No, you can not. Public domain material remains in the public domain regardless of what piece of paper you include when you distribute it.
Although anyone can draw up a contract or license that says anything, after rendering something into the public domain you have no more right to it than the person your trying to license to.
"That may be true for the orginal work, but you can create a derivative work from a public domain source and license it under any scheme you want. So there really isn't anything you can do with GPL'd code that you can't do with public domain code."
That is what is what we call an invalid argument. Your conclusion "there really isn't anything you can do with GPL'd code that you can't do with public domain code", does not follow your premise "you can create a derivative work from a public domain source and license it under any scheme you want".
And actually you can NOT license public domain material. You can create a derivative work and license the collective and the parts you created, but the public domain material remains in the public domain, NOT under your license.
Nobody sane would try to claim the GPL gives rights that are not available with public domain material. I know I certainly did not.
"It also takes away your right to link with the code unless you also GPL all your code - which is a freedom I have already (and not covered by copyright law as copy!=link)."
No it does not. Or rather, this is not established and your argument is not logical.
If linked code is derivative than you do NOT have a legal right to link to copyrighted code. If Linked code is NOT derivative than the GPL does not apply.
Personally, I have never heard a legitimate argument to support the linking issue and find it hillarious that people seriously entertain the idea. Probably the biggest support for dismissing the link issue you stated yourself copy != link. The entire link issue was raised as FUD by anti-gpl special interests who wanted an element of uncertainty to apply to using the GPL.
Yes, it is possible for the holder of copyright to grant more rights than the GPL grants. But the GPL always grants rights you did not have before agreeing to the GPL.
After all, you can GPL rather than open to the public domain (as many choose to do for good reason) but you can NOT GPL something in the public domain.
"If you're going to use copyright to defend your GPL code, then you really have little choice but to respect the use of copyright to defend media content as well"
Absolutely. Of course we would all be better off if copyright granted no rights and took no rights away. Rather if it were reduced to requiring that the anything distributed for profit have a copy sent to the library of congress FIRST and be made publically available by the library for period of 50yrs, 5yrs after submission.
This would mostly eliminate the need for the GPL.
And of course there are software licenses that attempt to regulate fair use and require restrictions by license that copyright does not give the copyright holder the privelage to restrict. Supporting the GPL (which gives rights with conditions, rather than attempting to restrict rights you have without any license) does not imply ANY need to support those.
"A licensed operator running an illegal amplifier obviously should be given lower priority than the owner of an FCC-approved consumer device."
Not really, he is licensed to transmit on the band, the consumer is not. But that is with the understanding that "illegal amplifier" is a far less likely cause than poor shielding on your device.
Also, the reason your consumer device is FCC approved is ensure that it does not interfere with licensed operators like the HAM. HAM's are considered to have a RIGHT to their licensed spectrum and that right is every bit as serious as that of commercial broadcasts.
If ONE TV interferred with the broadcasts of a popular commercial station do you think the TV or the station should stop operating? It is no different, HAM operators have spectrum which is reserved for their use just like your local radio station has it's reserved spectrum. Your unlicensed use is a privelage, regardless of what equipment your operating on it (tv or whatever).
"Ah, but you missed the key phrase... they were saying Blizzard was second only to NCSoft, not WoW was second only to all of NCSoft's games combined. Blizzard, as a company is number 2 in the MMORPG bizz, which is quite a feat since they only recently started."
You would have a point if Blizzard produces more than one MMORPG. When Blizzard has only one RPG and NcSoft has three, it becomes a farse to make the Lineage games sound more impressive.
They individually have something like 3 million subscribers."
Hmmm that doesn't work out right. Lineage+Lineage 2+city of heros only have 5million users TOTAL. If L+L2 each had 3 million that would be 6 million without even counting City of Heros.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare wow subscribers to any ONE NcSoft game? I mean, you wouldn't lump EverQuest and EverQuest 2 together either, they are different games and people may not like one or the other.
Is there any SINGLE mmorpg with more subscribers than wow?
Even Tenanbaum later admitted that Microkernels are 20-30% slower than equivelent monolithic kernels. Although, I do need to disclose that he admitted it in a statement where he said that tiny performance sacrifice was well worth the benefits.
Of course, we live in the real world, and in the real world whether 20-30% of real performance can be traded off for POTENTIAL theoretical benefits.
"Incorrect. In 1984 - long before Linux was a gleam in Linus's eye - the GNU project set out to write a complete Unix-like free software system."
