Thanks for the answer (and question) about tags. I've often seen the sig (I forget which user it is) that tells people how tags should be used,
(they are for searching, not for giving opinions, apparently), and I've always thought that was the wrong way to look at it.
But it isn't the done thing to comment on.sigs, and anyway, it wasn't that important.
But since the subject is raises, I really like what Slashdot, (and the Slashdot readers) do with tags. I like humour of many of
the tags; I like being able to look at a story and see - not "what I'm supposed to think" as someone once suggested - but
because they give a quick insight into how the readers as a whole view the story. And I like the way that tag use is still
evolving here; I like that we're being creative with the channel.
Anyway, I just thought I'd offer some positive feedback on the subject.
Nope, I'm not some robot from space. And I'm not your enemy either.
And the third thing you were not was "making any sense". Of the three, guess which inference I
intended you to draw.
If there is nothing meeting this criteria, then there is no loophole.
which would make a loophole a logical impossibility. The only way to have a loophole under
your definition is to violate the licence. But violating the licence brings the consequence of
no longer being allowed to distribute. And since there is a consequence, it cannot then be a loophole.
All of this makes your definition rather less than useful. But in any case, I've told you the definition that I am using. Are you afraid to discuss what I actually mean?
Or do you somehow feel that you can score a "point" just by disputing a definition.
That strategy doesn't really work outside of the schoolyard, I'm afraid.
You claim that Novell and Microsoft exploited a loophole when they made their deal. Yet you refuse to admit or show anything in the GPL, within the context it is written, that suggest the Novell-MS deal should have never taken place.
SOMEBODY KICK THE JUKE BOX! THE RECORD'S STUCK AGAIN!
Well, now that I know you have mental problems
The only mental problem I have is my seeming inability to walk away from this increasingly pointless
exercise. Still, since you raise the subject, there's something that I've been mention. Have you considered seeking psychiatric advice? I mean, seriously. You read only what you've already decided is written down, you don't appear to respond to any external stimulus, but only react to things from inside your own head. That all sounds to me quite a lot like your basic schizophrenia. And judging from the way you react to cognitive dissonance, I don't think paranoid schizophrenia is out of the question, either.
The thing about that is that the condition can be kept in abeyance if you catch it early enough, but as you get older, the neural pathways tend to set and it gets harder to bring about the change.
I know, I expect people say this to you all the time, and you're bound to dismiss it as just a ploy
on my part. Still, when the argument is over, and the dust has settled, why not go and check it out? You could be saving yourself from spending the second half of your life in an institution.
that bizzaro boy comment is likely a childish sign of gratitude,
Which is itself a very Bizzaro take on the matter.
It cannot forbid the deal because it is a loophole that lets them do something they aren't supposed to do
Please rewrite that so it makes sense. Use nouns instead of pronouns.
Now what is it that they aren't supposed to do, where does it say they aren't supposed to do it, and what did they use as the loophole.
Klaatu barada nikto, Gort
You see, we have been over this I don't know how many times.
Yep, and you haven't learned a thing.
There cannot be a loophole unless there is something that isn't supposed to be happening.
Uh-huh
So if there is nothing that would other wise be forbidden, then there is no loophole.
That's too far a stretch. You're assuming that everything that the licence is supposed to prevent
emobied by the legal interpretation of the licence. Which, if true, would mean that Richard Stallman
wanted the licence to be used this, which seems not to be the case.
This is the trouble with limiting the intent of the licence to the measures that turn out to be
enforceable. You might as well argue that if anyone ever finds a buffer overflow in openssh, Theo de Raadt
must have wanted it to be there.
And in your meager attempt to show where the GPLv2 actually forbid the deal,
Speaking of logical fallacies, as we recently were, did you ever get around to looking up the Straw Man fallacy?
You know perfectly well that I am not claiming that the GPL has been violated, and yet here you are again, harping on this same tired refrain.
I suppose it's true what they say: if all you have is a hammer, everything does indeed look like a nail.
you ended up taking everything out of context and ignoring everything around it.
You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Specifically, I don't think it means "OMG! I been caught contradicting myself. But if I scream 'you don't understand context!!!' fill two paragraphs with random insults, and then resume arguing on an unreleated point, perhaps no one will notice". Because that's how you been using it.
Oh, and on the subject of context: if I can quote an entire paragraph of yours, and still take your words out of
context, then humbly submit that it's your own stupid fault for writing such disjointed, disorgansied and incoherent drivel. Grow up a bit and accept some responsibility for your own communications.
If I take the same point of latitude with words and context as you do, it would probably mean you just called me a genius.
ri-i-i-ght, because you have been so careful not to misrepresent my viewpoint in any shape way or form, right?
