Some of the people fighting for privacy are fighting for things like encryption, which is a way of preventing data-mining. They are fighting in the legal and public policy arena because there is the possibility that the government will make encryption illegal (to enable their own data-mining). As long as encryption is not illegal, you can, with some work, make things much more private for yourself than they currently are.
Especially since the Marquis de Condorcet did his work in the mid 1700s. The ideas were out there, and either unknown to the founding fathers or ignored.
Actually, MLK Jr. was a criminal, according to the laws on the books at the time. That was kind of the whole point of civil disobedience. Most people today believe that what he did was morally right, but legally it most assuredly was not.
Once you license your software v2.4 under licence A, that's a done deal. You can't retroactively change that licence for this software, v2.4. This is why Samba is under GPLv2; until 3.0.X. They can't change that and you may use Samba 'till the end of time under the rules of GPLv2. Now they change to GPLv3, and move the numbering to 3.2.X. Meaning, Samba 3.2.X from now on is governed by GPLv3.
Very nearly right. However, Samba can give out copies of any version of their software under the GPL3 license, if they want to. They can even refuse to distribute any more copies of (say) 3.0.0 under GPL2. If it happened to be the case that nobody anywhere had a copy of 3.0.0 which was given to them under GPL2, then 3.0.0 would only be available under GPL3. However, this is unlikely, and making it unlikely is a minor corollary aim of the GPL (any version). Once you let the cat out of the bag, it is very hard to get it back in.
updates to the software may require you to agree to an updated license
And this is pretty much exactly what is happening with GPL3. Versions of projects which have been distributed under GPL2, if you can get your hands on them (from somebody distributing under GPL2), are still under GPL2. But, projects which are moving to GPL3 are basically saying "if you want updates, you have to agree to an updated license".
Since it is practically (although not actually) impossible to forgo updates, you have to agree to a new license or run some pretty big risks.
Well, let's see. If MS does decide to sue somebody (say, a major customer of Red Hat) for infringement of a patent because of some piece of software which Novell is distributing under GPL3, then what? Somebody would have to countersue. So, in that case, we've got somebody needing to sue MS.
OTOH, maybe MS does like they've said they will, and doesn't ever sue anybody over these alleged patent infringements. Then we can probably expect them to continue throwing their FUD around about the patent infringment. This will continue to hurt corporate Linux adoption. If we want to avoid that, then somebody would have to sue MS for, I don't know, libel or slander or misrepresentation or something.
So, we have a couple of possibilities. In each possibility, either somebody sues MS, or somebody (FOSS adoption or some FOSS user(s)) suffers somehow. This doesn't seem to comport with "Nobody's looking to sue MS", unless MS voluntarily doesn't throw any more FUD over the patents, which seems unlikely.
Even if I moved to another country (and I probably will live in Switzerland (CERN) for at least several years of my life at the end of and after grad school), I would still come back and visit the US pretty frequently (about as frequently as money would allow). All of my family would still be here (except for my wife, of course), and I love them. That's reason enough to put up with an awful lot of crap.
Because a third party is writing the plugin, and they have no interest in protecting MS's formats, and a decent amount of interest in not making themselves look bad, so I'd expect they would try to do a good job. Sun generally puts out quality stuff.
libc is completely cross platform? What are you smoking? Even across Unices, libc varies quite a bit. Not in tremendous ways, but little stupid things like the order of the arguments, and that sort of thing. If libc were actually cross platform, autoconf would probably never have been written.
No. This isn't meant to boost Word's usability. It is meant to boost ODF's usability. Now if you write a document in OOo, you can save it to a fully-supported format (no dialog box that says "If you save to Word 2000 format, you will lose some document formatting"), send it to your boss, and he'll be able to open it.
It means that we won't have to pander to Word users any more, because they can be on an equal footing when it comes to document format support. This is much more important than getting rid of Word entirely.
Anyway, I'd rather have a third party implement the ODF support for office. I don't trust MS to go against their embrace and extend instinct, and I'd rather have Office support ODF, rather than ODF plus some closed extensions and minus some slightly esoteric, but standard, features.
Then support the ACLU. They do have a pretty good track record in court, they are more well-known than the EFF, and they don't bother with CSS or encryption. Either way, if the ruling pisses you off, don't just sit around and whine about it, do something that might change things!
