Hey, if we just had a big pulley (something akin to the "Space Elevator" concept), we could put masses on earth that we want lifted into space onto a cable on one side of the pulley, and attach the mass which was mined from the asteroid which we want to deliver to earth, attached to the 'short end' of the cable on the other side of the pulley.
This would allow us to use the gravitational potential energy of the asteroid mass ("free energy" for all practical purposes - energy the universe already imparted to that mass for us, anyhow) to raise up the space-bound payload, while using the space-bound payload as a counterweight to control the descent of the mass of mined ore from the asteroid.
Now, obviously it's way too early to tell if this or any of the other advances in photosynthetic catalysts (e.g. the work done at MIT) merit any Nobel Prize, but it got me to wondering. . .
Has anyone gotten both a scientific (physics or chemistry) Nobel Prize, *and* the Nobel Peace Prize for the same discovery?
It seems to me that any major advance in producing hydrogen (or hydrocarbons) cheaply and abundantly from sunlight and water, might merit both prizes - seems like a major advancement in energy could also be a major advancement for peace.
Well, other than the bit about the death of the Earth's biosphere, it doesn't sound too bad.;-)
I mean, nowadays, identity 'papers' are made of plastic (my Ohio drivers license, at least; my passport is still paper, but could be made from plastics easy enough). Money is mostly electronic, and there's always metal coins. Books are mostly electronic (though I daresay we'd lose some historical books, scrolls, etc which have never been scanned).
This probably doesn't account for all the energy, but I believe most modern paper mills are mostly self-powered from the waste products from the paper making process itself:
That is, they use energy extracted from the wood to run the pulp mills. Since the energy in plant matter comes from the Sun, I don't see a lot of compelling need to recycle paper. However, if it makes economic sense, sure, why not. Just in general terms, of all the products mankind creates, paper seems like the least important to recycle, in terms of energy and raw materials (can always grow more trees/hemp/whatever).
Red Hat vs SCO, if I recall correctly, was an action brought by Red Hat *against* SCO - basically saying that SCO was making unfounded threats against Red Hat's customers, and interfering with their business (I might not have that exactly right, but I think it was something like that - essentially Red Hat was on offense, trying to get damages from SCO).
If anything, the fact that SCO never had the copyrights it was basing such threats against Red Hat's customers, strengthens Red Hat's case.
I just went back and found the very first filing by Red Hat which started the case, at Groklaw. Looks like I basically remembered it correctly:
I see no reason the Red Hat case can't proceed full-speed ahead now. . . except for the fact that SCO has no money or assets left for Red Hat to collect. Did SCO ever even exit bankruptcy? I don't think RH vs SCO can proceed until such time as SCO exits bankruptcy, and if SCO gets liquidated, it can never proceed because there will be no SCO left to sue.
I had a nightmare where corporations took one of the greatest original creative works of the 20th century, and made millions selling copies of it without paying the author or his family one red cent. Then I woke up and saw that, thank god, that wasn't real.
Why should others be allowed to profit off his genius while he and his family would be left unable to share in those revenues? Just because he first shared that speech in a public park? Where's the justice in that?
Where is the justice in corporations like Mister Maester or Twentieth Century Fox making profts off the man's speech, and not paying him or his family anything?
Seems like the dream of equality would include black people (and native americans, asians, latinos, all the people of the earth) having the opportunity to profit from the copyright protection of their creative works, the same as white people.
Really, "I Have a Dream" sure seems like a creative work that deserves copyright protection . . . unless you would argue that only *inferior* creative works deserve copyright protection - but if something is truly great, then it should not qualify for that protection.
Honestly, I think De Beers best marketing strategy is just to play on some "cheap psychology" - that is to say, when someone is trying to buy a special ring or other piece of jewelry to be a special gift, it doesn't seem so special if they bought a 'cheap' diamond.
I think they can continue to convince people to pay inflated prices for diamonds, just because people don't *want* to buy "cheap" diamonds and give those as gifts, and be seen as giving a cheap gift.
So, they can use the 'branding' thing to their advantage even in a world of cheap commodity diamonds. I mean, you *can* buy a cheap watch. But, you can also buy a Rolex. People still buy Rolexes and other 'luxury brands' of items simply so that they can be seen to have bought 'the best', instead of the 'cheapest'.
