I think the GP post is unusually bloodthirsty. If what he says (and I quoted) is true, then if an intern at IBM accidentally omits the COPYING file from a minor patch then IBM better be closing its illegal GPL enterprise, quickly! Or maybe it can weasel out of that for a million billion dollars per developer wronged. I think that is a very bad FUD to spread. If managers hear that they won't permit GPL code anywhere in the company, just to be on the safe side.
First of all, the GP (or rather, GGP now) is exactly right. Second, this kind of thing is specified by copyright law itself, not the GPL. It would apply to any license violation, whether it's the GPL or Microsoft's EULA or whatever.
Anyway, remember exactly what the GGP said: if the parties can't come to an agreement, then the courts will determine one. In the situation you gave, with an accidental violation, obviously even if the copyright owner was unreasonable the courts wouldn't make the penalty too harsh.
That you can see the source code. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the literal definition, and the one most normal people (as well as MS) subscribe to.
That it means the same thing as "Free Software" -- i.e., licensed in such a way to preserve freedom -- except that it may or may not be copyleft. This is the OSI definition.
In neither case does it mean "public domain," which is what you're thinking of.
There is a feeling that Microsoft will always be there, and that they will always be ready to sell you the software you need for your business. which is somewhat true, but not entirely so.
Indeed -- what people need to do is introduce those corporate types to some FoxPro and VB6 users.
I don't think that actively reflects the situation. When the local computer shop resells MS software, they don't agree to the license terms of the MS software before conveying it. And unless it is a special OEM version, they aren't required to support it outside what a local law might impose. Novell is offering a good (SuSE Linux) and they are the ones subject to the license agreements. You could argue that Novell's rights to use the code require them to impose obligations but that would be between the copyright holder and Novell not MS in this case.
First of all, I see now that I should have chosen my words more carefully -- "resell," in the sense of a middleman that blindly passes the software on and isn't involved with the license at all, really wasn't what I meant.
Second, being neither a lawyer nor an expert on exactly what those vouchers say, I'll refrain from arguing this point except to say that the FSF seems to think that Microsoft's involvement as the originator of these vouchers makes it more than just a reseller -- enough to become subject to the license of the software. I trust the opinion of the FSF lawyers more than I do that of the random one that wrote the article.
I still don't see it as Microsoft being subjected to the license at all in this case. Novell is distributing the covered works. If anything it would be on Novell's ability to offer a product.
What's your point? All I said was that nothing allows Microsoft to "ignore" or "evade" the license. "Ignoring" or "evading" a license means having the ability to distribute the software it covers without being bound by its terms. Refraining from distributing at all therefore does not count as "ignoring" or "evading," and thus the lawyer that "thinks Microsoft can Evade [the] GPL 3" is wrong.
The "someone else" is whoever put the disputed IP into the product. If it wasn't someone who had the authority to do so then it isn't supposed to be in the work covered by the GPLv3 license. I would have to know that My claimed infringement exists in order to make an act of giving rights to it away.
WTF?! No, you're wrong. There exists a thing called "due diligence." If you're going to sell a product, it's your responsibility to figure out what the fuck you're selling before you do it! To think otherwise is, frankly, ridiculous and absurd.
I'll bet people on trial for fencing stolen goods use your argument all the time, and I'll bet that, if that's their best argument, they swiftly end up in jail.
Even if I am willfully distributing the software. If I switch to your software because it works better then mine then later find out that you took MY IP and improved it without my permission, I wouldn't have gave anything up with the GPLv3 because of not only the wording of the GPLv3 but because of other ethical issues concerning theft and fraud. You just cannot submarine something into a product to trick a person or company to give up rights without their knowledge.
Okay, now you're just trolling me.
First of all, there's no such thing as "IP." There are patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, and none of them are even slightly like property!
As an aside, think for a second about what you just said. You're actually complaining that someone improved your idea! And you think the person should require your permission to do so? Just who the fuck do you think you are?! Seriously!
