But you're missing the point. At some point, one tiny change occurred from a non-chicken (which would have been pretty similar to a chicken) to a chicken. The chicken would have been born that way, given birth by a non-chicken whose egg had a slight mutation. Hence, the egg came first.
No. First, assuming everything you said is true (which it is not), as a nitpick, the mutation had to happen in the ovum or the sperm, and thus the first "chicken" existed the moment of fertilization. Depending on when fertilization happens (pre- or post-calcification to produce the egg) it could be either chicken or egg.
Now, again, as said previously, proto-chicken aligns with chicken.
This "tiny change" of a mutation that you suggest is actually insufficient to distinguish chicken from non-chicken to humans. If you mean a visible trait, then what specific trait of chickens makes them distinct? There are a number of traits that are different, which one is the sole necessary and sufficient trait?
In the end, the only difference between the educated and the uneducated with regards to facts is the source of their beliefs.
Absolutely nobody has time to research everything they accept as factual, which means that they have to accept on trust.
I got this far, and realized... the most educated answer one can often give is, "I don't know."
I have this problem with my bf, when Amanda Knox was having her trial, he was going off about how she was innocent, and that this was a bunch of bullshit that she was being tried. I looked at him and I told him, "no, you do not know that. I don't know that either. We're not in the know. Now, stop asserting your opinion as if it were fact."
Most certainly, unfortunately, without the original minix license being put to the OSI, they never made any claims about it, so it fails as a precedent.
I don't disagree that it would likely be argued by many as insufficient, but Microsoft's license was granted approval by OSI, so "open source" is a really unacceptable term to the "free software" community... even when approved.
You are extremely confused about how the law works. Trademark law is used to prevent someone from using your names and marks to pretend they're selling your product (e.g. I can't make a stereo and slap a "Sony" label on it).
There is absolutely nothing in trademark law to prevent me from taking software under an open-source license, changing the name and logos, and redistributing it freely. This is why CentOS can take Red Hat's product, strip out/replace the Red Hat trademarks, and distribute it for free.
I mistook "change a few labels" for meaning in the source code. (Sorry, "label" has a specific meaning in computer source.) As some modification of the source code would be required as per my hypothetical license.
Switching the marks, and logos, would of course remove any trademark claim I had.
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
I'm not going to play argue the semantics with you, because you're clearly insisting that section 2 states something that it does not. There is no limiting clause, or clause guaranteeing redistribution.
I've already been forced into a corner confining my position to one that says that a license could at best confine redistribution of an unmodified stand-alone copy.
Your claim that section 2 guarantees indiscriminate redistribution must fail... it only states terms that must be allowed for distribution.
Actually, the proto-chicken laid an egg which was also a proto-chicken. Eventually the proto-chickens crossed the threshold for which we would consider a chicken, but it's difficult to draw an exact line in the sand, because the entire chicken population evolved so slowly.
It most certainly was not a spontaneous one generation change.
>The license requires that distribution of the original source code cannot be done, but that modifications and derivative works may be distributed as patches. (Potentially satisfies section 3)
That we have precedent on. The original Minix license said the same and it was neither recognized as open-source OR free software. Sheez now I feel old.
I've looked through a bunch of stuff, and the "new Minix license" most certainly is a derivative of the BSD license and most definitely free and open source... was the original Minix license ever actually proffered to OSI for approval?
If it wasn't, then there really isn't precedence. However, if it were, then I'd like to see what they said.
You may argue that these satisfy section 3, but how are you getting past section 2? "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form" (emphasis mine).
Section 2 only applies when the product is transfered.
If you limit who gets the compiled product, then you only have to supply the source code to those individuals.
Section 2 contains no limiting factors, nor guarantees of indiscriminate redistribution. It only sets the terms upon distribution.
That's nice. However, there are other sections besides section 1. They aren't there just to help with the feng shui of the site.
Naturally, and I'd be happy to cover any of the other sections.
Section 3 provides that one can freely distribute modifications and derivative works. We weren't talking about a modified or derivative work, we were talking about redistributing the original.
So I change a few labels then redistribute.......
With you having done that, I could now potentially make trademark claims against you.