"And apparently bought rough diamonds from competitors to maintain monopoly control."
It's not unusual for someone to attempt to 'corner' a market in a commodity - but, the problem is, whoever tries to do so usually goes broke, because they run out of money without ever being able to fully consume the supply - because more diamonds would be mined and manufactured every day, so De Beers would have to buy far more diamonds than they sell *every day*.
On top of that, they would have to buy them at 'wholesale' prices that are a significant fraction of the retail cost, else those competitors could probably make more money on the open market than selling them 'cheap' to De Beers.
Even with artificially elevated prices due to the controlled market, De Beers would be creating a bubble which must eventually crash spectacularly when De Beers goes bankrupt from the on-going losses they'd be incurring thus controlling the market, and can no longer afford to keep cornering the market, at which point the price would drop significantly, and De Beers would be stuck with (millions? hundreds of millions?) of diamonds that are worth far less than De Beers payed for them, and De Beers would never be able to recover their losses.
How is that a credible theory again? Either diamonds are scarce enough De Beers can profitably corner the market, or they are common. I don't see how you can have it both ways?
The name "Christian Science" has always reminded me of the old Mike Myer's SNL "Coffee Talk" skits. . .
"I'm getting verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic: The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss!"
Near as I can tell, Christian science is in no way scientific (in fact, it's rejection of the scientific practice of medicine is actively *anti-scientific* in a much more agressive way than most Christians), and most Christians would not view it as particularly adhering to Christianity either.
"There are what, 2-3 million species known to inhabit the Earth right now, with vast diversity."
Oh, that's no problem. God miraculously diversified the species (although, one wonders why they needed to be on the Ark at all then - God could just re-create all the animals, birds, insects, whatever, right)?
I've sometimes wondered how to reconcile a global flood, with freshwater fish, and freshwater bodies. I mean, if there was a world wide flood that covered every mountain, wouldn't every lake be somewhat salty? The bible doesn't say anything about aquatic creatures being on the ark (hard to see how they could survive on the ark). Saltwater species could presumably survive a global flood, but wouldn't all the intermixing of salt water and fresh water kill off all the fresh water species?
I suppose there's a million such problems you could find with the diluvian hypothesis; anyone know if anyone has tried to systematically list out all such contradictions between the world as we find it, and the world as we would expect to find it if the flood had occurred?
P.S. I decided to do a quick search to see if any of the creationists had attempted to answer the question about freshwater species. The answer is quite interesting, in the self-contradictions it reveals:
"How did freshwater fish survive in the saltwater oceans?" There are two possibilities. First, there are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water. Second, because of natural selection, which creationists accept, organisms today have become very specialized. Organisms at the time of the flood, however, would've been much stronger and able to tolerate many more changes than they can today. There's really no problem at all in answering this question.
So, on the one hand, they reject the idea that natural selection could have evolved complex adaptations over billions of years (e.g. the premise of Darwin's Black Box), but simultaneously embrace the notion that you can get still very significant adaptations over the course of a mere 5000-9000 years.
If you can embrace that rate of adaptation over a few thousand years, it should seem no stretch of credulity at *all* to get much larger adaptation over billions of years.
An installer which simply copies files from an archive to a folder on the computer (and maybe sets up some registry entries, etc) is a distinct program from the program which gets thus installed.
Just because the 'wrapper' is used to make the copy, doesn't make the wrapper part of the GPL program, or the GPL program part of the wrapper.
I believe that "The Internet" qualifies as "a medium customarily used for software interchange". I download software from the Internet all the time.
So, it would seem that as long as they put a notice in the user manual for the phone, or a bit of paper included in the packaging, or even as an accessible file somewhere on the device that the user can read, mentioning where you can download the original source code, isn't that complying with part b of section 3, which you quoted?
I'm not sure, but isn't maritime rescue more the domain of the Coast Guard than the Navy? Although, if they've renounced U.S. citizenship, maybe the jurisdiction changes, not sure.
You still do not seem to be understanding the issue. Yes, you're absolutely right that if the COURTS determine that dynamic linking creates a "larger work", then the GPL applies.
