But yeah, it bothers me that they would take it that far and elect not to push the jolly red candy-like button on the printing press.
Well, it doesn't help that it's really a small, recessed, dull brown button covered with grime. They probably just couldn't find it, what with the hangover and all.
However, the redactions in the contract are to protect trade secrets
But are they secret to protect a competitive advantage (knowledge of a better way to do things), or just to prevent embarrassment?
national security concerns (explaining integration with other confidential government systems)
"Connections made using this particular SSH key (or SSL client cert) can make these updates." Or perhaps "national security" is the new term for "official embarrassment".
Who does it,a nd the details of the contract, are largely irrelevant.
"It's like coppery and goldy, only made out of iron." More seriously, that's something like a hundred plus people for a year. WTF are they doing that takes that long?
I've had stuff reverted which I've known to be 100% true (because it was about some software I personally wrote)
Yeah, what you need to do is write a blog post or something (in your capacity as the author of that software), and then cite that in your wikipedia edit (written in your capacity as an encyclopedian).
(It also appears to use GCC as a front-end for it's C compiler. Just FYI.)
There are two front ends (plus I think some for other languages?). One is GCC-based, and the other is a work-in-progress that mostly works for C and mostly doesn't work for C++.
Their license does. Again, if you don't agree with the terms of a license you have no right use the licensed works.
That is incorrect.
If I don't accept the license, then I can only do what plain copyright law says I can do (or rather, doesn't say I can't do). The only things it says I can't do are make or distribute copies or derivative works. So unless the copyright holders of the library can claim that my program is a derivative work of the library, giving them a copyright claim over it, they have no say in what I do with it.
The license is not telling you what to do with your code, is telling you what THEIR code can be used with, in this case GPL-(compatible-)licensed applications.
This is incorrect: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.". I can do whatever the hell I want with it, if I keep it to myself.
Honestly, it seems to me that you advocate being a leech and using people's code disregarding their licensing terms.
No, I advocate against claiming control over other people's work.
RMS goes further than even that. Not only do they consider a program designed to link against a library that doesn't use the GPL infringing, they consider a program that links against a GPL library in addition to other, compatible libraries an infingement.
The fact that you link your program with a GPLd library doesn't magically change the copyright on it. Your program would have to be licensed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license, but it's still YOUR program with YOUR copyright.
But since the library authors can't claim any sort of copyright on it, what gives them the ability to demand that it be licensed in a certain way?
GPL software(*) are mostly made by end users who know what they want, but not necessarily how to make great code. BSD software are mostly made by people who know how to make great code, but not necessarily what the user needs.
What "made by end users who know what they want" brings to mind for me is Apache, which is neither (but is in the same family as BSD).
No, because it's so easy to see coming that you skip option 2 entirely (perhaps with "encouragement" from legal or marketing) and if 1 and 3 don't work you go become a florist instead.
Re:surveyed some two dozen software vendors!?
on
Leaving the GPL Behind
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Why, oh why would you choose a license based on a popularity contest? Pick the licenses that meet your legal needs.
Perhaps the assumption is that because these people/companies are in the business of selling software, they probably know a bit about what's good/bad for companies in that business? If I wanted to start a catering business, I'd probably go talk to some actual caterers (probably from safely out of town) to get an idea of how to do things.
If developers and corporations want to provide software for users they have several options:
1. Pay for development
2. Trade for some existing code by making their additions available
3. Find someone who will volunteer their works
None of which are harder than the others for developers and corporations.
Except of course that (2) means that people suddenly have a lot less reason to buy anything from you, since they can just (legally!) download it from someone else.
Nice troll but the GPL doesn't make it harder to write programs. If anything it makes it much easier because you get access to source code that otherwise you'd have no right to.
Given that the ancestor post is talking about "GPL is there for the USER's benefit" in the context of "open source license with more generous commercial terms than GPL", the comparison is "GPL vs other open source" rather than "GPL vs proprietary".
And the way I hear things, those other (non-copyleft) licenses are less likely to panic your legal department and don't get rewritten to forbid your business model.
Claim copyright? What sort of sensationalist dipshit are you? You make RMS look like a mellow, tolerant, effacing individual.
Point out to me, sunshine: Where exactly does the GPL claim copyright over code that wasn't written by the original author? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
That would be right here:
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?
A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.
They don't claim copyright, the just want something in return. You use my code, I get to use your code.
The only way to demand this is to claim that the binary (what you distribute) is a derivative work of whatever (shared) libraries it links to, and that the binary is therefore subject to their copyright.
It's funny, 'cause I think the basis of that was probably, "I don't want to be quote-mined", which ended up happening anyway.
It's generally things like "Open Source" vs "Free Software" and "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" (or even "GNU (plus Linux)" as he presented it in an audio interview I happened to hear, as if the GNU part is all that matters). For audio/video interviews, I think I also remember hearing a requirement about (only?) posting them in ogg (vorbis/theora) or other non-patented formats.
