It is not just me then. I have a MacBook in the house, bought it recently, and while I had many reasons to be in awe with it (the look, the technological foundation, my admiration for NeXT and Objective-C development, etc) I found it an interesting OS but felt rather limited. Now, this is mainly due to not knowing it well and all that, but even after days of exploring I couldn't see myself using it daily: it would do for the thing I need to do, but not for the ones I like to do. The application angle you mentioned is part of it (but there is fink, I've been told), although in the end is probably just because I've been using GNU/Linux for so many years that I have grown used to even the perceived limitations of it.
Re:Vim is painful.
on
Hacking VIM
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I wondered, as I read the summary, how long it would take for someone to mention Emacs in the comments. Congratulations. It wasn't sooner because they had to change mode, only after 16 beeps did the sentence appear.
When you say "significant migration" from Portugal, what time-frame are you refering to? Pre-historic movement? Because what you describe looks like the Portuguese-Danish joint venture in the XV century, which can hardly be qualidied has a migration, so that's not what you are refering to...
The only knowledge I have of a non-Mongoloid migration to the Americas is the hypothesis raised by ancient Europoid skulls that arguably were there before the NA. Not sure if the origin is Iberia though.
In the context of a GPL v3 work, I would ask whether it was included by you in the GPL v3 work. If not, then there is a license conflict. If so, then that is in addition to the rights provided by the GPLv3 (i.e. you can follow the GPL v3 *or* you can follow those terms). Section 10 prohibits any further restriction of that kind ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License) and any further restrictions to those explicitly stated in section 7 fall within that ("All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."). There is a licence conflict indeed, but it can't be in addition to the GPlLv3 since the terms are totally incompatible with the GPLv3.It can be removed because under section 10 "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License" and "If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts." Since the licence explicitly states that one can not impose any additional restritions apart from those listed, the adding of those restritions is void.
So, what gives you the right to provide additional conditions as a matter of licensing? Or does the GPL become a contract at that point (so if I get your software and distribute it, then I lose my right contractually to extract out the excerpts you used with permission and use them under the original license terms). I don't follow you... the MITL requirements are stated as allowed exceptions... In pratical terms of inclusion of MITL code in GPLv3 projects what exactly am I not addressing (putting aside your disagreeing with my take on it)?
, but leaving the notice as required by the MITL intact.
Distributed as part of package Foo (Copyright 2007 Chris Travers). The governing license of this file is now the GPL v3. See attached GPL3.txt for details. Ummm... You can't do that, unless you are the copyright owner of the code. The GPLv3 applies to code alone, and your example constitues changing the licence. The MIT licence requires not only the copyright notice but also "...and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.". You can't change the terms of the MIT licence to include it in the GPLv3 any more than you can remove the GPLv3 and put "This code is now under the MIT licence". One thing are licences that do not impose *any* restriction on use of the code, in which case you can do whatever you want (think PD),which is not the case with the MIT licence. This not only for the GPLv3: you can't do that with the GPLv2 or any other licence in existence, since no licence can give you permission to remove terms from another licence (note that the removal of the "additional permissions" of the GPLv3 are possible since they are stipulated in the GPLv3 itself, so the original licence that one uses has an explicit permission to do that). Something like
Permission is granted bla bla bla
- Maintain the copyright notice and this text.
- Maintain the list of RGB colours in the end of the source file.
- Aditionally, any user can remove "red" from the RGB colours listed as per demanded by the previous point. The source file has "red green blue" in the end, but any user can remove the "red" part since it's allowed by the *original* licence. This is not the situation with MITL code in GPLv3 code, since it is a different licence. If someone slaps something like "This code is GPLv3. As an additional permission you can also distribute it under the MITL" then the user can remove that additional permission. Also, "This code is GPLv3. You must however post your changes to this email address asy@as.com" allows the user to remove the last requirement, since it is an additional restriction not mentioned in the section 7 list of allowed additional restrictions (and presumably it shouldn't be there in the first place, since it is incompatible with the GPL, and falls under section 10 "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. "). All the additional restrictions of the MIT/BSD/ISC licences are allowed as per the section 7 exceptions, which in pratical terms. Any user, for example, can receive a LGPLv3 code and remove the "additional permissions" of the LGPLv3 and make the code GPLv3.
