There is no deadline in the LGPL or required by law
There's no deadline per se - as you're obliged to release the source with the binaries.
Please provide a link with someone who agrees with your point of view. Can't? That's because you're wrong. When the follow up story comes, where parallels admits they were in the wrong, I hope you'll be man enough to admit it.
the idea that you pretend the LGPL doesn't exist when someone violates its terms does not hold water.
Man, you're a dumbass. Noone's said that. The LGPL ceases to be relevant when you violate it. You don't have to agree with it (so its not like an EULA), the only thing you can do is abide by it. If you don't, then you're violating copyright.
I've provided you with links, please provide me with a link that backs up your assertion that it's fine to distribute binaries of (L)GPLd code with no corresponding source, provided you're going to offer source at some unspecified point (years? decades?) in the future?
Can't? That's because you're wrong, and you're a dumbass.
Although this time is sanctioned, its not the first time Simpsons products have made it into real life. About 10 years ago, an Australian brewery started brewing Duff beer. Fox sued, the beer was pulled.
Anyone who managed to get their hands on some Duff were lucky. Empty beer cans went for $20 or more on ebay.
Oh! I get it. Every time you say "dumbass" it's meant to...
It's meant to let everyone else know what a dumbass you are! Sorry Dumbass, you're still wrong.
Have a read of this message and this message (from the same thread) on GPL-violations.org - people who've actually gone after GPL violators - each time successfully.
The thread is about delaying release of source & touches upon copyright. The parts that will particularly interest you are:
Unless you conform to the GPL, you're violating copyright. It's not a license violation since you haven't agreed to the license. You can't agree to the license and then ignore the terms of that license.
and
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. I think that it would be very reasonable to allow a company to collect requests and ship once a week. Dragging the process more than a month, smells like GPL abuse to me.
The link I provided was from a FAQ from the authors of the LGPL. I guess you know better huh?
Read carefully section 6. It does NOT NEED TO INCLUDE SOURCE CODE IN THE DISTRIBUTION.
But you need to include it somewhere. SWsoft hasn't
It doesn't suddenly become "some other license" just because you say it does.
Sorry dumbass, I didn't say "some other license". I said "copyright law."
Oh - and the relevant part of section 6:
Also, you must do one of these things:
* a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
* b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
* c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
* d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place.
* e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.
Please identify the section where it says you can provide access to the source at your leisure.
but the LGPL defines source code as: ""Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." That would include comments to make sense of it,
Wrong. Comments are friendly, but not neccessary. Witness the webcore/khtml debacle several months ago.
It says you must make it available. It does not say that you must make it available concurrent with the release
Wrong again. If you'd just read the link I provided earlier you woulnd't continue to be looking like such a dumbass. Here's the pertinent point (about whether something is violating or not):
# Is source code included in the distribution?
The code is released under the LGPL.
Uhhh Really? Can you please link to where I can download the code? You see, it's NOT released under the LGPL without code.
Absolutely incorrect. Noncompliance with the LGPL is a license issue, not a copyright one
Dumbass. If you violate the license (ie by not distributing source code), then you fall back to copyright law. Noncompliance involves both copyleft & copyright.
Thanks for the entertainment. I'm going to write a journal about misconecptions of the (L)GPL, using you and your dumbassed comments as examples.
Especially since AT&T, a company known for shitty service, was given launch rights.
But, but but!
Apple's going to fix the entire cell phone industry with the iPhone! Surely they wouldn't have chosen the worst servicing, most predatory monopolist of the cell phone industry to be their partner?
Would you knock off the "don't understand" bullshit already?
I'm sorry, I cant. You clearly don't understand copyright or copyleft. You've said:
* LGPL compliance imposes a code commenting requirement. (wtf?) * The (L)GPL license doesn't impose a deadline to release code. (huh?) * You don't need permission to redistribute LGPLd code under a different license. (what a dumbass)
They are NOT REQUIRED BY COPYRIGHT TO DO SO. End of story.
They are. Here's the rub.
1) Wine code is under copyright. 2) You can redistribute if you accept the LGPL license (including modified source with redistribution). 3) If you don't accept the LGPL (they haven't as they didn't included the modified code), then you fall back to copyright.
Copyright is the whip that enforces copyleft. I suggest you read the GPL FAQ before posting here again.
Are you honestly trying to say that you need to ask permission to distribute?
If you're not distributing under the terms of the license, then you fall back to copyright law & have to ask for permission. SWsoft aren't distributing under the terms of the license.
IOW, you know I'm right, but can't admit it - Really, you should be thanking me, with your new found knowledge, you won't look like such a dumbass in future.
2) SWsoft did not know of wine's licensing - they just took some code of the internet & incorporated it into their product, presuming it was OK to do so.
You see - the only way you could mistakenly use someone elses code is if you didn't have the respect for copyright law in the first place.
