You make it sound like IBM and Novell came to Linux rescue and defended it from SCO. This was not exactly the case. SCO may have pursued a media campagin against Linux, but the lawsuit was targeted at IBM. IBM just defended themselves. Novell stepped in because SCO overstepped its bounds in claiming ownership over Unix. Since Novell had the opinion that Novell owned parts of Unix that SCO claimed to own, they surely called SCO out on it, which made SCO sue them for slander of title. The fact is still that without those two companies plowing there huge legal resources into fighting SCO in court things would have turned out very differently.
Frankly, I almost wish Theo'd sue. It's not really likely to happen since the case would be so prohibitively expensive neither party would actually win. By then end both parties would just run out of money and probably come to an agreement. Or one side would win only to emerge victorious and bankrupt.
See my earlier post regarding how shit all western legal systems are in this regard, they all favor the rich.
As far as I can see, the BSD license doesn't have a clause that says "you may also exchange this license by any other license you wish."
You are quite correct, it doesn't. However alot of people people who support the GPL seem to think that if it is ok to take BSD licensed code and incorporate it into a commercial closed source product why do they have such a problem with the same code being re-licensed as GPL that explicitly prevents this.
The problem is that we have two groups of people who both want similar aims but have vastly different tactics as to how to get there:
The FSF and Stallman think all code should be open source and code should never be a proprietary trade secret. The end result of this will hopefully then be that open source collaborative development becomes the primary method for producing software. This will hopefully then result in code and software of the highest quality.
The BSD crowd think that by just producing good code that performs well and then letting commercial users take the code and incorporate it into their products a situation will eventually arise where the companies producing close source products eventually become so reliant on the open source (BSD style) programmers that the small amount of closed source development they do on top becomes almost irrelevant. If these companies then make a commercially successful product based on 90% BSD licensed code then the BSD developers would have more bargaining power when it came to encouraging the remaining 10% to be open source as well. There is probably also the fact that as a programmer, it is always nice to see your work getting used extensively and appreciated, even if that appreciation does just come about because you help make someone else richer. I know this would piss alot of people off but some people (myself included) just enjoy writing code and any monetary reward is entirely secondary.
So both licenses could result in toppling the status quo of pure closed source development (and it is the status quo, however much we wished otherwise). The main difference is that one method (GPL) seems to be much more about trying to use the legal system to force this change and one method is more about gentle persuasion over a much longer timescale that may make alot of closed source developers and managers rich in the process.
So far I have mainly just tried to some up the different camps points of view by way of an introduction, if you disagree with by synopsis above, fine but this is the main reason I think the GPL (especially the GPL3) method is not as straight forward as the license itself would lead you to believe:
The Law is NOT on our side.
I am not talking about the actual letter of the law, I am talking about the legal system and who controls it. The fact is that in most of the world, the law sucks. In the US there is the DMCA. In Europe we have recently only just narrowly avoided software patents, and even now it may only be a temporary reprieve. The shitty truth is that big business long ago purchased our politicians and they are responsible for deciding what becomes law.
If anyone wants to post a serious rebuttal to this comment, please do so by explaining to me why any western legal system would back the little guy against a huge corporation, because recent history shows that this does not happen very often. Even the recent reprieve that us in the Linux community got from the stupid SCO lawsuits only came about because another huge corporation got involved.
Lets remember that Novell were that huge corporation. IBM started our defense, but they got bogged down with their initial legal position and it was Novell that ultimately won out. Yet Novell are actually on the FSF shitlist for getting in bed with Microsoft.
The fact is that linux would not be anywhere near where it is today if IBM and Novell had not fought SCO in court. SCO would have gone around demanding licensing fees from any company that adopted Linux, and a lot of companies w
In related news Jay Maris is now very probably out of work and totally unemployable.
I actually feel sorry for him as this will probably be a devastating incident he may never recover from. Then again, I suppose he has helped inflict similar stress on other people who may have been sued by the RIAA as a result of MiiVii site. However at least those people had some sort of way out even if it was begging the RIAA for forgiveness.
He is now right royally fucked. What a pity:)
On a more serious note to any other Media Defender employees reading this I would suggest you consider that this could have been you. Nobody is perfect, so we all make mistakes and this one could have been yours. So when you see Jay outside the offices next month with his begging cup be generous.
I am guessing that the various employees of media defender are either all in work doing alot of overtime this weekend, or are seriously not looking forward to monday morning. I can see one hell of a security audit in the companies future.
