I'd be happy if Cringley reads it, for example, he's one of the folks who appears to have missed the distinction.
Don't assume that because it's obvious to you and me, it's obvious to everyone. And even when it's obvious to some people, they write me and say things like "I knew that, but I wasn't able to articulate it. Thanks for writing this, I'll show it to someone."
Gee, maybe you should write about some other obvious things! I could use the help!
Lots of people have default footers with copyright notices, but they must be careful that those copyright notices don't get applied to things they don't own - just saying it's the default that appears on every page is no good excuse. Listing the author's own copyright notice at the end of the article would have made sense - by having nothing but the default appear at the end of the page, they are effectively announcing that someone else's work is their own.
Note that on technocrat.net I handle copyrights of postings differently than on Slashdot. Over there, when you make a posting you agree to sign a separate and independent copyright over to me, and you keep your own copyright - the effect is that I can do whatever I want with your posting, and so can you. This is so that I can reprint discussions, etc., without having to go back to the original poster. I've seen this dual-copyright scheme used once on software - it was in the contract when I wrote an iostreams library for Zortech. I don't know of another example of its being used for a discussion forum.
Butch Landingin, author of squishdot, which I am using, did indeed clone the Slashdot look. In the documentation for the software, he says he hopes it will eventually evolve its own look.
Although you could use a license, this company has no right to republish your work even though you have not placed one on your work. When you don't otherwise license it, it's automaticaly copyrighted by you with all rights reserved. Find out who accepts process for their corporation, or write their president giving the URL and stating that your copyrighted material is being infringed. If they don't respond, take them to court. They can be found liable to pay you a royalty fee for their use of the work so far.
You are entirely in the right here, the company is in infringement. Don't let them waffle and don't be pushed around.
SCO's put out material like this about Linux long ago - at least a year ago, and I think it was from a European office then, too. Are we sure we aren't just re-hashing old news here?
If your main revenue stream is from providing closed-source operating systems software, it's time to find a new business. I'm sorry, but I just can't see any way around that. SCO had some great times and their founders made more money than they know what to do with. The engineers are able to find new work if the company isn't able to re-target itself appropriately. Companies have life-cycles and SCO's original mission is over. It's time for them to catch a new wave.
You may not use the words "Official" and "Debian" together in a product name unless you are distributing CDs made directly from an IS0-9660 CD master image distributed by the Debian project. You may, however, call it "Debian" without "Official". Debian will give you the CD masters without charge and asks no royalty for their use.
This policy originated after too many manufacturers made non-bootable or otherwise messed up versions of Debian. By allowing them to say they were distributing the official CD, we gave them an incentive to use the one we mastered, which had more quality control behind it.
Sun continues to shoot itself in the foot with bad licensing in an attempt to hurt microsoft. The license connected with this software is horrible. Restrictions on modification, restrictions on commercial distribution, etc. Take a look at the way Sun is being eclipsed where Java is concerned - other people have come out with an Open Source VM, an Open Source Java compiler, etc. When Sun decided to get tough with Microsoft about its use of Java, MS just turned elsewhere, Open Source Java creator Transvirtual, to purchase Java software. Free Linux office suites will continue in development and will eventually eclipse StarOffice.
A copyright holder can apply the GPL and any number of other licenses to his own work. He can't take back the GPL on a version once it's released, but is not required to use it on subsequent versions. However, this entirely ignores the matter of contributions. If you get GPL-ed contributions, you can't change the license on them without the permission of their copyright holders. Some people insist that you sign over the copyright of modifications before they will include them in their source thread, so that they can change the licensing on those modifications later on.
P.S. I just got back from 2 weeks in Alaska and was offline all that time
The IPO will start moving as soon as trade opens. I bet it will take a minute or less. There are institutions and quick-traders in this, you know, and they have already placed their limit orders.
E-Trade just called me, said I needed to re-confirm, and switched me to a broker. The hold music had an announcement that they were no longer accepting Red Hat offers, but of course that wasn't meant for affinity customers. There was a several-minute wait to get to the broker.
Unfortunately, the prohibition on reverse-engineering only helps keep Microsoft entrenched. Had this law existed a few years ago, there would have been no Samba (at least in the states where it applied), and nobody but Microsoft would be allowed to read Word and Excel files.
It's something we need help from the large Open Source companies on - the Red Hats, etc., of the world. I'm not sure it fits in the Linux International charter, though - it might have to be through a different organization. A number of us were discussing how to go about this today at LinuxWorld Expo.
I welcome the day when Linux is so commercialized that some people leave it for another free software system. I'll count that as having won. Linux kernel development will wind down eventually, but it won't matter to applications. Any of those newer systems like the Hurd can be made to run the same applications, and will be.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Only a good thing if the driver's free software
on
LinModems?
·
· Score: 3
This would only be a good thing if the driver is free software. That would give us a chance to play with modulation schemes, etc., as ham radio operators are doing with sound cards - they've implemented radio modems in the linux kernel, using nothing more than a sound card for hardware.
Without a free software driver, we're stuck with a dumb piece of hardware and a closed driver. No thanks. The embedded intelligence in a modem doesn't cost more than $10, so I doubt that would fly.
NASA is not a for-profit concern. As a research organization, their use of Linux is itself for the public good. Red Hat, in contrast, manages to do good as a side-effect of making money. This is not to disrespect Red Hat - I'm glad they understand the relationship better than some people on/.
This doesn't mean I'm thrilled with NASA's patent licensing policies, but they are a different sort of entity from Red Hat.
