The intent of my point was - FSF wasn't indulging in a greenpeace style sabre rattle. They merely wondered if there was any (L)GPLd software on the iPhone.
This is a base attempt to get attention, to get some of the bigger press outlets to look at them. I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.
Except that:
1) FSF said nothing like the summary implies. 2) I suspect the FSF chose the 29th so they wouldn't have too much publicity - I mean all the MS/Apple pundits who'd otherwise love to have a bit of a GPL3 bash have had their hand full. (either denouncing the iphone or heralding it as the second cumming)
But you're not allowed to do whatever you want with it, and you're not actually giving it away free of restrictions.
*shrug* noone's ever said it was free of restrictions. Something completely free of restrictions doesn't require a license, as it's in the public domain.
It's far more free than Apple's proprietary offerings however - you are free to use the software however you like.
What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with?
You're allowed to do far more with free software, then you're allowed to do with Apple's software. Redistribute it under the terms you received it for instance.
I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.
What posturing is the FSF doing? I read the article & the FSF guy parsaid: 'Apple's released a proprietary & DRM-crippled phone - I wonder if it has GPLd software on it?'
The iPhone is both proprietary & crippled by DRM - I don't see where the posturing is.
The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.
Bullshit.
Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.
The only quote in the article from the FSF is a (rather general) statement about the iPhone being proprietary & DRM laden. Nothing about licensing at all.
are the cleanup and commenting of source code in order to release it in the PREFERRED FORM
Oh man, I was going to leave it, but I guess I haven't even enlightened you even on this one point. Code comments are not relevant to (L)GPL compliance. They're about politeness.
I love the way you yelled preferred form - if you'd just read to the end of the relevant sentence, you'd have seen: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
This is to prevent people from offering the source as (say) a print-out. Comments are not relevant.
Copyright law doesn't. The commercial code does, as does the store's sales policy. Nice try, though, incompetence aside.
1) Store? I specifically said downloaded from a warez site. Nice try tho' - selective quoting aside.
2) Commercial Code? That doesn't have a specific timeframe either.
especially since that falls outside the LGPL's 3 year requirement
Red herring. 3 year requirement of the GPL is not particularly relevant for this type of discussion, but as this is the best you can come up with, I'm going to presume you'd be perfectly OK if Apple/MS/etc took GPLd code & refused to release source for a year.
There's no timeframe in the license.
Well, we seem to be going around in circles here - I agree with that statement, but take 'no time timeframe' to equal 'as soon as practicable' - you seem to take 'no timeframe' as 'whenever the fuck we feel like (under three years)'
At 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).
So, you've leant one thing - someone else is going to have to teach you the other. I've run out of time. Sorry.
The LGPL is the entirety of the license. It doesn't stipulate a timeframe; copyright law certainly does not.
What are you saying? I can download copyrighted material from a warez site & say "I'm going to pay, but copyright law doesn't stipulate when I have to. Give me a few years".
Dumbass.
SWsoft is free to provide that source when they choose to do so.
No, they're not. If that was the case, MS/Sun/Apple/etc would have cherry picked all the best bits of linux/other free software & say "We're free to provide source when we choose to - that will be in 10 years"
Hmmmmn, perusing your comment history, its becoming apparent why you're so upset with me! You're a whinier mac fanboi than I am - and jealous that I got the nick before you did.
Correct? Don't worry, Whiney Mac Fanboi isn't taken yet, perhaps register that.
You're backpedalling dumbass. You're trying to equate a reasonable person waiting for the source for more than one day, with a legal requirement that the source be shipped as soon as practicable.
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.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! No, of course a company wouldn't be worried about bad press coming from one of the biggest tech sites on the planet.
How many emails do you think the CEO of SWsoft had waiting on his desk Monday morning?
Two can play the game of selectively quoting to make someone appear to agree with your argument.
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it;
See? Selective quoting is fun! You agree with me!
They did not violate the LGPL
I'm afraid they did, got busted & in the ensuing bad publicity released the source. Or perhaps you think it coincidence that they suddenly gained 'legal clearance' the day after the story was posted on slashdot.
