IANAL, but it seems *obvious* that the "system requirements" on the side of the box aren't legally binding. They are neither a contract, nor a EULA. If this involved "system requirements" to run their software, they wouldn't be claiming "bandwidth theft" as the reason for denying their customers access to bugfixes for the legal purchased software their customers are currently using.
Yeah so if I'm licensed for MS Dos 3.1, 5.0, Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 95, Win2k, WinXP, Office2k, Visio, and I'm currently running Office2k under wine, I'm screwed on updates for Office2k? Bullshit.
I imagine that if you went before a judge, and that judge made a ruling that according to the state laws of where you lived compensation was due you, then whatever it said would be secondary to the fact that a judge has issued a ruling and ordered payment. They could appeal...
Blizzard v. bnetd is why I wouldn't even consider blizzard when I decided to finally sample gaming. My impression is that Blizzard is to gaming as bullshit is to your front sidewalk. What happened to bnetd was wrong, and what is happening here is wrong. I'm glad I never gave them a chance to screw me.
"There is no way to kill it completely so the key can be reused."
How could it be possible that "it can't be done"? You might say, "its a pain in the ass", or even, "we'd have to tweak this by hand", but to say that it can't be done?
FOSDEM - Will there be code autocompletion in future version of kdevelop ?
Alexander Dymo - Well, we've had automatic c/c++ code completion since 3.0 release. Code completion works automatically for symbols in a project and requires the code completion database to be built for symbols in external libraries.
Harald Fernengel - We already have that for several years. Roberto Raggi wrote a complete C++ parser for KDevelop, which is the most advanced C++ parser released as open source. We even support preprocessor directives and have recovery points so the parser will continue after a syntactical error if possible. The quality and speed of the parser beats most commercial solutions out there, which makes us pretty proud.
Now what I'm interested in is using UML. Embedding Umbrello sounds sweet... "automatic conversion between model and a code. Currently you can import code into Umbrello and export the model back it into a code." Lets take that a step further with Arch & Design pattern wizzards to template out the model.
Ah but if you have 20 developers, TT wants you to purchase 20 per seat licenses of their commercial version. If you wrote the code, you can release it anyway you want. No problem. But, and this is the clencher, you can't release it with the QT commerical libs, because the fact that you developed it using the GPL libs disallows it. You could still dual license your code (say GPL & BSD), I think, because the GPL would allow that. Only the GPLed code would be linkable against the GPLed QT libs, though. Yes?
"With the GPL you have to give the source to anyone who asks for a copy, whether they're customers or not."
This is only true if you distribute binary only. If you distribute sourcecode in every case that you distribute, you are not required to make the sourcecode available to "all third parties". The parent's scenerio was that he would distribute the sourcecode to his customers. End of obligations.
I want to dual license my software too! That means I can use the Open Source edition for development, right?
No. In order to write software that will be sold or licensed commercially, in addition to open source,
all of your programmers will need a commercial license from the outset of the development phase.
If you use the Open Source edition of Qt, you can only publish the software under the GPL. Trolltech's commercial license terms do not allow you to develop any proprietary software using the Open Source edition.
No, P2P is by definition the *method*, and not the *traffic*. The traffic changes from moment to moment, and day to day. Any context whereby the technology which implements a method is confused for some particular use of said method blurs a real and valid distinction. The only purpose I can attribute to the ambiguity is to paint the technology the same color as its most controversial usage, thus making the technology controversial. English is a living, evolving language. Let us try to not pollute it unnecessarily by introducing bias. Thanks.
I have to admit that the OSX version is pretty. But I'd rather use the GNUstep version because it is easier to see. Might be that my eyesight isn't as good as it was 20 years ago...but the GNUstep version is *easy* to see, whereas the OSX version is easy to look at.
A week after my mother died she recieved jury duty notificaiton. I called the courthouse and tried to explain. I was told I had to come in within the next two working days to get paperwork from three different offices. I told her, "No, thanks."
She was like, "You have to, its the law. Otherwise she won't be excused from jury duty. Make sure you get this finished within two days, and you better call ahead to find out what documents you need to bring with you."
I stated that I had in fact done them a favor, but it wasn't my problem, it was their problem.
She sputtered. "But you have to. You can't expect your mother to fill out her own paperwork to excuse herself from jury duty, she's dead! Someone has to do this!"
