No, the linguists have a legitimate point. It all depends on how you define "Windows". If you define it as a "valid license", as opposed to the software itself, then you would be correct. But most people do not define it that way. A genuine Windows CD, whether purchased in a shrink-wrapped box or from a suitcase on a corner in New York, is still genuine. Regardless of its legality.
Even a burned copy of a CD can be genuine! Consider a corporate site license which doesn't have a separate holographed CD for each desktop. Are you saying their Windows are not "genuine"?
The problem you are making is confusing the immaterial with the material. The Mona Lisa is a material object. Copies of the Mona Lisa are not Genuine. But software is immaterial data. Like all data and information, copies can indeed be genuine. In college I once received a copy of Hamlet on mimeographed pages. Yet it was still a genuine Shakespearian play!
Look up "genuine" in the dictionary. It does NOT mean "approved".
Software consists of bytes. For source code the bytes are typically encoded in ascii or latin1. Making a procedure call is no more copyrightable than clicking a link in a webpage.
Procedure call: Place values on the stack. Set the instruction pointer to a predefined location. Jump.
The header files may be copyrighted, but they are NOT patented. You use of the header file is not restricted, only how you may copy and distribute it.
Don't be too pessimistic. Programming prospects are excellent if you have experience. My company is currently looking to add more developers, but other companies are OUTBIDDING us for the experienced applicants.
If you don't have experience, then you'll need to do what your father and grandfather did, and start at the <gasp> bottom and work your way up as you gain experience.
Doesn't Australia get ANY of the blame for this? Shouldn't someone in Australia be getting at LEAST 50% of the blame for signing this treaty? Shouldn't someone in Australia get ALL 100% of the blame for this proposed *Australian* legislation?
I know it's the fashionable thing to blame Bush for everything, but don't take it to ridiculous extremes!
No, no you can't blame Bush. This is stupid. Unless I missed the news this morning, Australia is NOT the 51st state! It is a sovereign nation beholden only to itself. It takes two to sign a treaty. If you want to blame someone, BLAME AUSTRALIA!
Basically, he modified the software, and replaced procedure calls with remote procedure calls
I want to add one thing from my other post... One common mistake programmers make in regard to copyright law, is to assume that making procedure calls constitute copyright derivation. But this view is not in the legal definition. This is even more so for remote procedure calls.
I do not have much sympathy for those who consider this a loophole in the GPL. If you want proprietary like control over you software, then use a proprietary license!
But, it seems that in this case it didn't originally have it. Basically, he modified the software, and replaced procedure calls with remote procedure calls
It's still a very gray area. The modified software is indeed a derivative work. But the software that communicates to it is not. He must adhere to the terms of the GPL for the modified work, but not for the other. Original software is original software. Making a remote procedure call does not suddenly make it unoriginal.
that's one thing they're addressing in GPL v3
It doesn't matter if they're addessing it or not, because the GPL is not Copyright Law! It doesn't matter what the GPL says derivation is, only what copyright law says it is. Period. RMS does not have the authority to clarify the parts of law he considers vague.
The legally-binding license (v2) only says "Derived Work". Now, Jin is a chess client; what happened here is that Rabinovitch extended the client to do voice chat. Doesn't matter that he wrote it in a different language and that he interfaced it with sockets, this, to me, is a clear case of "Derived Work" (IANAL though).
"Derivative Work" has a specific (though maddeningly vague) legal definition. It is not the same as "dependency", a mistake all too many people make. Communicating with a module via sockets does not constitute copyright derivation. Let me quote from Title 17:
A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a derivative work.
In the case of socket communication, the software is not being recast, transformed or adapted. The *functionality* might be, but the functionality is not what is copyrighted.
And there's the conflict right there. I want MORE than one GUI! I want choice and options and freedom and configurability and the absence of artificial restrictions.
p.s. But then again, I'm using FreeBSD and not Linux. Maybe you Linux users really do want a centralized dictatorship. Whatever.
