I'm not sure you realize it, but any OS-like software with "Windows" in its name infringes the trademark of Microsoft. That's something you might want to avoid.
Can you cite one sigificant case where it's "used even when only one form of IP is involved"? And can you reasonably show that such use had any negative consequences?
it leads to people getting confused about what's what.
That's just about as right as saying that the term "fruit" "leads to people getting confused about what's what" [e.g. what's apple and what's an orange].
An apple has different properties than an orange. Still we need some superordinate term to refer to them collectively... as fruit.
If 90% of people used a particular open-source program, I'd dare to call that program a winner. And if nobody used a particular open-source program, I'd dare to call that program a loser. The rest is idealistic crap.
Again, the discussion (parent, grand, grand-grand, wherever you look) was about the term "intellectual property" and how FSF belives it is MS propaganda to use that term to collectively refer to copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. You brought the MS patent claims in, which was totally off-topic.
Surprise, surprise -- I and the GPL are talking about linking too. If you merely want to link a BSD-licensed code with a GPLed code you cannot do that (that's why they had to create LGPL). Because the GPL would require the whole linked result to be under the GPL! And BSD code doesn't explicitly allow relicensing. Sucks, doesn't it.
Individual portions of the aggregate work (The Program) can be licensed with any compatible licenses
Again, no. Let me quote from the pertinent part of the GPL:
"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 [i.e. the GPL]"
you can't just remove the BSD copyright
There is no "BSD copyright". There are two things: 1) Copyright notice (e.g. Copyright 2007 (c) Zealots) 2) License notice (the text of the BSD license)
Most people just say that it has been relicensed under the GPL. That isn't exactly true
How could that post be modded +5 Informative? I'd mod that down if I had points.
Of course it IS relicensing. If you take a code covered by the BSD and put it under a more restrictive license (GPL) you ARE relicensing the code. And you have no permission to do that under the BSD license. Note again the word more restrictive license. Whether BSD is a subset of GPL is utterly irrelevant here.
Since the GPL requires that all portions of a program under the GPL must be ONLY under the GPL and no other licenses, it follows that BSD code cannot be integrated in the GPL code (certainly not in the monolithic Linux kernel).
OK. Tell me ONE patent number identified by Microsoft as being infringed by Linux. Just one. They claim hundreds, just tell me ONE of them. Only then can you claim Microsoft "clearly" stated their patents are infringed. Without the patent numbers, the statements are vague, they're FUD and they're BS.
You're being ridiculous. What I responded to was your claim that Microsoft used the term "Intellectual Property" to confuse people. THAT term is what we have been talking about here. Not patent numbers. Read the previous posts, before posting another garbage.
Saying the "fruit" is a "propaganda term designed to confuse apples and oranges" is propaganda itself. People who put things like this in press releases just are not normal. Opinions may differ.
That's exactly what he means. By making vague threats about "intellectual property" (which could be any of those things you name) without specifying what exactly their problem is (is it copyright infringement? patent infringement? they would be completely different problems with different ramifications) all they're doing is spreading FUD.
If you refer to the recent Microsoft vs Linux thing, then they clearly stated that their patents are infringed. (Besides, I don't know how Linux could infringe copyrights or trademarks of Microsoft. Windows is closed source and their marks are certainly not used to identify Linux goods.)
Ok, let me count the results: one Anonymous Coward doesn't agree with me... That's it? Anyway.
No, I can't agree with you, nor your implication that the FSF is trying to destroy the word fruit.
No, I said that they treat words like "fruit" like "propaganda designed to mislead people". Which to me makes FSF a bunch of crackpots.
You're saying that the term in question refers to a group of things
If you think it doesn't, you are probably stupid.
but you've made no reasonable argument that this grouping is necessary or useful.
I didn't have to, but I will. A journalist may write e.g. this short title: "Novel Sold All Its Intellectual Property" Whereas, your title would have twenty words more and yet you couldn't be sure you haven't omitted some kind of intellectual property.
Copyright in its current form IS bad
FSF uses it, however. GPL wouldn't work without it. But, hey, what prevents you from waiving copyright and all intellectual property rights in your work and going Public Domain and stop using the Bad Thing? Nothing. Except probably the control freaks in you.
It does, as the FSF say, confuse people
I feel like reading something written by the Holy Inquisition in the Middle Ages. Jesus. Yes, you and FSF are true zealots. Let the people figure out what the word fruit means, ok? They're not sheep.
Ok, so let's try a different approach, an analogy:
Does anyone here agree with the FSF that the term "fruit" is "a propaganda term designed to confuse apples with pears?"
And can anyone agree with me, and with people who write the laws, that there indeed are many different kinds of intellectual property and that we need one formal term to refer to them collectively for convenience?
Why is copyright treated as a good thing and trademarks as bad? I could as well go and say copyright is Evil, I want all to be in the public domain (that the GPL sucks, and so forth).
