What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.
For all practical purposes, this is the SAME THING!
If I am writing an application for the purposes of distributing it, then a GPL library is restricting my ability to distribute it. Even if I distribute it within embedded hardware. This is radically different from the LGPL.
your code will need to be GPL compatible.
You've got it backwards. Any code that is considered to be "derivative" by license must be released under the GPL. The "compatibility" refers to linkage/derivation in the other direction.
Since this is frequently misunderstood, let me offer an example. You can distribute an application that links to a BSD licensed library under the GPL, but you may not distribute an application that links to a GPL library under the BSD license.
To the best of my understanding, the X.org people are much more focused on helping Linux become a "desktop" OS than XF86 was.
Considering how nebulous the term "desktop" is, this new focus doesn't encourage me. Is this new "desktop" going to be like Aqua where you can only use a tiny handful of high end video cards? Or are they going to cater to the "Linux isn't ready for the desktop until it can do Doom at 333FPS! crowd? Are they going to dump their traditional policy-neutral stance and tell us what window managers and environments to use? And what about those of us who don't use Linux, will we be left behind as X.org makes the software kernel specific? Enquiring minds want to know!
The American way is to live like a king, declare bankruptcy, get tons of credit card companies begging for your business, out of bankruptcy seven years later, wash, lather, rinse, repeat.
How about those of us that get a "warm & fuzzy feeling" about just being part of a global community ?
You don't have to be a non-profit corporation in order to be a part of the community. Linux (you know, that kernel thing) is very much a part of the community, yet it is unincorporated. It is not a businesses. It's just this one guy living in Santa Clara that's doing it!
Granted, since Gentoo doesn't have "just one guy" behind it, it does need an organizational structure. But that structure doesn't have to be a corporation.
Basically, being a NFP will relieve much of the money-making pressure on Gentoo, so they can fulfill their Social Contract, without having to compromise it so they can mmet some aribitrary profit targets imposed by shareholders and so.
There's no law saying it has to be a corporation. If you don't have shareholders, you don't have to compromise. In fact, incorporation itself is compromise!
When Dell starts shipping a 'laptop heat insulator' for use with Dell laptops - then I'll believe they worked out all the relevant problems
Huh? Didn't you just say "companies are in the business of selling their product...they don't really care if your laptop dies or not"? What makes Dell different?
99.9% of the people who know what a text editor is, and deliberately choose it over a word processor, want much more than to simply "start typing". More than likely, they'll want the behavior to be different when they're typing C++ source code than when they're typing HTML. Those writing a novel are going to have different needs than those writing a sendmail configuration file.
If they're anything like the Indian tribes in California, they're simply spending too much money bribing politicians to have anything left for useful stuff.
I am a BSD advocate. The license is certainly longer, and in a way, that's bad because fewer people can understand it. But my understanding is that it is necessary. In the past we used licenses to tell other hackers that they had permission to use our software. But we are no longer a community of hackers, we now have lawsuit happy lawyers among us. When you have major lawyer-bound organization using (and contributing) to Apache, you can't hold on to the pollyanna licenses of the past.
It sounds to me like they are just taking steps to ensure they don't introduce a more restrictive license to the base system.
Reading through the Apache 2.0 license, I cannot find anything that is more restrictive than before. It's actually less restrictive in some areas, in an attempt to be compatible with the GPL. The two major differences are:
1) Legalese. The original BSD-like Apache license was quite loose in its wording. This scares the crap out of most corporate lawyers ("OMG, there's no clause imdemnifying us against jaywalking!"). So the new license has been tightened up with lawyer-friendly language.
2) Patent license. The old license was a copyright license. It didn't cover patents. The new one does. You're gaining rights as a user with this.
I really don't understand what OpenBSD's problem is with this. It's a free license. It's a "copycenter" license. It's unrestricted and unencumbered. I suspect this is about politics more than any actual license terms.
It's because the present president is owned by $pecial $$ interest
You make a good example of why irrational hatred makes one irrational. The President has nothing to do with municipal networks, municipalities do. So bitch to your municipalities instead. Duh!
You might have an argument if Bush had vetoed a TVA-style bill that would have provided such an initiative, but it didn't happen.
