There is no entity qualified to give "official clarification" except for the presiding court system.
The FSF can certainly clarify their intent.
In particular, the FSF has no authority to "clarify" this point, except for software that they hold copyright to.
They can file an amicus brief (in the US anyway). Since this is relatively new and volatile legal territory I'm sure the court would be interested in the authors opinion. Unless, of course, the issue is already decided by current case law; in which case this whole discussion is pointless.
The intent of the GPL's author is legally irrelevant; all that matters is what he actually wrote. However, if RMS's goals were taken into account, then I doubt he'd support the GPL including a loophole huge enough to permit Microsoft to commercially fork Linux...
And this scenario is likely why? How does this relate to internal distribution? Or are you just cheerleading a hard-liner intrepretation of the GPL?
The definition of those entities is completely well-defined within the GPL. As I said before, the GPL contains no special exception allowing an organization or corporation to be treated as a single entity. Therefore the entities in question are simply "you" (the human reading the license) and "the recipient" (or sometimes, "any third party").
How do you figure? From the GPL: 'Each licensee is addressed as "you".' Organizations purchase licenses all the time. As such they the licensee. Nowhere does it say anything about the licensee being a single human. The license states that "you" (the distributor) can't restrict the rights of the recipients. Even if "licensee" did refer to single individuals it would only apply to the recipients. If all the recipients are inside an organization it's a non-issue. There is absolutely nothing in there about being compelled to provide changes to non-recipients.
Well, I suppose you can find someone to argue even the least-defensible of positions...
Just as you can find someone to be pendantic and condescending.
"Distribution" is a simple word. It's well-defined not just in English dictionaries, but in the US legal system, where the "drug war" imposes vastly harsher penalties for possession of contraband if it is "with intent to distribute".
If you give something to other people (or just position it in several different places) that is distribution, regardless of if those people are members of your same Cannabis Club, or industrial corporation, or are total strangers.
This is quite a stretch. We're talking about a civil issue with quite different definitions. Drug specific criminal law doesn't enter into to it...
You are making the mistake of confusing "releasing" with "publication".
The first is a passive act; by releasing something, you allow it to go out to the public. Publishing is an active action, and implies web-servers or printings-presses or whatever.
Someone who internally distributes a modified GPL program has no obligation to publish it (as you say, that'd be an unreasonable burden), but she must release it. That means that any employees recieving that software have the option to share it with friends, if they want.
This is because the only way you can legally give a modified GPL program to someone else is to also give him permission to redistribute it. To do otherwise (such as by invoking the employer's perogative to command her personnel) is to violate the GPL.
Mistaken I am not. The discussion so far has been about organizations making changes for internal release and not being compelled to make their derivative work publicly available. That's it. No one is talking about some organization making changes and then forbidding it's customers or employees (recipients) from re-distributing the derivative work.
Although that question was pursuant to implied misinformation, the answer remains that undetectability of an offense is a poor justification for criminality.
Perhaps, but it has a hell of a lot to do with enforcement. You don't have to justify anything if you can't be caught. It's a poor piece of law that can't be enforced.
Although the point could use official clarification, this depends on how you define the entities involved in the distribution. Arguably, an internal release can't be considered "distribution". The entity that is making the modification is the same entity using the modification. No "distribution" is taking place despite multiple users.
It'd be totally unenforceable and crazy to do otherwise. E.G., a company decides to make some changes and use them internally. Let's say they're a small Mom & Pop place with no net access but a few employees. So, this company is to be expected to establish a presence on the net and shell out the dough for bandwidth so others can get their changes? And if they don't, who is going to know?
"City officials dismiss worries about water privatization, saying that a 20-year contract ensures affordable water rates and that the desalinated water will only supplement more traditional supplies."
Is twenty years really all that long when talking about public utilities? Also, what's the projected growth rate for this place over the next twenty years? Is the supplementary nature of the desalinated water the plan for the long term or just initially?
