its the insistence on a license and distribution model that cannot easily handle various real burdens which creates the can of worms out of thin air.
Artificial burdens. At this point software patents don't exist in the EU and hopefully they never will. Of course, if you think that insisting upon the distribution model the GPL (or any FOSS license) allows is a flaw, then you're pretty much anti-FOSS and should just admit it.
No, when they say "copy freely" they mean without restriction. Patent fees impose restrictions via cost, this is why FRAND (and software patents in general) is bad, particularly for standards.
Where'd all the pro-software-patent types come from?
If it has no utility for you, you wouldn't license it and wouldn't be missing out on anything
What if I infringed on the patent without realizing it? What if the patent is part of a critical standard? What if, a few years down the line and millions of dollars later, the patent is invalidated? What have we gained, except to make some lawyers richer?
there's some benefit being conveyed to the licensee (user). Specifically, the useful result of someone's research and development efforts.
Like the EOLAS patents? The patents trotted around by trolls?
If it weren't beneficial, you'd have no interest in it and not care if it were patented or not.
Bullshit. It's entirely possible to get patents on things that have no business being patented.
the problem is that inter-operability standards should avoid patented methods so that implementations can be compliant without paying license fees.
The problem is what you say AND the fact that our patent system is utterly broken.
Bullshit. The fact that "innocent infringement" exists with patents blows away the whole "novel and unique" nature of patents. Never mind that many patents are rammed through simply to plant landmines in the paths of others.
This implicit assumption that using a method covered by a patent validates the patent is utter crap.
Perhaps that's what the FSF should be working out, instead of pushing GPL v3.
Why should the FSF spend its time working out how to co-exist with something that they object to?
I often chuckle when people justify torrenting movies on the basis that Hollywood movies are so bad these days it's not worth paying for them.
Ok so opposition to software patents == piracy now?
if the patented idea has no utility, then don't use it. If it does then pay for it.
This makes the assumption that the patent is valid and actually provides use. Never mind all the crap patents used by patent trolls, ones that get invalidated after long court battles. Never mind patents that are violated without even being aware of it.
Putting patent "methods" into standards is something good exclusively for proprietary software vendors as a way to exclude FOSS solutions.
I'm a proprietary software developer.
And, quite obviously, opposed to Free Software. It's pretty obvious.
I believe that when people labour towards something that is consumed by others, they should be paid.
You also are defending the status quo. Unsurprisingly, there are people who disagree with it.
I don't understand why people here are so desperate to devalue computer programmers so their work is worth nothing.
That's not at all what is happening here. This is you trying to paint FOSS developers in a bad light and stump for the pro-patent status quo.
If it's any of them you're still opening up a massive can of worms and burdening the use/redistribution of the program for no other reason than to pay leeches.
So your saying there's a problem with GPL v3. So blame RMS.
The only way there could be a "problem" with the GPLv3 (or GPLv2) is that you can freely redistribute it and cannot impose additional costs on those who receive it from you. But what happens if they redistribute it? Who pays? How do you track the number of distributed copies and pay?
Landlords are entitled to collect rent.
It's a poor phrase, unfortunately. Software patents are nothing like actually collecting rent because they provide no utility to the one paying.
If the OSS can't cope with that reality, then again it's the fault of the person(s) who wrote the license so many OSS projects use.
I understand you're pro-patent and anti-FOSS, and this is coloring your perspective. The problem here is with FRAND and software patents, not the licenses.
Either that or the whole concept of OSS is broken.
If you're Microsoft, Apple, or a proprietary software vendor of any, or a holder of software patents, then yes Open Source and Free Software are "broken" to you.
So for a program covered by the GPLv3, who pays? The developer? The person who redistributes it? The end user?
there is nothing intrinsic to open source that means no cost.
FRAND on software (and software patents in general) imposes costs that are little more than rent-seeking, and impinge upon the ability to redistribute as many legal landmines are laid regarding who would be in violation of the patent license once distributed.
Imposing mandatory royalties on standards makes it impossible to comply with the standard in FOSS projects. You end up with patent holders capable of dictating who can and cannot use the software. That defeats the purpose of FOSS, particularly the stuff that falls under licenses like the GPLv2 and GPLv3.
