Whether the "1-click" technology is either basic or obvious does not matter here. The patent was granted, regardless of whether you or I agree with it, it was.
Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, whether or not the patent was granted it is not valid if it is obvious.
But my point has little to do with the validity of the patent.
Okay....
If you can honestly tell me that you believe B&N did not see Amazon doing it and then used the same technique at their site, then there is nothing more I can argue.
They did by all appearances copy marketing / sales techniques fro Amazon. Since Amazon seems to be achieving some success with those techniques this seems like a good idea. No problem so far...
It seems relatively clear to me that what B&N did was try to copy Amazon and in doing so used a technology patented by Amazon. And that is wrong.
This is where I lose your thread.. what is it that you think is wrong? company A sets up in business, they start using marketing and sales techniques that apparently appeal to consumers and address a need in the market. Company B sees this, thinks "Good idea" and copies these techniques. This is what they're supposed to do, it's competition, it's what's supposed to happen. What is your problem? You're worried that businesses might all start adopting approaches that the consumers like?
Unless your concern is that they're breaching a patent (and you meant "wrong" as a simile for "illegal")... but you explicitly said that the validity of the patent was irrelevant to your point.. so what is your point?
I, for one, would abhor a sentience that would not be allowed to be self-determined.
But first you need to sort out what you mean by being self-determined. If we create a sentient life form it's going to have some form of pre-programming just like we (and all others plants and animals) do. We develop according to pre-ordained rules, and have in-built instincts.
Any "life" we design that doesn't have some instincts ordained for it (preserve self, obtain nutrition when required, seek to learn, whatever is appropriate to the form it takes) is going to just sit there and do nothing. It can only be self-determined within the limits of what it's designed to seek to do.
If we decide not to give it an inbuilt morality then it won't have any, if we decide it needs some then we have to decide what it's going to be. If we decide to give it no direct rules against hurting people but design it to preserve itself and tell it it's going to be destroyed if it hurts anyone then we've still determined some aspect of its behaviour (self-preservation).
I just don't see how an entity could be self-determined without having behavioural rules in place, because an entity without any pre-set behavioural rules wouldn't determine to do anything.
Assuming, you mean, that Symantec have somehow acquired a copright over other people's URLs?
If I find that my web page is blocked I can't tell you what the URL is or if I do you can't tell anyone else? Do they have a copright over the URL to my web page even if I don't find out it's blocked, can they sue me for telling you what it is?
If he gets permission from the people who used the URLs prior to their appearing in Symantec's data, does that override any supposed copyright infringement?
Assuming that URLs are in fact copyrightable, presumably the people who originally created those URLs can sue Symantec for including them in their list anyway?
I don't understand that, you mean that no more than one person per address can be a member? no matter how many people live there?
How much of the address would they match? If I decide to apply for 20 memberships using 20 different "flat numbers" at my house's address I'm sure the letters would get to me (the post office don't care if I've divided my house internally into flats even an implausibly large number of them), how would these be blocked?
Repeat after me: Standards are GOOD. Any 3rd year engineering student will (well, *should*) tell you that...
Yes, the ones that insist on saying "some standards are good and others aren't" get shot at the end of their second year. On the face of it this may seem harsh but it's the only way we can achieve a standard 3rd year engineering student repeating only the standard opinion.
Yep, uniformity continues to be opposite to diversity. If you want diversity you don't get uniformity and vice versa.
People looking for uniformity under Linux are going to be dissapointed. As you point out, options giving them uniformity are available, so... no problem.
People who like Linux presumably like the diversity, so it would make sense (to me anyway) if they want to attract more users for them to persuade others of the merits of diversity, not try to abandon it (by erm.. shooting anyone who produces non-standard applications or what exactly?)
Not at all sure what you mean by "should" but I should think pretty much everyone does pick either gnome or kde or both or to do without either.
Why don't the project leaders of Gnome and KDE get together, pick apart one another's projects, figure out what's better about each of them and then start a revised project that incorporates the best pieces of both?
I'd guess they diagree on what's better? You might as well say "Why don't the ac users, Windows users and Unix users all agree on which systems best and stick with just one", well obviously the disagree and it's perfectly sensible of them to do so.
Yes, we'd end up with one more window manager, but hopefully that'd be the one everyone would stick with...
