It seems you think we should be willing to give up privacy for convenience.
To that end, please publish your home address, all phone numbers you can be reached at, your bank account balance, all credit cards you have and their limits, your Social Security number, all of the websites you've visited over the past 9 days, and everything you've purchased using anything but cash in the last 2 years. Please be sure to provide timely updates to the above information, as well as any additional information I request, so I can conveniently ask you important questions and inform you of exciting offers on a regular basis.
Please do this willingly, so I don't have to go running around, collecting the information covertly using cookies, purchased databases, "tracking" software, and other data-mining techniques. It's so much easier providing for your convenience when all the information I might need is at my fingertips, whether you really like it or not. After all, we have no privacy, and we should get over it, right? Or does that not apply to you?
Concentrate on making a small fast browser! Not mail/news/irc/aim/shopping.
And when it lacks mail/news/irc (aim and shopping are Nutscrape/AOHell addons), people bitch and complain that it doesn't have all the functionality of IE (aside from the IRC, which isn't something the entire devteam is sweating over), so why should they use it, especially if it takes another year or so to get those functions in? If you want pure browsing, I point thee to Galeon, Skipstone, or K-Meleon.
I understand your confusion, so hope this clears things up a bit...
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
A bare-bones tarball. Untar and enjoy.
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-sea.tar.gz
I'm probably wrong about this, but I think this version includes Talkback for automatic crash reporting. Either that, or it includes an installer along with the above tarball.
mozilla-gcc295-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
Built with the gcc 2.95 compiler (then wtf are the other builds using???), it seems to produce a slightly smaller build. Perhaps the tarball is just compressed better.
The embed* builds include just the embedded versions of Gecko, for use with Gecko-embedded projects like Galeon, Skipstone, K-Meleon, etc. At least, that's the theory; most of those projects seem to prefer the users just install full Mozilla anyway. Still, I can't wait for the embedded projects to start packaging Gecko-embed along with their own code, instead of requiring multiple downloads.
Nice modifications to the comment. I specifically ignored w3m, because last time I used it, I thought it was ass. I suppose I should try it again, though.
Since I was specifically referring to Linux users who bemoan a lack of "good" (re: IE) browsers, I also ignored K-Meleon, though that's a good example of Gecko's cross-platform advantage.
I appreciate the sentiment, though I'm a bit perturbed by your lack of originality. Looking at it another way...were my words that good?:)
2. People *assumed* the license meant what they wanted it to mean.
No, they assumed, naturally, that it meant the established meaning of the wording that he copied.
I don't recall seeing the word "modify", or any form of said word, in the original license, do you?
"Established meaning" might apply to GPL, BSD, and other widely-used licenses. This was Darren's own license for IPfilter.
3. He clarifies the license (the distribution policies of HIS software).
He changed it, adding restrictions that were not stated, and that therefore did not exist originally in the license,
He didn't specifically allow or deny modification rights, meaning the final authority on the subject would be the copyright holder...which is Darren. Ambiguous, yes, but lack of mention does not automatically mean you get that particular right.
and that therefore do not apply to the distributions before those restrictions were added (this is perfectly valid as it applies to the software distributed with the new releases, of course).
Not in Darren's interpretation, and since, again, there is nothing in his license preventing retroactive application of clarifications or changes (and Darren certainly sees this as a clarification, since he never specifically allowed modifications), it applies.
4. People complain they cant do things they ASSUMED were okay.
No, people are complaining that they can't do things that the license absolutely did not forbid before,
And absolutely did not allow. Once again, authority over unmentioned aspects reverts to the copyright holder - in short, Darren. Had someone asked earlier, they would have received the same answer. Instead, many assumed.
and which are a perfectly normal part of the "use" of the software source code.
"Use" can just as easily mean simple reading and compilation. Modification is explicitly allowed by other open source licenses.
In fact, that is a far superior solution, because it will prevent him from waiting until the competing software is complete, and then calling it illegal because of further "accidently left out" clauses forbidding reverse engineering the software and so forth and so on,
No sense doing that, as the source code is available for viewing and compilation, just not modification. In any event, rights not specifically granted by the copyright holder in a license revert to the copyright holder, to dole out as he or she sees fit.
and oh, that nondisclosure note he sort of forgot again to put into his "open" source, but which conveniently added just before the latest lawsuit he filed...
