The things people do for money...
-
@El_Heffe said:
@morbiuswilters said:
It's my opinion that the GPL will one day be invalidated by U.S. courts.
I'm not pro-GPL, but I don't think that you will see a court invalidate the GPL unless they someday decide to invalidate all software licensing.(Standard Disclaimer: I Am Not A Llama)
The GPL relies on copyright law to enforce it's warped view of how software should work. Whether they are right or wrong, is an entirely different argument, but their line of reasoning is:
The essence of copyright law is the
power to exclude. The copyright holder is legally empowered to exclude
all others from copying, distributing, and making derivative works.This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license—that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits.
There's a big difference between EULAs and licenses like the GPL, though. For one, the GPL is highly-dependent on how derivative works are classified. It seems the consensus is now "You can dynamically-link a GPL'd work without revealing your own code, but you can't directly call GPL functions." That's a really fine technical line, especially with modern languages, so I can see the courts being like "Fuck it." So we might see the GPL still around for direct modifications of existing code, but not for programs that use GPL libraries as-is.
The other thing I'm curious to see a court tackle is what damage a group like the FSF can claim. They're not being deprived of anything tangible when someone breaks the GPL. What's more, the restrictions they impose are absolutely absurd. They're more-or-less putting their work into the public domain, then trying to claim rights on it.
EULAs are very different; they are contracts between software company and licensee to use software, so licenses like the GPL could be invalidated without EULAs being touched. Still, I favour Congress passing a law which unambiguously shuts down that little scam.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@skotl said:
I particularly like the statement "Are there any restrictions to your use of OCS Inventory? The GNU GPL grants you the freedom to use the software for whatever purpose you see fit.", followed by a list of restrictions on what you can do with it.
That's the problem with Stallman and his followers. They talk a lot about "freedom" but their definition of freedom is very Orwellian. You are free to do whatever you want, as long as you only do those things we approve of.They're fascists, manipulating the meaning of words. The GPL is just an extension of far-left ideology: Freedom is Slavery, etc..
-
@blakeyrat said:
Ok so this whole aside was so you could be a pedantic dickweed and point out that maybe, just maybe, a couple words I typed aren't strictly 100% absolutely true all the time, even though you FUCKING KNEW WHAT I MEANT YOU PIECE OF EXCREMENT jesus christ why the fuck do I post here
Any bets on how long it'll be before blakeyrat succumbs to another rage-quit like when he told mikeTheLiar off a few months back?
@blakeyrat said:This forum is the worst, and you all are the worst, and mikeTheLiar you're the worst of the worst.
That was fun ... ish. Though I have to admit that the forum did seem a little too quiet the few weeks he was gone.
-
@DaveK said:
Agenda much? It takes a pretty special kind of chip on your shoulder to describe fundamental concepts of fairness and reciprocity as 'Orwellian'. The only thing you can't do with GPL'd software is deny anyone else the same freedom you had with it. It's not your private property, so don't try and act like it is.
Yeah, pointing a gun at someone's head to enforce your fucked-up ideas of "fairness" is Orwellian, bud. Besides, un-free software isn't anybody's private property; it's already been released to the world.
I look forward to the day when the GPL is invalidated and the Great Unclean One is exiled to a desert island* for being such a piece of shit.
(*No, not a dessert island, Richard. Sorry to get your hopes up..)
-
@boomzilla said:
He's pretty explicit that he's all about the freedom of the user of the software.
Freedom from usability? Freedom from bug-free software? Freedom from anything worthwhile?
-
@Snooder said:
@blakeyrat said:
Freedom means "fewer restrictions". Always. To redefine it as, "more restrictions", regardless of the intent of those restrictions is a bullshit move.
So, tell me, is a country where a landholder has an unrestricted right to kill, beat or torture his tenants more or less "free" than a country where serfdom is banned by law?Yay, Snooder's being dumb again!
-
@mott555 said:
GPL is cancer and I will fight to the death anyone who disagrees with me. Many cool features in commercial software I've worked on were canned due to only being possible (quickly) by relying on some obscure poorly-implemented third-party library licensed with
cancerGPL, the bosses being unwilling to commit months to implement an in-house version of the library, and everyone involved rightly refusing to re-license and distribute our source.GPL is cancer, but unfortunately it's not even terminal, so shitty projects from shitty developers linger for decades.
-
@mt@ilovefactory.com said:
It is a more free, but not better country
No it's not, it's more free for that one person, not the serfs, and arguably not even then. This is pretty well-trod ground here.
-
@mt@ilovefactory.com said:
@mott555 said:
GPL is cancer and I will fight to the death anyone who disagrees with me. Many cool features in commercial software I've worked on were canned due to only being possible (quickly) by relying on some obscure poorly-implemented third-party library licensed with
cancerGPL, the bosses being unwilling to commit months to implement an in-house version of the library, and everyone involved rightly refusing to re-license and distribute our source.Now I don't especially like GPL, but that is a terrible argument. You are basicly complaining that you can't use the work of others for free, without giving anything back.
