When you say "Copyright Law", you mean the Copyright Law of which country? Remember that there are many countries, and many different copyright laws, and if your arguments fail in a single one, you lose.
No, no, no, you don't want to go there:-)
The GPL license is not valid in many European countries for instance, so by your logic Debian shouldn't contain any GPLed apps!
I think you'll find that the KDE executable contains code derived from Qt header files, and function call references derived from the Qt dynamic libraries.
Right, like inline statements.
Given that Troll Tech have asserted that they own the API to the extent that they beleive that if Harmony had succeeded, that KDE/Harmony binaries would be a violation of Troll's copyright, it seems fair to assume that they also think that the binary is a derived work.
I don't think so. Because if that were the case you couldn't create any free software based on QT free edition, no matter which license you choose to place your work under.
I haven't seen any convincing argument that distributing KDE linked to QT is illegal, none at all.
No I am not joking, I do sincerely believe/. to be heavily biased against KDE.
I believe you must be at least a reasonably intelligent person and that you must read this site regularly and that you do take an active interest in desktop environments. Since I believe all these things to be true I cannot believe that you are not aware of the strong anti-KDE bias of this site.
I believe you are saying something untrue knowing that it is untrue, that is a lie. Normally I wouldn't care but your opinion on this matter is as close to an official statement on this matter as I'm going to get.
I'm not saying there is any conspiracy going on. Rob is ardent supporter of the FSF, has close relations with Gnome developers, and started a lot of arguments by posting KDE stories so it's no wonder that he doesn't post many of them anymore. (And he has pretty much set the tone that other authors follow, the only author who bucks the trend is HeUnique)
Also while a lot of KDE development is done in the US a lot more is done outside the US and hence KDE stories are less regionally relevant than stories about new US companies being set up to develop destop environment related software. (Slashdot is a US centric -perhaps even myopic- site if you hadn't noticed)
Generally Slashdot covers Gnome stories in preference to KDE stories, that's ok you don't have to give it fair coverage. However please don't lie about the fact, I find it offensive that you would think/. readers are so dim witted as to not know what the score is.
Exp() is the function such that for any complex number x, Exp(x) equals the limit as n tends to infinity of the sum of x raised to the i'th power divided by the factorial of i, for all whole numbers i less than or equal to n.
If strictly necessary I can define the terms "function", "complex number", "equal", "limit as n tends to infinity", "sum", "raised to the i'th power", "divided by", "factorial", "whole number", and "less than".
For the sake of brevity I must assume you have knowledge of such words as "is", "the", "such", "that", "for", "any", "of", "by", "all" and "to".
I think you're right about the Sun Community Source Licence, and the Apple source licence, not meeting the open source definition. But the Qt Public licence definitely complies with it as it as listed as an examples of a license that meets the definition.
Now that Cygnus has been merged into RH, Troll Tech and Aladdin are the only profitable free software businesses I can think of. In the sense that they produce (not just distribute) the software the software they provide support for.
The other example would be the FSF, (which can't get recognized as a charity as they sell software).
Re:Open Sources Has a pretty good BSD Chapter
on
The Roots Of BSD
·
· Score: 1
However this is not true of only GPLed software but in fact any software including BSD licensed software. (If cvsup only ran on BSD and I ported it to run on Debian then the maintainers could refuse to accept my patches).
Still your point is an important one, quite often what really determines if a work is proprietary is not its license but rather the responsiveness of its maintainers to external input.
Ok I see in Section 0 the GPL defines derivative work to the what it normally means under copyright law, and then immediately contradicts itself (as it is prone to doing) by defining it to be something different.
Some programmers (who are not lawyers) study legal issues concerning free software intensively, and when they comment on legal issues they make every effort to be correct.
It still makes sense from them to state IANAL, because when a lawyer gives legal advice, they can be held accountable for that advice. So much like a patient can sue a doctor for messing up a medical operation, the recipeint of legal advice can sue the lawyer if bad advice is given.
So it's a sensible legal precaution. it's shorthand for something like "No person should rely on the contents of this comment without first obtaining advice from a qualified professional person. This comment is provided on the terms and understanding that I are not responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information in this comment, nor for any error in or omission from this comment. I expressly disclaim all and any liability and responsibility to any person, whether a reader of this comment or not, in respect of anything, and of the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this comment."
You have quoted the contents of a letter sent by an anti-communist organization (the woman patriot corporation) to the FBI. This letter was sent for the purpose of causing Einstein's application to visit the US to be rejected.
jhittner wrote to us with more news about the release of the KDE 2.0 beta. We're currently looking at a release towards the end of this month. As well, there is a new timetable on the KDE development mailing list. Update: 03/14 01:26 by E: To be more clear - it is kdelibs 2.0 that are being frozen - KDEBase is frozen around the end of April.
