any license that is binding under copyright law applies to such organizations as if they were individuals...Absolutely not. If a company buys a single Adobe Photoshop and installs it for 50 workstations, the BSA [bsa.org] will be pleased to kick their door in and start auditing.
Ehmm. I think we're talking about apples and oranges here. The licensing agreement for commercial software typically only allows it to be installed on one machine. That is completely independent of whether it's an individual or a corporation installing it; either one would be BSA bait. If it weren't for the requirement that the software only be installed on one machine at once, but that it could not be distributed out of copyright (like any other commercial software), it would be perfectly fine to install it on as many machines as you wanted within your organization.
If you have a piece of GPL software, there are obviously no such restrictions, and thus you can do what you want with it as long as you don't distribute it outside your organization. If you do, you can choose to do it under the terms of the GPL or any other license under which the copyright holder allows redistribution.
Wow, you spent so much time on your little tirade, and overlooked the obvious: visit your local electronics supply store. You see, nearly every one I've visited has a flash programmer and will reprogram a chip for next to nothing.
Thanks for the baseless insults though! Somehow though, I feel that in this case it's a poor, frustrated little pot calling the kettle black.
You make some good points, but you might drop the attitude.
Copyright law refers to chartered organizations and corporations as inviduals, so any license that is binding under copyright law applies to such organizations as if they were individuals themselves.
Each individual within the organization is part of the organization, and is thus acting on behalf of it. If one of those individuals distributes a copy of the software, then that individual will have to simply suffer the consequences for doing so.
Yeah, and it's *so* difficult to remove the BIOS from the socket and flash it somewhere else. Wait, you buy motherboards with BIOS chips surface mounted? For shame.
In this country (UK) we have something called the 'Computer Missuse Act'. This is a very dull piece of legislation which says (among other things) that using someones computer without their consent is illegal.
Interesting; does this make spamming me on my own system illegal? After all, they are using my computer's memory and processor as a medium to deliver me their advertising message.
And hidden in that straw man is an assumption too; the assumption that someone who downloads a copyrighted work will never buy it. That is wrong! I never buy any popular media that I haven't previewed first. I also buy everything that I feel is worth the money (e.g., music that I would continue listening to, a movie that I would view again and again).
Why are downloading and paying regarded as mutually exclusive?
I wouldn't call $20M "a pittance". At the time Mosaic was an out-of-date POS that was basically worthless in the market.
Well, if you mean at the time of the award, you are correct. Another way to look at it is in terms of the missed opportunities that Spyglass had to endure because their partner hosed them.
Netscape was started by the NCSA Mosaic guys.
Actually, they were two completely separate projects that were worked on by people that originated at UIUC. I won't claim that there weren't similarities (wink wink), but in practice the projects were completely divorced from each other at the time that Netscape went commercial.
It's written pretty clearly on the outside of the retail box. By buying it you accept those terms.
I'd like to see some precedent for that. IANAL, but written contracts must be accompanied by a signature of both parties involved, in order to be binding.
The software EULA is an anomaly, and only applies because the action of clicking the "I accept" button is somehow analogous to signing a contract. But when I pick up something off a store shelf, pay for it, and walk out of the store, no contract whatsoever has been made.
Mostly people say GCN spins backwards because it isn't being pirated yet. The panasonic GameCube-Q reverses directions when you put in a DVD or CD? Bah.
People are confused, but there is a nugget of truth floating around amidst the general cluelessness: GCN reads discs from the outside in, rather than the inside out. None of the systems spins the discs backwards, as you pointed out.
They come with very limited licesnses. You don't like the license, don't but the damned thing!
Uh, since when does a piece of hardware come with a binding license? I didn't sign anything when I bought it.
Everyone likes to spout off about how MS has the right to dictate how their hardware is used, because they were so generous in bringing it to us, the consuming hordes; but nobody can show how this is legally the actual case.
They only licensed Mosaic from Spyglass to get IE 1.0(or was it 2.0?) out the door quickly.
Yes, and as part of the license agreement, Spyglass would receive royalties on every copy of IE that was sold. Guess what happened, and why they sued Microsoft later and won a pittance? (Read the bottom half, if you bother.)
But then in around about IE 3.0 Microsoft rewrote the whole thing from scratch without using the Mosaic code.
Funny, you seem to know things that even Microsoft does not. Look in the "About" box in IE6 if you really believe there was ever a rewrite "from scratch".