In other words, your kitten getting run over by a car isn't Bush's fault.
Re:Caps Lock? Who cares about Caps Lock?
on
Is Caps Lock Dead?
·
· Score: 1
Capslock isn't useless. It may be useless for *you*, but as dozens of other posts have shown, it's pretty damned useful for lots of other people.
The real question is what if they can individually mark the music you purchase, and hold you liable if that music shows up on the net?
Frankly, I think this is the way to go. If they can provide a painless method of license transferal, and don't layer other crap on top of it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Please note the "don't layer other crap on top" phrase above. That means no copy protection crap. I should be able to time and space shift it however I want.
It doesn't matter what you call system directory names, because at the desktop level and below, the average user just won't care. In other words, the typical newbie will never encounter/etc or/usr/lib. It may sound nice at first glance, but this is not something that will make the system easier for users.
At the "desktop level", however, it does make sense. And oddly enough, this is an area where the FHS and tradition are completely silent. Do what you want and no one will care.
The user isn't going to care that system-wide fonts go in/usr/X11R6/lib/fonts, because the user is going to push the "install font" button instead!
Because it's free advertising. Unlike the flyers stuffed in your newspaper or mailbox, it costs the advertiser nothing. It doesn't matter if a million people scream at and close the window, if just one person with a popup blocker responds, the ad is successful.
You're about to close that popup window, when suddenly you think "Hey, that's exactly what I'm in the market for at this moment in time!"
You realize that if no one voted for either Bozo or Krusty, Bozo would still be unseated. I think it would be a POWERFUL message if the November showed election results of 50% Green and 50% Libertarian.
It sounds impossible, but if everyone voted *for* a candidate, instead of *against* a candidate, it would happen.
This system enables producers and supporters of computer files containing nonproprietary intellectual works to participate in a gift economy.
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Why do I need to "participate" in this "system"? When I post my software on my website under an unenbcumbered license, every and all can come by and grab it. And if I want the unencumbered software of another that has been publicly posted, I can go and grab it. Neither side needs a special system to participate in.
ESR was using a metaphor when we was talking about gift economies in his books. The analogy is not accurate, because computer files are not integral "things". Potlatches were gift economies, because when you give your neighbor a salmon, you had one less for yourself. But when you give your neighbor a copy of your software, you still have it yourself.
Gift economies were based on plentiful resources, but not unlimited resources. (and they also had a strong element of "oneupmanship")
It shows that what the current resident of the office presided over was not acceptable to the rank and file, and therefore, he loses his job.
I totally agree. But that still doesn't mean I'm going to vote for either Bush or Kerry. A clear message that twits-in-office are unacceptable without having to elect yet another twit. There will be more than two candidates in the coming election...
If you have misappropriated proprietary code into a GPL'd product it is no longer GPL'd.
By the strict definition, any software that has a copyright is "proprietary". The FSF just used the wrong word when the wanted a label for a certain class of software. The CSRG word of "encumbered" is much closer to what is meant.
Okay. I cannot imagine what he's talking about here, though. The GPL explicitly forbids such a license being used with any GPLed code, so unless he's just trying to mislead people or doesn't understand the legal nature of the GPL, he's not talking about the GPL.
I really, really, really do not want to defend Ken Brown. I think he is an idiot. But I do understand what he is saying.
The first problem is that he is using the word "free" as a synonym for unowned, unencumbered, not-copyrighted, public domain software. He is in essence using the word "free" in exactly the sense the the FSF wants him to. But the GPL is not fully free in this manner. It includes encumbrances and restrictions. Purposefully. The second problem is that he is using the word "proprietary" in its strict definition, as the state of being owned and controlled by private interests. He is correct in this usage.
So Ken Brown is correct, in that the GPL is a hybrid license containing elements of both free and proprietary.
His error is using the term "hybrid" when he really meant "copyleft".
Slashdot Mirror
What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.
For all practical purposes, this is the SAME THING!
If I am writing an application for the purposes of distributing it, then a GPL library is restricting my ability to distribute it. Even if I distribute it within embedded hardware. This is radically different from the LGPL.
your code will need to be GPL compatible.
