the source alongside it.
Pointing to a URL at a different place does not fulfil this, and is fraught with danger to the person with the liability to ensure source distribution; if they don't have control over where the source is being distribtued from how can they ensure that they fulfil the license terms?
Further it is not enough to offer access to "newer versions" of the library, you must offer access to the _same_ source. Which is why for
So there are
*) requirements
*) sensible codes of practice
The most sensible code of practice to fulfil the requirements is to distribute the source side-by-side with the binary.
The only safe "pointer to the source" you can provide is a mailing address and an offer for 3 years. Any other "pointer to the source" must point to the same place the binary was distributed from.
Sam
I only entered into this discussion to counter claims that the US should govern the internet "because (we) invented/built/paid-for (it)"
:-) You have brought light and understanding to an increasing frictional debate. And I also agree that the annoying exulting was "in fun" rather than "honest claim" and if it was UK readers exulting I may have just chukcled and moved on (depending how my mood took me).
My initial entries into this discussion all queried who was "we" and what was "it", suspecting that the nature of (we) and (it) either changed so much from the "invented/built/paid-for" days or were so vague so as to make the claim too weak to consider.
ARPANET is a basis for the internet, and I note from your example that you have used class, or type definitions. The internet that is being argued about is an instance, and the debate has been over who has the authority, the type designer or the instantiator.
Interesting, anyway I don't think we disagree except over unintentional details of the debate, you did raise a good point on why the US has and should retain government.
The motive behind my entry was to contradict the annoying (and careless) exulting of some of the American readers, but I can't deny your point
On the way home, considering your point I realised this:
The French did not revolt "in-case" their leaders behaved badly but "because"; there is some wisdom in the rest of the world not revolting merely "in-case" ICANN/USA abuses authority (*cough*, some slack cut here)
So I'll be patient and supporting (and guarded) and hope for the best. The "US" haven't let us down so badly yet!
So cheers for the enlightenment!
Sam
I know it does. but not within the scope of the disputed claim which is that because of ARPANET it should be an American private company that governs the internet.
To maintain such a claim is to ignore the also HUGELY relevant BUILDING work that was done by OTHER companies and countries.
You made a good point which I agree with, it is because the ROOT of the co-operation is still in the US that the US should still govern the internet.
And that has nothing to do with who built how much of it, or where the first part was built, except as much as the same history also caused the ROOT OF THE COOPERATION to be there.
I keep capitalising INTER because I'm trying to give a hint that the internet is an inter-network and is more than arpanet.
You've finally addressed the real reason why US keeps governent of the internet. I never argued this reason I only argued against foolish babble like "because we paid for it" and "because we invented it"
But it worries me that you can't see what is meant by the statement: "The internet is no more ARPANET than you and your cousins are your grandad." any why you call it senseless babble.
That statement encapsulates the repeated error in this debate. The ARPANET is all WAS and no IS, and can never be a reason to retain government any more than that your grandad has the right to dictate to you on the grounds that you exist because of him. The internet is not the arpanet, only a descendant just as you and your cousins are not your grandad.
So you are right in your reason that the US should (and will) keep government as long as it is the root of the co-operation, but your closing comment leaves me thinking that you think it was just another way of saying "cos (we) invented (it)"
Sam
Except that the only two people who told me I was incoherent were unable to respond to my points and resorted to personal attacks.
I'm immune to them because if I am a fool I am willing to look like one.
If I am a troll to you, so be it.
The other readers will decide if that reflects more on me than on you - or not; and I don't fear their judgement.
I can only conclude that you have suddenly realised that ARPANET != INTERNET and WE != UNITED STATES and have decided to go home.
Sam
Sam
My first post in _this_ thread was "what is this _it_ you paid for"?
And with you, like with gmuller, "it" switches from ARPANET to INTERNET in the blink of an eye without you even noticing.