Section 2 only covers the requirement that source code must be transmitted along with the product itself. There is no guarantee of indiscriminate redistribution contained in this section. (However, there are no limiting factors to the scope of redistribution.)
Conclusion: do you think your words would be tastier if you add some ketchup before you eat them ?
I never made any claim about "free software", (evidenced by my use of the term "open source license") and would have been quite open in agreement that a "free license" would guarantee a right to indiscriminate redistribution.
However, section 1 requires indiscriminate redistribution only for aggregate works. Thus, it is not indiscriminate redistribution itself (as it has a limiting factor).
I've been eating nice tasty chunks of words that I didn't ever say or imply, however I most certainly wouldn't enjoy them more with ketchup... I've prepared them too well to desecrate them with the accursed ketchup.
I started the objection thread to begin with... thus all your comments inherit their context from me.
Your statement says: "he pointed to requirement 1. It's actually 3." In this statement, you explicitly deny requirement 1 as applicable in this situation.
Then I said: "You deny Section 1, but claim Section 3." Which carries the same intended context as your shorthand phrase.
"discriminate" means (in this context) "To make distinctions." That one can make the distinction that only modified or derivative works may be distributed is a discriminating factor. That one can make the distinction that the original code may only be redistributed in an aggregate work, is a discriminating factor.
Thus, an OSI approved license need not be required to allow indiscriminate reproduction.
Get off your horse... my narrowly worded objection is still not invalid... if you read it generally, and read a bunch of context into it that was not intended, then woe for you.
I will definitely grant you that there is no way that such a hypothetical license as suggested to be possible would pass the muster for "free(libre) software".
But if a company is using "open source" as a claim, then you need to consider it under its claims, not what its claims are not.
Not like the SugarCRM PL is approved by the OSI anyways... it could potentially be as restrictive as Microsoft's license...
"Essentially, only avoiding the specific case of people pawning off my direct unmodified works individually. Which is the only thing I objected to in the first place."
This wasn't a thread about what you objected to. This was a thread about forking the enterprise product once a paid customer got the source. You claimed a license could have been used that prevented that and still be open source. That is false. No license that is OSI FSF approved could prevent forking.
Simply removing the trademarked branding from the project would constitute a derivative.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the original objection was to the statement: "But (AFAIK) if you pay for an open source (as OSI defines it) product, you are allowed to copy and give it away at no cost."
But then, my copy-paste might be wrong.
There's no talk of forking here. Just a simple direct copy with no modifications, nor derivative work.
No, because the GPLv3 applies to... THE COMMUNITY EDITION, which has been well established to be open source.
It doesn't apply to the Professional/Enterprise edition, which is not under GPL.
So no, just because you paid for the pro/ent edition doesn't suddenly make its license the same as the community edition. Thats just a retarded statement.
No, but when Section 2.1 of the SugarCRM Public License grants you unconditional redistribution rights of the original code either modified or unmodified, then I am right.
So, it's not a retarded statement, it's taken straight from the Public License that their pay code is released under.
It would be far more interesting if you could cite even a hypothetical license that meets the commonly accepted criteria of open source but manages to disallow "indiscriminate distribution".
The license does not allow redistribution of the original code in any form except when included in an aggregate work. (Satisfies section 1)
The license requires that distribution of the original source code cannot be done, but that modifications and derivative works may be distributed as patches. (Potentially satisfies section 3)
Alternatively, the license requires that the original code may not be distributed unless modification is made or a derivative work made. (Definitively satisfies section 3)
Thus, this prevents the specific claimed action, of simply buying and then distributing unedited.
That's nice. However, there are other sections besides section 1. They aren't there just to help with the feng shui of the site.
Naturally, and I'd be happy to cover any of the other sections.
Section 3 provides that one can freely distribute modifications and derivative works. We weren't talking about a modified or derivative work, we were talking about redistributing the original.
You maybe able to fork it, but you can't call it SugarCRM or use their artwork. Same thing with FireFox, OpenbravoERP, or anything else using a Mozilla style license.
That's typically trademark issues, etc. If there is no modification involved at all, there's no actionable offense for a trademark claim... you're simply redistributing their product. Their trademark is still being applied solely to their product, nothing more, nothing less.