Now kindly piss off.
Sorry Dumbass, you're still wrong (hey, at least you're not arguing that its about 'code commenting' anymore (hahahaha, you dumbass).
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.
Nope, you're wrong. My source agrees with me that there is no legal time limit, as the distributor is required to immediately provide source upon request (if not packaged with the distro).
The person I linked to said a reasonable person would allow the distributor a week (note this a week beyond what is legally required) to get the source to them.
The really funny thing here is that since we started this conversation, Parallels have agreed with me and released the source, saying they'll make it available to any user who asks for it.
Enough. You lost; get over it.
Its not a matter of winning or losing, its a matter of being right or wrong. In this case, I'm right & you're wrong.
(and were'nt you 'done' with me about 10 comments ago?)
If it was good enough for you to use in support of your "argument," then it's good enough to use against it.
But it didn't support your argument in the slightest. The link said there was no time limit (ie, source & binaries had to be released concurrently or when asked for), but a weeks grace would be given by a reasonable person when asking for the source.
I again invite you to supply a link that backs you up? Can't?
No, lack of respect show intentional actions or malice
No, it doesn't. A kid playing on a lawn with 'keep off the grass' sign is showing a lack of respect - not intentional malice.
Nope, Obviously, if the lawyers would up and say that, then SWsoft would have released the precious code
Wrong. SWsoft are following my advice & STFU while they scramble to release the code whilst offending as few people as possible.
Just because you're a litigation-friendly dick, doesn't mean SWsoft are.
As for suing, all whinehq can really sue for is action. They give their products away so showing actual damages will be hard to do.
It's not that simple - wine don't give their product away, they license it out under certain conditions. Winehq can argue that they have plans in the future to sell the code under a different license. Companies such as MySQL do this already, making large profits.
I doubt wineHQ will sue - their goal isn't to make money, but to keep code open.
The third possibility of course is that Universal could do an EMI & go down the DRM free path - selling iPod compatible mp4s/mp4s on amazon / whatever.
I think that's a reasonable bargaining chip to bring to the table - imagine the launch of ipod compatible, variable priced music on Amazon - launched with a live concert by universal artists such as U2 & Elton John....
No, it could very well be possible that the developer who decided to use the wine code knew full well of the license but didn't communicate it properly to higher ups and they weren't aware. Or it could be that the tech who was supposed to separate any proprietary code and then post it failed to do so for a number of reasons.
The two scenarios you describe show a lack of respect - lack of respect does not necessarily mean malice - it may just mean carelessness.
The mistake isn't in using the code, it is in dropping the ball on releasing the source.
Aaah, so it was deliberate. Thanks for clearing that up.
Personally, if it were me and I was attacked for something like this, I would see you in court.
Nope, if you were SWsoft (assuming you had the brains to listen to your lawyers), you'd STFU. Figure out a way to release the code without getting your ass sued by winehq.
The winelibs are licensed under the LGPL. Anyone who's got a copy of Parallels is free to distribute the winelibs.
No they're not They don't have the source.
Aaah, but if they have the binaries (which are freely redistributable under the terms of the LGPL), then they're free to ask for the source.
It only takes one customer to put the binaries on an FTP site & everyone can ask for the source.
I suspect you're too young to remember when the Quake 1 source code was GPLd & someone called 'slade' started distributing modified binaries arguing only 'customers' could get his source.
Slashdot Mirror
so it's obvious they're trying to cast suspicion on Apple as being a potential GPL violator.
*shrugs* - you're welcome to think 'I wonder if the phone contains GPLd software' == 'GPL violator'. I don't
Good point. I did mean to qualify, but didn't.
The intent of my point was - FSF wasn't indulging in a greenpeace style sabre rattle. They merely wondered if there was any (L)GPLd software on the iPhone.
Context is the answer child.
Use the software as you see fit. If you give it to others, you have to extend that right to them.
But if you distribute, you lose the freedom to do absolutely anything you want
Nope, you can still use the code to do whatever you want.
You just lose the right to restrict someone else's freedom to do absolutely anything they want.
