Jonathan Schwartz proclaimed ardent support for the open-source software realm but criticized the GPL.
Sun Criticizes Popular Open-Source License
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
178 Comments
2005-04-06 10:24 pm
Anonymous
Again, you said (and I quote yet again) “The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code”. Feel free to point out that clause to me. And you can leave off quoting from the LGPL, we aren’t talking about the LGPL, we’re talking about how you said that the “GPL has a clause to prohibit linking”.
I already have many times.
2005-04-06 10:28 pm
Anonymous
The linux kernel is GPL’ed. It is built using Gpl’ed tools The entire userland relies on GPL’ed libc, which links with the GPL’ed linux kernel . So the userland app writer is almost forced to use GPL. The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code, the reason for the existence of LGPL. THe problem is it is so confusing to understand the legal ramifications of not chosing GPL most app writers just choose it.
Here is the entire quote from my first post. Both GPL text and LGPL text claim that the GPL prohibits linking. However you claim otherwise?????
2005-04-06 10:40 pm
Anonymous
Here is the entire quote from my first post. Both GPL text and LGPL text claim that the GPL prohibits linking. However you claim otherwise?????
First off, that isn’t your original quote, your original quote is “The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code, the reason for the existence of LGPL.” You never said anything about the text of the LGPL and you specifically said “has a clause”. If you can’t even quote yourself correctly, why should anyone pay attention to what you have to say? Or is this another attempt to slightly modify what you have to say so you don’t like so dumb?
For the rest of my post, I’m going to ignore your edited “original post” and go with what you actually posted.
I can claim otherwise because there is no clause in the GPL saying anything even remotely like that. You’ve pasted a couple links to the GPL and you’ve quoted the same paragraph I quoted. That paragraph however:
a) Doesn’t say the GPL prohibits linking
b) Isn’t a clause of the license.
The GPL talks about “derivative works” and your obligations when creating one. Not about “linking”.
Seriously, you appear to have absolutely no clue about copyright law, contract law or the relevant definitions of the words used in those fields. You’d be much better off stopping.
2005-04-06 10:46 pm
Anonymous
First off, that isn’t your original quote, your original quote is “The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code, the reason for the existence of LGPL.” You never said anything about the text of the LGPL and you specifically said “has a clause”. If you can’t even quote yourself correctly, why should anyone pay attention to what you have to say? Or is this another attempt to slightly modify what you have to say so you don’t like so dumb?
Ok this is getting annoying. That is my orginal quote. Prove it isn’t, I copy pasted it verbatim.
I think I am done arguing with a person who can blatanly lie and lacks integrity. Prove that the Italicised text in my post wasn’t a verbatim copy of my orginal post.
For the rest of my post, I’m going to ignore your edited “original post” and go with what you actually posted.
Wrong OSnews doesn’t support an edit function. I am ignoring the rest of your drivel.
2005-04-06 10:54 pm
Anonymous
“Let’s see then say you buy a gun, should you be free to shoot anything or anyone?”
Hmmm… shoot somebody with my gpl’d code… yeah that makes sense. Yeah.. bang. GPL’d code hurts. Love hurts.
If I buy a gun, I can modify it. I can even sell the modified gun to someone else. Heck, I could even give it away… legally! It isn’t legal to shoot someone yet, but maybe that will be your next misguided cause.
“Many artists have been sued for sampling by the orginal copyright holders.”
Well, I guess missing the actual point of the conversation is your strong suit. People want the right to make “fair use” samples of the songs of others for their own work.
“Really people feel that buying a CD prohibits them from making mp3s at home, loading it into thier music playes, so that’s why they download music. RIIIGGHHT.”
Actually, they want to legally make mixed tapes, personal backups, and share a copy with their friends if they choose. That is a stone cold fact. They don’t want to buy the cassette, then have to buy the same product again to upgrade to a CD, and then have to buy it again to have the same exact thing on audio dvd. They want rights to what they have bought or have received from others. People want those rights, and the writing is on the wall for that topic.
“The point is using a different license. But the zealots want to disuade these companies from chosing thier own GPL incompatible license. Just google for the number of article creating a hoopla about SUN making the CDDL GPL incompatible. Then come back and talk about hypocrisy.”
Now what part of this paragraph makes sense to you? If proprietary software makers didn’t know that they shouldn’t use the gpl, or listen to arguments by gpl supporters of the CDDL… what do you suppose they do know.
“Sun has released “free” software by any definition of the word you can come up with. Sun has released and contributed code under GPL, MPL and thier own licenses. Perhaps you should spend time reading and less downloading mp3s.”
But you were arguing that they aren’t a proprietary software company.
You see, that is where you lose your credibility, because if they weren’t a proprietary software company, they would make their patents and trade secrets… their “IP” public.
Really, you best hope no one actually reads the hole you’ve dug yourself in this thread. You’re all over the map trying to hold together a web of nonsense which everyone is calling you out on.
Someone destroy your point, ok you shifted the point to what “you really mean”. Someone makes a valid argument, you forget what the point of the argument was to begin with. Really, you’re style is a little to messy to give you much credibility.
I expect my response with comments about panties, guns, santa claus, zealots, and the tooth fairy… because, hell, you are doing your best to be as clear as possible… and get your accurate viewpoints across. Let me tell you, everyone is becoming convinced by your analysis!
Now, without further ado, I will predict the first sentence of your next reply.
“Panties!”
The sad thing is that it would actually be the most coherent thing you’ve posted on OSNews.
2005-04-06 11:01 pm
Anonymous
When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using
a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary
General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General
Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with
the library.
Here is the quote from the LGPL explaining the GPL and linking. ( Note the quoted text appears above in italics, keeping with my style of writing).
I think that is self explanatory. All the this semantic arguments for the use of the word “clause ” is meaningless handwaving to detract from the real issue that was putforward.
2005-04-06 11:05 pm
Anonymous
Hmmm… shoot somebody with my gpl’d code… yeah that makes sense. Yeah.. bang. GPL’d code hurts. Love hurts.
If I buy a gun, I can modify it. I can even sell the modified gun to someone else. Heck, I could even give it away… legally! It isn’t legal to shoot someone yet, but maybe that will be your next misguided cause.
You said you wanted to freedom to do whatever you wanted with anything you buy. A gun false under that stament.
I just wanted to illustrate how ludicrous your statement sounded. I am glad you agree.
BTW you can’t make a modification to a gun and sell it legally at least not in the US.
Really, you best hope no one actually reads the hole you’ve dug yourself in this thread. You’re all over the map trying to hold together a web of nonsense which everyone is calling you out on.
The only people against me are linux zealots who post drivel on ever Sun and Solaris based article.
2005-04-06 11:08 pm
Anonymous
You see, that is where you lose your credibility, because if they weren’t a proprietary software company, they would make their patents and trade secrets… their “IP” public.
They have in case you have been living under a rock. Sun opensourced DTrace and gave 1600 patents away.
Now, without further ado, I will predict the first sentence of your next reply.
“Panties!”
Ah you really aren’t very good at anything are you? Even your silly prediction is wrong.
2005-04-06 11:13 pm
Anonymous
Ok this is getting annoying. That is my orginal quote. Prove it isn’t, I copy pasted it verbatim.
The italicized version was your original quote. However, “Both GPL text and LGPL text claim that the GPL prohibits linking.” is not what your original quote said. It’s not a paraphrase of what you originally wrote. If you’d like to stick by your original quote instead of continually trying to change it a little, be my guest.
I think I am done arguing with a person who can blatanly lie and lacks integrity. Prove that the Italicised text in my post wasn’t a verbatim copy of my orginal post.
You’re funny, you attack people who point out that you’re modifying your own comments and then try and claim that you’re being consistent.
And by “modifying your comments” I don’t mean modifying them in OSNews. That would actually make it difficult to catch you. I mean posting something then posting something different and then claiming they are the same. For example you said the GPL has a clause which prohibits linking. Later you said the text of the GPL and LGPL talk about linking. Those are 2 different statements. Or first you said that glibc is licensed under the GPL. Then you said it’s licensed under both the GPL and LGPL. Get it?
2005-04-06 11:26 pm
Anonymous
When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using
a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary
General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General
Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with
the library.
Here is the quote from the LGPL explaining the GPL and linking. ( Note the quoted text appears above in italics, keeping with my style of writing).
I think that is self explanatory. All the this semantic arguments for the use of the word “clause ” is meaningless handwaving to detract from the real issue that was putforward.
Do I really need to quote you again? You said the GPL said something. To prove the GPL says something you quote the LGPL? If the GPL says it, quote the GPL. If the GPL doesn’t say it, admit you’re wrong already.
And, now that I’ve looked up what you posted, you still aren’t even posting from the license, you’re posting from the preamble. The preamble is not part of the license, it’s explanatory text. The license starts after: “TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION”. For arguments sake, though, what you quoted doesn’t say the GPL prohibits linking. It says (paraphrasing) that a derivative work of the GPL must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. Which is also what the GPL says. Because, as I already said, the GPL doesn’t talk about linking, it talks about derivative works. Derivative work is a legal term and there are legal tests to decide if it has occured. “Linking” is not one of those tests.
The first place the LGPL talks about “linking” is in section 5 and it doesn’t talk about the GPL prohibiting linking. It is defining “linking” with respect to “derivative work”. It’s also mentioned in sections 6, 8 and 10 and I don’t see the GPL specified in any of those sections either.
So, where exactly is this mystical clause in the GPL that prohibits linking? Or have you given up on that argument and are now going to talk about the LGPL? Or is this all a case of you not understanding “linking” and “derivative work” and how copyright law actually works?
2005-04-07 4:20 am
Anonymous
The italicized version was your original quote. However, “Both GPL text and LGPL text claim that the GPL prohibits linking.” is not what your original quote said. It’s not a paraphrase of what you originally wrote. If you’d like to stick by your original quote instead of continually trying to change it a little, be my guest.
I never chaned my quote. You claimed I did. I wonder why the LGPL mentions the GPL’s notion of derivative works as a direct result of linking if no such intent is present in the GPL.
