For all intents and purposes, you "own" that code until you do something public with it that takes commercial advantage of it without meeting the GPL's requirements.
A GPL violation doesn't have to be for money. Violation is a violation even if no money is involved. See the X-chat mess.
The CPL basically says that this bad behaviour is illegal, when you release, you don't just gove away the source, you allow people to use it freely. Under the GPL, you could legitimately charge for the 'free' software.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
I think the big fallacy in Linux is the driver ABI. Linus likes to change it, as a way of forcing hardware developers to have open-source drivers. Nice Stallmanesque politics, but impractical in the real world, for at least two different reasons.
Freezing the module ABI would mean much work and messy patches to maintain the compatibility between linux versions. And there is also the ethical perspective, no matter how you want to suppress it.
Those are GNU's compilers, not linux's. Why do you take all the credits from GNU which was the oríginal developer of the system? By calling the whole OS Linux, people who hear it first time think that Linus started it all with his kernel and there wasn't anything before that. Please, GNU/Linux and GNU's compilers.
You won't win any converts to the open source philosophy by deliberately keeping the software more difficult to install.
If people valued also their freedom they would accept a little complicated installation. If the only value of software is thought to be technical then people convert easily back to non-free software. Tell the users about freedom.
Free software will never be free until it is easy enough to create that most anyone with a basic undertsanding of software concepts can create software thru the use of general automation tools. Be it that they use such tools to do simple scripting or complex programming.
Free software is free already. You don't need to know how to program to use your freedoms, like you don't have to be a carpenter to build your house.
I believe people SHOULD respect copyright, because it causes people to make valuable contributions to society.
And people can't ever enjoy those contributions without chains, at least not in their lifetime. If the copyright was shorter people would see the benefits of the copying monopolies, to the society as whole, and probably respected the copyright law. The current system favours only the **AA and it pirates from the public domain.
Re:If ATI can't be bothered producing quality driv
on
ATI Updates Linux Drivers
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Since I ran into a Linux brick wall with them (no specs, no binary drivers) my last two purchases have been Nvidia. I recommend the same for you if you use Linux.
I wouldn't. The thing is that proprietary drivers and no documentation are against the principles of F/OSS. If I had to recommend a graphics card, it would be ATI radeon 8500 which works well with Free drivers (accelerated OpenGL etc.)
If you encourage hardware companies to keep their documentation secret you will have a future where you have to use non-free drivers for all your hardware. That is a disaster from the perspective of both Open Source and Free Software movements. I would like you all to understand that the software freedom has a value and functionality is not the only meter of the goodness of software.
You don't have to use then GNOME/KDE window managers etc. to use their programs. I like GNOME mostly because the GNOME apps started without GNOME don't load the whole environment.
2) Microsoft will use its patent on sudo to attack Linux.
M$ wouldn't attack Linux, they would attack the makers of sudo. Putting every Free Software program under the term "Linux" is not a wise thing to do and has been done by SCO in the past.
Free Software has one major benefit which non-free (Microsoft etc.) hasn't: freedom. If we teach people to value their freedom to their software, no functionality enhancements will get them back to M$ from GNU/Linux. M$ speaks about "Open Source" and says that the GPL is an "Open Source" license because they don't want people to think in terms of software freedom.
"There's no innovation. Linux is still in the business of cloning existing technology."
True, true. Linux is based on a well known and used monolithical kernel model seen in the unix systems. If you want something new and innovative try the Hurd as a replacement.
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''
The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)
If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.
``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.
Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.
According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with the Real codec?
It is not free.
For all intents and purposes, you "own" that code until you do something public with it that takes commercial advantage of it without meeting the GPL's requirements.
A GPL violation doesn't have to be for money. Violation is a violation even if no money is involved. See the X-chat mess.
The CPL basically says that this bad behaviour is illegal, when you release, you don't just gove away the source, you allow people to use it freely. Under the GPL, you could legitimately charge for the 'free' software.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
CD protection technology almost out of thin air...