Here's a newsflash: you do not have some sort of God-given "right" to your ideas, and they are not your property, "intellectual" or otherwise. The only -- rather tenuous -- claim you have to them is based on a set of laws that exists "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts," for crying out loud! And you have the sheer gall and audacity to t
I'm not convinced you've got category 3 quite right. It seems to me that alcohol would be more of a 2.5, while some of those others might range more up towards 3.5. Or do you have evidence to the contrary (that alcohol actually is as dangerous as opium or cocaine)?
The other reason is because the maximum speed limit isn't set according to what the maximum safe driving speed is. It's set according to Georgia State Code 40-6-181.
If I'm reading the law right, they could raise the speed limit on the perimeter and Interstates within it from 55 to 65 and still comply with part b3.
And just for good measure, check out what happened when some students got together and decided that they would force people to obey the speed limit on Atlanta's Interstate 285 for a while one day. (Hint: A lot of very angry drivers, and even an accident when some genius decided to pass their line of cars on the right shoulder.)
I love that video! In fact, I have half a mind to start a club to do that regularly, as regularly disrupting traffic would seriously be the only way we might get the shitty speed limits finally fixed. I wonder, though, if that would cause the police to enforce the "slower traffic keep right" rule, for once?
Anyway, for the record, I'm an Atlantan and I don't obey the speed limit either. The only people that do are geezers and idiots.
What does Novell have to do with MS using the GPL v3?
Novell is involved because MS attempted to use clever trickery to avoid technically "distributing" the software itself. Instead, MS issued vouchers redeemable for the software, and the entity doing the redeeming is Novell. But the clever trickery fails because the new version of the GPL covers "conveyance" in addition to "distribution," and (at least according to the FSF) "conveyance" includes the voucher scheme too.
Lets put this into some more relative terms, If you are supporting your product and how a third party uses an unrelated product that happens to be conflicting with your product, are you now bound by the license requirements of that third party software?
That's not the situation I'm talking about! The more appropriate analogy would be that you're reselling the third-party product yourself, the third party changes it's license for a new version of the software, and you continue to resell the product. In that case, you do indeed become subject to the license, because you could have chosen to cease reselling it but you continued, willfully, anyway.
So, MS isn't distributing anything, Novell is.
MS is distributing vouchers redeemable for SuSE Linux. According to the lawyers that wrote the GPLv3, that counts as "conveying" SuSE Linux. Therefore, if the vouchers were redeemed for GPLv3 software, Microsoft would become bound by the GPLv3.
Now that a license attempts to impose restrictions that weren't there when the deal was made, MS can only be held for the obligations it agreed to and that were present under the circumstances when the deal was made.
Right, MS can continue "conveying" the old version as if nothing had happened. But if Microsoft chooses to "convey" the new, GPLv3 version, then MS becomes bound by the GPLv3. This is common sense!
Where it gets tricky is the fact that Novell, not Microsoft, is in charge of redeeming the vouchers. What that means is that Novell would be in a position to choose for MS, which would be where the "frustration" you're talking about would come in. But there are only two outcomes from that: either MS agrees with Novell's distribution of GPLv3 code, in which case MS becomes bound by the GPLv3, or MS doesn't agree and Novell distributed the code in violation of the GPLv3. But neither of those outcomes allows MS to "ignore" or "evade" the GPLv3!
SO yes, their agreement would only cover GPLv2 works and when Novell distributes GPLv3 covered works, MS isn't part of that. It is independent of their deal even if some aspects appear to overlap.
But MS becomes part of that if the GPLv3 code was distributed by redeeming a MS-issued voucher!
No, What I am talking about is that MS isn't actually distributing covered works and because the GPLv3 license says so doesn't make them a party to that license just because they made a deal under conditions of another license.
If GPLv3 code gets distributed or "conveyed," it is done so under the conditions of the GPLv3! This is a freakin' tautology; it shouldn't be that hard to understand! Sure, it's not the same agreement as before, but that's irrelevant. MS can't choose to ignore the new license any more than I could agree only to the Windows 2000 EULA and the install Vista.
