Here's the description of the code, from the README.TXT file:
This kit contains enough code to communicate with and manipulate the file system of a PJB-100 Personal Jukebox.
It is not a complete Jukebox Manager application. Instead, it is an open-source version of some of the library routines used in
the PJB's shipping Jukebox Manager. With this library source, you can write your own Jukebox Manager for Windows, Linux, or any other operating system that supports USB.
Compaq isn't trying to claim ownership of Linux or anything else it doesn't truly own here.
In addition, the complaint in the posted article, that CUSTOMER acknowledges and agrees that COMPAQ owns all rights, title and interests in and to the SOFTWARE and all Intellectual Property Rights therein, is not unreasonable at all. All it says is that Compaq owns the code and you're not going to claim ownership of it yourself. What's so bad about that?
The code is indeed released under the GPV, as is evident from both the README file and the inclusion of the GPV itself in the archive. The legal agreement you have to click through to get the code is a standard Compaq thing that the lawyers no doubt mandate for every download from Compaq. I doubt strongly that it overrides the GPV itself.
(Disclaimer: I work for Compaq, but I'm 5 layers of management below anyone who's authorized to speak for the company, and I work halfway across the continent from the folks who do the PJB.)
And where, exactly, in the BSD license does it say that the copyright holder can't convert it to another license and force all those holding source code to pay a license fee?
The BSD license doesn't say anything of the kind. It doesn't have to. The law says that. If I license something to you under an agreement that does not say I can change it retroactively, I can't change it retroactively.
Thus, the BSD license guarantees both that I can't force you to stop using the code, and that I can't stop you from redistributing the code. --
GPL'd code can't be "unGPL'd". One can always take the last version to be released under the GPL and continue your own development based on that version. That's the whole point of the GPL.
No, the whole point of the GPV is to infect the entire world of software with Stallman's utopian views. The BSD license is sufficient to achieve the goal you state: it, too, guarantees that you can always take the last version released under it and continue your own development based on it. --
Sorry, Bruce, but I have to disagree here. The KDE project has been the target of so many unjustified attacks from RMS and his gang of zealots that allowing yet another one to go unanswered would be compounding the injustice.
TrollTech gave RMS exactly what he wanted. Yet another massive chunk of code - already free by every measure, including RMS's, got infected by the GPV specifically to satisfy RMS - and all he can do is bitch.
Obviously some idiot moderator thinks "Troll" == "doesn't agree with me", and is abusing the moderation system.
That, unfortunately, is a common thing on Slashdot. Disagreeing with the "GPV is freedom" orthodoxy on here is a good way to get moderated into the basement.
I've become a regular meta-moderator, just to counteract those who indulge in it... --
I wouldn't consider SuSE, Mandrake and Redhat deep pockets, strictu sensu.
Red Hat Software is certainly deep enough to attract the interest of some money-hungry lawyer; their market capitalization is sufficient to give them the ability to raise large amounts of cash should the need arise - as it would if they were on the losing end of a lawsuit. I cannot comment on SuSE or Mandrakesoft, though.
Incidentally agreeing with RMS on a lot of stuff does not make one a cult member. Neither does caring about the freeness of the software one uses.
The problem is that those are the exact terms those of the Cult of the Most Holy GNU use when talking about software. If you do not wish to be taken for a cultist, don't talk like one.
And you are very naïve if you think the GPL wasn't wrought with fully expert legal advise, something you and a lot of/.ers are incapable of.
Oh, I have no doubts that RMS got the best legal help he could find when drafting the GPV, nor do I doubt that that help was very good indeed. I simply don't believe anything legal is ironclad or even enforceable until it gets adjudicated in a court of law, something the GPV has not been. There's more than a little legal opinion that the GPV isn't worth the electrons it was written with. When two respected lawyers disagree, those of us outside the legal community are forced to make up our own minds until a court does it for us. --
And this brings me to a mini-rant: why do BSD-people (not all, ofcourse) try to kick Linux and/or the GPL so much? It seems like you're required to dislike Linux when you run *BSD. Linux and *BSD are totally different. Use what you like, but please don't whine about the others, is that so difficult?!
I run several Linux boxes, and only one BSD system (a DECstation that runs an IRC server as its only task). I maintain a software package that runs on Linux and not (at present) on BSD. In general, I prefer Linux from the standpoint of a user.
I don't dislike Linux. I do despise the GPV, and have argued against it for a decade. I do not agree that the two go hand in hand, or that Linux would not have reached its current state had it been BSD licensed. I especially object to the concept (as expressed elsewhere in this discussion) that only the FSF gets to define free software, and that only GPV-infected stuff qualifies. I believe that the GPV is significantly less free than the BSD license, and claiming otherwise is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
I would love to have a rational discussion with you or any of the many other critics of Free Software that for some perverse reason seem to want to take over a site predominately concerned with Free Software, but the moderation system as currently implemented means I can't do that, unless I want to go negative karma immediately, or else post anonymously as I am doing now for obvious reasons.
