In your first example, if you use software entirely internally, then yes, you don't have to release modifications, but how does one define internal? Take, for example, the original idea of a hardware company putting GPL'd software in their router's firmware; I would define that as publishing software which would require them to also publish the source.
If some company (random example: a book store) uses a router, and writes its own Linux-based system for it, there's nothing stopping them from keeping it to themselves. I think you can agree that that is both "internal" and "closing it up in your own hardware without releasing changes". (And yes, I think your example is not considered "internal".)
I'm sorry, you must phrase your rebuttal in the form of quotes from the GPL, otherwise I'll believe you're talking out your ass.
I'll also use the GPL FAQ. I doubt you believe the GNU folks are talking out of their asses.
Whether or not you feel it is more or less wrong is up to you, but in my opinion, you're breaking a social (and legal, for that matter) contract if you then attempt to use the software in a method against the GPL, i.e., closing it up in your own hardware without releasing changes,
You need not accept the GPL on my software; however, without accepting it, you have no right to use it under copyright law. It is exactly like an end-user license agreement. The only way you can use it without accepting the GPL is if I, as the copyright holder, give you the option of using it under another license.
Copyright law doesn't affect use, only distribution. Why did you think the GPL specifically states "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works." without mentioning use? Why do you think it states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." ?
No, you're not stealing if you use GPL code without adhering to the license. You're using unlicensed code, which is as illegal as any other sort of piracy.
The GPL is not an EULA. You do not need to accept it to use software covered by it. It even explicitly states so itself.
Whether or not you feel it is more or less wrong is up to you, but in my opinion, you're breaking a social (and legal, for that matter) contract if you then attempt to use the software in a method against the GPL, i.e., closing it up in your own hardware without releasing changes,
Permitted by the GPL, in some cases.
attempting to sell it for profit,
Permitted by the GPL.
just plain not releasing modifications under the GPL, etc.
Permitted by the GPL, in some cases.
I hope that what you said simply didn't match what you actually meant.
Heh, yeah, I guess that was poorly worded. With hyperlinks, you normally either decide to see a site or you don't. With plain text URLs, whether in newspapers or on web sites, if you choose to go see that site, you have to repeat what you want to see yourself.
The 2600 decision was unconstitutional on the face of it. The first amendment lets a newspaper tell citizens where a red light district is without fear of being hauled up on pandering charges.
Hyperlinks take you somewhere automatically, while newspaper texts make you go somewhere yourself; that was the reasoning IIRC. (And as a result of that, plain text URLs are acceptable no matter what they're for, only hyperlinks cause any legal problems.)
Of course, this is from memory, so if my memory's bad, so is this post.:)
Either closed source drivers are required for proper use of hardware, or they're not. What possible compromise could there be?
(If people demand open-source firmware too, a compromise would be to close the firmware, and open the drivers, but I don't know if there actually is such a demand.)
Oh, if you like analogies, how about a speech one? If the BSD license is free speech, then the GPL license is free speech as long as it expresses an opinion you agree with.
Anyway, your analogy is flawed (as is mine, probably; I wasn't too serious with that), and here's why: the GNU folks (I know non-GNU software can be GPLed too, but I simplified) have no right to dictate the terms of software not developed by them. The only way it works at all is if other software companies want to use parts of theirs. The government can dictate all allowed behaviour for its citizens as well as its officers, so to be valid your analogy would have to involve agreements between completely different countries, and then it is no longer so clear at all. If you would choose the simplest analogy involving harmonisation of laws, you'd end up with something like the US dictating foreign copyright laws as the equivalent to the GPL, which is (at least on this site) not a very popular idea...
Either your reply doesn't concern me, or you're assuming I'm opposed to the script. I'll assume the latter. Who said I am? I'm opposed to one argument which happens to be in support of the script.
First of all, like RMS, I hate applying the term "piracy" to non-commercial copyright violations, so I won't use that term. Instead, I'll call it what it is, unauthorized copying.
