Methinks that the "wide array of circumstances" under which the LGPL "requires source code to be provided" has to do with just that one situation in which the code linking to the LGPL-ed code is derivative.
paragraph 5 of the LGPL:
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
"You are not free to take a closed device designed to run on a closed network and change the software it is running." First, the network runs on a public resource (hence the requirement for an FCC license). Second, the issue of "closing" a device isn't clearcut. Obviously I can take the damn thing apart, or use it as a paperweight, or whatever. So the question becomes (and as to this I haven't a clue), is operating my own equipment on a public network that operates over public airwaves a problem? How? What gives Apple the "right" to say no? If I could modify an iPhone and use it on Sprint, shouldn't I be able to?
"They have every right to control what software actually makes it onto the device they issue. They're the ones who have to support the device. "
I don't think the word "right" means what you seem to think it does. Copyright, for instance, isn't a "right" but a privilege that is implemented as part of a social experiment. In terms of support, I don't think anyone would disagree that if I modify my calendar program, then I void any support for the *modified* program. However, it would seem to me to be against the public interest to actually prohibit modifications.
Sorry, but if you think "a few GPL and LGPL" equates to "includes some LGPL", you've got a world of hurt in terms of legal liability just waiting to happen to you. Talk to a lawyer before you do *anything* else, because your level of confusion could be dangerous.
"Insightful"? First, your opening statement is flamebait. Then you seem to think that Free Software should care about Open Source. Thats in the same direction, although not of the same magnitude, as saying, "there are a lot of people, including people who've made valuable contributions to Microsoft, who don't." Sorry, but duh!
Actually telecoms are a regulated monopoly. They are granted access to public airwaves and in return have to promote the public good in their use of same. So the network already belongs to the users, and phone companies are only allowed to use their equipment in ways that we, the people, do approve. If a good case could be made that phones had to be open, there is no reason precluding, and every precedent in favor of, doing just that.
"Jobs only says that they won't allow you to install software on the iPod. Nothing in violation of GPL/LGPL."
Actually that is the whole point of the anti-tivo-ization clause in v3: that disallowing the installation of your modifications makes having source code irrelevant.
First, unless we know how much GPLed code Apple is using, we don't know how much effort would be required for Apple to attempt to maintain their own v2 forks that are up to date with new v3 software (and have implemented new features cleanly, which means "coding around" the published implementation.)
In terms of whether Linus is an enemy of Free Software: I don't think many would really consider him a friend, but rather more like an acquaintance who used to be closer back in the day.
Apple is under no obligation to move from GPL2 to GPL3, but the codebase might just leave them behind. Note: it was suggested in a posting to the article that one can view all the iPhone licenses on a screen, and that both GPL and LGPL showed up. Can anyone confirm this? And what in the iPhone is GPL?
An experiment of theirs, where a single photon tunnelled through a barrier and its tunneling speed (not a signal speed!) was 1.7 times light speed, is described in
* Steinberg, A.M., Kwiat, P.G. & R.Y. Chiao 1993: "Measurement of the Single-Photon Tunneling Time" in Physical Review Letter 71, S. 708--711 "
"...but what's with this "almost instantaneously" bullshit that keeps coming up every time we talk about teleportation?"
I think the confusion perhaps relates to the difference between quantum tunneling (where "almost instantaneous" shows up) and any attempt to use quantum tunneling for the purposes of information transfer.
Putting "visual basic is the new cobol" into the search bar puts this on the first page:
Wrap It Up: Call Into The.NET Framework From Existing Visual...
Visual Basic 6.0 has become the new COBOL. This statement is made without malice toward either language. COBOL was enormously successful because it...
msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/05/WrapItUp/ - 51k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
"Say whatever you like about how the Linux kernel is what made free software so great but all I know is the reason I tried Linux for the very first time was so that I wouldn't have to pay for a Visual Studio license."
Amen, brother! That is *exactly* how I came to know about GNU/Linux in the first place.
My concern with Linus' opinion is at odds with your assessment. I first became concerned as I realized that he didn't seem to have convictions other than a shallow and shortsighted pragmatism.
