They own the hardware and content you would be using and viewing. They have ever right to track your usage of it. Do you also object to AT&T (or whoever your LD carrier is) tracking to whom you place phone calls? What about your credit card company tracking who you purchase from?
I read the article in the print edition before seeing this here, but it strikes me that if this were a smokescreen, it'd be done secretly. While I am not saying that the CIA will not benefit from this (and I hope they do, I view this as a brilliant move on their part), I think that the "It's Evil!" flag should only be flown at half-staff on this one.
You win. Several the "Linux" source files contain code from a BSD distribution which contain a standard BSD advertising clause. This is specificly prohibited by the GPL (I think it is section 6, but I don't care enough to look it up).
The BSD userland is the userland that originated with 4.4BSD and before that, Net/2. The userland was aimed at being a clone of the existing Unix userland which could be redistributed freely. In some cases, compatability was sacraficed for a "better way".
The GNU userland aims to be minimally POSIX then everything else possible afterwards. Most of the GNU utilities compile without error under the assored BSDs.
Linux uses the GNU userland primarily and BSD uses the BSD userland primarily. Each one borrows from the other where their own is incomplete.
That's my point, you've written a program (Access macro+database) using somebody else's code as a base (Microsoft's). Microsoft isn't going to be as generous as the GPL here.
They ar being more generous. They do not demand access to my database. They do not seek to control how I use my database and how it is distributed.
If I use product X as my base, I loose all rights to my enhancements. Indeed, I may own the copyright in name, but in practice, the community controls the future direction of my work.
Since I've been the one arguing about this on here, I must say, I never requested a port. I only asked for a license which permitted the port. I didn't ask for a free ride, just a smoother one.
But then again, I do not need to carry the gcc binary with me. Access requires me to carry the binary and run time libs. Same with VB. Using a theme requires I carry the theme with me.
Furthermore, do you recall the recent debacle with the so-called OSF and X?
Yes, do you recall XFree86 announcing that they would continue to produce a version off the X11R3 sources? The code wasn't made non-free. X11R3 will be free in perpetuity. Nothing can change that.
Implying that the Linux community does not. An ad Hominim attack, and a complete absurdity to boot.
I know it is completely absurd, but it contains as much factual background and sanity as any pro-GPL argument.
Implying that the Linux community does not. An ad Hominim attack, and a complete absurdity to boot.
So instead (since GIMP was previously mentioned, I'll use it). Since GIMP is GPL'd, what are the odds of a competing free software image editor appearing? Since the GPL prevents code forks (how this works is beyond me, I've yet to see proof, past examples are invalid and not an indicator of future performance, a lot of past examples are bogus anyway since they have forked), nobody is likely to fork GIMP and create SuperFoo PixTool which is also open source but meets the needs of a different group of users.
Did they include seperate specifications or merely an implementation? If only an implementation, then a freely redistributable clean room reimplementation would not be possible.
It is simple, when I use a GPL'd product as my base, I lose my rights to my work. It is wrong for person X to assert any rights to use and distribution of my work. He can do it with his work all he wants, but not mine.
Creativity is hampered ("destroyed") when one cannot be guarunteed that their work won't be misused (such as stolen for a proprietary product by, say, Microsoft). The GPL provides guaruntees for this, BSDL does not.
How many different systems have incorporated X? Are you running Linux? Do you have an X with source? The GPL does not prevent code from being "stolen" any more than the BSD/X licenses do.
The GPL protects my freedom to use my own, and other's code, and be assured that I'll have access to fixes and improvements as they are made.
In other words, you are demanding rights to my hard work.
Morality has nothing to do with either licensing scheme. Take your religion back to church.
I keep hearing how various Evilsoft companies are immoral beasts. I just thought I'd point out that at least Evilsoft knows right from wrong.
The GPL being very good at preventing code forking, as all changes are contributed back for (possible) inclusion in the main tree (for example, how many versions of BSD and on a similar note, proprietary X servers are there, vs. how many forks of the Linux kernel? Of KDE? Of gnome? Of gcc (there was egcs, but the two merged again despite some severe personality conflicts)?
So the BSD/X licenses spurn choice? Whereas the GPL only leaves you with one choice. I keep hearing how choice is good from the GNU community, let's see it backed up.
