2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
Relevant part of Section 3:
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;
From the FAQ:
What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
From the link in the original slashdot article, I thought it was stated that they did provide the offer. The problem was that they provided the original rather than the modified source code in their 1.8 MB zip.
Question: If someone did strip the EULA and distributed (in violation of copyright, for sure) copies of Vista, while they would be liable what about the people who received copies? If they don't distribute, does oopyright have anything to say?
I haven't bought one either. I'm what you might call one of those "any third party" people that they have an obligation to under the GPL:
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;
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.)
From the FAQ
What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
I am less than tolerant of labels such as "creationist biologist", as they are (by definition) "doublethink". Juxtaposing two mutually exclusive terms is not "doublethink"?
And propaganda is not necessarily "bad". Propaganda is a means to spread your ideas.
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
If you said that propaganda is not necessarily bad when it is only used to spread your ideas (or information) without recourse to (initiating) rumor or allegation, that would be different. Fact is, though, propaganda is more than merely a means to spread your ideas. It is all the rest of what propaganda entails that makes it dirty.
Always found it confusing how "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party" is interpreted to mean "only has to provide the source to their customers".
But that didn't mean if you unscrewed the housing and "upgraded" things we'd feel obligated to warranty it. FTFA:
The Magnuson-Moss Act is a 1975 Federal law that lays down some rules for how consumer warranties work. One of the specific things it prohibits are "tie-ins," additional items or services you must buy from the manufacturer to make your warranty work.
The difference between "Feel obligated", and "are in fact legally obligated", pays for the nice cars lawyers drive;-)
"Most of the eeepc's software is probably already up at Xandros' ftp site, in the standard files." That is confusing. Is Xandros distributing the Asus eeePC? Or is Asus distributing it? If Asus is distributing it commercially (using binaries) then isn't Asus responsible for distributing sourcecode? Pointing back to Xandros isn't good enough, is it?
The commandline isn't about "hardcore" or "my dick is bigger" it is about efficiency. Likewise vim vs. notepad (or vi keybindings vs. mouse). Freshman and sophomores all want visual studio or eclipse. Juniors/Seniors/Grad.s start being more concerned with how fast they can work than how easy it is to work slowly.
The original conversation was in regard to whether there has been a climate shift here (and there certainly seems to have been) and wondering how much this of this shift is due to the artificial connivances of paid astrotuffers (which really only MS knows). In terms of calling you a troll, and insulting you in the same post...isn't that redundant? I did perceive a symmetry in that you used a not dissimilar weaselly intro...hence the reference to (a passive responding) bot. If you were a troll, it seemed like a simple but not un-clever device. If you aren't trolling, my apologies (but I then have to also take back the "not un-clever" remark).
This website should help to identify the minimum number of comments which need to be addressed to allow countries to change their vote from a No to a Yes. Discussions here may help prepare reasons why some comments should not be resolved.
Alan Bell
I can see how easy it would be to down count. I would count Brasil, for instance, as 103 instead of 64. Notice that for section one, they have in the first comment area 11 elements (or 11 specific places where the text needs to be changed), and one proposed change which boils down to "make those 11 changes". Is this one comment? Or is it 11? I count 11. Then the next comment area has one sentence: "It is desired to have improved interoperability among other ISO document standards." However, in the proposed change area they list "Identified ( but not limited to) ISO 26300 attributes are : ", followed by 30 specific attributes. Is this one, or 30? I'd say is 30.
Then make that, "...a leaked memo showed that Microsoft not only asked partners to influence the vote (slimy but perhaps legal), but had also offered to pay them to do so (which could be actionable)..."?
That is one of the clearest, most insightful, & yet concise comments I've read on this subject. I agree, storage and conversion are two separate functions and shouldn't be in the same format.
In the legal sense an original document has evidentiary weight. If you filter that through software that could destroy original formating it could also change meaning. A photograph is not the original document, but it is closer than PDF would be. There *is* a difference between physical objects and the information they contain/convey.
In one case, "I like to think...", but in the other case, "I'm sure". These are only mutually exclusive if you don't like to think things that you are sure aren't.
While this would be rational, it isn't often the norm. Everyone's a little neurotic;-)
Don't feed the troll. Anybody who starts out a comment with "I like to think...", and then goes on to slam you for saying, "I suspect...", is either consciously trolling or obviously not worthy of your time. Might even be a mildly effective bot.
