I don't know anything about you, except that it seems you are happy to infer far too much from far too little information. Developers who love anything will be knowledgable and passionate, and also need to be speak up to do their jobs properly. I've worked with such types, and tend to be very supportive and encouraging.
On the other hand it's much harder to respect those who attempt to do fuck all and achieve even less. Which are you?
I don't remember asking to work with you, I was being facetious. But in certain places, it's not uncommon to be sat round a table with dysfunctional teams, refuseniks, SMEs who are anything but and so on.
Developers, junior or otherwise, also need confidence to present what they believe is the right solution or approach, gaps and concerns and so on.
I have no idea what you work on, or what the teams you work are like, but unfortunately there is a competing tendency for those who don't meet a basic standard of professional competence to brand anyone who does as being egotistical.
If it was mil-spec, there should have been a pretty stringent acceptance process. Why would anyone sign up to unlimited liability? -there was an agreed spec -the client set the acceptance criteria -they delivered what was in the spec -triggering acceptance finalizes the contract and their liability is limited
> The various GPL versions were drawn up to have an effect on the world that RMS wants. I know. I have no idea why you are telling me this, since we were discussing the situation as it _is_ for developers in corporations as of today. As for ideological purity.
> If ABC sends GPLed software to their XYZ subsidiary, then why would XYZ release it freely? That is irrelevant if the ABC to XYZ distribution itself wasn't under the terms of the license of any part for which ABC is not the licensee. That sounds bad, until you realize that dynamically linking to a GPL library that you do not distribute might be enough to hit an embarrassingly low bar of violation, that flies in the face of the natural interpretation of dynamic linking every single developer I have ever met shares.
> As far as the legal department goes, if they can't understand a fairly short license written to be explicit, well, that's not my fault. Nor mine. What's your point?
> it's one that is clear enough so that it's obvious who would win, I presume you've not been involved in any court cases, via your employer or otherwise? The outcome is never clear, it is always costly in terms not only of legal costs, but internal company discovery and retasking, and if you have poor representation or drop the ball in an way, this can trump the facts being on your side. There are some cases I know of where a decision was made which flew in the face of facts already accepted in prior hearings, and it took further appeals to reverse. If you want to take yet more risks in terms of costs awarded, which often surpass the damage or opportunity cost under the case itself, feel free to do so.
Individual communication channels may scale in that way, but it's very simplistic to think they are the problem. And actually, if you think everything can be solved by ratcheting up communications/tracking processes, you are part of the problem.
It's also poor processes, and boiler-plate approaches to project management being applied. It's also unrealistic expectations, tetris planning (individual quotes for broken-down items, hard dates, idea that you can shuffle around at will).
It's also the structure of an increasingly larger organization, and the competing goals and tribalism that accompanies it.
It's also the fact that a larger pool of developers will tend towards "average" ability at best, and it will be harder to judge/reward their contributions. It's also the fact that everyone on a larger project knows this.
It's also the fact that details are often lost in a larger design, and the number of people who cope with abstraction well is very very small.
It's also the fact that those who incur technical debt often don't need to worry who pays it back. It's also the fact that many architectures are poor, and even when you rub someones nose in the detail, they can't see the tradeoff in a tactical approach to a strategic problem.
There is no monopoly on vision, and frankly, the question of the ownership of media and culture, interoperation, access to historical documents etc. has been evident to a large number of people for much longer than you give credit for.
When a paper book went out of copyright, you had the book, and that's all you needed. "The source" might have included a bunch of notes and earlier drafts, but broadly the value was in the finished article.
Software itself is much easier to reason about. The GPL really embodies an equivalence relationship between the "source code" and "object code" of software products. Practically speaking, software was the only area in which this could possibly have made any sense before commodity computer hardware, and digitisation of content production workflow.
So although a recording engineer's "patch sheet" might have shown which way the compressor was set for a specific hit single, or their studio notes might have recorded which note a guitar actually hit and via which microphone, it wasn't digital, it wasn't recorded, it was never considered part of the "product" that was the song, and it isn't so obviously part of "the source" to anything.
Now however there is increasingly little difference between media and software. The DAW files or stems used to construct a hit single, the LaTex used to produce a book, the Java used to write a DVD menu, C file used to compile a library.