So, suppose the only change I make is to the license, where I add a note that this is distributed as part of a larger work under the GPL v3, and that the additional permissions have been removed. Is that legal? Legally binding via copyright, contract (when the GPL v3 comes into force), etc? I hope you haven't mistaken me for someone who knows copyright law... I'm assuming that we are both layman in these matters, only armed with general experience and our particular understanding of the licence. Having said that, please clarify you scenario: you are using MIT code in a GPLv3 project, and the change you make is to the MIT licence? You can't change the licence to make it say something diferent, period. No licence on earth can say "you may change the licence of any work you do not own". If the work is MIT, one includes the MIT licence and copyright notices - as required by the licence itself - and that's about it. Changing the MIT licence is outside the scope, possibilities or aims of the GPLv3.
The MIT license provides *all* downstream recipients of the copyrighted elements in question the permission to use according to that license without further restriction. Those permissions don't magically go away because someone decides to incorporate those elements into a work under a more restrictive license, but they are limited to those elements (including but not limited to literal code portions, non-literal elements in selection and ordering of compiled works, graphic design, and storylines in games) which are released under that license. This is why it starts off with "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge...."
Why would you think that a 7b legal notice which starts off with "permission is hereby granted" would not qualify as a permissive additional term? Again, is this a permissive additional term to you (made up by me):
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, for any use, provided that the following conditions are met:
- Maintenance of the present permission notice.
- Refusal to show any change to anyone.
- Abstention from publicly or privately debate about this code.
- The code and any changes can't be incorporated in any derivate work. It also starts with "Permission is hereby granted", so it must be an additional permission, no? More to the point, you said:
The MIT license provides *all* downstream recipients of the copyrighted elements in question the permission to use according to that license without further restriction. No, the MIT licence provides downstream recepients the permission to use ("use" in terms of programming, of course) with the restriction that:
(...)The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.(...) As I said in the other post, without this additional restriction MIT code would not differ from PD code and could be use by anyone udner any licence in any way.
he argument that the MIT license allows for arbitrary sublicensing (and hence effectively changing the license))... That's a different debate. We are not talking about the sublicencing of MIT code as GPL code, but the inclusion of MIT code in GPL projects and if the legal notices that are retained can be removed by recipients under Section 7 of the GPLv3. With disagreement in this point all the rest is pintless to discuss at this point IMO.
Actually I do understand; I just disagree with your interpretation.
The license text notice of the MIT License, the BSD License, and the ISC License all provide language offering a grant of certain copyrights. Excersize of section 7(2) restricts those rights which are granted by removing those permissions beyond the scope of the GPL v3. No it doesn't. Lets take the ISC licence:
Copyright (c) 4-digit year, Company or Person's Name
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" [etc, etc, etc) The last part falls within 7-3a) ("...Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License...), I don't think you disagree with that. The (c) part is goes without saying. All that is left is:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies The licence stipulates that the copyright notice and the permission notice must appear in all copues. This falls under 7-3b( (...requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it...). This is an aditional non-permissive term that as per 7-3 (...Notwithstanding any other provision of this License...) and 7-4 (...All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10...) which can't be removed. If the ISC licence merely said...
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. ... then all this would be moot since you could simply take the code and slap any licence you whished on top of it (that's actually what the PD licence says, more or less). The ISC licence is differente because it has that additional restriction. The "grant of certain copyrights" you mentioned isn't by itself something that is guaranteed to be available downstream, it is made that was by the additional restriction (...provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies...). Without that, those grants wouldn't be a problem in any way since any usage would be allowed.
The rest of your points are secondary if these initial assumption isn't there, so if you disagree with the above I can see how you think that you can't do certain things.
I'm going home now and try to understand exactly what you mean - my fault, not yours. What "additional permissions" are you refering though? The MITL is not an additional permission but a non-permissive additional term. You can't remove those while there is code that falls under it, so I'm not quite following you (again, probably my fault).
So, what part of Section 7 confuses you: Removing context doesn't help, but I've already agreed with you in that the wording of it is prone to confusion (which is way removing context makes things harder). Bear in mind this:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
- Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it;
(...)
And not only that point that bears "requiring", since all the points are considered non-permissive additional terms (... All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10..). Since they are "non-permissive additional terms" they are not "Additional permissions". They, as per your quote, can be conveyed in different ways (...Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way...).
So, the exceptions are "non-permissive additional terms", they are not "additional permissions", they can't be removed and they can be stated in a single file or bundled.
