ole sjv and warren
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Dec 22, 2006 7:36 PM EDT |
SJVN sure luvvs the non-libre distros, though he gives a token nod to FC6. Over at mepisland Warren is still whining and spreading misinformation about the GPL: http://www.mepis.org/node/10725 "Q4. Does this mean that if I give a copy of MEPIS to a friend, I also have to give them a copy of the GPLed source code? A4. According to the Free Software Foundation, if they want the source code, it means exactly that. Whether you give MEPIS to a friend or install it on a computer and sell it, or even if you give it away on the street corner, you are still obligated by the restrictions of the GPL license." What a whiny tard. |
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 8:42 PM EDT |
Heh, Warren's turning the site into MozillaQuest. |
| dcparris Dec 22, 2006 9:28 PM EDT |
> According to the Free Software Foundation, if they want the source code, it means exactly that. Whether you give MEPIS to a friend or install it on a computer and sell it, or even if you give it away on the street corner, you are still obligated by the restrictions of the GPL license." Well, duh! If you distribute it, you're obligated. Disclaimer: I are not a NASA employee. I did tinker with model rockets when I was about 7 or 8, under parental supervision. But that's as far as I ever got with Rocket science. |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2006 11:30 PM EDT |
TC - >What a whiny tard. Thanks a lot for making me follow the link in an effort to figure out what the heck you are talking about. I presume it is this: The FSF recommends that you assign your copyrights to them, so they can insure your software "freedom." If the FSF succeeds, all source code will be GPL licensed and controlled by the Free Software Foundation Sign my for whiny tard-dom, then. I've always wondered who, other than complete morons, signs their copyrights over to the FSF. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 23, 2006 1:09 AM EDT |
>and all Laws regarding software patents and copyrights will be rendered ineffective. That was the last bit of the statement that you forgot to add, dino. You have a problem with the part you quoted, but Warren has an issue with the part I quoted. He's got a good distro, but I think he is most distressed because he got called on not distributing the source code. Of course, the part about copyrights isn't correct, just patents, since the GPL is a copyright license. The same advice I always give applies to Warren and Mepis: If you don't like the GPL, don't use it, and don't use GPL software. It's the same argument against using proprietary code. Use what you want to use, don't use the other (or do), and STFU. >I are not a NASA employee. Well, I AM a NASA employee. I'm also a liar. I'm also only one of those two things. ;-) Merry Christmas to everyone, I'm on my way home in about fifteen minutes. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 1:13 AM EDT |
>Of course, the part about copyrights isn't correct, just patents, since the GPL is a copyright license. One should never confuse symptoms and disease. The GPL is a copyright license only because it's a copyright world. Copyright and contract provided the tools to fashion a copyleft -- itself named as both a political position and as a repudiation of copyright. RMS is no fan of copyright for software, but is pragmatic enough to work with the tools available. |
| swbrown Dec 23, 2006 3:19 AM EDT |
> Sign my for whiny tard-dom, then. I've always wondered who, other than complete morons, signs their copyrights over to the FSF. If you haven't assigned them copyright, you're responsible for your own legal defense, and to take action against violators. That's why people assign them copyright of third-party projects. I don't think it's fair to call people 'complete morons' for not being prepared to pay a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees defending their hobby software. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 4:38 AM EDT |
>I don't think it's fair to call people 'complete morons' for not being prepared to pay a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees defending their hobby software. I think it's completely fair. First, your choice of "defend" is inappropriate. You're really talking about "prosecute". That is a completely discretionary act. The FSF demonstrates the principle well -- they haven't gone to court over anybody's hobby software, either, and I don't expect them to. In fact, what a problem for somebody with a little project who really believes the GPL is being violated and the FSF disagrees or doesn't care: with no rights of authorship, the developer has no standing to act. There is a another, darker side. In choosing the GPL instead of a placing software into the public domain, a developer exerts rights of authorship and ownership in a wish to control the terms under which that software is used. As the V3 brouhaha illustrates, ceding software to the FSF has the effect of giving control to people who may not share your desires or your interests. I have no doubt, for example, that most Linux kernel developers are quite glad that the FSF does not control Linux kernel code. As I said, only a moron. |
| swbrown Dec 23, 2006 6:30 AM EDT |
> I think it's completely fair. Just to make sure I have this straight, you're seriously saying that it's fair to call people "complete morons" that aren't prepared to pay a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to defend their hobby software? If so, that's just so amazingly messed up I don't know where to begin. > First, your choice of "defend" is inappropriate. You're really talking about "prosecute". You have to prosecute attempts to steal your code, but you also have to defend against lawsuits like the toy train control software, JMRI, is having to do now with KAM, who sent the author a $203,000 bill. So, by your standards, he's a "complete moron" for not being prepared to give up his house in order to write software to control a toy train and share it with you. > As the V3 brouhaha illustrates, ceding software to the FSF has the effect of giving control to people who may not share your desires or your interests. So I guess anyone that works for a living is also a "complete moron", seeing as you have not only given control to the employer of what you create, but the employer hasn't given you any license to your own creation in return. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 6:55 AM EDT |