Is the truth that OSS is all about getting something for nothing?
This is you simply being a troll. Stick to white knighting for Apple.
No, there's nothing wrong with F/OSS software. FRAND is simply incompatible with F/OSS due to its nature of burdening arbitrary "methods" with monetary fees.
Someone had to do the work to get that particular combination of ones and zeroes to line up. Our laws give them copyright governing how they are distributed and they choose to ask for money in exchange.
A stock kernel still won't work because the changes are out in the staging areas. They may never even be fully accepted, due to including things like IPC which already have acceptable user space alternatives that only Android doesn't use. On top of that, there's all the drivers built only for Android's libc, which means you can't actually use a proper Linux on them, only Android.
Well they made just discussing how to bypass DRM illegal. I don't see why the MPAA/RIAA can't push to make it illegal to bypass arbitrary lock down schemes, especially if they couch it in obscure language.
Yeah you stupid Linux nerds, stop trying to use your hardware as you see fit and start doing as the vendor tells you.
There are a thousand other things wrong with Linux right now and nobody seems interested in fixing them
Nonsense.
yes, I'm doing my part
Says the AC.
we're going to dump all our time and effort into making a device that was NEVER DESIGNED TO RUN LINUX, well, run Linux.
Again, what's with this "all or nothing" nonsense? Why does making an OS run on a device that was designed to lock the user out run Linux mean that other efforts must stop?
they're subsidizing the damned hardware by assuming that you'll run Windows on it and buy applications through the Windows App Store.
There's zero proof of that. Not to mention that there are other Windows RT devices out there similarly locked down.
This is almost as dumb as buying a set of kitchen utensils then wondering why you can't build a shed with them.
Err, no. Bad analogy.
If you wanted to buy a shed, why didn't you invest in a set of proper tools?
More like "I bought a saw, but it only cuts Microsoft Wood, and a hammer but it only drives Microsoft Nails." But it still doesn't work.
There may be a DMCA exemption for jailbreaking, but it only applies to cell phones and Apple can still fight you. Thus the lack of a jailbreak for iOS 6.
Microsoft (still a monopoly on the desktop) is turning a computer into an electronics device
I think you mean "Apple and Microsoft are turning the computer into a game-console type appliance."
Slashdot Mirror
Artificial burdens. At this point software patents don't exist in the EU and hopefully they never will. Of course, if you think that insisting upon the distribution model the GPL (or any FOSS license) allows is a flaw, then you're pretty much anti-FOSS and should just admit it.
Thanks, found 'em.
So you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
"Buying" RHEL is buying a support contract and access to the RHEL binary repos. You don't need to "buy" RHEL to get the sources.
The complete and utter dishonesty in your argument is astounding.
Don't worry, you still have copyright. You can also earn money in ways other than per-unit licensing.
No, it's you waging a war against Open Source Software of all kinds.
Oh great, a moron.
No, when they say "copy freely" they mean without restriction. Patent fees impose restrictions via cost, this is why FRAND (and software patents in general) is bad, particularly for standards.
Where'd all the pro-software-patent types come from?
What if I infringed on the patent without realizing it? What if the patent is part of a critical standard? What if, a few years down the line and millions of dollars later, the patent is invalidated? What have we gained, except to make some lawyers richer?
Like the EOLAS patents? The patents trotted around by trolls?
Bullshit. It's entirely possible to get patents on things that have no business being patented.
The problem is what you say AND the fact that our patent system is utterly broken.
Bullshit. The fact that "innocent infringement" exists with patents blows away the whole "novel and unique" nature of patents. Never mind that many patents are rammed through simply to plant landmines in the paths of others.
This implicit assumption that using a method covered by a patent validates the patent is utter crap.
Why should the FSF spend its time working out how to co-exist with something that they object to?
Ok so opposition to software patents == piracy now?
This makes the assumption that the patent is valid and actually provides use. Never mind all the crap patents used by patent trolls, ones that get invalidated after long court battles. Never mind patents that are violated without even being aware of it.
