Under the FreeBSD ports system, you simply set $PREFIX to wherever you want things to happen.
It would be better if homedir installation happened by default whenever a non-root user attempted an install. Instead, BSD ports will go download and compile everything, then request the root password later, wasting the user's time if she doesn't have the admin around.
It's been a few years since I've used dpkg, but I'm pretty sure that it had similar options, and I always assumed that rpms could do something similar.
Neither dpkg or rpm is a packaging system. There are a packaging systems like "apt" and "yum", which use either dpkg or rpm internally (in the same way that ports uses "make" internally), but I am not aware of a way to have them install in home directories.
You can't turn a charity into a publically traded corporation.
I've seen examples of charities becoming private corporations (typically because they want to move into political endorsements that support their cause but violate their charitable legal status), and of private companies going public. Logically, those two transitions can happen sequentially.
They're a charity, and they can only do things for charitable purposes.
They can call it "charitable economic development of Pacific-Coast computer science institutes".
Just start licensing the kernel code under GPL version 2.0 or 3.0.
And then compile that code into an executable kernel, which makes you liable for copyright infringment lawsuits from Linus Torvalds, or any of the other 400+ Linux contributors.
To me that means everyone who distributed the tainted GPL v3 linux kernel would lose the right to distribute the unauthorised code, even if they were to subsequently aquire any copy of the code under compliant terms.
No. As it says, any attempt to violate that license will "terminate your rights". But, your rights having been terminated once doesn't prohibit you from re-acquiring them. Just look at, say, an ISP lease or any other kind of service contract. Repeated nonpayment may terminate your usage rights for the service, but it certainly doesn't block you from signing up again in the future. People terminate and then re-establish licenses all the time.
There is no kind of "Free Software Blacklist", where people once convicted of attempting to welch on the GPL are never allowed to use GPL code again.
How can the language of one version of the GPL authorize the assertion that a different version of the GPL applies to the code?
RTFL.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
It gives the licencee more options, hence it is a more free licence.
The USA should legalize kidnapping! It gives the citzens more options, hence it is a more free country.
In real life, people are smart enough to recognize that every freedom has two sides, and giving more freedom to one party may produce a greater loss of freedoms from others.
GPL software is more free because the software itself is always guarranteed to remain free, never being enslaved like BSD code can be.
On the other hand, congrtess could pass a bill,
No they can't. That would be an unconstitutional "bill of attainder or ex post facto law". Why, if they had powers like that, they could also start giving people special rights to appeal state laws in federal court if and only if you have a child named Terry Schiavo... and that would just be CRAZY.
A sane response to the above paranoia would be to add `or any later version approved by me'.
That's a non-response. The effect is identical to having added nothing at all. (Prospective modifiers can ALWAYS ask the original author to re-release under another license)
No, the `or later' clause can only loosen the conditions of use, so that can't be the reason.
Wrong, it can loosen or tighten. In fact, since there are two sides to every restriction, any change at all can be validly interpreted as both a loosening and a tightening.
For example, if GPLv3 turns out to be identical to BSD, and if Linux allowed "at your option, any later version", then Linux can immediately become proprietary, and all those network-hardware vendors can stop provide source code for their firmware.
Those who end up running the foundation often donate to political causes opposite of the ones the origional guy would have supported.
Often enough, that's what the rich guy wants. Many of the USA's billionaires earned their fortunes through borderline evil methods, but on their deathbeds decide that it's better to be remembered positively. What they do with the money can overshadow how they got it, securing ongoing praise for generations.
The "ultimate freedom" you mention is a paradoxical impossibility.
I want to sell a mail server appliance based on a modified Postfix MTA and keep those Postfix modifications to myself. Pray tell, how can I excercise such freedom?
I want to kill teenage girls and sew dresses from their skin. Pray tell, how can I exercise such freedom?
The only truly free license would not have any duties, obligations or restrictions whatsoever.
The only truly free country would not have any obligations or restrictions whatsoever, including laws against murder or kidnapping.
But wait! If kidnapping is allowed, then it's not really free... error.
Heh, heh - of course, aparently GPL "hawks" didn't like the fact that thousands of companies run modified code without distributing it (and therefore without having to distribute the modified source).
This is a confusing point, because even a FAQ on the GNU website gets it wrong- but it's almost impossible for a company to make productive use of modified code without distributing it.
