Fortunately the GPL has never been upheld in a court of law, and never will be. How on earth can unzipping a tarfile possibly commit me to a legal contract ? Answer - It cannot.
It doesn't have to. If you don't accept the license, you don't have any rights to do anything at all with that tarfile - you are breaking copyright law the moment you even attempt to redistribute any of it.
You consider the ability to take without giving back to be a freedom. I don't. The whole argument boils down to that. If you don't mind someone taking what you have created and selling it back to you, use the BSD license. If you don't want that to happen, use the GPL.
Please. Try not to be so stupid in the future. The link I posted was just the first that came up in a search engine that talked about him and his support for the MMJ initiatives. I am neither right-wind nor anti-drug (as anyone with a half-brain could see from my sig). Also, there are just as many people on the conservative side of the fence that are for decriminilization as there are on the liberal.
Both John Sperling and George Soros on the same Slashdot page and neither article is about their involvement in Medical Marijuana. Give me a Peter Lewis and we'll have the complete set.
He has been one of the major backers of the initiatives that support medical marijuana in several western states. Anyone who does anything real against the war on drugs is fine by me.
You do if you want them to contribute to open source.
No, I don't. I know that they cannot legally distribute anything build upon my source without contributing themselves. Straightforward. No doubts about it. The worst thing that can happen is that some freeloading company doesn't use my code. Big deal. I'd rather have one person who is actually committed to writing good code than a whole company full of people who got their CIS degree for Big Buck$
total contribution by companies = use of open source*contribution per project. BSD maximizes the first, which will probably maximize the total figure
Hardly. You can imagine that companies prefer the BSD license all you like, it doesn't affect the fact that most of the worthwhile software is currently being developed under the GPL. What companies do or don't do really doesn't matter at this point.
That's a very cynical view.
It's also realistic. Had a look at the headlines lately? *cough* Enron *cough*
Most companies do actually worry about more than pure profits. Did you check out the list of companies that double their employees donations for the EFF? It's long and heartwarming, snif.
Yeah, yeah. My company matches 10%, but it's all just advertising to them. I really don't see that many 'abuses' of BSD. Most companies who use BSD (or similarly) licensed products do contribute (or have even created the product in the first place), so why would you need to force them?
Because I don't want to see any, and if I do, I want the option of being able to do something about it.
They like it as a server-OS and certainly did not pick it because of the GPL, just about all the other products they support or open sourced themselves are non-copyleft.
Hmm. Ever wonder why they didn't choose to get behind BSD? Maybe because they don't want their hard work going to finance Microsoft any more than I do. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe its just because linux is a better system.
But of course, usage of IP is an abuse if it doesn't follow your rules. That's the same logic in EULA's, DVD regions and copy-protection, protected CD's, protected ebooks, the DMCA, etc.It's the thinking (and laws that support it) that I want to abolish, the abuse of power because you can create/control and others cannot. You focus so heavily on enforcing your rules, why are you unwilling to discuss the validity of the rules themselves?
As long as our copyright laws are in place, I will use them to make sure that my code remains open. I see no reason not to use the same tools that are used against me. If they were to go away tomorrow, the world would certainly be a better place. I don't see that happening though, so I will guarantee that at least my contribution will always lead to more openness.
Is copyleft truly necessary to force companies to contribute?
It doesn't matter to me whether it is 'truly necessary' or not. I ask only that the same thing that I have given is given in return. If that's too much, then too bad.
Open source will be able to supply some of the software we need, while commercial software will fill the niches that cannot be filled by open source.
My crystal ball tells me that eventually, the only role for commercial software will be specialized applications. Everything else will be open source.
Your simple-minded argument doesn't hold up very well. If you do have to depend on companies' goodwill and commitment for them to contribute to open source, why not go the whole way and actually threat them like adults.
Umm, I don't have to depend on a company's goodwill - I use the GPL. With the BSD license, you are forced to depend on just that, and I'd rather not.
Give them freedom to make their own decisions.
They have the freedom to choose to incorporate my code or not to, just as I have the freedom to require that any changes they want to distribute are given back to the community.
If you truly believe in the merits of open source, you must believe that it will be beneficial to companies and they will thus support it.
Companies exist to make money, not to be altruistic. If they that think they can get away with something, they generally will. I have no qualms with taking the decision to use my code in a way I don't like out of their hands.
I believe that GPL will (hopefully and probably) not become that pervasive among companies (except for Linux). Instead it may give open source a bad name when companies get bitten by the GPL license. Is it not better to let money do the talking, instead of lawyers?
