it's between people who think GPLv3 is "more permissive" vs people who think GPLv3 is "less permissive".
I disagree on a minor point. I think that pretty much everyone can agree on that the GPLv2 is slightly more permissive than the GPLv3. The real issue is which one is more or less free. There we have the camp that think v2 is more free because they can subvert it with DRM or a patent deal à la Microsoft-Novell, and the camp that think v3 is more free because code won't get locked up by DRM or patent deals.
I don't understand I thought that if you didn't like the GPL v3 you could still use the older version.
You can, unless components (e.g. libraries) critical to your project move to the GPLv3. In that case, you have two options: Moving to the GPLv3 or forking those critical components and maintaining them yourself.
I won't pay for food that's no good...that's just wrong.
In the case of bad food, you make a complaint and no restaurant worth its name would force you to pay. In the case of good food that you simply didn't like, you would have to pay anyway.
Re:Can someone please explain to me...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Just cope with it.
I guess you mean ignore it. Well, that's not going to happen.
Why is it fair if that GPLed code only makes up, say, 5% of the final product?
It doesn't matter how small part of the final product it is, you chose to use the code covered by the GPL, and thus you are bound by its terms. People contributed code under the GPL for a specific purpose, i.e. that it remains licensed under the terms of the GPL until the end of time. What gives you the right to change those terms because it makes up just a small portion of your products? If it is so small, you could have written a substitute yourself.
How predictable. This argument always appears in an attempt to deflect commentary about the GPL away with the "but no-one makes you use it" straw man.
So? Tell me why the argument is wrong, instead of (ignorantly) calling it a straw man. Do you even know what a straw man is? Then you should be able to tell me what argument I made up and pretended that you subscribe to.
I was complaining about the deceptive use of the term "free" as a synonym for "GPLed"
Then you can complain until the end of time, because I (and others) don't think that it is deceptive, and will continue to use the term free software to mean among others software covered by the GPL.
Pretty much the whole *point* of the GPL is to have an effect on other people's work. That's why it has that "viral" clause in it.
The GPL does not try to cover other separate works on the same medium, only those that actually depend on the covered code. Thus, I take issue with the use of "viral" in the context of the GPL. This "contagiousness" of the GPL is often painted as a unique property of the GPL, but it hardly is. Most proprietary licenses also cover derivative works, and are thus as "viral" as the GPL. The BSD license and equivalents are pretty much the only "non-viral" licenses that exist.
No? My freedom would be very small if I would be dead.
Think about it for a second. If these laws go too far, your freedom could be removed entirely. So how does it make sense that laws increase your freedom to a certain extent, but if they go much farther then you have less freedom than you would naturally have?
You've obviously never heard of nonlinearity. I see no contradiction in that having some laws increase your freedoms, but having too many restrict it.
I see no such FUD. GPL advocates may suggest not using the BSD license for various reasons, but those are opinions, not FUD. The Wasabi Systems article on the other hand looks like FUD, smells like FUD, quacks like FUD, so it must be FUD. But of course, I guess Wasabi would rather assert that it is NotFUD.;)
For those not reading Groklaw, the NotFUD term is a reference to their NotaDuck joke.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
The GPL on the other hand demands no money for your use of covered code.
I actually don't believe this is true. If you can reference a small section of the GPL that makes any demands on monetary exchanges not taken place, please reference it.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that the GPL places no demand on money changing hands to use the covered code. I did not mean that the GPL demands that no money changes hands to use the covered code.
I'm not going to criticize you for bad reading comprehension, since the mistake may very well be mine. While I consider myself fluent in the English language, it is still my second language, and I'm not going to compare my comprehension with a native speaker.
Of interest would be the clause about internal use - if one government agency modifies it can any other use it without requiring a broader release of the source?
No, this would not require a broader source release. Contrary to common belief, the GPL does not require that source must be published to the world when software covered by the GPL is distributed, only that the source is distributed along with the binary under the GPL. The recipient is free to publish though, so there is usually not much to gain by only distributing to your customers.
Not sure if somebody in Europe might be able to fork a version of GCC that uses those algorithms for use outside the US.
If my understanding of software patents is correct, I don't think that is necessary. Since you don't patent the algorithm itself, but rather the effect it has when it runs, you should be able to include patented algorithms in a source package and just turn them on or off with a configure option. I faitly recall that some projects do this. This is because infringement only occurs when the code runs, not by having the covered algorithm in code.