'The proponents of GPL like to tell people that the world only needs one open source license, and I think that's actually, frankly, just a flat-out dumb position,'
Yeah, well I think that's actually, frankly, just a flat-out fabrication. Could we have a source for this assertion please?
I think it's actually the (a?) purpose of the "additional permissions" language, to make GPLv3 flexible enough for anyone to use.
Every GNU zealout shouts this out at the top of their lungs, it should be pretty easy to understand by now: If you don't like the GPL license, don't fucking link to a GPL'd library. End of discussion.
Some of us find it a bit improper/offensive when these people claim copyright over something that doesn't actually contain any of their work. It's kind of like if a cookbook publisher tried to stop me from telling people that the ribs recipe on page 104 and the second beans recipe on page 286 go really well together, especially if you also have the cornbread from page 42.
But this ignores the constitutional requirement that it promote progress:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Teles AG says:
Do you have a citation for this (that it's "patent laws are only valid if they promote progress" rather than something silly like "patent laws are assumed to promote progress"), that could maybe be added to Wikipedia? It says
For example, the Court has determined that because the purpose of the clause is to stimulate development of the works it protects, its application cannot result in inhibiting such progress. However, there has been a countervailing strain in the courts that has promoted a varying view.
, but doesn't cite anything for either statement.
Hmm, I see a quote here from a "KSR International v. Teleflex Inc., 04-1350" that seems to agree with sanity, ""The results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court's opinion. "Were it otherwise patents might stifle rather than promote the progress of useful arts."". Do you know of any more, or where wikipedia might have gotten the "varying view" idea?
I have read that previously and do understand it. I am also familiar with the concept of technical debt and its logical extreme, and tend to suspect that code with net positive value would be less likely to become abandoned. I also suspect that abandoned code actually will lose value over time, due to interfaces with or assumptions about the external world going stale.
The purpose of copyright is to protect the rights of content creators which could very well be an individual for a period of time to allow them to either sell their work directly or to distributing party for financial compensation. Without this protection, there would be very little incentive to create new creative works.
Only in theory... and that exact same theory says nobody will ever use BSD-like licenses, or the WTFPL, or such. So it's obviously incorrect, besides not accounting for the production of creative works before copyright was invented.
Slashdot Mirror
But yeah, it bothers me that they would take it that far and elect not to push the jolly red candy-like button on the printing press.
Well, it doesn't help that it's really a small, recessed, dull brown button covered with grime. They probably just couldn't find it, what with the hangover and all.
However, the redactions in the contract are to protect trade secrets
But are they secret to protect a competitive advantage (knowledge of a better way to do things), or just to prevent embarrassment?
national security concerns (explaining integration with other confidential government systems)
"Connections made using this particular SSH key (or SSL client cert) can make these updates." Or perhaps "national security" is the new term for "official embarrassment".
Who does it,a nd the details of the contract, are largely irrelevant.
"It's like coppery and goldy, only made out of iron." More seriously, that's something like a hundred plus people for a year. WTF are they doing that takes that long?
I've had stuff reverted which I've known to be 100% true (because it was about some software I personally wrote)
Yeah, what you need to do is write a blog post or something (in your capacity as the author of that software), and then cite that in your wikipedia edit (written in your capacity as an encyclopedian).
And also something that makes it easier to read or use the computer while being driven around without getting carsick.
I like the comforting feeling of knowing there's a pilot in the cockpit.
Computers don't get heart attacks or fall asleep at the stick.
(It also appears to use GCC as a front-end for it's C compiler. Just FYI.)
There are two front ends (plus I think some for other languages?). One is GCC-based, and the other is a work-in-progress that mostly works for C and mostly doesn't work for C++.
Their license does. Again, if you don't agree with the terms of a license you have no right use the licensed works.
That is incorrect.
If I don't accept the license, then I can only do what plain copyright law says I can do (or rather, doesn't say I can't do). The only things it says I can't do are make or distribute copies or derivative works. So unless the copyright holders of the library can claim that my program is a derivative work of the library, giving them a copyright claim over it, they have no say in what I do with it.
The license is not telling you what to do with your code, is telling you what THEIR code can be used with, in this case GPL-(compatible-)licensed applications.
This is incorrect: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.". I can do whatever the hell I want with it, if I keep it to myself.
Honestly, it seems to me that you advocate being a leech and using people's code disregarding their licensing terms.
No, I advocate against claiming control over other people's work.
RMS goes further than even that. Not only do they consider a program designed to link against a library that doesn't use the GPL infringing, they consider a program that links against a GPL library in addition to other, compatible libraries an infingement.
Interesting link, thanks.
Saying that the recipies goes toghether without copying the recipies down is clearly not infringing on copyright.
Exactly, just like with code that says "call the function named 'readline' from that shared library".
The fact that you link your program with a GPLd library doesn't magically change the copyright on it. Your program would have to be licensed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license, but it's still YOUR program with YOUR copyright.
But since the library authors can't claim any sort of copyright on it, what gives them the ability to demand that it be licensed in a certain way?
