But if you distribute, you lose the freedom to do absolutely anything you want. Because at that time, you're required by the current licensing to share all of your code, including specific sections and segments you might prefer to keep proprietary. You can't withhold code once you open the distribution floodgate, which makes commercialization a tricky venture.
Point 3 causes a problem in that it stipulates oversight of code released "into the wild." It also affects secondary developers. Consider the following:
Google creates some YouTube software and releases it under this new license. Tivo gets the software and modifies it, including some new features it wishes to keep proprietary. Under this license, they would be forced to share with Google upon request. The license therefore only protects the originator.
Allowing subsequent developers to reserve portions as proprietary would of course defeat the whole purpose, since the upstream developer couldn't be assured that the secondary developer really was sharing all the non-proprietary code. To pull a Rumsfeld, it would be a known unknown and an unknown unknown at the same time.
It really is quite difficult to write a license which *requires* a return of contribution from developers.
You're making a jackass argument. NOBODY is forcing you to release your code under the GPL, much less GPL v3. If you really don't care what people do with your code then release it under another open source license like BSD. You're making a fool of yourself with your inattention to the text. I specifically said I don't have a problem with free software licensing. They have every right to create a license which suits their desires and to stipulate whatever restrictions. That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the FOSS zealotry that refuses to accept that anything outside the GPL as being a valid approach to doing software. That includes proprietary licenses, the BSD license, and Creative Commons. It continues to the asinine "libre" descriptor--no such thing. True libre code wouldn't come with a license at all. It would be released upon the world for whatever purpose anyone wanted it.
Only if what's used is different from what Apple has already released, and only if the relevant portions of Webkit are, in fact, LGPL'd. From what I recall, that "KHTML fork" called Webkit includes some material outside the LGPL. Even if there's source code yet to be released, they've not necessarily "run afoul" of anything yet.
That's funny, because Webkit appears to be a fork of KHTML, not "contributing" to it. Fork or not, they've contributed a great deal. Just ask the KHTML folks.
Absolutely correct. Why the parent was modded insightful is beyond me.
There is no way a license, even one so scathingly viral as (L)GPL, can change the terms in the future and force you to comply. It is simply not legal, though maybe the "copyleft" fantasy land has that concept, enforced by unicorn police.
And thanks for that. RMS is a blowhard jackass. "Free" software isn't actually free, and now with v3 it's even less free. I know, I know, they needed to restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee them, because $EVIL_ENTITY would abuse the software otherwise.
What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with? It's just trading one set of shackles for another. That's all fine and dandy if the RMS shackles don't bother you, but somehow it's still evil and despicable when the {Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc.} shackles don't bother you. Hypocrisy at its finest. I don't have a problem with either, but I'm really tired of being attacked by FOSS zealots because I don't think closed-source is a crime against humanity. Why shouldn't people get to make their own decisions about how public or private they want to make their work?
"Free" software is great. It's awesome for everyone it works for, and there's some great products. But it certainly isn't the solution for everyone, particularly for companies who want to share with the community but don't want to give up the farm. The LGPL isn't great about that, and v3 just makes things worse. If I invite you over for wine and cheese, I didn't sign up to have you clear out my whole wine cellar and order $1700 cheese wheels from Italy on my dime, you know?
Ultimately, it's immaterial, as all the LGPL content in the iPhone is 2.1. If one of the copyright owners switches to GPL v3, then all Apple has to do is stop using that code. They're not required to comply with GPL v3 simply because it now exists. The v2.1 code is what they licensed; they're not required either to upgrade to or to accept the v3 license.
Since when does the *use* of (L)GPL software in a product (anyone's product, even, say, the Zune), make it run afoul of the (L)GPL? Seems to me that since the content-free accusation pertains to GPL v3 (which, as we all know, was released on the same day as the iPhone), it's just another crappy Slashdot story. Nothing the iPhone has on it (or any other consumer device introduced this past month) has GPL v3 software in it.
Mentioning WebKit in the summary is also quite the ballsy move, since Apple's WebKit contributions to KHTML are among the biggest known returns to "free" software by a proprietary Fortune 500 company.
Comments are not relevant. That is a mischaracterization. That's like saying line breaks are not relevant and human-readable variable names are not relevant. It's amazing that you think that any level of obfuscation is suitable but that there is a deadline on providing it, when the license itself strongly emphasizes the other way around. If you released code with no comments whatsoever, GPL whiners would be all over you for not complying "in spirit" or "dragging feet" or any of the other nonsense raised by this whole non-issue debacle. The Wine people didn't accuse them of breaking the law or the license. SWSoft stated, quite correctly, that they fully complied with the LGPL's terms.
