You're presupposing that people are out buying Windows specifically to view some SL only sites. That's just absurd.
That's certainly not absurd. Count Windows license running in virtual machines and there surely are still people who do this to access certain sites, or at least did so until not more than a year ago.
We differ, then, in that I don't see this as a realistic possibility.
You can't gloss over the fact that the market does not fix itself overnight. It can take years. How long had people accessing bank sites et al. before FF was able to generate enough pressure for change to happen? For this time span, GP is right.
Because it takes as payment the entire work of someone who relies on the supposedly "free" software.
How so?
Entire work: you mean that, e.g., the entire product portfolio of IBM becomes copylefted as soon as they use GPl'ed software in one of their products? supposedly "free": you mean that the GPL changes its clauses after you incorporated GPL'ed code into your product?
If we're lucky, in a few years Congress will impose limits on domestic intelligence activity after revelations that the FBI, Army, local police and others will have misused their authority for years to build troves of personal dossiers and monitor political activists and other law-abiding Americans.
FWIW, he just might not have English as his first language, and be more used to a language that actually tries to come up with different words for different concepts. English is pretty hard to get right in this regard.
Huh? No, I am saying that none of these occurred because some atheist decided that killing non-atheists is generally called for and desired by his believe, as is the case with most killings conducted by religions. What part of "in the name of" do you not understand?
Also, "users typically copy and paste from one webpage to another"? Really? So much more than from one Word file to another that we need to invent this feature for an internet-facing app of all things?
Nobody's trying to get rid of it, read the numerous other posts correcting that assumption. This is just about the kernel losing GPLONLY status if you load ndiswrapper, which is important for debugging purposes and other things.
:) Sorry for not being clearer, I tried my best -- English is not my first language. The license provision itself is already confusing, and coming to terms with confusing legal issues in language even more so.
I mean exactly what it says in GPLv2 Section 3 b):) I just rephrased it because the guy I replied to didn't seem to get it. I'm sorry that my rephrasing confuses you, since AFAICT you did get the original meaning of 3b anyway, and there is no need for you to let yourself be confused by me.
I refrain from trying to rephrase again, because the second and third sentence your latest post (the one I'm replying to right now) says more or less what I would have said.
I dunno, I thought what I wrote was pretty straightforward, as far as talking about legal language can be: "It does [...] not say that the offer needs to be addressed to those same third parties that it extends to".
Especially as my first post in this thread was in direct reply to poster mysidia's clearly wrong statement, "OR the GPL requires a written offer which to any third party, including third parties who are not their customers."
Um, did you read the post I originally replied to? It wasn't scientists talking, but some/. poster claiming that there is absolutely no difference between life and non-life, full stop. I JUST wrote that a little more caution with absolute claims is appropriate.
Also, quit quoting selectively and twisting my words.
I don't know what you are arguing about. I agree that the point of the clause is that any third party can get the code. But this STILL does not mean that the original producer of the code has to tell the whole world about the source as soon as he distribute binaries -- a point which you also don't seem to dispute, since you, too, wrote "so even though you only give the offer to the people you distribute to, it is valide to anyone asking for it". Which, to emphasize once more, is exactly what I wrote, twice. However, the poster of the message I originally replied to seemed to have an opposing opinion, and I just corrected it. Nothing more.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [...]
b) Accompany it with a written offer , valid for at least three years, to give any third party , for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange [...]
That is, as I read it, if you give away the binary you need to add into the package a written offer for the source, an offer that is also valid to third parties. It does, again as I read it and IANAL, not say that the offer needs to be addressed to those same third parties that it extends to -- the offer just needs to "accompany" the binary.
The operative words in the paragraph you quoted are "accompany it [the binary]". Thus, AFAIK (and as the GP stated), they only need to give this offer to people to whom they give the binary. But you are right that this offer needs to extend to third parties (it just doesn't need to be shown to them).
I don't know. I thought the misunderstood meaning was mainly used as a straw man to ridicule the position of the Free Software folks (heh. no pun intended), not by those actually arguing for all-free software, but obviously I don't have any statistics. That's also why I became annoyed when you used it for the same purpose. Anyway, it seems to me that the frequency of this usage has greatly diminished, please don't resurrect it again:)
Slashdot Mirror
You're presupposing that people are out buying Windows specifically to view some SL only sites. That's just absurd.
