Legitimate scientists work on all sorts of things.
I've never heard of Malett so can't comment on his legitimacy, but take eg. Josephson (Nobel prize winner, should be known to most hardware geeks, as in "Josephson junction").
He is currently head of "mind-matter unification project", and is into such things as paranormal, ESP, cold fusion etc.
Some of these are arguably far further out from mainstream science than time machines - and indeed there are plenty of other scientists who regard Josephson as a "crackpot".
So, a Nobel Laureate (in physics) can in fact be "legitimate scientist" or "crackpot" even within the views of just the scientific community.
Check that shit out. And here's the bit that really fucks the GPL:
Generally, "[i]f the [licensee's] improper conduct constitutes a breach of a covenant undertaken by the [licensee] . . . and if such covenant constitutes an enforcible contractual obligation, then the [licensor] will have a cause of action for breach of contract," not copyright infringement.
A GPL licensee does not undertake any covenant. The GPL is not a contract. Therefore there is no cause for action for breach of contract.
If you then fail to provide source code, you can only be sued under contract law, not copyright law
That might well be correct - since you have met all the terms of the licence, and just failed to execute on your written offer, which is not part of the licence. The GPL does not require that you honour your written offer (really, it doesn't) - you just have to provide it.
The FSF have various theories about how you can't get around the licence in this sort of way (google "subterfuge" and "user does the link") but that might depend on the court's view on whether or not you ever intended to honour your written offer. If you intended to but circumstances changed (eg. product discontinued, no longer supported, and the company lost the code) then you may well be ok.
If you obtained your license through a third party then you have no contract with the copyright owner and only the copyright owner can sue you for contract violation
The GPL is not a contract - however you obtained your GPL license, no one can sue you for contract violation. Also, only a party to a contract can sue for contract violation, and the copyright owner is the only one who can sue for copyright violation.
If you issue written offers to provide source, then a recipient of one of those could possibly sue for contract violation (although with no consideration, even that may not fly).
I can't because I don't believe it can, because I believe S7 of the GPL is quite clear and only applies if you subject to a restriction which prefvents you following GPL. A covenant not to sue (particularly one which is given to you without agreement) can't impose any such restriction.
IMO. IANAL.
On the other hand, I'm bringing this up because as regards the Novell-MS covenants, lots of people are claiming the GPL is violated because the covenant protects some people non-transferrably. People are claiming this despite no specific patent claim being made against any GPL software - just because Novell felt the need to get such a covenant as part of the payoff agreement appears to be enough in some people's minds to trip the GPL clause.
In short, no one has shown (that I have seen) how any Novell-MS agreement can or will cause patent encumbrance of Suse release under the GPL - but plenty of people are claiming it does.
Java: 100% has technology that is covered by SUN's patents (which is fine) - but very unlikely (I never say anything for 100% except gravity, but as unlikely as 99.99%) that MS has patents concerning it.
So why did SUN need the covenant from MS then ? Maybe "just in case" ?
Even if it has, SUN, distributor of java has enough patents covering MS stuff to effectively defend itself.
Except that it has promised not to use them against MS, in return for the settlement.
Can you make the same claim of Mono?
Novell can and has. Based on my limited knowledge of both Mono and Java codebases and MS patent protfolio, I personally could not make the claim for either Java or Mono.
Mono currently only has a covenant (that is revocable)
Sun only has a covenant which expires, and a commitment to _talk_ about extensions and cross licence.
that only protects customers of Novell.
Who does the Sun-MS covenant protect - does it even protect Sun's customers ?
Now contrast this with the deal Novell stuck with Microsoft, that guarantees a 5 year revocable (!) protective covenant
This is exactly the type of deal Sun previoiusly struck with MS, on patents - at least according to MS:
Patents and Intellectual Property: The parties have agreed to a broad covenant not to sue with respect to all past patent infringement claims they may have against each other. The agreement also provides for potential future extensions of this type of covenant. The two companies have also agreed to embark on negotiations for a patent cross-license agreement between them.
So, Sun got a payout from MS and entered into a mutual no-sue-over-patents pact, Novell got a payout from MS and entered into a mutual no-sue-over-patents pact.
Why exactly should this mean that Java is less likely to have MS-patent-problems than Mono ?
The chair of that committee works for MS and is pushing C++/CLI.
If you don't know what c++/CLI is, then you need to check up on what your trusted committee has been doing for you recently - C++ is going.Net, so if you don't do.Net due to MS influence then C++ may need to move off your list too for same reason.
