The LGPL includes the GPL by reference, which is why it's in that directory. The idea is that you can, at any time, convert a LGPL work to a GPL work, as specified in the LGPL itself.
But the Linux C library very clearly is under the LGPL. Believe me, we've checked that out very carefully.
Stallman renamed the LGPL to "Lesser GPL" from "Library GPL". It makes more sense that way because the license doesn't really need to be applied to a library. Either the GPL or the LGPL can be applied to any program.
If you want to use a GPL library, even with dynamic linking, you should either GPL your program, or find another library to use. So, you can make the program into a GPL library and make a GPL program on top of it.
If you are concerned that you can't make a proprietary application that uses the library, you should consider that the copyright holder would have used the LGPL had they wanted you to do that, whether or not the program was a library at that time.
We need more innovation, since we're almost finished with duplication. It's nice to see people stepping up to bat. This guy is way cool - he has the math, as well as enough Latin to be dangerous and a crazy sense of humor.
Thanks! In this case I'm the author of an editorial rather than a regular contributor to the site. Their policies seem pretty good, though, and I think the site will be an asset to Linux.
I was thinking of Art Tyde and Dave Sifry, but I hear there are some additional people there, with whom I have not become acquainted, who have the Linux background and management experience necessary. It won't be easy for them, but I think it's the only way to get the company to actually work.
Would we not really want a Windows person in charge of a company that makes a Windows product? Linux has so different a paradigm in the way we do business that it's important, I suppose that is less of an issue for Windows, but I am a big fan of getting a manager who is clued in technically, as well as having the business and human skills necessary to be a good manager.
We're seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors, aren't we?
The problem is that they needed management with reputations to match their tremendous funding. Because of the "let's be huge right away" mentality, the people who actually knew how to run a Linux business weren't allowed to do so. They probably didn't even trust themselves to do so, and that blinded them to the fact that the usual way of doing IT business just isn't going to work for Linux. The people who know how most likely won't be allowed to run the company now. And the business is going to fail, I have no doubt, if that's what happens.
The only chance is a real leap of faith by the VCs, and I fear they are too large for that. Put the Linux people in charge.
With freedom comes responsibility. And the general public, at least those who have been using Napster, don't seem to be terribly responsible. Passing around of copyrighted music in violation of its license terms is rampant. Because of this, we face severe restrictions in our net freedom driven by the music and media companies.
Most Open Source folks aren't the offenders here. They created their Open Source software so that they'd not have to bother with restrictive copyrights. But most of them are ethical enough not to engage in passing around music when they don't have the right to redistribute it.
My impression is that it's people who are entirely naive about copyright and intellectual property who are responsible for most of the passing around of music via Napster, and they are going to screw up the net for the rest of us.
So, if you are worried about net freedom, be a responsible net citizen. Don't pass around music when you don't have the right to redistribute it. Thanks
Actually, they are spinning off an entire company around it and I would not be surprised if they go for more money soon. There could have been some problems before they came to that decision, but I've emailed with their president and they seem to have a clear set of goals in sight now.
I doubt it was K&R style code - it was probably written for the Borland C compiler and it's been on Windows for quite a while. It is certainly possible that it might have some ugly code. We can fix that.
Inprise decided that the way for their database to remain competitive was for it to be Open Sourced. The thousands of man-hours have already been invested, but they think the community participation is important enough that they are opening it now, after that work has been done. Interbase is a rather powerful enterprise database, maybe not as powerful as Oracle yet but I think the Open Source folks might be able to help that.
By the way, "OSS" is an acronym coined by Microsoft, and one I've never liked. Can we please call it "Open Source"?
I think anyone else who has an order open for one of these and intends to modify should cancel their order, too.
Look, the manufacturer was stupid to not have an air-tight contract required you to use their service. That should have been in place the day they shipped their first unit. But to modify the unit and avoid using their service still feels to me like you would be running a rip-off on the manufacturer.
No way are they able to manufacture the device for $99. It should be really clear to all of you that they were intending to amortize the cost through their online service.
Us Open Source folks are supposed to be more ethical than the rest of the software crowd. This whole deal puts a really bad taste in my mouth.
If anyone else has a pending order and intended to modify the device, please cancel your order.
I too bought an nVidia card because of their actions at the time. I feel betrayed. I've since purchased a 3Dfx card, and will swap it in when next I take the system down. For me, the nVidia card is now nothing more than a baseline VGA card that I should have paid $15 for - the features aren't accessable from software I can maintain.
Well, the Open Publication License (which is the one on this book, I keep getting confused too) is really 4 licenses, depending on the options you choose. Only one of those licenses is free in the GNU sense.
Although this book is under the Open Content license, both of the options of that license were elected, which makes the book not open source. No substantive modifications are permitted without the copyright holder's permission, and no print versions are permitted without the copyright holder's permission.
OK, it's better than nothing, but I would have liked to see the same set of rights as the software.
Note that an Open Content license work is only Open Source if the copyright holder does not elect to use either of the options.
Don't forget to register your open texts and open web sites: At OpenContent.org there's a database specificaly for works under the Open Content license, and of course you should also register them with Freshmeat.net.
The database at OpenContent.org is pretty impressive but a lot of existing Open Content titles are missing from there.
That's very nice of you guys. I try. But remember that there are about 500 people working on Debian these days, and there were at least 200 when I was project leader. So there are a lot of quiet people out there who are the real heroes.
We reviewed this on the license-discuss mailing list a long time ago. Everybody in the discussion at that time concluded that it was an Open Source license, although I don't think anyone was as happy with it as they would be with some of our simpler and less restrictive licenses. I doubt that OSI will certify it but that's up to them. They tend to reject most termination clauses.
I discussed the ksh source release with David Korn a while back, including the point that it was probably too late. He seemed to think that the original still had some features not available in pdksh or elsewhere.
