I agree that the GPL does not allow me to lease a CD with GPL'd software on it for another entity to run without obligating me to distribute the source code as well. But I still don't agree that that necessarily means if I allow someone to use a computer, even for a fee, that I'm obligated to provide them source for every GPL'd program on the computer.
As long as ownership of the media is retained by the entity that made the copy, they aren't really distributing copies.
That's not precisely what I'm saying. The argument is more precisely, as long as the person copying the software and the machine running the software are owned by the same entity, then distribution has not occurred.
A way to look at it is this - we have a continuum of action, from having a copy of GPL'd code to selling a copy of GPL'd code to someone. Clearly in the first case, I'm not obligated to distribute the source code to anyone. And clearly in the last case I am.
So at what point do I go from not obligated to distribute to obligated?
If I modify the code and run it on the computer I modify it on, I'm clearly not obligated to distribute the source. If I modify the code and copy the source and compile it on my laptop, I'm not obligated to distribute the source. If I somehow compile a binary on one computer and then copy the binary to my laptop, still not obligated to distribute the source.
If my mother comes to visit and turns on my computer to find a recipe for brownies online, am I obligated to give her the kernel source if she asks? I think we're still at a no here.
What if I rent appliances? Am I obligated to give the source for any GPL'd firmware that these appliances run with?
I'm also not sure what you're getting at with your Netflix example, and it appears orthogonal to the situation here. If I have a copy of linux, I can then give you the copy of linux, and I do NOT have to give you the source code. Why? Because it's COPYRIGHT, *NOT* distributeright. The owner of the copyright on Legally Blonde can not use that copyright to prevent Netflix from distributing DVDs around the country by mail. Along those lines, if Redhat sells me a copy of Linux, I can give that copy to someone else and NOT have to make the source code available to them. I didn't copy the software myself, so I've had no need to agree to the GPL, because I don't need a license to distribute.
In fact, it appears here that the GPL may have a loophole. If you have not made copies of a piece of software, you're not bound by the GPL. So, let's say I'm a cable company. I buy 100,000 digital receivers with GPL'd software on them. The company I buy them from is the company that put this software on all these receivers and thus did the copying. They're required to give me the source code if I want it, and they send me 100,000 CDs with the source code, one with each digital receiver.
But I didn't copy anything, so I'm not bound by the GPL. I already have the right to distribute the copies. So now I give my receivers (lease or sell) to my customers. Now I'm not obligated to give the customers the source code (since I'm not bound by the GPL) and the receiver manufacturer isn't obligated to give out the source code to my customers either (since they didn't distribute the code to them.)
The new service providers are distributing a software UPDATE, because the software on the boxes attempts to phone home, and because the old home no longer exists, the boxes stop working.
The GPL DOES NOT require that the new service providers provide this NEW, UPDATED software to anyone. It ONLY requires that IF they provide this new software, they must also provide the source.
So there is nothing wrong with them charging you $30 for the software update and not giving it to you if you don't pay.
They only have to distribute the source to those they distributed the binaries to, NOT anyone with binaries.
I don't think $30 for a USB key with the source code counts as 'a medium customarily used for software distribution'. You can't just pick an arbitrary means of distributing the source, otherwise someone could claim they've satisfied the GPL by offering the source code on platinum CDs in platinum-CD reader drives for $10,000,000, because that's what it costs to make one.
They distributed the boxes with software on them, and they distribute the software on USB-keys (when you pay for them).
Again, copying the software onto their own hardware isn't distribution. It's copying. The receiver is a self-contained unit owned in its entirety by one party. Copying software onto your own hardware must be permitted, and giving other people access to the hardware, even if for a fee, does obligate you to give them source code, anymore than you visiting my website obligates me to give you a copy of the source to Apache.
"We're not distributing Linux we're just renting a hard drive to our customers that has Linux on it"
That wouldn't be very useful to the customer, as they would not have the right to copy the software off of the hard drive and into their system to run it.