You've got it backwards. Any code that is considered to be "derivative" by license must be released under the GPL. The "compatibility" refers to linkage/derivation in the other direction.
Since this is frequently misunderstood, let me offer an example. You can distribute an application that links to a BSD licensed library under the GPL, but you may not distribute an application that links to a GPL library under the BSD license.
To the best of my understanding, the X.org people are much more focused on helping Linux become a "desktop" OS than XF86 was.
Considering how nebulous the term "desktop" is, this new focus doesn't encourage me. Is this new "desktop" going to be like Aqua where you can only use a tiny handful of high end video cards? Or are they going to cater to the "Linux isn't ready for the desktop until it can do Doom at 333FPS! crowd? Are they going to dump their traditional policy-neutral stance and tell us what window managers and environments to use? And what about those of us who don't use Linux, will we be left behind as X.org makes the software kernel specific? Enquiring minds want to know!
The American way is to live like a king, declare bankruptcy, get tons of credit card companies begging for your business, out of bankruptcy seven years later, wash, lather, rinse, repeat.
How about those of us that get a "warm & fuzzy feeling" about just being part of a global community ?
You don't have to be a non-profit corporation in order to be a part of the community. Linux (you know, that kernel thing) is very much a part of the community, yet it is unincorporated. It is not a businesses. It's just this one guy living in Santa Clara that's doing it!
Granted, since Gentoo doesn't have "just one guy" behind it, it does need an organizational structure. But that structure doesn't have to be a corporation.
Basically, being a NFP will relieve much of the money-making pressure on Gentoo, so they can fulfill their Social Contract, without having to compromise it so they can mmet some aribitrary profit targets imposed by shareholders and so.
There's no law saying it has to be a corporation. If you don't have shareholders, you don't have to compromise. In fact, incorporation itself is compromise!
When Dell starts shipping a 'laptop heat insulator' for use with Dell laptops - then I'll believe they worked out all the relevant problems
Huh? Didn't you just say "companies are in the business of selling their product...they don't really care if your laptop dies or not"? What makes Dell different?
99.9% of the people who know what a text editor is, and deliberately choose it over a word processor, want much more than to simply "start typing". More than likely, they'll want the behavior to be different when they're typing C++ source code than when they're typing HTML. Those writing a novel are going to have different needs than those writing a sendmail configuration file.
If they're anything like the Indian tribes in California, they're simply spending too much money bribing politicians to have anything left for useful stuff.
This is a bad thing (in a BSD advocate's view)
I am a BSD advocate. The license is certainly longer, and in a way, that's bad because fewer people can understand it. But my understanding is that it is necessary. In the past we used licenses to tell other hackers that they had permission to use our software. But we are no longer a community of hackers, we now have lawsuit happy lawyers among us. When you have major lawyer-bound organization using (and contributing) to Apache, you can't hold on to the pollyanna licenses of the past.
The old Apache license wasn't GPL compatible either. In neither case should it affect Debian unless they choose to make a political stink out of it.
It sounds to me like they are just taking steps to ensure they don't introduce a more restrictive license to the base system.
Reading through the Apache 2.0 license, I cannot find anything that is more restrictive than before. It's actually less restrictive in some areas, in an attempt to be compatible with the GPL. The two major differences are:
1) Legalese. The original BSD-like Apache license was quite loose in its wording. This scares the crap out of most corporate lawyers ("OMG, there's no clause imdemnifying us against jaywalking!"). So the new license has been tightened up with lawyer-friendly language.
2) Patent license. The old license was a copyright license. It didn't cover patents. The new one does. You're gaining rights as a user with this.
I really don't understand what OpenBSD's problem is with this. It's a free license. It's a "copycenter" license. It's unrestricted and unencumbered. I suspect this is about politics more than any actual license terms.
The parent post I am replying to was modded as flamebait, but it is not! You judge:
I have judged. The post is stupid. Stupid posts invite flames. Thus the post is flamebait.
It's because the present president is owned by $pecial $$ interest
You make a good example of why irrational hatred makes one irrational. The President has nothing to do with municipal networks, municipalities do. So bitch to your municipalities instead. Duh!