What you don't seem to be grasping is the part where, if the court says it isn't a derivative work, then Hamstersoft *HAS* fully complied with the terms of the GPL and HAS PERMISSION to distribute the software by the terms of that self-same GPL.
You don't get to determine whether a work is or is not infringing, and neither do I. Only the courts do. Licenses can say whatever they want, but it's the courts which ultimately get to interpret the license and tell you what is and is not "complying".
"So if I'm never going to get that speed in practical application, why again are they allowed to advertise said speed?"
At a guess, they probably advertise it as, "UP TO" 21mbps.
All they have to show is that the tech can theoretically reach that speed in the best case scenario, I would suppose, in order to do "up to" advertising. Not that I think they should be allowed to advertise "up to" speeds, but that seems to be how it works right now.
I'd love the FTC (Federal Trade Commission - IIRC they regulate advertising) to rule that using 'up to' is deceptive and not allowed.
"Why do you think cereal is sold by mass rather than by volume?"
I prefer them selling by weight. If they sold by volume, they'd have an easier time cheating you, because they could probably, if they so desired, sell you 1/4 the weight of chips or cereal, and find a way to ensure it occupies the whole volume.
If it's that important to you, turn the box or bag of chips upside-down and give it a few shakes. That should make it fill the original volume, more or less.
I can't believe someone on slashdot could be so dumb as to *seriously* advocate for sale by volume instead of weight.
Even the FSF will tell you, the GPL is not a contract. It covers distribution of a specific copyrighted work, and does not cover independent works which the same party may happen to also distribute.
But you seem to be missing my point. The argument I'm making is that the people doing distribution, if they do it as two separate acts, can claim that when they distributed the GPLv3 code, they *did* comply with the terms and condition. Then, they did another distribution, completely separate, of a completely different package, which just happens to get combined on the users computer, by the end-user, not by the software developer.
"Therefore, to do that, I need to accept the GPLv3. There's a certain amount of logic in, therefore, requiring me to accept the GPLv3's definitions,"
No, no there's not. The definition of copyright is determined by statute and the courts. No license or contract can redefine what is or is not a derivative work. A copyright license, by definition, can only specify terms for the copyrighted work itself, or a derivative work. If another piece of software is not a derivative work, it has no authority over that other work.
Do you think that the following copyright license on a e-book would hold up in court?
"The author of the copyrighted work grants to you a license to make one copy of the copyrighted work. If you should read any other books (whether published on paper, or any other physical media [e.g. stone tablets, clay slabs, parchment, papyrii, cloth, etc], you agree that any other books read will constitute derivative works, and will be subject to the terms of this license."
You can see an obvious problem - you might be declaring that copyrighted works NOT OWNED by your readers are defined as derivative works of your book, regardless of the fact that that you have no legitimate claim to those other works.
I see it as being very much a similar situation with regards to dynamic link libraries/shared objects - they are separate works, for which there seems to be no right for the GPL copyright holder to claim any authority over them. I might be wrong, as far as the courts will determine, but that's how I see it.
That still seems shaky to me. The GPL can only cover the distribution of the work for which the original author of the GPL'd work (and any actual derivative works) holds the copyright.
Now, the clause which the parent mentions might qualify if you try to distribute the GPL'ed work together with a non-GPL'ed work - it would be similar to a license which says, "By using this software, I agree to give $49.99 to the author".
The problem becomes, it seems to me, that maybe, perhaps, someone who wants to get around that, could just distribute them separately, as distinct acts of distribution - two download links, for example. In such a case, they might be able to claim that they complied with the terms of the GPL, and that this other program is completely distinct, and distributed under its own terms and license.
After all, the GPL couldn't impose that all software in the world become subject to the GPL if anybody distributes a GPL'ed work - I think we all agree there are limits on the power of a copyright license to impose terms on users, and in particular, no copyright license can require terms on a completely separate work.
Can someone clarify something for me: I'm having a hard time determining the nature of the alleged "infringement", but it sounds like the HamsterSoft people used a dll/so of the Calibre library, and dynamically linked linked that to HFEC? Or, perhaps they used a modified exe of the Calibre program, and modified it to load a non-GPL dll/so to provide some program functionality, while providing the source code only for the modification which caused the program to load the proprietary library?