I had never really taken them seriously until I read this story and then read some of the other details about them on wikipedia. I heard about them when the first launched their services and thought they wouldn't last a month so I was quite surprised to find out they are still going and have been bought for 42 million USD or whatever.
Why the hell would anyone pay that much money just to engage in the online equivalent of pissing against a force 10 gale?
I have posted this exact statement sometime before but here it goes again:
When I was in my teens I was not a model student. I did not like school very much so I avoided going whenever possible. My parents both worked by then and they obviously did not want me sitting around playing video games all day on my dads shiny new 486DX33 PC. So my dad took various steps to prevent me from using the computer and tracking when I did use it. For starters it was in their room not mine.
They also took the copy protection for games they bought me with them when they went to work, this meant I learnt to crack games (no internet back then).
They locked the keyboard lock on the front panel, so I learnt to pick the lock with a paperclip.
They bought a case with a better lock, I learnt to pick better locks.
They inspected the logging software they used regularly, so I learnt to doctor the logs.
Basically they helped give me the skills I needed to be become a computer criminal. Thankfully they also forced me to learn to program computers as a condition of having access to one so I also learnt some very valuable skills that I can use to earn money without resorting to computer crime.
Now, given your superior knowledge of the law, do you have more insight to share with us all? Yup, I will repeat my original sentiment - I know enough to know how little I know.
This smacks of the sort of "you can't explain it, therefore God did it" arguments that Intelligent Design proponents use. No it doesn't.
What I was trying to get across was that law is just like any other subject, to gain a decent understanding of anything takes time and practice. People don't study for over 8 years for fun, they do it because it takes that long to understand the subject. Since most people here have probably not studied law for that long they are not likely to know enough to make an educated decision.
The big difference between my argument and the whole ID trash is that they say you can never understand it, whereas I am saying that it can be understood, but that understanding can only be reached with work.
And if the law says otherwise, then the law is wrong too. We have no problem with making changes to laws-- they weren't created perfect. If you new anything about law you would know it is not quite that easy. Many laws are passed quickly by moronic politicians to get a few extra votes but then get struck down by the courts equally as quickly. The first example I can think of is the Communications Decency Act.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act).
Laws have to fit within a framework of other laws and the constitution. For this reason new laws should be drawn up slowly with attention to how they will affect other existing law. If you try and just start making changes to quickly you may find you actually make things worse. This is not saying that laws cannot be changed, but it should be done very carefully.
I meant my limited undertanding of contract law gave me a certain level of insight into how complicated ALL areas of law are. This is because you although alot of what we learnt was specific to contract law, there was also alot of time spent on the basic principles you needed to know to make any sense of it.
These principles (precedent, legal system history) are relevant to all laws, not just contract. That does not mean I understand them but I know how little I understand them, which is an important step.
I love how everyone here is a freaking legal expert. People make the most sweeping judgments about complex legal issues based on a pejorative three sentence summary. I have noticed this as well. I studied contract law for a year or two when I was at college. Certainly not enough to make me a legal expert but enough for me to realise what a complex subject it is. I also have to remind myself that since it is such a fast changing subject alot of what I studied is no longer valid.
I have seen many people jump on the chance to spout on about the legality of a particular position or case, quite often without the slightest bit of knowledge about the subject in question. I would also say however that this is by no means limited to geeks posting on slashdot. I have quite often got into similar arguments with friends down the pub.
Why the hell are so many sad fuckwits so interested in who posts crap stories?
If you are not interested in a story, fuck off and don't read it, simple.
Why posting a stupid comment slagging off the person who posted it? Unless you have nothing better to do than sit around griping and not doing anything constructive.
If you have something interesting to say, then say it. Otherwise piss off and whine to your shrink instead, at least they are paid to your anti-kdawson drivel.
Why will this not fall foul of the GPL3? Surely if it contains any GPL software to make it work they need to distribute the source and any modifications necessary to make it work. I have asked this question before and someone pointed out that the Google Search Appliance was exempt as it was only aimed at commercial organisations.
I would be very grateful if someone could clear this up for me as I am just getting more confused.
Thanks for the link, I had not read that definition of Open source before.
How does the GPL3 sit with point 6? Surely it treats different fields of endeavour differently by treating product aimed purely at commercial users and products aimed at home users differently? Doesn't it give more freedom to companies that are selling a product only aimed at other companies that it gives to companies selling a products destined for home use?