Note my above comments that have all been unfortunately marked "troll" or more accurately should have been marked "rules lawyer".
I can produce a license that the OSI would approve that does not allow for the immediate action that I objected to right here: buying the original, taking the source code, and redistributing it singularly... without any modification or derivative work.
everything is couched in such terms that they know are unassailable, and even when a reasonable argument can be mounted against it, there are still the technicalities introduced intentionally at the start to ensure that they can't be wrong.
I cannot claim that the vast majority of people reading what I wrote will not make invalid assumptions about what I meant, and thus make me sound like I was wrong, but seriously...
The OSI requirements for open source license definitions would allow me to make a license that prevents people from distributing unmodified copies of my program in anything but aggregated products.
Essentially, only avoiding the specific case of people pawning off my direct unmodified works individually. Which is the only thing I objected to in the first place.
When did I deny section 1? I just said it isn't the relevant section.
Ok, I'll clarify for the intellect impaired: "You dismiss section 1 as being applicable, so I won't deal with it here."
Change the title and you'd fall under section 3, package it alongside the source to any of the required libraries and you'd fall under section 1.
Neither of these were stated conditions. The argument was that you could just buy it, and distribute it without change, and without aggregating it.
Any way you slice it, there is no license that could in any practical manner prevent free redistribution and still be open source let alone free software.
I never said anything about practicality. I said that it could be possible to construct a license that fit the open source definition, yet still did not allow indiscriminate redistribution. (That one can restrict it to only aggregate redistributions means not indiscriminate.)
Slashdot Mirror
But you're missing the point. At some point, one tiny change occurred from a non-chicken (which would have been pretty similar to a chicken) to a chicken. The chicken would have been born that way, given birth by a non-chicken whose egg had a slight mutation. Hence, the egg came first.
No. First, assuming everything you said is true (which it is not), as a nitpick, the mutation had to happen in the ovum or the sperm, and thus the first "chicken" existed the moment of fertilization. Depending on when fertilization happens (pre- or post-calcification to produce the egg) it could be either chicken or egg.
Now, again, as said previously, proto-chicken aligns with chicken.
This "tiny change" of a mutation that you suggest is actually insufficient to distinguish chicken from non-chicken to humans. If you mean a visible trait, then what specific trait of chickens makes them distinct? There are a number of traits that are different, which one is the sole necessary and sufficient trait?
There isn't one.
In the end, the only difference between the educated and the uneducated with regards to facts is the source of their beliefs.
Absolutely nobody has time to research everything they accept as factual, which means that they have to accept on trust.
I got this far, and realized... the most educated answer one can often give is, "I don't know."
I have this problem with my bf, when Amanda Knox was having her trial, he was going off about how she was innocent, and that this was a bunch of bullshit that she was being tried. I looked at him and I told him, "no, you do not know that. I don't know that either. We're not in the know. Now, stop asserting your opinion as if it were fact."
Most certainly, unfortunately, without the original minix license being put to the OSI, they never made any claims about it, so it fails as a precedent.
I don't disagree that it would likely be argued by many as insufficient, but Microsoft's license was granted approval by OSI, so "open source" is a really unacceptable term to the "free software" community... even when approved.
You are extremely confused about how the law works. Trademark law is used to prevent someone from using your names and marks to pretend they're selling your product (e.g. I can't make a stereo and slap a "Sony" label on it).
There is absolutely nothing in trademark law to prevent me from taking software under an open-source license, changing the name and logos, and redistributing it freely. This is why CentOS can take Red Hat's product, strip out/replace the Red Hat trademarks, and distribute it for free.
I mistook "change a few labels" for meaning in the source code. (Sorry, "label" has a specific meaning in computer source.) As some modification of the source code would be required as per my hypothetical license.
Switching the marks, and logos, would of course remove any trademark claim I had.
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
I'm not going to play argue the semantics with you, because you're clearly insisting that section 2 states something that it does not. There is no limiting clause, or clause guaranteeing redistribution.
I've already been forced into a corner confining my position to one that says that a license could at best confine redistribution of an unmodified stand-alone copy.