This is a base attempt to get attention, to get some of the bigger press outlets to look at them. I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.
Except that:
1) FSF said nothing like the summary implies.
2) I suspect the FSF chose the 29th so they wouldn't have too much publicity - I mean all the MS/Apple pundits who'd otherwise love to have a bit of a GPL3 bash have had their hand full. (either denouncing the iphone or heralding it as the second cumming)
That is a mischaracterization. That's like saying line breaks are not relevant and human-readable variable names are not relevant.
You're equating line breaks with comments? Seriously?
But you're not allowed to do whatever you want with it, and you're not actually giving it away free of restrictions.
*shrug* noone's ever said it was free of restrictions. Something completely free of restrictions doesn't require a license, as it's in the public domain.
It's far more free than Apple's proprietary offerings however - you are free to use the software however you like.
What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with?
You're allowed to do far more with free software, then you're allowed to do with Apple's software. Redistribute it under the terms you received it for instance.
I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.
What posturing is the FSF doing? I read the article & the FSF guy parsaid: 'Apple's released a proprietary & DRM-crippled phone - I wonder if it has GPLd software on it?'
The iPhone is both proprietary & crippled by DRM - I don't see where the posturing is.
The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.
Bullshit.
Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.
The only quote in the article from the FSF is a (rather general) statement about the iPhone being proprietary & DRM laden. Nothing about licensing at all.
are the cleanup and commenting of source code in order to release it in the PREFERRED FORM
Oh man, I was going to leave it, but I guess I haven't even enlightened you even on this one point. Code comments are not relevant to (L)GPL compliance. They're about politeness.
I love the way you yelled preferred form - if you'd just read to the end of the relevant sentence, you'd have seen: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
This is to prevent people from offering the source as (say) a print-out. Comments are not relevant.
Thanks for playing!
Copyright law doesn't. The commercial code does, as does the store's sales policy. Nice try, though, incompetence aside.
1) Store? I specifically said downloaded from a warez site. Nice try tho' - selective quoting aside.
2) Commercial Code? That doesn't have a specific timeframe either.
especially since that falls outside the LGPL's 3 year requirement
Red herring. 3 year requirement of the GPL is not particularly relevant for this type of discussion, but as this is the best you can come up with, I'm going to presume you'd be perfectly OK if Apple/MS/etc took GPLd code & refused to release source for a year.
There's no timeframe in the license.
Well, we seem to be going around in circles here - I agree with that statement, but take 'no time timeframe' to equal 'as soon as practicable' - you seem to take 'no timeframe' as 'whenever the fuck we feel like (under three years)'
At 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).
So, you've leant one thing - someone else is going to have to teach you the other. I've run out of time. Sorry.
The LGPL is the entirety of the license. It doesn't stipulate a timeframe; copyright law certainly does not.
What are you saying? I can download copyrighted material from a warez site & say "I'm going to pay, but copyright law doesn't stipulate when I have to. Give me a few years".
Dumbass.
SWsoft is free to provide that source when they choose to do so.
No, they're not. If that was the case, MS/Sun/Apple/etc would have cherry picked all the best bits of linux/other free software & say "We're free to provide source when we choose to - that will be in 10 years"
Dumbass.
It doesn't change the legal requirements, which are clear. It doesn't specify a timeframe. Full stop
Thanks! I was hoping you'd eventually admit that it doesn't specifiy a timeframe, rather than saying "there is no timeframe."
There's a big difference.
We can go around in circles all you like. Nothing is going to change the fact that you have a legal requirement to release the code upon request.
The link I provided agrees with me, and for all your selective quoting disagrees with you.
I'm sorry I've taken the nick you crave, but I'm quite attached to it now. Arguing with me about the LGPL isn't going to change this.
Hmmmmn, perusing your comment history, its becoming apparent why you're so upset with me! You're a whinier mac fanboi than I am - and jealous that I got the nick before you did.
Correct? Don't worry, Whiney Mac Fanboi isn't taken yet, perhaps register that.