What's so desirable about everyone sticking with the same window manager, or horrifying about the thought that someone might come up with a new one taht a lot of people like after your little project is copleted? Why would eveyone miraculously agree on this new one when they've made different choices to one another in the past?
It's absurd right now... If a newbie gets Redhat, they use Gnome... Caldera users use KDE... That makes switch distro's harder, because there are new things to learn
In the absence of perceptible differences, why on earth would they want to switch anyway? If they make a choice to switch from one to another then presuably it's because they want something different.
Add to this that it is not technically illegal to chip, modify, or hack a DVD player to play all Region discs - but it is illegal for a store clerk to suggest to you how to do it or provide help with it.
Ermm.. what country are you talking about there? I can't think of any laws in the UK that would differentitate between a shop assistant doing that and anyone else doing it, or of any law that would prohibit it at all for that matter.
Yep, it's piracy if you define piracy that way. And if we define murder to mean "price discrimination" then the DVD cartel is guilty of murder but erm.. you think redefining words on the fly might hinder communication?
But for as long as the licences are unenforceable who cares whether they include a 'you surrender your right to your first-born' clause?
You seem to be advocating making them enforceable (thus creating the problem) in the hope of thus solving the problem (that you just created..) Hos does that help?
At the risk of stating the obvious, once you've bought the car the wheels are yours, you don't buy the car and then have to agree to a licence before you can use the wheels.
Re:Why isn't the GPL GPLed
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 1
"According to the GPL, You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
Fair point, however you would still have to read the licence file, beyond merely ascertaining that it is the GPL and that you therefore know what the terms are, in order to see the "prominent" notices.
"You couldn't call the new licence the GPL, due to trademark laws (if you could, someone could just as easily create a completely proprietary licence and call it the GPL anyway)."
I'm not at all convinced that trademarks would be useful there, there would be the potential for a prosecution for fraud if the aim was to deliberately mislead, I guess, but the problem is more likely to arise from people innocently tinkering with the licence, being able to sue them or prosecute them once the problem comes to light is not much of a solution.
"Besides, the same argument could be made about releasing any software under the GPL. You'd have to check every single line of code for viruses and trojan horses, because someone might have added in an "rm -rf/" somewhere."
This can be a problem when using different version of the software, of course, but at least you can copy a single version as often as you like once you're happy with it. You can't just copy licence terms you're happy with from one product and use them for another:)
Re:GPL applies to any type of work
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 1
Because if it was, you'd have to read every GPL licence file you received for any changes that mighthave been made, as it is you can assume that as long as the version number is the same, the wording is the same.
A GPL'd GPL could even be modified to be a completely closed source licence, which cold cause some confusion.
Even very minor wording changes could prove problematic, like inserting "not" or "no" in just the right place.
"Statements like, "President Clinton, only the second ever to be impeached, and whose character was impugned by astonishing revelations of improper and crass behavior..." are NOT what he has in mind for schoolkids to learn years from now."
Ouch, is that really the sort of thing they put in school history books in your country? I should have thought a decription of what he was accused of, how he defended himself, what was found, how that affected his ability to govern, that sort of thing, not "astonishing revelations of improper and crass behaviour" - that's value judgment for the reader not part of a history text.
The government fund it by imposing a tax (on the ability to recieve television transmissions), the proceeds of which go to the BBC. Everything "government funded" is also "funded by the population".
I find your question somewhat odd, perhaps you could clarify a few points?
1. What do you mean by a "false" dream? Perhaps you mean that it is someone else's dream rather than your own and therefore worth less?
2. Why would you want to "save" people from pursuing a dream? Are your own dreams so frightening to you, or do you just fear to fail in their pursuit? Or, again, is it that you look down on the dreams of others?
3. I guess "deluded" means people you disagree with?
4. Unless you think people are literally killing themselves in the name of free software, presumably people who've "given their lives" for this "false dream" aren't children (who have their lives ahead), or is the term "children" intended to be some strange insult?
Thanks for any additional insights you can provide.
1. Someone gives you some files including some source code.
2. You think "hmm.. I could incorporate that into my project, but wait.. there's this copyright law thing, it'd be illegal for me to do that."
3. You notice there's a file containing the licence conditions included with the code, you read the licence.
4. you realise "Ah, I can use the code, but only on condition that I release the program I use it in under this same licence".
5. You either think "sounds fair to me" and use the code or think "no way am I doing that" and do without it.
What's the trick? I think it must be far too subtle for me because I just don't get it.
