No, I mean spelled. Spelled is an acceptable spelling of spell in the past tense, while baited is not an acceptable spelling of bated in the phrase "bated breath". Look it up.
While the spirit of the GPL may see it as a restriction, the letter probably does not.
Well, we are getting into pretty philosophical territory here. You're right, I could see a judge going either way on this. But don't think the GPL just ignores other contracts that might conflict with it; section 7 of the GPL deals quite nicely with this issue. If you have signed a contract that makes it impossible for you to satisfy the GPL's conditions (such as not restricting redistribution), you cannot distribute the software at all. Just because the restricting clause is in a different contract doesn't excuse you from complying with the GPL.
The GPL doesn't give the specific right to future sources and binaries, but it does forbid Sveasoft from punishing you in the future simply for exercising the rights they must give you under the GPL. Whether the punishment is a fee or a revoked contract right, the result is the same. The punishment is a substantial deterrent to your distribution of the source, which acts as a restriction.
You're wrong, the GPL says a *lot* about other contractual agreements. For example, if you have other obligations that would prevent you from fulfilling your obligations under the GPL, you lose your rights under the GPL, whether it's your fault or not. If you have made a contract with a customer that forbids them from distributing your source code under penalty of termination of the contract, then you can't legally distribute your software to that customer under the GPL.
Here's the relevant section (7) of the GPL, with some added italics:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
It doesn't have to explicitly forbid you from distributing the software to be a restriction. If it substantially deters you from distributing the software, it is a restriction. Obviously Sveasoft's intent here is to restrict distribution. Their terms can only be interpreted as a punishment for distributing the software.
What if Sveasoft said "you can distribute the software but if you do you owe us $10000000"? That doesn't explicitly forbid distribution of the software under any circumstance. However, it acts as a significant deterrrent. Nobody is going to distribute that software. It amounts to a restriction, and it's forbidden by the GPL.
If they put restrictions on your distribution of the code, then step three can never happen. I'm arguing that they are attempting to put a restriction on your ability to distribute the code.
Maybe, back when they were on tapes and the Internet was a much more cumbersome and expensive way of distributing software. Tapes were never $.15 each.
Sveasoft is never absolved of their responsibility to obey the GPL. They can't distribute the software and *then* restrict you afterwards. It's still illegal.
It depends on how you define a "restriction on your right". My definition is "a restriction that is applied to you when you exercise the right". Your definition is "a restriction that affects how you can exercise the right". I think my definition is obviously what the writers of the GPL intended to convey, because your definition allows many clearly rediculous restrictions. Consider the restriction "you are free to distribute the software but if you do you owe us $1000000". It does not restrict distribution, according to your definition. Yet I think many people would be reluctant to distribute the software under these terms. It amounts to a restriction.
Saying "you cannot do X if you distribute the software," no matter what X is, is in fact putting a restriction on the free exercise of your right to distribute the software. This is explicitly forbidden by the GPL.
No you can't. If the law was a computer program, apparent "bugs" like this would be exploitable, but the law is implemented by people, and most people have a narrow view of these kinds of tricks. The GPL attempts to put a "reasonable" limit on the amount that can be charged for distributing copies, and a judge will interpret that as ruling out $1000 CD-Rs. The line is fuzzy by design, but that doesn't mean there is no line at all.
Saying "you cannot do X if you distribute the software," no matter what X is, is in fact putting a restriction on the free exercise of your right to distribute the software. This is disallowed by the GPL.
It all depends on how you define the phrase "a restriction on a right".
My definition is: a restriction which is applied to you when you exercise the right. Yours is: a restriction which affects how you can exercise the right. I think my definition is a more reasonable interpretation of the phrase in the GPL, but that's for the judge to decide.
Yeah, but by that logic they could just make the source avaliable only on special solid platinum CDs hand-carved by tibetan monks and charge three billion dollars each. Sure, it's the actual cost of distribution, but it's not reasonable. An FTP server would do the job for at least three orders of magnitude less money and be more convenient for everyone to boot. I don't think a judge would be impressed by that argument, even if it doesn't exactly violate the letter of the GPL.
Hey, I never said it was merely political; I just don't know. Peer-to-peer is a lousy solution; it's far too inefficient, it is often made impossible by firewalls, it is prone to "leeching," , and doesn't solve all the same problems that multicast does. I can't really imagine a working real-time video streaming P2P application, scaleable to millions of users from one broadcast source.
This clause is not allowed under the GPL. Here is a quote from section 6 of the GPL (italics mine):
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
By attatching conditions to the redistribution of their code (namely that distributing it revokes your subscription rights), Sveasoft is attempting to restrict people's free distribution of their code. This is explicitly not allowed under the GPL. It is claimed in the forum thread that the FSF says this is not a violation, but I can't see their reasoning. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Also their practice of charging $49 for a CD of the code is questionable. The GPL puts no limit on the amount you can charge for distributing the program itself. However, if you have already distributed the binary to somebody, then if they request the source you are not allowed to charge them more than the actual cost of distribution. Somehow I doubt their CD-Rs cost $49 each...
