A lot of people successfully use this stuff. I personally use the address/phone database from police and mobile phone operators, and I don't know anyone who doesn't. BTW, I haven't had a single failure with it;-) But this is just because our stupid laws don't permit to create a real phone directory...
Most of it is real, believe me. Whay fake something as big as countrywide database when you can easily bribe the right person and get the real thing. Recently there was a scandal when a Central Bank (!) database was stolen. But this is for big boys; as to the general public, stolen mobile operators databases are very popular here, because we don't have official telephone directories with personal phone numbers.
Thinking some more about it, I'm not sure if it makes sense to continue this discussion. Basically, it boils down to how something that was designed bearing in mind one set of laws can apply within a different set of laws...
And yes, the legal status of pretty much all licenses, including GPL, is questionable here. The "raw" copyright law has priority. But the question is whether I break the copyright law if I link code that "touched" GPL version of the toolkit with the proprietary version of the toolkit. In USA I would, but that's not the case in general.
"That is pretty much it. If a company were to get a court order that the license was invalid, then that company would IMMEDIATELY be forbidden from distributing their binary."
First, generally, a provision is invalid != the license as a whole is invalid.
Second, there is such thing as copying related to the intended use. When you run a program, you are actually copying it, because that is the way you use programs and it is intended for it. Now what is toolkit's intended use? You guess it. Make and distribute SW. Unlike USA, here by selling me software you are giving me permission to use it according to its intended use. I can't copy the toolkit itself (that is, have it installed on two computers), but I can link with it whatever I want and then distribute the result, provided I have copyright for this "whatever the hell". The vendor, however, can prevent this by signing a contract with me.
Copyright law VARIES in this aspect in different countries. There is actually world outside USA, you know.
You've conveniently avoided my point about employee contracts. Copyright on the code developed by them is assigned to the company, and I'm sure somewhere the employee contract states that the dev's can't distribute the SW developed within the company;-)
Therefore employees can't release internally developed software in the wild, even though everything is GPL.
And, BTW, Eben Moglen is a lawyer. But maybe you understand copyright better than him:-)
If you distribute code then YOU MUST HAVE PERMISSION. Your permission is revoked the second you bring a GPL program into the development of that code. That is part of the QT license. If you do not follow the license then you cannot DISTRIBUTE the code.
That is correct indeed, and brings us to my second point about enforceability of said part of Qt license - namely that it has to be contractually binding, which it may or may not be depending on the country and the exact procedure of Qt licensing (whether every customer actually signs a contract with Trolltech).
If you think the statement made here is factually incorrect, then please provide actual arguments with links supporting your point of view. Calling my statements crap does not count as an argument:-)
Copyright law is pretty consistant in most countries. You cannot distribute ANYTHING without permission. That permission can be granted any number of ways. Normally, in the signing of a contract.
That's right, but don't forget that there are different notions in the world of what constitutes a contract. Namely, clicking through a EULA may not be contractually binding. At least where I leave, a contract is something that's written on paper and signed by both parties. If Trolltech does that with every customer, it's of course 100% enforceable.
I'm sorry to say it but you are incorrect (at least with today's copyright legislation and case law). Any and ALL distribution (ie, copying) is a breach of copyright if there is no permission. The GPL specifically requires source code be made available to users when you distribute a program under the GPL. Therefore, it is a copyright violation unless they give the source code to all the employees of the company who use the program.
Dude. We are talking about employees of the same company who JOINTLY DEVELOP AN APP and use the GPL version of the Qt for development and testing and the proprietary version for final linking. ALL DEVELOPERS HAVE SOURCE CODE AND BINARY of both the app they are developing and the GPLed Qt library. Therefore, if we bend it like you say and count as distribution*, anyway THEY ALL COMPLY WITH GPL as each of them has both source and binary of the app AND GPLed Qt libraries. What part of it do you not understand?
* which it ISN'T: a company developing a product in-house using GPL libraries is NOT obliged to GPL it if the product does not leave the company)
If this were not the case, any company could use ANY piece of software they wanted on every computer in their business with no problem. This is simply not the case. And your analysis is simply false.
Sorry, it's your (mis)interpretation of my analysis, GPL, and copyright law that is false.
You are trying to equate a "company" to a single "person" this is simply not the case. For tax purposes, a company acts as a single person. But this isn't tax law. This is copyright law. And in copyright law a business and its workforce as a whole is not treated as one entity....And you have never heard of copyright assignment and employee contracts?
Well, that's entirely possible. But I think in many countries you cannot really enforce this via license as such (I believe you cannot do that in Germany, maybe in Norway itself too, though I may be mistaken here.) But in USA this seems to be enough to prohibit such a free-ride.
BTW, I understand the exact source of confusion here: the resulting app is a derivativ work, but relative to what toolkit version - GPL or commercial? The answer is: To the version with which it is eventually linked and distributed. The fact that inside the company it was probably linked during tests with GPL version does not count, because this GPL-linked version was not distributed.
Wrong. Developers act on behalf of the company, not by themselves, therefore "You" as defined in GPL applies to the company as a whole. The code does not leave company, ergo there's no distribution.
