“DR-DOS released DR-DOS 8.1 in the beginning of this month. But instead of an upgrade of the previous DR-DOS 8.0, it’s something completely different. The kernel is a badly patched copy of the Enhanced DR-DOS kernel old version 7.01.06 without any credit to its author Udo Kuhnt. The other programs and drivers included are old versions of some popular open source, freeware and shareware products without licenses, documentation or even credit to their authors. This means that DR-DOS 8.1 is just a bunch of old tools plus a compilation of others’ works, obviously sold without permission and in violation of their license terms.”
And this is where the community needs to get behind the developer(s) and help them sue the ass off those responsible.
Dave
The copyright holders involved can’t sue anybody. The GPL’s sec 2(b) only requires distribution of source code to “all third parties”:
“b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.”
All copyright holders that contribute code under the GPL are “offerors” and not “third parties” therefore,
the “offerors” suffer no injury and hence have no standing to sue.
Daniel Wallace has told everyone about this fact for years. You can’t sue someone over another party’s alleged injury — only the person “injured” (in this case “third party”) has standing to sue.
They’re violating the license. In regard to IP violations it’s always the IP holders who suffers. They suffer an IP violation.
The copyright holders can sue DR-DOS Inc. for violating the IP, and (through the court) force DR-DOS to cease distribution, since the license is being violated.
I don’t think you understand the GPL very well. The GPL allows redistribution of code but the license must be redistributed as well, which the article indicates wasn’t done (crediting authors, on the other hand, is NOT required).
If the redistributor does not follow the letter of the license, then he does not have the permission to redistribute it at all. It is illegal to redistribute a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright owner, therefore the copyright owners are well in their right to sue the redistributor (after they sent a Cease and Desist letter, presumably).
Oh, and David Wallace is a hack. I’ve read some of his more colorful attacks on the GPL and there’s a reason he has never made them in court – he just knows he would lose.
The copyright holders involved can’t sue anybody. The GPL’s sec 2(b) only requires distribution of source code to “all third parties”:
“b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.”
All copyright holders that contribute code under the GPL are “offerors” and not “third parties” therefore,
the “offerors” suffer no injury and hence have no standing to sue.
Daniel Wallace has told everyone about this fact for years. You can’t sue someone over another party’s alleged injury — only the person “injured” (in this case “third party”) has standing to sue.
BZZZT…Wrong!
If a piece of software is covered by the GPL, and only the GPL, there are only two things allowing you to use, modify and redistribute the software. Fair Use, which doesn’t allow DR-DOS Inc. to redistribute the software at all, and the GPL. If DR-DOS violates the GPL, their rights under the GPL terminate as per section 4 of the license.
This means that since the license has terminated, DR-DOS has no right or license to redistribute the software, and is thus in violation of the copyright. Straight up copyright violation. This is precisely one of IBM’s counterclaims against SCO.
It doesn’t matter whether I give software away for free or sell it, if you violate the license and it terminates, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you continue redistributing the software.
Please point to a relevant section of the law that says otherwise, and not to Daniel Wallace’s comments, considering he is being chewed up and spit out in pieces by Red Hat’s, Novell’s and IBM’s lawyers.
Daniel Wallace is not as funny as Darl McBride (claimed GPL is unconstitional), or Steve Ballmer (claimed GPL is a cancer), but he’s still funny in his own way.
For legal advice, though, I’d recommend asking people who have actually studied and practised law, rather than blindly trusting stuff posted by some random dude, whose only claim to fame is to have sued the FSF for price fixing (WTF!?) according to the Wikipedia page devoted to Daniel Wallace.
He may be wrong.
… just a thought,
dalibor topic
It’s like clockwork. Every single time that there is an article about a possible GPL violation, you GPL hippies go into a spew of debate about the actual meanings of various clauses in the GPL.
It’s the funniest thing, really. You all beat the GPL drum like predictable little robots, you talk about the virtues of GPL/OSS, and yet … you don’t even understand the fscking license itself. How can the whole GPL-pushing community be taken seriously if they don’t even know what’s going on in the very same license that they try to push on everyone who uses computers?