With both IBM and SUN recently getting behind linux in a big way, it looks lik the GPL is, in fact, becoming more pervasive. These are not small time players - they know what they are getting into.
Argueing that GPL software cannot be used when I claim that some legitimate and important uses are not possible with GPL merely proves my point.
What you are claiming as a legitimate use, I see as an abuse. You know the rules when you decide to build on a piece of GPL software. If you agree with them, you will abide by the required terms. If not, you are free to use something else. So, just like everything else in life, it comes down to a choice - "do I need the benefits of a piece of code enough to agree to the price?"
Personally, I will continue to release every piece of code I write under the GPL.
Which couldn't be used in the GPL-version anyway. So you still get an extra choice that you would not have had with the GPL-software. Nowhere is anything taken away from the free version by this!
*I* don't get any extra choice. Nobody is ever going to use my own code as a starting point to enforce a software patent, possibly against me.
Why are you so paranoid when many companies are already proving that they are willing to contribute? Of course this usually requires that they can actually use their own contributions for their uses and a non-copyleft license is thus very important.
I don't care what any company chooses to do or not to do. If they want to use my code, they *are* going to contribute back - no maybes about it.
I trust that companies will give code back. It is often in their best interest (as I already pointed out). GPL will just ensure that your code isn't used, and thus you won't get anything back from them.
The more pervasive the GPL becomes, the less likely this will be a problem.
1. I make changes to the software that are specific to my business. It can't be open because that would expose my secrets.
You don't have to release the source unless you intend on distributing your program.
2. I have created my super-duper commercial package and want to link it to an open source web-server. I'm willing to open source every addition to the web-server I make to suit my needs, but the rest of the software is my property.
If the web server is LGPL, no problem. If it's GPL, find another web server.
3. I want to add video codec X, it's not mine. My clients are willing to pay for it though. What's the problem with making a closed version that includes the codec?
I think this one depends. IANAL, but I don't think that your licensing a codec and including it in some GPL software for someone would be considered distribution as long as they weren't otherwise distributing it. For instance, if I worked for a company and we had standardized on some GPL video editing software, what would be the problem with my doing anything I wanted with that software as long as it didn't leave the company?
BSD-licensed code will thus probably get you more good code. If someone does create a closed version with features you like, open source programmers can just copy the features.
Unless, of course, they tie it in with some patented or otherwise encumbered code that is not legal to duplicate.
They haven't taken away anything from you, but may have filled a need that open source developers did not fill. What's wrong with more options?
Human nature is what's wrong. I don't trust my fellow man enough to assume that he will be as forthcoming with his additions to my code as I was with the original code. Therefore, if he wants to have the advantages of my code, he is going to contribute his advantages back to me.
I don't really understand why people get so upset when there might be a chance that someone uses the code he gives away for free for things he doesn't like.
I don't care what they use my code for, as long as they give back.
On the other hand it is okay with many of us if programmers make legitimate and important uses impossible with the license they choose for their IP.
What 'legitimate and important uses' require that you can't give back your source? I can't think of one.
Do people write code in order to write good code and improve the state of computing, or do they do it in order to coerce other programmers into helping along?
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one. I want good code, but I want that code to be available for me in the same way that I made it available. If it's improved, but locked up in a proprietary product, what good does it do me as a programmer?
They absolutely do not fit that description, and frankly, I think that's obvious.
Could you please explain how they *don't* fit that description? Were the prisoners not 'members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict' or 'volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces'?
Remember that the prisoners only have to fit one of the criteria spelled out in section 4 - being in any one of the six categories is enough, and it seems like people only want to focus on part 2 and it's qualifications. This is all just another example of our government lying to us in order to get what they want, legally or illegally.
As has already been pointed out to you several times in this thread, they are covered. They are being covered under the illegal combantant clauses.
Please, point out these 'illegal combatant' clauses of the Geneva Conventions. I'd really be interested in seeing them. Here, I'll spell out what *is* said for you:
Article 4, Section A:
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. ...
Are you really trying to say that Al Quaida(sp?) does not fit the above description?
Article 5 clearly says: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
So when, exactly did these prisoners have their tribunal deciding that they weren't prisoners of war?
I'm sorry, but who invaded whose country here? Yes, the Taliban are shitty people, but our whole reason for attacking them was to 'get Bin Laden'. If an army invaded your country, would you fight it or just let it roll through? How can you be an 'unlawful combatant' when you are defending your home? If there any *better* reason for fighting?
