You are confusing that messy GCC stuff with what I am calling a "linking exception". I have also heard this called the "Gnu ClassPath exception" and several other things.
The gcc stuff I am talking about is the linking exception. See the FSF licensing FAQ:
"Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?" Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile proprietary software using gcc."
And the FSF is being real assholes by not making an official name for this, other than silly games like Microsoft, the lack of this is the reason there is so much license proliferation. The "linking exception" allows me to protect the code I wrote, but allowing it to be *used* in closed-source programs (without weird restrictions on relinking or shared libraries the LGPL forces, which really just discourages anybody from using my software).
Well Stallman and the FSF put the "weird restrictions" into the LGPL for a reason. It is Stallman's fundamental belief that not only should you have access to the source code, but that you must be able to actually change that source code and use your changes in the program. Is this really important? It is for Stallman. One of his early motivations for the GPL was running into a printer driver he couldn't fix. More recently, GPL version 3 was a response to the "Tivoization" of GPL software. So really you're calling Stallman and the FSF assholes for holding to their principles.
Unlike the MS-PL, I allow people to *remove* the linking exception and go with plain GPL, so that my code can be used by people working on GPL code. Microsoft is certainly being assholes by saying you cannot do this.
Why should Microsoft go out of their way to be compatible with the GPL? They wrote a simple license that includes patent protection. You cannot relicense the MS-PL code under the GPL or any other license. There's nothing nefarious or unusual about this, though they could have done what Apache 2.0 did:
"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."
Note that nobody has ever "stolen" my code by making it GPL (or any BSD code for that matter), this is a FUD smokescreen by Microsoft to hide the real purpose, which is to pretend to make open source while making it useless for anybody who already has some open source code that is GPL.
That's an argument against any code restrictions beyond public domain for open source. After all, nobody "steals" your code when they don't give back, so why use a license that enforces that?
if I can do this, I can easily "steal" any MS-PL code and make it GPL-only by adding my useful changes and saying they are GPL with the linking exception.
I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind. If you make changes to the MS-PL source, you can only do so under the MS-PL license. If, however, you want to combine the MS-PL code with code that is clearly separate using y
Too bad Family Guy has run out of funny jokes, and has taken to showing complete songs of Conway Twitty. A short clip might have been funny once, but the whole damn song? Come on.
Actually, not really. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that either are not supported by observation or even some times that is contradicted by observed realities. As such, socialism fits the bill.
Completely intellectually dishonest. Religion has to do with the supernatural. The people who argued for socialism and communism appealed to logic, practical benefits, and observed realties, the same as people who argue for capitalism.
if quoting a philosopher who died in 1784 is incitement to violence in your world, you need to get out more.
What does the date have anything to do with it, or the fact that he was a philosopher? No philosophers from earlier in history have advocated violence?
Please read up on what the emperors new clothes is about, you have clearly misunderstood it.
I know what it's about. Clothes so fine you can't see them, when in fact they don't exist. Of course people knew they didn't exist, yet everybody said how fine they were, just like that "poetic imagery" you are calling on. How is that not appropriate to what I was saying?
"does this mean no new updates?" sounds like an honest and obvious question that people who use the filter would want to know. Your rephrasing is dishonest.
"Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in "I Love You, Man." It's so much easier than going out in the rain!"
So he says it's convenient and gives the impression that he thinks nothing about becoming a casual user. I'd say that's promoting. Commentary like this is pretty stupid for a guy who earns his living from copyrights.
Not that it is overly hard but I don't know how to do the equivalent to apt-get install to make debian a source based distro.
Well, if you're asking how to make the whole thing built from source by default I don't know, though if it's possible somebody on the debian-user mailing list should know. However, for individual packages it's just a few commands, and all the dependencies are managed for you.
Though now that I think of it, it should be trivial to write a script that loops over all your installed packages and runs an "apt-get source" on them. But then again, if you only need to look at the source occasionally for individual packages, it seems like a waste of time and space to download everything.
That's just changing the meaning of religion to suit your argument. The fact is any idea or person in power can be abused or blind men's thinking, capitalism being no exception.
Look into the concept of poetic imagery.
There's a very fine line between "poetic imagery" and incitement to violence, so fine that it can amount to the emperor's new clothes.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Even then man won't be free. For example, see Stalin. And I have to say, murdering all the kings and priests doesn't sound like a very "free" thing to do.
Not to mention Android using the linux kernel with a netbsd userland. I guess google don't want to mess with GPLv3.
But by distributing the Linux kernel with the operating system, they are messing with GPLv2, so all that userland should be GPL to comply with the kernel license.
In Debian, simply enabling apt-src does not get you a fully populated/src tree, and getting the source to start looking at to see if you can make a patch is a pain.
A pain? Really? It's just a few commands. I've built from source before many times.