No, the problem is what's being demanded in return is not something fungible, it's a specific demand that I adhere to Stallman's crazy, hateful hippie ideology. I have to give up my work for free and I am pretty much shit out-of-luck at trying to get anything from it.
That is not free. I'd rather pay $10,000 for a license than be forced GPL my software, because at least then I can continue to sell my work to people and make money for myself and to pay for that license. The GPL is a cancer that deprives others of the ability to make a living from their work. This is part of why it results in such shitty software, by the way: the incentive isn't to make something that works (because then people would just steal it from you) but to make something half-assed so you can get paid to "consult".
-
@joe.edwards said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Snooder said:
So if 1% of the developers have less freedom to not distribute their source code, but 99% of the users have additional freedom to access source code, is that more or less free?So, tell me, is a country where a landholder has an unrestricted right to kill, beat or torture his tenants more or less "free" than a country where serfdom is banned by law?
Less.
Because if 1% of the population has more freedom, that doesn't outweigh 99% of the population having less.
Also: duh. If you're going to pull stupid hypotheticals out of your ass in a futile attempt to expose me as a hypocrite, please at least find ones I can't tear down in approximately 36 milliseconds.
Less. If the GPL exists, the 1% are being deprived of a freedom they would have otherwise had. If the GPL does not exist, the 99% are not being deprived of any freedom (they are just as free as they were before--a lack of GPL is not an imposition of additional restraints on their freedom.) You can say "Yes, but they are being deprived of a benefit", but a benefit is not the same thing as a freedom.
-
@locallunatic said:
@blakeyrat said:
@locallunatic said:
How does that 99% have less freedom? Their choices on what to do aren't legally restricted.
Protip: read the United States Declaration of Independence sometime. The answer is in the first paragraph. The UN Declaration of Human Rights isn't bad, either.
A right not to be murdered or have other things done to you is not the same as a restriction to your choices (unless your choices are to do said forbidden things to another similarly protected individual). I was attempting to point out that your earlier definition of freedom was lacking. Here it is:
@blakeyrat said:Freedom means "fewer restrictions". Always.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. If a serf is going to be murdered for leaving the manor, then that clearly restricts their freedom.
Now you could say "What about a situation where a handful of nobles own everything and so even if the serf is allowed to leave, he simply has nowhere to go." That's a good example of why land reform is usually beneficial in feudal societies, but it's also an example of a restriction of freedom (restraints placed on his existence by the nobles.)
-
@pauly said:
I once saw a video of Stallman eating some shit off his god damn foot. What the fuck is that about?
The dude is a hobo, cut him some slack. He probably skipped morning slumgullion in the sink of the MIT washroom and was hungry.
@pauly said:
Also, why do so many fosstards want net neutraility, but feel that infected Windows machines should be disconnected from the internet by their ISP?
Because they are fascists and want to destroy anyone who does not do what the FOSStards think is best for them.
-
@joe.edwards said:
The freedom to unwittingly take part in a malicious botnet? I haven't heard anyone fighting for that particular right.
I don't think he was saying it was a good idea, I think he was pointing out the massive hypocrisy of supporting net neutrality and wanting to cut off infected users. See, I'm against the former and for cutting off infected computers, which is logically-consistent position to take.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
The GPL is a cancer that deprives others of the ability to make a living from their work.
That's it's exact intent. But don't take my word for it, read Stallman's GNU Manefesto, particularly the Q&A at the end"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we're not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
"Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"
Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are bannedIn the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.
.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
There's a big difference between EULAs and licenses like the GPL, though. For one, the GPL is highly-dependent on how derivative works are classified. It seems the consensus is now "You can dynamically-link a GPL'd work without revealing your own code, but you can't directly call GPL functions." That's a really fine technical line, especially with modern languages, so I can see the courts being like "Fuck it." So we might see the GPL still around for direct modifications of existing code, but not for programs that use GPL libraries as-is.
That would be nice, if it were to happen sometime in the next few years. I could see the FSF not being keen on seeing that exact point being the crux of litigation though.The why of why it would be nice to have the definition of “derived work” restrained? Two libraries: GMP and Readline. GMP is competent and has relatively few competitors, because what it's doing is complicated and hard to both get right and make fast at the same time (that's arbitrary precision arithmetic for you). Readline is something many users seem to want, the alternatives tend to have tricky edge cases which differ, and the solutions with process-level wrappers aren't elegant.