Yes, but an OS is NOT a complete software system. An OS is the lowest level abstraction to the system hardware. The strongest argument I've heard for the GNU naming nonsense is that they write the lowest level abrastraction generally used by an application coder. But the truth is that c libs generally do not interface with hardware, they interface with the kernel.
While you can certainly make a sound argument that GNU software comprises a significant portion of the smallest functional Linux system, a sysadmin or application programmers perspective of what constitutes an OS still is not what an OS is.
Even Tanenbaum admitted years after the original debate with linus said that he still felt the advantages of Microkernels were worthwhile for a mere 20-30% performance loss.
OSX is certainly slow compared to Linux, it does not even begin to compare. So if it is not linux, what monolithic system are you using for a basis of comparison?
OSX makes for a nice desktop system and the systems are not generally slow, but OSX hardly gets the performance out of that hardware that could be had with a proper monolithic system.
even Tanenbaum admitted years after the original debate with linus said that he still felt the advantages of Microkernels were worthwhile for a mere 20-30% performance loss.
Win2k and XP are certainly slow compared to Linux, they do not even begin to compare. So if it is not linux, what monolithic system are you using for a basis of comparison?
More realistically Linux is the kernel which is in the more technical sense the OS (OS is the software layer which manages the software, this line is not easy to draw in every OS, but with linux it is pretty clear).
Redhat makes a distribution, grouping applications with the Linux OS to produce a general use system that Windows and Macites would call an OS.
GNU makes some nifty software that happens to be in the list of applications that Redhat distributes along with the Linux OS.
"Or failing that, his boss being aware of him/her not caring"
I'll give you that with one minor correction. His boss being made aware of him not caring in a way that he can not ignore. You have to remember, usually the boss really does not care either.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can not. Public domain material remains in the public domain regardless of what piece of paper you include when you distribute it.
Although anyone can draw up a contract or license that says anything, after rendering something into the public domain you have no more right to it than the person your trying to license to.
"That may be true for the orginal work, but you can create a derivative work from a public domain source and license it under any scheme you want. So there really isn't anything you can do with GPL'd code that you can't do with public domain code."
That is what is what we call an invalid argument. Your conclusion "there really isn't anything you can do with GPL'd code that you can't do with public domain code", does not follow your premise "you can create a derivative work from a public domain source and license it under any scheme you want".
And actually you can NOT license public domain material. You can create a derivative work and license the collective and the parts you created, but the public domain material remains in the public domain, NOT under your license.
Nobody sane would try to claim the GPL gives rights that are not available with public domain material. I know I certainly did not.
"It also takes away your right to link with the code unless you also GPL all your code - which is a freedom I have already (and not covered by copyright law as copy!=link)."
No it does not. Or rather, this is not established and your argument is not logical.
If linked code is derivative than you do NOT have a legal right to link to copyrighted code. If Linked code is NOT derivative than the GPL does not apply.
Personally, I have never heard a legitimate argument to support the linking issue and find it hillarious that people seriously entertain the idea. Probably the biggest support for dismissing the link issue you stated yourself copy != link. The entire link issue was raised as FUD by anti-gpl special interests who wanted an element of uncertainty to apply to using the GPL.
Yes, it is possible for the holder of copyright to grant more rights than the GPL grants. But the GPL always grants rights you did not have before agreeing to the GPL.
After all, you can GPL rather than open to the public domain (as many choose to do for good reason) but you can NOT GPL something in the public domain.
It is worth noting that most EULA's actually restrict A and force you to agree to refrain entirely from B, C, and D.
Yes but GPL'd code is copyrighted material, therefore the default as long as copyright exists, is copyright and NOT the public domain.
In all cases the GPL grants rights because the GPL can only be applied to copyrighted code. You can't GPL code which is in the public domain.
It doesn't lower any threshold, this case was settled and therefore sets no precedent.
"If you're going to use copyright to defend your GPL code, then you really have little choice but to respect the use of copyright to defend media content as well"
Absolutely. Of course we would all be better off if copyright granted no rights and took no rights away. Rather if it were reduced to requiring that the anything distributed for profit have a copy sent to the library of congress FIRST and be made publically available by the library for period of 50yrs, 5yrs after submission.
This would mostly eliminate the need for the GPL.
And of course there are software licenses that attempt to regulate fair use and require restrictions by license that copyright does not give the copyright holder the privelage to restrict. Supporting the GPL (which gives rights with conditions, rather than attempting to restrict rights you have without any license) does not imply ANY need to support those.
