Any comments about the applicability of the LGPL? It used to be very popular in embedded systems.
LGPL, especially the current LGPL3, is a good license to use when you want people to combine your work with proprietary software, and software with incompatible licenses in general. Sometimes you don't want this. My latest (unannounced) product is dual-licensed, so I need a "modifications must be free software" license like GPL or GPL3, so that the proprietary folks have an incentive to buy a commercial license. That way, I get to provide Free Software to folks who want to make Free Software with it, and commercial license fees from the folks who don't want to make Free Software pay for me to do it.
Most employees aren't legally empowered to commit their company / organisation to anything. They don't have the authority to sign contracts on behalf of the company / organisation.
Yes. But "my employee did this, and he didn't have authority to do so" hasn't worked very effectively as a defense regarding software license violation and copyright infringement - or anything else. Or those BSA audits would have turned out differently, etc. Ultimately, the stockholders and management are responsible for what the company does even if they are so out of control that their employees do stuff without being instructed to:-)
I've been through this before. Often, it's best to start with new projects, rather than existing desktops, so that you aren't replacing anything, you're starting new people up on brand-new systems and software. Switching their entire IT structure as your first project doesn't generally work out well.
Policy is sort of a dual problem. Attorneys get involved on several levels. They want to make sure no laws are being broken in the policy, that there isn't a specific vendor proference (if we're lucky - some districts have no problem sending everything to a few preferred vendors) and that it's not going to be overly burdensome for vendors doing business with the locality.
But politicians also get involved, and that's where the big problems will be. The really important thing I bring to the table is experience in how other similar efforts have failed, and how to get around the problems that killed them.
Remember that Intel has been willing to open its drivers and specifications. Any improvements they make to their graphics core (which, yes, is in need of improvement) will probably make their way to motherboard and laptop chipsets, and will have nice Open Source Linux drivers made for them. So, this is a good thing.
Wow, some people must be really heavily into that gamespace. It always amazes me to see articles where nothing in the summary connects to the real world at all.
Hm, immortal. How is that different from cancerous? And all of the immune cells are really carefully filtered out so there's no potential for graft-vs-host disease if one gets loose in the patient, right?
Well, there's a MIPS laptop somewhere out there, on fire sale for less than $200. But where would I get an ARM laptop? I'm currently using an Acer Aspire One, and I have two of the 9-cell batteries, and can get 8 hours out of each. This is sufficient for my traveling and public speaking. I'd be happy to try an ARM laptop, if it's physically as nice as the Aspire One, and has a VGA output (because I want to project from the Linux system, not whatever Windows system they have at the venue), and doesn't cost more than the Aspire One.
Software only became patentable after Microsoft vs Stac
No. This is all garbled.
It was our friends at IBM that brought the case which made software patentable. Microsoft only started having a significant patent portfolio after Stac sued them.
Perhaps because there isn't optimized MPEG playback code for that chipset?
Part of the problem here is that on the desktop, Intel's vendors don't want great Intel graphics, they want to be able to sell up to an external display card. So, it's only the laptop platform that could drive an improvement in Intel graphics.
So, the thing we really want to come out of this is a further limitation of software and business method patenting than the lower court case arrived at. But this is going to be a really big fight, with deep pockets on both sides. And it's going to be years before there's an outcome, if they take it.
If the Supreme Court doesn't accept it, I suppose we have a chance to bring yet another case and try for more limitation of software patenting.
What really bothers me is that our only viable path to do this right now is the courts. We've not been able to establish a legislative campaign.
25 watts during playback? Huh? This is more than twice what my current netbook with Intel graphics uses. It generally runs less than 11 watts, and I can get it to a bit less than 9 with some tweaking. I don't suppose anyone's seriously proposing an Atom platform that pulls 25 watts during playback.
I think FSF's principle in regard to licensing is that they do not remove any rights that you would have had without the license. I haven't looked at the GCC run time license for very long yet, or discussed it with one of the responsible people. So, I can't yet speak about the rationale behind this license and how it conforms with that.
I know that FSF's answer would be that proprietary software is not ethical. My own position is that proprietary software is on its own - and shouldn't incorporate components that were built to be Free and to preserve software Freedom. I think you have to be careful to differentiate use of GCC, like building proprietary code with the compiler and the runtime - which FSF explicitly allows - from direct incorporation of GCC into some proprietary product - which FSF seeks to block.
