So you can't relicense, you can't change the license, and moreover, you agree to redistribute any modifications with the same license. I think your conclusions are mistaken. You are not required to license derivative works of BSD code under the BSD license. At least, not the way I and most people interpret it. It merely requires you to put a list of conditions in with any derivative works you create. However, these same conditions are contained in many other licenses, including the GPL. The GPL, however, contains more restrictions. Let's take them one by one:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
The GPL provides for this too. It also adds several other conditions, which the BSD license does not have, but there is nothing in the BSD license that says "you may only distribute with these conditions".
Redistributions in binary form 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.
Again, the GPL provides for this, because it also adds that redistributions in binary form must include source code--which falls under clause 1, so it satisfies clause 2. This is not prohibited by the BSD license. In fact, it's not even mentioned. The BSD license just says if you release the binary, you must do X. The GPL says that too, but then adds that you must also do Y.
Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
The GPL does not say this. However, it is not clear to me that this language is necessary. I'm not sure you could use somebody's name to promote derivative works without his permission even without that clause. However, assuming that clause were necessary, the license might be incompatible with the GPL because the GPL forbids restrictions beyond what are already in it. This is a problem with the GPL, though, not the BSD license.
To sum up, I don't see any reason why you couldn't create a derivative work of BSD licensed code and relicense it under the GPL. Apart from the question of the third clause, both licenses are apparently compatible with this scheme.
As a further example, say you have some BSD licensed code that you modify. You decide instead of distributing it under the BSD license terms, you want to distribute it under the "Bob's License-O-Rama" terms. This license is equivalent to the BSD license, but with a fourth clause that any derivative works must be released in Swahili. By releasing your source code with the BSD license included as part of your BLOR license, you have followed the BSD license to the letter. But nowhere does it say you can't add additional terms, which is just what you did. However, the BLOR license now applies to anyone who creates derivative works of your work. "This list of conditions" is not equivalent to "this license". If they had meant "this license", that's what they would have said.
I don't really understand what this debate is about. It doesn't really matter whether you believe you can "relicense" code or not. The implicit right to create a derivative work is granted by the BSD license, and you would own the copyright to that work as long as you comply with the terms of the license under which the original was granted. You could then redistribute that code under any license which you choose (within the parameters of the license granted to you). So yes, you could choose to relicense it however you saw fit. That's all I'm saying. What you seem to be saying is you don't believe one could do that. Fine, we may have differing opinions on that, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
My original point was this:
If the modified BSD license requires that the code not be relicensed under the GPL (which it apparently does), it creates one of two problems. If the terms explicitly say "you may license derivative works under any license except the GPL", then you could simply relicense the code (technically, a derivative work to which you hold the copyright) under a BSD license without that condition, which would probably be in accord with the terms of the license. You could then relicense that code under the GPL. So it couldn't be enforced. On the other hand (and this is more likely), if the terms say that you must include the anti-"viral license" clause in any license for derivative work, then it becomes a viral license itself, which is the very thing it is nominally opposed to. To me, the BSD license has always been about real freedom. To impose limits on that freedom supposedly in the name of freedom is the same hypocrisy that I detest from the GPL camp.
Don't sweat it... It is sometimes too easy to come across as brusque when you're not talking to someone face to face.
What I think you're missing here is the concept of the derivative work.
From the article:
A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author.
What this basically means is that, if you are authorized to create a derivative work (and call it your own work), you own the copyright to that derivative work. You therefore get to set the licensing terms, within the parameters of the material licensed to you. The BSD license, by permitting you to use BSD code in your own project, authorizes you to create such a derivative work. However, it only authorizes it under certain terms; specifically, you must credit the author of the original work through the inclusion of a copyright notice and the terms of the BSD license itself.
This is why the BSD license is compatible with the GPL. The GPL provides essentially the same thing, but places further restrictions on what you cannot do with a derivative work, which the BSD license does not prohibit licensees from doing.
If the BSD license didn't allow relicensing, it would be worthless because it would effectively be a "look but don't touch" license, in that you could see the source code but would be prohibited from modifying and redistributing it. And if it only allowed for relicensing under the same terms of the BSD license, well, it'd be the GPL.
When I talk about the modified BSD license, I'm referring to the one referenced by the original poster--the one that forbids use in GPL licensed projects. The original license would be the standard 3-clause license. Nobody considers the 4-clause license to really be part of the equation anymore.
A BSD license that adds restrictions on what you can do with derivative works is essentially the same as the GPL in that regard, because it forces you to license source code--if you release it--under the same license. Otherwise, you could license your derivative work under the less restrictive "traditional" BSD license, then use that version in a GPL project. So, if it is to be enforceable, it is no longer a true BSD license. In fact, it might as well be the GPL.
When you modify and distribute some BSD licensed code, you maintain the copyright to that code. But that modified code must have a license. It could be a commercial license, a BSD license, the GPL, or some other license, as long as you comply with the terms of the code licensed to you. In fact, modifying the code isn't necessary; you could relicense it immediately under some other license that is compatible with the BSD license (i.e. it gives credit to the author). This is technically permitted by the license. It is generally meaningless, because people would always have the original, presumably less restrictive version available to them.
My point is that, for code using the modified BSD license, one can relicense it under the original BSD license, in which case the license is unenforceable, or one can only relicense it under the same license, in which case it is self-defeating, because it essentially becomes similar to the GPL in practical terms.
I hope this helps you to understand what I am talking about. If not, please feel free to be rude and talk to me like I'm an idiot again, and I'll see if I can clarify further.
I can understand the temptation to license code like that, but it seems to me to be self-defeating, as well as probably unenforceable. After all, if you can do whatever you want except relicense under the GPL, you could relicense it under the traditional BSD license, then relicense that version under the GPL. Unless, of course, the license says that any derivative code, if the source is released, must not be licensed or licensable under the GPL, and must contain this clause. In that case, the license is so similar to the GPL that it defeats the purpose. Effectively, the only difference becomes that modified code under the GPL license must be released under the GPL, whereas modified code under the "No-GPL BSD License", if released, may only be released under the same license. Not much difference, if you ask me.