Ask about any programmer what the "preferred form of the work for making modifications" is. The response will include cleanly organized, well-commented code that can be picked up immediately and doesn't require days of cleanup and deciphering before anything can even be done with it.
California law is decidedly NOT friendly to these organizations. What it is, however, is sufficiently unfriendly to *all* parties and sufficiently Byzantine in its complexity that it affords some protection to defendants.
It's not all bad--emissions standards have been raised across the country as a result of California law. That's just one of the obvious examples. California does the dirty work and is more than happy to be the bad guy while everyone secretly thanks them for doing something. It's far from a 100% success rate, though.
Actually, both Black's Law and the Merriam-Webster legal dictionaries both include entries in "piracy" to cover the electronic version. It is an established meaning in cases relating to this sort of litigation. Even the FindLaw dictionary (which is easily available to the public, unlike my Black's 8th edition) online includes this brief definition:
"the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright"
I am too lazy to go get my Black's Law and transcribe it, but it's certainly in there. Additionally, Black's has included, at least since 1990, a definition in the "piracy" entry to reflect 'programming piracy' (that is, stealing cable/satellite TV).
) Store? I specifically said downloaded from a warez site. Nice try tho' - selective quoting aside. Your scenario is untenable. Downloading from a warez site doesn't open a dialog with the owner of a work. Therefore, to evade the fallacy of falsifiability, some concession had to be made. The law that requires you pay for purchases include the Uniform Commercial Code, relevant state civil code, and the legal sales policy of the vendor.
Red herring. 3 year requirement of the GPL is not particularly relevant for this type of discussion If you could read, you might understand better--but the flow of "dumbass" is too much of a roar to think through. I understand, really. A company not providing source 10 years out would be outside the liability period imposed by the LGPL. It works akin to a statute of limitations--after three years, you're no longer required to respond to source requests, so your example is moot. That was the (not so hard to comprehend) point.
t least you've conceded that code comments have nothing to do with the GPL (The thing that made me originally realize how clueless you are). And it's the part that made the rest of Slashdot realize how limited your grasp of English is. Among the possible reasons for the delay are the cleanup and commenting of source code in order to release it in the PREFERRED FORM. If you'd lived up to the other half of your username and actually followed news, you'd see that there has been an excellent dialogue in the past between Wine and Parallels, and part of that is the release of good, clean source. The running through the legal department is a separate and totally valid issue. There's not a court in the nation that would take this case without a stalled dialogue for at least 30 days, which would, by Wine's own admission, not kick in until July 30th.
Your overwhelming lack of legal knowledge, logical process, and defiance in the face of reality has been a true amazement. What's that about Parallels breaking the law? Oh, that's right. They never did. They didn't violate the license, either. But, 17 "dumbass" accusations later, you've yet to make a single standing point. Congratulations on your overwhelming wrongness.
I'm going to pay, but copyright law doesn't stipulate when I have to. Give me a few years". Copyright law doesn't. The commercial code does, as does the store's sales policy. Nice try, though, incompetence aside.
"We're free to provide source when we choose to - that will be in 10 years" You'd have a hard time construing 10 years as "compliance" in most industries, especially since almost no product exists for 10 years, especially since that falls outside the LGPL's 3 year requirement. Again, you're just plain wrong and don't know when to quit.
You claimed that they "broke the law"--something clearly not the case, as your own quote demonstrates. You further claimed that I didn't know what I'm talking about, which is hilarious given your string of nonsensical and deluded replies.
There's no timeframe in the license. As long as they respond to the request and provide it for the product. They've come nowhere near the hyperbole you're spewing.
The LGPL is the entirety of the license. It doesn't stipulate a timeframe; copyright law certainly does not. SWsoft is free to provide that source when they choose to do so.
Your entire contention was that they violated the LGPL because they did not release source immediately. That has been proven patently false. How that equates to a difference between "no required trameframe" and "no specified timeframe" is something confined to your own delusions.
Me:
There's also no deadline imposed by the license Your best "support" for your "counterargument":
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. You:
The link said there was no time limit You can add back in the whole quote if you'd like. It doesn't change the legal requirements, which are clear. It doesn't specify a timeframe. Full stop. What you consider reasonable and what I consider reasonable are immaterial. There is no legal requirement, other than to fulfill that request.
Cheney would not preside over his own impeachment proceedings. If you're trying to remove a federal judge, the judge doesn't get to sit on the bench. The speaker pro tem would have to take over, as Cheney would have to sit in the "hot seat."
I'm not upset with you. You're the one who has nothing in his arsenal aside from calling me a "dumbass" (admirable, in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary). You're not Bush, are you?
"with a legal requirement that the source be shipped as soon as practicable."
No such requirement exists in the LGPL or anywhere else. Source must be shipped. That's all.
