Soooo, you're morally outraged by people buying low and selling high? And what about you? You perpetuated a fraud to do an "experiment". And on top of that, you publically fantasize about committing a violent assault on them for legal arbitrage. All this rage over a toy?
That's an interesting perspective of the world you have.
Everyone emails That's not true, and some do it more than others. I also refuse to buy from Tiger Direct because of their abusive email practices. Not only that, I made it a point to call up their order line and get my email address removed from their list. It cost them money and let them know I was a pissed off customer.
I understand that you can't boycott every company, but there are dozens of online places to buy electronics from.
Fair? No. And probably illegal. I know there are laws that say if you advertise a product at a certain price, then some number must be available at the store. My guess is letting employees buy the products before the store opens would be seen as a violation, since the general public being advertised to weren't given a fair chance to buy the item.
I tried to find some way to send an e-mail to the Sage open source project to this effect but they have provided no means to do this on their web site. http://sagemath.org/ --> Support --> Mailing Lists
You said yourself "The whole system is derived of many independent parts", the key phrase their being "whole system". Red Hat sells a complete system. The independent parts are put together into a unified whole. Much of that whole was written as part of GNU, the project to provide a clone of Unix using the GPL license. The "part of a whole" clause had exactly this scenario in mind -- you can't start from GNU, add some "enterprise" bits, and redistribute the system as Red Hat Enterprise Linux without the whole falling under GPL.
http://mirrors.kernel.org/[...] Interesting. I wonder if they have special permission to redistribute the source RPMs? Note that they contain a EULA that says:
"This EULA does not permit User to distribute the Programs or their components using Red Hat's trademarks, regardless of whether the copy has been modified."
Their cd's contain trademarks and code that is not open source, such as java and licensed fonts. Then they shouldn't be basing their distribution on GPL code. The GPL doesn't play nice with others.
The whole system is derived of many independent parts, therefore the clause you mention does not apply. But the very next sentence of the clause you mention covers this:
"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
The fact that there are RH developers working on CentOS and taking bug reports to make the upstream better also shows they are complying with the spirit of the GPL. There's a certain extent of goodwill, because it benefits them. However, at the same time they also deny basic rights that the GPL is supposed to provide.
but like I said there isn't anything very "direct" yet There are places like http://www.rentacoder.com/. There's also open source bounties. And there's nothing stopping a developer from releasing a program as closed source, and offering to open source it if a certain amount is paid. That's how Blender became open source.
except donations, which IMO are scary and unsafe. What's scary and unsafe about them if you use Paypal? You send a one-time payment, which unlike a credit card, does not give them access to charge you later.
Would there be less code publicly posted in such a world? I think without copyright you'd see more of a software-as-a-service model, supported by advertisements, subscription, etc. That's the way the world seems to be moving anyways. I don't see more code being shared in such a model.
the closed source industry doesn't seem too interested since they have their copyright laws, and the open source industry doesn't seem too interested because they aren't very interested in seeking hard, direct financial support methods. Well, there are some counter-examples. Mozilla gets mega-bucks from Google. Red Hat has become the Microsoft Windows of the business world using GPL code. And of course there are companies that dual-license their code, playing GPL and copyright off of each other.
All of the problems here on earth are not ever going to be solved, ever. I agree, but there is the matter of the national debt, which is spiraling out of control. If there was a suprlus I'd be all for a manned mission to Mars.
You say you'd love it if copyright was destroyed. Do you acknowledge that would also destroy the GPL, and that nothing would "ensure your code remains open and worked on openly"? That is, the "freedom" to modify source is only enforced through laws that restrict freedoms?
You seem to be projecting or making assumptions of a situation that you weren't involved in. I worked closely with these people. They were smart, motivated, and dedicated to making the company succeed. There was also a collision over leadership, personalities, and decisions. It wasn't an either/or situation, and the idea that these people were enemies of the "good" people is laughable.
I'll do a little assuming of my own. Sounds like you were on the losing end of such a power struggle. Not because you were "good", but because there was general disagreement in how things were being run. Of course in your view, the other side are just power hungry people who will ruin the project, and anybody that agrees with them are just tagalongs.
But hey, I wasn't in your situation, and you weren't in mine. I'm just offering an alternative view.
You have no idea how happy I'd be if I could get many of the other admins to understand that. Then maybe you could start with yourself. As a general principle all communication regarding the administration of Wikipedia should be out in the open, and not on private lists. It's what I expect from any government, and that this isn't the norm on Wikipedia is appallingly hypocritical.