>You have to prosecute attempts to steal your code, but you also have to defend against lawsuits like the toy train control software, JMRI, is having to do now with KAM Signing the code over to the FSF would not have relieved the authors of liability for patent infringement, and, as I recall, the GPL evaporates under allegations of patent infringement. >So I guess anyone that works for a living is also a "complete moron", seeing as you have not only given control to the employer of what you create Not a big fan of logic and facts, I see. A. When you do something as an employeer, you are acting as their agent, not as yourself. It is not yours to begin with. Besides, you aren't giving the employer anything. You are selling your services. |
| tuxchick Dec 23, 2006 1:00 PM EDT |
Passing out copies of a distribution does not require you to also provide source code. That's just plain old misinformation by Warren. He whines muchly about having to actually honor the GPL, poor guy. And his chief fan SJVN right along with him. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 3:12 AM EDT |
> Signing the code over to the FSF would not have relieved the authors of liability for patent infringement, and, as I recall, the GPL evaporates under allegations of patent infringement. It would have done two things that would have saved this guy a huge amount of pain (likely, the case would never have been brought): 1) It would have prevented KAM from taking his code and incorporating it into their product then suing him to block anyone but KAM from providing it in their proprietary product. This is because he placed it under the Artistic License rather than the GPL. This is a textbook theft attempt the GPL prevents, as KAM would be unable to distribute his software while also enforcing its patent against him, so wouldn't have a profit motive to attempt this daylight theft. 2) He wouldn't have been risking losing everything he owns until someone agreed to represent him pro bono. > When you do something as an employeer, you are acting as their agent, not as yourself. It is not yours to begin with. Besides, you aren't giving the employer anything. You are selling your services. So why can't people 'sell services' to the FSF in return for protection for the code you write, and a license to use that code as you requested? |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 3:22 AM EDT |
> Passing out copies of a distribution does not require you to also provide source code. That's just plain old misinformation by Warren No, it's not. If he doesn't accompany it with the source, he's required to provide the source on request to the GPLed portions of the distribution, and to maintain this offer for three years after the distribution. What he whines about incessantly is that someone did ask, he refused, he got smacked upside the head, and this is some sort of great injustice. Everyone else tells him to STFU and deal. :) |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2006 5:29 AM EDT |
>No, it's not. If he doesn't accompany it with the source, he's required to provide the source on request to the GPLed portions of the distribution If I understand what TC is saying, I think she's got it right here. For example, if you or I pass out copies of a distro to friends, we are not obligated to pass out source code with them. We probably do it, but we don't have to. If I create a distro, I don't have to distribute the source, but, on request and, if I wish, for a reasonable fee, I am obligated to provide copies of the source to anyone who asks. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 5:43 AM EDT |
> For example, if you or I pass out copies of a distro to friends, we are not obligated to pass out source code with them. Oh yes you are. Read section 3 of the license. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2006 10:15 AM EDT |
>Oh yes you are. Read section 3 of the license. Sounds like you should follow your own prescription. *Cough! 3(b) *Cough! 3(c) |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 9:53 PM EDT |
> Sounds like you should follow your own prescription. I know the license. > *Cough! 3(b) 3(b) requires you to distribute the code directly. I don't know what you're coughing about here. > *Cough! 3(c) For 3(c) (when it applies), you still have to distribute the code indirectly by passing along the offer for the source code. Btw, what Warren whines about is 3(c) not applying to the binaries whose source he didn't modify. |
| dinotrac Dec 25, 2006 4:20 AM EDT |
swbrown - We now know your problem. You cannot read. 3(c) is simply a passalong -- ie, when I got this stuff, I got an offer to provide source. Here are the particulars. 3(b) is a conditional requirement. You are required to offer, but obligated to distribute only to those who who ask and are willing to pay your cost for providing it. This is a nit, but it is different from a requirement to distribute. For a major distribution, it almost certainly amounts to the same thing. For a LUG or individual passing out CDs to friends, it likely doesn't. |
| swbrown Dec 25, 2006 6:46 AM EDT |
> 3(c) is simply a passalong -- ie, when I got this stuff, I got an offer to provide source Yes, you are indirectly distributing the source by passing along the offer. > 3(b) is a conditional requirement. You are required to offer, but obligated to distribute only to those who who ask and are willing to pay your cost for providing it. This is a nit, but it is different from a requirement to distribute. It isn't different from a requirement to distribute. If you distribute in such a way that 3(c) doesn't apply, and I ask you for the source and will pay, you must give it to me. You are required to distribute. This is where Warren got smacked down when he refused. |
| jimf Dec 25, 2006 7:01 AM EDT |
> and I ask you for the source and will pay, you must give it to me. And how is this different than what Dino was saying? You aren't being required to distribute source unless the afore mentioned conditions are met. Warren's been aware of that requirement for at least the last couple of years. He just doesn't want to play by the rules... |
| swbrown Dec 26, 2006 1:50 AM EDT |
> And how is this different than what Dino was saying? You aren't being required to distribute source unless the afore mentioned conditions are met. You have to distribute the source either directly or indirectly (when it applies). Maybe people don't like my referring to the indirect version (3(c)) as 'distribute'. > Warren's been aware of that requirement for at least the last couple of years. He just doesn't want to play by the rules... To be fair, many people (including Warren) thought that they could indirectly distribute the source (3(c)) to binaries they built if they hadn't modified the upstream source. He just decided to take the epiphany really, really poorly. :) |
| tuxchick Dec 26, 2006 12:42 PM EDT |
"He just decided to take the epiphany really, really poorly. " That gets my vote for best turn-of-phrase. :) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!