My point is that forcing someone to open the source to a server-side script to anyone who views the HTML it generates *is* like forcing you to provide the source to your modified Sylpheed to anyone you send an e-mail to. HTML pages are the output of server-side scripts, just like JPGs are the output of the GIMP.
You're allowed to point them to the original source only if you never had the source code. If you had the source code, you *must* provide them with the it upon request (for three years) at cost of media.
So if you do up a flyer in OO and then someone, two years later, asks for the source, you would be required to provide the *exact version* of the source you used to produce the document or be in violation of the license.
That, IMO, is quite an unreasonable burden for using a software product.
Wouldn't it be better if you could have access to the IOS source code, modify it, and load your modifications into the Cisco gear itself?
It would be more convenient for me. I don't know if it would be better. The question is: Is it good to/prevent/ someone from using Free software in a closed hardware system? I can think of some good examples where the answer is definitely "no". So no, I don't like that provision of the GPLv3.
You don't seem to understand the discussion. Under no circumstances did anyone suggest that a company producing a device including GPL software should be allowed to fail to reciprocate by divulging modifications to the code.
The real reason people like the GPL is that it's based on the principle of reciprocity: in return for me giving you my code, you've got to give me yours.
And more importantly, I damn well wouldn't want a shitty company like that taking advantage of my (hypothetical) GPL'd code!
If you don't want folks using your code, don't make it open source. It *will* be used in ways you don't approve of. Maybe by the US military in the next tank. Maybe by the the RIAA in their next version of InfringementFinder Plus.
The purpose of copyleft is to ensure that distributed modifications to the code are also open. No more, and no less. If you want additional restrictions (like "not for government use" or "not in devices I can't tinker with"), fine. But don't pretend you're promoting software freedom.
The interview was about much more than simply what license Linus liked. It included discussion on the FSF's process and why Linus wasn't participating in it. As such, points concerning the FSF's motives and tactics were quite appropriate.
we had access to the source, but on the machines on which that software ran, I had nowhere near enough disk quota to rebuild a modified version
I wonder if the GPLv4 will require anyone with a web server running GPL code to provide a shell account with admin priveleges so users can test their modifications. I mean what good is the source if you can't tinker with it, right?
[I]sn't it reasonable to require hardware makers to open the hardware they make that's combined with GPL code, because using the combined whole is still the point.
I don't think it is, no. The point of the GPL, to me, is learning from what other people do. I don't need to hack the device to learn from the modifications made to the code. I do not believe that I have a right to run any software I choose on a device the community did not (help) design.
I think that there is enough significant different between hardware and software that when the two are combined, the GPL should not automatically rule over the hardware as well. I think the recent trouble with patents and the fallacy of the whole "piracy is theft" mentality nicely illustrates that a lot of ideas meant for hardware are no good in the realm of software and vice versa.
Suppose Pixar uses modified software licensed to them under the GPL on their render farms. (I have no idea whether or not they do.) Should they be required to distribute the modified source to anyone who has seen Finding Nemo?
No. If you have a PHP script licensed to you under the GPLv3 (with appropriate provisions activated) and put it on your server, you are required to distribute the script, including any modifications, under the GPL. It doesn't matter if your server's OS is Linux, FreeBSD, or Windows Server 2003; you have to show the code.
Hey, I've got an idea for you. Every time you let someone see a copy of the resume you created in Open Office, you should be required to provide a CD with the source code.
I can't tell you what Linus is thinking, but I can tell you why I think that way.
I am a programmer. I am not a tinkerer. I care about/seeing the code/. I care that I can then use that code (or more likely ideas and tricks from that code) in my own projects. I don't care about making my consumer-grade router outpace the Cisco gear I use at work. I care about being able to make my own software on par with IOS.
The ability to tinker with a system just isn't that important to me. It's the ability to/learn/ from that system that I want. Yes, learning could perhaps be easier if I could run modified code on the device, but ultimately, simply having access to the source is what I really care about.
Every browser I know of has some mechansim which allows you to reject cookies. Most even allow you to do so automatically on a per-site basis. Opera's cookie management is the most advanced I've seen, but the others should work ok too.
Changes of such a small nature are easy to work around. No one performs mission-critical tasks with reverse-engineered fs drivers anyway, so changes to the system are acceptable. Its only use is as a stop-gap in emergencies (eg, for data recovery or platform migration).
You anticipate backward compatibility, but we already know that the OS filesystem routines have only very limited/forward compatibility/ with future NTFS versions. It's not like we have to wildly guess at this stuff -- ntfs.sys is sitting right there on each XP box.
But don't let sound reasoning stop you from continuing your Chicken Little impression.
Nonsense: NTFS is a Windows Filesystem. It's never had to be compatible with anything else
It has to be compatible with unpatched Windows systems. Many people format their portable storage devices as NTFS. Does MS really want to start getting a flood of calls asking why some computers can read the drive and some can't?
Yeah, because no one ever scrapes web-based db front-ends using scripts. I know I, for one, always used freedb through a full-featured web browser rather than a simple text parser embedded in another app.
I would like every web site which requires a username and password to alternatively allow me to authenticate with my certificate. Would I care if Slashdot started doing this? Probably not. But if my bank allowed it, I'd use it in a heartbeat.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that forcing someone to open the source to a server-side script to anyone who views the HTML it generates *is* like forcing you to provide the source to your modified Sylpheed to anyone you send an e-mail to. HTML pages are the output of server-side scripts, just like JPGs are the output of the GIMP.
You're allowed to point them to the original source only if you never had the source code. If you had the source code, you *must* provide them with the it upon request (for three years) at cost of media.