Neither is the kind of library that blakey would really care about — he's not a low-level work guy, as far as I can see — but hey, others do. (There aren't any GPL GUI toolkits that I would care to use in the first place.) Most of the other places where the GPL is applied to something genuinely good, it's either an application that you wouldn't use as a library in the first place or there's a long-standing exception in place to stop the infection.@morbiuswilters said:
The other thing I'm curious to see a court tackle is what damage a group like the FSF can claim. They're not being deprived of anything tangible when someone breaks the GPL. What's more, the restrictions they impose are absolutely absurd. They're more-or-less putting their work into the public domain, then trying to claim rights on it.
A restraining order is most likely, or perhaps statutory damages. As you say, there's clearly no actual damages.
-
@El_Heffe said:
People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting.
O_o
"The non-compliant will be confined to 'Freedom Chambers' until their life-support implants cease to function. Then their feet will be distributed fairly amongst those desiring a snack."
-
@Snooder said:
So, tell me, is a country where a landholder has an unrestricted right to kill, beat or torture his tenants more or less "free" than a country where serfdom is banned by law?
As I like to say, what good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
some of those GPL projects (like Firefox)
Not GPL, MPL. But your point still stands.
@blakeyrat said:
Other than that, AFAIK, there's nothing wrong with taking some GPL code and selling it, as long as you include the source or easy access to the source.
Yeah, lots of companies do this. If you've bought a home wifi router in the last decade, it probably runs Linux and if you dig around you'll probably find a way to get the source code from the company.
Actually there was a thing for a while where they were using something else so they could cut hardware costs by cutting the amount of RAM and the like. That's what killed the WRT54G, IIRC. Maybe the trend's reversed itself, I don't know.
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
Maybe GPLv3 changes this, I dunno.
I don't think GPLv3 changes it. Then again, nobody uses GPLv3, so it doesn't really matter.I'm sure the same kind of people who use GiB and KiB instead of GB and KB like God intended use GPLv3.
-
@FrostCat said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
some of those GPL projects (like Firefox)
Not GPL, MPL. But your point still stands.
@blakeyrat said:
Other than that, AFAIK, there's nothing wrong with taking some GPL code and selling it, as long as you include the source or easy access to the source.
Yeah, lots of companies do this. If you've bought a home wifi router in the last decade, it probably runs Linux and if you dig around you'll probably find a way to get the source code from the company.
Actually there was a thing for a while where they were using something else so they could cut hardware costs by cutting the amount of RAM and the like. That's what killed the WRT54G, IIRC. Maybe the trend's reversed itself, I don't know.
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
Maybe GPLv3 changes this, I dunno.
I don't think GPLv3 changes it. Then again, nobody uses GPLv3, so it doesn't really matter.I'm sure the same kind of people who use GiB and KiB instead of GB and KB like God intended use GPLv3.
To be fair, GiB and KiB have a purpose. "Gigabyte" and "kilobyte" are 103n whereas "gibibyte" and "kibibyte" are 210n. GB and kB are ambiguous - hardware manufacturers use the base 10 versions because they're smaller, whereas computer science and engineering uses the base 2 versions because they work better with how computers work. GiB and KiB always refer to the 210n versions and also don't have the stupid capitalization used for kB.
-
@Ben L. said:
hardware manufacturers use the base 10 versions because they're smaller, whereas computer science and engineering
You're full of it. The only place people should be using base 2 is with memory sizes. Otherwise, use the base 10 variants, fools.
-
@Ben L. said:
Filed under: GPLv3 on the other hand has no purpose..
Tivo.Tivo uses a mixture of proprietary and GPL code in their DVRs. You can get a copy of the GPL code that Tivo uses but it won't do anything useful without the proprietary code. The Stallman crowd got pissed because they couldn't create their own free Tivo, so they created GPLv3 to fix that "loop hole". Of course it didn't really fix anything because people are free to not use GPLv3.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Ben L. said:
Filed under: GPLv3 on the other hand has no purpose..
Tivo.Tivo uses a mixture of proprietary and GPL code in their DVRs. You can get a copy of the GPL code that Tivo uses but it won't do anything useful without the proprietary code. The Stallman crowd got pissed because they couldn't create their own free Tivo, so they created GPLv3 to fix that "loop hole". Of course it didn't really fix anything because people are free to not use GPLv3.
So you're saying if someone had just given Stallman a terabyte hard drive full of Cake Boss episodes, we'd have avoided this whole GPLv3 fiasco?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That is not free. I'd rather pay $10,000 for a license than be forced GPL my software, because at least then I can continue to sell my work to people and make money for myself and to pay for that license.
Guess what. You probably can. I'm sure $10 000 would get you an alternative licensing agreement, if you bothered to talk to the copyright owners.
@El_Heffe said:
@Ben L. said:
Filed under: GPLv3 on the other hand has no purpose..