I laugh all the way to my XP box, right before I fire up CS:S or Quake 4.
Trolling again.
Look at the posts. We are not in doubt about the content of the GPL.
Some non-GPL persons are however spreading FUD (perhaps unintentionally) and the rest of us are correcting them.
And you, you prove again to be the biggest zealot on OSNews.
Just look at this statement: I laugh all the way to my XP box, right before I fire up CS:S or Quake 4.
It’s pure trolling.
It’s “trolling” to a Linux user because the truth hurts — and you Linux users have a hard time accepting the painful truth.
I’m no more a Windows/OS X zealot than I am a troll. There are tons of things that suck about Windows: the concept of the registry (single point of failure), crappy file system layout, too much bloat, too complex of a system, etc. There are also a lot of things that suck hard about OS X: the Finder, threading performance, disk performance, etc. I’m willing to admit those things.
Are Linux users willing to admit to the shortcomings of their religio — I mean, operating system? Probably not. They just shout back with “BUT MS SUX0RZ!” or some other drivel.
As for the actual topic at hand … no, it happens everywhere I look. Most prominent are OSnews and Slashdot in these kind of discussions. Even some of the most die-hard GPL zealots argue amongst each other about the meaning of the license. It’s a hoot.
Quote: “It’s “trolling” to a Linux user because the truth hurts — and you Linux users have a hard time accepting the painful truth.”
I’m sorry, but your username, “Linux is Poo” doesn’t exactly give me confidence in your abilities to be accurate in your assessment of Linux etc.
Unlike other GNU/Linux users, I recognise that there are issues with Linux. Many. But there are also issues with other operating systems. They all have issues, to varying degrees. I don’t extoll that Linux is perfect. But, for many, it’s damn well good.
The problem with licenses and legislation is that it’s interpretable. Different humans, interpret things different, due to a variety of factors. That’s inevitable. As an example – you’re at location A. You need to get to location B. Ask people. See how many different routes you get. That’s interpretation. It’s the same thing with people’s understanding of the GPL.
Dave
… Except that this is a software license that should be written very clearly and devoid of any ambiguity. When the core proponents of the license itself don’t understand it, and think it’s open to interpretation, it doesn’t exactly instill much confidence in the suits and power users.
Those are the people who matter if wider adoption of your little toy OS is important to you.
adoption of the “little toy OS” is more then enough already for me, thanks. do i want all the windows retards who will run an executable emailed to them, because the email says “i love you” using the same os that i am? what could that possibly give me? (and no, i dont use my machine for games, i use it for work) the way i see it, wider linux adoption will put more strain on user support then already exists because of the constant stream of arrogant windows users “switching”. vast amounts of morons using the os will make it a bigger target for stuff like spyware and virii. if you look at the levels of piracy on windows, can you really think that it would result in more contributers?
so *why* do i want these amoral, computer illiterate, masses who are only looking for a free lunch using my os?
I don’t know … why do you? Ask your groupthink crowd too, because they’re always trying to convince people to switch.
Losing your edge, are you? Those were your lamest responses yet, and coming from you that’s saying quite a lot!
The GPL is written in a straightforward manner and is pretty easy to understand. It seems to me that the vast majority of people who support it do in fact understand it. The “core proponents” of the license certainly understand it, so you are either minsinformed or lying. For having read your FUD here before, I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter.
Oh, and you are a troll, because of your name and because you say things like:
“Those are the people who matter if wider adoption of your little toy OS is important to you.”
(Emphasis mine.)
It’s “trolling” to a Linux user because the truth hurts — and you Linux users have a hard time accepting the painful truth.
I’m no more a Windows/OS X zealot than I am a troll. There are tons of things that suck about Windows: the concept of the registry (single point of failure), crappy file system layout, too much bloat, too complex of a system, etc. There are also a lot of things that suck hard about OS X: the Finder, threading performance, disk performance, etc. I’m willing to admit those things.
