As far as I'm concerned non-statutory rapists caught on video should be put to death
Yeah? Well thank God nobody asked you. As far as I'm concerned, 20 years in prison is enough punishment for just about anything short of murder. I know that being raped causes trauma throughout the victim's life. So does being beaten as a child. Hell, being criticized or teased too much can permanently traumatize people. Just because it's terrible, and it permanently decreases your enjoyment of life, doesn't mean it's fair to just kill the person that did it. Is your idea of justice that if someone does harm, they should be harmed 100x as much in return?
If you let emotions (rather than justice and fairness) drive all your decisions, you'd end up executing everyone that ever maliciously hurt you.
I don't have a better solution, but just to play devil's advocate, isn't your proposition "cruel and unusual punishment"? Specifically, it's disproportionate to the crime. You might as well just kill them. (I know some people would be fine with that, actually.)
Isn't "threat of violence" usually considered to be the same as violence? After all, if a gun is involved, we call it a violent crime, even when it isn't fired. Your example regarding rape is the same--if a person thinks they will be hurt more if they resist...
I can make a bit by bit back up and not violate the law. If I try to get around the encryption, then I have violated the law.
Of course, if you ahve a licensed player, you caould then play it from your disk.
I replied to you in another thread, but I'll go into more detail. Part of the encryption key is written onto the beginning of the disk (maybe the disk's ID?). I believe this cannot be burned by our current DVD burners and DVDs.
Additionally, I cannot even read a disc (in Linux) until the encryption is broken. Even simply file-copying commands return errors about bad sectors.
Why? If you're too careless to handle your media in a way that won't damage it, why should they be liable to replace it? Should we also start requiring car dealers to send you a replacement car for free if you wreck yours?
Because it's not a physical good. The accepted strategy for protecting digital goods is to make backups. (Nobody tells you to prevent a hard drive crash by being really careful.) In this case, the record companies are using the courts to prevent backups.
Your car dealership doesn't prevent you from utilizing the standard method of protecting your car.
The thing people really don't get is that you have _no_ _right_ _whatsovever_ to the code in *any* library outside the terms of copyright law.
That makes no sense. Use is not covered by copyright, nor is it covered by the GPL (prior to version 3, I think). I have the right to use software because there is no law, license, or contract that I've agreed to that prevents it.
As part of [the GPL] you get an unlimited license to use the code yourself for any private purpose,
No, that's completely wrong-headed. Whether you sell it me a copy or give me one on the internet (I don't see why it makes a difference), I don't need a license to use it. There is no law, contract, or license I've agreed to that prevents me from using your software, so I can. Distribution is another matter entirely, but I'm not talking about distribution.
What you are describing is not very free at all--it's as though you are treating the GPL as an EULA.
I think we understand each other well enough, though we don't agree. In a perfect world, I would look at the degree to which I'm using a library (and several other questions I and others have mentioned), and make a decision as to whether my work is a derivative work. If it is, my work needs to be GPL. If not, I might use some other license.
In this world, I would be scared to do that, because of lawyers who disagree with me and judges who might also.
you don't make any use of GPL'd components if you're not prepared to put everything under GPL, that is the intent of the license
That's exactly right. Anyone who says differently, especially after reading the Clisp exchange, is deluding themselves.
I'm inclined to explicitly point out that this doesn't mean the GPL actually requires you to do this--it means that proponents of the GPL will use legal pressure to require you to do this. The clisp author didn't even admit RMS was right; he essentially said, "whatever, it's easier this way," and GPL'd clisp.
This would mean that if someone built an application using GPL libraries, he is bound to distribute the source of the libraries
I don't think this works--the "derivative works" part of the license is crucial. Why? Because you don't have to accept the license! The only reason you would have to accept it is if you want to distribute the GPL work, or you want to distribute a derivative of that work. (You must accept the license, or you have no right to do these things.)
As far as use goes, one can use all the GPL programs they want without accepting the GPL license.
The situation you're describing is not the situation I was alluding to. See this post, which I was indirectly responding to.
some business steals some GPL code, locks it away in their proprietary code and then charges me for it when their version of said software becomes the standard.
