Well, it's not an appellate decision (a decision made in a court of appeal, i.e., higher court), so it's not a binding precedent and thus not likely to be applied outside of this case, at all. GP is right. This license is failing on its own merits, and is not going to drag the GPL 2 down with it.
Following the idiot logic of this court, I can take your unpublished manuscript, promote it, sell it and never fear an injunction simply because you did not restrict your work enough. Calm down, Crazy Legs*. An unpublished work is still covered by copyright; please see the Berne Convention.
*Crazy Legs, because your knee jerk responses bring to mind the running style of Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch, of whom it was said, ""His crazy legs were gyrating in six different directions, all at the same time; he looked like a demented duck."
OSS license proliferation. Bad licenses will perish, and hopefully people will be more careful when selecting a license. I've got a feeling that people are going to be reviewing their licenses now, in light of this ruling.
iirc, it's still at issue in IBM's counter-claim against SCO, for continuing to distribute Linux in violation of the GPL. In the judge's big ruling in SCO v. Novell, he's effectively cratered all of SCO's cases. What remains to be seen is how deep of a hole can be dug in Linden, Utah by all the various counterclaims (and Redhat's claim of trade interference). Beyond that, it is possible that SCO shareholders might go after McBride for fraud and materially misrepresenting SCO's legal case.
Why should anyone rely on a single source for an explanation? Clearly, you don't have enough of a grasp on the explanation Groklaw provided to counter the GP; you are in effect saying "You're wrong because I heard something different elsewhere, go look up my source." At best, it shows you are being lazy, at worst that you don't understand and are willing to trust certain sources uncritically.
Groklaw is a great resource for legal understanding of issues related to OSS. However, merely accepting what you read there because they are the "good guys" is not going to lead to any understanding. If you had any understanding, you could address the GP on his own terms.
Hypothetical: I distribute a GPLed binary by putting it online. One minute later, I put the source online. For that one minute, I was violating copyright, and according to some hard asses around here, I would have broken the GPL, and be on the hook to the copyright holders. The fact that I was in compliance within 60 seconds wouldn't change the nature of the breach, and I could only hope that begging, pleading, and making offers of cash might make things right. According to certain folks (and taking their arguments to the absurd extreme).
So, yes, intent could figure into it along with timeliness of compliance. I don't think "I forgot!" is going to work for very long. =)
The SCO legal matters have carried on (and continue to carry on) because they are presumed to have a case until proven otherwise in court. Whether or not the stock on a company is being shorted during a legal proceeding has not bearing on that proceeding.
What exactly was it that you found "tied up" by the various SCO cases? Linux and OSS adoption briefly slowed until people got a sense that SCO was all hat and no cattle. Bosses that didn't want and don't want to adopt OSS would have found another excuse. Well financed legal cases between companies have a tendency to take a lot of time if they don't reach settlement. This is just how it is, and why no one sane really wants to be involved in litigation if they can help it.
You do realize that the SCO cases continue, do you not? Yes, a major issue was resolved in Novell's favor that will have a major impact on SCO v. IBM, bit neither case is technically over. Practically over? Yeah, maybe, probably.
Well, I figured he was responding to the original post, which mentioned that "the bulk of OSS licenses" don't consider internal distribution to be distribution. However, if I am wrong, I stand corrected.
It is in everyone's interests to fight complexity in open source licensing and it is likely to be a constant battle - just like it is to stop a great OS forking into rival products Why do you say that? Is there one true license to rule us all? And what's wrong with forking, exactly? One of the strengths of the GPL 2 is that it allows forks and then allows merging. You seem to be proposing some sort of unification . . . of what exactly? and under whom? Is there going to be some central committee that will determine which forks to allow and which to prohibit?
If you write software that you want to be paid for, release it under a for pay license. If you write software that you don't want to be paid for, release it under a completely free license... maybe even anonymously. I think you are too narrowly defining "pay" as a money only proposition. Under GPL 2, the payment for redistribution is payment in kind. That is, you use, modify, and distribute someone's GPLed code, you pay them by releasing your changes. Tit for tat, and that Finnish freak would say. It's really a nice balance, because in order to get the code you have to give up the code. Reciprocity, baby.