If you don't read or don't understand the licence conditions, why would you be using the code? If you do read and understand the conditions, what's the problem?
You disagree with the person who said it was hidden then?
"He wants no one to own their own work."
Well, if we confine this to situations where the work is a piece of software and where ownership means the ability to restrict distribution then yes, I think that's a fair comment. I guess nobody thinks that he's trying to hide that?
"I can't recall the URL, but I read some great stuff from a BSD developer on his realization that Stallman is just a power hungry freak."
Well.. I'm glad you enjoyed yourself... not sure if you were trying to make some sort of point? You read somewhere, but you don't know where, that someone else has a low opinion of Stallman, is that it?
"The GPL is a virus."
Not really, at least it only affects those that choose to enter into the bargain - use GPL'd code and in return you have to GPL the works you derive from it.
"It is the number one reason that these other licenses keep popping up, and will continue to do so"
Which other licences? Whatever they are, why would people not need them if the GPL didn't exist, presumably their licencing needs would stay the same?
"GNU is a cult. They all follow RMS in lock step, and if you don't agree, they say that you are not enlightened. It is a software cult, fairly benign, but a cult nonetheless."
Hmmm.. not sure what you're getting at here. Care to say what you mean by a "cult" in this paragraph?
"A point made by John Walker (founder of Autodesk) in his Autodesk File (North American mirror) is that software companies are regrettably low on patents when compared to industrial or hardware companies of similar size. These patents are used defensively, in a cross-licensing scheme, if a violation is made."
What's "regrettable" about having less patents across the industry as a whole? Your suggested alternative is that all the companies spend a lot more money on registering patents, and then they all threaten to sue each other, actually sue each other, or enter into cross-licencing agreements that leave them in the same situation they are in at present. What would be so great about that? If they can all stick to their "regrettably low" level level of patents, or reduce it further, they save themselves a lot of expense and adversity.
Except, of course, that little security is applied to credit card numbers (they're given to the staff at every retail outlet where the card is used and there'd be no way of telling at what point the number was extracted) and they seem to work pretty well anyway, that's a mark in favour of non-security, not against it.
You own the copyright on your code, and can of course release it under any licence you like.
You don't own the modifications, unless the authors of those modifications choose to assign the copyright to you, but you can use them in your program because you are licenced to do so under the GPL. You can't incorporate them into a closed source package because the licence terms do not give you the right to do so.
"Definitions of theft were also defined before this type of property was in existance."
You're right that theft is one of the oldest crimes, another would be murder. Illegal copying of software isn't either, how long ago the crime was defined is irrelevant, neither crime is committed just by illegally copying software.
Coyright isn't exactly a new phenomenon either, people have been copying materials (books, music, pictures etc.) for centuries, breaches of these copyrights are not and never have been theft.
"In essence they are teh same."
No, the essence of theft (well, the actus reus anyway) is taking someone else's property. This does not occur in copying software.
"In the case of the BMW, you are paying for the cost of the materials required to build it. You are not paying for developmernt costs, costs to pay the workers, research costs, or marketing costs. When you copy software, you are basically paying for costs to 'build' the software (e.g. next to 0, since we can all copy stuff on the internet), you are not paying for development, research, or marketing. The actions have exactly teh same effect."
NO you completely misunderstand the nature of theft. Whether you leave something of value in exchange for the BMW is irrelevant, even if you leave something worth a thousand times more than the BMW you have still stolen it, UNLESS the dealer actually agreed to sell it to you. It is his property and you have taken it. It's value has nothing to do with this.
"Just because the property has become more abstract and isn't tangible, doesn't mean it is NOT property."
Sure, the property is the legal right to duplicate the software, impose licence conditions, etc. IF it was possible to illegally appropriate this right from its lawful ownere then it could be stolen, but it isn't. When you copy software the owner retains his property.
"Remeber, we left money for the BMW guy so he can build another car, so we really didn't deprive him of anything."
WRONG. You deprived him of his property i.e. the BMW. The value of this BMW or any compensation you were willing to leave is IRRELEVANT to whether this constitutes theft.
"Just because software is easier to duplicate doesn't mean it isn't the exact same thing."
But duplicating the software is NOT theft. Just like if you could make a perfect duplicate of the BMW you would not be stealing it, you might be acting illegally for example by violating patents held by BMW but you would not be committing theft.