The problem is, the process is LONG (multi-year in my experience) and very expensive (the one my son got was done pro bono but it would have been about $20KUS about 10 years ago).
The vast majority of that sum would be patent attorney fees, wouldn't it? If you've got time on your hands more than money I believe you'd be best off conducting your own research and not hiring a lawyer.
A 'garage inventor' fee structure that give limited coverage for say 7 years, extendable to 14 for minimal fees, and extendable after that to the current 'protection' limits by 'paying up' to the current level of fees would be pretty equitable.
The current fee schedule has a "Small Entity Fee" column that looks like half the price of the normal fee:
Perhaps the only sacrosanct portion kept off limits will be the radio stack itself, which if hacked could invalidate the CE mark, FCC, GCF, PTCRB, etc.
I don't understand how Android can base its platform on the Linux kernel, which is GPL, and make everything else on top of it Apache or possibly even closed source. The whole point of the GPL is to prevent a situation like this. Everything they distribute with the kernel should be under GPL. Instead, they are treating the kernel as if it was licensed under the LGPL.
They really should have went with one of the BSDs, like Apple did, to avoid this blatant GPL violation.
Ok, I know I said I was out, but I'm hoping that the conversation is now actually moving in a direction instead of going in circles.
The MS-PL does not allow you to require that derivative works include the source code. I consider that a restriction.
I see no such restriction on the rest of the work that is not under the MS-PL. You are upset because the MS-PL code retains its license?
It is quite impossible to be incompatible with the GPL without also doing pretty much what it does, which is remake all the linked code with it's own license.
Section II: Compatibilities and incompatibilities with other OSI licenses: Source code distribution breaks down into two areas: Relicensing of MS-PL code and redistribution of MS-PL code with other code that is licensed under a different license.
Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a different license?:
No. The license states that "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license..." This restriction is similar to the restriction in the Mozilla Public License that states "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder." The MS-PL license explicitly prohibits relicensing of the original licensed code under a different license, regardless of whether the original code is redistributed in whole, in part or as part of a different piece of software.
Can MS-PL code be redistributed in combination with other code that is licensed under a different license?
As long as the original MS-PL licensed code is redistributed under the MS-PL license, then the MS-PL places no restrictions on combining MS-PL code with other code that is licensed under another license. Licenses that prohibit the distribution of code under any terms other than the terms of that license will not be compatible with the MS-PL.
Otherwise a GPL plus linking exception would work to allow the MS-PL code to be absorbed into a GPL system.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "GPL system". The linking exception is there so that you can use the gcc compiler, not to create a "GPL system", whatever that means.
The GPL requires all other parts to be compatible with the GPL.
You are understating the GPL. It requires all other parts to be distributed under the GPL as well.
The MS-PL also requires that code distributed with it be compatible with it's license.
Yes, in that way it is similar, but it does not require that all parts be re-licensed exactly as MS-PL. In particular it does not require allowing derivative works to be made, even though this right was granted under the MS-PL.
In fact the MS-PL and GPL are ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in their restrictions.
From my reading of the MS-PL and the GPL, they are completely different, in that certain rights granted for the original MS-PL code do not have to be granted to the non-original parts. The GPL is very explicit that all of the code for a derivative work has to be distributed under the GPL as well. The MS-PL contains no such language, and in this respect I read it like the BSD. The MS-PL patent requirements apply to the work as a whole, of course, but being able to create derivative works do not.
What both do is purposely disallow linking with code that is incompatible with their restrictions and then distributing the result.
Neither license talks about linking. There are many ways to create derivative works. Linking is just an obvious one.
Really? You learned how to read English by watching TV and from that were able to read computer manuals, and learn even more English? I'm afraid I have to call reverse-bullshit.
Pre-fab ammunition available for easy launch from the coward's armchair.
You're the coward. You're making grand claims of truth that the populous refuses to see, from your armchair, and then say you feel no need to back up your claims.
Of course, it only works if you don't consider it too deeply, but that's easy for those hiding from truth. Self-deception is a skill improved over time.
Are you hiding from the truth? What do you believe and why? I can pick a religion and believe it is true too, many people do, and then tell others I have found the "truth". Whatever helps you sleep better at night.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing that messy GCC stuff with what I am calling a "linking exception". I have also heard this called the "Gnu ClassPath exception" and several other things.
The gcc stuff I am talking about is the linking exception. See the FSF licensing FAQ:
"Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?"
Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile proprietary software using gcc."
and the Wikipedia article (which also talks about the Classpath exception):
"Compiler runtime libraries also often use this license, e.g. the libgcc library in the GNU Compiler Collection uses a very similar linking exception"
I think the "messy gcc" stuff that you are referring to is the very new gcc exception, which I agree is a mess and undesirable: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
And the FSF is being real assholes by not making an official name for this, other than silly games like Microsoft, the lack of this is the reason there is so much license proliferation. The "linking exception" allows me to protect the code I wrote, but allowing it to be *used* in closed-source programs (without weird restrictions on relinking or shared libraries the LGPL forces, which really just discourages anybody from using my software).
