Those sittign closest to the (imaginary) hijacker have the best chance of stopping him. Incidentely, at very close range, your hands may prove to be a way more effective means for stopping someone then a gun.
You can't even set your shoes on fire without getting everyone involved, these days, what makes you think that people are going to just let this happen?
Just wondering, what makes you think guns are needed for this? as you point out, people are already extremely likely to interfer with a hijacking nowadays.
So, I suppose the person trying to rob him was the innocent one?
Those are 2 independent things. I know this is hard to understand for some people, but it is dundamental to proper law enforcement to not strip someone of his rights due to that person having commited a crime.
Using a weapon (gun or otherwise) in self defense is recognized, and in many cases not punnishable. Self defense is however defined pretty strictly, and requires that someone is a direct threat to your life for example. Someone who turned his back on you to run away is usually no longer a direct thread to your life, hence the self defense claim fails.
Do a bit of research: Ever since your government made your local criminal element quite certain that you're unable to defend yourself, crime in the UK is way up.
Go read the CIA world fact book on crime numbers, especially those like robery and (attempted) murder for the USA and for example the UK, you may be in for a surprise.
The reasoning you follow sounds oh so logical and is used a lot by proponents of 'the rights to bear arms', but it has one simple flaw that seems to rather be confirmed:
More guns means more people get killed by them, no matter who have the guns, it ALWAYS results in more people getting killed. It is people who do this and not the guns, but the guns enable it.
No, this is slashboxes on slashdot, no caches, no proxies, no accelerators, no local reader or whatever, this is slashdot pulling the headlines from bsd.slashdot.org for example in order to fill its own homepage.
They'll have to stop pulling their own headlines for 72 hours?
Heh, that is why I still use a by now ancient Ericsson t39m (with the 'big' battery. With normal use, it gives over 280 hours standby time (normal use being calling for some 10-30 minutes each day on average, using bluetooth to connect to my pda for mail and web browsing etc)
My z72 gives up after some 5 to 7 days of normal use, so all in all I get to be away from any chargers for about a week before this becomes a problem.. and for those cases I have a spare battery fot the phone and a chargepack (big battery that can be used for recharging the internal battery of the z72)
2-3 days standby time, esp on my phone, would be utterly unusable for me.
Unrelated and off-topic, it seems Slashdot banned itself from fetching its own headlines?
The ask slashdot and bsd box are saying:
Your Headline Reader Has Been Banned
You May Only Load Headlines Every 30 Minutes
In 72 Hours, Your Ban Will Be Lifted
Do Not Bother Contacting Us For 72 Hours
and to add to that, see paragraph 3.3 of the MPL, to me it reads like the MPL making no distinction at all between modification and deriving from, both seem to be covered by the exact same restrictions.
Hmm, at least from what I read, the FSF seems to disagree with you on that one. (see the page I pointed you to, they explain the difference with the NPL there)
You may still be allowed to do this with code from the Mozilla foundation but that is because of multiple licensing, not because the MPL allows it for as far as I can see.
The GPL covers all associated works, not just modifications of the code and extends this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
Lets see.
I have library A, covered by the GPL. I also have library B, covered by say the original XFree86 license. I have my own code C, license still to be determined.
I combine those into product D.
As per the terms of the GPL, D in its entirity is indeed covered by the GPL.
This does not mean that B ad C are automatically covered by the GPL except for when they are part of D.
If I replace GPL with MPL in the above statement, nothing changes except that everywhere where it says GPL now, it will say MPL.
So, the GPL does indeed force itself onto D, but not ontop B and C. It does however require that B and C do not impose restrictions on D that are not covered by the GPL.
The FSF is very clear about that you can do this, even when releasing C with a completely incompatible license, provided that you explicitly permit linking to GPLed code in your license, read this
This is sligtly more restrictive then the MPL in wording, but not in practical effect. Since the MPL extends to a derived work, it simply causes the same effect here.
Most commerical licences don't do this.
No, they usually have entirely different restrictions, such as restrictions on distribution, restriuctions on providing 3rd parties with source code etc etc.