Me;
There's also no deadline imposed by the license Your best "support" for your "counterargument":
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. You:
The link said there was no time limit All the backpedaling in the world won't save you (ps: grab a dictionary; 'backpedaling' doesn't work in your post, but I'm glad you half-learned a new word). You're wrong.
Me:
There's also no deadline imposed by the license You:
You know absolutely nothing about copyright do you? Your best "support":
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. You:
The link said there was no time limit All the backpedaling in the world won't save you. You're wrong.
If you think that a company would do anything on a Monday morning in response to a weekend Slashdot post, you're even more deluded than your posts.
"My source agrees with me that there is no legal time limit, as the distributor is required to immediately provide source upon request"
Umm...
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. Reading is tough, I know. You just have to sound out the hard words.
"Parallels have agreed with me"
On what planet? They've provided the source as required by the LGPL. It took them 3 weeks. They didn't say "we violated copyright law and the LGPL like Whiney Mac Bitch ranted about." They've broken no laws and violated no license, contrary to your dumbass-laden tirade. They're not required to comply immediately. They did not violate the LGPL. You've been wrong this whole time, and continue to be.
Their providing the source in accordance with the request directive under Section 6(c) in full compliance with the LGPL proves the legal point I've been making all along. Now kindly piss off.
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight.
The link said there was no time limit What a person finds reasonable and what are legally required are not the same thing. You're wrong, your source said so, and now even you've said so. Enough. You lost; get over it.
It was a case where copyright infringement was found based purely on the reproduction right, without distribution. Yes, section 117 was amended to allow the particular actions Peak was taking It was a) a commercial case b) an overturned decision and c) based on misappropriation of copyright, not "purely on reproduction right"--Peak was not licensed to that data and that is why they were sued. It had nothing to do with reproduction at all; reproduction was merely the vehicle of misappropriation, the primary allegation (secondary allegations regarded trade secret law). Even reading the headnotes would have let you in on this, were you familiar with legal research.
This was not, in any way, shape, or form, what I asked for. It further is not a standing precedent. I am looking for a personal copying case, prosecuted for the act of copying (that means involving a licensee, not prosecution for unlawful access), without distribution.
You can't find such a case because it has never been prosecuted. Ever.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you distribute, you lose the freedom to do absolutely anything you want. Because at that time, you're required by the current licensing to share all of your code, including specific sections and segments you might prefer to keep proprietary. You can't withhold code once you open the distribution floodgate, which makes commercialization a tricky venture.
Point 3 causes a problem in that it stipulates oversight of code released "into the wild." It also affects secondary developers. Consider the following:
Google creates some YouTube software and releases it under this new license. Tivo gets the software and modifies it, including some new features it wishes to keep proprietary. Under this license, they would be forced to share with Google upon request. The license therefore only protects the originator.
Allowing subsequent developers to reserve portions as proprietary would of course defeat the whole purpose, since the upstream developer couldn't be assured that the secondary developer really was sharing all the non-proprietary code. To pull a Rumsfeld, it would be a known unknown and an unknown unknown at the same time.
It really is quite difficult to write a license which *requires* a return of contribution from developers.
I'm talking about the FOSS zealotry that refuses to accept that anything outside the GPL as being a valid approach to doing software. That includes proprietary licenses, the BSD license, and Creative Commons. It continues to the asinine "libre" descriptor--no such thing. True libre code wouldn't come with a license at all. It would be released upon the world for whatever purpose anyone wanted it.
But you're not allowed to do whatever you want with it, and you're not actually giving it away free of restrictions.
I normally hate using Wikipedia as a source, but it's concise and referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
It's not TFA where the problem lies. It's the Slashdot article summary.
Absolutely correct. Why the parent was modded insightful is beyond me.
There is no way a license, even one so scathingly viral as (L)GPL, can change the terms in the future and force you to comply. It is simply not legal, though maybe the "copyleft" fantasy land has that concept, enforced by unicorn police.
And thanks for that. RMS is a blowhard jackass. "Free" software isn't actually free, and now with v3 it's even less free. I know, I know, they needed to restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee them, because $EVIL_ENTITY would abuse the software otherwise.
What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with? It's just trading one set of shackles for another. That's all fine and dandy if the RMS shackles don't bother you, but somehow it's still evil and despicable when the {Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc.} shackles don't bother you. Hypocrisy at its finest. I don't have a problem with either, but I'm really tired of being attacked by FOSS zealots because I don't think closed-source is a crime against humanity. Why shouldn't people get to make their own decisions about how public or private they want to make their work?
"Free" software is great. It's awesome for everyone it works for, and there's some great products. But it certainly isn't the solution for everyone, particularly for companies who want to share with the community but don't want to give up the farm. The LGPL isn't great about that, and v3 just makes things worse. If I invite you over for wine and cheese, I didn't sign up to have you clear out my whole wine cellar and order $1700 cheese wheels from Italy on my dime, you know?