Giving someone a hard drive to run software in THEIR computer is not the same as giving someone a computer that runs software.
You kind of touched on the problem with your argument, but then went past it.
The receiver is a self-contained unit that runs it's own software. The live CD does not run anything. In order to use the software on the live CD, you have to put it in some other device. And when you do that, you copy the software.
So, if I 'lease' to you a CD with software on it, and then you run the software on the CD, one of two things is true:
- My lease to you of my property with the copyrighted software on it either allows you to copy that software, or it does not. If it does, then I have infringed the copyright as I have no license which allows me to allow you to copy the software onto whatever machine you're going to ultimately run it on. - My lease to you of my property does not allow you to actually copy the software, ergo, you commit the infringement if you copy it to your machine to run.
The difference with the receivers over the live CD is that unlike the live CD, where the program must be copied off the CD to run on your computer (even if it's only copied into memory for the purposes of running the program), the program in the receiver only runs on the receiver, which is still my property.
Let's put this another way. Let's say I create a business where I lease computers. Let's further say that I lease computers with Linux installed. You pay me $100 and I loan you a computer for a month. Am I obligated to give you the source code?
What if instead of giving you the computer, I have an internet cafe, and I instead charge you $20 to use my computer for an hour. Am I obligated to give you the source code then?
I'd say no to both cases, and under the same reasoning, would not expect that distributing the source to GPLd software running on leased hardware is required.
You bring up a good point with the Java applets though - I would argue that in that case, making the source code available is required.
The fact that the software has been distributed, whether leased or sold, means it needed agreement to a license.
But no distribution (giving a copy to another party) has taken place. Only *COPYING* has taken place.
And it is obvious that the GPL *MUST* allow copying without distribution. If it doesn't, we're all violating the GPL any time we copy the program from one computer to another without also copying the source.
(It would seem that at least the GPL statement If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. permits copying without distribution - as if you start with a program and source code, whatever access allowed you to copy the executable would also necessarily allow you to copy the source code.)
So, while you're correct that the act of copying means the receiver maker either has accepted a license OR is infringing the copyright, the GPL permits the copying.
So yes, they've accepted the GPL, but no, copying the program didn't violate it.
The GPL requires that IF you distribute code, you also have to distribute source code, and the person you give that code to can then also redistribute it under the same terms.
But, if I give you code, and you change it, and then you don't give it to anyone, guess what, you don't have to give the source code out at all.
So, in this case, who owns the receivers? If the cable company owned the receivers, and were just leasing them to the customers, I don't see that there's any infringement taking place. They're not distributing the software (it's on their hardware), so they're not obligated to distribute the source either.
Now, if they SOLD the boxes to the end consumer, then they'd be obligated to distribute the source, but is that the case here? Or did people just end up with abandoned receivers when the cable company went out of business?
Is the submitter suggesting that the periodic sales by mom & pop storesare responsible for keeping retail prices in check "across the board?"
They may be, but the point they should be making is that internet retailers are responsible for offering a much lower price to consumers who don't want to pay for the benefits of a brick and mortar store. If you let manufacturers dictate pricing, you eliminate the ability of internet retailers to undercut brick and mortar stores, and we're all forced to pay more money for an inefficient (as defined by what the market is willing to spend resources on) means of distribution.
Your claims are non-sensical. How in your view will an artist make money not signing with the RIAA and giving away CDs?
I realize you intend the question to be rhetorical, as in there isn't an answer, but you're way wrong.
The answer is obvious. The artist makes money by distributing their music directly to the consumer, and by having consumers distribute music to other consumers. This wasn't an option in 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, or 1990, but now it's 2007, and it definitely is.
The RIAA has no interest in promoting the creative arts. The RIAA's sole interest is in promoting profitable music distribution. They are paid by, and represent, RECORD COMPANIES, not artists. And if they have a choice between doing something that will promote the creative arts, and doing something that will increase profits for record companies, then they will do what is best for the record companies.