Please note that every sentence in the above paragraph ends in a question mark. I have not read the GPL3 in it entirety so cannot say for sure. Can anyone explain exactly why this does or does not apply in this case?
I also will be moving to ATI cards just as soon as I can type "emerge ati-driver" and get a decent open source driver to compile with same ease that all other software does on my Gentoo box (Ok, I might have to change VIDEO_CARDS="ATI" in make.conf as well)
But I have never had any problems with NVidia closed source binary driver. The ATI one was trash which was I started buying NVidia cards in the first place but if myself as gentoo tweaker has never had any issues they cant be that bad under Linux. Obvoiusly they are trash for everyone on non x86 hardware or running BSD or whatever but not all of them are that bad.
Maybe the reason that ATI have taken this step is because of the problems they had with their drivers in the past.
Git, I was hoping to be the first person to post something similar but you beat me to it.
To be honest, I used to be a bit like him. I had the long hair that stank and never got washed, I had the complete dislike of ever getting a proper job and I thought everyone else should just do everything my way.
Thankfully I grew up into a slightly more rounded individual and realised that while I still have the same core beliefs, I cannot force other people to go along with them.
I have to convince them slowly, over time that my suggestions may have merit. This understanding extends to all things.
Linus has no intention of licensing the kernel under GPLv3. TiVO doesn't have a problem. I had heard he would consider it based purely on trying to keep the Kernel and Userspace tools under the same licence, but I do take your point that he much prefers the GPL2 and thinks that GPL3 is a step backwards.
I am interested in finding out software that is used for such purposes which will be licensed under the new GPLv3 and which companies are effected. Hopefully none, but I would say that as I am worried that the GPL3 will make Linux less attractive to commercial endeavours. Since I have worked with Linux as a sysadmin and developer for about 4 or 5 years and would like to carry on working I hope this does not happen. I would like more companies to adopt Linux and base products around it as it will improve the Job market for people like me and then we can earn more money.
I also realise that being able to play with those products and change the way they work is not always appreciated (or legally permitted in some cases) buy the companies that produce them. Now some people will answer that then they should not use Linux but since that is one less company looking for highly skilled linux users to start receiving paychecks I realise that will directly effect my earning potential.
I have posted many similar contributions to slashdot stateing why I think the GPL3 is trash so tried to keep it out of my original post. Hopefully this is now an old enough topic that fewer Richard M Stallman groupies will come along and mod my post down than usually do.
I am looking forward to your reply. I hope you were not too disapointed.
What Linux software is currently used that would be licensed for the purposes mentioned in the article which would go under the GPLv3? I can't think of any. Wow, you must have thought about for a long time. The whole reason for the GPL3 is to stop companies like TiVO. Some people object to TiVO being able to base a product on Linux but then not let the Linux community pull it apart and play with it.
I love the way that suggesting that the french are limited to viewing the skies with telescopes gets you modded up by some bunch of morons.
The truth is that France is actually a well developed western country and the government has access to a similar level of technology that is available to NASA. So they probably can track very small items in orbit that are too small to reliably detect with a telescope.
Slashdot Mirror
(This is offtopic in case you fuckwits with mod points haven't noticed)
Funny how all us sad geeks on slashdot understand certain Japanese words that pertain to robot porn.
I have to admit I knew what sorayama meant without resorting to googling it.
13 Million emails?
Seems like I almost exceed that already with unwanted adverts for viagra.
See my earlier post regarding how shit all western legal systems are in this regard, they all favor the rich.
As far as I can see, the BSD license doesn't have a clause that says "you may also exchange this license by any other license you wish."
You are quite correct, it doesn't. However alot of people people who support the GPL seem to think that if it is ok to take BSD licensed code and incorporate it into a commercial closed source product why do they have such a problem with the same code being re-licensed as GPL that explicitly prevents this.
The problem is that we have two groups of people who both want similar aims but have vastly different tactics as to how to get there:
The FSF and Stallman think all code should be open source and code should never be a proprietary trade secret. The end result of this will hopefully then be that open source collaborative development becomes the primary method for producing software. This will hopefully then result in code and software of the highest quality.
The BSD crowd think that by just producing good code that performs well and then letting commercial users take the code and incorporate it into their products a situation will eventually arise where the companies producing close source products eventually become so reliant on the open source (BSD style) programmers that the small amount of closed source development they do on top becomes almost irrelevant. If these companies then make a commercially successful product based on 90% BSD licensed code then the BSD developers would have more bargaining power when it came to encouraging the remaining 10% to be open source as well. There is probably also the fact that as a programmer, it is always nice to see your work getting used extensively and appreciated, even if that appreciation does just come about because you help make someone else richer. I know this would piss alot of people off but some people (myself included) just enjoy writing code and any monetary reward is entirely secondary.
