It looks to me like Derek and the folk in the UK have a problem with that 1988 Copyright law, which doesn't seem to put them on very clear legal ground as far as the right to reverse engineer CSS. I presume there isn't necessarily a right to Fair Use there. But as far as I know, reverse engineering CSS should be perfectly legal in the US. IANAL, of course. But under what law could the movie industry lawyers thwack us? I am just curious, because if there is no legal ground for us to be thwacked, there should be plenty of people here in the US willing to take over this project.
I don't think trademarks work quite this way. The domain of the For Dummies trademark certainly protects its use in the titles of books (ex. somebody probably could not write a book called OpenGL for Dummies as another poster suggested). However, the use of the phrase For Dummies in conversation, i.e. bulletin board or chat, in the discussion of or suggestion of anything, in commentary on the book, etc. are all covered under parts of trademark law equivalent to Fair Use (I don't know the specifics here, but you can for example compare your product to somebody else's trademarked product by name). The problem here is that this is simply an archive of a public mailing list. You can't apply your trademark to stop discussion of your product, or of products similar to your product (requesting a For Dummies type book on a particular subject). Nobody published a book and used the name For Dummies in the title. Nobody even electronically published a piece of documentation and said it was a "For Dummies" documentation (this is one case where their trademark concerns might hold some water, if somebody actually had written such a thing). I will not stomach corporations trying to restrict people's right to discuss products or anything they want to discuss using their trademarked names. I will mirror the damned email if I want to. I am archiving a public discussion, and if IDG wants to sue me to attempt to control the evolution of the English language, they are welcome to try (IANAL, but I certainly know some).
This is troubling news, in of itself, and indicates to me that something needs to be tweaked.
But what I don't understand is where exactly the problem is. Maybe I'm missing something about the GPL here, but explain if you will how KDE and most KDE apps are GPLed, but yet use the Qt library. You can't tell me that KDE doesn't use any GPLed (or at least LGPLed) library code as well.
I was under the impression that the only way in which the GPL infected apps was up the inheritence tree. So as long as Corel's program is GPLed it should be fine.
So what exactly is the problem here? Is it that it has to be statically linked because it's an installer? Does that somehow make it count as it the QPL code has become part of the application? I'm a bit confused here, maybe somebody can enlighten me.
That depends on how much functionality is in their userland utilities. If it is the case that these utilities are easily implementable, then my comment that *if* the improvements provide functionality to the rest of us, they should be added to the kernel would apply. Clearly if the userland utilities are a small part of the HA clustering technology that we could implement, then we obviously should add the TurboLinux kernel code to the primary fork. If however they are keeping all the meat to themselves and essentially adding a minimal amount of functionality to kernelspace, then there's no reason to.
The point is, since I haven't seen the source nor heard from a more technically sophisticated source than this article, I don't know how much stuff they are using in kernelspace. However, I have the utmost faith in the kernel maintainers (Linux, Alan, etc.) and the desires of the Linux user base as a whole to direct patch incorporation into the kernel in the most appropriate way. What I said still holds: if their patch adds value for us (or can be made to add value with reasonable amount of effort), then by all means it should and will be put into the main kernel fork.
Well, I am not entirely sure of what sort of changes to the kernel the Turbo Linux folk have made, but unless they provide some actual functionality to non-Turbo Linux clustering users, they *shouldn't* be incorporated into the main kernel fork.
This article clearly states that Turbo Linux plans to keep some chunk of their clustering technology proprietary (presumably all parts of it that operate in userland). If they don't plan on making their HA clustering work for the rest of us in any way, why should the kernel maintainers add support for their HA clustering, unless it somehow is part of an open standard?
I have no big moral problem with Turbo Linux choosing to fork the kernel. It'll be their problem if they introduce compatibility issues. People simply won't use Turbo Linux. The right to fork is an integral part of the GPL. Let the market (i.e. user choice) decide. If the features are useful, people will want them, and they will make their way into the mainline kernel. If they aren't useful to us, they won't, and TurboLinux will just have to patch every kernel release (frankly I don't care if they do, as long as they are abiding by the terms of the GPL).
After reading this article I'm still not quite sure if Bill Joy Gets It (TM). The thing that bothers me the most is the discussion of the right to fork code, a right that we all agree the GPL provides (at least, I think all of us agree on this), and a right that Bill Joy tries to claim SCSL provides.
Somehow he claims that the right to implement compatible applications (i.e. to reverse engineer an API in the case of Java) is the "right to fork" granted by the SCSL.
