if a derived work no longer happens to contain any code that was originally released under the GPL by someone else, then it is by definition not a derived work.
Ultimately, it appears that the only *possible* reason to feel like the GPL's terms and conditions are unfair is if one's primary form of code reuse is "copy/paste"
I am quite sure that code you released under GPL does not have to be released exclusively under GPL. You are welcome use your contribution to GPLed product in any other product of your choice. So, there is no unfairness there.
The only thing which you might feel as unfair about GPL is, if you follow Bill Gates' philosophy that free software is the foundation for commercial software, that it disrupts natural code migration within software ecosystem.
Concept of 'derivative work' is not GPL-specific, nor it is an invention of SCO. It is a standard term from the copyright law.
The question is not whether the concept of 'derivative work' itself is valid (present form of the copyright law asserts that it is,) but rather, if SCO's claims, that Linux Kernel IS, in fact, a 'derivative work' from SVR4 code, are valid.
Well, licenses (and all other legalese stuff) are difficult to read because lots of terms are used as defined, not as what they mean in common language.
For example, the GPL does not say anything about makefiles or shell scripts, nor it says that compiler is a separate binary, it is broader. It just says scripts to control compilation and installation. The only components of compilation and installation scripts which are allowed to be omitted are those, which are standard to the OS where the Program is meant to be run and compiler is just an example of such a component only because it almost always a separate binary and is so common that some OSes' distributions are considered incomplete if certain compilers are not included.
Even definition of source code is expressed in terms of your right to modify the work.The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. So, if I have no way to modify binary using source code provided, then for the purpose of GPL, it is not considered as source code. Even though it can be considered source code in ordinary sence.
You know that you can not distribute MSVC, so if there were no any other way to reproduce or modify the binary using your building and installation scripts, you can not distribute it under GPL.
Binary for users of the MicroSoft Windows platform. Cross complied from Linux to avoid potential virii.
Ugh. Mesa3d is not a GPLed product. Mesa license itself is very relaxed (you can sublicense the whole product with any other, including commercial license) as long as appropriate copyright notice is included.
Some other parts of the Mesa project (libraries and drivers) are under LGPL license, which permits linking proprietary software to them unlike GPL license which considers linking (both static and dynamic) as creation of a derived work. There are some other licenses for some drivers, which I am not familiar with. You can look up them if you need those drivers installed.
Ordinary GPL is quite strong in terms that it is not easy (if possible at all) to build commercial software on top of the GPLed one. This is why lots of library-like products are distributed under LGPL, which allows commercial products to utilize them without imposing GPL restriction on the Product as a whole.
Yes, you do, however, not necessarily in binary form.
GPL clearly says that For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable..
Since you proprietary compiler is not what is normally distributed with the operating system on which executable runs, it falls into category of scripts to control compilation.
Rule is, indeed, simple and language independent, if you distribute binary of the GPLed product, you have to also distribute means to recreate this binary (and install it) from the source code you also provide (with the narrow exception when those means are readily available to your fellow developers.)
Well, now as I come to think about it, machine readable means represented in symbols for which standard mapping into bit sequences exist. And customary media means you do not to go out of your way in order to feed the source into you computer.
Speaking of paper copies, punch cards used to be a customary media, and if OCR software were cheaper and more reliable, there would be nothing wrong with printed copies either.
IANAL. All I know about copyright I learned on/.</DISCLAIMER>
A1. No, you can not. Derivative computer progam as defined here is a '...computer program [that] contains a substantial amount of previously published, registered, or public domain material such as subroutines, modules, textual images'
As usual, what is considered 'substantial amount' is subject to interpretation. Term 'contains', however, does not discriminate, whether pre-existing code is embedded or embeds the new code.
In the case, when the work in question is agreed to be a derivative, then by Term 3 of the GPL you have to provide access to 'complete source code.' where for '...an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.'
A2. There are really two questions.
First is, if your code is protected under two licenses in two independent Programs. The answer is that, it is only required for you to prove that you obtained 'protected' portion of the code legally under GPL. For example, IBM released Journaling File System both for OS/2 (non-GPL AFAIK) and Linux (GPL) but you can not be found liable for using the code obtained from Linux even though it is derived from the code in OS/2.
Second question whether work created using GPL tool is in turn GPLed. Term 0 of the GPL states that...the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Term independent means that determination whether output of the Program constitutes a derived work is independent from the fact that it was created by a GPLed program and additional tests should be applied. For example, the fact that you edited your copyrighted material with Open Office does not imply that your material is now GPLed.