Many open source licences (including the MPL) require modifications to the code to be published but don't extend this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
For all I can see, the MPL does this as well. You can still use code from the Mozilla project without complying with this requirement but only because of their multiple,licenses for their code, not because of the MPL.
This prevents use of other libraries.
Only when that use imposes new restrictions on the work derived from such a library, otherwise they don't, see above.
This is the intent.
Yes, it is the intent to extend the 'freedom' to access and modify the software to a derived work. This is freedom for the USER, not the developer.
I think this causes unfair limitations. We don't accept them so don't use GPL code
I don't see why those limitations are unfair, I can quite see why they are undesirable.
Because they are in quite a few cases undesirable, I don't use the GPL for my own work when I can avoid it, but I really fail to see why it is unfair for anyone to put specific conditions on the use of the work they create.
You can (and probably do) disagree with the goal that the GPL tries to achieve, and again, that is perfectly fine with me, I happen to agree with their goal but not their methods (just like you as per your own words) but I fail to see why it is unfair for someone to put some conditions on the use of their work.
What is more, I do think there are some valid arguments to make against the GPL in specific cases. They have little to do with fairness and everything with what situation is desirable.
For example, I believe it is a very bad idea to release sample implementations of a protocol as GPL code, instead, a 2 clause BSD style license should be used. This is because it encourages use of such sample code by everyone and does not put any limitations on the derived product.
Using the GPL for such code would only result in development of comparable but possibly incompatible implementations.
The apple licence you mentioned. The Mozilla Public Licence.
Does the Apple license have a provision for creating derived works? how about the Mozilla license?
I did not look into the Apple license much but I am sure the Mozilla license does.
Quoting from their license:
3.1. Application of License.
The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License, including without limitation Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder. However, You may include an additional document offering the additional rights described in Section 3.5.
3.2. Availability of Source Code.
Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
3.3. Description of Modifications.
You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of the Covered Code.
To provide for the abbility to derive from this while not having the Mozilla license extend to your derived work, the Mozilla foundation offers a choice of licenses, just like quite a few authors of GPL licensed software do.
The license itself however seems to extend to derived works in a way pretty similar to the GPL.
Yes, but the third party library isn't a derived work. The new product is a derived work of the GPL source, the third party library and other code.
>es, and the GPL only covers the GPLed original and the derived work. The conditions it puts on the derived work do indeed mean that you cannot have additional restrctions, and that is the only reason why it affects other (non GPL) components of the derived work.
It says nothign whatsoever about the original non GPL works, so it does not force any kind of license on them either.
Because I consider it wrong to pursue an agenda in this manner, and I consider it important that people realise that the GPL is a lot less free when compared with other source licences rather than EULAs.
It is a lot more free then what standard copyright provides for. That is the freedom it grants. That is indeed less then the 2 clause BSD license gives you.
But well, you confirmed what I was saying already a few times, you are opposing the GPL (or have an anti GPL agenda). That is fine, just stop trying to talk around it.
A freedom that other similar licences preserve without removing the freedom to link to non-GPL code.
Name any.
The 2 clause BSD license and all variations on it do not preserve this freedom for the simple reason that they allow creation of derived works that are no longer as free as the original.
No it doesn't. Other libraries that we link to are not derived in any way from the GPL source.
Yes it does. The GPL is a copyright based license, and cannot extend beyond what copyright allows for.
The resulting work is a derived work and as a simple result covered by copyright.
You cannot create a derived work without permission of the author of the work you are deriving from. Whatever components you mix for creating the derived work is irrelevant, you need permission from the authors of all the original work that you use for it.
It is an issue for me. And I don't use the GPL. There are a lot of political viewpoints and actions that I will argue against that do not affect me.
Please explain WHY it is an issue for you, you have been pretty clear that you consider it an issue (or love wasting your time discussing non-issues, which I find somewhat hard to believe), no WHY is it an issue?
I have provided you with an argument as to why it is at most a theoretical issue, maybe you could actually provide an argument to counter it instead of just stating that it is an issue.
1. That the GPL advocates are mistaken when they claim that the GPL offers freedoms that other licences don't.
I gues that is why they also acknoledge the effords of someone like Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD) for 'freedom', while he publishes his work using a 2 clause BSD license.
