EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist.
None of which changes the actual law.
"The act of running the Program is not restricted"
That however does...
So I guess if you take the position that EULAs are enforcible upon users who merely run the software, then you could argue that the GPL is different.
But my position (and the one of current court precedent), is that you only need to accept an EULA if you want to do things which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. In that sense, the GPL is exactly like any other EULA. You get some things (the right to copy software), and lose others (the right to sell those lawfully made copies).
Courts have ruled both ways (MAI v. Peak and Adobe v. Softman come to mind, although maybe I have that last one wrong.)
MAI and Softman are not examples of cases against end-users.
As much as I would love to sue people who spam me it's not like I have the time or money to do so.
Exactly. I currently have someone sending spam and faking my email address as the From: address. I could surely win a court case against them, but I don't have the time or money to do it. Laws are not the solution.
Because US Code Title 17 section 117 (a) (1) says so.
So it's no different from any other EULA.
Also, because the GPL says so (i.e. it unilaterally grants you the right to use the code, whether or not you agree to follow its conditions).
Where?
Of course, redistributing the code is another matter, and does require a license. But you were talking about use.
The question is, can an EULA override section 117, if you accept it? The GPL clearly states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." Section 117 is not an express provision of the GPL.
I thought the heisenberg equation gave uncertainty as err(momentum * position) > CONSTANT, where the constant was some defined number (which I don't know offhand). So does this define the CONSTANT more accurately, or did Heisenberg just say the constant exists, and now we have a figure?
Heisenberg said err(momentum * position) >= CONSTANT. This says err(momentum * position)=(some equation).
Quantum mechanics shows how everything is both a wave and a particle. Light is no exception, it's just at one extreme end of things.
Are you disputing that or something?
Yes. I'm not disputing that light can exhibit particle-like properties, or that particles can exhibit wave-like properties, but "everything is both a wave and a particle" goes too far.
Photons have constant speed, constant momentum, and constant energy. To call them a particle disproves heisenberg uncertainty. Light has no mass, no charge, doesn't obey the pauli exclusion principle. In fact, there is absolutely no record of a photon's existence between the two single particles that interact with each other. The photon is a mathematical construct. It is a wave. It is a quantized transverse wave, but it is a wave.
The reason the GPL hasn't been tested in court is because no-one has dared to take it that far.
The reason no-one has dared to take the GPL to court is because there's nothing to gain by defeating it. Best case scenario you get the ability to make derivitive works and hide the source code. Big deal, no one is going to pay for your product anyway when there is a free alternative, especially if you get the infamy of being the company that killed the GPL. Your product will be hacked and distributed for free by thousands of people.
If I wanted to write a binary-only modification to the GPL and distribute it without distributing the source, I could get away with it. But I wouldn't make any money to pay for the lawsuits, and the special interest groups would easily bankrupt me. So if I wanted to make a binary-only modification, I'd do it anonymously.
Place an electron detector in the path before the slits, and you instead see two spots where the electrons land.
That's because the electron detector interacts with the electron it's detecting. You can't detect an electron without interacting with it. Likewise with photons there are observations of quantum entanglement, but the "halves" of the photon can be separated at such distances that the propagation of the entanglement exceeds the speed of light. As far as I know this has never been observed with electrons. It's an open question whether or not it would work. My bet is that it would not.
If you follow the right of First Sale, then you don't have to agree to the GPL.
But if you've already agreed to the GPL, then you don't have the right of First Sale. And if you break the GPL, no matter how minor the infraction, you lose all rights, including the right to copy the software into ram.
I am too lazy to read your license, but couldn't someone just make an insignificant change, call it a "derivative work", and thereby refuse to supply the source?
Yes, although if you make an insignificant change it isn't actually a derivitive work. Besides, if the change is insignificant, people could still get the original source. Thus trivial changes will simply be reverse engineered (if necessary) and put back into the original source, whereas more complicated changes can be protected (physically and technologically, not legally) by the creator of the derivitive work.
Anyway, the purpose of my license is not to stop people from hiding their modifications. The purpose is to stop companies from suing others over derivitives of my works. The most prominent example would be Mac OS X. Under the QingPL, Macintosh wouldn't have to release the source, but others would be free to copy and redistribute MacOS binaries.