Now, Qt licensing FAQ states that you can't develop a product in-house with GPL version of the toolkit and then compile it with a commercial version. But come on, what else do you suppose them to say, given their goal to sell as many copies as possible, even if it is a lie? They can't do anything if you do that, they only can choose to never have any further business with you, which is their right.
One that wouldn't buy your product anyway cannot deny you revenue. The situation is more complex.
Copyright is an artificial monopoly. Because it's artificial, people don't tend to respect it naturally, as opposed to physical property right or right to live, respect to which grows and is maintained naturally within any culture (at least towards peers - it could be otherwise with, say, slaves). Hence the common attitude towards copyright infringement: it's illegal, but it's not wrong.
Illegality of unauthorized copying is only the means of leveraging that monopoly. Indeed, if we legalize copying, it removes the incentive to buy your product from people that would otherwise buy it. Therefore you can't say that somebody who copied your creation deprived you of something, but you can say for sure that if copying was legal, you wouldn't get much at all.
Personally, I don't think that without copyright life would be much worse. The amount of content would of course reduce drastically, but the percent of true art as opposed to artistic-like prostitution would be much higher.
Yes it does, but this is not the reason Word loads fast. Try loading Word in Wine and compare it with OOo under Linux. Word would load almost instantly, while with OOo would wait... and wait... and wait. Unless Wine contains a hidden built-in Office preloader, I can conclude that Word loads fast by itself.
Sorry to disappoint you, dude, but in actual fact Russia is becoming a functioning totalitarian state, so I don't think tickets to Moscow will buy you an escape...
Before all, you may want to ask yourself, why exactly you don't want to copy Outlook interface. I can think of two valid reasons: it's protected by copyright and/or you can produce an interface that is better. If none of these are the case, then copying IS good and justified. All the whining about stealing is just bullsh*t. After all, your hypothetical app can have a better backend, support more platforms or sport some new features that Outlook lacks.
why does everyone want to make everything GUI look like MS Win, when there is an opportunity not to?
If there is a proven way, why bother? I'd personally choose familiarity and conveniency over "innovation". Besides, as a coder, you can copy GUI design and concentrate on the things you like - namely, coding;-) And yes, I think that copying IS good.
Slashdot Mirror
But this is simply not true! They in fact have a lot fans, including those on Slashdot!
They make an ass look bigger than it really is
Goatse men?
Well, here it's easire to steal. It's RUSSIA!
;-) But this is just because our stupid laws don't permit to create a real phone directory...
A lot of people successfully use this stuff. I personally use the address/phone database from police and mobile phone operators, and I don't know anyone who doesn't. BTW, I haven't had a single failure with it
Most of it is real, believe me. Whay fake something as big as countrywide database when you can easily bribe the right person and get the real thing. Recently there was a scandal when a Central Bank (!) database was stolen. But this is for big boys; as to the general public, stolen mobile operators databases are very popular here, because we don't have official telephone directories with personal phone numbers.
Thinking some more about it, I'm not sure if it makes sense to continue this discussion. Basically, it boils down to how something that was designed bearing in mind one set of laws can apply within a different set of laws...
And yes, the legal status of pretty much all licenses, including GPL, is questionable here. The "raw" copyright law has priority. But the question is whether I break the copyright law if I link code that "touched" GPL version of the toolkit with the proprietary version of the toolkit. In USA I would, but that's not the case in general.
"That is pretty much it. If a company were to get a court order that the license was invalid, then that company would IMMEDIATELY be forbidden from distributing their binary."
First, generally, a provision is invalid != the license as a whole is invalid.
Second, there is such thing as copying related to the intended use. When you run a program, you are actually copying it, because that is the way you use programs and it is intended for it. Now what is toolkit's intended use? You guess it. Make and distribute SW. Unlike USA, here by selling me software you are giving me permission to use it according to its intended use. I can't copy the toolkit itself (that is, have it installed on two computers), but I can link with it whatever I want and then distribute the result, provided I have copyright for this "whatever the hell". The vendor, however, can prevent this by signing a contract with me.
Copyright law VARIES in this aspect in different countries. There is actually world outside USA, you know.
You've conveniently avoided my point about employee contracts. Copyright on the code developed by them is assigned to the company, and I'm sure somewhere the employee contract states that the dev's can't distribute the SW developed within the company ;-)
:-)
Therefore employees can't release internally developed software in the wild, even though everything is GPL.
And, BTW, Eben Moglen is a lawyer. But maybe you understand copyright better than him
If you distribute code then YOU MUST HAVE PERMISSION. Your permission is revoked the second you bring a GPL program into the development of that code. That is part of the QT license. If you do not follow the license then you cannot DISTRIBUTE the code.
That is correct indeed, and brings us to my second point about enforceability of said part of Qt license - namely that it has to be contractually binding, which it may or may not be depending on the country and the exact procedure of Qt licensing (whether every customer actually signs a contract with Trolltech).
Now this is getting ridiculous.
D istribution
:-)
OK, let's try a simple thing.