That's because the majority of companies have more than 1 employee, and when one employee transfers a copy to another, that is distribution, an action which is illegal under copyright law, unless you have permission from the original author. It's no excuse that both copies are still controlled by one legal entity- they have been spread out geographically and electronically, and that is (by definition) "distribution".
If you have trouble understanding this, just imagine Wal-Mart buying a single copy of Windows XP for their 20,000 managers' PCs, and making the excuse "copies for internal use aren't really copyright infringement"
The conclusion is that if a manager directs a programmer to alter a GPL program, and then provide that program to a different employee to use, he has given permission for either employee to post that source code on sourceforge. If he tries to stop them, then he is in violation of GPL section 10 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"), meaning the company can't make copies of the altered program.
someone could post a slashdot story like 'foosoft has a GPL light saber in development' and they would be forced to send their incomplete development code to 5 million slashdotters who asked for it
(a) The hypothetical clause didn't do that. It only forced distribution to "users", and none of those slashdot readers are using the software yet.
(b) Even if a different hypothetical clause did require you to release the code to anyone who asks, even non-users, that wouldn't kill the project. That's because you are allowed to charge whatever money you need to cover the time & effort you expend providing that copy.
It's as charity today. It could turn into a publically-traded corporation tommorrow with a board vote. "Free Software Foundation" is just a trademark, after all, which can be passed on or even sold to any other group.
No one "owns" it so you can't "buy" it.
I should point out that nobody "owns" democraticly elected officials, but they are bought and sold every day.
Microsoft is a company, so it couldn't even be on the board.
On one side, add up the dollar dollar value it would take to buy closed-source licenses for all the code released under GPL "any later version". On the other side, add up the money it would take to bribe each FSF board member, none of whom are fantastically rich.
As the ratio between those two numbers rises, it becomes more and more cost-effective for a large corp to "buy the FSF", through one of several possible mechanisms.
The Affero GPL is a modification of GPLv2 that requires all users to be provided the source, even if they only execute the program remotely. RMS has stated an interest in this provision, and was at least considering putting something along those lines into GPLv3. Whether that is still under discussion or not, I don't know (GPLv3 drafts don't seem to be publically released).
The concept obviously introduces all kinds of confusing and far-reaching implications: the line between users and non-users of a certain piece of software is difficult to draw. If my ISP's router runs Linux, am I "using" Linux when I view this webpage on Windows XP??
I would expect that the GPL version 3 will be backwards compatible with GPL Version 2.
Although there will be top legal minds writing GPLv3, that compatibility is likely to be impossible. I haven't seen a draft of GPLv3 yet, but I know that one focus is to enable users of software to get access to the source, even if they don't have access to the binaries.
Such a restriction (something like "you must offer the users of the software a copy of the source, or the same offer you got") would be constitute a "further restriction", violating section 6 of the GPLv2: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
(On the other hand, if there is no further restriction in GPLv3, then it won't vary substantially from GPLv2, and there will be little motivation for anyone to change)
The only way GPLv3 and v2 may be compatible is by falling back to clause 10, the brute force way: "If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission"
if you don't trust RMS then why the fuck are you using his license?
People change. They can turn greedy and resentful. They may grow old and senile. And inevitably, they will die, and the organizations they lead will be repopulated with other people whose ideas are non-identical.
Someone's past actions are infinitely more trustable than his future.
If you trust RMS today, then use the GPL. If you trust RMS and all his succssors in the future forever, certain they can never be bought, bribed, or bludgeoned, then use GPL plus "at your option, any later version"
The "or later" clause is at your option, "you" being the licensee. This means that that clause can only grant new rights, not remove rights, since anybody can always decide to chose to see the software as licensed under GPL v2. This is similar to dual licensing.
Yes, but anyone who exercises that option may possibly find himself in the sad position of seeing commericial projects modify and re-release her code, without giving source OR compensation.
The "or later" clause gives RMS (or whoever takes over the FSF someday) the option to do ANYTHING with any code released with GPL version X "or later". It sounds a little insane, but we should remember that Microsoft has enough dollars to buy almost anything, included the FSF!
Would you care to explain to me how something which "does not need a purpose" can have a "whole idea"?
"Idea" is a very generic term- absolutely anything you can write about has ideas about it. "Purpose" is a more specific term, and means that an intelligent being gave something an intent (either because the object under discussion is itself intelligent, or it was designed by someone with goals in mind).