No, I don't call 100 years "overnight". I brought it up only counter the inevitable rebuttal that market prices only work up to the point that oil "suddenly runs out." The idea that the price is going to remain fixed up until the very last barrel of petrolem is silly. But some people aren't content with being silly, and further suggest that no research on alternative energy sources will be made until that point is reached.
If you want to accuse people of illiteracy, point to those claiming we're running out of oil.
There will always be petroleum in the ground. It's just that sometime we might find the price of people sorting through 100 year old garbage for eight hours a day cheaper than the price of unrefined petroleum.
The idea that we will suddenly run out of petroleum overnight is the grossest sort of economic illiteracy.
I know that. But that doesn't stop the fact that the Democrat Party still wants the voters to vote for the Democrat Party candidate.
First, it isn't a single issue race
Yes it is. Leiberman is one of the most liberal Senators in office. But unlike most of the "netroots", he does not have a blinding hatred for Bush. That, and only that, was what caused the netroots to single him out for special treatment. There was some grumblings about his position on Iraq, but his position is hardly unique among Democrat senators. On all other issues he is solidly liberal.
If you hate Bush, you voted for Lamont. If you don't hate Bush, you voted for Leiberman.
But of course! And it's not just the couch potatoes who vote this way. Most Green party members voted for Kerry, the man they themselves called a corporate stooge. Even in states where a Kerry win was guaranteed, Greens still didn't vote for their candidate.
He lost the primary because only Democrats vote in Democrat primaries. But the general election will consist of Democrats AND Republicans AND independents AND third parties. It's tempting to think that all Democrats will vote how their Democrat masters tell them to, but Connecticut voters are more mature than that. I suspect at least a third of them will vote for Leiberman.
Single issue candidates always do better in primaries than in general elections. Which is why Lamont will probably lose. Leiberman is more solidly liberal than Lamont, and Connecticut is a liberal state. Do the math.
Except that there's nothing to enforce with the BSD license! The software is essentially given away, with the license being nothing more than a spot to attach a warranty disclaimer. But the GPL has restrictions specifically designed to regulate the behavior of others. It isn't given away because it has legal strings attached.
Of all the Free and Open Source licenses out there, only the GPL has a dedicated legal team devoted to hunting down license violators. The FSF is Mini-Me to BSA's Doctor Evil.
Turn this around. Take off your "I hate America" goggles and look at it from the other direction. What if this guy ran a child pornography site in the US, then travelled to the UK? He's not breaking any laws in England, but he will STILL be arrested if discovered there. Ditto in just about every other civilized nation in the world.
It's the consumer, stupid. The problem isn't that companies are evil, it's that the consumers just don't care. They may say they do, but their actions say otherwise. The attitude is that they shouldn't have to do anything to get privacy, it should come to them automatically.
Anti-spyware isn't installed because because of privacy concerns, it's installed because the computer slowed down. People don't shred their financial documents. They post political bumper stickers on their cars for the whole world to see. They cheat on their spouses in full view of everyone in the bar. They freely give their name, address and phone to any brick-n-mortor clerk who asked for it. They think "club cards" are neat.
The dichotomies are strange. Credit card records on a laptop harddrive is a front page scandal, but no one cares that paper credit card slips are tossed in the trash unshredded. They're concerned that a spammer might find out their email, but don't care that their phone number is unlisted.
Privacy needs to be protected by the possessor. Your privacy is your responsibility. No one else is going to protect it for you. If you're going to sit on your ass and do nothing about it, then stop bitching when companies do likewise.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the linguists have a legitimate point. It all depends on how you define "Windows". If you define it as a "valid license", as opposed to the software itself, then you would be correct. But most people do not define it that way. A genuine Windows CD, whether purchased in a shrink-wrapped box or from a suitcase on a corner in New York, is still genuine. Regardless of its legality.
Even a burned copy of a CD can be genuine! Consider a corporate site license which doesn't have a separate holographed CD for each desktop. Are you saying their Windows are not "genuine"?