The problem here is that you seem to think record companies create music. They don't. The move music around. But we can do that pretty much for free now - so there's no reason to keep paying them to do it, except that they own a lot of copyrights and are using those copyrights NOT to promote music being made, and NOT to compensate ARTISTS, but to prevent others from DISTRIBUTING music for free.
If we made record companies illegal tomorrow, it would not affect the money made by ARTISTS one bit. It would definitely impact the money made by record companies, and advertising agencies, and those guys who get paid to pay radio stations to play certain songs, but none of those people ever wrote a song.
Spammers get collocation hosting and bandwidth/connectivity. There is absolutely no way one or two people buying $50 drugs is going to cover the costs.
What makes you think people peddling male enhancement pills or obscure stock by email are so ethical that they actually pay for bandwidth they can steal for free?
puts artists back into the caste they used to be in - able to subsist only via the graces of the the elite and wealthy
That's where they are NOW. What do you think a record company is if not a means for the elite and wealthy to select which artists get promoted?
There are very, very few artists who are able to make any money touring etc. without signing over their CD sales to a record company.
On the other hand, if signing over your CD sale revenue to a record company enables you to make a bunch of money touring, it's not really a bad deal for the artist. It's just a bad deal for the consumer who ends up paying for albums that they could get for free without affecting the artists revenues at all.
You can file a preliminary application that buys you another year to file the real one.
Battlestar Galactica has turned into DS9.
on
The Sci-Fi Movie Stigma
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think I'm turning into an old sap, but I liked BSG better when the humans were the good guys and the cylons were the bad guys. Seasons 1 and 2. I'll even give them the 2nd captain showing up and being a bitch since they disposed of her in a couple episodes.
Now BSG definitely IS a soap opera. We've got custody battles, affairs, elections, trials, family squabbles...
I liked it better when it was a Sci-Fi show about ships in space, not a daytime soap opera that just happens to take place on ships in space.
D&D helped me be a better engineer by: 1. learning and working with a complex rule set. 2. Reading and comprehending specifications. The rulebook is several hundred pages long. 3. Problem solving within a strict set of boundaries, both individually and as a group 4. Failing a quest gracefully, without a hissy fit or seppeku, and without blaming the Damned Managers! (DM) 5. Carrying a +5 Bastard Sword, for cutting through the red tape when it gets in your way. 6. Limiting time wasted talking to members of the opposing gender.
Reminds me of an old saying:
"D&D: Where every girl there is the hottest girl there."
Now for the priority queue, when I'm a little messy, the important stuff floats to the top. As the mess gets higher and deeper, after a while the stuff on the bottom becomes unimportant, and can then be cleaned up (similar to garbage collection).
The weakness here is that if something has BECOME unimportant, that means it WAS important, and you didn't do anything about it. It's fine if things that were NEVER important don't get addressed and eventually fall into garbage collection, but letting things that WERE important reach garbage collection because you missed doing something about them when they WERE important is a bad thing.
Or put another way, the notice of foreclosure on your house may not be important if you don't do anything about it until they've foreclosed on you, but by the time your 'nifty' organizational system's garbage collection routine removes it from your work area, you've lost your house (and your work area).
What I've learned to do is supplement my system with a To-Do list. Then even if something important starts to slide under some other things, it doesn't slide off the to-do list, and at least not doing important things is an intelligent decision resulting from more important things needing to be done than just letting something slide until there's no point in dealing with it anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
SMTP is not only defective by design, but defective by requirement.
Nobody ever meets the design requirements!
Next you're going to tell me they were on schedule too!
I agree that the GPL does not allow me to lease a CD with GPL'd software on it for another entity to run without obligating me to distribute the source code as well. But I still don't agree that that necessarily means if I allow someone to use a computer, even for a fee, that I'm obligated to provide them source for every GPL'd program on the computer.
As long as ownership of the media is retained by the entity that made the copy, they aren't really distributing copies.