I guess that is why they also agree that the BSD license offers the same and possibly more freedom.
No, the PL does not offer absolute freedom, it does not offer freedom that no other license offers, but what it does is offering preservation of that freedom.
2. That the GPL covers unrelated code. While I accept that authors have the legal right to do this if they choose, it strikes me as bad form to actively restrict use of other libraries.
The GPL covers unrelated code only for as far as copyright considers it a derived work. Your issue there is with copyright, not with the GPL.
Whether we use the code or not, these issues will still be there
It is not an issue for those who use the GPL, you don't use the GPL so it cannot possibly be a real issue for you. Please explain yourself how this is more then a theoretical issue that you are pursuing due to an anti GPL agenda.
Oh, and for that matter, this is how this discussion started so it did start about wanting to use Linux and finding out about the restrictions of the GPL.
And in my previous post I also forgot to address this:
The freedom to use third party libraries with my code!
It does not take away that freedom at all, you can do that.
What you cannot do is mix GPL licensed code with code that uses a license that contains restrictions other then those of the GPL. Such licenses often put similar or bigger restrictions on your "use" anyway.
Note that the GPL explicitly states it contains restrictions, so maybe just burry your argument about this claim of absolute freedom, the GPL is very explicit about containing restrictions. Those who argue otherwise are clueless as to what the GPL means or never read it.
Now I can't say I'm big union guy, but they do make some interesting points on their site.
First of all, this union is a union of IBM workers, it originates in the USA, was created with support of IBM and usually uses other means then strikes to achieve their goals.
Second, I have heard a bit about the way in which unions in the USA work and the way in which they try to enforce their view on things. We have seen similar issues in the UK untill a few decades ago, but this is not how unions work in a large part of Europe.
Unions are a rather usefull thing to have. Big corporations have a lot of power over their employees, and unions generally serve to offset that power a bit so that they have to respect the rights of such employees.
You can look at the extremes only and judge based on that, but that generally means you are ignoring virtually everything, an out of hand situation like it seems to exist in the USA is the exception and not the rule.
If you are so intent to look at exceptions, then maybe take a peek at what happened in Poland during he 80s and realize that the communist government there was in the end brought down by a union.
No it didn't. It started off by pointing out that the GPL is less free than many source licences, and is unusual in that it is deliberately incompatible.
There are a few that give more freedom, there are quite a few that contain similar or more restrictive conditions (ie, the ones from Sun and Apple)
Yes. They deliberately created licencing incompatibilities. This is why we don't use it. I'm just pointing out that if they really want their code to be used then they'll use a different licence. This they have an agenda to push, we'll simply ignore them.
Yes, they have an agenda, that is pretty clear from the documentation from GNU for example. That agenda is not to get everyone to use their code but to create a situation where code sharing is the norm. Seeing the succes of the GPL as a source license I would argue that they are doing quite well there also.
If the goal would be to get as many people as possible to use their code, they#d have chosen a more appropriate license.
Do I agree with their agenda? yes. Do I agree with their means? no.
That said, the GPL was simply created for a purpose, and the people who created it indeed have an agenda, just like you do (yours seems to involve making as much money of someone elses work as you can without having to make choices). What is the problem with that? You disagree with their agenda? fine. They are likely to disagree with yours.
Why do you kjeep parrotting the "if you don't like it don't use it" mantra? We don't like it, so we don't use it.
So what is your problem then? I keep repeating it because it seems you don't want to take the consequences of the choices you made.
It's a problem they deliberately created. Thanks guys. Why did they create this problem? To prevent me from using non GPLed code? If so then any claims that it doesn't take away freedoms are untrue.
So what freedom does it take away?
You realize that something you do not have to begin with cannot be taken away?
If you are trying to say that the GPL does not give absolute freedom you are right (and I already agreed to that a few times in this discussion, pointing you explicitly at alternatives). I do not believe that those who created the GPL ever claimed it would give such absolute freedom. That there are some uninformed adolecents running around claiming something else is pretty irrelevant. WHat people like the FSF and GNU have to say is relevant, and I didn't hear them claim that it grants absolute freedom at all, rather, that it imposes a specific restriction in order to preserve a specific kind of freedom. PRESERVING that freedom is why the restriction is there, and yes, that clearly means you cannot use it in every possible way.