Non-disclosure would need to be specifically mentioned in this case, since he allows the source to be viewed, compiled, and outside of certain test releases distributed. An NDA would be a restriction on top of the previous rights he specifically granted to others, and would have to be specifically mentioned. Modification rights were never specifically dealt with.
I would think modifications for personal use would considered fair use.
Possibly. You would have to ask a lawyer or Darren for the final word on that. That's another issue the license does not address, and someone should probably ask him about that. He is perfectly within his rights to restrict modification of the source even for personal use; I believe this is what MS plans with its "Shared Source" initiative, look-but-don't-touch code.
Darren is distributing it in _source_ format! No, it's not "open source" in the GPL fashion, but it's not closed source in the Microsoft fashion either.
It's also not open source in the BSD fashion, which is more important in this case, since ipf is used by default in at least one *BSD implementation, and is available for others. This is really closer to MS "Shared Source." To that end, I point out the following:
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given
* to the original author and the contributors.
* Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted
* without the author's prior consent.
The complete inability to modify the source or use it in a derivative work, at all, goes against Open Source licenses, which generally provide modification and use rights without restriction. This includes the GPL, the BSD, Apache (you have to rename your derivative works, but beyond that you can still play with the source), X11, etc.
This presents real problems for users of IPFilter, especially the OpenBSD crew, which uses ipf by default, and is apparently part of the reason Reed made this clarification. I don't see Darren being evil with refusing permission for BSD projects using the code, but it's still a restriction that generally doesn't appear in Open Source licenses.
Whether you call it a "clarification" or not, the changes are changes and don't apply to the original license terms.
Unless the "changes" relate to something not specifically dealt with in the original license.
"provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors" is a fairly well understood phrase in the open software world in which Darren was working, and what it means has been fairly established.
I notice that you failed to quote the preceding
words..."Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted". Note that "modification" is not explicitly mentioned, and hence relies on the copyright holder's wishes, whatever they may be; you cannot just take advantage of a loophole or particular omission and run. There is no restriction in Reed's particular license preventing retroactive application of new clauses, so even if this "clarification" is a change from the previous license, there is nothing preventing Darren from doing this.
It sucks, but there you have it. Lesson learned; read the licenses for software you intend to utilize.
So, it's OpenSource in that I can obtain, edit and USE the source in a manner it was originally fashioned.
Actually, you can't edit the source; Reed's clarification specifically denies modification privileges without his permission. Although I don't see him being miserly with simple requests from free/OSS software authors, you still don't have any rights to edit the source under his license. This is definitely more restrictive than the GPL, and far, far more restrictive than BSD. Don't confuse "legally comfortable" with "less restrictive."
IIRC the actual license cannot be changed for those releases which you received under a different license except this is stated. So a fork will appear. (Or maybe more: OpenIPF, NetIPF, FreeIPF...;-)
According to Darren, the modification restriction is only a clarification of the original license, and applies retroactively. He intended the restriction to apply from day one, but didn't explicitly mention it in the license. He could be right, he could the wrong; the ambiguity in language calls this into question. The lesson; read the licenses on software you intend to use, so you aren't taken by surprise by situations like this.
Yes, the -submitter- failed to mention or discover that Reed only meant the redistribution restriction to apply to certain test releases. However, the restrictions on modification apply to -all- releases, past and future.
For another thing, this isn't panic; this deals with legitimate license questions, and raises issues of using non-free-licensed code in free/open-source software. IPFilter's license does not allow any modification without the author's permission; although I don't imagine Reed being evil over modifications being made for the *BSDs, it still goes against some of the spirit of OSS, and it calls into question how lax software maintainers should be about the licenses they allow into their software, especially when a clarification like this reveals restrictions that weren't explicitly mentioned previously, but are assumed to apply retroactively.
I can forsee a code license audit coming soon after this incident.