You're backpedalling dumbass. You're trying to equate a reasonable person waiting for the source for more than one day, with a legal requirement that the source be shipped as soon as practicable.
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.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! No, of course a company wouldn't be worried about bad press coming from one of the biggest tech sites on the planet.
How many emails do you think the CEO of SWsoft had waiting on his desk Monday morning?
They did not violate the LGPL
I'm afraid they did, got busted & in the ensuing bad publicity released the source. Or perhaps you think it coincidence that they suddenly gained 'legal clearance' the day after the story was posted on slashdot.
Now kindly piss off.
Sorry Dumbass, you're still wrong (hey, at least you're not arguing that its about 'code commenting' anymore (hahahaha, you dumbass).
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.
Nope, you're wrong. My source agrees with me that there is no legal time limit, as the distributor is required to immediately provide source upon request (if not packaged with the distro).
The person I linked to said a reasonable person would allow the distributor a week (note this a week beyond what is legally required) to get the source to them.
The really funny thing here is that since we started this conversation, Parallels have agreed with me and released the source, saying they'll make it available to any user who asks for it.
Enough. You lost; get over it.
Its not a matter of winning or losing, its a matter of being right or wrong. In this case, I'm right & you're wrong.
(and were'nt you 'done' with me about 10 comments ago?)
And giving the code away in the present isn't going to hamper those future plans?
They're not giving their code away. The license it. The unencumbered code is worth money.
Well, it's all a bit of a moot point now. Parallels have admitted they're wrong & released the code (to winehq at least).
It won't be over until the code is somewhere anyone with access to the binaries can download it.
If it was good enough for you to use in support of your "argument," then it's good enough to use against it.
But it didn't support your argument in the slightest. The link said there was no time limit (ie, source & binaries had to be released concurrently or when asked for), but a weeks grace would be given by a reasonable person when asking for the source.
I again invite you to supply a link that backs you up? Can't?
No, lack of respect show intentional actions or malice
No, it doesn't. A kid playing on a lawn with 'keep off the grass' sign is showing a lack of respect - not intentional malice.
Nope, Obviously, if the lawyers would up and say that, then SWsoft would have released the precious code
Wrong. SWsoft are following my advice & STFU while they scramble to release the code whilst offending as few people as possible.
Just because you're a litigation-friendly dick, doesn't mean SWsoft are.
As for suing, all whinehq can really sue for is action. They give their products away so showing actual damages will be hard to do.
It's not that simple - wine don't give their product away, they license it out under certain conditions. Winehq can argue that they have plans in the future to sell the code under a different license. Companies such as MySQL do this already, making large profits.
I doubt wineHQ will sue - their goal isn't to make money, but to keep code open.
The third possibility of course is that Universal could do an EMI & go down the DRM free path - selling iPod compatible mp4s/mp4s on amazon / whatever.
I think that's a reasonable bargaining chip to bring to the table - imagine the launch of ipod compatible, variable priced music on Amazon - launched with a live concert by universal artists such as U2 & Elton John....
No, it could very well be possible that the developer who decided to use the wine code knew full well of the license but didn't communicate it properly to higher ups and they weren't aware. Or it could be that the tech who was supposed to separate any proprietary code and then post it failed to do so for a number of reasons.
The two scenarios you describe show a lack of respect - lack of respect does not necessarily mean malice - it may just mean carelessness.
The mistake isn't in using the code, it is in dropping the ball on releasing the source.
Aaah, so it was deliberate. Thanks for clearing that up.
Personally, if it were me and I was attacked for something like this, I would see you in court.
Nope, if you were SWsoft (assuming you had the brains to listen to your lawyers), you'd STFU. Figure out a way to release the code without getting your ass sued by winehq.
Aaah, but if they have the binaries (which are freely redistributable under the terms of the LGPL), then they're free to ask for the source.
It only takes one customer to put the binaries on an FTP site & everyone can ask for the source.
I suspect you're too young to remember when the Quake 1 source code was GPLd & someone called 'slade' started distributing modified binaries arguing only 'customers' could get his source.
The copyright holder disagreed, stating:True then, truer now.