You could certainly write a license which was like the GPL in almost every way, except that, at the time of distribution, the distributor would be required to check on whether or not there was a newer version of the GPL than the one under which he received the program, and if so, distribute the program under the terms of the newer version instead. Except not a newer version of the GPL exactly... but one modified as above. You can certainly do this. Whether or not it is worthwhile is another question. I'd advise simply using the "Or later version" common language.
Heck, since IANAL, I don't even know whether or not such a modified GPL would hold up in court.
As long as they are different recordings, I'm happy. My best friend, for instance, has the entirety of Led Zeppelin's released material, and it includes (IIRC) some 6 different versions of "Communication Breakdown". If you played the first ten seconds of all of them, you'd never know they were the same song, as Led Zeppelin improvised and rewrote constantly and endlessly. And that's not to say that the rest of each recording after 10 seconds is identical to the others, but at some point, you get at least some of the same musical themes, and some of the same lyrics, so you'd be able to guess that they were the same song.
I think I did point out the clause. In fact, I quoted it. It is 3b. You must include a written offer, valid for three years, to give the source, at no more than the cost of reproduction and distribution, to any third party who asks. There are two other options, of course, a and c. Option c is really just an extension of option b; if you received the object code from someone distributing under option b, then you can merely reference their offer of source rather than making your own. In this case, source is still available to any third party. Option a is the only out from giving the source to any interested third party, and requires that you distribute the source right alongside the object code.
Naturally, this only applies to you if you are distributing object code. Say you've got some code which has been given to you licensed under the GPL. Say you want to pass it along to Alice, but Alice doesn't want to compile it herself, so you want to give her the binaries, the object code. If you distribute the object code to Alice, and give her the source along with the object code, then, no, Bob does not get to demand the source from you. If you distribute the object code to Alice, but don't give her the source along with the object code, then you must give her a written offer to distribute the source to Bob if he asks. Even though you never gave Bob any object code at all. The fact that you distributed object code to Alice (and didn't take option a by giving her the source with it) means that Bob has the right to demand the source code from you and you have to give it to him.
Presumably, SWSoft is in fact distributing their software (otherwise, how would we even know they were using GPL code, and why would we even care?). Also presumably, they are not distributing the source code to the GPL portions alongside the binaries (once again, if they were, then they would not be violating the GPL). Thus, if the two assumptions listed above are correct, and we have every reason to suspect that they are, then they must make available the source code to any third party that asks for it, or be in violation of section 3 of the GPL version 2.
I know that legalese is often very confusing, but in this case, the license is really quite clear. If you distribute the object code at all, then you either distribute the source along with it or distribute an offer to give the source code to anyone who wants it. Doesn't matter to whom you distribute the object code; if you take option b (or c), then anybody gets to ask for the source.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: . ..
. . . b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
So yes, from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html, we see that you are required, in actual fact, to give the source code to any third party that asks for it, if you are distributing the object code at all. It doesn't matter who you distribute the object code to, you still have to give the source code to anyone who asks.
I'm very glad that you read part of the GPL2. Now you need to pick up where you left off (marked by your "[options for obtaining source]"), and finish it.
You still don't get it, do you? My ability to shoot a basketball through a hoop in no way implies that the basketball could just drift through the hoop by chance. A human scientist's ability to create an artificial cell in no way implies that that cell could have come together spontaneously in the primordial soup. Sure, ID is a Christian idea. But, I claim that the ability of scientists to create artificial life does not blow a hole in an entire class of ideas which resemble ID in that they claim that life could not have spontaneously appeared in the primordial soup.
Now, if we were to add more information, and claim that the scientist's mechanism for creating artificial life is to make a replica of primordial soup and then wait (which isn't the case with this experiment), and also that this mechanism actually works, then we would have a hole in that entire class of ideas, as well as ID. But we don't.
So, kind of like a MUD (toading), or IRC (kicking)... Somebody with superuser privileges took a dislike to them. At least used to happen all the time all over the internet. The difference is that now the channel op isn't "one of us".
