As far as I'm concerned, I would be happy with GPLv2 plus one modification: by distributing this software, you give up all legal right to sue others for circumventing restrictions placed on the software.
In other words, Tivo can still sell boxes that only run signed copies of Linux, but they can't sue anyone for modding Tivos to run unsigned copies of Linux. This, I think, is the best balance and I, as a developer, would be perfectly happy with such a situation.
We can't assure that we can protect against all loopholes, but we can try our best and revise when necessary.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm saying, "We can't protect against all loopholes, so why even bother trying?" Rather, I'm looking at it from the perspective of: what do we gain from this new clause? (We close one loophole, but it's trivial to work around it.) And what do we lose? (The license becomes more complex, more difficult to understand, and possibly more difficult to enforce.) To me the gains are substantially outweighed by the losses.
The Novell-Microsoft deal really strikes at developer motivation. Why write "free" software if Novell and Microsoft license their own users and go around threatening to sue or actually suing everyone else? Do you want to reward them by writing more code for them to use?
This is fundamental breakage in the patent system (allowing patent holders to enforce their patents against some but not all, without actually licensing those patents to anyone), not in the GPL. While this fundamental breakage does strike at developer motivation, the GPLv3 will not, so far as I've seen, change things. Microsoft will still be able to covenant not to sue Novell users, and Novell will still be able to distribute Linux, so long as they don't sign an explicit agreement with each other saying that's what they're going to do.
Work to change the broken patent system, not make copyleft software licenses more cumbersome without any real benefit.
Novell is knowingly distributing code that its partner asserts patents against, and the partner provides a promise not to sue to Novell's customers, but nobody else.
But its partner isn't "asserting patents against" in any legal way, they're just saying in vague ways that Linux probably violates some Microsoft patent somewhere. Furthermore, Microsoft's covenant to sue doesn't require Novell to be party to the agreement for it to work its evil.
For example, let's say Microsoft covenants not to sue RedHat Linux users. Would that mean RedHat could no longer distribute GPLv3 software? What if they are perfectly aware of Microsoft's covenant and Microsoft's vague assertions of general patent nonsense, but they aren't in any business deals or talks with Microsoft? How could the GPLv3 possibly allow this scenario, but prevent an exactly identical scenario with Novell, but with back-room talks and agreements taking place? It seems like a nearly impossible provision to enforce.
It's section 11, paragraphs 4 and 5 which are meant to cover this. As I read them (not a lawyer), these basically say: "If you convey GPL'd software to someone, and grant them a patent license for that copy of the software, then that license is automatically extended to all recipients of the software. You may not convey GPL'd software if, for doing so, you are paying someone else to license their patents to your recipients."
Does that not stop this? Looks like it would to me. I'm not so sure I like the fact that for this to take effect *payment* must be made... I could imagine a similar deal without direct payment from Novell.
As Perens pointed out, this works because Novell is expressly granting licenses (or covenants not to sue). However, Microsoft's tactic works just as well if Microsoft is the one expressly covenanting not to sue, and Novell is the one distributing the GPL'd software, with no explicit contract between them on that point. There's pretty much no way to stop this from happening (that I can see) without also preventing weird things like the RedHat example I gave in my other post.
Actually, they really could, as long as there is a contract or agrement to shield users between the party making the covenant to users and the partner who is doing the distribution of GPL3 software.
What's the purpose if it happens to block the means of the current shadiness, but there are plenty of other means left unblocked that will achieve the same ends? In other words, once the GPLv3 is released, Microsoft can just stop doing any distribution themselves (that hardly affects their position), and make the covenant not to sue without Novell being a signatory to it. Their position isn't affected at all. What's the use in that?
It seems to me that the current language of the GPL ("if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program") is sufficient for purposes of protecting the freedom of GPL'd code.
(Thanks for the responses, by the way. It's good to get more information on these questions I've had.)
While you can't prevent Microsoft from doing this, you can use terms of your license to prevent Microsoft and its partners from distributing your software once they do this. And in this case, MS has a written covenant to the Novell customer, which is ample evidence to show a judge. In addition, the actual terms of the agreement will come out with the 10-Q report for Novell, and that's evidence too.
I disagree. The terms of the license might be able to prevent Microsoft from distributing your software, but they can't put any restrictions on the benefactor of Microsoft's covenant without devolving into silliness.