You might have an argument if Bush had vetoed a TVA-style bill that would have provided such an initiative, but it didn't happen.
In other words, your kitten getting run over by a car isn't Bush's fault.
Capslock isn't useless. It may be useless for *you*, but as dozens of other posts have shown, it's pretty damned useful for lots of other people.
The real question is what if they can individually mark the music you purchase, and hold you liable if that music shows up on the net?
Frankly, I think this is the way to go. If they can provide a painless method of license transferal, and don't layer other crap on top of it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Please note the "don't layer other crap on top" phrase above. That means no copy protection crap. I should be able to time and space shift it however I want.
It doesn't matter what you call system directory names, because at the desktop level and below, the average user just won't care. In other words, the typical newbie will never encounter /etc or /usr/lib. It may sound nice at first glance, but this is not something that will make the system easier for users.
/usr/X11R6/lib/fonts, because the user is going to push the "install font" button instead!
At the "desktop level", however, it does make sense. And oddly enough, this is an area where the FHS and tradition are completely silent. Do what you want and no one will care.
The user isn't going to care that system-wide fonts go in
Other than core system configuration and core libraries the whole system uses...
/usr/lib, /usr/local, /etc, etc, etc.
So in other words, we'll still need
Just like the Mac, strangly enough...
Because it's free advertising. Unlike the flyers stuffed in your newspaper or mailbox, it costs the advertiser nothing. It doesn't matter if a million people scream at and close the window, if just one person with a popup blocker responds, the ad is successful.
You're about to close that popup window, when suddenly you think "Hey, that's exactly what I'm in the market for at this moment in time!"
Popup? What are popups? Are they related to this spyware and adware stuff I keep hearing about? Are they cousins to viruses?
It must be a Windows thing...
According to you, I'm deluded. Oh well.
You realize that if no one voted for either Bozo or Krusty, Bozo would still be unseated. I think it would be a POWERFUL message if the November showed election results of 50% Green and 50% Libertarian.
It sounds impossible, but if everyone voted *for* a candidate, instead of *against* a candidate, it would happen.
This system enables producers and supporters of computer files containing nonproprietary intellectual works to participate in a gift economy.
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Why do I need to "participate" in this "system"? When I post my software on my website under an unenbcumbered license, every and all can come by and grab it. And if I want the unencumbered software of another that has been publicly posted, I can go and grab it. Neither side needs a special system to participate in.
ESR was using a metaphor when we was talking about gift economies in his books. The analogy is not accurate, because computer files are not integral "things". Potlatches were gift economies, because when you give your neighbor a salmon, you had one less for yourself. But when you give your neighbor a copy of your software, you still have it yourself.
Gift economies were based on plentiful resources, but not unlimited resources. (and they also had a strong element of "oneupmanship")
It shows that what the current resident of the office presided over was not acceptable to the rank and file, and therefore, he loses his job.
I totally agree. But that still doesn't mean I'm going to vote for either Bush or Kerry. A clear message that twits-in-office are unacceptable without having to elect yet another twit. There will be more than two candidates in the coming election...
If you have misappropriated proprietary code into a GPL'd product it is no longer GPL'd.
By the strict definition, any software that has a copyright is "proprietary". The FSF just used the wrong word when the wanted a label for a certain class of software. The CSRG word of "encumbered" is much closer to what is meant.
Okay. I cannot imagine what he's talking about here, though. The GPL explicitly forbids such a license being used with any GPLed code, so unless he's just trying to mislead people or doesn't understand the legal nature of the GPL, he's not talking about the GPL.
I really, really, really do not want to defend Ken Brown. I think he is an idiot. But I do understand what he is saying.
The first problem is that he is using the word "free" as a synonym for unowned, unencumbered, not-copyrighted, public domain software. He is in essence using the word "free" in exactly the sense the the FSF wants him to. But the GPL is not fully free in this manner. It includes encumbrances and restrictions. Purposefully. The second problem is that he is using the word "proprietary" in its strict definition, as the state of being owned and controlled by private interests. He is correct in this usage.
So Ken Brown is correct, in that the GPL is a hybrid license containing elements of both free and proprietary.
His error is using the term "hybrid" when he really meant "copyleft".