Ultimately, it's immaterial, as all the LGPL content in the iPhone is 2.1. If one of the copyright owners switches to GPL v3, then all Apple has to do is stop using that code. They're not required to comply with GPL v3 simply because it now exists. The v2.1 code is what they licensed; they're not required either to upgrade to or to accept the v3 license.
Since when does the *use* of (L)GPL software in a product (anyone's product, even, say, the Zune), make it run afoul of the (L)GPL? Seems to me that since the content-free accusation pertains to GPL v3 (which, as we all know, was released on the same day as the iPhone), it's just another crappy Slashdot story. Nothing the iPhone has on it (or any other consumer device introduced this past month) has GPL v3 software in it.
Mentioning WebKit in the summary is also quite the ballsy move, since Apple's WebKit contributions to KHTML are among the biggest known returns to "free" software by a proprietary Fortune 500 company.
Ask about any programmer what the "preferred form of the work for making modifications" is. The response will include cleanly organized, well-commented code that can be picked up immediately and doesn't require days of cleanup and deciphering before anything can even be done with it.
California law is decidedly NOT friendly to these organizations. What it is, however, is sufficiently unfriendly to *all* parties and sufficiently Byzantine in its complexity that it affords some protection to defendants.
It's not all bad--emissions standards have been raised across the country as a result of California law. That's just one of the obvious examples. California does the dirty work and is more than happy to be the bad guy while everyone secretly thanks them for doing something. It's far from a 100% success rate, though.
Actually, both Black's Law and the Merriam-Webster legal dictionaries both include entries in "piracy" to cover the electronic version. It is an established meaning in cases relating to this sort of litigation. Even the FindLaw dictionary (which is easily available to the public, unlike my Black's 8th edition) online includes this brief definition:
"the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright"
I am too lazy to go get my Black's Law and transcribe it, but it's certainly in there. Additionally, Black's has included, at least since 1990, a definition in the "piracy" entry to reflect 'programming piracy' (that is, stealing cable/satellite TV).
Your overwhelming lack of legal knowledge, logical process, and defiance in the face of reality has been a true amazement. What's that about Parallels breaking the law? Oh, that's right. They never did. They didn't violate the license, either. But, 17 "dumbass" accusations later, you've yet to make a single standing point. Congratulations on your overwhelming wrongness.
You claimed that they "broke the law"--something clearly not the case, as your own quote demonstrates. You further claimed that I didn't know what I'm talking about, which is hilarious given your string of nonsensical and deluded replies.
There's no timeframe in the license. As long as they respond to the request and provide it for the product. They've come nowhere near the hyperbole you're spewing.
There is no difference.
The LGPL is the entirety of the license. It doesn't stipulate a timeframe; copyright law certainly does not. SWsoft is free to provide that source when they choose to do so.
Your entire contention was that they violated the LGPL because they did not release source immediately. That has been proven patently false. How that equates to a difference between "no required trameframe" and "no specified timeframe" is something confined to your own delusions.
Cheney would not preside over his own impeachment proceedings. If you're trying to remove a federal judge, the judge doesn't get to sit on the bench. The speaker pro tem would have to take over, as Cheney would have to sit in the "hot seat."
I'm not upset with you. You're the one who has nothing in his arsenal aside from calling me a "dumbass" (admirable, in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary). You're not Bush, are you?
No such requirement exists in the LGPL or anywhere else. Source must be shipped. That's all.
Me; There's also no deadline imposed by the license Your best "support" for your "counterargument": If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. You: The link said there was no time limit All the backpedaling in the world won't save you (ps: grab a dictionary; 'backpedaling' doesn't work in your post, but I'm glad you half-learned a new word). You're wrong.
If you think that a company would do anything on a Monday morning in response to a weekend Slashdot post, you're even more deluded than your posts.
Umm... If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. Reading is tough, I know. You just have to sound out the hard words.
"Parallels have agreed with me"
On what planet? They've provided the source as required by the LGPL. It took them 3 weeks. They didn't say "we violated copyright law and the LGPL like Whiney Mac Bitch ranted about." They've broken no laws and violated no license, contrary to your dumbass-laden tirade. They're not required to comply immediately. They did not violate the LGPL. You've been wrong this whole time, and continue to be.
Their providing the source in accordance with the request directive under Section 6(c) in full compliance with the LGPL proves the legal point I've been making all along. Now kindly piss off.
This was not, in any way, shape, or form, what I asked for. It further is not a standing precedent. I am looking for a personal copying case, prosecuted for the act of copying (that means involving a licensee, not prosecution for unlawful access), without distribution.
You can't find such a case because it has never been prosecuted. Ever.