It took IBM to make a PC. Before that we only had Apples. It wasn't until the 80386 that PCs could come close to Apple's 68040s. The detrimental impact of "big business" on Computer Science goes further back, and is one of the primary reasons the GPL was invented. I'm certainly not against the idea of big business, but your statement contradicts history both as I remember it and as it is currently taught.
"It's great for process oriented manufacturing concerns. It's crap for an engineering company."
Yeah. Well, duh. Its about process improvement by designing measurements that allow you to control deviation as nearly close as is feasibly possible to the onset of drift. An engineering company's concerns involve the creation of new processes. Talk about putting shoes on a snake!
"How many suits really understand what a "sigma" is in this (or any) context, or why six of them is an interesting quantity?" Probably every single MBA that ever graduated from an accredited program knows what a gaussian distribution is, and what it means to be one, two, or n sigma away from the norm. To suggest otherwise is to not have even a clue as to their training. Even at the undergrad level, basic business statistics will be followed by operations analysis. If anything, and I've tutored a lot of math over the years, I'd say business students have a better idea of what statistical terms mean in terms of practical applicaton than math majors, who know instead how something is defined.
Open source is not homogeneous in the manner that MicroSoft as a solution is homogeneous. It is in fact the shotgun scatter approach to development that produces an organic style growth in free/open source development. Just as diversity is good for an ecosphere, the diversity of approaches (while sometimes a bitch, short term) is providing a long term advantage to open source. With all due respect, it seems to me your fears are just almost exactly 100% ass-backwards. Open source is a cure for the homogeneous systems whose lack of diversity means a single virus vector can wipe out an entire ecoshpere.
It is called GNAT: The GNU NYU Ada 9X Translator. "GNAT is a free, high-quality, complete compiler for Ada95, integrated into the GCC compiler system." Note that "The work was co-sponsored by ARPA and the Ada Joint Program Office." Also look at GNADE, the GNU Ada Database Environment.
Its only natural to die when the air bubble finally makes its way to your heart. Didn't RAH once comment that, in the end, cause of death is almost always attributable to heart failure?
If it is wrong, does it make it better to only do it to a subgroup? "You only have to sit in the back if you are black." Doesn't make me feel better about the policy.
"if the kid paid for the phone and the phone service, then not even the parent has a right to operate the phone."
Knew a kid just recently who went to work and earned enough money to buy a fairly nice used Firebird. His single mom let him pay it off and then took it from him. At issue is what does it mean for a kid to "pay" for something with "his" money when the State doesn't recognize property rights for juviniles? It may have seemed abhorrent for a lazy fat old lady to "take" the car, but legally it was hers.
At least one problem with mandatory drug testing is that it conflicts with "innoncent until proven guilty." If you run the schools as a police state, then History and Political Science classes look like a joke. Children grow up willing to put up with abusive systems of authority, and when mandatory wiretapping is instituted it is like, "well, yeah, they can do what they want because civil rights are just a joke, no one really thinks they are for real." So be careful what you reap.
A COA should always be included with the accompanying license componentssuch as the hologram media, manuals, and other documentation. End users are licensed only if all accompanying components are distributed with the COA.
I don't think that suggesting draconian licenses will lead (at least eventually) to the natural marktet selection of a more user friendly license, is "flamebait". Come on, people. Lets be fair.
IANAL, so take me with a grain of salt. Still, it seems to make sense, so here I go:-)
"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party..."
The 3b distributor gives a written offer valid for three years when a binary (-only) is shipped. Say this happens on Jan 1st of 2000. The offer is good until Dec 31st of 2002. Then the offer expires.
As a poor grad student I make a copy for you, for free, of my CD. I am distributing under 3c. Lets say we do this during Aug of 2001.
I "Accompany it with the information" I "received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code." Thus I give you a photo copy of the written offer, dated Jan 1st 2000 thru Dec 31st 2002.
Now lets say you do the same for a friend, during Oct of 2002. You also must "Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code." Notice that the information you recieved was the photo copy of the information I recieved, which you now photo copy and pass along. The "information recieved" has always been the written noticfication of the date the binary was distributed under 3b, and the fact that 3 years from that date the obligation to provide source code disappears for the 3b person. This date never changes. Likewise, the "information" doesn't change...it just gets photocopied.
Now if I'm reading this wrong, I'd like to know...but this is how I parse the GPL.
I see this a lot. Please be specific as to how revoking copyright for criminal behavior would in any way conflict with the "equal treatment" core principle of the Berne Agreement.
The Berne Convention requires its signatories to protect the copyright on works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it protects the copyright of its own nationals, which means that, for instance, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.
In addition to establishing a system of equal treatment that internationalised copyright amongst signatories, the agreement also served the interests of publishing industries and authors by requiring member states to provide strong minimum standards for copyright law.
It isn't as though waving the WTO like a dead chicken over non-compliance with a criminal judgement will in any way change the facts.
