The necessary code is available in several BSD pieces of software, including a product Microsoft is ALREADY selling!
Even better, they can just use whatever Excel does, with NO CHANGES, and it will work perfectly (in fact it probably works better than OpenOffice, since the formulas are basically "work like Excel").
The formulas were "defined" as "do what Excel does".
That is pretty much a requirement if you want to interoperate with Excel. And there isn't anything terribly wrong with Excel formulas.
Claiming that because there is a desire to interoperate with their OWN undocumented program and that therefore ODF did not "document" something is such an insane level of hypocrisy that I thought even Microsoft might not do it. But they did. Should have predicted it, there was astroturfing here for over a year where they complained "ODF does not define formulas!!!".
Quick, what does SIN(x) do? Can you really not figure that out without the information being written into the ODF standard? You might as well say ODF should have defined the correct spelling of every English word used in the text.
ODF *cannot* specify the formula standard, due to Excel! People want to import Excel spreadsheets. Therefore the standard MUST be "do what Excel does".
If Microsoft insisted on misspelling words slightly in all saved Word documents, it would be complete suicide for ODF to refuse to read or to modify while saving the Microsoft misspelling. This is exactly the same thing.
The fact that Microsoft uses their own undocumented monopoly format as the example of "ODF is not fully specified" is so hypocritical that it boggles the mind!
The fact that they do so well with text actually makes this even more suspicious. I think they took the thing that they know people will test and that PDF has also made MS lockin much less relevant anyway.
But they purposly broke the thing that keeps MSOffice locked into office and business settings.
I am also very suspicious of the huge amount of astroturfing a few months ago that kept harping on how "ODF does not define the formula language". I'm sure ODF does not define something about superscripts or something as well, but that was ignored. The continued hitting on this tiny specific thing may indicate that they were planning on this incompatibility for quite a while.
The contents of the formula are text and should be interpreted just as well. This is like rejecting all text blocks containing non-english words when it is pretty obvious from the standard that there was no intention to make the language english only.
Furthermore the formala are basically defined as "what Excel does" so Microsoft is in a much better position than anybody else to really do this correctly. And this also is why there cannot ever be a standard, because Microsoft itself refuses to publish one!
Don't go all crazy about this "formulas are unspecified".
This is an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT because of Excel.
People want to import Excel spreadsheets. Thus OpenOffice must read the formulas. It would be silly to alter them, as this would risk breaking them, and there really is nothing wrong with Microsoft's formulas.
Thus the formula language MUST be the one Excel produces, by definition. Microsoft does not document the Excel language, thus the lack of a standard IS THERE OWN FAULT!
The astroturfers have been parroting this "ODF does not have a standard formula language" bullshit for years now. And we are seeing the fruit of their efforts with this.
OOXML does not define a formula language either, you know. For the same reason, it has to be compatible with Excel.
I *myself* am not releasing the code under the GPL. Why do you think others will somehow automatically release changes under the GPL? There is NO reason, as the other developers will have the exact same interests as me. And if they want their changes to be used, they will have to donate them back to the original project.
You might as well worry that *I* will change to the GPL. That can happen even if I release under a totally-GPL-incompatible license! You have gained NOTHING by refusing to use my code because of this totally irrational fear.
Your stupid argument is just parroting the excuse Microsoft uses for the MPL and Sun for the CDDL. This is not any kind of worry, or conversely their changes do not in any way change the chances of it happening. What they are doing is purposly trying to outlaw GPL end user software so that they are free to steal anything they want from anybody too poor to use any other method than GPL to advertise their abilities and services. This is truly evil and you should be ashamed of believing this crap.
I agree that the Microsoft patent is bogus. Just wanted to state that things are not as black & white as people make it out to be.
I think a better attack is that you cannot interoperate without violating this patent. If this was a technique by which Microsoft could read/write FAT *faster* than anybody else, then maybe the patent could stand. But in fact you cannot write FAT *at all* without violating this patent, and you must be able to write FAT to use a device that can also be stuck into a Windows machine and work.
That should be considered illegal. I believe this has already be done with mechanical inventions, where you cannot patent exact dimensions of screws, etc.