That would be inexcusable if the GPL code were a significant and irreplaceable part of their proprietary application (that is, if their software is a derivative work), or if they actually distribute the GPL'd code (in which case they implicitly agree to be bound by its license and maybe by its definition of a derivative work).
Finally, it seems odd that you excuse a company just because their reason for restricting your freedom is for profit, but criticize an individual because their motivation is their moral stance. What's wrong with morals? Why is the insistence that people share a less valid motivator than profit?
Again, see the post I referred to. Suing users of a library, users that may not bound by its license (because the GPL prior to version 3 is not a use license) seems like a nasty thing to do. I think of people that do nasty things because they think they have the moral high ground as zealots.
I didn't give any opinion about corporate practices--companies do nasty things, too, but they are different nasty things.
Sorry, it's late here, and I may not be articulating as well as I should.
Actually, you could write in the license a definition for Derivative Work.
I know you can say it, but I don't understand why it would be legally binding. Shouldn't a distribution license only be relevant if you have already established that you are distributing a derivative work?
Basically, if someone makes an absurd definition of a derivative work, and I make a work that falls under this definition, am I liable? Why? I didn't ever agree to their license or definition.
I appreciate the explanation, I'm curious to learn more about this sort of thing. But you said:
Basically, the "linking implies derivation" notion is reasonable and well-understood by all parties, so the court would accept it.
Do you know why this is the case? I imagine the plaintiff would explicitly not accept this definition, and as such, would not not see himself as bound by the terms for distribution of whatever program he linked to.
This is especially interesting with respect to scripting languages... If I write a PHP script that utilizes mysql_* function calls of PHP, which can only be invoked when PHP has been linked against the Mysql Client library....
Why don't you think about a different question--does writing your program in PHP make it a derivative work of PHP itself? Does using the mysql_* function calls make your program a derivative work of PHP? A derivative work of MySQL? Would your program still perform its purpose if you replaced those function calls with different functions (perhaps those that belong to postgresql)?
I think of a zealot as a person that does you harm because they believe their morals are the only thing that matters. Hence, a person that persecutes users of their program because they choose not to use the GPL is a zealot. A corporation that contractually forbids doing certain things is a zealot. Their motivation isn't morality or principle (and it's especially not to force their principles on you)--it's just a business strategy to them.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. I have no idea what a derivative work actually is, but I'm pretty sure it's not what the FSF says it is. I just read a lot of heated opinions on sites like this that essentially say, "Because you link, your program must be GPL'd!" I think a lot of people don't understand the issues and just take the text of the license to be utter truth.
you're free to release it under whatever license you like, even if it happens to talk to a GPL'd client plugin thingie, and even if you wrote that GPL'd client plugin thingie around somebody else's GPL'd library.
There are two scenarios where I imagine this might not work. The first is if the GPL'd client plugin thingie is integral for useful operation of your program, a judge might rule that your plugin and your program are actually just one work.
The second way is if you get sued and can't afford a sufficiently convincing lawyer and/or expert witness to explain the issues properly (or you get a judge that doesn't care). (But I'm no lawyer.)
If you write the Foo app on your own without any connection to a GPL licensed library, then Foo obviously cannot be said to be a derivative work of anything. What if you then add some capability for Foo to interact with a GPL'd library?--for instance, adding Readline capability to an app that previously used the BSD Editline library.
Would this make your program a "derivative work"? That's a question for our legal system--it's not the FSF's right to define what constitutes a derivative work (nor is it the right of the any copyright holder--this is a question of legal definition).
Rather than trying to inflate the time to completion with a fudge factor, you need to tell the boss how it really is and stick to your guns.
I thought the reason we used fudge factors is because most of us (younger developers) can't accurately estimate projects? I would think that the correct solution is to use a fudge factor and stick to your guns.
By your argument, monetary fines would be pointless, too. But it's still a punishment to the company in question--if they have to raise their prices to make up the difference, maybe more customers will go to a competitor (I think ATT has at least one competitor in most places).
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I'm concerned non-statutory rapists caught on video should be put to death
Yeah? Well thank God nobody asked you. As far as I'm concerned, 20 years in prison is enough punishment for just about anything short of murder. I know that being raped causes trauma throughout the victim's life. So does being beaten as a child. Hell, being criticized or teased too much can permanently traumatize people. Just because it's terrible, and it permanently decreases your enjoyment of life, doesn't mean it's fair to just kill the person that did it. Is your idea of justice that if someone does harm, they should be harmed 100x as much in return?