Are Linux users willing to admit to the shortcomings of their religio — I mean, operating system? Probably not. They just shout back with “BUT MS SUX0RZ!” or some other drivel.
As for the actual topic at hand … no, it happens everywhere I look. Most prominent are OSnews and Slashdot in these kind of discussions. Even some of the most die-hard GPL zealots argue amongst each other about the meaning of the license. It’s a hoot.
How is it you always manage to blather on and on for paragraphs and yet your never on topic and your posts never contain any real content? What exactly does the file system layout of Windows or the Threading performance of OS X have to do with the discussion at hand, which is the GPL, a copyright license?
Someone called me a troll, so I explained to them that I’m not actually trolling, but just point out negative aspects of Linux. I then provided an example of how OS X and Windows suck.
The OS X users admit shortcomings.
The Windows users admit shortcomings.
The Linux users scream bloody murder.
Someone called me a troll, so I explained to them that I’m not actually trolling, but just point out negative aspects of Linux.
No, you are trolling, because you’re “pointing out problems” in a immature and provocative manner in order to elicit emotional responses. That is the textbook definition of trolling. It doesn’t help that the “negative aspects” you allegedly point out are almost invariably untrue.
The OS X users admit shortcomings.
The Windows users admit shortcomings.
The Linux users scream bloody murder.
Tell me, what planet do you live on? Windows and Mac OS X advocates are as vocal as Linux advocates when it comes to defending their OS of choice against unfounded criticism.
I am both a Windows and Linux users, and I’ll gladly admit the shortcomings of both.
Meanwhile, you can claim to objectivity all you want, one simply has to read your posts to see that you NEVER criticize Windows or Mac except when trying to look neutral. Unfortunately, your nickname makes every one of these attempts laughable at best.
Everyone knows you’re a troll, why don’t you just admit it – oh, right, you have a problem with admitting the truth… 🙂
🙂
Nah.
Actually, you ARE a troll. You even have a troll name. Don’t try to deny your true nature – after all, it seems to be apparent to everyone else…
You try to give yourself some credibility (an herculean task, no question) by showing that you can criticize Windows and OS X as well…but your name still is “Linux is Poo”, and the critical posts you make are invariably against Linux. You are as as biased as Steve Ballmer at a MS rally.
And then you go around and spread FUD like:
Even some of the most die-hard GPL zealots argue amongst each other about the meaning of the license.
Uh, no. People may discuss the meaning of the license, some may not completely understand it (though in fact it is pretty simple), but I don’t see any “zealots” arguing among themselves.
Then again, you probably wouldn’t recognize civilized discourse if it hit you in the face. Oh well, down in the mod pit you go! You must enjoy writing stuff that people won’t get to read…I imagine your time is pretty worthless. Oh well, to each his own!
You do sound like a Slashdot idiot… Can’t read that crap anymore.
Quote: “The copyright holders involved can’t sue anybody. The GPL’s sec 2(b) only requires distribution of source code to “all third parties”:”
Wrong. You must also include the license verbatim. I suggest you read the GNU GPL license again. Do not pass go, do learn to read. Do learn to grok the GPL. Do not collect $200. Do get a good kick up the ass for trolling.
Quote: “All copyright holders that contribute code under the GPL are “offerors” and not “third parties” therefore,
the “offerors” suffer no injury and hence have no standing to sue.”
This made me laugh. You are wrong. They are third parties. Don’t try and practice law, you’ll fail abysmally. Hang on, please do! But only represent SCO and Daniel Wallace please!
Quote: “Daniel Wallace has told everyone about this fact for years”
Daniel Wallace is a tosser and a wanker extraordinaire. I couldn’t give two shakes of my bollocks as to what that idiot thinks. Oh, and Daniel’s welcome to sue me for slander, he doesn’t have a case. But I could use a good laugh.
Get a life. Oh, and I’ll use my rights to mod your post down, since it is not only trolling, but factually incorrect.