The MPL an CDDL are incompatible with the GPL. I should have mentioned the additional requirement that the code be compatible with the GPL. Since the purpose of the license I am proposing is to maximize use, I want it compatible with as many licenses as possible.
It is possible that the GPL-incompatibility is a fiction invented by the FSF. They seem intent on hiding any popular attempts to make a license such as I propose.
I think you are seeing exactly what I am saying. There are *not* any useful reusable library-like GPL packages. The authors know that making it GPL would reduce the number of users so they don't.
Turning this into some anti-GPL rant where you "refuse to use GPL software" and then admitting that you never even were tempted to do so indicates that you are just trying to flame about a problem that does not exist.
People put GPL on software that they think any possible derivation of is going to be a competing product. If I made a photo-editing software I would GPL it, since I don't want people to add redeye removal or something and then profit from my work. If I made a library that organized photos I certainly would not GPL it, because even if I wanted every photo organizer in the world to be GPL I know that some software would refuse to use my library and would use something incompatible, thus vastly reducing the chances anybody would use my library at all. This same train of thought goes through all developers minds and renders your arguments moot. There just is no software under the GPL that you would use for any purpose where you would actually contribute useful portions back, all such stuff is under linking exceptions.
I don't quite get it. The commercial advantage of the non-GPL version is that your users can make closed-source derivatives. Either this is an advantage, or there is no problem with the GPL. You can't have it both ways.
Making sure code you don't have the license to does not get into your software is a problem for *every* license, even public domain. It's not a GPL problem.
Yes. Just to make it clear. The patents do NOT cover:
1. Putting files on a disk 2. The FAT file system 3. Using "long" filenames to name files.
What the patents cover is a scheme by which long filenames are emulated on a FAT disk, which normally can only handle 8.3 filenames.
In addition the patents cover a bit of actual innovation. The obvious method of doing this is to make a hidden file containing the long filenames. Microsoft instead made hidden directory entries (a whole lot of them) containing the long filenames. This is likely to be the second, not first, thing somebody trying to do this would do, so it can be considered an innovation. The reason this works better is that old software ignored the hidden directory entries, not not actual hidden files, so when you deleted all the files with the old software the old software thought the directory really was empty.
There were good posts above but this has devolved into a typical flameware between people who see the GPL and the BSD as the only two possibilities.
What I would very much like to see is something that is "what people think the LGPL probably means before they read the fine print":
You can use the source code unchanged in any way you want in your software and distribute the result. However if you modify the source code to use it in your result, you must release your modifications (but not the rest of your program) under the same license.
In my opinion additions that don't require modification of your code are going to be creative work and thus should belong to you. But you should not be able to "steal" my code by making tiny changes to it and closing the result. I think a lot of people feel the same way.
Now this sort of license has been made dozens of times, and is often called "GPL plus a linking exception". The problem is that there is no common three-letter name so nobody can easily refer to this license, so there is license proliferation.
I think the FSF is to blame for forcing thier philosophy by activiely avoiding creation of the license described above and giving it a nice short name with a 'G' in it. No other organization seems to have the clout of the FSF to get a name standardized.
There are also commercial intereste to blame, they know this sort of license would address all the arguments against the GPL without removing the ability to compete that the BSD does. Their tactic seems to be to argue that there is no middle ground, and also to pollute the license namespace with hundereds of BSD licenses so that any such license that gets any popularity is buried.
I don't know if that is proved. I do agree it is likely the GPL was a deciding factor but it is really hard to tell.
Certainly something made Linux enormously more popular than any of the BSD's. But it really is not clear what and it is impossible to re-run the experiment.
It could very well be the pronouceable name, or a cute drawing of a penguin. It could be the fact that X worked better, or that Linux was easier to install.
Please name exactly the GPL project that you would use if it was BSD licensed. You may need a pretty elaborate and bullet-proof explanation as to how it is impossible for you to use this project without releasing your source code as well.
In reality all reusable code is LGPL or linking-exceptions or BSD or whatever. You list the reasons developers do this, but you seem to like turning it into an anti-GPL rant, rather than realizing that your own arguments are exactly what makes GPL not affect you.
