Then wait two weeks for the game to be released. This article was obviously not intended to be a complete rundown of every videocard in current use. It was a synopsis of where the current high-end cards rate when running Doom 3 and nothing more.
Not the way I'm reading it. The way I'm seeing it, their subscription agreement as a clause that causes section 7 to come into effect. You can't break an agreement to comply with GPL redistribution, your rights to redistribute are simply taken away.
Let's take the money equation out of this for a second, and let's bring an NDA into the fold. If one company provided GPL code to another, but did so under the terms of an NDA, the company receiving the code could not break the NDA and distribute the GPL code because according to section 7, they have no right to distribute it since doing so would violate the NDA. However, after the NDA expires they are free to distribute the code at will since they are no longer bound by the NDA and section 7 no longer applies.
It's all very ass-numbing. I expect a rundown from Stallman in the days to come. As much as I dislike the dude and his weirdass ways, he pays attention to shit like this and always responds in full.
Well, we are getting into pretty philosophical territory here.
Yeah. It's making my ass numb.
If you have signed a contract that makes it impossible for you to satisfy the GPL's conditions (such as not restricting redistribution), you cannot distribute the software at all.
Wow, I was NOT aware of that section. I feel stupid. However, this doesn't change my standing on the subject or, I think, effect it in any way. In fact, in my view it reinforces Sveasoft's position and makes the people that are distributing the pre-release version in violation of the GPL. They entered into a subscription agreement wherein distribution of the pre-release source was prohibited without forfeiture of their subscription. As I'm understanding this, section 7 kicks in and immediately nullifies their right to redistribute the code at all. This is some serious brain-bending stuff, if I'm reading this right.
For future reference, when you use the word 'and', that sort of negates any monopoly claim.
Neither of them are planning on releasing any new cards soon and therefore they can keep the prices high and force consumers to buy the expensive cards.
Except that unless the prices come down soon, you'll have people spending $150 on a year-old card that manages framerates approaching those of the latest and greatest instead of dropping $400 for a new card. Sorry, business just does not work that way. You drop your price, you sell more, you make more money on volume dealing.
Conflict of interest? In benchmarks that were overseen by the developer, nVidia, AND ATI? What the hell are you talking about? Do YOU even know? Carmack isn't anyone's bitch, and never has been. I don't see this changing anytime soon. Id may have a better business relationship with nVidia than with ATI, but that's ATI's fault isn't it?
Anyone else, I'd agree, but we're talking about Carmack here. He basically put OpenGL on the gaming map by refusing to use Direct3D. I don't see him being nVidia's monkey-boy anytime soon. He has too good of a reputation to do anything that stupid.
Damn, that's a well-reasoned argument. I don't see too many of those on here. However, I still think you're incorrect.
If it substantially deters you from distributing the software, it is a restriction.
It should be noted that this restriction is only on the pre-release code. I can see your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. While the spirit of the GPL may see it as a restriction, the letter probably does not. This is a term set forth on your subscription, not on the software.
What if Sveasoft said "you can distribute the software but if you do you owe us $10000000"?
You know what? If they put a clause in their ToS that said "Violation of this ToS results in a $$$$$$ fine." and one of those terms was not redistributing the code I think that's probably still allowed. Once you do violate the ToS, you are still free to do whatever you want with the code. Now, if they tried to say "You can have this code, but you have to pay us to distribute it.", that is a completely different thing. It's all in where the applicable sentence is. Is it part of the subscription, or is it part of the source package? I recognize that this is a *VERY* pedantic argument, but it's one that has to be made in order to work out exactly where and when the GPL stops and other licenses start.
Good post, anyway. It certainly raises some questions that need to be addressed. For all I know, we're both wrong and we need to say a thousand "Hail Queen Spider!"s before we can redistribute GPL code.
Penalizing you (revoking your subscription) is not freely distibuting.
There's the key word. YOU. This is a restriction placed on YOU, as a term of your subscription agreement. It is not telling you what you can and can not do with the source. A distribution restriction would be saying "You can't distribute this to blacks, Mexicans, stupid people, people with herpes, anyone from Australia, magicians, librarians, guys named Tim, or baseball players." or, more likely, "You can't give this to our competitors."
Actually, you are entitled to make backups of anything and every you own. Fair use provisions were enacted before software was even a word. You are also entitled to use portions of something for review purposes. Neither of these matter, the whole argument is bullshit anyway.