Are you really only able to think black/white? that is only excusable if you are some unexperienced clueless adolecent (and many of those do a better job at seeing shades then you seem capable of still), seeing your claims of working for some company doing software development, I would expect you to be a bit older then that and actually have grasped a bit more about life.
It's possible to incorporate a non-GPLed module in Linux, because Linus says it is. The GPL is not clear on this matter. Neither is copyright law.
And your argument started out with wanting to use Linux but having found out that you can't because of the GPL, well, it seems pretty clear that your argument is not one that has anything to do with a real situation that you encountered, and everything with an anti GPL agenda.
Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. There is NO need whatsoever to try to make the GPL people aware of your issue, they are aware of it, and it exists on purpose. In those cases where it is relevant to the authors of GPLed software to solve the issue, they already did, and the rest simply does not care for your problem whatsoever. Go invest money in making your own solutions, pick one that has a more liberal license, or whatever, become a shoemaker or such. You have no right whatsoever to proffit from someone elses work, stop acting like you do.
As I recall Vader did get hit pretty badly with the force lightning from the emperor in ROTJ. I always assumed that he died because of a system failure in the machines that were keeping him alive, rather than not being able to breath.
He seemed to be dying, but said he wanted to see Luke with his "real eyes" before dying. None of this seems inconsistent with Episode 3
Hmm, I'll have to watch it again I guess:)
But as I recall it, he was indeed pretty damaged there, but I also recall Luke not wanting to take off his mask because it would kill him for sure, while Luke wanted to try to 'rescue' him.
Of course Anakin could not have survived the lava thing as a normal human but did for long enough that Sidious could come from somewhere else (its not like he was just around the corner and could be there in mere minutes) to pick him up alive.
At any rate, I will go watch ROTJ again when I have some more time and take a close peek at this part.
Yes. That's what we do. I merely point out that people could choose another licence that allows the use of third party code under a different licence. The ramifications of using the GPL means that you create potential conflicts.
Potential conflicts with a situation that those who thought up the GPL are extremely well aware off, and those who use it generally don't care about. This is YOUR and not their problem really.
They use the GPL because it offers them something that no other license offers, exactly because of that one restriction that you take such an issue with.
What this means my friend is that your argument is technically correct but is not being heard because it is simply of no relevance whatsoever to virtually anyone who uses the GPL, it only is relevant for people like you.
No. You seem to be missing the point. In this case, my point is that the GPL terms bar the use of unrelated libraries.
I was not missing that point at all, but for the authors of most GPL software that is a completely irrelevant argument, a point which you seem to be missing. lets put it simple, and sorry for shouting, but you really seem to want to ignore this: THEY KNOW AND THEY DO NOT CARE.
Now for something else, if you are talking about libraries, those are often written by a small number of people, who may even be organiyed in a company or other organisation. You may find that in many cases you can get this exact same library with a different license from that group, just that you will have to pay a price still.
Go look at what for example a company like troltech does. Ever looked at MySQL?
Again, you are not informed well (besides seemingly unable to grasp that the people who believe strongly in the GPL do not even want to solve your problem, it is YOUR problem, not theirs)
What do they do? Looks like they use some software under the GPL. So what's the point? More kernel modules under Linux? Fair enough. If we ever want to release a closed source driver for Linux then we'll keep that in mind.
The point is that it is quite possible to integrate a binary only component in an otherwise GPLed system, unlike what you have been claiming so far. There are companies doing exactly that, and they are under close scruteny, it is not just a small incident that is staying under the radar or anything like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Those sittign closest to the (imaginary) hijacker have the best chance of stopping him. Incidentely, at very close range, your hands may prove to be a way more effective means for stopping someone then a gun.
You can't even set your shoes on fire without getting everyone involved, these days, what makes you think that people are going to just let this happen?
Just wondering, what makes you think guns are needed for this? as you point out, people are already extremely likely to interfer with a hijacking nowadays.