Tivo.Tivo uses a mixture of proprietary and GPL code in their DVRs. You can get a copy of the GPL code that Tivo uses but it won't do anything useful without the proprietary code. The Stallman crowd got pissed because they couldn't create their own free Tivo, so they created GPLv3 to fix that "loop hole". Of course it didn't really fix anything because people are free to not use GPLv3.
I believe the catalyst was that Tivo hardware required software to be signed, and since Tivo supplied the source but didn't supply their private key, RMS/the user couldn't experiment with the software. One of the GPL's main points was that the user has to have the ability to modify (or hire a developer to modify) the program s/he uses. To be not held at gunpoint by the original developer, as someone in this thread put it.
-
@hhaamu said:
Guess what. You probably can. I'm sure $10 000 would get you an alternative licensing agreement, if you bothered to talk to the copyright owners.
Well, even assuming I'd want to pay for FOSS quality, then I wouldn't be using GPL'd code; I'd be using dual-licensed code. That's not pedantic dickweedery--to me, it's the same as proprietary code, so that's not really an argument in favour of the GPL, is it?
Then consider that there are lots of pieces of GPL'd code that would never be dual-licensed. If you don't believe me, go get Stallman to sell you a proprietary license to glibc. I'll wait (not really.)
@hhaamu said:
To be not held at gunpoint by the original developer, as someone in this thread put it.
Except for the original developer's demands that I work for free. Then I'm being held at gunpoint.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
Guess what. You probably can. I'm sure $10 000 would get you an alternative licensing agreement, if you bothered to talk to the copyright owners.
Well, even assuming I'd want to pay for FOSS quality, then I wouldn't be using GPL'd code; I'd be using dual-licensed code. That's not pedantic dickweedery--to me, it's the same as proprietary code, so that's not really an argument in favour of the GPL, is it?
It would not be a dual licence (as commonly understood in the open sauce world); it would be a licence/contract exclusive to your organisation. And it's not trying to be an argument in favour of GPL -- it's just a fact people seem to forget in these interwebs arguments. It applies equally to every licence out there: if you don't agree with a licence's terms, try to negotiate better ones.
@morbiuswilters said:
Except for the original developer's demands that I work for free. Then I'm being held at gunpoint.
Where does that non-sequitur come from? Nobody is demanding you work for free; they're demanding that if you use their code, you abide by the GPL's terms.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@DaveK said:
Agenda much? It takes a pretty special kind of chip on your shoulder to describe fundamental concepts of fairness and reciprocity as 'Orwellian'. The only thing you can't do with GPL'd software is deny anyone else the same freedom you had with it. It's not your private property, so don't try and act like it is.
Yeah, pointing a gun at someone's head to enforce your fucked-up ideas of "fairness" is Orwellian, bud. Besides, un-free software isn't anybody's private property; it's already been released to the world.I cannot comprehend this sentiment, unless you totally reject copyright. I can understand preferring trade offs different than what the GPL does, but this just makes you look clueless.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
To be not held at gunpoint by the original developer, as someone in this thread put it.
Except for the original developer's demands that I work for free. Then I'm being held at gunpoint.Are you just as angry that proprietary software producers won't let you fork their code?
It's not that I don't appreciate not wanting to put your stuff out as GPL, and I agree with you on this topic more than I disagree, but your argument is just bad. I mean, it's emotionally satisfying as long as you don't actually think about it, so I guess it probably works with most people. But I hate that.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
There's still a loophole: Only things that use GPL'd things are required to be licensed under the GPL. And you only need to give people access to the source code if they have access to the object code. So if your program is a web service that runs on your own servers or you can somehow prove that the GPL'd code is using your code as opposed to your code using the GPL'd code, you're not restricted in any way by the GPL.
So with the PDF rasterizer example, you could make a small open source project that takes a callback and then feeds the output of that callback to the GPL'd PDF rasterizer and feeds the output of that to a second callback. Now your code is called BY the open source code and all you have to release is the tiny one-function project. Disclaimer: IANAL.
Disclaimer: IAANAL.
It's my opinion that the GPL will one day be invalidated by U.S. courts. (Has there even been a real test case yet? AFAIK, it's just been a bunch of bullshit where the FOSS community whines, somebody files suit, the defendant says "Well, all we did was use some free libraries so our cheapest option is to send people an email letting them know they can download the source for this piece of shit from some FTP site", they sweeten the pot by throwing a couple of shekels at some FOSS project and the thing is settled.)
But one day a suit will bubble up to the appellate courts or the Supremes and they'll be like "Yeah, no, you can't do that." So not thinking the GPL is valid, and seeing that the AGPL is way more burdensome, I kind of doubt it will be enforced.