Wait, we are looking for "useful and innovative software released under the GPL". While GIMP is indeed useful, it is not innovative. Jasc Paintshop and Adobe Photoshop both did what GIMP does long ago. I even prefer Photoshop though I usually have both Photoshop and Paintshop open at any given time.
Back to the point, no piece of software has ever been released under the GPL without their being an equivalent under a different license beforehand. The GPL does not innovate under any circumstances.
How is this different than Microsoft claiming ownership and dictating how one of their templates is used? Or a program that links with their libraries?
You'll also note, I never demanded exclusivity. I only asked for a level playing field.
Rereading this, name one innovative product that could only be released under the GPL. There must be no equivalent in either closed source or other markets.
I have a clue. If the GPL does not limit creativity and freedom, why is there more software based on BSD and X out there then GPL'd software?
It is simple, BSD and X licenses do nothing to restrict the freedom and creativity of users and developers. The GPL simply seeks to amalgamate and destroy competing products as well as entire industries.
Sure, I said they did a "good thing", but they could have done a great thing.
I am opposed to all usage of the GPL because it destroys creativity and personal freedom (and is slighly more immoral than say, a Microsoft license, Microsoft would never try to claim ownership or rights to my work). But it is simpler to fight the GPL one instance at a time.
If 3Com were truly interested in supporting their product, they'd have made it as simple as possible. Before this announcement it was an uphill battle for all but Microsoft, now it is an uphill battle for all but Microsoft and Linux. Considering I use neither on a daily basis, I do not see the difference.
While releasing them open source under the GPL will permit usage with Linux, 3COM could have also supported the *BSD (and any closed source project) using either a 2-clause Berkeley license or an XFree86/X Consortium license. This is what hardware vendors need to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
They own the hardware and content you would be using and viewing. They have ever right to track your usage of it. Do you also object to AT&T (or whoever your LD carrier is) tracking to whom you place phone calls? What about your credit card company tracking who you purchase from?
I read the article in the print edition before seeing this here, but it strikes me that if this were a smokescreen, it'd be done secretly. While I am not saying that the CIA will not benefit from this (and I hope they do, I view this as a brilliant move on their part), I think that the "It's Evil!" flag should only be flown at half-staff on this one.
You win. Several the "Linux" source files contain code from a BSD distribution which contain a standard BSD advertising clause. This is specificly prohibited by the GPL (I think it is section 6, but I don't care enough to look it up).
1: You just signed a contract and became an employee in this case.
2: They do have the right to sublicense.
3: They are being obeyed. See 1.
4: See 1 again.
5: It is not a public beta test if you have to sign an NDA to get access
6: Not always. I have a license to use the C code present in Numercal Recipes in C but I do not have a license to distribute.
The BSD userland is the userland that originated with 4.4BSD and before that, Net/2. The userland was aimed at being a clone of the existing Unix userland which could be redistributed freely. In some cases, compatability was sacraficed for a "better way".
The GNU userland aims to be minimally POSIX then everything else possible afterwards. Most of the GNU utilities compile without error under the assored BSDs.
Linux uses the GNU userland primarily and BSD uses the BSD userland primarily. Each one borrows from the other where their own is incomplete.
Yes, an example would be Linux. The original code is not GPLd. This example is bad anyway because the GPL prevents the inclusion of BSDL code.
Those FSF folks are sure evil people, right?
A standard compiler license.
That's my point, you've written a program (Access macro+database) using somebody else's code as a base (Microsoft's). Microsoft isn't going to be as generous as the GPL here.
They ar being more generous. They do not demand access to my database. They do not seek to control how I use my database and how it is distributed.
I meant to get to that.
If I use product X as my base, I loose all rights to my enhancements. Indeed, I may own the copyright in name, but in practice, the community controls the future direction of my work.
Since I've been the one arguing about this on here, I must say, I never requested a port. I only asked for a license which permitted the port. I didn't ask for a free ride, just a smoother one.
But then again, I do not need to carry the gcc binary with me. Access requires me to carry the binary and run time libs. Same with VB. Using a theme requires I carry the theme with me.
Furthermore, do you recall the recent debacle with the so-called OSF and X?
Yes, do you recall XFree86 announcing that they would continue to produce a version off the X11R3 sources? The code wasn't made non-free. X11R3 will be free in perpetuity. Nothing can change that.
Implying that the Linux community does not. An ad Hominim attack, and a complete absurdity to boot.