"A licensed operator running an illegal amplifier obviously should be given lower priority than the owner of an FCC-approved consumer device."
Not really, he is licensed to transmit on the band, the consumer is not. But that is with the understanding that "illegal amplifier" is a far less likely cause than poor shielding on your device.
Also, the reason your consumer device is FCC approved is ensure that it does not interfere with licensed operators like the HAM. HAM's are considered to have a RIGHT to their licensed spectrum and that right is every bit as serious as that of commercial broadcasts.
If ONE TV interferred with the broadcasts of a popular commercial station do you think the TV or the station should stop operating? It is no different, HAM operators have spectrum which is reserved for their use just like your local radio station has it's reserved spectrum. Your unlicensed use is a privelage, regardless of what equipment your operating on it (tv or whatever).
I hope all grammar trolls die a horrible agonizing death.
Yup, the HAM is licensed your not. In fact, if your TV interferes with his transmission he can contact the FCC to have YOU shut down.
"Ah, but you missed the key phrase... they were saying Blizzard was second only to NCSoft, not WoW was second only to all of NCSoft's games combined. Blizzard, as a company is number 2 in the MMORPG bizz, which is quite a feat since they only recently started."
You would have a point if Blizzard produces more than one MMORPG. When Blizzard has only one RPG and NcSoft has three, it becomes a farse to make the Lineage games sound more impressive.
" Yes, two examples are Lineage and Lineage II...
They individually have something like 3 million subscribers."
Hmmm that doesn't work out right. Lineage+Lineage 2+city of heros only have 5million users TOTAL. If L+L2 each had 3 million that would be 6 million without even counting City of Heros.
I would call world peace a potential theoretical benefit if the potential for it existed only in theory.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare wow subscribers to any ONE NcSoft game? I mean, you wouldn't lump EverQuest and EverQuest 2 together either, they are different games and people may not like one or the other.
Is there any SINGLE mmorpg with more subscribers than wow?
Even Tenanbaum later admitted that Microkernels are 20-30% slower than equivelent monolithic kernels. Although, I do need to disclose that he admitted it in a statement where he said that tiny performance sacrifice was well worth the benefits.
Of course, we live in the real world, and in the real world whether 20-30% of real performance can be traded off for POTENTIAL theoretical benefits.
"Incorrect. In 1984 - long before Linux was a gleam in Linus's eye - the GNU project set out to write a complete Unix-like free software system."
Yes, but an OS is NOT a complete software system. An OS is the lowest level abstraction to the system hardware. The strongest argument I've heard for the GNU naming nonsense is that they write the lowest level abrastraction generally used by an application coder. But the truth is that c libs generally do not interface with hardware, they interface with the kernel.
While you can certainly make a sound argument that GNU software comprises a significant portion of the smallest functional Linux system, a sysadmin or application programmers perspective of what constitutes an OS still is not what an OS is.
Even Tanenbaum admitted years after the original debate with linus said that he still felt the advantages of Microkernels were worthwhile for a mere 20-30% performance loss.
OSX is certainly slow compared to Linux, it does not even begin to compare. So if it is not linux, what monolithic system are you using for a basis of comparison?
OSX makes for a nice desktop system and the systems are not generally slow, but OSX hardly gets the performance out of that hardware that could be had with a proper monolithic system.
even Tanenbaum admitted years after the original debate with linus said that he still felt the advantages of Microkernels were worthwhile for a mere 20-30% performance loss.
Win2k and XP are certainly slow compared to Linux, they do not even begin to compare. So if it is not linux, what monolithic system are you using for a basis of comparison?
"but theoretically more advanced, secure, robust, etc.) set of servers running on top of a microkernel."
There are no shortage of people who would disagree with you about Microkernels. You also neglect mention that they are incredibly slow.
More realistically Linux is the kernel which is in the more technical sense the OS (OS is the software layer which manages the software, this line is not easy to draw in every OS, but with linux it is pretty clear).
Redhat makes a distribution, grouping applications with the Linux OS to produce a general use system that Windows and Macites would call an OS.
GNU makes some nifty software that happens to be in the list of applications that Redhat distributes along with the Linux OS.
How about simple standards for the format and placement of files in /etc. That way we get the best of both worlds.
"Or failing that, his boss being aware of him/her not caring"
I'll give you that with one minor correction. His boss being made aware of him not caring in a way that he can not ignore. You have to remember, usually the boss really does not care either.
This assumes that the developer is using the same browser as the viewer.
Ever load the frontpage and there is no content except the sidebar? That's where. It happens about once every 20 page loads.