So, I suppose the person trying to rob him was the innocent one?
Those are 2 independent things. I know this is hard to understand for some people, but it is dundamental to proper law enforcement to not strip someone of his rights due to that person having commited a crime.
Using a weapon (gun or otherwise) in self defense is recognized, and in many cases not punnishable. Self defense is however defined pretty strictly, and requires that someone is a direct threat to your life for example. Someone who turned his back on you to run away is usually no longer a direct thread to your life, hence the self defense claim fails.
I could go into much more detail, like the changes I'd like to see, but I really can't be bothered.
Seems you can't be bothered to make an argument with some substance, or at the very least, actually do some research into your claims either eh?
Its your right to believe what you want, but if you want to convince others, you'll have to come up with something better then you just did.
Do a bit of research: Ever since your government made your local criminal element quite certain that you're unable to defend yourself, crime in the UK is way up.
Go read the CIA world fact book on crime numbers, especially those like robery and (attempted) murder for the USA and for example the UK, you may be in for a surprise.
The reasoning you follow sounds oh so logical and is used a lot by proponents of 'the rights to bear arms', but it has one simple flaw that seems to rather be confirmed:
More guns means more people get killed by them, no matter who have the guns, it ALWAYS results in more people getting killed. It is people who do this and not the guns, but the guns enable it.
No I don't, but there are a few people who did make one
No, this is slashboxes on slashdot, no caches, no proxies, no accelerators, no local reader or whatever, this is slashdot pulling the headlines from bsd.slashdot.org for example in order to fill its own homepage.
They'll have to stop pulling their own headlines for 72 hours?
Actually, are you using google web accelerator?
Nope.
Heh, that is why I still use a by now ancient Ericsson t39m (with the 'big' battery. With normal use, it gives over 280 hours standby time (normal use being calling for some 10-30 minutes each day on average, using bluetooth to connect to my pda for mail and web browsing etc)
My z72 gives up after some 5 to 7 days of normal use, so all in all I get to be away from any chargers for about a week before this becomes a problem.. and for those cases I have a spare battery fot the phone and a chargepack (big battery that can be used for recharging the internal battery of the z72)
2-3 days standby time, esp on my phone, would be utterly unusable for me.
The Death Star plans were handed to SIdious by somtone from the trade federation, pre episode III. This means that they do predate the Empire.
That should be 'return of the Jarjar' I'd think..
Unrelated and off-topic, it seems Slashdot banned itself from fetching its own headlines?
The ask slashdot and bsd box are saying:
Your Headline Reader Has Been Banned
You May Only Load Headlines Every 30 Minutes
In 72 Hours, Your Ban Will Be Lifted
Do Not Bother Contacting Us For 72 Hours
*lol*
Mistaken you are my young padawan, see here for example.
and to add to that, see paragraph 3.3 of the MPL, to me it reads like the MPL making no distinction at all between modification and deriving from, both seem to be covered by the exact same restrictions.
Hmm, at least from what I read, the FSF seems to disagree with you on that one. (see the page I pointed you to, they explain the difference with the NPL there)
You may still be allowed to do this with code from the Mozilla foundation but that is because of multiple licensing, not because the MPL allows it for as far as I can see.
bleh, missing a close italics tag there somewhere.
Ok, now we are talking.
,licenses for their code, not because of the MPL.
The GPL covers all associated works, not just modifications of the code and extends this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
Lets see.
I have library A, covered by the GPL.
I also have library B, covered by say the original XFree86 license.
I have my own code C, license still to be determined.
I combine those into product D.
As per the terms of the GPL, D in its entirity is indeed covered by the GPL.
This does not mean that B ad C are automatically covered by the GPL except for when they are part of D.
If I replace GPL with MPL in the above statement, nothing changes except that everywhere where it says GPL now, it will say MPL.
So, the GPL does indeed force itself onto D, but not ontop B and C. It does however require that B and C do not impose restrictions on D that are not covered by the GPL.