And you have failed to show where the GPL forbid the deal that Novell and Microsoft made
Oh, do pay attention. It doesn't forbid the deal. I never said it did. I've said several time that it does not, in fact, forbid the deal. I even asked you top say where I did, and it took you three paragraphs of confused and faulty logic to even find a way of suggesting I might have meant it. And even when I say "no this is not a something I intended to convey; it is not an implication I ever sought to make", even then you still insist on misrepresenting my
position; you still pound away on the same tired, plodding, sorry, little argument.
I guess it's true what they say: If all you have is a hammer, everything does indeed look like a nail.
I do believe that's what they call a Straw Man fallacy.
Lol.. No. Thats called explaining.
And how is the weather on Bizzaro World this morning? Rain falling up, is it? Clouds shining brightly, perhaps?
Apparently, it doesn't take much to impress you.
And for once I find myself forced to agree. For instance, I was just now briefly impressed with you (however minimally) and if you were any less impressive, they'd need to found a whole new branch of mathematics to handle the smallness of the quantities involved.
I tell you what, if you seriously think I an writing logical fallacies go back and point them out.
Shan't have to look far.
SO without something in the GPL (the legally binding document) itself making a claim that would forbid the Novell MS deal, that cannot be a "loophole" that someone "exploited"You have failed to show where such portions of the document exist. Instead you attempt to take things out of context as I'm sure you will on this.
mmm... which would be valid if I was using your bizzaro world definition of loophole. As it is, I defiine a loophole as something that lets you act contrary to the intent of a law or licence whilst remaining in compliance with its terms. I spelled out the definition that I was using so that you would be in doubt as to what I mean by the term, even if the habitual usage on bizzaro world was different.
So, using my definition, it necessarily follows that there is no GPL violation. Had there been a violation, the term "loophole" (as I use it) would not apply. You know all these things, and yet you persist in mischaracterising my position as one in which Novel and MS have violated the licence.
I do believe that's what they call a Straw Man fallacy.
This is amusing. I actually though I was writing down to your level.
I am impressed. You actually thought. Good show. Keep it it.
I don't have a problem with people taking me seriously. I have a problem with people like you ignoring everything that doesn't fit with their agenda and picking only the parts that agree and taking it out of context.
You know, somehow every time you criticise me, it's for something you do all the time. I don't recognise myself in these descriptions of yours, but I certainly recognise you.
Why would I need the stones to admit something that I already explained?
You didn't explain a thing. You just tried to weasel out when I called you on your attempt to rebrand "black" as "white".
You get abuse because you only listen to what you want to listen to
Nah. I think I get abuse because you want to silence criticism of Novell, and the only way you can think of
to accomplish this by trying to intimidate anyone who dares question their integrity. I mean your writing style resembles the manner of a school bully seeking to humiliate the class nerd, and your content is similar to what you might get if you took a keen but slightly dim student and told him to go throught wikipedia's section on logical fallacies and try and write a letter that made use of all of them. Further more, you write as if you are being terribly, terribly clever by doing these things, as if no one on Earth could possibly be bright enough to notice what you were doing.
And then you wonder why people only skim these spiteful little screeds of yours. I ask you...
If you could do that, you would clearly see that Novell and their deal with MS done nothing to violate the GPL
Do one thing for me: point me at the bit of text where I said "Novell has violated the GPL". I recall saying it hasn't several times, I don't once recall saying it has. Find me that quote, and I'll admit that it's possible that I'm the borderline psychotic here rather than your nasty little self.
Only see if you can find a place where I write it, rather than where you draw the inference based on other things that I also haven't said. There's a good fellow.
So now your going to take my own words and claim they mean something other then what they do? Lol..
See? This is why you have a problem with people taking you seriously. I ask you why your words do not imply
an obligation. This didn't seem an unreasonable enquiry to make; the words "you must" are, after all, conventionally taken
to suggest an obligation. In response, I get abuse, and a straw man argument based on construing my question as an assertion.
At one time, I suppose, I'd have taken great pleasure in going through such stuff line by line, and picking apart the
fallacies and contradictions, but I don't have so much time to spare these days, so I pick and choose.
The sad thing is that if you'd only have the stones to square up to it and say "ok, I phrased that poorly, but I don't think it invalidates my underlying point, which is..." then you'd get a deal more respect from your correspondents, and you might even get some of that reasoned debate for which you suddenly seem so desperate.
You must pass them on as they were given to you by the original licensor.
Yes. "You must". The licence imposes that obligation. It's not my fault if your own words undermine your point. You are occupying an untenable position.
And this is the context thing you seem to be missing or having severe problems with. You see, it specifically says that the original licensor places those obligations/restriction and you must preserve them.
And the "you must preserve them" would not be a restriction placed upon you because...
In 5 years, you will probably have learned something and when looking back on this conversation, you will be so embarrassed that you would want to commit suicide.
There you go with that bizzaro thing, getting the "you" and "me" back to front again.
