No, no, no, you cannot relicence other people's software! If you could relicence BSD software as GPL, you would equally be able to take Microsoft Word and relicence it as BSD.
Compatibility is *exactly* that: software under one licence can be brought together with software from another. Yes, you need to obey both licences when you have such a derivative. No, this doesn't mean any software is relicensed.
If you still don't understand, tell me this: by what right may I take a piece of BSD software, and relicence it, given I am not the owner of the copyright? What legal right do I have to do that?
I'm sorry, but you're not right here either. The GPL can not effect what licence choice you make for your own creations. The only thing it can specify is that if you are deriving from a piece of GPL software, you must use a copyright-compatible licence. Such as BSD...
BSD allows you to redistribute the software in binary form only. I don't really see what your point is - both IBM and Apple are complying with the licence when they release; it would be breach of copyright otherwise.
Look at it the other way: what is it that would give a BSD distributor the ability to break the licence on a piece of software they didn't write?
Can I take code released under the GPL and re-release it using/any/ other license, including the APL? No.
And you're saying you can do this with the BSD licence because you can "re-release BSD code, comply with the terms of the BSD"? Releasing code under the terms of it's licence is not the same as releasing it under the terms of a different licence. The latter is what you cannot do.
If you want to prove your point, show me an example of how you can release BSD code under a licence that does not comply with the requirements of the BSD licence. I think you'll find you can't.
Where on earth did you hear this? Of course you cannot relicence the code, you're not the copyright holder. Only the copyright holder can relicence code. Yes, BSD has fewer requirements than the GPL, NO, that absolutely does not mean you can change it to another licence if you don't like the terms of it.
So... is there any copyright theft you want to own up to now?
Of course, you can include GPL code in a BSD project. The licences are compatible. What you may not do is re-licence that GPL code as BSD. But - and this is what most people fail to understand - when you include BSD code into a GPL project, that BSD code isn't relicensed as GPL code.
The situation is exactly the same - if you have compatible licences, you can use that software together. I don't see the point there at all, I'm afraid.
The Free Software Foundation has the "four freedoms" by which you can judge the freedom of something, the OSI have their (derived) "open source definition".
The GPL is merely the embodiment of these values, but not the only one by any means.
"Pseudo-clever-licensing" keeps programmers out of court, dude. Apache's patent termination clause will make patent litigators think twice before bringing frivilous lawsuits. Like it or not, licences are incredibly important, and it's good to see Apache put as much effort into it as the FSF have.
For what it's worth, the official FSF response to the ASL2.0 licence is here, by Eben Moglen. Then Apache changed the licence under review. It's possible the FSF webmasters have not realised this, and that the comment applies only to the licence Eben reviewed (which was not the final ASL2.0). So, we could actually be arguing over nothing.
Um, by definition, any licence that is compatible with the GPL is an equal partner in the composition, so therefore the GPL must be compatible with that licence.
Not that the facts might get in the way of your argument, of course.
In a recent interview, Jody said a W32 port was the priority. I think that could actually start pushing it over the top and make some real headway, I can see why it would be a priority.
"FSF notes that section 5 is the only element of ASL 2.0 that is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License. FSF continues to believe that the achievement of compatibility between ASL and GPL would be of enormous benefit [...] FSF will make efforts, in the development, discussion, and adoption of GPL 3 to further the process of convergence, by carefully considering the Apache Foundation's approach to the patent defense problem."
As in, yes they are still incompatible, yes they are becoming less incompatible, yes the FSF is willing to to help make them compatible thanks to the current fine efforts of the Apache Foundation.
"The machine also will have about 256 megabytes of dynamic random access memory. But Microsoft will upgrade that to 512 gigabytes if Sony puts in more."
No-one cares what format the serial number is in, except those who have written software that relies on the current format (in disobedience of the RFCs...)
A serial number is just a 32-bit number, and is used to see if a domain has been updated. The specs. do not say anywhere that it should be in a specific format.
No you don't. Go get the IE6 Bogtrotter edition (the one with the anti-Eolas tech). That gives you a list of all the dlls you need from the Windows system to run IE independently.
You can then setup every version of IE you can lay your hands on as standalone apps in different folders. As any fule kno.
The point of having a new API is you can have a number of implementations that target it - the frob thing is just a dev showing off.