That's not precisely what I'm saying. The argument is more precisely, as long as the person copying the software and the machine running the software are owned by the same entity, then distribution has not occurred.
A way to look at it is this - we have a continuum of action, from having a copy of GPL'd code to selling a copy of GPL'd code to someone. Clearly in the first case, I'm not obligated to distribute the source code to anyone. And clearly in the last case I am.
So at what point do I go from not obligated to distribute to obligated?
If I modify the code and run it on the computer I modify it on, I'm clearly not obligated to distribute the source. If I modify the code and copy the source and compile it on my laptop, I'm not obligated to distribute the source. If I somehow compile a binary on one computer and then copy the binary to my laptop, still not obligated to distribute the source.
If my mother comes to visit and turns on my computer to find a recipe for brownies online, am I obligated to give her the kernel source if she asks? I think we're still at a no here.
What if I rent appliances? Am I obligated to give the source for any GPL'd firmware that these appliances run with?
I'm also not sure what you're getting at with your Netflix example, and it appears orthogonal to the situation here. If I have a copy of linux, I can then give you the copy of linux, and I do NOT have to give you the source code. Why? Because it's COPYRIGHT, *NOT* distributeright. The owner of the copyright on Legally Blonde can not use that copyright to prevent Netflix from distributing DVDs around the country by mail. Along those lines, if Redhat sells me a copy of Linux, I can give that copy to someone else and NOT have to make the source code available to them. I didn't copy the software myself, so I've had no need to agree to the GPL, because I don't need a license to distribute.
In fact, it appears here that the GPL may have a loophole. If you have not made copies of a piece of software, you're not bound by the GPL. So, let's say I'm a cable company. I buy 100,000 digital receivers with GPL'd software on them. The company I buy them from is the company that put this software on all these receivers and thus did the copying. They're required to give me the source code if I want it, and they send me 100,000 CDs with the source code, one with each digital receiver.
But I didn't copy anything, so I'm not bound by the GPL. I already have the right to distribute the copies. So now I give my receivers (lease or sell) to my customers. Now I'm not obligated to give the customers the source code (since I'm not bound by the GPL) and the receiver manufacturer isn't obligated to give out the source code to my customers either (since they didn't distribute the code to them.)
The new service providers are distributing a software UPDATE, because the software on the boxes attempts to phone home, and because the old home no longer exists, the boxes stop working.
The GPL DOES NOT require that the new service providers provide this NEW, UPDATED software to anyone. It ONLY requires that IF they provide this new software, they must also provide the source.
So there is nothing wrong with them charging you $30 for the software update and not giving it to you if you don't pay.
They only have to distribute the source to those they distributed the binaries to, NOT anyone with binaries.
I don't think $30 for a USB key with the source code counts as 'a medium customarily used for software distribution'. You can't just pick an arbitrary means of distributing the source, otherwise someone could claim they've satisfied the GPL by offering the source code on platinum CDs in platinum-CD reader drives for $10,000,000, because that's what it costs to make one.
They distributed the boxes with software on them, and they distribute the software on USB-keys (when you pay for them).
Again, copying the software onto their own hardware isn't distribution. It's copying. The receiver is a self-contained unit owned in its entirety by one party. Copying software onto your own hardware must be permitted, and giving other people access to the hardware, even if for a fee, does obligate you to give them source code, anymore than you visiting my website obligates me to give you a copy of the source to Apache.
"We're not distributing Linux we're just renting a hard drive to our customers that has Linux on it"
That wouldn't be very useful to the customer, as they would not have the right to copy the software off of the hard drive and into their system to run it.
Giving someone a hard drive to run software in THEIR computer is not the same as giving someone a computer that runs software.
I don't think that adds up.
You kind of touched on the problem with your argument, but then went past it.
The receiver is a self-contained unit that runs it's own software. The live CD does not run anything. In order to use the software on the live CD, you have to put it in some other device. And when you do that, you copy the software.