I refuse to believe that this seasoned programmer doesn't understand the meaning of a code fork. Rather it seems he is just determined to divert the issue. It seems clear to me that SCSL doesn't allow code forking (i.e. complete, modified versions of the source may not be redistributed under SCSL or any other license).
This is not a Good Thing (TM), from our (Free Software/Open Source community) point of view. Nevertheless we recognize Sun's right to license their code in any way they see fit, as they recognize ours. But I would at least hope they could be honest about it and not claim that their license offers something it doesn't.
No large VC firms will sign non-disclosure agreements with an individual on any sort of web based / internet software related project these days. Things may be different with a device (physical hardware), but your best bet is to fork out a few grand to at least get a decent IP lawyer to start patent filing for you (this takes a long while at best for an "official" patent search). If you can convince a good law firm that you have amazing potential for business success, they may do the initial patent work on the cheap, in exchange for small bit of equity or later compensation after you get financing (ONLY if they think you can succeed). The patent will have the added bonus of making you seem much more legitimate to otherwise ignorant venture capitalists who don't know shit about tech (none of them do, I am speaking from experience here). As far as approaching angel investors or smaller VC firms for an initial round before you later hit up the big guys, it's a decent idea. It will put you on firmer ground to deal with the big wigs and have your own hard hitting lawyers for the negotiations. Also, that initial money will let you put together a team with more technical know-how, marketing pukes, and attract a good management team (this will help INFINITELY in getting the big money from the VC firms). I wish you good luck, it's never really as easy as everyone makes it out to be (if you want to keep from getting hosed and reamed along the way).
Gack! I need to learn to preview my comments. Damn Mozilla M10 textboxes.:) Anyway, as I was saying this battle isn't truly necessary but is unavoidable. Furthermore, there is another aspect to the Mozilla project that makes it an interesting hybrid... it is a descendant of a traditional, closed source software project, Navigator/Communicator from Netscape. What's more, Netscape still provides most of the developers working on Mozilla from their in-house team. So the timetable thing is bound to be there. Also, sometimes people need an official timetable to crank up the stress and keep them on the ball. I know I need that every once in a while.:) I will frequently give myself a "timetable" for even my casual code hacking projects. Just my tuppence....
Good point. But many of us have a driving need for a Free web browser. Additionally, we see the battle for the desktop to be intimately linked to getting a great, Free browser working for Linux and the other Free operating systems. (You could argue that this "battle" is itself silly and unnecessary for Free
You are clearly confused. Compliance with the law is not a Good Thing, just general good sense. Violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright law against somebody else's copyrighted code (just because code is GPLed doesn't mean it's not copyrighted still). Patting somebody on the back for not breaking the law is not something that intelligent adults should need. The reward of not getting their asses hauled in front of a judge should be sufficient. Sorry, but ultimately that's the only sort of GPL (one with teeth) that's gonna work to keep software truly Free.
On the surface of it, you're basically correct. There isn't a whole lot of motivation to go Open Source as long as your product continues to sell very well. But when the competition starts heating up and you're losing market share to the Open Source competition, that's when it begins to make sense. Or equivalently, as Open Source becomes the dominant paradigm (I've been waiting to say that all day) in various sectors of the software industry, companies will be forced to go Open Source in order to get any users. For example, why did Sun just decide to SCSL Solaris? Not out of charity, or because they would rather not sell their software. They are simply having their hand forced (albeit slowly) by the consumers' increasing expectations of having source code for their OS. Or for example, why did (I forget the name of the software company) release CUPS (Common Unix Printing System) under the GPL instead of just trying to sell the thing? Well, because they are trying to compete with a bunch of existing Free software products. In order to get any interest from their target market, they had to follow that course. Some markets are still clear of viable Open Source / GPL competition, such as the office software suite market, where Corel, Microsoft, and StarOffice are the only real products out there. When more viable Open Source alternatives are out there, there will be increased pressure on some of these players to Open Source their software (in a more meaningful way than SCSL).
