More correctly, you can't change it and then try to pass it off as the GPL. That'd be like tyring to take Microsoft's EULA, changing it, and then trying to say "No, look, it's still the MS EULA".
If you want to change it, you can't call it the GNU GPL. What you can do is change it, or use it as a basis for your own license, and then give the license a new name of your own. You could probably even say it's a GPL-derivative or modified-GPL license, to let people know that the license is basically the same as the GPL, but with some differences.
While technically the FSF could prevent you from doing this (since they own the copyright on the GPL), it's unlikely that they'd try anything unless you were stepping on their toes (eg. trying to call your new license the GPL).
Causing a binary to be run (eg. by loading a PHP page) does not constitute distribution of the binary. The GPL doesn't cover the use of programs, only their distribution.
The key point is that remotely running a program is NOT the same as distributing it. The difference is that if I have a copy of a program that was distributed, I can run it whenever and however I like, but if I'm running a program on your server, you are free to take it down, or change it, or whatever you like, whenever you like. That's fine, because it's your server I'm using to run it. The problem is when programs are distributed, but restricted (ie. closed-source).
Such a system would prevent you from allowing others to remotely run your privately modified program, which has not been distributed. This would be a serious restriction on your rights. Since the others are using your server to run your program, they shouldn't expect the same rights as they would get if you gave them a copy of the binary to run on their own machine.
Further, when you run such a binary, all that is distributed to you is its output, and the GPL explicitly does not cover the output of GPL'd programs. Don't confuse data and algorithm - I don't see why obtaining some output should give you any right to see how it was made, under the GPL or any other system.
"why are there still so many nerds around?" If the trait of (and this is a blatant stereotype) a smart, well-paid, unattractive and socially inept man was so undesirable, why on earth would there be so many of this kind of people?
Simple, nerdness isn't inherited. Nerds pop up all over the place, not just as children of other nerds.
but seriously, where have you read that IQ is decreasing?
I think he was making it up, following some kind of "logic" to arrive at it from his premises (which were pretty shaky anyway).
IQ isn't a good measure of "intelligence" anyway, so even if trends of average IQ and so on could be found, I doubt they'd server much real purpose.
Unfair copyright law + Right to lawbreaker's privacy outweighs the rights of copyright holders.
Well, since Katz and slashdot appeared to basically ignore the copyright on the Hellmouth comments, I'm not really surprised by this.
Your repeated focus on the fact that most offenders are kids is irrelevant and inflammatory
Perhaps they were wearing trenchcoats.
I'm offended that you chose this cheap tactic in a nearly transparent effort to raise the ire of your readership.
Again, you seem to have forgotten who wrote this article (well, who claimed to write it, anyway). Katz is full of nearly transparent cheap tactics and rhetoric. It's what he does. When you're digging through shit, don't expect to find any diamonds.
Since the response from Slade claims that he is not restricting access to the code, he's just licensing the bandwidth, maybe someone would care to mirror the source? Or perhaps he doesn't have the bandwidth for that one transfer?
Even that's not good enough. Section 6 of the GPL says that he can't impose additional restrictions on the distribution of the software, which he is doing.
Hmmm, perhaps he'd be open to us sending him a self-addressed, stamped envelope, a ream of paper and some toner and asking for a printout?
The GPL specifies that machine-readable copies of the source must be made available.
This is not the first time that Slade and QuakeLives have pulled this kind of stunt. I've been compiling a lot of material against QuakeLives ever since they started being generally disagreeable to the GPL and free software communities.
At the moment, there's only the verbatim material, without any commentary. However, it still makes for very interesting reading, and the agenda and methods of QuakeLives and Slade are still very apparent...
QuakeLives hardly "found" the foster kid. QuakeLives took a copy of the Quake 1 source and agreed to the GPL. If you borrow the foster girl and then try to keep her locked away for only you to look at, then dammit she should be freed. If you want to lock her away, you can't have her. QuakeLives knew this when they agreed to the GPL, and if they didn't, well, not reading a contract doesn't excuse you from it.
This is what the GPL is all about - making sure that everyone is able to access the source code. I'm no parent, but I think that I'd be prouder of my kid if they grew up into an independant person who is a completely separate entity, rather than someone who's always dependant on me. It must be really something to create life, likewise, creating code is really something, so it should be freed for all to enjoy, not just the parents.