The FSF is very clear about that you can do this, even when releasing C with a completely incompatible license, provided that you explicitly permit linking to GPLed code in your license, read this
This is sligtly more restrictive then the MPL in wording, but not in practical effect. Since the MPL extends to a derived work, it simply causes the same effect here.
Most commerical licences don't do this.
No, they usually have entirely different restrictions, such as restrictions on distribution, restriuctions on providing 3rd parties with source code etc etc.
Many open source licences (including the MPL) require modifications to the code to be published but don't extend this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
For all I can see, the MPL does this as well. You can still use code from the Mozilla project without complying with this requirement but only because of their multiple
This prevents use of other libraries.
Only when that use imposes new restrictions on the work derived from such a library, otherwise they don't, see above.
This is the intent.
Yes, it is the intent to extend the 'freedom' to access and modify the software to a derived work. This is freedom for the USER, not the developer.
I think this causes unfair limitations. We don't accept them so don't use GPL code
I don't see why those limitations are unfair, I can quite see why they are undesirable.
Because they are in quite a few cases undesirable, I don't use the GPL for my own work when I can avoid it, but I really fail to see why it is unfair for anyone to put specific conditions on the use of the work they create.
You can (and probably do) disagree with the goal that the GPL tries to achieve, and again, that is perfectly fine with me, I happen to agree with their goal but not their methods (just like you as per your own words) but I fail to see why it is unfair for someone to put some conditions on the use of their work.
What is more, I do think there are some valid arguments to make against the GPL in specific cases. They have little to do with fairness and everything with what situation is desirable.
For example, I believe it is a very bad idea to release sample implementations of a protocol as GPL code, instead, a 2 clause BSD style license should be used. This is because it encourages use of such sample code by everyone and does not put any limitations on the derived product.
Using the GPL for such code would only result in development of comparable but possibly incompatible implementations.
The apple licence you mentioned. The Mozilla Public Licence.
Does the Apple license have a provision for creating derived works? how about the Mozilla license?
I did not look into the Apple license much but I am sure the Mozilla license does.
Quoting from their license:
3.1. Application of License.
The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License, including without limitation Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder. However, You may include an additional document offering the additional rights described in Section 3.5.
3.2. Availability of Source Code.
Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
3.3. Description of Modifications.
You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of the Covered Code.
To provide for the abbility to derive from this while not having the Mozilla license extend to your derived work, the Mozilla foundation offers a choice of licenses, just like quite a few authors of GPL licensed software do.
The license itself however seems to extend to derived works in a way pretty similar to the GPL.
Yes, but the third party library isn't a derived work. The new product is a derived work of the GPL source, the third party library and other code.
>es, and the GPL only covers the GPLed original and the derived work. The conditions it puts on the derived work do indeed mean that you cannot have additional restrctions, and that is the only reason why it affects other (non GPL) components of the derived work.
It says nothign whatsoever about the original non GPL works, so it does not force any kind of license on them either.
Because I consider it wrong to pursue an agenda in this manner, and I consider it important that people realise that the GPL is a lot less free when compared with other source licences rather than EULAs.
It is a lot more free then what standard copyright provides for. That is the freedom it grants. That is indeed less then the 2 clause BSD license gives you.
But well, you confirmed what I was saying already a few times, you are opposing the GPL (or have an anti GPL agenda). That is fine, just stop trying to talk around it.
A freedom that other similar licences preserve without removing the freedom to link to non-GPL code.
Name any.
The 2 clause BSD license and all variations on it do not preserve this freedom for the simple reason that they allow creation of derived works that are no longer as free as the original.
No it doesn't. Other libraries that we link to are not derived in any way from the GPL source.
Yes it does. The GPL is a copyright based license, and cannot extend beyond what copyright allows for.
The resulting work is a derived work and as a simple result covered by copyright.
You cannot create a derived work without permission of the author of the work you are deriving from. Whatever components you mix for creating the derived work is irrelevant, you need permission from the authors of all the original work that you use for it.
It is an issue for me. And I don't use the GPL. There are a lot of political viewpoints and actions that I will argue against that do not affect me.
Please explain WHY it is an issue for you, you have been pretty clear that you consider it an issue (or love wasting your time discussing non-issues, which I find somewhat hard to believe), no WHY is it an issue?