Even if they did make a new cell from scratch (random atoms lying around, I suppose), that would not put a hole in ID at all. ID claims that life is too complex to have arisen out of the primordial soup by chance alone, so it must have been designed by some intelligence. Showing that it is possible for an intelligence (scientists in a lab) to design life (make a new cell from scratch) would in some indirect and not very useful sense support ID (by demonstrating that it was possible for ID to have taken place) although not to the exclusion of anything else, and would certainly not damage the idea.
Ahhh thanks for the links. I used to play SMB at my friend's house, and thanks to wikipedia, I just discovered Neverball. Well, we can all guess who won't be getting anything useful done this weekend!
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, I thought the saying was "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
Some of the people fighting for privacy are fighting for things like encryption, which is a way of preventing data-mining. They are fighting in the legal and public policy arena because there is the possibility that the government will make encryption illegal (to enable their own data-mining). As long as encryption is not illegal, you can, with some work, make things much more private for yourself than they currently are.
Especially since the Marquis de Condorcet did his work in the mid 1700s. The ideas were out there, and either unknown to the founding fathers or ignored.
"I said I know
it's only rock and roll
But I like it
like it
yes I do."
Thanks, Mick. I knew you could clear up this little misunderstanding for us.
Actually, MLK Jr. was a criminal, according to the laws on the books at the time. That was kind of the whole point of civil disobedience. Most people today believe that what he did was morally right, but legally it most assuredly was not.
Since it is practically (although not actually) impossible to forgo updates, you have to agree to a new license or run some pretty big risks.
Well, let's see. If MS does decide to sue somebody (say, a major customer of Red Hat) for infringement of a patent because of some piece of software which Novell is distributing under GPL3, then what? Somebody would have to countersue. So, in that case, we've got somebody needing to sue MS.
OTOH, maybe MS does like they've said they will, and doesn't ever sue anybody over these alleged patent infringements. Then we can probably expect them to continue throwing their FUD around about the patent infringment. This will continue to hurt corporate Linux adoption. If we want to avoid that, then somebody would have to sue MS for, I don't know, libel or slander or misrepresentation or something.
So, we have a couple of possibilities. In each possibility, either somebody sues MS, or somebody (FOSS adoption or some FOSS user(s)) suffers somehow. This doesn't seem to comport with "Nobody's looking to sue MS", unless MS voluntarily doesn't throw any more FUD over the patents, which seems unlikely.
Even if I moved to another country (and I probably will live in Switzerland (CERN) for at least several years of my life at the end of and after grad school), I would still come back and visit the US pretty frequently (about as frequently as money would allow). All of my family would still be here (except for my wife, of course), and I love them. That's reason enough to put up with an awful lot of crap.
Because a third party is writing the plugin, and they have no interest in protecting MS's formats, and a decent amount of interest in not making themselves look bad, so I'd expect they would try to do a good job. Sun generally puts out quality stuff.
libc is completely cross platform? What are you smoking? Even across Unices, libc varies quite a bit. Not in tremendous ways, but little stupid things like the order of the arguments, and that sort of thing. If libc were actually cross platform, autoconf would probably never have been written.
No. This isn't meant to boost Word's usability. It is meant to boost ODF's usability. Now if you write a document in OOo, you can save it to a fully-supported format (no dialog box that says "If you save to Word 2000 format, you will lose some document formatting"), send it to your boss, and he'll be able to open it.
It means that we won't have to pander to Word users any more, because they can be on an equal footing when it comes to document format support. This is much more important than getting rid of Word entirely.
Anyway, I'd rather have a third party implement the ODF support for office. I don't trust MS to go against their embrace and extend instinct, and I'd rather have Office support ODF, rather than ODF plus some closed extensions and minus some slightly esoteric, but standard, features.
Then support the ACLU. They do have a pretty good track record in court, they are more well-known than the EFF, and they don't bother with CSS or encryption. Either way, if the ruling pisses you off, don't just sit around and whine about it, do something that might change things!
You could certainly write a license which was like the GPL in almost every way, except that, at the time of distribution, the distributor would be required to check on whether or not there was a newer version of the GPL than the one under which he received the program, and if so, distribute the program under the terms of the newer version instead. Except not a newer version of the GPL exactly... but one modified as above. You can certainly do this. Whether or not it is worthwhile is another question. I'd advise simply using the "Or later version" common language.