You probably should write to the FSF claiming that they are changing their written words too.
2005-04-07 4:39 am
Anonymous
And, now that I’ve looked up what you posted, you still aren’t even posting from the license, you’re posting from the preamble. The preamble is not part of the license, it’s explanatory text.
I think I must educate you on what preamble means. Below if the dictionary definition.
preamble:
A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose.
An introductory occurrence or fact; a preliminary.
The preamble explains the purpose of a formal document. Here the LGPL in it’s preamble choses to describe the intent of the GPL in terms of linking and how it’s purpose is to make it less prohibitve and lax to do so.
I think you have a tough time understanding written language. You have more than demonstrated this deficiancy, It is getting really tiresome trying to explain every thing to you again in written text.
We have had discussions before about operating systems and firmware and it ended on a similar note. With you having wildly inaccurate notions of firmware and how computers really work. We also broached TCP. And it still didn’t go anywhere.
I must admit I dropped the ball on glibc. But I also mentioned earlier I was having a little fun. I had time to waste and I did. Now I have better things to do. adios.
2005-04-07 5:49 am
Anonymous
The italicized version was your original quote. However, “Both GPL text and LGPL text claim that the GPL prohibits linking.” is not what your original quote said. It’s not a paraphrase of what you originally wrote. If you’d like to stick by your original quote instead of continually trying to change it a little, be my guest.
I never chaned my quote. You claimed I did. I wonder why the LGPL mentions the GPL’s notion of derivative works as a direct result of linking if no such intent is present in the GPL.
You probably should write to the FSF claiming that they are changing their written words too.
Are you really this dense or are you just trying to be annoying? You didn’t wonder why the LGPL said anything. You can read what you wrote? It’s entitled “RE: crap” and was posted 2005-04-06 16:36:16. Show me where you said anything about the LGPL in there. You said the GPL has a clause which prohibits linking. I’ve asked you at least 5 times now to provide any clause from the GPL which even has the word linking in it. You said “clause of the GPL” which would mean part of the legally binding portion of the document.
I think I must educate you on what preamble means. Below if the dictionary definition.
preamble:
A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose.
An introductory occurrence or fact; a preliminary.
The preamble explains the purpose of a formal document. Here the LGPL in it’s preamble choses to describe the intent of the GPL in terms of linking and how it’s purpose is to make it less prohibitve and lax to do so.
The preamble of the LGPL gives an explanation of how linking could be construed as a derivative work and explains how the LGPL has verbiage which explicitly allows that form of derivative work to be made. The preamble is still not part of the license text, it is not legally binding. And it’s not a quote from the GPL[/i]. You dug yourself the hole, you said the GPL said something, now quote the damn GPL.
I think you have a tough time understanding written language. You have more than demonstrated this deficiancy, It is getting really tiresome trying to explain every thing to you again in written text.
You’re hysterical, you said the GPL said something and you have yet to quote it. You know, it’s very simple to quote a document when you claim it says something. And quoting a second document doesn’t count, particularly part of one that is written for lay people and isn’t part of the legalese. Are you willing to admit the GPL doesn’t say what you said it says yet? Probably not, you’ve only had 4 or 5 people in this article alone pointing out your inability to admit when you’re wrong.
We have had discussions before about operating systems and firmware and it ended on a similar note. With you having wildly inaccurate notions of firmware and how computers really work. We also broached TCP. And it still didn’t go anywhere.
That discussion stopped because you showed the world your ignorance; I didn’t feel the need to pound it into the ground anymore. I’m getting to that point here too. You said the GPL said something, so quote it. Stop dancing around and quote it. Stop playing stupid and quote it.
I must admit I dropped the ball on glibc. But I also mentioned earlier I was having a little fun. I had time to waste and I did. Now I have better things to do. adios.
You didn’t drop the ball, you were as wrong as it’s humanly possible to be wrong. You said glibc was licensed under the GPL and were wrong, then said it was under the LGPL and GPL and you were still wrong. You claimed the GPL said something (which it doesn’t) and still haven’t quoted it (because you can’t). I can go through the thread and point out all the other claims you’ve made that were shown to be false. It’s not my fault that you’ve been flailing around looking like an idiot. Just provide the quote. One teensy tiny quote.
2005-04-07 5:51 am
Anonymous
Can’t you at least agree that what he said is inflammatory, or is that mild criticism even too much for you to be posting it from sun.com?
Oh, I can and do totally agree that it’s inflammatory and irritating.
It’s something that both Jonathon Schwartz and Scott McNealy are very good at and it’s kinda fun to observe as well.
2005-04-07 7:02 am
Anonymous
separated by birth. or they just work in tandem. first one opens his mouth and spewing nonsense, then he shuts up, and other takes over.
meanwhile, java is still under Sun control, and reaction on OpenOffice using more and more java for its internals wasn’t quite positive. shall I assume, the recent diatribes by Schwartz was the way Sun is addressing this issue?
2005-04-07 3:19 pm
Anonymous
If you have posted here long enough…. pick any discussion on osnews for the past couple of years. I have always admitted when I was wrong, except this time. The reason is simple, I am irritated at you and the 4-5 other people who constantly hijack any Sun, Solaris thread.
I was showing you how annoying it is to reason with someone hell bent on being unreasonable. I would like to go and repost our last stand off verbaim and show you how you reacted just like I did.
Anyway, The point I was making before this thread became a pissing contest is that Schwartz was not wrong about the GPL. The fact that the GPL was intended to be what he claims it to be is irrelevant to the fact that you guys start namecalling.
2005-04-07 3:23 pm
Anonymous
meanwhile, java is still under Sun control, and reaction on OpenOffice using more and more java for its internals wasn’t quite positive. shall I assume, the recent diatribes by Schwartz was the way Sun is addressing this issue?
Java is not under Sun’s control, it’s a community process with others also holding veto powers. OpenOffice is opensource and dual licensed under GPL. Feel free to fork it and remove Java from it’s infrastructure.
Walk the walk if you talk the talk.
2005-04-07 3:28 pm
Anonymous
Chris (IP: —.dslextreme.com
By raptor (IP: —.118.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net) – Posted on 2005-04-07 15:19:53
If you have posted here long enough…. pick any discussion on osnews for the past couple of years. I have always admitted when I was wrong, except this time. The reason is simple, I am irritated at you and the 4-5 other people who constantly hijack any Sun, Solaris thread.
I was showing you how annoying it is to reason with someone hell bent on being unreasonable. I would like to go and repost our last stand off verbaim and show you how you reacted just like I did.
2005-04-07 3:32 pm
Anonymous
If you have posted here long enough…. pick any discussion on osnews for the past couple of years. I have always admitted when I was wrong, except this time. The reason is simple, I am irritated at you and the 4-5 other people who constantly hijack any Sun, Solaris thread.
Well, this is a thread about Schwartz talking about the GPL, it’s not a Sun or Solaris thread. Perhaps it’s your reading comprehension skills that are in need of some work. And, fyi, I’ve been around here long enough to know that you pretty much don’t have a clue what you’re talking about on every thread you post to and most of them end up with multiple people explaining (very slowly and in great detail) why that is true. I can’t actually say I’ve ever seen you admit you’re wrong when it’s blatent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
And not admitting your wrong because you’re irritated is really, really petty.
I was showing you how annoying it is to reason with someone hell bent on being unreasonable. I would like to go and repost our last stand off verbaim and show you how you reacted just like I did.
You did show how annoying it is to reason with you. Congratulations. Of course, like you said, anyone who’s been here more than a day or two already knew that it’s impossible to reason with you. What’s your next trick going to be?
Oh, and I’m still waiting for that quote from the GPL. You didn’t think I’d forget about that, did you?
2005-04-07 4:38 pm
Anonymous
Well, this is a thread about Schwartz talking about the GPL, it’s not a Sun or Solaris thread. Perhaps it’s your reading comprehension skills that are in need of some work. And, fyi, I’ve been around here long enough to know that you pretty much don’t have a clue what you’re talking about on every thread you post to and most of them end up with multiple people explaining (very slowly and in great detail) why that is true. I can’t actually say I’ve ever seen you admit you’re wrong when it’s blatent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
I am glad you know the distinction between this thread and a Sun Solaris thread. Try to remember that the next time you post on one.
And not admitting your wrong because you’re irritated is really, really petty.
In case, you still have a comprehension problem , which you really do, I have admitted to being wrong atleast three times already. The only person being petty is you.
You did show how annoying it is to reason with you. Congratulations. Of course, like you said, anyone who’s been here more than a day or two already knew that it’s impossible to reason with you. What’s your next trick going to be?
Thank you. I can be very persuvasive. Oh I am done with my tricks, i have better things to do today.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for that quote from the GPL. You didn’t think I’d forget about that, did you?
I know you wouldn’t. I asked you to take it up with the FSF for putting what I said the GPL’s intentions about linking, in the preamble of the LGPL. Ask them why they created the LGPL and why the preamble says the GPL prohibits linking the way LGPL permits. Ask them for specific clauses in the GPL that requires the LGPL’s existence. According to you the GPL doesn’t prohibit linking but in thier infinite wisdom the FSF crafted the LGPL and also claimed in thier preamble that the GPL prohibits linking. I guess you are insinuating that the FSF and I have both misunderstood the GPL. But you have full grasp of it.
Please post thier reply for all to see.
2005-04-07 5:33 pm
Anonymous
I didn’t read the whole arcticle as I was rolling around the floor in fits of laughter after the first few paragraphs.
Johnathan doesn’t have a clue what the GPL is all about:-
“The GPL purports to have freedom at its core, but it imposes on its users “a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world,” the United States, where the GPL originated, Schwartz said. “If you look at the difference between the license we elected to use and GPL, there are no obligations to economies or universities or manufacturers that take the source code and embed it in (their own) code.”
He is missing the point of the GPL which is to ensure software remains free (as in freedom) for everyone to use, modify and improve. Whilst some may argue the clause in the GPL forcing people to also release the own code which uses GPL-Licenses code it is only by having this clause that software can remain free.
