"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
Basically, in any other language: 'Now youve had time to build a good infrastructure on the current rules, prepare to be shafted'. If this comes to pass, then in my mind they are no better than Microsoft changing EULA terms with a service pack. Now that there are major companies with an infrastructure built on GPL software, the FSF are looking to essentially move the goalposts and if this is applied retroactively to current code (which from the articles wording I think it will be) then I personally think that its going to do more harm to the GPL community than benefit it in code donations as companies scramble to move away.
Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.
Thats just it, there doesnt have to be any restrictions on it, they just have to choose not to redistribute, and that is perfectly allowed. If the current holders of the code CHOOSE not to redistribute, no 'open source license' has been violated, but it may offend some sensabilities of those with more radical beliefs.
Im sorry, but the 'open source community' is not a closed, members only community, anyone can distribute something in an open source manner, and one part of the community cannot say 'that violates our beliefs and so it isnt open source', it may not be open source according to their beliefs, but it can still be open source.
Thats not what it means at all, the accepted definition of open source is that you get the right to modify and redistribute - if you want to. There may be cases where you get the source code but no rights to modify or redistribute, that isnt open source, thats just source distribution. There is nothing at all in the open source world that says you must give the code to anyone that asks, only those that are entitled to it, and in most cases thats only those who have received the binaries.
But thats OK, yours is a common misconception brought on by the fact taht nearly every open source project does just put the code up on a website for public dissemination. As is their full right.
It entirely depends on the license of the sourcecode - does the customer get the right to redistributewith few restrictions? Theres no 'spirit' being violated, if the customer wanted to redistribute then they could, if the license let them. If the license didnt let them, then you couldnt call it open source. I know of lots of cases where GPLed code has been kept secret purely because the holder hasnt redistributed it, and they havent violated anything. The whole point of opensource is 'freedom' and one of those freedoms is the freedom not to distribute - thats not gaming the system, thats following the system.
Common mistake - open source does not mean that 1, 2 or 3 have to be fulfilled to the general public, indeed I can opensource a project of mine and supply the binary and code to my one sole customer, it would still be open source. There is nothing in any of the GNU licenses or the OSI opproved licenses that says 'you must supply this to the general public for it to be an opensource project', you can keep an entire GPLed codebase within a tight group of people, so long as the binary isnt distributed outside that group.
Opensource does not mean you have immediate rights to 1, 2 or 3.
The police departments and their IT departments may have access to the code, open source doesnt necessarily mean 'put the source on a website for all and sundry to download on a whim', it means that the source is available to those who require it, ie the customer. You are mixing opensource with OpenSource, a common mistake like mixing up free with Free.
Way to take a very narrow view of whats happening. The EU is anti media player in Windows because a number of companies say it hurts them, and they can get a large cash injection from it. They arent 'threatening to slay free media players', they are however 'threatening to implement software patents', which is an entirely different thing, the only thing joining the two cases is that media players may be affected in both cases.
Its a case of Grandfathering the older code in, but how do you prove how old code is? Interesting question. In your scenario, it can and probably WILL happen, but the European developers code can still be used as Prior Art to nullify the American developers patent in either the US or the EU courts. Just because you couldnt patent the thing here, doesnt mean it looses its ability to act as prior art.
Why does it make it worthless for companies to persue GPLd software for patent violations? Regardless of whether theres a clause in the GPL saying you cant add extra restrictions like patents, you can easily still have a case where there is a patented implementation within the GPLd codebase, and its perfectly persuable by the patent holder.
Just because you subscribe to a different point of view than the next person doesnt give you protection.
Re:Since when did algorithms became patentable
on
VLC & European Patents
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They are about to become patentable in Europe under new legislation for the EU, and due to world wide treaties (that mainly benefit the US in this case) foreign patents will apply here in the EU when the Patent laws are enacted.
There is nothing about 'competition' and 'choice' in this situation, the site was distributing or allowing for the distribution of copyrighted works that they had no rights to. Piracy/Copyright Infringement is neither competition or choice. If you want competition or choice or even an alternative to the RIAA labels then there are plenty of unaffiliated labels, plenty of legitimate free music sites, and plenty of bands that are willing to let you distribute their music for them.
Dont try and make this about something it isnt, and it isnt about shutting down competition. If the 'competition' has to compete by infringing on copyrights then they deserve everything they get, because they arent competing on their own merits.
Enter '777' as the promo code when you sign up to hte 'Crazy Domain Insane Plan' and the costs are reduced to a one time fee of $9.90 for the first year, with second ands sbusequent years being charged at normal rate. referrers do not get referal fees on this promotion.