No KDE beta is scheduled to be released. KDE is still in pre alpha stage. Kdelibs 2.0 are not being frozen, the binary interface to kdelibs is scheduled to be frozen at the end of this month. (Personally I think it's unrealistically optimistic). The kdelibs implementation has not been frozen nor has a freeze of kdelibs in general been scheduled. For instance things like the khtml implementation are in full speed development at the moment, and will continue to be developed after the kdelibs interface freeze due at the end of this month.
Basically nothing that has been reported is correct.
I can't understand what's going on either, there weren't many posts at +2 so I decided to read at a lower threshold and your post was the second decent reply to the story that I saw moderated down.
Oh well, I am getting more work done now that slashdot has gone to hell.
You should be fine, you are only required to provide the source code to someone you have given a binary to. In GPL lingo the GPL respects your right to develop in private.
You might be in trouble if one of your employees does something stupid and distributes a binary (executable form or object code) to one of his friends outside of work.
Internal distribution is still distribution but as long as you can keep it internal you're fine.
I've talked to Bjarne a few times, and listened to him talk to others. He might know more about C++ than anyone else on the planet but he didn't appear arrogant about it. I found him pleasant to listen and talk to.
I think Bjarne's point is C++ is (for all practical purposes) a superset of C, so anything you can do in C you can do in C++.
And when using a C++ compiler to compile plain C (which technically is also C++) you don't have to pay for (that is incur space/time penalties) anything you don't use.
At least this was the impression I got when I heard him answer someone who asked this question. I don't think Bjarne is saying never program in plain C.
On the off chance that you'll read these comments I wanted to say thanks for C++, if it wasn't for you I'd probably be programming in C.
Thanks for making the standardisation process open, and thanks for personally checking every 'feature' that made it into the language specification actually needed to be there.
Thanks for signing my copy of D&E at SD'99, and for chatting to me at SD'98 and SD'99, your talks were great, (pity you wouldn't comment on open source software when I asked you at the roundtable talk...).
I guess if I had a question if would be "What do believe is the greatest weakness of the open source software development model?".
Slashdot Mirror
When you say "Copyright Law", you mean the Copyright Law of which country? Remember that there are many countries, and many different copyright laws, and if your arguments fail in a single one, you lose.
:-)
No, no, no, you don't want to go there
The GPL license is not valid in many European countries for instance, so by your logic Debian shouldn't contain any GPLed apps!
I think you'll find that the KDE executable contains code derived from Qt header files, and function call references derived from the Qt dynamic libraries.
Right, like inline statements.
Given that Troll Tech have asserted that they own the API to the extent that they beleive that if Harmony had succeeded, that KDE/Harmony binaries would be a violation of Troll's copyright, it seems fair to assume that they also think that the binary is a derived work.
I don't think so. Because if that were the case you couldn't create any free software based on QT free edition, no matter which license you choose to place your work under.
I haven't seen any convincing argument that distributing KDE linked to QT is illegal, none at all.
No I am not joking, I do sincerely believe /. to be heavily biased against KDE.
/. readers are so dim witted as to not know what the score is.
I believe you must be at least a reasonably intelligent person and that you must read this site regularly and that you do take an active interest in desktop environments. Since I believe all these things to be true I cannot believe that you are not aware of the strong anti-KDE bias of this site.
I believe you are saying something untrue knowing that it is untrue, that is a lie. Normally I wouldn't care but your opinion on this matter is as close to an official statement on this matter as I'm going to get.
I'm not saying there is any conspiracy going on. Rob is ardent supporter of the FSF, has close relations with Gnome developers, and started a lot of arguments by posting KDE stories so it's no wonder that he doesn't post many of them anymore. (And he has pretty much set the tone that other authors follow, the only author who bucks the trend is HeUnique)
Also while a lot of KDE development is done in the US a lot more is done outside the US and hence KDE stories are less regionally relevant than stories about new US companies being set up to develop destop environment related software. (Slashdot is a US centric -perhaps even myopic- site if you hadn't noticed)
Generally Slashdot covers Gnome stories in preference to KDE stories, that's ok you don't have to give it fair coverage. However please don't lie about the fact, I find it offensive that you would think
What does "Exp()" mean?
Exp() is the function such that for any complex number x, Exp(x) equals the limit as n tends to infinity of the sum of x raised to the i'th power divided by the factorial of i, for all whole numbers i less than or equal to n.
If strictly necessary I can define the terms "function", "complex number", "equal", "limit as n tends to infinity", "sum", "raised to the i'th power", "divided by", "factorial", "whole number", and "less than".
For the sake of brevity I must assume you have knowledge of such words as "is", "the", "such", "that", "for", "any", "of", "by", "all" and "to".
I think you're right about the Sun Community Source Licence, and the Apple source licence, not meeting the open source definition. But the Qt Public licence definitely complies with it as it as listed as an examples of a license that meets the definition.
Now that Cygnus has been merged into RH, Troll Tech and Aladdin are the only profitable free software businesses I can think of. In the sense that they produce (not just distribute) the software the software they provide support for.
