Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8331 > unrolled thread

CarrierIQ Software and Forth

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:03 -0800
    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:14 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 01:52 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-24 04:06 -0800
          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-24 14:56 +0100
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-24 17:53 +0200
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:23 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 12:14 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 02:19 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 12:58 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 23:53 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 13:25 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:10 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-25 22:36 +0200
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:09 +0100
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-28 08:36 -0800
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 09:43 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 09:56 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 11:08 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 22:38 -0800
                        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-27 22:01 -1000
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-28 02:20 -0800
                            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:12 -0800
                              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 14:15 -0800
                                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:56 +0100
                                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 15:07 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:11 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-27 22:01 +0100
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-12-28 11:11 +0100
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 13:57 +0100
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 11:00 +0000
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 08:39 -0800
                      GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:32 -0600
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:07 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:19 +0100
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 08:38 +0000
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 04:59 -0500
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 14:04 +0100
                                Re: GPL Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-30 00:12 +0400
                                  Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-29 21:48 +0100
                                    Re: GPL Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 23:50 +0100
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:00 -0500
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:38 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:46 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 22:58 +0100
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 21:20 -0500
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 01:46 -0800
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 04:43 -0600
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 16:45 +0100
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 08:19 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:13 -0600
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:15 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:07 -0500
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 16:21 -0800
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:43 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:55 -0800
                                      Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 10:38 +0100
                                      Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 11:12 +0100
                                        Re: GPL anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 13:14 +0000
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:24 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-01-02 08:19 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 15:46 +0000
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-12-30 20:26 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-01-01 14:45 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:28 -0800
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 02:03 -0500
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:33 +0000
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 17:30 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-30 17:07 +0000
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:26 -0600
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:00 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:18 +0000
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 12:49 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:37 -0600
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:09 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:21 -0600
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 13:53 +0000
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:58 -0800
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 11:05 +0000
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:54 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 11:51 +0000
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:33 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:33 +0000
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:40 -0800
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:37 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:36 +0000
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 14:27 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-05 04:08 -0800
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 17:40 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 04:59 -0800
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-05 09:49 -0600
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 07:56 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 14:00 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 10:33 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:30 -0800
                        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 15:28 -0800
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:49 -0800
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth jyf <jyf1987@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 08:32 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 22:26 +0100
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-27 20:22 -0800
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 09:11 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:29 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-26 00:29 +0400
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Ian Osgood <iano@quirkster.com> - 2011-12-27 14:15 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-12-27 16:29 -0600
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 21:10 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:46 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-31 16:41 -0800
    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 20:50 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-01 18:14 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 21:33 -0800
          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 01:57 -0500
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-02 04:45 -0800
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 07:36 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 15:13 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 13:15 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:19 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:22 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 17:17 -0800

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#8446 — Re: GPL

Carsten Strotmann (Usenet) wrote:
> the list goes on and on. There is as much money on open source
> software than there is in closed source. It just needs some
> nderstanding of the customers needs and a slightly different mindset.

Well, I think anyone who wants to make money as a company (i.e. do 
business) needs to understand the customer needs.  I think all those who 
complain that free software is eating their lunch do so, because they 
are driven out of business for not understanding customer needs.  Only 
about 10% of the revenue made from software is shelfware like what 
Microsoft sells.  90% are "others".  I even think that most of what 
Microsoft does is "others", as most Windows licenses are actually not 
shelfware, either.

Software is a service business.  You are paid to educate people, to 
maintain your software, to add features, to develop according to 
specifications for in-house projects, etc.  All this works well, often 
even better, with free software.  If you don't understand what software 
is, if you think it's a good like hardware, stay out of the software 
business.  You will most likely fail.  The shelfware part of software is 
acting like it's a commodity.  It's dwindling, it's mostly games today, 
and the model is failing.  People don't like DRM-infested crapware.  The 
last resort is the app-store, but even there, "free", ad-financed apps 
are where the money is.

