In fact, the things IBM doesn't want to have thrown out are their counterclaims against SCO. IBM does ask for almost all of SCO's claims to be thrown out.
Except that - that is not true. Gcj - the GNU Java compiler - comes with GPL'ed java libraries, yet you are allowed to distribute your dynamically linked application with a different license than the GPL.
AFAIK that is the same as with the GNU standard C library.
Perhaps you shouldn't make such a complex setup then. And (or), document it properly.
Perhaps you do all that. In my experience, many adminstrative types add complexity for no other reason than hearsay. (don't try to discuss the reasons in such a case, unless you love getting nowhere) And without documenting it. No wonder only they know how to maintain it.
Of course you may not be like that at all. But quite a lot of adminstrative types are.
Sounds like there is a duty here for the domain registrars.
They should make a list of all letters that are visually too close, and disallow registration of a domain if it visually ressembles an existing domain too much.
It would open a tiny can of worms, but at least this is a whole lot more objective than the "sounds like" similarity that pops up in trademark disputes (hey, Mike Rowe !:)
> No. You cannot force them to release the code, therefore stating that is going to immediately get you in trouble for lying in your first communication.
It's a tricky point. If you got the binary _directly_ from the offending party, _and_ they included the GPL, but they _didn't_ include the source code (this actually happens occasionally), then you can demand the source code, since they explicilty licensed their derived work under the GPL, and you have the right to obtain the source code under the GPL.
One of the most interesting things is dynamic (re-)optimization. Sun has experimented with this, and the Java HotSpot engine does some of it, although it is restricted by the java bytecode which is too explicit and low-level.
Dynamically re-compiling intermediary code depending on its actual use at the time can give (at least theoretically) some very good performance. It can also re-adjust to the environment, for example re-adjust the application to more CPU's being added to the pool. An old-style compiler would have to compile the same high-level code many times to different assembly code to achieve the same result, which would make the resulting object code too large. A dynamic JIT compiler typically has a cache from which it evicts the least-frequently used pieces of compiled code.
Who is the you that you are referring to? I didn't say anything about development or production boxes so please don't make a straw-man argument by putting words in my mouth.
I am a consultant who also does development and never system adminstration by the way.
- anyone who wants to do harm is capable of running the service (whatever service, not just https) on port 443 on some box - but your normal user/developer/etc (especially consultants connecting to their own office) who need SSH, imap, etc. access can't do so.
So you're only reducing the functionality of the network while adding no security. You're probably costing the company thousands of dollars a year because consultants who are paid by the hour can't access the materials they need to do their job quickly.
If you really want to change people's opinions, you better phrase your comments in terms of "you're doing great, but you could be doing even greater" than "what's wrong with you guys". I think someone commented this in the discussion about the way us enthousiasts were trying to influence the EU on the patent directive that was about to be passed.
> This is false. You don't fulfill the > requirements of the GPL by doing this.
You're right, quoting only the first sentence of my post makes it false. But I didn't write just the first sentence, I actually wrote:
--- You don't need to offer the source code yourself; you may direct people who ask for the source to somebody else's FTP site. However the source stops being available from there, you still have to provide it. ---
So I wasn't wrong, and you should read the whole post. You are responsible that the source is provided, but it doesn't have to come from you.
From the FAQ: (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAn dBinaryOnDifferentSites)
Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
Luckily for you, lots of lawyers have thought about this already. I'm not one of them, since I ain't one. Of course that doesn't stop me from offering my opinion.;)
> So does this then mean that if I install Linux > on my computer, and then sell or give my > computer away I must provide extensive > notification of the Linux installation? Well there is the "right of first sale" 'doctrine', which (I think) means that a license cannot forbid you from selling the physical copy of a copyrighted work to somebody else. However the person who obtains the physical copy would have to comply with the license after the sale.