Legitimate question, I don't know... but are you saying that to create a browser you need it?
No, but if their code is used, they should be expected to be compensated for it. Microsoft subverted that compensation, which is why this is an on-topic thread for this discussion.
This is gratutious Microsoft bashing, plain and simple and a completely different situation than this Sendo story.
Maybe if you actually knew or cared to know the facts, you'd think differently. Somehow, I doubt it.
Frankly, the people here who use Windows are constantly called unwelcome
Riiight. Actually, it's just trolls like yourself, who would rather spout venom and criticize everyone than contribute to a discussion, that are unwelcome here.
I'd like to see you prove that "people here who use Windows are constantly called unwelcome".
Playing violent video games does NOT cause violence. In fact, most people who play violent video games do not commit violent acts. The same goes for violent movies and tv shows.
As it stands, the entire argument for banning violent videogames is based on one huge "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy; if a kid played a violent video game and went and shot someone, causation is derived from those events by clueless people, even when there is no information available that implies causation.
Only with research will we understand it, but instead of people pouring their lobbying dollars into research to find the real truth, they bribe Congress instead.
1) You have to make your source available under the GPL if you make a modified version and you choose to distribute that version to the public
Not just "to the public"; it applies if you redistribute it outside your organization at all, even in a private transaction.
You can decline the GPL and still use the program all you want, you just can't legally modify it.
You _can_ legally modify it; you just can't redistribute it. A GPL-licensed program gives the user freedom to do _anything_ with it in using it. It only applies restrictions when the software is redistributed.
Is this ad hominem? You can't defend your position intelligently so you try to discount any opposition to it?
You're the one that talked down to me in the first place, so kiss my ass if my "ad hominem" (consisting of pointing out your ad hominem) bothers you.
Why are you so fearful of Stallman that you pretend that he does not say that which his words advocate?
No. You're simply reading things into his words that aren't there.
You know, if you take offense to his words and you cared enough to make a change, you could drop him an intelligent, well-considered email and post his response here. As it is though, you're sounding more like a conspiracy theorist, than someone with a legitimate beef.
This has to do with Richard Stallman advocating ways to eliminate high-paying jobs for developers.
You've got to be joking. How many companies wouldn't exist if it weren't for Free Software? How many "middleware" service jobs would not exist? How many hardware products would not exist without an unencumbered embedded operating system in them? The list goes on and on.
Things benefit the industry in ways which you would hardly have any idea of. Just because you can't immediately see and identify the effects doesn't mean they aren't waiting to be discovered.
One such way is to destroy the notion of intellectual property via the GPL.
Riiight. The GPL is by all means a brutal hack on the intellectual property system in the US, but by no means does it prevent anyone from putting works under any other license. In addition, it leverages the existing IP framework in the US to accomplish its own goals.
The GPL's terms are not onerous; if you use GPL software and wish to redistribute it, you must do it in accordance with the GPL; nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it, don't use the GPL for your software, and don't use any software licensed under it, or else pay the developer for a proprietary-friendly license.
How is it going to "destroy" intellectual property?
The other such way is to ban commercial software.
That's just absurd. I'd like to see you show me where RMS has ever advocated outlawing proprietary software. The GNU/FSF was erected in the first place as an alternative, so people can exercise choice if they are tired of being locked into proprietary solutions. Why on earth would anyone advocate removing the same choice that fostered the creation of Free Software?
So anyway, you've managed to flame away without even answering the original question: from what angle exactly are people getting the idea that Free Software is anti-capitalist or anti-corporate? I still haven't found any reasonable means, just a lot of angry people and RMS-bashers.
No... the GPL represents a software distribution model that favors the rights of the user over the rights of the producer.
Right, and how is this? Point out exactly in which areas that the user gets more rights than the producer.
(Notwithstanding that the intent of the GPL was to discard the notion of producers and consumers in software. Any user can become a producer if they want to.)
Largely because it's motivated by envy and spite rather than any positive virtues.
Uh-huh. (Rolls eyes.) Where is this "envy" and "spite" that you speak of? RMS wants everyone to have the freedom to modify and redistribute software that they use. What is so utterly hateful about this?
I really wish people would open their eyes to new possibilities, instead of blindly fighting things that they just don't understand.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a piece of GPL software, there are obviously no such restrictions, and thus you can do what you want with it as long as you don't distribute it outside your organization. If you do, you can choose to do it under the terms of the GPL or any other license under which the copyright holder allows redistribution.