GPL is used on projects where the author cannot imagine any modification that would be anything other than a competing project.
With the GPL a business can't take the protocol, modify it, and then use market share to push their closed and modified version as the standard.
Unfortunatly it has been shown that a business'es response is to then implement their own protocol (often purposly different to avoid any accusations of copying) and push that as another standard. I agree 100% with the parent poster that the GPL should not be used on any implementation designed to define a standard because of this problem.
Embrace & extend is a problem with BSD code but less than GPL forcing somebody to make a different protocol. There may be solutions: one idea is to allow the source code to be used in products in any way, but modifications to the source code itself must be released. In fact this is a common feature of OSS licenses, often called a "linking exception". However it is not clear if this is good enough to stop scaring companies, so for now BSD style works the best.
GPL is certainly very useful for applications where all possible modifications are to produce a competing product. But it should not be on libraries.
Please name exactly the GPL project you wish to use but cannot.
In reality all usable projects are actually LGPL licensed or with linking exceptions (for instance Linux itself has a giant "linking exception" that allows you to run arbitrary closed-source software).
Don't say Readline. That is one example of RMS being an ass, but it is well known and there are a dozen alternative ones.
Your software is copyrighted by you and you can release it under multiple licenses.
Releasing it under the GPL can give you a significan competitive advantage, as it is a practical way to popularize your code. But anybody who wants to make a closed-source implementation has to talk to you to get it under a different license.
The big threat that Microsoft/etc fear from the GPL is that it is a way to advertise your software without the enormous expense of getting OEM's to install it. They wish to defuse this threat by accusing it of being "viral" and somehow damaging, or by trying to convince people to switch to a scheme such as BSD where you give up the ability to benifit commercially when you use this method of advertising.
People certainly do contribute to such projects! FLTK has a GPL+linking exception license, which means that contributions can end up in closed-source for-profit software, and plenty of people submit changes.
Mostly because their fixes get into the official version and thus they don't have to keep patching each update, and they can stop worrying about changes being made to the official version that conflict with their patches.
There is also an ego thing. If somebody else fixes the same thing and contributes their fix, they will get all the credit for doing so. Also they may fix it in a way that you think is horrible and far inferior to your solution. You have to preempt this by contributing your code first.
The grandparent is talking about document formats. If Microsoft reads/writes ODF then you are free to use *either* MSOffice or Open Office, and probably a dozen other choices.
Astroturfers are usually easy to identify, they act as though it is physically impossible for any software other than Open Office to read/write ODF. Unrelated but it is also common to act as though it is physically impossible for commercial software to run on Linux.
It does seem like the state requiring people to register for parties and only vote in that primary is hurting the Republicans in this instance. If voters could be independent and choose a primary to vote in, I would think Specter could stay a Republican and plenty of moderates would vote for him in the primary over this other guy.
With the scheme as it is, Specter was forced to change to Democrat in order to win the election, and you could even say that he might be forced to do this to prevent a far more left Democrat from winning, thus shifting left actually is good for the right. Even if he does not change any views or votes, the change from R to D has symbolic impact (considering how much talk there is here about it).
So a question is, why are the parties interested in keeping the "register for your party and only vote in that primary" rule.
I get mail in one day all the time. Where the hell do you live?
Also I'm mystified by this ability to change insurance providers. My company provides exactly one insurance company (thought they like to change which one it is about once a year). I guess I can choose whether to use their PPO or HMO plan, is that what you are talking about? I can also use another insurance company if I'm willing to pay about 3 times as much, is that what you are talking about?
Technically does this really change the capacity for a filibuster, if you assume he will vote exactly the same as before, including votes to end a filibuster?
Obviously changing parties indicates his intention to vote this way, but I am not clear if this has any actual legal reason to change things.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes if you ignore Iris and NeWS and several other things that only date to about 1986.
The necessary code is available in several BSD pieces of software, including a product Microsoft is ALREADY selling!
Even better, they can just use whatever Excel does, with NO CHANGES, and it will work perfectly (in fact it probably works better than OpenOffice, since the formulas are basically "work like Excel").