As long as someone gets it and can mirror it on a decent site, that's fine. And as long as the binaries are also on that crappy link, right next to the source (as the GPL says).
Further, I wouldn't put it past Slade to "lose" the source... He's tried that excuse in the past, too.
I've written to Slade, the leader of the QuakeLives project, regarding the details of the GPL violation. This is not the first time Slade and I have locked horns over the GPL, as it is not the first time that he has broken the GPL.
What part of Media Figurehead don't you understand?
The figurehead part.
The problem is that the people who control the media, especially very large media companies, often end up having considerable political clout. The government is often afraid to oppose these men (at least directly), because the media control and power they wield can be more than the politicians'.
For example, most politicians wouldn't want to get on Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Packer's bad side, if they could help it. The bad press that could result is a threat to re-election, among other things. (Yes, I'm a political cynicist.)
I'm not saying Case is one of these men, just that they do exist. The threat they pose is indirect, sure, but it's there all the same.
It's rare to see good descriptions of the internals... of any OS OS (that's "Open Source Operating System")...
There's a reason for this, and it's pretty obvious - it's precisely because they're Open Source. If you want to learn how the internals work, you can go to the ultimate description - the source code.
Don't get me wrong, though, higher level descriptions are good and neccessary. It's just that they're not essential when dealing with Open Source Operating Systems. The reason there are so many "Windows Internals" type books is because those systems are closed, and worse, those higher level descriptions are often the only ones you can get of the system.
Such is yet another beauty of Open Source and Free software.
This topic is so controversial I'm surprised there's not a poll to go with it.
In fact, I think that there should be a poll, as all good geeks/nerds know that the only way to prove their point of view is right is to win in a slashdot poll. As Homer said, "The winner will be showered with gifts, and the loser will be booed until my throat is sore."
I'm giving it a day before the time-honoured "Which do you prefer, geek or nerd?" poll comes up... anyone care to see if they can pick it more accurately?:)
"Just bury them deep enough" would be a direct violation of the GPL, as it requires you to make sure your users know their rights.
I'm no lawyer, but I imagine it would be the user's responsibility to ensure that they've read the supporting documentation. How can I be expected to ensure that my users read the README? I always thought it was my responsibility to read license agreements to see what my rights are. Of course, I expect to get all my rights once I've read the license and supporting docs.
"Burying" was probably the wrong word for me to use, as I didn't mean to actively hide it. All I mean is doing something like putting it down the bottom of the README, or as a small question at the end of a FAQ, "Is the source available?".
It would definately need to be the case that if you read the docs that came with the binaries you would read the notice, without having to read a huge manual or anything.
So you can use section 3b instead of 3c if you for instance have an ftp or web site up at least three years from the release date containing the source code.
Ensuring, of course, that you have a reference to that ftp/http site somewhere in the docs that the user gets when they get the binaries. I doubt that this would be a problem, it could be in there buried sufficiently deep that regular users don't see it (or ignore it), but hackers can still find it to download the source if they want it.
The only thing you are not allowed to do is include GPL code in a non-GPL program and redistribute it.
Hello???
The BSDs are (obviously) non-GPL, and this is why the BSD guys couldn't just take the Linux driver, fiddle with it, and whack it into the BSDs. This is what he was trying to explain to the clueless rep.
The BSD guys, could, on the other hand, have included the driver under the GPL, and then the rest of the OS under the BSDL, but they understandably and justifiably won't do this. The reason is that the GPL would end up encroaching and "polluting" the rest of BSD. What happens when a similar piece of hardware comes out? Do they copy the GPLed driver and modify it, again under the GPL? They don't just like the situation that GPLed code would put them in, and that's fine, it's their product so it's their choice.
It's also interesting that the BSDL's extreme freeness can be its downfall. Many of Linux's drivers come from BSD, and the BSDL allows them to be redistributed under the GPL. But it doesn't work the other way around.
And don't get me wrong, I love the GPL, and would never license any of my stuff under the BSDL.
There is a chance the work of unification will be completed by 2050, but about that we cannot be confident.