Some big companies, like Apple, have a mixture of free and non-free 
parts in their software - iOS is Darwin (free, BSDL) plus WebKit (free, 
LGPL plus some BSDL parts) plus Carbon (non-free).  Android replaces 
Carbon with Dalvik, and Darwin with Linux, and has some non-free apps, 
which however have often better free replacements.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8448 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:jdhog6$umt$1@online.de...
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > Let's also disregard the fact that the
> > FOSS is killing the commercial market for programmers and
> > leaving them without jobs or food.
>
> Let's disregard that RedHat managed to cross the 1 billion dollar
> revenue in 2011.  No job, no food?  I'm sure with a 1 billion dollar
> revenue, food supply for people who work at RedHat can't be that bad;
> the last RH employee I saw, appeared to be well fed (that was Andrew
> Haley).  They do that entirely with open source software, of which a
> significant portion and the core of RedHat's business model is GPL
> software.
>

It's an outlier.  It's one company, in one city, that happened to make
it work ...  In a competitive and free market, there will be a few companies
of similar size and numerous other ones.  That isn't the case here.
So, RH is a defacto monopoly because of the economically impaired
marketplace due to FOSS licensing.  Will there be another company that
competes directly against Redhat?  No.  The opposite side of the coin is
probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of commercial software
companies don't exist today because of profitless FOSS.  That could easily
be into the hundreds of thousands of programmers or potential programmers
without work.

> What's true is that the LGPL provides an "additional permission" which
> can be taken away by the next contributor (it cannot be retroactively be
> taken away from the original distribution, if you fear that - you may
> pass it on without the LGPL permissions, but anybody who wants still can
> get the LGPL'd sources from the original author, and the GPL is very
> clear that the license is between you and the original authors, not with
> some man-in-the-middle).

You assume that the original author(s) are around, available, locatable, and
alive.  After a few years, most are unlocatable.  This is one of the
problems that plagues the gigantic mountain of DOS code.  DOS wasn't
released as FOSS, but people try to locate the original authors(s) to ask
that it be released as FOSS.  These people aren't locatable.  People who
rely on the original author(s) being around or available at some point in
the future will be in a world of hurt.  It's my opinion that what the LGPL
does is to expect that a library released under the LGPL will eventually
"die" and bits-and-pieces will be "rebranded" as GPL code as parts of other
GPL projects.  That's ignoring the fact that Stallman is now trying to kill
all LGPL code with his newer licenses.  He can't force his version of the
open-source ideology on non-FOSS software with LGPL'd libraries around.
Every time non-FOSS wants to link with GPL, they just add an intermediate
LGPL library.

> This possible removal is necessary to make it
> possible to mix LGPL with GPL programs, it's a compatibility issue -
> if it wasn't there, the LGPL would be GPL-incompatible, and that
> would be really, really bad.

Really?  You clearly didn't read my post.  GLIBC is a mix of GPL and LGPL
and non-GPL code.  They haven't rebranded the LGPL code as GPL in GLIBC,
although they could.  But, of course, there are GPL codebases without LGPL
code that are linked with other FOSS licenses.  So, how do you think they do
that, if doing so for LGPL would make it GPL-incompatible? ...


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8452 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> It's an outlier.  It's one company, in one city, that happened to make
> it work ...  In a competitive and free market, there will be a few
> companies
> of similar size and numerous other ones.  That isn't the case here.
> So, RH is a defacto monopoly because of the economically impaired
> marketplace due to FOSS licensing.  Will there be another company that
> competes directly against Redhat?  No.

And what's SuSE?  Canonical?  RH don't have a monopoly.  They have 
competitors, companies that sell into the same market and are successful 
in terms of market share - they do not compete in all fields RH is 
active, so they are smaller in total.  RedHat makes a billion per year.  
Mozilla, another free software company, makes 300 millions throughout 
each of the next three years (their main income is the default search 
engine, and Google is willing to pay that - Microsoft probably too, but 
Google won the bidding).

> The opposite side of the coin
> is probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of commercial software
> companies don't exist today because of profitless FOSS.  That could
> easily be into the hundreds of thousands of programmers or potential
> programmers without work.

Economy is not about creating work, it is about being more efficient 
than the competition.  You don't understand anything, do you?  Socialism 
creates work, because people become ineffective in a socialist system.  
There was practically nobody unemployed in east Germany.  After it 
became capitalist, it all too fast became more efficient, and 
unemployment rates went up to 20% and beyond.

In a world where automation is improving fast, capitalism eventually 
will fail, too.  It will fail, because it no longer can distribute the 
money, it creates an increasing armada of unempoyed people who can't buy 
products, and therefore the economy comes to a halt.  Well, we see that 
happens around us now, we already see these problems.

>> What's true is that the LGPL provides an "additional permission"
>> which can be taken away by the next contributor (it cannot be
>> retroactively be taken away from the original distribution, if you
>> fear that - you may pass it on without the LGPL permissions, but
>> anybody who wants still can get the LGPL'd sources from the original
>> author, and the GPL is very clear that the license is between you and
>> the original authors, not with some man-in-the-middle).
> 
> You assume that the original author(s) are around, available,
> locatable, and
> alive.