The other example would be the FSF, (which can't get recognized as a charity as they sell software).
Thank you.
Yes very good point.
However this is not true of only GPLed software but in fact any software including BSD licensed software. (If cvsup only ran on BSD and I ported it to run on Debian then the maintainers could refuse to accept my patches).
Still your point is an important one, quite often what really determines if a work is proprietary is not its license but rather the responsiveness of its maintainers to external input.
Are you using EXT2FS? I hope someone doesn't pull the plug on you, it probably won't come back.
Yeah under Linux I've had two file systems corrupted badly enough that they couldn't be repaired due to brown outs.
Ok I see in Section 0 the GPL defines derivative work to the what it normally means under copyright law, and then immediately contradicts itself (as it is prone to doing) by defining it to be something different.
Great
Some programmers (who are not lawyers) study legal issues concerning free software intensively, and when they comment on legal issues they make every effort to be correct.
It still makes sense from them to state IANAL, because when a lawyer gives legal advice, they can be held accountable for that advice. So much like a patient can sue a doctor for messing up a medical operation, the recipeint of legal advice can sue the lawyer if bad advice is given.
So it's a sensible legal precaution. it's shorthand for something like "No person should rely on the contents of this comment without first obtaining advice from a qualified professional person. This comment is provided on the terms and understanding that I are not responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information in this comment, nor for any error in or omission from this comment. I expressly disclaim all and any liability and responsibility to any person, whether a reader of this comment or not, in respect of anything, and of the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this comment."
How much is this really going to cost Sony?
How many people are going to return their software/whatever so that they can no longer play DVDs from other regions?
Not many I would say.
You have quoted the contents of a letter sent by an anti-communist organization (the woman patriot corporation) to the FBI. This letter was sent for the purpose of causing Einstein's application to visit the US to be rejected.
jhittner wrote to us with more news about the release of the KDE 2.0 beta. We're currently looking at a release towards the end of this month. As well, there is a new timetable on the KDE development mailing list. Update: 03/14 01:26 by E: To be more clear - it is kdelibs 2.0 that are being frozen - KDEBase is frozen around the end of April.
No KDE beta is scheduled to be released. KDE is still in pre alpha stage. Kdelibs 2.0 are not being frozen, the binary interface to kdelibs is scheduled to be frozen at the end of this month. (Personally I think it's unrealistically optimistic). The kdelibs implementation has not been frozen nor has a freeze of kdelibs in general been scheduled. For instance things like the khtml implementation are in full speed development at the moment, and will continue to be developed after the kdelibs interface freeze due at the end of this month.
Basically nothing that has been reported is correct.
Huh? I don't follow you.
Qt free edition is free software/open source/DFSG free.
See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
I can't understand what's going on either, there weren't many posts at +2 so I decided to read at a lower threshold and your post was the second decent reply to the story that I saw moderated down.
Oh well, I am getting more work done now that slashdot has gone to hell.
Story number 4 was pretty funny in a juvenile kind of way.
You should be fine, you are only required to provide the source code to someone you have given a binary to. In GPL lingo the GPL respects your right to develop in private.
You might be in trouble if one of your employees does something stupid and distributes a binary (executable form or object code) to one of his friends outside of work.
Internal distribution is still distribution but as long as you can keep it internal you're fine.
I've talked to Bjarne a few times, and listened to him talk to others. He might know more about C++ than anyone else on the planet but he didn't appear arrogant about it. I found him pleasant to listen and talk to.
I think Bjarne's point is C++ is (for all practical purposes) a superset of C, so anything you can do in C you can do in C++.
And when using a C++ compiler to compile plain C (which technically is also C++) you don't have to pay for (that is incur space/time penalties) anything you don't use.
At least this was the impression I got when I heard him answer someone who asked this question. I don't think Bjarne is saying never program in plain C.
Bjarne was ingesting a lot of Simula when he invented C++.
I believe the creator of Objective-C said it would be impossible to add support for multiple inheritance in C++.
I wish you could have posted earlier, I would really like to hear Bjarne's answer to these questions.
On the off chance that you'll read these comments I wanted to say thanks for C++, if it wasn't for you I'd probably be programming in C.
Thanks for making the standardisation process open, and thanks for personally checking every 'feature' that made it into the language specification actually needed to be there.
Thanks for signing my copy of D&E at SD'99, and for chatting to me at SD'98 and SD'99, your talks were great, (pity you wouldn't comment on open source software when I asked you at the roundtable talk...).
I guess if I had a question if would be "What do believe is the greatest weakness of the open source software development model?".
they[Taiwan] took ... a significant portion of its historical relics.
And what happened to all the cultural relics that the refugees who fled to Taiwan didn't manage to haul out of China (and there were a lot)?
That vast majority of cultural relics left in China were destroyed in the cultural revolution.
What the refugees took was their valuable private possesions and they did a service to history by protecting it.