The one thing about these statements is that they always gloss over the fact that it only applies to software you plan to sell or release. If the software is written strictly for internal use, then you don't have to make any source codes available.
Copyright law only covers distribution to a third party. Internal "distribution" is not distribution in this context since it is internal to one party. It would only become an issue if a corporate entity were to "break up" in some way.
I guess it's pretty obvious, but I think some managers that are new to the entire GPL concept read that statement and assume that by using GPL code to build their internal applications they somehow have to give away what they would hope to keep a proprietary secret.
Actually there are two misunderstandings here. One is that the GPL is some kind of EULA. The second is that the GPL in any way obliges any kind of distribution.
By using that single GPL component, then I must distribute my product (that is, potententially 1%-100% of the product components) under the GPL!
This is nothing to do with the GPL. Since you are using someone else's software in their product copyright law gives them a say in how you can distribute the resulting software. If their licence stated X amount of money per item then your minimum price has just become the sum of such royalties. If that is more than the maximum amount you want to sell it for then you have a problem. If you don't like the licence you can always negotiate with the copyright holder. You will be in an even weaker position in such negotiations if you don't try until you have been caught infringing copyrights though..
The alternative is to expend resources (time/money/development) to replace the components.
In some cases that might be a cheaper option than the "price" of using someone else's code. In other cases the "price" of applying a GPL compatable licence to their own code might be trivial compared with that of "reinventing the wheel".
So, it stands that if you use GPL code, you have to distribute your project under the GPL;
You don't have to distribute your project also the GPL only requires you to make source code available to people you distribute binaries to.
if you don't want to follow the GPL, you have to remove any GPL code from your project.
Actually you have two other options: Ask the copyright holders if they will agree a different licence with you. Hope you don't get caught.
Problem with GNU software is unlimited distribution. If one could buy it, one could sell it or just allow anybody to download it.
This is an intrinsic property of software. It's also getting to be an intrinsic property of sound and video recordings. Maybe software as a salable commodity is about to go the same way as ice sawn from frozen lakes.
The only recent this FUD sticks is that people are not used to the idea of actually having the source code, while still being restricted in manner in which they incorporate it in in a product. In the proprietary world, there are two extreme: you have the code and you do whatever you want with it, or you don't and you can do nothing except run the binaries.
There are probably all sorts of licence restrictions involving proprietary source code. But only those people directly involved with such code ever get to see them.
It's easy to understand if you remember the old saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch". If you want to write all the code yourself, you own it and can license it any damn way you please. If someone else writes the code, you're bound by the license they choose, GPL or otherwise.>
If you want to distribute their code in some other way then you need to seek alternative permission to distribute. Effectivly copyright law is "only the copyright holder can make (or change) the rules", when it comes to distribution of copies.
The GPL is viral because it contaminates; because any object it touches (via linking, or shared source, or even included kernel headers) becomes infected, forcing all code in that object to become GPL'd.
The GPL dosn't force anything. If you want to distribute (copies of) someone else's software then copyright law says you need their permission. Without that permission they can take various actions to a) stop you distribution, b) have an independent third party rule on who actually owns the copyright on what you want to distribute. (If all you have done is make trivial modifications then it isn't "your software" in the first place) c) recover damages from you. Damages can take the form of any kind of "consideration", including money and assignment of copyrights.
Yes, you have the option of not including kernel headers, not linking, and not using source from GPL'd code,
With any copyrighted work if you don't like the licence options which the copyright holder has previously made available you are free to attempt negotiation with the copyright holder. GPL software is no different in this respect from any other entity with copyright protection. If you can convince the copyright holder to allow you to use their software in a proprietary product then you can.
The option to use the GPL does not negate it's properties; for companies who actually use GPL'd code under the GPL property, it IS viral.
If anything is "viral" it is copyright law. Anyway there are plenty of other licences which are considerably more "viral".
The real core of the article here is that the viral aspect of the GPL is not enforceable under copyright law - no judge can force you to follow the license - but it could potentially be under contract law, where a judge can force compliance.