Microsoft can better handle the ODF formulas than ANYBODY else, including Open Office.
This is because they are basically defined as "act like Excel". Microsoft knows much more about Excel than anybody else!
Using their OWN closed standard to then claim the open one is undocumented? That is truly sick, but I guess they are able to do it...
The formulas were "defined" as "do what Excel does".
That is pretty much a requirement if you want to interoperate with Excel. And there isn't anything terribly wrong with Excel formulas.
Claiming that because there is a desire to interoperate with their OWN undocumented program and that therefore ODF did not "document" something is such an insane level of hypocrisy that I thought even Microsoft might not do it. But they did. Should have predicted it, there was astroturfing here for over a year where they complained "ODF does not define formulas!!!".
Quick, what does SIN(x) do? Can you really not figure that out without the information being written into the ODF standard? You might as well say ODF should have defined the correct spelling of every English word used in the text.
ODF *cannot* specify the formula standard, due to Excel! People want to import Excel spreadsheets. Therefore the standard MUST be "do what Excel does".
If Microsoft insisted on misspelling words slightly in all saved Word documents, it would be complete suicide for ODF to refuse to read or to modify while saving the Microsoft misspelling. This is exactly the same thing.
The fact that Microsoft uses their own undocumented monopoly format as the example of "ODF is not fully specified" is so hypocritical that it boggles the mind!
The complaint is about Spreadsheet formulas.
The fact that they do so well with text actually makes this even more suspicious. I think they took the thing that they know people will test and that PDF has also made MS lockin much less relevant anyway.
But they purposly broke the thing that keeps MSOffice locked into office and business settings.
I am also very suspicious of the huge amount of astroturfing a few months ago that kept harping on how "ODF does not define the formula language". I'm sure ODF does not define something about superscripts or something as well, but that was ignored. The continued hitting on this tiny specific thing may indicate that they were planning on this incompatibility for quite a while.
The contents of the formula are text and should be interpreted just as well. This is like rejecting all text blocks containing non-english words when it is pretty obvious from the standard that there was no intention to make the language english only.
Furthermore the formala are basically defined as "what Excel does" so Microsoft is in a much better position than anybody else to really do this correctly. And this also is why there cannot ever be a standard, because Microsoft itself refuses to publish one!
Don't go all crazy about this "formulas are unspecified".
This is an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT because of Excel.
People want to import Excel spreadsheets. Thus OpenOffice must read the formulas. It would be silly to alter them, as this would risk breaking them, and there really is nothing wrong with Microsoft's formulas.
Thus the formula language MUST be the one Excel produces, by definition. Microsoft does not document the Excel language, thus the lack of a standard IS THERE OWN FAULT!
The astroturfers have been parroting this "ODF does not have a standard formula language" bullshit for years now. And we are seeing the fruit of their efforts with this.
OOXML does not define a formula language either, you know. For the same reason, it has to be compatible with Excel.
That's just silly.
I *myself* am not releasing the code under the GPL. Why do you think others will somehow automatically release changes under the GPL? There is NO reason, as the other developers will have the exact same interests as me. And if they want their changes to be used, they will have to donate them back to the original project.
You might as well worry that *I* will change to the GPL. That can happen even if I release under a totally-GPL-incompatible license! You have gained NOTHING by refusing to use my code because of this totally irrational fear.
Your stupid argument is just parroting the excuse Microsoft uses for the MPL and Sun for the CDDL. This is not any kind of worry, or conversely their changes do not in any way change the chances of it happening. What they are doing is purposly trying to outlaw GPL end user software so that they are free to steal anything they want from anybody too poor to use any other method than GPL to advertise their abilities and services. This is truly evil and you should be ashamed of believing this crap.
I agree that the Microsoft patent is bogus. Just wanted to state that things are not as black & white as people make it out to be.
I think a better attack is that you cannot interoperate without violating this patent. If this was a technique by which Microsoft could read/write FAT *faster* than anybody else, then maybe the patent could stand. But in fact you cannot write FAT *at all* without violating this patent, and you must be able to write FAT to use a device that can also be stuck into a Windows machine and work.