I know it is completely absurd, but it contains as much factual background and sanity as any pro-GPL argument.
Implying that the Linux community does not. An ad Hominim attack, and a complete absurdity to boot.
So instead (since GIMP was previously mentioned, I'll use it). Since GIMP is GPL'd, what are the odds of a competing free software image editor appearing? Since the GPL prevents code forks (how this works is beyond me, I've yet to see proof, past examples are invalid and not an indicator of future performance, a lot of past examples are bogus anyway since they have forked), nobody is likely to fork GIMP and create SuperFoo PixTool which is also open source but meets the needs of a different group of users.
If I create a database based on Access orr if I use a template or theme to create my website, Microsoft makes no claim to my work.
Did they include seperate specifications or merely an implementation? If only an implementation, then a freely redistributable clean room reimplementation would not be possible.
It is simple, when I use a GPL'd product as my base, I lose my rights to my work. It is wrong for person X to assert any rights to use and distribution of my work. He can do it with his work all he wants, but not mine.
Creativity is hampered ("destroyed") when one cannot be guarunteed that their work won't be misused (such as stolen for a proprietary product by, say, Microsoft). The GPL provides guaruntees for this, BSDL does not.
How many different systems have incorporated X? Are you running Linux? Do you have an X with source? The GPL does not prevent code from being "stolen" any more than the BSD/X licenses do.
The GPL protects my freedom to use my own, and
other's code, and be assured that I'll have access to fixes and improvements as they are made.
In other words, you are demanding rights to my hard work.
Morality has nothing to do with either licensing scheme. Take your religion back to church.
I keep hearing how various Evilsoft companies are immoral beasts. I just thought I'd point out that at least Evilsoft knows right from wrong.
The GPL being very good at preventing code forking, as all changes are contributed back for (possible) inclusion in the main tree (for
example, how many versions of BSD and on a similar note, proprietary X servers are there, vs. how many forks of the Linux kernel? Of KDE? Of gnome? Of gcc (there was egcs, but the two merged again despite some severe personality conflicts)?
So the BSD/X licenses spurn choice? Whereas the GPL only leaves you with one choice. I keep hearing how choice is good from the GNU community, let's see it backed up.
Wait, we are looking for "useful and innovative software released under the GPL". While GIMP is indeed useful, it is not innovative. Jasc Paintshop and Adobe Photoshop both did what GIMP does long ago. I even prefer Photoshop though I usually have both Photoshop and Paintshop open at any given time.
Back to the point, no piece of software has ever been released under the GPL without their being an equivalent under a different license beforehand. The GPL does not innovate under any circumstances.
It would also be illegal due to licensing agreements and contractual obligations Microsoft maintains with SCO.
Microsoft licenses do not limit creativity and freedom. That's why we cannot ask that.
As for the GPL giving equal freedom, it would be better phrased as the GPL taking equal freedom from everyone.
How is this different than Microsoft claiming ownership and dictating how one of their templates is used? Or a program that links with their libraries?
You'll also note, I never demanded exclusivity. I only asked for a level playing field.
Rereading this, name one innovative product that could only be released under the GPL. There must be no equivalent in either closed source or other markets.
I have a clue. If the GPL does not limit creativity and freedom, why is there more software based on BSD and X out there then GPL'd software?
It is simple, BSD and X licenses do nothing to restrict the freedom and creativity of users and developers. The GPL simply seeks to amalgamate and destroy competing products as well as entire industries.
Sure, I said they did a "good thing", but they could have done a great thing.
I am opposed to all usage of the GPL because it destroys creativity and personal freedom (and is slighly more immoral than say, a Microsoft license, Microsoft would never try to claim ownership or rights to my work). But it is simpler to fight the GPL one instance at a time.
If 3Com were truly interested in supporting their product, they'd have made it as simple as possible. Before this announcement it was an uphill battle for all but Microsoft, now it is an uphill battle for all but Microsoft and Linux. Considering I use neither on a daily basis, I do not see the difference.
While releasing them open source under the GPL will permit usage with Linux, 3COM could have also supported the *BSD (and any closed source project) using either a 2-clause Berkeley license or an XFree86/X Consortium license. This is what hardware vendors need to learn.
The Kermit protocol sends data similarly to the way uuencode encodes data.
I was a year ago and for a class project. It has long since been deleted. Otherwise, I would.