No, it is not putting a restriction on your right to redistribute the software. You can distribute it all you want, you just aren't a subscriber anymore. This is not a restriction on the distribution, this is a restriction ON YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.
For those of use who are still stuck on Intel 386 hardware with a VGA card, can somebody please convert those benchmarks into something understandable?
Basically, it means "Bend over and take it, bitch."
The article is benchmarks of current video cards, not an actual Doom 3 benchmark. When you benchmark vidcards, you do so ON THE BEST POSSIBLE SYSTEM so you are sure that the system is not bottlenecking the card.
Once the demo comes out I'm willing to risk frying my lowly little K6-2 500Mhz with 192MB RAM and GeForce 4 MX420 (PCI) finding out exactly that. I can manage about 3FPS on UT2K4. If I can get 5SPF (seconds per frame) in Doom 3, I'll be happy.;)
That is completely beside the point. Drop the word subscription for a second. It implies something that the GPL doesn't. Namely, future entitlement to source and binaries. Now, what if you bought a piece of software on a one-shot basis and were provided the source at that time. Is the developer required to give you every future revision of the code? No, they are not. If you have an agreement with them for long-term purchasing and you violate that agreement, do they still have to give you the code for future releases? No, they do not. The GPL only entitles you to code when you have purchased a binary and in no way implies that you are entitled to future code revisions.
The argument is that if your CD's are DRM-encumbered then you can't make a backup on your own. It's bullshit, of course. At some point the signal always turns to analog.
Sveasoft cannot refuse source access FOR THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A BINARY FROM THEM.
Agreed, and entirely correct.
Refusal to pay for a subscription is not a valid reason for restricting source access (once binaries have been sold).
Agreed again. To a point.
Consequently the GPL implies that every binary bought from Sveasoft must come with a free subscription to the source code.
Incorrect. The GPL doesn't imply anything, it spells it out in a relatively clear manner. Yes, if you buy the binary you must be provided, in some way, with the source code. The single incorrect word in your statement is *subscription*. You are not entitled to future revisions of the code. At the time that you buy the binary, you are entitled to the code *FOR THAT VERSION*. The is absolutely no implication that you are entitled to future versions of the software. This may be a loophole, it may be structured like this. I think it's the former, because even as much of a loon as I think Stallman is, I don't see him leaving a gaping wound like that in the GPL by accident.
Sveasoft are not free to cancel this subscription if the source is redistributed.
Ah, but they are. Your subscription comes with a Terms of Service. Their ToS states that the code for the 'release' binary you are given can be distributed all you want. However, distribution of the 'pre-release' version is grounds for termination of your subscription. You don't have to give the code back, you don't lose your rights under the GPL to distribute the code in the future, you simply are no longer a subscriber to their service. This is not a restriction on the software, it is a ToS agreement.
There's a difference in saying "by distributing this you lose your subscription" and saying "you can't distribute this", which is a REAL restriction on distribution. One is applied to the code, the other to YOU.
You can't have a subscription anymore, but you're entitled to the source via the GPL anyway.
Incorrect. When you had a subscription, you were given, or provided for a fee, the source for the version of the software that you bought. That is ALL that you are entitled to. If you do not purchase binaries in the future, there is nothing requiring that the code be made available to you. Interesting to know, isn't it?
They're not putting restrictions on the redistribution. They're putting restrictions on their own subscriptions. In order to be a subscriber, you have to abide by their terms. One of those terms is not redistributing the source. If you choose to distribute the source, it simply terminates your subscription. This may not be in the spirit of the GPL (not that I care much), but at least from my interpretation is is well within the letter of the GPL.
Tracking who you sold the code to, and what they did with it, may be a bit unethical but it is in no way against the GPL.
Not true. If he made his code using a GPL base, it's not his property exclusively. Fruits of the tree become trees of the fruit.
But he's still right. Until you distribute your modifications, nobody has any right to them whatsoever. Read the GPL a few more times.
People: don't use GPL code if you can't RTFM.
Don't comment on the GPL unless you understand it. The only thing that Sveasoft is doing that is even a little bit out of sync with the GPL is the cost of the source, but even that isn't outlined in the GPL. After you get the source, you are free to do whatever you want with it. There is absolutely nothing here that violates either the letter or spirit of the GPL. It is a total lack of understanding of the GPL that makes you THINK there is a problem.
The GPL doesn't allow code modifiers to keep their code secret
Yes it does. The GPL only kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE your modifications. You can keep them in-house all you want. This is a pedantic reply, I know, but it's an important distinction to make.