1) SWsoft knew of wine's licensing & chose to ignore it. 2) SWsoft did not know of wine's licensing - they just took some code of the internet & incorporated it into their product, presuming it was OK to do so.
Do either sound particularly respectful of copyright to you?
Well, aren't we hosile? Based on the assumption that Parellels was only available to paying customers...*snip*...I don't see why it was such a stupid thing.
You accused the wine team of not understanding the LGPL when you clearly don't understand it yourself.
The winelibs are licensed under the LGPL. Anyone who's got a copy of Parallels is free to distribute the winelibs. Anyone with a basic understanding of copyleft would see this & understand that you don't need to be a Parallels customer to have rights to the code.
Aaaaah, I take it that your post is an admission that you were wrong and that Apple do actually have DRM on software?
Don't let your fanboism level of hate for something you wish you could have, but could never afford,
What do you mean 'could never afford'? I though macs were affordable these days? Isn't that the fanboist line?
Learn Things, Fuckteeth!
Well, at least you've learned one thing hey? That Apple have DRM on their software. Knowing this will help prevent you looking like such a dumbass in future!
No need to thank me - this is a service I offer for free:-)
Just using a bunch of code you found on the internet without checking the license is disrespectful of both copyright law in general & wine in particular.
What if (say) Microsoft was including some Apple products in Vista - and hadn't responded to Apple's questions for 22 days. Would you be saying "Calm down, give Microsoft some more time to seek legal advice"?
Is SWSoft a big enough company to have a full time dedicated legal department?
How about:
What if (say) the winehq was including some itnues code in wine - and hadn't responded to Apple's questions for 22 days. Would you be saying "Calm down, give the winehq some more time to seek legal advice"?
I don't think winehq has a full time dedicated legal department.
The only people who do have the right to the code are the people who bought Parallels.
No, anyone with a copy of the portion of the Parallels code in question (ie a demo, wine DLLs extracted from a purchased version, etc) can ask for the source.
Did the Wine team buy themselves a copy?
Congratulations. That's without a doubt the second stupidest thing I've read on slashdot (the stupidest was the subject of your post).
Slashdot Mirror
There is no deadline in the LGPL or required by law
There's no deadline per se - as you're obliged to release the source with the binaries.
Please provide a link with someone who agrees with your point of view. Can't? That's because you're wrong. When the follow up story comes, where parallels admits they were in the wrong, I hope you'll be man enough to admit it.
the idea that you pretend the LGPL doesn't exist when someone violates its terms does not hold water.
Man, you're a dumbass. Noone's said that. The LGPL ceases to be relevant when you violate it. You don't have to agree with it (so its not like an EULA), the only thing you can do is abide by it. If you don't, then you're violating copyright.
I've provided you with links, please provide me with a link that backs up your assertion that it's fine to distribute binaries of (L)GPLd code with no corresponding source, provided you're going to offer source at some unspecified point (years? decades?) in the future?
Can't? That's because you're wrong, and you're a dumbass.
Although this time is sanctioned, its not the first time Simpsons products have made it into real life. About 10 years ago, an Australian brewery started brewing Duff beer. Fox sued, the beer was pulled.
Anyone who managed to get their hands on some Duff were lucky. Empty beer cans went for $20 or more on ebay.
It's meant to let everyone else know what a dumbass you are! Sorry Dumbass, you're still wrong.
Have a read of this message and this message (from the same thread) on GPL-violations.org - people who've actually gone after GPL violators - each time successfully.
The thread is about delaying release of source & touches upon copyright. The parts that will particularly interest you are:andIs that plain enough for you?
The link I provided was from a FAQ from the authors of the LGPL. I guess you know better huh?
Read carefully section 6. It does NOT NEED TO INCLUDE SOURCE CODE IN THE DISTRIBUTION.
But you need to include it somewhere. SWsoft hasn't
It doesn't suddenly become "some other license" just because you say it does.
Sorry dumbass, I didn't say "some other license". I said "copyright law."
Oh - and the relevant part of section 6:Please identify the section where it says you can provide access to the source at your leisure.
but the LGPL defines source code as: ""Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." That would include comments to make sense of it,
Wrong. Comments are friendly, but not neccessary. Witness the webcore/khtml debacle several months ago.
It says you must make it available. It does not say that you must make it available concurrent with the release
Wrong again. If you'd just read the link I provided earlier you woulnd't continue to be looking like such a dumbass. Here's the pertinent point (about whether something is violating or not):
# Is source code included in the distribution?
The code is released under the LGPL.
Uhhh Really? Can you please link to where I can download the code? You see, it's NOT released under the LGPL without code.
Absolutely incorrect. Noncompliance with the LGPL is a license issue, not a copyright one
Dumbass. If you violate the license (ie by not distributing source code), then you fall back to copyright law. Noncompliance involves both copyleft & copyright.
Thanks for the entertainment. I'm going to write a journal about misconecptions of the (L)GPL, using you and your dumbassed comments as examples.
