If you really believe from reading "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" that ESR intended to kick out developers who don't totally fall in line with FSF ideals then you're crazy.
Well yeah, but that's because CatB is a critique of the FSF's development process.
Given that OSI have been talking about reducing license proliferation since at least last December, my inclination is to say "before". I'm as critical of Microsoft as anyone, but I'd be just as critical of a vanity license from my employer as I would one from Microsoft..
Sure they do. The OSI could reject a license fundamentally identical to another license simply on the grounds that license proliferation is a bad thing.
No fair! That's the abiogenesis question, which is much more interesting, as the question "Did live arise from non-life?" is way outside the realm of empirical study.
... what about Ubuntu distributing with preinstalled (nVidia) closed-source drivers?
Those binary blobs aren't derivative works until you compile them--which the page you linked tells how to do. Creating a derivative work or telling someone else how to create a derivative work isn't a copyright infringement. Distributing a derivative work without permission from all copyright holders is.
Ubuntu may distribute derivative works, but the link you gave is not an example of doing so.
When the only way to distribute your work is through a medium in which the distribution cartels always take their cut, even if they don't actually do a thing for you, something's wrong.
Next question is the same except in this scenario other people have contributed but signed a waver giving you ownership of copyright (I'm not sure if that makes any difference)?
Under copyright law, yes. That's how "works for hire" work, for example--how an employer can claim ownership of the copyright even if you're the one who created a work.
Now if you want to discuss whether there's a moral or inalienable right to hold a copyright, that's a different question. I presumed you asked for the legal sense though.
Of course, in order to get the privilege of paying for the binaries, you have to sign a contract commercially stating you won't ask for the code, and/or you won't distribute that code.
As a copyright holder on software licensed under the GPL, I would consider this a violation of the license, as it's an additional licensing restriction. If you receive software and choose to redistribute it per the terms of the GPL, you cannot impose additional restrictions.
... without breaking the terms of the GPL for not distributing their modified code back to the community at large...
That's not a requirement in the GPL. It's usually an effect of the GPL, but it's not a requirement.
You mean they actually went ahead and tried to use shady shenanigans to force developers who have no need for anything from their organization whatsoever beyond a copy of the community developed codebase to pay for access to the codebase?
Slashdot Mirror
Well yeah, but that's because CatB is a critique of the FSF's development process.
Python and PHP have their own licenses. Perl is dual Artistic and GPL. Ruby is dual GPL and... something custom.
Good point. Big tobacco's much more efficient, if less quick, about killing people.
Legalization certainly removed the corruption from the tobacco industry!
What leads you to believe that Chris spoke officially for Google?
Given that OSI have been talking about reducing license proliferation since at least last December, my inclination is to say "before". I'm as critical of Microsoft as anyone, but I'd be just as critical of a vanity license from my employer as I would one from Microsoft..
How is it disingenuous for OSI to stop doing something that they now believe is harmful?
Sure they do. The OSI could reject a license fundamentally identical to another license simply on the grounds that license proliferation is a bad thing.
Wow, you can replace that preposition with so many others!
No fair! That's the abiogenesis question, which is much more interesting, as the question "Did live arise from non-life?" is way outside the realm of empirical study.
It's a pity no one ever asks that question.
Meanwhile, plenty of Christians supported it even to the point of persecution (John Wycliffe is my favorite example).
That's the way law works: death by a thousand nitpicks.
Those binary blobs aren't derivative works until you compile them--which the page you linked tells how to do. Creating a derivative work or telling someone else how to create a derivative work isn't a copyright infringement. Distributing a derivative work without permission from all copyright holders is.
Ubuntu may distribute derivative works, but the link you gave is not an example of doing so.
Way to spin Urlocker's quote! You may have a bright future in politics.
Can an independent artist sell tracks on the iTunes Music Store (for example) without money going to one of the big four?
I don't know the answer to that question. I'd like to.
When the only way to distribute your work is through a medium in which the distribution cartels always take their cut, even if they don't actually do a thing for you, something's wrong.
Because that's a popular term to describe software distributed under an OSI-approved license.
Replication's actually quite useful if you want to spread reads among multiple servers, if reads outnumber writes by a significant factor.
Under copyright law, yes.
Under copyright law, yes. That's how "works for hire" work, for example--how an employer can claim ownership of the copyright even if you're the one who created a work.
Now if you want to discuss whether there's a moral or inalienable right to hold a copyright, that's a different question. I presumed you asked for the legal sense though.
I've worked on a fair few projects using MySQL, and I've never used anything but the community version. This raises in me no sense of indignation.
What's interesting is to see all of the knee-jerk reactions to a really bad story summary.
C'mon Tom, you're smarter than that. Read the article.
As a copyright holder on software licensed under the GPL, I would consider this a violation of the license, as it's an additional licensing restriction. If you receive software and choose to redistribute it per the terms of the GPL, you cannot impose additional restrictions.
That's not a requirement in the GPL. It's usually an effect of the GPL, but it's not a requirement.
No. Did you read the article?
MySQL AB requires copyright assignment for submitted patches.