So tommorow Linus could take the Linux kernel along with all the changes others have contributed to it and start selling it without releasing the source? Isn't this the exact opposite to what the GPL is for?
Yep. But he can't take back any already-released source. Thus, an open fork could be immediately started. This is part of the reason for the restrictions on revoking individuals' licenses on already-distributed software; once the GPL is applied to a piece of code, that particular piece of code is open forever, even if all future revisions are kept closed. Nothing can stop someone from taking that last open piece of code and improving it forever.
These are not contradictory
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 4
Question 1:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Answer: Yes
And anyone can do this; otherwise, the more commercially-oriented Linux distributors would be s-c-r-e-w-e-d. I can sell, say, GNU tar and some related utilities to my bud Roger for $10, with the source.
Question 2:
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
Answer: No
In short, if I give a copy of GNU tar to Roger, the FSF can't go after Roger for money, especially if I made certain modifications to GNU tar that I didn't hand back to the FSF, but I did make available under the terms of the GPL should the FSF care enough to incorporate them on their own. Once again, the concept behind the GPL is to promote and enforce the availability of the code to users, forever. Allowing the copyright holder to run around to every user of the software, even those who received the software from a completely different source, would go a long way to closing code back up by attaching financial requirements to all users of the software, not to mention a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone involved.
It is simply silly to allow people to sell software but prohibit them from trying to enforce payment for that software. However you look at it simply doesn't make sense.
You're looking at this from a purely commercial perspective. A company may wish to sell a GPL'd piece of software they wrote, and include a value-add to encourage people to get the software from them - exclusive on-site tech support, fridge magnets, bonus copies of proprietary software, something, anything. The developer, individual or company, may wish to make some money where they can, but still make it possible for users to spread and improve the software. And again, remember that the GPL is written with the primary intent of keeping source code available at all times, not with helping create the next Cisco or Microsoft. Not everyone's driven purely by the desire to make a buck at any cost:)
this merely says that if my program uses/extends gpl code, and also has legitimate non-gpl functionality (menu bar/tool bar/quit button don't qualify as legitimate functionality), then i don't have to release the code of my non gpl using program. i do however HAVE to release the sections of my code that use the gpl code.
Wrongo, boyo.
If you use GPL'd code in your application, and that code gets compiled into a binary or group of binaries that rely on each other to work, the entire code of that app must be GPL'd. This is the "viral" clause that the more virulent anti-GPLers point to as a reason not to use it.
Let's say you have five source files going into a single executable. Two of those files include chunks of GPL'd code from, say, parted (just a shot in the dark). Since identifiable sections of the work are derived from GPL code, the derived work must be distributed under the GPL.
The LGPL might let you get away with that little trick, but not the GPL. The FSF recognized this issue and came up with the LGPL as a less-restrictive alternative.
.
When I create a binary and use system calls, I am dynamically linking to the kernel in exactly the same sense as I am linking to a dynamic library when I make a call to a function in that library.
From the Linux 2.4 COPYING file:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
It just crossed my mind that I have the printed source to DeCSS somewhere in this disaster of a room.
Picture it. Among the posters for music, movies and dance parties, there's a section of nothing but sheets of 8x11 paper with source code on page after page, with a single word above it in huge Impact-font letters...
I was just discussing the idea of a public writing slate over on irc.indymedia.org today. Specifically, I've been mulling over locating a large piece of white paper and pasting it up along one of the construction barriers in downtown Toronto, with some markers and an invitation to express oneself. I figure with the loads of ads for CDs, movies, dance parties, restaurants and future fucked dot.coms, why not give the people who walk by them a chance to say something of their own?
NOW magazine once tried a similar concept for an ad campaign (third item down). Large blank ads with the slogan "Speak your mind" and pens were put up in subway stations throughout Toronto, the idea being people could express themselves. The transit authority ordered the ads removed, but it was worth a shot.
We need more community forums in the community, not just on a server in some far-off state where only those "in-the-know" are aware of them.
You're right; there is no official language for the US. I didn't make that completely clear in my post. There have been rumblings of making English the official language, but they're usually shot down rather fast.