That said, if the GPL/AGPL/GPL3 was valid, your little scam probably wouldn't help. I've said this about a million times before, but: the law is far less mechanical than tech people seem to think. A "technicality" in law means something different than what you think it does. Real courts are not like on the teevee. Believe it or not, courts frown on people trying to weasel out of their obligations with silly bullshit like that.
Could it work? Sure, anything might work. But the judge probably isn't going to say "Oh, you clever little boy, you found a trick to avoid your legal obligations!" while he shoots you a wink and bangs his gavel. He's more likely to ask you to explain why you think you can use his courtroom to defraud people.
If it does, then what license would software previously licensed under the GPL be classified as? Because like it or not, without a license (even if it's just the author saying the work is in the public domain), you have absolutely no rights to use that code in your own software. Not until the copyright runs out anyway.
This is why sites like StackOverflow require that contributions be licensed under the cc by-sa 3.0
license with attribution required.
-
@powerlord said:
If it does, then what license would software previously licensed under the GPL be classified as? Because like it or not, without a license (even if it's just the author saying the work is in the public domain), you have absolutely no rights to use that code in your own software. Not until the copyright runs out anyway.
That's not how the legal system works. See, copyright exists to create a cause of action. Licenses are a defense to that cause of action. If work is licensed poorly by the person asserting copyright, the effect is not to negate the defense of the person it is being asserted against. The effect is to negate the copyright itself.
This is WHY companies are so zealous about defending their copyrights and trademarks. Because if they don't then there's a chance that they'll lose it completely.When people say something is "in the public domain" it doesn't mean that it has a specific license granted to the public. It means that it doesn't have a copyright attached to it any more. No license of any sort is needed because there is no longer any property interest to own or lease.
Note: IANAL (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express)
-
@Snooder said:
@powerlord said:
If it does, then what license would software previously licensed under the GPL be classified as? Because like it or not, without a license (even if it's just the author saying the work is in the public domain), you have absolutely no rights to use that code in your own software. Not until the copyright runs out anyway.
That's not how the legal system works. See, copyright exists to create a cause of action. Licenses are a defense to that cause of action. If work is licensed poorly by the person asserting copyright, the effect is not to negate the defense of the person it is being asserted against. The effect is to negate the copyright itself.
This is WHY companies are so zealous about defending their copyrights and trademarks. Because if they don't then there's a chance that they'll lose it completely.When people say something is "in the public domain" it doesn't mean that it has a specific license granted to the public. It means that it doesn't have a copyright attached to it any more. No license of any sort is needed because there is no longer any property interest to own or lease.
Note: IANAL (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express)You are close, but not quite right on it. The copyright is always there, at least in US law. The /licen[cs]e/ allows someone else to use the copyrighted work.
The invalidation of the /licen[cs]e/ invalidates the demands of the /licen[cs]e/, but also invalidates the allowance to use the work.
Trademarks are different; a trademark is applied for and granted by an authority (whereas copyrights exist by default.)
This is why, if you look through, say, the history of the Free/OpenBSD codebases, you'll occasionally see purges of code that is written without a specific /licen[cs]e/, as that places the entire codebase in a legal /gr[ae]y/ area.
-
@Snooder said:
Note: IANAL (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express)
Did you ANAL at the Holiday Inn Express?
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
/licen[cs]e/
Wow I hate you.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@Snooder said:
@powerlord said:
If it does, then what license would software previously licensed under the GPL be classified as? Because like it or not, without a license (even if it's just the author saying the work is in the public domain), you have absolutely no rights to use that code in your own software. Not until the copyright runs out anyway.
That's not how the legal system works. See, copyright exists to create a cause of action. Licenses are a defense to that cause of action. If work is licensed poorly by the person asserting copyright, the effect is not to negate the defense of the person it is being asserted against. The effect is to negate the copyright itself.
This is WHY companies are so zealous about defending their copyrights and trademarks. Because if they don't then there's a chance that they'll lose it completely.When people say something is "in the public domain" it doesn't mean that it has a specific license granted to the public. It means that it doesn't have a copyright attached to it any more. No license of any sort is needed because there is no longer any property interest to own or lease.
Note: IANAL (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express)You are close, but not quite right on it. The copyright is always there, at least in US law. The /licen[cs]e/ allows someone else to use the copyrighted work.
The invalidation of the /licen[cs]e/ invalidates the demands of the /licen[cs]e/, but also invalidates the allowance to use the work.
Trademarks are different; a trademark is applied for and granted by an authority (whereas copyrights exist by default.)
This is why, if you look through, say, the history of the Free/OpenBSD codebases, you'll occasionally see purges of code that is written without a specific /licen[cs]e/, as that places the entire codebase in a legal /gr[ae]y/ area.
You know, I was going to try to argue about this, but fuck-it you're probably right and I got a shit grade in contracts anyway.