Novell can act independent of MS and use GPLv3 covered code but that doesn't obligate MS to the terms of it.
Sure! Novell could absolutely distribute GPLv3 code completely outside of the agreement, and be just fine. But Novell can't distribute GPLv3 code when redeeming a MS-issued voucher without involving MS.
Now suppose the parts are patented by a third party who carried a term in the license that says if you use a sweatshop, you have to pay an additions $5 per unit produced. He heard I was going to china to open a factory to continue making the part and included that provision after our deal was made. When I went to China to make your parts, the new plant is considered a sweat shop and your product now costs $6. Are you liable for the extra $5 or just the $1 per part that our agreement was over? That answer is you are only obligated for the $1 dollar. Now,
I wasn't under the impression that Microsoft currently conveys, or plans to convey, any GPL based code at all. Are you saying they do? If so, I agree with your analysis.
At least part of the reason the GPLv3 uses the term "convey" instead of "distribute" is that "convey" is intended to cover situations such as issuing vouchers to be redeemed by a third party.
If you're not saying that they do, I disagree with you. Microsoft has no agreement with any GPL holder, and the GPL3 cannot come back to haunt them, except to prevent them from distributing GPLv3 software.
If the "convey" language holds up, then Microsoft could become subject to the GPL if any vouchers get redeemed with GPLv3 code. If it doesn't hold up, then Novell would be in violation of the GPLv3 for releasing code without a correspondingly "viral" patent license.
Now, the GPLv3 can haunt Suse very easily. That's a different matter.
Oh yes; either way, Novell is rather screwed (either by violating the GPLv3, being unable to fulfill its agreement with Microsoft, or being stuck maintaining GPLv2 forks of everything).
no alphas, no betas, no hints as to what sets it apart from their new Red Hat 5 Linux Desktop
Aside from different support options, why would RedHat want to waste effort making the software different anyway? It's all Free Software; the users could transform one version into another by messing with the package manager!
And why would MS want to use code released under GPL, anyways?
Because MS is obligated to by the agreement with Novell.
Because MS would like people to use the version it controls, instead of some hippie distro like Ubuntu.
Because MS would like to surreptitiously insert patented algorithms into GPL'd code, in hopes of extracting license fees (or better yet, preventing use of the code altogether, since developers could no longer legally share it with each other) while still being able to claim to ignorant PHBs that it "supports open source"
So, if anything, the GPLv3 frustrates the deals and MS would likely only be obligated to what was around when the deals were made.
Right. In other words, Microsoft is only obligated to distribute GPL version 2 software.
What would happen is that you would have to sue them and they would win. If they sued you and you used the GPLv3 as a defense, MS could claims the frustration, cite a few specific article where people have claimed they were going to manipulate the GPL to trick MS out of rights and that defense would likely be lost real fast.
Hold on there, buddy! What you seem to be implying is that MS could distribute GPL version 3 software with impunity (otherwise, how would it make sense to "[use] the GPLv3 as a defense"?). That doesn't make sense, because all Microsoft ever promised to do was distribute the software that existed at the time the agreement was made -- GPL version 2 software.
Nothing about the agreement gave (or even could give) the ability for Microsoft to ignore the license of code produced in the future, any more than the GPLv3 could give the ability to the FSF to condemn actions taken in the past!
It isn't as if once you distribute a GPLv3 covered work that you can never make a claim over IP or patents in a covered work, your limits only go to the work you distributed. So lets, say MS distributed GCC, They would have to both know that something was in it and violated their claims and distribute it after knowing this in order to not be able to go after patent claims on it.
Uh, no. All MS would have to do is willfully distribute it, whether it knew about patent violations or not.
This is because it, as far as I know, haven't distributed (or "conveyed") any GPLv3 code to anyone redeeming a voucher. It's plain common sense that the GPLv3 doesn't apply to any vouchers redeemed for GPLv2 code.