I seem to remember uppercase being specifically required by law somewhere in the UCC for certain disclaimers of warranty. But I can't find it. In any case, it actually seems to have the opposite effect on me. The part in uppercase is usually the part I ignore.
After you've tackled that, maybe you can analyze some common software vendor EULAs with equal zeal.
Other software vendor EULAs don't claim to be God's gift to the computer world. The GPL is an EULA. And like any other EULA, if all you want to do is use the software and not bother anyone, nothing bad will happen to you.
The simplest way is with the analogous 2-slit experiment for electrons -- requires very small slits, and so is generally done instead with a crystal lattice, but the results are just as you would expect.
But this doesn't preclude that something is happening at the physical level to taint the experiment. Yes, you open one slit, you get one pattern, you open the other slit, you get a different pattern, you open both slits, you get an interference pattern (this isn't the same as electron diffraction, but it has been done with both electrons and alpha particles). But, it is a perfectly legitimate conclusion that the lack of matter/charge/whatever in the second slit is what's causing the interference pattern. With an interferometer, you can block the beam at a point where a physical explanation would require forces moving at faster than the speed of light. The only conclusion that can be made is that each single photon is travels both paths simultaneously. (Actually you could alternatively conclude faster than light force propagation but that's even more far fetched). In any case, it's a much deeper and meaningful conclusion.
I don't think so... the GPL only requires that you make the source available to anyone to whom you distribute the binary.
Yes, but knowing that requires understanding the license.
Copying the software into RAM isn't distributing, it's just copying into RAM. I don't think anyone is going to sue you for failing to copy the source into RAM as well...
The point is once you've copyed software into RAM without following Section 117, you are forced to accept the GPL. That means you lose your right to first sale. It means you lose your right to make a backup copy of just the binary. It means you cannot install the binary on multiple systems.
As I've said somewhere else, you can do diffraction experiments using electron beams. The distances involved there are 10^25 times the Planck length.
I'm aware of diffraction experiments, but that only shows uncertainty. Interferometer experiments show something much different.
I'd imagine that the effects of photons interfering with themselves are negligible compared to the overall interference of the two beams, composed of millions of (coherent) photons.
That part is just plain false. Photons from different beams do not interfere. Photons only create interference patterns with themselves. This is a key in holography, you must split a single beam into two paths, it is not sufficient to use two beams.
As far as I can see, the main problem with doing this is that electrons are far more likely to interact with the intervening matter. If it were possible to create a perfect vacuum, I see no reason why this couldn't be done with electrons (although if there is a good reason, I'd love to hear it)
I don't think it would work. But I'm perfectly willing to accept that it might. If it did it would completely turn the concept of matter on its head. And it would probably make the design of quantum computers much simpler.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
Double-slit and electron diffraction experiments are nice to explain the uncertainty principle as it applies to particles, but the kicker for photons is the interferometer experiment. If you examine that experiment, there is no other explanation than that each individual photon travels down both paths simultaneously. That has never been done for electrons, protons, etc.
So.. given that any other particle can also be viewed purely as a wave.. does your statement not hold true for all reality?
Get me an electron beam splitter and create an interferometer with 4 kilometer long arms. Now show an experiment which can only be explained by the fact that the electrons travel down both arms simultaneously. In other words, send electrons down through the interferometer one electron at a time, and show the interference pattern it creates. Block one arm of the interferometer at a time, repeat, and show that there is no interference pattern. Then we can discuss whether I'm willing to modify my statement to hold for all of reality.
Only people who redistribute should understand the license, because it only covers that activity.
That's not actually true. For instance, if you use GPLed software on someone else's computer, then you need to accept the GPL in order to have the right to copy the software into ram.
Slashdot Mirror
EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist.
None of which changes the actual law.
"The act of running the Program is not restricted"
That however does...
So I guess if you take the position that EULAs are enforcible upon users who merely run the software, then you could argue that the GPL is different.
But my position (and the one of current court precedent), is that you only need to accept an EULA if you want to do things which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. In that sense, the GPL is exactly like any other EULA. You get some things (the right to copy software), and lose others (the right to sell those lawfully made copies).
Courts have ruled both ways (MAI v. Peak and Adobe v. Softman come to mind, although maybe I have that last one wrong.)