Ok, assuming that Kerberos is not classified as a Major Component, then if I release a GPL v3 application which I distribute in binary form (as well as with the Corresponding Source) then I can only do it if and only if the Kerberos that I distribute with it (in this case MIT Kerberos) can have its license *changed* to the GPL v3 since it is now a portion of the Corresponding Source. Uh? I'm not following your reasoning, not how does it apply to the GPLv3 in particular. You relase a GPLv3 application, if you use MIT Kerberos code you add the MITL licence and appropriate copyright notices and then, well, then nothing, that's it. No offense, but it's almost like you would actually prefer for the GPLv3 to be incompatible with ISC/BSDL/MITL by the way you read it.
Would not any legal notice which includes a permission grant such as ".... are permitted providing...." or "Permission is hereby granted" add a restriction on the excersize of Section 7, paragraph 2? For example, until the functions are actually modified sufficiently to qualify as something other than nonliteral copies for the purpose of copyright law, I fail to see how these are actually different. You are taking the "permission is hereby granted" as it means something important to justify making it into an "additional permissions". "Permission is hereby granted to use and change the code, provided you pay the author 4500 per changed line and do not disclose your work with no living creature" is not an "additional permissions", and the BSDL and the MITL are, again, not additional permissions since they actually have requirements which are the reason for the "you can't do that with BSD code!" cries. Additional permissions are something entirely different, as refered many times before. Section 7, par. 3 even states "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (...) - Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing. So, notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated in the licence you may require the preservation of reasonable legal notices or author attibutions. You can't remove the reasonable legal notices or author attributions.
Again, the links I provided earlier make a much clearer explanation of this than I can do.
It relates to section 7 because it says "When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. [...] Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way.". So you have a dpendency of your GPLv3 work, which is under a separately written license (BSDL). Section 6 says that when distributing compiled versions of your work you have to provide this dependency under GPLv3, which makes it a "covered work" for the quote from section 7 above. So that means that you can remove the BSDL from that dependency when you distribute it, because it grants additional permissions... except that the BSDL doesn't permit this. It doesn't say that. Again, there is a difference between "additional permissions" and "additional restrictions". It's all quite clear in the quotes and links I replied to you earlier, as is the usage of separete terms in the licence itself. BSDL and MITL are not additional permissions, they can't be removed, they are additional requirements of the BSDL and MITL that are allowed to be conveyed and, again, can't be removed.
So, you must think that if I take, say, MIT Kerberos and change nothing but the license, that this is permissible under the terms of the MITL? So far I have not heard anyone make that argument seriously outside the FSF and Mr Moglen (in fact the SFLC specifically advises against it). This relates to the GPLv3 and section 7 how? This is another discussion, the one about taking non-copyleft code and stripping the licence away since it's "allowed". I don't think that it's allowed - but I'm open to different views- but this doesn't relate to the GPLv3 since the same doubt occurs with the GPLv2.
Isn't that exactly what the MIT License does when it says that "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any who receive..." The implied bit is that is without regard to any other licenses or sublicenses (hence in effect MIT License allows sublicensing as a form of legal relationship provided that the sublicense provides terms identical to the MITL itself). No, not exactly, I said that what *could* be unreasonable is the direct targeting of the licence under which exception you are adding the adittional restrictions under the "reasonable legal notices" umbrella. It wouldn't, as I said, make much difference in pratical terms since the exception is there to allow the MIT licence to be aggregated, as an extra file or with other licences, with the GPlv3 code and make it remain so since nobody can remove it.
Again, the difference here is that the MIT and BSD licenses only apply to specifically licensed copyrights for certain elements of the software where my example breaks things down on a functional level. This is the only difference. No, the difference is the one I mentioned above, and note that I said "could" be termed unreasonable because of the wording, that's all. I fail to see how your example supports your position since the BSD and MITL are good enough examples of "reasonable legal notices" that are deemed "reasonable" by everyone - including the authors of the GPLv3- and the reason that section 7b exists in the first place is to accomodate them.
The problem is that many of us believe that this is not allowed Again, we have had this discussion many time before. It reached the point were I can't say much more than that there is a difference between the way you read it and the way I - and the authors of the GPL - read it. Nothing wrong with that, but there is little more I can add when all the clarifications from the authors of the GPLv3 go to lenghts to say that section 7 is there to make the GPLv3 *more* compatible with non-copyleft licences.