What do you think about this link?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Internal
If you think the statement made here is factually incorrect, then please provide actual arguments with links supporting your point of view. Calling my statements crap does not count as an argument
* At least where I live ...
Copyright law is pretty consistant in most countries. You cannot distribute ANYTHING without permission. That permission can be granted any number of ways. Normally, in the signing of a contract.
That's right, but don't forget that there are different notions in the world of what constitutes a contract. Namely, clicking through a EULA may not be contractually binding. At least where I leave, a contract is something that's written on paper and signed by both parties. If Trolltech does that with every customer, it's of course 100% enforceable.
I'm sorry to say it but you are incorrect (at least with today's copyright legislation and case law). Any and ALL distribution (ie, copying) is a breach of copyright if there is no permission. The GPL specifically requires source code be made available to users when you distribute a program under the GPL. Therefore, it is a copyright violation unless they give the source code to all the employees of the company who use the program.
...And you have never heard of copyright assignment and employee contracts?
Dude. We are talking about employees of the same company who JOINTLY DEVELOP AN APP and use the GPL version of the Qt for development and testing and the proprietary version for final linking. ALL DEVELOPERS HAVE SOURCE CODE AND BINARY of both the app they are developing and the GPLed Qt library. Therefore, if we bend it like you say and count as distribution*, anyway THEY ALL COMPLY WITH GPL as each of them has both source and binary of the app AND GPLed Qt libraries. What part of it do you not understand?
* which it ISN'T: a company developing a product in-house using GPL libraries is NOT obliged to GPL it if the product does not leave the company)
If this were not the case, any company could use ANY piece of software they wanted on every computer in their business with no problem. This is simply not the case. And your analysis is simply false.
Sorry, it's your (mis)interpretation of my analysis, GPL, and copyright law that is false.
You are trying to equate a "company" to a single "person" this is simply not the case. For tax purposes, a company acts as a single person. But this isn't tax law. This is copyright law. And in copyright law a business and its workforce as a whole is not treated as one entity.
Well, that's entirely possible. But I think in many countries you cannot really enforce this via license as such (I believe you cannot do that in Germany, maybe in Norway itself too, though I may be mistaken here.) But in USA this seems to be enough to prohibit such a free-ride.
Ragarding Qt vs wxWidgets comparison, you may want to read this: http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/928/
BTW, I understand the exact source of confusion here: the resulting app is a derivativ work, but relative to what toolkit version - GPL or commercial? The answer is: To the version with which it is eventually linked and distributed. The fact that inside the company it was probably linked during tests with GPL version does not count, because this GPL-linked version was not distributed.
Wrong. Developers act on behalf of the company, not by themselves, therefore "You" as defined in GPL applies to the company as a whole. The code does not leave company, ergo there's no distribution.
Now, Qt licensing FAQ states that you can't develop a product in-house with GPL version of the toolkit and then compile it with a commercial version. But come on, what else do you suppose them to say, given their goal to sell as many copies as possible, even if it is a lie? They can't do anything if you do that, they only can choose to never have any further business with you, which is their right.
One that wouldn't buy your product anyway cannot deny you revenue. The situation is more complex.
Copyright is an artificial monopoly. Because it's artificial, people don't tend to respect it naturally, as opposed to physical property right or right to live, respect to which grows and is maintained naturally within any culture (at least towards peers - it could be otherwise with, say, slaves). Hence the common attitude towards copyright infringement: it's illegal, but it's not wrong.
Illegality of unauthorized copying is only the means of leveraging that monopoly. Indeed, if we legalize copying, it removes the incentive to buy your product from people that would otherwise buy it. Therefore you can't say that somebody who copied your creation deprived you of something, but you can say for sure that if copying was legal, you wouldn't get much at all.
Personally, I don't think that without copyright life would be much worse. The amount of content would of course reduce drastically, but the percent of true art as opposed to artistic-like prostitution would be much higher.
Dude, you may want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character
A good cluestick, actually.
Yes it does, but this is not the reason Word loads fast. Try loading Word in Wine and compare it with OOo under Linux. Word would load almost instantly, while with OOo would wait... and wait... and wait. Unless Wine contains a hidden built-in Office preloader, I can conclude that Word loads fast by itself.
I think they meant that was a rather insightful joke...
Sorry to disappoint you, dude, but in actual fact Russia is becoming a functioning totalitarian state, so I don't think tickets to Moscow will buy you an escape...
Look, all this applies only to a convicted monopolist. I somehow doubt that 99,9% of these software companies have chances to become one.
Before all, you may want to ask yourself, why exactly you don't want to copy Outlook interface. I can think of two valid reasons: it's protected by copyright and/or you can produce an interface that is better. If none of these are the case, then copying IS good and justified. All the whining about stealing is just bullsh*t. After all, your hypothetical app can have a better backend, support more platforms or sport some new features that Outlook lacks.
why does everyone want to make everything GUI look like MS Win, when there is an opportunity not to?
;-) And yes, I think that copying IS good.
If there is a proven way, why bother? I'd personally choose familiarity and conveniency over "innovation". Besides, as a coder, you can copy GUI design and concentrate on the things you like - namely, coding