Why have you have taken the position that writing to an interface via dynamic linking is derivative?
My main goal here is to protect Free Software developers from being used as the unpaid employees of some proprietary software company. Those who have no problem being used in that way are free to apply gift rather than share-and-share-alike licensing to their work.
Where's the case law in favor of your position?
There is not yet pertinent case law. The existing cases are less than entirely germane. The one on which you base your argument, for example, is about software that connects in a different way than dynamic linking, and only applies in one circuit.
On what moral basis do you rest your argument?
I'm out to protect the developers.
Tools can be used for good and bad.
Yes. When I have my tools used to facilitate proprietary software, I like to be paid (or have the company that supported my work paid) for that. When my tools are used to facilitate Free Software, I feel that the increase in Free Software is the only quid pro quo that I need. I feel this is the best stance for most Open Source developers.
Um, doesn't your argument about my principles sound just the least bit ad-hominem to you? I'm quite proud of my adherence to principles, and would place myself higher than many in the Open Source world in that regard. The courts have definitely not said the last word (or even many first words) on dynamic linking, and thus it's more than a bit soon for you to attack me on principle for my stance on it.
Before you recommend that folks move to the LLVM code chain, remember that the work on it so far has gone to support such things as the proprietary Flash VM environment, and that the license on the LLVM-based compiler for that prohibits reverse-engineering of the VM codes that it emits. In contrast, the goal of FSF is to keep all of the code in the open, certainly more benign than what Adobe is doing.
So, this is an interesting case because Lexmark did not file a writ of certiorari. This is probably because they didn't want it to go to the Supreme court and have the Supes confirm the finding of the 6th circuit and have it apply across the entire U.S. Such is not unusual, leaving us deliberately with half-baked case law. The effect is that here in the 9th circuit, the Lexmark case may or may not matter. Depending on whether the judge wants it to or not. If it had gone to the Supreme Court, the judge would be compelled.
And it ends up that this doesn't matter, because the GCC run-time license changed in interesting ways. I didn't know that yesterday. To use the run-time you need a GPL-compatible code generation chain, and it doesn't matter how the pieces connect together.
I did not see yesterday that FSF had already changed the run-time license. It's entirely independent of how you connect to GCC - all the pieces have to be GPL compatible no matter where they are or you don't get to use the run-time.
Slashdot Mirror
LGPL, especially the current LGPL3, is a good license to use when you want people to combine your work with proprietary software, and software with incompatible licenses in general. Sometimes you don't want this. My latest (unannounced) product is dual-licensed, so I need a "modifications must be free software" license like GPL or GPL3, so that the proprietary folks have an incentive to buy a commercial license. That way, I get to provide Free Software to folks who want to make Free Software with it, and commercial license fees from the folks who don't want to make Free Software pay for me to do it.
Bruce
Yes. But "my employee did this, and he didn't have authority to do so" hasn't worked very effectively as a defense regarding software license violation and copyright infringement - or anything else. Or those BSA audits would have turned out differently, etc. Ultimately, the stockholders and management are responsible for what the company does even if they are so out of control that their employees do stuff without being instructed to :-)
Bruce
Bruce
I've been through this before. Often, it's best to start with new projects, rather than existing desktops, so that you aren't replacing anything, you're starting new people up on brand-new systems and software. Switching their entire IT structure as your first project doesn't generally work out well.
Look at http://software.intel.com/sites/oss/
Policy is sort of a dual problem. Attorneys get involved on several levels. They want to make sure no laws are being broken in the policy, that there isn't a specific vendor proference (if we're lucky - some districts have no problem sending everything to a few preferred vendors) and that it's not going to be overly burdensome for vendors doing business with the locality.
But politicians also get involved, and that's where the big problems will be. The really important thing I bring to the table is experience in how other similar efforts have failed, and how to get around the problems that killed them.
Bruce
These days, Jenny would have an email. And a webcam...
I spend tons of time working with my customers' lawyers. I know better than to do licensing, etc., without legal advice.
Bruce
Yes. The article you cited is from 2004. Good morning, Rip van Winkle! There have been a lot of changes. :-)
Well, the power of cell being untapped was a problem, wasn't it. Parallel programming is difficult.
Remember that Intel has been willing to open its drivers and specifications. Any improvements they make to their graphics core (which, yes, is in need of improvement) will probably make their way to motherboard and laptop chipsets, and will have nice Open Source Linux drivers made for them. So, this is a good thing.
