Of course it is a restriction. All licenses impose restrictions. That's the only thing licenses can do. If you put something into the public domain then there are no restrictions. You can only add restrictions by using licenses.
And copyright law for software makes licenses possible. It makes it possible that others can place restrictions on what I can do with software they wrote, and I think placing restrictions is a bad thing like you.
So, of course, when I write software, I don't want to place restrictions on its use. But putting it into the public domain (what would be the total absence of restrictions) is a problem because copyright law then allows anyone to put restrictions on derivates of my work, which I again consider a bad thing.
Therefore I use the GPL as a preferred licence, because it doesn't place restrictions on the use of my software, If you, like me, think that not placing restrictions on software is important.
Shouldn't freedom include the right not to give away your work if you do not want too?
Actually the GPL respects this freedom. You are perfectly allowed not to distribute your GPL-derivated software and you will even be acting morally correct for RMS.
What you may not do however is giving your software away, but without source code, and thereby take the freedom of someone else.
The GPL is in no way different from the BSD licenses when you don't modify and distribute the (compiled) source code. The GPL grants the freedoms that RMS considers important for software and in my opinion
- "The freedom to take source code and redistribute it in a form that does not grant freedom"
is not an important freedom at all. So the GPL is perfectly free. Additionally it enforces freedom for derived works.
You actually can license any program under "GPL v2" and "not any later version". So you know you license exactly. (That's what I do).
You can also create a derived work from a "GPL v2 or later" program and license that under "GPL v2 only" because the header in the source code usually reads "or _at your opinion_ any later version". So you can choose.
The FSF will always use "GPL v2 or later" of course, because it holds the copyrights of all of its software anyway.
free software is software you can use/sell/modify/kludge/hack/whatever without obligation
Actually "Free Software" is not that.
The FSF Foundation defined "Free Software" to be software that grants the following four freedoms (quoted from gnu.org):
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
As you can see, "The freedom to use free code in one's own non-free project" is NOT listed as a required freedom for Free Software. The GPL grants the four listed freedoms though and therefore GPL programs qualify as "Free Software"
Can you name an example? I thought that was impossible because one of the freedoms required by Free Software RMS listed, was the freedom to modify the software. The source code is needed to do that.
If I use your front lawn, you may not be able to use it properly anymore or it will most likely be damaged or whatever. Since it is yours, you can keep me from using it.
This analogy doesn't hold for software, because when I take a copy of your software no harm is done to you whatever I do with it / to it. You still have your original copy which will stay intact.
If a serious bug is found in version 2, it doesn't matter whether something is released as "version 2 or later" or just "version 2" because version 2 applies in all cases.
It is convenient for Software that is copyrighted by the FSF to use "version 2 or later" because the FSF would always use its latest licence for its software. If the FSF became somehow hijacked "version 2" only would not have saved anything because the copyrights to all FSF software belong to the FSF anyway.
Now if you don't trust the FSF, don't use "version 2 or later". Instead read version 3 when it becomes available and if you like it, update your source accordingly. Not that I distrust the FSF or something but I don't want that someone else can specify under which licence my software is given away behind my back.
Actually, I was able to compile a quite FULLY functional SDK using GCJ and jikes. (1.4.x)
I first removed all binary files from the "Source" distribution, they were some classes with encryption routines or so - so the resulting SDK was probably not FULLY functional.
Then i wrote some scripts which emulated "java, javah and javac"
I'm going to try this with 1.5, too.
Actually, if you got a binary program of which you can't get the source, you didn't get it under the BSD license.
The program might have been derived from a BSD program though.
Rather, the webdesigners should NOT rely on non-standard features and/or bugs in webbrowsers. Then everyone would try to make their browser follow the standards as close as possible.
There are (2^128)/(2^32) times more different addresses than on IPv4, but nevertheless an IPv6 address only takes up 4 times as much space as an IPv4 address does.
Remember, if you have a storage of n bits, 2^n different combinations are possible.