There are clearly two statements in the sentence. One is related to code readability and the other to distribution media.
Code which can not be read by a computer due to e.g. non-standard language extentions used by a proprietary compiler is not effectively readable even though if delivered on customary media. Otherwise, you could distribute gibberish and claim that, since you can compile it, you obligations toward GPL requirements are fulfilled.
Vadim
Valentin Bondarenko: the long forgotten Russian first fatal casualty of the space race, burnt to death tragically in 1961. His mistake was to drop a piece of cotton wool onto a 'hot plate' in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. Might have been as famous as Yuri Gagarin had he lived.
No, what you describe is not prior art. It is not enough to just hold some personal info in secured form or otherwise.
They patented a device which can emulate behaviour of any credit, pass or any other card or device you are using to get access to any protected by such devices resources or locations. Hence, two display areas on the card, one is displaying info of a particular card (logo, number, exp date, etc.,) while the other emulates interface to a guarding equipment (Think of the magnetic strip which is rewritable with the selected dataset specific info.)
Anyway, I am not sure that anything described by any of slashdotters is close enough to what they are patenting.
PS. I am neither defending nor uphelding the patent in question but just describing the patented device.
I spent a couple of hours translating this stuff while my manager was trying to sneak up on me from behind to catch me reading/., got my shitty 1 point for no thanks. And after all of this you are talking about justice.
As far as I know he was not selling the tool. He did not even write it. He is a cryptography specialist who was responsible for developing decription algorithm for the eBook (as well as some other algorithms for several different applications.) All rights to the program itself belong to Elcomsoft. The only his 'mistake' was that he presented his findings on the conference. Elcomsoft itself stopped offering the program after the first Adobe's complain. In my opinion the only reason why Adobe so pissed off that Barnes&Noble stopped selling their ebooks for 24 hours after this presentation because they did not find copyright protection implemented adequately.
I read the whole interview in Russian. Katalov said that they did not sell the program and had only demo version on their site which did not decode more then 25% of the text and they presented it only as a prove of concept.
Furthermore, they warned Adobe through forums several times that their encoding schema has lots of holes. Adobe moderators removed these messages almost immediately. He says that Adobe got really pissed mostly because Barnes&Nobel stopped selling e-Books in Adobe format for 24 hours because they found out that Adobe encoding algorithm could not provide adequate protection.
Sorry, to tell you this but unfortunately you are clueless. You can locally nullify gravity and GR even gives you hint how to do it. You have to move with acceleration. If you are in free fall state near a massive object (like the Earth) you will not fill gravity (never mind air friction and tidal effects.)
It is not the point though. If you agree that search for the Unified Theory makes sence you are accepting statement that there is some connection between different forces of Nature. Then how you can decline that in certain circumstances different manifestations of the Unified Force can have some influence on each other.
As far as your wishes go I do not see yet why can not you levitate around (like astronauts do using acceleration or using some kind of force compensation like magnetic suspension.) You really do not need Warp Drive to get to distant stars in reasonable period of time. You just have to go fast enough. Take a look at Special Relativity Theory formulae and you will see that if you move with the speed of light you reach any destination point instantly by you clocks.
Please, try to get one thing. Before you make statements you have made try to understand what people are trying to tell you, you may learn something new. Thanks.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is not distinguishable from magic.
Well, actually you are totally wrong. Since outside of Schwarzschild radius gravitational field of black hole is no different from one of a 'normal' body with equal mass (which is miniscule at the time) Earth would not immediately fall into the black hole, but rather black hole interacting with environment only gravitationally, would fall to the center of the Earth and gradually eat the Earth from inside gaining mass until the whole thing either implode or black hole evaporates due to Hawking radiation. BTW, can anybody estimate critical mass for the black hole to eat the Earth rather then evaporate.
Another line that confuses the hell out of me... "It is difficult and expensive to make a microprocessor run as fast as state of the art microprocessors"
Considering that they are trying to create microprocessor 'capable of executing a first instruction set to assist in running instructions of a different instruction set' ( kind of Universal Turing Machine? ), I would interpret the phrase above as "It is difficult and expensive to make a generic microprocessor run as fast as state of the art instruction set specific microprocessors."
I read R. Penrose not long ago and completely agree that consciousness and intelligence are non-computable properties of our brains ( as well as those of lesser life forms but in lesser degree ). So, all this AI stuff emulating consciousness and intelligence by computable means is complete crap.