If this clause were not in there anyone (e.g. Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, SCO) would be able to take advantage of all the time and effort spent by other users in their propriatry products and the community would get nothing in return.
Look at Apple, they took the efforts of the BSD community and integrated this into OSX even if only a small part. when was the last useful thing given back to the Community by them. I’m still waiting for a proper quicktime on BSD or Linux.
I respect Richard Stallmann for sticking to his beliefs on these issues and hope he continues to do so.
2005-04-09 4:51 pm
Anonymous
I don’t understand the anti-GPL carping. The arguments are almost always parasitic: “we want to use the code, but we don’t want to respect the license conditions”.
There is no such thing as a “viral” effect of the GPL. A virus infects an organism without the organism having a say in the matter. Anyone using GPL’d software/code is doing so in a premeditated fashion and by choice. No one is forced to use GPL code in their commercial application. Choosing to use GPL’d code and then moaning about the license restrictions is disrespctful to the various programmers who released their code under that license. Surely a programmer should have the final say as to whether their code is used in a proprietary application or not?
There is room in the Open Source movement for all sorts of licenses, including the GPL. Schwartz is out of order criticising people who choose to release under the GPL, and so are the other critics. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.
”
Hmm could this be because GNU/linux is the dominating opensource operating system and software that runs on it gets forced to adopt the GPL or the GPL proponents get thier panties in a twist.
”
no. Linux kernel doesnt force any license on the user land and userland has choosen gpl on its own merits.
read
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
“So you can’t distribute code or binaries you modified without releasing the modifications as opensource under the GPL. How is that not forcing you to release your modifications?
Is it just me or have you just have totally missed the point of the debate,
”
point of the debate is you can make private modifications to GPL code and deploy it all over your organisation and not publish the changes.
you can also use GPL’ed code as a service and not share it like RHN does. so the statement that you will have to pubish any changes to gpl’ed code is misleading
Honestly as I read your initial posts I was thinking, ‘damn yet another person who doesn’t get it’-due to your use of the phrase ‘pbulic domain’. In your follow-up posts to AQ you have shown that you do correctly grok the problem with the phrase ‘public domain’ in regards to software licensing. And by the way that is no minor feat-each and everyday I find myself trying to clarify the problem assoicated with the use of ‘public domain’ and so many people really just don’t get it. And the difference between the GPL and ‘pulbic domain’ is *the* difference, which makes a difference.
‘Public domain’ means that no one owns the code and noone has any rights regarding the code, whereas the GPL means that anyone who uses the code, owns that code, and is encumbered with responsibility for any changes made to that code given that that user then wishes to distribute said code. ‘Public domain’ means that something has lost all value for no one can claim exclusive rights to it, it is worthless because one cannot monetize that which is in the ‘public domain’. Whereas the GPL is priceless, because the the license is not for sale-the price of the GPL, it’s *value*, is the power of the community obligation, the obligation which one willingly takes upon themselves when they distribute said code.
Now one of the reasons that the GPL does not address those issues which you refered to as ‘IP’ (ie. patents and tade secrets) is due to the fact the the supporters of FOSS actually contend that the only licensing/contractual issues which properly are applicable to code is copyright. But, and perhaps more importantly, ‘IP’ and ‘public domain’ are themselves tightly intertwined concepts, they precondition one another and are mutually co-determinant and interdependent.
The realtive value of IP is defined over and against the horizon of eventually becoming public domain. The principle of ‘scarcity’ at work in IP is a function of the timeframe in which said IP has value, is value-able. This ‘scarcity’, ie. the exclusivity of the associated accessibility, is what defines the ‘value’ of ‘IP’-against the backdrop of evntually becoming ‘public domain’. From the standpoint of monetization ‘public doman’ works are utterly inaccessible. From the standpoint of monetization ‘IP’ is only valuable proportional to the exclusivity of it’s associated accessibility.
‘Public domain’, ie. the property of noone, is related to ‘IP, ie. the property of someone, in that they are mutually exclusive. Whereas the GPL everyone who uses GPL’ed code and is accessible to anyone who abides by the GPL. The GPL comes far closer to realizing the promise of ‘common wealth’, ie. something from which everyone benefits, than the oft touted ‘public domain’ from which noone actually benefits at all. Without the obligation to the community on the part of those who abide to the GPL the GPL would be scarcely more than worthless, abandoned to the nomans land of ‘public domain’.
The value of GPL’ed software is relative to that which the community makes of it. If the community doesn’t value said code it becomes neglected, it still exists and is accessible, but may cease being simply relevant. If, however, the community does value the code, it’s value is defined by the way in which the community profits from that code. The only economical principle at work in GPL’ed code is the economy of utility/utilization-‘scarcity’ here is a function mere existence, NOT of accessiblity. There is no horizon of eventuality over and against which GPL’ed code derives it’s relative value.
If one understands the reason why it is not appropriate to speak of ‘public domain’ in reference to software licencing one also should understand how problematic it is to speak of ‘IP’ over and above the copyright issues which are at work in the GPL. One can’t have it both ways.
Either that which one considers to be ‘IP’, ie. the value of said software, is covered and protected by the use of copyright law embedded in the GPL, in which case the talk of loss of value is meaningless, or the value of said sofware, ie. it’s IP, is considered not to be covered and protected by the use of copyright law embedded in the GPL, in which case one is negating the value of copyright and disrepecting those who chose to license the software this way and those who then decry that they cannot use the software because it is licensed under the GPL are criticizing it due to the propietary rigor of the GPL’s mandate to adhere to the copyright claims. The license remains the same for everyone.
The concept of IP is so problematical when it comes to talking of software licensing that it beqs the question to even use the term. People mean different things talking about IP in different contexts. The only universal meaning of IP is ‘value’. Why would people decry not being able to use GPL’ed software if it wasn’t valuable ?. If it is valuable, which all who use GPL’ed code understand and even those who decry not being able to use it, why should it’s value, when that value is guaranteed by being embedded in the copyright usage of the license, be covered and protected beyond the license usage of copyright law ?
In my book either the IP *is* the value guaranteed by being embedded in the copyright usage of the license, or there is no ‘IP’ to speak of. Patent issues are only not orthogonal to licescing issues when one is pursuing propietary licensing schemes. If your goal is to enable the propietary usage of said open source software then patent issues become distinctly relevant. If however your goal is community ownership, which is the case with GPL’ed software, such patent issues are irrelevant except in the potential situation of a massive miscarriage of justice which would seek to exact fees from the public for usage of community property(ie. the overhanging shadow of FUD from SCO).
To date no company has ever succeeded in exacting patent fees from the public for their use of community property. And frankly I do not think this will ever happen. A judge who ok’ed such punitvie action from a corporation would be devaluing the value of community property and in the course thereof would undermine the value of copyright and that of the license upon which the value of said community property is based.
Open source should mean that we’re allowed to steal their code, doesn’t it? how dare they protect their own copyright by allowing people to use their software for other projects only as long as they return their efforts to the community!
(and to believe sun says it’s protecting IP)
It’s OK to support advertise your ideals, but it’s not OK to let you your peer fall into the trap due to his/her lack of knowlege.
Any licence is a legal document, if you don’t have the knowledge to understand the implications, consult someone who has.
This applies to all licences and I think the FSF does a pretty good job in helping people understand theirs, providing FAQs which cover common misconceptions.
either be with us or against us, pick a side!
You need to understand that choosing the correct license for a product/project/whatever does not automatically mean that that same license will be correct for any other product/project/whatever that a company chooses to release.
Yes, I understand that, and I agree with it. However, this is not at all what Schwartz said. Hence the apparent hypocrisy.
Can’t you at least agree that what he said is inflammatory, or is that mild criticism even too much for you to be posting it from sun.com?
I believe in intellectual freedom!
It’s best to ignore Jonathan Schwartz’s blogs, as they feature nothing more than ignorant trolling.
Sun keeps proving itself as a non trustworthy vendor. It seems the only thing their execs can do is to bad-mouth the competition (in this case the GPL). Based on personal experience, and based on successes in the real world of companies that deliver a positive message, a company that does nothing but bad-mouth it’s competition is telling it’s potential customers that it’s products suck, and that the vendor can’t be trusted.
Jonathan Schwartz is a joke. I believe he is just trying to get publicity, which works. But the publicity is not convincing anyone that Sun is a worthwhile vendor to buy from.
It’s a lot like over-the-hill Madonna kissing Britney Spears at the MTV awards, or Janet Jackson having Justin Timberlake expose her boob at the super bowl, both calculated attempts to re-invigorate dying careers.
Schwartz and McNealy are at the helm of what had been a dying company, and they’re trying to re-invigorate it with trolling.
That stuff works to a certain degree for pop stars. But not for large software/hardware vendors like Sun. That kind of stuff just makes the vendor look like a joke.
Sun, with all of it’s cuts and layoffs, has been plugging the leaks in their sinking ship. So they remain bouyant for now. But they still have a long way to go in order to be a top company that large enterprises want to purchase from.
Starve the troll by not feeding it – ignore Schwartz.
No, it isn’t. Look at all of the common x86 hardware that Linux supports and that Solaris/x86 does not support.
Sun is *failing badly* in terms of x86 device drivers!!
If I can’t even install their OS on my hardware, their product is little more than a coaster with a Sun logo on it.
no. Linux kernel doesnt force any license on the user land and userland has choosen gpl on its own merits.
Sorry, that is bollocks. The linux kernel is GPL’ed. It is built using Gpl’ed tools The entire userland relies on GPL’ed libc, which links with the GPL’ed linux kernel . So the userland app writer is almost forced to use GPL. The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code, the reason for the existence of LGPL. THe problem is it is so confusing to understand the legal ramifications of not chosing GPL most app writers just choose it.
The link you posted actually illustrates my point much clearly than it serves your purpose of disproving it.
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.
This essay is a call to all those developers who are developing open source software / Free Software (OSS/FS, also called FLOSS or FOSS). OSS/FS developers: Please, where possible, use an existing widely-used license for your software that is known to be compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL), such as the GPL, LGPL, original MIT/X, or BSD-new licenses.
