Because people what a tool that will work no matter how they are accessing the files: Dolphin, Konsole, ssh session, whatever. And they want to access them offline. And they want to include the files in system backups.
I'm assuming that hell has frozen over, because the first argument is that forking won't work because the GPL does not let the forker use the dual licensing model to make money
It's *copyright* that prevents the forker from using dual licensing, not the GPL. Where does Stallman blame the GPL for that?
Instead of some rich aristocrat, you would have donation from thousands or millions of people asking for new songs, et voila...
Isn't that essentially what copyright provides? It enables the artist to spread the costs of production over a large audience of individuals rather that relying on a small groups of patrons. With a couple of added benefits: the artist doesn't have to deal with managing and collecting individual donations; the buyer doesn't have to put up the money until the product is available (commissions usually require some kind of payment upfront). There's a reason why copyright is so popular. The problem is how far it's been carried and how it's been abused.
I'm convinced the school-day deposition request is very intentional. They want the other kids to know the boy missed an important school day because he was in hot water over file sharing. It's all part of their perverse scare tactics.
This was inevitable, and I'm surprised it even took this long. It's DVD+/-RW all over again...
Except that DVD+/-RW was about consumer writable formats, which is a whole different area of the market. HD-DVD/BD-ROM is about the pre-pressed discs, the movies that people buy off the shelf to pop in their consumer players. This war is much more annoying and stupid.
I would have pointed out that he made good points, but all they prove is that the study was done poorly, not that the study is incorrect. As a researcher, he should advocate that the research be done correctly rather than write off the concept simply because somebody did a poor job studying it.
Implying that TheMohel claimed the "study was incorrect" and proceeded to "write off the concept."
His conclusion was that the paper should be used to line trash cans and talk shit to his students about rather than to raise the call for some proper research into the subject.
The two actions are not mutually exclusive, and both together are entirely reasonable. In fact in this case, it's almost required to point out the flaws before you call for a new study. Unless you enjoy it when people conclude you're a raving lunatic more interested in protecting his own emotional interests than evaluating the study objectively.;) I'll admit he skipped the second step, but he did the first well and the path to take from there is pretty obvious.
Yet, it one scenario, you derive (undue?) benefit from said music and in the other you don't. If it doesn't matter enough to you to pay the price asked, then perhaps you should find other entertainment (there is other DRM-free music available) or get by without.
This is no myth. MySQL's client libraries are definitely GPL. If you link to them you must abide by the terms of the GPL.
True. However, the modified version need only be GPL'd if the modified version is distributed. From the FSF's GNU GPL 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.
It's probably a little late to argue the point now, but I'll make a small continuation just the same.:)
It's a fact that some have taken BSD code without contributing back. It's a fact that some have contributed to Linux because of the GPL license. However, you're comparing recent successes of Linux/GPL to considerably older failures of BSD/BSDL. This is not a fair comparison considering changes is the software landscape and the current hot-item status of Linux.
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions, you see. How you choose to support those conclusions is another matter. Trotting out a list of examples - let alone incongruous ones - is hardly a fair treatment of the subject.
Personally, I use both copyleft and academic style licenses, depending upon my goals for a particular project. Both approaches *work*, only in different ways.:)
While it's true there have been many individuals who have contributed to BSD, many major corporations have taken very significant code out of it and given back... nothing.
You seem to make the assumption that these same evil corporations that forked BSD would also fork and contribute to the same software if GPL-licensed. Suppose BSD was released under a copyleft license. Would they have used BSD and released changes back to the community? Or would they have simply not used BSD at all and instead created their own OS or licensed one from elsewhere? Before you answer that question, carefully consider the software climate at the time, where free and open software was a new idea. Contrast that with the climate today, where the these ideas are established, and Linux is a top player in the field. Perhaps *that* is why Linux receives so much corporate support today, not necessarily because of the GPL license.
Ask yourself this question as well: if it were not for the proliferation of UNIX softwares (as a result of the BSD forks), would Mr. Torvalds have created Linux?