So, if I 'lease' to you a CD with software on it, and then you run the software on the CD, one of two things is true:
- My lease to you of my property with the copyrighted software on it either allows you to copy that software, or it does not. If it does, then I have infringed the copyright as I have no license which allows me to allow you to copy the software onto whatever machine you're going to ultimately run it on.
- My lease to you of my property does not allow you to actually copy the software, ergo, you commit the infringement if you copy it to your machine to run.
The difference with the receivers over the live CD is that unlike the live CD, where the program must be copied off the CD to run on your computer (even if it's only copied into memory for the purposes of running the program), the program in the receiver only runs on the receiver, which is still my property.
Let's put this another way. Let's say I create a business where I lease computers. Let's further say that I lease computers with Linux installed. You pay me $100 and I loan you a computer for a month. Am I obligated to give you the source code?
What if instead of giving you the computer, I have an internet cafe, and I instead charge you $20 to use my computer for an hour. Am I obligated to give you the source code then?
I'd say no to both cases, and under the same reasoning, would not expect that distributing the source to GPLd software running on leased hardware is required.
You bring up a good point with the Java applets though - I would argue that in that case, making the source code available is required.
The fact that the software has been distributed, whether leased or sold, means it needed agreement to a license.
But no distribution (giving a copy to another party) has taken place. Only *COPYING* has taken place.
And it is obvious that the GPL *MUST* allow copying without distribution. If it doesn't, we're all violating the GPL any time we copy the program from one computer to another without also copying the source.
(It would seem that at least the GPL statement If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. permits copying without distribution - as if you start with a program and source code, whatever access allowed you to copy the executable would also necessarily allow you to copy the source code.)
So, while you're correct that the act of copying means the receiver maker either has accepted a license OR is infringing the copyright, the GPL permits the copying.
So yes, they've accepted the GPL, but no, copying the program didn't violate it.
Where is the act of infringment?
The GPL requires that IF you distribute code, you also have to distribute source code, and the person you give that code to can then also redistribute it under the same terms.
But, if I give you code, and you change it, and then you don't give it to anyone, guess what, you don't have to give the source code out at all.
So, in this case, who owns the receivers? If the cable company owned the receivers, and were just leasing them to the customers, I don't see that there's any infringement taking place. They're not distributing the software (it's on their hardware), so they're not obligated to distribute the source either.
Now, if they SOLD the boxes to the end consumer, then they'd be obligated to distribute the source, but is that the case here? Or did people just end up with abandoned receivers when the cable company went out of business?
Is the submitter suggesting that the periodic sales by mom & pop storesare responsible for keeping retail prices in check "across the board?"
They may be, but the point they should be making is that internet retailers are responsible for offering a much lower price to consumers who don't want to pay for the benefits of a brick and mortar store. If you let manufacturers dictate pricing, you eliminate the ability of internet retailers to undercut brick and mortar stores, and we're all forced to pay more money for an inefficient (as defined by what the market is willing to spend resources on) means of distribution.
Ever wonder why?
Because I'd eat a sheep but wouldn't eat my mother?
I bet my God can beat up your God!
Your claims are non-sensical. How in your view will an artist make money not signing with the RIAA and giving away CDs?
I realize you intend the question to be rhetorical, as in there isn't an answer, but you're way wrong.
The answer is obvious. The artist makes money by distributing their music directly to the consumer, and by having consumers distribute music to other consumers. This wasn't an option in 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, or 1990, but now it's 2007, and it definitely is.
The RIAA has no interest in promoting the creative arts. The RIAA's sole interest is in promoting profitable music distribution. They are paid by, and represent, RECORD COMPANIES, not artists. And if they have a choice between doing something that will promote the creative arts, and doing something that will increase profits for record companies, then they will do what is best for the record companies.