-
@drurowin said:
... a junior dev... for a fairly critical portion of the product... 6 months later, after a code audit...
I would say these are WTFs, but we don't even have code audits in our company. Junior devs tasked with building important software that's going to be the future of the company? Hell yes. Management that takes responsibility for said software turning out to be a stillborn pile of faeces? Hell no!
@drurowin said:
... hope no one notices and just keep pressing on...
Unless your code is open-source and/or you hire an open-source hippie who will go running to Stallman (protip: this is a good interview question), no-on who cares will ever see it.
-
@Snooder said:
That's not how the legal system works. See, copyright exists to create a cause of action. Licenses are a defense to that cause of action. If work is licensed poorly by the person asserting copyright, the effect is not to negate the defense of the person it is being asserted against. The effect is to negate the copyright itself.
You're doing the common mistake of mixing up copyright and trademark law. What you said applies to trademarks, but not copyright.
-
@hhaamu said:
It would not be a dual licence (as commonly understood in the open sauce world);
Um.. huh? It has two different licensing terms: an open source one, and a proprietary one. Sounds like a dual-license to me.
@hhaamu said:
Nobody is demanding you work for free; they're demanding that if you use their code, you abide by the GPL's terms.
Yes, and the GPL's terms are that I work for free. It's idiotic that GPL people try to act like "Oh, our licenses just free you from the original developer's whim. Except when it comes to any code you write modifying, adding to or using the source--then you have to abide by the developer's whim." It would be as idiotic as M$ saying "Hey, our software costs absolutely no monies!* (*Except for licensing fees.)"
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
It would not be a dual licence (as commonly understood in the open sauce world);
Um.. huh? It has two different licensing terms: an open source one, and a proprietary one. Sounds like a dual-license to me.
A
dual licence[sic]
as commonly used refers to a single distribution of the software having multiple sets of licensing terms.Basically, it doesn't matter that
two copies of the code exist with different licensing terms
, only if a single distribution has more than one set of terms.None of that really matters until you actually talk about licensing software, when it matters quite a bit.
Basically, the code is licensed to you under one set of terms, but to the public under another set.
And yeah, whether or not you choose to call it
dual licensing
doesn't matter at all, but something that isdual-licensed
is different from something with multiple distributions with different licenses.
-
@boomzilla said:
I cannot comprehend this sentiment, unless you totally reject copyright. I can understand preferring trade offs different than what the GPL does, but this just makes you look clueless.
It's simple: M$ has terms that I have to abide by to use their software, about which they are completely open and use no Orwellian twisting of words or facts. GPL'd software tells me it's making me more free, while reaching its hand in my pocket and taking more freedom from me. Then when someone is like "Hey, wait a minute, this isn't free-as-in-beer or -as-in-speech; it's just like proprietary software, except with different demands made of me!" the FOSS people try to redefine "freedom" to mean "having to give away your work for free if the bits on the hard drive sit too close to the GPL'd bits".
That's Orwellian. If the GPL people were honest and said "Yeah, our software arguably isn't any freer than Microsoft's. We impose certain mandates at gun-point, just like they do. However, we feel our mandates are better for the community and make better software. So really it's a trade-off and you have to choose which you prefer" then I'd be fine with that, but instead they're just twisting the meaning of words.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised you, of all people, aren't more bothered by that. It's classic left-wing agitprop: "Being under our control makes you more free, because we are thoughtful, wise dictators who will always make sure you are taken care of, so long as you do not upset us."
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
It would not be a dual licence (as commonly understood in the open sauce world);
Um.. huh? It has two different licensing terms: an open source one, and a proprietary one. Sounds like a dual-license to me.
A dual licence[sic] as commonly used refers to a single distribution of the software having multiple sets of licensing terms.
Basically, it doesn't matter that two copies of the code exist with different licensing terms, only if a single distribution has more than one set of terms.
None of that really matters until you actually talk about licensing software, when it matters quite a bit.
Basically, the code is licensed to you under one set of terms, but to the public under another set.
And yeah, whether or not you choose to call it dual licensing doesn't matter at all, but something that is dual-licensed is different from something with multiple distributions with different licenses.
Wikipedia's page on multi-licensing says you're wrong. At absolute best, you're indulging in pedantic dickweedery. By your definition, it sounds like none of the software that is commonly thought of as multi-licensed (MySQL, Asterisk, Qt) would actually be multi-licensed.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
To be not held at gunpoint by the original developer, as someone in this thread put it.
Except for the original developer's demands that I work for free. Then I'm being held at gunpoint.Are you just as angry that proprietary software producers won't let you fork their code?
It's not that I don't appreciate not wanting to put your stuff out as GPL, and I agree with you on this topic more than I disagree, but your argument is just bad. I mean, it's emotionally satisfying as long as you don't actually think about it, so I guess it probably works with most people. But I hate that.