Theft is a very straight forward easy to understand law, you should not be having this much trouble with it.
If it helps, think of it this way, try to find one person who has EVER been found guilty of theft when the act they've done is illegally copied copyright material(software, books, whatever).
"The point, though, is that for many developers, GPL source is entirely irrelevant. If you make a business decision that you cannot GPL your work - which, right or not, is a separate debate - then the GPL source having been published is useless. It's off-limits. Now, I fully understand why it's off-limits and why people want it to be so, but it seems that many people don't truly understand that this is the consequence."
But which people? This just doesn't seem to arise from the posts that you reply to, in any way that I can see. Do you mean that the other posters you reply to don't understand that people who choose not to use GPL'd code won't be able to, or do you mean that Lynx developers don't, or that I don't, or who?
For the sake of clarity, I assume you do realise that the the authors of code can also give permission to any group to use it on other terms if they so choose?
"I assure you I do not think the proprietary code developers are doing any less harm than the GPL developers. But they're not claiming any great altruism, whereas GPL coders are. That's the issue here."
All GPL coders are? The ones on the Lynx project in particular? All the ones you know personally? As a rule of thumb I suspect anyone claiming "great altruism" of themselves is an unlikely candidate to be acting out of altruistic motives, but I expect there are exceptions.
Anyway, I'll let you into a secret, it's terribly embarrassing but I'm not a True Altruist. Sometimes I help people in all sorts of ways, but I help people I like more than people I don't like, and sometimes I even watch out for myself. I know, terrible isn't it? And sometimes, when someone wants my help I consider whether what they're trying to achieve is actually something that I want to see happen, or I consider whether they're actually making things worse, or even (awful this) I consider whether they're ever willing to help me when I need it. So not being a True Altruist anyway, I'm not worried that GPL isn't the One True Licence for True Altruists. As a matter of interest, are you a True Altruist?
On the other hand, some people who want to enhance the base of code that's out there for them to play with think that the GPL is a good way of achieving this and think that that's a good thing. They might be wrong that the GPL achieves this but I doubt they care that you don't count them amongst the True Altruists of this world.
"This isn't really about the merits of the GPL versus closed commercial development, though - it's about the merits of the GPL versus other open licenses. If Lynx had been placed under a BSD-style license, it wouldn't be an issue."
Ah, but it would be an issue as I suspect you know. Because the code would now have been used as a building block for a proprietarily licensed project. As you've already said that you dislike proprietary licenses (for the same reason that you dislike the GPL) this would surely be an issue for you? Oh, or it would only be an issue if you decided that Brett thought he was being a True Altruist when he wasn't? I'm afraid I'm still a little unclear on your approach to that.
"The crucial difference here is that BSD-licensed development is promoting a generic codepool for all programmers to use in all projects, whereas GPL development is promoting a generic codepool for other GPL developers. In this respect, GPL development is essentially no different from corporate, closed development with the exception that the corporation concerned is the FSF and that anyone can choose to work for them if they're prepared to support their ideals."
Nonsense, if nothing else the individual users all have access to source code which they can modify for their own use (and never distribute under any licence if they so please, including never giving access to the FSF). In addition the average coder does not in any way answer to the FSF, if you have an employer then you have a very strange relatinship with them if you think that people working on GPL projects are effectively working for the FSF. As coders have free reign as to what they do with the code, suggesting that they're in the same position as if they were working for a corporation controlling the code is silly.
There is no requirement at all that you support FSF ideals to make use of the GPL, and I've no idea where you got this notion. Try reading writings by Linus Torvalds, by Richard Stallman, and by Eric Raymonds, they clearly have different ideals to one another. More than that, suppose you run a company providing PCs with Linux preinstalled, and you think that a great idea would be to tweak a couple of GPL programs to flash your logo on the screen. You make the changes and, as required, GPL the result; did this mean signing up to the FSFs ideals? Doesn't seem to be anything idelaistic about that to me.
"So which is truly freer?"
But that's trivially easy, the BSD licence is freer of course. And equally obviously, proprietary code that builds upon it is less free. The question is, which people is it that you think don't appreciate this?
Slashdot Mirror
Whether the "1-click" technology is either basic or obvious does not matter here. The patent was granted, regardless of whether you or I agree with it, it was.
Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, whether or not the patent was granted it is not valid if it is obvious.
