Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18060 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-09-17 00:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-10-10 09:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 230 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-17 00:46 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-17 04:05 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-17 11:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-17 22:52 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-17 08:21 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-17 02:00 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-17 13:08 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? JW <none@dev.null> - 2014-09-17 08:24 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-17 21:44 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-17 15:04 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 00:28 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 03:41 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 03:31 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 18:12 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 15:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 19:22 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 17:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-18 21:16 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 21:44 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 09:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:36 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 11:53 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 03:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 13:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 04:26 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 13:50 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 10:16 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-20 16:42 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 12:19 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-20 21:58 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 13:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-20 23:00 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:14 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-21 02:12 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 20:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 12:45 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 17:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 00:12 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 19:01 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:17 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-21 02:17 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 13:25 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 15:56 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 18:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-21 09:37 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 14:22 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 23:13 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 14:20 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 23:15 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 20:20 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:05 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 23:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 03:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 01:27 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 14:20 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 13:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 12:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 09:55 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-20 23:54 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 15:46 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 19:09 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:29 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:11 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 20:40 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 00:56 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 23:40 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 03:35 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 01:47 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 07:33 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 11:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 20:32 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-09-22 11:03 +1000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 18:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-09-22 11:53 +1000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 19:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 19:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-21 11:50 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2014-09-21 18:50 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 20:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2014-09-21 21:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 22:12 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 09:38 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 10:15 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-22 15:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 10:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 01:44 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 05:25 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 12:44 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 13:00 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 05:02 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 15:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:35 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 07:55 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 17:35 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 10:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-22 10:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-09-22 19:48 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 20:46 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:34 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 13:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-08 17:31 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 14:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 15:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-09 19:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-09 13:44 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-09 22:31 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 17:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 17:31 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-09 21:25 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 23:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-09 21:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-10 18:48 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-10 10:43 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mjb@signal11.invalid (Mike) - 2014-10-11 21:25 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-10-10 18:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-10-11 03:05 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 18:43 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 23:36 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 16:48 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 01:05 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 18:47 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 02:11 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 22:24 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 00:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-23 10:07 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-23 07:14 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 23:43 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 13:14 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 18:18 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 19:58 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 19:57 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:39 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 18:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 23:41 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 23:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 05:34 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 02:21 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-24 