> Including documentation at each place I may have > edited the code, and some form of the Linux > kernel source in cases were I do not have the > kernel source installed? Probably not for the un-modified parts of the kernel (and even if 'first sale' doesn't apply, you can still point the buyer to an FTP site with the source, you don't have to include it yourself)
But it is different when you modify the source: you created a derived work. When you sell that to somebody else, you have to comply with the GPL, so you would have to provide an offer to the buyer that he can ask you for the source code.
As for embedded devices: yes, that is a case of distribution. As for online services that use GPL software on their own servers: no, that is not a case of distribution.
You're half right. You don't need to offer the source code yourself; you may direct people who ask for the source to somebody else's FTP site. However the source stops being available from there, you still have to provide it.
But it's not so relevant. What is relevant: if they distribute it, they _have_ to include the GPL license, the copyright statements and an offer that describes where the source code can be obtained.
If they don't tell their customer that the software is GPL licensed, they're already wrong.
Just the fact that they didn't include the GPL license, copyright statements, and a written offer to provide the source code, makes them violate the GPL.... It doesn't matter if they provide the source after you discovered by accident that the binaries are GPLed.
It seems logical, but it's not true. Many smaller companies have ERP software, even if it is not always called that way. A web-shop can make use of Compiere for inventory management, and a small distributor with a warehouse as well. There's also a general bookkeeping module. I'm not sure what other modules compiere already has, but what it has is already quite useful for many smaller companies.
And even if it was for big companies? Open source is not so much about software that costs no money, as you are well aware. The world would be a better place if big utility companies had bug-free billing software, for example:-)
> There is no reason that he couldn't distribute > this under the GPL even if he patented it.
> The patent could be used as a method to could > prevent a company from implementing an > incompatible "one-off" that it distributed with
Section 7 of the GPL starts with:
--- 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. ---
That means that yes, they could get a patent and release it under the GPL. But no, they can't stop anyone from changing the GPL'ed code and creating a different (incompatible) protocol.
But on the upside, as soon as they release the software that implements that protocol, it has to be under the GPL, so anyone who receive the software can ask for the source code and distribute it.
ViM = Vi-IMproved, and opinions on the exact value of the "improvements" can differ.
Of the 15.3 Mb, we have
- 7.4 Mb of documentation
- A lot of language-specific stuff depending on how many languages you've set up. (2Mb locally)
- 2.8 Mb of syntax-definitions that you don't need for a basic editor setup.
Try this: # du -sH/usr/share/emacs 39M/usr/share/emacs
So when it doesn't happen as one individual wants it, it's not democracy? Have you considered that the majority of the people actually agree with how things go, and may not cast it in your cynical light?
I believe they claimed Microsoft violated US patents # 000.000,000,001 (the '1 patent) and # 000,000,000,002 (the '2 patent).
The '1 patents lays out a "way to rule a country comprised of dozens of states" and the '2 patent describes the taxation of citizens of a huge country.
There is also a difference between having a basic grasp of semantics and not having it.
As you are probably well aware, the FSF is both "not recommending" and "not forcing", so according to your reasoning they show respects for free software developers, and maybe a bit of sour grapes.
I think that's quite accurate, and I don't see a problem with that - anyone is entitled to a few sour grapes, but most people forget the part about respect.
You must be a lawyer. You're completely right, but your statement has no relevance to the discussion at hand.;-)
(Unless I missed an update to the GPL that says: "by releasing your software under the GPL, you oblige yourself to release any future software your write under the GPL" -- so far I haven't been able to spot such a sentence in the GPL)
| If you have no time dimension, you can't do | anything.
Or you can do everything (simultaneously) Although reasoning about what you've done will be problematic since that involves steps which involves some concept of time.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, the things IBM doesn't want to have thrown out are their counterclaims against SCO. IBM does ask for almost all of SCO's claims to be thrown out.
Except that - that is not true. Gcj - the GNU Java compiler - comes with GPL'ed java libraries, yet you are allowed to distribute your dynamically linked application with a different license than the GPL.
AFAIK that is the same as with the GNU standard C library.
Perhaps you shouldn't make such a complex setup then. And (or), document it properly.