Water is a hell of a commodity to control; even if you have to wait twenty years to actually control it.
No argument here. I only meant that such an undertaking could be characterized as crazy;)
Your point on completely new designs is well taken. I think a pretty solid case can be made that most of the successful offerings are extensions to already popular things. Take http/html for instance. What gained popularity as a nice way to view/trade/link research papers has grown into a full-fledged application platform. Possibly even the dominant one (for business anyway).
The points in the article (and others) also reflect the fact that Unix variants came about during an era of big expensive hardware and timesharing versus small cheap (relatively) hardware and a single operator. These categories can also be looked at as Unix favoring "enterprise" tasks and Windows favoring "personal" tasks. The interesting part is that both camps are trying to became more attractive to the other's "side"; i.e. Windows han been targeting the infrastructural role while Unix variants are warming up to the desktop.
Granted, this analysis is a little superficial but I think it's true in a broad sense.
Yup...Alias and Stargate are some damn fine shows (and have, as you mention, damn fine..uh.."scenery") but I still can't watch them on TV. But I do snap up the DVDs when they come out and burn through the episodes back to back and commercial free.
Your point is well taken. I was coming at this from the technical side of things. But I got the impression that the author was as well. At least as far as the "laughable" comment goes.
As for mindshare, I'd agree that right now it's Sun's to lose (agaist MS). Although I am hopeful/optimistic that the Zope people are making (and will continue to make) progress in this area.
"Perl and Python are hardly competitors to Java, so warning Sun about Java's impending loss of market share to these two scripting languages is laughable."
How so?
The term "scripting language" doesn't have the name meaning it used to; especially where Perl and Python are concerned. They both get compiled to an intermediate form and executed...just like Java. The only difference (other than the internals of the runtime) is that the Java's development "model" is closely related to it's static typing; i.e., you manually compile your code into a binary before executing. Trying to discount Perl and Python by calling them scripting languages is silly. The real issue is what works as an enterprise development platform, not the "taxonomy" of the language. As far as platforms go, Python has got a pretty good thing in Zope/Plone etc. And both Perl and Python have libraries for damn near everything you'd want to do. J2EE may be more prevalent at the moment, but in terms of bang for buck Python and Perl present some interesting alternatives in the long term.
The names are determined by virus researchers, not the virus writers. In fact, if during analysis it's apparent that the writer wanted a certain name used that name is intentionally avoided.
...that sequence was chosen for security. From http://www.xfocus.net/articles/200103/winnt.pdf:
"After the SAS [Security Attention Sequence] is triggered in Windows NT, all user-mode programs stop. No program can trap the SAS sequence; it is the sole property of the security subsystem. If a user presses Ctrl+Alt+Del, he can be assured that his information is secure."
I worked for a small company for a while that had a similar vibe. There were a couple of other people around elsewhere, but I'd be solo a for long periods of time. And I do mean solo...no net connection either. It got to be rather depressing and I eventually left for a bigger operation.
On to your situation...since you probably have flexible scheduling, maybe regularly have lunch with friends/colleagues? Or you could be that person who's always in the coffee shop with a computer;)
Slashdot Mirror
There is no entity qualified to give "official clarification" except for the presiding court system.
The FSF can certainly clarify their intent.
In particular, the FSF has no authority to "clarify" this point, except for software that they hold copyright to.
They can file an amicus brief (in the US anyway). Since this is relatively new and volatile legal territory I'm sure the court would be interested in the authors opinion. Unless, of course, the issue is already decided by current case law; in which case this whole discussion is pointless.
The intent of the GPL's author is legally irrelevant; all that matters is what he actually wrote. However, if RMS's goals were taken into account, then I doubt he'd support the GPL including a loophole huge enough to permit Microsoft to commercially fork Linux...
And this scenario is likely why? How does this relate to internal distribution? Or are you just cheerleading a hard-liner intrepretation of the GPL?