If AI guys are looking for something to do, here is a hint: I would prefer having chip in my brain which allowed me to get rid of calculator or even computer when I do my banking or engaged in similar activities requiring extensive computations rather then some 'bugs' in my computer emulating 'consciousness', 'intelligence', 'life' etc some of which I already have.
Just my observation about wallabies. Your prove is kind of weak. IFAIK you can develop resistance to some poisons and still be inter-fertile with the rest of the population. 'Apparently they are also no longer inter-fertile with the Australian species'. 'Apparently' is not a scientific term either.
Question is more like this: homo sapiens has 46 pairs of chromosoms, our believed closest relatives chimpanzees have 48: http://www.amnh.org/enews/headl/e1_h6.html 98% percent of genes are the same. But...
Could you describe a scenario how these species evolved from a common ancestor from point of view of macro-evolution? ( Not that I am against this relationship )
Even in case of very slim chance of mutation to livable creature with different number of chromosomes then its parents have, who it is going to mate with. ( AFAIK humans in this case have either Down's or Turner's Syndrome depending on direction of deviation from normal^H^H^H^H^H^H usual number). That means mutation which results in the change of number of chromosomes can not be just random event. Darwin did not explain it. I read the book about 20 years ago though, so I might forget.
Oh, well, I guess I have an idea. It could be some kind of virus or other kind of infection. Are we all some kind of sick apes or something?:-)
Well, my understanding is that 'General Workhorse Servers' is what Jesse Berst sees every day through the window in the locked door when walking to his office. I guess he would not mind if those things behind the door ran Linux if anything.;-)
Kind of like this: Step 1: Unplug it from the net. Step 2: Plug it in the outlet. Step 3: Turn toaster on. Step 4: Log in. Step 5: Toast your toast.* Step 6: Log off Step 7: Turn toaster off. Step 8: Unplug it from the outlet Step 9: Plug it in the Net.
* Reboot and repeat steps 4 and 5 if neccessary
Re:What about underweight hackers?!
on
Hacker's Diet
·
· Score: 1
Here are my 2 cents about cows.
First thing is that plants do have all amino-acids, just some of them are in proteins which can not be digested by humans and thus not available in required quantities.
Cows on the other hand have special germs in their stomachs and intestines which can break those proteins to amino-acids. When they chew grass, they mix it with their stomach fluids containing those germs and wait until grass is basically fermented.
Vegeterians rely on the fact that body changes metabolism trying to re-use 'animal' amino-acids instead of throwing them away and replacing with 'new' ones from the food. And that small quantity which is available directly from vegetables is enough to compensate natural loss of them.
Slashdot Mirror
If you get food-poisoned in restaurant, you may go ahead and demand compensation.
If you eat, what you cooked, whose fault is it, when you get upset stomach?
if a derived work no longer happens to contain any code that was originally released under the GPL by someone else, then it is by definition not a derived work.
Ultimately, it appears that the only *possible* reason to feel like the GPL's terms and conditions are unfair is if one's primary form of code reuse is "copy/paste"
I am quite sure that code you released under GPL does not have to be released exclusively under GPL. You are welcome use your contribution to GPLed product in any other product of your choice. So, there is no unfairness there.
The only thing which you might feel as unfair about GPL is, if you follow Bill Gates' philosophy that free software is the foundation for commercial software, that it disrupts natural code migration within software ecosystem.
The question is not whether the concept of 'derivative work' itself is valid (present form of the copyright law asserts that it is,) but rather, if SCO's claims, that Linux Kernel IS, in fact, a 'derivative work' from SVR4 code, are valid.
For example, the GPL does not say anything about makefiles or shell scripts, nor it says that compiler is a separate binary, it is broader. It just says scripts to control compilation and installation. The only components of compilation and installation scripts which are allowed to be omitted are those, which are standard to the OS where the Program is meant to be run and compiler is just an example of such a component only because it almost always a separate binary and is so common that some OSes' distributions are considered incomplete if certain compilers are not included.
Even definition of source code is expressed in terms of your right to modify the work.The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. So, if I have no way to modify binary using source code provided, then for the purpose of GPL, it is not considered as source code. Even though it can be considered source code in ordinary sence.
You know that you can not distribute MSVC, so if there were no any other way to reproduce or modify the binary using your building and installation scripts, you can not distribute it under GPL.
Binary for users of the MicroSoft Windows platform. Cross complied from Linux to avoid potential virii.
IBM notes about Jikes compiler.
Some other parts of the Mesa project (libraries and drivers) are under LGPL license, which permits linking proprietary software to them unlike GPL license which considers linking (both static and dynamic) as creation of a derived work. There are some other licenses for some drivers, which I am not familiar with. You can look up them if you need those drivers installed.