The FSF has ALSO made it pretty clear that you don't need to accept the terms of the GPL in order to use the software or make modifications yourself if you don't distribute it.
This would appear to be no longer the case, as with GPLv3 where your right to _use_ (not distribute) modified versions can be terminated if you don't accept (and follow) the terms.
considering that the GPL is a distribution license and not a use license, i fail to see how it would have any effect at all on linking with non-GPL code by an end user
FSF views "user does the link" as subterfuge - ie. if you can't distribute the result of the link then you can't distribute the parts for the user to link.
Google (usenet groups) for
"user does the link" gpl subterfuge
the debate on this (and the FSF position) goes back decades.
You have got to love the way they say, "Minor-attracted adults".
Doesn't seem to mean a lot - would cover most people (see below).
The way we put that is pedophile.
Which is even sillier, as it clearly doesn't mean that, unless you can't read, comprehend, (or spell).
Minor: someone below the age of majority / adulthood.
Paedophile: someone attracted to pubescent or peripubescent children (often also defined as being someone older - so as not to encompass children attracted to those of similar age).
So, unless you content that puberty happens overnight at the age of majority, attraction to minors is clearly not the same as Paedophile.
In fact the terms are more likely to be exclusive - consider some of the Page3 history for instance, topless pictures of minors, sexually attractive to adults, used to sell newspapers.
Basically most of the Sun readership from the 1980s would be "minor attracted adults" - _except_ for the paedophiles, since they would not (typically) be attracted to such fully developed girls.
Can the Firefox or Opera team release their products as high priority updates via Windows Update? No. Does this mean IE will gain market share not because their browser is better, but because they have a monopoly on Windows? Yes
um, no. it makes no difference. Firefox's update service can update Firefox installations just as easily as MS's can update IE.
Consider: if firefox updates _were_ pushed out through windows update, then all users with firefox installed (and with WU turned on) would be prompted to update.
Great, but what improvement does this provide over all firefox users being prompted to update when they run firefox ? Ok, it updates firefox users who don't actually run the program... but what real benefit is that ?
Pushing v7 as automatic update should actually help this (longer term) - v6 usage should die out much more quickly than v5 did.
Short term it is a pain, as even if you downloaded it immediately, you only get the final release version a few days before a _lot_ of your punters (not just the usual bleeding-edge early adopters) get it too.
yep, and to add to your point, chernobyl did not kill everything within a 10km radius, nor is it "uncleanable" - in fact nature has done so well at cleaning it up / living with it since (most of) the humans left, that people are talking about making it a nature reserve: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.st m
don't think that it's getting into EULA territory, really, as the GPL still would not apply to end users. It only applies to people who want to engage in covered activity. Mere use isn't one of those.
Clause 2 states that your permission to _use_ modified versions can be terminated along with your permission to _make_ modified versions.
This clearly does affect end users of modified versions - their usage rights can be terminated. If there is no "use" restriction, why does it not just terminate the right to modification (maybe there is a legal reason, but I haven't seen an explanation) ?
Furthermore, clause 7(b)5 allows additional use restrictions (also patent retaliation) without being limited to modified versions - ie. without (as far as I can see) the user engaging in an activity otherwise prohibited by copyright law.
Adding such a clause might be in direct conflict with the first para of clause 2, however "irrevocable" is only used in sentence 1 and not in the context of permission to use, which is "unlimited". In other words, I think that the use permission to use the unmodified given in (2) is either in potential conflict with 7(b)5, or it is revocable.
If the licence does not (and in the FSF view 'a free software license may not contain "use restrictions"') contain a use restriction, then why is the use permission not irrevocable ?
As for the article's premise, that commercially supported F/OSS software is expensive - how is that any different than proprietary software?
The article's premise is not that it is expensive, but that it is more expensive than proprietary software (specifically, the proprietary software they are replacing it with).
The most likely reason is that the F/OSS companies don't yet have the size of (paying) customer base necessary to compete effectively with proprietary. I very much doubt it is that the F/OSS companies are milking excessive profits off support.
Slashdot Mirror
Legitimate scientists work on all sorts of things.
I've never heard of Malett so can't comment on his legitimacy, but take eg. Josephson (Nobel prize winner, should be known to most hardware geeks, as in "Josephson junction").
He is currently head of "mind-matter unification project", and is into such things as paranormal, ESP, cold fusion etc.
Some of these are arguably far further out from mainstream science than time machines - and indeed there are plenty of other scientists who regard Josephson as a "crackpot".
So, a Nobel Laureate (in physics) can in fact be "legitimate scientist" or "crackpot" even within the views of just the scientific community.