What they *should* do is for the first minute of every hour add a top headline reading "Please configure your news reader to download our news feed at a different time."
Multicast is the right solution to all sorts of problems that the Internet is facing today (RSS, streaming radio and streaming TV, large file distribution to lots of people ala bittorrent). Unfortunately, it has never been implemented over the public Internet, so you can't use it. If multicast was available today, the Internet would be a completely different place. You would be able to download huge popular files from places like FilePlanet without all the waiting. Distribution of huge files would be easy, BitTorrent would be obsolete. You would be able to watch streaming TV at DVD quality from hundreds of stations set up by normal people only on their DSL lines. Unfortunately, ISPs are dragging their feet, or something. I'm not sure what the holdup is exactly.
Internet TV is the killer app for multicast. Winamp 5 is bringing a working implementation of Internet TV to the masses today. If you haven't seen it yet try it out, it's cool:-). It works fine without multicast for small audiences (~100 people), but I'm sure you need tons of bandwidth. With real IP multicast Winamp TV could become much more than it is today. It could allow anybody with a home broadband connection to broadcast DVD-quality TV to the world. It could make cable TV obsolete.
I really, really hope that multicast will be feasible someday. Without it, the Internet is incomplete as a communication medium. With multicast, a whole new world of distribution possibilities would open up for people who don't have a spare arm and leg to spend on bandwidth. With working multicast and one of those fiber-to-the-home connections Verizon is offering, you would have worldwide distribution power to equal any media conglomerate. With that kind of power in the hands of the people, there's no telling what could happen.
I'll bet you anything it will be 30 Mbps down, 768 Kbps up. They wouldn't want you to actually be able to *use* your connection for anything, that would be bad for business.
Laser Quest is dumb because of the lame "no running or ducking" rules, the tiny arenas, and the underpowered lasers/bad sensors. But that doesn't mean all laser tag has to be dumb. Imagine laser tag outside, sans the retarded black-light/sci-fi motif, with higher-powered lasers that could actually trigger the sensors from decent distances, with more and more sensitive sensors, and most importantly a _really loud_ speaker on your vest that would go off almost loud enough to hurt your ears, continuously until you return to your base after being shot. Once that happened to you in the middle of a game you wouldn't be in a hurry to get shot again, even though it wouldn't hurt you physically.
Because the Internet community debated and settled on IPv6 as the replacement for IPv4. It's already done. IPv6 is the standard next-generation protocol for the Internet. If someone else comes along after the fact and starts using a different protocol, it will only mess everything up, cause confusion and incompatibilities, and delay the adoption of the real successor to IPv4. I'm not debating the technical merits of this "IPv9" against IPv6. Even if it is marginally better than IPv6 (which I doubt), I would still argue that at this point, when IPv6 has already been decided on and implementations are out there, it would be bad for the Internet to switch again and start implementing IPv9.
Also, about the "full compatibility" you claim: even if the *only* difference in IPv9 is the changed version bits, that makes it *completely* incompatible with IPv4. v4 devices will refuse to process the packets because of the different version number, regardless of the packet contents. Software would have to be updated everywhere to accept the new version number, and firmware would have to be replaced (in many cases by buying new devices). I hardly call that "completely compatible." Even if the packet format is identical, changing the version breaks everything.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I mean spelled. Spelled is an acceptable spelling of spell in the past tense, while baited is not an acceptable spelling of bated in the phrase "bated breath". Look it up.
Well, we are getting into pretty philosophical territory here. You're right, I could see a judge going either way on this. But don't think the GPL just ignores other contracts that might conflict with it; section 7 of the GPL deals quite nicely with this issue. If you have signed a contract that makes it impossible for you to satisfy the GPL's conditions (such as not restricting redistribution), you cannot distribute the software at all. Just because the restricting clause is in a different contract doesn't excuse you from complying with the GPL.
The GPL doesn't give the specific right to future sources and binaries, but it does forbid Sveasoft from punishing you in the future simply for exercising the rights they must give you under the GPL. Whether the punishment is a fee or a revoked contract right, the result is the same. The punishment is a substantial deterrent to your distribution of the source, which acts as a restriction.
Here's the relevant section (7) of the GPL, with some added italics:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
What if Sveasoft said "you can distribute the software but if you do you owe us $10000000"? That doesn't explicitly forbid distribution of the software under any circumstance. However, it acts as a significant deterrrent. Nobody is going to distribute that software. It amounts to a restriction, and it's forbidden by the GPL.
If they put restrictions on your distribution of the code, then step three can never happen. I'm arguing that they are attempting to put a restriction on your ability to distribute the code.
They spelled "bated breath" properly! That must be a first for the Internet.
... for a nominal fee not greater than the cost of distribution. Which is the whole point of this conversation. Have you even been paying attention?
Maybe, back when they were on tapes and the Internet was a much more cumbersome and expensive way of distributing software. Tapes were never $.15 each.
Sveasoft is never absolved of their responsibility to obey the GPL. They can't distribute the software and *then* restrict you afterwards. It's still illegal.