I think that these developers should take the moral high ground and release under the traditional BSD license. I can sympathize with wanting to stick it to some of the more zealous GPL promoters, but doing this only lowers you to their level.
That's a strawman argument. Please reread what I wrote, and you will see that for a question to be meaningful to me, it must meet one of two criteria: It must be answerable, OR it must be relevant. Otherwise, there is no meaning to the question.
Take your example of the tortoise. I know there is no physical tortoise waiting in my toaster, because I cannot see it, and cannot feel it, and can continue to use my toaster unmolested. Could there be an invisible tortoise that I cannot see, cannot feel, cannot observe in any way? That question is meaningless, because it can't be answered either way, and the answer has no bearing on my life.
It is certainly relevant to me whether there is a tortoise in my toaster, or an alligator in my bathtub, or a tiger in my tank. I know these things do not exist, so I can continue to live my life as I do. If these things existed, I would have to change how I live. So the answer--as ridiculous as the question might be--is not meaningless. You could pose an infinite number of questions that are either answerable or relevant but patently absurd. Is there a bogeyman behind you right now? Theoretically there could be, and you would certainly be in trouble if there were. But we can safely assume there is not.
So God doesn't get any special treatment from me. I don't care whether God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist, because the answer doesn't affect me either way. In fact, I don't even see the question as having any meaning, because what is the point of a question that can't be answered and has no relevance even if it could be?
I'm not even acting under the assumption that God doesn't exist. Even if I were, I would behave no differently than if I were acting under the assumption that He did exist, because I feel that I lead a moral and satisfying life regardless of the existence of a deity. Would you behave differently if you knew there were a God? Why? And more importantly, what does that say about the way you live now? I proffer that if it takes the mere existence of God to prevent you from doing some of the things you do, or to make you do things you otherwise wouldn't do, you are essentially a slave to your own whims and desires. Do you have questions about your own morality?
Again, a meaningless question, because it cannot be proved one way or the other, and it doesn't really affect how I live my life either way.
And again, it shouldn't affect how you live your life. But there are tons of interesting things to ponder even if they have absolutely no practical value. This is one of them. If it doesn't interest you, feel free to ignore it, but there's no reason to expect everyone else to feel the way you do. It is fine to ponder the effects of such a question within a hypothetical set of circumstances. For example, one could say, "Suppose our actions are predetermined, what does that mean?" Or even "What evidence do we have for or against predetermination?" or the existence of God, or any particular question. But attempting to apply these hypotheticals to reality is meaningless, because there simply are no observable facts. In a hypothetical, you assume certain facts and draw conclusions based on those assumptions. That's exactly what you're doing when you talk about predestination. But there is no evidence, nor any possible test for predestination. So as a hypothetical one can consider it, but it makes no sense to apply it to reality. Free will is inherently obvious to us, and predestination is incompatible with our existence as we perceive it. So whether or not things are actually predetermined is irrelevant.
It wouldn't remove your free will anymore than a rapist holding a gun to your head removes your free will. Anything you could have willed for before, you still can. Acting on it might present a problem for. Uh, yeah, that's kinda my point. Free will without the ability to act on that will is meaningless. The reason we have free will now is that we don't truly know what the consequences of our actions are in terms of eternal punishment. If God came down and announced that X is required but Y leads to eternal damnation, then our "free will" is illusory at best.
As for your second point, I don't have any idea what you're talking about, nor do I see how it is relevant to the discussion. What does an illusion of free will mean? That our actions are pre-decided and we only think we're making choices? Again, a meaningless question, because it cannot be proved one way or the other, and it doesn't really affect how I live my life either way.
As I've said elsewhere, such an occurrence would necessarily mean the removal of our free will as human beings, and is therefore a basically different set of circumstances that is not really relevant.
The second part does not follow from the first. God can be both supernatural and observable - two distinct features within the confines of the same entity. Rephrased - first, assuming we're talking about the same idea of God (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) then there's nothing that God can't do - that includes being both supernatural and observable. You're just quibbling about definitions. If God is observable, then God must by definition be natural. If God cannot be observed in any way, then God must be supernatural. Those are the terms I am working with. For God to be observable and supernatural would be a contradiction in terms. Science can only work with the observable. The supernatural is not observable. Therefore, science cannot work with the supernatural.
Your answer here, I think, is a bit disingenuous. If you were to find out that there were a God tomorrow, I think you would be at least mildly interested in why that God created you/us/the universe in the first place. No? Hardly disingenuous. I might have questions about these things, but as long as I continue to have my free will the answers are irrelevant to my life, except insofar as they satisfy my curiosity. So proof of God's existence wouldn't really affect how I live my life in any consequential way. When I talk about "how I live my life" I'm talking about guiding principles here, not whether I choose to perform a slightly different set of actions. I don't know what answers God would give, but short of him saying "you must do X" (thereby subtracting my freedom to choose) nothing he said would change how I live my life. I believe I am a good person, and I do the right thing whenever possible. I simply can't conceive of a God who could say I am behaving contrary to His wishes.
This is very interesting to me. Because if I found out tomorrow - by, say, an act of God - that God existed, then I would certainly begin to behave very differently. For one, I wouldn't answer the question "No" when asked if I believed in God. If, for example, he came down and told me everything in the Bible was correct, including all the assorted minutiae, then I would quickly become a Christian.
This gets quickly into concepts of free will and Man's ability to pick and choose beliefs. If such an event did occur, I think it would impossible to argue that Man has any free will any more. I guess you could say that my point of view is dependent on the continued existence of the freedom to choose one's behavior. If God did come down and said that everyone must behave a certain way or else go to Hell for all eternity, is there really any such choice anymore? I suppose Christians would say that there still is a choice, because nothing has really changed for them. But as far as I'm concerned, that is a totally different set of circumstances--one in which a critical component of humanity has been removed. It is therefore not really relevant to the discussion.