From the press release made by the FSF: Microsoft has said that it expects respect for its so-called "intellectual property"--a propaganda term designed to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws
To FSF: "intellectual property" is not a "propaganda term" and the term is not designed "to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws".
In standard English, the term "intellectual property" term collectively refers to any or all of the following:
- Copyrights - Trademarks (or service mark) - Patents
Sometimes also to: - Trade secrets - Trade names
I stopped reading the press release after reading that sentence...
If you license your code GPL, you are allowed to violate the GPL when distributing it - its your copyright.
I see what you mean. I can't violate my own copyright. That's right. However, note that you can't claim that your software is distributed under the GPL (as published by the GNU) and that the license applies and is in full force and effect.
What you would release is a copyright-protected work that is NOT covered by the GPL.
Simply, if we remove from the GPL the requirement that the whole program must be under the GPL, and if we add a new requirement that other licenses covering other parts of the program must require complete source code to be open, will we have more freedom? Yes, we definitely and obviously will.
to be honest, until a few minutes ago I could've sworn that the GPL had a clause that said derivative works of a program distributed under the GPL must only retain the same freedoms granted by it, not specifically the GPL itself, but after a quick Google search I discovered that it *does* require it to be under the GPL and GPL only, and that it has been so since v1.
of course, I'd rather blame that on stupidity and short-sightedness of the FSF than on any malice or "us vs them" mentality, so I'm hoping that it'll be fixed by v4 and before 2020 or something... Thank you for your honesty. Really. I'm glad I helped open at least one pair of eyes in this regard. Most people believe that GPL is the greatest license, while it is sadly one of the worst.
Sure I can't. I can license only MY code, which is under the GPL. If I want to use others' code released under other licenses and use the code in MY code I can't do that. The GPL doesn't allow it.
which necessarily means less freedom to the software users.
Nonsense. More freedom for developers translates to more rapid development, ability to not re-invent the wheel, ability to co-operate and share code with other projects, which is always good for the userbase.
Slashdot Mirror
because a large majority of people dont patch windows
Eh? That's quite a bold statement so that I'll have to ask you for a trustworthy reference (i.e. other than Wikipedia) to back it up, sir.
To the author:
I'm not sure you realize it, but any OS-like software with "Windows" in its name infringes the trademark of Microsoft. That's something you might want to avoid.
Can you cite one sigificant case where it's "used even when only one form of IP is involved"? And can you reasonably show that such use had any negative consequences?
I second NOD32 and TrueCrypt. BUT I have to strongly disagree with PGP (especially v9) and Firefox.
it leads to people getting confused about what's what.
That's just about as right as saying that the term "fruit" "leads to people getting confused about what's what" [e.g. what's apple and what's an orange].
An apple has different properties than an orange. Still we need some superordinate term to refer to them collectively... as fruit.
More to the point, do they take the $0's they've made
You're belief that OSS makes $0 is naive. Google the following FOSS software: MySQL, Red Hat, SUSE, just to name a few.
In OSS, there is no winner, nor is there a loser.
If 90% of people used a particular open-source program, I'd dare to call that program a winner. And if nobody used a particular open-source program, I'd dare to call that program a loser. The rest is idealistic crap.
Again, the discussion (parent, grand, grand-grand, wherever you look) was about the term "intellectual property" and how FSF belives it is MS propaganda to use that term to collectively refer to copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. You brought the MS patent claims in, which was totally off-topic.
What could they lose?
Nerves, money for lawyers, come to mind as first.
He's talking about linking, not changing files.
Surprise, surprise -- I and the GPL are talking about linking too. If you merely want to link a BSD-licensed code with a GPLed code you cannot do that (that's why they had to create LGPL). Because the GPL would require the whole linked result to be under the GPL! And BSD code doesn't explicitly allow relicensing. Sucks, doesn't it.
Individual portions of the aggregate work (The Program) can be licensed with any compatible licenses
Again, no. Let me quote from the pertinent part of the GPL:
"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 [i.e. the GPL]"
you can't just remove the BSD copyright
There is no "BSD copyright". There are two things:
1) Copyright notice (e.g. Copyright 2007 (c) Zealots)
2) License notice (the text of the BSD license)
And, you cannot remove either.
Most people just say that it has been relicensed under the GPL. That isn't exactly true
How could that post be modded +5 Informative? I'd mod that down if I had points.
Of course it IS relicensing. If you take a code covered by the BSD and put it under a more restrictive license (GPL) you ARE relicensing the code. And you have no permission to do that under the BSD license. Note again the word more restrictive license. Whether BSD is a subset of GPL is utterly irrelevant here.
Since the GPL requires that all portions of a program under the GPL must be ONLY under the GPL and no other licenses, it follows that BSD code cannot be integrated in the GPL code (certainly not in the monolithic Linux kernel).
