The Globe and Mail reports that Canadian law professors have countered the Canadian recording industry's misinformation campaign in a new 600-page book
According to the professors, the 600-page books will be used to smack the Canadian recording industry's executives senseless until they agree to drop the campaign.
You're still not getting it. If an employee download the free version of Apache from the web site, makes a change, and does not distribute that change, then that version is now a non-free version because they can't post their change back to the 'net.
In this scenario the employee can't distribute the changes because he is not the copyright holder, it doesn't have anything to do with whether the software is free or nonfree.
The company, which is the copyright holder, could distribute it without problems, under either a free or a nonfree licence (something the Apache licence permits).
No, if it were free, then any employee could post the source code of their changes to the 'net.
Only if the employee received a copy of the source under a free licence, just using the software does not give him the right to distribute it.
Being free does not mean that anyone can distribute the software, it means that anyone who receives a copy of the software under the free licence has such right. There is quite a difference.
All he says is "... using nonfree..." He doesn't say how they came to possess said versions, so you're speculating. They could modify Apache themselves and keep said modifications propriatery at which point their version of Apache would now be the nonfree version.
So you're saying that some of those people/companies received Apache under the Apache licence, modified it and then distributed it to themselves under a proprietary licence?
Otherwise the software would still be free, even if they modified it and kept the changes in-house. The only way for them to have nonfree Apache would be to have received it under a nonfree (or proprietary) licence, which is what I said.
Those servers could equally well use modified versions of Apache even if Apache were under the GPL. The GPL comes into play only if you distribute your modified versions of Apache. If you keep your changes in-house, the whole issue is moot.
He said they were using a nonfree modified version of Apache, which means they received it under a proprietary licence, thus they can't modify (or do any of the things free software lets you do) their version of Apache.
Was Apache under the GPL, any modified version they were using would still grant them those freedoms.
You could use the Telecrapper 2000.
It intercepts calls with blocked caller-ID and plays sounds from a list every time it detects silence.
The site has some quite funny example recordings.
1 - Convince SCO that they are willing to work together.
2 - Get a meeting with Darl McBride.
3 - Give Darl McBride an atomic wedgie.
4 - ???
5 - Profit!
Slashdot Mirror
According to the professors, the 600-page books will be used to smack the Canadian recording industry's executives senseless until they agree to drop the campaign.
well, you have to get a computer to pirate music
Me too!!1!
In this scenario the employee can't distribute the changes because he is not the copyright holder, it doesn't have anything to do with whether the software is free or nonfree.
The company, which is the copyright holder, could distribute it without problems, under either a free or a nonfree licence (something the Apache licence permits).
Only if the employee received a copy of the source under a free licence, just using the software does not give him the right to distribute it.
Being free does not mean that anyone can distribute the software, it means that anyone who receives a copy of the software under the free licence has such right. There is quite a difference.
America is a fine continent, it's the US I'm not crazy about.
Ford president says the future of transportation is automobiles.
So you're saying that some of those people/companies received Apache under the Apache licence, modified it and then distributed it to themselves under a proprietary licence?
Otherwise the software would still be free, even if they modified it and kept the changes in-house. The only way for them to have nonfree Apache would be to have received it under a nonfree (or proprietary) licence, which is what I said.
He said they were using a nonfree modified version of Apache, which means they received it under a proprietary licence, thus they can't modify (or do any of the things free software lets you do) their version of Apache.
Was Apache under the GPL, any modified version they were using would still grant them those freedoms.
See the difference?
Marketing - $ 100.000.000
RAM usage reduction - $ 100
Patching vulnerabilities - $ 100
Name ONE risky security flaw that has been known for 6 months without being patched by Microsoft.
The ability to boot MS Windows?
Comparing ReiserFS and WinFS is a bit like comparing Qt and Explorer
Actually it would be more like comparing Doom 3 and Duke Nukem Forever..
You could use the Telecrapper 2000. It intercepts calls with blocked caller-ID and plays sounds from a list every time it detects silence. The site has some quite funny example recordings.
1 - Convince SCO that they are willing to work together.
2 - Get a meeting with Darl McBride.
3 - Give Darl McBride an atomic wedgie.
4 - ???
5 - Profit!