This isn't an issue with the GPL v2 because when you create a derivative work, But others have said the exact *opposite*: that the GPlv2 *is not* compatible with the BSD licence *at all* since there is a difference between compatible requirements and "exact" requirements, and that covering the "whole" is not allowed, etc, etc. As I said before, in recent months many different opinions have been voiced regarding what exactely one can and cannot do with a BSD licence.
Suppose I license a program under the GPL v3 but also include a 7(b) legal notice which states:
"The author of this software hereby provides permission to all downstream recipients, without regard to the excersize of section 7, paragraph 2 removal of additional permissions, the right to extract the code from the following functions and use in any works under any other licenses provided that this notice is maintained." Er... again, you seem to think that section 7 allows people to remove the BSD terms, when the exact is true. I'm not sure *why* you would add that, since if those functions are under the BSD licence to begin with people already have those rights in those functions (the whole work is under the GPLv3). The only thing that would make you example "unreasonable" is the fact that it directly tries to undermine an entire section of the licence: even if the effects of not using that would be the same, I don't see that as "reasonable" since you could also say "without regard to the entire GPL you can make what you wish with the code in those functions, the code that uses those functions and any code that shared disk space with the files of those functions".
I can understand that you have a problem with "reasonable legal notices" being somewhat unprecise and not strictly defined, but there is little that can be done to make that point more clear and at the same time remain compatible with the multitude of non-copyleft licences that have those sort of restrictions. In the last case I can imagine that you could go to court with it to define if it's "reasonable" in the light of the licence intention. Were I don't think you have much to stand on is in the insistence that the BSD terms are allowed to be removed, since every single explanation and clarification of the licence says the exact opposite, and the disitnction between the terms is there in the licence.
As for section 7 I suppose they will say something along these lines, assuming that the problem is with the "people can remove the additional stuff, like BSD licence requisites":
GPL Rationale
Section 7 first explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies our existing practice of regarding such licensing terms as compatible with the GPL. A downstream user of a combined GPL'd work who modifies such an added part may remove the additional permissions, in which case the broader permissions no longer apply to the modified version, and only the terms of the GPL apply to it.
(...)
In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, section 7 extends the range of licensing terms with which the GPL is compatible. An added part carrying additional requirements may be combined with GPL'd code, but only if those requirements belong to an set enumerated in section 7. We must, of course, place some limit on the kinds of additional requirements that we will accept, to ensure that enhanced license compatibility does not defeat the broader freedoms advanced by the GPL. Unlike terms that grant additional permissions, terms that impose additional requirements cannot be removed by a downstream user of the combined GPL'd work, because no such user would have the right to do so.
(...)
Section 7 requires a downstream user of a covered work to preserve the non-GPL terms covering the added parts just as they must preserve the GPL, as long as any substantial portion of those parts is present in the user's version.
(...)
And also here
A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which the licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only if that requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b. Placement of any other kind of additional requirement continues to be a violation of the license. Additional requirements that are in the 7b list may not be removed, but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports to include an additional requirement not in the 7b list, the user may remove that requirement. Here we were particularly concerned to address the problem of program authors who purport to license their works in a misleading and possibly self-contradictory fashion, using the GPL together with unacceptable added restrictions that would make those works non-free software.this article So, the FSF view on it boils down to: requirements listed in 7b - that include the requirements of MIT/BSD/ISC-type licences - can't be removed by the end user. Anything more than that can be removed and is not even guaranteed to be compatible in the first place (two scenarios here: one can remove a "in alternative you can distribute this under the XXX licence" or take a LGPLv3 file and remove the LGPLv3 specific parts and work with a GPLv3 licence; one can also remove a "also, you must give your first-born in return of using this file").
One of the things that really made GPLv2 approachable was it's directness and simplicity. I think it also gave it it's strength. Well, compared to GPLv3 maybe... the GPLv2 was also constantly called complex and filled with "legalese" (Google gives some apropos examples). This doesn't detract from your other points, but the GPL was always "complex" compared to non-copyleft licences.