It depends on how you define a "restriction on your right". My definition is "a restriction that is applied to you when you exercise the right". Your definition is "a restriction that affects how you can exercise the right". I think my definition is obviously what the writers of the GPL intended to convey, because your definition allows many clearly rediculous restrictions. Consider the restriction "you are free to distribute the software but if you do you owe us $1000000". It does not restrict distribution, according to your definition. Yet I think many people would be reluctant to distribute the software under these terms. It amounts to a restriction.
Saying "you cannot do X if you distribute the software," no matter what X is, is in fact putting a restriction on the free exercise of your right to distribute the software. This is explicitly forbidden by the GPL.
No you can't. If the law was a computer program, apparent "bugs" like this would be exploitable, but the law is implemented by people, and most people have a narrow view of these kinds of tricks. The GPL attempts to put a "reasonable" limit on the amount that can be charged for distributing copies, and a judge will interpret that as ruling out $1000 CD-Rs. The line is fuzzy by design, but that doesn't mean there is no line at all.
Saying "you cannot do X if you distribute the software," no matter what X is, is in fact putting a restriction on the free exercise of your right to distribute the software. This is disallowed by the GPL.
My definition is: a restriction which is applied to you when you exercise the right. Yours is: a restriction which affects how you can exercise the right. I think my definition is a more reasonable interpretation of the phrase in the GPL, but that's for the judge to decide.
Yeah, but by that logic they could just make the source avaliable only on special solid platinum CDs hand-carved by tibetan monks and charge three billion dollars each. Sure, it's the actual cost of distribution, but it's not reasonable. An FTP server would do the job for at least three orders of magnitude less money and be more convenient for everyone to boot. I don't think a judge would be impressed by that argument, even if it doesn't exactly violate the letter of the GPL.
Hey, I never said it was merely political; I just don't know. Peer-to-peer is a lousy solution; it's far too inefficient, it is often made impossible by firewalls, it is prone to "leeching," , and doesn't solve all the same problems that multicast does. I can't really imagine a working real-time video streaming P2P application, scaleable to millions of users from one broadcast source.
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
By attatching conditions to the redistribution of their code (namely that distributing it revokes your subscription rights), Sveasoft is attempting to restrict people's free distribution of their code. This is explicitly not allowed under the GPL. It is claimed in the forum thread that the FSF says this is not a violation, but I can't see their reasoning. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Also their practice of charging $49 for a CD of the code is questionable. The GPL puts no limit on the amount you can charge for distributing the program itself. However, if you have already distributed the binary to somebody, then if they request the source you are not allowed to charge them more than the actual cost of distribution. Somehow I doubt their CD-Rs cost $49 each...
What they *should* do is for the first minute of every hour add a top headline reading "Please configure your news reader to download our news feed at a different time."
Multicast is the right solution to all sorts of problems that the Internet is facing today (RSS, streaming radio and streaming TV, large file distribution to lots of people ala bittorrent). Unfortunately, it has never been implemented over the public Internet, so you can't use it. If multicast was available today, the Internet would be a completely different place. You would be able to download huge popular files from places like FilePlanet without all the waiting. Distribution of huge files would be easy, BitTorrent would be obsolete. You would be able to watch streaming TV at DVD quality from hundreds of stations set up by normal people only on their DSL lines. Unfortunately, ISPs are dragging their feet, or something. I'm not sure what the holdup is exactly.
I really, really hope that multicast will be feasible someday. Without it, the Internet is incomplete as a communication medium. With multicast, a whole new world of distribution possibilities would open up for people who don't have a spare arm and leg to spend on bandwidth. With working multicast and one of those fiber-to-the-home connections Verizon is offering, you would have worldwide distribution power to equal any media conglomerate. With that kind of power in the hands of the people, there's no telling what could happen.
I'll bet you anything it will be 30 Mbps down, 768 Kbps up. They wouldn't want you to actually be able to *use* your connection for anything, that would be bad for business.
Laser Quest is dumb because of the lame "no running or ducking" rules, the tiny arenas, and the underpowered lasers/bad sensors. But that doesn't mean all laser tag has to be dumb. Imagine laser tag outside, sans the retarded black-light/sci-fi motif, with higher-powered lasers that could actually trigger the sensors from decent distances, with more and more sensitive sensors, and most importantly a _really loud_ speaker on your vest that would go off almost loud enough to hurt your ears, continuously until you return to your base after being shot. Once that happened to you in the middle of a game you wouldn't be in a hurry to get shot again, even though it wouldn't hurt you physically.
Add a notice of the date at the top of the page, then remove it, and link to the old version with the notice. Problem solved! :-)
Also, about the "full compatibility" you claim: even if the *only* difference in IPv9 is the changed version bits, that makes it *completely* incompatible with IPv4. v4 devices will refuse to process the packets because of the different version number, regardless of the packet contents. Software would have to be updated everywhere to accept the new version number, and firmware would have to be replaced (in many cases by buying new devices). I hardly call that "completely compatible." Even if the packet format is identical, changing the version breaks everything.