So say that the FSF vilifies other licenses is pure hyperbole! The page merely points out why certain licenses are (or are not) compatible with the GPL, and whether or not they are as good as the GPL at preserving the four freedoms.
Here are some choice excerpts from said list:
License of Netscape Javascript: "This disjunctive license is a good choice if you want to make your package GPL-compatible and MPL-compatible. However, you can also accomplish that by using the LGPL or the Guile license." Intentionally suggesting that there's something wrong with the license and telling you to use something else despite the fact that it's a GPL-compatible license.
Artistic License 1.0 (one of the licenses for Perl 5): "We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear." The problem with this license isn't spelled out. You'd think that someone who is complaining that something is too vague would elaborate on what they thought was too vague.
License of Perl 5 and below: "We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming. Outside of Perl, we urge you not to use this license; it is better to use just the GNU GPL." Vilifying it because you can choose the license directly above this one.
Apache License, Version 1.1: "We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write." Vilified solely because it has "a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL." which are not further elaborated upon. Oddly enough, the Apache License, Version 2.0 is compatible with the GPLv3, so apparently the wording for the first line hasn't yet been updated.
CDDL: "It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason." Vilified because it's not GPLv2 compatible. No mention of whether or not it's GPLv3 compatible.
LaTeX Project Public License 1.2: "This license contains complex and annoying restrictions..." Vilified.
Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (Plan 9 license): "This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license." Vilified for not being GPL compliant
Mozilla Public License, Netizen Open Source License (NOSL), Version 1.0: I'll cover these two together because of the similarity of wording. "...it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the [license] cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the [license] for this reason." No further elaboration upon why they are not GPL compatible... so they're vilified for not being GPL compatible.
OpenSSL License: "The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination results in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache license." Note the lack of explanation of why SSLeay's license is bad (other than the advertising clause) despite drawing attention to it by name. Also note that GNU has a competing, but less widely-used project, GNUTLS. (Before you comment, yes, this IS disclosed in a paragraph I omitted here.)
PHP License, Version 3.01: "We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP add-ons." The explanation is that it isn't copyleft, but not elaborated upon.
lha license: "The lha license must be considered non-free because it is too unclear
WoW on Ubuntu takes the same space/memory as WoW on XP/Vista, even if Linux might be able to reliably get away with half the memory of vista while using what a normal user would call a comfortable session manager (i.e. KDE or Gnome, not Console1, Console2, Console3 or TWM...)
I'd assume WoW would take slightly more memory on Ubuntu, seeing as how WINE has to convert Windows instructions (such as converting Direct3D instructions to OpenGL).
Is it really a particular copy if it is done in bulk? It somehow appears to me that it wouldn't apply here.
Each and every copy is a particular copy. It was originally written to protect stores from manufacturers doing strange things including, but not limited to, price fixing.
I never said I was a lawyer, so it's silly to assume I am.
As for...
If 1., it would be completely legal for me to buy mass-produced illegal copies from somewhere in Asia and then sell it. The guy I bought from might get problems, but not me, because I'm only selling it.
It's illegal to sell copies created by someone who isn't licensed to create them. The wording in Title 17 is clear on that point.
If 2., it would be perfectly legal if I were to sell vouchers you could give to some warez-site and get copies of Windows. If he'd get caught, I'd go free because, after all, I didn't do the distributing.
Actually, it probably would be legal to sell said vouchers. Stupid, yes, but most likely legal.
Unless, that is, you knew the site in question was distributing illegal copies, in which case you could probably be held accountable as an accessory. It's hard to say, though, as copyright infringement isn't a felony.
Both of these analogies would require the FSF to go after Novell first, as the party that made said copies.
This doesn't apply to software as software on a CD/DVD is not a phonorecord within the meaning of the law. Software is licensed. Copies of audio/video recordings are sold.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title..." (Emphasis mine)
You're right, it isn't a phonorecord... Want to take a second guess?
The voucher is a method of conveyance of the software and makes the conveyor bound by the GPLv3, otherwise they had no other license with which to convey.
Therein lies the problem. In order to be held accountable under copyright law, they have to be illegally distributing something. So, either:
Microsoft is considered to be in possession of the SUSE Linux discs that Novell is distributing. In which case, they can say they don't agree to the GPLv3 and use Section 109, which states "the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord." The bold part would refer to Novell in this instance.
Microsoft is selling vouchers and Novell is distributing Linux. Which is perfectly legal, since Microsoft isn't selling the software itself, Novell is, and Novell is following the GPL.
In either case, Microsoft is right, the GPLv3 doesn't apply to it.
The GPL is a copyright license. Without copyright law to back it, it's just a text file. Attempting to subvert copyright by adding new terms to the GPL doesn't work, because on its face, the GPL has no value.
Under US copyright law, Microsoft can buy Linux CD/DVDs from any legal distributor (in this case, Novell) and sell it to others without ever agreeing to the GPL3.
