People don't buy stand-alone Windows. They didn't with XP, they won't with Vista. OEM is a standard way for Windows to gain market share. Stop your silly hand waving.
I'm not sure why you are telling me what I should do. I merely stated that the OP's statement "50 sold copies or so" was sheer troll and I provided figures to back it up.
By saying that you discredited yourself as a cheap troll and moron. According to our website stats Windows Vista market now share is -- wait for it -- 11%
Let me guess... because BSD license allows you to do that and GPL doesn't?
BSD license does not allow you to relicense the code. On the contrary, it states that the terms and conditions and legal notices must be retained in full. Under copyright law, any right not explicitly granted is reserved.
As the homepage of the fork prominently states "Your OpenOffice.org" I have a few questions:
1) Is it ethical to use the name or domain name of the forked software? ("Your Mozilla.org" anyone?)
2) Is it not a trademark infringement? Note: even unregistered trademarks are protected to a certain extent (at least under US trademark law).
3) Is it not unfair business practices?
What people don't realize is that copyright licenses (e.g. GPL) cover only the softweare. Names and brands are not "copyrightable" so the GPL does not cover them (and gives no license to use them). Implicit and default trade name and trademark protection rights are granted by trademark law, business code, etc.
The term "Linux hardware" is as non-sensical as "Windows hardware" (something I've never heard or seen either). Hardware has nothing to do with an operating system.
If these objectives are to preserve the well-known Freedoms, then it would have been better if the GPL only required that licenses covering the work must grant the Freedoms (instead of insisting that the whole work must be under the GPL).
The GPL prevents sharing in the open source world so much that they had to create the LGPL.
The general feeling is that you are free to use it, just not for GPL projects
Right, but because of the terms of the GPL. Other Open Source licenses (Apache, BSD, etc.) don't impose any restrictions on combinations of licenses in a single work. Only the GPL insists that the whole work must be under the GPL. That's why it creates such a mess.
Yes, that's as stupid as saying it's legal to share mp3's via P2P because people have always believed it was legal. I wouldn't trust a lawyer claiming something like that.
On that note the SFLC has issued a position regarding the GPLv2/GPLv3/BSD licences mixing that have been all the rage.
Thanks for that link. I especially like the following part, which confirms what a true mess the GPL can make when you attempt to combine it with a more permissive license in a single project:
"2.3 Keeping modified files permissive-licensed within larger GPL'd works
[] Whenever possible, the stewards of the codebase should consult with a lawyer to be sure that the file is sufficiently independent of and distinct from the core of the GPL'd project to permit continued licensing of the file under the permissive terms despite the application of the GPL to the project as a whole." (emphasis mine)
Other open source licenses don't require all portions of a covered work to be under the same license. That's why they don't create such a mess and are not as viral as the GPL.
it [Google] is going to start running image and video ads
Don't write about things you know nothing about. Google has been "running" image ads for years. Yes, that's right years. And flash video ads for 1 or 2 years.
You're using that as a precedent, but that does not come from an appelate court. The district judge can be wrong.
Anyhow, unlike the GPL, the license in question did not include a provision stating that your rights are terminated if you use the covered work in any way not expressly provided in the license. So, it should not apply to the GPL even if an appelate court confirms the conclusions of the district court.
"if the GPL is not a promise not to sue someone who complies with the license for copyright infringement, what is it?"
Yes, it is an implied promise not sue for copyright infringement but only under certain conditions (set forth in the license). If the conditions are not met, the promise does not exist and you have no rights under the license (yes, the GPL states that your rights under the license are terminated if you use the work outside the scope of the license). As you have no rights under the license, you can infringe copyright in the covered work.
If I say "you may make and distribute copies of my book so long as you pay me $10 each", I definitely cannot sue you for copyright infringement if you don't pay me. The right to a $10 payment does not appear in copyright law. The distribution is authorized by the license, only the license is breached, not copyright.
That's true, but isn't there a difference between an agreement (contract) and a license? The license is invalid if its conditions are not met. Hence, without a license it is copyright infringement.
PS - By the way, your posts are close to legal advice. You should disclose whether you are a lawyer. (I am not one.)
Note that, because of the expansion of the universe and the speed-of-light-limit, there are some regions of the universe that we cannot ever explore
Cannot ever explore? Worm holes and other types of "shortcuts" that would essentially allow a form of teleportation were not invented by sci-fi writers, but by theoretical physicists. If you changed the word "cannot" to "might not be able to", I could agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Stats of a large website are more than a sufficient poll to debunk the "50 or so sold copies" statement.
People don't buy stand-alone Windows. They didn't with XP, they won't with Vista. OEM is a standard way for Windows to gain market share. Stop your silly hand waving.
Do what I did - retrofit XP.
I'm not sure why you are telling me what I should do. I merely stated that the OP's statement "50 sold copies or so" was sheer troll and I provided figures to back it up.
It does you allow to relicense modified code
Where? Can you quote the part where the BSD license gives you the right to relicense the code (i.e. to change the license terms)?
Another troll suggesting that our site is for Windows fans. FYI, the Linux market share on our site is 6% (and Firefox 50%). Not laughing anymore?