Rocks have no purpose, but the whole idea is silicate atoms in a cohesive, low-reactivity form.
Gravity has no purpose, but the whole idea is that massive objects accelerate towards each other.
The actual Smirnov joke was "In Soviet Russia, television watches YOU". (Which was based on the telescreens in 1984, which not only provided mind-numbing entertainment, but also could spy on the public)
OSS and F/OSS (yes, the F is for Free) are newer, coined by the free/open source software communities, of which Slashdot is a major feature.
Actually, it was coined by contractors from the USA Department of Defense. Previously the "community types" used either "Open Source" or "Free Software", and had miscellaneous holy wars about which was better.
Come to think of it, during last year's campaigns, the only commercials I saw for each guy was how the other guy was so evil/stupid/wrong.
No. Maybe if Kerry had done that, he could've tapped into more Bush-hate and gotten more votes. But instead, he just focused on how he'd be the better man to watch your back in jungle warfare. This was a time period when negative campaigning would've been a legitimate way to address the issues, since Bush's unusually high levels of mistakes WERE the actual important concerns.
TV spots highlighting GWB's flip-flopping on critical national policies, for example, might have been very effective (and trivially easy to write: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for whats called nation building / We will build healthy new democracies in the Middle East")
I found a line in the History of the Americas Wikipedia article that suggested that the US was the first
Why don't you check out the first line of that page, which demonstrates that the US was (at best) the NINETH:
The history of the Americas begins with their colonization by peoples from Asia, the ancestors of today's Native Americans. They established numerous civilizations such as the Moche, Cahokia, Maya, Toltecs, Olmec, Aztecs, Inca, and the Iroquois.
There, 14 nations in 15 seconds. Some of those were located wholely inside America, others were multi-continent empires, but all of them included Americans as residents.
Slashdot Mirror
Under the FreeBSD ports system, you simply set $PREFIX to wherever you want things to happen.
It would be better if homedir installation happened by default whenever a non-root user attempted an install. Instead, BSD ports will go download and compile everything, then request the root password later, wasting the user's time if she doesn't have the admin around.
It's been a few years since I've used dpkg, but I'm pretty sure that it had similar options, and I always assumed that rpms could do something similar.
Neither dpkg or rpm is a packaging system. There are a packaging systems like "apt" and "yum", which use either dpkg or rpm internally (in the same way that ports uses "make" internally), but I am not aware of a way to have them install in home directories.
If you violate my license and I feel like I'll prevent you from ever distributing my software again by using that clause of the GPL.
Nope. Once you've released something under the GPL, you can never pull it back in.
The first person to wirelessly transmit power, Nikola Tesla, demonstrated such a feat before 1900.
The first person to wirelessly transmit power, Ogg, demonstrated such a feat before 8,000 BC.
You can't turn a charity into a publically traded corporation.
I've seen examples of charities becoming private corporations (typically because they want to move into political endorsements that support their cause but violate their charitable legal status), and of private companies going public. Logically, those two transitions can happen sequentially.
They're a charity, and they can only do things for charitable purposes.
They can call it "charitable economic development of Pacific-Coast computer science institutes".
Just start licensing the kernel code under GPL version 2.0 or 3.0.
And then compile that code into an executable kernel, which makes you liable for copyright infringment lawsuits from Linus Torvalds, or any of the other 400+ Linux contributors.
Right.
To me that means everyone who distributed the tainted GPL v3 linux kernel would lose the right to distribute the unauthorised code, even if they were to subsequently aquire any copy of the code under compliant terms.
No. As it says, any attempt to violate that license will "terminate your rights". But, your rights having been terminated once doesn't prohibit you from re-acquiring them. Just look at, say, an ISP lease or any other kind of service contract. Repeated nonpayment may terminate your usage rights for the service, but it certainly doesn't block you from signing up again in the future. People terminate and then re-establish licenses all the time.
There is no kind of "Free Software Blacklist", where people once convicted of attempting to welch on the GPL are never allowed to use GPL code again.
RTFL.
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
It gives the licencee more options, hence it is a more free licence.
The USA should legalize kidnapping! It gives the citzens more options, hence it is a more free country.
In real life, people are smart enough to recognize that every freedom has two sides, and giving more freedom to one party may produce a greater loss of freedoms from others.
