If you quit being an ass and took five seconds to look for yourself
If you quit being an ass and took five minutes to read the GPL, you'd discover that the GPL is incompatible with all open source licenses.
Why you ask? Because the GPL requires that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, etc.), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others too, I can't do that (unless I own the BSDL-ed code). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with most open source licenses.
That negligible aspect you refer to doesn't make GPL3 anymore compatible than GPL2 was. The key aspects are still not compatible.
One of the main GOOD parts of the GPLv3 is that it's compatible with the Apache License
Could you be more specific as to how and include all the necessary quotes proving specifically what you claim? (And don't link to others claiming what you claim. Back up what YOU claim -- I don't want to see circular reasoning). Thanks.
I know. That was between Novell and SCO. But Novell may have sold the patents under another agreement to another entity, which I'm not sure if they did.
If you put BSDL'd code in a GPL'd application, the BSDL'd code is still BSDL'd, but the work as a whole is GPL'd, and that's okay.
Just to clarify: You MIGHT be able to do the above (it's not legally clear) only in this specific case, where the code was dual licensed. Otherwise, and I have been talking in GENERAL (as you have been obviously) you can't (if you don't own copyright in BSDL-ed parts or don't have consent of such owners).
As someone who lives in the EU, I find this constant US-equals-the-world attitude funny and sad at the same time. FYI, 300 million people live in the US, 400 million in the EU, 700M in Europe, 120M in Japan, look up the Asia and other figures... Windows is international and as OS X is not sold only in the US, the two OS's must be compared in international scope.
according to the most recent figures I could find. More importantly, the growth rate is more than four times higher than the industry growth rate, 32% vs. 7.2%
Another deceptive form of statistics interpretation. Let's simplify, so everyone understands:
If only 2 people used Apple now, and if the next year one more user buys Apple, we will see:
* Three people use Apple
* The growth rate is incredible 50%
especially the type that works on a heuristical basis. They are simply long lists of known to be disadvantageous programs and a daemon that tries to match the list to data on the system.
I wonder why that incorrect post is modded +5.
Heuristic scanning is the opposite of "long lists of known to be disadvantageous programs".
It is a form of pro-active security analyzing the behavior and features of an unknown program WITHOUT any lists of known viruses. For example, does the program hook the keyboard and adds itself to the startup sequence? What other suspicious things does it try to do? Etc.
Heuristic scanners use decompilers, virtual micro-machines, simulations and other very sophisticated stuff.
What does this got do with freedom? If someone turns you in telling the police that he received bomb threats from your IP address (which happened in this case), the only thing the police can do is investigate. And that inherently involves obtaining physical evidence, in this case seizing the computers as soon as possible before the suspect (yes, a potential criminal) destroys the evidence.
Now if there had been no freedom in Germany, the man would have not been released within a few hours with explanation he is innocent.
That is another common misconception. Just shorty:
Putting a BSDL-ed code under a MORE RESTRICTIVE license is RELICENSING, which you have no right for, (unless you own copyright in the BSDL-ed code or have consent of such owners).
Anything not expressly permitted in the BSDL is implicitly forbidden by copyright law.
That's a common misconception. There is not a single word in the BSD license that would permit you to relicense the code, if you don't own copyright in it. On the contrary, the BSDL expressly states that the terms and conditions of the license must be retained (so the license terms cannot be chagned).
You need a permission from the copyright owner to relicense a BSDL work. By the way, if you read my previous posts, you will understand why the GPL has been called 'viral'. Seriously.
Please spare me such long posts. I could rephrase your posts to two sentences.
You repeatedly fail to acknowledge two facts:
1) As the Linux kernel is a single monolithic program distributed as a whole, all portions of it must be distributed under the GPL.
2) If you don't own copyright in a BSDL-ed code you can't relicense it wihtout consent of the onwners (e.g. you can't release such portions under the GPL -- can NOT, period.)
If you connect the two facts above, logic will tell you that no portions of the Linux kernel can be under the BSDL (unless you own the copyright in the BSDL-ed portions or unless you have consent of the owners).
You're funny. You conveniently omitted the rest of the paragraph of GPL2 you quoted. So, let's finish our reading, shall we:
GPL2: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
So as you see, the Linux kernel is a work distributed as a whole as a single monolithic program. So, again, all portions of it must be under the GPL. Otherwise, you violate the GPL.
This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it."
First, that quote is from GPL 3 (and we're talking Linux here, which is and will remain GPL 2). Second, that quote has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote about. Third, other portions of your message don't make any sense whatsoever. You didn't get the point and don't know what you're talking about. Read the posts again or I'll consider you a moron.
What the GPL actually "explicitly and expressly requires" is that the work as a whole be distributed under the GPL.... which is what I wrote, isn't it?
Take for instance the Linux kernel. It is "when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program". That's why you can't include BSDL-ed code in the Linux kernel, unless you own copyright in the BSDL-ed code.