For example, Microsoft could then say, "Ok, we covenant to not sue any RedHat Linux users." And then RedHat would be suddenly unable to distribute GPLv3 code?! This seems more than a little ridiculous.
How can you prevent one without preventing the other? You could say that it's different because the covenant was part of an agreement that Novell signed, but that's certainly not necessary to the business deal. Microsoft could simply covenant not to sue Novell Linux users without Novell ever signing anything, and the FUD factor against Linux would be the same as it is today.
Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that any license could do to prevent the following scenario:
1) Microsoft asserts that Linux violates its patents 2) Microsoft fails to provide any evidence or back up this claim in court 3) Microsoft signs an agreement with Novell stating that they covenant not to sue any users of Novell's brand of Linux
This sort of evil FUD will work pretty much no matter what, and it's pretty much what's happening now. There's absolutely nothing that I can think of that would legally stop this.
Isn't the old license quite a bit more restrictive than just passing a test suite? I mean, many Linux distros have either been requiring that the J2RE and so forth be downloaded from sun.java.com or they've been requiring that you download 3rd party implementations based on the Sun source like blackdown. It doesn't sound to me like the license was ever as laisez-faire as Gosling seems to be implying here.
The old license also had a clause that said you couldn't distribute the SDK with a competitor to Sun's implementation. This was probably intended (like the test suite restriction) to avoid any Microsoft-style "embrace and extend," but there was enough worry that distributing the SDK along with gcj was against the terms of the license that just about every Linux distro opted to distribute a non-Sun Java.
I was so excited, too. I've wanted vi support in Eclipse for ages now. I even started a plugin (http://viclipse.sourceforge.net/) that didn't get very far.
Actually I see MS Office as IE and OpenOffice.org as the newly-open-sourced Mozilla: big, bloated, and buggy. I'm just waiting for someone to turn OpenOffice.org into a lean, mean Firefox machine. *Then* we'll start seeing real competition.
Ditto here. 128k mp3 AND flac/zipped wav. The latter is a hassle if I just want to straight away listen to the song, but the former is just not suitable for format-shifting.
So, your idea of what is in the HS curriculum is wrong. Don't worry. Most students get geometry and trig on the first or second year of HS.
HS curriculums vary widely from state to state. What he describes may be accurate in his area. In my High School (not too many years ago), the curriculum was: 9: Algebra II 10: Geometry 11: Trig 12: Pre-Calc (or AP Calc for the "smart kids") I believe Algebra II was the district's minimum requirement for graduation; the school's minimum requirement was up through Trig.
A language which makes a semantic distinction between tabs and spaces may give the appearance of enforcing legibility but in fact does little useful to help legibility.
A programming language should not make a distinction on meaning based on whether tabs or spaces are used; all whitespace should be regarded equaly (except, understandably, end of line characters).
Ummm... Python doesn't distinguish between tabs and spaces. I've only written a handful of Python scripts in my life, but I always use spaces to indent, never tabs.
Furthermore, Python even lets me put in semicolons at the end of my lines. Pretty much the only difference between the way my Python code looks and the way any of my other code looks is that, while the indentation is identical, there aren't any braces in the Python code.
It's more pernicious than that. It reveals the fundamental difference in philosophy: we don't buy things anymore, we "consume content", and they "own content". Ownership is a social convention: in theory, we more or less agree what constitutes "property". Now they are trying to change the rules, claiming they own all the things we use, and we pay them whatever they deem fit. So we become intellectual sharecroppers: we own nothing and owe everything.
Exactly. Copyright law (and common sense) already dictates that once a person has purchased a copy of a song, or a movie, or a book, they are free to "format-shift" and use that same copy "across all entertainment areas". They legally don't have to purchase it multiple times. So the "one size fits all" situation is mandated by law, and will decrease costs for most people. (read more)
Pretending like DRM increases customer value is just plain delusional.
With such an enjoyable and revolutionary experience within our grasp, we should not minimize the role that DRM can and should play in enabling the transition to electronic content distribution. Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. As an industry, we should not let that happen.
Reasonable, consistent, and transparent DRM is an impossible pipe dream. Telling content producers and content owners to wait to license their content until this pipe dream is available will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. We, as an industry, and as the people who support that industry, should not let that happen.
Gina Sherrod, who competed with Strange in the contest, said her family listened to the radio show, and told her that a nurse was on air warning that drinking too much water is dangerous. Sherrod said a DJ rebuffed the nurse, saying the contestants signed waivers that addressed only publicity issues and made no mention of health or safety concerns.