OK. Tell me ONE patent number identified by Microsoft as being infringed by Linux. Just one. They claim hundreds, just tell me ONE of them.
Only then can you claim Microsoft "clearly" stated their patents are infringed.
Without the patent numbers, the statements are vague, they're FUD and they're BS.
You're being ridiculous. What I responded to was your claim that Microsoft used the term "Intellectual Property" to confuse people. THAT term is what we have been talking about here. Not patent numbers. Read the previous posts, before posting another garbage.
Saying the "fruit" is a "propaganda term designed to confuse apples and oranges" is propaganda itself. People who put things like this in press releases just are not normal. Opinions may differ.
That's exactly what he means. By making vague threats about "intellectual property" (which could be any of those things you name) without specifying what exactly their problem is (is it copyright infringement? patent infringement? they would be completely different problems with different ramifications) all they're doing is spreading FUD.
If you refer to the recent Microsoft vs Linux thing, then they clearly stated that their patents are infringed. (Besides, I don't know how Linux could infringe copyrights or trademarks of Microsoft. Windows is closed source and their marks are certainly not used to identify Linux goods.)
Words are words, they become propaganda terms when used in certain ways.
The only entity I see use propaganda is the FSF.
Ok, let me count the results: one Anonymous Coward doesn't agree with me... That's it? Anyway.
No, I can't agree with you, nor your implication that the FSF is trying to destroy the word fruit.
No, I said that they treat words like "fruit" like "propaganda designed to mislead people". Which to me makes FSF a bunch of crackpots.
You're saying that the term in question refers to a group of things
If you think it doesn't, you are probably stupid.
but you've made no reasonable argument that this grouping is necessary or useful.
I didn't have to, but I will. A journalist may write e.g. this short title: "Novel Sold All Its Intellectual Property" Whereas, your title would have twenty words more and yet you couldn't be sure you haven't omitted some kind of intellectual property.
Copyright in its current form IS bad
FSF uses it, however. GPL wouldn't work without it. But, hey, what prevents you from waiving copyright and all intellectual property rights in your work and going Public Domain and stop using the Bad Thing? Nothing. Except probably the control freaks in you.
It does, as the FSF say, confuse people
I feel like reading something written by the Holy Inquisition in the Middle Ages. Jesus. Yes, you and FSF are true zealots. Let the people figure out what the word fruit means, ok? They're not sheep.
who patented the term copycat
You mean trademarked? You can't patent (nor copyright) a term.
Ok, so let's try a different approach, an analogy:
Does anyone here agree with the FSF that the term "fruit" is "a propaganda term designed to confuse apples with pears?"
And can anyone agree with me, and with people who write the laws, that there indeed are many different kinds of intellectual property and that we need one formal term to refer to them collectively for convenience?
Why is copyright treated as a good thing and trademarks as bad? I could as well go and say copyright is Evil, I want all to be in the public domain (that the GPL sucks, and so forth).
But, really, jeez.
For those ACs who didn't understand, the part To FSF: means My response to FSF.
You said yourself that "IP" confuses patents with copyright.
I did? Where?
Why did you stop reading?
It's not so difficult to guess why.
Because they're right?
Right.
From the press release made by the FSF:
Microsoft has said that it expects respect for its so-called "intellectual property"--a propaganda term designed to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws
To FSF: "intellectual property" is not a "propaganda term" and the term is not designed "to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws".
In standard English, the term "intellectual property" term collectively refers to any or all of the following:
- Copyrights
- Trademarks (or service mark)
- Patents
Sometimes also to:
- Trade secrets
- Trade names
I stopped reading the press release after reading that sentence...
If you license your code GPL, you are allowed to violate the GPL when distributing it - its your copyright.
I see what you mean. I can't violate my own copyright. That's right. However, note that you can't claim that your software is distributed under the GPL (as published by the GNU) and that the license applies and is in full force and effect.
What you would release is a copyright-protected work that is NOT covered by the GPL.
And once again for you:
Simply, if we remove from the GPL the requirement that the whole program must be under the GPL, and if we add a new requirement that other licenses covering other parts of the program must require complete source code to be open, will we have more freedom? Yes, we definitely and obviously will.
of course, I'd rather blame that on stupidity and short-sightedness of the FSF than on any malice or "us vs them" mentality, so I'm hoping that it'll be fixed by v4 and before 2020 or something... Thank you for your honesty. Really. I'm glad I helped open at least one pair of eyes in this regard. Most people believe that GPL is the greatest license, while it is sadly one of the worst.
Sure you can.
Sure I can't. I can license only MY code, which is under the GPL. If I want to use others' code released under other licenses and use the code in MY code I can't do that. The GPL doesn't allow it.
which necessarily means less freedom to the software users.
Nonsense. More freedom for developers translates to more rapid development, ability to not re-invent the wheel, ability to co-operate and share code with other projects, which is always good for the userbase.
The only lock-in I see is the GPL.