The problem previously wasn't that people weren't able to code a nice new file selector - that's the easy part - but that the API wasn't sufficiently flexible to get enough information from the app to know what files it wanted.
I imagine this one is nice and flexible, so people will be able to code whatever cool fileselector they like and it will just slot it. There's a lot to be said for UI evolution...
"PGI is a multi-architecture graphical installer creation system for Debian GNU/Linux" -- from the PGI homepage, http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/
Debian appears to be wanting a completely abstract installer using the debconf system (where code knows how to ask questions and the ui knows how to show the question to the user). Personally, I can't see how that will ever be easy to use - for example, how do you abstractly ask the question 'How should the disk be partitioned?' uniformly across text/gui?
An abstract, hardware independent installer is probably a pipe dream, I don't even see why it could be considered desirable except for some implausible code maintainence issue. Different archs are different archs; the installer is always going to need to tailor itself to the arch for the best user experience.
I have an NForce2 based motherboard. As far as I know, the NFarce is a proprietary chipset. Under Linux 2.6, I can get the sound working, but that's it. I got myself an ATi card for accelerated graphics using a free software driver, and put a Intel eepro100 type network card for networking.
I would love to take out the network card personally, but as far as I know there is no free driver for it. Is this person working on porting the closed-source driver?
You missed the colouring. Look at the colours of the characters (red and black) - that indicates what was a copy (although this has been done manually, not via a tool - hence they missed a copied ' */' on the first image;)
Red code is the stuff that is copied, and black (if I'm right) is Linux code not in SCO. So, the second image just shows a cast has been added. I guess the 'greeked' bit is SCO code not in Linux:o)
So, they're actually saying specifically what was being copied. They're just claiming a whole lot.
That's not the case. The colour of the text indicates which version it was in; it's a coloured diff. The second image shows that just one things has changed (the cast in black).
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no, you cannot relicence other people's software! If you could relicence BSD software as GPL, you would equally be able to take Microsoft Word and relicence it as BSD.
Compatibility is *exactly* that: software under one licence can be brought together with software from another. Yes, you need to obey both licences when you have such a derivative. No, this doesn't mean any software is relicensed.
If you still don't understand, tell me this: by what right may I take a piece of BSD software, and relicence it, given I am not the owner of the copyright? What legal right do I have to do that?
I'm sorry, but you're not right here either. The GPL can not effect what licence choice you make for your own creations. The only thing it can specify is that if you are deriving from a piece of GPL software, you must use a copyright-compatible licence. Such as BSD...
BSD allows you to redistribute the software in binary form only. I don't really see what your point is - both IBM and Apple are complying with the licence when they release; it would be breach of copyright otherwise.
Look at it the other way: what is it that would give a BSD distributor the ability to break the licence on a piece of software they didn't write?
Nope, you've still not named one. You said:
And you're saying you can do this with the BSD licence because you can "re-release BSD code, comply with the terms of the BSD"? Releasing code under the terms of it's licence is not the same as releasing it under the terms of a different licence. The latter is what you cannot do.
If you want to prove your point, show me an example of how you can release BSD code under a licence that does not comply with the requirements of the BSD licence. I think you'll find you can't.
Where on earth did you hear this? Of course you cannot relicence the code, you're not the copyright holder. Only the copyright holder can relicence code. Yes, BSD has fewer requirements than the GPL, NO, that absolutely does not mean you can change it to another licence if you don't like the terms of it.
So... is there any copyright theft you want to own up to now?
Yeah, that's right.. name a licence which does allow that. Oh, you can't? Never mind.
You cannot take code under X licence and release it under Y.
(Fill in the licence).
Seriously, I don't think you understand how licences work.
Of course, you can include GPL code in a BSD project. The licences are compatible. What you may not do is re-licence that GPL code as BSD. But - and this is what most people fail to understand - when you include BSD code into a GPL project, that BSD code isn't relicensed as GPL code.
The situation is exactly the same - if you have compatible licences, you can use that software together. I don't see the point there at all, I'm afraid.
The Free Software Foundation has the "four freedoms" by which you can judge the freedom of something, the OSI have their (derived) "open source definition".
The GPL is merely the embodiment of these values, but not the only one by any means.
"Pseudo-clever-licensing" keeps programmers out of court, dude. Apache's patent termination clause will make patent litigators think twice before bringing frivilous lawsuits. Like it or not, licences are incredibly important, and it's good to see Apache put as much effort into it as the FSF have.