For that reason, I think the studio should be held liable.
Can't you just change layouts using X? (Or whatever desktop environment you have sitting on top of X?) Or does WINE do something funky so that X remapping doesn't take effect inside of WINE applications?
My mom and my mother-in-law are both insanely confused by the right mouse button. MIL recently got a Mac, and although her kids use it with the right mouse button enabled, she uses it with just a single mouse button. And it's much, much, much easier for her.
No, as a Christian, you believe that God created man. There is a difference.
Belief does not imply knowledge (read up on discourses on epistemology etc).
Don't be such an ass. If you had read up on discourses on epistemology, you'd realize that under a strict epistemological definition, the only thing you can know (in that sense of the word) is your own existence. You can't know anything else, be it God's existence, cause and effect, the scientific method, or that 2+2=4.
Perhaps, as a Christian, his fundamental axioms are different from yours. Or perhaps your axioms are very similar, but he has had different experiences in his life that lead him to different conclusions. But if you're going to go around picking on religious types insisting that they don't use the word "know" to describe their beliefs, then you better stop saying that you "know" that Antarctica exists, or that your mother gave birth to you, or that you and chimpanzees share an ancestor.
Mousing with the Wiimote using IR pointing is actually fundamentally different from mousing with the Wiimote using the accelerometer. (The Wii itself uses IR pointing.) To get a better idea of the difference, check out these videos:
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I'm concerned, I would be happy with GPLv2 plus one modification: by distributing this software, you give up all legal right to sue others for circumventing restrictions placed on the software.
In other words, Tivo can still sell boxes that only run signed copies of Linux, but they can't sue anyone for modding Tivos to run unsigned copies of Linux. This, I think, is the best balance and I, as a developer, would be perfectly happy with such a situation.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm saying, "We can't protect against all loopholes, so why even bother trying?" Rather, I'm looking at it from the perspective of: what do we gain from this new clause? (We close one loophole, but it's trivial to work around it.) And what do we lose? (The license becomes more complex, more difficult to understand, and possibly more difficult to enforce.) To me the gains are substantially outweighed by the losses.
This is fundamental breakage in the patent system (allowing patent holders to enforce their patents against some but not all, without actually licensing those patents to anyone), not in the GPL. While this fundamental breakage does strike at developer motivation, the GPLv3 will not, so far as I've seen, change things. Microsoft will still be able to covenant not to sue Novell users, and Novell will still be able to distribute Linux, so long as they don't sign an explicit agreement with each other saying that's what they're going to do.
Work to change the broken patent system, not make copyleft software licenses more cumbersome without any real benefit.
But its partner isn't "asserting patents against" in any legal way, they're just saying in vague ways that Linux probably violates some Microsoft patent somewhere. Furthermore, Microsoft's covenant to sue doesn't require Novell to be party to the agreement for it to work its evil.
For example, let's say Microsoft covenants not to sue RedHat Linux users. Would that mean RedHat could no longer distribute GPLv3 software? What if they are perfectly aware of Microsoft's covenant and Microsoft's vague assertions of general patent nonsense, but they aren't in any business deals or talks with Microsoft? How could the GPLv3 possibly allow this scenario, but prevent an exactly identical scenario with Novell, but with back-room talks and agreements taking place? It seems like a nearly impossible provision to enforce.
As Perens pointed out, this works because Novell is expressly granting licenses (or covenants not to sue). However, Microsoft's tactic works just as well if Microsoft is the one expressly covenanting not to sue, and Novell is the one distributing the GPL'd software, with no explicit contract between them on that point. There's pretty much no way to stop this from happening (that I can see) without also preventing weird things like the RedHat example I gave in my other post.
What's the purpose if it happens to block the means of the current shadiness, but there are plenty of other means left unblocked that will achieve the same ends? In other words, once the GPLv3 is released, Microsoft can just stop doing any distribution themselves (that hardly affects their position), and make the covenant not to sue without Novell being a signatory to it. Their position isn't affected at all. What's the use in that?
It seems to me that the current language of the GPL ("if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program") is sufficient for purposes of protecting the freedom of GPL'd code.
(Thanks for the responses, by the way. It's good to get more information on these questions I've had.)
I disagree. The terms of the license might be able to prevent Microsoft from distributing your software, but they can't put any restrictions on the benefactor of Microsoft's covenant without devolving into silliness.