The problem you are making is confusing the immaterial with the material. The Mona Lisa is a material object. Copies of the Mona Lisa are not Genuine. But software is immaterial data. Like all data and information, copies can indeed be genuine. In college I once received a copy of Hamlet on mimeographed pages. Yet it was still a genuine Shakespearian play!
Look up "genuine" in the dictionary. It does NOT mean "approved".
Software consists of bytes. For source code the bytes are typically encoded in ascii or latin1. Making a procedure call is no more copyrightable than clicking a link in a webpage.
Procedure call: Place values on the stack. Set the instruction pointer to a predefined location. Jump.
The header files may be copyrighted, but they are NOT patented. You use of the header file is not restricted, only how you may copy and distribute it.
Don't be too pessimistic. Programming prospects are excellent if you have experience. My company is currently looking to add more developers, but other companies are OUTBIDDING us for the experienced applicants.
If you don't have experience, then you'll need to do what your father and grandfather did, and start at the <gasp> bottom and work your way up as you gain experience.
Doesn't Australia get ANY of the blame for this? Shouldn't someone in Australia be getting at LEAST 50% of the blame for signing this treaty? Shouldn't someone in Australia get ALL 100% of the blame for this proposed *Australian* legislation?
I know it's the fashionable thing to blame Bush for everything, but don't take it to ridiculous extremes!
No, no you can't blame Bush. This is stupid. Unless I missed the news this morning, Australia is NOT the 51st state! It is a sovereign nation beholden only to itself. It takes two to sign a treaty. If you want to blame someone, BLAME AUSTRALIA!
Basically, he modified the software, and replaced procedure calls with remote procedure calls
I want to add one thing from my other post... One common mistake programmers make in regard to copyright law, is to assume that making procedure calls constitute copyright derivation. But this view is not in the legal definition. This is even more so for remote procedure calls.
I do not have much sympathy for those who consider this a loophole in the GPL. If you want proprietary like control over you software, then use a proprietary license!
But, it seems that in this case it didn't originally have it. Basically, he modified the software, and replaced procedure calls with remote procedure calls
It's still a very gray area. The modified software is indeed a derivative work. But the software that communicates to it is not. He must adhere to the terms of the GPL for the modified work, but not for the other. Original software is original software. Making a remote procedure call does not suddenly make it unoriginal.
that's one thing they're addressing in GPL v3
It doesn't matter if they're addessing it or not, because the GPL is not Copyright Law! It doesn't matter what the GPL says derivation is, only what copyright law says it is. Period. RMS does not have the authority to clarify the parts of law he considers vague.
How I wish more people would realize this.
The legally-binding license (v2) only says "Derived Work". Now, Jin is a chess client; what happened here is that Rabinovitch extended the client to do voice chat. Doesn't matter that he wrote it in a different language and that he interfaced it with sockets, this, to me, is a clear case of "Derived Work" (IANAL though).
"Derivative Work" has a specific (though maddeningly vague) legal definition. It is not the same as "dependency", a mistake all too many people make. Communicating with a module via sockets does not constitute copyright derivation. Let me quote from Title 17:
In the case of socket communication, the software is not being recast, transformed or adapted. The *functionality* might be, but the functionality is not what is copyrighted.
Except that Debian has no role in Slackware. Never has.
What I want out of Linux: 1.One GUI.
And there's the conflict right there. I want MORE than one GUI! I want choice and options and freedom and configurability and the absence of artificial restrictions.
p.s. But then again, I'm using FreeBSD and not Linux. Maybe you Linux users really do want a centralized dictatorship. Whatever.
The thing is, the Debian "community" is utterly unlike all the other Open Source and Free Software "communities".
There is no tension in the OSS community, but there certainly is in Debian's.
No, I don't call 100 years "overnight". I brought it up only counter the inevitable rebuttal that market prices only work up to the point that oil "suddenly runs out." The idea that the price is going to remain fixed up until the very last barrel of petrolem is silly. But some people aren't content with being silly, and further suggest that no research on alternative energy sources will be made until that point is reached.
