Yes, once released under the GPL, the author can't then deny rights that you hold now. That, of course, is no different than any software license. MS can't release a new EULA that applies to software you currently hold, neither can the FSF issue a new GPL that refers to software you have now. Both the FSF or MS could release new software under new licenses that granted different rights, or rerelease software to different users under a different license with different rights. Note the GPL explicitly acknowleges this in that it points out that you can always use the license with which you received the software originally.
When the license refers to "you have the option", it is referring both to those who receive the software and to those who modify and redistribute it. This is because the primary right you are granted by the GPL is to modify and redistribute, as long as you redistribute with the GPL. You are allowed to redistribute it based on the current GPL or future revisions. This includes the original author or authors that contribute to the work.
In no case, could a revision of the GPL assign copyrights back to the FSF, as the poster that I was responding to originally in this thread contended, because only the copyright holder, not the licensees, have this power.
I would imagine that the advertisers track clickthrough rates and allocate their advertising budgets accordingly. So, clicking ads would support Slashdot in that it makes advertisers more likely to advertise.
The copyright holder, typically the author unless the copyright as been assigned, has complete control over what license the software is released under, always. The copyright holder can take something previously released under GPL and release it under some other license if they want. So, his point is moot.
This is why the FSF encourages you to not only GPL your code, but also to assign your copyrights to the FSF.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 1
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 1
So, does that apply to CDs as well, since you have to copy the contents to a DAC in order to hear them? Does US law distinguish between a permanent copy and a transient one (such as the copy to RAM)?
I thought about that too and all I can say is:
SHHHHHH, the RIAA might hear you!
:-)
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If you don't accept the license, then what rights do you get? Well, the logical answer seems to be that you get all the rights you normally would under copyright law and none others. And in US law these rights are all you need to install and use the software, because copyright law doesn't govern application and US copyright law exempts copies necessary for use.
I believe that you are mistaken. This recent post (thanks again, vercingetorix) opened my eyes to the use of Licensing in Software. Basically, the case law in the US is that you have to have a license because copying the software to RAM is violating the author's copyright.
I know it seems crazy, but that's the current US law.
It doesn't allow for the possibility of the license being superceded by a new version, it mandates it.
I have this habit of responding to trolls, I know I shouldn't but just in case someone thinks this guy is representing any sort of truth at all, I want to point out that he isn't.
The GPL does not require that you follow later licenses, to wit:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Note the language above, "you have the option".
Re:Unlicenced software
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Oh no! The BSA is gonna discover all this *unlicensed* GPL-ware! I'd better get a-patchin' and a-redistributin', the Kopyright Kops are komin'...
Heh. I wonder if the FSF could become a member of the BSA?
Not that they'd ever participate in such an thing, but wouldn't it be funny if the BSA raided MS to make sure they weren't abusing the GPL?
Hmmm... Unlike the MS EULAs the GPL probably doesn't allow for intrusive audits. Oh well.
Note that Mephisto was thought to be operated in 1879 by Gunsberg, probably one of the top 5 or 10 players of the time, and Aheeb was operated by Pillsbury between 1898 and 1904, which was during his prime. Pillsbury may have been the strongest player in the world for a few of those years, with a string of tournament successes and brilliant wins over the then World Champion Lasker.
The players in these machines were often top players. I don't see any mention of these machines defeating world-class players, just notable Amateurs. Gunsberg and Pillsbury could easily defeat any Amateur regardless of the Amateurs having their guard up or down.
The machines gained great reputations, some said they played flawlessly like a machine. I imagine that the players concentrated very hard to try and defeat them.
Yet another reason to use firewalls to filter _OUTGOING_ connections and not only incoming ones (the other reason : to avoid backdoors).
Do many firewalls have the capability to inspect outgoing DNS updates to deterimine if they are valid or not? I'm no expert in firewalls, but I've not seen this capability.
Now, granted, you could and should block outgoing DNS updates that aren't coming from the machines you'd expect them to come from, but the DHCP servers are often responsible for DNS updates, in my experience. Maybe there's something fundamental I'm not getting here...
User Interface Design principle
Do not pretend that you know the user; you don't
This leads to different problems. This requires that all User Interfaces be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. While this may mean that the interface can be used by the largest possible customer base, it also means that a large segment of the customer base will find it cumbersome and not as easy to use as it otherwise could be.
Microsoft's menus that highlight recently or often used items is a good step in the right direction here. Provide all the options, but only put forward those that are used often by a given user. So, the software initially assumes nothing about the user and slowly learns their preferences.
This should be extended to all widgets, not just menus, with some kind of scripting available so that power users can easily combine operations into shortcuts so as to cut through all the steps required for the inexperienced user.
Really, this isn't a job for the procurement departments. It's been my experience that for things like software products, the RFPs are actually written by the technical people who will be receiving the goods, not anyone in procurement. RFPs are typically written to get a very specific product, or something that's exactly functionally equivalent.