But my point has little to do with the validity of the patent.
Okay....
If you can honestly tell me that you believe B&N did not see Amazon doing it and then used the same technique at their site, then there is nothing more I can argue.
They did by all appearances copy marketing / sales techniques fro Amazon. Since Amazon seems to be achieving some success with those techniques this seems like a good idea. No problem so far...
It seems relatively clear to me that what B&N did was try to copy Amazon and in doing so used a technology patented by Amazon. And that is wrong.
This is where I lose your thread.. what is it that you think is wrong? company A sets up in business, they start using marketing and sales techniques that apparently appeal to consumers and address a need in the market. Company B sees this, thinks "Good idea" and copies these techniques. This is what they're supposed to do, it's competition, it's what's supposed to happen. What is your problem? You're worried that businesses might all start adopting approaches that the consumers like?
Unless your concern is that they're breaching a patent (and you meant "wrong" as a simile for "illegal")... but you explicitly said that the validity of the patent was irrelevant to your point.. so what is your point?
I, for one, would abhor a sentience that would not be allowed to be self-determined.
But first you need to sort out what you mean by being self-determined. If we create a sentient life form it's going to have some form of pre-programming just like we (and all others plants and animals) do. We develop according to pre-ordained rules, and have in-built instincts.
Any "life" we design that doesn't have some instincts ordained for it (preserve self, obtain nutrition when required, seek to learn, whatever is appropriate to the form it takes) is going to just sit there and do nothing. It can only be self-determined within the limits of what it's designed to seek to do.
If we decide not to give it an inbuilt morality then it won't have any, if we decide it needs some then we have to decide what it's going to be. If we decide to give it no direct rules against hurting people but design it to preserve itself and tell it it's going to be destroyed if it hurts anyone then we've still determined some aspect of its behaviour (self-preservation).
I just don't see how an entity could be self-determined without having behavioural rules in place, because an entity without any pre-set behavioural rules wouldn't determine to do anything.
Assuming, you mean, that Symantec have somehow acquired a copright over other people's URLs?
If I find that my web page is blocked I can't tell you what the URL is or if I do you can't tell anyone else? Do they have a copright over the URL to my web page even if I don't find out it's blocked, can they sue me for telling you what it is?
If he gets permission from the people who used the URLs prior to their appearing in Symantec's data, does that override any supposed copyright infringement?
Assuming that URLs are in fact copyrightable, presumably the people who originally created those URLs can sue Symantec for including them in their list anyway?
I don't understand that, you mean that no more than one person per address can be a member? no matter how many people live there?
How much of the address would they match? If I decide to apply for 20 memberships using 20 different "flat numbers" at my house's address I'm sure the letters would get to me (the post office don't care if I've divided my house internally into flats even an implausibly large number of them), how would these be blocked?
Repeat after me: Standards are GOOD. Any 3rd year engineering student will (well, *should*) tell you that...
Yes, the ones that insist on saying "some standards are good and others aren't" get shot at the end of their second year. On the face of it this may seem harsh but it's the only way we can achieve a standard 3rd year engineering student repeating only the standard opinion.
Yep, uniformity continues to be opposite to diversity. If you want diversity you don't get uniformity and vice versa.
People looking for uniformity under Linux are going to be dissapointed. As you point out, options giving them uniformity are available, so... no problem.
People who like Linux presumably like the diversity, so it would make sense (to me anyway) if they want to attract more users for them to persuade others of the merits of diversity, not try to abandon it (by erm.. shooting anyone who produces non-standard applications or what exactly?)
Then pick one! And everyone else should, too.
Not at all sure what you mean by "should" but I should think pretty much everyone does pick either gnome or kde or both or to do without either.
Why don't the project leaders of Gnome and KDE get together, pick apart one another's projects, figure out what's better about each of them and then start a revised project that incorporates the best pieces of both?
I'd guess they diagree on what's better? You might as well say "Why don't the ac users, Windows users and Unix users all agree on which systems best and stick with just one", well obviously the disagree and it's perfectly sensible of them to do so.
Yes, we'd end up with one more window manager, but hopefully that'd be the one everyone would stick with...
What's so desirable about everyone sticking with the same window manager, or horrifying about the thought that someone might come up with a new one taht a lot of people like after your little project is copleted? Why would eveyone miraculously agree on this new one when they've made different choices to one another in the past?