I'm glad somebody else noted this too. My speculation would be that Linux has gained so much popular recognition, that Linus has come to the realization this recognition is not just there due to the technical merits of the Linux kernel, but due to the general merits of Open Source (Free) software. Moreover, I think the attempts of some companies to pass off as Open Source entirely non-OSD software are a fairly new phenomenon, which comes directly from the popularity and PR value of Free/Open Source software and Linux. Linus still may not feel to different than he did before, but may simply take offense at people claiming to be something they are not, and jumping on the bandwagon in such a way as to make the bandwagon tip over. On the other hand, who knows, maybe working at Transmeta has done something to the man's brain.:)
Absolutely not. See their FAQ on this at http://www.cups.org/faq0006.html. You have to give it to them and give them ownership of it before it becomes their property (i.e. you must consent to transfer your copyright to them). I certainly wouldn't do that for any significant chunk of code I had written. They also have what they call the CUPS bazaar at www.cups.org/bazaar.cgi, basically just a friendly database of patches, filters, or whatever that are not part of the base distribution. Anyway, the point is there's nothing here stopping somebody from forking a GPL only version off from this and taking GPL only patches from people and building it into a better CUPS. In fact, if there's enough interest in the community I could definitely see this happening. The people at Easy Software Products might not let them use the CUPS name, but it's not like CUPS has market share or name recognition at this point. Anyway, my point is that these people may not Get It (TM), but they aren't so stupid as to steal other people's code against their will. Or else, goodbye community support, hello forked GPL version and no more Easy Software Products.:)
You should know that the copyright holder *is* the licensor and thus has the power to do whatever they want with respect to having different multiply licensed versions of software. Only if they *take* code others have contributed to the GPL version (i.e. code they don't hold the copyright to) and try to roll that into their binary version would they be violating the GPL. If you read their web site, they clearly don't plan on doing this. There will just be a forked GPL amalgamated version, I would imagine and a separate version containing only code they hold copyright to (and thus can license in any way they please). As much as some of this may violate the *spirit* of free software, it is all within their rights, and remember that as this is GPLed software, you can take the code and do any damned thing you want with it (i.e. maintain your own GPL only version for bazaar style driver development of fully free software).
Well, I just managed to answer my own question by reading the FAQs on www.cups.org. Here's the relevant portion: Can I Contribute Code/Drivers to CUPS? Certainly. If you want to retain ownership of the code, filters and drivers can be contributed to the CUPS Bazaar. To contribute code to the base CUPS distribution, please contact us via email at cups-info@cups.org. Because we also provide CUPS under a binary distribution license, we will require that all ownership of the code be transferred to Easy Software Products, or that Easy Software Products be granted unlimited distribution rights to the code (possibly via payment of a fee to the contributor.) Code contributed to the base CUPS distribution must conform to the coding and documentation standards outlined in the Configuration Management Plan. In addition, a short outline of the changes and/or added functions must be provided so that we can update the CUPS documentation accurately.
Hmmm... there may be a fairly serious problem with this. Interestingly enough, reminds me exactly of the/. article earlier today on the proposed TGPL (transitional GPL... don't have a link here, sorry). Anyway, the problem I see is that these people plan on selling proprietary versions of their copyrighted software... fine, no problem with that. But they are distributing their software under the GPL -- presumably this means that outside developers (GPL hackers) will contribute work, bug fixing and new features to the CUPS code base. Now, I have trouble believing that these changes, improvements and new features won't get folded back into the main CUPS code base. But are they then going to relicense versions of this software, containing code that they *don't* hold copyright to, which has been "imprisoned" as closed source software? This would be clear violation of the GPL, unless the submitters give explicit permission for this to be done (the patches written and submitted would otherwise, presumably be GPLed). Perhaps this really would more properly call for the TGPL, afterall, which would allow for a business model such as this, and allow submitters of patches and new work on the CUPS code to choose either GPL or TGPL for their own code. Anyway, just some thoughts about some possible problematic issues with this practice. Hope I'm just misunderstanding something here, but I kinda doubt it.
I think some of you are missing the point, either because you are fed up with the plethora of licenses out there that complicate things (when we spend more time worrying about licensing than coding, we really have lost our hackerdom), or because you see any compromise on the GPL as a weakening of free software. But the point of this proposal for the TGPL is, as I see it, to *discourage* big business from using all of that semi-free "Open Source" licensing BS that's getting thrown around these days (a la SCSL or MPL). The point is that it is clear that some companies don't want to give up control of their projects (Netscape & Mozilla, Sun & everything they release). This *could* be the community's response, saying effectively that we will play ball with companies using the TGPL, but that more restrictive supposed "Open Source" licenses will not be received with enthusiasm. Now, I'm not saying that the idea of the TGPL is thrilling, as it may discourage full-out embracing of the GPL, but it does offer big business an alternative to using some half-baked licensing scheme that they pay their lawyers a fortune to cook up. The great part about this would be that other GPL projects could nab code willy nilly from a TGPLed project (and simply GPLize it). On the whole, I like this idea despite the problems some have already mentioned about determining who is the originator, etc. Whether or not RMS would call it Free, I'd like to see some company pick up the TGPL instead of MPL, SCSL style licenses.