The speed of light = 299,792,458 m / s
In a vacuum
So to delay 1 photon by 1 day would take a path :
25,902,068,371,200 m long
In a vacuum
Fibre optic cable :
Is not a vacuum...
Do you really mean "occurs" or do you mean "is reported to have occured" ?
Check that shit out. And here's the bit that really fucks the GPL:
A GPL licensee does not undertake any covenant. The GPL is not a contract. Therefore there is no cause for action for breach of contract.
If you then fail to provide source code, you can only be sued under contract law, not copyright law
That might well be correct - since you have met all the terms of the licence, and just failed to execute on your written offer, which is not part of the licence. The GPL does not require that you honour your written offer (really, it doesn't) - you just have to provide it.
The FSF have various theories about how you can't get around the licence in this sort of way (google "subterfuge" and "user does the link") but that might depend on the court's view on whether or not you ever intended to honour your written offer. If you intended to but circumstances changed (eg. product discontinued, no longer supported, and the company lost the code) then you may well be ok.
If you obtained your license through a third party then you have no contract with the copyright owner and only the copyright owner can sue you for contract violation
The GPL is not a contract - however you obtained your GPL license, no one can sue you for contract violation. Also, only a party to a contract can sue for contract violation, and the copyright owner is the only one who can sue for copyright violation.
If you issue written offers to provide source, then a recipient of one of those could possibly sue for contract violation (although with no consideration, even that may not fly).
He's not just a member - he is the chair (IIRC).
Yes, they may vote to keep the C++/CLI corruption out of the standard - we'll see, I'm not too hopeful myself.
LEO, yes (200 - 2000km) - but that is below the van allen belts.
Space elevators go up to GEO which is about 36k km - or about 7.5 days at 200km/h.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit
I can't because I don't believe it can, because I believe S7 of the GPL is quite clear and only applies if you subject to a restriction which prefvents you following GPL. A covenant not to sue (particularly one which is given to you without agreement) can't impose any such restriction.
IMO. IANAL.
On the other hand, I'm bringing this up because as regards the Novell-MS covenants, lots of people are claiming the GPL is violated because the covenant protects some people non-transferrably. People are claiming this despite no specific patent claim being made against any GPL software - just because Novell felt the need to get such a covenant as part of the payoff agreement appears to be enough in some people's minds to trip the GPL clause.
In short, no one has shown (that I have seen) how any Novell-MS agreement can or will cause patent encumbrance of Suse release under the GPL - but plenty of people are claiming it does.
Java: 100% has technology that is covered by SUN's patents (which is fine) - but very unlikely (I never say anything for 100% except gravity, but as unlikely as 99.99%) that MS has patents concerning it.
So why did SUN need the covenant from MS then ? Maybe "just in case" ?
Even if it has, SUN, distributor of java has enough patents covering MS stuff to effectively defend itself.
Except that it has promised not to use them against MS, in return for the settlement.
Can you make the same claim of Mono?
Novell can and has. Based on my limited knowledge of both Mono and Java codebases and MS patent protfolio, I personally could not make the claim for either Java or Mono.
Mono currently only has a covenant (that is revocable)
Sun only has a covenant which expires, and a commitment to _talk_ about extensions and cross licence.
that only protects customers of Novell.
Who does the Sun-MS covenant protect - does it even protect Sun's customers ?
Now contrast this with the deal Novell stuck with Microsoft, that guarantees a 5 year revocable (!) protective covenant
This is exactly the type of deal Sun previoiusly struck with MS, on patents - at least according to MS:
Quoted from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/apr
So, Sun got a payout from MS and entered into a mutual no-sue-over-patents pact, Novell got a payout from MS and entered into a mutual no-sue-over-patents pact.
Why exactly should this mean that Java is less likely to have MS-patent-problems than Mono ?
The chair of that committee works for MS and is pushing C++/CLI.
.Net, so if you don't do .Net due to MS influence then C++ may need to move off your list too for same reason.
If you don't know what c++/CLI is, then you need to check up on what your trusted committee has been doing for you recently - C++ is going
um.... no, I haven't noticed. :-)
Indeed, sounds odd to me too - thames themselves sell/recommend combi boilers:
e nt/Section_Homepages/Multi_Download_000207.jsp
http://www.thameswater.co.uk/UK/region/en_gb/cont
The FSF has ALSO made it pretty clear that you don't need to accept the terms of the GPL in order to use the software or make modifications yourself if you don't distribute it.