So if you take a storage q times larger you have 2^(n*q) different combinations,
> 2^(n*q)/2^(n)
= 2^(n*q) * 2^(-n)
= 2^(n*q-n)
For IPv4->IPv6,
n = 32, q=4
2^(32*4-32) = 2^96 = 79228162514264337593543950336
Using the word friend loosely, everyone who is not your friend is your enemy.
Therefore, everyone is either your enemy or your friend.
Introducing the moral rule "Love your enemies as if they were your friends", "Sharing with your friends" implies "Sharing with your enemies".
Combining these two statements you get "Sharing with everyone".
Therefore if
"Sharing with your friends" is ok,
then "Sharing with everyone" must be ok, too.
I think they could allow everyone to use the technology described in their patents for any purpose for free in any Free Software as defined by the FSF or something and put that into a contract or so.
I think they can't really do that for linux only because they would need to define what linux is. I'd say any work somehow derived from the first linux kernel is linux. So I can now use any IBM patent provided that I include some code from the linux kernel (which of course means that my work must be GPL)
Buffer owerflow attacks won't happen in languages which doesn't "support" that feature, such as perl, python, ruby, java, C# (any managed code), or managed C++ for that matter.
In theory this is true, but to actually run such a program you need a compiler/interpreter for that language, which could contain bugs, so buffer overflows could be possible.
Of course the Java programmer by definition can't introduce a buffer overflow exploit into his Java code, so it will always be the Java interpreter/compiler's fault.
I don't think they exactly like them, but they like users of Free Software much less.
Giving out windows for free to everyone would probably make them gain too little money from their point of view.
Of course I don't know if they really think like this because you obviously can't ask them, but I'm quite sure.
Of course they do. Actually they want people to use pirated copies of windows rather than using Free Software (non-MS).
If everyone using a pirated version was switching to Free Software, there would be much more users not using MS, and that would threaten their monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
An uppercase K is never valid in SI-units for "1000".
2K is 2 Kelvin, not 2000!
A valid equation would be:
2k = 2000
example: If you steal $20 billion and donate $2 billion, you are not anti-social?
Of course it is a restriction. All licenses impose restrictions. That's the only thing licenses can do. If you put something into the public domain then there are no restrictions. You can only add restrictions by using licenses.
And copyright law for software makes licenses possible. It makes it possible that others can place restrictions on what I can do with software they wrote, and I think placing restrictions is a bad thing like you.
So, of course, when I write software, I don't want to place restrictions on its use. But putting it into the public domain (what would be the total absence of restrictions) is a problem because copyright law then allows anyone to put restrictions on derivates of my work, which I again consider a bad thing.
Therefore I use the GPL as a preferred licence, because it doesn't place restrictions on the use of my software, If you, like me, think that not placing restrictions on software is important.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Shouldn't freedom include the right not to give away your work if you do not want too?
Actually the GPL respects this freedom. You are perfectly allowed not to distribute your GPL-derivated software and you will even be acting morally correct for RMS.
What you may not do however is giving your software away, but without source code, and thereby take the freedom of someone else.
The GPL is in no way different from the BSD licenses when you don't modify and distribute the (compiled) source code. The GPL grants the freedoms that RMS considers important for software and in my opinion
- "The freedom to take source code and redistribute it in a form that does not grant freedom"
is not an important freedom at all. So the GPL is perfectly free. Additionally it enforces freedom for derived works.
I think any good versioning filesystem should also track deletions and be able to revert them.
You actually can license any program under "GPL v2" and "not any later version". So you know you license exactly. (That's what I do). You can also create a derived work from a "GPL v2 or later" program and license that under "GPL v2 only" because the header in the source code usually reads "or _at your opinion_ any later version". So you can choose. The FSF will always use "GPL v2 or later" of course, because it holds the copyrights of all of its software anyway.
free software is software you can use/sell/modify/kludge/hack/whatever without obligation
Actually "Free Software" is not that.