Perhaps you do all that. In my experience, many adminstrative types add complexity for no other reason than hearsay. (don't try to discuss the reasons in such a case, unless you love getting nowhere) And without documenting it.
No wonder only they know how to maintain it.
Of course you may not be like that at all. But quite a lot of adminstrative types are.
I can see that this can cause problems as a consultant. You're connected to the network of customer A, and have to send an e-mail to customer B.
You don't necessarily want customer B to know that you also work for customer A.
- Erwin
Not to start a flamewar or anything, but what's wrong with Firebird now?
I've been using it for some months now, and I find it extremely stable and fast.
(Version 0.7 on Windows XP)
- Erwin
Sounds like there is a duty here for the domain registrars.
:)
They should make a list of all letters that are visually too close, and disallow registration of a domain if it visually ressembles an existing domain too much.
It would open a tiny can of worms, but at least this is a whole lot more objective than the "sounds like" similarity that pops up in trademark disputes (hey, Mike Rowe !
- Erwin
> No. You cannot force them to release the code, therefore stating that is going to immediately get you in trouble for lying in your first communication.
It's a tricky point. If you got the binary _directly_ from the offending party, _and_ they included the GPL, but they _didn't_ include the source code (this actually happens occasionally), then you can demand the source code, since they explicilty licensed their derived work under the GPL, and you have the right to obtain the source code under the GPL.
But that is probably not what happened here.
One of the most interesting things is dynamic (re-)optimization. Sun has experimented with this, and the Java HotSpot engine does some of it, although it is restricted by the java bytecode which is too explicit and low-level.
Dynamically re-compiling intermediary code depending on its actual use at the time can give (at least theoretically) some very good performance. It can also re-adjust to the environment, for example re-adjust the application to more CPU's being added to the pool.
An old-style compiler would have to compile the same high-level code many times to different assembly code to achieve the same result, which would make the resulting object code too large. A dynamic JIT compiler typically has a cache from which it evicts the least-frequently used pieces of compiled code.
Who is the you that you are referring to?
I didn't say anything about development or production boxes so please don't make a straw-man argument by putting words in my mouth.
I am a consultant who also does development and never system adminstration by the way.
- Erwin
So you don't actually agree on a network architecture for a new software project before starting it?
That sounds like a risky and not-too-professional way of running an infrastructure..
- Erwin
Yeah, as if that is secure. Think about it:
- anyone who wants to do harm is capable of running the service (whatever service, not just https) on port 443 on some box
- but your normal user/developer/etc (especially consultants connecting to their own office) who need SSH, imap, etc. access can't do so.
So you're only reducing the functionality of the network while adding no security. You're probably costing the company thousands of dollars a year because consultants who are paid by the hour can't access the materials they need to do their job quickly.
- Erwin
.. as 'open source enthousiasts' often do.
If you really want to change people's opinions, you better phrase your comments in terms of "you're doing great, but you could be doing even greater" than "what's wrong with you guys". I think someone commented this in the discussion about the way us enthousiasts were trying to influence the EU on the patent directive that was about to be passed.
I guess the same applies here...
> This is false. You don't fulfill the
n dBinaryOnDifferentSites)
> requirements of the GPL by doing this.
You're right, quoting only the first sentence of my post makes it false. But I didn't write just the first sentence, I actually wrote:
---
You don't need to offer the source code yourself; you may direct people who ask for the source to somebody else's FTP site. However the source stops being available from there, you still have to provide it.
---
So I wasn't wrong, and you should read the whole post. You are responsible that the source is provided, but it doesn't have to come from you.
From the FAQ: (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceA
Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
Luckily for you, lots of lawyers have thought about this already. I'm not one of them, since I ain't one. Of course that doesn't stop me from offering my opinion. ;)
> So does this then mean that if I install Linux
> on my computer, and then sell or give my
> computer away I must provide extensive
> notification of the Linux installation?
Well there is the "right of first sale" 'doctrine', which (I think) means that a license cannot forbid you from selling the physical copy of a copyrighted work to somebody else. However the person who obtains the physical copy would have to comply with the license after the sale.