Especially since AT&T, a company known for shitty service, was given launch rights.
But, but but!
Apple's going to fix the entire cell phone industry with the iPhone! Surely they wouldn't have chosen the worst servicing, most predatory monopolist of the cell phone industry to be their partner?
(Eventually)
Damn! I thought you were done with me?
Would you knock off the "don't understand" bullshit already?
I'm sorry, I cant. You clearly don't understand copyright or copyleft. You've said:
* LGPL compliance imposes a code commenting requirement. (wtf?)
* The (L)GPL license doesn't impose a deadline to release code. (huh?)
* You don't need permission to redistribute LGPLd code under a different license. (what a dumbass)
They are NOT REQUIRED BY COPYRIGHT TO DO SO. End of story.
They are. Here's the rub.
1) Wine code is under copyright.
2) You can redistribute if you accept the LGPL license (including modified source with redistribution).
3) If you don't accept the LGPL (they haven't as they didn't included the modified code), then you fall back to copyright.
Copyright is the whip that enforces copyleft. I suggest you read the GPL FAQ before posting here again.
Are you honestly trying to say that you need to ask permission to distribute?
If you're not distributing under the terms of the license, then you fall back to copyright law & have to ask for permission. SWsoft aren't distributing under the terms of the license.
You still don't understand copyleft at all do you?
I'm done with you.
IOW, you know I'm right, but can't admit it - Really, you should be thanking me, with your new found knowledge, you won't look like such a dumbass in future.
Next.
That would fall under the second category:You see - the only way you could mistakenly use someone elses code is if you didn't have the respect for copyright law in the first place.
Who said that is what happened?
There's two possible scenarios.
1) SWsoft knew of wine's licensing & chose to ignore it.
2) SWsoft did not know of wine's licensing - they just took some code of the internet & incorporated it into their product, presuming it was OK to do so.
Do either sound particularly respectful of copyright to you?
Code released under the LGPL does not require express permission from the copyright holder to be used or rereleased.
Only if you don't distribute it under the LGPL, otherwise you're simply stealing copyrighted code.
You don't even have a rudimentry understanding of copyleft do you?
Next.
Well, aren't we hosile? Based on the assumption that Parellels was only available to paying customers...*snip*...I don't see why it was such a stupid thing.
You accused the wine team of not understanding the LGPL when you clearly don't understand it yourself.
The winelibs are licensed under the LGPL. Anyone who's got a copy of Parallels is free to distribute the winelibs. Anyone with a basic understanding of copyleft would see this & understand that you don't need to be a Parallels customer to have rights to the code.
Explain what this has to do with copyright
SWsoft took copyrighted code & released it without the permission of the copyright holders.
Aaaaah, I take it that your post is an admission that you were wrong and that Apple do actually have DRM on software?
:-)
Don't let your fanboism level of hate for something you wish you could have, but could never afford,
What do you mean 'could never afford'? I though macs were affordable these days? Isn't that the fanboist line?
Learn Things, Fuckteeth!
Well, at least you've learned one thing hey? That Apple have DRM on their software. Knowing this will help prevent you looking like such a dumbass in future!
No need to thank me - this is a service I offer for free
Nor it appears does parallels.
That's a funny statement, considering (L)GPL software isn't copyrighted by the FSF
1) (L)GPLd code is copyrighted.
2) The FSF holds no rights to wine code.
You really don't understand copyright or copyleft at all do you? Dumbass.
Just using a bunch of code you found on the internet without checking the license is disrespectful of both copyright law in general & wine in particular.
What if (say) the winehq was including some itnues code in wine - and hadn't responded to Apple's questions for 22 days. Would you be saying "Calm down, give the winehq some more time to seek legal advice"?
I don't think winehq has a full time dedicated legal department.
Who says they aren't respecting it?
If the story's true, they released binaries that included someone else's copyrighted code without asking permission.
Is that respect?
The only people who do have the right to the code are the people who bought Parallels.
No, anyone with a copy of the portion of the Parallels code in question (ie a demo, wine DLLs extracted from a purchased version, etc) can ask for the source.
Did the Wine team buy themselves a copy?
Congratulations. That's without a doubt the second stupidest thing I've read on slashdot (the stupidest was the subject of your post).
Not on software? OSX doesn't even demand you enter a license code as you install it, nor does it enforce any kind of activation...
What's your point?
A DRMd ITMS song doesn't demand you enter a license code when you play it on your iPod, nor does it enforce any kind of activation.
A DRMd DVD doesn't demand you enter a license code when you play it on your DVD player, nor does it enforce any kind of activation.
Try a simple google search, I'm sick of having to explain this.
The rep should have said "Stop whining. Noone supports desktop 64 bit windows"
esoteric code commenting isn't done to appease some geeks,
It's nothing to do with code commenting - that's a mater of politeness - not legalilty.
There's also no deadline imposed by the license
You know absolutely nothing about copyright do you?