That should be considered illegal. I believe this has already be done with mechanical inventions, where you cannot patent exact dimensions of screws, etc.
The MPL an CDDL are incompatible with the GPL. I should have mentioned the additional requirement that the code be compatible with the GPL. Since the purpose of the license I am proposing is to maximize use, I want it compatible with as many licenses as possible.
It is possible that the GPL-incompatibility is a fiction invented by the FSF. They seem intent on hiding any popular attempts to make a license such as I propose.
I think you are seeing exactly what I am saying. There are *not* any useful reusable library-like GPL packages. The authors know that making it GPL would reduce the number of users so they don't.
Turning this into some anti-GPL rant where you "refuse to use GPL software" and then admitting that you never even were tempted to do so indicates that you are just trying to flame about a problem that does not exist.
People put GPL on software that they think any possible derivation of is going to be a competing product. If I made a photo-editing software I would GPL it, since I don't want people to add redeye removal or something and then profit from my work. If I made a library that organized photos I certainly would not GPL it, because even if I wanted every photo organizer in the world to be GPL I know that some software would refuse to use my library and would use something incompatible, thus vastly reducing the chances anybody would use my library at all. This same train of thought goes through all developers minds and renders your arguments moot. There just is no software under the GPL that you would use for any purpose where you would actually contribute useful portions back, all such stuff is under linking exceptions.
I don't quite get it. The commercial advantage of the non-GPL version is that your users can make closed-source derivatives. Either this is an advantage, or there is no problem with the GPL. You can't have it both ways.
Making sure code you don't have the license to does not get into your software is a problem for *every* license, even public domain. It's not a GPL problem.
Yes. Just to make it clear. The patents do NOT cover:
1. Putting files on a disk
2. The FAT file system
3. Using "long" filenames to name files.
What the patents cover is a scheme by which long filenames are emulated on a FAT disk, which normally can only handle 8.3 filenames.
In addition the patents cover a bit of actual innovation. The obvious method of doing this is to make a hidden file containing the long filenames. Microsoft instead made hidden directory entries (a whole lot of them) containing the long filenames. This is likely to be the second, not first, thing somebody trying to do this would do, so it can be considered an innovation. The reason this works better is that old software ignored the hidden directory entries, not not actual hidden files, so when you deleted all the files with the old software the old software thought the directory really was empty.
There were good posts above but this has devolved into a typical flameware between people who see the GPL and the BSD as the only two possibilities.
What I would very much like to see is something that is "what people think the LGPL probably means before they read the fine print":
You can use the source code unchanged in any way you want in your software and distribute the result. However if you modify the source code to use it in your result, you must release your modifications (but not the rest of your program) under the same license.
In my opinion additions that don't require modification of your code are going to be creative work and thus should belong to you. But you should not be able to "steal" my code by making tiny changes to it and closing the result. I think a lot of people feel the same way.
Now this sort of license has been made dozens of times, and is often called "GPL plus a linking exception". The problem is that there is no common three-letter name so nobody can easily refer to this license, so there is license proliferation.
I think the FSF is to blame for forcing thier philosophy by activiely avoiding creation of the license described above and giving it a nice short name with a 'G' in it. No other organization seems to have the clout of the FSF to get a name standardized.
There are also commercial intereste to blame, they know this sort of license would address all the arguments against the GPL without removing the ability to compete that the BSD does. Their tactic seems to be to argue that there is no middle ground, and also to pollute the license namespace with hundereds of BSD licenses so that any such license that gets any popularity is buried.
I don't know if that is proved. I do agree it is likely the GPL was a deciding factor but it is really hard to tell.
Certainly something made Linux enormously more popular than any of the BSD's. But it really is not clear what and it is impossible to re-run the experiment.
It could very well be the pronouceable name, or a cute drawing of a penguin. It could be the fact that X worked better, or that Linux was easier to install.
As always with these sorts of rants:
Please name exactly the GPL project that you would use if it was BSD licensed. You may need a pretty elaborate and bullet-proof explanation as to how it is impossible for you to use this project without releasing your source code as well.
