Re:I was looking for a C book...
on
C
·
· Score: 1
That's right. Let it be heard by all: Fuck off till you get some skills.
Re:I was looking for a C book...
on
C
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, no, this is what you get when you post to an online forum and type any old thing into the box thinking that it makes you a little bit smarter to mention a buzz word. Ohh.. I'll type in STL.. that's C right? This asshole needs to get himself to the library and read _any_ book on C.
I'm totally underqualified to comment but...
on
C
·
· Score: 1
For a person who doesn't program in C and never learnt C++ (because Perl, of all things, distracted him) I would suggest that your comment is worth about nothing.
Re:I was looking for a C book...
on
C
·
· Score: 2
Seeing as he has attracted large amounts of flame already one would assume the moderators are trying to indicate that he is baiting for it. The alternative is that he is so lame as to not be worth discussing (which may also be true).
Re:I was looking for a C book...
on
C
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Any suggestions?
Yes, learn what STL is before you post to Slashdot about C (and then even go on to clarify that you dont want to use C++).
I'm getting bored of this thread but anyways. The copyright misuse act says a lot of things but one of the things it says is that you cant use your copyright on a product in one market to leverage control over another market. That's what my example of the web browser and the midi library was about. That didn't fly too well with too many people so I'll give another example.
Another thing the copyright misuse act says is that you cant restrict a licensee from using a competitor's product or developing a competing product. So to use your ascii art (very nice btw) as part of my example, consider that you are creating a paint program. You decide that a critical part of your paint program is going to be colour scaling. You consider colour scaling to be a rather complex task so you decide to use the recognised best colour scaler on the planet, GnuShade (not a real project, but let's just say it's under the GPL ok). Being a good gnu citizen you decide to make your entire paint program GPL'd too. That way everyone can develop it and really you dont think hiding source code is important to making money. You are pro-[open source | free software] and know that your customers are going to pay for your brand recognision. For a number of years you are very successful and sell a lot of your product which really does different stuff to the Gimp and fills a different market in the source-available graphics program world. But things have changed in those few years. GnuShade's development has been lagging and new techniques of colour scaling have come along. Unfortunately they have been developed by a company that does not share your vision of source-available software. Your customers are demanding that you add this proprietory module to your program, but they dont want to give up GnuShade either. What do you do? You could include this proprietory module with your product but then your product couldn't be distributed under the GPL (cause everything must be source-available to comply with it) and if you distribute it under something other than the GPL then you cant include GnuShade with it (for the same reason). There is no way you can distribute GnuShade and this new proprietory colour scaler in the same product which you distribute "as a whole". You might be able to get away with developing some plugin architecture and offering this proprietory module as a free download from your web site, but your customers dont want a free download, they want GnuShade + this proprietory colour scaler to work out of the box as it were. Effectively, the license of GnuShade (the GPL) prevents you from using a competing product because the licenses are incompatable. It could be argued that this is the same as explicitly stating that the license prevents you from using a competitors product. If the only two products in this market are GnuShade and this new proprietory upstart this case is a lot stronger. It could be claimed that effectively the owners of GnuShade are engaging in copyright misuse.
Obviously I think this is a load of horseshit and that's why I didn't mention it in my first post.
Your analogies do not make an argument, try to think for five minutes, and infact there have been cases where companies sued for unauthorized distribution of small DLL's and lost.
Derivative works are defined by copyright case law. As is just about every technical legal term. There is no doubt over what is and isnt a derivative work. There are issues over what constitues a "seperated" work but this has nothing to do with copyright law, it has to do with the GPL specifically stating that significantly seperated works do not fall under the GPL when distributed seperately.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
How NuSphere intends to argue that their software is "seperate" is beyond me when it seems largely irrelevant, they distribute them as part of a whole which is based on MySQL, the program.
The people who modded the parent post which is an obvious troll up to score 2 Insightful or the guy who writes 16 lines in response to it. They both make totally obsurd claims, maybe they're both trolls. Well done moderators!