Oh, man, what's your native language, because apparently you can't 
understand plain English?  In which country are you located where this 
strange legal system is in place?  Hey, we are talking about copyright.  
A work is copyrighted until 50, 70 or 95 years after the death of the 
last author (depending where you live).  It doesn't matter if the 
original author is rotting in his grave, or moved somewhere else, you 
get the license from the original author, not from somebody in between.  
The GPL just states the law, something it can't change.

The LPGL works like the BSDL/MIT licenses you seem to like so much.  It 
provides an additional permission which the next party can take away.  
That's the same as BSDL/MIT licensed programs: You can incorporate them 
into a GPL program or a proprietary program, and then pass them on 
without the "freedom" they had before.  That's how this works, too 
permissive means that the permissions will be lost.  The GPL, and other 
share-alike licenses are on a global minimum, i.e. any more permissive, 
and those permissions will get lost over time, and any less permissive 
would be proprietary.

> Really?  You clearly didn't read my post.

Actually, I don't like to read your posts.  They are so full of 
misconceptions and factual errors...

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8489 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:jdj15h$v5h$1@online.de...
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > The opposite side of the coin
> > is probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of commercial software
> > companies don't exist today because of profitless FOSS.  That could
> > easily be into the hundreds of thousands of programmers or potential
> > programmers without work.
>
> Economy is not about creating work, it is about being more efficient
> than the competition.  You don't understand anything, do you?  Socialism
> creates work, because people become ineffective in a socialist system.
> There was practically nobody unemployed in east Germany.  After it
> became capitalist, it all too fast became more efficient, and
> unemployment rates went up to 20% and beyond.
>

Capitalism is about making a profit, with competition you need to be
efficient, without it you don't.  Without profit potential, there is no
capitalism.  FOSS eliminates a large part of the potential capital market
for software.  That leads to unemployment in a capitalist society.

> >> What's true is that the LGPL provides an "additional permission"
> >> which can be taken away by the next contributor (it cannot be
> >> retroactively be taken away from the original distribution, if you
> >> fear that - you may pass it on without the LGPL permissions, but
> >> anybody who wants still can get the LGPL'd sources from the original
> >> author, and the GPL is very clear that the license is between you and
> >> the original authors, not with some man-in-the-middle).
> >
> > You assume that the original author(s) are around, available,
> > locatable, and
> > alive.
>
> Oh, man, what's your native language, because apparently you can't
> understand plain English?  In which country are you located where this
> strange legal system is in place?  Hey, we are talking about copyright.
> A work is copyrighted until 50, 70 or 95 years after the death of the
> last author (depending where you live).  It doesn't matter if the
> original author is rotting in his grave, or moved somewhere else, you
> get the license from the original author, not from somebody in between.
> The GPL just states the law, something it can't change.
>

Your response is out of context.  The point is that MS-DOS has the issue of
locating the original authors and so too will GPL.  At some point, people
will start converting or attempting to convert LGPLv2 to GPLv2, and GPLv2 to
GPLv3, etc.  I've seen it happen on a few projects already.  To do so,
they'll need the original copyright owner's permission.  What do you do when
you can't contact or locate them?  Start over?

> [...] BSDL/MIT licensed programs: You can incorporate them
> into a GPL program or a proprietary program, and then pass them on
> without the "freedom" they had before.

No, now they are entirely free to be used in any way seen fit by whomever
comes across them and decides to use them.  GPL prohibits software from
being used in all possible Free and Open Source Software situations.  Why
should FOSS be restricted to non-commercial use simply because they decide
not to release their changes?  How is that in the spirit of being FOSS?
That's nor free.  It's wierd that you conflate freedom with constraint.
What happened to all the early FOSS adopters who were anti-military and
anti-government?  Don't they know that FOSS does *not* restrict military and
government usage?  Now, they are just anti-corporate ...  Some people just
have to have something to hate.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8498 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> Without profit potential, there is
> no capitalism.  FOSS eliminates a large part of the potential capital
> market for software.  That leads to unemployment in a capitalist
> society.

That's competition.  Capitalism is about free markets and competition.  
When the majority of employers don't understand that the market is 
changing, and still follow an outdated business model, they deserve to 
die.  That's a very market liberal doctrine.

> Your response is out of context.