When I say that I don't care if God's existence were proved or not, I am talking about just that--does God exist. Because I cannot even conceive of a God like you describe in our world. I have to believe (and yes, we are here getting into personal beliefs) that any God would not issue such a mandate of behavior, and thus remove such a fundamental piece of human existence.
What interests me is why your concept of meaninglessness has anything to do with whether or not you will answer the question. Lots of things are meaningless to me - how, exactly, fish hatcheries operate, or how plutonium reacts in a nuclear weapon (as opposed to uranium). Yet if you asked me my opinion on the matter, my response would be "I don't know" - not that the question is meaningless to me. Recall, the question has nothing to do with whether or not you care, but what your position is on the matter.
That wasn't really my argument. Remember that my test for meaninglessness has two components: Relevance to my life, and ability to be answered. The operation of fish hatcheries may not be relevant, but it could be answered factually. The question is therefore not meaningless, is it? The same for storm patterns, the operation of a nuclear submarine, or the properties of the Higgs boson. Scientific tests can be (at least theoretically) set up to answer all of these questions. There is no scientific test for God.
But it's the second part of your response that gets me: Agnostics claim that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. Now we all know the second part is true. You cannot prove a negative. But the first part is incorrect. The existence of God can easily be proved - by God.
The response I see most often to that remark is simply that humans can't prove the existence of God, which is of course correct - but that's not the question. The agnostic argument isn't that humans can't prove the existence of God, it's that humans can't know whether there is a God. And that is patently false - God can come down and bonk us all on the heads any time he damn well pleases.
To wit:
Science simply isn't equipped to answer questions about the supernatural, nor should it be.
If there is a God, then he and all his works are, by definition, natural. We must simply redefine what natural is. And why, for example, would it be impossible (or even improbable) for God to have added a code to some natural phenomena that, when eventually decoded by humans will spell out in bright neon lettering, "HERE I AM! I CREATED YOU! AND YOU HAVE FOUND ME!"
By definition, there can't be any scientific test for God, because as I said before God is supernatural and thus unobservable. We can't arbitrarily redefine God as natural without observing some evidence to that effect. Even if we c
I don't agree that to be rational you have to start from nothing and build up. If that were the case it would be impossible to prove anything. For any given conclusion, you would have to consider the truth of its premises. For example, take the statement "I have a ball". You would first have to show that such a thing as a ball exists. Then you'd have to show that you exist. Then you'd have to show that existence exists, which is of course circular. But if your premises are nothing, your conclusion must be nothing as well. So you must take some things for granted--namely, existence. Then I hope you will agree that if we exist, there is at least the possibility of existence of things we don't know about, and cannot directly observe. I would then say that if something cannot be observed, then attempting to prove or disprove its existence is completely pointless. In other words, I take for granted that unobservable things might exist, because I cannot logically show them not to exist (after all, you can't prove a negative). But who cares? The existence of non-observable things doesn't matter to me.
Where self-declared atheists make a leap of logic is in claiming that, because something cannot be observed, it must not exist. Essentially, they attempt to prove a negative. And claiming that one is simply starting from nothing and (not) building up the existence of God is intellectually dishonest at best. The default position is not "X must not exist until it is shown to exist", as you seem to claim. If that were true, every negative by default would be proven, and we both know you can't prove a negative. Saying "I choose not to believe in God" is at least an honest declaration of one's opinion. Saying "I can prove God doesn't exist" is a lie. And saying "God must not exist because nobody has proven that He has" is the classic case of the logical fallacy known as the Negative Proof.
Further, many atheists seem to indicate that the answer to the question of God is very important, because if there were a God they would behave differently. I say it is not an important question, because I do not--and more importantly, will not--live my life according to anyone's principles but my own. It is no more relevant to me and the way I choose to live my life if God exists than if the tooth fairy or Bill Clinton exists. I wouldn't suddenly become religious if God were shown to exist, nor would I discard my moral values were He shown not to.
So to me, the question is meaningless, because it is unanswerable and has no affect on my life. So any answer I could give would be equally meaningless. I see the question much like somebody asking me whether I prefer the Mets or the Yankees. I couldn't care less about either team, and which team wins has no effect on my life. I therefore don't feel compelled to choose one or the other.
The agnostic position may be that any particular piece of nonsense spouted by anyone could be true. My position, which I would again call the humanist position, is that a given piece of nonsense spouted by someone that doesn't affect me and can't be shown to be ultimately true or false is insignificant, so I don't see any reason to offer a position on an ultimately meaningless question. There is an infinite amount of nonsense out there, and I could spend my entire life determining which of it I believe and don't believe. But my life would amount to nothing then.
Well, I suppose one might turn to philosophy, for example, to consider questions about the supernatural. But if you believe that science is capable of determining whether or not God exists, then you have serious misconceptions about what science actually is. The scientific method is only capable of making conclusions based on observable fact. God is not observable, therefore no conclusions can be drawn as to His existence or lack thereof. Declaring that something about which no conclusions can be drawn must therefore not exist is, paradoxically, a conclusion itself--one which is not supported by any evidence, and so runs afoul of the scientific method.
The existence of those beings does not matter to me, and they cannot be proved to exist or not exist. The question therefore is meaningless.
That's not to say that I don't consider the effects those entities have as cultural concepts, but I take them for what they are. It doesn't matter whether they actually exist, does it?
And what I tell young children has no bearing on anything. Children who are too young to understand don't require the same explanation as an adult.
I think you completely fail to understand my point, so I will only respond to the following:
* Two questions: If you don't believe in God why are your referring to Him in a capitalized way? Secondly, wouldn't the life of every theist, atheist and agnostic totally change when there was definate proof of God? Like Jesus or Mohammed returning to earth or the FSM? One, I refer to God with a capitalized pronoun because that is English convention, and I am picky about English conventions. Using the uncapitalized form does not offend me, but I prefer to use "Him" and "He" to refer to God because that is the established way to do it, and I don't have a problem with that way.