However, what the license does prevent is Microsoft "conveying" any GPLv3 code for those vouchers in the future -- an action which Microsoft has full control over. When people talking about the FSF screwing over Microsoft, they're talking about the fact that Microsoft is forced to do one of the following:
Refuse to redeem any more vouchers
Redeem the vouchers for obsolete (i.e., the last GPLv2 version) software, or
Redeem the vouchers for GPLv3 software and thus be forced to give zero-cost, transferable and sublicensible patent licenses to all comers
Obviously, none of these options are as palatable compared to what Microsoft would prefer to do, which would be to release the newest versions of the software with submarine patent mines, in order to extort license fees from Free Software (which would effectively kill it).
If Microsoft can successfully redeem the vouchers for GPLv3 software and without giving away its patents, then one could say it had "evaded" the GPLv3. Otherwise, this lawyer is an idiot.
(* let "violating the GPL" be defined as shorthand for "failing to abide by the terms of the GPL, thus rendering it void and causing the distributor to violate copyright law.")
Cooler still if they engineered a thermosiphoning loop, for completely passive cooling with no moving parts and no energy draw at all. Sounds like the temperature differentials at work here might be enough to make such a loop work...
Actually, according to what I've read, that sort of thing would work better the higher the temperature differential. So, if it doesn't work at first, overclock! (Or add a TEC.)
Its more than noise, however. We don't need a more efficient cooling system, we need a hard drive that uses less power and generates less heat.
Hey, guess what: the kind of drive you want exists too! (Not to mention, of course, that 2.5" drives also meet your criteria and have been around since forever.)
Adding yet another cooling bus to the desktop sounds like a supremely unpalatable idea. It's much easier and much more reliable to move data over the network than it is to move water around in a computer.
Although I realize this article is talking specifically about storage devices, consider that some things, such as high-end video cards, need to be local. If you're already doing watercooling to have quiet high-performance graphics, why not add your hard drive to the loop and get rid of a case fan?
I have used that site extensively for the design of my computer. It's the quietest PC I've ever encountered.
The quietest PC I've encountered is my iMac, but then again I haven't had enough money to quiet my PC. I wonder, has SPCR done any comparisons to see how quiet Macs are versus the best they can accomplish with their fancy silencing techniques?
Noise is a huge problem these days, and I'd expect it to especially affect the Slashdot readership, since the majority of them are likely to be introverts. Introverts suffer from brain overstimulation all the time. Noise, crowds, situations that require constant attention to multiple variables, push us over the edge and drive us nuts. This is why we are drawn to jobs that require hours of uninterrupted attention, such as those in programming or academia. We find such things calming and are very good at them.
You're confusing introvertedness and geekiness with Asperger's Syndrome. Yes, some people are introverted and geeky because they have difficulty dealing with noise, crowds, and people. However, other people -- like me -- simply like playing with cool toys.
Or is it a console window for the iPhone's operating system?
On OS X, "Console.app" is what's used to display log messages. "Terminal.app" is used to interact with the text shell. That's why this app is named MobileTerminal instead of MobileConsole.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, the GP (or rather, GGP now) is exactly right. Second, this kind of thing is specified by copyright law itself, not the GPL. It would apply to any license violation, whether it's the GPL or Microsoft's EULA or whatever.
Anyway, remember exactly what the GGP said: if the parties can't come to an agreement, then the courts will determine one. In the situation you gave, with an accidental violation, obviously even if the copyright owner was unreasonable the courts wouldn't make the penalty too harsh.
Bullshit!
"Open Source" can mean one of two things:
In neither case does it mean "public domain," which is what you're thinking of.
Indeed -- what people need to do is introduce those corporate types to some FoxPro and VB6 users.
First of all, I see now that I should have chosen my words more carefully -- "resell," in the sense of a middleman that blindly passes the software on and isn't involved with the license at all, really wasn't what I meant.
Second, being neither a lawyer nor an expert on exactly what those vouchers say, I'll refrain from arguing this point except to say that the FSF seems to think that Microsoft's involvement as the originator of these vouchers makes it more than just a reseller -- enough to become subject to the license of the software. I trust the opinion of the FSF lawyers more than I do that of the random one that wrote the article.