I have provided you with an argument as to why it is at most a theoretical issue, maybe you could actually provide an argument to counter it instead of just stating that it is an issue.
1. That the GPL advocates are mistaken when they claim that the GPL offers freedoms that other licences don't.
I gues that is why they also acknoledge the effords of someone like Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD) for 'freedom', while he publishes his work using a 2 clause BSD license.
I guess that is why they also agree that the BSD license offers the same and possibly more freedom.
No, the PL does not offer absolute freedom, it does not offer freedom that no other license offers, but what it does is offering preservation of that freedom.
2. That the GPL covers unrelated code. While I accept that authors have the legal right to do this if they choose, it strikes me as bad form to actively restrict use of other libraries.
The GPL covers unrelated code only for as far as copyright considers it a derived work. Your issue there is with copyright, not with the GPL.
Whether we use the code or not, these issues will still be there
It is not an issue for those who use the GPL, you don't use the GPL so it cannot possibly be a real issue for you. Please explain yourself how this is more then a theoretical issue that you are pursuing due to an anti GPL agenda.
Oh, and for that matter, this is how this discussion started so it did start about wanting to use Linux and finding out about the restrictions of the GPL.
And in my previous post I also forgot to address this:
The freedom to use third party libraries with my code!
It does not take away that freedom at all, you can do that.
What you cannot do is mix GPL licensed code with code that uses a license that contains restrictions other then those of the GPL. Such licenses often put similar or bigger restrictions on your "use" anyway.
Note that the GPL explicitly states it contains restrictions, so maybe just burry your argument about this claim of absolute freedom, the GPL is very explicit about containing restrictions. Those who argue otherwise are clueless as to what the GPL means or never read it.
Now I can't say I'm big union guy, but they do make some interesting points on their site.
First of all, this union is a union of IBM workers, it originates in the USA, was created with support of IBM and usually uses other means then strikes to achieve their goals.
Second, I have heard a bit about the way in which unions in the USA work and the way in which they try to enforce their view on things. We have seen similar issues in the UK untill a few decades ago, but this is not how unions work in a large part of Europe.
Unions are a rather usefull thing to have. Big corporations have a lot of power over their employees, and unions generally serve to offset that power a bit so that they have to respect the rights of such employees.
You can look at the extremes only and judge based on that, but that generally means you are ignoring virtually everything, an out of hand situation like it seems to exist in the USA is the exception and not the rule.
If you are so intent to look at exceptions, then maybe take a peek at what happened in Poland during he 80s and realize that the communist government there was in the end brought down by a union.
No it didn't. It started off by pointing out that the GPL is less free than many source licences, and is unusual in that it is deliberately incompatible.
There are a few that give more freedom, there are quite a few that contain similar or more restrictive conditions (ie, the ones from Sun and Apple)
Yes. They deliberately created licencing incompatibilities. This is why we don't use it. I'm just pointing out that if they really want their code to be used then they'll use a different licence. This they have an agenda to push, we'll simply ignore them.
Yes, they have an agenda, that is pretty clear from the documentation from GNU for example. That agenda is not to get everyone to use their code but to create a situation where code sharing is the norm. Seeing the succes of the GPL as a source license I would argue that they are doing quite well there also.
If the goal would be to get as many people as possible to use their code, they#d have chosen a more appropriate license.
Do I agree with their agenda? yes. Do I agree with their means? no.
That said, the GPL was simply created for a purpose, and the people who created it indeed have an agenda, just like you do (yours seems to involve making as much money of someone elses work as you can without having to make choices). What is the problem with that? You disagree with their agenda? fine. They are likely to disagree with yours.
Why do you kjeep parrotting the "if you don't like it don't use it" mantra? We don't like it, so we don't use it.
So what is your problem then? I keep repeating it because it seems you don't want to take the consequences of the choices you made.
It's a problem they deliberately created. Thanks guys. Why did they create this problem? To prevent me from using non GPLed code? If so then any claims that it doesn't take away freedoms are untrue.
So what freedom does it take away?
You realize that something you do not have to begin with cannot be taken away?