Gee the article’s title starts with an Or Else.
The article basically says major software projects have undergone painful conversions to GPL since the GPL is ubiquitous and viral and they absolutely must be compatible. Instead of going to court over someone submitting a GPL submitted patch they would rather just dual license the code.
That article just reenforced my point that GPL is probably chosen more out of fear, lack of patience or blind zealotry than love.
point of the debate is you can make private modifications to GPL code and deploy it all over your organisation and not publish the changes.
Say the government of Argentina decides to use GPLed code and modifiy it. The Deparment of Agriculture does the pilot project and is extremely satisfied with the result. The department of transportaion now wants to use the project as well.
Does that count as distribution of code or an internal use of the code?
Let say the government decides to distribute thier code to it’s citizen’s. Do they have to distribute thier modifications. What if one of the citizen’s uses the code to do business makes modifications and distributes it?
Now the US based FSF decides it wants to enforce the GPL and files a law suite against them. Could they argue that the code never left thier country so it never left the governmental jurisdiction of Argentina, so they never actually distributed the code , so they do not need to comply with the GPL. Does the GPL allow them that right? NO.
So the government of Argentina might want to chose someother license.
you can also use GPL’ed code as a service and not share it like RHN does. so the statement that you will have to pubish any changes to gpl’ed code is misleading
Sorry, you are blind. You will have to publish changes if you chose GPL’ed code. That is not being debated here. The point being debated here is whether what Schwartz said is true or not.
You are peddling outright falsehoods.
So the userland app writer is almost forced to use GPL.
Utter nonsense. Care to explain the existence of all the well known binary only applications on Linux (eg., Oracle, DB2, Opera, et al)? Userland apps for Linux can be distributed under any license in existence without any problems whatsoever.
That said, there is a distinct advantage to using a GPL compatible license, as there exists an abundance of useful functionality wrapped up in GPL licensed code, which you can take advantage of only if your code is released under a GPL compatible license. If GPL campatibility is unpalatable to you, then you’ll have recreate that functionality yourself or find it elsewhere under another license.
Does that count as distribution of code or an internal use of the code?
Internal.
Let say the government decides to distribute thier code to it’s citizen’s. Do they have to distribute thier modifications.
Yes.
What if one of the citizen’s uses the code to do business makes modifications and distributes it?
Then they will have to distribute the source to their modifications.
So the government of Argentina might want to chose someother license.
And they remain perfectly free to do so. I don’t see anybody trying to deny them that right.
So the userland app writer is almost forced to use GPL.
Utter nonsense. Care to explain the existence of all the well known binary only applications on Linux (eg., Oracle, DB2, Opera, et al)? Userland apps for Linux can be distributed under any license in existence without any problems whatsoever.
`
May be I should have rephrased that. We are talking about why most of the opensource software writers choose GPL, Yes. Now pay attetnion. ALL those APPs you mentioned are binary distributions only. Name on linux distribution that comes bundled with any of the above.
And they remain perfectly free to do so. I don’t see anybody trying to deny them that right.
Isn’t that what Schwartz was saying. He just mentioned that the CDDL gives them said license. That is no different than ESR or Stallman going on a rant bout the superiority of ther GPL or the article that someone posted ranting about why Opensource software writers must chose GPL.
What did schwartz say that was wrong in the article linked here on OSnews.
May be I should have rephrased that. We are talking about why most of the opensource software writers choose GPL, Yes. Now pay attetnion. ALL those APPs you mentioned are binary distributions only. Name on linux distribution that comes bundled with any of the above.
Actually, I don’t need the rephrase anything. The point I was making was to refute someones assertion that the linux kernel can be used with any userland. I specifically was answering that. Go read the about glibc.
Wow, you managed to write an entire paragraph and get nearly every single point you made wrong.
Sorry, that is bollocks. The linux kernel is GPL’ed.
Off to a good start, the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL.
It is built using Gpl’ed tools
Not completely wrong, the development process itself uses BitKeeper (or, at least it did until today) which is definitely not GPL. It is also buildable using Intel’s tools which are also not GPL. The most common case is, however, that the Linux kernel is built using GCC.
The entire userland relies on GPL’ed libc,
Nope, glibc is licensed under the LGPL.
which links with the GPL’ed linux kernel .
Nope, glibc doens’t link with the kernel. It does make system call using a well definited interface, but there is absolutely no linking involved. Which is why you can have closed source software running on Linux.
So the userland app writer is almost forced to use GPL.
Wrong again (not that it’s surprising, you based a conclusion of false premises). You can license your software however you want to. Go ask all of the companies that release closed source software on Linux.
The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code, the reason for the existence of LGPL.
The license text of the GPL doesn’t mention linking once. I just checked. There is a small paragraph at the very bottom which mentions the LGPL and says “If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permist linking proprietary applications…”, but that isn’t actually part of the license text. So what exactly are you talking about?
THe problem is it is so confusing to understand the legal ramifications of not chosing GPL most app writers just choose it.
And what evidence to you have to support this claim?
And then this paragraph:
Say the government of Argentina decides to use GPLed code and modifiy it. The Deparment of Agriculture does the pilot project and is extremely satisfied with the result. The department of transportaion now wants to use the project as well.
Does that count as distribution of code or an internal use of the code?
more or less just displays your lack of knowledge about what the word “distributes” means with respect to copywrited works. It’s a lot easier to understand software licensing when you know what the terms used mean.
And finally:
Sorry, you are blind. You will have to publish changes if you chose GPL’ed code.
is patently untrue.
Your knowledge of the GPL is horrible and you don’t really seem to understand the laws it’s based on. I’d say go and read up before calling someone else blind.
We are talking about why most of the opensource software writers choose GPL
The enormous advantage to choosing a GPL compatible license (not necessarily the GPL itself) was covered in my previous post. Nobody is being forced into anything. Being GPL compatible simply means you can utilize the considerable functionality wrapped up in the existing body of GPL code. Not being GPL compatible means that you will have to recreate that functionality yourself or find it elsewhere under another license.
ALL those APPs you mentioned are binary distributions only. Name on linux distribution that comes bundled with any of the above.
Yes, they are. I choose to highlight binary only apps to make the point clear that there is no barrier to distributing Linux apps under a GPL incompatible licenses. Binary only is about as GPL incompatible as it gets. The situation is effectively no different for any OSS code.
Name on linux distribution that comes bundled with any of the above.
Suse, Linspire, Xandros, and Mandrake, among others, offer versions which come bundled with proprietary binary only applications. As for “the above”, I believe it is still possible to buy RHEL bundled with Oracle, and IIRC some distro or another has Opera bundled (Linspire?).
Isn’t that what Schwartz was saying. He just mentioned that the CDDL gives them said license.
Had that been the extent of Schwartz’s comments, I would have no problems at all. Unfortunately, the can hardly ever open his mouth without playing the part of trash talkin troll. Such behavior may indeed be “business as usual,” but having no vested interest in Sun, I’m inclined to call a spade a spade and point out that Johhny boy is an inflamatory buffoon. Juvenille executives have long been a part of Sun’s business model, at least from a PR perspective, but I think they’ll find that competitors in the OSS space can’t get away with the same kind of s**t talkin’ that served Sun in its battles with MS.
The point I was making was to refute someones assertion that the linux kernel can be used with any userland
I’ve read and re-read the original comment and your reponse. I still fail to see the relevance. Could you please clarify?
Here’s a good example of the freedom of speech available at http://blogs.sun.com. Granted, it may not be as prevalent as we would like to see, but it is present to some extent.
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/robogeek/20050406#jonathan_s_s_non…
Jonathan S’s nonsensical criticizm of GPL, by David Herron a/k/a RoboGeek
Refreshing to see!
For purchasing the Solaris 10 DVD from Sun, it says it comes with Java Enterprise System with an “evaluation license”. Does this mean even after you buy the DVD, you’ll have to buy SJES for $95.00 later?
> Nope, glibc doens’t link with the kernel. It does make
> system call using a well definited interface, but there is
> absolutely no linking involved. Which is why you can have
> closed source software running on Linux.
Could you explain this a bit? I don’t see the difference between “linking” and “system calls” – both function calls and system calls look just like two examples of the concept of linking, in the sense that they transfer control from the calling code to the called code, and back later. I’d agree though that syscalls are a form of *dynamic* linking since the actual target address is not found in the program code.
Even on the hardware level, “call” and “trap” instructions (assuming a platform where the instruction for a syscall is called “trap”) work very much the same. On some hardware, they differ by nothing than a bit in the CPU control register. There is often more difference between two different types of call instructions than between call and syscall.
As for the well-defined interface — the same applies to function calls.
With this in mind, I don’t understand how one can build a software license on such microscopic technical differences. For example, am I allowed to use a GPLed library in a closed-source program when I glue them together with x86 call gates, because it’s a system call now?
Of course the CDDL is desingned to only be practically beneficial to proprietary software companies, as it is designed for their benefit. This is very clear as it is GPL incompatible.
Also, why would any “open source” volunteer programmer who really cared about their “IP” give it away under any license? If the really cared about “IP”, why shouldn’t they form their own proprietary company to sell their code?
The CDDL might be useful to large proprietary software companies which want to appear “open source friendly” while giving away as little of their “code secrets” as possible.
For a volunteer coder, however, it is essentially useless. The fact is that most open source programs are not based on large companies, but on volunteer coders who organize around different projects, and most of those projects either live or die based on the amount of that support.
And that is the problem for the CDDL, as it does nothing extra for volunteer coders that the revised-BSD doesn’t already do. It does, however, make itself incompatible with both the BSD and the GPL, which is against the ethos of the volunteer coders who created the BSD’s and GPL’d free BSD and Linux worlds, and the intentions behind it. By using the CDDL, the code only benefits proprietary companies as it makes itself incompatible with the BSD and GPL worlds.
And, in fact that might as well be the elephant in the room in this conversation, as a release under the CDDL would be both GPL and BSD incompatible, and anyone who volunteers their code to support the freedom of software would reject it outright, as it only serves to give benefits to the large proprietary software companies.