I agreed that someone had to do something, but it wasn't my concern. She was still sputtering self-importantly when I said goodbye and hung up.
Agreed that Sony was in violation. Yet not sure what the "not quite" means. The discussion regarded whether or not you have to make source code available if you had only ever distributed with source code originally. My position was that you did not, since the clause that states you have to make sourcecode available to all third parties is specificly related to distributing binaries only.
"because a dynamic linked application doesn't include any part of the GPL'd code the GPL can't cover your application"
Actually, at the time the code becomes dynamicly linked, it is under the GPL. The loophole is that it *isn't* yet dynamicly linked when you distribute it. Likewise, when the user runs the program, and dynamic linking causes a derived product which then would be under the GPL (if distributed or modified), said derivative is being *used* (not distributed or modified).
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Yet in the FAQ: The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
In regard to the first point: If you distribute binaries (only) then you must make the source available. A confusion is that the source is only made available to the people to whom you distribute the binaries. This is incorrect. It must be made available to "any third party".
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; or,
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 you are only required to make the source available when you distribute binaries. If you distribute the source with binaries (or just source) then you aren't required to make the source availabe because it already is.
Not the same. You're suggested scenerio implied a loss of the improvements others made. That is unfortunate, but not "ripped off". I talking about potentially losing a codebase you, in good faith, helped to create. So yeah, our definitions don't mesh.
Agreed that MS Word creates hugh HTML files full of crap. Oh wait, you are refering to AbiWord's LaTeX?
:-)
Nope, from the playing around I did, it looks like LaTeX. No bizzare metatags. Seriously, check it out. It doesn't have LyX's ability to set options while creating the document, rather everything defaults to article. But you can change that after you're in emacs (or kile, or miketex, or whatever).
Why not? If it makes it *work*, Free Software wants to do it. There is no incentive to poison the well to force people to upgrade to drinking milk rather than water.
"OSSAL also discourages the use of GPL or viral licenses as they indirectly promote lower quality software that is widely disseminated, but not reviewed by the more highly skilled software engineers."
With the important difference that nobody has ever concieved a mechanism whereby a GPLed contribution could be ripped off from you. Whereas a mechanism *has* been postulated whereby Sun would end up with the right to use code that you wrote, while you youself couldn't use it, let alone distribute it. You couldn't even legally use it on the very machine you wrote the code without violating patent law. That is the *significant* difference in the two situations. Differences between OPEN vs FREE also exsist, but they are dwarfed by the patent problem.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but it seems *obvious* that the "system requirements" on the side of the box aren't legally binding. They are neither a contract, nor a EULA. If this involved "system requirements" to run their software, they wouldn't be claiming "bandwidth theft" as the reason for denying their customers access to bugfixes for the legal purchased software their customers are currently using.
Yeah so if I'm licensed for MS Dos 3.1, 5.0, Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 95, Win2k, WinXP, Office2k, Visio, and I'm currently running Office2k under wine, I'm screwed on updates for Office2k? Bullshit.
I imagine that if you went before a judge, and that judge made a ruling that according to the state laws of where you lived compensation was due you, then whatever it said would be secondary to the fact that a judge has issued a ruling and ordered payment. They could appeal...
Blizzard v. bnetd is why I wouldn't even consider blizzard when I decided to finally sample gaming. My impression is that Blizzard is to gaming as bullshit is to your front sidewalk. What happened to bnetd was wrong, and what is happening here is wrong. I'm glad I never gave them a chance to screw me.
"There is no way to kill it completely so the key can be reused."
How could it be possible that "it can't be done"? You might say, "its a pain in the ass", or even, "we'd have to tweak this by hand", but to say that it can't be done?
WTF?
Does it violate a law of physics?
I just tried the fix as suggested, and restarted Firefox. It is still there.
Now what I'm interested in is using UML. Embedding Umbrello sounds sweet
Well you have to admit, "bullshit" is short and to the point, and it is *exactly* what I thought. I'd moderate that as insightful "bullshit".
Ah but if you have 20 developers, TT wants you to purchase 20 per seat licenses of their commercial version. If you wrote the code, you can release it anyway you want. No problem. But, and this is the clencher, you can't release it with the QT commerical libs, because the fact that you developed it using the GPL libs disallows it. You could still dual license your code (say GPL & BSD), I think, because the GPL would allow that. Only the GPLed code would be linkable against the GPLed QT libs, though. Yes?