Agreed. His opinion counts for too much. He is in charge on Linux the kernel, not the operating system. He doesn't speak for GNU/Linux, for sure. He doesn't speak for the applications people. Consider this: who is threatened by a GPLed Solaris? Not KDE, nor GNOME, nor anyone but the kernel maintainers. Perhaps this has something to do with it?
Wonders: what percentage of new code generated over the last three years was Open vs Closed? Does anyone out there estimate this sort of thing for a living?
"one should also point out that if a scientist happens to think that red-shift is not always a measure of recessional velocity"...you mean like the red-shift coming up out of a gravity well?
Well but if the flying spaghetti monster ate himself, the *burp* would be revitalizing! Hence, I postulate a cyclical big *burp* flying spaghetti monster model:-)
If you make legal modifications to a car (add a stereo or turbocharger), who has the right to revoke your right to drive it? That is ridiculous. I don't think you own your gas meter. You can add another gas powered water heater for that new bathroom you put it in, though. What is interesting to me is the difference between purchasing a car, modifying it, and being able to drive on public streets; and purchasing a tivo, modifying it, and being able to use on the public airways. Oh right! The FCC! These communication channels are owned by the public and allowed to be used only in-so-far as the licensee meets the interests of the public good. Maybe we need to make public airways (and cable, etc...) more like our public freeways.
"I'll assume that your house and your car are also licensed under the GPL. After all, it wouldn't do to take away my freedom to come in and use your bathroom and listen to your stereo and eat your food."
Well, that flies in the face of the obvious differences between real property and make-believe property. If you were to see pictures of my house and car online, and you decided to build your house to look like mine, even to the point where you bought the same stereo and laid out the same fruit bowl, then cool. Just don't try to copy me, then prevent other people from copying me too.
Slashdot Mirror
"You never had the freedom to run arbitrary software on a terminal device that forms part of a mobile phone provider's network."
Sorry, but actually yes you do, unless by "arbitrary" you mean malicious.
"You are not free to take a closed device designed to run on a closed network and change the software it is running." First, the network runs on a public resource (hence the requirement for an FCC license). Second, the issue of "closing" a device isn't clearcut. Obviously I can take the damn thing apart, or use it as a paperweight, or whatever. So the question becomes (and as to this I haven't a clue), is operating my own equipment on a public network that operates over public airwaves a problem? How? What gives Apple the "right" to say no? If I could modify an iPhone and use it on Sprint, shouldn't I be able to?
"They have every right to control what software actually makes it onto the device they issue. They're the ones who have to support the device. "
I don't think the word "right" means what you seem to think it does. Copyright, for instance, isn't a "right" but a privilege that is implemented as part of a social experiment. In terms of support, I don't think anyone would disagree that if I modify my calendar program, then I void any support for the *modified* program. However, it would seem to me to be against the public interest to actually prohibit modifications.
Sorry, but if you think "a few GPL and LGPL" equates to "includes some LGPL", you've got a world of hurt in terms of legal liability just waiting to happen to you. Talk to a lawyer before you do *anything* else, because your level of confusion could be dangerous.
"Insightful"? First, your opening statement is flamebait. Then you seem to think that Free Software should care about Open Source. Thats in the same direction, although not of the same magnitude, as saying, "there are a lot of people, including people who've made valuable contributions to Microsoft, who don't." Sorry, but duh!
Actually telecoms are a regulated monopoly. They are granted access to public airwaves and in return have to promote the public good in their use of same. So the network already belongs to the users, and phone companies are only allowed to use their equipment in ways that we, the people, do approve. If a good case could be made that phones had to be open, there is no reason precluding, and every precedent in favor of, doing just that.
"Jobs only says that they won't allow you to install software on the iPod. Nothing in violation of GPL/LGPL."
Actually that is the whole point of the anti-tivo-ization clause in v3: that disallowing the installation of your modifications makes having source code irrelevant.