MAI and Softman are not examples of cases against end-users.
As much as I would love to sue people who spam me it's not like I have the time or money to do so.
Exactly. I currently have someone sending spam and faking my email address as the From: address. I could surely win a court case against them, but I don't have the time or money to do it. Laws are not the solution.
Because US Code Title 17 section 117 (a) (1) says so.
So it's no different from any other EULA.
Also, because the GPL says so (i.e. it unilaterally grants you the right to use the code, whether or not you agree to follow its conditions).
Where?
Of course, redistributing the code is another matter, and does require a license. But you were talking about use.
The question is, can an EULA override section 117, if you accept it? The GPL clearly states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." Section 117 is not an express provision of the GPL.
I thought the heisenberg equation gave uncertainty as err(momentum * position) > CONSTANT, where the constant was some defined number (which I don't know offhand). So does this define the CONSTANT more accurately, or did Heisenberg just say the constant exists, and now we have a figure?
Heisenberg said err(momentum * position) >= CONSTANT. This says err(momentum * position)=(some equation).
You don't need to agree to the GPL to *use* a piece of GPL'd software.
Why not?
Nike can speak all they want, they just can't sell those items which they have falsely promoted.
Maybe that's semantics, but it makes sense to me.
Quantum mechanics shows how everything is both a wave and a particle. Light is no exception, it's just at one extreme end of things.
Are you disputing that or something?
Yes. I'm not disputing that light can exhibit particle-like properties, or that particles can exhibit wave-like properties, but "everything is both a wave and a particle" goes too far.
Photons have constant speed, constant momentum, and constant energy. To call them a particle disproves heisenberg uncertainty. Light has no mass, no charge, doesn't obey the pauli exclusion principle. In fact, there is absolutely no record of a photon's existence between the two single particles that interact with each other. The photon is a mathematical construct. It is a wave. It is a quantized transverse wave, but it is a wave.
The reason the GPL hasn't been tested in court is because no-one has dared to take it that far.
The reason no-one has dared to take the GPL to court is because there's nothing to gain by defeating it. Best case scenario you get the ability to make derivitive works and hide the source code. Big deal, no one is going to pay for your product anyway when there is a free alternative, especially if you get the infamy of being the company that killed the GPL. Your product will be hacked and distributed for free by thousands of people.
If I wanted to write a binary-only modification to the GPL and distribute it without distributing the source, I could get away with it. But I wouldn't make any money to pay for the lawsuits, and the special interest groups would easily bankrupt me. So if I wanted to make a binary-only modification, I'd do it anonymously.
Place an electron detector in the path before the slits, and you instead see two spots where the electrons land.
That's because the electron detector interacts with the electron it's detecting. You can't detect an electron without interacting with it. Likewise with photons there are observations of quantum entanglement, but the "halves" of the photon can be separated at such distances that the propagation of the entanglement exceeds the speed of light. As far as I know this has never been observed with electrons. It's an open question whether or not it would work. My bet is that it would not.
If you buy a redhat cd full of GPL software, you are still permitted to sell that cd.
Not if you accept the GPL.
If you follow the right of First Sale, then you don't have to agree to the GPL.
But if you've already agreed to the GPL, then you don't have the right of First Sale. And if you break the GPL, no matter how minor the infraction, you lose all rights, including the right to copy the software into ram.
I am too lazy to read your license, but couldn't someone just make an insignificant change, call it a "derivative work", and thereby refuse to supply the source?
Yes, although if you make an insignificant change it isn't actually a derivitive work. Besides, if the change is insignificant, people could still get the original source. Thus trivial changes will simply be reverse engineered (if necessary) and put back into the original source, whereas more complicated changes can be protected (physically and technologically, not legally) by the creator of the derivitive work.
Anyway, the purpose of my license is not to stop people from hiding their modifications. The purpose is to stop companies from suing others over derivitives of my works. The most prominent example would be Mac OS X. Under the QingPL, Macintosh wouldn't have to release the source, but others would be free to copy and redistribute MacOS binaries.
I seem to remember uppercase being specifically required by law somewhere in the UCC for certain disclaimers of warranty. But I can't find it. In any case, it actually seems to have the opposite effect on me. The part in uppercase is usually the part I ignore.