Dave
http://www.freedos.org
and or why was this even aloud to happen? whoevers fault this was needs to b held responsible for it.
They know what apps are being shipped with DrDOS so all you have to do is point to the FreeDOS’s website and say here’s the source.
Please people, we don’t need to replicate all 1 trillion lines of GPL code on every company’s webserver. Just a link to some central server should be sufficient.
That’s the license. If you accept it, you gotta follow it. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.
Exactly. This is a copyright violation and should be treated as such.
The problem is not so much that you can’t get the source if you want. The problem isn’t even that you can’t download the source from the DR-DOS people and have to go to the FreeDOS people instead. The problem is that the source is not provided, this is what sensible people do since the GPLs provision for getting the source has little to with the downloading it and more to do with getting the source form those distributing the binaries. The GPL existed when people didn’t have access to the internet and some people still don’t have it. They can demand to be sent the source per mail (yes that old pre internet thing) and DR-DOS would need to comply. This is more a problem for DR-DOS that could have been alleviated by simply including the source with the binaries.
BUT and this is a big one, DR-DOS didn’t give credit to all the projects and people it stole from. Removing the license makes it stealing and not just copyright infringement in my eyes, and depending on if the supposed commercial software included is licensed or not this is stealing in a legal sense to.
The thing isn’t so bad for FreeDOS or the Freeware authors, stuff like this happens even if it shouldn’t. This is bad for the Shareware authors and for DR-DOS since this is a costly mistake that didn’t have to be if somebody used their brain for 2 seconds. Personally I find it sad that small companies that have a product that is less or not viable on the market would stoop as low as this to try to make a profit. It happens all the time and never did something good come out of it for the company doing the stealing/copyright infringing.
i amazed at what i call the SCO syndrome – do these companies really think (1) no-one will notice, (2) they’ll get away with it?
give me that job – whoever is paid to make that decision needs to be sacked.
“i [am] amazed at what i call the SCO syndrome – do these companies really think (1) no-one will notice, (2) they’ll get away with it? ”
You’re being funny, right? Here’s an excerpt from the DR-DOS website:
“in 1996, DR-DOS was acquired by Caldera, Inc., the same company that sued and settled out-of-court with Microsoft Corporation over DOS-related anti-trust allegations”
Caldera is know known as SCO.
This is just one of the first times this has happened. It’s going to be FAR from the last.
A whole lot of folks don’t give a damn about violation of a license with commercial software. A lot less are going to give a damn about it when it’s not backed up by a corporation with more lawyers than sense.
A bunch of lawyers that came from that IBM unix lawsuit it seems. Are they going after Dr Dos now?
It is a shame to see what has happend to Digital Research’s fine program which when I bought it was far ahead of MSDOS in memory management and other tools.
Still is ahead. I use it to breathe life into older systems. It’s simply the best (And nearly the only!) choice for a multitasking-capable DOS.
And it’s based on CP/M-86
It doesn’t really suffer from that 640 KB limit.
640k limit?
*runs mem*
I’ve got 740k (NOT a typo) of free conventional memory in single-tasking text-only mode, and 605k free with the preemptive multitasker loaded and graphics enabled on the DR-DOS machine next to me, and that’s after all the drivers and TSRs, including the packet driver and multiplexer for my network card, are loaded. Not only that, but I’ve never run out of memory, since almost everything I run on the box uses DPMI, which opens up the whole 4GB address space.
Exactly
DR-DOS is not even remotely based on MS-DOS. It’s compatible, but mostly because MS-DOS was and is an illegal hack of CP/M-80 ported to x86.
DR-DOS is the continuation of CP/M-86 modified to be compatible with MS-DOS.
One of the differences between CP/M-86 and MS-DOS was the 640 KB memory limit in MS-DOS. This one didn’t exist in CP/M-86 and therefore does not exist in DR-DOS
The are not violating anything, if they didn’t modify the sources. They are including a binary copy, identical to the one on the developers site.
However, they should put a link to the sources somewhere, as a courtesy gesture.