And it says that where, precisely? Not in anything I've quoted, I'm reasonably sure of that.
Thats because you don't know how to understand context.
Oh really? You said:
I think what your not understanding is, that the GPL does nothing to impose obligations on someone that doesn't change the code except to make sure they give the source out.
'kay? Now I quoted:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Emphasis mine. So, in direct contradiction to what you said, as quoted above, we see that
You do not need to modify the source in order for the GPL to impose obligations. Distribution alone is sufficient.
The GPL does impose obligations other than making the source availible
So what you said is directly contradicted by a specific clause of the GPL. I don't know if this means you're a fool, a liar, or just away with the fairies, but I do know that you're not telling the truth. Not for the first time either.
I have to ask, did you even read my original comments on that
Probably not, no. Chuckles, you part company from reality so fast in your replies that it's rarely worth wading through screenfuls of invective and logcal fallacies, just on the off chance you may have been sure enough of your facts to stop lying. If you want people to read your stuff closely, you're going the wrong way about it.
Oh my God, how fucking stupid are you?
About as stupid as it's possible to get whilst still being smarter than you are, bizzaro-boy.
Lol.. That only applies when you are adding the patent related code to the covered work.
And it says that where, precisely? Not in anything I've quoted, I'm reasonably sure of that.
Also, the part you copied specifically states an added restriction with a patent license
It doesn't use the word "added" anywhere that I can see. Is this another "context" thing?
I think what your not understanding is, that the GPL does nothing to impose obligations on someone that doesn't change the code except to make sure they give the source out.
And it says that where, exactly?
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Actually, it looks like you won't learn it from anyone. The section you are talking about now, section 7 has nothing to do with what your attempting to claim. You are attempting to claim the GPL does more then what it does, section 7 merely states that if a court stops you from doing something the GPL requires you to do, you are not released from it's obligations. In other words you cannot use the GPL.
Here, have a clue.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Oh my god, you seriously don't know much about context do you.
Which is a shame really, because based on what I've read so far, I'm certainly not going to learn any thing of it from you.
Here, contextualize this:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Yes, I will involve the words lol.. and probably moron too.
Yes, I will involve the words lol.. and probably moron too. It is because those are the polite words for what I am thinking
Anything other than address the point, huh? No change there, then.
You have not showed the place of the difficulty or obligation Novell and Microsoft were avoiding
Yes I have. Repeatedly.
if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
So: Novell is prohibited from licencing MS' patent portfolio directly and then sub-licencing them to its customers, because it would need to pass on the right to sub-licence the patents to its customers in order to remain in compliance with the GPL.
So instead, they did a deal whereby MS licenced its portfolio to Novell, but instead of Novell sublicencing the package, MS offered patent protection direct to Novell's customers. Since MS were not the ones distributing, they can claim not to be bound by the licence, and therefore Novell's customer get a right that they cannot themselves pass on.
My definition has the same exact meaning as the ones you linked to.
No. No it doesn't. This is what you said:
A loop hole is something the violates the license but doesn't give punishment because of accidental wording and so on.
If it violates the licence then the consequence of violation (in this case loss of rights to distribute) follow automatically. If it doesn't violate the licence but nevertheless subverts the intent of the licence, we call it a loophole. Just because your definition uses a lot of the same words as the ones in dictionaries, that doesn't mean that it means the same thing.
I assume you picked that particular form of words because you don't want to have to concede that GPL developers might have any other cause for complaint other than licence violation (which hasn't happened, of course). However, and jsut so we're clear, when I say loophole I mean to use the definition. here.
A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law [or in this case, licence] without directly violating the law [ or in this case, the terms of the licence ].
So: now we're clear on what I mean by "loophole" and I belive I've adequately described how the MS/Novell pact amounts to exploiting a loophole in the GPL, as per that definition.
I now leave it to you to formulate some witty and erudite riposte, which based on experience so far, I have every confidence will involve the words "lol" and "moron". Take it away, maestro.
A loop hole is something the violates the license but doesn't give punishment because of accidental wording and so on. There are no such of a thing in the GPL. The GPL says what it does and it doesn't imply that you cannot do something that Novell or Microsoft has done.
A quick google suggests that most people would disagree
But hey, why let a little thing like correct definitions get in the way of a good rant? You're not above inventing facts, the fact that you make up your own definitions really shouldn't surprise me
In order for there to be a loophole, Novell would have had to do something that would have otherwise been prohibited.
Careful now: you almost sound coherent. And you're very close to being right as well. In fact what happened was the Microsoft and Novell in partnership did something that would otherwise have been forbidden by the licence: they offered rights in respect of the software to Novell's customers that those customers could not then pass on if they chose to redistribute. So you're exactly right, except that your analysis fails to take into account that the violation may be a joint effort.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of making up definitions, explain how not being allowed to impose restrictions on the software's redistribution is "poisonous" and "viral". Those words: I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
And if I am the pot calling the kettle black, it is only because the kettle is claiming it is white and full of good stuff when it only has washed out laundry watter in it.