See: Title 17 Section 109 Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord.
Now, the question becomes this: If you don't use Microsoft Office, but you offer to fix someone's computer that does, can Microsoft apply the terms of that EULA to you, even though you never agreed to it?
Items sold by Amazon.com LLC, or its subsidiaries, and shipped to destinations in the states of Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, or Washington are subject to tax.
The above line is there to note that, due to how taxes work in the US, the US Amazon site does not have tax as part of its item prices.
The "Our Price" amounts displayed for goods sold by Amazon.co.uk are inclusive of UK VAT.... For non-book items that are shipped to addresses within the UK (such as giftwrap, audio books, CDs, vinyl records, minidiscs, videos, DVDs, electrical and photographic items, toys, software and PC and video games) the UK VAT rate is 17.5%.
"The small guys have tried to fight this re-monopolization of the network infrastructure, network infrastructure that they did not build or invest capital to build."
You're right, but considering that in the United States, the telephone infrastructure is, and always has been, subsidized by the government, it's not outright owned by the companies that laid it either. If you want to be technical, since the capital (both money and land) was invested by the government, the governmnet owns it.
When you buy a bar license, is it actually a bar contract? Why then is there breech of contract but not breech of license? There isn't. When you abridge your license, your license IS TAKEN AWAY. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONTRACTS.
IANAL, but as I understand it, a license is a specific type of contract. To be specific, it's one that grants a single party specific rights, which are terminated if they are found to be breaking the terms of said license.
SF lawyers, privy to both the full legal language of the Novell/Microsoft agreement and the GPL have stated that the lack of expiration on Microsoft's certificates would prove to be a mistake, forcing Microsoft to convey the software when the voucher is redeemed. I'm afraid I'll have to take their word above yours, given that they are lawyers and they are familiar with the legal language while you, clearly, are not.
Unfortunately, seeing as how the GPLv2 is a distribution license and was the license at the time the Microsoft-Novell agreement was made added with the fact that Microsoft isn't actually distributing it, it'd be hard to make that stick in a court of law.
No sane court of law is going to allow an ex post facto license change alter the parties of a contract particularly without the additional party's consent.
Sony has built up their first party exclusives to a point where they are now this gen larger and more powerful than both Nintendo and Microsoft's own first party efforts combined.
I don't recall Final Fantasy as being a first party. Square-Enix has gone on record as choosing to spread out their titles this generation.
I also wouldn't count Nintendo's first party line-up out yet, or Wii exclusives for that matter. Nintendo has always had a strong first/second party showing.
Only if what's used is different from what Apple has already released, and only if the relevant portions of Webkit are, in fact, LGPL'd. From what I recall, that "KHTML fork" called Webkit includes some material outside the LGPL. Even if there's source code yet to be released, they've not necessarily "run afoul" of anything yet.
In that case, Apple is explicitly violating Section 2 of the LGPL. Incorporating an LGPL library into a library requires you to license the latter mentioned library as LGPL.
I usually skip Wikipedia and link directly to the sites it sources.
Of course, that assumes the site in question isn't returning "Please visit later again, the site is currently under repair." like kdedevelopers.org is.
Well, for one, section 4 of the LGPL 2.1 requires Apple to release the source code for the LGPL code in the iPhone. Such as what's used in Webkit for the iPhone.
Mentioning WebKit in the summary is also quite the ballsy move, since Apple's WebKit contributions to KHTML are among the biggest known returns to "free" software by a proprietary Fortune 500 company.
That's funny, because Webkit appears to be a fork of KHTML, not "contributing" to it. Contributing to the KHTML project wouldn't require a new project to be formed.
I can't see what in the iPhone can be potentially violating the GPL. I thought they released WebKit changes back to the community and as it's LGPL they don't need to release Safari's entire codebase.
No, but they do need to release the "machine-readable source code" of the version of Webkit used on the iPhone, as per LGPL 2.1 Section 4.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are some choice excerpts from said list:
License of Netscape Javascript: "This disjunctive license is a good choice if you want to make your package GPL-compatible and MPL-compatible. However, you can also accomplish that by using the LGPL or the Guile license." Intentionally suggesting that there's something wrong with the license and telling you to use something else despite the fact that it's a GPL-compatible license.
Artistic License 1.0 (one of the licenses for Perl 5): "We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear." The problem with this license isn't spelled out. You'd think that someone who is complaining that something is too vague would elaborate on what they thought was too vague.
License of Perl 5 and below: "We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming. Outside of Perl, we urge you not to use this license; it is better to use just the GNU GPL." Vilifying it because you can choose the license directly above this one.
Apache License, Version 1.1: "We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write." Vilified solely because it has "a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL." which are not further elaborated upon. Oddly enough, the Apache License, Version 2.0 is compatible with the GPLv3, so apparently the wording for the first line hasn't yet been updated.