This paragraph is a perfect example of the problem I have. It's simple: Why do you think 1) that the FSF gets the exclusive right to define what free software is, and 2) that Slashdot is exclusively dedicated to what the FSF decrees? I contend that neither of those is valid. "News for Nerds" is NOT exclusively for Linux, or GNU, software. If this were the case, why would there be a BSD section? I do not want to "take over a site predominately concerned with Free Software" because I think that's a grossly inaccurate and unnecessarily limiting definition. --
You posted anon because you were afraid of losing karma. Kind of sad.
Well, if posting messags that disagree with Slashdot orthodoxy didn't automatically destroy your karms through knee-jerk moderation by folks who refuse to think, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary. --
Linux is not the only OS around. Open-sourced drivers can be ported to *BSD (even though it's painful; as similar as most userspace code is, kernel code is quite different between them) and others. The various BSDs don't have a market share that would drive an average company to develop drivers for any of them (yet).
A GPVed driver can't be just ported to BSD, because doing so would GPV-infect the BSD kernel. That would contravene the goals of the BSD community, since a significant goal is to keep the BSD system truly free for all, including those who would base proprietary code on it.
(Now, watch this get moderated down as a troll, even though it's totally factual.) --
...and, as I predicted, the GPV zealots promptly marked down my message as a troll, even though I'm not trolling. I honestly believe the GPV needs to be disinfected one way or another. --
You know what I hate about the Disney channel? It makes me pay for watching movies I created, like the Little Mermaid, and Snow White...
Nice try. What I'm referring to is that the GPV extends itself to my code because I happened to allow linking with GPVed code. I don't claim the right to tell the author of a GPVed package what to do with his code; that he refuses to grant me the same consideration is odious. --
I wish it was hyperbole. I actually sat down and timed it one time because I couldn't believe how slow it was.
I work with 4 desktops, with 8 terminal windows and one Netscape browser open. The system is a Compaq ProLiant 8000 with 512 MB of RAM, 9 GB of disk (including a 512 MB swap partition), and an ATI video adapter with the XMach64 server. The OS is Red Hat 6.1. Yes, I was running Enlightenment; it was the standard installation, uncustomized. At all. Not even a custom theme loaded.
The common thread across these comments is Enlightenment being slow. Okkay, fine, but isn't that the standard window manager for GNOME?
I'm not one of those folks who use GNOME for political reasons - one look at my.sig should tell you that. I use a windowing system because it meets my needs: provides good functionality and fast response time. If GNOME 1.2 corrects the usability problems I ran into with the earlier version, it'll get another look. If it's still slow, it's rpm -e time. --
I just checked...and my preferences (privacy policy, ToS, and auction/bid notifications on, and telemarketing and direct mail, and product surveys and special promotions off) are as they were set the last time I set them, which was some time ago.
I'm sorry you've had problems, but they're not universal. --
I switched from GNOME to KDE because, on a quad Pentium II Xeon 450, I got tired of asking to switch windows with the mouse, waiting ten seconds, and still typing at the wrong window...has that gotten any better? --
I'm a happy eBay user (have an item for sale there now, and am bidding on several), with an unblemished +120 feedback rating, and I don't get spammed by them. I do get occasional emails notifying me of changes in their terms of service. I don't consider that spam, as those affect the nature of the business relationship I have with them. I don't get advertisements, or solicitations, or anything else (except for bid confirmations and the like having directly to do with auctions I'm participating in). I don't know why people do, or if they have taken the opportunity to customize their eBay profile to turn off everything that's not a ToS change, but I am saying that my experience is definitely different. --
I am a true user of Slashdot, and was planning on buying several copies of the book to give to friends who are teachers and others who can get the message to where it needs to be heard.
The lessons of Columbine are far too important to ignore. If we do so, all we'll be doing is guaranteeing more of the same. --
It is a *very* noticeable difference, if the source material is there. The Jay Leno show is specifically shot for HDTV. If anything, it's *too* clear. YOu can see every wrinkle, every bit of overapplied makeup (which works fine for normal broadcasts, but isn't subtle enough for HDTV).
The key phrase is "if the source material is there". I don't watch Jay Leno, or any of the current crop of popular TV shows; I'd be even less inclined to watch with all of those too-obvious imperfections. I don't watch sports enough to be worth the huge increase in price.
Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us. --
I haven't bought an HDTV set yet, and won't for at least the next little while, for one reason: I haven't heard the question yet to which HDTV is the answer. So what if the picture is twice as sharp? The source material simply doesn't take advantage of it, nor can my eyes. I use high resolutions on my computer screens because it allows me to put more stuff of the same pixel size on the screen, not to enjoy the nuances of every little photograph on the web - because the source detail isn't there. Neither is it in TV programs, or movies. --
Put that way, the GPL is almost like a virus -- it tries to replicate itself in any program it touches.:)
This is exactly why I called it the GNU General Public Virus 10 years ago, and have ever since. It is indeed a legal virus that contaminates everything it touches. --
Slashdot Mirror
Compaq isn't trying to claim ownership of Linux or anything else it doesn't truly own here.
In addition, the complaint in the posted article, that CUSTOMER acknowledges and agrees that COMPAQ owns all rights, title and interests in and to the SOFTWARE and all Intellectual Property Rights therein, is not unreasonable at all. All it says is that Compaq owns the code and you're not going to claim ownership of it yourself. What's so bad about that?
The code is indeed released under the GPV, as is evident from both the README file and the inclusion of the GPV itself in the archive. The legal agreement you have to click through to get the code is a standard Compaq thing that the lawyers no doubt mandate for every download from Compaq. I doubt strongly that it overrides the GPV itself.
(Disclaimer: I work for Compaq, but I'm 5 layers of management below anyone who's authorized to speak for the company, and I work halfway across the continent from the folks who do the PJB.)
--
The BSD license doesn't say anything of the kind. It doesn't have to. The law says that. If I license something to you under an agreement that does not say I can change it retroactively, I can't change it retroactively.
Thus, the BSD license guarantees both that I can't force you to stop using the code, and that I can't stop you from redistributing the code.
--
GPL'd code can't be "unGPL'd". One can always take the last version to be released under the GPL and continue your own development based on that version. That's the whole point of the GPL.
No, the whole point of the GPV is to infect the entire world of software with Stallman's utopian views. The BSD license is sufficient to achieve the goal you state: it, too, guarantees that you can always take the last version released under it and continue your own development based on it.
--
Sorry, Bruce, but I have to disagree here. The KDE project has been the target of so many unjustified attacks from RMS and his gang of zealots that allowing yet another one to go unanswered would be compounding the injustice.
TrollTech gave RMS exactly what he wanted. Yet another massive chunk of code - already free by every measure, including RMS's, got infected by the GPV specifically to satisfy RMS - and all he can do is bitch.
What a class act Stallman is. NOT!
--
Obviously some idiot moderator thinks "Troll" == "doesn't agree with me", and is abusing the moderation system.
That, unfortunately, is a common thing on Slashdot. Disagreeing with the "GPV is freedom" orthodoxy on here is a good way to get moderated into the basement.
I've become a regular meta-moderator, just to counteract those who indulge in it...
--
Good going, KDE...it's time someone told RMS he's full of prunes...
--
Red Hat Software is certainly deep enough to attract the interest of some money-hungry lawyer; their market capitalization is sufficient to give them the ability to raise large amounts of cash should the need arise - as it would if they were on the losing end of a lawsuit. I cannot comment on SuSE or Mandrakesoft, though.
Incidentally agreeing with RMS on a lot of stuff does not make one a cult member. Neither does caring about the freeness of the software one uses.
The problem is that those are the exact terms those of the Cult of the Most Holy GNU use when talking about software. If you do not wish to be taken for a cultist, don't talk like one.
And you are very naïve if you think the GPL wasn't wrought with fully expert legal advise, something you and a lot of
Oh, I have no doubts that RMS got the best legal help he could find when drafting the GPV, nor do I doubt that that help was very good indeed. I simply don't believe anything legal is ironclad or even enforceable until it gets adjudicated in a court of law, something the GPV has not been. There's more than a little legal opinion that the GPV isn't worth the electrons it was written with. When two respected lawyers disagree, those of us outside the legal community are forced to make up our own minds until a court does it for us.
--
I submitted this story right after it hit ZDnet...and got rejected. Oh, well.
--
Why is expressing my opinion in an honest and open manner a troll?
--
I run several Linux boxes, and only one BSD system (a DECstation that runs an IRC server as its only task). I maintain a software package that runs on Linux and not (at present) on BSD. In general, I prefer Linux from the standpoint of a user.
I don't dislike Linux. I do despise the GPV, and have argued against it for a decade. I do not agree that the two go hand in hand, or that Linux would not have reached its current state had it been BSD licensed. I especially object to the concept (as expressed elsewhere in this discussion) that only the FSF gets to define free software, and that only GPV-infected stuff qualifies. I believe that the GPV is significantly less free than the BSD license, and claiming otherwise is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
--
[...]I suspect that BSD licencing would be even less acceptable than GPL as it would allow someone else to make the driver proprietary.