09:42 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 09:51 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 18:23 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-24 08:15 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-24 21:51 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-24 15:57 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 09:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:19 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 15:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 15:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:03 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-24 00:15 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:30 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-24 02:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 20:17 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 17:26 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 21:20 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 23:42 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:41 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 17:03 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-22 10:19 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 15:21 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 12:55 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-09-22 12:25 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 05:37 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:37 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:32 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 07:01 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 15:22 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 08:01 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 00:35 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2014-09-23 09:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-23 07:16 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2014-09-23 14:45 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 10:08 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 10:03 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-23 13:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 20:53 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 15:00 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 22:14 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 15:51 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 10:17 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-23 13:57 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:39 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? langwadt@fonz.dk - 2014-09-20 16:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:17 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? langwadt@fonz.dk - 2014-09-21 12:24 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 00:00 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-09-19 23:15 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-19 07:58 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 10:41 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-19 07:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-19 03:08 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:17 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-19 21:15 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-20 14:36 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-19 10:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-19 04:20 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-18 16:20 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-19 09:36 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:27 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-19 21:35 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 11:54 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-18 19:33 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 13:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Przemek Klosowski <przemek@tux.dot.org> - 2014-09-21 12:34 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-21 11:54 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2014-09-17 08:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-17 22:53 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-17 13:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-18 03:35 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Allan Herriman <allanherriman@hotmail.com> - 2014-09-18 13:16 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-09-25 13:51 +0300
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-25 09:58 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-09-29 21:46 +0300
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-25 18:32 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@hotmail.com> - 2014-10-10 09:53 +0000
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-20 19:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lvl10d$6cp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18142 |
On 9/20/2014 6:12 PM, Dombo wrote: > Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: > >>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>> want to >>> *have to* share it. >> >> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >> aren't obligated to share with me. > > True, but you do have to share it with your customers, and if they want > to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures they are allowed to > do exactly that. So in practical terms your modifications are open to > the rest of the world. There is a reason why LGPL was conceived and > licenses like BSD are a lot less controversial in commercial settings. Yes, that is the *exact* purpose of the GPL, to allow your customers to have access to the entire product and be able to improve, fix or otherwise modify the ENTIRE product. But it doesn't require you to share your work with anyone if you don't want to. Keep it in a safe deposit box if you want, no one will order you to release it. I think the LGPL still requires you to provide the source code. My understanding is the difference is in *when* it is in effect. It has looser rules on when your code is considered part of the LGPL code. But if you modify the LGPL code you still have the same sharing issues. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-20 16:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lvl24s$7ie$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18146 |
On 9/20/2014 4:01 PM, rickman wrote: > On 9/20/2014 6:12 PM, Dombo wrote: >> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >> >>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>> want to >>>> *have to* share it. >>> >>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>> aren't obligated to share with me. >> >> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, and if they want >> to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures they are allowed to >> do exactly that. So in practical terms your modifications are open to >> the rest of the world. There is a reason why LGPL was conceived and >> licenses like BSD are a lot less controversial in commercial settings. > > Yes, that is the *exact* purpose of the GPL, to allow your customers to have > access to the entire product and be able to improve, fix or otherwise modify > the ENTIRE product. But it doesn't require you to share your work with anyone > if you don't want to. Keep it in a safe deposit box if you want, no one will > order you to release it. Exactly. You (I) can use GPL'd products all day long. And, use them to create "independant works" (compile my own code, process my own photos, your compiled VHDL, etc.). But, if I am creating a PRODUCT (something that *will* be "distributed" -- even without fee!) then I am bound by the terms of the GPL *if* I use anything encumbered with it. If, for example, you use a GPL'd core in one of your designs, then you are bound by it IF YOU DISTRIBUTE THAT CORE (or the "sources" for it). > I think the LGPL still requires you to provide the source code. My > understanding is the difference is in *when* it is in effect. It has looser > rules on when your code is considered part of the LGPL code. But if you modify > the LGPL code you still have the same sharing issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 02:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lvlcfs$r7r$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18146 |