For example, to qualify for copyright protection at all, should an organization or individual be required to make available in escrow, the inputs "as customarily used" [e.g. script + equipment list + shooting instructions + concept art for a movie but not costumes, unencrypted searchable rich text and vector graphics files for a book, complete source for a website]? Should a patent grant be allowed to proceed if and only if there are reasonable means by which the patent would be usable by the public after its expiration?
To me, the "real problem" is a determination on where on the line from closed-to-open we as a society should be, and it can't be solved via licenses.
Focussing on why a corporate may not permit use of GPL code, not views and goals:
[1] It's at least demonstrably inconsistent, since (for example) a "common OS" clause is needed.
[2-5] A single end-user can assemble/use anything they like, but these rights are irrelevant if ABC distribute to XYZ against the license terms in the first place. In large corporations, it may not even be clear what legal entities are involved, and practically speaking no-one would get themselves into that position. The LGPL is another indicator of inconsistency in my view.
[6] Correct. However many individuals are granted the necessary authority to use/assemble for a legal entity, or release internally/externally, under licenses as agreed, as long they do not trigger additional license changes or obligations.
[7] Thanks for the practical suggestion.
[8] It's not relevant why it hasn't been tested in court, just note that it hasn't. No-one in their right mind would want to take it as far as not taking it that far.:)
In some cases, this amounts to using VMs to model poor deployment and versioning processes.
The obsolete app approach will also run out of road - for businesses that are required to run on e.g. only supported OS versions, the VM approach would only buy an extra 2-3 years (i.e. when you can't buy new hardware which ships with $OS). Since this will apply to a lot of larger enterprises, they will be likely to apply it to their hosting (or even service) providers.
> If you don't like it, nobody forces you to use my code.:-) Well, naturally I wouldn't, so it always feels vaguely insulting to be told this just because we are discussing the GPL... I'm sure that's not your intention.
I was responding to someone asking -why- large corporations are not keen to use GPL. This doesn't reflect what I think -should be-, only what -is-.
However FWIW we can weight parts of the software tree that need to be free (including hardware drivers, development tools, protocols, client libraries) - the types of software that are not only reused, but worthwhile reusing. The crap - not so much. There seems to be no reason at all that the FSF -or anyone else- should be unhappy that proprietary development happens, uses free parts of the tree (and helps their adoption) so long as it doesn't end up in distributed software products that can bring the tree into a closed form.
To that extent, the GPL is working well, but the main barrier is "dynamic linking" seems not only unnecessary, but goes against most developer's notions that dynamically linking to a library doesn't form a combined single product (hence the vague twaddle about "common OS components", not least since the GNU project couldn't have got started if that had been imposed by the then UNIX vendors).
Anyway believe me, you wouldn't _want_ the code for most enterprise apps:-)
1) FSF's position on dynamic linking is retarded 2) A large corporation consists of multiple legal entities. It's not difficult to trigger "distribution". 3) If any "distribution" doesn't abide by the terms of the GPL, even when to a wholly-owned subsidiary, the organization could lose all rights under the GPL. 4) Therefore it may have to "include" source code for an entire application + vendor libraries 5) It literally won't be able to, since it may not own all of them, or some may be extremely commercially sensitive. 6) an individual developer, manager or department head can't just decide to commit a large corporation - that's why they have legal 7) Whatever a dev know about licenses won't accurately transmit to legal anyway 8) None of this stuff has been tested in court. "Making sense" or "I think" isn't enough.
Linux won't count for primarily three reasons 9) vendor distributions - if there's a problem with closed source binary drivers, practically speaking they'd have to take out Oracle, RH, SUSE first 10) the GPL specifically excludes use of e.g. common OS APIs in dynamic linking, so applications a firm distributes internally can stay closed, as long as they don't add anything GPL that is NOT part of the OS 11) There's probably nothing of real value that they add to e.g. Linux anyway. Do you want to see thousands of poxy scripts added to configure up the HTTP proxy and new hostname generation in every large enterprise?