Except for the issue that NASA can and has turned probes off remotely before (one of the 1970 mars landers was 'accidentally' turned off way before it was supposed to be, shortening the mission dramatically). Im betting that NASA would do this to Voyager.
If Gentoo wanted to ensure that functionality, then they should host the files themselves imho. They are providing for something that the hosters of the files dont allow for.
Uhm, I know that most Slashdotters like to think otherwise, but Fair Use doesnt actually cover most of the things that are commented on on this site. Yes, its may be Fair Use to rip your own CDs, but this is an 'if possible' right, nowhere in copyright law is fair use actually a requirement of distribution - copyright owners dont have to make any considerations for it when implementing copyright protection.
Im as surprised as yourself to find my comment was modded 'funny' as I meant it to be 100% serious. I know what the user wants and what they need because I work inhouse with the users, and 99% of the time they try and give you a solution to implement rather than a problem to solve (their solutions rarely take into account other peoples usage of the same application or the effects it has on parts of a system they have never seen before).
95% of IT project specifications are what the user WANTS rather than what the user NEEDS. When they get what they want, and discover its not what they need, of course they wont be satisfied.
Re:I Got Yer "Authorization" Right Here...
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 1
Sony has to put that line in there in this litigous day and age. Otherwise they would be under threat of a lawsuit when they void the warranty on an opened PSP because the owner thought it was authorised because it explicitly didnt say otherwise.
Its not a case of Sony trying to take liberties, its simply a CYA on their part.
The reason that the ISS will never house more than 3 permanent crewmen is because NASA cancelled the Crew Return Vehicle, which was supposed to act as lifeboat for up to 9 people. Because thats now cancelled, we are relying on the venerable Soyuz docked with the ISS to act as lifeboat, and of course it can only carry 3 people.
If the EU wanted to do some actual, tangible good, maybe they should have forced Dell or Gateway to offer alternative OS's on their PCs that are sold in EU markets.
Theres a fine line between punishing the monopoliser (MS) and punishing the (mostly) innocent third parties (distributors, consumers). In what way does forcing Dell et al to ship alternative OSes on PCs help the situation other than causing financial burdens for Dell etc?
Slashdot Mirror
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
Basically, in any other language: 'Now youve had time to build a good infrastructure on the current rules, prepare to be shafted'. If this comes to pass, then in my mind they are no better than Microsoft changing EULA terms with a service pack. Now that there are major companies with an infrastructure built on GPL software, the FSF are looking to essentially move the goalposts and if this is applied retroactively to current code (which from the articles wording I think it will be) then I personally think that its going to do more harm to the GPL community than benefit it in code donations as companies scramble to move away.
Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.
Thats just it, there doesnt have to be any restrictions on it, they just have to choose not to redistribute, and that is perfectly allowed. If the current holders of the code CHOOSE not to redistribute, no 'open source license' has been violated, but it may offend some sensabilities of those with more radical beliefs.
Im sorry, but the 'open source community' is not a closed, members only community, anyone can distribute something in an open source manner, and one part of the community cannot say 'that violates our beliefs and so it isnt open source', it may not be open source according to their beliefs, but it can still be open source.
Thats not what it means at all, the accepted definition of open source is that you get the right to modify and redistribute - if you want to. There may be cases where you get the source code but no rights to modify or redistribute, that isnt open source, thats just source distribution. There is nothing at all in the open source world that says you must give the code to anyone that asks, only those that are entitled to it, and in most cases thats only those who have received the binaries.
But thats OK, yours is a common misconception brought on by the fact taht nearly every open source project does just put the code up on a website for public dissemination. As is their full right.
It entirely depends on the license of the sourcecode - does the customer get the right to redistributewith few restrictions? Theres no 'spirit' being violated, if the customer wanted to redistribute then they could, if the license let them. If the license didnt let them, then you couldnt call it open source. I know of lots of cases where GPLed code has been kept secret purely because the holder hasnt redistributed it, and they havent violated anything. The whole point of opensource is 'freedom' and one of those freedoms is the freedom not to distribute - thats not gaming the system, thats following the system.
Common mistake - open source does not mean that 1, 2 or 3 have to be fulfilled to the general public, indeed I can opensource a project of mine and supply the binary and code to my one sole customer, it would still be open source. There is nothing in any of the GNU licenses or the OSI opproved licenses that says 'you must supply this to the general public for it to be an opensource project', you can keep an entire GPLed codebase within a tight group of people, so long as the binary isnt distributed outside that group.