Wow, some people must be really heavily into that gamespace. It always amazes me to see articles where nothing in the summary connects to the real world at all.
Hm, immortal. How is that different from cancerous? And all of the immune cells are really carefully filtered out so there's no potential for graft-vs-host disease if one gets loose in the patient, right?
Well, there's a MIPS laptop somewhere out there, on fire sale for less than $200. But where would I get an ARM laptop? I'm currently using an Acer Aspire One, and I have two of the 9-cell batteries, and can get 8 hours out of each. This is sufficient for my traveling and public speaking. I'd be happy to try an ARM laptop, if it's physically as nice as the Aspire One, and has a VGA output (because I want to project from the Linux system, not whatever Windows system they have at the venue), and doesn't cost more than the Aspire One.
No. This is all garbled.
It was our friends at IBM that brought the case which made software patentable. Microsoft only started having a significant patent portfolio after Stac sued them.
Perhaps because there isn't optimized MPEG playback code for that chipset?
Part of the problem here is that on the desktop, Intel's vendors don't want great Intel graphics, they want to be able to sell up to an external display card. So, it's only the laptop platform that could drive an improvement in Intel graphics.
If the Supreme Court doesn't accept it, I suppose we have a chance to bring yet another case and try for more limitation of software patenting.
What really bothers me is that our only viable path to do this right now is the courts. We've not been able to establish a legislative campaign.
Bruce
I think FSF's principle in regard to licensing is that they do not remove any rights that you would have had without the license. I haven't looked at the GCC run time license for very long yet, or discussed it with one of the responsible people. So, I can't yet speak about the rationale behind this license and how it conforms with that.
I know that FSF's answer would be that proprietary software is not ethical. My own position is that proprietary software is on its own - and shouldn't incorporate components that were built to be Free and to preserve software Freedom. I think you have to be careful to differentiate use of GCC, like building proprietary code with the compiler and the runtime - which FSF explicitly allows - from direct incorporation of GCC into some proprietary product - which FSF seeks to block.
Bruce
My main goal here is to protect Free Software developers from being used as the unpaid employees of some proprietary software company. Those who have no problem being used in that way are free to apply gift rather than share-and-share-alike licensing to their work.
There is not yet pertinent case law. The existing cases are less than entirely germane. The one on which you base your argument, for example, is about software that connects in a different way than dynamic linking, and only applies in one circuit.
I'm out to protect the developers.
Yes. When I have my tools used to facilitate proprietary software, I like to be paid (or have the company that supported my work paid) for that. When my tools are used to facilitate Free Software, I feel that the increase in Free Software is the only quid pro quo that I need. I feel this is the best stance for most Open Source developers.
Bruce
Um, doesn't your argument about my principles sound just the least bit ad-hominem to you? I'm quite proud of my adherence to principles, and would place myself higher than many in the Open Source world in that regard. The courts have definitely not said the last word (or even many first words) on dynamic linking, and thus it's more than a bit soon for you to attack me on principle for my stance on it.
Before you recommend that folks move to the LLVM code chain, remember that the work on it so far has gone to support such things as the proprietary Flash VM environment, and that the license on the LLVM-based compiler for that prohibits reverse-engineering of the VM codes that it emits. In contrast, the goal of FSF is to keep all of the code in the open, certainly more benign than what Adobe is doing.
Bruce
I think distribution permission is implicit. How could you be allowed to combine the plugin with GCC if you were not allowed to distribute it?
So, this is an interesting case because Lexmark did not file a writ of certiorari. This is probably because they didn't want it to go to the Supreme court and have the Supes confirm the finding of the 6th circuit and have it apply across the entire U.S. Such is not unusual, leaving us deliberately with half-baked case law. The effect is that here in the 9th circuit, the Lexmark case may or may not matter. Depending on whether the judge wants it to or not. If it had gone to the Supreme Court, the judge would be compelled.
And it ends up that this doesn't matter, because the GCC run-time license changed in interesting ways. I didn't know that yesterday. To use the run-time you need a GPL-compatible code generation chain, and it doesn't matter how the pieces connect together.
I did not see yesterday that FSF had already changed the run-time license. It's entirely independent of how you connect to GCC - all the pieces have to be GPL compatible no matter where they are or you don't get to use the run-time.