Here is the full text as it took me several times to get past the MySQL errors with too many connections:
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:39:16 -0500 (EST) From Linus Torvalds Subject Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote: > > This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was > permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a > separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL" > as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was > added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid.
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your source code. The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if > someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the > kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to not allow conversion.
Because I am wondering why others would want to do it.
If you had read the article it states there is no performance gains, so it begs the question--why would you want to? Just because you don't like the question or are too afraid to answer it doesn't mean the question is not valid. I understand the motivations of Redhat wanting to port their product but under what circumstances would the ordinary user want this.
I don't get it. Why is it so important to port every known OS to MAC hardware? I read this article and basically it states there is no real advantage. I can understand the challenge of porting it and as a hobby it sounds interesting. I can also understand that Redhat wants more copies of its software so they recive more licensing money, but to the average person who cares? It's like porting Windows to MAC. Why bother? Most, if not all, MAC people don't want or require it. Granted there are a few people with exceptions but for the 99.9% why is so important?
While slightly off-topic, I do have to say that IBM's articles are some of the best on the net. They have very good writers and can explain things without resorting to techno-babble for the layman.
On another note, it seems that the current flavor of the month is Ajax. However, this requires that javascript be enabled. Is anyone running into the problem of finding a lot of users are forgoing this technology because they have (or have been told by their company) to disable javascript for security concerns?
Certain open source projects such as OpenBSD have routine audits of the software to search and remove potential security problems. While I understand Microsoft Operating Systems are very complex Microsoft does have an enormous amount of talent and resources at its disposal. Is it possible that Microsoft will review all new operating systems in the future with the same sort of audit performed by others? Wouldn't you think this would be worth it to prevent mistakes which could be costly to end users?
While I believe MySQL works better and has more support for the *nix platform you should have no major problems with running MySQL on Windows. I have seen it done lots of times without problems.
Let's not be too naive and write statements like there will never be a worm for Macs. If someone wanted to they could write a worm to infect them. Saying I don't believe anyone will write one is sticking your head in the sand. You have to assume there will be one and then start to protect yourself, not the opposite.
Absolutely people have thought about this. Frankly the only issue I see is a stable broadband connection. If you can guarantee that then you should be able to work wherever you wish. Frankly most server administration tasks can be done remotely nowdays and even with KVM you can have console access to a server without physically being present. Combine that with all the forms of groupware, email, IM, etc. it is very easy to telecommute in the IT industry. Granted everyone can't flee to the tropics but I know of a programmer who has not been to his office in 6 months and he works for a large company and works in a team environment.
Using both Dell and IBM I can say that I have experienced the opposite when it comes to support from IBM and Dell. Recently we had a hardware issue with an XSeries server which required a IBM tech to replace on-site. It took three calls to get the incident logged and then the ticket was passed between three different techs before we found out they were busy with other problems and never showed up that day. The ticket was assigned to a different tech the next day who could not make it onsite and passed it to another tech. The other tech finally showed up at the end of the business day to the datacenter and did not have *any* identification to prove who he was to get into the datacenter. Apparently he lost his wallet somewhere and did not think it would be a big deal as he could vouch for himself. He just left and gave the ticket to someone else who showed up on the third day; this being one-day support.
Combining this with the fact we have had a 30% hardware failure in the last batch of XSeries servers we won't be using IBM anytime in the future.
Contrast this with Dell in which they have always been ontime, had the appropriate parts (yes, IBM techs had a problem with this once) and Dell's hardware has outperformed IBM's in terms of failure rate our next big batch of servers is coming straight from Dell.
Yeah, but no one wants to hear the truth like that, they want them to be bad and be caught doing something bad. No will ever take into account that the Journal prints what they want to print; has a history of dropping all sorts of relevant data they don't think necessary and can and always print anonymous retorts attacking the study.
If you read the last paragraph of the it says they provided ALL the data to the FDA. I guess if you provide data publicly to a federal agency in which anyone can look it up that's a cover up nowdays. The fact that Curfman states that he is not buying into the fact that is was publicly available knowledge really shows his bias.
"Nevertheless, the additional events were disclosed to the FDA in 2000, presented publicly to the FDA's Advisory Committee in February 2001 and included in numerous press releases subsequently issued by Merck. We also note that these additional events did not materially change any of the conclusions in the article."
Seriously though, the people who believe games induce violence will not be changed and those who believe it doesn't won't be changed either. The few souls who don't have an opinion might be changed but I don't think there are very many of them left.
--
On another note, I never watch this show, but now I will just to see what it shows...
"Just because the majority of people on the Net don't know about or don't care about having an IP doesn't make this philosophy any less valid or important to maintain."