If you want to accuse people of illiteracy, point to those claiming we're running out of oil.
Your biases are showing
And yours aren't?
And what the fuck does Rush have to do with my post?
There will always be petroleum in the ground. It's just that sometime we might find the price of people sorting through 100 year old garbage for eight hours a day cheaper than the price of unrefined petroleum.
The idea that we will suddenly run out of petroleum overnight is the grossest sort of economic illiteracy.
Michigan should be charaging more then lowering taxes!
I mean seriously, it's not like Toronto is doing this without Lansing's permission or anything...
The party bosses opposed Lamont
I know that. But that doesn't stop the fact that the Democrat Party still wants the voters to vote for the Democrat Party candidate.
First, it isn't a single issue race
Yes it is. Leiberman is one of the most liberal Senators in office. But unlike most of the "netroots", he does not have a blinding hatred for Bush. That, and only that, was what caused the netroots to single him out for special treatment. There was some grumblings about his position on Iraq, but his position is hardly unique among Democrat senators. On all other issues he is solidly liberal.
If you hate Bush, you voted for Lamont. If you don't hate Bush, you voted for Leiberman.
But of course! And it's not just the couch potatoes who vote this way. Most Green party members voted for Kerry, the man they themselves called a corporate stooge. Even in states where a Kerry win was guaranteed, Greens still didn't vote for their candidate.
He lost the primary because only Democrats vote in Democrat primaries. But the general election will consist of Democrats AND Republicans AND independents AND third parties. It's tempting to think that all Democrats will vote how their Democrat masters tell them to, but Connecticut voters are more mature than that. I suspect at least a third of them will vote for Leiberman.
Single issue candidates always do better in primaries than in general elections. Which is why Lamont will probably lose. Leiberman is more solidly liberal than Lamont, and Connecticut is a liberal state. Do the math.
Except that there's nothing to enforce with the BSD license! The software is essentially given away, with the license being nothing more than a spot to attach a warranty disclaimer. But the GPL has restrictions specifically designed to regulate the behavior of others. It isn't given away because it has legal strings attached.
Of all the Free and Open Source licenses out there, only the GPL has a dedicated legal team devoted to hunting down license violators. The FSF is Mini-Me to BSA's Doctor Evil.
But child port is illegal in the UK as well, so your argument is also 100% bogus.
Turn this around. Take off your "I hate America" goggles and look at it from the other direction. What if this guy ran a child pornography site in the US, then travelled to the UK? He's not breaking any laws in England, but he will STILL be arrested if discovered there. Ditto in just about every other civilized nation in the world.
It's the consumer, stupid. The problem isn't that companies are evil, it's that the consumers just don't care. They may say they do, but their actions say otherwise. The attitude is that they shouldn't have to do anything to get privacy, it should come to them automatically.
Anti-spyware isn't installed because because of privacy concerns, it's installed because the computer slowed down. People don't shred their financial documents. They post political bumper stickers on their cars for the whole world to see. They cheat on their spouses in full view of everyone in the bar. They freely give their name, address and phone to any brick-n-mortor clerk who asked for it. They think "club cards" are neat.
The dichotomies are strange. Credit card records on a laptop harddrive is a front page scandal, but no one cares that paper credit card slips are tossed in the trash unshredded. They're concerned that a spammer might find out their email, but don't care that their phone number is unlisted.
Privacy needs to be protected by the possessor. Your privacy is your responsibility. No one else is going to protect it for you. If you're going to sit on your ass and do nothing about it, then stop bitching when companies do likewise.
I am not a Republican. Hell, I'm not even a conservative. But you probably feel anyone to the right of Medea Benjamin to be a dangerous reactionary.
You are exactly the problem with the Bay Area liberalism. You consider Gavin Newson a "faux-liberal"? WTF?
I wish people would stop making stupid claims like this because it hurts the open source movement more than anything else.
Actually I wish the case would move forward, so a judge can finally tell us once and for all that the GPL does not trump copyright law!