Re:Danger of 'GPLv3 or later'
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Surely the GPL is trademarked?
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
There are two socities with all things being equal except for one tiny aspect, which one promotes freedom more?
Society #1: You have the freedom to shoot people in the head.
Society #2: You do not have the freedom to shoot people in the head.
Re:GPLv3 anti-business
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Professor Moglen mentioned that in many cases businesses _want_ to buy locked-down hardware where they cannot change the software Then these business are free not to remove the DRM placed on it by the distributor. Just as consumers are free to do.
so it's a reasonable compromise to make freedom an inalienable right for consumers, while allowing businesses a bit more rope to hang themselves with if they really want to use locked-down systems. Not really. Why is it reasonable to allow consumers the choice on whether or not they circumvent the DRM but not give businesses that same choice?
He gets a choice Which is less choice then a consumer gets. That doesn't sound fair or right to me.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 0
So I'm not free. Guess such licenses as the OP described aren't about ensuring people's freedoms then.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 0
Right, but how am I "able to do what [I] want with" the modified code? I'm not? Doesn't sound very free to me.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
GPL3 removes your options to restrict freedom of others. Unless you're a business:(
Re:GPLv3 anti-business
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Right, so let's say your local comic shop wants to buy an automatic transaction system for its inventory. Now there's lots of closed source alternatives out there, but being a geek they want to support open source and perhaps modify it themselves and release their source code. They look for some free software versions and the only one they find is a system that comes with preinstalled on the hardware (which is pretty good because their current hardware needs replacement) and so they go to buy it, before they realize that they won't be able to modify it, because its been tivoized. If this geek were buying it for his home he would have protections from this tivoization under the GPL, but because its for his comic shop, he has no such protections.
This is good, why?
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Freedom means being able to do what you want with a particular piece of code. Please tell me how to do that with free code that has been modified and redistributed under a closed source license. If I can't, how am I free then?
It will only be enforceable if Novell distributes GPLv3 software. And then either Novell will be found to be in breach of its contract with Microsoft, or Microsoft will have to abide by the GPLv3 for the GPLv3 code.
IANAL but that's my understanding of the issue.
Y'know I've seen the trolls here say things like "the GPL is anti-business" and "it wants to bring down big business" and I've thought "alright, they're simply trolls, I'll ignore them." However Stallman's own words show the truth in the words of these so-called trolls (although they might still be trolls, that doesn't mean they're wrong):
GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations. So apparently Stallman doesn't think owners of businesses deserve the same rights and protections that consumers get. I guess Stallman doesn't people who buy things for their business deserve these same rights, because after all, business owners don't deserve the same freedoms they have in their own personal transactions as they do in their business transactions. Sounds pretty anti-business to me.
Microsoft made a few mistakes in the Novell-Microsoft deal, and GPLv3 is designed to turn them against Microsoft So not only does the GPL v3 not grant business owners the same rights as consumers have, it is also designed to hurt a very specific business. That sounds pretty anti-business to me.
Megacorporations collect thousands of patents, and use those patents to bully smaller developers. A shame Stallman doesn't seem to realize these smaller developers he's worried about, can include small businesses. Otherwise he might have fought to have them given the same protections as consumers. As it is, Stallman's apparent anti-business agenda thwarts some of his claimed goals.
I've fought and defended the GPL here against people who came to denounce it, and I hope someone will come along and explain to me why I'm wrong. But until someone does, I'm seriously reconsidering my support for the GPL.
Re:"consumer products" only
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Aaah, nevermind. Found it myself after searching through Stallman's dogma a bit more carefully.
The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations. (The latest draft of GPLv3 states this criterion explicitly.)
Why not require the government code to the specifications of the language so that any browser that implements the standards correctly can display the website?
Because with public domain, you can lose credit as authors of that code. Aaah, so you do think its good to restrict people's freedoms. In that case we're simply disagreeing on where the restriction becomes better for society overall. You think having your ego stroked is all that's needed, whereas others think keeping any changes made to the code free so everyone can benefit from them is important.