That's the beauty of the GPL 2. It offers the guarantee of a (non-monetary) reward to the developer, and perhaps more importantly, enriches the community and the world as a whole. BSD offers no such guarantee. Nothing wrong with that, but not everyone is satisfied with that.
This is actually a workable, or at least functional, idea you have. It's not trying to artificially limit the number of licenses, nor would it actually limit the number of licenses, but it would certainly narrow down most usage to those licenses that are commonly used, and discourage trivial proliferation.
Wrong: Internal distribution is fine and doesn't really count as distribution regarding the GPL.
This article is semi-FUD, anyway. FTFA:
Business users of open source software should review their Open Source licensing agreements, audit their use of Open Source and create formal policies for managing source code, especially mixed-source code. Which a business that is distributing code is doing anyway, via their legal department, outside counsel, and/or consultants.
This issue has been highlighted in some open source discussion forums, but it is largely being ignored by IT and business leaders. Because the licenses are generally human readable by IT leaders, and business leaders have lawyers to handle that.
The general attitude in the OSS world that I'm picking up is that license proliferation is not a major problem. Choice is supposed to be good, no? Find the license that best satisfies your needs, or write your own. The two camps that seem to have the most concern about too many licenses are the FUD-spinners trying to damage OSS or the Free-bies that are trying to steer everyone towards GPL 3 and FSF hegemony. (Yes, I'm a bit biased.)
Well, I just learned something. I had thought that "twee" meant gay, and I was wondering why kdawson was being so hypocritical as to call someone else gay.
Has IBM every licensed the IBM name to another manufacturer? AFAIK, they have not, but I could be wrong. (Did Hitachi license the IBM name? I can't find anything that says they did.) Lenovo did license the thinkpad name from IBM and I think a few others. Tell me exactly how they "destroyed" the good will? IBM sells Lenovo products (and owns a stake of Lenovo, the second biggest after the Chinese Government).
Anyway, if I understand Lenovo's goals, they're trying to make Lenovo an international brand, so keeping the IBM name as a front would be counter-productive in the long run.
You're going at it from the wrong direction. Before the Chinese bought IBM's PC operations, who'd heard of Lenovo? So, yes, they did leverage the old brand to build up the "new" brand. How would you propose that Lenovo keep the IBM brand? I don't think IBM is going to sell their name.
Further, the OP wasn't just talking about the brand but about distribution/sales channels (specifically retail, but retail isn't the only channel that matters).
they need better brands and more of a retail channel. They'll be looking to acquire that. coughcoughLenovocough
The main problem for the U.S. is that wages are relatively high, while they are low in these rapidly developing countries. And we're apparently on a generally downward spiral while they're on a generally upward spiral. The competition you mention is going to keep wages in these countries from rising quickly, so the "floor" is going to be lower, and workers in the U.S. are going to be in for some long term pain.
There are a lot of other factors involved, such as the lack of effective regulation (for product safety, working conditions, environmental issues, etc.) that play into this in complicated ways. But the bottom line is that we're in for some belt tightening here in the U.S., barring some major technological breakthrough.
I'm pretty sure that Malda has a vagina and not a penis, so it would be licking and not sucking in his case. How do you think he got the nickname "CmdrTaco"?
OK, I must admit I'm not too thrilled with Roland myself. But the thing is, they probably wouldn't approve his links if they were not good links. I have no idea how many stories have been submitted about this same item, but it is possible that Roland's are the "best" of the bunch - because he shows he has actually read the article, the summary is well-written and the story is "news for nerds". Try matching all of these, and maybe you will get repeated accepted stories as well. First of all, given the "editorial" policies here, I highly doubt that good writing enters into it. The reason I'm busting the editors' nuts, though, is that they could at least have the decency to let 24 hours elapse before posting another Roland story. It's almost getting to the point where they might as well just redirect slashdot to Roland's site.
