Hypothetical Example: I don't like the idea of the company down the street pumping polutants into the local river. I guess all I gotta do is not use their products?
You have to distribute your build scripts, yes. The GPL contains an explicit exemption for the ``major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)'' of the target OS (Linux freaks please note this pre-dates the GNU/Linux issue, so don't flame me). The FSF interprets this as including everything distributed with the compiler.
Unless they release the binaries along with a written promise to provide source. In that case, re-distributors of those binaries can legally re-distribute that same promise instead of source, and the promise extends to everyone who receives it in such a way.
No, the GPL is a license. Licenses, by definition, grant permission to do things which are otherwise illegal. (Which is why licensing professionals is a bad idea, but I digress...) Of course, you are right that the license only goes into effect upon voluntary distribution.
Ah, there's the rub---is that the only contractual obligation associated with downloading a beta-test? If so, the beta consitutes ``distribution'' and must have accompanying source or the written promise of a source CD.
If Lindows includes Linux, which is GPL, that portion of the system is GPL. In any case, both the GPL and LGPL are copyleft licenses; the GPL is just ``more copyleft''.
OK, I see why you think A (AOzilla advertising AOL alot) would/might be a problem---would for you, might for others. I don't see why you think A is likely, or why you think B is true, though. For clarification, here are the two points again:
A. The (future) AOL browser based on Gecko will link to AOL alot.
B. The (current) AOL browser based on IE does not.
If you don't believe B, why would A be any worse than the current situation?
If you believe both A (which you obviously do) and B, then I completely understand your belief that a Gecko-based AOL browser could be worse than the current browser. I don't understand why you would believe them together, or why you would believe B at all. Am I missing something?
A quick clarification---you can apply the GPL to any copyrightable work, not just software.
(As an aside, the GPL is not Open Source, nor does it meet the definition of Free Software---Stallman believes tighter restrictions are permissible on non-software than on software.)
Even if it's true, it's because children are separable---one parent can have custody of one child, the other over the other. Unfortunately, citizens are not separable (at least not legally). We all have to live with the same laws. So, which laws need to be decided among all the citizens, through their expressed voting preferences to congressmen.
No, your letter is worth M*C, where M is the amount of money needed to sufficiently convince you to vote for that congressman so that the congressman wins (i.e., if he doesn't need you to win, he won't care) aand C is the probability you'll switch your vote over the issue in the letter.
That's not a lot of money. A lot of letters, though, do add up to a lot of money. So, start telling your friends to write their congressmen!
One nit about a much larger (and more valid) post:
The major networks do not ``take extra care to not present details incorrectly''. They present details incorrectly all the time; what they're careful about is that they're correct details, even if they're presented incorrectly.
By ``permanent'' I presume you mean w.r.t. an individual---taking it as w.r.t. a species makes your two points redundant.
Now, then, medical enhancements are permanent (lasting as long as the patient, anyway) they just have a roughly linear cost (as opposed to genetic enhancements, which have constant cost.) So, it's linear cost permanence.
and 2. it isn't passed on to your offspring.
In a civilized society it is. That's why life expectancies have risen over the past few centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
Hypothetical Example: I don't like the idea of the company down the street pumping polutants into the local river. I guess all I gotta do is not use their products?
No, you have to give Joe a legally enforceable reason to believe he can get source---and that means either source itself or a written guarantee.
Yes! It's called Open Source, btw.
You don't have to force the source on anyone---you just can't force absense of the source anyone, either. It's the receivers choice.
You have to distribute your build scripts, yes. The GPL contains an explicit exemption for the ``major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)'' of the target OS (Linux freaks please note this pre-dates the GNU/Linux issue, so don't flame me). The FSF interprets this as including everything distributed with the compiler.
Unless they release the binaries along with a written promise to provide source. In that case, re-distributors of those binaries can legally re-distribute that same promise instead of source, and the promise extends to everyone who receives it in such a way.
No, the GPL is a license. Licenses, by definition, grant permission to do things which are otherwise illegal. (Which is why licensing professionals is a bad idea, but I digress...) Of course, you are right that the license only goes into effect upon voluntary distribution.
Ah, there's the rub---is that the only contractual obligation associated with downloading a beta-test? If so, the beta consitutes ``distribution'' and must have accompanying source or the written promise of a source CD.
So, is that the only contract?
If Lindows includes Linux, which is GPL, that portion of the system is GPL. In any case, both the GPL and LGPL are copyleft licenses; the GPL is just ``more copyleft''.
If you don't believe B, why would A be any worse than the current situation?
If you believe both A (which you obviously do) and B, then I completely understand your belief that a Gecko-based AOL browser could be worse than the current browser. I don't understand why you would believe them together, or why you would believe B at all. Am I missing something?
The oldest software I use on a daily basis is probably GNU Emacs, which I understand goes back over 18 years :)
Poster child for OSS's ability to magically save crappy closed code? No. Poster child for the inevitability of the success of some OSS project? Yes.
(running galeon 1.2.0 with mozilla 0.9.9)
I can only understand you if I assume you believe:
A. The (future) AOL browser based on Gecko will link to AOL alot.
B. The (current) AOL browser based on IE does not.
B is certainly suspect, and I don't see much reason to believe A is a problem. So what's your problem?
Could you please clarify?
A quick clarification---you can apply the GPL to any copyrightable work, not just software.
(As an aside, the GPL is not Open Source, nor does it meet the definition of Free Software---Stallman believes tighter restrictions are permissible on non-software than on software.)
He hasn't done a thing illegal, see some of the other posts.
Really? I doubt that.
Even if it's true, it's because children are separable---one parent can have custody of one child, the other over the other. Unfortunately, citizens are not separable (at least not legally). We all have to live with the same laws. So, which laws need to be decided among all the citizens, through their expressed voting preferences to congressmen.
No, your letter is worth M*C, where M is the amount of money needed to sufficiently convince you to vote for that congressman so that the congressman wins (i.e., if he doesn't need you to win, he won't care) aand C is the probability you'll switch your vote over the issue in the letter.
That's not a lot of money. A lot of letters, though, do add up to a lot of money. So, start telling your friends to write their congressmen!
Whereas, as we all know, Communists and Nazis are identical enemies.
OK, I give. You've defined evolution as genetic, and there's obviously nothing I can do about that.
YHW. HAND.
You mean like the Palestinians?
*ducks*
One nit about a much larger (and more valid) post:
The major networks do not ``take extra care to not present details incorrectly''. They present details incorrectly all the time; what they're careful about is that they're correct details, even if they're presented incorrectly.
By ``permanent'' I presume you mean w.r.t. an individual---taking it as w.r.t. a species makes your two points redundant.
Now, then, medical enhancements are permanent (lasting as long as the patient, anyway) they just have a roughly linear cost (as opposed to genetic enhancements, which have constant cost.) So, it's linear cost permanence.
In a civilized society it is. That's why life expectancies have risen over the past few centuries.
Please bear in mind most children have two (biological) parents. Should they both get a say?
There's no good basis for the DMCA, really.
Think about it.
Why is non-man-made change evolution but man-made change isn't?