In comp.arch.embedded rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: (snip) > I think the LGPL still requires you to provide the source code. My > understanding is the difference is in *when* it is in effect. It has > looser rules on when your code is considered part of the LGPL code. But > if you modify the LGPL code you still have the same sharing issues. When I first saw LGPL is was Library Gnu Public License, as it is commonly used for system libraries. If you distribute a C compiler, people can sell (without source) program compiled with that compiler. Without LGPL, they wouldn't be able to link in libC and distrubute the output of the linker. So, LGPL allows you to compile and link programs with gcc, and sell them closed source. (The early gcc used the library of the host system, such as the one supplied by Sun or HP, before glibc was available.) -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-20 22:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lvld3e$6c6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18157 |
On 9/20/2014 10:17 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > In comp.arch.embedded rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > > (snip) > >> I think the LGPL still requires you to provide the source code. My >> understanding is the difference is in *when* it is in effect. It has >> looser rules on when your code is considered part of the LGPL code. But >> if you modify the LGPL code you still have the same sharing issues. > > When I first saw LGPL is was Library Gnu Public License, as it > is commonly used for system libraries. If you distribute a C > compiler, people can sell (without source) program compiled > with that compiler. Without LGPL, they wouldn't be able to > link in libC and distrubute the output of the linker. > > So, LGPL allows you to compile and link programs with gcc, > and sell them closed source. (The early gcc used the library > of the host system, such as the one supplied by Sun or HP, > before glibc was available.) Yes, I believe that FPGA vendors (at least I know Altera) has restrictions on *your* bitstream that says you can't use it in anyone else's devices. They were anticipating gate arrays being made from the FPGA bitstream so that the user had to do no additional design work. Such an ASIC company sprang into being and was shut down by the lawyers. Altera wants you to buy *their* ASICs. That is a *restrictive* license. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 13:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lvmjjf$a9j$2@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #18142 |
On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: > Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: > >>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>> want to *have to* share it. >> >> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >> aren't obligated to share with me. > > True, but you do have to share it with your customers, No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. What the GPL does is place requirements on _how_ you share it should you decide to do so. > and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures > they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your > modifications are open to the rest of the world. Only if you decide to share the modified program. If you just want to modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. -- Grant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 15:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lvmlak$6j5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18181 |
Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef: > On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >> >>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>> want to *have to* share it. >>> >>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>> aren't obligated to share with me. >> >> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, > > No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify it, sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? That is an interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your interpretation is correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why companies who sell products based on GPL'ed code even bother which providing (usually not only) their customers access to the source code? >> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >> modifications are open to the rest of the world. > > Only if you decide to share the modified program. Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers. > If you just want to > modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. That is only when you keep it to yourself, my understanding of GPL is that as soon as you sell it you are not allowed to deny your customers access to your (modified) sources.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 18:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lvmtr6$3hd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18182 |
On 21/09/14 15:56, Dombo wrote: > Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef: >> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> >>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>> >>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>> >>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >> >> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. > > So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify > it, sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? > That is an interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your > interpretation is correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why > companies who sell products based on GPL'ed code even bother which > providing (usually not only) their customers access to the source code? > >>> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >>> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >>> modifications are open to the rest of the world. >> >> Only if you decide to share the modified program. > > Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers. > >> If you just want to >> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. > > That is only when you keep it to yourself, my understanding of GPL is > that as soon as you sell it you are not allowed to deny your customers > access to your (modified) sources. What you say is entirely correct. I think what Grant meant is that you don't have to share any particular code with anyone else if you don't want to - but if you /do/ share it, including by selling them binaries, you have to follow the rules of the licences involved. People sometimes think that if they have made changes to some GPL'ed code, they /must/ make those changes available publicly - when in fact they only need to pass on the changes when they pass on the code in binary or source format.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nlvt1a5flro2n7f9u71asji8dijeb98il4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18185 |
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 18:19:49 +0200, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> Gave us: >On 21/09/14 15:56, Dombo wrote: >> Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef: >>> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>>> >>>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>>> >>>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >>> >>> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. >> >> So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify >> it, sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? >> That is an interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your >> interpretation is correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why >> companies who sell products based on GPL'ed code even bother which >> providing (usually not only) their customers access to the source code? >> >>>> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >>>> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >>>> modifications are open to the rest of the world. >>> >>> Only if you decide to share the modified program. >> >> Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers. >> >>> If you just want to >>> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. >> >> That is only when you keep it to yourself, my understanding of GPL is >> that as soon as you sell it you are not allowed to deny your customers >> access to your (modified) sources. > >What you say is entirely correct. I think what Grant meant is that you >don't have to share any particular code with anyone else if you don't >want to - but if you /do/ share it, including by selling them binaries, >you have to follow the rules of the licences involved. People sometimes >think that if they have made changes to some GPL'ed code, they /must/ >make those changes available publicly - when in fact they only need to >pass on the changes when they pass on the code in binary or source format. Look at the Nvidia driver 'model'... err... cockup. So bad it actually invades kernel compilations. What a set of complications! It is all about little "important" IP code bits that matter. All the basic template glue stuff is no big deal, unless someone is big on calling the interface glitz "IP". That is (or should be) separate from code that essentially forms a "process engine" for handling some other data. Those little "process engines" are what it is about. Outside of crypto and security segments, that is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lvnfp4$iae$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18182 |