However the judge can stop the infringing party from distributing the software at all and have them pay the copyright holder for their infringement. It is actually possible for proprietary code intermixed with GPL code to wind up as GPL code. If the defendent winds up bankrupt the plaintiff has a claim on their assets. Thus it would be possible for copyright on the proprietary code to be transfered to the GPL copyright holder(s) and them made available under the GPL.
This is about fixing a mess that the U.S. and Europe started over a decade ago, it is about bringing closure to a campaign that had been started back in 1989 that may have ephemerously freed the Kurds
The "start" here isn't 1989, the most definite point at which this mess could have been said to have been started is the carving up of the Ottoman empire in the 1920's.
Since Arab countries never evolved to even simple forms of democracy, no ruler of Iran or Iraq ever was truly accountable for their actions, and was therefore free to more or less secretely broker deals with the U.S., Europe or the USSR.
Iran actually had a democratic government, which was removed and replaced by an American friendly tyrant. Anyway the Iranians are Persians rather than Arabs.
Arab countries have GOT to democratize themselves in one way or another, their leaders must be accountable to the people , and this holds especially true for Arab countries who sit on top of precious natural resources.
The last thing "The West" especially the US wants is democracy in Arabia. Democratic governments are only accountable to their citizens. They are not accountable to foreign governments and business interests.
You simply cannot let a dictatorship regime in sole uncontested, unaccountable control of such resources without ensuring the misery of their People and that of any entity who'd dare question their hegemony. Natural resources in the hands of a dictator means money that never reaches the local economy,
It makes it very easy for a foreign mineral extraction company to make a big profit. Dictators don't care if people are paid a fair wage or if appropriate safety standards are in place. If workers attempt to form unions they will be of collision course with their own government long before they are in a position to present any demands of their employeers.
The bulk of the challenge remains in its reconstruction and the establishment of a prosperous democracy and be an example to the rest of the Arab World.
As long as the US remains in Iraq there will be no democracy there. Democracy simply cannot exists in a country under foreign military occupation.
Who is 'they'. The Anthrax investigation stalled and then stopped when the trail led to a government building.
It lead not to a Arab but to a racist who didn't like Arabs. So instead they decided to go and harass someone unconnected.
Funny that. After Gulf War I, even with economic sanctions and the 'food for oil program', the Iraqi's under Saddam Hussein managed to rebuild more than 140 bridges, resume oil production, law and order, a food distribution programme, and even the hospitals (although without most medicines as they were unable to import them due to the sanctions).
Iraqi engineers are astonished at the size of the construction contracts which have been handed out to US companies. Since they are orders of magnitude greater than their own estimates to fix the damage. These being the same engineers who sorted out fixing things after the last war.
You missed something. Saudi Arabia is an ALLY to the United States. Syria is the next target, with Iran and Korea to follow.
Since it was discovered that North Korea actually has nuclear deterrant capabilities the spotlight has kind of moved of them. There may not even be a "next target", since US forces appear to be overextended with Afghanistan and Iraq.
To give Americans some idea of its order of magnitude, I made a comparison to a recent Middle East-related project by the US: the tunnel's cost is going to be a tiny fraction of what the US spent on the war in Iraq.
The vast majority of the money the US spends in the Middle East appears to go on promoting war.
The war in Iraq also was justified as promoting the development of democracies in Muslim societies.
Over the weekend Iraqis held a protest over the US Occupation authority dragging it's feet over elections.
The truth is, hardcore Wahabi's fear the kind of change that is occurring in their world, a world where women might be able to get a job or wear blue jeans once in a while. A world where 'pure' Islamic law might not be the law of the land. Western influences are shaking the foundations of their culture and they fear it. Some will fight any way they can.
This isn't so much about Islam as human interpretations of religion. Many other religions have smiliar differing interpretations. It's quite easy to find much the same thing amongst other religions, including those belonging to the same group as Islam. You don't have to look that far in Europe or North America to find authoritarian bigots who claim to be Christian or Jewish and insist that their interpretation is the only correct one.
Morocco has a wide mixture of cultures - Semitic Arabs,
As if there were non-Semitic Arabs...
To the extent that they have violence, it's down in the Spanish Sahara, a culturally different area south of Morocco that the last few Kings of Morocco want to rule because of the mining resources, while the local Polisario guerillas don't want the kings.