Somebody should remoderate this... it's not a 0. *sigh*... hasn't anybody watched the old series The Prisoner? A true classic... exactly what I thought of when I saw the pic of the Zorb, too.
A couple of people have been saying netcraft reports some weird stuff for this site (linuxone.net)... netcraft appears to be a bit broken right now as it is reporting the same wrong information about my site and every other web site I enter into it. Just thought I'd let everyone know. In any case if you nslookup their ip address you will notice it is running on an ADSL line (as somebody already pointed out). Hehe... this is a real professional job. Seriously though, it is bad for the Free Software community for somebody to even joke about making parts of the linux kernel proprietary (they claim they will add proprietary "features" to the kernel) and to claim that you have to pay to see their Beta CD. And people were bitching about Corel... heh. These kiddies are just ridiculous.
Ugh... can you imagine the kind of AI that would be produced with the average quality of data on the web, not to mention the newsgroups? Fully 40% of its thoughts would be of hot, big breasted teens ready to get it on with you LIVE... etc. You get the idea.:)
Thinking about it, wouldn't it be in the best interest of SuSE and the other active European and international distributors of Linux to cough up at least a big chunk of the money to protect Linus' trademark of the Linux name? Because they would stand to lose a lot financially if they had to pay royalties on the Linux name, not to mention that it would generally make them look like fools. This seems to me to make this into a moot point - everyone acknowledges that the false trademark claims are entirely frivolous, and if the commerical money is there to back the trademark defense, it seems like this would be a real losing proposition for the pretenders.
Well, I'm currently involved in Open Source development efforts, mostly with the newly released AOLserver 3 source code. I guess I don't get an email because I'm not on kernel contributor or redhat contributor lists (although I have made bug reports on 3com ethernet driver code in the past). Anyway, I have an Etrade account and wouldn't mind getting in on this offer to snag 100 shares... anyone who did get the email and can't / doesn't want to get in on IPO, email me at gabriel@media.mit.edu... I figure this gives me a much better chance at getting some of these IPO shares than throwing in my hat with every other small investor.
Of course his comments about the quality of the code varying drastically should be taken with a grain of salt as well. This guy is an OS researcher, and as such is into working on standardized hardware and implementing cool, well designed, and most significantly, CLEAN and NEAT features into OSes. He's NOT into making consumer level, usable OS code. And that's what Linux is. Ultimately, the code gets "dirtified" in the process of making it more functional for lots of different people with lots of different hardware.
Society might yet be to blame...
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
I've read lots of great commentary in this discussion. Katz' article addressed some important points, and most of the rest of the points have been touched on by others. Certainly bad parenting (or even just lack of connection with their kids) was a factor. And it seems like most agree that readily accessible guns make it easier to commit such an act. In the end though, the question of what thread connects all of these school attacks remains. Namely, why do they all seem to happen in primarily white, suburban, middle class areas and involve male attackers of the same demographic?
Bad parenting is something that runs through all parts of American society, and there are bad parents in ever other country in the world. Guns are certainly much more easily available in America than Europe, for example, but that doesn't really explain the skew within America: guns are just as easily available in urban areas, and essentially to anyone who wants badly enough to obtain them. But white, suburban, males, perhaps more than other American teens, are subject to the harsh expectations and stereotypes imposed on them by American middle class values and social standards. The anger that the attackers in Littleton felt towards "jocks" and minorities seems to be a reaction towards those who ostracized and excluded them.
Middle class American society values athleticism and places expectations on young males to live up to a certain atheltic, macho standard. Failure to meet this standard is often met with expressions of disappointment and open degradation at the hands of families as well as peers. A more open and accepting society that doesn't impose such stringent expectations on teens is far less likely to have groups and cliques of teenagers so ostracized and socially disconnected that they turn to Naziism, racial hatred, and violence.
Ten years ago, was society so different? What has changed that made these school attacks increasingly common? In part, social isolation on the whole has grown, due to the media's increasing role, the internet and the increasing stress that modern life places on the family unit. This is not to say that any of these things MAKE people isolated, simply that they make it easier to withdraw if one wants to.