CDDL: "It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason." Vilified because it's not GPLv2 compatible. No mention of whether or not it's GPLv3 compatible.
LaTeX Project Public License 1.2: "This license contains complex and annoying restrictions..." Vilified.
Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (Plan 9 license): "This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license." Vilified for not being GPL compliant
Mozilla Public License, Netizen Open Source License (NOSL), Version 1.0: I'll cover these two together because of the similarity of wording. "...it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the [license] cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the [license] for this reason." No further elaboration upon why they are not GPL compatible... so they're vilified for not being GPL compatible.
OpenSSL License: "The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination results in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache license." Note the lack of explanation of why SSLeay's license is bad (other than the advertising clause) despite drawing attention to it by name. Also note that GNU has a competing, but less widely-used project, GNUTLS. (Before you comment, yes, this IS disclosed in a paragraph I omitted here.)
PHP License, Version 3.01: "We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP add-ons." The explanation is that it isn't copyleft, but not elaborated upon.
lha license: "The lha license must be considered non-free because it is too unclear
I prefer a more neutral list rather than one that attempts to vilify other licenses in favor of their own.
I'd always heard that the current FCC head was just an SBC (AT&T now) shill, so I'm betting on the latter reason!
Ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, Carterfone!
As for...It's illegal to sell copies created by someone who isn't licensed to create them. The wording in Title 17 is clear on that point.Actually, it probably would be legal to sell said vouchers. Stupid, yes, but most likely legal.
Unless, that is, you knew the site in question was distributing illegal copies, in which case you could probably be held accountable as an accessory. It's hard to say, though, as copyright infringement isn't a felony.
Both of these analogies would require the FSF to go after Novell first, as the party that made said copies.
We call that an "analogy."
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title..." (Emphasis mine)
You're right, it isn't a phonorecord... Want to take a second guess?
Therein lies the problem. In order to be held accountable under copyright law, they have to be illegally distributing something. So, either:
In either case, Microsoft is right, the GPLv3 doesn't apply to it.
The GPL is a copyright license. Without copyright law to back it, it's just a text file. Attempting to subvert copyright by adding new terms to the GPL doesn't work, because on its face, the GPL has no value.
Under US copyright law, Microsoft can buy Linux CD/DVDs from any legal distributor (in this case, Novell) and sell it to others without ever agreeing to the GPL3.
See: Title 17 Section 109 Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord.
Now, the question becomes this: If you don't use Microsoft Office, but you offer to fix someone's computer that does, can Microsoft apply the terms of that EULA to you, even though you never agreed to it?
'cause that's what the FSF is trying to do.
The above line is there to note that, due to how taxes work in the US, the US Amazon site does not have tax as part of its item prices.-- Amazon.co.uk
Whereas the UK site includes the UK VAT of 17.5% for software.
So... £184.98 = 1.175 x price... divide both sides by 1.175... the price is actually £157.43 ($317.32)
So, while the gap is still large (around $100), it's not nearly as large as you originally made it out to be (around $155).
You're right, but considering that in the United States, the telephone infrastructure is, and always has been, subsidized by the government, it's not outright owned by the companies that laid it either. If you want to be technical, since the capital (both money and land) was invested by the government, the governmnet owns it.
IANAL, but as I understand it, a license is a specific type of contract. To be specific, it's one that grants a single party specific rights, which are terminated if they are found to be breaking the terms of said license.
Unfortunately, seeing as how the GPLv2 is a distribution license and was the license at the time the Microsoft-Novell agreement was made added with the fact that Microsoft isn't actually distributing it, it'd be hard to make that stick in a court of law.
No sane court of law is going to allow an ex post facto license change alter the parties of a contract particularly without the additional party's consent.
Apache is a bad example, as Apache isn't under the GPL. It's under the Apache license, version 2.
Knight Boat clip.
I don't recall Final Fantasy as being a first party. Square-Enix has gone on record as choosing to spread out their titles this generation.
I also wouldn't count Nintendo's first party line-up out yet, or Wii exclusives for that matter. Nintendo has always had a strong first/second party showing.
In that case, Apple is explicitly violating Section 2 of the LGPL. Incorporating an LGPL library into a library requires you to license the latter mentioned library as LGPL.
I usually skip Wikipedia and link directly to the sites it sources.
Of course, that assumes the site in question isn't returning "Please visit later again, the site is currently under repair." like kdedevelopers.org is.
As long as it runs in a VM, it will never supplant the Win32 API.
That's funny, because Webkit appears to be a fork of KHTML, not "contributing" to it. Contributing to the KHTML project wouldn't require a new project to be formed.
No, but they do need to release the "machine-readable source code" of the version of Webkit used on the iPhone, as per LGPL 2.1 Section 4.
Ah, there you are Mr. Colbert. Makeup is ready for you now.
The 21st century doesn't cover the 1900s.