For example, Microsoft could then say, "Ok, we covenant to not sue any RedHat Linux users." And then RedHat would be suddenly unable to distribute GPLv3 code?! This seems more than a little ridiculous.
How can you prevent one without preventing the other? You could say that it's different because the covenant was part of an agreement that Novell signed, but that's certainly not necessary to the business deal. Microsoft could simply covenant not to sue Novell Linux users without Novell ever signing anything, and the FUD factor against Linux would be the same as it is today.
Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that any license could do to prevent the following scenario:
1) Microsoft asserts that Linux violates its patents
2) Microsoft fails to provide any evidence or back up this claim in court
3) Microsoft signs an agreement with Novell stating that they covenant not to sue any users of Novell's brand of Linux
This sort of evil FUD will work pretty much no matter what, and it's pretty much what's happening now. There's absolutely nothing that I can think of that would legally stop this.
I was so excited, too. I've wanted vi support in Eclipse for ages now. I even started a plugin (http://viclipse.sourceforge.net/) that didn't get very far.
Actually I see MS Office as IE and OpenOffice.org as the newly-open-sourced Mozilla: big, bloated, and buggy. I'm just waiting for someone to turn OpenOffice.org into a lean, mean Firefox machine. *Then* we'll start seeing real competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_b onum
Ditto here. 128k mp3 AND flac/zipped wav. The latter is a hassle if I just want to straight away listen to the song, but the former is just not suitable for format-shifting.
HS curriculums vary widely from state to state. What he describes may be accurate in his area. In my High School (not too many years ago), the curriculum was:
9: Algebra II
10: Geometry
11: Trig
12: Pre-Calc (or AP Calc for the "smart kids")
I believe Algebra II was the district's minimum requirement for graduation; the school's minimum requirement was up through Trig.
Ummm... Python doesn't distinguish between tabs and spaces. I've only written a handful of Python scripts in my life, but I always use spaces to indent, never tabs.
Furthermore, Python even lets me put in semicolons at the end of my lines. Pretty much the only difference between the way my Python code looks and the way any of my other code looks is that, while the indentation is identical, there aren't any braces in the Python code.
Exactly. Copyright law (and common sense) already dictates that once a person has purchased a copy of a song, or a movie, or a book, they are free to "format-shift" and use that same copy "across all entertainment areas". They legally don't have to purchase it multiple times. So the "one size fits all" situation is mandated by law, and will decrease costs for most people. (read more)
Pretending like DRM increases customer value is just plain delusional.
Exactly. That's pretty much the gist of what I wrote in response to Amoroso's letter:
Reasonable, consistent, and transparent DRM is an impossible pipe dream. Telling content producers and content owners to wait to license their content until this pipe dream is available will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. We, as an industry, and as the people who support that industry, should not let that happen.
I don't have the exact source either, but if it matters, I can confirm that I have read this in an actual Asimov-written book.
So true. Much better to use a word that doesn't have multiple different connotations ... for example, "Free".
Actually, some reports are saying that a nurse called in and warned that drinking too much water is dangerous. See http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16466174.htm for example.
For that reason, I think the studio should be held liable.
Can't you just change layouts using X? (Or whatever desktop environment you have sitting on top of X?) Or does WINE do something funky so that X remapping doesn't take effect inside of WINE applications?
My mom and my mother-in-law are both insanely confused by the right mouse button. MIL recently got a Mac, and although her kids use it with the right mouse button enabled, she uses it with just a single mouse button. And it's much, much, much easier for her.
Perhaps, as a Christian, his fundamental axioms are different from yours. Or perhaps your axioms are very similar, but he has had different experiences in his life that lead him to different conclusions. But if you're going to go around picking on religious types insisting that they don't use the word "know" to describe their beliefs, then you better stop saying that you "know" that Antarctica exists, or that your mother gave birth to you, or that you and chimpanzees share an ancestor.
Mousing with the Wiimote using IR pointing is actually fundamentally different from mousing with the Wiimote using the accelerometer. (The Wii itself uses IR pointing.) To get a better idea of the difference, check out these videos:
Wiimousing on Linux with IR pointing
Wiimousing on Windows [Half-Life] with the accelerometer
Somebody posted this in a previous Slashdot story, I thought it was worth repeating:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T10L9ybstps
Basically it ends up being an advertisement for the new iPod shuffle. Interesting to see how "the masses" are reacting to the Zune.