Heck, since IANAL, I don't even know whether or not such a modified GPL would hold up in court.
Ah. I am a fan, but don't have enough money to have everything they ever put out :'(
As long as they are different recordings, I'm happy. My best friend, for instance, has the entirety of Led Zeppelin's released material, and it includes (IIRC) some 6 different versions of "Communication Breakdown". If you played the first ten seconds of all of them, you'd never know they were the same song, as Led Zeppelin improvised and rewrote constantly and endlessly. And that's not to say that the rest of each recording after 10 seconds is identical to the others, but at some point, you get at least some of the same musical themes, and some of the same lyrics, so you'd be able to guess that they were the same song.
I think I did point out the clause. In fact, I quoted it. It is 3b. You must include a written offer, valid for three years, to give the source, at no more than the cost of reproduction and distribution, to any third party who asks. There are two other options, of course, a and c. Option c is really just an extension of option b; if you received the object code from someone distributing under option b, then you can merely reference their offer of source rather than making your own. In this case, source is still available to any third party. Option a is the only out from giving the source to any interested third party, and requires that you distribute the source right alongside the object code.
Naturally, this only applies to you if you are distributing object code. Say you've got some code which has been given to you licensed under the GPL. Say you want to pass it along to Alice, but Alice doesn't want to compile it herself, so you want to give her the binaries, the object code. If you distribute the object code to Alice, and give her the source along with the object code, then, no, Bob does not get to demand the source from you. If you distribute the object code to Alice, but don't give her the source along with the object code, then you must give her a written offer to distribute the source to Bob if he asks. Even though you never gave Bob any object code at all. The fact that you distributed object code to Alice (and didn't take option a by giving her the source with it) means that Bob has the right to demand the source code from you and you have to give it to him.
Presumably, SWSoft is in fact distributing their software (otherwise, how would we even know they were using GPL code, and why would we even care?). Also presumably, they are not distributing the source code to the GPL portions alongside the binaries (once again, if they were, then they would not be violating the GPL). Thus, if the two assumptions listed above are correct, and we have every reason to suspect that they are, then they must make available the source code to any third party that asks for it, or be in violation of section 3 of the GPL version 2.
I know that legalese is often very confusing, but in this case, the license is really quite clear. If you distribute the object code at all, then you either distribute the source along with it or distribute an offer to give the source code to anyone who wants it. Doesn't matter to whom you distribute the object code; if you take option b (or c), then anybody gets to ask for the source.
I'm very glad that you read part of the GPL2. Now you need to pick up where you left off (marked by your "[options for obtaining source]"), and finish it.
You still don't get it, do you? My ability to shoot a basketball through a hoop in no way implies that the basketball could just drift through the hoop by chance. A human scientist's ability to create an artificial cell in no way implies that that cell could have come together spontaneously in the primordial soup. Sure, ID is a Christian idea. But, I claim that the ability of scientists to create artificial life does not blow a hole in an entire class of ideas which resemble ID in that they claim that life could not have spontaneously appeared in the primordial soup.
Now, if we were to add more information, and claim that the scientist's mechanism for creating artificial life is to make a replica of primordial soup and then wait (which isn't the case with this experiment), and also that this mechanism actually works, then we would have a hole in that entire class of ideas, as well as ID. But we don't.
There's an up to date package in the ubuntu repositories (universe).
So, kind of like a MUD (toading), or IRC (kicking)... Somebody with superuser privileges took a dislike to them. At least used to happen all the time all over the internet. The difference is that now the channel op isn't "one of us".
Even if they did make a new cell from scratch (random atoms lying around, I suppose), that would not put a hole in ID at all. ID claims that life is too complex to have arisen out of the primordial soup by chance alone, so it must have been designed by some intelligence. Showing that it is possible for an intelligence (scientists in a lab) to design life (make a new cell from scratch) would in some indirect and not very useful sense support ID (by demonstrating that it was possible for ID to have taken place) although not to the exclusion of anything else, and would certainly not damage the idea.
Note: I am not a proponent of ID.
Ahhh thanks for the links. I used to play SMB at my friend's house, and thanks to wikipedia, I just discovered Neverball. Well, we can all guess who won't be getting anything useful done this weekend!