For what it's worth, the official FSF response to the ASL2.0 licence is here, by Eben Moglen. Then Apache changed the licence under review. It's possible the FSF webmasters have not realised this, and that the comment applies only to the licence Eben reviewed (which was not the final ASL2.0). So, we could actually be arguing over nothing.
Um, by definition, any licence that is compatible with the GPL is an equal partner in the composition, so therefore the GPL must be compatible with that licence.
Not that the facts might get in the way of your argument, of course.
In a recent interview, Jody said a W32 port was the priority. I think that could actually start pushing it over the top and make some real headway, I can see why it would be a priority.
The Community should write Knuth's Art of Computer Programming? The series people have enough trouble *reading*?
This is perhaps the finest troll of all time.
Article summary is nothing to do with this.
If you read Eben's message:
"FSF notes that section 5 is the only element of ASL 2.0 that is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License. FSF continues to believe that the achievement of compatibility between ASL and GPL would be of enormous benefit [...] FSF will make efforts, in the development, discussion, and adoption of GPL 3 to further the process of convergence, by carefully considering the Apache Foundation's approach to the patent defense problem."
As in, yes they are still incompatible, yes they are becoming less incompatible, yes the FSF is willing to to help make them compatible thanks to the current fine efforts of the Apache Foundation.
Why are people beating on the FSF for this?
"The machine also will have about 256 megabytes of dynamic random access memory. But Microsoft will upgrade that to 512 gigabytes if Sony puts in more."
That's a winning tactic.
No-one cares what format the serial number is in, except those who have written software that relies on the current format (in disobedience of the RFCs...)
A serial number is just a 32-bit number, and is used to see if a domain has been updated. The specs. do not say anywhere that it should be in a specific format.
Did nobody else realise that the actual language/technology this story is talking about is missing?
Is this some attempt to make people actually read the article, by providing a vacuous, content-free prescis?
No you don't. Go get the IE6 Bogtrotter edition (the one with the anti-Eolas tech). That gives you a list of all the dlls you need from the Windows system to run IE independently.
You can then setup every version of IE you can lay your hands on as standalone apps in different folders. As any fule kno.
The point of having a new API is you can have a number of implementations that target it - the frob thing is just a dev showing off.
The problem previously wasn't that people weren't able to code a nice new file selector - that's the easy part - but that the API wasn't sufficiently flexible to get enough information from the app to know what files it wanted.
I imagine this one is nice and flexible, so people will be able to code whatever cool fileselector they like and it will just slot it. There's a lot to be said for UI evolution...
"PGI is a multi-architecture graphical installer creation system for Debian GNU/Linux" -- from the PGI homepage, http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/
Debian appears to be wanting a completely abstract installer using the debconf system (where code knows how to ask questions and the ui knows how to show the question to the user). Personally, I can't see how that will ever be easy to use - for example, how do you abstractly ask the question 'How should the disk be partitioned?' uniformly across text/gui?
An abstract, hardware independent installer is probably a pipe dream, I don't even see why it could be considered desirable except for some implausible code maintainence issue. Different archs are different archs; the installer is always going to need to tailor itself to the arch for the best user experience.
FFS. This is happening with _every_ book review.
Will the Editors wise up and BAN AFFILIATE LINKS?
I have an NForce2 based motherboard. As far as I know, the NFarce is a proprietary chipset. Under Linux 2.6, I can get the sound working, but that's it. I got myself an ATi card for accelerated graphics using a free software driver, and put a Intel eepro100 type network card for networking.
I would love to take out the network card personally, but as far as I know there is no free driver for it. Is this person working on porting the closed-source driver?
Pretty Hot Babe.
It's a cute name for your manager.
You missed the colouring. Look at the colours of the characters (red and black) - that indicates what was a copy (although this has been done manually, not via a tool - hence they missed a copied ' */' on the first image ;)
:o)
Red code is the stuff that is copied, and black (if I'm right) is Linux code not in SCO. So, the second image just shows a cast has been added. I guess the 'greeked' bit is SCO code not in Linux
So, they're actually saying specifically what was being copied. They're just claiming a whole lot.
That's not the case. The colour of the text indicates which version it was in; it's a coloured diff. The second image shows that just one things has changed (the cast in black).