GPL software is more free because the software itself is always guarranteed to remain free, never being enslaved like BSD code can be.
On the other hand, congrtess could pass a bill,
No they can't. That would be an unconstitutional "bill of attainder or ex post facto law". Why, if they had powers like that, they could also start giving people special rights to appeal state laws in federal court if and only if you have a child named Terry Schiavo... and that would just be CRAZY.
A sane response to the above paranoia would be to add `or any later version approved by me'.
That's a non-response. The effect is identical to having added nothing at all. (Prospective modifiers can ALWAYS ask the original author to re-release under another license)
No, the `or later' clause can only loosen the conditions of use, so that can't be the reason.
Wrong, it can loosen or tighten. In fact, since there are two sides to every restriction, any change at all can be validly interpreted as both a loosening and a tightening.
For example, if GPLv3 turns out to be identical to BSD, and if Linux allowed "at your option, any later version", then Linux can immediately become proprietary, and all those network-hardware vendors can stop provide source code for their firmware.
Those who end up running the foundation often donate to political causes opposite of the ones the origional guy would have supported.
Often enough, that's what the rich guy wants. Many of the USA's billionaires earned their fortunes through borderline evil methods, but on their deathbeds decide that it's better to be remembered positively. What they do with the money can overshadow how they got it, securing ongoing praise for generations.
It's a "do as I pay, not as I do" situation.
The "ultimate freedom" you mention is a paradoxical impossibility.
I want to sell a mail server appliance based on a modified Postfix MTA and keep those Postfix modifications to myself.
Pray tell, how can I excercise such freedom?
I want to kill teenage girls and sew dresses from their skin.
Pray tell, how can I exercise such freedom?
The only truly free license would not have any duties, obligations or restrictions whatsoever.
The only truly free country would not have any obligations or restrictions whatsoever, including laws against murder or kidnapping.
But wait! If kidnapping is allowed, then it's not really free... error.
Heh, heh - of course, aparently GPL "hawks" didn't like the fact that thousands of companies run modified code without distributing it (and therefore without having to distribute the modified source).
This is a confusing point, because even a FAQ on the GNU website gets it wrong- but it's almost impossible for a company to make productive use of modified code without distributing it.
That's because the majority of companies have more than 1 employee, and when one employee transfers a copy to another, that is distribution, an action which is illegal under copyright law, unless you have permission from the original author. It's no excuse that both copies are still controlled by one legal entity- they have been spread out geographically and electronically, and that is (by definition) "distribution".
If you have trouble understanding this, just imagine Wal-Mart buying a single copy of Windows XP for their 20,000 managers' PCs, and making the excuse "copies for internal use aren't really copyright infringement"
The conclusion is that if a manager directs a programmer to alter a GPL program, and then provide that program to a different employee to use, he has given permission for either employee to post that source code on sourceforge. If he tries to stop them, then he is in violation of GPL section 10 ("You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"), meaning the company can't make copies of the altered program.
someone could post a slashdot story like 'foosoft has a GPL light saber in development' and they would be forced to send their incomplete development code to 5 million slashdotters who asked for it
(a) The hypothetical clause didn't do that. It only forced distribution to "users", and none of those slashdot readers are using the software yet.
(b) Even if a different hypothetical clause did require you to release the code to anyone who asks, even non-users, that wouldn't kill the project. That's because you are allowed to charge whatever money you need to cover the time & effort you expend providing that copy.
The FSF is a non-profit charity.
It's as charity today. It could turn into a publically-traded corporation tommorrow with a board vote. "Free Software Foundation" is just a trademark, after all, which can be passed on or even sold to any other group.
No one "owns" it so you can't "buy" it.
I should point out that nobody "owns" democraticly elected officials, but they are bought and sold every day.
Microsoft is a company, so it couldn't even be on the board.
On one side, add up the dollar dollar value it would take to buy closed-source licenses for all the code released under GPL "any later version". On the other side, add up the money it would take to bribe each FSF board member, none of whom are fantastically rich.
As the ratio between those two numbers rises, it becomes more and more cost-effective for a large corp to "buy the FSF", through one of several possible mechanisms.
Being forced to distribute ANYTHING when you are just USING the software, however, is too ornerous to be tolerated.
Some people tolerate it already (scroll down to section 2d).