Forcing people to put their software up for download is, oddly enough, a violation of the spirit of the GPL. You are not required to make your code publicly available, EVER. In fact, the only time you have to give anyone your code for any reason is when you distribute binaries, and you don't even have to do that for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Flash is more advanced than PNG. I want to see Flash on more websites...
Then wait two weeks for the game to be released. This article was obviously not intended to be a complete rundown of every videocard in current use. It was a synopsis of where the current high-end cards rate when running Doom 3 and nothing more.
Not the way I'm reading it. The way I'm seeing it, their subscription agreement as a clause that causes section 7 to come into effect. You can't break an agreement to comply with GPL redistribution, your rights to redistribute are simply taken away.
Let's take the money equation out of this for a second, and let's bring an NDA into the fold. If one company provided GPL code to another, but did so under the terms of an NDA, the company receiving the code could not break the NDA and distribute the GPL code because according to section 7, they have no right to distribute it since doing so would violate the NDA. However, after the NDA expires they are free to distribute the code at will since they are no longer bound by the NDA and section 7 no longer applies.
It's all very ass-numbing. I expect a rundown from Stallman in the days to come. As much as I dislike the dude and his weirdass ways, he pays attention to shit like this and always responds in full.
Conflict of interest? In benchmarks that were overseen by the developer, nVidia, AND ATI? What the hell are you talking about? Do YOU even know? Carmack isn't anyone's bitch, and never has been. I don't see this changing anytime soon. Id may have a better business relationship with nVidia than with ATI, but that's ATI's fault isn't it?
Anyone else, I'd agree, but we're talking about Carmack here. He basically put OpenGL on the gaming map by refusing to use Direct3D. I don't see him being nVidia's monkey-boy anytime soon. He has too good of a reputation to do anything that stupid.
Good post, anyway. It certainly raises some questions that need to be addressed. For all I know, we're both wrong and we need to say a thousand "Hail Queen Spider!"s before we can redistribute GPL code.
Actually, you are entitled to make backups of anything and every you own. Fair use provisions were enacted before software was even a word. You are also entitled to use portions of something for review purposes. Neither of these matter, the whole argument is bullshit anyway.
No, it is not putting a restriction on your right to redistribute the software. You can distribute it all you want, you just aren't a subscriber anymore. This is not a restriction on the distribution, this is a restriction ON YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.
The article is benchmarks of current video cards, not an actual Doom 3 benchmark. When you benchmark vidcards, you do so ON THE BEST POSSIBLE SYSTEM so you are sure that the system is not bottlenecking the card.
Once the demo comes out I'm willing to risk frying my lowly little K6-2 500Mhz with 192MB RAM and GeForce 4 MX420 (PCI) finding out exactly that. I can manage about 3FPS on UT2K4. If I can get 5SPF (seconds per frame) in Doom 3, I'll be happy. ;)
That is completely beside the point. Drop the word subscription for a second. It implies something that the GPL doesn't. Namely, future entitlement to source and binaries. Now, what if you bought a piece of software on a one-shot basis and were provided the source at that time. Is the developer required to give you every future revision of the code? No, they are not. If you have an agreement with them for long-term purchasing and you violate that agreement, do they still have to give you the code for future releases? No, they do not. The GPL only entitles you to code when you have purchased a binary and in no way implies that you are entitled to future code revisions.
The argument is that if your CD's are DRM-encumbered then you can't make a backup on your own. It's bullshit, of course. At some point the signal always turns to analog.
There's a difference in saying "by distributing this you lose your subscription" and saying "you can't distribute this", which is a REAL restriction on distribution. One is applied to the code, the other to YOU.
Exactly. And to the grandparent, check my recent posts. Karma isn't exactly important to me.
They're not putting restrictions on the redistribution. They're putting restrictions on their own subscriptions. In order to be a subscriber, you have to abide by their terms. One of those terms is not redistributing the source. If you choose to distribute the source, it simply terminates your subscription. This may not be in the spirit of the GPL (not that I care much), but at least from my interpretation is is well within the letter of the GPL.
You're wrong. The code is still GPL. They are simply putting a restriction on being one of their subscribers.
Forcing people to put their software up for download is, oddly enough, a violation of the spirit of the GPL. You are not required to make your code publicly available, EVER. In fact, the only time you have to give anyone your code for any reason is when you distribute binaries, and you don't even have to do that for free.