The detainees are being treated better than the Geneva Convention requires. The only question about POW-ness is whether they should be repatriated after the war, and if so, when is "after the war," and to where do they get repatriated. You are so motherfucking clueless it makes me sick.
Yeah, yeah. Feeding the trolls is bad, I know. Ayway...
I'm not making a jodgement on how the prisoners are being treated, only on the US's unwillingness to follow international law and its blatant use of propaganda techniques on the public. If there is a war, then it is clear that the prisoners should be covered under the Geneva convention. If there isn't, why would we be arguing about what to do with them 'after the war'?
Look, either we are at war, or we aren't. If we are, then the people whom we are 'at war' with should be given all their rights under the Geneva Convention. If we are not at war, then people should stop saying so because it is nothing but propaganda.
How many times have you been driving along and said to yourself, "I sure wish I had a laser right now, because I'd blast the guy in front of me." Finally, a solution!
I use Putty with a cool little program called Gnu Http-Tunnel that allows me to encapsulate my ssh connection within http so that I only need port 80 open outgoing to do just about anything on my pc at home. I even got X to tunnel over that ssh connection (X over ssh over http), but man was that slow!
But, I do not want the right to force others to let me view, port and tweak their code.
I totally agree with RMS here. If someone wants to have the advantages of my code, they are going to have to make the same sacrifices as I made. If they don't like it, that's tough. Freedom, schmeedom - if you wanna see my code, you are going to show me yours. It's as simple as that.
So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification. It is more likely, you will get credited in that instance whereas a GPL stealer will attempt to hide from GPL responsibilities.
So what? So I want code! The GPL forces you to give me the code. I don't care at all about the recognition or the money, what I want is perpetual access to an ever-improving codebase. If that means that there is no 'commercial' software in the future, so be it.
You're both right. Shaggy ripped off both Steve Miller and Merrilee Rush in the same song. Also, Queen originally sang the sone "Under Pressure" and Vanilla Ice definitely didn't have permission to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately the GPL has never been upheld in a court of law, and never will be. How on earth can unzipping a tarfile possibly commit me to a legal contract ? Answer - It cannot.
It doesn't have to. If you don't accept the license, you don't have any rights to do anything at all with that tarfile - you are breaking copyright law the moment you even attempt to redistribute any of it.
You consider the ability to take without giving back to be a freedom. I don't. The whole argument boils down to that. If you don't mind someone taking what you have created and selling it back to you, use the BSD license. If you don't want that to happen, use the GPL.
Please. Try not to be so stupid in the future. The link I posted was just the first that came up in a search engine that talked about him and his support for the MMJ initiatives. I am neither right-wind nor anti-drug (as anyone with a half-brain could see from my sig). Also, there are just as many people on the conservative side of the fence that are for decriminilization as there are on the liberal.
Both John Sperling and George Soros on the same Slashdot page and neither article is about their involvement in Medical Marijuana. Give me a Peter Lewis and we'll have the complete set.
He has been one of the major backers of the initiatives that support medical marijuana in several western states. Anyone who does anything real against the war on drugs is fine by me.
You do if you want them to contribute to open source.
No, I don't. I know that they cannot legally distribute anything build upon my source without contributing themselves. Straightforward. No doubts about it. The worst thing that can happen is that some freeloading company doesn't use my code. Big deal. I'd rather have one person who is actually committed to writing good code than a whole company full of people who got their CIS degree for Big Buck$
total contribution by companies = use of open source*contribution per project.
BSD maximizes the first, which will probably maximize the total figure
Hardly. You can imagine that companies prefer the BSD license all you like, it doesn't affect the fact that most of the worthwhile software is currently being developed under the GPL. What companies do or don't do really doesn't matter at this point.
That's a very cynical view.
It's also realistic. Had a look at the headlines lately? *cough* Enron *cough*
Most companies do actually worry about more than pure profits. Did you check out the list of companies that double their employees donations for the EFF? It's long and heartwarming, snif.
Yeah, yeah. My company matches 10%, but it's all just advertising to them.
I really don't see that many 'abuses' of BSD. Most companies who use BSD (or similarly) licensed products do contribute (or have even created the product in the first place), so why would you need to force them?
Because I don't want to see any, and if I do, I want the option of being able to do something about it.
They like it as a server-OS and certainly did not pick it because of the GPL, just about all the other products they support or open sourced themselves are non-copyleft.
