E.E.E. is what the corporations are all about.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dotmatrix Jan 30, 2016 11:42 AM EDT |
In the math world, in addition to R, there has recently been a Google grab of Sage. https://cloud.sagemath.com/ The saddest part is some of this is being funded by US taxpayers through the National Science Foundation. It's not too hard to believe that in the next decade or so, there will be nothing left of true FOSS at all. Every bit and byte of code will be wrapped up and hidden under a proprietary interface... and with the Linux Foundation's help, the GPL will become unenforceable... Perhaps it's time to stop funding the corporations who seek to steal GPL code and sell it back to us with payment in PII. |
| JaseP Jan 30, 2016 4:33 PM EDT |
The GPL is the GPL,... It can't be made unenforceable. All code that is GPL now will forever be GPL. Don't spread FUD. |
| dotmatrix Jan 30, 2016 6:16 PM EDT |
>The GPL is the GPL,... It can't be made unenforceable. All code that is GPL now will forever be GPL. Don't spread FUD. There are plenty of proprietary systems which are built on GPL code. Google's Android is a good example. There is a GPL variant, but the official Android is a mix of proprietary and free code. MacOSX is another terrific example... what I am referring to here is the model of business which effectively nulls the Openess of the Open Source. This happens all the time. There's no FUD here at all. As far as 'enforceable' goes... money is needed to file court actions to defend the GPL. If one of the big organizations funding 'Linux' projects chooses not to put forth effort in defending the GPL, the GPL code effectively is no longer GPL. Think about Linksys routers for a moment. What would have happened if no organization with the financial means took action? I am not indicating that GPL code will suddenly disappear. I am saying that the situation may be something like a 2/3 - 1/3 split where the 1/3 is the user interface... think FOSS API and inner workings with a proprietary GUI... just like MacOSX. |
| kikinovak Jan 31, 2016 7:30 AM EDT |
> MacOSX is another terrific example... Mac OS X is indeed another terrific example why the GPL is better than a BSD licence. You can cannibalize BSD code, but you can't do the same with GPL code. Mac OS X is built from Darwin, their own port of FreeBSD. |
| dotmatrix Jan 31, 2016 10:36 AM EDT |
@kikinovak: I couldn't immediately find the web page for the current release open source license list: http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-106/ However, on this list -- which isn't going to be too far from the included list in any newer OS -- the GPL is called out at least 70 times. MacOSX includes BSD, Apache, and GPL code. And so does every GNU/Linux distro. Again, I'm not arguing that GPL code is going to disappear from the planet... far from it. The GPL code base will continue to grow. However, it is very likely that as FOSS becomes a larger component of commercial systems, the GPL code and the 'FOSS-ness' of the end product will be hidden as much as possible. This isn't FUD at all. It has been happening all along, and seems to now be the obvious goal of the "Linux Foundation" |
| skelband Feb 01, 2016 5:02 PM EDT |
> However, on this list -- which isn't going to be too far from the included list in any newer OS -- the GPL is called out at least 70 times. That's really interesting. Some of those are libraries. I'm assuming that the only code that is linking to them are GPL utilities. It would be a bit embarassing if Apple code was linking to GPL stuff. |
| penguinist Feb 01, 2016 5:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:...embarassing if Apple code was linking to GPL stuff It would be more than embarassing, it would mean that some of the Apple code all of a sudden became GPL. You can't reverse your decision once you ship your product with GPL code included. It's a done deal. |
| dotmatrix Feb 01, 2016 6:30 PM EDT |
GCC FAQ wrote: |
| CFWhitman Feb 02, 2016 11:24 AM EDT |
penguinist wrote:It would be more than embarassing, it would mean that some of the Apple code all of a sudden became GPL. You can't reverse your decision once you ship your product with GPL code included. It's a done deal. Actually, no, that's not the way copyright law works. If that were to happen, Apple could not absolutely be forced to GPL any of their code. In fact, releasing code as GPL could only be part of a settlement. The progression of the case would be: 1. Apple is found to use copyrighted code without proper permission. 2. The copyright holders sue Apple over the code they used. 3. It becomes clear that Apple will lose the suit, so Apple has a choice: They can settle or wait for a judgement. 4. If Apple waits for a judgement, they have to desist using the code, pay whatever damages the court finds appropriate, either real or statutory, and pay a fine if the infringement is found to be willful. (Technically, there could be a criminal case against certain people for willful infringement, but that usually only happens in counterfeit goods cases. At any rate, a criminal case has to prove that particular individuals chose to infringe a copyright.) --or-- 4. If Apple settles, then the terms of the settlement can basically be anything which both parties will agree to, possibly including releasing the software involved as GPL software. Edit: This of course all assumes that this would be a case where Apple actually was infringing and not something like linking to an LGPL library, which would be legal. |
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!