I asked you for your evidence and you cannot even point to a specific clause that was violated.
Because no part of it has been violated. That's why they call them loopholes - because they allow people to do things under that were not intended. If they had violated the licence then they would forfeit their rights to distribute, and people would be taking legal action, as opposed to just getting angry.
Perhaps you should focus more energy on keeping your mouth shut and less on spreading half baked lies and unsupported rumors.
Perhaps you should spend less time calling the Kettle black, Mr. Pot.
No, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that if you find a buffer overflow in openssh, failed to do anything about it and installed it anyways then when somebody else finds it and roots your box, you deserve what you get.
Right. And now all you need to do is point out the prior exploits of the GPL that existed prior to the MS-Novell hack, and I'll concede you might have a point.
Take your time. We have a few days yet before they lock the discussion.
If this was the intent, then why doesn't the new GPLv3 do something to stop this?
I does. The MS-Novell was specifically exempted, mainly so the automatic patent licencing clause would come into effect if MS continued the deal with GPLv3 software.
So shoe me where this implied viral GPL wording is that supposedly infects anything you have if you touch a GPLed work.
Show me where I said anything of the sort, first. I'm beginning to think you're arguing with a version of me in a parallel universe. You certainly don't seem to be reading the same posts as the ones that I write.
I'm the one that said your analogy was whacked and far off base. It was a response to what you said. I said to be more accurate with your analogy, you would have to be using something that wasn't updated with known problems
And I asked you to tell us all what those known problems might have been. I'm still waiting, I notice.
...because you can read the GPL and see exactly what it does and what it prohibits.
So if someone finds a buffer overflow in openssh and roots my box, it's my fault because the source code is there for me to read? Do behave.
I guess it is time you put up or shut up. What are these loopholes that supposedly Novell found and exploited.
The exploit lay in Novell and MS realising that they could do a deal whereby MS offered the patent protection to Novell's customers but not to downstream recipients.
The GPL is designed with the intention that all rights conveyed can be passed on downstream. Novell and MS figured out that they could circumvent that intent by doing a deal whereby MS offer patent protection direct to Novell's customers.
But, to drag you back to the point: you seemed to suggest that devs who released under GPLv2 had no basis for complaint, since the GPL had already been shown to contain loopholes. So come on: let's have a list of them.
That's a bit like saying that if people don't want their computers to be rooted, they shouldn't install software that contains exploits. People don't install software thinking "this has got security holes, but that's all right because I really want spammers to take over my box". The tend to find out about the exploits the hard way, and they often get quite upset when someone makes use of these exploits.
It is no where near the same thing. But if you must, it would be more like people using old outdated software with known exploits and not taking any steps to protect it, should be rooted because they did so knowingly and willingly.
Remember that? In particular you said:
it would be more like people using old outdated software with known exploits and not taking any steps to protect it, should be rooted because they did so knowingly and willingly.
So where are these known security holes in the GPL to which they alluded. The ones that the GPL devs apparently knew full well about and therefore deserved everything they got?
C'mon, enough messing about: Pony up, or stand revealed as a bullshitter who pulls facts out of his ass whenever he can't think of a fitting response.
LoL.. You doin't know how to keep something in context do you? We are talking about Novell not ten thousand other people. and yes, in this context I am not only correct, but you have to leave the context in order to attempt to refute me. But as I said, the old broken exploitable software analogy isn't a proper one. I was just attempting to keep it in context.
That's a truly odd criticism from someone who felt he needed to dismiss Jeremy Allison's insights into the mindset at Novell (where he worked at the time) by raising the Samba teams' subsequent migration to GPLv3.
But, to drag you back to the point: you seemed to suggest that devs who released under GPLv2 had no basis for complaint,
since the GPL had already been shown to contain loopholes. So come on: let's have a list of them.
it would be more like people using old outdated software with known exploits and not taking any steps to protect it, should be rooted because they did so knowingly and willingly.
Ah, good, that gives us a way to resolve this. Because, since you seem so sure of your facts, I'm sure you'll have no problems at all providing a list of occasions where the GPLv2 had been circumvented prior to this. I mean there was all the cases Harald Welte brought... except he won them. Or maybe the suit Daniel Wallace brought against the FSF... only he lost that.
Still, I'm sure you must have some basis for making such a claim. I mean it's not as if you'd stoop to making things up. I hope.
What exploit is that? You mean offering protection to a certain company based on their possible infringements on a patent?
No, I mean offering rights to your customers that they cannot in turn pass on to anyone to whom they distribute the software. The GPLv2 says:
if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
So this would stop Novell from saying "you can have the software, but we hold the patents and we'll sue if you use it". The wording is clear. The exploit lay in Novell and MS realising that they could do a deal whereby MS offered the patent protection to Novell's customers but not to downstream recipients.
