To some extent, as far as the kernel is concerned it makes no difference what the new version of the GPL says. Neither Linus, nor anyone else, can change the license it is released under, even to a later verion of the GPL, without getting permission from EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR (with the small exception of the few who did not follow Linus' example in leaving out the optional "or later version" clause in the boilerplate). And I doubt that will ever happen, or even that anyone will ever try.
(This issue, by the way, is exactly what makes what the maintainer of XChat a copyright infringer - there were patches added by others whose permission was not asked when he started releasing his proprietary, closed shareware versions.)
You misunderstand the new version of the GPL entirely.
You don't have to share your encryption key, as long as someone without it can modify the software and have it run as normal. Your signing key is yours alone, and as long as your program will run after modification without it, you're fine. The only time you have to share such a key is if it impossible to run a modified copy of the software on the relevant hardware without that key.
Your last line, in essence, says: "I demand you find me someone to fix my problem".
Why should they? You're not paying them for support. If you want support, buy it from someone. Anything you get otherwise is voluntary. and being rude to those who try to help is not likely to make anyone else willing to help either.
You don't seem to care that much of the time, these problems ARE caused by some external source.
On the other hand, if it doesn't pass the test then it definitely does not comply with the standard correctly. That is a given.
As you said, working out compliance as a percentage or such is not really possible. But one CAN definitely say that "this feature does not work, and nor does this one, or this one", which is still useful.
"How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers when they in turn are going to spin that message as justification for the very behaviour you boycotted them for?"
Email would seem a good first choice.
No, I'm being serious. Every time you don't buy RIAA-backed music, or every time you buy non-RIAA music, email them telling them why. If they don't get the point fast, something is seriously wrong with them.
He chose, and convinced many (not all) other contributors to choose, to not use the common "GPLv2 or any later version" clause in the boilerplate text. Even if he wanted to, there's nothing he can do without getting the permission of all those contributors.
"If he is unwilling, or the companies supporting him are unwilling, to move the license forward in the interest and popular support of the linux community then we can branch the code now and start extending and reworking the linux kernel under the GPLv3."
No, you can't.
Many of the contributions to the kernel, including Linus' own, are licensed under GPL v2 ONLY. They do not have the common "or any later version" clause in the boilerplate text.
So, if you wanted to convert to GPLv3, or to anything else, you would have to get the permission of every single contributor who said "GPLv2 only" beforehand, or you would yourself be breaking the license and have no right to distribute it.
And so, REGARDLESS of what Linus wants or does not want, he doesn't have any control over it.
Re:Oh, if Linux's key is ok, GPLv3 doesn't stop Ti
on
The FSF, GPLv3 and DRM
·
· Score: 1
No, that's where you're wrong. That major difference is the ENTIRE point.
You can choose to ignore whether it is signed by Linus or not. You CANNOT choose to use unsigned software on the TiVo device, and therefore you are prevented from making changes and running your own modified code.
In order to sell a drug, a company must have proved that their product is effective and safe (as the original researcher has to now) - whether they researched it or not. With just that, every company has to perform all the safety tests for what they want to sell themselves, making it cost them larger amounts straight off. The cost for the safety tests will be less than the total development costs, but with enough others buying the certification they should be able to cover enough of the money they would not now get from selling the drug directly.
Then have a way for a company to buy safety certification from the original company, depending on the research already done.
With that, every company that wishes to sell the drug in question must either spend large amounts of money on proving the safety of the drug, or must pay the original researcher for their safety research. The original researcher, as long as they ask for enough less than the cost of the trials, should be able to get payment agreements from all other interested companies.
I can see flaws - for one, a company may decide it's more profitable just to do their own safety testing and then sell certification to other to cover their costs than to buy it from the original researcher... There are probably others.
But if you have to have either this safety research or certification to be able to sell a drug in all developed countries, then maybe it would be possible to provide much cheaper drugs - strictly at production cost only - to those that need them desperately. (AIDS/HIV drugs for those in poor countries where AIDS is rampant, for example)
The obvious problem there is that people may try and bring the cheap overseas drugs back into the country - but if they're willing to break the law already, on a large enough scale to be significant, what's stopping them making their own drugs without permission from patent holders at the moment?
The GPL doesn't demand that the software be available to everyone - just everyone who has the binaries. (Yes, that's simplifying things a bit, but its close enough...) Hence, not having the source available publicly on their website is not breaking the license.
The fine is around 2 million euros PER DAY, not a fixed amount. Dating from the original ruling.
It's also a punishment. Even if they turn round now and obey their instructions, they will still have to repay the fine. If they don't obey the law, they will not suffer just this small daily fine but will likely have further punishments.
It's not a "Pay this amount and we'll leave you alone" deal, it's "Pay this, AND fix stuff, or we'll make you pay even more".
On the other hand... do you want your friends to see what you started typing and then decided not to send? If I've decided not to say something, then I don't want the other party to know I was thinking of doing so.
"When open source hacking tools are made criminal, only criminals have access to security."
Exactly what I just said, in more words, in a letter to my local MP, about a recently passed act. Except I was talking about hacking tools in general, not open source ones.
Slashdot Mirror
To some extent, as far as the kernel is concerned it makes no difference what the new version of the GPL says. Neither Linus, nor anyone else, can change the license it is released under, even to a later verion of the GPL, without getting permission from EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR (with the small exception of the few who did not follow Linus' example in leaving out the optional "or later version" clause in the boilerplate). And I doubt that will ever happen, or even that anyone will ever try.
(This issue, by the way, is exactly what makes what the maintainer of XChat a copyright infringer - there were patches added by others whose permission was not asked when he started releasing his proprietary, closed shareware versions.)