You list a number of corporations that distributed BSD-forked software without contribution. I would love to do the same for GPL software, but unfortunately, that is a difficult proposition. In the copyleft world, the equivalent scenario would be a corporation that - given the choice of contributing to a software or avoiding the software completely - chose to avoid the software completely. I don't have the luxury of a list publicly produced products to point to. Certainly, though, there are many corporations that did not contribute to copyleft software *because* it was copyleft software.
Slashdot Mirror
Why?
Because people what a tool that will work no matter how they are accessing the files: Dolphin, Konsole, ssh session, whatever. And they want to access them offline. And they want to include the files in system backups.
I'm assuming that hell has frozen over, because the first argument is that forking won't work because the GPL does not let the forker use the dual licensing model to make money
It's *copyright* that prevents the forker from using dual licensing, not the GPL. Where does Stallman blame the GPL for that?
Instead of some rich aristocrat, you would have donation from thousands or millions of people asking for new songs, et voila...
Isn't that essentially what copyright provides? It enables the artist to spread the costs of production over a large audience of individuals rather that relying on a small groups of patrons. With a couple of added benefits: the artist doesn't have to deal with managing and collecting individual donations; the buyer doesn't have to put up the money until the product is available (commissions usually require some kind of payment upfront). There's a reason why copyright is so popular. The problem is how far it's been carried and how it's been abused.
Replying just to clear a mistaken down-mod :(
I'm convinced the school-day deposition request is very intentional. They want the other kids to know the boy missed an important school day because he was in hot water over file sharing. It's all part of their perverse scare tactics.
Implying that TheMohel claimed the "study was incorrect" and proceeded to "write off the concept."
The two actions are not mutually exclusive, and both together are entirely reasonable. In fact in this case, it's almost required to point out the flaws before you call for a new study. Unless you enjoy it when people conclude you're a raving lunatic more interested in protecting his own emotional interests than evaluating the study objectively.
Yet, it one scenario, you derive (undue?) benefit from said music and in the other you don't. If it doesn't matter enough to you to pay the price asked, then perhaps you should find other entertainment (there is other DRM-free music available) or get by without.
Read his comment again. He never claimed the conclusions was incorrect.
This is no myth. MySQL's client libraries are definitely GPL. If you link to them you must abide by the terms of the GPL.
True. However, the modified version need only be GPL'd if the modified version is distributed. From the FSF's GNU GPL 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.
It's probably a little late to argue the point now, but I'll make a small continuation just the same. :)
:)
It's a fact that some have taken BSD code without contributing back. It's a fact that some have contributed to Linux because of the GPL license. However, you're comparing recent successes of Linux/GPL to considerably older failures of BSD/BSDL. This is not a fair comparison considering changes is the software landscape and the current hot-item status of Linux.
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions, you see. How you choose to support those conclusions is another matter. Trotting out a list of examples - let alone incongruous ones - is hardly a fair treatment of the subject.
Personally, I use both copyleft and academic style licenses, depending upon my goals for a particular project. Both approaches *work*, only in different ways.
-dkgasaway
While it's true there have been many individuals who have contributed to BSD, many major corporations have taken very significant code out of it and given back ... nothing.
You seem to make the assumption that these same evil corporations that forked BSD would also fork and contribute to the same software if GPL-licensed. Suppose BSD was released under a copyleft license. Would they have used BSD and released changes back to the community? Or would they have simply not used BSD at all and instead created their own OS or licensed one from elsewhere? Before you answer that question, carefully consider the software climate at the time, where free and open software was a new idea. Contrast that with the climate today, where the these ideas are established, and Linux is a top player in the field. Perhaps *that* is why Linux receives so much corporate support today, not necessarily because of the GPL license.
Ask yourself this question as well: if it were not for the proliferation of UNIX softwares (as a result of the BSD forks), would Mr. Torvalds have created Linux?
You list a number of corporations that distributed BSD-forked software without contribution. I would love to do the same for GPL software, but unfortunately, that is a difficult proposition. In the copyleft world, the equivalent scenario would be a corporation that - given the choice of contributing to a software or avoiding the software completely - chose to avoid the software completely. I don't have the luxury of a list publicly produced products to point to. Certainly, though, there are many corporations that did not contribute to copyleft software *because* it was copyleft software.
-dkgasaway