Hmm. Ever wonder why they didn't choose to get behind BSD? Maybe because they don't want their hard work going to finance Microsoft any more than I do. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe its just because linux is a better system.
But of course, usage of IP is an abuse if it doesn't follow your rules. That's the same logic in EULA's, DVD regions and copy-protection, protected CD's, protected ebooks, the DMCA, etc.It's the thinking (and laws that support it) that I want to abolish, the abuse of power because you can create/control and others cannot. You focus so heavily on enforcing your rules, why are you unwilling to discuss the validity of the rules themselves?
As long as our copyright laws are in place, I will use them to make sure that my code remains open. I see no reason not to use the same tools that are used against me. If they were to go away tomorrow, the world would certainly be a better place. I don't see that happening though, so I will guarantee that at least my contribution will always lead to more openness.
Is copyleft truly necessary to force companies to contribute?
It doesn't matter to me whether it is 'truly necessary' or not. I ask only that the same thing that I have given is given in return. If that's too much, then too bad.
Open source will be able to supply some of the software we need, while commercial software will fill the niches that cannot be filled by open source.
My crystal ball tells me that eventually, the only role for commercial software will be specialized applications. Everything else will be open source.
Your simple-minded argument doesn't hold up very well. If you do have to depend on companies' goodwill and commitment for them to contribute to open source, why not go the whole way and actually threat them like adults.
Umm, I don't have to depend on a company's goodwill - I use the GPL. With the BSD license, you are forced to depend on just that, and I'd rather not.
Give them freedom to make their own decisions.
They have the freedom to choose to incorporate my code or not to, just as I have the freedom to require that any changes they want to distribute are given back to the community.
If you truly believe in the merits of open source, you must believe that it will be beneficial to companies and they will thus support it.
Companies exist to make money, not to be altruistic. If they that think they can get away with something, they generally will. I have no qualms with taking the decision to use my code in a way I don't like out of their hands.
I believe that GPL will (hopefully and probably) not become that pervasive among companies (except for Linux). Instead it may give open source a bad name when companies get bitten by the GPL license. Is it not better to let money do the talking, instead of lawyers?
With both IBM and SUN recently getting behind linux in a big way, it looks lik the GPL is, in fact, becoming more pervasive. These are not small time players - they know what they are getting into.
Argueing that GPL software cannot be used when I claim that some legitimate and important uses are not possible with GPL merely proves my point.
What you are claiming as a legitimate use, I see as an abuse. You know the rules when you decide to build on a piece of GPL software. If you agree with them, you will abide by the required terms. If not, you are free to use something else. So, just like everything else in life, it comes down to a choice - "do I need the benefits of a piece of code enough to agree to the price?"
Personally, I will continue to release every piece of code I write under the GPL.
Virginia and Maryland passed the UCITA
laws, part of which is supposed to validate shrinkwrap EULAs.
A EULA is only currently legally binding in two states, and it has never been tested in court in those.
Which couldn't be used in the GPL-version anyway. So you still get an extra choice that you would not have had with the GPL-software. Nowhere is anything taken away from the free version by this!
*I* don't get any extra choice. Nobody is ever going to use my own code as a starting point to enforce a software patent, possibly against me.
Why are you so paranoid when many companies are already proving that they are willing to contribute? Of course this usually requires that they can actually use their own contributions for their uses and a non-copyleft license is thus very important.
I don't care what any company chooses to do or not to do. If they want to use my code, they *are* going to contribute back - no maybes about it.
I trust that companies will give code back. It is often in their best interest (as I already pointed out). GPL will just ensure that your code isn't used, and thus you won't get anything back from them.
The more pervasive the GPL becomes, the less likely this will be a problem.
1. I make changes to the software that are specific to my business. It can't be open because that would expose my secrets.
You don't have to release the source unless you intend on distributing your program.
2. I have created my super-duper commercial package and want to link it to an open source web-server. I'm willing to open source every addition to the web-server I make to suit my needs, but the rest of the software is my property.
If the web server is LGPL, no problem. If it's GPL, find another web server.
3. I want to add video codec X, it's not mine. My clients are willing to pay for it though. What's the problem with making a closed version that includes the codec?
I think this one depends. IANAL, but I don't think that your licensing a codec and including it in some GPL software for someone would be considered distribution as long as they weren't otherwise distributing it. For instance, if I worked for a company and we had standardized on some GPL video editing software, what would be the problem with my doing anything I wanted with that software as long as it didn't leave the company?
BSD-licensed code will thus probably get you more good code. If someone does create a closed version with features you like, open source programmers can just copy the features.