That's certainly not absurd. Count Windows license running in virtual machines and there surely are still people who do this to access certain sites, or at least did so until not more than a year ago.
We differ, then, in that I don't see this as a realistic possibility.
You can't gloss over the fact that the market does not fix itself overnight. It can take years. How long had people accessing bank sites et al. before FF was able to generate enough pressure for change to happen? For this time span, GP is right.
GP didn't say 'lynch'; he said 'act'.
Large groups of people under stress act irrationally, and "act" turns into "lynch" in a jiffie. Examples and literature abound.
Because it takes as payment the entire work of someone who relies on the supposedly "free" software.
How so?
Entire work: you mean that, e.g., the entire product portfolio of IBM becomes copylefted as soon as they use GPl'ed software in one of their products?
supposedly "free": you mean that the GPL changes its clauses after you incorporated GPL'ed code into your product?
If we're lucky, in a few years Congress will impose limits on domestic intelligence activity after revelations that the FBI, Army, local police and others will have misused their authority for years to build troves of personal dossiers and monitor political activists and other law-abiding Americans.
When did you last check? May 7, 1978? :)
And that's why Debian is not a "desktop OS" (for the casual user group).
FWIW, he just might not have English as his first language, and be more used to a language that actually tries to come up with different words for different concepts. English is pretty hard to get right in this regard.
Huh? No, I am saying that none of these occurred because some atheist decided that killing non-atheists is generally called for and desired by his believe, as is the case with most killings conducted by religions. What part of "in the name of" do you not understand?
You are right, I didn't understand the feature. I had thought it had something to do with copying between pages/files. Thanks for clearing it up.
And how exactly is this proof that this activity occurs more often in IE than in Word?
Also, "users typically copy and paste from one webpage to another"? Really? So much more than from one Word file to another that we need to invent this feature for an internet-facing app of all things?
Pure conjecture.
Nobody's trying to get rid of it, read the numerous other posts correcting that assumption. This is just about the kernel losing GPLONLY status if you load ndiswrapper, which is important for debugging purposes and other things.
It's about "being murdered in the name of atheism", not about "being murdered by atheists".
:) Sorry for not being clearer, I tried my best -- English is not my first language. The license provision itself is already confusing, and coming to terms with confusing legal issues in language even more so.
I mean exactly what it says in GPLv2 Section 3 b) :) I just rephrased it because the guy I replied to didn't seem to get it. I'm sorry that my rephrasing confuses you, since AFAICT you did get the original meaning of 3b anyway, and there is no need for you to let yourself be confused by me.
I refrain from trying to rephrase again, because the second and third sentence your latest post (the one I'm replying to right now) says more or less what I would have said.
I dunno, I thought what I wrote was pretty straightforward, as far as talking about legal language can be: "It does [...] not say that the offer needs to be addressed to those same third parties that it extends to".
Especially as my first post in this thread was in direct reply to poster mysidia's clearly wrong statement, "OR the GPL requires a written offer which to any third party, including third parties who are not their customers."
Um, did you read the post I originally replied to? It wasn't scientists talking, but some /. poster claiming that there is absolutely no difference between life and non-life, full stop. I JUST wrote that a little more caution with absolute claims is appropriate.
Also, quit quoting selectively and twisting my words.
I don't know what you are arguing about. I agree that the point of the clause is that any third party can get the code. But this STILL does not mean that the original producer of the code has to tell the whole world about the source as soon as he distribute binaries -- a point which you also don't seem to dispute, since you, too, wrote "so even though you only give the offer to the people you distribute to, it is valide to anyone asking for it". Which, to emphasize once more, is exactly what I wrote, twice. However, the poster of the message I originally replied to seemed to have an opposing opinion, and I just corrected it. Nothing more.
That's fair enough, too.
Exactly, I forgot that. Thanks for pointing it out!
The operative words in the paragraph you quoted are "accompany it [the binary]". Thus, AFAIK (and as the GP stated), they only need to give this offer to people to whom they give the binary. But you are right that this offer needs to extend to third parties (it just doesn't need to be shown to them).
I don't know. I thought the misunderstood meaning was mainly used as a straw man to ridicule the position of the Free Software folks (heh. no pun intended), not by those actually arguing for all-free software, but obviously I don't have any statistics. That's also why I became annoyed when you used it for the same purpose. Anyway, it seems to me that the frequency of this usage has greatly diminished, please don't resurrect it again :)