If that is the situation, then I'm with the grand-parent post (not that I'm a lawyer, and this is not legal advice - just an observation) - notwithstanding what the GPL itself says (because the GPL is not the final arbiter of law), it's not clear that such a situation legally constitutes infringing. It *might*, but the million dollar question is, *does dynamic linking create a derivative work*. I've heard a lot of people argue (not about this particular situation, but about the general situation of dynamic linking) that since such a program program wouldn't work without the linked library code, that must mean it's a derivative work, but the problem is, that has no actual basis in law. The legal definition of a "derivative work" is currently, well, ambiguous. In the most general case, it would seem that in order for one work to be a derivative of another, it must physically *contain* the other work - as a translation or adaptation to a different media (e.g. turning a book into a movie or play), or containing characters and ideas (think of writing your own 'Star Wars' book or movie - the work might generally be original, but if it claims to be continuing the story, and using the name 'star wars', I think it becomes a derivative).
For the GPL, that last case about trying to create your own star wars or star trek or whatever, story, would probably be the best hope to hang its hat on, since by definition, a dynamic link library is separated from the programs that use it (although there is also an argument that a dll might cause some small inline functions to be included in the generated binary, which might trigger derivative status).
So, the argument goes that the GPL can *only* impose restrictions on derivative works. *IF* (I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, it's just a question which, so far as I know, has never been addressed by courts or legislation) it's not legally creating a derivative work when you dynamically link a library, then even if the GPL says it's infringement to dynamically link, it's actually not since the GPL can only govern the works on which it holds copyright.
Actually, because of patents, there's an incentive/pressure to license, at least while the patent lasts.
Look at it like this: You're a company that has spent time and money developing this new technology. It's got great market potential, but you as a company are too small to really push it out to market fast. You could sit on the patent monopoly, and build the company for 20 years - you'll experience, likely, phenomenal growth, but even at the end of that 20 years, you'll be *relatively* small company compared to all your competitors.
The patent runs out, and perhaps you've created a "new, improved" version of the product, which might still give you some market advantage, but your competitors can start making the older (but still useful) version of the product. They can also develop their own, original improvements to your old design.
If, instead, you go the licensing route, you may be able to generate a LOT more revenue during that 20 year 'window' that the patent gives you. Particularly for something like a new type of energy reactor which could produce a lot of energy, cheaply, safely, and cleanly, the market demand would be *immense*. Everybody would want them, and they'd want them NOW, not ini 20 years. A small company could never hope to keep up with demand by themselves, but if they partner with other large manufacturers, they might be able to manufacture and sell many times as many units.
Sure, they have to share the profits, but if you give up, say, 50% of the revenue to your partners that you license the tech to, but collectively, they sell 20 times the number of units, then you might make a lot more money. If X is the number of units sold and Y is the revenue per unit, then going it alone would be XY total revenue, whereas partnering, if you sold 20 times as many units at.5 the revenue per unit, you make 20X*.5Y = 10XY total revenue. That's, of course, just an example of how you *might* make a lot more money licensing the tech for 50% of the revenue you'd receive per unit if you don't license.
TL;DR: A 20 year patent puts pressure on company management to maximize the return in that 20 years. If a company is relatively small to begin with, it's quite probable they might make a lot more money licensing the tech.
Ok, here's one way in which government interaction with the markets may affect things:
The Polywell research was highly risky, with no guarantee of payoff, so private investors weren't interested in putting millions of dollars into research. However, the Navy saw that there was enough scientific basis that they apparently thought it was worth spending, at first, a relatively small amount of money for some basic research with small models. As each stage of research produced interesting results, they kept approving further stages of research, with higher levels of funding.
It's still not guaranteed that it will work (though we are supposed to have some sort of information publicly released next winter sometime). If it does work, it would be a huge benefit to the Navy, which is why the Navy is funding it to begin with. But, if it *does* work, we'll have a technology which might not have seen the light of day, or might have had to wait to be discovered much longer in the future.
I'm not saying all government interaction with the markets is good, certainly much of it is bad, but neither is it all bad, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, if we just had a big pulley (something akin to the "Space Elevator" concept), we could put masses on earth that we want lifted into space onto a cable on one side of the pulley, and attach the mass which was mined from the asteroid which we want to deliver to earth, attached to the 'short end' of the cable on the other side of the pulley.