Of course, that is why Schwartz is using this strategy, as he wants the “CDDL” to be the “GPL” for the proprietary software companies.
So I certainly wouldn’t be considering the CDDL as anything close to the revised-BSD.
And raptor, you are truly insuffuciently informed to bring anything of value to this conversation.
If people intended to use the BSD instead of the GPL, they would have, as the BSD is GPL compatible. If the BSD was the intention of most free software developers, they could easily have used it for their programs, which Linux distributors could then relicense under the gpl for use in their distributions. No GPL advocates or community forces GPL use on anyone, as the majority of open source projects chose it exactly for the intentions it embodies. Plenty of BSD projects are relicensed under the GPL and used in Linux, so that is a completely incorrect argument. The majority of open source projects have chosen the GPL because they agree with it. It is not friendly to proprietary software makers, and it isn’t meant to be.
Really, it the CDDL type of licensing model were to become popular, a model which benefits proprietary software makers more than anyone else, then I’m pretty sure that movement would already have happened with the advent of the MPL.
Maybe the CDDL will find a footing with larger proprietary software makers, and maybe Sun will call that their “Open Source Community”, but it isn’t a good license for non-proprietary software company end users, nor is it a good license for volunteer developers. As it is, it is both revised-BSD and GPL incompatible
And finally, of course the problem is that “public domain” is not a correct term for what you were describing. What would be more correct is the term “public accessible”.
Not completely wrong, the development process itself uses BitKeeper (or, at least it did until today) which is definitely not GPL. It is also buildable using Intel’s tools which are also not GPL. The most common case is, however, that the Linux kernel is built using GCC.
The developement process doesn’t use bitkeeper. Bitkeeper is a reveision control system. I believe that a cvs repository also exists. I have no idea why you brought Bitkeeper up. Next you will bring up the fact that the bits needed to download teh kernel source travels through routers that you proprietary OSes. Ludicrous.
The license text of the GPL doesn’t mention linking once. I just checked. There is a small paragraph at the very bottom which mentions the LGPL and says “If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permist linking proprietary applications…”, but that isn’t actually part of the license text. So what exactly are you talking about?
I wonder why it is included in the GPL license file then. Read the first line of the paragraph.
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.
Here is the relevant text from the LGPL.
When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using
a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary
General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General
Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with
the library.</>
[i]more or less just displays your lack of knowledge about what the word “distributes” means with respect to copywrited works. It’s a lot easier to understand software licensing when you know what the terms used mean.
And finally:
Sorry, you are blind. You will have to publish changes if you chose GPL’ed code.
is patently untrue.
Really. So I can take GPL’ed code, modifiy it and release it without releasing the modifications. WTF? I don’t care if I can make changes privately. The point is If I take GPL’ed code. I can’t embed it into my own code and release it with any other license. Is that not how the GPL works?
Your knowledge of the GPL is horrible and you don’t really seem to understand the laws it’s based on. I’d say go and read up before calling someone else blind.
I understand how the GPL works. Sorry no matter how much you claim otherwise you have to release the source of your modifications if you chose to use GPL’ed software for any opurpose other than private tinkering.
I dare Sun to stop licensing software with the GPL.
Right now they get a lot of support from this “community”. I’d love to see what happens to OpenOffice, how quickly it gets forked, if they stop licensing it with the GPL.
Please, Sun, I dare ya.
c’mon, you’re better than us, aren’t you? Do it! You know you wanna.
Yes, they are. I choose to highlight binary only apps to make the point clear that there is no barrier to distributing Linux apps under a GPL incompatible licenses. Binary only is about as GPL incompatible as it gets. The situation is effectively no different for any OSS code
That is primarily possible because glibc is LGPL’ed.
Had that been the extent of Schwartz’s comments, I would have no problems at all. Unfortunately, the can hardly ever open his mouth without playing the part of trash talkin troll. Such behavior may indeed be “business as usual,” but having no vested interest in Sun, I’m inclined to call a spade a spade and point out that Johhny boy is an inflamatory buffoon. Juvenille executives have long been a part of Sun’s business model, at least from a PR perspective, but I think they’ll find that competitors in the OSS space can’t get away with the same kind of s**t talkin’ that served Sun in its battles with MS.
Please post the relevant quotes from schwartz in the article that say anything unfactual about the GPL.
From the voice of reason.
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/robogeek/20050406#jonathan_s_s_non…
Second, the GPL is not owned by the United States. One of the biggest GPL projects, Linux, was started by a fellow from Finland. Thus, when someone follows the GPL and does share their code with the world, it is the WORLD they are “disgorging” their code to, not the United States.
I wonder why this appears at the top of the GPL License text.
“Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place – Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA”
Also Linus, now happily resides in the US and has worked for US based organizations.
Now the US based FSF decides it wants to enforce the GPL and files a law suite against them. Could they argue that the code never left thier country so it never left the governmental jurisdiction of Argentina, so they never actually distributed the code , so they do not need to comply with the GPL. Does the GPL allow them that right? NO.
That has nothing to do with the GPL, but with copyright law. The GPL is an extension of the normal rights users have with code that belongs to someone else.
If you think the GPL is too restrictive, then you must also believe that proprietary software is abominable, since it gives users (and other developers) a lot less rights than “vanilla” copyright law.
Now, the question really is: why would the Argentinian department of Agriculture not want to distribute its modified code to the department of Transportation. After all, their budgets come from the same source, taxpayers’ money. And why wouldn’t the Argentitinian government care about the fact that it would have to release the source to the public? They are, after all, a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
You seem to think that the whole world is made of ISVs, who really are the only ones who might feel threatened by the GPL. There’s no reason why a government would feel that the GPL is risky (which is why Brazil is leaning towards it, like the provincial government of New South Wales).
As other have already demonstrated, your arguments are quite poor. You should spend some more time working on them.
Please post the relevant quotes from schwartz in the article that say anything unfactual about the GPL
S**t talkin’ doesn’t necessarily include outright lying. It’s the inflamatory characterizations which I object to. Any “unfactual” aspects of Schwartz’s statement here are subject to being interpreted away if one is inclined to give his statement a overly charitable reading.
That is primarily possible because glibc is LGPL’ed.
Nice to see that you’re paying some attention to those correcting your factual errors.
I wonder why this appears at the top of the GPL License text.
Whatever does that have to do with whom one is “disgorging” to?
The difference between linking and system calls is that using these system calls you are accessing a binary API. Its very similar to running a command from the shell. When you run this command you pass in arguments and usually get back a result. This doesn’t mean you have linked to that command, you just used it as it was intended to be used.
If you link to software you incorporate that software into your binary. You copy those libraries directly into the binary or link them into your program at run-time. In both cases you are doing more than just executing that code. Usually this involves passing around data structures and other bits of code as well. So the lines get really blurry here.
Its possible, for example, to write a kernel module that loads into the binary kernel without using any kernel source code. This is what nvidia is doing, apparently. But since the API for this interface is constantly changing it becomes a challenge to keep up.
So if you want to use code without releasing your IP then use LGPL libraries and any BSD stuff, etc. But stay far away from GPL source, because its not intended to be used for this purpose. Its states this very clearly in the license, which you must not have read if you don’t “get it” by now.
You will have to publish changes if you chose GPL’ed code.
False. You only have to release the changes if you release the binaries. If you don’t release the binaries but offer a service with it (e.g. Google) you don’t have to release your modifications.
We are talking about why most of the opensource software writers choose GPL, Yes. Now pay attetnion. ALL those APPs you mentioned are binary distributions only. Name on linux distribution that comes bundled with any of the above.
There are plenty of apps on Linux distribution CDs that aren’t under the GPL. Apache is the first one that comes to my mind. Also, it is completely legal for distributions to include proprietary software. One could bundle nvidia’s proprietary drivers on a Linux distribution, though they’d need to get nvidia’s permission to do so, and it wouldn’t be legal to make copies of the installation disk (though you could legally copy all of the free software on it).
If you want to criticize the GPL, you should learn a bit more about it first.
That has nothing to do with the GPL, but with copyright law. The GPL is an extension of the normal rights users have with code that belongs to someone else.
Really, How so?
If you think the GPL is too restrictive, then you must also believe that proprietary software is abominable, since it gives users (and other developers) a lot less rights than “vanilla” copyright law.
I don’t see how what I think of proprietary software is relevant to this discussion. I am trying not to being my biases into the discussion, But you seem intent on it.
Now, the question really is: why would the Argentinian department of Agriculture not want to distribute its modified code to the department of Transportation. After all, their budgets come from the same source, taxpayers’ money. And why wouldn’t the Argentitinian government care about the fact that it would have to release the source to the public? They are, after all, a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
I guess the point of a hypothetical example to illustrate a point is lost on you.
You seem to think that the whole world is made of ISVs, who really are the only ones who might feel threatened by the GPL. There’s no reason why a government would feel that the GPL is risky (which is why Brazil is leaning towards it, like the provincial government of New South Wales).
Really, Please post the relevant articles illustrating the reasons they picked GPL. Was it becuase the software they chose was already GPL’ed or because the just fell in love with the freedoms GPL pruportedly provides.
As other have already demonstrated, your arguments are quite poor. You should spend some more time working on them.
I could say the same for yours. So far in this post alone you have brought up an irrelvant point of what I think of software licenses. Failed to understand the use of use of hyptothetical examples. You also haven’t provided any reasonable cogent explanation. What you have done is try to predict what I think.
If you think the GPL is too restrictive, then you must also believe that proprietary software is abominable,……
…..
You seem to think that the whole world is made of ISVs
I would say from this post alone that your argumentation skills are far inferior to mine. I will openly admit to not being very good a arguing a point, But I lack the delusions of being superior.
“False. You only have to release the changes if you release the binaries. If you don’t release the binaries but offer a service with it (e.g. Google) you don’t have to release your modifications.”
And on top of that, when you have to release code, you only have to release it to the person you are giving the program and code directly to. You don’t have to distribute it to the world through the internet just because you gave a copy to one person.