Yep, that will be incredibly handy, and will be addressing a clear problem that many users and enterprises have to solve,
We can move to a completely different OS design, to avoid running a development machine [where an experimental driver is mated to experimental hardware], and to avoid setting up a VM for experimental driver software, and the driver will only take out entire subsystems on the host machine (network, filesystem) when it fails.
> If you get a letter from anyone threatening legal action and demanding some sort of a payment to avoid it, you are a fool not to seek legal council.
Not really, since you have "judgement" which is free to exercise. Getting legal counsel is however a good way to rack up a bill, whilst your lawyer may spend as little time as possible on your case, or even give completely incorrect advice.
Even if a company is adding value, there are additional factors such as whether or not their size itself acts as a competitive barrier; where they can add value only in the context of market interference (patents themselves are an artificial right granted by the government on behalf of the people) or where we are not counting the cost of not adhering to the spirit in which patents are supposed to be granted.
I'll park further comment since you've explained your position as much more reasonable, but I think you have a tendency to veer back into the insulting with reference to the Dunning-Kruger delusion. Monsanto may add value (frankly I don't know enough to tell for sure) but it is certainly open for debate, and particularly given the rights grant, the question of whether or not the subject of the patents can be practically used freely after expiry and the background of laws written to apply to manufactured artefacts now being applied to biological organisms.
But you didn't give permission for them to access any URL in your message, similarly they don't have a right to send a mail as/to any email address you include in a message.
Whatever hubris I posses should not be replaced with a group hubris to be invoked by specialists of all kinds merely because they are specialists. That is incredibly dangerous, speaks more to monopoly than civic virtue and communication, and is particularly vexing where it applies to the law, moral obligations, and how we wish to develop as a society. Incidentally, the common law certainly expects you to interpret it, since the "average" mechanic you just mentioned has to follow it, and the "average" police officer must enforce it, and it's clear that you have a form of hubris in referring to an "average" mechanic
That we have devolved this to a political and lawyer class who have made a set of ivory towers, is a problem to be fixed, and yet your post appeals to its acceleration, to allow the very laws which govern us to be set by the unjust in pursuit of selfish goals.
The idea that anyone needs to devote their life to a field before being able to reason about it is preposterous - after all, are you not a lawyer specialising in Agricultural Law either. Many fields are subject to some understanding of at least where the issues come from, and even experts can communicate the basis of their thinking. Putting experts on a pedestal also ignores where they will fall short - for example, how well versed in statistics are researchers across different fields?
In this case, specialism does not override that the laws that are written as "whoever makes..." are being applied to self-replicating biological artefacts via logical contortion. We will inevitably see the introduction of weasel words such as "patented instances" to mask that this is being done.
Specialism does not override the fact that banning seed replanting, and introducing a new patented variant years before the patent expiry can be construed as a wilful attempt to subvert the goal of having patent law in the first place, and that a condition of granting the patent in the first place should have been that a seed bank be made available to the public on its expiry.
Specialism does not override that the formation and maintenance of companies that seek only to intermediate themselves rather than add value year-on-year, is classic rent-seeking behavior.
> I don't tell lawyers what the law says Indeed, since this is the function of the legislature, which should do so on the people's behalf, and lawyers must still argue their case where the law admits clarification or interpretation. There is no justification for the law being impenetrable to an informed citizen, nor and the processes surrounding it adorned with theatre simply to disenfranchise the people from understanding it, shaping it, and keeping to it.
> I don't tell teachers how to teach, or mechanics how to fix cars. Not all teachers are great teachers, and to discharge their responsibility to their children, many parents look for indications as to how an education is progressing, and they will exercise their judgment to the extent that knowledge and common sense can support.
Similarly, I have questioned experts in various fields in the past - justifiably and fruitfully.
Perhaps you just can't, perhaps are over-passive, or perhaps you have no capacity for deduction. Of course, I simply don't know you well enough to tell, but since you did not apply the courtesy of separating assumption from fact in your comment, we can at least draw the conclusion that you lack integrity.
Slashdot Mirror
:)
I don't know anything about you, except that it seems you are happy to infer far too much from far too little information. Developers who love anything will be knowledgable and passionate, and also need to be speak up to do their jobs properly. I've worked with such types, and tend to be very supportive and encouraging.