It's absurd right now... If a newbie gets Redhat, they use Gnome... Caldera users use KDE... That makes switch distro's harder, because there are new things to learn
In the absence of perceptible differences, why on earth would they want to switch anyway? If they make a choice to switch from one to another then presuably it's because they want something different.
Add to this that it is not technically illegal to chip, modify, or hack a DVD player to play all Region discs - but it is illegal for a store clerk to suggest to you how to do it or provide help with it.
Ermm.. what country are you talking about there? I can't think of any laws in the UK that would differentitate between a shop assistant doing that and anyone else doing it, or of any law that would prohibit it at all for that matter.
Yep, it's piracy if you define piracy that way. And if we define murder to mean "price discrimination" then the DVD cartel is guilty of murder but erm.. you think redefining words on the fly might hinder communication?
But for as long as the licences are unenforceable who cares whether they include a 'you surrender your right to your first-born' clause?
You seem to be advocating making them enforceable (thus creating the problem) in the hope of thus solving the problem (that you just created..) Hos does that help?
At the risk of stating the obvious, once you've bought the car the wheels are yours, you don't buy the car and then have to agree to a licence before you can use the wheels.
"According to the GPL, You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
/" somewhere."
:)
Fair point, however you would still have to read the licence file, beyond merely ascertaining that it is the GPL and that you therefore know what the terms are, in order to see the "prominent" notices.
"You couldn't call the new licence the GPL, due to trademark laws (if you could, someone could just as easily create a completely proprietary licence and call it the GPL anyway)."
I'm not at all convinced that trademarks would be useful there, there would be the potential for a prosecution for fraud if the aim was to deliberately mislead, I guess, but the problem is more likely to arise from people innocently tinkering with the licence, being able to sue them or prosecute them once the problem comes to light is not much of a solution.
"Besides, the same argument could be made about releasing any software under the GPL. You'd have to check every single line of code for viruses and trojan horses, because someone might have added in an "rm -rf
This can be a problem when using different version of the software, of course, but at least you can copy a single version as often as you like once you're happy with it. You can't just copy licence terms you're happy with from one product and use them for another
Because if it was, you'd have to read every GPL licence file you received for any changes that mighthave been made, as it is you can assume that as long as the version number is the same, the wording is the same.
A GPL'd GPL could even be modified to be a completely closed source licence, which cold cause some confusion.
Even very minor wording changes could prove problematic, like inserting "not" or "no" in just the right place.
"Statements like, "President Clinton, only the second ever to be impeached, and whose character was impugned by astonishing revelations of improper and crass behavior..." are NOT what he has in mind for schoolkids to learn years from now."
Ouch, is that really the sort of thing they put in school history books in your country? I should have thought a decription of what he was accused of, how he defended himself, what was found, how that affected his ability to govern, that sort of thing, not "astonishing revelations of improper and crass behaviour" - that's value judgment for the reader not part of a history text.
"Companies pay big money to put up billboards especially near the ball drop on New Years eve because it get's plastered on every TV around the world."
I'm sure it doesn't get plastered on mine. What is the "ball drop on New Years eve" and why would it be shown around the world?
The government fund it by imposing a tax (on the ability to recieve television transmissions), the proceeds of which go to the BBC. Everything "government funded" is also "funded by the population".
I find your question somewhat odd, perhaps you could clarify a few points?
1. What do you mean by a "false" dream? Perhaps you mean that it is someone else's dream rather than your own and therefore worth less?
2. Why would you want to "save" people from pursuing a dream? Are your own dreams so frightening to you, or do you just fear to fail in their pursuit? Or, again, is it that you look down on the dreams of others?
3. I guess "deluded" means people you disagree with?
4. Unless you think people are literally killing themselves in the name of free software, presumably people who've "given their lives" for this "false dream" aren't children (who have their lives ahead), or is the term "children" intended to be some strange insult?
Thanks for any additional insights you can provide.
Okay, the scenario I see goes like this :
1. Someone gives you some files including some source code.
2. You think "hmm.. I could incorporate that into my project, but wait.. there's this copyright law thing, it'd be illegal for me to do that."
3. You notice there's a file containing the licence conditions included with the code, you read the licence.
4. you realise "Ah, I can use the code, but only on condition that I release the program I use it in under this same licence".
5. You either think "sounds fair to me" and use the code or think "no way am I doing that" and do without it.
What's the trick? I think it must be far too subtle for me because I just don't get it.