They can sell all the GPL code they want, because the GPL permits to do so.
They ARE violating the license, because the license clearly states that they must ship the license file (typically COPYING.TXT or something like that) a long and give a written offer to send source code a long if it’s not shipped with the binary. Nor are they allowed to remove credits as such.
So, it’s a violation of the GPL.
Congrats……. License hell has just begun, and everyone can now assume a completely different position than they had a week ago.
Adjust to fit, fit to suit.
why is it a ‘license hell’ if some commmercial project uses gpl’d software and not playing by the rules?
the gpl is clear about what to do when distributing software licensed under it.
i mean it’s not that you have to dance naked around a tree in front of at least ten people, it just states you should offer the source, etc…
Sometimes makes me wonder if Stahlman had the right idea after all. This crap about copyright infringement and licenses is the kind of thing that the creators of GNU and Linus were trying to avoid.
Firstly, it’s Stallman. And yes, Richard is 100% correct in his ideals. And no, Linus et al weren’t trying to avoid copyright hell. They wanted to make sure that the software that they released, could be freely accessed and modified by ANYONE, as long as they followed the rules of the GNU GPL. It’s not hard.
As someone else said, if you don’t like the terms of the GNU GPL, then get your filthy mitts off any software that is GPL’d.
Dave
As Al Gore put it:
“There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law.”.
Until a “controlling legal authority” rules on the detailed legal consequences of these particular facts, I find the opinions of the denizens of this site to be worthless twaddle.
Y’all ain’t gonna have to wait long……
The world is going to do whatever they want with software licensing, including tell open source and RMS to shove it.
The commercial and shareware side already learned this, the community based side is a bit behind the curve on this one…….
What’s your point?
So you’re for the hording and stealing of IP.
But against its near-no-cost distribution?
You read like you actually want the world to steal F/OSS IP, horde it and resell it, etc.
The only way the world stealing F/OSS IP would matter is if by the world you mean Microsoft, and they use it to make Longhorn.
“You read like you actually want the world to steal F/OSS IP, horde it and resell it, etc.”
I don’t want them to do it…..
It’s going to happen regardless what you me or anyone else thinks about it.
The really scary part:
People WILL buy it, use it, and like it.
I’m surprised that no one has modded you down already, for encouraging breach of copyright, and breaking a license agreement. So, I’ll mod you down. You are wrong. Break the license agreement, or copyright and you’re breaking the law. If it’s fair to steal GNU GPL’d software, and ignore it’s license, then it’s fair to ignore EVERY other single software license in existence. I mean, what’s good for the good is good for the gander, eh?
Dave
“I’m surprised that no one has modded you down already, for encouraging breach of copyright, and breaking a license agreement. So, I’ll mod you down. You are wrong. Break the license agreement, or copyright and you’re breaking the law. If it’s fair to steal GNU GPL’d software, and ignore it’s license, then it’s fair to ignore EVERY other single software license in existence. I mean, what’s good for the good is good for the gander, eh?”
I actually WONDER if any license is worth the paper it’s written on….. People have had it with the whole concept of software patents, licenses, and EULA’s….
MANY are assuming the position of saying “sue me”…
Ain’t a good thing….. But, it’s damn sure a thing…
The GPL is designed to make sure that the software in questions remains open to the public, modifiable by the public, etc, etc. It does not restrict your freedoms (well, if you listen to the BSD advocates it does, but that’s a different story, and I’m not going to start a flamewar). EULAs restrict your freedoms, in most cases, exceptionally badly. Software patents are bad, full stop, I agree with you there. Blame the politicians who are bribed by the large corporate software businesses into such stupid legislation. Software patents do not, and never will, benefit the public. They encourage monopolies, and discourage innovation.
Dave
morgoth wrote: “The GPL is designed to make sure that the software in questions remains open to the public, modifiable by the public, etc, etc. It does not restrict your freedoms (well, if you listen to the BSD advocates it does, but that’s a different story, and I’m not going to start a flamewar).”
