and how about if its allergic to some drivers and kills them. You can add many ifs and buts, but thats not the point of discussion.
Of course if the item is defective and causes harm to the user, its the manufacurers liability(weather it was free or not).
OK, agreed to a certain extent. But what about charging extra for the source code when I have already paid for the binary? See my other comment on this.
I am not against sweasoft, they seem to be doing a pretty good job and I think $25 a year subscription fee hardly pays for the effort they are putting in. But that doesn't mean this isn't a GPL violation.
It is wrong to charge *extra* for the source code. You can already get binaries for $20 a year. Per GPL you can't charge more than a resonable distribution fee. From the GPL faq:
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
They are clearly not providing an "equivalent access" to download the source and infact charging extra for it.
Sveasoft now requires you to pay $50 per release of the source code *in addition* to the yearly subscription fees.
you're basically being offered two licenses when you get the code, and you're allowed to pick you can either:
Wrong! Sveasoft is not the owner of the source code. They got it under GPL and they *have* to release it under GPL. If they were the original copyright holder they could have released it under 10 different licences, but this is not the case.
I am a subscriber and they allow you to redistribute, but it seems thats not what they want you to do. From the code download page:
This file is distributed to Sveasoft subscribers only. Redistribution is allowed under the GPL license. However, redistribution terminates Sveasoft subscription rights.
if you happen to modify the registry of the client system to use a differenet "WindowsUpdate" server...
Hmmm, thats a
feature of Windows update that allows you you to set the update server (Search for SUS for info on this). This is to create local update servers and actually works pretty well (we use it on out network). It makes getting the updates so much faster.
Windows update client installs *only* signed content from Microsoft whatever be the source.
Slashdot Mirror
and how about if its allergic to some drivers and kills them. You can add many ifs and buts, but thats not the point of discussion.
Of course if the item is defective and causes harm to the user, its the manufacurers liability(weather it was free or not).
you should see this. I want to visit this place :)
Not piggybacking on Google!
OK, agreed to a certain extent. But what about charging extra for the source code when I have already paid for the binary? See my other comment on this. I am not against sweasoft, they seem to be doing a pretty good job and I think $25 a year subscription fee hardly pays for the effort they are putting in. But that doesn't mean this isn't a GPL violation.
They are clearly not providing an "equivalent access" to download the source and infact charging extra for it.
Sveasoft now requires you to pay $50 per release of the source code *in addition* to the yearly subscription fees.
But the subscription is what gives you access to the source in the first place.
Care to explain exactly what I said that was wrong?
I have been using this for over a year.
They have already outsourced to India. Its called Singhsons now!
Ass Launching a Wi-Fi Hard Drive
a Bill Gates theme park.
... and you might catch a deadly virus just reading the billboards.
Buddhists or Hindus ?
A new version of MyDoom has been found that is targetting bbc.co.uk