Opensource does not mean you have immediate rights to 1, 2 or 3.
The police departments and their IT departments may have access to the code, open source doesnt necessarily mean 'put the source on a website for all and sundry to download on a whim', it means that the source is available to those who require it, ie the customer. You are mixing opensource with OpenSource, a common mistake like mixing up free with Free.
Way to take a very narrow view of whats happening. The EU is anti media player in Windows because a number of companies say it hurts them, and they can get a large cash injection from it. They arent 'threatening to slay free media players', they are however 'threatening to implement software patents', which is an entirely different thing, the only thing joining the two cases is that media players may be affected in both cases.
Its a case of Grandfathering the older code in, but how do you prove how old code is? Interesting question. In your scenario, it can and probably WILL happen, but the European developers code can still be used as Prior Art to nullify the American developers patent in either the US or the EU courts. Just because you couldnt patent the thing here, doesnt mean it looses its ability to act as prior art.
Why does it make it worthless for companies to persue GPLd software for patent violations? Regardless of whether theres a clause in the GPL saying you cant add extra restrictions like patents, you can easily still have a case where there is a patented implementation within the GPLd codebase, and its perfectly persuable by the patent holder.
Just because you subscribe to a different point of view than the next person doesnt give you protection.
They are about to become patentable in Europe under new legislation for the EU, and due to world wide treaties (that mainly benefit the US in this case) foreign patents will apply here in the EU when the Patent laws are enacted.
There is nothing about 'competition' and 'choice' in this situation, the site was distributing or allowing for the distribution of copyrighted works that they had no rights to. Piracy/Copyright Infringement is neither competition or choice. If you want competition or choice or even an alternative to the RIAA labels then there are plenty of unaffiliated labels, plenty of legitimate free music sites, and plenty of bands that are willing to let you distribute their music for them.
Dont try and make this about something it isnt, and it isnt about shutting down competition. If the 'competition' has to compete by infringing on copyrights then they deserve everything they get, because they arent competing on their own merits.
Since when has a US film been accurate about the facts of World War 2?
Enter '777' as the promo code when you sign up to hte 'Crazy Domain Insane Plan' and the costs are reduced to a one time fee of $9.90 for the first year, with second ands sbusequent years being charged at normal rate. referrers do not get referal fees on this promotion.
Except for the issue that NASA can and has turned probes off remotely before (one of the 1970 mars landers was 'accidentally' turned off way before it was supposed to be, shortening the mission dramatically). Im betting that NASA would do this to Voyager.
If Gentoo wanted to ensure that functionality, then they should host the files themselves imho. They are providing for something that the hosters of the files dont allow for.
Uhm, I know that most Slashdotters like to think otherwise, but Fair Use doesnt actually cover most of the things that are commented on on this site. Yes, its may be Fair Use to rip your own CDs, but this is an 'if possible' right, nowhere in copyright law is fair use actually a requirement of distribution - copyright owners dont have to make any considerations for it when implementing copyright protection.
It also gives everyone an excuse for not RTFAing!
Im as surprised as yourself to find my comment was modded 'funny' as I meant it to be 100% serious. I know what the user wants and what they need because I work inhouse with the users, and 99% of the time they try and give you a solution to implement rather than a problem to solve (their solutions rarely take into account other peoples usage of the same application or the effects it has on parts of a system they have never seen before).
95% of IT project specifications are what the user WANTS rather than what the user NEEDS. When they get what they want, and discover its not what they need, of course they wont be satisfied.
While not starwars, I certainly found it humourous!
Gack Trek
Sony has to put that line in there in this litigous day and age. Otherwise they would be under threat of a lawsuit when they void the warranty on an opened PSP because the owner thought it was authorised because it explicitly didnt say otherwise.
Its not a case of Sony trying to take liberties, its simply a CYA on their part.
The reason that the ISS will never house more than 3 permanent crewmen is because NASA cancelled the Crew Return Vehicle, which was supposed to act as lifeboat for up to 9 people. Because thats now cancelled, we are relying on the venerable Soyuz docked with the ISS to act as lifeboat, and of course it can only carry 3 people.
If the EU wanted to do some actual, tangible good, maybe they should have forced Dell or Gateway to offer alternative OS's on their PCs that are sold in EU markets.
Theres a fine line between punishing the monopoliser (MS) and punishing the (mostly) innocent third parties (distributors, consumers). In what way does forcing Dell et al to ship alternative OSes on PCs help the situation other than causing financial burdens for Dell etc?