The other falacy I am addressing is the "we". All you really mean is that YOU and the ARPANET people (NOT the INTERNET) are subject to the same governemt. Woweee! Oh, and your ancestors helped pay for the ARPANET. Which isn't the internet.
if you say so, in which case I will re-render my claim to your apparent understanding
You got that right. As you insist that my involvement is significant in claiming government of the internet then I will render my claim thus for your benefit:
if Americans funded by the American Government involvement in the creation of ARPANET justifies government of the INTERNET by private american companies under the juristiction of the said American Government, then the creation and funding of parts of the INTERNET by other national governments and orgaisations certainly justifies THEIR government of the internet.
I believe it is on similar grounds that the British colonists based their claim for Independance from a German King who ruled the British Colonies at the time.
I am willing to bet you will focus in the DIFFERENCE here and not the SIMILARITY (which would be why the point is made)
I don't recollect such a claim. However I'm not ignorant enough to believe that the possibility of my small involvement depends only on the US work with ARPANET or US work on parts of the internet as you seem to believe. My involvement was based on UK telecommunications companies (Telinco) and an American Network Marketing Company who we advertisied for initially.
Learn the difference between a demonstration by falsehood. I was suggesting that any aparrent claim I had (though stronger) was not enough, so their weaker claim was not enough. If you suggest my stronger claim was enough then on the strength of that claim, I claim those rights to government of the internet which with your confusion of we/us internet/arpanet enjoy to deny!
Sam
So I'm commenting on how much the builders of bits of the internet (not arpanet) are the "United States"
And you say the the foundation of the internet, ARPA net was funded by American tax payers. You admit its only a bit, but essential.
Now arpanet being an essential little bit has only TINY relevance to whether or not the builders of the INTERT-net are the "United States"
Who is babbling? You know for a fact that the internet is international built and owned by many companies and nationalities.
And THAT is a poor debating device. You call it a feeble attempt to cover my ass because it's all you have got left to say that won't embarrass you, and you would rather not address the point. My point there was that a vague definition of "us" "we" and "united states" makes for very poor logic in the situation in which it was invoked. Looks like you didn't like me pinning down what was meant by "united states" in that statement.
You say I am "just covering my ass" and "floundering", but it looks like you are "babbling" to me. In one case you have addressed the point (first time) but you missed it even then. You didn't even try the other two times.
So who is babbling?
You are looking at ARPANET (which has nothing to do with YOU personally) through a temporal magnifying glass and trying to transfer the freely-given ownership of arpanet THEN to the INTER-net now.
You don't even realise that the INTER-net is merely a co-operation of networks based on the ARPA-net protocols and organisational pattern.
The internet is no more ARPANET than you and your cousins are your grandad.
Sam
wth? This is no falacy, its the whole point of my position. Someone claims that because "we" paid for "arpanet" "we" get to govern the INTER-net.
And yet they didn't even pay for ARPANET. You didn't even pay the taxes that paid for the cradle of the internet, how can _you_ claim particular involvement the INTERNET above the involvment of anyone else in anyother part of the world. You don't even have involvement in the American ARPANET part of it other than your ancestors who are related to you paid some taxes the precursor. My whole point (and in the phosphor posts) is that the "we" bit is the falacy.
And in the other post I claimed that owning and operating an ISP did NOT make me more involved, I started out hinting owning an ISP would give me more authority but then took the position that it did not, and so that "some americans" building ARPANET or even some of todays internet did not inolve the postee to any degree either.
If practical hands on developing and paying money and signing up users did not make me more involved, then living in the same country as the "cradle" (which is not even the baby) hardly makes them more involved.
So yes I am making up "arguments" as a go along (don't we all) but I'm not changing my position which is what I think you meant.
You are wrong in both directions
1) Obviously not, or it would have
2) It actually has to some degree, hence the creation of the Pacific Root a while back
(I'm surprised you didn't pull me up on the use of such a self-qualifying claim). ICANN effective authority will vanish as quickly as RIAA effective authority has vanished. It just remains to see what enforcement ICANN will manage, and as any split is more likely to be along country lines that technological lines it will be very interesting to watch.
Sam
The whole point of the comment was that it was irrelevant but only in exactly same way as koreamans comment was irrelevant.
0 43825
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168444&cid=14
Sam
Were you paying taxes in the days of ARPANET?
