Patches USUALLY are based on the program they patch, and your perspective may be clouded by an incomplete experience with only such patches. Your logic seems sound for those cases (patches that are derived from the original), but it does not apply to cases where patches are not based on the program.
Can you provide an example of a patch that is not based on the Program being patched? I can't seem to think of one. It seems to me that as soon as you modify the original Program you are creating a derivative work of the Program, and therefore a patch created from that derivate work is also a derivate work of the Program.
The accuracy of the answers here is, well, appalling. The vast majority of you have no idea what you are talking about, and have apparently never even read the fucking GPL. The moral of the story? Don't ask legal questions on slashdot.
US Code, Title 17:
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
GPL, Section 0:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or
any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
GPL, Section 2:
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
a patch to a GPLed program is based on the program
therefore the patch is a derivative work of the program
the GPL requires that derivative works that are distributed be licensed under the GPL
Even though your example is hypothetical, I must object. Wanting to spend more on "national offense" is not inconsistent with wanting to "eliminate wasteful military spending" unless Gore has also said that such spending is wasteful.
Moderators: do you actually think the guy being interviewed is gonna give a reasonable answer to such a hostile question?
You'd better find other questions posed by less rabid people.
I see no reason to believe in the various deities that mankind has come up with over the years.
how much actual study have I done on the subject of atheism (and the proofs therein)?
A heckofa lot, thanks to The Secular Web. But that's not really relevant. I don't need a proof of atheism, I need a proof that some deity exists, and I haven't been given one yet.
how do I know there isn't a God?
I don't know that, and anyone who thinks they do is being absurd. AFAIK there's no decent proof that deities can't/don't exist.
how much of my belief system comes from my parents?
Seeing as how I'm an atheist and therefore don't have a "belief system", I'd say none. My parents are deists or agnostic depending on their moods. In other words it's not a big issue for them.
[...] science/atheism is a faith as well.
OK, here's the problem. You seem to think that atheists believe things. You're mistaken: we lack certain beliefs. We don't run around claiming "God doesn't exist, nya nya!!", we just say "prove it and we'll believe it."
We don't know what happened before the big bang (science can't answer that yet) [...]
If you understand that science doesn't have all the answers than why do you insist that it is a faith? (let's try to keep discussion of science separate from theism/atheism, BTW)
[...]and our basis of belief is pretty close to the possibility of a God (for He could have just started it all off with the big bang, and left us on our own.
So if it's "possible" then it's reasonable to believe it? I'm sorry, I just don't think like that.
why do you want to be right so badly?
Look in the mirror pal.
The only thing we want so badly is a proof that a deity exists.
The linux journal article claims CSS was reverse engineered by watching hardware decrypt a DVD.
Everyone else thinks it was Xing's software DVD player that was reverse engineered; in fact, this is part of a crucial point in the prosecution's case against DeCSS distributors because of Xing's EULA that specifically forbids reverse engineering.
The install is exactly like, if not, RedHat's. The only difference was that the RedHat name never appeared.
From the GPL:
You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty...
...
If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty)...
Quick questions:
Is there any place in LinuxOne Lite where they removed these notices?
Is there any place in LinuxOne Lite where they replaced "copyright redhat" or "copyright mandrake" with "copyright linuxone"?
If so, the appropriate party should sue their asses off.
can't you just say thanks for the release of XFS under the GPL, and not some annoying custom license that would make it impossible to fold XFS into the kernel? brian
Slashdot Mirror
US Code, Title 17:
GPL, Section 0: GPL, Section 2:- a patch to a GPLed program is based on the program
- therefore the patch is a derivative work of the program
- the GPL requires that derivative works that are distributed be licensed under the GPL
- the patch must be GPLed if distributed
QE FUCKING DBy default everything is copyrighted unless it is explicitly placed in the "public domain", so I seriously doubt that the above statement is true.
(IIRC)
Moderators: do you actually think the guy being interviewed is gonna give a reasonable answer to such a hostile question?
You'd better find other questions posed by less rabid people.
I see no reason to believe in the various deities that mankind has come up with over the years.
how much actual study have I done on the subject of atheism (and the proofs therein)?
A heckofa lot, thanks to The Secular Web. But that's not really relevant. I don't need a proof of atheism, I need a proof that some deity exists, and I haven't been given one yet.
how do I know there isn't a God?
I don't know that, and anyone who thinks they do is being absurd. AFAIK there's no decent proof that deities can't/don't exist.
how much of my belief system comes from my parents?
Seeing as how I'm an atheist and therefore don't have a "belief system", I'd say none. My parents are deists or agnostic depending on their moods. In other words it's not a big issue for them.
[...] science/atheism is a faith as well.
OK, here's the problem. You seem to think that atheists believe things. You're mistaken: we lack certain beliefs. We don't run around claiming "God doesn't exist, nya nya!!", we just say "prove it and we'll believe it."
We don't know what happened before the big bang (science can't answer that yet) [...]
If you understand that science doesn't have all the answers than why do you insist that it is a faith? (let's try to keep discussion of science separate from theism/atheism, BTW)
[...]and our basis of belief is pretty close to the possibility of a God (for He could have just started it all off with the big bang, and left us on our own.
So if it's "possible" then it's reasonable to believe it? I'm sorry, I just don't think like that.
why do you want to be right so badly?
Look in the mirror pal.
The only thing we want so badly is a proof that a deity exists.
-lev (an atheist)
I don't believe you.
Using your logic "Nature" should try to attract those why buy People and Cosmo, because they are the typical periodical buyer.
The linux journal article claims CSS was reverse engineered by watching hardware decrypt a DVD.
Everyone else thinks it was Xing's software DVD player that was reverse engineered; in fact, this is part of a crucial point in the prosecution's case against DeCSS distributors because of Xing's EULA that specifically forbids reverse engineering.
Which is it?
The install is exactly like, if not, RedHat's. The only difference was that the RedHat name never appeared.
From the GPL:
You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty...
...
If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty)...
Quick questions:
Is there any place in LinuxOne Lite where they removed these notices?
Is there any place in LinuxOne Lite where they replaced "copyright redhat" or "copyright mandrake" with "copyright linuxone"?
If so, the appropriate party should sue their asses off.
see http://www.dis covery.com/indep/newsfeatures/marspolar/marspolar. html for more.
The big question: will anybody have better coverage?
shouldn't that be "2e-2 dollars"? Right now your opinion is worth 2 hundredths of a cent. :)
"Some work on adding WYSIWYG capabilities to the Xaw text widget."
Are they on crack? Who cares about Xaw anymore?
can't you just say thanks for the release of XFS under the GPL, and not some annoying custom license that would make it impossible to fold XFS into the kernel? brian