So both licenses could result in toppling the status quo of pure closed source development (and it is the status quo, however much we wished otherwise). The main difference is that one method (GPL) seems to be much more about trying to use the legal system to force this change and one method is more about gentle persuasion over a much longer timescale that may make alot of closed source developers and managers rich in the process.
So far I have mainly just tried to some up the different camps points of view by way of an introduction, if you disagree with by synopsis above, fine but this is the main reason I think the GPL (especially the GPL3) method is not as straight forward as the license itself would lead you to believe:
The Law is NOT on our side.
I am not talking about the actual letter of the law, I am talking about the legal system and who controls it. The fact is that in most of the world, the law sucks. In the US there is the DMCA. In Europe we have recently only just narrowly avoided software patents, and even now it may only be a temporary reprieve. The shitty truth is that big business long ago purchased our politicians and they are responsible for deciding what becomes law.
If anyone wants to post a serious rebuttal to this comment, please do so by explaining to me why any western legal system would back the little guy against a huge corporation, because recent history shows that this does not happen very often. Even the recent reprieve that us in the Linux community got from the stupid SCO lawsuits only came about because another huge corporation got involved.
Lets remember that Novell were that huge corporation. IBM started our defense, but they got bogged down with their initial legal position and it was Novell that ultimately won out. Yet Novell are actually on the FSF shitlist for getting in bed with Microsoft.
The fact is that linux would not be anywhere near where it is today if IBM and Novell had not fought SCO in court. SCO would have gone around demanding licensing fees from any company that adopted Linux, and a lot of companies w
In related news Jay Maris is now very probably out of work and totally unemployable.
:)
I actually feel sorry for him as this will probably be a devastating incident he may never recover from. Then again, I suppose he has helped inflict similar stress on other people who may have been sued by the RIAA as a result of MiiVii site. However at least those people had some sort of way out even if it was begging the RIAA for forgiveness.
He is now right royally fucked. What a pity
On a more serious note to any other Media Defender employees reading this I would suggest you consider that this could have been you. Nobody is perfect, so we all make mistakes and this one could have been yours. So when you see Jay outside the offices next month with his begging cup be generous.
I am guessing that the various employees of media defender are either all in work doing alot of overtime this weekend, or are seriously not looking forward to monday morning. I can see one hell of a security audit in the companies future.
I had never really taken them seriously until I read this story and then read some of the other details about them on wikipedia. I heard about them when the first launched their services and thought they wouldn't last a month so I was quite surprised to find out they are still going and have been bought for 42 million USD or whatever.
Why the hell would anyone pay that much money just to engage in the online equivalent of pissing against a force 10 gale?
I have posted this exact statement sometime before but here it goes again:
When I was in my teens I was not a model student. I did not like school very much so I avoided going whenever possible. My parents both worked by then and they obviously did not want me sitting around playing video games all day on my dads shiny new 486DX33 PC. So my dad took various steps to prevent me from using the computer and tracking when I did use it. For starters it was in their room not mine.
They also took the copy protection for games they bought me with them when they went to work, this meant I learnt to crack games (no internet back then).
They locked the keyboard lock on the front panel, so I learnt to pick the lock with a paperclip.
They bought a case with a better lock, I learnt to pick better locks.
They inspected the logging software they used regularly, so I learnt to doctor the logs.
Basically they helped give me the skills I needed to be become a computer criminal. Thankfully they also forced me to learn to program computers as a condition of having access to one so I also learnt some very valuable skills that I can use to earn money without resorting to computer crime.
What I was trying to get across was that law is just like any other subject, to gain a decent understanding of anything takes time and practice. People don't study for over 8 years for fun, they do it because it takes that long to understand the subject. Since most people here have probably not studied law for that long they are not likely to know enough to make an educated decision.
The big difference between my argument and the whole ID trash is that they say you can never understand it, whereas I am saying that it can be understood, but that understanding can only be reached with work. And if the law says otherwise, then the law is wrong too. We have no problem with making changes to laws-- they weren't created perfect. If you new anything about law you would know it is not quite that easy. Many laws are passed quickly by moronic politicians to get a few extra votes but then get struck down by the courts equally as quickly. The first example I can think of is the Communications Decency Act.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act).