Thanks for the baseless insults though! Somehow though, I feel that in this case it's a poor, frustrated little pot calling the kettle black.
Copyright law refers to chartered organizations and corporations as inviduals, so any license that is binding under copyright law applies to such organizations as if they were individuals themselves.
Each individual within the organization is part of the organization, and is thus acting on behalf of it. If one of those individuals distributes a copy of the software, then that individual will have to simply suffer the consequences for doing so.
Yeah, and it's *so* difficult to remove the BIOS from the socket and flash it somewhere else. Wait, you buy motherboards with BIOS chips surface mounted? For shame.
Erm, you might also consider that bzip didn't exist until at least 1993. The Linux kernel development began in 1990 or so.
I think it's probably funny because it's such a blatant karma whore. :)
Why are downloading and paying regarded as mutually exclusive?
Why are the other clueless idiots getting modded up, and this post with correct and informative content gets left at +0?
It parallels my thoughts on the topic precisely.
The software EULA is an anomaly, and only applies because the action of clicking the "I accept" button is somehow analogous to signing a contract. But when I pick up something off a store shelf, pay for it, and walk out of the store, no contract whatsoever has been made.
He's probably a keyboard player.
Everyone likes to spout off about how MS has the right to dictate how their hardware is used, because they were so generous in bringing it to us, the consuming hordes; but nobody can show how this is legally the actual case.
You claim that Netscape did some devilish thing and was sued for it, yet I have no memory of, and can find no record of, such an event ever having taken place. Are you thinking of the Netscape=>Microsoft antitrust suit?
Does Opera use Spyglass code? What's your point?No, but if their code is used, they should be expected to be compensated for it. Microsoft subverted that compensation, which is why this is an on-topic thread for this discussion.Maybe if you actually knew or cared to know the facts, you'd think differently. Somehow, I doubt it.I'd like to see you prove that "people here who use Windows are constantly called unwelcome".
Only with research will we understand it, but instead of people pouring their lobbying dollars into research to find the real truth, they bribe Congress instead.
Just some nits.
What are we supposed to do?
You know, if you take offense to his words and you cared enough to make a change, you could drop him an intelligent, well-considered email and post his response here. As it is though, you're sounding more like a conspiracy theorist, than someone with a legitimate beef.
You've got to be joking. How many companies wouldn't exist if it weren't for Free Software? How many "middleware" service jobs would not exist? How many hardware products would not exist without an unencumbered embedded operating system in them? The list goes on and on.Things benefit the industry in ways which you would hardly have any idea of. Just because you can't immediately see and identify the effects doesn't mean they aren't waiting to be discovered.
Riiight. The GPL is by all means a brutal hack on the intellectual property system in the US, but by no means does it prevent anyone from putting works under any other license. In addition, it leverages the existing IP framework in the US to accomplish its own goals.The GPL's terms are not onerous; if you use GPL software and wish to redistribute it, you must do it in accordance with the GPL; nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it, don't use the GPL for your software, and don't use any software licensed under it, or else pay the developer for a proprietary-friendly license.
How is it going to "destroy" intellectual property?
That's just absurd. I'd like to see you show me where RMS has ever advocated outlawing proprietary software. The GNU/FSF was erected in the first place as an alternative, so people can exercise choice if they are tired of being locked into proprietary solutions. Why on earth would anyone advocate removing the same choice that fostered the creation of Free Software?So anyway, you've managed to flame away without even answering the original question: from what angle exactly are people getting the idea that Free Software is anti-capitalist or anti-corporate? I still haven't found any reasonable means, just a lot of angry people and RMS-bashers.
If you actually meant "make an honest living" instead, then there are plenty of examples: Dual licensing, Hardware bundling, the "ransom" model, etc.
Right, and how is this? Point out exactly in which areas that the user gets more rights than the producer.(Notwithstanding that the intent of the GPL was to discard the notion of producers and consumers in software. Any user can become a producer if they want to.)
Uh-huh. (Rolls eyes.) Where is this "envy" and "spite" that you speak of? RMS wants everyone to have the freedom to modify and redistribute software that they use. What is so utterly hateful about this?I really wish people would open their eyes to new possibilities, instead of blindly fighting things that they just don't understand.