You are under obligation to pass along the offer, though.
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.)
This also seems to be the answer to those who worry about "the little guy". If you are noncommercial, then you do have rules that make your life simplier.
It is even better than that, because you don't have to purchase the binaries to request the source code, because the obligation to make available said source is extended to "any third party".
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;
The easy way is to just distribute the source with the binaries in the first place.
Actually, no, you are positing as part of the solution the continuation of the violation. When you distribute binaries w/o source code, you have obligations. It doesn't matter if you've made changes to the source code, which is the point of the article.
"We think it's pretty clear," says David Turner, GPL compliance engineer at the FSF. "One problem with allowing people to skip out on source code distribution is that there's nothing that requires the upstream distributor to continue to offer source code. If they stop doing so, the source could become totally unavailable. Or, more commonly, the upstream distributor will upgrade the version of the source code available, leaving downstream distributors totally out of sync. In order to fix bugs, users need to get source code exactly corresponding to the binaries they have available."
What matters is if you distribute. Once you've distributed, you are obligated to provide the source, not merely refer to where the source could be obtained.
If they provide a binary by refering users to another repository, they can depend on the other repository to provide the source.If they provide a binary by refering users to another repository, they can depend on the other repository to provide the source.
Which means they aren't distributing, but are providing information on where other's are distributing? No problem:-)
If they provide the binary by downloading it from an upstream provider and passing it on unaltered, they can do exactly the same thing with the corresponding source package.
This seems to be the misunderstanding that the article is really all about. By actually distributing a binary, you as a distributor seem to become responsible for making the source available. From the very beginning of the article:
...that, because MEPIS has not previously supplied source code for the packages already available from the distribution it is based on -- once Debian, and now Ubuntu -- it is in violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
And then a little bit later:
His mistake seems to have been the assumption that, so long as the source code was available somewhere, he did not have to provide it himself if he hadn't modified it.
Automating the process as you describe would automate the GPL violation, which isn't exactly a good approach to rectifying a mistake.
I sense a contradiction here. He couldn't connect to the net, and needed kernel source code to correct this problem... Ok, fine, but then how did he ever get online to the forums? Since he was online and asked for directions (from people with no legal requirement to answer), he should have simply located and downloaded the source. It isn't as though it is hidden away. If he can get to the forums but can't download, then being told where to download wouldn't have helped. I call "bullshit."
Ha! Must be nice. My school offically outlawed pinging(!), or the use of any other network utility, as "hacker tools". Our library blocks email, since it is inappropriate to scholarship. Computer Science and Physics both have (multiple) LANs whose lack of internet access makes it "legal" to play, though.
Note that when I said "we (or someone like us) will try to provide it", I didn't mean technological innovation (which isn't what's holding things up), but rather managerial and entrepreneurial innovation.
I think the gp was suggesting that with the limitations in place currently, there is oppurtunity for quick innovation. People will go with the service that lets them do what they want with the bandwidth they pay for, and limiting that choice will limit customers. You can impose almost any draconian legal obligations in a contract, but don't expect people to sign it if there are better alternatives. If there is competition, there will be alternatives. If there isn't competition, then that too is problematic, with legal remedies.
Bottom line is this: if people want it, we (or someone like us) will try to provide it. If people want it enough, that means competitive advantage.
Well actually they are creating bandwidth, but it is very local bandwidth. If these things stretched over an entire country, you could use them *as* the backbone. Trouble is, they will light up urban areas with darkness between the cities. If what you want to access is within the city, you should be able to get to it. In a city like NYC, that could be an appreciable amount of material.
But you aren't compelled to enforce Berne-style enforcement within your borders for convicted criminals abusing their IP priviledges. This would be like saying that since the various States all recognize each other's drivers licenses, it would be problematic for Texas, say, to arrest a New Yorker who was driving drunk. For the New Yorker to cry foul doesn't make sense. In Microsoft's case, though, they are popular enough that is like a rock star being arrested for drunk driving.
As Microsoft has taken a further six months to begin handing over information, experts believe the Commission will take the view that the firm has been acting illegally since the warning.
So this means 6*30*$2.5M is already due, with $2.5M/day continuing, yes? About $450 Million, and still growing? Would interest be accruing on this amount until it is paid? With net income of about $10 Billion/year, this would be less than 10%. The real question is how much of that net income was generated in the EU?
Actually, in the book Deckard takes the Voigt-Kampff test and it fails to indicate that he is an android. While the newest replicants (i.e., Nexus 6, e.g., Rachel) take many more questions to determine their status, the status is determined. Therefor, he wasn't a replicant until the plot was rewritten.