Two, I will repeat what I said before: My life would not change materially if there were definite proof of God, any more than if you proved the existence of extraterrestrial life, or Phil Smith living at 221 Main St. in Sandusky, OH. I live my life according to my own moral principles, and as such Gods existence or nonexistence does not matter to me. But you say that it matters to you, and so I contend that you do not live according to your own moral principles, but rather according to your whims and desires.
That should be enough for you to understand my point.
And, frankly I specifically see agnosticism as intellecutaly lazy/bankrupt, because if you think it through to its logical consequences it simply doesn't make sense. What practical relevance to your life do you derive from the statement, that we will never know if God exists or not? How does this "knowledge" guide your thoughts and actions? And what practical benefit does your "knowledge" that there is no God provide you? Would your behavior be any different if you did believe in God? If so, then you are nothing but a slave to your desires. And by that, I mean that you choose to behave in such a way that you think God--if he in fact existed--would disapprove of. However, because you believe there is nobody to "keep you honest", you behave that way with impunity.
People sometimes ask me if I believe in God. I always reply that the question is meaningless to me, because God's existence or nonexistence cannot be proven, and it has no bearing on my life. That is, I would behave exactly the way I do whether or not God were proven to exist or not, or even if I chose to believe he did or did not exist. You might as well ask me if I believe in life beyond the reaches of the galaxy. Perhaps it exists, perhaps not, but either way it doesn't matter. And any position you might offer on the topic is nothing but speculation.
You define the statement "we will never know if God exists or not" as agnosticism, but I would call that a humanist approach, with the addendum that the question really makes no difference. Your belief that there is no God--and your implication that your belief has some relevance to your life--strikes me as self serving, not to mention "intellectually lazy/bankrupt". You clearly haven't bothered to reason out the facts, because if you had you would realize that the facts cannot be reasoned out. You cannot logically disprove the existence of God any more than anybody else can prove His existence. Science simply isn't equipped to answer questions about the supernatural, nor should it be. So you have chosen to simply draw your own conclusion, and argue through sheer verbiage that your position is the only rational one.
You may, of course, say that you shouldn't have to disprove something, and you'd be correct. However, just because nobody has proved the existence of something doesn't necessarily mean that thing does not exist. But realize that, in this case, you are choosing to believe it does not. And that's a choice you're free to make, but I don't understand why anyone would make such a choice unless it somehow made him feel better about his own conduct (for that matter, the converse is true--I don't know why one would choose to believe in God unless it brought him some comfort to do so). For choosing not to believe in God implies that you consider the question relevant to your life, and have modified your behavior according to your beliefs. How are you any better than those who congregate weekly to pray to the deity of their choice? Do you really think they arrived at their own personal conclusions regarding God's existence through a reasoning process materially different from yours?
I am a human being. I have no need for God whatsoever, so I see no reason to take a position on His existence. Clearly, you have a need for God not to exist. And that is why, as I said before, you are a slave to your own desires.
You have the right idea, but technically that's not correct. Consideration merely refers to the exchange of something of value in order for the contract to be valid. This is mainly to distinguish a contract from, say, a promise, which is (usually) not legally binding. If you promise to do something you're not obligated to do it, but if you promise to do something and someone hands you something of value in exchange for making that promise you may well have entered into a contract. It doesn't have to be adequate compensation to be consideration. See, for example, the legal concept of the peppercorn.
You're confusing consideration with the doctrine of unconscionability. That is where the court will refuse to uphold a contract because the terms are considered grossly unfair to one side. It is not often that this happens, as the courts don't like to interfere in the ability of people to enter into contracts, even bad ones. However, a court will occasionally feel that a person may not have realized what he was signing when he entered into the contract, and this is an option that is available to the court in order to protect the interests of a party that was supposedly taken advantage of.
Also, for what it's worth, a mistake on the part of the seller is not usually a reason for voiding a contract. Only if the court feels that it would be unconscionable to enforce such a contract would it be voided (for example, if you somehow accidentally wrote $10 instead of $100,000 on the sale of a house). If you simply made a mistake as to the value, or even made an honest mistake on a lower order of magnitude (selling a $10 item for 1 cent, for example) the court would most likely enforce it.
It makes sense that a study on how to teach monkeys would come out of UCLA, because I can really see it having some practical applications for the students there.
No, your security is increased. Not your freedom. No? My freedom would be very small if I would be dead. There are many instances throughout history where people have been willing to sacrifice their lives to resist an oppressive totalitarian regime. Tell those people that they were better off living a slave than dying a free man.
You do not seem to understand the difference between freedom (what you are allowed to do) and ability (what you are capable of doing).
You're claiming that slavery never existed? Or are you playing a word game, saying that slaves had the right to be free, but their rights were just ignored? How did you get from "nobody can enslave you" to "slavery never existed"? Who's playing word games now?
I'm finding this discussion tedious. The pro-GPL people just want to define "freedom" however they like. Fine. Apply that definition to your whole life, and I'll just sit and watch sadly as you give up your real freedom for some of this "freedom" that you're permitted by others.
No sacrifice of any freedom can increase freedom per se. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as we give up a fair amount of freedom in exchange for security, or convenience, or other benefits of living in modern society. But be careful, and don't pretend you're giving up freedom in exchange for more freedom, or you will find one day that you have none left.
No, your security is increased. Not your freedom. Think about it for a second. If these laws go too far, your freedom could be removed entirely. So how does it make sense that laws increase your freedom to a certain extent, but if they go much farther then you have less freedom than you would naturally have? Don't confuse freedom with security.
In our society, we trade a degree of freedom for a degree of safety. And that's fine, but never forget that you are giving up some freedom for every law passed--it's a zero sum game.
Yes, they have the right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked, but they do not have any right to prevent you from exercising your right to attempt to hack your property. This is what you fail to acknowledge, and why your view is simply wrong.