Unless, of course, they tie it in with some patented or otherwise encumbered code that is not legal to duplicate.
They haven't taken away anything from you, but may have filled a need that open source developers did not fill. What's wrong with more options?
Human nature is what's wrong. I don't trust my fellow man enough to assume that he will be as forthcoming with his additions to my code as I was with the original code. Therefore, if he wants to have the advantages of my code, he is going to contribute his advantages back to me.
I don't really understand why people get so upset when there might be a chance that someone uses the code he gives away for free for things he doesn't like.
I don't care what they use my code for, as long as they give back.
On the other hand it is okay with many of us if programmers make legitimate and important uses impossible with the license they choose for their IP.
What 'legitimate and important uses' require that you can't give back your source? I can't think of one.
Do people write code in order to write good code and improve the state of computing, or do they do it in order to coerce other programmers into helping along?
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one. I want good code, but I want that code to be available for me in the same way that I made it available. If it's improved, but locked up in a proprietary product, what good does it do me as a programmer?
They absolutely do not fit that description, and frankly, I think that's obvious.
Could you please explain how they *don't* fit that description? Were the prisoners not 'members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict' or 'volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces'?
Remember that the prisoners only have to fit one of the criteria spelled out in section 4 - being in any one of the six categories is enough, and it seems like people only want to focus on part 2 and it's qualifications. This is all just another example of our government lying to us in order to get what they want, legally or illegally.
As has already been pointed out to you several times in this thread, they are covered. They are being covered under the illegal combantant clauses.
:
Please, point out these 'illegal combatant' clauses of the Geneva Conventions. I'd really be interested in seeing them. Here, I'll spell out what *is* said for you:
Article 4, Section A
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
...
Are you really trying to say that Al Quaida(sp?) does not fit the above description?
Article 5 clearly says: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
So when, exactly did these prisoners have their tribunal deciding that they weren't prisoners of war?
Where is this freedom outlayed in the U.S. Constitution?
Have you ever read the 9th amendment? Let me refresh your memory:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, just because certain rights are spelled out in the constitution doesn't mean that those are all the rights you have.
I'm sorry, but who invaded whose country here? Yes, the Taliban are shitty people, but our whole reason for attacking them was to 'get Bin Laden'. If an army invaded your country, would you fight it or just let it roll through? How can you be an 'unlawful combatant' when you are defending your home? If there any *better* reason for fighting?
Yeah, yeah. Feeding the trolls is bad, I know. Ayway...
I'm not making a jodgement on how the prisoners are being treated, only on the US's unwillingness to follow international law and its blatant use of propaganda techniques on the public. If there is a war, then it is clear that the prisoners should be covered under the Geneva convention. If there isn't, why would we be arguing about what to do with them 'after the war'?
Look, either we are at war, or we aren't. If we are, then the people whom we are 'at war' with should be given all their rights under the Geneva Convention. If we are not at war, then people should stop saying so because it is nothing but propaganda.
Right. Except when it comes to the treatment of our 'prisoners of war'. Then, we are suddenly not at war.
Maybe when you learn to count.
but we have freedom of speech
Right. Try having a public speech in support of forming a Nazi party and see how free you are to speak.
I can buy/rent a zone 1 DVD at any video store.
So can we...
I can publish code to decrypt DVDs without any limitation.
Ok, you got me there.
I can practice cryptography [technion.ac.il] without being targeted.
There are absolutely no laws in the US that keep me from using any form of cryptography I want.
How many times have you been driving along and said to yourself, "I sure wish I had a laser right now, because I'd blast the guy in front of me." Finally, a solution!
I use Putty with a cool little program called Gnu Http-Tunnel that allows me to encapsulate my ssh connection within http so that I only need port 80 open outgoing to do just about anything on my pc at home. I even got X to tunnel over that ssh connection (X over ssh over http), but man was that slow!
I totally agree with RMS here. If someone wants to have the advantages of my code, they are going to have to make the same sacrifices as I made. If they don't like it, that's tough. Freedom, schmeedom - if you wanna see my code, you are going to show me yours. It's as simple as that.
So what? So I want code! The GPL forces you to give me the code. I don't care at all about the recognition or the money, what I want is perpetual access to an ever-improving codebase. If that means that there is no 'commercial' software in the future, so be it.
You're both right. Shaggy ripped off both Steve Miller and Merrilee Rush in the same song. Also, Queen originally sang the sone "Under Pressure" and Vanilla Ice definitely didn't have permission to use it.