No, I'm trying to put your attention to the context - this is all under 
copyright rule, which introduces these problems in the first place.  
It's not the fault of the copyleft that our society has ridiculous and 
harmful rules, it's the fault of politicians and voters.

> The point is that MS-DOS has the
> issue of
> locating the original authors and so too will GPL.  At some point,
> people will start converting or attempting to convert LGPLv2 to GPLv2,
> and GPLv2 to
> GPLv3, etc.  I've seen it happen on a few projects already.  To do so,
> they'll need the original copyright owner's permission.  What do you
> do when
> you can't contact or locate them?  Start over?

In general, you don't need that.  The standard GPLv2 says that you can 
use that or any later version of the GPL.  The author has to be specific 
about the GPL version to deny that change (the Linux authors did so).  
When they were specific, it's quite likely that you can't convince them 
even when you find them.

> Why should FOSS be restricted to non-commercial use simply because
> they decide not to release their changes?

It is not restricted to non-commercial.  Again: RedHat is a billion 
dollar revenue company, you can't say they are non-commercial.  Or 
Google.  Not everything Google does is open source, but those parts that 
are for sure make more than a billion dollar, just like IBM, who also 
has at least a billion dollar revenue from FOSS.  For in-house projects 
like Google's server farm, they even don't have to release their 
changes.

What kind of straw-man argument are you putting up?  These are just 
factual errors.  You are confusing commercial interests with a 
particular outdated and failing business model.

> It's wierd that you conflate freedom with constraint. 

Freedom always is limited by the freedom of others.  To ensure a free 
world, you must make sure nobody can take away the freedom of weaker 
peers.  That's why I don't like to live in a purely capitalistic world - 
there, the rich people are free, and the poor are either enslaved or 
starving, because there are insufficient rules to protect the poors from 
having their rights taken away.

The GPL tells you that you can do whatever you want with the software 
that you recieve, *and* that everybody else can do whatever they want 
with this software, and you can't take this away.

You want the freedom to take freedom away, and don't realize that this 
leads to a non-free world.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8537 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:jdlc6s$2nj$1@online.de...
>
> Again: RedHat is a billion
> dollar revenue company, you can't say they are non-commercial.

Service payments ...

> Or Google.  Not everything Google does is open source, but those parts
> that are for sure make more than a billion dollar,

Advertisement revenue ...

> just like IBM, who also
> has at least a billion dollar revenue from FOSS.

Computing hardware revenue ...

> For in-house projects like Google's server farm, they even
> don't have to release their changes.
>

Doesn't that violate FOSS ideals? and/or license?  Andrew said it does ...

> What kind of straw-man argument are you putting up?  These are just
> factual errors.

You confuse software use with the revenue source.

> > It's wierd that you conflate freedom with constraint.
>
> Freedom always is limited by the freedom of others.

True.

> To ensure a free world, you must make sure nobody can take
> away the freedom of weaker peers.

No, you must protect the rights of the individual over the rights of the
majority.  Without individual rights, no one is free and everyone is
suppressed in the name of the majority or the better good.  FOSS is
supposedly about individual, but then they turn around and protect the
group instead of the individual.

> That's why I don't like to live in a purely capitalistic world -
> there, the rich people are free, and the poor are either enslaved or
> starving, because there are insufficient rules to protect the poors
> from having their rights taken away.

That's only a small part of the picture.  In most places where people are
extremely poor, there are no individual rights or property rights either,
and socialism etc.  Frequently in such areas, there is political corruption,
an environment that is unsuitable for farming, pollution, scarce water, lack
of other natural resources, uncontrolled large wild animals, devastating
pests, and a variety of diseases.  You have to fix those problems first.
I.e., if you don't kill all the mosquitoes, you'll continue to get malaria.
If you don't kill all the locusts, you'll continue to get plagues.
Extinction of the Rocky Mountain locust and the former use of DDT to
control mosquitoes benefitted America.

> The GPL tells you that you can do whatever you want with the software
> that you recieve, *and* that everybody else can do whatever they want
> with this software, and you can't take this away.
>
> You want the freedom to take freedom away, and don't realize that this
> leads to a non-free world.

If ones rights impose upon another, then one or the other will have rights
and one or the other won't.  You must decide upon a protected class, such as
an individual, group, or citizens, business, etc.  Individual rights lead to
freedom.  GPL restricts individual rights in favor of the group, i.e.,
suppresed or "enslaved" by the majority.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8544 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 31 2011, 9:20 pm, "Rod Pemberton"
<do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:

> If ones rights impose upon another, then one or the other will
> have rights and one or the other won't.