I’am a BSD advocate and I think that no paper or talk can give you more freedom than you had after you came out of your mother’s womb. Freedom can only be taken away. On the other hand, only unsocialized zealots nitpick about things that aren’t their in the first place.
I can’t imagine world without GPL right now … OK, maybe something like Guantanamo, he.
Lumping licenses together with patents shows how little you understand about the legal aspect of these matters.
Copyright law is firmly entrenched and ain’t going anywhere. The GPL is founded on copyright law, therefore it ain’t leaving either. Better get used to it.
“I actually WONDER if any license is worth the paper it’s written on”
To some degree that doesnt really matter here. If the license isn’t legally valid then standard copyright law applies and in that case DR-DOS is still violating copyrights.
Y’all ain’t gonna have to wait long……
The world is going to do whatever they want with software licensing, including tell open source and RMS to shove it.
The commercial and shareware side already learned this, the community based side is a bit behind the curve on this one…….
I voted this back up… I don’t think that it is encouraging copyright infringement. He is just stating an insightful fact of life.
People want stuff for free. Whether it is a business exploiting free stuff for profit or consumers just wanting stuff without paying for it doesn’t matter.
That is the hard sell of free software. I was buying a Linux magazine in Kuwait a couple of years ago and the guy at the checkout (I’m not sure of his nationality) was asking me about Linux vs. Windows. Of course in a checkstand I couldn’t really go into depth about it. I knew this guy could probably get very cheap copies of Windows. I really couldn’t explain it in a short period of time.
How do you explain the “freedom” aspect of free software in the face of pirated commercial software that is seen as better?
=========================
Regarding the DRDOS situation, I think the first step should be to notify the DRDOS publishers and make sure that they are in violation before flying off the handle about it. If they are in violation, of course they should be sued. If they are reasonable, though, they will just modify their behavior.
Quote: “He is just stating an insightful fact of life.”
That might be the case, but it’s still encouraging piracy etc. It’s no better than downloading illegal mp3s or movies.
Quote: “People want stuff for free”
Yeah, sure they do. I don’t like to pay taxes, but I’m sure if I tell the Australian government to bugger off they’d really understand. Nothing is free in life. And free can be interpreted in many, many different ways.
Quote: “Whether it is a business exploiting free stuff for profit or consumers just wanting stuff without paying for it doesn’t matter.”
No, it doesn’t. But – you are encouraging people to look at GPL’d software from the ‘free as in beer’ aspect, not the ‘free as in speech’ aspect. I don’t mind paying for GPL’d software, and have done so many times in the past. I do value the aspects of the GPL, which commercial, proprietary licenses do not share. That is the *real* difference imho.
Quote: “I knew this guy could probably get very cheap copies of Windows. I really couldn’t explain it in a short period of time.”
Funny, I can. In less than 30 seconds. It’s no big deal.
Quote: “How do you explain the “freedom” aspect of free software in the face of pirated commercial software that is seen as better?”
That’s a perception. The usual, because it’s “free” it must be inferior, which is a load of bollocks. I discourage this viewpoint from potential OSS users. In the vast majority of instances, free, or OSS software is of a quality that is a par with proprietary, commercial software, and in many cases better. Sure, some of it is inferior, that’s to be expected. An example – amsn allows me to still chat to people whilst in appear offline mode, something that the Microsoft msn messenger client doesn’t let me do. Is that better? I believe so. Does the tcl/tk amsn look fantastic? Nope. But, looks are purely that, many people are after functionality, not looks. The prettiest girls are usually very shallow (as a rule), whereas the average looking girls are usually real people. The same applies to software to some extent.
Dave
Quote: “He is just stating an insightful fact of life.”
That might be the case, but it’s still encouraging piracy etc. It’s no better than downloading illegal mp3s or movies.
I didn’t think that stating the fact of a behavior encouraged that behavior!
Quote: “People want stuff for free”
Yeah, sure they do. I don’t like to pay taxes, but I’m sure if I tell the Australian government to bugger off they’d really understand. Nothing is free in life. And free can be interpreted in many, many different ways.