Ordinary GPL is quite strong in terms that it is not easy (if possible at all) to build commercial software on top of the GPLed one. This is why lots of library-like products are distributed under LGPL, which allows commercial products to utilize them without imposing GPL restriction on the Product as a whole.
GPL clearly says that For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable..
Since you proprietary compiler is not what is normally distributed with the operating system on which executable runs, it falls into category of scripts to control compilation.
Rule is, indeed, simple and language independent, if you distribute binary of the GPLed product, you have to also distribute means to recreate this binary (and install it) from the source code you also provide (with the narrow exception when those means are readily available to your fellow developers.)
Well, now as I come to think about it, machine readable means represented in symbols for which standard mapping into bit sequences exist. And customary media means you do not to go out of your way in order to feed the source into you computer.
Speaking of paper copies, punch cards used to be a customary media, and if OCR software were cheaper and more reliable, there would be nothing wrong with printed copies either.
A1. No, you can not. Derivative computer progam as defined here is a '...computer program [that] contains a substantial amount of previously published, registered, or public domain material such as subroutines, modules, textual images'
As usual, what is considered 'substantial amount' is subject to interpretation. Term 'contains', however, does not discriminate, whether pre-existing code is embedded or embeds the new code.
In the case, when the work in question is agreed to be a derivative, then by Term 3 of the GPL you have to provide access to 'complete source code.' where for '...an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.'
A2. There are really two questions.
First is, if your code is protected under two licenses in two independent Programs. The answer is that, it is only required for you to prove that you obtained 'protected' portion of the code legally under GPL. For example, IBM released Journaling File System both for OS/2 (non-GPL AFAIK) and Linux (GPL) but you can not be found liable for using the code obtained from Linux even though it is derived from the code in OS/2.
Second question whether work created using GPL tool is in turn GPLed. Term 0 of the GPL states that ...the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Term independent means that determination whether output of the Program constitutes a derived work is independent from the fact that it was created by a GPLed program and additional tests should be applied. For example, the fact that you edited your copyrighted material with Open Office does not imply that your material is now GPLed.
There are clearly two statements in the sentence. One is related to code readability and the other to distribution media.
Code which can not be read by a computer due to e.g. non-standard language extentions used by a proprietary compiler is not effectively readable even though if delivered on customary media. Otherwise, you could distribute gibberish and claim that, since you can compile it, you obligations toward GPL requirements are fulfilled. Vadim
Source: here
During Soviet era russians never admitted that it had happened (at least in the Soviet Union)
I also always thought that it was just a rumour until I found out that my dad knew his dad
No, what you describe is not prior art. It is not enough to just hold some personal info in secured form or otherwise.
,) while the other emulates interface to a guarding equipment (Think of the magnetic strip which is rewritable with the selected dataset specific info.)
They patented a device which can emulate behaviour of any credit, pass or any other card or device you are using to get access to any protected by such devices resources or locations. Hence, two display areas on the card, one is displaying info of a particular card (logo, number, exp date, etc.
Anyway, I am not sure that anything described by any of slashdotters is close enough to what they are patenting.
PS. I am neither defending nor uphelding the patent in question but just describing the patented device.
Sorry, but then it should be "We don't say this kind of words"
Nothing much, he needs me. But he will remember.
I spent a couple of hours translating this stuff while my manager was trying to sneak up on me from behind to catch me reading /., got my shitty 1 point for no thanks. And after all of this you are talking about justice.
As far as I know he was not selling the tool. He did not even write it. He is a cryptography specialist who was responsible for developing decription algorithm for the eBook (as well as some other algorithms for several different applications.) All rights to the program itself belong to Elcomsoft. The only his 'mistake' was that he presented his findings on the conference. Elcomsoft itself stopped offering the program after the first Adobe's complain. In my opinion the only reason why Adobe so pissed off that Barnes&Noble stopped selling their ebooks for 24 hours after this presentation because they did not find copyright protection implemented adequately.
Furthermore, they warned Adobe through forums several times that their encoding schema has lots of holes. Adobe moderators removed these messages almost immediately. He says that Adobe got really pissed mostly because Barnes&Nobel stopped selling e-Books in Adobe format for 24 hours because they found out that Adobe encoding algorithm could not provide adequate protection.
It is not the point though. If you agree that search for the Unified Theory makes sence you are accepting statement that there is some connection between different forces of Nature. Then how you can decline that in certain circumstances different manifestations of the Unified Force can have some influence on each other.