1) Environmentalists using privacy sites to recruit children? Yeah, wouldn't want out kids to be politically active, they need to be consuming/producing machines that only vote for the Parties, not some fringe group. Won't someone please think of the children? This is America after all, can't have anything other than Mom, the Flag, and Apple Pie in kids' minds. Thought is corruption. Ignorance is strength.
Slightly miffed ranting aside, unless the good Congressman is privy to information no one else has, using the "protect the children" gambit is akin to busting out the race card; a last-resort measure that has been abused to the point where no one takes it seriously anymore. Perhaps he's more concerned about children developing political awareness earlier than voting age, before the Republicrats can program them to vote only for the Big Two, or they're Throwing Their Votes Away, like it's a horse race or something.
2) Michael, you do realize other languages exist in the US, right? They may not be official, but I didn't realize there was some law preventing elected officials from putting any language other than American -- excuse me, English, on their page, even when the rep's constituents speak something other than English.
If you want an English translation, perhaps you could e-mail the good man's website maintainers about providing an English translation? Is that so hard, or is it easier to make thoughtless comments on your soapbox?
*exhale*
Call it what it really is.
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 2
'K folks, lets not allow Microsoft to perpretrate another Big Lie and get away with it. The term "Shared Source" is nothing more than a smokescreen. Call it what it is, "poison source". The source will be no more "shared" than, say, the demolition plans for Arthur Dent's house. You won't be able to use the code you see for yourself. You won't be able to compile it. You'll be able to look at it and perhaps suggest "improvements." Hell, MS might be magnanimous enough to let you, Mr. Independent Developer, write patches - but don't even try to distribute them without MS' approval, because that would mean others might try to - *gasp* - compile MS' proprietary, "shared" code!
Why "poison source"? Quite frankly, I think "Shared source" might have a more dangerous viral aspect than some people claim of the GPL. Do you really think a developer will ever be allowed to work on an open-source project again, never mind a GPL one, after agreeing with MS' terms for looking at their source? If they do within at least eighteen months (what I believe current NDAs from MS are written for), you can bet MS will immediately launch legal action to have that project shut down due to "potential" copyright infringement. In this case, the virus doesn't even come from using the code, but just by looking at it.
Hey, maybe MS will be nice and not force developers to sign an NDA and a no-compete in order to look over the code. However, MS has given me no reason to trust them before, and they certainly haven't done anything recently to get me to trust them now.
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 2
Anyway, now Microsoft have gone "open source" do we actually need Linux any more ? I mean, sure Windoze costs $$S, but then so does Red$Hat these days...
True. On the other hand, I am a Red Hat 7 user that, despite many, many attempts by the worms, hasn't been infected because I keep up with patches and updates.
It's rather sad to see a worm do the work for clueless sysadmins. I'm not a sysadmin in the least, yet somehow I do a fairly decent job keeping my DeadRat 7 box updated and locked down as much as I can.
A while back, I noticed a port 111 scan from what appeared to be a company's mailserver, setting off "worm" alarms in my head. Though I normally ignore such things, I was in a rather giving mood, and decided to alert the company of their potentially compromised box. Several bounces and lack of replies later, I gave up. The company just didn't seem interested in making it possible to report potential security holes or server problems - no addresses on their website, several possible leads gathered through bounces failed, and the whois lookup revealed a Hotmail address for the technical contact. I wonder how many other companies are as difficult to warn, and may not even care that their boxes are insecure.
Maybe I just don't understand how hard it is to be a sysadmin, but can it be that difficult to at least glance at your operating system vendor's updates site once a week to check for patches and warnings? Is it that hard to do a simple system lockdown after the initial install and reopen services as necessary? Or am I just clueless?
<Blatant flame>
Worms like this wouldn't exist or be news if more sysadmins would do their job instead of playing Quake, looking at pr0n, or IRC'ing all day...
</Blatant flame>
Sorry if I insulted anyone with that short rant, just thoroughly unimpressed by the number of port 111 scans I see coming from what should be very carefully watched boxes all over.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Mr. McNealy:
It seems you think we should be willing to give up privacy for convenience.