True to a point. But my statement was that the argument that we are going to run out because we have more people in the world is false. There will always be a significant portion of the people in the world who will not need an individual IP address. Basically, quit saying we are going to run out because we have more people. The real reason for moving from IPv4 to IPv6 should be the technical aspect and when people commit to moving over completely to this it will be because of the technological gains, not because we run out of IPs because someone had a baby.
While it is nice to say we don't have enough IP address to cover everyone now, be realistic. Not everyone will need one. There are a lot of people like me who will have lots and lots of them with all the toys I accumulate. However, there is also going to be a lot of people who won't.
While we will need more in the future saying we have to have more IPs because we have more people is not necessarily correct. Whereas NAT is being used a lot in corporate networks it is also being used in the home as well. I know, this doesn't solve everything. However, I can say right now there is a generation of people (my parents) who do not know what an IP is, nor do they care. Including them in the big list saying we need IPs for them is a fallacy--they will never use it or want it. And how about babies? Unless you are tagging them with remote tracking chips when they are born chances are they don't need one. Moreover, right now there are entire places in the third world which do not have systematic running water or electricity. Including them in this count is ridiculous as well. They need a lot more basic needs before they all need individual cell phones running IPv6.
So, to enforce they would run around and illegally connect (as some courts have said) to wireless access points. Breaking the law (civil) and civil rights (illegal search and seizure, or is this plain sight?) to find out whether you are breaking the law? Wow, okay.
So, I assume the common beat cop doesn't have the skills to determine whether the protocol on a running wireless setup therefore the police departments will have to hire new people. But, with budget cuts there is no more money so they will probably end up using a tried and true system. Privateers. Pass another law allowing private citizens to act as privateers to enforce the law. Their reward will be whatever they confiscate off the unprotected computers.
So, if there is just a potential of a problem we can ignore anyone's IP rights? That's a very slippery slope as it begs the question -- Who is the one to decide when the potential problem is bad enough? Is one death enough to void the rights? Two, one hundred? What if close to 50,000 people died?
What if no one died but just productivity suffered which lead to economic strife? Roche which probably spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching this issue would then deserve to forfeit it's research money because of a potential threat. Why should they invest any more money in researching any vaccines if they will just be taken over without compensation?
What about the situation of voiding a patent on a drug which lowers blood pressure. According to the American Heart Association in 2002, 49,707 in the U.S. died from high blood pressure. Can Taiwan make the case to void the patents on drugs which lower blood pressure because of the immediate deaths it is causing now? Clearly people are dying from this now, why not void IP rights?
Whenever you have a set of people who can creatively think outside the box you will get unique solutions to common problems. A lot of the time people are told this is the way you must do something. By reinforcing play at with no constraints except for the effect from the choice you will get different ideas and solutions from the norm.
If you contrast table gaming with no rules for the players versus console gaming in which you must do x to get to y you will alwasy have more creative solutions in the table gaming. This doesn't mean a standard solution will not work or will not be better, but you can't change the boundaries of a console game for a unique solution to a problem so you never challenge the creative juices of a player and reinforce creative ideas; just the opposite you reinforce finding a solution only within the rules. Is this what you are talking about?
>> By the time this is actively killing people, it'll be far too late.
But it's not. And there is no substantial documentation that it will be in the near future. And you don't have to ship everywhere just to the infection sites. And, all this it's going to kill because of a mutation is *pure* speculation right now. All your arguments are from the media which is hyping the outbreaks.
If, and I mean if, this was actively killing I would totally support them for doing whatever they wanted. But this is just a case of we think you were going to charge us too much so as part of the negotiations they threatened the manufacturer that they would just make it themselves. The manufacturer called them on it and they weren't bluffing. My significant other is actually involved in infectious diseases and has talked about bird flu with some of the leading experts in the U.S. It is a real threat, however, it is *not* a threat now. It's just getting a lot of press coverage lately so people are freaking out about it. This has been around for years people. Saying we need to do this to save our population is just a ploy to avoid paying the high license fees. Nothing else.
This is not so much a programmer problem but just a business problem; also known as a people problem. Just substitute programming with any other job description and you have the problems everyone deals with on a daily basis. There is no right or wrong answer only the relationships you have to deal with.
The other cases don't mean anything to the motion though. The motion is not on the merits of the case but rather whether the plaintiff included enough facts in the complaint. That's it. The Judge will not rule on the merits of the case at all. They (the cases) were thrown in their to start persuading the Judge the defendants should win the case now rather than later. Legally, they will be ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the full text as it took me several times to get past the MySQL errors with too many connections:
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:39:16 -0500 (EST)
From Linus Torvalds
Subject Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
>
> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
been valid.