If you don't read or don't understand the licence conditions, why would you be using the code? If you do read and understand the conditions, what's the problem?
"Stallman's agenda is obvious."
You disagree with the person who said it was hidden then?
"He wants no one to own their own work."
Well, if we confine this to situations where the work is a piece of software and where ownership means the ability to restrict distribution then yes, I think that's a fair comment. I guess nobody thinks that he's trying to hide that?
"I can't recall the URL, but I read some great stuff from a BSD developer on his realization that Stallman is just a power hungry freak."
Well.. I'm glad you enjoyed yourself... not sure if you were trying to make some sort of point? You read somewhere, but you don't know where, that someone else has a low opinion of Stallman, is that it?
"The GPL is a virus."
Not really, at least it only affects those that choose to enter into the bargain - use GPL'd code and in return you have to GPL the works you derive from it.
"It is the number one reason that these other licenses keep popping up, and will continue to do so"
Which other licences? Whatever they are, why would people not need them if the GPL didn't exist, presumably their licencing needs would stay the same?
"GNU is a cult. They all follow RMS in lock step, and if you don't agree, they say that you are not enlightened. It is a software cult, fairly benign, but a cult nonetheless."
Hmmm.. not sure what you're getting at here. Care to say what you mean by a "cult" in this paragraph?
"A point made by John Walker (founder of Autodesk) in his Autodesk File (North American mirror) is that software companies are regrettably low on patents when compared to industrial or hardware companies of similar size. These patents are used defensively, in a cross-licensing scheme, if a violation is made."
What's "regrettable" about having less patents across the industry as a whole? Your suggested alternative is that all the companies spend a lot more money on registering patents, and then they all threaten to sue each other, actually sue each other, or enter into cross-licencing agreements that leave them in the same situation they are in at present. What would be so great about that? If they can all stick to their "regrettably low" level level of patents, or reduce it further, they save themselves a lot of expense and adversity.
Except, of course, that little security is applied to credit card numbers (they're given to the staff at every retail outlet where the card is used and there'd be no way of telling at what point the number was extracted) and they seem to work pretty well anyway, that's a mark in favour of non-security, not against it.
You own the copyright on your code, and can of course release it under any licence you like.
You don't own the modifications, unless the authors of those modifications choose to assign the copyright to you, but you can use them in your program because you are licenced to do so under the GPL. You can't incorporate them into a closed source package because the licence terms do not give you the right to do so.
"Isn't it better to die than live without a hand?"
I can't really see why, but if you've had a hand cut off and would rather die then I shouldn't think that dying would be so hard to arrange.
"Definitions of theft were also defined before this type of property was in existance."
You're right that theft is one of the oldest crimes, another would be murder. Illegal copying of software isn't either, how long ago the crime was defined is irrelevant, neither crime is committed just by illegally copying software.
Coyright isn't exactly a new phenomenon either, people have been copying materials (books, music, pictures etc.) for centuries, breaches of these copyrights are not and never have been theft.
"In essence they are teh same."
No, the essence of theft (well, the actus reus anyway) is taking someone else's property. This does not occur in copying software.
"In the case of the BMW, you are paying for the cost of the materials required to build it. You are not paying for developmernt costs, costs to pay the workers, research costs, or marketing costs. When you copy software, you are basically paying for costs to 'build' the software (e.g. next to 0, since we can all copy stuff on the internet), you are not paying for development, research, or marketing. The actions have exactly teh same effect."
NO you completely misunderstand the nature of theft. Whether you leave something of value in exchange for the BMW is irrelevant, even if you leave something worth a thousand times more than the BMW you have still stolen it, UNLESS the dealer actually agreed to sell it to you. It is his property and you have taken it. It's value has nothing to do with this.
"Just because the property has become more abstract and isn't tangible, doesn't mean it is NOT property."
Sure, the property is the legal right to duplicate the software, impose licence conditions, etc. IF it was possible to illegally appropriate this right from its lawful ownere then it could be stolen, but it isn't. When you copy software the owner retains his property.
"Remeber, we left money for the BMW guy so he can build another car, so we really didn't deprive him of anything."
WRONG. You deprived him of his property i.e. the BMW. The value of this BMW or any compensation you were willing to leave is IRRELEVANT to whether this constitutes theft.