The definition of those entities is completely well-defined within the GPL. As I said before, the GPL contains no special exception allowing an organization or corporation to be treated as a single entity. Therefore the entities in question are simply "you" (the human reading the license) and "the recipient" (or sometimes, "any third party").
How do you figure? From the GPL: 'Each licensee is addressed as "you".' Organizations purchase licenses all the time. As such they the licensee. Nowhere does it say anything about the licensee being a single human. The license states that "you" (the distributor) can't restrict the rights of the recipients. Even if "licensee" did refer to single individuals it would only apply to the recipients. If all the recipients are inside an organization it's a non-issue. There is absolutely nothing in there about being compelled to provide changes to non-recipients.
Well, I suppose you can find someone to argue even the least-defensible of positions...
Just as you can find someone to be pendantic and condescending.
"Distribution" is a simple word. It's well-defined not just in English dictionaries, but in the US legal system, where the "drug war" imposes vastly harsher penalties for possession of contraband if it is "with intent to distribute".
If you give something to other people (or just position it in several different places) that is distribution, regardless of if those people are members of your same Cannabis Club, or industrial corporation, or are total strangers.
This is quite a stretch. We're talking about a civil issue with quite different definitions. Drug specific criminal law doesn't enter into to it...
You are making the mistake of confusing "releasing" with "publication". The first is a passive act; by releasing something, you allow it to go out to the public. Publishing is an active action, and implies web-servers or printings-presses or whatever. Someone who internally distributes a modified GPL program has no obligation to publish it (as you say, that'd be an unreasonable burden), but she must release it. That means that any employees recieving that software have the option to share it with friends, if they want. This is because the only way you can legally give a modified GPL program to someone else is to also give him permission to redistribute it. To do otherwise (such as by invoking the employer's perogative to command her personnel) is to violate the GPL.
Mistaken I am not. The discussion so far has been about organizations making changes for internal release and not being compelled to make their derivative work publicly available. That's it. No one is talking about some organization making changes and then forbidding it's customers or employees (recipients) from re-distributing the derivative work.
Although that question was pursuant to implied misinformation, the answer remains that undetectability of an offense is a poor justification for criminality.
Perhaps, but it has a hell of a lot to do with enforcement. You don't have to justify anything if you can't be caught. It's a poor piece of law that can't be enforced.
Although the point could use official clarification, this depends on how you define the entities involved in the distribution. Arguably, an internal release can't be considered "distribution". The entity that is making the modification is the same entity using the modification. No "distribution" is taking place despite multiple users.
It'd be totally unenforceable and crazy to do otherwise. E.G., a company decides to make some changes and use them internally. Let's say they're a small Mom & Pop place with no net access but a few employees. So, this company is to be expected to establish a presence on the net and shell out the dough for bandwidth so others can get their changes? And if they don't, who is going to know?
"City officials dismiss worries about water privatization, saying that a 20-year contract ensures affordable water rates and that the desalinated water will only supplement more traditional supplies."
Is twenty years really all that long when talking about public utilities? Also, what's the projected growth rate for this place over the next twenty years? Is the supplementary nature of the desalinated water the plan for the long term or just initially?
Water is a hell of a commodity to control; even if you have to wait twenty years to actually control it.
I'm not sure I dig the idea that the future of app development comes down to a choice between MS and Sun.
No argument here. I only meant that such an undertaking could be characterized as crazy ;)
Your point on completely new designs is well taken. I think a pretty solid case can be made that most of the successful offerings are extensions to already popular things. Take http/html for instance. What gained popularity as a nice way to view/trade/link research papers has grown into a full-fledged application platform. Possibly even the dominant one (for business anyway).
I agree. The backwards compatibility requirements, of Win95 in particular, were either a testament to hyper-determination or utter insanity.
Bill: I want you guys to make a new 32bit OS.
Dev Guys: OK, cool.
Bill: And it has to run all the old software.
Dev Guys: Yeah, we can do that.
Bill: And it has to support all the old hardware.
Dev Guys: Uh, ok...I guess we can do that...