To that end, please publish your home address, all phone numbers you can be reached at, your bank account balance, all credit cards you have and their limits, your Social Security number, all of the websites you've visited over the past 9 days, and everything you've purchased using anything but cash in the last 2 years. Please be sure to provide timely updates to the above information, as well as any additional information I request, so I can conveniently ask you important questions and inform you of exciting offers on a regular basis.
Please do this willingly, so I don't have to go running around, collecting the information covertly using cookies, purchased databases, "tracking" software, and other data-mining techniques. It's so much easier providing for your convenience when all the information I might need is at my fingertips, whether you really like it or not. After all, we have no privacy, and we should get over it, right? Or does that not apply to you?
That's the word I was looking for. Merci.
This is the proper link to my LinuxToday post. I blew it the first time.
Concentrate on making a small fast browser! Not mail/news/irc/aim/shopping.
And when it lacks mail/news/irc (aim and shopping are Nutscrape/AOHell addons), people bitch and complain that it doesn't have all the functionality of IE (aside from the IRC, which isn't something the entire devteam is sweating over), so why should they use it, especially if it takes another year or so to get those functions in? If you want pure browsing, I point thee to Galeon, Skipstone, or K-Meleon.
Works fine from here.
I understand your confusion, so hope this clears things up a bit...
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
A bare-bones tarball. Untar and enjoy.
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-sea.tar.gz
I'm probably wrong about this, but I think this version includes Talkback for automatic crash reporting. Either that, or it includes an installer along with the above tarball.
mozilla-gcc295-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
Built with the gcc 2.95 compiler (then wtf are the other builds using???), it seems to produce a slightly smaller build. Perhaps the tarball is just compressed better.
The embed* builds include just the embedded versions of Gecko, for use with Gecko-embedded projects like Galeon, Skipstone, K-Meleon, etc. At least, that's the theory; most of those projects seem to prefer the users just install full Mozilla anyway. Still, I can't wait for the embedded projects to start packaging Gecko-embed along with their own code, instead of requiring multiple downloads.
Hi.
I happen to be Mark Bialkowski, the guy who made a very similar comment to LinuxToday. You don't read LT, do you?
Nice modifications to the comment. I specifically ignored w3m, because last time I used it, I thought it was ass. I suppose I should try it again, though.
Since I was specifically referring to Linux users who bemoan a lack of "good" (re: IE) browsers, I also ignored K-Meleon, though that's a good example of Gecko's cross-platform advantage.
I appreciate the sentiment, though I'm a bit perturbed by your lack of originality. Looking at it another way...were my words that good?:)
2. People *assumed* the license meant what they wanted it to mean.
No, they assumed, naturally, that it meant the established meaning of the wording that he copied.
I don't recall seeing the word "modify", or any form of said word, in the original license, do you?
"Established meaning" might apply to GPL, BSD, and other widely-used licenses. This was Darren's own license for IPfilter.
3. He clarifies the license (the distribution policies of HIS software).
He changed it, adding restrictions that were not stated, and that therefore did not exist originally in the license,
He didn't specifically allow or deny modification rights, meaning the final authority on the subject would be the copyright holder...which is Darren. Ambiguous, yes, but lack of mention does not automatically mean you get that particular right.
and that therefore do not apply to the distributions before those restrictions were added (this is perfectly valid as it applies to the software distributed with the new releases, of course).
Not in Darren's interpretation, and since, again, there is nothing in his license preventing retroactive application of clarifications or changes (and Darren certainly sees this as a clarification, since he never specifically allowed modifications), it applies.
4. People complain they cant do things they ASSUMED were okay.
No, people are complaining that they can't do things that the license absolutely did not forbid before,
And absolutely did not allow. Once again, authority over unmentioned aspects reverts to the copyright holder - in short, Darren. Had someone asked earlier, they would have received the same answer. Instead, many assumed.
and which are a perfectly normal part of the "use" of the software source code.
"Use" can just as easily mean simple reading and compilation. Modification is explicitly allowed by other open source licenses.