Of course, society can't just be magically changed. One could argue there's nothing we can do about it. But everyone can make an effort, by being an affirming, accepting, but firm and involved parent. But only through the slow process of societal evolution is this epidemic of schoolyard violence likely to end. Or, perhaps, we will prefer the patchwork solution of banning or strictly controlling gun sales. But this doesn't cure the ills, it just treats the symptoms. And it will inevitably be an imperfect fix.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks to me like Derek and the folk in the UK have a problem with that 1988 Copyright law, which doesn't seem to put them on very clear legal ground as far as the right to reverse engineer CSS. I presume there isn't necessarily a right to Fair Use there. But as far as I know, reverse engineering CSS should be perfectly legal in the US. IANAL, of course. But under what law could the movie industry lawyers thwack us? I am just curious, because if there is no legal ground for us to be thwacked, there should be plenty of people here in the US willing to take over this project.
I don't think trademarks work quite this way. The domain of the For Dummies trademark certainly protects its use in the titles of books (ex. somebody probably could not write a book called OpenGL for Dummies as another poster suggested). However, the use of the phrase For Dummies in conversation, i.e. bulletin board or chat, in the discussion of or suggestion of anything, in commentary on the book, etc. are all covered under parts of trademark law equivalent to Fair Use (I don't know the specifics here, but you can for example compare your product to somebody else's trademarked product by name). The problem here is that this is simply an archive of a public mailing list. You can't apply your trademark to stop discussion of your product, or of products similar to your product (requesting a For Dummies type book on a particular subject). Nobody published a book and used the name For Dummies in the title. Nobody even electronically published a piece of documentation and said it was a "For Dummies" documentation (this is one case where their trademark concerns might hold some water, if somebody actually had written such a thing). I will not stomach corporations trying to restrict people's right to discuss products or anything they want to discuss using their trademarked names. I will mirror the damned email if I want to. I am archiving a public discussion, and if IDG wants to sue me to attempt to control the evolution of the English language, they are welcome to try (IANAL, but I certainly know some).
But what I don't understand is where exactly the problem is. Maybe I'm missing something about the GPL here, but explain if you will how KDE and most KDE apps are GPLed, but yet use the Qt library. You can't tell me that KDE doesn't use any GPLed (or at least LGPLed) library code as well.
I was under the impression that the only way in which the GPL infected apps was up the inheritence tree. So as long as Corel's program is GPLed it should be fine.
So what exactly is the problem here? Is it that it has to be statically linked because it's an installer? Does that somehow make it count as it the QPL code has become part of the application? I'm a bit confused here, maybe somebody can enlighten me.
The point is, since I haven't seen the source nor heard from a more technically sophisticated source than this article, I don't know how much stuff they are using in kernelspace. However, I have the utmost faith in the kernel maintainers (Linux, Alan, etc.) and the desires of the Linux user base as a whole to direct patch incorporation into the kernel in the most appropriate way. What I said still holds: if their patch adds value for us (or can be made to add value with reasonable amount of effort), then by all means it should and will be put into the main kernel fork.
This article clearly states that Turbo Linux plans to keep some chunk of their clustering technology proprietary (presumably all parts of it that operate in userland). If they don't plan on making their HA clustering work for the rest of us in any way, why should the kernel maintainers add support for their HA clustering, unless it somehow is part of an open standard?
I have no big moral problem with Turbo Linux choosing to fork the kernel. It'll be their problem if they introduce compatibility issues. People simply won't use Turbo Linux. The right to fork is an integral part of the GPL. Let the market (i.e. user choice) decide. If the features are useful, people will want them, and they will make their way into the mainline kernel. If they aren't useful to us, they won't, and TurboLinux will just have to patch every kernel release (frankly I don't care if they do, as long as they are abiding by the terms of the GPL).
Somehow he claims that the right to implement compatible applications (i.e. to reverse engineer an API in the case of Java) is the "right to fork" granted by the SCSL.
I refuse to believe that this seasoned programmer doesn't understand the meaning of a code fork. Rather it seems he is just determined to divert the issue. It seems clear to me that SCSL doesn't allow code forking (i.e. complete, modified versions of the source may not be redistributed under SCSL or any other license).
This is not a Good Thing (TM), from our (Free Software/Open Source community) point of view. Nevertheless we recognize Sun's right to license their code in any way they see fit, as they recognize ours. But I would at least hope they could be honest about it and not claim that their license offers something it doesn't.