And as you said, a game is in fact FINISHED, not like said, OpenOffice, which will never be "finished", with games you can only make bugfixes, but a new game version is something completely different.
then why is that the distribution is essentially the same for games as it is for everything else? Perhaps games do evolve? What would be interesting is to see how this distribution has changed over time...
"Just out of curiosity, who are the non-suckers? The people who bought video hardware from... who, exactly?" Doesn't the market leader (Intel) provide open source drivers? Doesn't this kinda indicate that "Insightful:5" really means "moderators don't have a clue about the industry?" Lets stick to the facts:-)
Agreed that mere "Aggregation on the same medium is not a determining factor." However, I read that to mean that it is the act of distributing it together that matters. If you distribute it together, but on separate CDs you are still distributing it together. Being on separate CDs is no different than being in separate directories.
Ah, but the BSD license contained the seeds of the restrictions Nokia placed upon the code, inherent in the lack of restrictions BSD places upon the ability to close off code.
"The firewall code in your example is not BSD-licensed, so the restriction is not one of the BSD license."
His comment quite exactly points to the weakness in BSD licensing from a Free software point of view. The lack of restriction is itself a weakness. BSD-licensed code was ported and closed. The resultant code is now unavailable because a lack of restriction in the BSD license granted Nokia the freedom to use the code in a manner which has no freedom at all anymore. Indeed, it is precisely because the code in the example is no longer BSD-licensed that the BSD license is avoided by people interested in Free software.
Some people tend to score degrees based on how much hard math is required. In that respect, getting an MBA is easier than getting the BS CS. I seriously doubt that anyone who could get a degree in CS would fail Marketing 101, although they might be bored. Even at the MBA level, Marketing is less effort than sophmore level CS classes. Different people are naturally good at different things, but to quote my prof who paraphrased Bell Labs, "It is easier to teach a Physicist to program than it is to teach a physics to a programmer. And yes, some people really can do anything. What do they think is hard?
"new levels of creativity and originality" & "While some operating system like Java Desktop or OSX may use 3D hardware acceleration to render GUI, Windows will take it to new levels."
Is it creative and original to copy someone else's ideas? Perhaps new levels of GUI widget manipulation...but this is neither creative nor original.
"WinFS -- if it is ever released -- will ride on top of the current file system", but it was going to replace NTFS and now it is an application that runs on NTFS. Not really the same thing, so I can see their point. Rather than a radical new approach for MS, this is going to be a catch-up-to-Apple move.
Well it isn't like Excel was the first spreadsheet. It wasn't even the best. All Excel had going for it was interoperability with the rest of Office, which had to do with using hidden APIs. So, while spreadsheets are a very good thing (and in terms of UI design, a break through), we need to give visacalc the credit (remember the Apple II?), not MS.
OK, replying to myself, but I should have googled first:
D.F. Ferraiolo and D.R. Kuhn "Role Based Access Control" 15th National Computer Security Conference (1992) - the original RBAC paper.
As defined in the TCSEC and commonly implemented, DAC is an access control mechanism that permits system users to allow or disallow other users access to objects under their control:
A means of restricting access to objects based on the identity of subjects and/or groups to which they belong. The controls are discretionary in the sense that a subject with a certain access permission is capable of passing that permission (perhaps indirectly) on to any other subject (unless restrained by mandatory access control).
and,
A role based access control (RBAC) policy bases access control decisions on the functions a user is allowed to perform within an organization. The users cannot pass access permissions on to other users at their discretion. This is a fundamental difference between RBAC and DAC.
Slashdot Mirror
Which means they aren't distributing, but are providing information on where other's are distributing? No problem
If they provide the binary by downloading it from an upstream provider and passing it on unaltered, they can do exactly the same thing with the corresponding source package.
This seems to be the misunderstanding that the article is really all about. By actually distributing a binary, you as a distributor seem to become responsible for making the source available. From the very beginning of the article: And then a little bit later: Automating the process as you describe would automate the GPL violation, which isn't exactly a good approach to rectifying a mistake.
I sense a contradiction here. He couldn't connect to the net, and needed kernel source code to correct this problem... Ok, fine, but then how did he ever get online to the forums? Since he was online and asked for directions (from people with no legal requirement to answer), he should have simply located and downloaded the source. It isn't as though it is hidden away. If he can get to the forums but can't download, then being told where to download wouldn't have helped. I call "bullshit."
Ha! Must be nice. My school offically outlawed pinging(!), or the use of any other network utility, as "hacker tools". Our library blocks email, since it is inappropriate to scholarship. Computer Science and Physics both have (multiple) LANs whose lack of internet access makes it "legal" to play, though.