Typical revisionist history. No I'm simply making the argument blowdart did, applied to something he doesn't want it applied to.
you've added restrictions Actually clarifications have been added. The spirit has remained the same the entire time, its just not everyone felt like following the spirit of the GPL, so clarifications were added to ensure that the spirit must be adhered to. Imagine if there was a loophole that allowed people to remove the credit placed in BSD code? Surely the BSD license would be modified to take away this loophole.
And its not up to the distributors and creators of GNU/Linux to ensure that Tivo's DRM works legally with their software. If Tivo wants software under a license that allows them to restrict what end users can do, they should go with someone else.
Some believe that it shouldn't be against the law to use things for personal use without adhering to a license or paying for it. This belief, I believe, is starting to gain mainstream awareness in Sweeden, so it isn't simply "Slash-Law."
I DO mind, however, if a simple search for my real name can present the searcher with a look into my private life because some "friend" feels it necessary to catalogue the names of everyone in their photos. Be more careful with your friends then.
Considering Google has been going head to head against big companies for a while now, no, they're not jr burgers. After all, Microsoft is new compared with some really old companies, so should we call their latest endeavour "the small kid that bullies pick on"? Of course not, that would be silly. Just as its silly to say it about Google.
Sorry, but when you're owned by Google you don't get to try to pass yourself off as the "small kid that bullies pick on." Youtube, now with Google's backing, is old hat, with many more newer kids coming onto the block.
Which society do you think we have more in common with? 19th century england or 21st century singapore? I'm inclined to believe the former and as such it is a better indicator of how effective it is then singapore.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely the GPL is trademarked?
There are two socities with all things being equal except for one tiny aspect, which one promotes freedom more? Society #1: You have the freedom to shoot people in the head. Society #2: You do not have the freedom to shoot people in the head.
So I'm not free. Guess such licenses as the OP described aren't about ensuring people's freedoms then.
Right, but how am I "able to do what [I] want with" the modified code? I'm not? Doesn't sound very free to me.
Right, so let's say your local comic shop wants to buy an automatic transaction system for its inventory. Now there's lots of closed source alternatives out there, but being a geek they want to support open source and perhaps modify it themselves and release their source code. They look for some free software versions and the only one they find is a system that comes with preinstalled on the hardware (which is pretty good because their current hardware needs replacement) and so they go to buy it, before they realize that they won't be able to modify it, because its been tivoized. If this geek were buying it for his home he would have protections from this tivoization under the GPL, but because its for his comic shop, he has no such protections. This is good, why?
It will only be enforceable if Novell distributes GPLv3 software. And then either Novell will be found to be in breach of its contract with Microsoft, or Microsoft will have to abide by the GPLv3 for the GPLv3 code. IANAL but that's my understanding of the issue.
Can you point to the relevant quote from the article? I did a search for "consumer products" (without quotation marks) and found none.
Why not require the government code to the specifications of the language so that any browser that implements the standards correctly can display the website?
And its not up to the distributors and creators of GNU/Linux to ensure that Tivo's DRM works legally with their software. If Tivo wants software under a license that allows them to restrict what end users can do, they should go with someone else.
This is the best explanation on the differences I've ever seen. Well done.
Why don't you release under the public domain then? After all, the BSD adds a restriction, hence it takes away "freedom" it doesn't add to it.
What I mean by personal use is non-commercial use.
Some believe that it shouldn't be against the law to use things for personal use without adhering to a license or paying for it. This belief, I believe, is starting to gain mainstream awareness in Sweeden, so it isn't simply "Slash-Law."
That's actually an interesting and important conundrum.
Considering Google has been going head to head against big companies for a while now, no, they're not jr burgers. After all, Microsoft is new compared with some really old companies, so should we call their latest endeavour "the small kid that bullies pick on"? Of course not, that would be silly. Just as its silly to say it about Google.
Sorry, but when you're owned by Google you don't get to try to pass yourself off as the "small kid that bullies pick on." Youtube, now with Google's backing, is old hat, with many more newer kids coming onto the block.
Which society do you think we have more in common with? 19th century england or 21st century singapore? I'm inclined to believe the former and as such it is a better indicator of how effective it is then singapore.