From whom does this "protection" "protect" the CD?
I think the big fallacy in Linux is the driver ABI. Linus likes to change it, as a way of forcing hardware developers to have open-source drivers. Nice Stallmanesque politics, but impractical in the real world, for at least two different reasons.
Freezing the module ABI would mean much work and messy patches to maintain the compatibility between linux versions. And there is also the ethical perspective, no matter how you want to suppress it.
"God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life"
(John 3:16 NIV).
This is so bad. No one should make their information to depend on non-free software. I will not install flash to see this.
Those are GNU's compilers, not linux's. Why do you take all the credits from GNU which was the oríginal developer of the system? By calling the whole OS Linux, people who hear it first time think that Linus started it all with his kernel and there wasn't anything before that. Please, GNU/Linux and GNU's compilers.
The question is: will it be free or is it only "open".
You won't win any converts to the open source philosophy by deliberately keeping the software more difficult to install.
If people valued also their freedom they would accept a little complicated installation. If the only value of software is thought to be technical then people convert easily back to non-free software. Tell the users about freedom.
You forget that with GNU/Linux you have freedom.
Free software will never be free until it is easy enough to create that most anyone with a basic undertsanding of software concepts can create software thru the use of general automation tools. Be it that they use such tools to do simple scripting or complex programming.
Free software is free already. You don't need to know how to program to use your freedoms, like you don't have to be a carpenter to build your house.
I believe people SHOULD respect copyright, because it causes people to make valuable contributions to society.
And people can't ever enjoy those contributions without chains, at least not in their lifetime. If the copyright was shorter people would see the benefits of the copying monopolies, to the society as whole, and probably respected the copyright law. The current system favours only the **AA and it pirates from the public domain.
Since I ran into a Linux brick wall with them (no specs, no binary drivers) my last two purchases have been Nvidia. I recommend the same for you if you use Linux.
I wouldn't. The thing is that proprietary drivers and no documentation are against the principles of F/OSS. If I had to recommend a graphics card, it would be ATI radeon 8500 which works well with Free drivers (accelerated OpenGL etc.)
If you encourage hardware companies to keep their documentation secret you will have a future where you have to use non-free drivers for all your hardware. That is a disaster from the perspective of both Open Source and Free Software movements. I would like you all to understand that the software freedom has a value and functionality is not the only meter of the goodness of software.
You don't have to use then GNOME/KDE window managers etc. to use their programs. I like GNOME mostly because the GNOME apps started without GNOME don't load the whole environment.
He has a clue.
Mispelings: Corperations, Lobeying, falure, polotics.
This is completely off topic but I have to say that you have a good point but your poor English ruins your text.
2) Microsoft will use its patent on sudo to attack Linux.
M$ wouldn't attack Linux, they would attack the makers of sudo. Putting every Free Software program under the term "Linux" is not a wise thing to do and has been done by SCO in the past.
Or this sco thing would have happened with the Hurd or one of the BSD kernels.
The prepondereance of GNU fanboys means that Java gets dissed for not being Free(tm).
The SUN's java implementation is non-free but there are other free implementations of the java standard, look at http://www.kaffe.org/ for one.
Free Software has one major benefit which non-free (Microsoft etc.) hasn't: freedom. If we teach people to value their freedom to their software, no functionality enhancements will get them back to M$ from GNU/Linux. M$ speaks about "Open Source" and says that the GPL is an "Open Source" license because they don't want people to think in terms of software freedom.
"There's no innovation. Linux is still in the business of cloning existing technology." True, true. Linux is based on a well known and used monolithical kernel model seen in the unix systems. If you want something new and innovative try the Hurd as a replacement.
I'll zero my modpoint for this thread because I accidentally gave this good text -1 troll. Sorry.
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''
The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)
If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.
``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.
Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.
According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US.
No, you should make it something like "a patent for means of transferring information from place a to b"