You might think that you might as well be giving the code to the world, but considering that the world is pretty damn big, and everyone does not know each other personally, you would not be giving it to the world. It all depends on how the person you gave it to uses it.
False. You only have to release the changes if you release the binaries. If you don’t release the binaries but offer a service with it (e.g. Google) you don’t have to release your modifications.
I didn’t realise that the Google search techonlogy software was licensed under the GPL. They use linux yes, But to claim that they are using GPL’ed code in thier own IP is a little far fetched without proof, wouldn’t you say? I would love to see some proof that Google’s indexing system and webservices technology uses GPL code and proprietary code inermingled.
S**t talkin’ doesn’t necessarily include outright lying. It’s the inflamatory characterizations which I object to. Any “unfactual” aspects of Schwartz’s statement here are subject to being interpreted away if one is inclined to give his statement a overly charitable reading.
Oh so, You really have no proof but would like to indulge in some S***t talking your self. I get it.
That is primarily possible because glibc is LGPL’ed.
Nice to see that you’re paying some attention to those correcting your factual errors.
Go read my orginal post I mentioned the LGPL. I am really sorry you have a hard time understanding things.
I wonder why this appears at the top of the GPL License text.
Whatever does that have to do with whom one is “disgorging” to?
Hunh…. care to explain that.
“What if one of the citizen’s uses the code to do business makes modifications and distributes it?
Now the US based FSF decides it wants to enforce the GPL and files a law suite against them”
If that citiczen distributes the derivated code (=original code + his modifications) under any license other than the GPL, he looses his license to distribute. Any of the copyright holders of the original code can demand that he:
-distributes the derivated code under GPL OR
-does not distribute OR
-asks the copyright holder for a license which allowes closed distribution. The copyright holder can either grant or deny such a license.
The copyright holder can NOT force the citizen to GPL the derivated code, as it is the choice of the citizen how to not injure the copyright of the original authors.
Succinct and very well put.
The copyright holder can NOT force the citizen to GPL the derivated code, as it is the choice of the citizen how to not injure the copyright of the original authors.
If that citiczen distributes the derivated code (=original code + his modifications) under any license other than the GPL, he looses his license to distribute. Any of the copyright holders of the original code can demand that he:
-distributes the derivated code under GPL OR
-does not distribute OR
-asks the copyright holder for a license which allowes closed distribution. The copyright holder can either grant or deny such a license.
The copyright holder can NOT force the citizen to GPL the derivated code, as it is the choice of the citizen how to not injure the copyright of the original authors.
Thanks for the clarification. This is all good for a small program but large projects with multiple developers make this a logistical nightmare. So there in lies an inherent problem with GPL. So other licenses might be more prudent.
I can’t see why people are so riled up. I have to admit I am playing devil’s advocate and having a little fun. I just find it fascinating that even the truth about the GPL is construed as being false by people.
Really, How so?
Are you serious? If you release code without a specific license, it is still covered by copyright law (as long as you can prove you wrote it – registering it is always a good idea, though not mandatory). If you receive the code, you have the right to make one copy for backup purposes (the so-called “fair use” clause), and that’s it. Furthermore, you won’t have access to the code, but even if you did (i.e. you illegally obtained a copy of it) you couldn’t legally modify it and re-release it. So, clearly, you would have a lot less rights than if I had chose to distribute my program under the GPL.
This is why GPL is considered an extension of the rights normally granted by copyright law.
I don’t see how what I think of proprietary software is relevant to this discussion. I am trying not to being my biases into the discussion, But you seem intent on it.
It has nothing to do with bias, but with logic. The GPL gives more rights than would normally be granted by copyright law, and by extension proprietary license. Ergo, if you feel that the GPL is too restrictive, then you must believe that “normal” proprietary licenses are way too restrictive. I was merely pointing out the logical consequences of your argument.
I guess the point of a hypothetical example to illustrate a point is lost on you.
A hypothetical example is useless if it is not grounded in reality.
Really, Please post the relevant articles illustrating the reasons they picked GPL. Was it becuase the software they chose was already GPL’ed or because the just fell in love with the freedoms GPL pruportedly provides.
What difference does it make? The issue is whether they like the GPL or not. If the GPL was so bad, then they’d pick software released on another license. You’re the one making the original hypothesis here (i.e. that a country might turn away from the GPL because of its conditions), so the burden of proof is on you.
I could say the same for yours. So far in this post alone you have brought up an irrelvant point of what I think of software licenses. Failed to understand the use of use of hyptothetical examples. You also haven’t provided any reasonable cogent explanation. What you have done is try to predict what I think.
Tsk tsk. The point wasn’t irrelevant, but rather a logical extension of your own. I very much understand the use of hypothetical examples, so much so that I was able to determine that the one you presented was worthless. As far as “cogent explanations” go, well, you’re the one making assumptions about why people may or may not choose the GPL, so really you have to provide them, not me.
Finally, I have not tried to predict what you think, but rather have presented the logical conclusions of your arguments, something which you haven’t tried to challenge. Instead, you seem to have chosen to attack my credibility, a sure signe that you don’t in fact have counter-arguments.
I would say from this post alone that your argumentation skills are far inferior to mine.
Of course you would say that, however saying it doesn’t make it true. The fact that you have made false statements about the GPL doesn’t improve your credibility on this matter.
I will openly admit to not being very good a arguing a point,¨
Clearly.
But I lack the delusions of being superior.
Clearly not. After all, you just claimed that your argumentation skills are superior to mine…
But to claim that they are using GPL’ed code in thier own IP is a little far fetched without proof, wouldn’t you say?
It doesn’t matter, because they could. I can modify a GPL program, use it to offer a Web service, and not be required to disclose my modifications. This is a central point which you seem bent on ignoring.
Go read my orginal post I mentioned the LGPL. I am really sorry you have a hard time understanding things.
Actually, you did explicitly claim that libc was under the GPL, not the LGPL. Here is a direct quote from your comment:
“The linux kernel is GPL’ed. It is built using Gpl’ed tools The entire userland relies on GPL’ed libc, which links with the GPL’ed linux kernel.”
Such arrogance is usually better served by not directly contradicting what you said earlier…
Are you serious? If you release code without a specific license, it is still covered by copyright law (as long as you can prove you wrote it – registering it is always a good idea, though not mandatory). If you receive the code, you have the right to make one copy for backup purposes (the so-called “fair use” clause), and that’s it. Furthermore, you won’t have access to the code, but even if you did (i.e. you illegally obtained a copy of it) you couldn’t legally modify it and re-release it. So, clearly, you would have a lot less rights than if I had chose to distribute my program under the GPL.
WTF? Any license would still have the same effect. Please understand the distinction between copyright and licenses.
It has nothing to do with bias, but with logic. The GPL gives more rights than would normally be granted by copyright law, and by extension proprietary license. Ergo, if you feel that the GPL is too restrictive, then you must believe that “normal” proprietary licenses are way too restrictive. I was merely pointing out the logical consequences of your argument.
When did this become a Copyright vs a GPL debate? Stay to the point.
What difference does it make? The issue is whether they like the GPL or not. If the GPL was so bad, then they’d pick software released on another license. You’re the one making the original hypothesis here (i.e. that a country might turn away from the GPL because of its conditions), so the burden of proof is on you.
No. It makes a difference. People chose opensource software becuase there is easily available free code. If the software that closely matchs thier need is governed by the terms of the GPL they have no choice but to abide by it, The GPL imposes restrictions and those restrictions are under debate.
The obvious fact that you can chose something else is not the point of contention. The burden of proof lies on you, who claimed brazil and wales chose GPL. Provide the reasons why they chose it.
Tsk tsk. The point wasn’t irrelevant, but rather a logical extension of your own. I very much understand the use of hypothetical examples, so much so that I was able to determine that the one you presented was worthless. As far as “cogent explanations” go, well, you’re the one making assumptions about why people may or may not choose the GPL, so really you have to provide them, not me.
Another strawman argument.
Finally, I have not tried to predict what you think, but rather have presented the logical conclusions of your arguments, something which you haven’t tried to challenge. Instead, you seem to have chosen to attack my credibility, a sure signe that you don’t in fact have counter-arguments.
I quoted the exact text where you tried to predict what I think. No you haven’t produced any logical conclusions preiod. I didn’t question your cedibility you questioned mine. I retaliated.
Clearly not. After all, you just claimed that your argumentation skills are superior to mine…
They are.
I stand corrected: some Sun employees obviously don’t shy away from criticizing their boss’ useless trolling.
“The GPL imposes restrictions and those restrictions are under debate.”
Those restrictions are actually not under debate. The proviso of the gpl is known. It imposes restrictions on proprietary software companies which have no rights to the code to begin with if they can’t obey its license. I don’t have the right to use their proprietary software however I like since they’ve put it behind EULAs which deny any right I have to the software. What makes software companies think they are somehow entitled to GPL code, when the purpose of the gpl is to keep their proprietary hands out of it. It is nothing but double standard laden drivel.
Anyone who isn’t a proprietary software maker would see what the GPL gives them as rights, not restrictions. It allows them to copy, modify, and distribute the programs freely as long as they distribute the source code with it. That wouldn’t bother anyone who didn’t want to use that same code for a proprietary sales scheme. There are millions of people around the world who wish they had the rights to do the same with their itunes mp3s. Instead they find themselves drug into court and made examples of.
The GPL does exactly what it intends to do, and people have supported it because they agree with its intentions. If Schwartz refuses to believe that, that is his problem. But of course he is at the helm of a proprietary software company, so what should we expect from someone who represents the exact thing the gpl was created to inhibit.
Jonathan Schwartz may be a spellbinder in person, but in cold print, his ideas are transparently self-serving. The GPL and Linux are built on the notion of a shared community of code – that’s their reason for being, the cause of Linux’s rapid progress, and its utter uniqueness in being taken up by so many users with so little behind it in the way of direct advertising or promotion.