What's your point? All I said was that nothing allows Microsoft to "ignore" or "evade" the license. "Ignoring" or "evading" a license means having the ability to distribute the software it covers without being bound by its terms. Refraining from distributing at all therefore does not count as "ignoring" or "evading," and thus the lawyer that "thinks Microsoft can Evade [the] GPL 3" is wrong.
WTF?! No, you're wrong. There exists a thing called "due diligence." If you're going to sell a product, it's your responsibility to figure out what the fuck you're selling before you do it! To think otherwise is, frankly, ridiculous and absurd.
I'll bet people on trial for fencing stolen goods use your argument all the time, and I'll bet that, if that's their best argument, they swiftly end up in jail.
Okay, now you're just trolling me.
As an aside, think for a second about what you just said. You're actually complaining that someone improved your idea! And you think the person should require your permission to do so? Just who the fuck do you think you are?! Seriously!
Here's a newsflash: you do not have some sort of God-given "right" to your ideas, and they are not your property, "intellectual" or otherwise. The only -- rather tenuous -- claim you have to them is based on a set of laws that exists "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts," for crying out loud! And you have the sheer gall and audacity to t
No, it does not "describe." It misleads, and moreover, is designed to do so!
There's no such thing as the "United Kingdom" anymore. Now it's just called Airstrip One...
I'm not convinced you've got category 3 quite right. It seems to me that alcohol would be more of a 2.5, while some of those others might range more up towards 3.5. Or do you have evidence to the contrary (that alcohol actually is as dangerous as opium or cocaine)?
If I'm reading the law right, they could raise the speed limit on the perimeter and Interstates within it from 55 to 65 and still comply with part b3.
I love that video! In fact, I have half a mind to start a club to do that regularly, as regularly disrupting traffic would seriously be the only way we might get the shitty speed limits finally fixed. I wonder, though, if that would cause the police to enforce the "slower traffic keep right" rule, for once?
Anyway, for the record, I'm an Atlantan and I don't obey the speed limit either. The only people that do are geezers and idiots.
Because the iPhone isn't a Mac, and doesn't use OpenFirmware (or EFI, for that matter, probably). It's too bad; it'd be nice if it did.
Novell is involved because MS attempted to use clever trickery to avoid technically "distributing" the software itself. Instead, MS issued vouchers redeemable for the software, and the entity doing the redeeming is Novell. But the clever trickery fails because the new version of the GPL covers "conveyance" in addition to "distribution," and (at least according to the FSF) "conveyance" includes the voucher scheme too.
That's not the situation I'm talking about! The more appropriate analogy would be that you're reselling the third-party product yourself, the third party changes it's license for a new version of the software, and you continue to resell the product. In that case, you do indeed become subject to the license, because you could have chosen to cease reselling it but you continued, willfully, anyway.
MS is distributing vouchers redeemable for SuSE Linux. According to the lawyers that wrote the GPLv3, that counts as "conveying" SuSE Linux. Therefore, if the vouchers were redeemed for GPLv3 software, Microsoft would become bound by the GPLv3.
Right, MS can continue "conveying" the old version as if nothing had happened. But if Microsoft chooses to "convey" the new, GPLv3 version, then MS becomes bound by the GPLv3. This is common sense!
Where it gets tricky is the fact that Novell, not Microsoft, is in charge of redeeming the vouchers. What that means is that Novell would be in a position to choose for MS, which would be where the "frustration" you're talking about would come in. But there are only two outcomes from that: either MS agrees with Novell's distribution of GPLv3 code, in which case MS becomes bound by the GPLv3, or MS doesn't agree and Novell distributed the code in violation of the GPLv3. But neither of those outcomes allows MS to "ignore" or "evade" the GPLv3!
But MS becomes part of that if the GPLv3 code was distributed by redeeming a MS-issued voucher!
If GPLv3 code gets distributed or "conveyed," it is done so under the conditions of the GPLv3! This is a freakin' tautology; it shouldn't be that hard to understand! Sure, it's not the same agreement as before, but that's irrelevant. MS can't choose to ignore the new license any more than I could agree only to the Windows 2000 EULA and the install Vista.