Unauthorized copying can be legal. No permission was given for ripping the CDs I paid for to my hard drive, but I didn't break any laws when I did it anyway. Just call it copyright infringement.
In any case, "Tea-vo Inc" by redistributing the software is sublicensing it to users;
That's why I said users would have to download it manually. Tea-vo Inc is not redistributing the software in my scenario, so I don't think your argument works. If they were, I'm not completely sure, but I think I would then mostly agree with what you said.
So what happens if Red Hat distributes signed binaries, and this "Tea-vo" device only runs binaries signed by Red Hat (but it requires the user download them from Red Hat manually)? Obviously, if this would require Red Hat to make available private keys, things look bad.
So what happens if "Tea-vo Code Inc" distributes signed binaries, and this "Tea-vo" device distributed by "Tea-vo Inc" only runs binaries signed by "Tea-vo Code Inc" (but it requires the user download them from "Tea-vo Code Inc" manually)?
And so, since the servers are only operating under the laws of Germany or Russia, you are basically paying money for high quality mp3s. Should be caught with said files, it would be just as bad as if you had downloaded them using a P2P client for free.
I don't know about British law, but if I recall correctly, at least in Germany buying from legal online stores, including allofmp3, is itself legal too, while downloading from P2P (assuming it was uploaded without permission) is not. Are you perhaps thinking of US laws?
Slashdot Mirror
In your first example, if you use software entirely internally, then yes, you don't have to release modifications, but how does one define internal? Take, for example, the original idea of a hardware company putting GPL'd software in their router's firmware; I would define that as publishing software which would require them to also publish the source.
If some company (random example: a book store) uses a router, and writes its own Linux-based system for it, there's nothing stopping them from keeping it to themselves. I think you can agree that that is both "internal" and "closing it up in your own hardware without releasing changes". (And yes, I think your example is not considered "internal".)
I'm sorry, you must phrase your rebuttal in the form of quotes from the GPL, otherwise I'll believe you're talking out your ass.
I'll also use the GPL FAQ. I doubt you believe the GNU folks are talking out of their asses.
Whether or not you feel it is more or less wrong is up to you, but in my opinion, you're breaking a social (and legal, for that matter) contract if you then attempt to use the software in a method against the GPL, i.e., closing it up in your own hardware without releasing changes,
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
attempting to sell it for profit,
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
just plain not releasing modifications under the GPL, etc.
The modified work as a whole must be licensed under the GPL, that is all the GPL requires. The modifications may have any license compatible with the GPL. In particular, modifications in the public domain are explicitly acceptable.
You need not accept the GPL on my software; however, without accepting it, you have no right to use it under copyright law. It is exactly like an end-user license agreement. The only way you can use it without accepting the GPL is if I, as the copyright holder, give you the option of using it under another license.
Copyright law doesn't affect use, only distribution. Why did you think the GPL specifically states "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works." without mentioning use? Why do you think it states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." ?
Is that the "I know you are but what am I?" for geeks?
No, you're not stealing if you use GPL code without adhering to the license. You're using unlicensed code, which is as illegal as any other sort of piracy.
The GPL is not an EULA. You do not need to accept it to use software covered by it. It even explicitly states so itself.
Whether or not you feel it is more or less wrong is up to you, but in my opinion, you're breaking a social (and legal, for that matter) contract if you then attempt to use the software in a method against the GPL, i.e., closing it up in your own hardware without releasing changes,
Permitted by the GPL, in some cases.
attempting to sell it for profit,
Permitted by the GPL.
just plain not releasing modifications under the GPL, etc.
Permitted by the GPL, in some cases.
I hope that what you said simply didn't match what you actually meant.
Heh, yeah, I guess that was poorly worded. With hyperlinks, you normally either decide to see a site or you don't. With plain text URLs, whether in newspapers or on web sites, if you choose to go see that site, you have to repeat what you want to see yourself.