I'm glad that you qualified "it" as the cradle of the internet, but its not the cradle of the internet thats disputed is it?
I didn't lose, I wasn't involved any more than you were, and ICANN have no more respect for you as an American than they do me, so you hardly "won" in any useful sense.
As soon as ICANN do something that enough people disagree with, their authority will vanish.
If a unilateral orgainsation who care no more for you than any other internet user pleases you by being governed by the laws of your home country, so be it. Does it get you anywhere?
Sam
Dude I'm not talking ABOUT white phosphor and I'm not quoting the independant, and I'm not even talking ABOUT the US military. I already know about the story and the bogus story here.
I'm querying what koreaman means by "United States" when he says "United States built the thing" cos the internet or ARPANET or whatever was not built by the United States any more than the "United States" contracts out torture or the "United States" used white phosphor on civilians.
All these things to whatever degree thay actually happen are done by people who to some degree may act under a label and/or authority of the United States. Read on...
Just as much as the US did not bomb "civilians" with white phosphor, neither did the US build "the internet".
Even the American builders of bits of the internet are only in a small way the "United States" above being private companies and individuals, some of whom though eomployed or paid for by US companies are NOT American.
So the fine debating device here I used was to take the broad label "united states" where koreaman LIKES to use it and apply it in the same way and just as broadly to areas where he (and you) DON'T like to use it.
So by disagreeing with my (obviously vague and inaccurate statement) do you also disagree with koreaman when he says that the United States build the internet and by implication ought to run it?
Sam
I know its the thought process behind a lot of american sentiment and I enjoy mocking that very thought process.
Shall we end with the punchline: "the lawyer said: 'and who do you think created the chaos'" and leave it at that.
Sam
What is this "it" that _you_ paid for?
Lets face it, most of the internet that exists was paid for by private companies with their own money, replenished by re-selling use of "it".
I've owned and run my own ISP which puts me a legup over you and I'm not so vain as to say that any of "it" belongs to me apart from the bit of "it" that is inside my house. It is an INTER-net.
Sam
Indeed. Was that "built the thing" as in "work for hire" or "we had the idea first"?
Both are irrelevant, it's always "who has IT now" that counts, and lets just look at how much control ICANN actually has.... hmmm It has absolutely no respect anywhere and slight residual power that is likely to evaporate as quickly as it is used for anything significant in opposition to the rest of the world.
When you say "United States Built the thing" do you mean the same way as in "United States killed Iraqi civilians using white phosphor" and "United States contracts out tortue of suspects to other countries" or in the same way as "United States gave lots of help to Tsunami victims"
Just for the record, much of the internet was built and is owned outside of the USA. Don't forget what "inter" means, it strongly implies co-operation. And thats not co-operation in the sense that "man is co-operating with the police but has not been charged".
Sam
"point to a website" is NEVER enough to fulfil the GPL or the LGPL unless the "a website" is the same place of the same website where the binary was distributed from.
In this case the binary was distributed on a CD, so pointing to a website is never enough.
See: here and here
Sam
is NOT enough.
If you don't provide source at the same point of distribution you MUST provide the source by MAIL for 3 years.
Only providing by a website at a point which was not the point you distributed the binary from is NEVER enough and also foolhardy if it is not your website because then you cannot make sure the source (or the SAME source) stays there.
The requirement to distribute the source to the LGPL code is included in the LGPL license, see:
LGPL Clause 4 whic states:
There is a clear requirement to re-distribute the source even if you didn't change the library.
If you think I am wrong, please cite your authority or source.
Sam
I suspect someone will lose a job over this. It's a shame, they probably don't "deserve" it, for just being stupid.
But I'm also glad Sony have really fouled things up and brought the whole issue of DRM a and it's limits to the international conciousness.
I also fear that this may provoke the more exploiting "copyright holders" to be more radical just as their legal tactics have provoked decentralized file sharing and possibly now the "darknet" type stuff.
Sam
Because if you don;'t distribute the source with the binary then YOU have to make the SAME source available to all 3rd parties for 3 years.
And how are you going to do that when the project author changes the version available on sourceforge so that the version you used isn't available anymore?