Note that when I said "we (or someone like us) will try to provide it", I didn't mean technological innovation (which isn't what's holding things up), but rather managerial and entrepreneurial innovation.
I think the gp was suggesting that with the limitations in place currently, there is oppurtunity for quick innovation. People will go with the service that lets them do what they want with the bandwidth they pay for, and limiting that choice will limit customers. You can impose almost any draconian legal obligations in a contract, but don't expect people to sign it if there are better alternatives. If there is competition, there will be alternatives. If there isn't competition, then that too is problematic, with legal remedies.
Bottom line is this: if people want it, we (or someone like us) will try to provide it. If people want it enough, that means competitive advantage.
Well actually they are creating bandwidth, but it is very local bandwidth. If these things stretched over an entire country, you could use them *as* the backbone. Trouble is, they will light up urban areas with darkness between the cities. If what you want to access is within the city, you should be able to get to it. In a city like NYC, that could be an appreciable amount of material.
It made no economic sense to embed IE into the operating system.
It made no economic sense? It made perfect strategic sense. The strategy worked.
But you aren't compelled to enforce Berne-style enforcement within your borders for convicted criminals abusing their IP priviledges. This would be like saying that since the various States all recognize each other's drivers licenses, it would be problematic for Texas, say, to arrest a New Yorker who was driving drunk. For the New Yorker to cry foul doesn't make sense. In Microsoft's case, though, they are popular enough that is like a rock star being arrested for drunk driving.
Surprise? I thought that was an orgasm!
Actually, in the book Deckard takes the Voigt-Kampff test and it fails to indicate that he is an android. While the newest replicants (i.e., Nexus 6, e.g., Rachel) take many more questions to determine their status, the status is determined. Therefor, he wasn't a replicant until the plot was rewritten.
"Just out of curiosity, who are the non-suckers? The people who bought video hardware from ... who, exactly?" :-)
Doesn't the market leader (Intel) provide open source drivers? Doesn't this kinda indicate that "Insightful:5" really means "moderators don't have a clue about the industry?" Lets stick to the facts
Agreed that mere "Aggregation on the same medium is not a determining factor." However, I read that to mean that it is the act of distributing it together that matters. If you distribute it together, but on separate CDs you are still distributing it together. Being on separate CDs is no different than being in separate directories.
Ah, but the BSD license contained the seeds of the restrictions Nokia placed upon the code, inherent in the lack of restrictions BSD places upon the ability to close off code.
"The firewall code in your example is not BSD-licensed, so the restriction is not one of the BSD license."
His comment quite exactly points to the weakness in BSD licensing from a Free software point of view. The lack of restriction is itself a weakness. BSD-licensed code was ported and closed. The resultant code is now unavailable because a lack of restriction in the BSD license granted Nokia the freedom to use the code in a manner which has no freedom at all anymore. Indeed, it is precisely because the code in the example is no longer BSD-licensed that the BSD license is avoided by people interested in Free software.
Some people tend to score degrees based on how much hard math is required. In that respect, getting an MBA is easier than getting the BS CS. I seriously doubt that anyone who could get a degree in CS would fail Marketing 101, although they might be bored. Even at the MBA level, Marketing is less effort than sophmore level CS classes. Different people are naturally good at different things, but to quote my prof who paraphrased Bell Labs, "It is easier to teach a Physicist to program than it is to teach a physics to a programmer. And yes, some people really can do anything. What do they think is hard?
Are you suggesting AMD buy SGI?
How does the Windows Sidebar compare to what we have in linux? If MS copies enough UI techniques, they will be much more interesting.
"new levels of creativity and originality" & "While some operating system like Java Desktop or OSX may use 3D hardware acceleration to render GUI, Windows will take it to new levels."
Is it creative and original to copy someone else's ideas? Perhaps new levels of GUI widget manipulation...but this is neither creative nor original.
"WinFS -- if it is ever released -- will ride on top of the current file system", but it was going to replace NTFS and now it is an application that runs on NTFS. Not really the same thing, so I can see their point. Rather than a radical new approach for MS, this is going to be a catch-up-to-Apple move.
Well it isn't like Excel was the first spreadsheet. It wasn't even the best. All Excel had going for it was interoperability with the rest of Office, which had to do with using hidden APIs. So, while spreadsheets are a very good thing (and in terms of UI design, a break through), we need to give visacalc the credit (remember the Apple II?), not MS.
D.F. Ferraiolo and D.R. Kuhn "Role Based Access Control" 15th National Computer Security Conference (1992) - the original RBAC paper. and,