Almost nothing you have talked about requires secret discussions. I'll make an exception for private information, but that can be discussed while blocking out the private info. Regarding your "sock puppet detection" discussions, so what if people get smarter? What is the worst they can do, except to do what they already do: Post crap and it gets cleaned up.
Normally I dismiss all the whining from people that get their self-promotional stuff removed from Wikipedia, but all this behind-closed-doors business reeks.
Generally, you'll have two kinds of groups in every assembly of human beings. Those that want to push the cause along and those that want to control it. I think there's often a large overlap between those two groups. I worked for a small company and have seen power struggles up close, but I would never have called into question the dedication individuals had for making the company succeed.
The source can be distributed verbatim. Can you point to any 3rd party that redistributes Red Hat Enterprise source as is? Can you point to any 3rd party that redistributes Red Hat Enterprise binaries as is?
The artwork and documentation referring to the distribution by brand name cannot be distributed. Last I checked, those things were not covered by the GPL. The GPL does not mention "artwork" or "documentation". It also doesn't mention "version strings", which are embedded in the source. It does, however, say:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." [empahsis mine]
GPL version 2 is written very well. It covers the loopholes that companies like Red Hat try to use. Red Hat sells and distributes their Enterprise products as a whole. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is wrong when people can't freely share GPL source and binaries without "cleaning" them first.
Patents, trademarks, and copyright are different things. The GPL covers two of those. The quote I provided was very clear that anything that contradicts the terms of the GPL is not allowed. Since the source cannot be distributed verbatim, Red Hat is in clear violation of the GPL. There is no dancing around the issue.
And if you were to have read the slightest bit on the Gnu Philosophy page, or known the slightest bit about how Stallman thinks of trademark, you would have known the FSF stance on this. I've read plenty of Stallman's writings. I know why he started GNU, and the GPL is there for all to read. That you can't make copies of GPL software without "cleaning" them is completely against the goals set out by Stallman, and explictly in violation of the GPL. If Stallman and the FSF look the other way that doesn't make the Red Hat situation any less of a farce.
You must file off the trademarks because trademarks aren't covered by copyright licenses. Neither are patents, and the GPL talks about them and anything like them that prevent the rights explictly granted in the GPL:
"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. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."
Now stop being a stupid twit in public. I'm just pointing out the most basic rights granted by the GPL are denied by Red Hat. Yeah, it's great Red Hat releases their sources and distributions like CentOS exist, and that's probably why FSF looks the other way. However, there shouldn't have to be manipulation required to redistribute the source or binary. It's clearly spelled out in the GPL, and is a fundamental principle of the GPL.
The source for RHEL is available from their website. You can compile and use it for your own purposes as you see fit, even redistribute it if you file off the Red Hat trademarks (vide CentOS). Why do I have to "file off" trademarks to redistribute, when term 1 in GPL v2 states "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium"? [emphasis mine]
Heck, even if you buy the software from Red Hat, you get to install as many copies as you like from the media. Can I then make a copy of Enterprise Linux and give it to all my friends? Put it on a public server for download? In other words, can I redistribute the binary?
I work on GPL software. Exclusively. I don't work on BSD or public domain code because it's not my intention to effectively be an unpaid employee in whatever company uses my work. Red Hat sells their "enterprise" versions of Linux for big money. They sell it under a restrictive license. How much of what they sell (percentage of code) has been written by unpaid volunteers?
The problem with Stallman's definition of Free Software is that he states that access to source code is required, which is not a requirement of public domain, nor is it compatible with a general notion of "freedom".
After all, I can write a piece of software and release the binary as public domain without releasing the source. It's a rather twisted definition of freedom to say that I must release source code to software that I have written. It's also twisted to say that a user has any inherent right to source code.
Maybe I've been misunderstanding something. Yep. You can't take the copyright for something released into the public domain. You can copyright a derivative work, but the original work is still public domain.
There's a lot of precedent for people claiming copyright or getting patents for other people's work. The GPL doesn't help with this. What it comes down to is verifying who performed the original work. I can fraudulently publish somebody else's source code as GPL in exactly the same way that somebody can fraudulently claim to have originated my public domain or GPL code. Any disputes about ownership will have to be settled in court.
what can I do to guarantee that I can continue to use something that I've released to the public domain? Keep track of your code in version control. Publish your code on 3rd party sites like Sourceforge. Publish early and often. This way if there's any disputes you can point to the history.
Wow, this topic always comes up and gets rehashed over, and over, and over... Sure does.
The best software is But I guess it won't anymore now that you've put your authoritive stamp on it?