I'll say you can't be confident. Given the speed at which developments move these days, in all areas of science and technology, who would dare to predict exactly where we'll be in 50 years time?
Better still, whose prediction would be right? Very few, I imagine. I'm no particle or nuclear physicist, but I have trouble working out what stage I'll be at in two week's time...
I'd say let's just keep plodding along at a solution, and see how far we get...
But i wonder... what's Linus' involvement in all of this?
Isn't it obvious?... To grab attention.
There is no way Transmeta would be getting this much slashdot coverage (or media coverage in general) if they hadn't hired Linus. Who would care if there wasn't this tether relating it back to Linux?
Instead they got arguably the god of the Linux world, allied (sp?) everyone's fears by letting him keep working on the kernel, and kept their mouths shut about what they're doing. The result? More media attention and speculation than in a marketroid's wet dream. Their only concern now is that they can deliver, because if they can't, as the saying goes, "There'll be hell to pay"...
Oh, there are some people who think Linux is working on getting the Linux kernel to work on their new CPU, but that's waaaay too predictable for my liking.:)
in case you're interested in perhaps reading some stuff about it, rather than just the direct link to the application form. There's not that much there, though.:)
There's no mention anywhere of whether it requires glibc2 (or 2.1) or if it can also run on libc5 systems. I know that it's 95% likely it'll be glibc2+ only, and that irks me.
Also, if it's dynamically linked (and it should be, static linking on an app that size would be pure evil), then there's library version issues..
You'd just expect Corel to be at least slightly clueful when it comes to these issues, rather than just quoting a kernel version. OTOH, they're probably just testing it with Corel Linux and couldn't care less about other distros....
Slashdot Mirror
More correctly, you can't change it and then try to pass it off as the GPL. That'd be like tyring to take Microsoft's EULA, changing it, and then trying to say "No, look, it's still the MS EULA".
If you want to change it, you can't call it the GNU GPL. What you can do is change it, or use it as a basis for your own license, and then give the license a new name of your own. You could probably even say it's a GPL-derivative or modified-GPL license, to let people know that the license is basically the same as the GPL, but with some differences.
While technically the FSF could prevent you from doing this (since they own the copyright on the GPL), it's unlikely that they'd try anything unless you were stepping on their toes (eg. trying to call your new license the GPL).
Causing a binary to be run (eg. by loading a PHP page) does not constitute distribution of the binary. The GPL doesn't cover the use of programs, only their distribution.
The key point is that remotely running a program is NOT the same as distributing it. The difference is that if I have a copy of a program that was distributed, I can run it whenever and however I like, but if I'm running a program on your server, you are free to take it down, or change it, or whatever you like, whenever you like. That's fine, because it's your server I'm using to run it. The problem is when programs are distributed, but restricted (ie. closed-source).
Such a system would prevent you from allowing others to remotely run your privately modified program, which has not been distributed. This would be a serious restriction on your rights. Since the others are using your server to run your program, they shouldn't expect the same rights as they would get if you gave them a copy of the binary to run on their own machine.
Further, when you run such a binary, all that is distributed to you is its output, and the GPL explicitly does not cover the output of GPL'd programs. Don't confuse data and algorithm - I don't see why obtaining some output should give you any right to see how it was made, under the GPL or any other system.
It might not be ridiculous, but it's close.
"why are there still so many nerds around?" If the trait of (and this is a blatant stereotype) a smart, well-paid, unattractive and socially inept man was so undesirable, why on earth would there be so many of this kind of people?
Simple, nerdness isn't inherited. Nerds pop up all over the place, not just as children of other nerds.
but seriously, where have you read that IQ is decreasing?
I think he was making it up, following some kind of "logic" to arrive at it from his premises (which were pretty shaky anyway).
IQ isn't a good measure of "intelligence" anyway, so even if trends of average IQ and so on could be found, I doubt they'd server much real purpose.
Well, since Katz and slashdot appeared to basically ignore the copyright on the Hellmouth comments, I'm not really surprised by this.
Your repeated focus on the fact that most offenders are kids is irrelevant and inflammatory
Perhaps they were wearing trenchcoats.
I'm offended that you chose this cheap tactic in a nearly transparent effort to raise the ire of your readership.