The comments referenced are thus comments the various countries filed with their votes. Unless the FSF gets to vote, their comments aren't counted. When you vote, you attach comments as to what are necessary corrections in order to vote "yes" rather than "no" next time. These are not "open" or "public" comments, in that only MBs get to vote and only then do they get to file comments.
Slashdot Mirror
From the link in the original slashdot article, I thought it was stated that they did provide the offer. The problem was that they provided the original rather than the modified source code in their 1.8 MB zip.
Question: If someone did strip the EULA and distributed (in violation of copyright, for sure) copies of Vista, while they would be liable what about the people who received copies? If they don't distribute, does oopyright have anything to say?
And yet we *should*!
I am less than tolerant of labels such as "creationist biologist", as they are (by definition) "doublethink". Juxtaposing two mutually exclusive terms is not "doublethink"?
Well they were naked, yes, but they were *not* ladies (i.e., women of superior social position and/or refinement and gentle manners).
- ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
If you said that propaganda is not necessarily bad when it is only used to spread your ideas (or information) without recourse to (initiating) rumor or allegation, that would be different. Fact is, though, propaganda is more than merely a means to spread your ideas. It is all the rest of what propaganda entails that makes it dirty.Notice the tags:
badsummary, internet, politics, usa, lie (tagging beta)
Perhaps they misspelled "Debian"?
Always found it confusing how "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party" is interpreted to mean "only has to provide the source to their customers".
FTFA: The difference between "Feel obligated", and "are in fact legally obligated", pays for the nice cars lawyers drive
"Most of the eeepc's software is probably already up at Xandros' ftp site, in the standard files." That is confusing. Is Xandros distributing the Asus eeePC? Or is Asus distributing it? If Asus is distributing it commercially (using binaries) then isn't Asus responsible for distributing sourcecode? Pointing back to Xandros isn't good enough, is it?
I don't know, this box runs ubuntu and damn small linux and WinXP at the same time. Thank you VMWare!
The commandline isn't about "hardcore" or "my dick is bigger" it is about efficiency. Likewise vim vs. notepad (or vi keybindings vs. mouse). Freshman and sophomores all want visual studio or eclipse. Juniors/Seniors/Grad.s start being more concerned with how fast they can work than how easy it is to work slowly.
The original conversation was in regard to whether there has been a climate shift here (and there certainly seems to have been) and wondering how much this of this shift is due to the artificial connivances of paid astrotuffers (which really only MS knows). In terms of calling you a troll, and insulting you in the same post...isn't that redundant? I did perceive a symmetry in that you used a not dissimilar weaselly intro...hence the reference to (a passive responding) bot. If you were a troll, it seemed like a simple but not un-clever device. If you aren't trolling, my apologies (but I then have to also take back the "not un-clever" remark).
I can see how easy it would be to down count. I would count Brasil, for instance, as 103 instead of 64. Notice that for section one, they have in the first comment area 11 elements (or 11 specific places where the text needs to be changed), and one proposed change which boils down to "make those 11 changes". Is this one comment? Or is it 11? I count 11. Then the next comment area has one sentence: "It is desired to have improved interoperability among other ISO document standards." However, in the proposed change area they list "Identified ( but not limited to) ISO 26300 attributes are : ", followed by 30 specific attributes. Is this one, or 30? I'd say is 30.
Then make that, "...a leaked memo showed that Microsoft not only asked partners to influence the vote (slimy but perhaps legal), but had also offered to pay them to do so (which could be actionable)..."?
That is one of the clearest, most insightful, & yet concise comments I've read on this subject. I agree, storage and conversion are two separate functions and shouldn't be in the same format.
In the legal sense an original document has evidentiary weight. If you filter that through software that could destroy original formating it could also change meaning. A photograph is not the original document, but it is closer than PDF would be. There *is* a difference between physical objects and the information they contain/convey.
In one case, "I like to think...", but in the other case, "I'm sure". These are only mutually exclusive if you don't like to think things that you are sure aren't. While this would be rational, it isn't often the norm. Everyone's a little neurotic ;-)
Don't feed the troll. Anybody who starts out a comment with "I like to think...", and then goes on to slam you for saying, "I suspect...", is either consciously trolling or obviously not worthy of your time. Might even be a mildly effective bot.
The comments referenced are thus comments the various countries filed with their votes. Unless the FSF gets to vote, their comments aren't counted. When you vote, you attach comments as to what are necessary corrections in order to vote "yes" rather than "no" next time. These are not "open" or "public" comments, in that only MBs get to vote and only then do they get to file comments.
For us geekier than finance types, dumping mathML for Office Math Markup Language OMML, and SVG for DrawingML is what hurts!