Sure! Novell could absolutely distribute GPLv3 code completely outside of the agreement, and be just fine. But Novell can't distribute GPLv3 code when redeeming a MS-issued voucher without involving MS.
At least part of the reason the GPLv3 uses the term "convey" instead of "distribute" is that "convey" is intended to cover situations such as issuing vouchers to be redeemed by a third party.
If the "convey" language holds up, then Microsoft could become subject to the GPL if any vouchers get redeemed with GPLv3 code. If it doesn't hold up, then Novell would be in violation of the GPLv3 for releasing code without a correspondingly "viral" patent license.
Oh yes; either way, Novell is rather screwed (either by violating the GPLv3, being unable to fulfill its agreement with Microsoft, or being stuck maintaining GPLv2 forks of everything).
Aside from different support options, why would RedHat want to waste effort making the software different anyway? It's all Free Software; the users could transform one version into another by messing with the package manager!
Right. In other words, Microsoft is only obligated to distribute GPL version 2 software.
Hold on there, buddy! What you seem to be implying is that MS could distribute GPL version 3 software with impunity (otherwise, how would it make sense to "[use] the GPLv3 as a defense"?). That doesn't make sense, because all Microsoft ever promised to do was distribute the software that existed at the time the agreement was made -- GPL version 2 software.
Nothing about the agreement gave (or even could give) the ability for Microsoft to ignore the license of code produced in the future, any more than the GPLv3 could give the ability to the FSF to condemn actions taken in the past!
Uh, no. All MS would have to do is willfully distribute it, whether it knew about patent violations or not.
...yet.
This is because it, as far as I know, haven't distributed (or "conveyed") any GPLv3 code to anyone redeeming a voucher. It's plain common sense that the GPLv3 doesn't apply to any vouchers redeemed for GPLv2 code.
However, what the license does prevent is Microsoft "conveying" any GPLv3 code for those vouchers in the future -- an action which Microsoft has full control over. When people talking about the FSF screwing over Microsoft, they're talking about the fact that Microsoft is forced to do one of the following:
Obviously, none of these options are as palatable compared to what Microsoft would prefer to do, which would be to release the newest versions of the software with submarine patent mines, in order to extort license fees from Free Software (which would effectively kill it).
If Microsoft can successfully redeem the vouchers for GPLv3 software and without giving away its patents, then one could say it had "evaded" the GPLv3. Otherwise, this lawyer is an idiot.
(* let "violating the GPL" be defined as shorthand for "failing to abide by the terms of the GPL, thus rendering it void and causing the distributor to violate copyright law.")
Actually, according to what I've read, that sort of thing would work better the higher the temperature differential. So, if it doesn't work at first, overclock! (Or add a TEC.)
Hey, guess what: the kind of drive you want exists too! (Not to mention, of course, that 2.5" drives also meet your criteria and have been around since forever.)
Although I realize this article is talking specifically about storage devices, consider that some things, such as high-end video cards, need to be local. If you're already doing watercooling to have quiet high-performance graphics, why not add your hard drive to the loop and get rid of a case fan?
The quietest PC I've encountered is my iMac, but then again I haven't had enough money to quiet my PC. I wonder, has SPCR done any comparisons to see how quiet Macs are versus the best they can accomplish with their fancy silencing techniques?
You're confusing introvertedness and geekiness with Asperger's Syndrome. Yes, some people are introverted and geeky because they have difficulty dealing with noise, crowds, and people. However, other people -- like me -- simply like playing with cool toys.
...and be enlightened.
On OS X, "Console.app" is what's used to display log messages. "Terminal.app" is used to interact with the text shell. That's why this app is named MobileTerminal instead of MobileConsole.
Cellphone, remember? Why would you want to lead on telemarketers when you pay by the minute?
Yeah, well they fixed that in newer Macs (and by "newer" I mean in the early 90's with OpenFirmware, not 2006 with the Intel switch).
Beats me, but that's irrelevant because nobody ever did so.