Microsoft will never sue - they know that the only thing they can do is amke noises. Actually suing would be the equivalent of a first strike in a MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - scenario, which they would ultimately lose. Well, does Red Hat have the clout to bring the big boys to their side? You see, MAD only works when both sides have an arsenal.
of course, this would be a completely different story if it were a close-source program they were relying on... because... ? ... money is an amazing motivator.
companies go out of business, too. and when their close-source programs are no longer supported, *no one* has the ability to pick up where they left off. Except any other company that can make the business case for acquiring the assets and continuing support.
Hmm, for the past four years now I've been hearing "Linux is taking over, Linux is growing on the desktop." While it may be true, I still don't see many shops putting Linux in front of their users.
Linux should use Java for its desktop. Maybe the two negatives would cancel each other out.
Really, because the page I got it says "This is the BSD license without the obnoxious advertising clause". Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Re:Yeah, but
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Perhaps it's time for BSD version 2, for example:
Redistribution and use in source and binary or other forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary or other forms must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
with the distribution.
* Neither the name of [original copyright holder] nor the names of
its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
* This list of conditions is the only list of conditions imposed on
redistributions in source and binary or other forms.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
It is the integration with other pieces of software that will make this thing good.
Like Quicktime integrates with Windows? Full disclosure: I use Quicktime Alternative just so those damn.movs would integrate with Windows.
It is still definitely a gray area, and at least to my knowledge at present there is no tested hard-core definition of this aspect of the GPL. However, it seems like it is a safe test to use: Does the code require the source of the GPL'd program to build?
That's no good, because then every Java class would not be derived from any other Java class, which is not the intent of FSF or GPL. It would make GPL the same as LGPL on Java, because you can create an interface-compatible drop-in replacement class from another Java class. There are even tools to automate this.
If Tivo had bought a proprietary license for GNU/Linux from the FSF, there wouldn't be any "tivoization". Now now, FSF couldn't and wouldn't sell such a license, but it shows the power of the copyright holder. So, what's to stop someone like Red Hat, Inc. (NYSE: RHT) or MySQL AB from doing that? No wait, they already do.
If Free Software were a forest, it would be a magical forest where you could cut as many trees and as many times as you wanted and so could everyone else.
1. Write a hugely popular Open Source Software.
2. Meanwhile, someone like IBM has set up an offshore support company specializing in your software.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
XBoxization: The GPLv3 forbids that. Read a recent draft. Given a network service using GPLv3-enabled clients, the network service may not refuse to work with a modified client without good reason (see the license for more precise details). I don't understand legalese, but wouldn't the user being in breach of his contract with the service provider be a good reason?
And while the OP's GPL versions may seem silly, it has taken more than 15 years for GPL to move from version 2 to version 3. That would put OP's GPL version 5 to be released year 2119 or thereabouts. Who knows what GPL looks like in the year 2119?
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for the insight into fairness. I hadn't considered it before, but it explains my aversion to the GPL better than I could before. I simply don't like the idea of being forced to be fair, I'd rather be fair on my own.
Sure, but it will still cost them to check. Whereas you've already paid your money and bricked your device; pleading your case, bitching and threatening lawsuits for 1 hour to a 1-800-number won't cost you a thing.
Re:"consumer products" only
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There is a vision, but it's so far out there that the only way to bring it into actuality is to do it in small, incremental steps. This inconsistency is one such step.
If they simply pass the code on, unmodified, they aren't giving up any possible patent rights, according to GPLv3. This means that distributors with patent portfolios don't have to check everything they distribute for their own patents, only everything they modify. This then throws out the counter-FUD about Microsoft having to release its patents for giving vouchers for SUSE.
Nice images of Earth, Mars and an atomic bomb. Did you take those yourself? Or if not, have they been released under a license that's compatible with the GPL?
Unreadable, certainly not. Ugly, you betcha. If you're acquiring 10 different resources inside one method, damn sure the code should look ugly, because it is ugly.
For example, what would happen if MS stopped selling Windows in Europe?
Copies of Windows would be imported or simply pirated. Or was that a trick question?
"(b) Works Made for Hire. -- In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright." (Emphasis mine.)
Exceptions can be thrown, but they should be caught and used to halt the "bad actions", and revert back to a normal program state. In an unsafe language, like C++, as is the case with Word, once you have encountered undefined behavior, all bets are off. There is no way to be sure from within your program that you are not already running the attacker's code. The only thing you can do is tell the OS to shut down your program and hope the call goes through.
In a safe language, like Java, and with a program that can be expressed as a work queue, you can isolate changes to global state and, in the case of a work item failing, provided your thread isn't in an endless loop, ignore the results from the item and carry on. Of course this doesn't mean that the global state is valid. In fact, a failing work item may be an indication that the program is being moved towards an invalid state, and the proper thing would be to crash.