If you let emotions (rather than justice and fairness) drive all your decisions, you'd end up executing everyone that ever maliciously hurt you.
I don't have a better solution, but just to play devil's advocate, isn't your proposition "cruel and unusual punishment"? Specifically, it's disproportionate to the crime. You might as well just kill them. (I know some people would be fine with that, actually.)
Isn't "threat of violence" usually considered to be the same as violence? After all, if a gun is involved, we call it a violent crime, even when it isn't fired. Your example regarding rape is the same--if a person thinks they will be hurt more if they resist...
I can make a bit by bit back up and not violate the law.
If I try to get around the encryption, then I have violated the law.
Of course, if you ahve a licensed player, you caould then play it from your disk.
I replied to you in another thread, but I'll go into more detail. Part of the encryption key is written onto the beginning of the disk (maybe the disk's ID?). I believe this cannot be burned by our current DVD burners and DVDs.
Additionally, I cannot even read a disc (in Linux) until the encryption is broken. Even simply file-copying commands return errors about bad sectors.
And you can play it anywhere in yourn house as long as it's a bit by bit copy
That's irrelevant because it can't be done.
Why? If you're too careless to handle your media in a way that won't damage it, why should they be liable to replace it? Should we also start requiring car dealers to send you a replacement car for free if you wreck yours?
Because it's not a physical good. The accepted strategy for protecting digital goods is to make backups. (Nobody tells you to prevent a hard drive crash by being really careful.) In this case, the record companies are using the courts to prevent backups.
Your car dealership doesn't prevent you from utilizing the standard method of protecting your car.
In other words, allow those accused of an offense to decide their own guilt? That's not my idea of a perfect world, but whatever...
In a perfect world, you and I would agree, and there would not be a lawsuit.
The thing people really don't get is that you have _no_ _right_ _whatsovever_ to the code in *any* library outside the terms of copyright law.
That makes no sense. Use is not covered by copyright, nor is it covered by the GPL (prior to version 3, I think). I have the right to use software because there is no law, license, or contract that I've agreed to that prevents it.
As part of [the GPL] you get an unlimited license to use the code yourself for any private purpose,
No, that's completely wrong-headed. Whether you sell it me a copy or give me one on the internet (I don't see why it makes a difference), I don't need a license to use it. There is no law, contract, or license I've agreed to that prevents me from using your software, so I can. Distribution is another matter entirely, but I'm not talking about distribution.
What you are describing is not very free at all--it's as though you are treating the GPL as an EULA.
I think we understand each other well enough, though we don't agree. In a perfect world, I would look at the degree to which I'm using a library (and several other questions I and others have mentioned), and make a decision as to whether my work is a derivative work. If it is, my work needs to be GPL. If not, I might use some other license.
In this world, I would be scared to do that, because of lawyers who disagree with me and judges who might also.
Who says I want to distribute their software? Furthermore, copyright says nothing about my right to use their software (or lack thereof).
you don't make any use of GPL'd components if you're not prepared to put everything under GPL, that is the intent of the license
That's exactly right. Anyone who says differently, especially after reading the Clisp exchange, is deluding themselves.
I'm inclined to explicitly point out that this doesn't mean the GPL actually requires you to do this--it means that proponents of the GPL will use legal pressure to require you to do this. The clisp author didn't even admit RMS was right; he essentially said, "whatever, it's easier this way," and GPL'd clisp.
This would mean that if someone built an application using GPL libraries, he is bound to distribute the source of the libraries
I don't think this works--the "derivative works" part of the license is crucial. Why? Because you don't have to accept the license! The only reason you would have to accept it is if you want to distribute the GPL work, or you want to distribute a derivative of that work. (You must accept the license, or you have no right to do these things.)
As far as use goes, one can use all the GPL programs they want without accepting the GPL license.
The situation you're describing is not the situation I was alluding to. See this post, which I was indirectly responding to.
some business steals some GPL code, locks it away in their proprietary code and then charges me for it when their version of said software becomes the standard.