Again, you seem to have forgotten who wrote this article (well, who claimed to write it, anyway). Katz is full of nearly transparent cheap tactics and rhetoric. It's what he does. When you're digging through shit, don't expect to find any diamonds.
While it may exist on Mars, I think 'life' is too strong a word for Katz.
:)
Even that's not good enough. Section 6 of the GPL says that he can't impose additional restrictions on the distribution of the software, which he is doing.
Hmmm, perhaps he'd be open to us sending him a self-addressed, stamped envelope, a ream of paper and some toner and asking for a printout?
The GPL specifies that machine-readable copies of the source must be made available.
I've managed to make it into a fairly clean website, The QuakeLives Files.
At the moment, there's only the verbatim material, without any commentary. However, it still makes for very interesting reading, and the agenda and methods of QuakeLives and Slade are still very apparent...
You analogy is somewhat flawed...
QuakeLives hardly "found" the foster kid. QuakeLives took a copy of the Quake 1 source and agreed to the GPL. If you borrow the foster girl and then try to keep her locked away for only you to look at, then dammit she should be freed. If you want to lock her away, you can't have her. QuakeLives knew this when they agreed to the GPL, and if they didn't, well, not reading a contract doesn't excuse you from it.
This is what the GPL is all about - making sure that everyone is able to access the source code. I'm no parent, but I think that I'd be prouder of my kid if they grew up into an independant person who is a completely separate entity, rather than someone who's always dependant on me. It must be really something to create life, likewise, creating code is really something, so it should be freed for all to enjoy, not just the parents.
As long as someone gets it and can mirror it on a decent site, that's fine. And as long as the binaries are also on that crappy link, right next to the source (as the GPL says).
Further, I wouldn't put it past Slade to "lose" the source... He's tried that excuse in the past, too.
Read the emails here.
What part of Media Figurehead don't you understand?
The figurehead part.
The problem is that the people who control the media, especially very large media companies, often end up having considerable political clout. The government is often afraid to oppose these men (at least directly), because the media control and power they wield can be more than the politicians'.
For example, most politicians wouldn't want to get on Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Packer's bad side, if they could help it. The bad press that could result is a threat to re-election, among other things. (Yes, I'm a political cynicist.)
I'm not saying Case is one of these men, just that they do exist. The threat they pose is indirect, sure, but it's there all the same.
nik writes:
... of any OS OS (that's "Open Source Operating System") ...
It's rare to see good descriptions of the internals
There's a reason for this, and it's pretty obvious - it's precisely because they're Open Source. If you want to learn how the internals work, you can go to the ultimate description - the source code.
Don't get me wrong, though, higher level descriptions are good and neccessary. It's just that they're not essential when dealing with Open Source Operating Systems. The reason there are so many "Windows Internals" type books is because those systems are closed, and worse, those higher level descriptions are often the only ones you can get of the system.
Such is yet another beauty of Open Source and Free software.
This topic is so controversial I'm surprised there's not a poll to go with it.
:)
In fact, I think that there should be a poll, as all good geeks/nerds know that the only way to prove their point of view is right is to win in a slashdot poll. As Homer said, "The winner will be showered with gifts, and the loser will be booed until my throat is sore."
I'm giving it a day before the time-honoured "Which do you prefer, geek or nerd?" poll comes up... anyone care to see if they can pick it more accurately?
"Just bury them deep enough" would be a direct violation of the GPL, as it requires you to make sure your users know their rights.
I'm no lawyer, but I imagine it would be the user's responsibility to ensure that they've read the supporting documentation. How can I be expected to ensure that my users read the README? I always thought it was my responsibility to read license agreements to see what my rights are. Of course, I expect to get all my rights once I've read the license and supporting docs.
"Burying" was probably the wrong word for me to use, as I didn't mean to actively hide it. All I mean is doing something like putting it down the bottom of the README, or as a small question at the end of a FAQ, "Is the source available?".
It would definately need to be the case that if you read the docs that came with the binaries you would read the notice, without having to read a huge manual or anything.
So you can use section 3b instead of 3c if you for instance have an ftp or web site up at least three years from the release date containing the source code.
