As someone else has already pointed out, the license doesn't specify any time frame within which the source must be made available
And as I have said thew language is much clearer then that. Furthermore, the license is quite explicit for what happens if you distribute copies without the source code:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
Do you see any expressly provided time windows? No, it's automatically terminated as of distribution without source code or written offer to provide such upon request.
no court is going to do anything but say "you must release this, you already knew that. So provide a reasonable plan, and get to it."
No, they will say: "You are distributing this without a license. Stop it. Now." LGPLv2 doesn't have automatic forgiveness, technically even complying with the license after the fact doesn't clear them. I'll just repeat that, if there is no source code or written offer they have no license to distribute any derivative works.
Let's look at the license, their options for source code distribution are as follows:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work [..] - accompany doesn't just imply, it means at the same time (as well as the same place).
c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution. - I'm not aware of such an offer for Webkit, not that it matters since inquiries have been made, there is nothing implying that this can be honored at your leisure, there is an offer you have to honor it, show me precedent that disagrees if I'm wrong.
d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place. - Meaning, if you distribute the binaries from your website, you can put up the source as well and be in compliance. We wouldn't be discussing this if that was the case. Do you see anything that permits putting the source up a year later or so? No, neither do I, equivalent is pretty clear.
Reading comprehension, the blobs their released were for Webkit you state so yourself.
And for some reason lots people suddenly used that instead of the version from the shit-stormers.
The shit-stormers weren't really KHTML people so that one's wrong. Also, "lots of people" started using Webkit when Apple started releasing proper source code, so that one's wrong as well.
They had a good track record for a while, but they didn't start out that way. Their overall track record is positive, not spotless... And that's not how the license works, there is no permission to delay.
The fact that they are holding back is consistent with the fact that Apple only releases what they absolutely must release.
All you need to do is recall the shitstorm it took for Apple to release "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to" instead of huge blobs of code that no-one in their right mind would work of off for Webkit in the first place.
I was specifically addressing your assertion that if only BSD advocates would stop doing [insert whatever here], then we'd see fewer incidents where people do the sort of thing perpenso was describing.
Better awareness of potential licensing issues is quite likely to reduce the amount of mistakes. It took a while before the repeated "if you use GPL code you need to distribute the source" to really sink in. As it stands what we mostly hear about the BSD license is "not like the GPL", "GPL compatible" and "free to redistribute under more restrictive terms". I can certainly see where the confusion over how exactly to incorporate BSD licensed code into other source-distributed projects can arise.
The counterintuitive aspect of placing more restrictions on distributed-with-source then on distributed-binary-only really needs to be brought up along with those three.
So please address that point, specifically your apparent view that people aren't responsible for their own actions.
Specifically, I didn't make that point, just that greater awareness of the finer points of the BSD licenses would help avoid honest mistakes. I believe that assigning blame is such situations is a waste of energy.
What ever happened to those wireless drivers again? I think OpenBSD wrote it, and it's BSD, and the Linux Wireless folks took it (at OpenBSD's urging) then promptly removed the BSD license and slapped on GPL licenses.
I'm pretty sure that the violation got fixed and some developers learned that the BSD comes with more strings for people distributing source then people who only distribute binaries. Why?
I've seen an alarming number of companies start having to set up "Open Source Licensing" processes to ensure they can comply with licenses like the GPLv3 - and start requiring this process for every piece of open-source software - whether it's for internal use only, or to be used with the product.
That is certainly better then the ad-hock we have seen before. It's probably more the general maturing of FLOSS then the GPLv3 which only gets somewhat complicated if you do signed binaries or are in the business of software patent licensing, otherwise it is actually simpler then v2, you can just point upstream for the source (or don't remove the mechanism for fetching the webapp).
Depending on the process it might make it easier for the company to contribute back to BSD-style licensed products as well. After all, without a process in place developers might not have even been inclined to even bring the possibility up. If so, that is certainly a net win for us all.
Or it could be, you know, a mistake... People mess up with licenses all the time, if they correct it and don't repeat the same mistake twice I generally don't tend to paint it as malice. Clearly you seem to have different standards.
or even that the BSD advocates bear any responsibility for making such people make bad decisions?
People who are legal experts interpreting a license in the light that most of the community advocating it paint in? They aren't just wrong, they are Hitler!
The company who managed to compromise their private keys by not using anything resembling random numbers is incompetent in terms of security? Unpossible.
Some BSD-only advocates seem to have a problem with their code being incorporated into particularly licensed (GPL) products. Their main criticism against this practice is that it prevents it's inclusion in software with more restricted licensing. I.e. they believe that the ability of being incorporated into more restrictive software is very important to this group, yet they complain when people they don't agree with do it.
Sorry, misread. I still fail to see what the argument is. Some people do things wrongly, what is the relevance to the group?
OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature. Your license has restrictions as well, get off the ideological high-horse.
GPL advocates have successfully created an environment where their concept of "freedom" is widely taken to be the one and only true definition.
The definition includes the BSD license. It is even recommended in cases where broad penetration is desired. It just that the definition does not require an adaptable license.
Any attempt by BSD advocates to challenge the GPL definition of freedom is seen as trolling.
Since there isn't a "GPL definition of freedom" this isn't unreasonable. I suspect this is because the four freedoms as defined by the FSF are pretty damn reasonable, just the particular implementation with persistence is seen as a problem (even though it allows all of the freedoms as defined).