I think it also should be pointed out, in anticipation of the argument that it will make drugs too easily available, that it's hard to imagine them being more easily available than they are now. I haven't done any street drugs in 14 years, but I have no doubt I could get a hold of the more common ones (heroin, opiates & synth-opiates, meth, cocaine, crack cocaine, pot, ecstasy, etc.) in about half an hour. About the only way legalized drugs could be made more available is if they were given away as prizes at the bottom of your cereal box or with happy meals at McDonald's.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not an appellate decision (a decision made in a court of appeal, i.e., higher court), so it's not a binding precedent and thus not likely to be applied outside of this case, at all. GP is right. This license is failing on its own merits, and is not going to drag the GPL 2 down with it.
*Crazy Legs, because your knee jerk responses bring to mind the running style of Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch, of whom it was said, ""His crazy legs were gyrating in six different directions, all at the same time; he looked like a demented duck."
OSS license proliferation. Bad licenses will perish, and hopefully people will be more careful when selecting a license. I've got a feeling that people are going to be reviewing their licenses now, in light of this ruling.
iirc, it's still at issue in IBM's counter-claim against SCO, for continuing to distribute Linux in violation of the GPL. In the judge's big ruling in SCO v. Novell, he's effectively cratered all of SCO's cases. What remains to be seen is how deep of a hole can be dug in Linden, Utah by all the various counterclaims (and Redhat's claim of trade interference). Beyond that, it is possible that SCO shareholders might go after McBride for fraud and materially misrepresenting SCO's legal case.
Why should anyone rely on a single source for an explanation? Clearly, you don't have enough of a grasp on the explanation Groklaw provided to counter the GP; you are in effect saying "You're wrong because I heard something different elsewhere, go look up my source." At best, it shows you are being lazy, at worst that you don't understand and are willing to trust certain sources uncritically.
Groklaw is a great resource for legal understanding of issues related to OSS. However, merely accepting what you read there because they are the "good guys" is not going to lead to any understanding. If you had any understanding, you could address the GP on his own terms.
That's an interesting lump there, Daniel. MS we know is anti-OSS. Sony I can see being anti-OSS every other day. Disney? Have any substantiation?
Fwiw, I don't think you're trolling . . . . . much. =)
I never thought of it that way. Interesting.
Hypothetical: I distribute a GPLed binary by putting it online. One minute later, I put the source online. For that one minute, I was violating copyright, and according to some hard asses around here, I would have broken the GPL, and be on the hook to the copyright holders. The fact that I was in compliance within 60 seconds wouldn't change the nature of the breach, and I could only hope that begging, pleading, and making offers of cash might make things right. According to certain folks (and taking their arguments to the absurd extreme).
So, yes, intent could figure into it along with timeliness of compliance. I don't think "I forgot!" is going to work for very long. =)
The SCO legal matters have carried on (and continue to carry on) because they are presumed to have a case until proven otherwise in court. Whether or not the stock on a company is being shorted during a legal proceeding has not bearing on that proceeding.
What exactly was it that you found "tied up" by the various SCO cases? Linux and OSS adoption briefly slowed until people got a sense that SCO was all hat and no cattle. Bosses that didn't want and don't want to adopt OSS would have found another excuse. Well financed legal cases between companies have a tendency to take a lot of time if they don't reach settlement. This is just how it is, and why no one sane really wants to be involved in litigation if they can help it.
You do realize that the SCO cases continue, do you not? Yes, a major issue was resolved in Novell's favor that will have a major impact on SCO v. IBM, bit neither case is technically over. Practically over? Yeah, maybe, probably.
Well, I figured he was responding to the original post, which mentioned that "the bulk of OSS licenses" don't consider internal distribution to be distribution. However, if I am wrong, I stand corrected.
If you write software that you don't want to be paid for, release it under a completely free license... maybe even anonymously. I think you are too narrowly defining "pay" as a money only proposition. Under GPL 2, the payment for redistribution is payment in kind. That is, you use, modify, and distribute someone's GPLed code, you pay them by releasing your changes. Tit for tat, and that Finnish freak would say. It's really a nice balance, because in order to get the code you have to give up the code. Reciprocity, baby.