On the other hand it's much harder to respect those who attempt to do fuck all and achieve even less. Which are you?
I don't remember asking to work with you, I was being facetious. But in certain places, it's not uncommon to be sat round a table with dysfunctional teams, refuseniks, SMEs who are anything but and so on.
Developers, junior or otherwise, also need confidence to present what they believe is the right solution or approach, gaps and concerns and so on.
I have no idea what you work on, or what the teams you work are like, but unfortunately there is a competing tendency for those who don't meet a basic standard of professional competence to brand anyone who does as being egotistical.
If it was mil-spec, there should have been a pretty stringent acceptance process. Why would anyone sign up to unlimited liability?
-there was an agreed spec
-the client set the acceptance criteria
-they delivered what was in the spec
-triggering acceptance finalizes the contract and their liability is limited
> The various GPL versions were drawn up to have an effect on the world that RMS wants.
I know. I have no idea why you are telling me this, since we were discussing the situation as it _is_ for developers in corporations as of today. As for ideological purity.
> If ABC sends GPLed software to their XYZ subsidiary, then why would XYZ release it freely?
That is irrelevant if the ABC to XYZ distribution itself wasn't under the terms of the license of any part for which ABC is not the licensee. That sounds bad, until you realize that dynamically linking to a GPL library that you do not distribute might be enough to hit an embarrassingly low bar of violation, that flies in the face of the natural interpretation of dynamic linking every single developer I have ever met shares.
> As far as the legal department goes, if they can't understand a fairly short license written to be explicit, well, that's not my fault.
Nor mine. What's your point?
> it's one that is clear enough so that it's obvious who would win,
I presume you've not been involved in any court cases, via your employer or otherwise? The outcome is never clear, it is always costly in terms not only of legal costs, but internal company discovery and retasking, and if you have poor representation or drop the ball in an way, this can trump the facts being on your side. There are some cases I know of where a decision was made which flew in the face of facts already accepted in prior hearings, and it took further appeals to reverse. If you want to take yet more risks in terms of costs awarded, which often surpass the damage or opportunity cost under the case itself, feel free to do so.
What if it's true?
Individual communication channels may scale in that way, but it's very simplistic to think they are the problem. And actually, if you think everything can be solved by ratcheting up communications/tracking processes, you are part of the problem.
It's also poor processes, and boiler-plate approaches to project management being applied. It's also unrealistic expectations, tetris planning (individual quotes for broken-down items, hard dates, idea that you can shuffle around at will).
It's also the structure of an increasingly larger organization, and the competing goals and tribalism that accompanies it.
It's also the fact that a larger pool of developers will tend towards "average" ability at best, and it will be harder to judge/reward their contributions. It's also the fact that everyone on a larger project knows this.
It's also the fact that details are often lost in a larger design, and the number of people who cope with abstraction well is very very small.
It's also the fact that those who incur technical debt often don't need to worry who pays it back. It's also the fact that many architectures are poor, and even when you rub someones nose in the detail, they can't see the tradeoff in a tactical approach to a strategic problem.
There is no monopoly on vision, and frankly, the question of the ownership of media and culture, interoperation, access to historical documents etc. has been evident to a large number of people for much longer than you give credit for.
When a paper book went out of copyright, you had the book, and that's all you needed. "The source" might have included a bunch of notes and earlier drafts, but broadly the value was in the finished article.
Software itself is much easier to reason about. The GPL really embodies an equivalence relationship between the "source code" and "object code" of software products. Practically speaking, software was the only area in which this could possibly have made any sense before commodity computer hardware, and digitisation of content production workflow.
So although a recording engineer's "patch sheet" might have shown which way the compressor was set for a specific hit single, or their studio notes might have recorded which note a guitar actually hit and via which microphone, it wasn't digital, it wasn't recorded, it was never considered part of the "product" that was the song, and it isn't so obviously part of "the source" to anything.
Now however there is increasingly little difference between media and software. The DAW files or stems used to construct a hit single, the LaTex used to produce a book, the Java used to write a DVD menu, C file used to compile a library.