This would allow us to use the gravitational potential energy of the asteroid mass ("free energy" for all practical purposes - energy the universe already imparted to that mass for us, anyhow) to raise up the space-bound payload, while using the space-bound payload as a counterweight to control the descent of the mass of mined ore from the asteroid.
Now, obviously it's way too early to tell if this or any of the other advances in photosynthetic catalysts (e.g. the work done at MIT) merit any Nobel Prize, but it got me to wondering. . .
Has anyone gotten both a scientific (physics or chemistry) Nobel Prize, *and* the Nobel Peace Prize for the same discovery?
It seems to me that any major advance in producing hydrogen (or hydrocarbons) cheaply and abundantly from sunlight and water, might merit both prizes - seems like a major advancement in energy could also be a major advancement for peace.
Well, other than the bit about the death of the Earth's biosphere, it doesn't sound too bad. ;-)
I mean, nowadays, identity 'papers' are made of plastic (my Ohio drivers license, at least; my passport is still paper, but could be made from plastics easy enough). Money is mostly electronic, and there's always metal coins. Books are mostly electronic (though I daresay we'd lose some historical books, scrolls, etc which have never been scanned).
This probably doesn't account for all the energy, but I believe most modern paper mills are mostly self-powered from the waste products from the paper making process itself:
Black Liquor (no, not booze)
That is, they use energy extracted from the wood to run the pulp mills. Since the energy in plant matter comes from the Sun, I don't see a lot of compelling need to recycle paper. However, if it makes economic sense, sure, why not. Just in general terms, of all the products mankind creates, paper seems like the least important to recycle, in terms of energy and raw materials (can always grow more trees/hemp/whatever).
Red Hat vs SCO, if I recall correctly, was an action brought by Red Hat *against* SCO - basically saying that SCO was making unfounded threats against Red Hat's customers, and interfering with their business (I might not have that exactly right, but I think it was something like that - essentially Red Hat was on offense, trying to get damages from SCO).
If anything, the fact that SCO never had the copyrights it was basing such threats against Red Hat's customers, strengthens Red Hat's case.
I just went back and found the very first filing by Red Hat which started the case, at Groklaw. Looks like I basically remembered it correctly:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090625114814535
I see no reason the Red Hat case can't proceed full-speed ahead now. . . except for the fact that SCO has no money or assets left for Red Hat to collect. Did SCO ever even exit bankruptcy? I don't think RH vs SCO can proceed until such time as SCO exits bankruptcy, and if SCO gets liquidated, it can never proceed because there will be no SCO left to sue.
I had a nightmare where corporations took one of the greatest original creative works of the 20th century, and made millions selling copies of it without paying the author or his family one red cent. Then I woke up and saw that, thank god, that wasn't real.
Why should others be allowed to profit off his genius while he and his family would be left unable to share in those revenues? Just because he first shared that speech in a public park? Where's the justice in that?
Where is the justice in corporations like Mister Maester or Twentieth Century Fox making profts off the man's speech, and not paying him or his family anything?
Seems like the dream of equality would include black people (and native americans, asians, latinos, all the people of the earth) having the opportunity to profit from the copyright protection of their creative works, the same as white people.
Really, "I Have a Dream" sure seems like a creative work that deserves copyright protection . . . unless you would argue that only *inferior* creative works deserve copyright protection - but if something is truly great, then it should not qualify for that protection.
Honestly, I think De Beers best marketing strategy is just to play on some "cheap psychology" - that is to say, when someone is trying to buy a special ring or other piece of jewelry to be a special gift, it doesn't seem so special if they bought a 'cheap' diamond.
I think they can continue to convince people to pay inflated prices for diamonds, just because people don't *want* to buy "cheap" diamonds and give those as gifts, and be seen as giving a cheap gift.
So, they can use the 'branding' thing to their advantage even in a world of cheap commodity diamonds. I mean, you *can* buy a cheap watch. But, you can also buy a Rolex. People still buy Rolexes and other 'luxury brands' of items simply so that they can be seen to have bought 'the best', instead of the 'cheapest'.