The problem is that the term "Latin" in the US is not what the term "Latin" means here in Europe. As with "Hispanic", the often used "Latino" - and most US citizens make little distinction on when to use "Latin" or "Latino", or why they use it - is used to imply an ethnic classification mixed with a cultural one. It is especially complex when one is talking about "Latin Americans" from European stock, since the terms don't actually reflect them. Due to the cultural differences between Brazilians and the rest of Ibero-america I find it understandable that some of they object to such usages (I'm not Nrazilian BTW).
"Latin America" was BTW a term made up by the French - during Napoleon's time IIRC - to bring Iberian American into "their side", it's not an old term by any means.
Actually, the use of "Latin"-whatever has been so bastardized by US usage that I myself tend to avoid it when talking to Americans. "Latin" music is afro-caribean music, "latins", "latinos" and "latinas" have vastly different meaning from what they stand for in Spain or Portugal. It's a bloody mess. "Hispanic" likewise, or even more so.
The article is a post-factum justification for the iPhone, nothing more. If the iPhone uses EDGE, then OMG I'll find some way to make EDGE better! You want TV channels in your phone, as by now common in Europe? I'm sure the guy will say that since the iPhone doesn't have it seeing TV on a phone is actually a Bad Thing that nobody should want, it's actually a "feature": "iPhone: now with No Eye Stress advanced technology, protects the eyes by deflecting rapid changing images in stream form!".
It's pathetic really: if people like the iPhone, by all means, buy it, but making the obvious shortcomings it has and spin it around to make them virtues is an act of desperation. This "EDGE is better" is just one more of those; thankfully the iPhone doesn't use GSM alone, or we would be hearing how less power demanding it is!
Thanks for the link, this part I found interesting:
We have ensured that versions of RealPlayer are available as free downloads for virtually all types of hardware and operating systems (Windows, Mac, Linux and more), so that everyone can have access to our content regardless of the equipment that they choose to use. Like or dislike RP it is at least available on multiple platforms, and many others aren't (copying Windows DLLs doesn't count as supporting). Their reasoning does make sense in terms of universal availability of their content.
Australia is a military and cultural outpost of the USA? Wow, nice troll.
I don't think it was a troll, just an exageration to convey an image, an hyperbole if you will. I'm sure that the parent poster would say something along the same lines about the UK, just as I will happily (or not) say somthing about my own country in the same vein. Consider it a tongue in cheeck remark about the almost inevitable influence the US has all over.
The ASL is only compatible with the GPL v3 if it allows the license to be changed to the GPL v3 without asserting any new copyrights (see GPL v3, section 7, paragraph 2). We are both doing circular arguments by now: I understand that you think that 7/2 means all sorts of incompatibilities, you have made that clear. I disagree with your reasoning, that's why I mentioned the ASL. You disagree, but neither the FSF nor the Apache Foundation do, since they were the ones who worked together to guarantee that the licence was compatible. If the publishers and main users of the ASL were involved in the aspets of the GPLv3 that guarantee the compatibility I think it's a good argument against speculations on 7/2 somehow making it incompatible.
I remain unconvinced that these licenses are in fact compatible. The ASL may in fact impose restrictions on excersizing the grant of permissions to change the license in section 7, paragraph 2 of the GPL3 and thus be incompatible. Again, the way you read it is IMO wrong. That's why not only the ASL, but every other licence is incompatible with the GPLv3 following your reasoning - note that I'm not doubting you legitimate reasons and/or concerns about this, I just think you are overstretching the effects of the whole section 7, which was in part made precisely to guarantee better compatibility and catter for what to do with dual-licenced code.
As for ASL/GPL2 compatible, there is at least limited compatibility. Nothing in the GPL v2 prevents you from using an ASL component as a dependency and distributing the source separate from the source of your application. The GPL v3 does not afford you this "loophole" and so there is no such thing as limited compatibility. Both the FSF and te ASF knew and said that the licences were incompatible (ASL and GPLv2). Both say that they are compatible now (GPLv3 and ASL). The chances that they both read the licence the wrong way are pretty slim.
Are there any it's compatible with that the GPLv2 isn't, that v3 doesn't have a special exception for? That would be news to me. The ASL for one. And, depending whom from the BSD field you talk with, and depending on the mood and day of the month, the BSDL/MIT/ISC one. Actually, that also depends on whom you speak with, but the GPLv3 explicitly allows for the addition of the legal notices of the above, while the GPLv2 didn't.