Well Stallman and the FSF put the "weird restrictions" into the LGPL for a reason. It is Stallman's fundamental belief that not only should you have access to the source code, but that you must be able to actually change that source code and use your changes in the program. Is this really important? It is for Stallman. One of his early motivations for the GPL was running into a printer driver he couldn't fix. More recently, GPL version 3 was a response to the "Tivoization" of GPL software. So really you're calling Stallman and the FSF assholes for holding to their principles.
Unlike the MS-PL, I allow people to *remove* the linking exception and go with plain GPL, so that my code can be used by people working on GPL code. Microsoft is certainly being assholes by saying you cannot do this.
Why should Microsoft go out of their way to be compatible with the GPL? They wrote a simple license that includes patent protection. You cannot relicense the MS-PL code under the GPL or any other license. There's nothing nefarious or unusual about this, though they could have done what Apache 2.0 did:
"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."
Note that nobody has ever "stolen" my code by making it GPL (or any BSD code for that matter), this is a FUD smokescreen by Microsoft to hide the real purpose, which is to pretend to make open source while making it useless for anybody who already has some open source code that is GPL.
That's an argument against any code restrictions beyond public domain for open source. After all, nobody "steals" your code when they don't give back, so why use a license that enforces that?
if I can do this, I can easily "steal" any MS-PL code and make it GPL-only by adding my useful changes and saying they are GPL with the linking exception.
I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind. If you make changes to the MS-PL source, you can only do so under the MS-PL license. If, however, you want to combine the MS-PL code with code that is clearly separate using y
Too bad Family Guy has run out of funny jokes, and has taken to showing complete songs of Conway Twitty. A short clip might have been funny once, but the whole damn song? Come on.
Neither. Which are you?
Actually, not really. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that either are not supported by observation or even some times that is contradicted by observed realities. As such, socialism fits the bill.
Completely intellectually dishonest. Religion has to do with the supernatural. The people who argued for socialism and communism appealed to logic, practical benefits, and observed realties, the same as people who argue for capitalism.
if quoting a philosopher who died in 1784 is incitement to violence in your world, you need to get out more.
What does the date have anything to do with it, or the fact that he was a philosopher? No philosophers from earlier in history have advocated violence?
Please read up on what the emperors new clothes is about, you have clearly misunderstood it.
I know what it's about. Clothes so fine you can't see them, when in fact they don't exist. Of course people knew they didn't exist, yet everybody said how fine they were, just like that "poetic imagery" you are calling on. How is that not appropriate to what I was saying?
Ok, I was expecting something like 256 megs :) I actually run with 1GB too, even if that is on the low end these days.
My internet machine is a P3 (albeit with gobs of RAM).
I'm curious what somebody using a P3 thinks "gobs of RAM" is. How much?
"does this mean no new updates?" sounds like an honest and obvious question that people who use the filter would want to know. Your rephrasing is dishonest.
"Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in "I Love You, Man." It's so much easier than going out in the rain!"
So he says it's convenient and gives the impression that he thinks nothing about becoming a casual user. I'd say that's promoting. Commentary like this is pretty stupid for a guy who earns his living from copyrights.
Not that it is overly hard but I don't know how to do the equivalent to apt-get install to make debian a source based distro.
Well, if you're asking how to make the whole thing built from source by default I don't know, though if it's possible somebody on the debian-user mailing list should know. However, for individual packages it's just a few commands, and all the dependencies are managed for you.
Though now that I think of it, it should be trivial to write a script that loops over all your installed packages and runs an "apt-get source" on them. But then again, if you only need to look at the source occasionally for individual packages, it seems like a waste of time and space to download everything.
Stalin was a priest, his religion was socialism.
That's just changing the meaning of religion to suit your argument. The fact is any idea or person in power can be abused or blind men's thinking, capitalism being no exception.
Look into the concept of poetic imagery.
There's a very fine line between "poetic imagery" and incitement to violence, so fine that it can amount to the emperor's new clothes.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Even then man won't be free. For example, see Stalin. And I have to say, murdering all the kings and priests doesn't sound like a very "free" thing to do.
Not to mention Android using the linux kernel with a netbsd userland. I guess google don't want to mess with GPLv3.
But by distributing the Linux kernel with the operating system, they are messing with GPLv2, so all that userland should be GPL to comply with the kernel license.
In Debian, simply enabling apt-src does not get you a fully populated /src tree, and getting the source to start looking at to see if you can make a patch is a pain.
A pain? Really? It's just a few commands. I've built from source before many times.
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html#s-sourcepkgs
The problem is, the process is LONG (multi-year in my experience) and very expensive (the one my son got was done pro bono but it would have been about $20KUS about 10 years ago).