No large VC firms will sign non-disclosure agreements with an individual on any sort of web based / internet software related project these days. Things may be different with a device (physical hardware), but your best bet is to fork out a few grand to at least get a decent IP lawyer to start patent filing for you (this takes a long while at best for an "official" patent search). If you can convince a good law firm that you have amazing potential for business success, they may do the initial patent work on the cheap, in exchange for small bit of equity or later compensation after you get financing (ONLY if they think you can succeed). The patent will have the added bonus of making you seem much more legitimate to otherwise ignorant venture capitalists who don't know shit about tech (none of them do, I am speaking from experience here). As far as approaching angel investors or smaller VC firms for an initial round before you later hit up the big guys, it's a decent idea. It will put you on firmer ground to deal with the big wigs and have your own hard hitting lawyers for the negotiations. Also, that initial money will let you put together a team with more technical know-how, marketing pukes, and attract a good management team (this will help INFINITELY in getting the big money from the VC firms). I wish you good luck, it's never really as easy as everyone makes it out to be (if you want to keep from getting hosed and reamed along the way).
Gack! I need to learn to preview my comments. Damn Mozilla M10 textboxes. :) Anyway, as I was saying this battle isn't truly necessary but is unavoidable. Furthermore, there is another aspect to the Mozilla project that makes it an interesting hybrid... it is a descendant of a traditional, closed source software project, Navigator/Communicator from Netscape. What's more, Netscape still provides most of the developers working on Mozilla from their in-house team. So the timetable thing is bound to be there. Also, sometimes people need an official timetable to crank up the stress and keep them on the ball. I know I need that every once in a while. :) I will frequently give myself a "timetable" for even my casual code hacking projects. Just my tuppence....
Good point. But many of us have a driving need for a Free web browser. Additionally, we see the battle for the desktop to be intimately linked to getting a great, Free browser working for Linux and the other Free operating systems. (You could argue that this "battle" is itself silly and unnecessary for Free
You are clearly confused. Compliance with the law is not a Good Thing, just general good sense. Violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright law against somebody else's copyrighted code (just because code is GPLed doesn't mean it's not copyrighted still). Patting somebody on the back for not breaking the law is not something that intelligent adults should need. The reward of not getting their asses hauled in front of a judge should be sufficient. Sorry, but ultimately that's the only sort of GPL (one with teeth) that's gonna work to keep software truly Free.
On the surface of it, you're basically correct. There isn't a whole lot of motivation to go Open Source as long as your product continues to sell very well. But when the competition starts heating up and you're losing market share to the Open Source competition, that's when it begins to make sense. Or equivalently, as Open Source becomes the dominant paradigm (I've been waiting to say that all day) in various sectors of the software industry, companies will be forced to go Open Source in order to get any users. For example, why did Sun just decide to SCSL Solaris? Not out of charity, or because they would rather not sell their software. They are simply having their hand forced (albeit slowly) by the consumers' increasing expectations of having source code for their OS. Or for example, why did (I forget the name of the software company) release CUPS (Common Unix Printing System) under the GPL instead of just trying to sell the thing? Well, because they are trying to compete with a bunch of existing Free software products. In order to get any interest from their target market, they had to follow that course. Some markets are still clear of viable Open Source / GPL competition, such as the office software suite market, where Corel, Microsoft, and StarOffice are the only real products out there. When more viable Open Source alternatives are out there, there will be increased pressure on some of these players to Open Source their software (in a more meaningful way than SCSL).