In fact, that is a far superior solution, because it will prevent him from waiting until the competing software is complete, and then calling it illegal because of further "accidently left out" clauses forbidding reverse engineering the software and so forth and so on,
No sense doing that, as the source code is available for viewing and compilation, just not modification. In any event, rights not specifically granted by the copyright holder in a license revert to the copyright holder, to dole out as he or she sees fit.
and oh, that nondisclosure note he sort of forgot again to put into his "open" source, but which conveniently added just before the latest lawsuit he filed...
Non-disclosure would need to be specifically mentioned in this case, since he allows the source to be viewed, compiled, and outside of certain test releases distributed. An NDA would be a restriction on top of the previous rights he specifically granted to others, and would have to be specifically mentioned. Modification rights were never specifically dealt with.
I would think modifications for personal use would considered fair use.
Possibly. You would have to ask a lawyer or Darren for the final word on that. That's another issue the license does not address, and someone should probably ask him about that. He is perfectly within his rights to restrict modification of the source even for personal use; I believe this is what MS plans with its "Shared Source" initiative, look-but-don't-touch code.
It's also not open source in the BSD fashion, which is more important in this case, since ipf is used by default in at least one *BSD implementation, and is available for others. This is really closer to MS "Shared Source." To that end, I point out the following:
The complete inability to modify the source or use it in a derivative work, at all, goes against Open Source licenses, which generally provide modification and use rights without restriction. This includes the GPL, the BSD, Apache (you have to rename your derivative works, but beyond that you can still play with the source), X11, etc.
This presents real problems for users of IPFilter, especially the OpenBSD crew, which uses ipf by default, and is apparently part of the reason Reed made this clarification. I don't see Darren being evil with refusing permission for BSD projects using the code, but it's still a restriction that generally doesn't appear in Open Source licenses.
Whether you call it a "clarification" or not, the changes are changes and don't apply to the original license terms.
Unless the "changes" relate to something not specifically dealt with in the original license.
"provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors" is a fairly well understood phrase in the open software world in which Darren was working, and what it means has been fairly established.
I notice that you failed to quote the preceding
words..."Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted". Note that "modification" is not explicitly mentioned, and hence relies on the copyright holder's wishes, whatever they may be; you cannot just take advantage of a loophole or particular omission and run. There is no restriction in Reed's particular license preventing retroactive application of new clauses, so even if this "clarification" is a change from the previous license, there is nothing preventing Darren from doing this.
It sucks, but there you have it. Lesson learned; read the licenses for software you intend to utilize.
So, it's OpenSource in that I can obtain, edit and USE the source in a manner it was originally fashioned.
Actually, you can't edit the source; Reed's clarification specifically denies modification privileges without his permission. Although I don't see him being miserly with simple requests from free/OSS software authors, you still don't have any rights to edit the source under his license. This is definitely more restrictive than the GPL, and far, far more restrictive than BSD. Don't confuse "legally comfortable" with "less restrictive."
IIRC the actual license cannot be changed for those releases which you received under a different license except this is stated. So a fork will appear. (Or maybe more: OpenIPF, NetIPF, FreeIPF... ;-)
According to Darren, the modification restriction is only a clarification of the original license, and applies retroactively. He intended the restriction to apply from day one, but didn't explicitly mention it in the license. He could be right, he could the wrong; the ambiguity in language calls this into question. The lesson; read the licenses on software you intend to use, so you aren't taken by surprise by situations like this.
Yes, the -submitter- failed to mention or discover that Reed only meant the redistribution restriction to apply to certain test releases. However, the restrictions on modification apply to -all- releases, past and future.
For another thing, this isn't panic; this deals with legitimate license questions, and raises issues of using non-free-licensed code in free/open-source software. IPFilter's license does not allow any modification without the author's permission; although I don't imagine Reed being evil over modifications being made for the *BSDs, it still goes against some of the spirit of OSS, and it calls into question how lax software maintainers should be about the licenses they allow into their software, especially when a clarification like this reveals restrictions that weren't explicitly mentioned previously, but are assumed to apply retroactively.
I can forsee a code license audit coming soon after this incident.
So tommorow Linus could take the Linux kernel along with all the changes others have contributed to it and start selling it without releasing the source? Isn't this the exact opposite to what the GPL is for?