Nope, you're an idiot. I acknowledged this completely. They do what they can to stop you from hacking when they design it, then you do what you can to overcome those restrictions. They can't (or, shouldn't be allowed to, I believe) stop you from doing what you want with your own property. They could deny you service if they detect you hacked their system, of course, but that should be their right.
The BSD license allows one side to use the law to prevent the other from exercising its rights.
No, it doesn't. You only have what rights are granted to you in the license, so you can't "exercise" rights you don't have. That's the basis of copyright law. That being said, the GPL does do exactly what you just said, if you think about it...
I don't know if those changes are generally useful or not, but they have made them available for others to use. However, I'm referring more to the fact that, because it uses Linux and some (more or less) standard hardware, it is possible for people to write utilities and such that can improve your Tivo's capabilities. Tivo may not approve of these things, but that's the tradeoff for using open source software. Although they may try to use some protection schemes to prevent the software from being wholly replaced, it is still possible to see basically how the whole system runs. And if they go completely proprietary, everyone loses that ability. Seems to me like the GPLv3 is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Admittedly, it was a bit of a pissy response on my part. I sort of thought it was self evident that the guy wasn't really responding to my argument in any relevant way, and I shot back in kind. However, I don't think that the occasional nasty remark classifies me as a troll. My argument is still valid. I've gotten my fair share of nasty responses in this thread alone, and I've responded to many of them, because there was still an intelligent remark behind the snarkiness.
It's easy in an online forum to read comments as nastier than they really are, because we can't pick up a lot of our social cues like we can from face to face contact. Not that I wasn't trying to be a bit harsh, mind you, but I wasn't intentionally trying to flamebait anyone.
It "restricts" creators of derivative works merely by denying them the coercive power of copyright in order to preserve the freedom of everyone else....by using the coercive power of copyright. And that is my point.
Slashdot Mirror
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
The GPL provides for this too. It also adds several other conditions, which the BSD license does not have, but there is nothing in the BSD license that says "you may only distribute with these conditions".
Redistributions in binary form 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.
Again, the GPL provides for this, because it also adds that redistributions in binary form must include source code--which falls under clause 1, so it satisfies clause 2. This is not prohibited by the BSD license. In fact, it's not even mentioned. The BSD license just says if you release the binary, you must do X. The GPL says that too, but then adds that you must also do Y.
Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
The GPL does not say this. However, it is not clear to me that this language is necessary. I'm not sure you could use somebody's name to promote derivative works without his permission even without that clause. However, assuming that clause were necessary, the license might be incompatible with the GPL because the GPL forbids restrictions beyond what are already in it. This is a problem with the GPL, though, not the BSD license.
To sum up, I don't see any reason why you couldn't create a derivative work of BSD licensed code and relicense it under the GPL. Apart from the question of the third clause, both licenses are apparently compatible with this scheme.
As a further example, say you have some BSD licensed code that you modify. You decide instead of distributing it under the BSD license terms, you want to distribute it under the "Bob's License-O-Rama" terms. This license is equivalent to the BSD license, but with a fourth clause that any derivative works must be released in Swahili. By releasing your source code with the BSD license included as part of your BLOR license, you have followed the BSD license to the letter. But nowhere does it say you can't add additional terms, which is just what you did. However, the BLOR license now applies to anyone who creates derivative works of your work. "This list of conditions" is not equivalent to "this license". If they had meant "this license", that's what they would have said.
I don't really understand what this debate is about. It doesn't really matter whether you believe you can "relicense" code or not. The implicit right to create a derivative work is granted by the BSD license, and you would own the copyright to that work as long as you comply with the terms of the license under which the original was granted. You could then redistribute that code under any license which you choose (within the parameters of the license granted to you). So yes, you could choose to relicense it however you saw fit. That's all I'm saying. What you seem to be saying is you don't believe one could do that. Fine, we may have differing opinions on that, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
My original point was this:
If the modified BSD license requires that the code not be relicensed under the GPL (which it apparently does), it creates one of two problems. If the terms explicitly say "you may license derivative works under any license except the GPL", then you could simply relicense the code (technically, a derivative work to which you hold the copyright) under a BSD license without that condition, which would probably be in accord with the terms of the license. You could then relicense that code under the GPL. So it couldn't be enforced. On the other hand (and this is more likely), if the terms say that you must include the anti-"viral license" clause in any license for derivative work, then it becomes a viral license itself, which is the very thing it is nominally opposed to. To me, the BSD license has always been about real freedom. To impose limits on that freedom supposedly in the name of freedom is the same hypocrisy that I detest from the GPL camp.
What I think you're missing here is the concept of the derivative work.
From the article:
What this basically means is that, if you are authorized to create a derivative work (and call it your own work), you own the copyright to that derivative work. You therefore get to set the licensing terms, within the parameters of the material licensed to you. The BSD license, by permitting you to use BSD code in your own project, authorizes you to create such a derivative work. However, it only authorizes it under certain terms; specifically, you must credit the author of the original work through the inclusion of a copyright notice and the terms of the BSD license itself.
This is why the BSD license is compatible with the GPL. The GPL provides essentially the same thing, but places further restrictions on what you cannot do with a derivative work, which the BSD license does not prohibit licensees from doing.
If the BSD license didn't allow relicensing, it would be worthless because it would effectively be a "look but don't touch" license, in that you could see the source code but would be prohibited from modifying and redistributing it. And if it only allowed for relicensing under the same terms of the BSD license, well, it'd be the GPL.
When I talk about the modified BSD license, I'm referring to the one referenced by the original poster--the one that forbids use in GPL licensed projects. The original license would be the standard 3-clause license. Nobody considers the 4-clause license to really be part of the equation anymore.
A BSD license that adds restrictions on what you can do with derivative works is essentially the same as the GPL in that regard, because it forces you to license source code--if you release it--under the same license. Otherwise, you could license your derivative work under the less restrictive "traditional" BSD license, then use that version in a GPL project. So, if it is to be enforceable, it is no longer a true BSD license. In fact, it might as well be the GPL.