User freedom is valued more then distributor freedom with the GPL, that doesn't make it non-free any more then valuing people's freedom not to fight vs to fight in law makes us non-free.
Correct, Verizon isn't a GSM provider, you can't stick in a different SIM card. Furthermore there are no reasonable prepaid plans that give you data (absurd, but...).
No kidding, Shotwell destroys f-spot in responsiveness and speed. There are many applications that are not processor bound, photo managers don't seem to be them.
Slashdot Mirror
And as I have said thew language is much clearer then that. Furthermore, the license is quite explicit for what happens if you distribute copies without the source code:
Do you see any expressly provided time windows? No, it's automatically terminated as of distribution without source code or written offer to provide such upon request.
No, they will say: "You are distributing this without a license. Stop it. Now." LGPLv2 doesn't have automatic forgiveness, technically even complying with the license after the fact doesn't clear them. I'll just repeat that, if there is no source code or written offer they have no license to distribute any derivative works.
Reading comprehension, the blobs their released were for Webkit you state so yourself.
The shit-stormers weren't really KHTML people so that one's wrong. Also, "lots of people" started using Webkit when Apple started releasing proper source code, so that one's wrong as well.
They had a good track record for a while, but they didn't start out that way. Their overall track record is positive, not spotless... And that's not how the license works, there is no permission to delay.
All you need to do is recall the shitstorm it took for Apple to release "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to" instead of huge blobs of code that no-one in their right mind would work of off for Webkit in the first place.
If it is substantially integrated, then they still have to release the BSD (actually dual licensed as part of the whole project) parts.
Better awareness of potential licensing issues is quite likely to reduce the amount of mistakes. It took a while before the repeated "if you use GPL code you need to distribute the source" to really sink in. As it stands what we mostly hear about the BSD license is "not like the GPL", "GPL compatible" and "free to redistribute under more restrictive terms". I can certainly see where the confusion over how exactly to incorporate BSD licensed code into other source-distributed projects can arise.
The counterintuitive aspect of placing more restrictions on distributed-with-source then on distributed-binary-only really needs to be brought up along with those three.
Specifically, I didn't make that point, just that greater awareness of the finer points of the BSD licenses would help avoid honest mistakes. I believe that assigning blame is such situations is a waste of energy.
I'm pretty sure that the violation got fixed and some developers learned that the BSD comes with more strings for people distributing source then people who only distribute binaries. Why?
That is certainly better then the ad-hock we have seen before. It's probably more the general maturing of FLOSS then the GPLv3 which only gets somewhat complicated if you do signed binaries or are in the business of software patent licensing, otherwise it is actually simpler then v2, you can just point upstream for the source (or don't remove the mechanism for fetching the webapp).
Depending on the process it might make it easier for the company to contribute back to BSD-style licensed products as well. After all, without a process in place developers might not have even been inclined to even bring the possibility up. If so, that is certainly a net win for us all.
On your Windows Server, but you will have to wait for a user CAL to free up to connect to it.
That would be "aren't legal experts of course".
Or it could be, you know, a mistake... People mess up with licenses all the time, if they correct it and don't repeat the same mistake twice I generally don't tend to paint it as malice. Clearly you seem to have different standards.
People who are legal experts interpreting a license in the light that most of the community advocating it paint in? They aren't just wrong, they are Hitler!
It's a testament to Microsoft's legendary integration. Just get everything from Microsoft, it will work together without a hitch!
Shall we standardize our electrical plug shapes, too? If it's schuko I'll consider it.
Numeral representation needn't follow how you say it.
The company who managed to compromise their private keys by not using anything resembling random numbers is incompetent in terms of security? Unpossible.
Some BSD-only advocates seem to have a problem with their code being incorporated into particularly licensed (GPL) products. Their main criticism against this practice is that it prevents it's inclusion in software with more restricted licensing. I.e. they believe that the ability of being incorporated into more restrictive software is very important to this group, yet they complain when people they don't agree with do it.
Sorry, misread. I still fail to see what the argument is. Some people do things wrongly, what is the relevance to the group?
OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature. Your license has restrictions as well, get off the ideological high-horse.
Surely you meant: Yes, but the beer is only distributable if you print the recipe on the bottle.
The definition includes the BSD license. It is even recommended in cases where broad penetration is desired. It just that the definition does not require an adaptable license.
Since there isn't a "GPL definition of freedom" this isn't unreasonable. I suspect this is because the four freedoms as defined by the FSF are pretty damn reasonable, just the particular implementation with persistence is seen as a problem (even though it allows all of the freedoms as defined).
So whining about people exercising the particular freedom they deem so important?
By that logic no group respects anything since you could find at least one instance where a member of a group doesn't...
User freedom is valued more then distributor freedom with the GPL, that doesn't make it non-free any more then valuing people's freedom not to fight vs to fight in law makes us non-free.
So you actually are willing to pay $0.45?
Correct, Verizon isn't a GSM provider, you can't stick in a different SIM card. Furthermore there are no reasonable prepaid plans that give you data (absurd, but...).
No kidding, Shotwell destroys f-spot in responsiveness and speed. There are many applications that are not processor bound, photo managers don't seem to be them.