I understand that. That point is not in contention. I would have difficulty explaining to a non-technical person who just wants to play games and surf the internet why a “free” (as in speech) copy of Linux is better than a “cheap or free” (as in beer) pirate copy of Windows.
Quote: “Whether it is a business exploiting free stuff for profit or consumers just wanting stuff without paying for it doesn’t matter.”
No, it doesn’t. But – you are encouraging people to look at GPL’d software from the ‘free as in beer’ aspect, not the ‘free as in speech’ aspect. I don’t mind paying for GPL’d software, and have done so many times in the past. I do value the aspects of the GPL, which commercial, proprietary licenses do not share. That is the *real* difference imho.
Okay, I’m not trying to *encourage* people to look at GPL’d software as ‘free as in beer’. I am trying to point out that people already *do* see it that way. Heck, even I see it that way from time to time and I really do understand the difference.
I still disagree. Maybe it’s me. I have no issues with explaining to people the virtues of Linux, OSS and FSF principles. Keep it short and sweet.
Dave
I feel so violated
It’s like clockwork. Every single time that there is an article about a possible GPL violation, you GPL hippies go into a spew of debate about the actual meanings of various clauses in the GPL.
It’s the funniest thing, really. You all beat the GPL drum like predictable little robots, you talk about the virtues of GPL/OSS, and yet … you don’t even understand the fscking license itself. How can the whole GPL-pushing community be taken seriously if they don’t even know what’s going on in the very same license that they try to push on everyone who uses computers?
I laugh all the way to my XP box, right before I fire up CS:S or Quake 4.
Enlighten us. What is it that we do not understand about the license? Please provide specific examples where someone in this thread is wrong about something, and you have a correction.
Sounds like one of Microsoft business tactics. if so DRDOS will make alot of money,too
This is another typical example of GPL vs BSD developers’ attitude:
GPL people: “Aargh, they used our code!”
BSD people: “Cool, they used our code!”
>GPL people: “Aargh, they used our code!”
>BSD people: “Cool, they used our code!”
I think it’s more like this:
GPL: I don’t want people to steal my code.
BSD: I don’t want to chase people stealing my code down.
I once was in the GPL category, now I’m in the BSD/MIT/Public Domain category. People do misappropriate code and I don’t want to spend my time running down their theft.
Closer, but not quote:
GPL: I don’t care who uses my software, but I only want to share my code with people who are also willing to share their code and respect my attribution.
BSD: I don’t care who uses my software, and I don’t want to chase down people using my code, but I do care if they use my code and don’t give me credit in the copyright notice.
Public domain: I don’t care who uses my software or code and I don’t care who gets credit. Emjoy.
This is another typical example of GPL vs BSD developers’ attitude:
GPL people: “Aargh, they used our code!”
BSD people: “Cool, they used our code!”
It’s more like:
GPL people: “Aargh, they violated our license”
BSD people: “Aargh, they violated our license”
GPL developers love when people use their code, it usually means more development. BSD developers are the same way but neither of them want the license violated. The GPL has stricter distribution restrictions but anyone is still allowed to use it.
It’s a silly move of DRDOS company.
My advice:
ignore them until they resolve the licensing issue.
It’s good to see that someone has been modding down nearly every single one of my posts. Now, I wonder if it’s the same person doing it to all of them? Funny thing is, none of my posts warrant modding down, so again, someone is up to no good. Thom, et al, have you finished introducing a system that allows misuse of modding to be punished yet? I suspect not. Maybe it’s an angry BSD license admirer punishing me for supporting the GPL! Or, better yet, maybe it’s Daniel Wallace! Might even be Humphrey B. Bear.
Dave
It’s more like:
GPL people: “You used our code. Good, now in exchange you will give us yours”
BSD people: “Ohhh, you used our code. Thank you, we feel so proud”
Hmm, I see it like this:
GPL: I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. The Playing Doctor License.
BSD: LOOK AT THIS!! The Flasher License.