I'm glad somebody else noted this too. My speculation would be that Linux has gained so much popular recognition, that Linus has come to the realization this recognition is not just there due to the technical merits of the Linux kernel, but due to the general merits of Open Source (Free) software. Moreover, I think the attempts of some companies to pass off as Open Source entirely non-OSD software are a fairly new phenomenon, which comes directly from the popularity and PR value of Free/Open Source software and Linux. Linus still may not feel to different than he did before, but may simply take offense at people claiming to be something they are not, and jumping on the bandwagon in such a way as to make the bandwagon tip over. On the other hand, who knows, maybe working at Transmeta has done something to the man's brain. :)
Absolutely not. See their FAQ on this at http://www.cups.org/faq0006.html. You have to give it to them and give them ownership of it before it becomes their property (i.e. you must consent to transfer your copyright to them). I certainly wouldn't do that for any significant chunk of code I had written. They also have what they call the CUPS bazaar at www.cups.org/bazaar.cgi, basically just a friendly database of patches, filters, or whatever that are not part of the base distribution. Anyway, the point is there's nothing here stopping somebody from forking a GPL only version off from this and taking GPL only patches from people and building it into a better CUPS. In fact, if there's enough interest in the community I could definitely see this happening. The people at Easy Software Products might not let them use the CUPS name, but it's not like CUPS has market share or name recognition at this point. Anyway, my point is that these people may not Get It (TM), but they aren't so stupid as to steal other people's code against their will. Or else, goodbye community support, hello forked GPL version and no more Easy Software Products. :)
You should know that the copyright holder *is* the licensor and thus has the power to do whatever they want with respect to having different multiply licensed versions of software. Only if they *take* code others have contributed to the GPL version (i.e. code they don't hold the copyright to) and try to roll that into their binary version would they be violating the GPL. If you read their web site, they clearly don't plan on doing this. There will just be a forked GPL amalgamated version, I would imagine and a separate version containing only code they hold copyright to (and thus can license in any way they please). As much as some of this may violate the *spirit* of free software, it is all within their rights, and remember that as this is GPLed software, you can take the code and do any damned thing you want with it (i.e. maintain your own GPL only version for bazaar style driver development of fully free software).
Well, I just managed to answer my own question by reading the FAQs on www.cups.org. Here's the relevant portion: Can I Contribute Code/Drivers to CUPS? Certainly. If you want to retain ownership of the code, filters and drivers can be contributed to the CUPS Bazaar. To contribute code to the base CUPS distribution, please contact us via email at cups-info@cups.org. Because we also provide CUPS under a binary distribution license, we will require that all ownership of the code be transferred to Easy Software Products, or that Easy Software Products be granted unlimited distribution rights to the code (possibly via payment of a fee to the contributor.) Code contributed to the base CUPS distribution must conform to the coding and documentation standards outlined in the Configuration Management Plan. In addition, a short outline of the changes and/or added functions must be provided so that we can update the CUPS documentation accurately.
Hmmm... there may be a fairly serious problem with this. Interestingly enough, reminds me exactly of the /. article earlier today on the proposed TGPL (transitional GPL... don't have a link here, sorry). Anyway, the problem I see is that these people plan on selling proprietary versions of their copyrighted software... fine, no problem with that. But they are distributing their software under the GPL -- presumably this means that outside developers (GPL hackers) will contribute work, bug fixing and new features to the CUPS code base. Now, I have trouble believing that these changes, improvements and new features won't get folded back into the main CUPS code base. But are they then going to relicense versions of this software, containing code that they *don't* hold copyright to, which has been "imprisoned" as closed source software? This would be clear violation of the GPL, unless the submitters give explicit permission for this to be done (the patches written and submitted would otherwise, presumably be GPLed). Perhaps this really would more properly call for the TGPL, afterall, which would allow for a business model such as this, and allow submitters of patches and new work on the CUPS code to choose either GPL or TGPL for their own code. Anyway, just some thoughts about some possible problematic issues with this practice. Hope I'm just misunderstanding something here, but I kinda doubt it.
I think some of you are missing the point, either because you are fed up with the plethora of licenses out there that complicate things (when we spend more time worrying about licensing than coding, we really have lost our hackerdom), or because you see any compromise on the GPL as a weakening of free software. But the point of this proposal for the TGPL is, as I see it, to *discourage* big business from using all of that semi-free "Open Source" licensing BS that's getting thrown around these days (a la SCSL or MPL). The point is that it is clear that some companies don't want to give up control of their projects (Netscape & Mozilla, Sun & everything they release). This *could* be the community's response, saying effectively that we will play ball with companies using the TGPL, but that more restrictive supposed "Open Source" licenses will not be received with enthusiasm. Now, I'm not saying that the idea of the TGPL is thrilling, as it may discourage full-out embracing of the GPL, but it does offer big business an alternative to using some half-baked licensing scheme that they pay their lawyers a fortune to cook up. The great part about this would be that other GPL projects could nab code willy nilly from a TGPLed project (and simply GPLize it). On the whole, I like this idea despite the problems some have already mentioned about determining who is the originator, etc. Whether or not RMS would call it Free, I'd like to see some company pick up the TGPL instead of MPL, SCSL style licenses.
Somebody should remoderate this... it's not a 0. *sigh*... hasn't anybody watched the old series The Prisoner? A true classic... exactly what I thought of when I saw the pic of the Zorb, too.