"More or less, creating this precedent would essentially allow any powerful government to destroy any software maker at the whim of a vote. "
Isn't that rather like saying the jury system allows any group of 12 citizens to kill at the "whim of a vote?" You seem to be forgetting about concepts like the Rule of Law, and that microsoft is guilty, was found guilty, and now is *still* guilty of continuing their criminal behavior. br?What is this "whim" of which you speak?
IANAL (but wouldn't it be fun,) but my understanding was in the 3c case you are able to make a copy of the 3b originated CD you recieved, and the person who recieves it has whatever is left of the 3 year limit imposed on the 3b distributor. I've never before heard mention of any "resetting the clock", nor do I see any way to read that into the GPL. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the obligations on the 3b distributor are due to actions *they* take. I don't think that these actions taken by a third party should/would make any difference to that obligation.
Corresponding source code means the source code which when compiled will generate the binaries. In this sentence that is all it means. To try to read anything further is fantasy. The "any third party" is clear, and isn't new, and has always meant "any third party". Discussion of ways to write this so it would mean what you want it to mean were looked at and felt to provide loopholes against the original intent, and so broadening this to "any third party" was seen as the lesser of two evils. It surely isn't perfect, but it does mean what it says.
Yes, you misunderstand. Noncommercial redistribution as you describe is covered by
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.)
Actually, no, I think that if the web site has both source and executables available for download, they are using 3a. You might only download the executables, but that doesn't mean you can wave a magic wand and make them "3b" rather than "3a". The fact that they distributed source with binaries means there is no written 3 year offer for you to pass on, and so you assume the 3 year burden yourself if you then redistribute binary only.
I believe you are mistaking what "any third party" means. Rather, I don't have to have the binaries to be "any third party." I might want the source code to teach my class, and could care less about anything in object or executable form. When you distribute under 3b, any third party who requests the source code to you is a valid request.
I think the gp meant, "If you only recieved executables with a source code offer, you can non-commercially re-distribute those executables, so long as you accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code."
If you distribute under 3a, the code is already there.
If you distribute under 3b, there is a 3 year obligation.
If you distribute under 3c (which means you got it from someone using 3b), then you encure no 3 year obligation, but the original 3 year obligation remains in place (for the 3b distriubtor) and the people you distributed executables to have "third party" access to source from the 3b distributor.
It would appear that if someone distributed executables on Jan 1st, 2000, and I copied and distriubted their CD on Jan 1st, 2001, then there would remain 2 years of obligation for the original distributor, and I should let the person I distribute to know they only have 2 years left of "third party" access.
Slashdot Mirror
This idea that the potential of a business model is more important than the actual product or service drives me crazy.
It took IBM to make a PC. Before that we only had Apples. It wasn't until the 80386 that PCs could come close to Apple's 68040s. The detrimental impact of "big business" on Computer Science goes further back, and is one of the primary reasons the GPL was invented. I'm certainly not against the idea of big business, but your statement contradicts history both as I remember it and as it is currently taught.
"It's great for process oriented manufacturing concerns. It's crap for an engineering company."
Yeah. Well, duh. Its about process improvement by designing measurements that allow you to control deviation as nearly close as is feasibly possible to the onset of drift. An engineering company's concerns involve the creation of new processes. Talk about putting shoes on a snake!
"How many suits really understand what a "sigma" is in this (or any) context, or why six of them is an interesting quantity?" Probably every single MBA that ever graduated from an accredited program knows what a gaussian distribution is, and what it means to be one, two, or n sigma away from the norm. To suggest otherwise is to not have even a clue as to their training. Even at the undergrad level, basic business statistics will be followed by operations analysis. If anything, and I've tutored a lot of math over the years, I'd say business students have a better idea of what statistical terms mean in terms of practical applicaton than math majors, who know instead how something is defined.
Open source is not homogeneous in the manner that MicroSoft as a solution is homogeneous. It is in fact the shotgun scatter approach to development that produces an organic style growth in free/open source development. Just as diversity is good for an ecosphere, the diversity of approaches (while sometimes a bitch, short term) is providing a long term advantage to open source. With all due respect, it seems to me your fears are just almost exactly 100% ass-backwards. Open source is a cure for the homogeneous systems whose lack of diversity means a single virus vector can wipe out an entire ecoshpere.
It is called GNAT: The GNU NYU Ada 9X Translator. "GNAT is a free, high-quality, complete compiler for Ada95, integrated into the GCC compiler system." Note that "The work was co-sponsored by ARPA and the Ada Joint Program Office." Also look at GNADE, the GNU Ada Database Environment.
Does the military (or any other security related branch of govt.) has ever contributed bug reports/fixes to OSS?
Sandia Labs does a lot of GPL work. As a premire weapons lab, they have some bright people who write good code. MPQC, for example.
Its only natural to die when the air bubble finally makes its way to your heart. Didn't RAH once comment that, in the end, cause of death is almost always attributable to heart failure?