"And apparently bought rough diamonds from competitors to maintain monopoly control."
It's not unusual for someone to attempt to 'corner' a market in a commodity - but, the problem is, whoever tries to do so usually goes broke, because they run out of money without ever being able to fully consume the supply - because more diamonds would be mined and manufactured every day, so De Beers would have to buy far more diamonds than they sell *every day*.
On top of that, they would have to buy them at 'wholesale' prices that are a significant fraction of the retail cost, else those competitors could probably make more money on the open market than selling them 'cheap' to De Beers.
Even with artificially elevated prices due to the controlled market, De Beers would be creating a bubble which must eventually crash spectacularly when De Beers goes bankrupt from the on-going losses they'd be incurring thus controlling the market, and can no longer afford to keep cornering the market, at which point the price would drop significantly, and De Beers would be stuck with (millions? hundreds of millions?) of diamonds that are worth far less than De Beers payed for them, and De Beers would never be able to recover their losses.
How is that a credible theory again? Either diamonds are scarce enough De Beers can profitably corner the market, or they are common. I don't see how you can have it both ways?
I think I just found VZ's new marketing campaign.
They just need to license it from Staples first.
The name "Christian Science" has always reminded me of the old Mike Myer's SNL "Coffee Talk" skits. . .
"I'm getting verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic: The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss!"
Near as I can tell, Christian science is in no way scientific (in fact, it's rejection of the scientific practice of medicine is actively *anti-scientific* in a much more agressive way than most Christians), and most Christians would not view it as particularly adhering to Christianity either.
"There are what, 2-3 million species known to inhabit the Earth right now, with vast diversity."
Oh, that's no problem. God miraculously diversified the species (although, one wonders why they needed to be on the Ark at all then - God could just re-create all the animals, birds, insects, whatever, right)?
I've sometimes wondered how to reconcile a global flood, with freshwater fish, and freshwater bodies. I mean, if there was a world wide flood that covered every mountain, wouldn't every lake be somewhat salty? The bible doesn't say anything about aquatic creatures being on the ark (hard to see how they could survive on the ark). Saltwater species could presumably survive a global flood, but wouldn't all the intermixing of salt water and fresh water kill off all the fresh water species?
I suppose there's a million such problems you could find with the diluvian hypothesis; anyone know if anyone has tried to systematically list out all such contradictions between the world as we find it, and the world as we would expect to find it if the flood had occurred?
P.S. I decided to do a quick search to see if any of the creationists had attempted to answer the question about freshwater species. The answer is quite interesting, in the self-contradictions it reveals:
"How did freshwater fish survive in the saltwater oceans?" There are two possibilities. First, there are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water. Second, because of natural selection, which creationists accept, organisms today have become very specialized. Organisms at the time of the flood, however, would've been much stronger and able to tolerate many more changes than they can today. There's really no problem at all in answering this question.
So, on the one hand, they reject the idea that natural selection could have evolved complex adaptations over billions of years (e.g. the premise of Darwin's Black Box), but simultaneously embrace the notion that you can get still very significant adaptations over the course of a mere 5000-9000 years.
If you can embrace that rate of adaptation over a few thousand years, it should seem no stretch of credulity at *all* to get much larger adaptation over billions of years.
An installer which simply copies files from an archive to a folder on the computer (and maybe sets up some registry entries, etc) is a distinct program from the program which gets thus installed.
Just because the 'wrapper' is used to make the copy, doesn't make the wrapper part of the GPL program, or the GPL program part of the wrapper.
I believe that "The Internet" qualifies as "a medium customarily used for software interchange". I download software from the Internet all the time.
So, it would seem that as long as they put a notice in the user manual for the phone, or a bit of paper included in the packaging, or even as an accessible file somewhere on the device that the user can read, mentioning where you can download the original source code, isn't that complying with part b of section 3, which you quoted?
I'm not sure, but isn't maritime rescue more the domain of the Coast Guard than the Navy? Although, if they've renounced U.S. citizenship, maybe the jurisdiction changes, not sure.
You still do not seem to be understanding the issue. Yes, you're absolutely right that if the COURTS determine that dynamic linking creates a "larger work", then the GPL applies.