The vast majority of that sum would be patent attorney fees, wouldn't it? If you've got time on your hands more than money I believe you'd be best off conducting your own research and not hiring a lawyer.
A 'garage inventor' fee structure that give limited coverage for say 7 years, extendable to 14 for minimal fees, and extendable after that to the current 'protection' limits by 'paying up' to the current level of fees would be pretty equitable.
The current fee schedule has a "Small Entity Fee" column that looks like half the price of the normal fee:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009january01_2009jan12.htm
Perhaps the only sacrosanct portion kept off limits will be the radio stack itself, which if hacked could invalidate the CE mark, FCC, GCF, PTCRB, etc.
I don't understand how Android can base its platform on the Linux kernel, which is GPL, and make everything else on top of it Apache or possibly even closed source. The whole point of the GPL is to prevent a situation like this. Everything they distribute with the kernel should be under GPL. Instead, they are treating the kernel as if it was licensed under the LGPL.
They really should have went with one of the BSDs, like Apple did, to avoid this blatant GPL violation.
Ok, I know I said I was out, but I'm hoping that the conversation is now actually moving in a direction instead of going in circles.
The MS-PL does not allow you to require that derivative works include the source code. I consider that a restriction.
I see no such restriction on the rest of the work that is not under the MS-PL. You are upset because the MS-PL code retains its license?
It is quite impossible to be incompatible with the GPL without also doing pretty much what it does, which is remake all the linked code with it's own license.
No, you have it wrong. See here:
Section II: Compatibilities and incompatibilities with other OSI licenses: Source code distribution breaks down into two areas: Relicensing of MS-PL code and redistribution of MS-PL code with other code that is licensed under a different license.
Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a different license?:
No. The license states that "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license..." This restriction is similar to the restriction in the Mozilla Public License that states "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder." The MS-PL license explicitly prohibits relicensing of the original licensed code under a different license, regardless of whether the original code is redistributed in whole, in part or as part of a different piece of software.
Can MS-PL code be redistributed in combination with other code that is licensed under a different license?
As long as the original MS-PL licensed code is redistributed under the MS-PL license, then the MS-PL places no restrictions on combining MS-PL code with other code that is licensed under another license. Licenses that prohibit the distribution of code under any terms other than the terms of that license will not be compatible with the MS-PL.
Otherwise a GPL plus linking exception would work to allow the MS-PL code to be absorbed into a GPL system.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "GPL system". The linking exception is there so that you can use the gcc compiler, not to create a "GPL system", whatever that means.
The GPL requires all other parts to be compatible with the GPL.
You are understating the GPL. It requires all other parts to be distributed under the GPL as well.
The MS-PL also requires that code distributed with it be compatible with it's license.
Yes, in that way it is similar, but it does not require that all parts be re-licensed exactly as MS-PL. In particular it does not require allowing derivative works to be made, even though this right was granted under the MS-PL.
This is getting rather repetitive. I'm out.
In fact the MS-PL and GPL are ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in their restrictions.
From my reading of the MS-PL and the GPL, they are completely different, in that certain rights granted for the original MS-PL code do not have to be granted to the non-original parts. The GPL is very explicit that all of the code for a derivative work has to be distributed under the GPL as well. The MS-PL contains no such language, and in this respect I read it like the BSD. The MS-PL patent requirements apply to the work as a whole, of course, but being able to create derivative works do not.
What both do is purposely disallow linking with code that is incompatible with their restrictions and then distributing the result.
Neither license talks about linking. There are many ways to create derivative works. Linking is just an obvious one.
So it is okay for American based patent trolls to do this
Who said it was ok? Certainly not the parent you are replying to.
It threw me when I read it too. Damn all these licenses.
Does that mean that if you use my library or incorporate my code, your whole codebase becomes MS-PL'd?
I think they are only talking about the MS-PL portion. Unlike the GPL, they don't make a point about the license covering the "whole" of the work.
I have 5 mod points that I won't use here.
So fucking what? I hate when people use this stupid gimmick to get modded up. Damn the moderators are so easily gamed.
Really? You learned how to read English by watching TV and from that were able to read computer manuals, and learn even more English? I'm afraid I have to call reverse-bullshit.
If I wanted to read Digg I'd go there instead. A story every one or two hours or so is plenty. Quality is preferred over quantity.
Pre-fab ammunition available for easy launch from the coward's armchair.
You're the coward. You're making grand claims of truth that the populous refuses to see, from your armchair, and then say you feel no need to back up your claims.
Of course, it only works if you don't consider it too deeply, but that's easy for those hiding from truth. Self-deception is a skill improved over time.
Are you hiding from the truth? What do you believe and why? I can pick a religion and believe it is true too, many people do, and then tell others I have found the "truth". Whatever helps you sleep better at night.