As far as your wishes go I do not see yet why can not you levitate around (like astronauts do using acceleration or using some kind of force compensation like magnetic suspension.) You really do not need Warp Drive to get to distant stars in reasonable period of time. You just have to go fast enough. Take a look at Special Relativity Theory formulae and you will see that if you move with the speed of light you reach any destination point instantly by you clocks.
Please, try to get one thing. Before you make statements you have made try to understand what people are trying to tell you, you may learn something new. Thanks.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is not distinguishable from magic.
Well, actually you are totally wrong. Since outside of Schwarzschild radius gravitational field of black hole is no different from one of a 'normal' body with equal mass (which is miniscule at the time) Earth would not immediately fall into the black hole, but rather black hole interacting with environment only gravitationally, would fall to the center of the Earth and gradually eat the Earth from inside gaining mass until the whole thing either implode or black hole evaporates due to Hawking radiation. BTW, can anybody estimate critical mass for the black hole to eat the Earth rather then evaporate.
Learn speak Russian properly ;-). Stresses are raz-`del `toch-ka.
And my two cents: Ukrainian: ko-`sa `krap-ka
Privet.
Another line that confuses the hell out of me...
"It is difficult and expensive to make a microprocessor run as fast as state of the art microprocessors"
Considering that they are trying to create microprocessor 'capable of executing a first instruction set to assist in running instructions of a different instruction set' ( kind of Universal Turing Machine? ), I would interpret the phrase above as
"It is difficult and expensive to make a generic microprocessor run as fast as state of the art instruction set specific microprocessors."
Have you ever thought that one of reasons why M$ does not open its code is that copyright lawsuits would force it to file Chapter 11?
I read R. Penrose not long ago and completely agree that consciousness and intelligence are non-computable properties of our brains ( as well as those of lesser life forms but in lesser degree ). So, all this AI stuff emulating consciousness and intelligence by computable means is complete crap.
If AI guys are looking for something to do, here is a hint: I would prefer having chip in my brain which allowed me to get rid of calculator or even computer when I do my banking or engaged in similar activities requiring extensive computations rather then some 'bugs' in my computer emulating 'consciousness', 'intelligence', 'life' etc some of which I already have.
Just my observation about wallabies. Your prove is kind of weak.
:-)
IFAIK you can develop resistance to some poisons and still be inter-fertile with the rest of the population.
'Apparently they are also no longer inter-fertile with the Australian species'. 'Apparently' is not a scientific term either.
Question is more like this: homo sapiens has 46 pairs of chromosoms, our believed closest relatives chimpanzees have 48: http://www.amnh.org/enews/headl/e1_h6.html
98% percent of genes are the same. But...
Could you describe a scenario how these species evolved from a common ancestor from point of view of macro-evolution? ( Not that I am against this relationship )
Even in case of very slim chance of mutation to livable creature with different number of chromosomes then its parents have, who it is going to mate with. ( AFAIK humans in this case have either Down's or Turner's Syndrome depending on direction of deviation from normal^H^H^H^H^H^H usual number). That means mutation which results in the change of number of chromosomes can not be just random event. Darwin did not explain it. I read the book about 20 years ago though, so I might forget.
Oh, well, I guess I have an idea. It could be some kind of virus or other kind of infection. Are we all some kind of sick apes or something?
Well, my understanding is that 'General Workhorse Servers' is what Jesse Berst sees every day through the window in the locked door when walking to his office. I guess he would not mind if those things behind the door ran Linux if anything.;-)
Kind of like this:
Step 1: Unplug it from the net.
Step 2: Plug it in the outlet.
Step 3: Turn toaster on.
Step 4: Log in.
Step 5: Toast your toast.*
Step 6: Log off
Step 7: Turn toaster off.
Step 8: Unplug it from the outlet
Step 9: Plug it in the Net.
* Reboot and repeat steps 4 and 5 if neccessary
Here are my 2 cents about cows.
First thing is that plants do have all amino-acids, just some of them are in proteins which can not be digested by humans and thus not available in required quantities.
Cows on the other hand have special germs in their stomachs and intestines which can break those proteins to amino-acids. When they chew grass, they mix it with their stomach fluids containing those germs and wait until grass is basically fermented.
Vegeterians rely on the fact that body changes metabolism trying to re-use 'animal' amino-acids instead of throwing them away and replacing with 'new' ones from the food. And that small quantity which is available directly from vegetables is enough to compensate natural loss of them.