"Just because software is easier to duplicate doesn't mean it isn't the exact same thing."
But duplicating the software is NOT theft. Just like if you could make a perfect duplicate of the BMW you would not be stealing it, you might be acting illegally for example by violating patents held by BMW but you would not be committing theft.
Theft is a very straight forward easy to understand law, you should not be having this much trouble with it.
If it helps, think of it this way, try to find one person who has EVER been found guilty of theft when the act they've done is illegally copied copyright material(software, books, whatever).
"The point, though, is that for many developers, GPL source is entirely irrelevant. If you make a business decision that you cannot GPL your work - which, right or not, is a separate debate - then the GPL source having been published is useless. It's off-limits. Now, I fully understand why it's off-limits and why people want it to be so, but it seems that many people don't truly understand that this is the consequence."
But which people? This just doesn't seem to arise from the posts that you reply to, in any way that I can see. Do you mean that the other posters you reply to don't understand that people who choose not to use GPL'd code won't be able to, or do you mean that Lynx developers don't, or that I don't, or who?
For the sake of clarity, I assume you do realise that the the authors of code can also give permission to any group to use it on other terms if they so choose?
"I assure you I do not think the proprietary code developers are doing any less harm than the GPL developers. But they're not claiming any great altruism, whereas GPL coders are. That's the issue here."
All GPL coders are? The ones on the Lynx project in particular? All the ones you know personally? As a rule of thumb I suspect anyone claiming "great altruism" of themselves is an unlikely candidate to be acting out of altruistic motives, but I expect there are exceptions.
Anyway, I'll let you into a secret, it's terribly embarrassing but I'm not a True Altruist. Sometimes I help people in all sorts of ways, but I help people I like more than people I don't like, and sometimes I even watch out for myself. I know, terrible isn't it? And sometimes, when someone wants my help I consider whether what they're trying to achieve is actually something that I want to see happen, or I consider whether they're actually making things worse, or even (awful this) I consider whether they're ever willing to help me when I need it. So not being a True Altruist anyway, I'm not worried that GPL isn't the One True Licence for True Altruists. As a matter of interest, are you a True Altruist?
On the other hand, some people who want to enhance the base of code that's out there for them to play with think that the GPL is a good way of achieving this and think that that's a good thing. They might be wrong that the GPL achieves this but I doubt they care that you don't count them amongst the True Altruists of this world.
"This isn't really about the merits of the GPL versus closed commercial development, though - it's about the merits of the GPL versus other open licenses. If Lynx had been placed under a BSD-style license, it wouldn't be an issue."
Ah, but it would be an issue as I suspect you know. Because the code would now have been used as a building block for a proprietarily licensed project. As you've already said that you dislike proprietary licenses (for the same reason that you dislike the GPL) this would surely be an issue for you? Oh, or it would only be an issue if you decided that Brett thought he was being a True Altruist when he wasn't? I'm afraid I'm still a little unclear on your approach to that.
"The crucial difference here is that BSD-licensed development is promoting a generic codepool for all programmers to use in all projects, whereas GPL development is promoting a generic codepool for other GPL developers. In this respect, GPL development is essentially no different from corporate, closed development with the exception that the corporation concerned is the FSF and that anyone can choose to work for them if they're prepared to support their ideals."
Nonsense, if nothing else the individual users all have access to source code which they can modify for their own use (and never distribute under any licence if they so please, including never giving access to the FSF). In addition the average coder does not in any way answer to the FSF, if you have an employer then you have a very strange relatinship with them if you think that people working on GPL projects are effectively working for the FSF. As coders have free reign as to what they do with the code, suggesting that they're in the same position as if they were working for a corporation controlling the code is silly.
There is no requirement at all that you support FSF ideals to make use of the GPL, and I've no idea where you got this notion. Try reading writings by Linus Torvalds, by Richard Stallman, and by Eric Raymonds, they clearly have different ideals to one another. More than that, suppose you run a company providing PCs with Linux preinstalled, and you think that a great idea would be to tweak a couple of GPL programs to flash your logo on the screen. You make the changes and, as required, GPL the result; did this mean signing up to the FSFs ideals? Doesn't seem to be anything idelaistic about that to me.
"So which is truly freer?"
But that's trivially easy, the BSD licence is freer of course. And equally obviously, proprietary code that builds upon it is less free. The question is, which people is it that you think don't appreciate this?