Yep. But he can't take back any already-released source. Thus, an open fork could be immediately started. This is part of the reason for the restrictions on revoking individuals' licenses on already-distributed software; once the GPL is applied to a piece of code, that particular piece of code is open forever, even if all future revisions are kept closed. Nothing can stop someone from taking that last open piece of code and improving it forever.
Question 1:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Answer: Yes
And anyone can do this; otherwise, the more commercially-oriented Linux distributors would be s-c-r-e-w-e-d. I can sell, say, GNU tar and some related utilities to my bud Roger for $10, with the source.
Question 2:
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
Answer: No
In short, if I give a copy of GNU tar to Roger, the FSF can't go after Roger for money, especially if I made certain modifications to GNU tar that I didn't hand back to the FSF, but I did make available under the terms of the GPL should the FSF care enough to incorporate them on their own. Once again, the concept behind the GPL is to promote and enforce the availability of the code to users, forever. Allowing the copyright holder to run around to every user of the software, even those who received the software from a completely different source, would go a long way to closing code back up by attaching financial requirements to all users of the software, not to mention a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone involved.
It is simply silly to allow people to sell software but prohibit them from trying to enforce payment for that software. However you look at it simply doesn't make sense.
You're looking at this from a purely commercial perspective. A company may wish to sell a GPL'd piece of software they wrote, and include a value-add to encourage people to get the software from them - exclusive on-site tech support, fridge magnets, bonus copies of proprietary software, something, anything. The developer, individual or company, may wish to make some money where they can, but still make it possible for users to spread and improve the software. And again, remember that the GPL is written with the primary intent of keeping source code available at all times, not with helping create the next Cisco or Microsoft. Not everyone's driven purely by the desire to make a buck at any cost:)
this merely says that if my program uses/extends gpl code, and also has legitimate non-gpl functionality (menu bar/tool bar/quit button don't qualify as legitimate functionality), then i don't have to release the code of my non gpl using program. i do however HAVE to release the sections of my code that use the gpl code.
Wrongo, boyo.
If you use GPL'd code in your application, and that code gets compiled into a binary or group of binaries that rely on each other to work, the entire code of that app must be GPL'd. This is the "viral" clause that the more virulent anti-GPLers point to as a reason not to use it.
Let's say you have five source files going into a single executable. Two of those files include chunks of GPL'd code from, say, parted (just a shot in the dark). Since identifiable sections of the work are derived from GPL code, the derived work must be distributed under the GPL.
The LGPL might let you get away with that little trick, but not the GPL. The FSF recognized this issue and came up with the LGPL as a less-restrictive alternative.
.
When I create a binary and use system calls, I am dynamically linking to the kernel in exactly the same sense as I am linking to a dynamic library when I make a call to a function in that library.
From the Linux 2.4 COPYING file:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Just dropping in some useful reference info...
It just crossed my mind that I have the printed source to DeCSS somewhere in this disaster of a room.
Picture it. Among the posters for music, movies and dance parties, there's a section of nothing but sheets of 8x11 paper with source code on page after page, with a single word above it in huge Impact-font letters...
"DeCSS"
Wonder how long it would last...
Wild.
I was just discussing the idea of a public writing slate over on irc.indymedia.org today. Specifically, I've been mulling over locating a large piece of white paper and pasting it up along one of the construction barriers in downtown Toronto, with some markers and an invitation to express oneself. I figure with the loads of ads for CDs, movies, dance parties, restaurants and future fucked dot.coms, why not give the people who walk by them a chance to say something of their own?
NOW magazine once tried a similar concept for an ad campaign (third item down). Large blank ads with the slogan "Speak your mind" and pens were put up in subway stations throughout Toronto, the idea being people could express themselves. The transit authority ordered the ads removed, but it was worth a shot.
We need more community forums in the community, not just on a server in some far-off state where only those "in-the-know" are aware of them.
You're right; there is no official language for the US. I didn't make that completely clear in my post. There have been rumblings of making English the official language, but they're usually shot down rather fast.