That would be inexcusable if the GPL code were a significant and irreplaceable part of their proprietary application (that is, if their software is a derivative work), or if they actually distribute the GPL'd code (in which case they implicitly agree to be bound by its license and maybe by its definition of a derivative work).
Finally, it seems odd that you excuse a company just because their reason for restricting your freedom is for profit, but criticize an individual because their motivation is their moral stance. What's wrong with morals? Why is the insistence that people share a less valid motivator than profit?
Again, see the post I referred to. Suing users of a library, users that may not bound by its license (because the GPL prior to version 3 is not a use license) seems like a nasty thing to do. I think of people that do nasty things because they think they have the moral high ground as zealots.
I didn't give any opinion about corporate practices--companies do nasty things, too, but they are different nasty things.
Sorry, it's late here, and I may not be articulating as well as I should.
Actually, you could write in the license a definition for Derivative Work.
I know you can say it, but I don't understand why it would be legally binding. Shouldn't a distribution license only be relevant if you have already established that you are distributing a derivative work?
Basically, if someone makes an absurd definition of a derivative work, and I make a work that falls under this definition, am I liable? Why? I didn't ever agree to their license or definition.
Sorry, I meant "the defendant would explicitly not accept this definition."
It seems to be too late into the evening for me to post intelligently.
I appreciate the explanation, I'm curious to learn more about this sort of thing. But you said:
Basically, the "linking implies derivation" notion is reasonable and well-understood by all parties, so the court would accept it.
Do you know why this is the case? I imagine the plaintiff would explicitly not accept this definition, and as such, would not not see himself as bound by the terms for distribution of whatever program he linked to.
Sorry, I meant "A corporation that contractually forbids doing certain things isn't a zealot."
This is especially interesting with respect to scripting languages... If I write a PHP script that utilizes mysql_* function calls of PHP, which can only be invoked when PHP has been linked against the Mysql Client library....
Why don't you think about a different question--does writing your program in PHP make it a derivative work of PHP itself? Does using the mysql_* function calls make your program a derivative work of PHP? A derivative work of MySQL? Would your program still perform its purpose if you replaced those function calls with different functions (perhaps those that belong to postgresql)?
I think of a zealot as a person that does you harm because they believe their morals are the only thing that matters. Hence, a person that persecutes users of their program because they choose not to use the GPL is a zealot. A corporation that contractually forbids doing certain things is a zealot. Their motivation isn't morality or principle (and it's especially not to force their principles on you)--it's just a business strategy to them.
I don't think that matters.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. I have no idea what a derivative work actually is, but I'm pretty sure it's not what the FSF says it is. I just read a lot of heated opinions on sites like this that essentially say, "Because you link, your program must be GPL'd!" I think a lot of people don't understand the issues and just take the text of the license to be utter truth.
you're free to release it under whatever license you like, even if it happens to talk to a GPL'd client plugin thingie, and even if you wrote that GPL'd client plugin thingie around somebody else's GPL'd library.
There are two scenarios where I imagine this might not work. The first is if the GPL'd client plugin thingie is integral for useful operation of your program, a judge might rule that your plugin and your program are actually just one work.
The second way is if you get sued and can't afford a sufficiently convincing lawyer and/or expert witness to explain the issues properly (or you get a judge that doesn't care). (But I'm no lawyer.)
If you write the Foo app on your own without any connection to a GPL licensed library, then Foo obviously cannot be said to be a derivative work of anything. What if you then add some capability for Foo to interact with a GPL'd library?--for instance, adding Readline capability to an app that previously used the BSD Editline library.
Would this make your program a "derivative work"? That's a question for our legal system--it's not the FSF's right to define what constitutes a derivative work (nor is it the right of the any copyright holder--this is a question of legal definition).
And... err... I'm obviously not a lawyer.
Rather than trying to inflate the time to completion with a fudge factor, you need to tell the boss how it really is and stick to your guns.
I thought the reason we used fudge factors is because most of us (younger developers) can't accurately estimate projects? I would think that the correct solution is to use a fudge factor and stick to your guns.
By your argument, monetary fines would be pointless, too. But it's still a punishment to the company in question--if they have to raise their prices to make up the difference, maybe more customers will go to a competitor (I think ATT has at least one competitor in most places).
You're right, I didn't really mean open source software. I'm talking about software that doesn't cost anything--freeware, essentially.