I think I already explained this pretty well in my other reply to you, but I just want to re-iterate: I'm not angry that the GPL imposes terms. I'm angry that the GPL imposes terms and then lies about it, re-defining the word "freedom" to mean "not free". Say what you want about M$, they don't pretend you're free to do whatever you want with their products. Conversely, the FSF is like "Oh, yeah, you're so much free-er when you use our software. Assuming you're using Stalin's dictionary where 'freedom' means 'being forced to work for The Good of The People'."
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Wikipedia's page on multi-licensing says you're wrong. At absolute best, you're indulging in pedantic dickweedery. By your definition, it sounds like none of the software that is commonly thought of as multi-licensed (MySQL, Asterisk, Qt) would actually be multi-licensed.
You managed to completely misinterpret the intent of my post, congrats.
The whole key was the "as commonly understood in the open sauce world".
I'm simply trying to explain what is commonly refereed to as "dual licensed" in that sense.
From the article you linked:
"Examples include the source code of Mozilla Application Suite and previously Mozilla Thunderbird and Mozilla Firefox, that have used tri-licensing under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1, GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 or GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1[12] before the latter upgraded to GPL-compatible MPL 2.0, making the tri-licensing unnecessary;[13] Perl, which is dual-licensed under the GPL or Artistic License;[14] and Ruby, whose license contains explicit GPL dual licensing."
Pedantic dickweedery is choosing to not get what I say, and pretending it's an argument.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
It would not be a dual licence (as commonly understood in the open sauce world);
Um.. huh? It has two different licensing terms: an open source one, and a proprietary one. Sounds like a dual-license to me.
The difference here is that for what is commonly considered multi-licensing, the options are clearly visible and available to the public. Sometimes one or more of the options cost money (e.g. Qt) while sometimes the software is licensed under two open sauce licences (e.g. Ruby: Ruby + 2-clause BSD). We were somewhat talking of the case where you and the copyright holder draft a custom contract to establish a different set of terms -- not visible to the public.
@morbiuswilters said:
@hhaamu said:
Nobody is demanding you work for free; they're demanding that if you use their code, you abide by the GPL's terms.
Yes, and the GPL's terms are that I work for free. It's idiotic that GPL people try to act like "Oh, our licenses just free you from the original developer's whim. Except when it comes to any code you write modifying, adding to or using the source--then you have to abide by the developer's whim." It would be as idiotic as M$ saying "Hey, our software costs absolutely no monies!* (*Except for licensing fees.)"
There's this logical leap I don't understand. Somehow re-licensing your codebase (or a part of it) to GPL suddenly causes you to work for free? You can sell GPL stuff, as evidenced by the thread starter. No, I don't think it makes much commercial sense to sell GPL-licensed software. Anybody purchasing the product can legally upload the source to that oft-blocked Swedish file sharing site. But where does that sudden lack of reimbursement for labour come from? If your employer is suddenly not paying your paychecks while forcing you to work, I'm sure the courts would like to have a word with them.
FWIW, the free-er ('copy centre') BSD licences also have these heinous terms: 1) Don't claim you wrote it. 2) Don't remove the copyright notices. 3) Don't sue us if it breaks. How is the whim of the developer there?
-
@powerlord said:
Because like it or not, without a license (even if it's just the author saying the work is in the public domain), you have absolutely no rights to use that code in your own software.
This is a widely-repeated lie.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
The invalidation of the /licen[cs]e/ invalidates the demands of the /licen[cs]e/, but also invalidates the allowance to use the work.
[citation needed] Sure, if the copyright remains in-force people who come along after the license is invalidated would need to license the work, but why would people who had used the work before the license was invalidated have to stop using the work? If that were the case, then using any software licensed under a GPL-like scheme would be inherently dangerous. I don't know that a court would impose that kind of burden on a licensee due to the licensor failing to create a valid license.
Although maybe that's Stallman's plan for becoming a trillionaire: get everyone using GPL'd software, then have the GPL invalidated. When all that software reverts to proprietary he can name his price.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@powerlord said:
Because like it or not, without a license (even if it's just the author saying the work is in the public domain), you have absolutely no rights to use that code in your own software.
This is a widely-repeated lie.
[citation needed]
Given that this is "widely-repeated", I'm sure any citation given in support of this would be blindly shot down by you, so instead I'll ask you for something authoritative, if you have it, you have it.
@morbiuswilters said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
The invalidation of the /licen[cs]e/ invalidates the demands of the /licen[cs]e/, but also invalidates the allowance to use the work.
[citation needed] Sure, if the copyright remains in-force people who come along after the license is invalidated would need to license the work, but why would people who had used the work before the license was invalidated have to stop using the work? If that were the case, then using any software licensed under a GPL-like scheme would be inherently dangerous. I don't know that a court would impose that kind of burden on a licensee due to the licensor failing to create a valid license.