GPL software(*) are mostly made by end users who know what they want, but not necessarily how to make great code. BSD software are mostly made by people who know how to make great code, but not necessarily what the user needs.
What "made by end users who know what they want" brings to mind for me is Apache, which is neither (but is in the same family as BSD).
Yes, but that is a benefit to the users isn't it?
No, because it's so easy to see coming that you skip option 2 entirely (perhaps with "encouragement" from legal or marketing) and if 1 and 3 don't work you go become a florist instead.
Why, oh why would you choose a license based on a popularity contest? Pick the licenses that meet your legal needs.
Perhaps the assumption is that because these people/companies are in the business of selling software, they probably know a bit about what's good/bad for companies in that business? If I wanted to start a catering business, I'd probably go talk to some actual caterers (probably from safely out of town) to get an idea of how to do things.
Most of the people who knew RMS at MIT don't want to say anything; and those who do only do so anonymously.
Which of course means we should all be skeptical of your claims.
You can't be serious.
If developers and corporations want to provide software for users they have several options: 1. Pay for development 2. Trade for some existing code by making their additions available 3. Find someone who will volunteer their works
None of which are harder than the others for developers and corporations.
Except of course that (2) means that people suddenly have a lot less reason to buy anything from you, since they can just (legally!) download it from someone else.
Nice troll but the GPL doesn't make it harder to write programs. If anything it makes it much easier because you get access to source code that otherwise you'd have no right to.
Given that the ancestor post is talking about "GPL is there for the USER's benefit" in the context of "open source license with more generous commercial terms than GPL", the comparison is "GPL vs other open source" rather than "GPL vs proprietary".
And the way I hear things, those other (non-copyleft) licenses are less likely to panic your legal department and don't get rewritten to forbid your business model.
Claim copyright? What sort of sensationalist dipshit are you? You make RMS look like a mellow, tolerant, effacing individual.
Point out to me, sunshine: Where exactly does the GPL claim copyright over code that wasn't written by the original author? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
That would be right here:
And from the following question:
They don't claim copyright, the just want something in return. You use my code, I get to use your code.
The only way to demand this is to claim that the binary (what you distribute) is a derivative work of whatever (shared) libraries it links to, and that the binary is therefore subject to their copyright.
It's funny, 'cause I think the basis of that was probably, "I don't want to be quote-mined", which ended up happening anyway.
It's generally things like "Open Source" vs "Free Software" and "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" (or even "GNU (plus Linux)" as he presented it in an audio interview I happened to hear, as if the GNU part is all that matters). For audio/video interviews, I think I also remember hearing a requirement about (only?) posting them in ogg (vorbis/theora) or other non-patented formats.
That is not surprising in the least since the GPL is there for the USER's benefit, NOT the developers or corporations.
Yes, because the users get so much benefit from it being harder for developers and corporations to write programs for them.
Yeah, well I think that's actually, frankly, just a flat-out fabrication. Could we have a source for this assertion please?
I think it's actually the (a?) purpose of the "additional permissions" language, to make GPLv3 flexible enough for anyone to use.
Anything beyong one simple license that we can clearly explain the use and restrictions around open source software fails the future use and growth of the adoption of such software.
I've also seen calls to have only 4 licenses (BSD, LGPL, GPL, AGPL).
Every GNU zealout shouts this out at the top of their lungs, it should be pretty easy to understand by now: If you don't like the GPL license, don't fucking link to a GPL'd library. End of discussion.
Some of us find it a bit improper/offensive when these people claim copyright over something that doesn't actually contain any of their work. It's kind of like if a cookbook publisher tried to stop me from telling people that the ribs recipe on page 104 and the second beans recipe on page 286 go really well together, especially if you also have the cornbread from page 42.
But this ignores the constitutional requirement that it promote progress:
Teles AG says:
Do you have a citation for this (that it's "patent laws are only valid if they promote progress" rather than something silly like "patent laws are assumed to promote progress"), that could maybe be added to Wikipedia? It says
, but doesn't cite anything for either statement.
Hmm, I see a quote here from a "KSR International v. Teleflex Inc., 04-1350" that seems to agree with sanity, ""The results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court's opinion. "Were it otherwise patents might stifle rather than promote the progress of useful arts."". Do you know of any more, or where wikipedia might have gotten the "varying view" idea?
read and understand; please
I have read that previously and do understand it. I am also familiar with the concept of technical debt and its logical extreme, and tend to suspect that code with net positive value would be less likely to become abandoned. I also suspect that abandoned code actually will lose value over time, due to interfaces with or assumptions about the external world going stale.
The purpose of copyright is to protect the rights of content creators which could very well be an individual for a period of time to allow them to either sell their work directly or to distributing party for financial compensation. Without this protection, there would be very little incentive to create new creative works.
Only in theory... and that exact same theory says nobody will ever use BSD-like licenses, or the WTFPL, or such. So it's obviously incorrect, besides not accounting for the production of creative works before copyright was invented.