The 2600 decision was unconstitutional on the face of it. The first amendment lets a newspaper tell citizens where a red light district is without fear of being hauled up on pandering charges.
:)
Hyperlinks take you somewhere automatically, while newspaper texts make you go somewhere yourself; that was the reasoning IIRC. (And as a result of that, plain text URLs are acceptable no matter what they're for, only hyperlinks cause any legal problems.)
Of course, this is from memory, so if my memory's bad, so is this post.
I'm saying there's no possible compromise, you say you compromised. How? What are you not doing now that you would've liked to do?
I'm just saying, there *has* to be a compromise.
Either closed source drivers are required for proper use of hardware, or they're not. What possible compromise could there be?
(If people demand open-source firmware too, a compromise would be to close the firmware, and open the drivers, but I don't know if there actually is such a demand.)
I have. My point is that there is a lot of personal use which is not at all fair use (and there is fair use which is not personal use).
and recording off-air for personal use is covered by fair use law
Can you back that up?
Microsoft have open sources a lot of their work,
Making the source code available does not make it Open Source.
Oh, if you like analogies, how about a speech one? If the BSD license is free speech, then the GPL license is free speech as long as it expresses an opinion you agree with.
Anyway, your analogy is flawed (as is mine, probably; I wasn't too serious with that), and here's why: the GNU folks (I know non-GNU software can be GPLed too, but I simplified) have no right to dictate the terms of software not developed by them. The only way it works at all is if other software companies want to use parts of theirs. The government can dictate all allowed behaviour for its citizens as well as its officers, so to be valid your analogy would have to involve agreements between completely different countries, and then it is no longer so clear at all. If you would choose the simplest analogy involving harmonisation of laws, you'd end up with something like the US dictating foreign copyright laws as the equivalent to the GPL, which is (at least on this site) not a very popular idea...
The firewall code in your example is not BSD-licensed, so the restriction is not one of the BSD license. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
A link:
e gation
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggr
I don't know what exactly this means, but it's not at all as clear as you make it sound.
...an autostart function the checks if it is in a PC...
I think you can skip that part.
ctrl-c
:quit to exit Vim".
Oh look. Suddenly the bottom line reads "Type
According to your arguments, Apache logs would be spyware! HTTP request headers would be spyware!
I explained in the message you replied to that I never said or meant any such thing. Try reading, okay?
Either your reply doesn't concern me, or you're assuming I'm opposed to the script. I'll assume the latter. Who said I am? I'm opposed to one argument which happens to be in support of the script.
Your argument, if it were valid, would legitimise any spyware.
First of all, like RMS, I hate applying the term "piracy" to non-commercial copyright violations, so I won't use that term. Instead, I'll call it what it is, unauthorized copying.
Unauthorized copying can be legal. No permission was given for ripping the CDs I paid for to my hard drive, but I didn't break any laws when I did it anyway. Just call it copyright infringement.
Hasn't adblock already had an option to choose between "Hide ads" and "Remove ads" for a long time? Maybe I'm confused with some other ad blocker...
Merriam-Webster (click lesser[2,adverb]) uses "lesser-known" as an example of how to use "lesser".
In any case, "Tea-vo Inc" by redistributing the software is sublicensing it to users;
That's why I said users would have to download it manually. Tea-vo Inc is not redistributing the software in my scenario, so I don't think your argument works. If they were, I'm not completely sure, but I think I would then mostly agree with what you said.
So what happens if Red Hat distributes signed binaries, and this "Tea-vo" device only runs binaries signed by Red Hat (but it requires the user download them from Red Hat manually)? Obviously, if this would require Red Hat to make available private keys, things look bad.
So what happens if "Tea-vo Code Inc" distributes signed binaries, and this "Tea-vo" device distributed by "Tea-vo Inc" only runs binaries signed by "Tea-vo Code Inc" (but it requires the user download them from "Tea-vo Code Inc" manually)?