For example, to qualify for copyright protection at all, should an organization or individual be required to make available in escrow, the inputs "as customarily used" [e.g. script + equipment list + shooting instructions + concept art for a movie but not costumes, unencrypted searchable rich text and vector graphics files for a book, complete source for a website]? Should a patent grant be allowed to proceed if and only if there are reasonable means by which the patent would be usable by the public after its expiration?
To me, the "real problem" is a determination on where on the line from closed-to-open we as a society should be, and it can't be solved via licenses.
and no-one is forcing anyone to read, respond to, or act on, comments
Focussing on why a corporate may not permit use of GPL code, not views and goals:
[1] It's at least demonstrably inconsistent, since (for example) a "common OS" clause is needed.
[2-5] A single end-user can assemble/use anything they like, but these rights are irrelevant if ABC distribute to XYZ against the license terms in the first place. In large corporations, it may not even be clear what legal entities are involved, and practically speaking no-one would get themselves into that position. The LGPL is another indicator of inconsistency in my view.
[6] Correct. However many individuals are granted the necessary authority to use/assemble for a legal entity, or release internally/externally, under licenses as agreed, as long they do not trigger additional license changes or obligations.
[7] Thanks for the practical suggestion.
[8] It's not relevant why it hasn't been tested in court, just note that it hasn't. No-one in their right mind would want to take it as far as not taking it that far. :)
...and the other is a corrupt government?
In some cases, this amounts to using VMs to model poor deployment and versioning processes.
The obsolete app approach will also run out of road - for businesses that are required to run on e.g. only supported OS versions, the VM approach would only buy an extra 2-3 years (i.e. when you can't buy new hardware which ships with $OS). Since this will apply to a lot of larger enterprises, they will be likely to apply it to their hosting (or even service) providers.
> If you don't like it, nobody forces you to use my code. :-)
Well, naturally I wouldn't, so it always feels vaguely insulting to be told this just because we are discussing the GPL... I'm sure that's not your intention.
Discussing why x might/might not want to do y does not automatically mean you are/agree with x and will do y regardless of legality.
You can talk about it with your school friends on Monday.
I was responding to someone asking -why- large corporations are not keen to use GPL. This doesn't reflect what I think -should be-, only what -is-.
However FWIW we can weight parts of the software tree that need to be free (including hardware drivers, development tools, protocols, client libraries) - the types of software that are not only reused, but worthwhile reusing. The crap - not so much. There seems to be no reason at all that the FSF -or anyone else- should be unhappy that proprietary development happens, uses free parts of the tree (and helps their adoption) so long as it doesn't end up in distributed software products that can bring the tree into a closed form.
To that extent, the GPL is working well, but the main barrier is "dynamic linking" seems not only unnecessary, but goes against most developer's notions that dynamically linking to a library doesn't form a combined single product (hence the vague twaddle about "common OS components", not least since the GNU project couldn't have got started if that had been imposed by the then UNIX vendors).
Anyway believe me, you wouldn't _want_ the code for most enterprise apps :-)
Look up my separate comment on exactly that.
However "intention" != "actual"
That is complete and utter rubbish, since most software development activity is precisely this, and the GNU FAQs explicitly address it.
It's quite simple really.
1) FSF's position on dynamic linking is retarded
2) A large corporation consists of multiple legal entities. It's not difficult to trigger "distribution".
3) If any "distribution" doesn't abide by the terms of the GPL, even when to a wholly-owned subsidiary, the organization could lose all rights under the GPL.
4) Therefore it may have to "include" source code for an entire application + vendor libraries
5) It literally won't be able to, since it may not own all of them, or some may be extremely commercially sensitive.
6) an individual developer, manager or department head can't just decide to commit a large corporation - that's why they have legal
7) Whatever a dev know about licenses won't accurately transmit to legal anyway
8) None of this stuff has been tested in court. "Making sense" or "I think" isn't enough.
Linux won't count for primarily three reasons
9) vendor distributions - if there's a problem with closed source binary drivers, practically speaking they'd have to take out Oracle, RH, SUSE first
10) the GPL specifically excludes use of e.g. common OS APIs in dynamic linking, so applications a firm distributes internally can stay closed, as long as they don't add anything GPL that is NOT part of the OS
11) There's probably nothing of real value that they add to e.g. Linux anyway. Do you want to see thousands of poxy scripts added to configure up the HTTP proxy and new hostname generation in every large enterprise?