When you modify and distribute some BSD licensed code, you maintain the copyright to that code. But that modified code must have a license. It could be a commercial license, a BSD license, the GPL, or some other license, as long as you comply with the terms of the code licensed to you. In fact, modifying the code isn't necessary; you could relicense it immediately under some other license that is compatible with the BSD license (i.e. it gives credit to the author). This is technically permitted by the license. It is generally meaningless, because people would always have the original, presumably less restrictive version available to them.
My point is that, for code using the modified BSD license, one can relicense it under the original BSD license, in which case the license is unenforceable, or one can only relicense it under the same license, in which case it is self-defeating, because it essentially becomes similar to the GPL in practical terms.
I hope this helps you to understand what I am talking about. If not, please feel free to be rude and talk to me like I'm an idiot again, and I'll see if I can clarify further.
I can understand the temptation to license code like that, but it seems to me to be self-defeating, as well as probably unenforceable. After all, if you can do whatever you want except relicense under the GPL, you could relicense it under the traditional BSD license, then relicense that version under the GPL. Unless, of course, the license says that any derivative code, if the source is released, must not be licensed or licensable under the GPL, and must contain this clause. In that case, the license is so similar to the GPL that it defeats the purpose. Effectively, the only difference becomes that modified code under the GPL license must be released under the GPL, whereas modified code under the "No-GPL BSD License", if released, may only be released under the same license. Not much difference, if you ask me.
I think that these developers should take the moral high ground and release under the traditional BSD license. I can sympathize with wanting to stick it to some of the more zealous GPL promoters, but doing this only lowers you to their level.
That's a strawman argument. Please reread what I wrote, and you will see that for a question to be meaningful to me, it must meet one of two criteria: It must be answerable, OR it must be relevant. Otherwise, there is no meaning to the question.
Take your example of the tortoise. I know there is no physical tortoise waiting in my toaster, because I cannot see it, and cannot feel it, and can continue to use my toaster unmolested. Could there be an invisible tortoise that I cannot see, cannot feel, cannot observe in any way? That question is meaningless, because it can't be answered either way, and the answer has no bearing on my life.
It is certainly relevant to me whether there is a tortoise in my toaster, or an alligator in my bathtub, or a tiger in my tank. I know these things do not exist, so I can continue to live my life as I do. If these things existed, I would have to change how I live. So the answer--as ridiculous as the question might be--is not meaningless. You could pose an infinite number of questions that are either answerable or relevant but patently absurd. Is there a bogeyman behind you right now? Theoretically there could be, and you would certainly be in trouble if there were. But we can safely assume there is not.
So God doesn't get any special treatment from me. I don't care whether God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist, because the answer doesn't affect me either way. In fact, I don't even see the question as having any meaning, because
what is the point of a question that can't be answered and has no relevance even if it could be?
I'm not even acting under the assumption that God doesn't exist. Even if I were, I would behave no differently than if I were acting under the assumption that He did exist, because I feel that I lead a moral and satisfying life regardless of the existence of a deity. Would you behave differently if you knew there were a God? Why? And more importantly, what does that say about the way you live now? I proffer that if it takes the mere existence of God to prevent you from doing some of the things you do, or to make you do things you otherwise wouldn't do, you are essentially a slave to your own whims and desires. Do you have questions about your own morality?
And again, it shouldn't affect how you live your life. But there are tons of interesting things to ponder even if they have absolutely no practical value. This is one of them. If it doesn't interest you, feel free to ignore it, but there's no reason to expect everyone else to feel the way you do. It is fine to ponder the effects of such a question within a hypothetical set of circumstances. For example, one could say, "Suppose our actions are predetermined, what does that mean?" Or even "What evidence do we have for or against predetermination?" or the existence of God, or any particular question. But attempting to apply these hypotheticals to reality is meaningless, because there simply are no observable facts. In a hypothetical, you assume certain facts and draw conclusions based on those assumptions. That's exactly what you're doing when you talk about predestination. But there is no evidence, nor any possible test for predestination. So as a hypothetical one can consider it, but it makes no sense to apply it to reality. Free will is inherently obvious to us, and predestination is incompatible with our existence as we perceive it. So whether or not things are actually predetermined is irrelevant.
As for your second point, I don't have any idea what you're talking about, nor do I see how it is relevant to the discussion. What does an illusion of free will mean? That our actions are pre-decided and we only think we're making choices? Again, a meaningless question, because it cannot be proved one way or the other, and it doesn't really affect how I live my life either way.
As I've said elsewhere, such an occurrence would necessarily mean the removal of our free will as human beings, and is therefore a basically different set of circumstances that is not really relevant.
This is very interesting to me. Because if I found out tomorrow - by, say, an act of God - that God existed, then I would certainly begin to behave very differently. For one, I wouldn't answer the question "No" when asked if I believed in God. If, for example, he came down and told me everything in the Bible was correct, including all the assorted minutiae, then I would quickly become a Christian.
This gets quickly into concepts of free will and Man's ability to pick and choose beliefs. If such an event did occur, I think it would impossible to argue that Man has any free will any more. I guess you could say that my point of view is dependent on the continued existence of the freedom to choose one's behavior. If God did come down and said that everyone must behave a certain way or else go to Hell for all eternity, is there really any such choice anymore? I suppose Christians would say that there still is a choice, because nothing has really changed for them. But as far as I'm concerned, that is a totally different set of circumstances--one in which a critical component of humanity has been removed. It is therefore not really relevant to the discussion.
When I say that I don't care if God's existence were proved or not, I am talking about just that--does God exist. Because I cannot even conceive of a God like you describe in our world. I have to believe (and yes, we are here getting into personal beliefs) that any God would not issue such a mandate of behavior, and thus remove such a fundamental piece of human existence.