So you claim that SELinux, to be a well-designed system, needs to be able to read every config file format in the world so that it can "understand" that you just moved your document root and that it should update its context automatically?
May I suggest you move to Windows instead? Unix has a philosophy that does not seem to fit your mindset.
I haven't been mucking around with SELinux, but my personal guess is that you need to set the right SELinux context for the new document tree. SELinux contexts may not be copied automatically by cp, I don't know. There is a --preserve argument to cp that claims to preserve security contexts according to the manual page.
Ironically enough when I install systems I leave it enabled, but our security administrator turns it off.
I hope that he just sets it to permissive, as disabling it altogether usually causes a (time-consuming) relabel of the entire filesystem, though maybe only on next reboot.
Also, notice how yum gives no warning about SELinux being on when you use it to install packages?
Maybe because it isn't meant to be turned off when installing packages? I've never been bitten by SELinux while installing packages, but of course, I don't use SELinux in a production environment (just on my home desktop and my work laptop) since I haven't yet managed to convince my colleagues to even evaluate if we could turn it on for at least some systems.
I don't think SELinux has any real equivalent to this completely-hands-off automatic update functionality.
That is because SELinux is completely orthogonal to automatic update functionality. SELinux is a fine-grained mandatory access control system that controls access to files and other resources like network ports.
SELinux isn't just for protecting server applications.
No, but it is with server applications that it can be most useful, since they are the main entry port for crackers and worms. Properly configured SELinux policies prevent such attacks from succeeding.
Of course, SELinux does not protect computers from the biggest hole, the wetware between the keyboard and chair.:)
SELinux is NOT one step above yanking the power cord -- how did this get moderated so high?
Maybe because it was, back in the days.:)
In other words, maybe some people need to update their opinions a bit. They install new releases of their distributions, but turn off SELinux just like last time without even looking at the new SELinux configuration tools, etc.
I've looked over a few setup guides recently for MythTV on Fedora or Ubuntu (sorry but the urls are on my home machine). They nearly all say "turn SELinux off and save days of configuration pain".
I think those guides may be a bit outdated. SELinux were a royal PITA back in the days, but you almost never run into it on the newer Fedoras. Fedora 7 even has a little icon popping up in the notification area when SELinux denied some access request. For me it have just happened after suspend and hibernate, and then it was only two blocked file accesses.
I'm actually surprised how well Fedora 7 works. I installed it on my Dell Latitude D810 laptop yesterday, and both wireless network with WPA2, 3D desktop with Compiz on ATI Radeon Mobility X600, suspend and hibernate works fine out of the box. Never did before. And of course, running with SELinux enforcing and see almost no warnings.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree on a minor point. I think that pretty much everyone can agree on that the GPLv2 is slightly more permissive than the GPLv3. The real issue is which one is more or less free. There we have the camp that think v2 is more free because they can subvert it with DRM or a patent deal à la Microsoft-Novell, and the camp that think v3 is more free because code won't get locked up by DRM or patent deals.
You can, unless components (e.g. libraries) critical to your project move to the GPLv3. In that case, you have two options: Moving to the GPLv3 or forking those critical components and maintaining them yourself.
If the GPL is about restrictions, then what are proprietary licenses about? Enslavement?
You must be referring to the Creative Commons family of licenses. Common Criteria is an international standard for computer security.
They can't. That they can't do this does not make a fork necessary though.
In the case of bad food, you make a complaint and no restaurant worth its name would force you to pay. In the case of good food that you simply didn't like, you would have to pay anyway.
I guess you mean ignore it. Well, that's not going to happen.
It doesn't matter how small part of the final product it is, you chose to use the code covered by the GPL, and thus you are bound by its terms. People contributed code under the GPL for a specific purpose, i.e. that it remains licensed under the terms of the GPL until the end of time. What gives you the right to change those terms because it makes up just a small portion of your products? If it is so small, you could have written a substitute yourself.
How predictable. This argument always appears in an attempt to deflect commentary about the GPL away with the "but no-one makes you use it" straw man.So? Tell me why the argument is wrong, instead of (ignorantly) calling it a straw man. Do you even know what a straw man is? Then you should be able to tell me what argument I made up and pretended that you subscribe to.
I was complaining about the deceptive use of the term "free" as a synonym for "GPLed"Then you can complain until the end of time, because I (and others) don't think that it is deceptive, and will continue to use the term free software to mean among others software covered by the GPL.