It’s not the world of Sun nor of Schwartz, so of course, the GPL’s swap of high-quality code for what you make of it seems utterly alien – Schwartz wants users to be able to use his code to make money not to make better code or for coders to expose their programming flaws to the world. The GPL insists on transparency; the CDDL allows obfuscation.
Schwartz’s riff on developing nations is particularly galling. He seems to believe that the main beneficiary of programmers returning their code is the United States, but why this should be is unstated. Everyone everywhere is the beneficiary – the code has to be provided not handed back to its owner on a silver platter.
Thus, for example, a pan-African language variation of AbiWord must provide its source code with its (free or paid-for) binaries, but interest outside Africa may well be low. Yet now there is a wordprocessor that handles many hitherto ignored languages and it didn’t need to be written from scratch. Fair trade? US imperialism embedded somewhere in any of this? Where?
Schwartz needs Open Solaris to establish bona fides versus Linux because Linux has eaten Sun’s lunch. Without being particularly business-friendly, Linux has muscled Solaris out of the low- and mid-end of Unix computer and is now eyeing the high-end, where it has already made inroads. This is last ditch stuff. Solaris and its license are not superior (or arguably inferior) to Linux and the GPL. It simply creates a seemingly more business-friendly, ip-friendly paradigm while riding on the back of the open source movement – the smiler with the knife. So far, the “limitations” of the gpl haven’t held Linux back. I suspect Sun’s efforts will lead it to an even smaller market niche than it occupies now.
Those restrictions are actually not under debate. The proviso of the gpl is known. It imposes restrictions on proprietary software companies which have no rights to the code to begin with if they can’t obey its license. I don’t have the right to use their proprietary software however I like since they’ve put it behind EULAs which deny any right I have to the software. What makes software companies think they are somehow entitled to GPL code, when the purpose of the gpl is to keep their proprietary hands out of it. It is nothing but double standard laden drivel.
I urge you to read the article again and show me where Schwartz said otherwise.
Anyone who isn’t a proprietary software maker would see what the GPL gives them as rights, not restrictions. It allows them to copy, modify, and distribute the programs freely as long as they distribute the source code with it. That wouldn’t bother anyone who didn’t want to use that same code for a proprietary sales scheme. There are millions of people around the world who wish they had the rights to do the same with their itunes mp3s. Instead they find themselves drug into court and made examples of.
Oh I see you are advocating that you want everything for free, regardless. I find it strange that you bringup mp3s.
Mp3s aren’t just binaries or bits. The are someone’s work and creative talent. Taking it and listening to it doesn’t give anything back to the community or the world. Find a different example.
The GPL does exactly what it intends to do, and people have supported it because they agree with its intentions. If Schwartz refuses to believe that, that is his problem. But of course he is at the helm of a proprietary software company, so what should we expect from someone who represents the exact thing the gpl was created to inhibit.
Yes the GPL does as it is intended to but the intentions are the ones some find it objectionable.
Schwartz is the COO of a company that has given the world a lot more software for free than any other company in the world. They are even opensourcing thier crown jewel solaris. I would think twice before calling Sun a propietary company.
WTF? Any license would still have the same effect.
No, they wouldn’t. Some licenses grant more rights, though none can give you less rights than what is judged as “fair use” under copyright law.
Please understand the distinction between copyright and licenses.
Licenses are based on copyright law. You can’t separate the two. Please learn a thing or two about IP law.
When did this become a Copyright vs a GPL debate? Stay to the point.
I’m simply pointing out that the GPL is an extension of user rights as defined by copyright law, that it is in fact much less restrictive than the basic “fair use” rights as defined by copyright law.
The obvious fact that you can chose something else is not the point of contention. The burden of proof lies on you, who claimed brazil and wales chose GPL. Provide the reasons why they chose it.
No, because it’s irrelevant. The burden of proof is on you to indicate that countries would shy away from using the GPL because of the license’s requirements. You made that claim, I merely provided examples that this supposed fear of the GPL doesn’t seem to worry Brazil and NSW.
Another strawman argument.
I don’t think you know what that means. Please explain how the paragraph I wrote constituted a strawman argument, because to me it clearly didn’t.
I quoted the exact text where you tried to predict what I think.
As I said, I did not try to predict what you think, I presented logical conclusions based on what you said. Now, instead of trying to attack me, you should rather try to show how the arguments you originally made don’t logically lead to the conclusions I presented. This would be what you’d do in an actual debate.
No you haven’t produced any logical conclusions preiod.
Actually I have, and you haven’t tried to challenge them, so I can only conclude that you don’t have any counter-arguments.
I didn’t question your cedibility you questioned mine.
Not really (at least not until you started to put my own credibility in doubt). Instead, I challenged the validity of your arguments. I’m sorry if you took it personally, but ultimately that’s your problem, not mine.
However, you did clearly contradict yourself in two of your posts. That doesn’t help.
I retaliated.
You should “retaliate” by presenting counter-arguments, not by attacking the person you disagree with.
They are.
If your argumentation skills are superior to mine, then why are you losing this debate? Why aren’t you offering counter-arguments of your own? You do you resort to attacking your opponent instead of debating him?
Oh so, You really have no proof but would like to indulge in some S***t talking your self. I get it
There’s no point in engaging you if you persist in being so willfully obtuse. This is last shot, unless the quality of your responses improves, I’ll waste my time in a more enjoyable fashion.
Johhny boy wrote (but one example):
a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world
Not only is this factually incorrect as stated, it is needlessly inflammatory. The various Sun employees who have posted here have provided a rather good example of how the substantive points made by Schwartz can be stated without his trolling. But then, being sensible doesn’t get media attention, does it?
Go read my orginal post I mentioned the LGPL. I am really sorry you have a hard time understanding things.
You quite plainly claimed that glibc was released under the GPL.
Hunh…. care to explain that.
You quoted the copyright notice of the GPL, which indicates that the FSF, holders of the copyright to the GPL license, are located in the US. This, along with linus’ current residence in the US, was presented by you as evidence in favor of Schwartz’s claim that the GPL results in devloping nations having to “disgorge” their IP to the US. Neither fact has any bearing whatsoever on Shwartz’s erroneous claim.
No, they wouldn’t. Some licenses grant more rights, though none can give you less rights than what is judged as “fair use” under copyright law.
I can choose any license that gives me the desired effect, it doesn’t have to be GPL.
Licenses are based on copyright law. You can’t separate the two. Please learn a thing or two about IP law.
While that is true, IP laws are not only copyright law. The GPL protects copyrights but does it protect all the other forms of IP?
Not really (at least not until you started to put my own credibility in doubt). Instead, I challenged the validity of your arguments. I’m sorry if you took it personally, but ultimately that’s your problem, not mine
Your first post ended in this.
As other have already demonstrated, your arguments are quite poor. You should spend some more time working on them.
I merely demonstrated that your arguments in that post were tremendously poor in comparison for you to be arrogant.
You should “retaliate” by presenting counter-arguments, not by attacking the person you disagree with.
You would do well to heed your own advice. Seeing as to how you attacked me without provocation.
If your argumentation skills are superior to mine, then why are you losing this debate? Why aren’t you offering counter-arguments of your own? You do you resort to attacking your opponent instead of debating him?
I am not losing this debate, nor am I winning. I would say we have reached a stalemate. There was no debating with you to begin with. The precedant here is you chose to attack my credibility and lost your credibility.
The developement process doesn’t use bitkeeper. Bitkeeper is a reveision control system. I believe that a cvs repository also exists. I have no idea why you brought Bitkeeper up.
You said, and I quote “It is built using Gpl’ed tools”. BitKeeper is one of the tools that is used to write (which is a necessary prerequisite to build) the Linux kernel. You can also compile (another necessary prerequisite to building software) Linux using Intel’s very closed source and proprietary compiler. So how was I wrong? Linux is built with GPL’d tools, it’s also built with proprietary tools.
Next you will bring up the fact that the bits needed to download teh kernel source travels through routers that you proprietary OSes. Ludicrous.
You’re the one that said it’s “built with GPL’d tools”. That isn’t 100% true, suck it up and deal with it.
I wonder why it is included in the GPL license file then. Read the first line of the paragraph.
I already quoted that section, it’s not part of the license text. It’s a pointer to the LGPL if you are building something that you’d like to be combinable with proprietary works. Doesn’t change the fact that the GPL doesn’t say anything about linking. Here’s what you said: “The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code”. You said it, I pointed out that, as usual, you’re wrong. And quoting from the LGPL doesn’t make you any less wrong.
Really. So I can take GPL’ed code, modifiy it and release it without releasing the modifications. WTF? I don’t care if I can make changes privately. The point is If I take GPL’ed code. I can’t embed it into my own code and release it with any other license. Is that not how the GPL works?
No, you can’t. But that’s not what you said, you said “You will have to publish changes if you chose GPL’ed code.” which is patently untrue. You know, making a false statement and then coming back and saying “that isn’t false” and saying something completely different just makes you look foolish.
Actually, you did explicitly claim that libc was under the GPL, not the LGPL. Here is a direct quote from your comment:
“The linux kernel is GPL’ed. It is built using Gpl’ed tools The entire userland relies on GPL’ed libc, which links with the GPL’ed linux kernel.”
I stand by that statement. glibc comes with both the GPL and LGPL licenses.
Download the source tarball and look at COPYING, COPYING.LIB
Such arrogance is usually better served by not directly contradicting what you said earlier…
Yes that would be true if I was contradicting my self. I was not. Again you should heed your own advice.
I can choose any license that gives me the desired effect, it doesn’t have to be GPL.
Sure. I fail to see how this is relevant, however. What we do know is that the GPL seems to be the most popular Free/Open Source License out there.
While that is true, IP laws are not only copyright law. The GPL protects copyrights but does it protect all the other forms of IP?
Again, how is that relevant? The other parts of IP law concern patents and trade secrets. As far as I can tell, software patents are still an area of controversy, while trade secrets are irrelevant if you open up your source (i.e. they’re no longer secrets if you do).
Your first post ended in this.
“As other have already demonstrated, your arguments are quite poor. You should spend some more time working on them.”