Well, my view is this:
GPL: I give you something and you give me something. Fair trade
BSD: I give this and you can do what you want, as long as you said it came from me.
Both are good, but with different pros and cons…
Breaking news: DRDOS Inc. have removed DR-DOS 8.1 from their site and now sell only the old 7.03!!!
Well, that’s good! Might only be temporary whilst they either seek legal advice, or fix the issues. But still, a good thing.
Dave
Hint: when every single one of your post is modded down, it’s usually a pretty good sign that you are indeed a troll…
… never won a court case. I would be AMAZED to see a GPL lawsuit make it past discovery without being kicked out of court. “So what were your incurred losses?” Uhm…
You have to excuse me on this, but if you give your work away for free, you get what’s coming to you. The hell with some gamer laughing all the way to his XP box (amazed how many folks here have their panties in a wad over that guy), I can hear the business majors laughing all the way to the bank.
PROGRAMMERS: STOP DEVALUATING YOUR WORK with this open source NONSENSE. First business major that comes along, hires some 18 year old fresh out of high school with JUST enough knowledge to maintain your GPL project, and he’s making money off YOUR work without giving you a penny.
I’m sorry, that sounds REALLY {CENSORED} stupid to me.
Of course, a simple disclaimer and a links page would probably nueter the whole violation. “You have to make the source available” – doesn’t say how, in which case just link to the original pages those products came from.
Not that it matters now – DR-DOS 8.1 page and links was taken down.
Oh, and of course GOD FORBID somebody try to charge for something THEY OWN the license to (DR-DOS itself) just because they tacked on some GPL utulities.
Quote: “I would be AMAZED to see a GPL lawsuit make it past discovery without being kicked out of court.”
Maybe in the US, the land of weird and illogical legal decisions, but there has been several instances of GPL court cases now and they’ve went the way of the GPL. So, you’re wrong.
Quote: “You have to excuse me on this, but if you give your work away for free, you get what’s coming to you.”
Again, like some others here that have posted, read AND grok the GPL. You can charge for your software! Just because it’s GPL’d doesn’t mean it MUST be free (as in beer). That’s baloney. And just because something is free (as in beer), doesn’t mean that it’s then legal to disobey the license agreement. That is something that the courts will consider as breaking the law.
Quote: “and he’s making money off YOUR work without giving you a penny.”
Again, you have not grokked the GPL. He can charge for it, there’s no problem with this. But – he must release the src code for ANY changes that he makes and sells to the public. If it’s internal, then he doesn’t have to release the src code. The ideals of the GPL are to ensure that the code stays open, always stays open, and that anyone and everyone can freely modify the code to suit their own needs, and that changes that are made (and sold to the public) are re-introduced back to the community, for the benefit of the community.
Quote: “Not that it matters now – DR-DOS 8.1 page and links was taken down.”
Yes, because they were in breach of the GPL I think you’ll find.
Quote: “Oh, and of course GOD FORBID somebody try to charge for something THEY OWN the license to (DR-DOS itself) just because they tacked on some GPL utulities.”
They still MUST obey the license agreement of the GPL for those “tacked on GPL utilities” as you so politely put it. If your theory is correct, then NO license agreement is valid. That would surely upset Microsoft and Apple Computers I suspect 🙂 You can’t have it your way. It’s either NO license agreement is valid, or they’re all valid, on their own terms.
I really think you need to read a bit more on the GPL before making comments that you have no idea about.
Dave
it doesn’t make sense to anybody but insiders. Anybody else knows beer as something you p* back out 20 minutes after you get it. Granted that describes my reaction to every linux distro I ever tried, but not sure what the intended association is when this stupid phrase is trotted out in relation to software.
“Free as in speech” is perplexing too in the context of software; makes me think of expressions like ‘talk is cheap’ as though the person is comminicating that Linux is as cheap as the idle banter of it’s proponents. Y
ou’re not clarifying anything for newbies about the legalities of the software, just teaching them that GPL people talk strangely.