When the people who spec the requirements determine that Open Source is what they want, they'll writeup RFPs that require that the Source be provided and that they'll be able to make changes and still get support. Then, companies like RedHat, SuSe and Covalent will be able to respond adequately.
Today, I would guess, that most RFPs for these kinds of products spec complete Solaris systems complete with Web Server/etc (which may be why Sun feels iPlanet is an important product for them, it may get thrown out in favor of Apache down the line, but it does fit the requirements of RFPs) or MS solutions. Nothing to which the Open Source support companies could adequately respond.
If registration is no big deal, why do they make me do it, just to read the damn article?
Deep linking. They don't want other sites to link to all their good stories without requiring the users who come in that way some pain. They also want some shot at marketing to people who register there. What the NYT really wants is for you to read the NYT online, not sites that cherry pick the best of different media and present themselves as New Media.
this is a joke. do you people not have a sense of humor?
Congratulations on what may be the first post during the dreaded Slashdot Blackout.
To answer your question, some of the people who were here a minute ago had no sense of humor, the Blackouters being self-important whiners that they are, but those who are here now generally do.
And, no, I don't think this is a good way to kick off "Quality Week", please moderate accordingly. I just couldn't help getting a jab in at their expense. Especially since they've sworn to not respond for at least a week! Heh!
Rowling's books are, I believe, so popular because they are both accessable and marketed to relative non readers. Books are nifty, and Rowling is a capable writer, and when these people who normally don't read all that much get into them, they think it's the greatest thing ever... and never pick up another book.
There's some of this, I'm sure. Let me give another view. My 10 year old loves Harry Potter. She's just obsessed by all things HP. Now, she was a very active reader before, but Harry Potter has motivated her to pick up a number of similar books. If it hadn't been for Harry Potter, she wouldn't be into Jacques' RedWall or A Series of Unfortunate Events.
The net effect upon the reading public of Rowling has been very positive, I think. I know of some of my daughter's friends who didn't read before Rowling who are exploring other things now. It's not just the one book kids read and never read again. I'm sure some of that goes on, but to generalize that is way too cynical.
Re:Civil disobedience
on
On Hacktivism
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But, there're infinite number of potential encryption/decryption algorithms, right?
If a computer were programmed to find patterns in the data and derive a message, it could come out with something from seemlingly random data, given sufficient time.
Maybe someday anyone who sends messages will be subject to prosecution because the powers-that-be will always be able to find an incriminating message in every transmission. Even plaintext could contain hidden messages.
Wouldn't be ironic if you sent someone random data and some supercomputer somewhere, after a long time, "decrypted" it into a some kind of incriminating message?
If an infinite number of monkeys decrypted a message for a very long time...
Do that and you'll never accomplish anything. Rarely does a community vote for referendums that will tax them more, even when things like schools, libraries and public works are desperately needed.
Do you have any statistics? Where I live, it seems like the new school and library levies always just sail through with no visible opposition.
Re:All my commercial software is licensed
on
Coding Fair Use
·
· Score: 2
Someone please mod the parent up as Informative. Thanks.
Has anyone seen any exposition on what happened to establish the First Sale doctrine in the first place and how the publishers were thwarted in their efforts to license books?
I'm interested in reading up on this, if there's a source for it. This page has a bit of the background and also discusses Fair Use and some other important issue, but it's just an outline.
Slashdot Mirror
When the license refers to "you have the option", it is referring both to those who receive the software and to those who modify and redistribute it. This is because the primary right you are granted by the GPL is to modify and redistribute, as long as you redistribute with the GPL. You are allowed to redistribute it based on the current GPL or future revisions. This includes the original author or authors that contribute to the work.
In no case, could a revision of the GPL assign copyrights back to the FSF, as the poster that I was responding to originally in this thread contended, because only the copyright holder, not the licensees, have this power.
I could be wrong, of course.
I doubt very much that RMS would want to be associated with the BSA in any way.
This is, after all, a man who prefers to describe piracy as "sharing information with neighbor".
Even if RMS did want the FSF in the BSA, the BSA almost certainly would find some reason to reject him, based on the above view.
The copyright holder, typically the author unless the copyright as been assigned, has complete control over what license the software is released under, always. The copyright holder can take something previously released under GPL and release it under some other license if they want. So, his point is moot.
This is why the FSF encourages you to not only GPL your code, but also to assign your copyrights to the FSF.
I said it seemed crazy.
I thought about that too and all I can say is:
SHHHHHH, the RIAA might hear you!
:-)
I believe that you are mistaken. This recent post (thanks again, vercingetorix) opened my eyes to the use of Licensing in Software. Basically, the case law in the US is that you have to have a license because copying the software to RAM is violating the author's copyright.
I know it seems crazy, but that's the current US law.
I have this habit of responding to trolls, I know I shouldn't but just in case someone thinks this guy is representing any sort of truth at all, I want to point out that he isn't.
The GPL does not require that you follow later licenses, to wit:
Note the language above, "you have the option".