Which brings me to the ideal system. Anything an application does that could be considered "privleged" (or perhaps just anything, period) should be logged and the user should be able to selectively undo those actions. Initially all these actions might be prohibited and result in a popup which alerts the user to the potential security issue and allows the user to make a go/no go response which lasts for either 1) This one operation 2) All operations of this type by this process 3) All operations forever. These actions would be tweakable in a capabilities control panel. The user could assign to specific programs the ability to do some privleged operation that they require. Note that I havn't mentioned anything here about "super users" or other antiquated security models.
I didn't say I somehow had a right to use your code. What I said is that the license you choose to distribute your code under may well have elements in it that are illegal under copyright misuse laws. Neither did I say anything about proprietary closed works. If we're talking about the BSD license and all my code is open then I still cant incorporate your library into my web browser. It's all really a moot point however because unless we have a signed license agreement I'm not going to get any love from the courts.
Clearly force is the issue. It's not called copyright law for nothing. You're not forced to use the library, but if you use the library then you are forced to GPL the other components. If I dont GPL the other components then the force of the court will come down on me, just as it is coming down on NuSphere now. Force is always the right word when refering to law.
Well the copyright law basicly gives the copyright holder the right to decide what the license is.
True, but there are restrictions. For example, I cant put in my license agreement that you may not use my competitors products. This is called "Copyright Misuse" and the representative case is Practice Management Information Corporation v. The American Medical Association. Technically copyright misuse is the use of a copyright to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by copyright law and against public policy. Another example is when a software license says you may only use the software on the copyright holder's hardware. Why? Well, you're using the monopoly granted to you by copyright law to enforce a monopoly in a different market (hardware). So the GPL could fall into this category too. In my example the monopoly granted to the author of the midi library by copyright law does not extend to the market of web browsers.
Try to extract the logic here: if you want to use the library then you have to distribute every other component of your product under the GPL. Therefore you are "forced" to distribute every other component under the GPL if you want to use the library. If you dont like the word "forced" then dont use it, but the word "viral" is perfectly accurate to describe this portion of the GPL (hell, even RMS uses it). And no, it's not the same as "the user must pay a certain royality" and that was the entire point of my post.
Perhaps there should be a button on that login box that says:
Dont ever bother me again. I'm serious. This is my computer. No-one else uses it. It's locked in my study. Even if they did want to use it I wouldn't mind. Really. Just go away.
And maybe someone at Microsoft will see this box and get rid of the ACCESS DENIED messages that win2k gives me, even though I have admin privledges.
The "better argument" claim was made in regards to the GPL enforcement issue, not the trademark issue. The judge was indicating that MySQL's claim that NuSphere violated the GPL is more believable than NuSphere's claim that they didn't.
why static linking of software components into a single, unified, compiled binary forms a derivative work of the original components
Yes, a lot of us are curious about that too. It is clear that something is derivative if it "contains" the functionality of something else, but is it Just that the licensing agreement of a minor, or even insignificant, part of the derivative work should dominate the remaining portions? For example, if you're writing a program which decodes and formats web pages and you want to include a mechanism for playback of midi files, using a library distributed under the GPL is an impossibility, because even tho it might make up less than 1% of the total code of the product, linking to the library will force the terms of the GPL onto each and every other component. This is what the GPL says - if you dont like it, dont use the software. But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law? And like the claim that Napster made about the RIAA, does the GPL try to "use their copyrights to extend their control to [new markets]?" Guess we have to hold our breath and wait.
Let's just state this for the record: You are saying that it is a good thing that users have to enter a password to install software. Who's computer is this again? Is this my computer or is this Steve's computer? If I cant install the software I want I should just go buy a toaster. Maybe you'd like to justify it by saying that installing software requires that the installer write into directories that you dont think the user should be casually deleting or browsing. In which case, that is exactly what should be restricted, perhaps through the finder application or a specific capabilities system, but largely, let's not forget who's computer this is. If I wanna screw it up I should be able to. Maybe Steve would like to warn me "You're about to delete a critical file, dont do this!" And maybe if I ignore him then I should be able to undo my change. But generally, installing a piece of software is not going to break the system and the protection mechanism should recognise that.
Slashdot Mirror
it won!
That's right. Let it be heard by all: Fuck off till you get some skills.