> Including documentation at each place I may have
> edited the code, and some form of the Linux
> kernel source in cases were I do not have the
> kernel source installed?
Probably not for the un-modified parts of the kernel (and even if 'first sale' doesn't apply, you can still point the buyer to an FTP site with the source, you don't have to include it yourself)
But it is different when you modify the source: you created a derived work. When you sell that to somebody else, you have to comply with the GPL, so you would have to provide an offer to the buyer that he can ask you for the source code.
As for embedded devices: yes, that is a case of distribution. As for online services that use GPL software on their own servers: no, that is not a case of distribution.
- Erwin
You're half right. You don't need to offer the source code yourself; you may direct people who ask for the source to somebody else's FTP site. However the source stops being available from there, you still have to provide it.
But it's not so relevant. What is relevant: if they distribute it, they _have_ to include the GPL license, the copyright statements and an offer that describes where the source code can be obtained.
If they don't tell their customer that the software is GPL licensed, they're already wrong.
Just the fact that they didn't include the GPL license, copyright statements, and a written offer to provide the source code, makes them violate the GPL. ... It doesn't matter if they provide the source after you discovered by accident that the binaries are GPLed.
- Erwin
It seems logical, but it's not true. Many smaller companies have ERP software, even if it is not always called that way.
:-)
A web-shop can make use of Compiere for inventory management, and a small distributor with a warehouse as well. There's also a general bookkeeping module.
I'm not sure what other modules compiere already has, but what it has is already quite useful for many smaller companies.
And even if it was for big companies? Open source is not so much about software that costs no money, as you are well aware. The world would be a better place if big utility companies had bug-free billing software, for example
- Erwin
> > I would be happier if he GPL'ed it.
> There is no reason that he couldn't distribute
> this under the GPL even if he patented it.
> The patent could be used as a method to could
> prevent a company from implementing an
> incompatible "one-off" that it distributed with
Section 7 of the GPL starts with:
---
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License.
---
That means that yes, they could get a patent and release it under the GPL. But no, they can't stop anyone from changing the GPL'ed code and creating
a different (incompatible) protocol.
But on the upside, as soon as they release the software that implements that protocol, it has to be under the GPL, so anyone who receive the software can ask for the source code and distribute it.
Yeah DUHHH
/usr/share/emacs /usr/share/emacs
ViM != Vi
ViM = Vi-IMproved, and opinions on the exact value of the "improvements" can differ.
Of the 15.3 Mb, we have
- 7.4 Mb of documentation
- A lot of language-specific stuff depending on how many languages you've set up. (2Mb locally)
- 2.8 Mb of syntax-definitions that you don't need for a basic editor setup.
Try this:
# du -sH
39M
So when it doesn't happen as one individual wants it, it's not democracy? Have you considered that the majority of the people actually agree with how things go, and may not cast it in your cynical light?
I believe they claimed Microsoft violated US patents # 000.000,000,001 (the '1 patent) and # 000,000,000,002 (the '2 patent).
The '1 patents lays out a "way to rule a country comprised of dozens of states" and the '2 patent describes the taxation of citizens of a huge country.
There is also a difference between having a basic grasp of semantics and not having it.
As you are probably well aware, the FSF is both "not recommending" and "not forcing", so according to your reasoning they show respects for free software developers, and maybe a bit of sour grapes.
I think that's quite accurate, and I don't see a problem with that - anyone is entitled to a few sour grapes, but most people forget the part about respect.
You must be a lawyer. ;-)
You're completely right, but your statement has no relevance to the discussion at hand.
(Unless I missed an update to the GPL that says: "by releasing your software under the GPL, you oblige yourself to release any future software your write under the GPL" -- so far I haven't been able to spot such a sentence in the GPL)
| If you have no time dimension, you can't do
| anything.
Or you can do everything (simultaneously) Although reasoning about what you've done will be problematic since that involves steps which involves some concept of time.
- Erwin
Yes, but if you really had no chance to know, you can sue Microsoft for selling you contrabande software in the first place.