First, unless we know how much GPLed code Apple is using, we don't know how much effort would be required for Apple to attempt to maintain their own v2 forks that are up to date with new v3 software (and have implemented new features cleanly, which means "coding around" the published implementation.)
In terms of whether Linus is an enemy of Free Software: I don't think many would really consider him a friend, but rather more like an acquaintance who used to be closer back in the day.
Apple is under no obligation to move from GPL2 to GPL3, but the codebase might just leave them behind. Note: it was suggested in a posting to the article that one can view all the iPhone licenses on a screen, and that both GPL and LGPL showed up. Can anyone confirm this? And what in the iPhone is GPL?
"The Berkeley group:
An experiment of theirs, where a single photon tunnelled through a barrier and its tunneling speed (not a signal speed!) was 1.7 times light speed, is described in
* Steinberg, A.M., Kwiat, P.G. & R.Y. Chiao 1993: "Measurement of the Single-Photon Tunneling Time" in Physical Review Letter 71, S. 708--711 "
"...but what's with this "almost instantaneously" bullshit that keeps coming up every time we talk about teleportation?"
I think the confusion perhaps relates to the difference between quantum tunneling (where "almost instantaneous" shows up) and any attempt to use quantum tunneling for the purposes of information transfer.
Putting "visual basic is the new cobol" into the search bar puts this on the first page:
.NET Framework From Existing Visual ...
Visual Basic 6.0 has become the new COBOL. This statement is made without malice toward either language. COBOL was enormously successful because it ...
msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/05/WrapItUp/ - 51k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Wrap It Up: Call Into The
"Say whatever you like about how the Linux kernel is what made free software so great but all I know is the reason I tried Linux for the very first time was so that I wouldn't have to pay for a Visual Studio license."
Amen, brother! That is *exactly* how I came to know about GNU/Linux in the first place.
My concern with Linus' opinion is at odds with your assessment. I first became concerned as I realized that he didn't seem to have convictions other than a shallow and shortsighted pragmatism.
Lazy: "open source and free software are the same thing"; and lets set Pi = 3, it'll make math a lot easier too.
89 hits? how about:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260,000 for visual basic is the new cobol. (0.12 seconds)
Especially in the context of a GPLed Solaris, how can you pretend that project coordinator for the (historically first) kernel is all that important?
Agreed. His opinion counts for too much. He is in charge on Linux the kernel, not the operating system. He doesn't speak for GNU/Linux, for sure. He doesn't speak for the applications people. Consider this: who is threatened by a GPLed Solaris? Not KDE, nor GNOME, nor anyone but the kernel maintainers. Perhaps this has something to do with it?
Wonders: what percentage of new code generated over the last three years was Open vs Closed? Does anyone out there estimate this sort of thing for a living?
"one should also point out that if a scientist happens to think that red-shift is not always a measure of recessional velocity"...you mean like the red-shift coming up out of a gravity well?
Actually, as I recall the discussion, both sides indicate that time didn't start with the big bang.
Well but if the flying spaghetti monster ate himself, the *burp* would be revitalizing! Hence, I postulate a cyclical big *burp* flying spaghetti monster model :-)
If you make legal modifications to a car (add a stereo or turbocharger), who has the right to revoke your right to drive it? That is ridiculous. I don't think you own your gas meter. You can add another gas powered water heater for that new bathroom you put it in, though. What is interesting to me is the difference between purchasing a car, modifying it, and being able to drive on public streets; and purchasing a tivo, modifying it, and being able to use on the public airways. Oh right! The FCC! These communication channels are owned by the public and allowed to be used only in-so-far as the licensee meets the interests of the public good. Maybe we need to make public airways (and cable, etc...) more like our public freeways.
"I'll assume that your house and your car are also licensed under the GPL. After all, it wouldn't do to take away my freedom to come in and use your bathroom and listen to your stereo and eat your food."
Well, that flies in the face of the obvious differences between real property and make-believe property. If you were to see pictures of my house and car online, and you decided to build your house to look like mine, even to the point where you bought the same stereo and laid out the same fruit bowl, then cool. Just don't try to copy me, then prevent other people from copying me too.