This would appear to be no longer the case, as with GPLv3 where your right to _use_ (not distribute) modified versions can be terminated if you don't accept (and follow) the terms.
considering that the GPL is a distribution license and not a use license, i fail to see how it would have any effect at all on linking with non-GPL code by an end user
FSF views "user does the link" as subterfuge - ie. if you can't distribute the result of the link then you can't distribute the parts for the user to link.
Google (usenet groups) for
"user does the link" gpl subterfuge
the debate on this (and the FSF position) goes back decades.
Minor-attracted? It's paedophilia. Look it up.
Minor: below age of majority
Paedophilia: sexual attraction to prepubescent or peripubescent children
So, what are you saying ? Puberty happens overnight at age of majority where you are ?
You have got to love the way they say, "Minor-attracted adults".
Doesn't seem to mean a lot - would cover most people (see below).
The way we put that is pedophile.
Which is even sillier, as it clearly doesn't mean that, unless you can't read, comprehend, (or spell).
Minor: someone below the age of majority / adulthood.
Paedophile: someone attracted to pubescent or peripubescent children (often also defined as being someone older - so as not to encompass children attracted to those of similar age).
So, unless you content that puberty happens overnight at the age of majority, attraction to minors is clearly not the same as Paedophile.
In fact the terms are more likely to be exclusive - consider some of the Page3 history for instance, topless pictures of minors, sexually attractive to adults, used to sell newspapers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Three_girl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Fox [maybe NSFW]
Basically most of the Sun readership from the 1980s would be "minor attracted adults" - _except_ for the paedophiles, since they would not (typically) be attracted to such fully developed girls.
um, no. it makes no difference. Firefox's update service can update Firefox installations just as easily as MS's can update IE.
Consider: if firefox updates _were_ pushed out through windows update, then all users with firefox installed (and with WU turned on) would be prompted to update.
Great, but what improvement does this provide over all firefox users being prompted to update when they run firefox ? Ok, it updates firefox users who don't actually run the program... but what real benefit is that ?
Pushing v7 as automatic update should actually help this (longer term) - v6 usage should die out much more quickly than v5 did.
Short term it is a pain, as even if you downloaded it immediately, you only get the final release version a few days before a _lot_ of your punters (not just the usual bleeding-edge early adopters) get it too.
Chernobyl was a big one
t m
yep, and to add to your point, chernobyl did not kill everything within a 10km radius, nor is it "uncleanable" - in fact nature has done so well at cleaning it up / living with it since (most of) the humans left, that people are talking about making it a nature reserve: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.s
Actually, the problem (if you read the lawyers who've written on this) is that originally they _did_ go to court.
IIRC they asked the original (state, district ?) court to move the case to federal.
_Then_ they didn't turn up at the federal court because they _then_ decided they didn't accept its jurisdiction.
Where are Turing, Knuth and Parnas
At least two of them are very definitely unavailable for email interviews...
Exactly how was the guy supposed to get Turing or Knuth to do an email interview ?
don't think that it's getting into EULA territory, really, as the GPL still would not apply to end users. It only applies to people who want to engage in covered activity. Mere use isn't one of those.
Clause 2 states that your permission to _use_ modified versions can be terminated along with your permission to _make_ modified versions.
This clearly does affect end users of modified versions - their usage rights can be terminated. If there is no "use" restriction, why does it not just terminate the right to modification (maybe there is a legal reason, but I haven't seen an explanation) ?
Furthermore, clause 7(b)5 allows additional use restrictions (also patent retaliation) without being limited to modified versions - ie. without (as far as I can see) the user engaging in an activity otherwise prohibited by copyright law.
Adding such a clause might be in direct conflict with the first para of clause 2, however "irrevocable" is only used in sentence 1 and not in the context of permission to use, which is "unlimited". In other words, I think that the use permission to use the unmodified given in (2) is either in potential conflict with 7(b)5, or it is revocable.
If the licence does not (and in the FSF view 'a free software license may not contain "use restrictions"') contain a use restriction, then why is the use permission not irrevocable ?
Too easy, google for patriot missile downed gives:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm
Yep, confirmed patriot kill, right at the top of the list. Way to go.
As for the article's premise, that commercially supported F/OSS software is expensive - how is that any different than proprietary software?
The article's premise is not that it is expensive, but that it is more expensive than proprietary software (specifically, the proprietary software they are replacing it with).
The most likely reason is that the F/OSS companies don't yet have the size of (paying) customer base necessary to compete effectively with proprietary. I very much doubt it is that the F/OSS companies are milking excessive profits off support.