No company at this early a stage in their development is expected to make a profit on their balance sheet - they spend all of their money on growth at this point.
Get over the emotional reaction - they are taking part in a symbiosis between a company and the free software community. That is not to label them as less than a benefactor, it is simply descriptive of the relationship.
I think this is why Native Americans had so much trouble with the Europeans at the gift exchange back in the early 1700s. The Europeans didn't understand the "give something back" part.
When I write free software, I am doing it to expand the available pool of free software, not to subsidize someone's proprietary software. If I did not have the protection of the GPL, I'd simply not write free software. I have no wish to be someone's unpaid employee. The GPL protects me from that.
I don't think the ability of a work to stand alone is relevant to the question. If you combine two works, the result is a derivative work of both.
But this is entirely avoiding the intent of the author. If the author had wanted you to link to a non-GPL work, the author would have used the LGPL. Whether or not it's legal to go against the author's intent, it isn't nice.
Well, my take on this is that if you make money from marketing something valuable that you got from our community for free, you have a moral responsibility to return value to the community. Some people are not able to see the moral dimension. I choose to consider that as their fault rather than my illusion.
And also, it's Bruce not Pruce, and when used with an apostrophe its Perens' not Peren's . But then you put this up in a big hurry becuase I dragged my feet on it for 48 hours, so it's my fault anyway.
P.S. For the word nuts, "Perens" is not related to "parens" for parenthesis, but is latin for "traveling", so "Bruce Perens" reads in Latin as "Traveling Bruce". Same as the root for the English words peripatetic and peregrination.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't assume that because it's obvious to you and me, it's obvious to everyone. And even when it's obvious to some people, they write me and say things like "I knew that, but I wasn't able to articulate it. Thanks for writing this, I'll show it to someone."
Gee, maybe you should write about some other obvious things! I could use the help!
Thanks
Bruce
Note that on technocrat.net I handle copyrights of postings differently than on Slashdot. Over there, when you make a posting you agree to sign a separate and independent copyright over to me, and you keep your own copyright - the effect is that I can do whatever I want with your posting, and so can you. This is so that I can reprint discussions, etc., without having to go back to the original poster. I've seen this dual-copyright scheme used once on software - it was in the contract when I wrote an iostreams library for Zortech. I don't know of another example of its being used for a discussion forum.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
You are entirely in the right here, the company is in infringement. Don't let them waffle and don't be pushed around.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
If your main revenue stream is from providing closed-source operating systems software, it's time to find a new business. I'm sorry, but I just can't see any way around that. SCO had some great times and their founders made more money than they know what to do with. The engineers are able to find new work if the company isn't able to re-target itself appropriately. Companies have life-cycles and SCO's original mission is over. It's time for them to catch a new wave.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
This policy originated after too many manufacturers made non-bootable or otherwise messed up versions of Debian. By allowing them to say they were distributing the official CD, we gave them an incentive to use the one we mastered, which had more quality control behind it.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
A copyright holder can apply the GPL and any number of other licenses to his own work. He can't take back the GPL on a version once it's released, but is not required to use it on subsequent versions. However, this entirely ignores the matter of contributions. If you get GPL-ed contributions, you can't change the license on them without the permission of their copyright holders. Some people insist that you sign over the copyright of modifications before they will include them in their source thread, so that they can change the licensing on those modifications later on.
P.S. I just got back from 2 weeks in Alaska and was offline all that time
Thanks
Bruce
It's open, trading at 41. My shares are not in my account yet.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Anyway, they didn't document SMB that way.
Thanks
Bruce
It's something we need help from the large Open Source companies on - the Red Hats, etc., of the world. I'm not sure it fits in the Linux International charter, though - it might have to be through a different organization. A number of us were discussing how to go about this today at LinuxWorld Expo.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Without a free software driver, we're stuck with a dumb piece of hardware and a closed driver. No thanks. The embedded intelligence in a modem doesn't cost more than $10, so I doubt that would fly.
I'd really like to encourage these guys...
Thanks
Bruce
This doesn't mean I'm thrilled with NASA's patent licensing policies, but they are a different sort of entity from Red Hat.
Thanks
Bruce
Get over the emotional reaction - they are taking part in a symbiosis between a company and the free software community. That is not to label them as less than a benefactor, it is simply descriptive of the relationship.
Thanks
Bruce
When I write free software, I am doing it to expand the available pool of free software, not to subsidize someone's proprietary software. If I did not have the protection of the GPL, I'd simply not write free software. I have no wish to be someone's unpaid employee. The GPL protects me from that.
Thanks
Bruce
But this is entirely avoiding the intent of the author. If the author had wanted you to link to a non-GPL work, the author would have used the LGPL. Whether or not it's legal to go against the author's intent, it isn't nice.
Thanks
Bruce
Now, tell us about effect vs. affect. Last time I opened that can of worms, there were at least 30 follow-up postings arguing the point.
Well, my take on this is that if you make money from marketing something valuable that you got from our community for free, you have a moral responsibility to return value to the community. Some people are not able to see the moral dimension. I choose to consider that as their fault rather than my illusion.
Presumably you are the ward of an adult, who is responsible for your actions.
Actually, if you don't accept the license, the default is probably All Rights Reserved. Forget what the GPL does not restrict in that case.
P.S. For the word nuts, "Perens" is not related to "parens" for parenthesis, but is latin for "traveling", so "Bruce Perens" reads in Latin as "Traveling Bruce". Same as the root for the English words peripatetic and peregrination.