You seem to suggest that our site is for Windows fans. You're wrong. Linux market share on our site is 6% (and Firefox 50%).
across all 50 or so copies they've sold so far
By saying that you discredited yourself as a cheap troll and moron. According to our website stats Windows Vista market now share is -- wait for it -- 11%
Let me guess... because BSD license allows you to do that and GPL doesn't?
BSD license does not allow you to relicense the code. On the contrary, it states that the terms and conditions and legal notices must be retained in full. Under copyright law, any right not explicitly granted is reserved.
My guess is that any of Microsoft's patents could be coded-around trivially
Really? Then tell me how you are going to trivially code around:
1) Hyperlink
2) Checkbox
3) Double click
4) Listview
Vista is just as much affected, the bug is there, just that Vista by default with UAC ON it can't do much more then write to the tmp folder.
Any reference to back up what you claim?
Note to all saying that there's no difference between Vista and XP:
The official Adobe advisory states: "Vista users are not affected".
Now let the downplay begin.
Nowhere in Microsoft's announcement do they in any way claim that they are releasing anything as open source.
It's just the little misleading term Open. Open.NET? What is open? The source? Is it Open Source then? No.
1) OpenOffice.org is the name of the program. It's not called 'OpenOffice'.
Where did I imply it was not the name of the program?
3) I don't see why. It's referring to the application, and it is strictly speaking just a superset of the original application.
I don't know but the article talked about a fork, which is a different program from a different source (as opposed to a mere branch).
OpenOffice.org IS the name of the software.
That was the point. Besides, it is also the official domain name. What's your point?
Your OpenOffice.org
As the homepage of the fork prominently states "Your OpenOffice.org" I have a few questions:
1) Is it ethical to use the name or domain name of the forked software? ("Your Mozilla.org" anyone?)
2) Is it not a trademark infringement? Note: even unregistered trademarks are protected to a certain extent (at least under US trademark law).
3) Is it not unfair business practices?
What people don't realize is that copyright licenses (e.g. GPL) cover only the softweare. Names and brands are not "copyrightable" so the GPL does not cover them (and gives no license to use them). Implicit and default trade name and trademark protection rights are granted by trademark law, business code, etc.
The term "Linux hardware" is as non-sensical as "Windows hardware" (something I've never heard or seen either). Hardware has nothing to do with an operating system.
unavoidable way to reach its objectives
If these objectives are to preserve the well-known Freedoms, then it would have been better if the GPL only required that licenses covering the work must grant the Freedoms (instead of insisting that the whole work must be under the GPL).
The GPL prevents sharing in the open source world so much that they had to create the LGPL.
The general feeling is that you are free to use it, just not for GPL projects
Right, but because of the terms of the GPL. Other Open Source licenses (Apache, BSD, etc.) don't impose any restrictions on combinations of licenses in a single work. Only the GPL insists that the whole work must be under the GPL. That's why it creates such a mess.
Yes, that's as stupid as saying it's legal to share mp3's via P2P because people have always believed it was legal. I wouldn't trust a lawyer claiming something like that.
Thanks for that link. I especially like the following part, which confirms what a true mess the GPL can make when you attempt to combine it with a more permissive license in a single project: "2.3 Keeping modified files permissive-licensed within larger GPL'd works
[] Whenever possible, the stewards of the codebase should consult with a lawyer to be sure that the file is sufficiently independent of and distinct from the core of the GPL'd project to permit continued licensing of the file under the permissive terms despite the application of the GPL to the project as a whole." (emphasis mine)
Other open source licenses don't require all portions of a covered work to be under the same license. That's why they don't create such a mess and are not as viral as the GPL.
it [Google] is going to start running image and video ads
Don't write about things you know nothing about. Google has been "running" image ads for years. Yes, that's right years. And flash video ads for 1 or 2 years.
From Jacobsen v. Katzer:
You're using that as a precedent, but that does not come from an appelate court. The district judge can be wrong.
Anyhow, unlike the GPL, the license in question did not include a provision stating that your rights are terminated if you use the covered work in any way not expressly provided in the license. So, it should not apply to the GPL even if an appelate court confirms the conclusions of the district court.
"if the GPL is not a promise not to sue someone who complies with the license for copyright infringement, what is it?"
Yes, it is an implied promise not sue for copyright infringement but only under certain conditions (set forth in the license). If the conditions are not met, the promise does not exist and you have no rights under the license (yes, the GPL states that your rights under the license are terminated if you use the work outside the scope of the license). As you have no rights under the license, you can infringe copyright in the covered work.
If I say "you may make and distribute copies of my book so long as you pay me $10 each", I definitely cannot sue you for copyright infringement if you don't pay me. The right to a $10 payment does not appear in copyright law. The distribution is authorized by the license, only the license is breached, not copyright.
That's true, but isn't there a difference between an agreement (contract) and a license? The license is invalid if its conditions are not met. Hence, without a license it is copyright infringement.
PS - By the way, your posts are close to legal advice. You should disclose whether you are a lawyer. (I am not one.)
Note that, because of the expansion of the universe and the speed-of-light-limit, there are some regions of the universe that we cannot ever explore
Cannot ever explore? Worm holes and other types of "shortcuts" that would essentially allow a form of teleportation were not invented by sci-fi writers, but by theoretical physicists. If you changed the word "cannot" to "might not be able to", I could agree with you.
Sigh. Not again.