The Affero GPL is a modification of GPLv2 that requires all users to be provided the source, even if they only execute the program remotely. RMS has stated an interest in this provision, and was at least considering putting something along those lines into GPLv3. Whether that is still under discussion or not, I don't know (GPLv3 drafts don't seem to be publically released).
The concept obviously introduces all kinds of confusing and far-reaching implications: the line between users and non-users of a certain piece of software is difficult to draw. If my ISP's router runs Linux, am I "using" Linux when I view this webpage on Windows XP??
I would expect that the GPL version 3 will be backwards compatible with GPL Version 2.
Although there will be top legal minds writing GPLv3, that compatibility is likely to be impossible. I haven't seen a draft of GPLv3 yet, but I know that one focus is to enable users of software to get access to the source, even if they don't have access to the binaries.
Such a restriction (something like "you must offer the users of the software a copy of the source, or the same offer you got") would be constitute a "further restriction", violating section 6 of the GPLv2: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
(On the other hand, if there is no further restriction in GPLv3, then it won't vary substantially from GPLv2, and there will be little motivation for anyone to change)
The only way GPLv3 and v2 may be compatible is by falling back to clause 10, the brute force way: "If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission"
if you don't trust RMS then why the fuck are you using his license?
People change. They can turn greedy and resentful. They may grow old and senile. And inevitably, they will die, and the organizations they lead will be repopulated with other people whose ideas are non-identical.
Someone's past actions are infinitely more trustable than his future.
If you trust RMS today, then use the GPL. If you trust RMS and all his succssors in the future forever, certain they can never be bought, bribed, or bludgeoned, then use GPL plus "at your option, any later version"
The "or later" clause is at your option, "you" being the licensee. This means that that clause can only grant new rights, not remove rights, since anybody can always decide to chose to see the software as licensed under GPL v2. This is similar to dual licensing.
Yes, but anyone who exercises that option may possibly find himself in the sad position of seeing commericial projects modify and re-release her code, without giving source OR compensation.
The "or later" clause gives RMS (or whoever takes over the FSF someday) the option to do ANYTHING with any code released with GPL version X "or later". It sounds a little insane, but we should remember that Microsoft has enough dollars to buy almost anything, included the FSF!
Would you care to explain to me how something which "does not need a purpose" can have a "whole idea"?
"Idea" is a very generic term- absolutely anything you can write about has ideas about it. "Purpose" is a more specific term, and means that an intelligent being gave something an intent (either because the object under discussion is itself intelligent, or it was designed by someone with goals in mind).
Rocks have no purpose, but the whole idea is silicate atoms in a cohesive, low-reactivity form.
Gravity has no purpose, but the whole idea is that massive objects accelerate towards each other.
"In Soviet Russia _____ You!" which comes
The actual Smirnov joke was "In Soviet Russia, television watches YOU". (Which was based on the telescreens in 1984, which not only provided mind-numbing entertainment, but also could spy on the public)
OSS and F/OSS (yes, the F is for Free) are newer, coined by the free/open source software communities, of which Slashdot is a major feature.
Actually, it was coined by contractors from the USA Department of Defense. Previously the "community types" used either "Open Source" or "Free Software", and had miscellaneous holy wars about which was better.
Come to think of it, during last year's campaigns, the only commercials I saw for each guy was how the other guy was so evil/stupid/wrong.
No. Maybe if Kerry had done that, he could've tapped into more Bush-hate and gotten more votes. But instead, he just focused on how he'd be the better man to watch your back in jungle warfare. This was a time period when negative campaigning would've been a legitimate way to address the issues, since Bush's unusually high levels of mistakes WERE the actual important concerns.
TV spots highlighting GWB's flip-flopping on critical national policies, for example, might have been very effective (and trivially easy to write: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for whats called nation building / We will build healthy new democracies in the Middle East")
Why don't you check out the first line of that page, which demonstrates that the US was (at best) the NINETH:
So perhaps you could enlighten me as to what these countries were.
Do you seriously have to ask? I could easily spend hours listing them, but instead I'll see what I can do in 15 seconds:
Navajo, Cherokee, Pawnee, Algonquin, Tenochitlan, Olmec, Aztec, Inca, Adobe, Portugal, France, Spain, Netherlands, England.
There, 14 nations in 15 seconds. Some of those were located wholely inside America, others were multi-continent empires, but all of them included Americans as residents.