Yes, the copyright institution says the creator of an original work
has the right to say who can make copies of their work and who cannot,
and under what terms.

> You must decide upon a protected class, such as
> an individual, group, or citizens, business, etc.

>  Individual rights lead to freedom.

Under the copyright, the individual right is granted to the creator.
The right that allows an open source author to release there code
under the GPL if they wish is the same right that allows commercial
software to exist.

>  GPL restricts individual rights in favor of the group, i.e.,
> suppresed or "enslaved" by the majority.

So you are arguing in favor of software piracy, here, since the only
individual rights that are restricted are the right to copy a creative
work without the creator's permission.

You cannot deny the right of open source authors to decide to  release
under an open source license and support the right of closed source
authors to release under a commercial license ~ its the same right in
both cases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8546 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:
> "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:jdlc6s$2nj$1@online.de...
> 
>> For in-house projects like Google's server farm, they even
>> don't have to release their changes.
> 
> Doesn't that violate FOSS ideals? and/or license?  Andrew said it does ...

No I didn't.  If you don't release the binaries, you don't have to
release the code.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8560 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

Rod Pemberton wrote:

> Service payments ...
> Advertisement revenue ...
> Computing hardware revenue ...

Yeah, so it is.  But they all can't make that revenue without FOSS.  So 
we have billions and billions of revenue thanks to FOSS, and you argue 
that FOSS causes unemployment?  How stupid is that?

>> For in-house projects like Google's server farm, they even
>> don't have to release their changes.
> 
> Doesn't that violate FOSS ideals? and/or license?  Andrew said it does
> ...

There is the AGPL for software that's primarily used in-house and never 
released, but offers services to the public.

> You confuse software use with the revenue source.

I don't think I'm the one who is confused.  If you make a business 
around something, you have to figure out what's your revenue source.  
This is rarely obvious and direct.

>> To ensure a free world, you must make sure nobody can take
>> away the freedom of weaker peers.
> 
> No, you must protect the rights of the individual over the rights of
> the
> majority.  Without individual rights, no one is free and everyone is
> suppressed in the name of the majority or the better good.  FOSS is
> supposedly about individual, but then they turn around and protect the
> group instead of the individual.

The bully should be protected from the majority, so that he can continue 
bullying?  The thief should be protected from the majority, so that he 
can continue to steal?  What do you want to tell us?  If you allow 
individuals to rob, rape, and murder, there will be some who do it.  
They will tell you that it's necessary for them, because without 
robbing, they will starve.  Without rape, they will not have the joy of 
sex.  And without murder, their victims will come after them, making 
their live miserable.

So, there is a point where individual freedom has to stop, and that is 
when it becomes harmful to others - this *is* protecting the group.  
Taking some free software, adding a little bit on top, and selling it, 
without giving back, is obvious an action against the golden rule.  If 
you believe in proprietary software, you may not use the source code of 
anybody else, since you must allow him to have the full rights over his 
code - this is what the golden rule tells you: do not enforce unto 
others what you don't like yourself (Confucius).

I think you lack a basic understanding of what's good and bad.  Haven't 
you been to kindergarden to teach you these elementary skills?

> That's only a small part of the picture.  In most places where people
> are extremely poor, there are no individual rights or property rights
> either,
> and socialism etc.  Frequently in such areas, there is political
> corruption, an environment that is unsuitable for farming, pollution,
> scarce water, lack of other natural resources, uncontrolled large wild
> animals, devastating
> pests, and a variety of diseases.  You have to fix those problems
> first.

The problem with these places is that they don't protect people from the 
strong.  Corruption happens, because those who have money aren't stopped 
to use it to buy politicians.  Pollution happens, because those who have 
the means of productions aren't stopped to do so, etc.  (note that even 
seemingly rich countries like the USA are full of corruption and 
pollution thanks to exactly these problems: not stopping the strong from 
misbehaving).

Sometimes, poverty comes from an unsuitable environment.  But in most 
cases, it comes from rogue "leaders", from thugs taking the freedom away 
from others.  They take it away, because they can, because nobody 
attempts to balance powers.

Society is a social endeaver.  It doesn't work with psychopaths in 
power, it works when people follow the golden rule, when people accept 
that others have the same rights as they themselves.  When rivalrous 
goods are distributed fairly, and non-rivalrous goods are distributed 
plenty.  This is not about communism or capitalism, free markets work 
best if the particioners are all small and equal, when people own their 
rivalrous means of productions, and it is not collectivized (wether the 
collective is a capitalist corporation or a socialist collective does 
not matter - this is against human nature).