Heh. I wonder if the FSF could become a member of the BSA?
Not that they'd ever participate in such an thing, but wouldn't it be funny if the BSA raided MS to make sure they weren't abusing the GPL?
Hmmm... Unlike the MS EULAs the GPL probably doesn't allow for intrusive audits. Oh well.
Here's a good article.
Note that Mephisto was thought to be operated in 1879 by Gunsberg, probably one of the top 5 or 10 players of the time, and Aheeb was operated by Pillsbury between 1898 and 1904, which was during his prime. Pillsbury may have been the strongest player in the world for a few of those years, with a string of tournament successes and brilliant wins over the then World Champion Lasker.
The players in these machines were often top players. I don't see any mention of these machines defeating world-class players, just notable Amateurs. Gunsberg and Pillsbury could easily defeat any Amateur regardless of the Amateurs having their guard up or down.
The machines gained great reputations, some said they played flawlessly like a machine. I imagine that the players concentrated very hard to try and defeat them.
Do many firewalls have the capability to inspect outgoing DNS updates to deterimine if they are valid or not? I'm no expert in firewalls, but I've not seen this capability.
Now, granted, you could and should block outgoing DNS updates that aren't coming from the machines you'd expect them to come from, but the DHCP servers are often responsible for DNS updates, in my experience. Maybe there's something fundamental I'm not getting here...
User Interface Design principle Do not pretend that you know the user; you don't
This leads to different problems. This requires that all User Interfaces be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. While this may mean that the interface can be used by the largest possible customer base, it also means that a large segment of the customer base will find it cumbersome and not as easy to use as it otherwise could be.
Microsoft's menus that highlight recently or often used items is a good step in the right direction here. Provide all the options, but only put forward those that are used often by a given user. So, the software initially assumes nothing about the user and slowly learns their preferences.
This should be extended to all widgets, not just menus, with some kind of scripting available so that power users can easily combine operations into shortcuts so as to cut through all the steps required for the inexperienced user.
When the people who spec the requirements determine that Open Source is what they want, they'll writeup RFPs that require that the Source be provided and that they'll be able to make changes and still get support. Then, companies like RedHat, SuSe and Covalent will be able to respond adequately.
Today, I would guess, that most RFPs for these kinds of products spec complete Solaris systems complete with Web Server/etc (which may be why Sun feels iPlanet is an important product for them, it may get thrown out in favor of Apache down the line, but it does fit the requirements of RFPs) or MS solutions. Nothing to which the Open Source support companies could adequately respond.
Deep linking. They don't want other sites to link to all their good stories without requiring the users who come in that way some pain. They also want some shot at marketing to people who register there. What the NYT really wants is for you to read the NYT online, not sites that cherry pick the best of different media and present themselves as New Media.
Congratulations on what may be the first post during the dreaded Slashdot Blackout.
To answer your question, some of the people who were here a minute ago had no sense of humor, the Blackouters being self-important whiners that they are, but those who are here now generally do.
And, no, I don't think this is a good way to kick off "Quality Week", please moderate accordingly. I just couldn't help getting a jab in at their expense. Especially since they've sworn to not respond for at least a week! Heh!
There's some of this, I'm sure. Let me give another view. My 10 year old loves Harry Potter. She's just obsessed by all things HP. Now, she was a very active reader before, but Harry Potter has motivated her to pick up a number of similar books. If it hadn't been for Harry Potter, she wouldn't be into Jacques' RedWall or A Series of Unfortunate Events.
The net effect upon the reading public of Rowling has been very positive, I think. I know of some of my daughter's friends who didn't read before Rowling who are exploring other things now. It's not just the one book kids read and never read again. I'm sure some of that goes on, but to generalize that is way too cynical.
If a computer were programmed to find patterns in the data and derive a message, it could come out with something from seemlingly random data, given sufficient time.
Maybe someday anyone who sends messages will be subject to prosecution because the powers-that-be will always be able to find an incriminating message in every transmission. Even plaintext could contain hidden messages.
Yeah, I know. It was meant to be funny.
If an infinite number of monkeys decrypted a message for a very long time...
Or, as some have pointed out, maybe it should be Senator John McCain (D-Democrat).
Oooh, I bet that's hot.
If the police recite poetry while arresting you, could you plead that it was enrapment?
They can't? I'm sure I saw this TV show the other night with David Hasselhof where this Firebird talked. Then, there's "My Mother The Car".
You have to remember that they were dealing with severe runaway inflation, also. Hard to make concessions when you are starving already.
I still believe your contention is just a perception. I think that Referenda do well in the US, but that's just a perception on my part also.
Do you have any statistics? Where I live, it seems like the new school and library levies always just sail through with no visible opposition.
Has anyone seen any exposition on what happened to establish the First Sale doctrine in the first place and how the publishers were thwarted in their efforts to license books? I'm interested in reading up on this, if there's a source for it. This page has a bit of the background and also discusses Fair Use and some other important issue, but it's just an outline.