Mr. Romney himself has said:
"It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for its values."
Thus, no doubt he would condemn Mr. Torvalds apology as "appeasing our enemies".
This is the Official Statement of the Open Source Community: The Open Source community is amorphous, and follows no leader. Thus, nobody is capable of making an Official Statement for the Open Source Community. This has been an Official Statement of the Open Source Comunity.
I sincerely find it difficult to believe that anyone would consider for a second that they might not have to preserve the attribution and license in derivative works. Nothing else establishes their right to make derivative works at all.
Making a distribution is more complicated than just making it work technically. There's a substantial amount of work in making sure that you're complying with all of the licenses, both in software that you just distribute, and the software that you write but combine with other people's work.
So far, the communications I see on this issue don't come from people who appear to understand all of what they're required to do. And the licenses used by these folks on their own work aren't even close to Open Source.
I think this community needs to go back to the Debian core it started with, and add to that whatever optimizations and installers are necessary without the crayon licenses.
I've thought about it for a few minutes, and I'm not really coming up with anything other than solvable engineering problems for a start on the moon and evolution to other solar system locations. Getting away from the sun, rather than the earth, would be on a longer timeline.
I was giving you an opportunity to look it up for yourself. However, I will spoon-feed it to you.
When a copyright holder puts the statement:
Copyright (C) Author's Name
in their work, that is their attribution.
You may be required to make other sorts of statement by some licenses, but the statement that I have included above is always required. You are required to preserve it and convey it in the source code in every Open Source license (public domain isn't a license). Many licenses in addition require you to convey it in binary copies, this includes all GPL licenses.
We give "rights" to nonsentient beings to make us feel better or because we want them around for some reason: because they are a necessary part of an ecosystem or simply because we enjoy nature and we wish to see it preserved.
But even these creatures will inevitably become extinct if we don't carry them outside of Earth's ecosystem. Most likely is that we will destroy Earth's habitability ourselves, through war or some form of pollution. But even if we don't, Earth's habitability doesn't last forever.
A society that ignores our impending extinction isn't doing its job.
We don't get those increased capabilities we'd need by not flying. I figure that we'd be 30 years beyond what we're currently doing with ISS, had the Americans and their representatives not lost the will. We could easily have financed it by not fighting one of the wars, and we'd be in much better economic shape.
The military very quietly runs its X-37B program, which gives them the capabilities they wanted from the shuttle, and doesn't look to be infrastructure-heavy at all. I wonder what a scale-up would be like?
Yes, I understand that commercial space != commercial manned space.
I think it was easier for other countries to deal with Russian aerospace before Putin started moving Russia back toward an authoritarian regime. At this point, they are nervous that they are bankrolling what is ultimately a military capability that can be used against them.
Attribution actually isn't a hard requirement of the GPL, it's just polite.
People who are saying this just don't know what attribution is. It is absolutely always required. When you say "Copyright (C) name of legal entity, that is attribution. If you don't have some statement of that kind, you are always, absolutely, without exception, violating the GPL.
Attribution is the requirement to convey the identity of the copyright holder. No license that can be applied to third parties, like the GPL, could work legally without this. At a minimum you need the identity of the copyright holder and their license to have any rights beyond "All Rights Reserved".
But if you are redistributing GPL code, even code that you have not modified, you must distribute the source for the GPL code too. You can't just say "get it from Debian".
Debian also can assert a compilation copyright, although I don't know if they've claimed one recently. They must be attributed for the distribution overall.
Oh god no, that's wrong. Attribution is the most basic requirement in any license, and essentially every license does require it. The GPL certainly does.
The license text referred to indicates a poor understanding of licenses and law. It's what we generally refer to as a "crayon" license. The term "crayon" is referring to a Monty Python sketch about a dog license with the word "dog" crossed out and "cat" written in in crayon.
The bottom line is that the stuff you wrote is probably derivative of other code, which you say is "exempt" from your license, but that's not enough, you must use a GPL-compatible license. And I don't see from that license text that you would understand what was derivative and what was not.