Yep, that will be incredibly handy, and will be addressing a clear problem that many users and enterprises have to solve,
We can move to a completely different OS design, to avoid running a development machine [where an experimental driver is mated to experimental hardware], and to avoid setting up a VM for experimental driver software, and the driver will only take out entire subsystems on the host machine (network, filesystem) when it fails.
> If you get a letter from anyone threatening legal action and demanding some sort of a payment to avoid it, you are a fool not to seek legal council.
Not really, since you have "judgement" which is free to exercise. Getting legal counsel is however a good way to rack up a bill, whilst your lawyer may spend as little time as possible on your case, or even give completely incorrect advice.
Even if a company is adding value, there are additional factors such as whether or not their size itself acts as a competitive barrier; where they can add value only in the context of market interference (patents themselves are an artificial right granted by the government on behalf of the people) or where we are not counting the cost of not adhering to the spirit in which patents are supposed to be granted.
I'll park further comment since you've explained your position as much more reasonable, but I think you have a tendency to veer back into the insulting with reference to the Dunning-Kruger delusion. Monsanto may add value (frankly I don't know enough to tell for sure) but it is certainly open for debate, and particularly given the rights grant, the question of whether or not the subject of the patents can be practically used freely after expiry and the background of laws written to apply to manufactured artefacts now being applied to biological organisms.
To read the message? Maybe.
But you didn't give permission for them to access any URL in your message, similarly they don't have a right to send a mail as/to any email address you include in a message.
Whatever hubris I posses should not be replaced with a group hubris to be invoked by specialists of all kinds merely because they are specialists. That is incredibly dangerous, speaks more to monopoly than civic virtue and communication, and is particularly vexing where it applies to the law, moral obligations, and how we wish to develop as a society. Incidentally, the common law certainly expects you to interpret it, since the "average" mechanic you just mentioned has to follow it, and the "average" police officer must enforce it, and it's clear that you have a form of hubris in referring to an "average" mechanic
That we have devolved this to a political and lawyer class who have made a set of ivory towers, is a problem to be fixed, and yet your post appeals to its acceleration, to allow the very laws which govern us to be set by the unjust in pursuit of selfish goals.
The idea that anyone needs to devote their life to a field before being able to reason about it is preposterous - after all, are you not a lawyer specialising in Agricultural Law either. Many fields are subject to some understanding of at least where the issues come from, and even experts can communicate the basis of their thinking. Putting experts on a pedestal also ignores where they will fall short - for example, how well versed in statistics are researchers across different fields?
In this case, specialism does not override that the laws that are written as "whoever makes..." are being applied to self-replicating biological artefacts via logical contortion. We will inevitably see the introduction of weasel words such as "patented instances" to mask that this is being done.
Specialism does not override the fact that banning seed replanting, and introducing a new patented variant years before the patent expiry can be construed as a wilful attempt to subvert the goal of having patent law in the first place, and that a condition of granting the patent in the first place should have been that a seed bank be made available to the public on its expiry.
Specialism does not override that the formation and maintenance of companies that seek only to intermediate themselves rather than add value year-on-year, is classic rent-seeking behavior.
According to the letter of the law, they should be suing the seeds for making themselves.
> I don't tell lawyers what the law says
Indeed, since this is the function of the legislature, which should do so on the people's behalf, and lawyers must still argue their case where the law admits clarification or interpretation. There is no justification for the law being impenetrable to an informed citizen, nor and the processes surrounding it adorned with theatre simply to disenfranchise the people from understanding it, shaping it, and keeping to it.
> I don't tell teachers how to teach, or mechanics how to fix cars.
Not all teachers are great teachers, and to discharge their responsibility to their children, many parents look for indications as to how an education is progressing, and they will exercise their judgment to the extent that knowledge and common sense can support.
Similarly, I have questioned experts in various fields in the past - justifiably and fruitfully.
Perhaps you just can't, perhaps are over-passive, or perhaps you have no capacity for deduction. Of course, I simply don't know you well enough to tell, but since you did not apply the courtesy of separating assumption from fact in your comment, we can at least draw the conclusion that you lack integrity.