You also really mistake software for a rivalrous good.  It is not.  
Therefore, the rules for physical property don't apply in the same way.

> I.e., if you don't kill all the mosquitoes, you'll continue to
> get malaria. If you don't kill all the locusts, you'll continue to get
> plagues. Extinction of the Rocky Mountain locust and the former use of
> DDT to control mosquitoes benefitted America.

You mean it benefitted the imigrants.  I'd say the country suffered a 
lot from the inrush of this big population from Europe.

> GPL restricts individual rights in favor of the group, i.e.,
> suppresed or "enslaved" by the majority.

Accept it:  When you have the right to make *your own* software 
proprietary, others have the right to deny you to make *their* software 
proprietary.  I don't want you to steal my software, because I created 
it.  You can use it, modifiy it, and redistribute it, but you can not 
make it yours, because it is not yours.  Understand?  Nobody is enslaved 
by accepting that others have the exactly same rights as he himself, 
even though that limits his rights to rob, rape, and murder others.  
This is what the GPL is about: Give everybody the same set of 
(individual) rights, without the ability to impose others in their 
rights.  This are the two basic rules of freedom: do, what you want, but 
don't deny this to others.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8562 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 31 2011, 7:20 pm, "Rod Pemberton"
<do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:
> If ones rights impose upon another, then one or the other will have rights
> and one or the other won't.  You must decide upon a protected class, such as
> an individual, group, or citizens, business, etc.  Individual rights lead to
> freedom.  GPL restricts individual rights in favor of the group, i.e.,
> suppresed or "enslaved" by the majority.
Isn't GPL the ultimate in individual rights? I can endow my work with
freedoms that will propagate through derived works, so that as it
grows in value my intent is honored.

No government created GPL, and nobody is forced to use libre software.

FOSS hits some companies in the pocketbook, so of course the claws
will come out. Unlike highly regulated industries like medicine and
food, software is truly a free market. FOSS is free to compete in that
market. It's become obvious that the "supply-price" dynamic we all
learned in Economics 101 isn't the only thing at play since FOSS
companies are hitting it big.

I think that FOSS works because the tool makers are also the tool
users. Wealth is created by using tools, so the more tools in more
hands the better. It's not stealth hippy anarchy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8462 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> Let's also disregard the fact that the
>> FOSS is killing the commercial market for programmers and leaving them
>> without jobs or food.
> 
> Let's disregard that RedHat managed to cross the 1 billion dollar
> revenue in 2011.  No job, no food?  I'm sure with a 1 billion dollar
> revenue, food supply for people who work at RedHat can't be that
> bad; the last RH employee I saw, appeared to be well fed (that was
> Andrew Haley).

LOL!  Perhaps slightly too well fed...

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8434 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 29, 4:59 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
wrote:
> A huge part of the problem with the LGPL is that LGPL code can be
> converted to GPL code at will.  That's the critical license term
> that is killing the LGPL.  I.e., the license terms for the LGPL'd
> source can be changed by a third party without the original
> copyright holder's permission.

No, the license terms to the original LGPL'd release cannot be changed
by anyone. It can be *re-released* under the GPL as part of a GPL'd
release, but that does not remove the LGPL from the original release.

And "without the original copyright holder's permission" is nonsense:
its the original copyright holder that released it under the LGPL
*which granted the right to re-release it as part of a GPL'd release*.
So when that term of the LGPL is made use of, its of course *with* the
permission of the original copyright holder. They granted that
permission in advance when they released it under the LGPL.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8449 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

"BruceMcF" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3edc4464-4669-48ec-9e05-b5ec94963230@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 4:59 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
> wrote:
> > A huge part of the problem with the LGPL is that LGPL code can be
> > converted to GPL code at will. That's the critical license term
> > that is killing the LGPL. I.e., the license terms for the LGPL'd
> > source can be changed by a third party without the original
> > copyright holder's permission.
>
> No, the license terms to the original LGPL'd release cannot be changed
> by anyone. It can be *re-released* under the GPL as part of a GPL'd
> release, but that does not remove the LGPL from the original release.

This quote is directly from GNU LGPL v2.1 Feb. 1999:

"  3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.  To do
this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2,
instead of to this License.  (If a newer version than version 2 of the
ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify
that version instead if you wish.)  Do not make any other change in
these notices.

  Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for
that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all
subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.

  This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of
the Library into a program that is not a library."


What is that then?  That allows *anyone* to change the LGPL'd terms to
non-LGPL'd terms, i.e., GPL license terms.  The re-released code then
becomes GPL'd code.  The GPL license terms are more restrictive.  The
original may still be LGPL'd, but who is to say that project or source will
continue to exist?  If the original library project "dies" and what code
remains of it was "rebranded" as GPL via this change of terms mechanism,
then only the GPL'd code portions will be available to future users.  I.e.,
GNU could convert the most of the GLIBC from LGPL to GPL stop all releases
of LGPL'd versions.  It'd only take a few generations of Linux distributions
before all LGPL'd versions would be forever lost.

> And "without the original copyright holder's permission" is nonsense:
> its the original copyright holder that released it under the LGPL
> *which granted the right to re-release it as part of a GPL'd release*.

It's not nonsense.  They had no other choice if they wanted their library to
be under a GNU license.  I.e., they are "forced" to accept a license with a
bad condition because it is FSF/GNU approved.  It's reluctant or coerced
acceptance, not willful choice.  If there was another LGPL without the
switch to GPL licensing section for GNU supporters, then they'd have free
will in the matter.  This is someone else deciding for them what they should
and them doing so because they've adopted that ideology, like a cult.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8450 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 29, 6:07 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
wrote:
> What is that then?  That allows *anyone* to change the LGPL'd terms
> to non-LGPL'd terms, i.e., GPL license terms.

Yes, on *their* release. The LGPL still applies to the original
release. That can't be changed.

> The re-released code then becomes GPL'd code.

Yes, that's the point of those terms ~ to allow the LGPL'd code to be
incorporated into a GPL'd consumers of the library.

It doesn't remove the LGPL from the original source.

> The GPL license terms are more restrictive.  The original may
> still be LGPL'd, but who is to say that project or source will
> continue to exist?

How often is that a serious concern?

> If the original library project "dies" and what code
> remains of it was "rebranded" as GPL via this change of terms
> mechanism,

Do you mean, the user that bundled it into a GPL'd project somehow
found all archived copies of the original source and deleted them?

> then only the GPL'd code portions will be available to future users.
>  I.e., GNU could convert the most of the GLIBC from LGPL to GPL stop
> all releases of LGPL'd versions.  It'd only take a few generations
> of Linux distributions before all LGPL'd versions would be forever
> lost.

What makes you think that the LGPL'd versions would be lost? An
outbreak of bitrot would hit the various archives that they are stored
in? The actual example makes the issue seem even less likely than the
general description did.

>> And "without the original copyright holder's permission" is
>> nonsense: its the original copyright holder that released it
>> under the LGPL *which granted the right to re-release it as part
>> of a GPL'd release*.

> It's not nonsense.  They had no other choice if they wanted their
> library to be under a GNU license.

You are saying that if they chose to have their library under a GNU
license, they have no choice but to include the terms of a GNU
license. That's what is meant by choose to have their library under a
GNU license.

> I.e., they are "forced" to accept a license with a bad condition
> because it is FSF/GNU approved.  It's reluctant or coerced
> acceptance, not willful choice.

I don't think anybody holds a gun up against somebody's head to force
them to use a GNU license. "I had to because I wanted to / contribute
code to a project that specifies GNU licenses / have my source
included in GNU-centric distributions / have my source bandwidth
hosting costs covered by the FSF" ... none of those are actually being
forced. They are just the circumstances of the decision.

Lots of people use licenses other than GNU.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8453 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> What is that then?  That allows *anyone* to change the LGPL'd terms to
> non-LGPL'd terms, i.e., GPL license terms.  The re-released code then
> becomes GPL'd code.  The GPL license terms are more restrictive.  The
> original may still be LGPL'd, but who is to say that project or source
> will
> continue to exist?

Well, nobody.  It's like your beloved BSDL and MIT licenced projects, 
they have no protection either.  Their work can be made proprietary or 
incorporated into a GPL program, as it happens every day.

How can trolls like you argue in favor of what you try to argue against, 
and not realize what you are doing?  Too stubborn!