The Polisario see a foreign state plundering their natural resources...
It might be a misprint, but a tunnel under the water doesn't have to be as complicated as one under Boston. It's just a big concrete-lined bore-hole.
There are two ways of building a tunnel under water, one is to use TBMs, the other is sink prefabricated sections. The former is less disruptive in the middle of a shipping lane.
It doesn't even need to be ventilated, as the trains will be run by electricity. By comparison, a car tunnel under a city is shallow and has to be ventilated. (so people don't die from suffocating on trapped car exhaust.)
Remember that the Total Cost of Upgrade (TCU) is not just the cost of the software. It's also everything else which needs done, including other upgrades, checking things still work, actually scheduling and deploying the changes, etc.
If you were a small company who's focus wasn't IT would you upgrade? Hell no. Why would you?
If anything the issues tend to get bigger the larger the company.
Yeah, that's really a valid concern... except for the fact that most sex offenders are middle-aged white males.
You mean most people on the list. Who may or may not be representative of actual sex offenders. There are known biases in the process of convicting people.
Why not force everyone to get fingerprinted, and use them instead, whenever they want to buy something (so they do not counterfit or use stolen credit cards), whenever they take an exam, whenever they go to a bank, or enter a school.
This would start a new fashion trend of everyone wearing gloves. It would also probably be quite slow to use in that someone would first remove a glove, get their finger scanned, replace glove and finally wipe the scanner clean. Of course this would also render much current forensic use of finger prints obsolete.
"...The system failed to correctly identify airport employees 53 percent of the time, according to test data that was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under Florida's open records law...."
Note that in this test the system had a good recent picture of everyone it was ment to identify. Any system intended to spot troublemakers would be likely to do even worst.
And besides, for almost every adult in america, there's probably at least one registered sex offender out there who bears a striking resemblence to them.
Probably quite a few who have the same or a similar name too.
It's only a matter of time before they install these suckers at airports to search for suspected terrorists.
IIRC these have been trialed at airports, then removed because they proved utterly useless.
A false positive is gonna suck. They'll confiscate your obviously forged passport, search every body cavity you have plus a few that didn't exist before, and finally ship you off for an all expense paid Cuban vacation!
That hasn't quite happened yet, but US authorities did try to deport a Canadian to India. Resulting in her getting an unexpected vacation to the Canadian embassy in Riyadh.
Now... a sattellite-tracking system for every citizen... THAT would have stopped this crime... and 60% of other serious crimes... except the ones perpetrated by those who control the sattelites... *dramatic pause*
To those criminals the survailance system will not only not catch them it's also going to help them plan and execute crimes.
Only ones that the spouse feels may be a problem. It would be their choice to toss them in the database.
Of course divorcing people would never (on their own initutive or advice of their lawyers) attempt to use any means of herassing the other party...
This woman was going throug a VERY bad divorce with this dude, and he had a history of abusing her.
Actual abuse or claims of abuse? It's even quite common for a bully to claim to be the bullied if they think they can get away with it. Insitutional bigotry is a relevent issue here. With divorce and domestic violence frequently being dealt with by entities which are instututionally sexist.
In that case, I can see where that would be a good thing to do. I couldn't see this happening for cases outside of what I described, and it is in fact a very narrow use.
The moment you have a system which gives someone power over another it will be abused and it's envelope pushed. This is just human nature.
So these cameras are being placed in one school with the hope that funding will show up to place them in other schools, at $3K to $10K per installation with the sole justification being "If it works one time, locates one missing child or saves a child from a sexual attack, I feel it's worth it," . The article does not state that this is an ongoing problem -- rampant missing children or sexual attacks on campus. But the article does not contrast the time (money) spent on false alarms vs. spending funds for additional law enforcement personnel -- instead of paying for more unproven face recognition systems.
Sounds like the real idea is "corporate welfare" for the camera supplier. Maybe someone needs to look into Tom Horne's background.
Slashdot Mirror
The one thing about these statements is that they always gloss over the fact that it only applies to software you plan to sell or release. If the software is written strictly for internal use, then you don't have to make any source codes available.