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if
> someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the
> kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
And that makes sense. Thanks.
Because I am wondering why others would want to do it.
If you had read the article it states there is no performance gains, so it begs the question--why would you want to? Just because you don't like the question or are too afraid to answer it doesn't mean the question is not valid. I understand the motivations of Redhat wanting to port their product but under what circumstances would the ordinary user want this.
With the actual source and another pair of eyes looking at it, there should be more security fixes and hopefully a more secure OS.
I don't get it. Why is it so important to port every known OS to MAC hardware? I read this article and basically it states there is no real advantage. I can understand the challenge of porting it and as a hobby it sounds interesting. I can also understand that Redhat wants more copies of its software so they recive more licensing money, but to the average person who cares? It's like porting Windows to MAC. Why bother? Most, if not all, MAC people don't want or require it. Granted there are a few people with exceptions but for the 99.9% why is so important?
While slightly off-topic, I do have to say that IBM's articles are some of the best on the net. They have very good writers and can explain things without resorting to techno-babble for the layman.
On another note, it seems that the current flavor of the month is Ajax. However, this requires that javascript be enabled. Is anyone running into the problem of finding a lot of users are forgoing this technology because they have (or have been told by their company) to disable javascript for security concerns?
Certain open source projects such as OpenBSD have routine audits of the software to search and remove potential security problems. While I understand Microsoft Operating Systems are very complex Microsoft does have an enormous amount of talent and resources at its disposal. Is it possible that Microsoft will review all new operating systems in the future with the same sort of audit performed by others? Wouldn't you think this would be worth it to prevent mistakes which could be costly to end users?
While I believe MySQL works better and has more support for the *nix platform you should have no major problems with running MySQL on Windows. I have seen it done lots of times without problems.
>>doesn't believe there ever will be.
Let's not be too naive and write statements like there will never be a worm for Macs. If someone wanted to they could write a worm to infect them. Saying I don't believe anyone will write one is sticking your head in the sand. You have to assume there will be one and then start to protect yourself, not the opposite.
Absolutely people have thought about this. Frankly the only issue I see is a stable broadband connection. If you can guarantee that then you should be able to work wherever you wish. Frankly most server administration tasks can be done remotely nowdays and even with KVM you can have console access to a server without physically being present. Combine that with all the forms of groupware, email, IM, etc. it is very easy to telecommute in the IT industry. Granted everyone can't flee to the tropics but I know of a programmer who has not been to his office in 6 months and he works for a large company and works in a team environment.
Using both Dell and IBM I can say that I have experienced the opposite when it comes to support from IBM and Dell. Recently we had a hardware issue with an XSeries server which required a IBM tech to replace on-site. It took three calls to get the incident logged and then the ticket was passed between three different techs before we found out they were busy with other problems and never showed up that day. The ticket was assigned to a different tech the next day who could not make it onsite and passed it to another tech. The other tech finally showed up at the end of the business day to the datacenter and did not have *any* identification to prove who he was to get into the datacenter. Apparently he lost his wallet somewhere and did not think it would be a big deal as he could vouch for himself. He just left and gave the ticket to someone else who showed up on the third day; this being one-day support.
Combining this with the fact we have had a 30% hardware failure in the last batch of XSeries servers we won't be using IBM anytime in the future.
Contrast this with Dell in which they have always been ontime, had the appropriate parts (yes, IBM techs had a problem with this once) and Dell's hardware has outperformed IBM's in terms of failure rate our next big batch of servers is coming straight from Dell.
Yeah, but no one wants to hear the truth like that, they want them to be bad and be caught doing something bad. No will ever take into account that the Journal prints what they want to print; has a history of dropping all sorts of relevant data they don't think necessary and can and always print anonymous retorts attacking the study.
What cover up?
If you read the last paragraph of the it says they provided ALL the data to the FDA. I guess if you provide data publicly to a federal agency in which anyone can look it up that's a cover up nowdays. The fact that Curfman states that he is not buying into the fact that is was publicly available knowledge really shows his bias.
"Nevertheless, the additional events were disclosed to the FDA in 2000, presented publicly to the FDA's Advisory Committee in February 2001 and included in numerous press releases subsequently issued by Merck. We also note that these additional events did not materially change any of the conclusions in the article."
Curfman responded, "We're not buying into that."
Or you might get shut out: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/29/231822 2&tid=215&tid=187
Current Bounty Amount: $9.14
That's not much of an incentive and actually is more insulting than inspiring.
Art is imitating life again?
Seriously though, the people who believe games induce violence will not be changed and those who believe it doesn't won't be changed either. The few souls who don't have an opinion might be changed but I don't think there are very many of them left.
--
On another note, I never watch this show, but now I will just to see what it shows...
