No, as long as the source code is distributed along with each internal copy, that clause is satisfied. Then it is the First Sale right of the receiver to resell that copy without the source code.
Aha. Good point. It would be something like selling a book without the first few chapters. AFAIK, copyright law doesn't prevent that, just as it wouldn't prevent someone from selling half of a software package--say, just the binaries.
I wonder what Richard Stallman would have to say about this.
I had considered that, but there are at least three problems with interpreting the "and" as an "or":
1. What do you say if you really mean "you may (copy and distribute) the program"? Every phrase I can think of is either very cumbersome, or is still subject to misinterpretation as an "or" instead of an "and".
2. What would "you may copy or distribute the program" mean? Isn't it the same thing? (Or are you going to replace "or" with "xor" too?:-)
3. The point is moot because it doesn't change the pertinent issue, which is that internal copying within a company technically requires source code to be made available with each copy, and so this new Act still doesn't allow anyone to bypass the GPL.
Thus, you can only make private copies as specified under the fair use doctrine of copyright law.
So then if I own a business, I can't buy a single copy of Redhat and install it on every machine?
Show me in the license. Where does it let you do that? The only answer I can think of is to consider that an act of "distribution" and therefore make source code available wherever the software is installed.
If you don't consider that an act of distribution, then no, the GPL doesn't let you do it.
Right, but the GPL allows you to make the copy. And then section (a) allows you to "to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
No, the GPL grants you rights to copy and distribute software with certain constraints. It says nothing about private copies; that issue is already covered by fair use rights. (Of course, it is impossible for me to demonstrate this with a snippet of the GPL--you would need to read the whole thing--but if you find something in the GPL that allows you to make private copies of a GPL'ed binary, I'd like to see it.)
Thus, you can only make private copies as specified under the fair use doctrine of copyright law. Therefore, this new Act does not allow you to distribute a million GPL'ed binaries any more than it would allow you to distribute a million copies of any copyrighted work.
Again, IANAL.
FYI, a relevant section of the GPL is this:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I'm glad you're looking at this critically. I was a bit surprised when I read it that it seemed not to be all it was cracked up to be.
Having said that, I disagree that this clause allows circumvention of the GPL. Let me edit it judiciously for clarity...
The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) apply where the owner of a particular copy... sells or otherwise disposes of the work by means of a transmission to a single recipient, provided that the owner does not retain his or her copy...
This rests on just what the privileges of subsections (a) and (c) are, and they only allow for copies to be made for archival purposes or private display/performance. If you make 1000 copies for the purpose of distributing them to others, that is not allowed by subsections (a) or (c).
I personally vouch for SuSE 8.0 over Red Hat 7.3. I haven't seen RH8 yet though.
At home I use Debian because I know how to make it just the way I want it. At work, SuSE is the best for configuring it different ways on hosts with different hardware and different purposes.
Translation: WAH I want music and I want it cheap. WAH I'm entitled. BOO HOO It's my God-given right to have people perform for me for free. WAH WAH gimme gimme BOO HOO.
I think you may be misinformed. My understanding was that artists make diddly from album sales, and make big bucks from live performances. Granted, the performances are probably financed by record companies who get money from record sales, but that's not a necessary part of the food chain here. Anyone could finance a concert series: even a banks. Hell, they finance everything else.
Having said that, my personal opinion is that recordings should have reasonable, limited protection based on copyright law, under control of the author until his death and no longer. Anything more is beyond the point of diminishing returns with respect to fostering creativity, which was, after all, the whole point of copyright in the first place.
Um, thanks for taking it upon your self to deal us that well-deserved tongue-lashing.
-1: Obvious
I have yet to read even one article that seriously makes the points you're refuting. I suggest you change your browser settings to read highest-rated articles first. You'll see a few lucky dummies who posted early, but often you see a lot of reasonable and insightful replies.
The article seems to be about
Why software costs so much (to make).
Many of us are responding to the question
Why software costs so much (to buy).
EXACTLY. I was just about to post the same thing.
I disagree with your answer to question #1, but I'm too lazy to argue about it right now. Suffice it to say I don't believe we have yet discovered the "right" way to do software, and we still spend 90%+ of our time on stupid things that could have been avoided.
In coming weeks, the team plans the first field tests of a new radio transmitter, the size of a grain of salt, that could allow individual bees to be tracked as they follow diffuse trails of bomb ingredients to a source. Such a system would help if bees were used to search a wide area for hidden explosives.
If it's so easy to train them, I wonder if it would be easy to un-train them. For instance, someone wanting to smuggle something could quietly spill some sugar water on the road, and when that first bee finds it, the whole hive will be too distracted to look for explosives or drugs.
I'm cooking up a CD-ROM image of excellent Win32 Open Source software to give to friends and family who are intrigued by the whole OSS movement but don't know where to start. ...
Remember, this is for non-geeks and families, so Cygwin is out (even though I love it) and games are in.
If you use a GNU system, but with a different filesystem, is it no longer GNU? What about with different device drivers? A different shell? A different kernel?
The kernel is only a part of the GNU operating system, as it is with any OS. GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux are both flavours of the GNU operating system. Nothing you quoted said otherwise.
Having said that, I note that Stallman has stopped referring to "GNU/Hurd", and now simply calls it "GNU" (though you can still find instances of "GNU/Hurd" lying around). In fact, if you wanted to make your point originally, you could have quoted this:
Since Linux is a secondary contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply "GNU"?