Wrong. The original code can never be made proprietary. Once released under a BSD license, the original code will always remain available.
--
I would love to have a rational discussion with you or any of the many other critics of Free Software that for some perverse reason seem to want to take over a site predominately concerned with Free Software, but the moderation system as currently implemented means I can't do that, unless I want to go negative karma immediately, or else post anonymously as I am doing now for obvious reasons.
This paragraph is a perfect example of the problem I have. It's simple: Why do you think 1) that the FSF gets the exclusive right to define what free software is, and 2) that Slashdot is exclusively dedicated to what the FSF decrees? I contend that neither of those is valid. "News for Nerds" is NOT exclusively for Linux, or GNU, software. If this were the case, why would there be a BSD section? I do not want to "take over a site predominately concerned with Free Software" because I think that's a grossly inaccurate and unnecessarily limiting definition.
--
You posted anon because you were afraid of losing karma. Kind of sad.
Well, if posting messags that disagree with Slashdot orthodoxy didn't automatically destroy your karms through knee-jerk moderation by folks who refuse to think, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary.
--
A GPVed driver can't be just ported to BSD, because doing so would GPV-infect the BSD kernel. That would contravene the goals of the BSD community, since a significant goal is to keep the BSD system truly free for all, including those who would base proprietary code on it.
(Now, watch this get moderated down as a troll, even though it's totally factual.)
--
...and, as I predicted, the GPV zealots promptly marked down my message as a troll, even though I'm not trolling. I honestly believe the GPV needs to be disinfected one way or another.
--
You know what I hate about the Disney channel? It makes me pay for watching movies I created, like the Little Mermaid, and Snow White...
Nice try. What I'm referring to is that the GPV extends itself to my code because I happened to allow linking with GPVed code. I don't claim the right to tell the author of a GPVed package what to do with his code; that he refuses to grant me the same consideration is odious.
--
I wish it was hyperbole. I actually sat down and timed it one time because I couldn't believe how slow it was.
I work with 4 desktops, with 8 terminal windows and one Netscape browser open. The system is a Compaq ProLiant 8000 with 512 MB of RAM, 9 GB of disk (including a 512 MB swap partition), and an ATI video adapter with the XMach64 server. The OS is Red Hat 6.1. Yes, I was running Enlightenment; it was the standard installation, uncustomized. At all. Not even a custom theme loaded.
The common thread across these comments is Enlightenment being slow. Okkay, fine, but isn't that the standard window manager for GNOME?
I'm not one of those folks who use GNOME for political reasons - one look at my
--
I'm sorry you've had problems, but they're not universal.
--
I switched from GNOME to KDE because, on a quad Pentium II Xeon 450, I got tired of asking to switch windows with the mouse, waiting ten seconds, and still typing at the wrong window...has that gotten any better?
--
I'm a happy eBay user (have an item for sale there now, and am bidding on several), with an unblemished +120 feedback rating, and I don't get spammed by them. I do get occasional emails notifying me of changes in their terms of service. I don't consider that spam, as those affect the nature of the business relationship I have with them. I don't get advertisements, or solicitations, or anything else (except for bid confirmations and the like having directly to do with auctions I'm participating in). I don't know why people do, or if they have taken the opportunity to customize their eBay profile to turn off everything that's not a ToS change, but I am saying that my experience is definitely different.
--
The lessons of Columbine are far too important to ignore. If we do so, all we'll be doing is guaranteeing more of the same.
--
It is a *very* noticeable difference, if the source material is there. The Jay Leno show is specifically shot for HDTV. If anything, it's *too* clear. YOu can see every wrinkle, every bit of overapplied makeup (which works fine for normal broadcasts, but isn't subtle enough for HDTV).
The key phrase is "if the source material is there". I don't watch Jay Leno, or any of the current crop of popular TV shows; I'd be even less inclined to watch with all of those too-obvious imperfections. I don't watch sports enough to be worth the huge increase in price.
Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us.
--
An HDTV channel is 6 MHz wide, as well.
--
I haven't bought an HDTV set yet, and won't for at least the next little while, for one reason: I haven't heard the question yet to which HDTV is the answer. So what if the picture is twice as sharp? The source material simply doesn't take advantage of it, nor can my eyes. I use high resolutions on my computer screens because it allows me to put more stuff of the same pixel size on the screen, not to enjoy the nuances of every little photograph on the web - because the source detail isn't there. Neither is it in TV programs, or movies.
--
Put that way, the GPL is almost like a virus -- it tries to replicate itself in any program it touches. :)
This is exactly why I called it the GNU General Public Virus 10 years ago, and have ever since. It is indeed a legal virus that contaminates everything it touches.
--