"With the GPL you have to give the source to anyone who asks for a copy, whether they're customers or not."
This is only true if you distribute binary only. If you distribute sourcecode in every case that you distribute, you are not required to make the sourcecode available to "all third parties". The parent's scenerio was that he would distribute the sourcecode to his customers. End of obligations.
No, P2P is by definition the *method*, and not the *traffic*. The traffic changes from moment to moment, and day to day. Any context whereby the technology which implements a method is confused for some particular use of said method blurs a real and valid distinction. The only purpose I can attribute to the ambiguity is to paint the technology the same color as its most controversial usage, thus making the technology controversial. English is a living, evolving language. Let us try to not pollute it unnecessarily by introducing bias. Thanks.
I have to admit that the OSX version is pretty. But I'd rather use the GNUstep version because it is easier to see. Might be that my eyesight isn't as good as it was 20 years ago...but the GNUstep version is *easy* to see, whereas the OSX version is easy to look at.
A week after my mother died she recieved jury duty notificaiton. I called the courthouse and tried to explain. I was told I had to come in within the next two working days to get paperwork from three different offices. I told her, "No, thanks."
She was like, "You have to, its the law. Otherwise she won't be excused from jury duty. Make sure you get this finished within two days, and you better call ahead to find out what documents you need to bring with you."
I stated that I had in fact done them a favor, but it wasn't my problem, it was their problem.
She sputtered. "But you have to. You can't expect your mother to fill out her own paperwork to excuse herself from jury duty, she's dead! Someone has to do this!"
I agreed that someone had to do something, but it wasn't my concern. She was still sputtering self-importantly when I said goodbye and hung up.
"Not quite, as Sony can attest to."
Agreed that Sony was in violation. Yet not sure what the "not quite" means. The discussion regarded whether or not you have to make source code available if you had only ever distributed with source code originally. My position was that you did not, since the clause that states you have to make sourcecode available to all third parties is specificly related to distributing binaries only.
The GPL seems to indicate that either distributing or modifiying is enough to trigger your acceptance of the GPL.
In regard to point 2:
"because a dynamic linked application doesn't include any part of the GPL'd code the GPL can't cover your application"
Actually, at the time the code becomes dynamicly linked, it is under the GPL. The loophole is that it *isn't* yet dynamicly linked when you distribute it. Likewise, when the user runs the program, and dynamic linking causes a derived product which then would be under the GPL (if distributed or modified), said derivative is being *used* (not distributed or modified).
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Yet in the FAQ:
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
If you distribute binaries (only) then you must make the source available. A confusion is that the source is only made available to the people to whom you distribute the binaries. This is incorrect. It must be made available to "any third party".
Actually you are only required to make the source available when you distribute binaries. If you distribute the source with binaries (or just source) then you aren't required to make the source availabe because it already is.
Not the same. You're suggested scenerio implied a loss of the improvements others made. That is unfortunate, but not "ripped off". I talking about potentially losing a codebase you, in good faith, helped to create. So yeah, our definitions don't mesh.
Agreed that MS Word creates hugh HTML files full of crap.
Oh wait, you are refering to AbiWord's LaTeX?
:-)
Nope, from the playing around I did, it looks like LaTeX. No bizzare metatags. Seriously, check it out. It doesn't have LyX's ability to set options while creating the document, rather everything defaults to article. But you can change that after you're in emacs (or kile, or miketex, or whatever).
Why not? If it makes it *work*, Free Software wants to do it. There is no incentive to poison the well to force people to upgrade to drinking milk rather than water.
"OSSAL also discourages the use of GPL or viral licenses as they indirectly promote lower quality software that is widely disseminated, but not reviewed by the more highly skilled software engineers."
hehehe...LOL...*snort*
With the important difference that nobody has ever concieved a mechanism whereby a GPLed contribution could be ripped off from you. Whereas a mechanism *has* been postulated whereby Sun would end up with the right to use code that you wrote, while you youself couldn't use it, let alone distribute it. You couldn't even legally use it on the very machine you wrote the code without violating patent law. That is the *significant* difference in the two situations. Differences between OPEN vs FREE also exsist, but they are dwarfed by the patent problem.