In reality all reusable code is LGPL or linking-exceptions or BSD or whatever. You list the reasons developers do this, but you seem to like turning it into an anti-GPL rant, rather than realizing that your own arguments are exactly what makes GPL not affect you.
GPL is used on projects where the author cannot imagine any modification that would be anything other than a competing project.
With the GPL a business can't take the protocol, modify it, and then use market share to push their closed and modified version as the standard.
Unfortunatly it has been shown that a business'es response is to then implement their own protocol (often purposly different to avoid any accusations of copying) and push that as another standard. I agree 100% with the parent poster that the GPL should not be used on any implementation designed to define a standard because of this problem.
Embrace & extend is a problem with BSD code but less than GPL forcing somebody to make a different protocol. There may be solutions: one idea is to allow the source code to be used in products in any way, but modifications to the source code itself must be released. In fact this is a common feature of OSS licenses, often called a "linking exception". However it is not clear if this is good enough to stop scaring companies, so for now BSD style works the best.
GPL is certainly very useful for applications where all possible modifications are to produce a competing product. But it should not be on libraries.
I think you are talking bullshit.
Please name exactly the GPL project you wish to use but cannot.
In reality all usable projects are actually LGPL licensed or with linking exceptions (for instance Linux itself has a giant "linking exception" that allows you to run arbitrary closed-source software).
Don't say Readline. That is one example of RMS being an ass, but it is well known and there are a dozen alternative ones.
Your software is copyrighted by you and you can release it under multiple licenses.
Releasing it under the GPL can give you a significan competitive advantage, as it is a practical way to popularize your code. But anybody who wants to make a closed-source implementation has to talk to you to get it under a different license.
The big threat that Microsoft/etc fear from the GPL is that it is a way to advertise your software without the enormous expense of getting OEM's to install it. They wish to defuse this threat by accusing it of being "viral" and somehow damaging, or by trying to convince people to switch to a scheme such as BSD where you give up the ability to benifit commercially when you use this method of advertising.
People certainly do contribute to such projects! FLTK has a GPL+linking exception license, which means that contributions can end up in closed-source for-profit software, and plenty of people submit changes.
Mostly because their fixes get into the official version and thus they don't have to keep patching each update, and they can stop worrying about changes being made to the official version that conflict with their patches.
There is also an ego thing. If somebody else fixes the same thing and contributes their fix, they will get all the credit for doing so. Also they may fix it in a way that you think is horrible and far inferior to your solution. You have to preempt this by contributing your code first.
The grandparent is talking about document formats. If Microsoft reads/writes ODF then you are free to use *either* MSOffice or Open Office, and probably a dozen other choices.
Astroturfers are usually easy to identify, they act as though it is physically impossible for any software other than Open Office to read/write ODF. Unrelated but it is also common to act as though it is physically impossible for commercial software to run on Linux.
Your "bad" items (and your "good" ones) both sound good to me. And I'm pretty much a Democrat.
It does seem like the state requiring people to register for parties and only vote in that primary is hurting the Republicans in this instance. If voters could be independent and choose a primary to vote in, I would think Specter could stay a Republican and plenty of moderates would vote for him in the primary over this other guy.
With the scheme as it is, Specter was forced to change to Democrat in order to win the election, and you could even say that he might be forced to do this to prevent a far more left Democrat from winning, thus shifting left actually is good for the right. Even if he does not change any views or votes, the change from R to D has symbolic impact (considering how much talk there is here about it).
So a question is, why are the parties interested in keeping the "register for your party and only vote in that primary" rule.
I get mail in one day all the time. Where the hell do you live?
Also I'm mystified by this ability to change insurance providers. My company provides exactly one insurance company (thought they like to change which one it is about once a year). I guess I can choose whether to use their PPO or HMO plan, is that what you are talking about? I can also use another insurance company if I'm willing to pay about 3 times as much, is that what you are talking about?
Technically does this really change the capacity for a filibuster, if you assume he will vote exactly the same as before, including votes to end a filibuster?
Obviously changing parties indicates his intention to vote this way, but I am not clear if this has any actual legal reason to change things.