The problem here is that you seem to think record companies create music. They don't. The move music around. But we can do that pretty much for free now - so there's no reason to keep paying them to do it, except that they own a lot of copyrights and are using those copyrights NOT to promote music being made, and NOT to compensate ARTISTS, but to prevent others from DISTRIBUTING music for free.
If we made record companies illegal tomorrow, it would not affect the money made by ARTISTS one bit. It would definitely impact the money made by record companies, and advertising agencies, and those guys who get paid to pay radio stations to play certain songs, but none of those people ever wrote a song.
Spammers get collocation hosting and bandwidth/connectivity. There is absolutely no way one or two people buying $50 drugs is going to cover the costs.
What makes you think people peddling male enhancement pills or obscure stock by email are so ethical that they actually pay for bandwidth they can steal for free?
puts artists back into the caste they used to be in - able to subsist only via the graces of the the elite and wealthy
That's where they are NOW. What do you think a record company is if not a means for the elite and wealthy to select which artists get promoted?
There are very, very few artists who are able to make any money touring etc. without signing over their CD sales to a record company.
On the other hand, if signing over your CD sale revenue to a record company enables you to make a bunch of money touring, it's not really a bad deal for the artist. It's just a bad deal for the consumer who ends up paying for albums that they could get for free without affecting the artists revenues at all.
In the 18 years I have been around the net, I can honestly admit to being AOL free..I did have a prodigy account at one time though.
Me too!
You can file a preliminary application that buys you another year to file the real one.
I think I'm turning into an old sap, but I liked BSG better when the humans were the good guys and the cylons were the bad guys. Seasons 1 and 2. I'll even give them the 2nd captain showing up and being a bitch since they disposed of her in a couple episodes.
Now BSG definitely IS a soap opera. We've got custody battles, affairs, elections, trials, family squabbles...
I liked it better when it was a Sci-Fi show about ships in space, not a daytime soap opera that just happens to take place on ships in space.
Just scan something and shoot it, damnit!
You must have called the AOL customer service line by mistake.
You can't charge someone a tax that doesn't exist, and then pocket the money.
As whoever had the prior art has missed the 'window of opportunity' to successfully patent it, which is one to two years, depending.
He was paid to create the ad.... .... by Karl Rove.
Think about it - Hillary looks bad, AND Obama looks bad! This has to be the work of Republicans.
Or maybe it was Edwards.
D&D helped me be a better engineer by:
1. learning and working with a complex rule set.
2. Reading and comprehending specifications. The rulebook is several hundred pages long.
3. Problem solving within a strict set of boundaries, both individually and as a group
4. Failing a quest gracefully, without a hissy fit or seppeku, and without blaming the Damned Managers! (DM)
5. Carrying a +5 Bastard Sword, for cutting through the red tape when it gets in your way.
6. Limiting time wasted talking to members of the opposing gender.
Reminds me of an old saying:
"D&D: Where every girl there is the hottest girl there."
There is so much studying and socializing to do while in college, I honestly can't imagine playing any online game during college.
Well, you've got to do SOMETHING until you're old enough to get into the bar....
Now for the priority queue, when I'm a little messy, the important stuff floats to the top. As the mess gets higher and deeper, after a while the stuff on the bottom becomes unimportant, and can then be cleaned up (similar to garbage collection).
The weakness here is that if something has BECOME unimportant, that means it WAS important, and you didn't do anything about it. It's fine if things that were NEVER important don't get addressed and eventually fall into garbage collection, but letting things that WERE important reach garbage collection because you missed doing something about them when they WERE important is a bad thing.
Or put another way, the notice of foreclosure on your house may not be important if you don't do anything about it until they've foreclosed on you, but by the time your 'nifty' organizational system's garbage collection routine removes it from your work area, you've lost your house (and your work area).
What I've learned to do is supplement my system with a To-Do list. Then even if something important starts to slide under some other things, it doesn't slide off the to-do list, and at least not doing important things is an intelligent decision resulting from more important things needing to be done than just letting something slide until there's no point in dealing with it anymore.