"Just because the majority of people on the Net don't know about or don't care about having an IP doesn't make this philosophy any less valid or important to maintain."
True to a point. But my statement was that the argument that we are going to run out because we have more people in the world is false. There will always be a significant portion of the people in the world who will not need an individual IP address. Basically, quit saying we are going to run out because we have more people. The real reason for moving from IPv4 to IPv6 should be the technical aspect and when people commit to moving over completely to this it will be because of the technological gains, not because we run out of IPs because someone had a baby.
While it is nice to say we don't have enough IP address to cover everyone now, be realistic. Not everyone will need one. There are a lot of people like me who will have lots and lots of them with all the toys I accumulate. However, there is also going to be a lot of people who won't.
While we will need more in the future saying we have to have more IPs because we have more people is not necessarily correct. Whereas NAT is being used a lot in corporate networks it is also being used in the home as well. I know, this doesn't solve everything. However, I can say right now there is a generation of people (my parents) who do not know what an IP is, nor do they care. Including them in the big list saying we need IPs for them is a fallacy--they will never use it or want it. And how about babies? Unless you are tagging them with remote tracking chips when they are born chances are they don't need one. Moreover, right now there are entire places in the third world which do not have systematic running water or electricity. Including them in this count is ridiculous as well. They need a lot more basic needs before they all need individual cell phones running IPv6.
So, to enforce they would run around and illegally connect (as some courts have said) to wireless access points. Breaking the law (civil) and civil rights (illegal search and seizure, or is this plain sight?) to find out whether you are breaking the law? Wow, okay.
So, I assume the common beat cop doesn't have the skills to determine whether the protocol on a running wireless setup therefore the police departments will have to hire new people. But, with budget cuts there is no more money so they will probably end up using a tried and true system. Privateers. Pass another law allowing private citizens to act as privateers to enforce the law. Their reward will be whatever they confiscate off the unprotected computers.
What do you think?
So, if there is just a potential of a problem we can ignore anyone's IP rights? That's a very slippery slope as it begs the question -- Who is the one to decide when the potential problem is bad enough? Is one death enough to void the rights? Two, one hundred? What if close to 50,000 people died?
What if no one died but just productivity suffered which lead to economic strife? Roche which probably spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching this issue would then deserve to forfeit it's research money because of a potential threat. Why should they invest any more money in researching any vaccines if they will just be taken over without compensation?
What about the situation of voiding a patent on a drug which lowers blood pressure. According to the American Heart Association in 2002, 49,707 in the U.S. died from high blood pressure. Can Taiwan make the case to void the patents on drugs which lower blood pressure because of the immediate deaths it is causing now? Clearly people are dying from this now, why not void IP rights?
Whenever you have a set of people who can creatively think outside the box you will get unique solutions to common problems. A lot of the time people are told this is the way you must do something. By reinforcing play at with no constraints except for the effect from the choice you will get different ideas and solutions from the norm.
If you contrast table gaming with no rules for the players versus console gaming in which you must do x to get to y you will alwasy have more creative solutions in the table gaming. This doesn't mean a standard solution will not work or will not be better, but you can't change the boundaries of a console game for a unique solution to a problem so you never challenge the creative juices of a player and reinforce creative ideas; just the opposite you reinforce finding a solution only within the rules. Is this what you are talking about?
>> By the time this is actively killing people, it'll be far too late.
But it's not. And there is no substantial documentation that it will be in the near future. And you don't have to ship everywhere just to the infection sites. And, all this it's going to kill because of a mutation is *pure* speculation right now. All your arguments are from the media which is hyping the outbreaks.
If, and I mean if, this was actively killing I would totally support them for doing whatever they wanted. But this is just a case of we think you were going to charge us too much so as part of the negotiations they threatened the manufacturer that they would just make it themselves. The manufacturer called them on it and they weren't bluffing. My significant other is actually involved in infectious diseases and has talked about bird flu with some of the leading experts in the U.S. It is a real threat, however, it is *not* a threat now. It's just getting a lot of press coverage lately so people are freaking out about it. This has been around for years people. Saying we need to do this to save our population is just a ploy to avoid paying the high license fees. Nothing else.
This is not so much a programmer problem but just a business problem; also known as a people problem. Just substitute programming with any other job description and you have the problems everyone deals with on a daily basis. There is no right or wrong answer only the relationships you have to deal with.
The other cases don't mean anything to the motion though. The motion is not on the merits of the case but rather whether the plaintiff included enough facts in the complaint. That's it. The Judge will not rule on the merits of the case at all. They (the cases) were thrown in their to start persuading the Judge the defendants should win the case now rather than later. Legally, they will be ignored.