Slashdot Mirror
That would piss off some people that I'd really like to piss off.
Mr. Romney himself has said: "It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for its values." Thus, no doubt he would condemn Mr. Torvalds apology as "appeasing our enemies".
This is the Official Statement of the Open Source Community: The Open Source community is amorphous, and follows no leader. Thus, nobody is capable of making an Official Statement for the Open Source Community. This has been an Official Statement of the Open Source Comunity.
That's so stupid. I blogged it, I didn't want to let this one go unnoticed.
I sincerely find it difficult to believe that anyone would consider for a second that they might not have to preserve the attribution and license in derivative works. Nothing else establishes their right to make derivative works at all.
So far, the communications I see on this issue don't come from people who appear to understand all of what they're required to do. And the licenses used by these folks on their own work aren't even close to Open Source.
I think this community needs to go back to the Debian core it started with, and add to that whatever optimizations and installers are necessary without the crayon licenses.
I've thought about it for a few minutes, and I'm not really coming up with anything other than solvable engineering problems for a start on the moon and evolution to other solar system locations. Getting away from the sun, rather than the earth, would be on a longer timeline.
What technologies are those?
When a copyright holder puts the statement:
in their work, that is their attribution.
You may be required to make other sorts of statement by some licenses, but the statement that I have included above is always required. You are required to preserve it and convey it in the source code in every Open Source license (public domain isn't a license). Many licenses in addition require you to convey it in binary copies, this includes all GPL licenses.
But even these creatures will inevitably become extinct if we don't carry them outside of Earth's ecosystem. Most likely is that we will destroy Earth's habitability ourselves, through war or some form of pollution. But even if we don't, Earth's habitability doesn't last forever.
A society that ignores our impending extinction isn't doing its job.
We don't get those increased capabilities we'd need by not flying. I figure that we'd be 30 years beyond what we're currently doing with ISS, had the Americans and their representatives not lost the will. We could easily have financed it by not fighting one of the wars, and we'd be in much better economic shape.
The military very quietly runs its X-37B program, which gives them the capabilities they wanted from the shuttle, and doesn't look to be infrastructure-heavy at all. I wonder what a scale-up would be like?
I think it was easier for other countries to deal with Russian aerospace before Putin started moving Russia back toward an authoritarian regime. At this point, they are nervous that they are bankrolling what is ultimately a military capability that can be used against them.
Yes, but because they're Russia nobody is willing to depend upon them. And that means countries pay a lot for another option.
Such patches would need to be under a GPL-compatible license.
People who are saying this just don't know what attribution is. It is absolutely always required. When you say "Copyright (C) name of legal entity, that is attribution. If you don't have some statement of that kind, you are always, absolutely, without exception, violating the GPL.
GPLv2 absolutely, always, without exception requires attribution. You just don't know what attribution is.
Attribution is the requirement to convey the identity of the copyright holder. No license that can be applied to third parties, like the GPL, could work legally without this. At a minimum you need the identity of the copyright holder and their license to have any rights beyond "All Rights Reserved".
All GPL licenses require attribution. Without exception. If you don't believe so, you just don't know what attribution is.
There's an ancient Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon could go to China.
But if you are redistributing GPL code, even code that you have not modified, you must distribute the source for the GPL code too. You can't just say "get it from Debian".
Debian also can assert a compilation copyright, although I don't know if they've claimed one recently. They must be attributed for the distribution overall.
Oh god no, that's wrong. Attribution is the most basic requirement in any license, and essentially every license does require it. The GPL certainly does.
They'd be fine if it was really aggregation. Want to bet the folks who wrote that crayon license can't tell when they're creating a derivative work?
The bottom line is that the stuff you wrote is probably derivative of other code, which you say is "exempt" from your license, but that's not enough, you must use a GPL-compatible license. And I don't see from that license text that you would understand what was derivative and what was not.