Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:56 UTC, submitted by Modafinil
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Samba Team and seven kernel hackers have come together with Software Freedom Conservancy to help efforts to ensure compliance with the GPL by those who implement Linux and other GPL software. Richard Hillesley talked to Bradley Kuhn of Software Freedom Conservancy, Jeremy Allison of Samba, and Matthew Garrett, who works in his spare time with the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers."
Thread beginning with comment 520409
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: LOL
by TechGeek on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 02:16 UTC in reply to "LOL"
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

wow. First off, the GPL is not a software license. It has absolutely nothing to say about how or where you use the software, or how many machines you install it on. It is simply a copyright license, detailing what you must do to distribute (not create) copies to third parties. If you discount it, then you basically wipe out all copyright, whether digital or physical.

You reasoning is a bit odd. You claim since some licenses are bad and some are good, we should so away with them all. Thats anarchy. Now if you are advocating anarchy then fine. But its not a reasonable or realistic view to take of the world. Even the worst third world crap holes have some rules.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: LOL
by ssokolow on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 02:37 in reply to "RE: LOL"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

wow. First off, the GPL is not a software license. It has absolutely nothing to say about how or where you use the software, or how many machines you install it on. It is simply a copyright license, detailing what you must do to distribute (not create) copies to third parties. If you discount it, then you basically wipe out all copyright, whether digital or physical.


Agreed. I've always found it strange that so many Windows installers give the GPL the same presentation as a EULA when they have about as much in common as an elephant and a gecko.

Reply Parent Score: 7

v RE[3]: LOL
by Hiev on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 03:00 in reply to "RE[2]: LOL"
RE[2]: LOL
by Kroc on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 07:55 in reply to "RE: LOL"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

If you discount it, then you basically wipe out all copyright, whether digital or physical.


That might very well be OP’s point. As far as I understand it, he is saying that any digital restriction is meaningless without enforcement.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: LOL
by WorknMan on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 08:22 in reply to "RE: LOL"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

wow. First off, the GPL is not a software license.


Really? According to the Wikipedia article on the GPL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is the most widely used free software license. It was originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU Project.

It is a software license... equally as valid (or invalid) as every other software license on the planet.

It has absolutely nothing to say about how or where you use the software, or how many machines you install it on.


On the contrary, it has plenty to say about these matters. It basically says you can run it wherever you want and install it on as many machines as you want. Just because it is much less restrictive than most other software licenses doesn't change what it is.

If you discount it, then you basically wipe out all copyright, whether digital or physical.


For digital, yes. But physical objects don't apply, because most of them are not copyable. But when (not if) somebody creates a Star Trek-style replicator and you can clone a loaf of bread and infinite amount of times, are we then going to set up laws that says people can't copy a loaf of bread? I am simply pointing out the lunacy of trying to use the legal system to prevent people from copying something that is infinitely copyable. Mind you, I'm speaking on pragmatic terms, not trying to give some sort of moral justification for piracy.

You reasoning is a bit odd. You claim since some licenses are bad and some are good, we should so away with them all. Thats anarchy. Now if you are advocating anarchy then fine. But its not a reasonable or realistic view to take of the world. Even the worst third world crap holes have some rules.


What I am saying is that if we accept one type of software license, we must by extension accept them ALL. As long as we're allowing developers to make the rules, we can't say that some developers are allowed to dictate the terms by wich their software can be used and/or distributed and some aren't allowed to do this, just because some developers set up terms that are more restrictive than you would like. Thus I think it is logical to not allow developers to make the rules anymore, since most of their rules end up being detrimental to end-users anyway. In essence, we've set up a system where developers have 100% of the control, and it ain't right. It's like being sold a car, and then being told where you're allowed to drive it. Sure, some dealers may be less restrictive about this than others, and some might even say 'drive it wherever the hell you want.' I'd just assume not let dealers make these decisions in the first place.

Edited 2012-06-02 08:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: LOL
by zima on Wed 6th Jun 2012 02:58 in reply to "RE[2]: LOL"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

when (not if) somebody creates a Star Trek-style replicator and you can clone a loaf of bread and infinite amount of times

If.

The world already has replicators: they're called "life" or "civilisation" - and it is unclear, an open question, if very much more efficient ones are practical in our universe (something like this would have insane evolutionary advantage, hence would almost certainly show up & take over already: if not within our biosphere - obviously not, for now - then at least within likely billions other biospheres in the universe, spreading and visibly transforming it ...possibly reaching and ~consuming us by now)

That loaf of bread is already basically replicated.

(generally, those are tools of storytelling; and cargo cults, modern mythologies, really - in those we always wished for something silly to be true; plus here, silliness of lack of real implications of such tech - it would massively transform the world, much more than "instant PO box" model in Star Trek, and it would do so parallel to its gradual improvements, not immediately such advanced; oh yeah, the route progress was silly - in TOS they synthesised food, which is among the harder things; and transporters in TOS were really better replicators than replicators in TNG, and also without real implications)

Oh, and "infinite" is a very large number in a universe of finite energy, resources, with a finite time to its heat death.


What I am saying is that if we accept one type of software license, we must by extension accept them ALL. As long as we're allowing developers to make the rules, we can't say that some developers are allowed to dictate the terms by wich their software can be used and/or distributed and some aren't allowed to do this, just because some developers set up terms that are more restrictive than you would like.

GPL itself has no real relevance on non-GPL code, doesn't say or allows/disallows anything about it.
But yeah, we can choose what licenses we personally accept, which we use and which not, what's so shocking about that? Are you proposing that the only healthy non-PD situation is when we all strive to use every possible type of license?

Thus I think it is logical to not allow developers to make the rules anymore, since most of their rules end up being detrimental to end-users anyway. In essence, we've set up a system where developers have 100% of the control, and it ain't right.

Well the thing about GPL is that it pushes the stakes in favour of users, general population...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: LOL
by Vanders on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 12:25 in reply to "RE: LOL"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

First off, the GPL is not a software license.

It very definitely is, then. What it is not is an End User License Agreement (EULA).

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: LOL
by TechGeek on Sun 3rd Jun 2012 01:08 in reply to "RE[2]: LOL"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

"First off, the GPL is not a software license.

It very definitely is, then. What it is not is an End User License Agreement (EULA).
"

Much better worded that my original.

Reply Parent Score: 4