It doesn't seem to me that you are trolling, but then I'm the guy that got hooked if you are :-)
Wasn't AMD's early (Thunderbird) floating point wins over Intel based on licensed Alpha technology? That is more than just academically interesting...
If it is wrong, does it make it better to only do it to a subgroup? "You only have to sit in the back if you are black." Doesn't make me feel better about the policy.
"if the kid paid for the phone and the phone service, then not even the parent has a right to operate the phone."
Knew a kid just recently who went to work and earned enough money to buy a fairly nice used Firebird. His single mom let him pay it off and then took it from him. At issue is what does it mean for a kid to "pay" for something with "his" money when the State doesn't recognize property rights for juviniles? It may have seemed abhorrent for a lazy fat old lady to "take" the car, but legally it was hers.
At least one problem with mandatory drug testing is that it conflicts with "innoncent until proven guilty." If you run the schools as a police state, then History and Political Science classes look like a joke. Children grow up willing to put up with abusive systems of authority, and when mandatory wiretapping is instituted it is like, "well, yeah, they can do what they want because civil rights are just a joke, no one really thinks they are for real." So be careful what you reap.
I don't think that suggesting draconian licenses will lead (at least eventually) to the natural marktet selection of a more user friendly license, is "flamebait". Come on, people. Lets be fair.
IANAL, so take me with a grain of salt. Still, it seems to make sense, so here I go :-)
:-)
"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party..."
The 3b distributor gives a written offer valid for three years when a binary (-only) is shipped. Say this happens on Jan 1st of 2000. The offer is good until Dec 31st of 2002. Then the offer expires.
As a poor grad student I make a copy for you, for free, of my CD. I am distributing under 3c. Lets say we do this during Aug of 2001.
I "Accompany it with the information" I "received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code." Thus I give you a photo copy of the written offer, dated Jan 1st 2000 thru Dec 31st 2002.
Now lets say you do the same for a friend, during Oct of 2002. You also must "Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code." Notice that the information you recieved was the photo copy of the information I recieved, which you now photo copy and pass along. The "information recieved" has always been the written noticfication of the date the binary was distributed under 3b, and the fact that 3 years from that date the obligation to provide source code disappears for the 3b person. This date never changes. Likewise, the "information" doesn't change...it just gets photocopied.
Now if I'm reading this wrong, I'd like to know...but this is how I parse the GPL.
"More or less, creating this precedent would essentially allow any powerful government to destroy any software maker at the whim of a vote. "
Isn't that rather like saying the jury system allows any group of 12 citizens to kill at the "whim of a vote?" You seem to be forgetting about concepts like the Rule of Law, and that microsoft is guilty, was found guilty, and now is *still* guilty of continuing their criminal behavior.
br?What is this "whim" of which you speak?
Troll? Hardly. Reread what the parent said, and the comment regarding the contradiction. This is Logic 101, people, not Quantum Physics.
IANAL (but wouldn't it be fun,) but my understanding was in the 3c case you are able to make a copy of the 3b originated CD you recieved, and the person who recieves it has whatever is left of the 3 year limit imposed on the 3b distributor. I've never before heard mention of any "resetting the clock", nor do I see any way to read that into the GPL. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the obligations on the 3b distributor are due to actions *they* take. I don't think that these actions taken by a third party should/would make any difference to that obligation.
Corresponding source code means the source code which when compiled will generate the binaries. In this sentence that is all it means. To try to read anything further is fantasy. The "any third party" is clear, and isn't new, and has always meant "any third party". Discussion of ways to write this so it would mean what you want it to mean were looked at and felt to provide loopholes against the original intent, and so broadening this to "any third party" was seen as the lesser of two evils. It surely isn't perfect, but it does mean what it says.
Actually, no, I think that if the web site has both source and executables available for download, they are using 3a. You might only download the executables, but that doesn't mean you can wave a magic wand and make them "3b" rather than "3a". The fact that they distributed source with binaries means there is no written 3 year offer for you to pass on, and so you assume the 3 year burden yourself if you then redistribute binary only.
I believe you are mistaking what "any third party" means. Rather, I don't have to have the binaries to be "any third party." I might want the source code to teach my class, and could care less about anything in object or executable form. When you distribute under 3b, any third party who requests the source code to you is a valid request.
I think the gp meant, "If you only recieved executables with a source code offer, you can non-commercially re-distribute those executables, so long as you accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code."
If you distribute under 3a, the code is already there.
If you distribute under 3b, there is a 3 year obligation.
If you distribute under 3c (which means you got it from someone using 3b), then you encure no 3 year obligation, but the original 3 year obligation remains in place (for the 3b distriubtor) and the people you distributed executables to have "third party" access to source from the 3b distributor.
It would appear that if someone distributed executables on Jan 1st, 2000, and I copied and distriubted their CD on Jan 1st, 2001, then there would remain 2 years of obligation for the original distributor, and I should let the person I distribute to know they only have 2 years left of "third party" access.