Your claim that section 2 guarantees indiscriminate redistribution must fail... it only states terms that must be allowed for distribution.
Actually, the proto-chicken laid an egg which was also a proto-chicken. Eventually the proto-chickens crossed the threshold for which we would consider a chicken, but it's difficult to draw an exact line in the sand, because the entire chicken population evolved so slowly.
It most certainly was not a spontaneous one generation change.
The researcher who did the research himself admits in the article that he was not addressing the question of which came first.
The reporter imposed his own point of view on the research, and figured linking it into the whole "chicken egg question" would get him more attention.
>The license requires that distribution of the original source code cannot be done, but that modifications and derivative works may be distributed as patches. (Potentially satisfies section 3)
That we have precedent on. The original Minix license said the same and it was neither recognized as open-source OR free software. Sheez now I feel old.
I've looked through a bunch of stuff, and the "new Minix license" most certainly is a derivative of the BSD license and most definitely free and open source... was the original Minix license ever actually proffered to OSI for approval?
If it wasn't, then there really isn't precedence. However, if it were, then I'd like to see what they said.
You may argue that these satisfy section 3, but how are you getting past section 2? "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form" (emphasis mine).
Section 2 only applies when the product is transfered.
If you limit who gets the compiled product, then you only have to supply the source code to those individuals.
Section 2 contains no limiting factors, nor guarantees of indiscriminate redistribution. It only sets the terms upon distribution.
Can you provide an OSI-certified example?
Likely not. It's an esoteric corner of the OSI definitions, and unlikely to be covered by the few examples available.
My statement though wasn't that it did exist, but rather that it "could" (emphasis in original.)
That's nice. However, there are other sections besides section 1. They aren't there just to help with the feng shui of the site.
Naturally, and I'd be happy to cover any of the other sections.
Section 3 provides that one can freely distribute modifications and derivative works. We weren't talking about a modified or derivative work, we were talking about redistributing the original.
So I change a few labels then redistribute .......
With you having done that, I could now potentially make trademark claims against you.
Try section 2.
Section 2 only covers the requirement that source code must be transmitted along with the product itself. There is no guarantee of indiscriminate redistribution contained in this section. (However, there are no limiting factors to the scope of redistribution.)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
See freedoms 2 and 3 = e.g. it cannot be free software.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
See article 1 of the open source definition. Therefore it cannot be open-source either.
Conclusion: do you think your words would be tastier if you add some ketchup before you eat them ?
I never made any claim about "free software", (evidenced by my use of the term "open source license") and would have been quite open in agreement that a "free license" would guarantee a right to indiscriminate redistribution.
However, section 1 requires indiscriminate redistribution only for aggregate works. Thus, it is not indiscriminate redistribution itself (as it has a limiting factor).
I've been eating nice tasty chunks of words that I didn't ever say or imply, however I most certainly wouldn't enjoy them more with ketchup... I've prepared them too well to desecrate them with the accursed ketchup.
I started the objection thread to begin with... thus all your comments inherit their context from me.
Your statement says: "he pointed to requirement 1. It's actually 3." In this statement, you explicitly deny requirement 1 as applicable in this situation.
Then I said: "You deny Section 1, but claim Section 3." Which carries the same intended context as your shorthand phrase.
"discriminate" means (in this context) "To make distinctions." That one can make the distinction that only modified or derivative works may be distributed is a discriminating factor. That one can make the distinction that the original code may only be redistributed in an aggregate work, is a discriminating factor.
Thus, an OSI approved license need not be required to allow indiscriminate reproduction.
Get off your horse... my narrowly worded objection is still not invalid... if you read it generally, and read a bunch of context into it that was not intended, then woe for you.
I will definitely grant you that there is no way that such a hypothetical license as suggested to be possible would pass the muster for "free(libre) software".
But if a company is using "open source" as a claim, then you need to consider it under its claims, not what its claims are not.
Not like the SugarCRM PL is approved by the OSI anyways... it could potentially be as restrictive as Microsoft's license...
"Essentially, only avoiding the specific case of people pawning off my direct unmodified works individually. Which is the only thing I objected to in the first place."