Bill: And it has to work with all the old drivers.
Dev Guys: Uh.....What?
The points in the article (and others) also reflect the fact that Unix variants came about during an era of big expensive hardware and timesharing versus small cheap (relatively) hardware and a single operator. These categories can also be looked at as Unix favoring "enterprise" tasks and Windows favoring "personal" tasks. The interesting part is that both camps are trying to became more attractive to the other's "side"; i.e. Windows han been targeting the infrastructural role while Unix variants are warming up to the desktop.
Granted, this analysis is a little superficial but I think it's true in a broad sense.
Yup...Alias and Stargate are some damn fine shows (and have, as you mention, damn fine..uh.."scenery") but I still can't watch them on TV. But I do snap up the DVDs when they come out and burn through the episodes back to back and commercial free.
"Please note: No discounts or coupon codes may be used with this item. "
That would have been a kick ass 10% off.
Don't bother.
Thanks,
The Mgmt.
Your point is well taken. I was coming at this from the technical side of things. But I got the impression that the author was as well. At least as far as the "laughable" comment goes.
As for mindshare, I'd agree that right now it's Sun's to lose (agaist MS). Although I am hopeful/optimistic that the Zope people are making (and will continue to make) progress in this area.
"Perl and Python are hardly competitors to Java, so warning Sun about Java's impending loss of market share to these two scripting languages is laughable."
How so?
The term "scripting language" doesn't have the name meaning it used to; especially where Perl and Python are concerned. They both get compiled to an intermediate form and executed...just like Java. The only difference (other than the internals of the runtime) is that the Java's development "model" is closely related to it's static typing; i.e., you manually compile your code into a binary before executing. Trying to discount Perl and Python by calling them scripting languages is silly. The real issue is what works as an enterprise development platform, not the "taxonomy" of the language. As far as platforms go, Python has got a pretty good thing in Zope/Plone etc. And both Perl and Python have libraries for damn near everything you'd want to do. J2EE may be more prevalent at the moment, but in terms of bang for buck Python and Perl present some interesting alternatives in the long term.
"There's no defense like a good offense."
Now what about the popcorn...
Incorrect. The first rule of programming is you do not talk about programming. ;)
The names are determined by virus researchers, not the virus writers. In fact, if during analysis it's apparent that the writer wanted a certain name used that name is intentionally avoided.
I think they're holding the napkin upside down.
Opera isn't freeware. It has a free version with ads and a paid version without the ads.
...that sequence was chosen for security. From http://www.xfocus.net/articles/200103/winnt.pdf :
"After the SAS [Security Attention Sequence] is triggered in Windows NT, all user-mode programs stop. No program can trap the SAS sequence; it is the sole property of the security subsystem. If a user presses Ctrl+Alt+Del, he can be assured that his information is secure."
"...movement of the wheels and hands on certain existing famous-maker wristwatches. Working on the 21-jeweled self-winding mechanical wristwatches..."
That mechanism is pretty damned cool, but they could've found a cheaper self-winding watch to screw with...
On the other hand, it could be worse, they could've sprung for IWC Le Grande Complications.
Maybe an audit of this project is in order...
damn it...now to correct myself: ..."THERE is only one China"...
Looks like the old "The is only one China" Jedi mind trick is becoming less effective.
Unsatisfied with merely pissing off most of Earth, the Bush Administration announced it's intention to start annoying the rest of the Solar System.
I worked for a small company for a while that had a similar vibe. There were a couple of other people around elsewhere, but I'd be solo a for long periods of time. And I do mean solo...no net connection either. It got to be rather depressing and I eventually left for a bigger operation.
;)
On to your situation...since you probably have flexible scheduling, maybe regularly have lunch with friends/colleagues? Or you could be that person who's always in the coffee shop with a computer
All hail the Touchstream! I've been using one for months now and if it ain't it the future then there shouldn't be one ;)
As for gesture control, I believe the Touchstream SDK is coming out soon.
Your anti-virus software replicates?