(...)don't feel like a general-purpose software license is the right place for combating anything else that they disagree with (e.g. software patents, DRM, etc). The GPLv2 already had anti-patent provision, so it's not something particular to the GPLv3. DRM protection follows the same thinking as the patent protection in the GPLv2.
(...)I'm much more on the BSD-camp side of letting people do whatever the hell they want with the code that I write.(...) That's great, and you have plenty of licences that allow you to do just that, as mentioned above.
(...)The GPLv2 does exactly what I want it to and no more.(...) Er... how does this fall in line with your previous "I'm much more in the BSD camp" sentence? The "GPL is Evil!" is not something that has been uttered only since the GPLv3 but at least since the early 90's when BSD appeared in it's free form. Since you talked about patent protection being something that should be out of scope of a licence I don't think the GPL (v2 or v3) is really the ideal licence for you, but then again you are the one who own your code and I'm sure you know what licence you prefer (perhaps there are probably other reasons for your choosing the GPLv2 that you didn't mention).
The objectives of the GPL are clear from the beginning, as is the FSF view on software. You might dislike both, and you are perfectly within your right to do so, but it isn't something new and the arguments from both sides are well known by now.
Right, but because of the terms of the GPL. Other Open Source licenses (Apache, BSD, etc.) don't impose any restrictions on combinations of licenses in a single work. Only the GPL insists that the whole work must be under the GPL. That's why it creates such a mess. I wouldn't call it a mess but an unavoidable way to reach its objectives, but I agree with you there. Also, proprietary licences also cover the entire body of work and the BSDL doesn't get in the way (because there is no source). All in all a rather unfortunate situation made much bigger than it really is in recent months IMO.
Well, actually I do think that the practice and the intentions of the people that use a licence is not something to disregard in terms of understanding the effects of the licence, especially if it is an "uninterrupted, longstanding practice and expectation" (not saying that it is for sure in this situation, although I tend to agree that it is). The example that you cite is actually completely correct: BSD licenced code have always been incorporated into larger bodies of work that as a whole were covered by another licence. Heck, this has been the main focus of pride and distinction that BSDL advocates use to show that the BSDL is freer than the GPL, and I find it surprising that all of the sudden some people have reverted in this main point.
One point in which things do get more complex is in incorporating BSDL code in a GPL application and assume that the intent of the BSDL points are already covered in the GPL (copyright display and warranty limitation) - albeit with a different, but correspondent, wording - and so there is no need to preserve the BSDL in its original form. Now *this* is a topic that is more sensible and controversial, not the above.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not just me then. I have a MacBook in the house, bought it recently, and while I had many reasons to be in awe with it (the look, the technological foundation, my admiration for NeXT and Objective-C development, etc) I found it an interesting OS but felt rather limited. Now, this is mainly due to not knowing it well and all that, but even after days of exploring I couldn't see myself using it daily: it would do for the thing I need to do, but not for the ones I like to do. The application angle you mentioned is part of it (but there is fink, I've been told), although in the end is probably just because I've been using GNU/Linux for so many years that I have grown used to even the perceived limitations of it.
When you say "significant migration" from Portugal, what time-frame are you refering to? Pre-historic movement? Because what you describe looks like the Portuguese-Danish joint venture in the XV century, which can hardly be qualidied has a migration, so that's not what you are refering to...
The only knowledge I have of a non-Mongoloid migration to the Americas is the hypothesis raised by ancient Europoid skulls that arguably were there before the NA. Not sure if the origin is Iberia though.
Distributed as part of package Foo (Copyright 2007 Chris Travers). The governing license of this file is now the GPL v3. See attached GPL3.txt for details. Ummm... You can't do that, unless you are the copyright owner of the code. The GPLv3 applies to code alone, and your example constitues changing the licence. The MIT licence requires not only the copyright notice but also "...and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.". You can't change the terms of the MIT licence to include it in the GPLv3 any more than you can remove the GPLv3 and put "This code is now under the MIT licence". One thing are licences that do not impose *any* restriction on use of the code, in which case you can do whatever you want (think PD),which is not the case with the MIT licence. This not only for the GPLv3: you can't do that with the GPLv2 or any other licence in existence, since no licence can give you permission to remove terms from another licence (note that the removal of the "additional permissions" of the GPLv3 are possible since they are stipulated in the GPLv3 itself, so the original licence that one uses has an explicit permission to do that). Something like Permission is granted bla bla bla
- Maintain the copyright notice and this text.