This wasn't a thread about what you objected to. This was a thread about forking the enterprise product once a paid customer got the source. You claimed a license could have been used that prevented that and still be open source. That is false. No license that is OSI FSF approved could prevent forking.
Simply removing the trademarked branding from the project would constitute a derivative.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the original objection was to the statement: "But (AFAIK) if you pay for an open source (as OSI defines it) product, you are allowed to copy and give it away at no cost."
But then, my copy-paste might be wrong.
There's no talk of forking here. Just a simple direct copy with no modifications, nor derivative work.
No, because the GPLv3 applies to ... THE COMMUNITY EDITION, which has been well established to be open source.
It doesn't apply to the Professional/Enterprise edition, which is not under GPL.
So no, just because you paid for the pro/ent edition doesn't suddenly make its license the same as the community edition. Thats just a retarded statement.
No, but when Section 2.1 of the SugarCRM Public License grants you unconditional redistribution rights of the original code either modified or unmodified, then I am right.
So, it's not a retarded statement, it's taken straight from the Public License that their pay code is released under.
It would be far more interesting if you could cite even a hypothetical license that meets the commonly accepted criteria of open source but manages to disallow "indiscriminate distribution".
The license does not allow redistribution of the original code in any form except when included in an aggregate work. (Satisfies section 1)
The license requires that distribution of the original source code cannot be done, but that modifications and derivative works may be distributed as patches. (Potentially satisfies section 3)
Alternatively, the license requires that the original code may not be distributed unless modification is made or a derivative work made. (Definitively satisfies section 3)
Thus, this prevents the specific claimed action, of simply buying and then distributing unedited.
That's nice. However, there are other sections besides section 1. They aren't there just to help with the feng shui of the site.
Naturally, and I'd be happy to cover any of the other sections.
Section 3 provides that one can freely distribute modifications and derivative works. We weren't talking about a modified or derivative work, we were talking about redistributing the original.
http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Requirement #1 is "Free Redistribution", i.e. that you have the freedom to, without limitation, redistribute the software.
Would you like ketchup with that ?
Only in an aggregate work. Not as an individual work... which I believe the original objection was about.
You maybe able to fork it, but you can't call it SugarCRM or use their artwork. Same thing with FireFox, OpenbravoERP, or anything else using a Mozilla style license.
That's typically trademark issues, etc. If there is no modification involved at all, there's no actionable offense for a trademark claim... you're simply redistributing their product. Their trademark is still being applied solely to their product, nothing more, nothing less.
Note my above comments that have all been unfortunately marked "troll" or more accurately should have been marked "rules lawyer".
I can produce a license that the OSI would approve that does not allow for the immediate action that I objected to right here: buying the original, taking the source code, and redistributing it singularly... without any modification or derivative work.
I imagine this is why people hate lawyers...
everything is couched in such terms that they know are unassailable, and even when a reasonable argument can be mounted against it, there are still the technicalities introduced intentionally at the start to ensure that they can't be wrong.
I cannot claim that the vast majority of people reading what I wrote will not make invalid assumptions about what I meant, and thus make me sound like I was wrong, but seriously...
The OSI requirements for open source license definitions would allow me to make a license that prevents people from distributing unmodified copies of my program in anything but aggregated products.
Essentially, only avoiding the specific case of people pawning off my direct unmodified works individually. Which is the only thing I objected to in the first place.
When did I deny section 1? I just said it isn't the relevant section.
Ok, I'll clarify for the intellect impaired: "You dismiss section 1 as being applicable, so I won't deal with it here."
Change the title and you'd fall under section 3, package it alongside the source to any of the required libraries and you'd fall under section 1.
Neither of these were stated conditions. The argument was that you could just buy it, and distribute it without change, and without aggregating it.
Any way you slice it, there is no license that could in any practical manner prevent free redistribution and still be open source let alone free software.
I never said anything about practicality. I said that it could be possible to construct a license that fit the open source definition, yet still did not allow indiscriminate redistribution. (That one can restrict it to only aggregate redistributions means not indiscriminate.)
Section 1 only requires that redistribution rights be granted to people when made a part of an aggregate work from multiple sources.
This means you are not guaranteed the right to just copy the code out to anyone and everyone... without created an aggregate work.