What if used another library that had a BSD or other license, but incorporated code that was GPL without disclosing it at first?
Then the license of the library was wrong, and it has to be exchanged or the license status of the library corrected. Would also be a violation when exchanging GPL with a commercial license.
What if you are running a non-GPL open source project and one of your unpaid developers contributes GPLd code from another app? An entire release of your software is now polluted by the GPL.
No "pollution". The GPL was used in violation, so the release isn't releasable; it's unlicensed code. Remove the GPLd code. No license grant has been given under the GPL for any of the other code.
But companies HAVE sued because former employees or contractors have seen or had access to proprietary source code and subsequently developed some similar application.
It's not a problem if source code is similar. It's a problem if source code is so similar that e.g. formatting quirks or specialties of coding (algorithm details) are in both sides. So: if the algorithm is similar, no problem. If you copy, you have to change so many things that you could have written it new yourself.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is how I understand the GPL.
As in Microsoft (R) Windows (TM) xp...
Or in Debian GNU/Linux...
One has got to be pedantic if the discussion is about an official (!) name. Of course, everybody will call Windows Windows. And Doors Doors. Where were we?...
When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a system that many others call just "Linux", they ask many questions. Here are common questions, and our answers.
Now, I wouldn't exactly call that desperate, especially when most of the basic OS utilities (compiler!) are GNU...
'course - you need the DDK from MS, etc. if you want to do it quickly.
But those issues were also there for the windows ext2 drivers - those still don't really work, but with some effort, they could maybe. With some reverse engineering. Or the like.
Why not create a GPLed NFS implementation for Windows? Just in case that this is really going to be a problem -- it doesn't look wholly like it. That way, people won't need to rely on MS's grace anymore.
Then we can do away with that strange SMB protocol, and rely on our own infrastructure and ideas. Why not grasp the control over the specification?
I beg to differ - why is JSP a thing of the past? Also, you underestimate the development of Mozilla / Netscape 6. It's out, it's quite usable already, and in about half a year, it's going to be as stable and bug-free as IE. Which is no small accomplishment, given that Microsoft didn't have to redesign and rewrite the whole browser between versions 4 and 5.
It's not really a big deal. How has Microsoft "approved" of the Flash plugin? Only because they're delivering it with IE doesn't mean the current version isn't the one at http://www.flash.com . Downloading the Java plugin in a browser is as easy as downloading any other plugin, while providing the programmer with a host of new features.
Also, why is there this whining about "Java is dead on the client"? I would say it's quite alive and used well as THE language for more sophisticated clients, for applications such as online banking, tickers, online games, embedded apps. HTML and JavaScript, besides the latter generally being insecure for users, sometimes just isn't adequate and comfortable to the task at hand.
As a third point, there were always problems with the Microsoft version. It didn't support some features (RMI was mentioned above), Microsoft tried to extend the core classes and bring the Java evolution under its control, and when they were sued by sun, they dropped evolving it and are now removing it from their products. The first version of Visual J++ was poor (ever tried to use the dialog editor?), and even later there were lots of proprietary extensions, which are quite for nothing if you are using Java to gain platform independency.
Moreover, the replacement for Java, C#, seems to me like a cheap ripoff. The difference are merely some hacks to placate the ramblers who always wanted pointers, so they would be able to kill the VM, and they are only complicating the language. The next version of Java however, 1.4, seems to gain a lot of truly useful features in comparison, such as asserts and templates (I wish they would include a standard preprocessor).
Hmmmm... I wonder what I've been studying all those years - It was broadly called Computer Science, but I also learned a lot about Software Engineering... Must be one of those formal-definition-by-morons vs. daily-use cases...
on a side note: i do consider the "nazi" in "grammar nazi" highly inappropriate. the era was definitely unpleasant, and nobody would like to have the name of the bad boys become frequently used. why not "grammar fundy".
would've sent this as an email, but there's no valid one there...
Slashdot Mirror
Then the license of the library was wrong, and it has to be exchanged or the license status of the library corrected. Would also be a violation when exchanging GPL with a commercial license.
No "pollution". The GPL was used in violation, so the release isn't releasable; it's unlicensed code. Remove the GPLd code. No license grant has been given under the GPL for any of the other code.
It's not a problem if source code is similar. It's a problem if source code is so similar that e.g. formatting quirks or specialties of coding (algorithm details) are in both sides. So: if the algorithm is similar, no problem. If you copy, you have to change so many things that you could have written it new yourself.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is how I understand the GPL.
MacOS X is based on FreeBSD. Read the article.
One has got to be pedantic if the discussion is about an official (!) name. Of course, everybody will call Windows Windows. And Doors Doors. Where were we?...
Now, I wouldn't exactly call that desperate, especially when most of the basic OS utilities (compiler!) are GNU...
But those issues were also there for the windows ext2 drivers - those still don't really work, but with some effort, they could maybe. With some reverse engineering. Or the like.
Why not create a GPLed NFS implementation for Windows? Just in case that this is really going to be a problem -- it doesn't look wholly like it. That way, people won't need to rely on MS's grace anymore.
Then we can do away with that strange SMB protocol, and rely on our own infrastructure and ideas. Why not grasp the control over the specification?
I beg to differ - why is JSP a thing of the past? Also, you underestimate the development of Mozilla / Netscape 6. It's out, it's quite usable already, and in about half a year, it's going to be as stable and bug-free as IE. Which is no small accomplishment, given that Microsoft didn't have to redesign and rewrite the whole browser between versions 4 and 5.
It's not really a big deal. How has Microsoft "approved" of the Flash plugin? Only because they're delivering it with IE doesn't mean the current version isn't the one at http://www.flash.com . Downloading the Java plugin in a browser is as easy as downloading any other plugin, while providing the programmer with a host of new features.
Also, why is there this whining about "Java is dead on the client"? I would say it's quite alive and used well as THE language for more sophisticated clients, for applications such as online banking, tickers, online games, embedded apps. HTML and JavaScript, besides the latter generally being insecure for users, sometimes just isn't adequate and comfortable to the task at hand.
As a third point, there were always problems with the Microsoft version. It didn't support some features (RMI was mentioned above), Microsoft tried to extend the core classes and bring the Java evolution under its control, and when they were sued by sun, they dropped evolving it and are now removing it from their products. The first version of Visual J++ was poor (ever tried to use the dialog editor?), and even later there were lots of proprietary extensions, which are quite for nothing if you are using Java to gain platform independency.
Moreover, the replacement for Java, C#, seems to me like a cheap ripoff. The difference are merely some hacks to placate the ramblers who always wanted pointers, so they would be able to kill the VM, and they are only complicating the language. The next version of Java however, 1.4, seems to gain a lot of truly useful features in comparison, such as asserts and templates (I wish they would include a standard preprocessor).
Hmmmm... I wonder what I've been studying all those years - It was broadly called Computer Science, but I also learned a lot about Software Engineering... Must be one of those formal-definition-by-morons vs. daily-use cases...
would've sent this as an email, but there's no valid one there...
by law, this thread is terminated now.