Copyright law only covers distribution to a third party. Internal "distribution" is not distribution in this context since it is internal to one party. It would only become an issue if a corporate entity were to "break up" in some way.
I guess it's pretty obvious, but I think some managers that are new to the entire GPL concept read that statement and assume that by using GPL code to build their internal applications they somehow have to give away what they would hope to keep a proprietary secret.
Actually there are two misunderstandings here. One is that the GPL is some kind of EULA. The second is that the GPL in any way obliges any kind of distribution.
By using that single GPL component, then I must distribute my product (that is, potententially 1%-100% of the product components) under the GPL!
This is nothing to do with the GPL. Since you are using someone else's software in their product copyright law gives them a say in how you can distribute the resulting software. If their licence stated X amount of money per item then your minimum price has just become the sum of such royalties. If that is more than the maximum amount you want to sell it for then you have a problem. If you don't like the licence you can always negotiate with the copyright holder. You will be in an even weaker position in such negotiations if you don't try until you have been caught infringing copyrights though..
The alternative is to expend resources (time/money/development) to replace the components.
In some cases that might be a cheaper option than the "price" of using someone else's code. In other cases the "price" of applying a GPL compatable licence to their own code might be trivial compared with that of "reinventing the wheel".
So, it stands that if you use GPL code, you have to distribute your project under the GPL;
You don't have to distribute your project also the GPL only requires you to make source code available to people you distribute binaries to.
if you don't want to follow the GPL, you have to remove any GPL code from your project.
Actually you have two other options:
Ask the copyright holders if they will agree a different licence with you.
Hope you don't get caught.
Problem with GNU software is unlimited distribution. If one could buy it, one could sell it or just allow anybody to download it.
This is an intrinsic property of software. It's also getting to be an intrinsic property of sound and video recordings. Maybe software as a salable commodity is about to go the same way as ice sawn from frozen lakes.
The only recent this FUD sticks is that people are not used to the idea of actually having the source code, while still being restricted in manner in which they incorporate it in in a product. In the proprietary world, there are two extreme: you have the code and you do whatever you want with it, or you don't and you can do nothing except run the binaries.
There are probably all sorts of licence restrictions involving proprietary source code. But only those people directly involved with such code ever get to see them.
It's easy to understand if you remember the old saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch". If you want to write all the code yourself, you own it and can license it any damn way you please. If someone else writes the code, you're bound by the license they choose, GPL or otherwise.>
If you want to distribute their code in some other way then you need to seek alternative permission to distribute. Effectivly copyright law is "only the copyright holder can make (or change) the rules", when it comes to distribution of copies.
The GPL is viral because it contaminates; because any object it touches (via linking, or shared source, or even included kernel headers) becomes infected, forcing all code in that object to become GPL'd.
The GPL dosn't force anything. If you want to distribute (copies of) someone else's software then copyright law says you need their permission.
Without that permission they can take various actions to
a) stop you distribution,
b) have an independent third party rule on who actually owns the copyright on what you want to distribute. (If all you have done is make trivial modifications then it isn't "your software" in the first place)
c) recover damages from you. Damages can take the form of any kind of "consideration", including money and assignment of copyrights.
Yes, you have the option of not including kernel headers, not linking, and not using source from GPL'd code,
With any copyrighted work if you don't like the licence options which the copyright holder has previously made available you are free to attempt negotiation with the copyright holder. GPL software is no different in this respect from any other entity with copyright protection. If you can convince the copyright holder to allow you to use their software in a proprietary product then you can.
The option to use the GPL does not negate it's properties; for companies who actually use GPL'd code under the GPL property, it IS viral.
If anything is "viral" it is copyright law. Anyway there are plenty of other licences which are considerably more "viral".
The real core of the article here is that the viral aspect of the GPL is not enforceable under copyright law - no judge can force you to follow the license - but it could potentially be under contract law, where a judge can force compliance.
However the judge can stop the infringing party from distributing the software at all and have them pay the copyright holder for their infringement.
It is actually possible for proprietary code intermixed with GPL code to wind up as GPL code. If the defendent winds up bankrupt the plaintiff has a claim on their assets. Thus it would be possible for copyright on the proprietary code to be transfered to the GPL copyright holder(s) and them made available under the GPL.