If you are trying to say that the GPL does not give absolute freedom you are right (and I already agreed to that a few times in this discussion, pointing you explicitly at alternatives). I do not believe that those who created the GPL ever claimed it would give such absolute freedom. That there are some uninformed adolecents running around claiming something else is pretty irrelevant. WHat people like the FSF and GNU have to say is relevant, and I didn't hear them claim that it grants absolute freedom at all, rather, that it imposes a specific restriction in order to preserve a specific kind of freedom. PRESERVING that freedom is why the restriction is there, and yes, that clearly means you cannot use it in every possible way.
Are you really only able to think black/white? that is only excusable if you are some unexperienced clueless adolecent (and many of those do a better job at seeing shades then you seem capable of still), seeing your claims of working for some company doing software development, I would expect you to be a bit older then that and actually have grasped a bit more about life.
It's possible to incorporate a non-GPLed module in Linux, because Linus says it is. The GPL is not clear on this matter. Neither is copyright law.
And your argument started out with wanting to use Linux but having found out that you can't because of the GPL, well, it seems pretty clear that your argument is not one that has anything to do with a real situation that you encountered, and everything with an anti GPL agenda.
Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. There is NO need whatsoever to try to make the GPL people aware of your issue, they are aware of it, and it exists on purpose. In those cases where it is relevant to the authors of GPLed software to solve the issue, they already did, and the rest simply does not care for your problem whatsoever. Go invest money in making your own solutions, pick one that has a more liberal license, or whatever, become a shoemaker or such. You have no right whatsoever to proffit from someone elses work, stop acting like you do.
As I recall Vader did get hit pretty badly with the force lightning from the emperor in ROTJ. I always assumed that he died because of a system failure in the machines that were keeping him alive, rather than not being able to breath.
:)
He seemed to be dying, but said he wanted to see Luke with his "real eyes" before dying. None of this seems inconsistent with Episode 3
Hmm, I'll have to watch it again I guess
But as I recall it, he was indeed pretty damaged there, but I also recall Luke not wanting to take off his mask because it would kill him for sure, while Luke wanted to try to 'rescue' him.
Of course Anakin could not have survived the lava thing as a normal human but did for long enough that Sidious could come from somewhere else (its not like he was just around the corner and could be there in mere minutes) to pick him up alive.
At any rate, I will go watch ROTJ again when I have some more time and take a close peek at this part.
Yes. That's what we do. I merely point out that people could choose another licence that allows the use of third party code under a different licence. The ramifications of using the GPL means that you create potential conflicts.
Potential conflicts with a situation that those who thought up the GPL are extremely well aware off, and those who use it generally don't care about. This is YOUR and not their problem really.
They use the GPL because it offers them something that no other license offers, exactly because of that one restriction that you take such an issue with.
What this means my friend is that your argument is technically correct but is not being heard because it is simply of no relevance whatsoever to virtually anyone who uses the GPL, it only is relevant for people like you.
No. You seem to be missing the point. In this case, my point is that the GPL terms bar the use of unrelated libraries.
I was not missing that point at all, but for the authors of most GPL software that is a completely irrelevant argument, a point which you seem to be missing. lets put it simple, and sorry for shouting, but you really seem to want to ignore this: THEY KNOW AND THEY DO NOT CARE.
Now for something else, if you are talking about libraries, those are often written by a small number of people, who may even be organiyed in a company or other organisation. You may find that in many cases you can get this exact same library with a different license from that group, just that you will have to pay a price still.
Go look at what for example a company like troltech does. Ever looked at MySQL?
Again, you are not informed well (besides seemingly unable to grasp that the people who believe strongly in the GPL do not even want to solve your problem, it is YOUR problem, not theirs)
What do they do? Looks like they use some software under the GPL. So what's the point? More kernel modules under Linux? Fair enough. If we ever want to release a closed source driver for Linux then we'll keep that in mind.
The point is that it is quite possible to integrate a binary only component in an otherwise GPLed system, unlike what you have been claiming so far. There are companies doing exactly that, and they are under close scruteny, it is not just a small incident that is staying under the radar or anything like that.