What you don't seem to be grasping is the part where, if the court says it isn't a derivative work, then Hamstersoft *HAS* fully complied with the terms of the GPL and HAS PERMISSION to distribute the software by the terms of that self-same GPL.
You don't get to determine whether a work is or is not infringing, and neither do I. Only the courts do. Licenses can say whatever they want, but it's the courts which ultimately get to interpret the license and tell you what is and is not "complying".
Oh, alright. My mistake. It kind of sounded like you thought that a good idea, but I can see another interpretation of your analogy now.
"So if I'm never going to get that speed in practical application, why again are they allowed to advertise said speed?"
At a guess, they probably advertise it as, "UP TO" 21mbps.
All they have to show is that the tech can theoretically reach that speed in the best case scenario, I would suppose, in order to do "up to" advertising. Not that I think they should be allowed to advertise "up to" speeds, but that seems to be how it works right now.
I'd love the FTC (Federal Trade Commission - IIRC they regulate advertising) to rule that using 'up to' is deceptive and not allowed.
"Why do you think cereal is sold by mass rather than by volume?"
I prefer them selling by weight. If they sold by volume, they'd have an easier time cheating you, because they could probably, if they so desired, sell you 1/4 the weight of chips or cereal, and find a way to ensure it occupies the whole volume.
If it's that important to you, turn the box or bag of chips upside-down and give it a few shakes. That should make it fill the original volume, more or less.
I can't believe someone on slashdot could be so dumb as to *seriously* advocate for sale by volume instead of weight.
Even the FSF will tell you, the GPL is not a contract. It covers distribution of a specific copyrighted work, and does not cover independent works which the same party may happen to also distribute.
But you seem to be missing my point. The argument I'm making is that the people doing distribution, if they do it as two separate acts, can claim that when they distributed the GPLv3 code, they *did* comply with the terms and condition. Then, they did another distribution, completely separate, of a completely different package, which just happens to get combined on the users computer, by the end-user, not by the software developer.
"Therefore, to do that, I need to accept the GPLv3. There's a certain amount of logic in, therefore, requiring me to accept the GPLv3's definitions,"
No, no there's not. The definition of copyright is determined by statute and the courts. No license or contract can redefine what is or is not a derivative work. A copyright license, by definition, can only specify terms for the copyrighted work itself, or a derivative work. If another piece of software is not a derivative work, it has no authority over that other work.
Do you think that the following copyright license on a e-book would hold up in court?
"The author of the copyrighted work grants to you a license to make one copy of the copyrighted work. If you should read any other books (whether published on paper, or any other physical media [e.g. stone tablets, clay slabs, parchment, papyrii, cloth, etc], you agree that any other books read will constitute derivative works, and will be subject to the terms of this license."
You can see an obvious problem - you might be declaring that copyrighted works NOT OWNED by your readers are defined as derivative works of your book, regardless of the fact that that you have no legitimate claim to those other works.
I see it as being very much a similar situation with regards to dynamic link libraries/shared objects - they are separate works, for which there seems to be no right for the GPL copyright holder to claim any authority over them. I might be wrong, as far as the courts will determine, but that's how I see it.
That still seems shaky to me. The GPL can only cover the distribution of the work for which the original author of the GPL'd work (and any actual derivative works) holds the copyright.
Now, the clause which the parent mentions might qualify if you try to distribute the GPL'ed work together with a non-GPL'ed work - it would be similar to a license which says, "By using this software, I agree to give $49.99 to the author".
The problem becomes, it seems to me, that maybe, perhaps, someone who wants to get around that, could just distribute them separately, as distinct acts of distribution - two download links, for example. In such a case, they might be able to claim that they complied with the terms of the GPL, and that this other program is completely distinct, and distributed under its own terms and license.
After all, the GPL couldn't impose that all software in the world become subject to the GPL if anybody distributes a GPL'ed work - I think we all agree there are limits on the power of a copyright license to impose terms on users, and in particular, no copyright license can require terms on a completely separate work.
Can someone clarify something for me: I'm having a hard time determining the nature of the alleged "infringement", but it sounds like the HamsterSoft people used a dll/so of the Calibre library, and dynamically linked linked that to HFEC? Or, perhaps they used a modified exe of the Calibre program, and modified it to load a non-GPL dll/so to provide some program functionality, while providing the source code only for the modification which caused the program to load the proprietary library?