Putting patent "methods" into standards is something good exclusively for proprietary software vendors as a way to exclude FOSS solutions.
And, quite obviously, opposed to Free Software. It's pretty obvious.
You also are defending the status quo. Unsurprisingly, there are people who disagree with it.
That's not at all what is happening here. This is you trying to paint FOSS developers in a bad light and stump for the pro-patent status quo.
Please come back when you learn the meaning of the word "implied context."
If it's any of them you're still opening up a massive can of worms and burdening the use/redistribution of the program for no other reason than to pay leeches.
The only way there could be a "problem" with the GPLv3 (or GPLv2) is that you can freely redistribute it and cannot impose additional costs on those who receive it from you. But what happens if they redistribute it? Who pays? How do you track the number of distributed copies and pay?
It's a poor phrase, unfortunately. Software patents are nothing like actually collecting rent because they provide no utility to the one paying.
I understand you're pro-patent and anti-FOSS, and this is coloring your perspective. The problem here is with FRAND and software patents, not the licenses.
If you're Microsoft, Apple, or a proprietary software vendor of any, or a holder of software patents, then yes Open Source and Free Software are "broken" to you.
I don't see where the FSFE is mentioned, can you highlight it?
You mean, paying per-copy royalties for software patents. Tell me who pays with "open source" or, more critically, Free Software.
So for a program covered by the GPLv3, who pays? The developer? The person who redistributes it? The end user?
FRAND on software (and software patents in general) imposes costs that are little more than rent-seeking, and impinge upon the ability to redistribute as many legal landmines are laid regarding who would be in violation of the patent license once distributed.
Were you trying to make a point here?
And if the per-unit license fees are non-zero, who pays for the patent license? Who gets sued by the patent holder?
Imposing mandatory royalties on standards makes it impossible to comply with the standard in FOSS projects. You end up with patent holders capable of dictating who can and cannot use the software. That defeats the purpose of FOSS, particularly the stuff that falls under licenses like the GPLv2 and GPLv3.
This is you simply being a troll. Stick to white knighting for Apple.
No, there's nothing wrong with F/OSS software. FRAND is simply incompatible with F/OSS due to its nature of burdening arbitrary "methods" with monetary fees.
Someone had to do the work to get that particular combination of ones and zeroes to line up. Our laws give them copyright governing how they are distributed and they choose to ask for money in exchange.
s/doesn't need/I have been convinced it doesn't need/
Of course, the simple fact that the iPad is trapped in the walled garden instantly rules it out for me.
That would require the jobs be there. But for a great many people, their jobs have been sent out of the country by the "job creators."
A stock kernel still won't work because the changes are out in the staging areas. They may never even be fully accepted, due to including things like IPC which already have acceptable user space alternatives that only Android doesn't use. On top of that, there's all the drivers built only for Android's libc, which means you can't actually use a proper Linux on them, only Android.
Well they made just discussing how to bypass DRM illegal. I don't see why the MPAA/RIAA can't push to make it illegal to bypass arbitrary lock down schemes, especially if they couch it in obscure language.
That's not a defense. It doesn't make it acceptable, it just means that the vast majority of people are completely unaware of what they're pulling.
Which explains much of the governments and corporations in the world today, they act and exploit the ignorance of people on a daily basis.
Yeah you stupid Linux nerds, stop trying to use your hardware as you see fit and start doing as the vendor tells you.
Nonsense.
Says the AC.
Again, what's with this "all or nothing" nonsense? Why does making an OS run on a device that was designed to lock the user out run Linux mean that other efforts must stop?
There's zero proof of that. Not to mention that there are other Windows RT devices out there similarly locked down.
Err, no. Bad analogy.
More like "I bought a saw, but it only cuts Microsoft Wood, and a hammer but it only drives Microsoft Nails." But it still doesn't work.
Most are.
There may be a DMCA exemption for jailbreaking, but it only applies to cell phones and Apple can still fight you. Thus the lack of a jailbreak for iOS 6.
I think you mean "Apple and Microsoft are turning the computer into a game-console type appliance."