If those programmers don't want their code being used in a certain way, then they shouldn't use a license that allows that way.
That's a bit like saying that if people don't want their computers to be rooted, they shouldn't install software that contains exploits. People don't install software thinking "this has got security holes, but that's all right because I really want spammers to take over my box". The tend to find out about the exploits the hard way, and they often get quite upset when someone makes use of these exploits.
Similarly, Novell and MS found an exploit in the GPL. They used it to do something with a lot of people's code that they didn't think possible when they released under that licence - they added rights that couldn't be passed on downstream, effectively adding a proprietary layer over the GPL. People got upset about that for much the same reason as they get upset when their PC gets rooted. The fact that it could be done didn't mean it should have been done, nor does it imply any moral justification for doing so.
I know it's a small piece of a bigger article: but since when does it matter what someone who submitted something to
GPL intended their code to be used for.
Well, the intent seems fairly clear, and Novell don't even bother denying that they sought to deliberately subvert that intent. I guess it only matters if Novell care whether or not they piss off the people who are developing the majority of the code they sell. But to that extent, it certainly does matter.
The licese is explicitly and intentionally designed to allow open-source code to be used for any purpose by anyone, as long as it's credited and open-source.
A bit of an over-simplification there. Good enough for most debates, but Novell and MS found a loophole in the GPL based on a very find distinction. The idea is that you should not be able to attach rights to GPL software that cannot be passed on by downstream recipients. Otherwise, you open the door to privatising the entire codebase - but so encumbering it that anyone can download it, but that no one dares run it for fear of litigation. Novell and MS found a way around that restriction, and that's part of what got folks so angry.
I'm sure there's someone out there who wrote code who thinks cell-phones cause cancer and dislikes his LINUX code running on a cell; or someone who'se pissed about millitary research done on LINUX clusters, or most anything else.
You're conflating usage here with distribution. The GPL has never restricted usage, so the devs who don't like mobiles are unlikely to find much sympathy. On the other hand, the GPL does place some quite clear restrictions on distributors, which is where we find the disagreement with Novell.
I have decided not to waste my time condemning Novell over the deal, however I no longer recommend their distributions to clients.
mmm... and no company I work for will ever order a SuSE product while I have any sway over the decision. Nevertheless, if Novell are to see a slump in sales (and I think they will, once MS stop pumping money into the deal) then I'd like for them to understand the cause and effect involved.
Novell has contributed more code to the Linux kernel than all the ranting GPL sychophants on groklaw put together.
From your use of the phrase "ranting GPL sycophants" I'm guessing that you don't spend much time reading Groklaw. Do yourself a favour - go lurk for a week or three. I doubt we'll convince you of anything, but you might get enough background to at least come up with a plausible smear.
And I don't care how much code Novell have contributed. They can take their code and try running it without the rest of the kernel and see how well that works. I'd have no problem with that. Hell, I'd sell tickets. But if they're going to use code written by other people, then I'll thank them to respect the terms of the licence under which they do so - both the legal obligations thus imposed, and the intent of the developers in releasing their work under the GPL.
That doesn't seem terribly unreasonably to me. Apparently it does to Novell. Which is, of course, the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the answer (and question) about tags. I've often seen the sig (I forget which user it is) that tells people how tags should be used, (they are for searching, not for giving opinions, apparently), and I've always thought that was the wrong way to look at it.
But it isn't the done thing to comment on .sigs, and anyway, it wasn't that important.
But since the subject is raises, I really like what Slashdot, (and the Slashdot readers) do with tags. I like humour of many of the tags; I like being able to look at a story and see - not "what I'm supposed to think" as someone once suggested - but because they give a quick insight into how the readers as a whole view the story. And I like the way that tag use is still evolving here; I like that we're being creative with the channel.
Anyway, I just thought I'd offer some positive feedback on the subject.
I said "use nouns" not "omit the pronouns"
And the third thing you were not was "making any sense". Of the three, guess which inference I intended you to draw.
which would make a loophole a logical impossibility. The only way to have a loophole under your definition is to violate the licence. But violating the licence brings the consequence of no longer being allowed to distribute. And since there is a consequence, it cannot then be a loophole.
All of this makes your definition rather less than useful. But in any case, I've told you the definition that I am using. Are you afraid to discuss what I actually mean? Or do you somehow feel that you can score a "point" just by disputing a definition. That strategy doesn't really work outside of the schoolyard, I'm afraid.
SOMEBODY KICK THE JUKE BOX! THE RECORD'S STUCK AGAIN!