If that is the situation, then I'm with the grand-parent post (not that I'm a lawyer, and this is not legal advice - just an observation) - notwithstanding what the GPL itself says (because the GPL is not the final arbiter of law), it's not clear that such a situation legally constitutes infringing. It *might*, but the million dollar question is, *does dynamic linking create a derivative work*. I've heard a lot of people argue (not about this particular situation, but about the general situation of dynamic linking) that since such a program program wouldn't work without the linked library code, that must mean it's a derivative work, but the problem is, that has no actual basis in law. The legal definition of a "derivative work" is currently, well, ambiguous. In the most general case, it would seem that in order for one work to be a derivative of another, it must physically *contain* the other work - as a translation or adaptation to a different media (e.g. turning a book into a movie or play), or containing characters and ideas (think of writing your own 'Star Wars' book or movie - the work might generally be original, but if it claims to be continuing the story, and using the name 'star wars', I think it becomes a derivative).
For the GPL, that last case about trying to create your own star wars or star trek or whatever, story, would probably be the best hope to hang its hat on, since by definition, a dynamic link library is separated from the programs that use it (although there is also an argument that a dll might cause some small inline functions to be included in the generated binary, which might trigger derivative status).
So, the argument goes that the GPL can *only* impose restrictions on derivative works. *IF* (I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, it's just a question which, so far as I know, has never been addressed by courts or legislation) it's not legally creating a derivative work when you dynamically link a library, then even if the GPL says it's infringement to dynamically link, it's actually not since the GPL can only govern the works on which it holds copyright.
Actually, because of patents, there's an incentive/pressure to license, at least while the patent lasts.
Look at it like this: You're a company that has spent time and money developing this new technology. It's got great market potential, but you as a company are too small to really push it out to market fast. You could sit on the patent monopoly, and build the company for 20 years - you'll experience, likely, phenomenal growth, but even at the end of that 20 years, you'll be *relatively* small company compared to all your competitors.
The patent runs out, and perhaps you've created a "new, improved" version of the product, which might still give you some market advantage, but your competitors can start making the older (but still useful) version of the product. They can also develop their own, original improvements to your old design.
If, instead, you go the licensing route, you may be able to generate a LOT more revenue during that 20 year 'window' that the patent gives you. Particularly for something like a new type of energy reactor which could produce a lot of energy, cheaply, safely, and cleanly, the market demand would be *immense*. Everybody would want them, and they'd want them NOW, not ini 20 years. A small company could never hope to keep up with demand by themselves, but if they partner with other large manufacturers, they might be able to manufacture and sell many times as many units.
Sure, they have to share the profits, but if you give up, say, 50% of the revenue to your partners that you license the tech to, but collectively, they sell 20 times the number of units, then you might make a lot more money. If X is the number of units sold and Y is the revenue per unit, then going it alone would be XY total revenue, whereas partnering, if you sold 20 times as many units at .5 the revenue per unit, you make 20X*.5Y = 10XY total revenue. That's, of course, just an example of how you *might* make a lot more money licensing the tech for 50% of the revenue you'd receive per unit if you don't license.
TL;DR: A 20 year patent puts pressure on company management to maximize the return in that 20 years. If a company is relatively small to begin with, it's quite probable they might make a lot more money licensing the tech.
Ok, here's one way in which government interaction with the markets may affect things:
The Polywell research was highly risky, with no guarantee of payoff, so private investors weren't interested in putting millions of dollars into research. However, the Navy saw that there was enough scientific basis that they apparently thought it was worth spending, at first, a relatively small amount of money for some basic research with small models. As each stage of research produced interesting results, they kept approving further stages of research, with higher levels of funding.
It's still not guaranteed that it will work (though we are supposed to have some sort of information publicly released next winter sometime). If it does work, it would be a huge benefit to the Navy, which is why the Navy is funding it to begin with. But, if it *does* work, we'll have a technology which might not have seen the light of day, or might have had to wait to be discovered much longer in the future.
I'm not saying all government interaction with the markets is good, certainly much of it is bad, but neither is it all bad, either.