What interests me is why your concept of meaninglessness has anything to do with whether or not you will answer the question. Lots of things are meaningless to me - how, exactly, fish hatcheries operate, or how plutonium reacts in a nuclear weapon (as opposed to uranium). Yet if you asked me my opinion on the matter, my response would be "I don't know" - not that the question is meaningless to me. Recall, the question has nothing to do with whether or not you care, but what your position is on the matter.
That wasn't really my argument. Remember that my test for meaninglessness has two components: Relevance to my life, and ability to be answered. The operation of fish hatcheries may not be relevant, but it could be answered factually. The question is therefore not meaningless, is it? The same for storm patterns, the operation of a nuclear submarine, or the properties of the Higgs boson. Scientific tests can be (at least theoretically) set up to answer all of these questions. There is no scientific test for God.
But it's the second part of your response that gets me: Agnostics claim that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. Now we all know the second part is true. You cannot prove a negative. But the first part is incorrect. The existence of God can easily be proved - by God.
The response I see most often to that remark is simply that humans can't prove the existence of God, which is of course correct - but that's not the question. The agnostic argument isn't that humans can't prove the existence of God, it's that humans can't know whether there is a God. And that is patently false - God can come down and bonk us all on the heads any time he damn well pleases.
To wit:
Science simply isn't equipped to answer questions about the supernatural, nor should it be.
If there is a God, then he and all his works are, by definition, natural. We must simply redefine what natural is. And why, for example, would it be impossible (or even improbable) for God to have added a code to some natural phenomena that, when eventually decoded by humans will spell out in bright neon lettering, "HERE I AM! I CREATED YOU! AND YOU HAVE FOUND ME!"
By definition, there can't be any scientific test for God, because as I said before God is supernatural and thus unobservable. We can't arbitrarily redefine God as natural without observing some evidence to that effect. Even if we c
I don't agree that to be rational you have to start from nothing and build up. If that were the case it would be impossible to prove anything. For any given conclusion, you would have to consider the truth of its premises. For example, take the statement "I have a ball". You would first have to show that such a thing as a ball exists. Then you'd have to show that you exist. Then you'd have to show that existence exists, which is of course circular. But if your premises are nothing, your conclusion must be nothing as well. So you must take some things for granted--namely, existence. Then I hope you will agree that if we exist, there is at least the possibility of existence of things we don't know about, and cannot directly observe. I would then say that if something cannot be observed, then attempting to prove or disprove its existence is completely pointless. In other words, I take for granted that unobservable things might exist, because I cannot logically show them not to exist (after all, you can't prove a negative). But who cares? The existence of non-observable things doesn't matter to me.
Where self-declared atheists make a leap of logic is in claiming that, because something cannot be observed, it must not exist. Essentially, they attempt to prove a negative. And claiming that one is simply starting from nothing and (not) building up the existence of God is intellectually dishonest at best. The default position is not "X must not exist until it is shown to exist", as you seem to claim. If that were true, every negative by default would be proven, and we both know you can't prove a negative. Saying "I choose not to believe in God" is at least an honest declaration of one's opinion. Saying "I can prove God doesn't exist" is a lie. And saying "God must not exist because nobody has proven that He has" is the classic case of the logical fallacy known as the Negative Proof.
Further, many atheists seem to indicate that the answer to the question of God is very important, because if there were a God they would behave differently. I say it is not an important question, because I do not--and more importantly, will not--live my life according to anyone's principles but my own. It is no more relevant to me and the way I choose to live my life if God exists than if the tooth fairy or Bill Clinton exists. I wouldn't suddenly become religious if God were shown to exist, nor would I discard my moral values were He shown not to.
So to me, the question is meaningless, because it is unanswerable and has no affect on my life. So any answer I could give would be equally meaningless. I see the question much like somebody asking me whether I prefer the Mets or the Yankees. I couldn't care less about either team, and which team wins has no effect on my life. I therefore don't feel compelled to choose one or the other.
The agnostic position may be that any particular piece of nonsense spouted by anyone could be true. My position, which I would again call the humanist position, is that a given piece of nonsense spouted by someone that doesn't affect me and can't be shown to be ultimately true or false is insignificant, so I don't see any reason to offer a position on an ultimately meaningless question. There is an infinite amount of nonsense out there, and I could spend my entire life determining which of it I believe and don't believe. But my life would amount to nothing then.
Well, I suppose one might turn to philosophy, for example, to consider questions about the supernatural. But if you believe that science is capable of determining whether or not God exists, then you have serious misconceptions about what science actually is. The scientific method is only capable of making conclusions based on observable fact. God is not observable, therefore no conclusions can be drawn as to His existence or lack thereof. Declaring that something about which no conclusions can be drawn must therefore not exist is, paradoxically, a conclusion itself--one which is not supported by any evidence, and so runs afoul of the scientific method.
The existence of those beings does not matter to me, and they cannot be proved to exist or not exist. The question therefore is meaningless.
That's not to say that I don't consider the effects those entities have as cultural concepts, but I take them for what they are. It doesn't matter whether they actually exist, does it?
And what I tell young children has no bearing on anything. Children who are too young to understand don't require the same explanation as an adult.
Two, I will repeat what I said before: My life would not change materially if there were definite proof of God, any more than if you proved the existence of extraterrestrial life, or Phil Smith living at 221 Main St. in Sandusky, OH. I live my life according to my own moral principles, and as such Gods existence or nonexistence does not matter to me. But you say that it matters to you, and so I contend that you do not live according to your own moral principles, but rather according to your whims and desires.
That should be enough for you to understand my point.
People sometimes ask me if I believe in God. I always reply that the question is meaningless to me, because God's existence or nonexistence cannot be proven, and it has no bearing on my life. That is, I would behave exactly the way I do whether or not God were proven to exist or not, or even if I chose to believe he did or did not exist. You might as well ask me if I believe in life beyond the reaches of the galaxy. Perhaps it exists, perhaps not, but either way it doesn't matter. And any position you might offer on the topic is nothing but speculation.