Sorry, no, this is what you get when you post to an online forum and type any old thing into the box thinking that it makes you a little bit smarter to mention a buzz word. Ohh.. I'll type in STL.. that's C right? This asshole needs to get himself to the library and read _any_ book on C.
For a person who doesn't program in C and never learnt C++ (because Perl, of all things, distracted him) I would suggest that your comment is worth about nothing.
Seeing as he has attracted large amounts of flame already one would assume the moderators are trying to indicate that he is baiting for it. The alternative is that he is so lame as to not be worth discussing (which may also be true).
Any suggestions?
Yes, learn what STL is before you post to Slashdot about C (and then even go on to clarify that you dont want to use C++).
I'm getting bored of this thread but anyways. The copyright misuse act says a lot of things but one of the things it says is that you cant use your copyright on a product in one market to leverage control over another market. That's what my example of the web browser and the midi library was about. That didn't fly too well with too many people so I'll give another example.
Another thing the copyright misuse act says is that you cant restrict a licensee from using a competitor's product or developing a competing product. So to use your ascii art (very nice btw) as part of my example, consider that you are creating a paint program. You decide that a critical part of your paint program is going to be colour scaling. You consider colour scaling to be a rather complex task so you decide to use the recognised best colour scaler on the planet, GnuShade (not a real project, but let's just say it's under the GPL ok). Being a good gnu citizen you decide to make your entire paint program GPL'd too. That way everyone can develop it and really you dont think hiding source code is important to making money. You are pro-[open source | free software] and know that your customers are going to pay for your brand recognision. For a number of years you are very successful and sell a lot of your product which really does different stuff to the Gimp and fills a different market in the source-available graphics program world. But things have changed in those few years. GnuShade's development has been lagging and new techniques of colour scaling have come along. Unfortunately they have been developed by a company that does not share your vision of source-available software. Your customers are demanding that you add this proprietory module to your program, but they dont want to give up GnuShade either. What do you do? You could include this proprietory module with your product but then your product couldn't be distributed under the GPL (cause everything must be source-available to comply with it) and if you distribute it under something other than the GPL then you cant include GnuShade with it (for the same reason). There is no way you can distribute GnuShade and this new proprietory colour scaler in the same product which you distribute "as a whole". You might be able to get away with developing some plugin architecture and offering this proprietory module as a free download from your web site, but your customers dont want a free download, they want GnuShade + this proprietory colour scaler to work out of the box as it were. Effectively, the license of GnuShade (the GPL) prevents you from using a competing product because the licenses are incompatable. It could be argued that this is the same as explicitly stating that the license prevents you from using a competitors product. If the only two products in this market are GnuShade and this new proprietory upstart this case is a lot stronger. It could be claimed that effectively the owners of GnuShade are engaging in copyright misuse.
Obviously I think this is a load of horseshit and that's why I didn't mention it in my first post.
worst analogy of the year award goes to this man.
Your analogies do not make an argument, try to think for five minutes, and infact there have been cases where companies sued for unauthorized distribution of small DLL's and lost.
unlimited undo is the Apple way. Go read some application guidelines moron.
you are metaphysically slapping the faces of programmers who use the GPL
I'm doing no such thing. I'm querying the legality of a license that I use. You should be doing the same.
Derivative works are defined by copyright case law. As is just about every technical legal term. There is no doubt over what is and isnt a derivative work. There are issues over what constitues a "seperated" work but this has nothing to do with copyright law, it has to do with the GPL specifically stating that significantly seperated works do not fall under the GPL when distributed seperately.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
How NuSphere intends to argue that their software is "seperate" is beyond me when it seems largely irrelevant, they distribute them as part of a whole which is based on MySQL, the program.
The people who modded the parent post which is an obvious troll up to score 2 Insightful or the guy who writes 16 lines in response to it. They both make totally obsurd claims, maybe they're both trolls. Well done moderators!
That GPL code is *not* free.
Shit, really? Better change the name then.