It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to do. Here are the reasons we call that system version "GNU/Linux" rather than just "GNU":
It's not exactly GNU--it has a different kernel (that is, Linux). Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.
...
However, even this still says that calling it "GNU" is not incorrect (while calling it just "Linux" is), supporting my argument.
Regardless, I still call it "Linux" because "GNU" sounds dumb, and because even RMS doesn't seem to be able to describe exactly what it is.
Dude, GNU didn't fail. You run it every time you boot that system you call "Linux". I think you're still not getting the point that your OS actually is the GNU operating system.
Having said that, I still call it Linux for one simple reason: GNU is just a stupid sounding name. In fact, any name that needs a pronunciation guide is just too nerdy to be taken seriously, and deserves oblivion.
(Before anyone says that "Linux" needs a pronunciation guide, let me hasten to say that Linus doesn't care, and you can pronounce it any way you want.)
You need to understand that there is no such thing as "deep linking". If you think there is such a thing, then please explain what it is, and how you can prevent it within the bounds of the first amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what Richard Stallman would have to say about this.
I had considered that, but there are at least three problems with interpreting the "and" as an "or":
:-)
1. What do you say if you really mean "you may (copy and distribute) the program"? Every phrase I can think of is either very cumbersome, or is still subject to misinterpretation as an "or" instead of an "and".
2. What would "you may copy or distribute the program" mean? Isn't it the same thing? (Or are you going to replace "or" with "xor" too?
3. The point is moot because it doesn't change the pertinent issue, which is that internal copying within a company technically requires source code to be made available with each copy, and so this new Act still doesn't allow anyone to bypass the GPL.
Very cool. I hope Google pickup-trucks this guy.
If you don't consider that an act of distribution, then no, the GPL doesn't let you do it.
No, the GPL grants you rights to copy and distribute software with certain constraints. It says nothing about private copies; that issue is already covered by fair use rights. (Of course, it is impossible for me to demonstrate this with a snippet of the GPL--you would need to read the whole thing--but if you find something in the GPL that allows you to make private copies of a GPL'ed binary, I'd like to see it.)
Thus, you can only make private copies as specified under the fair use doctrine of copyright law. Therefore, this new Act does not allow you to distribute a million GPL'ed binaries any more than it would allow you to distribute a million copies of any copyrighted work.
Again, IANAL.
FYI, a relevant section of the GPL is this:
Having said that, I disagree that this clause allows circumvention of the GPL. Let me edit it judiciously for clarity...
This rests on just what the privileges of subsections (a) and (c) are, and they only allow for copies to be made for archival purposes or private display/performance. If you make 1000 copies for the purpose of distributing them to others, that is not allowed by subsections (a) or (c).Of course, as always, IANAL.
At home I use Debian because I know how to make it just the way I want it. At work, SuSE is the best for configuring it different ways on hosts with different hardware and different purposes.
My bet is he couldn't use A and B, and used all the rest.
Well, there go all my hopes that we'd finally have an article whose comments didn't mention porn.
Translation: WAH I want music and I want it cheap. WAH I'm entitled. BOO HOO It's my God-given right to have people perform for me for free. WAH WAH gimme gimme BOO HOO.
Having said that, my personal opinion is that recordings should have reasonable, limited protection based on copyright law, under control of the author until his death and no longer. Anything more is beyond the point of diminishing returns with respect to fostering creativity, which was, after all, the whole point of copyright in the first place.
-1: Obvious
I have yet to read even one article that seriously makes the points you're refuting. I suggest you change your browser settings to read highest-rated articles first. You'll see a few lucky dummies who posted early, but often you see a lot of reasonable and insightful replies.
Yeah, I liked the show, though it's neither Survivor not Junkyard Wars.
A virtual mod point for you. Very insightful.
Ok, good point. Sorry for the sarcasm. Slashdot has become a very prickly place in the last few months, and I think it's rubbing off on me.
I disagree with your answer to question #1, but I'm too lazy to argue about it right now. Suffice it to say I don't believe we have yet discovered the "right" way to do software, and we still spend 90%+ of our time on stupid things that could have been avoided.
If it's so easy to train them, I wonder if it would be easy to un-train them. For instance, someone wanting to smuggle something could quietly spill some sugar water on the road, and when that first bee finds it, the whole hive will be too distracted to look for explosives or drugs.
You're mistaken. It has everything to do with the license. Furthermore, the GPL fits the bill, if something is GPLed (as Chris said), that is sufficient to make it Open Source too.
The kernel is only a part of the GNU operating system, as it is with any OS. GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux are both flavours of the GNU operating system. Nothing you quoted said otherwise.
Having said that, I note that Stallman has stopped referring to "GNU/Hurd", and now simply calls it "GNU" (though you can still find instances of "GNU/Hurd" lying around). In fact, if you wanted to make your point originally, you could have quoted this:
However, even this still says that calling it "GNU" is not incorrect (while calling it just "Linux" is), supporting my argument.Regardless, I still call it "Linux" because "GNU" sounds dumb, and because even RMS doesn't seem to be able to describe exactly what it is.
Ok. What was your point again?
Having said that, I still call it Linux for one simple reason: GNU is just a stupid sounding name. In fact, any name that needs a pronunciation guide is just too nerdy to be taken seriously, and deserves oblivion.
(Before anyone says that "Linux" needs a pronunciation guide, let me hasten to say that Linus doesn't care, and you can pronounce it any way you want.)
You need to understand that there is no such thing as "deep linking". If you think there is such a thing, then please explain what it is, and how you can prevent it within the bounds of the first amendment.