You define the statement "we will never know if God exists or not" as agnosticism, but I would call that a humanist approach, with the addendum that the question really makes no difference. Your belief that there is no God--and your implication that your belief has some relevance to your life--strikes me as self serving, not to mention "intellectually lazy/bankrupt". You clearly haven't bothered to reason out the facts, because if you had you would realize that the facts cannot be reasoned out. You cannot logically disprove the existence of God any more than anybody else can prove His existence. Science simply isn't equipped to answer questions about the supernatural, nor should it be. So you have chosen to simply draw your own conclusion, and argue through sheer verbiage that your position is the only rational one.
You may, of course, say that you shouldn't have to disprove something, and you'd be correct. However, just because nobody has proved the existence of something doesn't necessarily mean that thing does not exist. But realize that, in this case, you are choosing to believe it does not. And that's a choice you're free to make, but I don't understand why anyone would make such a choice unless it somehow made him feel better about his own conduct (for that matter, the converse is true--I don't know why one would choose to believe in God unless it brought him some comfort to do so). For choosing not to believe in God implies that you consider the question relevant to your life, and have modified your behavior according to your beliefs. How are you any better than those who congregate weekly to pray to the deity of their choice? Do you really think they arrived at their own personal conclusions regarding God's existence through a reasoning process materially different from yours?
I am a human being. I have no need for God whatsoever, so I see no reason to take a position on His existence. Clearly, you have a need for God not to exist. And that is why, as I said before, you are a slave to your own desires.
You have the right idea, but technically that's not correct. Consideration merely refers to the exchange of something of value in order for the contract to be valid. This is mainly to distinguish a contract from, say, a promise, which is (usually) not legally binding. If you promise to do something you're not obligated to do it, but if you promise to do something and someone hands you something of value in exchange for making that promise you may well have entered into a contract. It doesn't have to be adequate compensation to be consideration. See, for example, the legal concept of the peppercorn.
You're confusing consideration with the doctrine of unconscionability. That is where the court will refuse to uphold a contract because the terms are considered grossly unfair to one side. It is not often that this happens, as the courts don't like to interfere in the ability of people to enter into contracts, even bad ones. However, a court will occasionally feel that a person may not have realized what he was signing when he entered into the contract, and this is an option that is available to the court in order to protect the interests of a party that was supposedly taken advantage of.
Also, for what it's worth, a mistake on the part of the seller is not usually a reason for voiding a contract. Only if the court feels that it would be unconscionable to enforce such a contract would it be voided (for example, if you somehow accidentally wrote $10 instead of $100,000 on the sale of a house). If you simply made a mistake as to the value, or even made an honest mistake on a lower order of magnitude (selling a $10 item for 1 cent, for example) the court would most likely enforce it.
It makes sense that a study on how to teach monkeys would come out of UCLA, because I can really see it having some practical applications for the students there.
(Yes, I went to USC.)
You do not seem to understand the difference between freedom (what you are allowed to do) and ability (what you are capable of doing).
I'm finding this discussion tedious. The pro-GPL people just want to define "freedom" however they like. Fine. Apply that definition to your whole life, and I'll just sit and watch sadly as you give up your real freedom for some of this "freedom" that you're permitted by others.
No sacrifice of any freedom can increase freedom per se. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as we give up a fair amount of freedom in exchange for security, or convenience, or other benefits of living in modern society. But be careful, and don't pretend you're giving up freedom in exchange for more freedom, or you will find one day that you have none left.
No, your security is increased. Not your freedom. Think about it for a second. If these laws go too far, your freedom could be removed entirely. So how does it make sense that laws increase your freedom to a certain extent, but if they go much farther then you have less freedom than you would naturally have? Don't confuse freedom with security.
In our society, we trade a degree of freedom for a degree of safety. And that's fine, but never forget that you are giving up some freedom for every law passed--it's a zero sum game.
*Sigh*
Yes, they have the right to attempt to prevent their product from being hacked, but they do not have any right to prevent you from exercising your right to attempt to hack your property. This is what you fail to acknowledge, and why your view is simply wrong.
Nope, you're an idiot. I acknowledged this completely. They do what they can to stop you from hacking when they design it, then you do what you can to overcome those restrictions. They can't (or, shouldn't be allowed to, I believe) stop you from doing what you want with your own property. They could deny you service if they detect you hacked their system, of course, but that should be their right.
The BSD license allows one side to use the law to prevent the other from exercising its rights.
No, it doesn't. You only have what rights are granted to you in the license, so you can't "exercise" rights you don't have. That's the basis of copyright law. That being said, the GPL does do exactly what you just said, if you think about it...
Well, actually, they have contributed changes: http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp
I don't know if those changes are generally useful or not, but they have made them available for others to use. However, I'm referring more to the fact that, because it uses Linux and some (more or less) standard hardware, it is possible for people to write utilities and such that can improve your Tivo's capabilities. Tivo may not approve of these things, but that's the tradeoff for using open source software. Although they may try to use some protection schemes to prevent the software from being wholly replaced, it is still possible to see basically how the whole system runs. And if they go completely proprietary, everyone loses that ability. Seems to me like the GPLv3 is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Admittedly, it was a bit of a pissy response on my part. I sort of thought it was self evident that the guy wasn't really responding to my argument in any relevant way, and I shot back in kind. However, I don't think that the occasional nasty remark classifies me as a troll. My argument is still valid. I've gotten my fair share of nasty responses in this thread alone, and I've responded to many of them, because there was still an intelligent remark behind the snarkiness.
It's easy in an online forum to read comments as nastier than they really are, because we can't pick up a lot of our social cues like we can from face to face contact. Not that I wasn't trying to be a bit harsh, mind you, but I wasn't intentionally trying to flamebait anyone.
It "restricts" creators of derivative works merely by denying them the coercive power of copyright in order to preserve the freedom of everyone else. ...by using the coercive power of copyright. And that is my point.