That sounds a bit vague. Let's say I have a patent on thing X which I've only put in my product Y and I'm going to distribute OSS Z. Let's say following events happen:
A) I start distributing Z,
B) Someone puts X in Z,
C) I become aware of X in Z,
D) someone on Slashdot becomes aware of A and/or B.
Which sequences of events would cause me to have to give away my patent and at which point should I have stopped distributing Z to prevent that:
A before B before C before D?
A before B before D before C?
B before A before C before D?
B before A before D before C?
B before C before A before D?
B before C before D before A?
B before D before A before C?
B before D before C before A?
Then the next step is to let you run a modified kernel, but not let you use the service any longer.
Yes, once a user uploads an unsigned kernel the old kernel automatically terminates the contract between the user and the service provider (with appropriate early termination fees) before proceeding. Is GPL3 going to prevent this?
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds awfully lot like stagnation.
Linux should use Java for its desktop. Maybe the two negatives would cancel each other out.
rpm
apt
slackware's pkgtool
gentoo's emerge
See, you two can't even agree on package managers, and you're saying there isn't fragmentation.
Really, because the page I got it says "This is the BSD license without the obnoxious advertising clause". Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Perhaps it's time for BSD version 2, for example:
Redistribution and use in source and binary or other forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary or other forms must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of [original copyright holder] nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
* This list of conditions is the only list of conditions imposed on redistributions in source and binary or other forms.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Like Quicktime integrates with Windows? Full disclosure: I use Quicktime Alternative just so those damn
That's no good, because then every Java class would not be derived from any other Java class, which is not the intent of FSF or GPL. It would make GPL the same as LGPL on Java, because you can create an interface-compatible drop-in replacement class from another Java class. There are even tools to automate this.
If Tivo had bought a proprietary license for GNU/Linux from the FSF, there wouldn't be any "tivoization". Now now, FSF couldn't and wouldn't sell such a license, but it shows the power of the copyright holder. So, what's to stop someone like Red Hat, Inc. (NYSE: RHT) or MySQL AB from doing that? No wait, they already do.
If Free Software were a forest, it would be a magical forest where you could cut as many trees and as many times as you wanted and so could everyone else.
Ah yes, the tech support business model:
1. Write a hugely popular Open Source Software.
2. Meanwhile, someone like IBM has set up an offshore support company specializing in your software.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!
And while the OP's GPL versions may seem silly, it has taken more than 15 years for GPL to move from version 2 to version 3. That would put OP's GPL version 5 to be released year 2119 or thereabouts. Who knows what GPL looks like in the year 2119?
Thank you for the insight into fairness. I hadn't considered it before, but it explains my aversion to the GPL better than I could before. I simply don't like the idea of being forced to be fair, I'd rather be fair on my own.
Sure, but it will still cost them to check. Whereas you've already paid your money and bricked your device; pleading your case, bitching and threatening lawsuits for 1 hour to a 1-800-number won't cost you a thing.
There is a vision, but it's so far out there that the only way to bring it into actuality is to do it in small, incremental steps. This inconsistency is one such step.
I prefer to give gifts to beautiful women who are willing to show their appreciation. I also oppose prostitution.
Nice images of Earth, Mars and an atomic bomb. Did you take those yourself? Or if not, have they been released under a license that's compatible with the GPL?
Unreadable, certainly not. Ugly, you betcha. If you're acquiring 10 different resources inside one method, damn sure the code should look ugly, because it is ugly.
Copies of Windows would be imported or simply pirated. Or was that a trick question?
"(b) Works Made for Hire. -- In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright." (Emphasis mine.)
In a safe language, like Java, and with a program that can be expressed as a work queue, you can isolate changes to global state and, in the case of a work item failing, provided your thread isn't in an endless loop, ignore the results from the item and carry on. Of course this doesn't mean that the global state is valid. In fact, a failing work item may be an indication that the program is being moved towards an invalid state, and the proper thing would be to crash.
That sounds a bit vague. Let's say I have a patent on thing X which I've only put in my product Y and I'm going to distribute OSS Z. Let's say following events happen:
A) I start distributing Z,
B) Someone puts X in Z,
C) I become aware of X in Z,
D) someone on Slashdot becomes aware of A and/or B.
Which sequences of events would cause me to have to give away my patent and at which point should I have stopped distributing Z to prevent that:
A before B before C before D?
A before B before D before C?
B before A before C before D?
B before A before D before C?
B before C before A before D?
B before C before D before A?
B before D before A before C?
B before D before C before A?
Yes, once a user uploads an unsigned kernel the old kernel automatically terminates the contract between the user and the service provider (with appropriate early termination fees) before proceeding. Is GPL3 going to prevent this?