On the contrary, *BSD systems can include code under other licenses (except again the viral GPL). The GPL prevent sharing in the open source world (that's why they created the GPL, btw).
So, uh, you have no stats other than a few bug reports from your demographically biased userbase and you write stuff like "because a large majority of people dont patch windows".
You're absolutely right when you say that it's perfectly legal to slap a GPL license onto BSD code
In case of a dual licensed program (GPL/BSD) yes. Otherwise, no. Again, no.
Why? GPL prevents that.
The GPL explicitly and expressly REQUIRES that ALL portions of a program distributed under the GPL are under the GPL. You CAN'T have a GPL program where portions are under the BSDL, unless you own the copyright in the BSDL-ed portions (i.e. you have no permission to relicense the BSD code).
You can take a BSD-licensed program, modify it even slightly, and re-release the COMBINED material (original BSD + the additional modifications) under the GPL
Nope, sorry you cannot do that. GPL prevents that. Yep, that's right. Welcome to the GPL.
The GPL explicitly and expressly *REQUIRES* that ALL portions of a program distributed under the GPL are under the GPL. You CAN'T have a GPL program where portions are under the BSDL, unless you own the copyright in the BSDL-ed portions (i.e. you have no permission to relicense the BSD code).
The GPL explicitly and expressly *REQUIRES* that ALL portions of a program distributed under the GPL are under the GPL. You CAN'T have a GPL program where portions are under the BSD, unless you own the copyright in the BSD portions (i.e. you have no permission to relicense the BSD code).
Slashdot Mirror
If you quit being an ass and took five seconds to look for yourself
If you quit being an ass and took five minutes to read the GPL, you'd discover that the GPL is incompatible with all open source licenses.
Why you ask? Because the GPL requires that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, etc.), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others too, I can't do that (unless I own the BSDL-ed code). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with most open source licenses.
That negligible aspect you refer to doesn't make GPL3 anymore compatible than GPL2 was. The key aspects are still not compatible.
So, as you can see, GPLv3 is Apache-compatible, GPLv2 is NOT.
So the GPL no longer inisists that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be under the GPL?
One of the main GOOD parts of the GPLv3 is that it's compatible with the Apache License
Could you be more specific as to how and include all the necessary quotes proving specifically what you claim? (And don't link to others claiming what you claim. Back up what YOU claim -- I don't want to see circular reasoning). Thanks.
I know. That was between Novell and SCO. But Novell may have sold the patents under another agreement to another entity, which I'm not sure if they did.
Unfortunately The SCO Group holds no patents so they have no protected "methods and concepts" either.
However, UNIX related patents were held by Novell, which may or may have not sold them (I'm not sure if they did).
If you put BSDL'd code in a GPL'd application, the BSDL'd code is still BSDL'd, but the work as a whole is GPL'd, and that's okay.
Just to clarify: You MIGHT be able to do the above (it's not legally clear) only in this specific case, where the code was dual licensed. Otherwise, and I have been talking in GENERAL (as you have been obviously) you can't (if you don't own copyright in BSDL-ed parts or don't have consent of such owners).
1) If you run an exit-node in Germany, think about the consequences.
I'd omit the "in Germany" part.
The Fine Article is full of bullsh*t.
Sorry sir, but actually your post is full of it.
In the US, Apple's market share is around 5-6%
As someone who lives in the EU, I find this constant US-equals-the-world attitude funny and sad at the same time. FYI, 300 million people live in the US, 400 million in the EU, 700M in Europe, 120M in Japan, look up the Asia and other figures... Windows is international and as OS X is not sold only in the US, the two OS's must be compared in international scope.
according to the most recent figures I could find. More importantly, the growth rate is more than four times higher than the industry growth rate, 32% vs. 7.2%
Another deceptive form of statistics interpretation. Let's simplify, so everyone understands: If only 2 people used Apple now, and if the next year one more user buys Apple, we will see:
* Three people use Apple
* The growth rate is incredible 50%
especially the type that works on a heuristical basis. They are simply long lists of known to be disadvantageous programs and a daemon that tries to match the list to data on the system.
I wonder why that incorrect post is modded +5.
Heuristic scanning is the opposite of "long lists of known to be disadvantageous programs".
It is a form of pro-active security analyzing the behavior and features of an unknown program WITHOUT any lists of known viruses. For example, does the program hook the keyboard and adds itself to the startup sequence? What other suspicious things does it try to do? Etc.
Heuristic scanners use decompilers, virtual micro-machines, simulations and other very sophisticated stuff.
I mod your post as Overrated.
The US Navy uses Tor to talk to intelligence sources.
Any trustworthy reference to prove that claim?
Ah Europe, progressive land of freedom
What does this got do with freedom? If someone turns you in telling the police that he received bomb threats from your IP address (which happened in this case), the only thing the police can do is investigate. And that inherently involves obtaining physical evidence, in this case seizing the computers as soon as possible before the suspect (yes, a potential criminal) destroys the evidence.
Now if there had been no freedom in Germany, the man would have not been released within a few hours with explanation he is innocent.