This is about fixing a mess that the U.S. and Europe started over a decade ago, it is about bringing closure to a campaign that had been started back in 1989 that may have ephemerously freed the Kurds
The "start" here isn't 1989, the most definite point at which this mess could have been said to have been started is the carving up of the Ottoman empire in the 1920's.
Since Arab countries never evolved to even simple forms of democracy, no ruler of Iran or Iraq ever was truly accountable for their actions, and was therefore free to more or less secretely broker deals with the U.S., Europe or the USSR.
Iran actually had a democratic government, which was removed and replaced by an American friendly tyrant. Anyway the Iranians are Persians rather than Arabs.
Arab countries have GOT to democratize themselves in one way or another, their leaders must be accountable to the people , and this holds especially true for Arab countries who sit on top of precious natural resources.
The last thing "The West" especially the US wants is democracy in Arabia. Democratic governments are only accountable to their citizens. They are not accountable to foreign governments and business interests.
You simply cannot let a dictatorship regime in sole uncontested, unaccountable control of such resources without ensuring the misery of their People and that of any entity who'd dare question their hegemony. Natural resources in the hands of a dictator means money that never reaches the local economy,
It makes it very easy for a foreign mineral extraction company to make a big profit. Dictators don't care if people are paid a fair wage or if appropriate safety standards are in place. If workers attempt to form unions they will be of collision course with their own government long before they are in a position to present any demands of their employeers.
The bulk of the challenge remains in its reconstruction and the establishment of a prosperous democracy and be an example to the rest of the Arab World.
As long as the US remains in Iraq there will be no democracy there. Democracy simply cannot exists in a country under foreign military occupation.
Who is 'they'. The Anthrax investigation stalled and then stopped when the trail led to a government building.
It lead not to a Arab but to a racist who didn't like Arabs. So instead they decided to go and harass someone unconnected.
Funny that. After Gulf War I, even with economic sanctions and the 'food for oil program', the Iraqi's under Saddam Hussein managed to rebuild more than 140 bridges, resume oil production, law and order, a food distribution programme, and even the hospitals (although without most medicines as they were unable to import them due to the sanctions).
Iraqi engineers are astonished at the size of the construction contracts which have been handed out to US companies. Since they are orders of magnitude greater than their own estimates to fix the damage. These being the same engineers who sorted out fixing things after the last war.
You missed something. Saudi Arabia is an ALLY to the United States. Syria is the next target, with Iran and Korea to follow.
Since it was discovered that North Korea actually has nuclear deterrant capabilities the spotlight has kind of moved of them. There may not even be a "next target", since US forces appear to be overextended with Afghanistan and Iraq.
We went in because he's really bad, okay? Just wave your plastic American flag, citizen, go back to bed.
:)
But don't think too much about the raw material to make that plastic flag
To give Americans some idea of its order of magnitude, I made a comparison to a recent Middle East-related project by the US: the tunnel's cost is going to be a tiny fraction of what the US spent on the war in Iraq.
The vast majority of the money the US spends in the Middle East appears to go on promoting war.
The war in Iraq also was justified as promoting the development of democracies in Muslim societies.
Over the weekend Iraqis held a protest over the US Occupation authority dragging it's feet over elections.
The truth is, hardcore Wahabi's fear the kind of change that is occurring in their world, a world where women might be able to get a job or wear blue jeans once in a while. A world where 'pure' Islamic law might not be the law of the land. Western influences are shaking the foundations of their culture and they fear it. Some will fight any way they can.
This isn't so much about Islam as human interpretations of religion. Many other religions have smiliar differing interpretations. It's quite easy to find much the same thing amongst other religions, including those belonging to the same group as Islam. You don't have to look that far in Europe or North America to find authoritarian bigots who claim to be Christian or Jewish and insist that their interpretation is the only correct one.
Morocco has a wide mixture of cultures - Semitic Arabs,
As if there were non-Semitic Arabs...
To the extent that they have violence, it's down in the Spanish Sahara, a culturally different area south of Morocco that the last few Kings of Morocco want to rule because of the mining resources, while the local Polisario guerillas don't want the kings.