That's the beauty of the GPL 2. It offers the guarantee of a (non-monetary) reward to the developer, and perhaps more importantly, enriches the community and the world as a whole. BSD offers no such guarantee. Nothing wrong with that, but not everyone is satisfied with that.
This is actually a workable, or at least functional, idea you have. It's not trying to artificially limit the number of licenses, nor would it actually limit the number of licenses, but it would certainly narrow down most usage to those licenses that are commonly used, and discourage trivial proliferation.
A compatibility chart would be nice also.
This article is semi-FUD, anyway. FTFA: Business users of open source software should review their Open Source licensing agreements, audit their use of Open Source and create formal policies for managing source code, especially mixed-source code. Which a business that is distributing code is doing anyway, via their legal department, outside counsel, and/or consultants. This issue has been highlighted in some open source discussion forums, but it is largely being ignored by IT and business leaders. Because the licenses are generally human readable by IT leaders, and business leaders have lawyers to handle that.
The general attitude in the OSS world that I'm picking up is that license proliferation is not a major problem. Choice is supposed to be good, no? Find the license that best satisfies your needs, or write your own. The two camps that seem to have the most concern about too many licenses are the FUD-spinners trying to damage OSS or the Free-bies that are trying to steer everyone towards GPL 3 and FSF hegemony. (Yes, I'm a bit biased.)
Well, I just learned something. I had thought that "twee" meant gay, and I was wondering why kdawson was being so hypocritical as to call someone else gay.
Well, there you have it. We won't need to import logs and sod if we build our houses out of tofu. It'd have to be extra firm, of course.
Has IBM every licensed the IBM name to another manufacturer? AFAIK, they have not, but I could be wrong. (Did Hitachi license the IBM name? I can't find anything that says they did.) Lenovo did license the thinkpad name from IBM and I think a few others. Tell me exactly how they "destroyed" the good will? IBM sells Lenovo products (and owns a stake of Lenovo, the second biggest after the Chinese Government).
Anyway, if I understand Lenovo's goals, they're trying to make Lenovo an international brand, so keeping the IBM name as a front would be counter-productive in the long run.
You're going at it from the wrong direction. Before the Chinese bought IBM's PC operations, who'd heard of Lenovo? So, yes, they did leverage the old brand to build up the "new" brand. How would you propose that Lenovo keep the IBM brand? I don't think IBM is going to sell their name.
Further, the OP wasn't just talking about the brand but about distribution/sales channels (specifically retail, but retail isn't the only channel that matters).
Let's just hope that the logs and sod, the pushcarts, and the soybeans aren't all imported.
The main problem for the U.S. is that wages are relatively high, while they are low in these rapidly developing countries. And we're apparently on a generally downward spiral while they're on a generally upward spiral. The competition you mention is going to keep wages in these countries from rising quickly, so the "floor" is going to be lower, and workers in the U.S. are going to be in for some long term pain.
There are a lot of other factors involved, such as the lack of effective regulation (for product safety, working conditions, environmental issues, etc.) that play into this in complicated ways. But the bottom line is that we're in for some belt tightening here in the U.S., barring some major technological breakthrough.
I'm pretty sure that Malda has a vagina and not a penis, so it would be licking and not sucking in his case. How do you think he got the nickname "CmdrTaco"?
I think it also should be pointed out, in anticipation of the argument that it will make drugs too easily available, that it's hard to imagine them being more easily available than they are now. I haven't done any street drugs in 14 years, but I have no doubt I could get a hold of the more common ones (heroin, opiates & synth-opiates, meth, cocaine, crack cocaine, pot, ecstasy, etc.) in about half an hour. About the only way legalized drugs could be made more available is if they were given away as prizes at the bottom of your cereal box or with happy meals at McDonald's.
Hell. There goes my plan for "panning for gold" in the sewers. I was hoping to package it and sell it as some really primo shit.
University of California at San Diego.
Can't samezenpus get the least bit of editorial right? Oh, yeah, he can't. He's samzenpus, and he's not an editor, he's an idiotor.
I mean wtf is U of CA? I've never seen it written like that, ever.
And to get this rant back on topic:
Is the screen effervescent?