Huh? There is 10 KHz of bandwidth between 10 KHz and 0 KHz. There is room for expansion in the high-frequency direction only if you consider the propogation characteristics. When you get really high in frequency the atmosphere becomes more opaque. All of the frequencies we are talking about here are line-of-sight only.
I've asked quite a few attorneys to do pro-bono assistance for the free software community, advising on the legal issues of copyright, licensing, patents, etc. Not one of them have come through so far. They cite:
It's a conflict of interest with my proprietary software customers.
The liability issues are too large. I don't want to consult for nothing and then find a malpractice suit or some other liability suit is the reward for my efforts.
The only attorney that I know of who is helping pro-bono is working on the DVD lawsuits.
We want to file our own patents and then license them for blanket use by free software. We need attorneys for that. Sometimes we want to go to court to fight things like the DVD lawsuit or patents that are being enforced against free software. That's more than just consulting, but it would be great if we could get some more pro-bono help with that, too. That one pro-bono attorney, and the staff attorney at EFF who is working on DVD, are pretty overwhelmed and could use some help.
Someday, we might have to be the agressor, too. Enforcing our licenses, or attacking something like the DVD Copy Control Consortium in the courts. I'm not expecting all of this to be pro-bono. We need more money to do this than we have so far.
Slashdot Mirror
But the Linux C library very clearly is under the LGPL. Believe me, we've checked that out very carefully.
Thanks
Bruce
If you want to use a GPL library, even with dynamic linking, you should either GPL your program, or find another library to use. So, you can make the program into a GPL library and make a GPL program on top of it.
If you are concerned that you can't make a proprietary application that uses the library, you should consider that the copyright holder would have used the LGPL had they wanted you to do that, whether or not the program was a library at that time.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Would we not really want a Windows person in charge of a company that makes a Windows product? Linux has so different a paradigm in the way we do business that it's important, I suppose that is less of an issue for Windows, but I am a big fan of getting a manager who is clued in technically, as well as having the business and human skills necessary to be a good manager.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
We're seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors, aren't we?
The problem is that they needed management with reputations to match their tremendous funding. Because of the "let's be huge right away" mentality, the people who actually knew how to run a Linux business weren't allowed to do so. They probably didn't even trust themselves to do so, and that blinded them to the fact that the usual way of doing IT business just isn't going to work for Linux. The people who know how most likely won't be allowed to run the company now. And the business is going to fail, I have no doubt, if that's what happens.
The only chance is a real leap of faith by the VCs, and I fear they are too large for that. Put the Linux people in charge.
Thanks
Bruce
Most Open Source folks aren't the offenders here. They created their Open Source software so that they'd not have to bother with restrictive copyrights. But most of them are ethical enough not to engage in passing around music when they don't have the right to redistribute it.
My impression is that it's people who are entirely naive about copyright and intellectual property who are responsible for most of the passing around of music via Napster, and they are going to screw up the net for the rest of us.
So, if you are worried about net freedom, be a responsible net citizen. Don't pass around music when you don't have the right to redistribute it. Thanks
Bruce
We do this sort of software well. What is holding us back here seems to be patent and trade-secret issues.
Thanks
Bruce
I doubt it was K&R style code - it was probably written for the Borland C compiler and it's been on Windows for quite a while. It is certainly possible that it might have some ugly code. We can fix that.
Thanks
Bruce
By the way, "OSS" is an acronym coined by Microsoft, and one I've never liked. Can we please call it "Open Source"?
Thanks
Bruce
Look, the manufacturer was stupid to not have an air-tight contract required you to use their service. That should have been in place the day they shipped their first unit. But to modify the unit and avoid using their service still feels to me like you would be running a rip-off on the manufacturer.
No way are they able to manufacture the device for $99. It should be really clear to all of you that they were intending to amortize the cost through their online service.
Us Open Source folks are supposed to be more ethical than the rest of the software crowd. This whole deal puts a really bad taste in my mouth.
If anyone else has a pending order and intended to modify the device, please cancel your order.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce
OK, it's better than nothing, but I would have liked to see the same set of rights as the software.
Thanks
Bruce
Don't forget to register your open texts and open web sites: At OpenContent.org there's a database specificaly for works under the Open Content license, and of course you should also register them with Freshmeat.net.
The database at OpenContent.org is pretty impressive but a lot of existing Open Content titles are missing from there.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
I discussed the ksh source release with David Korn a while back, including the point that it was probably too late. He seemed to think that the original still had some features not available in pdksh or elsewhere.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Huh? There is 10 KHz of bandwidth between 10 KHz and 0 KHz. There is room for expansion in the high-frequency direction only if you consider the propogation characteristics. When you get really high in frequency the atmosphere becomes more opaque. All of the frequencies we are talking about here are line-of-sight only.
Bruce
I asked this guy who made $2B on free software for some help with PR and he said yes. I hope they're all like that.
Bruce
Consider how the GPL uses copyright against itself. I'm thinking of the same sort of strategy, although not as elegant as RMS did with GPL.
Thanks
Bruce
Agreed.
The only attorney that I know of who is helping pro-bono is working on the DVD lawsuits.
We want to file our own patents and then license them for blanket use by free software. We need attorneys for that. Sometimes we want to go to court to fight things like the DVD lawsuit or patents that are being enforced against free software. That's more than just consulting, but it would be great if we could get some more pro-bono help with that, too. That one pro-bono attorney, and the staff attorney at EFF who is working on DVD, are pretty overwhelmed and could use some help.
Someday, we might have to be the agressor, too. Enforcing our licenses, or attacking something like the DVD Copy Control Consortium in the courts. I'm not expecting all of this to be pro-bono. We need more money to do this than we have so far.
Thanks
Bruce