Ensuring, of course, that you have a reference to that ftp/http site somewhere in the docs that the user gets when they get the binaries. I doubt that this would be a problem, it could be in there buried sufficiently deep that regular users don't see it (or ignore it), but hackers can still find it to download the source if they want it.
Whatever happened to the dewey decimal system?
:)
I think most kids these days would agree, "What's a dewey?".
The only thing you are not allowed to do is include GPL code in a non-GPL program and redistribute it.
Hello???
The BSDs are (obviously) non-GPL, and this is why the BSD guys couldn't just take the Linux driver, fiddle with it, and whack it into the BSDs. This is what he was trying to explain to the clueless rep.
The BSD guys, could, on the other hand, have included the driver under the GPL, and then the rest of the OS under the BSDL, but they understandably and justifiably won't do this. The reason is that the GPL would end up encroaching and "polluting" the rest of BSD. What happens when a similar piece of hardware comes out? Do they copy the GPLed driver and modify it, again under the GPL? They don't just like the situation that GPLed code would put them in, and that's fine, it's their product so it's their choice.
It's also interesting that the BSDL's extreme freeness can be its downfall. Many of Linux's drivers come from BSD, and the BSDL allows them to be redistributed under the GPL. But it doesn't work the other way around.
And don't get me wrong, I love the GPL, and would never license any of my stuff under the BSDL.
Remember, Microsoft employees are no diferent than you or I.
:)
Some of them are, some of them aren't. I think it's directly proportional to their proximity from the marketing department...
Check out these guys in the research area, with some alternatives to the title "Intelligent Environments". Proves that at least some MS employees have a sense of humour.
This guy used to be a Program Manager at MS?
Didn't they get rid of that thing after Windows 3.1?
:)
I for one actually tried that URL... Not sure why, but that didn't stop me. :)
/super/sekrut/message/index.html entries in their errors log. :)
Transmeta are probably going to be awful perplexed by all the
There is a chance the work of unification will be completed by 2050, but about that we cannot be confident.
I'll say you can't be confident. Given the speed at which developments move these days, in all areas of science and technology, who would dare to predict exactly where we'll be in 50 years time?
Better still, whose prediction would be right? Very few, I imagine. I'm no particle or nuclear physicist, but I have trouble working out what stage I'll be at in two week's time...
I'd say let's just keep plodding along at a solution, and see how far we get...
But i wonder... what's Linus' involvement in all of this?
:)
Isn't it obvious?... To grab attention.
There is no way Transmeta would be getting this much slashdot coverage (or media coverage in general) if they hadn't hired Linus. Who would care if there wasn't this tether relating it back to Linux?
Instead they got arguably the god of the Linux world, allied (sp?) everyone's fears by letting him keep working on the kernel, and kept their mouths shut about what they're doing. The result? More media attention and speculation than in a marketroid's wet dream. Their only concern now is that they can deliver, because if they can't, as the saying goes, "There'll be hell to pay"...
Oh, there are some people who think Linux is working on getting the Linux kernel to work on their new CPU, but that's waaaay too predictable for my liking.
The thot plickens...
The main Corel Wordperfect for Linux page is at
:)
http://www.corel.com/betaprogram/index.h tm
in case you're interested in perhaps reading some stuff about it, rather than just the direct link to the application form. There's not that much there, though.
There's no mention anywhere of whether it requires glibc2 (or 2.1) or if it can also run on libc5 systems. I know that it's 95% likely it'll be glibc2+ only, and that irks me.
Also, if it's dynamically linked (and it should be, static linking on an app that size would be pure evil), then there's library version issues..
You'd just expect Corel to be at least slightly clueful when it comes to these issues, rather than just quoting a kernel version. OTOH, they're probably just testing it with Corel Linux and couldn't care less about other distros....
- Computer type (386SX/486/Pentium) - heh, waiting for the AMD vs Intel wars to break out...
- Windows Version - For a Linux product?!?
- Scanning Software - uhhh, do they mean virus scanning? Haven't touched one in years - no need. And this is Linux!
- Hard Drive Data Compression - speaks for itself really. Or maybe this is to weed out people who are stupid enough to compress live volumes.
:)
- Additional TSRs - Like that's applicable these days. And again, this is Linux.
- Font Manager - eh?
These wouldn't be too bad if they weren't mandatory...