Pretty much the whole *point* of the GPL is to have an effect on other people's work. That's why it has that "viral" clause in it.The GPL does not try to cover other separate works on the same medium, only those that actually depend on the covered code. Thus, I take issue with the use of "viral" in the context of the GPL. This "contagiousness" of the GPL is often painted as a unique property of the GPL, but it hardly is. Most proprietary licenses also cover derivative works, and are thus as "viral" as the GPL. The BSD license and equivalents are pretty much the only "non-viral" licenses that exist.
No? My freedom would be very small if I would be dead.
Think about it for a second. If these laws go too far, your freedom could be removed entirely. So how does it make sense that laws increase your freedom to a certain extent, but if they go much farther then you have less freedom than you would naturally have?You've obviously never heard of nonlinearity. I see no contradiction in that having some laws increase your freedoms, but having too many restrict it.
I see no such FUD. GPL advocates may suggest not using the BSD license for various reasons, but those are opinions, not FUD. The Wasabi Systems article on the other hand looks like FUD, smells like FUD, quacks like FUD, so it must be FUD. But of course, I guess Wasabi would rather assert that it is NotFUD. ;)
For those not reading Groklaw, the NotFUD term is a reference to their NotaDuck joke.
I actually don't believe this is true. If you can reference a small section of the GPL that makes any demands on monetary exchanges not taken place, please reference it.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that the GPL places no demand on money changing hands to use the covered code. I did not mean that the GPL demands that no money changes hands to use the covered code.
I'm not going to criticize you for bad reading comprehension, since the mistake may very well be mine. While I consider myself fluent in the English language, it is still my second language, and I'm not going to compare my comprehension with a native speaker.
I know, that's why I specifically used the term free software community instead of open source software community.
No, this would not require a broader source release. Contrary to common belief, the GPL does not require that source must be published to the world when software covered by the GPL is distributed, only that the source is distributed along with the binary under the GPL. The recipient is free to publish though, so there is usually not much to gain by only distributing to your customers.
If my understanding of software patents is correct, I don't think that is necessary. Since you don't patent the algorithm itself, but rather the effect it has when it runs, you should be able to include patented algorithms in a source package and just turn them on or off with a configure option. I faitly recall that some projects do this. This is because infringement only occurs when the code runs, not by having the covered algorithm in code.
So you claim that SELinux, to be a well-designed system, needs to be able to read every config file format in the world so that it can "understand" that you just moved your document root and that it should update its context automatically?
May I suggest you move to Windows instead? Unix has a philosophy that does not seem to fit your mindset.
I guess you didn't use tar --selinux? From the tar manual page:
I haven't been mucking around with SELinux, but my personal guess is that you need to set the right SELinux context for the new document tree. SELinux contexts may not be copied automatically by cp, I don't know. There is a --preserve argument to cp that claims to preserve security contexts according to the manual page.
RHEL5 is based on Fedora Core 6.
I hope that he just sets it to permissive, as disabling it altogether usually causes a (time-consuming) relabel of the entire filesystem, though maybe only on next reboot.
Maybe because it isn't meant to be turned off when installing packages? I've never been bitten by SELinux while installing packages, but of course, I don't use SELinux in a production environment (just on my home desktop and my work laptop) since I haven't yet managed to convince my colleagues to even evaluate if we could turn it on for at least some systems.
That is because SELinux is completely orthogonal to automatic update functionality. SELinux is a fine-grained mandatory access control system that controls access to files and other resources like network ports.
No, but it is with server applications that it can be most useful, since they are the main entry port for crackers and worms. Properly configured SELinux policies prevent such attacks from succeeding.
Of course, SELinux does not protect computers from the biggest hole, the wetware between the keyboard and chair. :)
It may also be easier to remember the chcon command if you know that it means CHange CONtext.
Maybe because it was, back in the days. :)
In other words, maybe some people need to update their opinions a bit. They install new releases of their distributions, but turn off SELinux just like last time without even looking at the new SELinux configuration tools, etc.
I think those guides may be a bit outdated. SELinux were a royal PITA back in the days, but you almost never run into it on the newer Fedoras. Fedora 7 even has a little icon popping up in the notification area when SELinux denied some access request. For me it have just happened after suspend and hibernate, and then it was only two blocked file accesses.
I'm actually surprised how well Fedora 7 works. I installed it on my Dell Latitude D810 laptop yesterday, and both wireless network with WPA2, 3D desktop with Compiz on ATI Radeon Mobility X600, suspend and hibernate works fine out of the box. Never did before. And of course, running with SELinux enforcing and see almost no warnings.