So if you do up a flyer in OO and then someone, two years later, asks for the source, you would be required to provide the *exact version* of the source you used to produce the document or be in violation of the license.
That, IMO, is quite an unreasonable burden for using a software product.
Wouldn't it be better if you could have access to the IOS source code, modify it, and load your modifications into the Cisco gear itself?
/prevent/ someone from using Free software in a closed hardware system? I can think of some good examples where the answer is definitely "no". So no, I don't like that provision of the GPLv3.
It would be more convenient for me. I don't know if it would be better. The question is: Is it good to
Yeah... Just like Google.
You don't seem to understand the discussion. Under no circumstances did anyone suggest that a company producing a device including GPL software should be allowed to fail to reciprocate by divulging modifications to the code.
The real reason people like the GPL is that it's based on the principle of reciprocity: in return for me giving you my code, you've got to give me yours.
Exactly! The GPLv2 does that just fine, thanks.
And more importantly, I damn well wouldn't want a shitty company like that taking advantage of my (hypothetical) GPL'd code!
If you don't want folks using your code, don't make it open source. It *will* be used in ways you don't approve of. Maybe by the US military in the next tank. Maybe by the the RIAA in their next version of InfringementFinder Plus.
The purpose of copyleft is to ensure that distributed modifications to the code are also open. No more, and no less. If you want additional restrictions (like "not for government use" or "not in devices I can't tinker with"), fine. But don't pretend you're promoting software freedom.
Pointing them to openoffice.org doesn't usually meet the requirements of the GPL (v2 at least, don't know about v3).
The interview was about much more than simply what license Linus liked. It included discussion on the FSF's process and why Linus wasn't participating in it. As such, points concerning the FSF's motives and tactics were quite appropriate.
we had access to the source, but on the machines on which that software ran, I had nowhere near enough disk quota to rebuild a modified version
I wonder if the GPLv4 will require anyone with a web server running GPL code to provide a shell account with admin priveleges so users can test their modifications. I mean what good is the source if you can't tinker with it, right?
[I]sn't it reasonable to require hardware makers to open the hardware they make that's combined with GPL code, because using the combined whole is still the point.
I don't think it is, no. The point of the GPL, to me, is learning from what other people do. I don't need to hack the device to learn from the modifications made to the code. I do not believe that I have a right to run any software I choose on a device the community did not (help) design.
I think that there is enough significant different between hardware and software that when the two are combined, the GPL should not automatically rule over the hardware as well. I think the recent trouble with patents and the fallacy of the whole "piracy is theft" mentality nicely illustrates that a lot of ideas meant for hardware are no good in the realm of software and vice versa.
It's not irrelevant -- it nicely illustrates the mindset of the creators of GPLv3. It also shows how the FSF is spinning the word "compatible".
Suppose Pixar uses modified software licensed to them under the GPL on their render farms. (I have no idea whether or not they do.) Should they be required to distribute the modified source to anyone who has seen Finding Nemo?
No. If you have a PHP script licensed to you under the GPLv3 (with appropriate provisions activated) and put it on your server, you are required to distribute the script, including any modifications, under the GPL. It doesn't matter if your server's OS is Linux, FreeBSD, or Windows Server 2003; you have to show the code.
Hey, I've got an idea for you. Every time you let someone see a copy of the resume you created in Open Office, you should be required to provide a CD with the source code.
I can't tell you what Linus is thinking, but I can tell you why I think that way.
/seeing the code/. I care that I can then use that code (or more likely ideas and tricks from that code) in my own projects. I don't care about making my consumer-grade router outpace the Cisco gear I use at work. I care about being able to make my own software on par with IOS.
/learn/ from that system that I want. Yes, learning could perhaps be easier if I could run modified code on the device, but ultimately, simply having access to the source is what I really care about.
I am a programmer. I am not a tinkerer. I care about
The ability to tinker with a system just isn't that important to me. It's the ability to
Every browser I know of has some mechansim which allows you to reject cookies. Most even allow you to do so automatically on a per-site basis. Opera's cookie management is the most advanced I've seen, but the others should work ok too.
Holy crap, everyone and their grandma has a Secret clearance. It's little more than a credit check.
No, Fascism (Mussolini and Hitler style) is a right-wing movement. The Fascists and the Communists hated each other.
I've been running it happily on my Alpha since potato.
Quit spreading FUD and set up ad blocking on the proxy server. Doing it at all the clients is the wrong approach for an internal network.
Changes of such a small nature are easy to work around. No one performs mission-critical tasks with reverse-engineered fs drivers anyway, so changes to the system are acceptable. Its only use is as a stop-gap in emergencies (eg, for data recovery or platform migration).
You anticipate backward compatibility, but we already know that the OS filesystem routines have only very limited /forward compatibility/ with future NTFS versions. It's not like we have to wildly guess at this stuff -- ntfs.sys is sitting right there on each XP box.
But don't let sound reasoning stop you from continuing your Chicken Little impression.
Nonsense: NTFS is a Windows Filesystem. It's never had to be compatible with anything else
It has to be compatible with unpatched Windows systems. Many people format their portable storage devices as NTFS. Does MS really want to start getting a flood of calls asking why some computers can read the drive and some can't?
Yeah, because no one ever scrapes web-based db front-ends using scripts. I know I, for one, always used freedb through a full-featured web browser rather than a simple text parser embedded in another app.
I would like every web site which requires a username and password to alternatively allow me to authenticate with my certificate. Would I care if Slashdot started doing this? Probably not. But if my bank allowed it, I'd use it in a heartbeat.
As for every e-mail, yes, I probably would.