The Polisario see a foreign state plundering their natural resources...
It might be a misprint, but a tunnel under the water doesn't have to be as complicated as one under Boston. It's just a big concrete-lined bore-hole.
There are two ways of building a tunnel under water, one is to use TBMs, the other is sink prefabricated sections. The former is less disruptive in the middle of a shipping lane.
It doesn't even need to be ventilated, as the trains will be run by electricity. By comparison, a car tunnel under a city is shallow and has to be ventilated. (so people don't die from suffocating on trapped car exhaust.)
A train tunnel still needs to be ventilated.
It's not like upgrading Windows is free.
Remember that the Total Cost of Upgrade (TCU) is not just the cost of the software. It's also everything else which needs done, including other upgrades, checking things still work, actually scheduling and deploying the changes, etc.
If you were a small company who's focus wasn't IT would you upgrade? Hell no. Why would you?
If anything the issues tend to get bigger the larger the company.
Yeah, that's really a valid concern... except for the fact that most sex offenders are middle-aged white males.
You mean most people on the list. Who may or may not be representative of actual sex offenders. There are known biases in the process of convicting people.
Why not force everyone to get fingerprinted, and use them instead, whenever they want to buy something (so they do not counterfit or use stolen credit cards), whenever they take an exam, whenever they go to a bank, or enter a school.
This would start a new fashion trend of everyone wearing gloves. It would also probably be quite slow to use in that someone would first remove a glove, get their finger scanned, replace glove and finally wipe the scanner clean. Of course this would also render much current forensic use of finger prints obsolete.
"...The system failed to correctly identify airport employees 53 percent of the time, according to test data that was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under Florida's open records law...."
Note that in this test the system had a good recent picture of everyone it was ment to identify. Any system intended to spot troublemakers would be likely to do even worst.
And besides, for almost every adult in america, there's probably at least one registered sex offender out there who bears a striking resemblence to them.
Probably quite a few who have the same or a similar name too.
It's only a matter of time before they install these suckers at airports to search for suspected terrorists.
IIRC these have been trialed at airports, then removed because they proved utterly useless.
A false positive is gonna suck. They'll confiscate your obviously forged passport, search every body cavity you have plus a few that didn't exist before, and finally ship you off for an all expense paid Cuban vacation!
That hasn't quite happened yet, but US authorities did try to deport a Canadian to India. Resulting in her getting an unexpected vacation to the Canadian embassy in Riyadh.
Why in the name of Flaming Cheetos Ass Explosion would someone be serving divorce papers at a SCHOOL?
Public place with plenty of witnesses to both the serving and the reaction of the person they are being served on.
Now... a sattellite-tracking system for every citizen... THAT would have stopped this crime... and 60% of other serious crimes... except the ones perpetrated by those who control the sattelites... *dramatic pause*
To those criminals the survailance system will not only not catch them it's also going to help them plan and execute crimes.
Only ones that the spouse feels may be a problem. It would be their choice to toss them in the database.
Of course divorcing people would never (on their own initutive or advice of their lawyers) attempt to use any means of herassing the other party...
This woman was going throug a VERY bad divorce with this dude, and he had a history of abusing her.
Actual abuse or claims of abuse? It's even quite common for a bully to claim to be the bullied if they think they can get away with it.
Insitutional bigotry is a relevent issue here. With divorce and domestic violence frequently being dealt with by entities which are instututionally sexist.
In that case, I can see where that would be a good thing to do. I couldn't see this happening for cases outside of what I described, and it is in fact a very narrow use.
The moment you have a system which gives someone power over another it will be abused and it's envelope pushed. This is just human nature.
So these cameras are being placed in one school with the hope that funding will show up to place them in other schools, at $3K to $10K per installation with the sole justification being "If it works one time, locates one missing child or saves a child from a sexual attack, I feel it's worth it," . The article does not state that this is an ongoing problem -- rampant missing children or sexual attacks on campus. But the article does not contrast the time (money) spent on false alarms vs. spending funds for additional law enforcement personnel -- instead of paying for more unproven face recognition systems.
Sounds like the real idea is "corporate welfare" for the camera supplier. Maybe someone needs to look into Tom Horne's background.