The only mental problem I have is my seeming inability to walk away from this increasingly pointless exercise. Still, since you raise the subject, there's something that I've been mention. Have you considered seeking psychiatric advice? I mean, seriously. You read only what you've already decided is written down, you don't appear to respond to any external stimulus, but only react to things from inside your own head. That all sounds to me quite a lot like your basic schizophrenia. And judging from the way you react to cognitive dissonance, I don't think paranoid schizophrenia is out of the question, either.
The thing about that is that the condition can be kept in abeyance if you catch it early enough, but as you get older, the neural pathways tend to set and it gets harder to bring about the change.
I know, I expect people say this to you all the time, and you're bound to dismiss it as just a ploy on my part. Still, when the argument is over, and the dust has settled, why not go and check it out? You could be saving yourself from spending the second half of your life in an institution.
that bizzaro boy comment is likely a childish sign of gratitude,
Please rewrite that so it makes sense. Use nouns instead of pronouns.
Klaatu barada nikto, Gort
Yep, and you haven't learned a thing.
Uh-huh
That's too far a stretch. You're assuming that everything that the licence is supposed to prevent emobied by the legal interpretation of the licence. Which, if true, would mean that Richard Stallman wanted the licence to be used this, which seems not to be the case.
This is the trouble with limiting the intent of the licence to the measures that turn out to be enforceable. You might as well argue that if anyone ever finds a buffer overflow in openssh, Theo de Raadt must have wanted it to be there.
Speaking of logical fallacies, as we recently were, did you ever get around to looking up the Straw Man fallacy? You know perfectly well that I am not claiming that the GPL has been violated, and yet here you are again, harping on this same tired refrain.
I suppose it's true what they say: if all you have is a hammer, everything does indeed look like a nail.
You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Specifically, I don't think it means "OMG! I been caught contradicting myself. But if I scream 'you don't understand context!!!' fill two paragraphs with random insults, and then resume arguing on an unreleated point, perhaps no one will notice". Because that's how you been using it.
Oh, and on the subject of context: if I can quote an entire paragraph of yours, and still take your words out of context, then humbly submit that it's your own stupid fault for writing such disjointed, disorgansied and incoherent drivel. Grow up a bit and accept some responsibility for your own communications.
ri-i-i-ght, because you have been so careful not to misrepresent my viewpoint in any shape way or form, right?
I don't know. How does it feel, bizzaro-boy?
Oh, do pay attention. It doesn't forbid the deal. I never said it did. I've said several time that it does not, in fact, forbid the deal. I even asked you top say where I did, and it took you three paragraphs of confused and faulty logic to even find a way of suggesting I might have meant it. And even when I say "no this is not a something I intended to convey; it is not an implication I ever sought to make", even then you still insist on misrepresenting my position; you still pound away on the same tired, plodding, sorry, little argument.
I guess it's true what they say: If all you have is a hammer, everything does indeed look like a nail.
And how is the weather on Bizzaro World this morning? Rain falling up, is it? Clouds shining brightly, perhaps?
And for once I find myself forced to agree. For instance, I was just now briefly impressed with you (however minimally) and if you were any less impressive, they'd need to found a whole new branch of mathematics to handle the smallness of the quantities involved.
Shan't have to look far.
mmm... which would be valid if I was using your bizzaro world definition of loophole. As it is, I defiine a loophole as something that lets you act contrary to the intent of a law or licence whilst remaining in compliance with its terms. I spelled out the definition that I was using so that you would be in doubt as to what I mean by the term, even if the habitual usage on bizzaro world was different.
So, using my definition, it necessarily follows that there is no GPL violation. Had there been a violation, the term "loophole" (as I use it) would not apply. You know all these things, and yet you persist in mischaracterising my position as one in which Novel and MS have violated the licence.
I do believe that's what they call a Straw Man fallacy.
I am impressed. You actually thought. Good show. Keep it it.
You know, somehow every time you criticise me, it's for something you do all the time. I don't recognise myself in these descriptions of yours, but I certainly recognise you.
You didn't explain a thing. You just tried to weasel out when I called you on your attempt to rebrand "black" as "white".
You get abuse because you only listen to what you want to listen to
Nah. I think I get abuse because you want to silence criticism of Novell, and the only way you can think of to accomplish this by trying to intimidate anyone who dares question their integrity. I mean your writing style resembles the manner of a school bully seeking to humiliate the class nerd, and your content is similar to what you might get if you took a keen but slightly dim student and told him to go throught wikipedia's section on logical fallacies and try and write a letter that made use of all of them. Further more, you write as if you are being terribly, terribly clever by doing these things, as if no one on Earth could possibly be bright enough to notice what you were doing.
And then you wonder why people only skim these spiteful little screeds of yours. I ask you...
Do one thing for me: point me at the bit of text where I said "Novell has violated the GPL". I recall saying it hasn't several times, I don't once recall saying it has. Find me that quote, and I'll admit that it's possible that I'm the borderline psychotic here rather than your nasty little self.
Only see if you can find a place where I write it, rather than where you draw the inference based on other things that I also haven't said. There's a good fellow.