After you've tackled that, maybe you can analyze some common software vendor EULAs with equal zeal.
Other software vendor EULAs don't claim to be God's gift to the computer world. The GPL is an EULA. And like any other EULA, if all you want to do is use the software and not bother anyone, nothing bad will happen to you.
What part of the GPL do you think prohibits the resale of copies of software?
"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License."
if you use GPLed software on someone else's computer, then you are not "the owner of a copy of a computer program"
The simplest way is with the analogous 2-slit experiment for electrons -- requires very small slits, and so is generally done instead with a crystal lattice, but the results are just as you would expect.
But this doesn't preclude that something is happening at the physical level to taint the experiment. Yes, you open one slit, you get one pattern, you open the other slit, you get a different pattern, you open both slits, you get an interference pattern (this isn't the same as electron diffraction, but it has been done with both electrons and alpha particles). But, it is a perfectly legitimate conclusion that the lack of matter/charge/whatever in the second slit is what's causing the interference pattern. With an interferometer, you can block the beam at a point where a physical explanation would require forces moving at faster than the speed of light. The only conclusion that can be made is that each single photon is travels both paths simultaneously. (Actually you could alternatively conclude faster than light force propagation but that's even more far fetched). In any case, it's a much deeper and meaningful conclusion.
I don't think so... the GPL only requires that you make the source available to anyone to whom you distribute the binary.
Yes, but knowing that requires understanding the license.
Copying the software into RAM isn't distributing, it's just copying into RAM. I don't think anyone is going to sue you for failing to copy the source into RAM as well...
The point is once you've copyed software into RAM without following Section 117, you are forced to accept the GPL. That means you lose your right to first sale. It means you lose your right to make a backup copy of just the binary. It means you cannot install the binary on multiple systems.
As I've said somewhere else, you can do diffraction experiments using electron beams. The distances involved there are 10^25 times the Planck length.
I'm aware of diffraction experiments, but that only shows uncertainty. Interferometer experiments show something much different.
I'd imagine that the effects of photons interfering with themselves are negligible compared to the overall interference of the two beams, composed of millions of (coherent) photons.
That part is just plain false. Photons from different beams do not interfere. Photons only create interference patterns with themselves. This is a key in holography, you must split a single beam into two paths, it is not sufficient to use two beams.
As far as I can see, the main problem with doing this is that electrons are far more likely to interact with the intervening matter. If it were possible to create a perfect vacuum, I see no reason why this couldn't be done with electrons (although if there is a good reason, I'd love to hear it)
I don't think it would work. But I'm perfectly willing to accept that it might. If it did it would completely turn the concept of matter on its head. And it would probably make the design of quantum computers much simpler.
If you purchased GPL software as a binary-only copy, then you do have the right of First Sale.
Unless you agree to the GPL.
and if you did "buy" the software (otherwise known as making a donation), it's going to going to come with the source code.
The source code could come on a separate medium, or as a written offer.
You have no "right to first sale".
Double-slit and electron diffraction experiments are nice to explain the uncertainty principle as it applies to particles, but the kicker for photons is the interferometer experiment. If you examine that experiment, there is no other explanation than that each individual photon travels down both paths simultaneously. That has never been done for electrons, protons, etc.
So.. given that any other particle can also be viewed purely as a wave.. does your statement not hold true for all reality?
Get me an electron beam splitter and create an interferometer with 4 kilometer long arms. Now show an experiment which can only be explained by the fact that the electrons travel down both arms simultaneously. In other words, send electrons down through the interferometer one electron at a time, and show the interference pattern it creates. Block one arm of the interferometer at a time, repeat, and show that there is no interference pattern. Then we can discuss whether I'm willing to modify my statement to hold for all of reality.
You are disputing the fact that light behaves both as a particle and as a wave?
No. Let me be clear. I am not at all saying that. Light does behave as both a particle and a wave.
Saying they are particles that propgate as waves is innacurate, of course..
That's what I'm saying.
A robot is a computer that behaves like a human. A robot is not a human.
Light is a wave. It's a quantized transverse wave, but it's still a wave.
Only people who redistribute should understand the license, because it only covers that activity.
That's not actually true. For instance, if you use GPLed software on someone else's computer, then you need to accept the GPL in order to have the right to copy the software into ram.