The FSF Foundation defined "Free Software" to be software that grants the following four freedoms (quoted from gnu.org):
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
As you can see, "The freedom to use free code in one's own non-free project" is NOT listed as a required freedom for Free Software. The GPL grants the four listed freedoms though and therefore GPL programs qualify as "Free Software"
Can you name an example? I thought that was impossible because one of the freedoms required by Free Software RMS listed, was the freedom to modify the software. The source code is needed to do that.
If I use your front lawn, you may not be able to use it properly anymore or it will most likely be damaged or whatever. Since it is yours, you can keep me from using it. This analogy doesn't hold for software, because when I take a copy of your software no harm is done to you whatever I do with it / to it. You still have your original copy which will stay intact.
If a serious bug is found in version 2, it doesn't matter whether something is released as "version 2 or later" or just "version 2" because version 2 applies in all cases.
It is convenient for Software that is copyrighted by the FSF to use "version 2 or later" because the FSF would always use its latest licence for its software. If the FSF became somehow hijacked "version 2" only would not have saved anything because the copyrights to all FSF software belong to the FSF anyway.
Now if you don't trust the FSF, don't use "version 2 or later". Instead read version 3 when it becomes available and if you like it, update your source accordingly. Not that I distrust the FSF or something but I don't want that someone else can specify under which licence my software is given away behind my back.
Actually, I was able to compile a quite FULLY functional SDK using GCJ and jikes. (1.4.x) I first removed all binary files from the "Source" distribution, they were some classes with encryption routines or so - so the resulting SDK was probably not FULLY functional. Then i wrote some scripts which emulated "java, javah and javac" I'm going to try this with 1.5, too.
Actually, if you got a binary program of which you can't get the source, you didn't get it under the BSD license. The program might have been derived from a BSD program though.
Rather, the webdesigners should NOT rely on non-standard features and/or bugs in webbrowsers. Then everyone would try to make their browser follow the standards as close as possible.
There are (2^128)/(2^32) times more different addresses than on IPv4, but nevertheless an IPv6 address only takes up 4 times as much space as an IPv4 address does. Remember, if you have a storage of n bits, 2^n different combinations are possible. So if you take a storage q times larger you have 2^(n*q) different combinations, > 2^(n*q)/2^(n) = 2^(n*q) * 2^(-n) = 2^(n*q-n) For IPv4->IPv6, n = 32, q=4 2^(32*4-32) = 2^96 = 79228162514264337593543950336
Using the word friend loosely, everyone who is not your friend is your enemy. Therefore, everyone is either your enemy or your friend. Introducing the moral rule "Love your enemies as if they were your friends", "Sharing with your friends" implies "Sharing with your enemies". Combining these two statements you get "Sharing with everyone". Therefore if "Sharing with your friends" is ok, then "Sharing with everyone" must be ok, too.
I think they could allow everyone to use the technology described in their patents for any purpose for free in any Free Software as defined by the FSF or something and put that into a contract or so. I think they can't really do that for linux only because they would need to define what linux is. I'd say any work somehow derived from the first linux kernel is linux. So I can now use any IBM patent provided that I include some code from the linux kernel (which of course means that my work must be GPL)
Buffer owerflow attacks won't happen in languages which doesn't "support" that feature, such as perl, python, ruby, java, C# (any managed code), or managed C++ for that matter. In theory this is true, but to actually run such a program you need a compiler/interpreter for that language, which could contain bugs, so buffer overflows could be possible. Of course the Java programmer by definition can't introduce a buffer overflow exploit into his Java code, so it will always be the Java interpreter/compiler's fault.
I don't think they exactly like them, but they like users of Free Software much less. Giving out windows for free to everyone would probably make them gain too little money from their point of view. Of course I don't know if they really think like this because you obviously can't ask them, but I'm quite sure.
Of course they do. Actually they want people to use pirated copies of windows rather than using Free Software (non-MS). If everyone using a pirated version was switching to Free Software, there would be much more users not using MS, and that would threaten their monopoly.