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8457 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 30, 12:43 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > What is that then?  That allows *anyone* to change the LGPL'd terms to
> > non-LGPL'd terms, i.e., GPL license terms.  The re-released code then
> > becomes GPL'd code.  The GPL license terms are more restrictive.  The
> > original may still be LGPL'd, but who is to say that project or source
> > will
> > continue to exist?
>
> Well, nobody.  It's like your beloved BSDL and MIT licenced projects,
> they have no protection either.  Their work can be made proprietary or
> incorporated into a GPL program, as it happens every day.
>
> How can trolls like you argue in favor of what you try to argue against,
> and not realize what you are doing?  Too stubborn!
>
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/

Man, this GPL/LGPL stuff sounds like a real mess to me. What's the
point? What's to stop you putting your code on the 'net and saying "I
retain copyright, but here, take it" like have with my Forth system?
(these are genuine questions, not sarcasm).

Furthermore, who polices GPL? If I break the terms of GPL licence, who
will come knocking at my door?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8460 — Re: GPL

Hi Mark,

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Furthermore, who polices GPL? If I break the terms of GPL licence, who
> will come knocking at my door?

look at 
http://gpl-violations.org/

the GPL is enforced, and acknowledged in court multiple times now, both
in the US and in Europe.

There is a Google Tech Talk by Georg Greve "The Free Software Foundation
in Europe" that might be interesting to watch, it contains information
on how the GNU Licenses are enforced (at 50:30 in the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTcm6Nl_mkI

-- Carsten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8461 — Re: GPL

Hi Mark,

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Man, this GPL/LGPL stuff sounds like a real mess to me. What's the
> point? What's to stop you putting your code on the 'net and saying "I
> retain copyright, but here, take it" like have with my Forth system?
> (these are genuine questions, not sarcasm).

"but here, take it" is not a valid license in our legal system. Someone
who would like to use your code would need to contact you to get a
proper license from you before re-using your code. That might be fine,
but has limits.

The
problem with this approach is that contact information written in source
code will become stale (E-Mail addresses not working, Phone numbers that
don't exist anymore ...). There is quite a lot of code out there where
the author has taken the "but here, take it" approach, but this code
cannot be re-used, because it is impossible to contact the author. 

It might be that the author or a new owner of the copyright will
come after the programmer who uses the code later on. That is a risk
many programmers and businesses are not willing to take.

The GPL/LGPL are valid licenses. They have been created with the help of
lawyers and have been prooven in court many times now. The GPL/LGPL
Licenses transfer specific rights to anyone that would like to re-use
the code. This is what the programmer and the business can rely
on. That is the value of having a good "free software" license.

-- Carsten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8475 — Re: GPL

cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) writes:
>Hi Mark,
>
>Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Man, this GPL/LGPL stuff sounds like a real mess to me. What's the
>> point? What's to stop you putting your code on the 'net and saying "I
>> retain copyright, but here, take it" like have with my Forth system?
>> (these are genuine questions, not sarcasm).
...
>The
>problem with this approach is that contact information written in source
>code will become stale (E-Mail addresses not working, Phone numbers that
>don't exist anymore ...). There is quite a lot of code out there where
>the author has taken the "but here, take it" approach, but this code
>cannot be re-used, because it is impossible to contact the author. 

An example is Ox, a compiler generator we are using in our compiler
course.  It was written by Kurt Bischoff and distributed under very
simple terms: "You cannot redistribute it" (he wanted to get an idea
how many people were using it).  Fortunately I asked him for
permission to distribute it, so we can distribute it as long as we
want, but no one else can; and nobody can fix it (it has some bugs)
and distribute the result.  Bischoff left the university where he had
developed Ox some time later, and I have been unable to find him for
more than a decade; and IIRC the original copy from his university's
FTP server has long vanished.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8486 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:jdj1g9$vc2$1@online.de...
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > What is that then?  That allows *anyone* to change the LGPL'd terms to
> > non-LGPL'd terms, i.e., GPL license terms.  The re-released code then
> > becomes GPL'd code.  The GPL license terms are more restrictive.  The
> > original may still be LGPL'd, but who is to say that project or source
> > will
> > continue to exist?
>
> Well, nobody.
...

> It's like your beloved BSDL and MIT licenced projects,
> they have no protection either.

Their copyright terms cannot be changed.  They are fixed.

> Their work can be made proprietary or
> incorporated into a GPL program, as it happens every day.

Yes, they are Free and Open Source Software.  I.e., they can be used for
private use, public use, commercial use, military or government use.  There
are no restrictions on how they can be used.  That's freedom.  That's not
the case for the GPL.  The GPL restricts usage to code complying with
certain, more restrictive, beliefs ...

Like I said to Brad:

"Even if the GPL initiated the FOSS movement, it's not FOSS anymore by
comparison."


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web