See? This is why you have a problem with people taking you seriously. I ask you why your words do not imply an obligation. This didn't seem an unreasonable enquiry to make; the words "you must" are, after all, conventionally taken to suggest an obligation. In response, I get abuse, and a straw man argument based on construing my question as an assertion. At one time, I suppose, I'd have taken great pleasure in going through such stuff line by line, and picking apart the fallacies and contradictions, but I don't have so much time to spare these days, so I pick and choose.
The sad thing is that if you'd only have the stones to square up to it and say "ok, I phrased that poorly, but I don't think it invalidates my underlying point, which is..." then you'd get a deal more respect from your correspondents, and you might even get some of that reasoned debate for which you suddenly seem so desperate.
Yes. "You must". The licence imposes that obligation. It's not my fault if your own words undermine your point. You are occupying an untenable position.
And the "you must preserve them" would not be a restriction placed upon you because ...
Oh really? You said:
'kay? Now I quoted:
Emphasis mine. So, in direct contradiction to what you said, as quoted above, we see that
So what you said is directly contradicted by a specific clause of the GPL. I don't know if this means you're a fool, a liar, or just away with the fairies, but I do know that you're not telling the truth. Not for the first time either.
Probably not, no. Chuckles, you part company from reality so fast in your replies that it's rarely worth wading through screenfuls of invective and logcal fallacies, just on the off chance you may have been sure enough of your facts to stop lying. If you want people to read your stuff closely, you're going the wrong way about it.
About as stupid as it's possible to get whilst still being smarter than you are, bizzaro-boy.
And it says that where, precisely? Not in anything I've quoted, I'm reasonably sure of that.
It doesn't use the word "added" anywhere that I can see. Is this another "context" thing?
And it says that where, exactly?
I do believe you're making stuff up again.
Which is a shame really, because based on what I've read so far, I'm certainly not going to learn any thing of it from you.
Here, contextualize this:
Yes, I will involve the words lol.. and probably moron too.
Anything other than address the point, huh? No change there, then.
Yes I have. Repeatedly.
So: Novell is prohibited from licencing MS' patent portfolio directly and then sub-licencing them to its customers, because it would need to pass on the right to sub-licence the patents to its customers in order to remain in compliance with the GPL.
So instead, they did a deal whereby MS licenced its portfolio to Novell, but instead of Novell sublicencing the package, MS offered patent protection direct to Novell's customers. Since MS were not the ones distributing, they can claim not to be bound by the licence, and therefore Novell's customer get a right that they cannot themselves pass on.
No. No it doesn't. This is what you said:
If it violates the licence then the consequence of violation (in this case loss of rights to distribute) follow automatically. If it doesn't violate the licence but nevertheless subverts the intent of the licence, we call it a loophole. Just because your definition uses a lot of the same words as the ones in dictionaries, that doesn't mean that it means the same thing.
I assume you picked that particular form of words because you don't want to have to concede that GPL developers might have any other cause for complaint other than licence violation (which hasn't happened, of course). However, and jsut so we're clear, when I say loophole I mean to use the definition. here.
So: now we're clear on what I mean by "loophole" and I belive I've adequately described how the MS/Novell pact amounts to exploiting a loophole in the GPL, as per that definition. I now leave it to you to formulate some witty and erudite riposte, which based on experience so far, I have every confidence will involve the words "lol" and "moron". Take it away, maestro.
A quick google suggests that most people would disagree
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dloophole&usg=AFQjCNHPCaAJ01glS5AELw79WUUUhseqFg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=8&oi=define&q=http://news.firstdata.com/glossary.cfm%3FFirstLetter%3Dl&usg=AFQjCNGXtcEDeYJXD0_QREtv3KAkjsHJvA
But hey, why let a little thing like correct definitions get in the way of a good rant? You're not above inventing facts, the fact that you make up your own definitions really shouldn't surprise me
Careful now: you almost sound coherent. And you're very close to being right as well. In fact what happened was the Microsoft and Novell in partnership did something that would otherwise have been forbidden by the licence: they offered rights in respect of the software to Novell's customers that those customers could not then pass on if they chose to redistribute. So you're exactly right, except that your analysis fails to take into account that the violation may be a joint effort.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of making up definitions, explain how not being allowed to impose restrictions on the software's redistribution is "poisonous" and "viral". Those words: I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Give my regards to Bizzaro World
Because no part of it has been violated. That's why they call them loopholes - because they allow people to do things under that were not intended. If they had violated the licence then they would forfeit their rights to distribute, and people would be taking legal action, as opposed to just getting angry.
Perhaps you should spend less time calling the Kettle black, Mr. Pot.
Oh really?
Right. And now all you need to do is point out the prior exploits of the GPL that existed prior to the MS-Novell hack, and I'll concede you might have a point.