The only admin-low way to abide by the GPL is to distribute the source WITH the binary. Anything else puts a severe admin burden on the redistributor, esp. if you start shipping multiple versions of the library over time.
Sam
This is a good question.
.spec file must be included because it is a LOT of shell scripts, some of which form the pre-install and post-install scripts which form part of the package.
.rpm (or .deb) is a derivative work, and it's source is usually a .spec file (or equivalent) and as a deriviative work its distribution is governed by the GPL or LGPL
I think a
Also because it contains the instructions for building and often for enabling/disabling various options in what is compiled.
Sometimes it even defines helper functions that help the compile.
But mostly because the
Sam
For those of you who think I am wrong because I am quoting from the GPL faq and not an LGPL faq, read the LGPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl
clause 4 of the LGPL contains the requirements I described.
Sam
"to a website" WRONG WRONG WRONG.
t eWithSourceOnInternete AndBinaryOnDifferentSites
.spec file, or the dev-src equivalant.
If Sony don't provide the source they must make THE source available to all third parties for at least 3 years.
This is an obligation they must fulfil.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Distribu
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourc
Merely pointing to "a website" or "the website we got it from" is not enough.
You have to make-sure-it-stays-there. And thats not enough.
You also have to let people request it by mail charging only a minimal fee.
You have to track your releases and make sure you keep the source of each release seperately so you can give people the source to the version they had.
Too many people consider only casually the obligation that the GPL puts on them. GPL is not an easy way out.
It's easy to receive GPL software because the burden is on the distributor, but you must understand and fulfil the burden when you are the distributor.
With most commercial software you pay some money before you receive it but you still have to follow the license guidelines.
Is it too often for me to say again that too many people distibute binary packages to open source software and distribute the source they compile to make the binary package but do not distribute the source to making the binary package; i.e. the
Sam
Do you think that the united states is governed according to its constitution?
Sam
They've used their time machines, hence the suits now, but around year 2000 was as far back as they could go.
They couldn't go back any further because there wasn't sufficient intellectual density to create the singularity needed at the destination to open the wormhole.
The intellelectual density of music execs and lawyers is sufficient in this age.
Sam
This is becauset here is approximately ONE major windows target* and the suppliers prefer to supply binaries.
.debs just to be sure I have the source.
.deb packages and no source. Sometimes the source to something, sometimes the source to something that was included in the .deb binaries, but rarely the entire deb source thats needed to rebuild the .deb. Surprising given the debian social policy that redhat guys are a little better at this, but I think rpm -ta helps a lot.
Of course, you knew this, but thats how it is.
If the free supplier of your free software who doesn't take any money doesn't want to provide a binary for your personal choice (out of a few hundred) of release of distro, that's up the them.
Of course you knew this too, which is why you "prefer" to do it from windows as you say. You reasoning makes sense.
I'm not trying to pastronize you, I'm just trying to give a _comprehensive_ "yes, thats how it is, how could it be different"
Of course some software isn't available and comes in a "we prefer ubuntu" form straight from the author, but I still like to build my non-distro packages from source
It's surprising how many people provide binary
Sam
[Yeah, 64 bit and ppc, but never mind]
I second this; I did Smartphone 2002/2003 work for Orange for a couple of years.
:-) but I bet they would find smartphone easier to manage.
I was very busy, and every now and then I had a go on symbian only to get "wth? Now what?"; the whole symbian thing was an incomplete model of a cut-down psion3 system, which made sense in the psion3 but not a symbian phone. Anyway, I never got very far in the little time I didn't have. Never mind "dip a toe in" with symbian you had to nearly drown before you could get anywhere.
Smartphone on the other hand was a doddle, there was no more to "know" than made sense, the tools were readily available and logical; the api's happened to be familiar (from my windows delphi days) and it really wasn't very hard to get going, not to mention the convenient emulators.
There are lots of smart symbian developers out there and I don't want to comment on whether or not they are smarter then me
Having said all that the real hard thing with smartphone was getting technical details out of microsoft, how many times I wished I had "the source", so linux phones, with the well designed base system would be a real boon.
Sam