No matter what your views on GPL vs. Public Domain or whatnot, this fact remains, that the world is a better place if we all have freedom to fully control the things we use. Good, then abolish copyright, and along with it, any power the GPL has over us. You will be able to modify any code you receive to the best of your ability. But please don't infringe on my freedom to distribute software without distributing source code. That would be a violation of my freedoms. Demanding otherwise is entitlement, not freedom.
I routinely browse the web with Javascript turned off and use my own fonts and colors. I give Yahoo credit for consistently supporting this mode of browsing.
Slashdot Mirror
Soooo, you're morally outraged by people buying low and selling high? And what about you? You perpetuated a fraud to do an "experiment". And on top of that, you publically fantasize about committing a violent assault on them for legal arbitrage. All this rage over a toy?
That's an interesting perspective of the world you have.
I understand that you can't boycott every company, but there are dozens of online places to buy electronics from.
Support -->
Mailing Lists
What does "nt" refer to? Seems like a new joke on /. but I missed the original reference.
You said yourself "The whole system is derived of many independent parts", the key phrase their being "whole system". Red Hat sells a complete system. The independent parts are put together into a unified whole. Much of that whole was written as part of GNU, the project to provide a clone of Unix using the GPL license. The "part of a whole" clause had exactly this scenario in mind -- you can't start from GNU, add some "enterprise" bits, and redistribute the system as Red Hat Enterprise Linux without the whole falling under GPL.
"This EULA does not permit User to distribute the Programs or their components using Red Hat's trademarks, regardless of whether the copy has been modified." Their cd's contain trademarks and code that is not open source, such as java and licensed fonts. Then they shouldn't be basing their distribution on GPL code. The GPL doesn't play nice with others. The whole system is derived of many independent parts, therefore the clause you mention does not apply. But the very next sentence of the clause you mention covers this:
"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." The fact that there are RH developers working on CentOS and taking bug reports to make the upstream better also shows they are complying with the spirit of the GPL. There's a certain extent of goodwill, because it benefits them. However, at the same time they also deny basic rights that the GPL is supposed to provide.
In that spirit, I nominate fr-08, the 64kb demo from 2000.
By the way, does anybody know anything about the opening to Grand Theft Auto 3? I love that tune. It sets the mood perfectly.
You say you'd love it if copyright was destroyed. Do you acknowledge that would also destroy the GPL, and that nothing would "ensure your code remains open and worked on openly"? That is, the "freedom" to modify source is only enforced through laws that restrict freedoms?
You seem to be projecting or making assumptions of a situation that you weren't involved in. I worked closely with these people. They were smart, motivated, and dedicated to making the company succeed. There was also a collision over leadership, personalities, and decisions. It wasn't an either/or situation, and the idea that these people were enemies of the "good" people is laughable.
I'll do a little assuming of my own. Sounds like you were on the losing end of such a power struggle. Not because you were "good", but because there was general disagreement in how things were being run. Of course in your view, the other side are just power hungry people who will ruin the project, and anybody that agrees with them are just tagalongs.
But hey, I wasn't in your situation, and you weren't in mine. I'm just offering an alternative view.
Almost nothing you have talked about requires secret discussions. I'll make an exception for private information, but that can be discussed while blocking out the private info. Regarding your "sock puppet detection" discussions, so what if people get smarter? What is the worst they can do, except to do what they already do: Post crap and it gets cleaned up.
Normally I dismiss all the whining from people that get their self-promotional stuff removed from Wikipedia, but all this behind-closed-doors business reeks.
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." [empahsis mine]
GPL version 2 is written very well. It covers the loopholes that companies like Red Hat try to use. Red Hat sells and distributes their Enterprise products as a whole. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is wrong when people can't freely share GPL source and binaries without "cleaning" them first.
"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. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." Now stop being a stupid twit in public. I'm just pointing out the most basic rights granted by the GPL are denied by Red Hat. Yeah, it's great Red Hat releases their sources and distributions like CentOS exist, and that's probably why FSF looks the other way. However, there shouldn't have to be manipulation required to redistribute the source or binary. It's clearly spelled out in the GPL, and is a fundamental principle of the GPL.
If I can't, then it ain't GPL.
The problem with Stallman's definition of Free Software is that he states that access to source code is required, which is not a requirement of public domain, nor is it compatible with a general notion of "freedom".
After all, I can write a piece of software and release the binary as public domain without releasing the source. It's a rather twisted definition of freedom to say that I must release source code to software that I have written. It's also twisted to say that a user has any inherent right to source code.
I routinely browse the web with Javascript turned off and use my own fonts and colors. I give Yahoo credit for consistently supporting this mode of browsing.