Laws have to fit within a framework of other laws and the constitution. For this reason new laws should be drawn up slowly with attention to how they will affect other existing law. If you try and just start making changes to quickly you may find you actually make things worse. This is not saying that laws cannot be changed, but it should be done very carefully.
Sorry, badly phrased.
I meant my limited undertanding of contract law gave me a certain level of insight into how complicated ALL areas of law are. This is because you although alot of what we learnt was specific to contract law, there was also alot of time spent on the basic principles you needed to know to make any sense of it.
These principles (precedent, legal system history) are relevant to all laws, not just contract. That does not mean I understand them but I know how little I understand them, which is an important step.
I have seen many people jump on the chance to spout on about the legality of a particular position or case, quite often without the slightest bit of knowledge about the subject in question. I would also say however that this is by no means limited to geeks posting on slashdot. I have quite often got into similar arguments with friends down the pub.
Why the hell are so many sad fuckwits so interested in who posts crap stories?
If you are not interested in a story, fuck off and don't read it, simple.
Why posting a stupid comment slagging off the person who posted it? Unless you have nothing better to do than sit around griping and not doing anything constructive.
If you have something interesting to say, then say it. Otherwise piss off and whine to your shrink instead, at least they are paid to your anti-kdawson drivel.
Go and read the link here:
http://www.google.com/support/gsa/bin/answer.py?answer=15898
It says that the google search applicance uses a version of Linux.
But google base a proprietary, entirely closed product on open source technology. Here is a link:
http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/index.html
Why will this not fall foul of the GPL3? Surely if it contains any GPL software to make it work they need to distribute the source and any modifications necessary to make it work. I have asked this question before and someone pointed out that the Google Search Appliance was exempt as it was only aimed at commercial organisations.
I would be very grateful if someone could clear this up for me as I am just getting more confused.
Well in my case because Open Office is alot cheaper but I take your point.
Thanks for the link, I had not read that definition of Open source before.
How does the GPL3 sit with point 6? Surely it treats different fields of endeavour differently by treating product aimed purely at commercial users and products aimed at home users differently? Doesn't it give more freedom to companies that are selling a product only aimed at other companies that it gives to companies selling a products destined for home use?
Please note that every sentence in the above paragraph ends in a question mark. I have not read the GPL3 in it entirety so cannot say for sure. Can anyone explain exactly why this does or does not apply in this case?
I also will be moving to ATI cards just as soon as I can type "emerge ati-driver" and get a decent open source driver to compile with same ease that all other software does on my Gentoo box (Ok, I might have to change VIDEO_CARDS="ATI" in make.conf as well)
But I have never had any problems with NVidia closed source binary driver. The ATI one was trash which was I started buying NVidia cards in the first place but if myself as gentoo tweaker has never had any issues they cant be that bad under Linux. Obvoiusly they are trash for everyone on non x86 hardware or running BSD or whatever but not all of them are that bad.
Maybe the reason that ATI have taken this step is because of the problems they had with their drivers in the past.
Your both just pair of old jaded slashdot wrinklies.
Do you sit around in virtual rocking chairs of virtual porches slagging off these damn kids?
Git, I was hoping to be the first person to post something similar but you beat me to it.
To be honest, I used to be a bit like him. I had the long hair that stank and never got washed, I had the complete dislike of ever getting a proper job and I thought everyone else should just do everything my way.
Thankfully I grew up into a slightly more rounded individual and realised that while I still have the same core beliefs, I cannot force other people to go along with them.
I have to convince them slowly, over time that my suggestions may have merit. This understanding extends to all things.
I also realise that being able to play with those products and change the way they work is not always appreciated (or legally permitted in some cases) buy the companies that produce them. Now some people will answer that then they should not use Linux but since that is one less company looking for highly skilled linux users to start receiving paychecks I realise that will directly effect my earning potential.
I have posted many similar contributions to slashdot stateing why I think the GPL3 is trash so tried to keep it out of my original post. Hopefully this is now an old enough topic that fewer Richard M Stallman groupies will come along and mod my post down than usually do. I am looking forward to your reply. I hope you were not too disapointed.
I love the way that suggesting that the french are limited to viewing the skies with telescopes gets you modded up by some bunch of morons.
The truth is that France is actually a well developed western country and the government has access to a similar level of technology that is available to NASA. So they probably can track very small items in orbit that are too small to reliably detect with a telescope.