1) Environmentalists using privacy sites to recruit children? Yeah, wouldn't want out kids to be politically active, they need to be consuming/producing machines that only vote for the Parties, not some fringe group. Won't someone please think of the children? This is America after all, can't have anything other than Mom, the Flag, and Apple Pie in kids' minds. Thought is corruption. Ignorance is strength.
Slightly miffed ranting aside, unless the good Congressman is privy to information no one else has, using the "protect the children" gambit is akin to busting out the race card; a last-resort measure that has been abused to the point where no one takes it seriously anymore. Perhaps he's more concerned about children developing political awareness earlier than voting age, before the Republicrats can program them to vote only for the Big Two, or they're Throwing Their Votes Away, like it's a horse race or something.
2) Michael, you do realize other languages exist in the US, right? They may not be official, but I didn't realize there was some law preventing elected officials from putting any language other than American -- excuse me, English, on their page, even when the rep's constituents speak something other than English.
If you want an English translation, perhaps you could e-mail the good man's website maintainers about providing an English translation? Is that so hard, or is it easier to make thoughtless comments on your soapbox?
*exhale*
'K folks, lets not allow Microsoft to perpretrate another Big Lie and get away with it. The term "Shared Source" is nothing more than a smokescreen. Call it what it is, "poison source". The source will be no more "shared" than, say, the demolition plans for Arthur Dent's house. You won't be able to use the code you see for yourself. You won't be able to compile it. You'll be able to look at it and perhaps suggest "improvements." Hell, MS might be magnanimous enough to let you, Mr. Independent Developer, write patches - but don't even try to distribute them without MS' approval, because that would mean others might try to - *gasp* - compile MS' proprietary, "shared" code!
Why "poison source"? Quite frankly, I think "Shared source" might have a more dangerous viral aspect than some people claim of the GPL. Do you really think a developer will ever be allowed to work on an open-source project again, never mind a GPL one, after agreeing with MS' terms for looking at their source? If they do within at least eighteen months (what I believe current NDAs from MS are written for), you can bet MS will immediately launch legal action to have that project shut down due to "potential" copyright infringement. In this case, the virus doesn't even come from using the code, but just by looking at it.
Hey, maybe MS will be nice and not force developers to sign an NDA and a no-compete in order to look over the code. However, MS has given me no reason to trust them before, and they certainly haven't done anything recently to get me to trust them now.
Anyway, now Microsoft have gone "open source" do we actually need Linux any more ? I mean, sure Windoze costs $$S, but then so does Red$Hat these days...
Ahem.
www.redhat.com for all your l337 0-day Linux w4r3z.
Now, how is the above "Insightful" again?
your not a sys. admin....nuff said.
True. On the other hand, I am a Red Hat 7 user that, despite many, many attempts by the worms, hasn't been infected because I keep up with patches and updates.
It's rather sad to see a worm do the work for clueless sysadmins. I'm not a sysadmin in the least, yet somehow I do a fairly decent job keeping my DeadRat 7 box updated and locked down as much as I can.
A while back, I noticed a port 111 scan from what appeared to be a company's mailserver, setting off "worm" alarms in my head. Though I normally ignore such things, I was in a rather giving mood, and decided to alert the company of their potentially compromised box. Several bounces and lack of replies later, I gave up. The company just didn't seem interested in making it possible to report potential security holes or server problems - no addresses on their website, several possible leads gathered through bounces failed, and the whois lookup revealed a Hotmail address for the technical contact. I wonder how many other companies are as difficult to warn, and may not even care that their boxes are insecure.
Maybe I just don't understand how hard it is to be a sysadmin, but can it be that difficult to at least glance at your operating system vendor's updates site once a week to check for patches and warnings? Is it that hard to do a simple system lockdown after the initial install and reopen services as necessary? Or am I just clueless?
<Blatant flame>
Worms like this wouldn't exist or be news if more sysadmins would do their job instead of playing Quake, looking at pr0n, or IRC'ing all day...
</Blatant flame>
Sorry if I insulted anyone with that short rant, just thoroughly unimpressed by the number of port 111 scans I see coming from what should be very carefully watched boxes all over.