- Maintain the list of RGB colours in the end of the source file.
- Aditionally, any user can remove "red" from the RGB colours listed as per demanded by the previous point. The source file has "red green blue" in the end, but any user can remove the "red" part since it's allowed by the *original* licence. This is not the situation with MITL code in GPLv3 code, since it is a different licence. If someone slaps something like "This code is GPLv3. As an additional permission you can also distribute it under the MITL" then the user can remove that additional permission. Also, "This code is GPLv3. You must however post your changes to this email address asy@as.com" allows the user to remove the last requirement, since it is an additional restriction not mentioned in the section 7 list of allowed additional restrictions (and presumably it shouldn't be there in the first place, since it is incompatible with the GPL, and falls under section 10 "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. "). All the additional restrictions of the MIT/BSD/ISC licences are allowed as per the section 7 exceptions, which in pratical terms. Any user, for example, can receive a LGPLv3 code and remove the "additional permissions" of the LGPLv3 and make the code GPLv3.
Why would you think that a 7b legal notice which starts off with "permission is hereby granted" would not qualify as a permissive additional term? Again, is this a permissive additional term to you (made up by me): Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, for any use, provided that the following conditions are met:
- Maintenance of the present permission notice.
- Refusal to show any change to anyone.
- Abstention from publicly or privately debate about this code.
- The code and any changes can't be incorporated in any derivate work.
It also starts with "Permission is hereby granted", so it must be an additional permission, no? More to the point, you said: The MIT license provides *all* downstream recipients of the copyrighted elements in question the permission to use according to that license without further restriction. No, the MIT licence provides downstream recepients the permission to use ("use" in terms of programming, of course) with the restriction that: (...)The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.(...) As I said in the other post, without this additional restriction MIT code would not differ from PD code and could be use by anyone udner any licence in any way. he argument that the MIT license allows for arbitrary sublicensing (and hence effectively changing the license))
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" [etc, etc, etc) The last part falls within 7-3a) ("...Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License...), I don't think you disagree with that. The (c) part is goes without saying. All that is left is: Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies The licence stipulates that the copyright notice and the permission notice must appear in all copues. This falls under 7-3b( (...requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it...). This is an aditional non-permissive term that as per 7-3 (...Notwithstanding any other provision of this License...) and 7-4 (...All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10...) which can't be removed. If the ISC licence merely said... Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. ... then all this would be moot since you could simply take the code and slap any licence you whished on top of it (that's actually what the PD licence says, more or less). The ISC licence is differente because it has that additional restriction. The "grant of certain copyrights" you mentioned isn't by itself something that is guaranteed to be available downstream, it is made that was by the additional restriction (...provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies...). Without that, those grants wouldn't be a problem in any way since any usage would be allowed.
The rest of your points are secondary if these initial assumption isn't there, so if you disagree with the above I can see how you think that you can't do certain things.
I'm going home now and try to understand exactly what you mean - my fault, not yours. What "additional permissions" are you refering though? The MITL is not an additional permission but a non-permissive additional term. You can't remove those while there is code that falls under it, so I'm not quite following you (again, probably my fault).
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
- Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it;
(...)
And not only that point that bears "requiring", since all the points are considered non-permissive additional terms (... All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10..). Since they are "non-permissive additional terms" they are not "Additional permissions". They, as per your quote, can be conveyed in different ways (...Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way...).
So, the exceptions are "non-permissive additional terms", they are not "additional permissions", they can't be removed and they can be stated in a single file or bundled.
Again, the links I provided earlier make a much clearer explanation of this than I can do.
I can understand that you have a problem with "reasonable legal notices" being somewhat unprecise and not strictly defined, but there is little that can be done to make that point more clear and at the same time remain compatible with the multitude of non-copyleft licences that have those sort of restrictions. In the last case I can imagine that you could go to court with it to define if it's "reasonable" in the light of the licence intention. Were I don't think you have much to stand on is in the insistence that the BSD terms are allowed to be removed, since every single explanation and clarification of the licence says the exact opposite, and the disitnction between the terms is there in the licence.
(...)
In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, section 7 extends the range of licensing terms with which the GPL is compatible. An added part carrying additional requirements may be combined with GPL'd code, but only if those requirements belong to an set enumerated in section 7. We must, of course, place some limit on the kinds of additional requirements that we will accept, to ensure that enhanced license compatibility does not defeat the broader freedoms advanced by the GPL. Unlike terms that grant additional permissions, terms that impose additional requirements cannot be removed by a downstream user of the combined GPL'd work, because no such user would have the right to do so.