You misunderstand the new version of the GPL entirely.
You don't have to share your encryption key, as long as someone without it can modify the software and have it run as normal. Your signing key is yours alone, and as long as your program will run after modification without it, you're fine. The only time you have to share such a key is if it impossible to run a modified copy of the software on the relevant hardware without that key.
I have openly told the brother of Skyclad's original drummer that I have copies of some of that band's music that I didn't buy myself. Your point?
Your last line, in essence, says: "I demand you find me someone to fix my problem".
Why should they? You're not paying them for support. If you want support, buy it from someone. Anything you get otherwise is voluntary. and being rude to those who try to help is not likely to make anyone else willing to help either.
You don't seem to care that much of the time, these problems ARE caused by some external source.
On the other hand, if it doesn't pass the test then it definitely does not comply with the standard correctly. That is a given.
As you said, working out compliance as a percentage or such is not really possible. But one CAN definitely say that "this feature does not work, and nor does this one, or this one", which is still useful.
For what? As I recall, at least in the US, spam is specifically commercial, no?
"How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers when they in turn are going to spin that message as justification for the very behaviour you boycotted them for?"
Email would seem a good first choice.
No, I'm being serious. Every time you don't buy RIAA-backed music, or every time you buy non-RIAA music, email them telling them why. If they don't get the point fast, something is seriously wrong with them.
The BBC is quite definitely not government run.
As my younger brother came up with a week or two ago, when we were watching a film on my PC and an email alert popped up:
Gmail: email that hits the spot.
Exactly.
He chose, and convinced many (not all) other contributors to choose, to not use the common "GPLv2 or any later version" clause in the boilerplate text. Even if he wanted to, there's nothing he can do without getting the permission of all those contributors.
"If he is unwilling, or the companies supporting him are unwilling, to move the license forward in the interest and popular support of the linux community then we can branch the code now and start extending and reworking the linux kernel under the GPLv3."
No, you can't.
Many of the contributions to the kernel, including Linus' own, are licensed under GPL v2 ONLY. They do not have the common "or any later version" clause in the boilerplate text.
So, if you wanted to convert to GPLv3, or to anything else, you would have to get the permission of every single contributor who said "GPLv2 only" beforehand, or you would yourself be breaking the license and have no right to distribute it.
And so, REGARDLESS of what Linus wants or does not want, he doesn't have any control over it.
No, that's where you're wrong. That major difference is the ENTIRE point.
You can choose to ignore whether it is signed by Linus or not. You CANNOT choose to use unsigned software on the TiVo device, and therefore you are prevented from making changes and running your own modified code.
And that is the entire core of the GPL.
I wonder how well the following would work:
In order to sell a drug, a company must have proved that their product is effective and safe (as the original researcher has to now) - whether they researched it or not. With just that, every company has to perform all the safety tests for what they want to sell themselves, making it cost them larger amounts straight off. The cost for the safety tests will be less than the total development costs, but with enough others buying the certification they should be able to cover enough of the money they would not now get from selling the drug directly.
Then have a way for a company to buy safety certification from the original company, depending on the research already done.
With that, every company that wishes to sell the drug in question must either spend large amounts of money on proving the safety of the drug, or must pay the original researcher for their safety research. The original researcher, as long as they ask for enough less than the cost of the trials, should be able to get payment agreements from all other interested companies.
I can see flaws - for one, a company may decide it's more profitable just to do their own safety testing and then sell certification to other to cover their costs than to buy it from the original researcher... There are probably others.
But if you have to have either this safety research or certification to be able to sell a drug in all developed countries, then maybe it would be possible to provide much cheaper drugs - strictly at production cost only - to those that need them desperately. (AIDS/HIV drugs for those in poor countries where AIDS is rampant, for example)
The obvious problem there is that people may try and bring the cheap overseas drugs back into the country - but if they're willing to break the law already, on a large enough scale to be significant, what's stopping them making their own drugs without permission from patent holders at the moment?
That's called being a patent troll, and patent trolling is one thing I've never seen even the slightest hint of a valid supporting reason for.
It isn't supposed to; as I understand, the idea is to compete with low-mid to mid range products.
The GPL doesn't demand that the software be available to everyone - just everyone who has the binaries. (Yes, that's simplifying things a bit, but its close enough...) Hence, not having the source available publicly on their website is not breaking the license.
With cheapish commodity hardware as this suggests, you'd have an entire duplicate box or three and still be saving money.
4129? Hmmm... well, I don't think the shop I worked at (a local Co-op shop in the UK) sold Fuji apples, but I think I remember that code.
One I definitely remember was bananas, 4011. Is that the same there?
The fine is around 2 million euros PER DAY, not a fixed amount. Dating from the original ruling.
It's also a punishment. Even if they turn round now and obey their instructions, they will still have to repay the fine. If they don't obey the law, they will not suffer just this small daily fine but will likely have further punishments.
It's not a "Pay this amount and we'll leave you alone" deal, it's "Pay this, AND fix stuff, or we'll make you pay even more".
I've cooked roast dinner for two on something like £1 each, many times.
NO! Not the free beer! Save us all!
On the other hand... do you want your friends to see what you started typing and then decided not to send? If I've decided not to say something, then I don't want the other party to know I was thinking of doing so.
It's not a feature I'd want active.
My major reason for having a desktop (despite the portability of a laptop being a very useful thing) is very very simple:
Upgradeability.
"When open source hacking tools are made criminal, only criminals have access to security."
Exactly what I just said, in more words, in a letter to my local MP, about a recently passed act. Except I was talking about hacking tools in general, not open source ones.