Indeed, but you see in this sentence I didn’t in fact attack your credibility – I challenged the arguments which you put forth in your original post and subsequent ones. Can you see the difference? My original point stands: I challenged your arguments, not your credibility – if you took it personally that’s your own problem.
I merely demonstrated that your arguments in that post were tremendously poor in comparison for you to be arrogant.
Actually, you didn’t demonstrate this at all. You didn’t even try to produce counter-arguments – you just claimed that my debating skills were inferior to yours, seemingly mistaking this opinion for an actual argument.
In fact, you completely ignored my main two rebuttals (which, incidentally, were also presented by other posters), i.e. that the GPL doesn’t force you to release modified code, and that it is very possible for proprietary software to be used and distributed along with GPL code.
You would do well to heed your own advice. Seeing as to how you attacked me without provocation.
Except that I did not attack you at all – I attacked your arguments with counter-arguments of my own. I am therefore heeding my own advice, despite your claim to the contrary.
I am not losing this debate, nor am I winning.
Fine. I really don’t care that much about it.
I would say we have reached a stalemate.
Okay, let’s agree to disagree then. Just don’t make any more false statements…
There was no debating with you to begin with. The precedant here is you chose to attack my credibility and lost your credibility.
No, I didn’t. I challenged your arguments. You’re the one who chose to challenge my credibility, while sabotaging yours by blatantly contradicting one of your earlier posts.
Not only that, but you’ve also admitted to playing Devil’s advocate, which means that you don’t really believe what you’re saying, but rather that you’re taking a contrarian position in order to provoke a debate. It makes it hard for others to figure what you really believe in, and therefore weakens your arguments (in my opinion).
You said, and I quote “It is built using Gpl’ed tools”. BitKeeper is one of the tools that is used to write (which is a necessary prerequisite to build) the Linux kernel. You can also compile (another necessary prerequisite to building software) Linux using Intel’s very closed source and proprietary compiler. So how was I wrong? Linux is built with GPL’d tools, it’s also built with proprietary tools.
Bitkeeper is not essential to linux kernel development. It looks like the kernel developers will be looking else where eventually. I don’t see the relevant of source code control systems and compilers to the linux userland.
You’re the one that said it’s “built with GPL’d tools”. That isn’t 100% true, suck it up and deal with it.
It is built with GPL’ed tools. Is that a wrong statement? Did I say it can’t be built without them?
I already quoted that section, it’s not part of the license text. It’s a pointer to the LGPL if you are building something that you’d like to be combinable with proprietary works. Doesn’t change the fact that the GPL doesn’t say anything about linking. Here’s what you said: “The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code”. You said it, I pointed out that, as usual, you’re wrong. And quoting from the LGPL doesn’t make you any less wrong.
Yes it is.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
Why does the LGPL claim that the GPL prohibits linking. I quoted text from the LGPL. It must be wrong then also, right?
No, you can’t. But that’s not what you said, you said “You will have to publish changes if you chose GPL’ed code.” which is patently untrue. You know, making a false statement and then coming back and saying “that isn’t false” and saying something completely different just makes you look foolish.
Sorry it is absolutely true in the context I have been using it. If you take it out of context and claim it is false it doesn’t make the orginal intent any different. The only person looking foolish is you I am afraid.
“I urge you to read the article again and show me where Schwartz said otherwise.”
What? Scwartz admitted that his commentary was nothing but double standard laden drivel?
“Oh I see you are advocating that you want everything for free, regardless. I find it strange that you bringup mp3s.”
Umm, no, I don’t want everything “for free”. I want the freedom to do what I want with what I buy, and with what I receive “for free”.
“Mp3s aren’t just binaries or bits. The are someone’s work and creative talent. Taking it and listening to it doesn’t give anything back to the community or the world. Find a different example.”
Have you ever heard of the Beastie Boys, and a little something called “sampling”? Maybe something called the creative commons? You are far out of your depths on these issues.
I mention MP3s because they are a closed file format, which people are taking from online file-sharing programs because they don’t feel they are receiving the amount of freedom they want with products they buy. It is evidence that many people want more rights than they are receiving with proprietary schemes.
“Yes the GPL does as it is intended to but the intentions are the ones some find it objectionable.”
Those “some” being proprietary software companies. Of course they would find it objectionable… because it wasn’t made for them! It is obvious that it isn’t for them, so what is the point of the objection?
“Schwartz is the COO of a company that has given the world a lot more software for free than any other company in the world. They are even opensourcing thier crown jewel solaris. I would think twice before “calling Sun a propietary company.”
Software “for free” is not free software, as the OSNews link to the bitkeeper could plainly teach you. You don’t give anything away for free when you still hold the reigns, and can destroy the project when you see fit, or make it proprietary when you see fit, leaving your users in the dust.
Sun “open sourcing” something that isn’t compatible with the GPL or the revised-BSD is not giving anything “free” to anyone. It is creating the appearance that they are “open-source friendly” in an attempt to get volunteer coders for their proprietary products.
If you think Sun isn’t a proprietary software company, then you are one delusional individual whom I not need waste another breath on.
Let me guess, for you…
War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom
Ignorance is Strength
This is my last post to you.
Here is another example that it is part of the GPL text, straight form the linux source base.
http://lxr.linux.no/source/COPYING
“The linux kernel is GPL’ed. It is built using Gpl’ed tools The entire userland relies on GPL’ed libc, which links with the GPL’ed linux kernel.”
I stand by that statement. glibc comes with both the GPL and LGPL licenses.
Am I the only one that sees the difference between the statement “GPL’ed libc” and “glibc comes with both the GPL and LGPL licenses”? How does one both stand by a statement and modify the statement in the same sentence?
Download the source tarball and look at COPYING, COPYING.LIB
Those are the license files for the GPL and LGPL. They could have included every open source license and the MS Windows EULA in the tarball, glibc wouldn’t be licensed under them. glibc is licensed under the LGPL, if you’d go to http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/ and take a look at what the entry for “Copying” says you’ll find “The GNU Lesser General Public License says how you can copy and share the GNU C Library”. I’m gonna go with what the glibc documentation on the GNU website says over you, sorry.
Yes that would be true if I was contradicting my self. I was not. Again you should heed your own advice.
Do you know what contradicting means? Let me help you, from dictionary.reference.com, “3. To be contrary to; be inconsistent with.” The statements “The entire userland relies on GPL’ed libc” and “glibc comes with both the GPL and LGPL licenses” are inconsistent. Never mind the fact that both statements are wrong.
I stand by that statement. glibc comes with both the GPL and LGPL licenses.
Then perhaps you should have mentioned this in your original statement – except of course that doing so would have invalidated the argument you were trying to make.
Meanwhile, I did check the glibc homepage. It clearly states that glibc is licensed under the LGPL:
“Version 2.3.4 (stable) released on 2005-01-28
Licensed under LGPL.”
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/glibc.html
I’d check the tarball but I’m at work and WinZip won’t open it…however, the glibc manual also only mentions the LGPL.
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html
It is built with GPL’ed tools. Is that a wrong statement? Did I say it can’t be built without them?
If you noticed, in my original post, I said you aren’t 100% wrong. And I pointed out that the common case is using the GNU toolchain. Doesn’t change the fact that you can use proprietary tools to build the Linux kernel.
Yes it is.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
Why does the LGPL claim that the GPL prohibits linking. I quoted text from the LGPL. It must be wrong then also, right?
Again, you said (and I quote yet again) “The GPL has a clause to prohibit linking of GPL’ed code”. Feel free to point out that clause to me. And you can leave off quoting from the LGPL, we aren’t talking about the LGPL, we’re talking about how you said that the “GPL has a clause to prohibit linking”.
Sorry it is absolutely true in the context I have been using it. If you take it out of context and claim it is false it doesn’t make the orginal intent any different. The only person looking foolish is you I am afraid.
I’m going to leave it to the audience to try and figure out exactly what context you’re ever speaking from. You claim the GPL says something and to back it up you quote the LGPL. You claim that glibc is licensed under the GPL and when multiple people reply that it’s under the LGPL you claim that you’re right, it’s under both. You don’t really seem to be able to stick to one context or stop contradicting yourself long enough for anyone to figure out what exactly you are talking about.
Umm, no, I don’t want everything “for free”. I want the freedom to do what I want with what I buy, and with what I receive “for free”.
Let’s see then say you buy a gun, should you be free to shoot anything or anyone?
Have you ever heard of the Beastie Boys, and a little something called “sampling”? Maybe something called the creative commons? You are far out of your depths on these issues.
Many artists have been sued for sampling by the orginal copyright holders.
I mention MP3s because they are a closed file format, which people are taking from online file-sharing programs because they don’t feel they are receiving the amount of freedom they want with products they buy. It is evidence that many people want more rights than they are receiving with proprietary schemes.
Really people feel that buying a CD prohibits them from making mp3s at home, loading it into thier music playes, so that’s why they download music. RIIIGGHHT.
Those “some” being proprietary software companies. Of course they would find it objectionable… because it wasn’t made for them! It is obvious that it isn’t for them, so what is the point of the objection?
The point is using a different license. But the zealots want to disuade these companies from chosing thier own GPL incompatible license. Just google for the number of article creating a hoopla about SUN making the CDDL GPL incompatible. Then come back and talk about hypocrisy.
Software “for free” is not free software, as the OSNews link to the bitkeeper could plainly teach you. You don’t give anything away for free when you still hold the reigns, and can destroy the project when you see fit, or make it proprietary when you see fit, leaving your users in the dust.
Sun has released “free” software by any definition of the word you can come up with. Sun has released and contributed code under GPL, MPL and thier own licenses. Perhaps you should spend time reading and less downloading mp3s.
If you think Sun isn’t a proprietary software company, then you are one delusional individual whom I not need waste another breath on.
Ah the last sigh of a fallen individual. If you beleive otherwise I have bad news for you about santa claus and the tooth fairy.
This is my last post to you.
Thank heaven for that.
Here is another example that it is part of the GPL text, straight form the linux source base.