(...)
Section 7 requires a downstream user of a covered work to preserve the non-GPL terms covering the added parts just as they must preserve the GPL, as long as any substantial portion of those parts is present in the user's version.
(...)
And also here A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which the licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only if that requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b. Placement of any other kind of additional requirement continues to be a violation of the license. Additional requirements that are in the 7b list may not be removed, but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports to include an additional requirement not in the 7b list, the user may remove that requirement. Here we were particularly concerned to address the problem of program authors who purport to license their works in a misleading and possibly self-contradictory fashion, using the GPL together with unacceptable added restrictions that would make those works non-free software.this article So, the FSF view on it boils down to: requirements listed in 7b - that include the requirements of MIT/BSD/ISC-type licences - can't be removed by the end user. Anything more than that can be removed and is not even guaranteed to be compatible in the first place (two scenarios here: one can remove a "in alternative you can distribute this under the XXX licence" or take a LGPLv3 file and remove the LGPLv3 specific parts and work with a GPLv3 licence; one can also remove a "also, you must give your first-born in return of using this file").
The problem is that the term "Latin" in the US is not what the term "Latin" means here in Europe. As with "Hispanic", the often used "Latino" - and most US citizens make little distinction on when to use "Latin" or "Latino", or why they use it - is used to imply an ethnic classification mixed with a cultural one. It is especially complex when one is talking about "Latin Americans" from European stock, since the terms don't actually reflect them. Due to the cultural differences between Brazilians and the rest of Ibero-america I find it understandable that some of they object to such usages (I'm not Nrazilian BTW).
"Latin America" was BTW a term made up by the French - during Napoleon's time IIRC - to bring Iberian American into "their side", it's not an old term by any means.
Actually, the use of "Latin"-whatever has been so bastardized by US usage that I myself tend to avoid it when talking to Americans. "Latin" music is afro-caribean music, "latins", "latinos" and "latinas" have vastly different meaning from what they stand for in Spain or Portugal. It's a bloody mess. "Hispanic" likewise, or even more so.
The article is a post-factum justification for the iPhone, nothing more. If the iPhone uses EDGE, then OMG I'll find some way to make EDGE better! You want TV channels in your phone, as by now common in Europe? I'm sure the guy will say that since the iPhone doesn't have it seeing TV on a phone is actually a Bad Thing that nobody should want, it's actually a "feature": "iPhone: now with No Eye Stress advanced technology, protects the eyes by deflecting rapid changing images in stream form!".
It's pathetic really: if people like the iPhone, by all means, buy it, but making the obvious shortcomings it has and spin it around to make them virtues is an act of desperation. This "EDGE is better" is just one more of those; thankfully the iPhone doesn't use GSM alone, or we would be hearing how less power demanding it is!
Australia is a military and cultural outpost of the USA? Wow, nice troll.
I don't think it was a troll, just an exageration to convey an image, an hyperbole if you will. I'm sure that the parent poster would say something along the same lines about the UK, just as I will happily (or not) say somthing about my own country in the same vein. Consider it a tongue in cheeck remark about the almost inevitable influence the US has all over.
The objectives of the GPL are clear from the beginning, as is the FSF view on software. You might dislike both, and you are perfectly within your right to do so, but it isn't something new and the arguments from both sides are well known by now.
Well, actually I do think that the practice and the intentions of the people that use a licence is not something to disregard in terms of understanding the effects of the licence, especially if it is an "uninterrupted, longstanding practice and expectation" (not saying that it is for sure in this situation, although I tend to agree that it is). The example that you cite is actually completely correct: BSD licenced code have always been incorporated into larger bodies of work that as a whole were covered by another licence. Heck, this has been the main focus of pride and distinction that BSDL advocates use to show that the BSDL is freer than the GPL, and I find it surprising that all of the sudden some people have reverted in this main point.
One point in which things do get more complex is in incorporating BSDL code in a GPL application and assume that the intent of the BSDL points are already covered in the GPL (copyright display and warranty limitation) - albeit with a different, but correspondent, wording - and so there is no need to preserve the BSDL in its original form. Now *this* is a topic that is more sensible and controversial, not the above.