Although maybe that's Stallman's plan for becoming a trillionaire: get everyone using GPL'd software, then have the GPL invalidated. When all that software reverts to proprietary he can name his price.
17 US Code Chapter 2 § 203 (b) handles this in the general case: "Effect of Termination"
A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.
I do not claim to know if this affects works "currently in progress", but they are certainly not "prepared", so they are likely in violation of the copyright if completed. That's my buttumption, and if the buttumption is wrong, oh well.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Wikipedia's page on multi-licensing says you're wrong. At absolute best, you're indulging in pedantic dickweedery. By your definition, it sounds like none of the software that is commonly thought of as multi-licensed (MySQL, Asterisk, Qt) would actually be multi-licensed.
You managed to completely misinterpret the intent of my post, congrats.
The whole key was the "as commonly understood in the open sauce world".
I'm simply trying to explain what is commonly refereed to as "dual licensed" in that sense.
From the article you linked:
"Examples include the source code of Mozilla Application Suite and previously Mozilla Thunderbird and Mozilla Firefox, that have used tri-licensing under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1, GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 or GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1[12] before the latter upgraded to GPL-compatible MPL 2.0, making the tri-licensing unnecessary;[13] Perl, which is dual-licensed under the GPL or Artistic License;[14] and Ruby, whose license contains explicit GPL dual licensing."
Pedantic dickweedery is choosing to not get what I say, and pretending it's an argument.
I still don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. Yes, Mozilla used to tri-license. MySQL dual-licenses. What is the difference?
-
@hhaamu said:
Somehow re-licensing your codebase (or a part of it) to GPL suddenly causes you to work for free? You can sell GPL stuff, as evidenced by the thread starter. No, I don't think it makes much commercial sense to sell GPL-licensed software.
I know you won't get it, but I love the cognitive dissonance in these three sentences. "The GPL doesn't make you work for free! You could sell your GPL code. Well, okay, selling GPL really doesn't work.."
@hhaamu said:
FWIW, the free-er ('copy centre') BSD licences also have these heinous terms: 1) Don't claim you wrote it. 2) Don't remove the copyright notices. 3) Don't sue us if it breaks. How is the whim of the developer there?
What's wrong with those terms? For one, they're about a billion times less restrictive than the GPL. Two: nobody is saying "The BSD license makes you completely free from the original developer's demands".
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I still don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. Yes, Mozilla used to tri-license. MySQL dual-licenses. What is the difference?
The distinction I've been making, and you've somehow been able to mentally dodge, is between what hhaamu was talking about and what you were thinking he was talking about. It's really that simple. He was referring to "dual licensing" as "one distribution of software with multiple sets of lincensing terms attached", and you were referring to "one set of code with multiple distributions". I believe the former is the more-commonly referred-to as "dual licensing", while the later is a "licensing arrangement/agreement" or such fuckery.
The distinction is really not that important, but it seemed relevant to the discussion.
So,in essence, this is mostly hhaamu's being a pedantic dickweed by pointing out he and you have different definitions of "dual license", and me trying to explain where he was coming from.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
[citation needed]
Given that this is "widely-repeated", I'm sure any citation given in support of this would be blindly shot down by you, so instead I'll ask you for something authoritative, if you have it, you have it.
Okay, but first I want you to answer some questions: why would code that is completely free of copyright not be usable? How can the person who wrote the code make you do anything if there is no copyright involved? I'm just curious to hear why you think that might be.
@Buttembly Coder said:
17 US Code Chapter 2 § 203 (b) handles this in the general case: "Effect of Termination"
A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.
I do not claim to know if this affects works "currently in progress", but they are certainly not "prepared", so they are likely in violation of the copyright if completed. That's my buttumption, and if the buttumption is wrong, oh well.
So what I said: existing stuff is exempted from the license, new works must acquire a new license, works-in-progress are a gray area. Although, I'd say it's reasonably safe to assume that in-progress works would be safe, too.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
I think I see the miscommunication. You seem to be interpreting Buttembly's statement to mean that a license in needed even if the author puts it in the public domain. Given that interpretation, the statement would, indeed, be absurd. However, I don't think that is what he claimed. I understood his statement to mean that the author was granting a license by stating the work is in the public domain, in which case of course you are free to do as you will with it.[citation needed]
Given that this is "widely-repeated", I'm sure any citation given in support of this would be blindly shot down by you, so instead I'll ask you for something authoritative, if you have it, you have it.
Okay, but first I want you to answer some questions: why would code that is completely free of copyright not be usable? How can the person who wrote the code make you do anything if there is no copyright involved? I'm just curious to hear why you think that might be.
Enforcing the GNU GPL
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