A couple of people have been saying netcraft reports some weird stuff for this site (linuxone.net)... netcraft appears to be a bit broken right now as it is reporting the same wrong information about my site and every other web site I enter into it. Just thought I'd let everyone know. In any case if you nslookup their ip address you will notice it is running on an ADSL line (as somebody already pointed out). Hehe... this is a real professional job. Seriously though, it is bad for the Free Software community for somebody to even joke about making parts of the linux kernel proprietary (they claim they will add proprietary "features" to the kernel) and to claim that you have to pay to see their Beta CD. And people were bitching about Corel... heh. These kiddies are just ridiculous.
Ugh... can you imagine the kind of AI that would be produced with the average quality of data on the web, not to mention the newsgroups? Fully 40% of its thoughts would be of hot, big breasted teens ready to get it on with you LIVE... etc. You get the idea. :)
Thinking about it, wouldn't it be in the best interest of SuSE and the other active European and international distributors of Linux to cough up at least a big chunk of the money to protect Linus' trademark of the Linux name? Because they would stand to lose a lot financially if they had to pay royalties on the Linux name, not to mention that it would generally make them look like fools. This seems to me to make this into a moot point - everyone acknowledges that the false trademark claims are entirely frivolous, and if the commerical money is there to back the trademark defense, it seems like this would be a real losing proposition for the pretenders.
Well, I'm currently involved in Open Source development efforts, mostly with the newly released AOLserver 3 source code. I guess I don't get an email because I'm not on kernel contributor or redhat contributor lists (although I have made bug reports on 3com ethernet driver code in the past). Anyway, I have an Etrade account and wouldn't mind getting in on this offer to snag 100 shares... anyone who did get the email and can't / doesn't want to get in on IPO, email me at gabriel@media.mit.edu... I figure this gives me a much better chance at getting some of these IPO shares than throwing in my hat with every other small investor.
Mostly their own products' superiority, and the supposed "freedom" one can gain from using said products.
Of course his comments about the quality of the code varying drastically should be taken with a grain of salt as well. This guy is an OS researcher, and as such is into working on standardized hardware and implementing cool, well designed, and most significantly, CLEAN and NEAT features into OSes. He's NOT into making consumer level, usable OS code. And that's what Linux is. Ultimately, the code gets "dirtified" in the process of making it more functional for lots of different people with lots of different hardware.
I've read lots of great commentary in this discussion. Katz' article addressed some important points, and most of the rest of the points have been touched on by others. Certainly bad parenting (or even just lack of connection with their kids) was a factor. And it seems like most agree that readily accessible guns make it easier to commit such an act. In the end though, the question of what thread connects all of these school attacks remains. Namely, why do they all seem to happen in primarily white, suburban, middle class areas and involve male attackers of the same demographic?
Bad parenting is something that runs through all parts of American society, and there are bad parents in ever other country in the world. Guns are certainly much more easily available in America than Europe, for example, but that doesn't really explain the skew within America: guns are just as easily available in urban areas, and essentially to anyone who wants badly enough to obtain them. But white, suburban, males, perhaps more than other American teens, are subject to the harsh expectations and stereotypes imposed on them by American middle class values and social standards. The anger that the attackers in Littleton felt towards "jocks" and minorities seems to be a reaction towards those who ostracized and excluded them.
Middle class American society values athleticism and places expectations on young males to live up to a certain atheltic, macho standard. Failure to meet this standard is often met with expressions of disappointment and open degradation at the hands of families as well as peers. A more open and accepting society that doesn't impose such stringent expectations on teens is far less likely to have groups and cliques of teenagers so ostracized and socially disconnected that they turn to Naziism, racial hatred, and violence.
Ten years ago, was society so different? What has changed that made these school attacks increasingly common? In part, social isolation on the whole has grown, due to the media's increasing role, the internet and the increasing stress that modern life places on the family unit. This is not to say that any of these things MAKE people isolated, simply that they make it easier to withdraw if one wants to.
Of course, society can't just be magically changed. One could argue there's nothing we can do about it. But everyone can make an effort, by being an affirming, accepting, but firm and involved parent. But only through the slow process of societal evolution is this epidemic of schoolyard violence likely to end. Or, perhaps, we will prefer the patchwork solution of banning or strictly controlling gun sales. But this doesn't cure the ills, it just treats the symptoms. And it will inevitably be an imperfect fix.