Take your time. We have a few days yet before they lock the discussion.
I does. The MS-Novell was specifically exempted, mainly so the automatic patent licencing clause would come into effect if MS continued the deal with GPLv3 software.
Show me where I said anything of the sort, first. I'm beginning to think you're arguing with a version of me in a parallel universe. You certainly don't seem to be reading the same posts as the ones that I write.
And I asked you to tell us all what those known problems might have been. I'm still waiting, I notice.
So if someone finds a buffer overflow in openssh and roots my box, it's my fault because the source code is there for me to read? Do behave.
Done that already.
The GPL is designed with the intention that all rights conveyed can be passed on downstream. Novell and MS figured out that they could circumvent that intent by doing a deal whereby MS offer patent protection direct to Novell's customers.
What part of this is unclear?
Let me refresh your memory
Remember that? In particular you said:
So where are these known security holes in the GPL to which they alluded. The ones that the GPL devs apparently knew full well about and therefore deserved everything they got?
C'mon, enough messing about: Pony up, or stand revealed as a bullshitter who pulls facts out of his ass whenever he can't think of a fitting response.
That's a truly odd criticism from someone who felt he needed to dismiss Jeremy Allison's insights into the mindset at Novell (where he worked at the time) by raising the Samba teams' subsequent migration to GPLv3.
But, to drag you back to the point: you seemed to suggest that devs who released under GPLv2 had no basis for complaint, since the GPL had already been shown to contain loopholes. So come on: let's have a list of them.
Ah, good, that gives us a way to resolve this. Because, since you seem so sure of your facts, I'm sure you'll have no problems at all providing a list of occasions where the GPLv2 had been circumvented prior to this. I mean there was all the cases Harald Welte brought... except he won them. Or maybe the suit Daniel Wallace brought against the FSF... only he lost that.
Still, I'm sure you must have some basis for making such a claim. I mean it's not as if you'd stoop to making things up. I hope.
No, I mean offering rights to your customers that they cannot in turn pass on to anyone to whom they distribute the software. The GPLv2 says:
So this would stop Novell from saying "you can have the software, but we hold the patents and we'll sue if you use it". The wording is clear. The exploit lay in Novell and MS realising that they could do a deal whereby MS offered the patent protection to Novell's customers but not to downstream recipients.
That's a bit like saying that if people don't want their computers to be rooted, they shouldn't install software that contains exploits. People don't install software thinking "this has got security holes, but that's all right because I really want spammers to take over my box". The tend to find out about the exploits the hard way, and they often get quite upset when someone makes use of these exploits.
Similarly, Novell and MS found an exploit in the GPL. They used it to do something with a lot of people's code that they didn't think possible when they released under that licence - they added rights that couldn't be passed on downstream, effectively adding a proprietary layer over the GPL. People got upset about that for much the same reason as they get upset when their PC gets rooted. The fact that it could be done didn't mean it should have been done, nor does it imply any moral justification for doing so.
Well, the intent seems fairly clear, and Novell don't even bother denying that they sought to deliberately subvert that intent. I guess it only matters if Novell care whether or not they piss off the people who are developing the majority of the code they sell. But to that extent, it certainly does matter.
The licese is explicitly and intentionally designed to allow open-source code to be used for any purpose by anyone, as long as it's credited and open-source.
A bit of an over-simplification there. Good enough for most debates, but Novell and MS found a loophole in the GPL based on a very find distinction. The idea is that you should not be able to attach rights to GPL software that cannot be passed on by downstream recipients. Otherwise, you open the door to privatising the entire codebase - but so encumbering it that anyone can download it, but that no one dares run it for fear of litigation. Novell and MS found a way around that restriction, and that's part of what got folks so angry.
You're conflating usage here with distribution. The GPL has never restricted usage, so the devs who don't like mobiles are unlikely to find much sympathy. On the other hand, the GPL does place some quite clear restrictions on distributors, which is where we find the disagreement with Novell.
mmm... and no company I work for will ever order a SuSE product while I have any sway over the decision. Nevertheless, if Novell are to see a slump in sales (and I think they will, once MS stop pumping money into the deal) then I'd like for them to understand the cause and effect involved.
From your use of the phrase "ranting GPL sycophants" I'm guessing that you don't spend much time reading Groklaw. Do yourself a favour - go lurk for a week or three. I doubt we'll convince you of anything, but you might get enough background to at least come up with a plausible smear.
And I don't care how much code Novell have contributed. They can take their code and try running it without the rest of the kernel and see how well that works. I'd have no problem with that. Hell, I'd sell tickets. But if they're going to use code written by other people, then I'll thank them to respect the terms of the licence under which they do so - both the legal obligations thus imposed, and the intent of the developers in releasing their work under the GPL.
That doesn't seem terribly unreasonably to me. Apparently it does to Novell. Which is, of course, the problem.