Which brings me to the ideal system. Anything an application does that could be considered "privleged" (or perhaps just anything, period) should be logged and the user should be able to selectively undo those actions. Initially all these actions might be prohibited and result in a popup which alerts the user to the potential security issue and allows the user to make a go/no go response which lasts for either 1) This one operation 2) All operations of this type by this process 3) All operations forever. These actions would be tweakable in a capabilities control panel. The user could assign to specific programs the ability to do some privleged operation that they require. Note that I havn't mentioned anything here about "super users" or other antiquated security models.
I didn't say I somehow had a right to use your code. What I said is that the license you choose to distribute your code under may well have elements in it that are illegal under copyright misuse laws. Neither did I say anything about proprietary closed works. If we're talking about the BSD license and all my code is open then I still cant incorporate your library into my web browser. It's all really a moot point however because unless we have a signed license agreement I'm not going to get any love from the courts.
There's shades of virality now? Fine, it's not virus by your definition, happy?
Clearly force is the issue. It's not called copyright law for nothing. You're not forced to use the library, but if you use the library then you are forced to GPL the other components. If I dont GPL the other components then the force of the court will come down on me, just as it is coming down on NuSphere now. Force is always the right word when refering to law.
Well the copyright law basicly gives the copyright holder the right to decide what the license is.
True, but there are restrictions. For example, I cant put in my license agreement that you may not use my competitors products. This is called "Copyright Misuse" and the representative case is Practice Management Information Corporation v. The American Medical Association. Technically copyright misuse is the use of a copyright to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by copyright law and against public policy. Another example is when a software license says you may only use the software on the copyright holder's hardware. Why? Well, you're using the monopoly granted to you by copyright law to enforce a monopoly in a different market (hardware). So the GPL could fall into this category too. In my example the monopoly granted to the author of the midi library by copyright law does not extend to the market of web browsers.
Try to extract the logic here: if you want to use the library then you have to distribute every other component of your product under the GPL. Therefore you are "forced" to distribute every other component under the GPL if you want to use the library. If you dont like the word "forced" then dont use it, but the word "viral" is perfectly accurate to describe this portion of the GPL (hell, even RMS uses it). And no, it's not the same as "the user must pay a certain royality" and that was the entire point of my post.
Perhaps there should be a button on that login box that says:
Dont ever bother me again. I'm serious. This is my computer. No-one else uses it. It's locked in my study. Even if they did want to use it I wouldn't mind. Really. Just go away.
And maybe someone at Microsoft will see this box and get rid of the ACCESS DENIED messages that win2k gives me, even though I have admin privledges.
Oh thank you for your fantastic insight.
The "better argument" claim was made in regards to the GPL enforcement issue, not the trademark issue. The judge was indicating that MySQL's claim that NuSphere violated the GPL is more believable than NuSphere's claim that they didn't.
why static linking of software components into a single, unified, compiled binary forms a derivative work of the original components
Yes, a lot of us are curious about that too. It is clear that something is derivative if it "contains" the functionality of something else, but is it Just that the licensing agreement of a minor, or even insignificant, part of the derivative work should dominate the remaining portions? For example, if you're writing a program which decodes and formats web pages and you want to include a mechanism for playback of midi files, using a library distributed under the GPL is an impossibility, because even tho it might make up less than 1% of the total code of the product, linking to the library will force the terms of the GPL onto each and every other component. This is what the GPL says - if you dont like it, dont use the software. But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law? And like the claim that Napster made about the RIAA, does the GPL try to "use their copyrights to extend their control to [new markets]?" Guess we have to hold our breath and wait.
Let's just state this for the record: You are saying that it is a good thing that users have to enter a password to install software. Who's computer is this again? Is this my computer or is this Steve's computer? If I cant install the software I want I should just go buy a toaster. Maybe you'd like to justify it by saying that installing software requires that the installer write into directories that you dont think the user should be casually deleting or browsing. In which case, that is exactly what should be restricted, perhaps through the finder application or a specific capabilities system, but largely, let's not forget who's computer this is. If I wanna screw it up I should be able to. Maybe Steve would like to warn me "You're about to delete a critical file, dont do this!" And maybe if I ignore him then I should be able to undo my change. But generally, installing a piece of software is not going to break the system and the protection mechanism should recognise that.