That is another common misconception. Just shorty:
Putting a BSDL-ed code under a MORE RESTRICTIVE license is RELICENSING, which you have no right for, (unless you own copyright in the BSDL-ed code or have consent of such owners).
Anything not expressly permitted in the BSDL is implicitly forbidden by copyright law.
I interpreted that as meaning, for example, that you couldn't take BSD licensed code and use it in the Linux kernel. Which, of course, you can do
You can, but only if you own copyright in the BSDL-ed code or have consent of such owners. Read the GPL.
By the way, if you read my previous posts, you will understand why the GPL has been called 'viral'. Seriously.
That's a common misconception. There is not a single word in the BSD license that would permit you to relicense the code, if you don't own copyright in it. On the contrary, the BSDL expressly states that the terms and conditions of the license must be retained (so the license terms cannot be chagned).
You need a permission from the copyright owner to relicense a BSDL work. By the way, if you read my previous posts, you will understand why the GPL has been called 'viral'. Seriously.
You spew such utter nonsense
You do. You even don't know what I've been talking about.
which plainly can be co-licensed with in another license
Not under the GPL. Under the GPL all portions must be under the GPL. Get it, ffs. Read the fucking text of the GPL finally.
Please spare me such long posts. I could rephrase your posts to two sentences.
You repeatedly fail to acknowledge two facts:
1) As the Linux kernel is a single monolithic program distributed as a whole, all portions of it must be distributed under the GPL.
2) If you don't own copyright in a BSDL-ed code you can't relicense it wihtout consent of the onwners (e.g. you can't release such portions under the GPL -- can NOT, period.)
If you connect the two facts above, logic will tell you that no portions of the Linux kernel can be under the BSDL (unless you own the copyright in the BSDL-ed portions or unless you have consent of the owners).
You're funny. You conveniently omitted the rest of the paragraph of GPL2 you quoted. So, let's finish our reading, shall we:
GPL2: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
So as you see, the Linux kernel is a work distributed as a whole as a single monolithic program. So, again, all portions of it must be under the GPL. Otherwise, you violate the GPL.
This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it."
First, that quote is from GPL 3 (and we're talking Linux here, which is and will remain GPL 2). Second, that quote has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote about. Third, other portions of your message don't make any sense whatsoever. You didn't get the point and don't know what you're talking about. Read the posts again or I'll consider you a moron.
What the GPL actually "explicitly and expressly requires" is that the work as a whole be distributed under the GPL. ... which is what I wrote, isn't it?
Take for instance the Linux kernel. It is "when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program". That's why you can't include BSDL-ed code in the Linux kernel, unless you own copyright in the BSDL-ed code.
On the contrary, *BSD systems can include code under other licenses (except again the viral GPL). The GPL prevent sharing in the open source world (that's why they created the GPL, btw).
So you are trying to say that all these years, using BSD code in GPL applications have meant violating the GPL?
Yes, sir.
Could you point out the specific section of the GPL that says this?
BTW, the GPL is the only license that prevents sharing of FOSS that way. Other OSS licenses allow combination of licenses. Nice, isn't it? GPL sucks.
So, uh, you have no stats other than a few bug reports from your demographically biased userbase and you write stuff like "because a large majority of people dont patch windows".
To that I say, no comment, sir.
You're absolutely right when you say that it's perfectly legal to slap a GPL license onto BSD code
In case of a dual licensed program (GPL/BSD) yes. Otherwise, no. Again, no.
Why? GPL prevents that.
The GPL explicitly and expressly REQUIRES that ALL portions of a program distributed under the GPL are under the GPL. You CAN'T have a GPL program where portions are under the BSDL, unless you own the copyright in the BSDL-ed portions (i.e. you have no permission to relicense the BSD code).
Find some time to read the GPL finally.
You can take a BSD-licensed program, modify it even slightly, and re-release the COMBINED material (original BSD + the additional modifications) under the GPL
Nope, sorry you cannot do that. GPL prevents that. Yep, that's right. Welcome to the GPL.
The GPL explicitly and expressly *REQUIRES* that ALL portions of a program distributed under the GPL are under the GPL. You CAN'T have a GPL program where portions are under the BSDL, unless you own the copyright in the BSDL-ed portions (i.e. you have no permission to relicense the BSD code).
Find some time to read the GPL finally.
The GPL explicitly and expressly *REQUIRES* that ALL portions of a program distributed under the GPL are under the GPL. You CAN'T have a GPL program where portions are under the BSD, unless you own the copyright in the BSD portions (i.e. you have no permission to relicense the BSD code).
Find some time to read the GPL finally.
It's really just Bob's changes to Darin's code that are GPLed.
Sigh. How many times will it have to be repeated? GPL REQUIRES that ALL portions of a program distributed under the GPL are under the GPL.
In case you don't get it: You CAN'T have a GPL program where portions are under the BSD, unless you own the copyright in the BSD portions.
Read the GPL finally, ffs.