On 9/21/2014 6:56 AM, Dombo wrote: > Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef: >> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> >>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>> >>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>> >>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >> >> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. > > So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify it, > sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? That is an > interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your interpretation is > correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why companies who sell > products based on GPL'ed code even bother which providing (usually not only) > their customers access to the source code? No. See my reply. "Sharing" effectively means "not hiding it in your closet". Selling is sharing. Giving away is sharing. >>> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >>> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >>> modifications are open to the rest of the world. >> >> Only if you decide to share the modified program. > > Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers. > >> If you just want to >> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. > > That is only when you keep it to yourself, my understanding of GPL is that as > soon as you sell it you are not allowed to deny your customers access to your > (modified) sources. Exactly. Once you "redistribute it" (for whatever reason and/or "consideration")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 23:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lvnm2o$rgp$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #18182 |
On 2014-09-21, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: > Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef: >> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> >>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>> >>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>> >>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >> >> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. > > So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify > it, sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? No. I said you could modify and then not share it. By "share" I mean give/sell/whatever. When you sell a copy to a customer, you are sharing it, and the GPL places requirements on how that sharing is done. You can't share just the binary and refuse access to the source, share one, share both. Or share none, if you prefer -- you don't _have_ to share the modified program. But if you do share the object/binary you have to _also_ share source. > That is an interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your > interpretation is correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why > companies who sell products based on GPL'ed code even bother which > providing (usually not only) their customers access to the source code? I didn't say you you were alloed to share binaries and not source. I >> Only if you decide to share the modified program. > > Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers. Yes. >> If you just want to modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's >> fine. > > That is only when you keep it to yourself, Right. I said you can modify GPL code and not share it. That is true. What you can't do is share binaries and not share source. > my understanding of GPL is that as soon as you sell it you are not > allowed to deny your customers access to your (modified) sources. That is correct. What somebody said was that when you modify GPL code you are forced by the GPL to share it. That is not true. You are allowed to keep it completely to yourself if you want to. -- Grant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lvnfkt$iae$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18181 |
On 9/21/2014 6:25 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >> >>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>> want to *have to* share it. >>> >>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>> aren't obligated to share with me. >> >> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, > > No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. What the > GPL does is place requirements on _how_ you share it should you decide > to do so. The problem in this statement is the implications of the word "share". In a colloquial sense, we think of sharing as something COOPERATIVE that you do. In this context, "buying into the FOSS idea". Your statement is more technical: read "share" as "distribute it to anyone for any purpose" (e.g., SELLING something is "sharing" in your statement) Microsoft SHARES Windows with us! :> OTOH, the modifications to my systems aren't "shared" with anyone! >> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >> modifications are open to the rest of the world. > > Only if you decide to share the modified program. If you just want to > modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. Conversely, "Not sharing" is NOT selling, distributing, etc. "Keeping it entirely to yourself".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lvnm6g$rgp$2@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #18195 |
On 2014-09-21, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: > On 9/21/2014 6:25 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> >>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>> >>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>> >>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >> >> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. What the >> GPL does is place requirements on _how_ you share it should you decide >> to do so. > > The problem in this statement is the implications of the word "share". > In a colloquial sense, we think of sharing as something COOPERATIVE > that you do. In this context, "buying into the FOSS idea". > > Your statement is more technical: read "share" as "distribute it to > anyone for any purpose" (e.g., SELLING something is "sharing" in your > statement) Yes. That seemed to be the meaning of "share" that I was replying to (at least that's how I understood it). >> Only if you decide to share the modified program. If you just want to >> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. > > Conversely, "Not sharing" is NOT selling, distributing, etc. "Keeping > it entirely to yourself". Exactly. -- Grant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 20:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lvo4of$qkk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18201 |
On 9/21/2014 4:15 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2014-09-21, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: >> On 9/21/2014 6:25 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: >>> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>>> >>>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>>> >>>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >>> >>> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. What the >>> GPL does is place requirements on _how_ you share it should you decide >>> to do so. >> >> The problem in this statement is the implications of the word "share". >> In a colloquial sense, we think of sharing as something COOPERATIVE >> that you do. In this context, "buying into the FOSS idea". >> >> Your statement is more technical: read "share" as "distribute it to >> anyone for any purpose" (e.g., SELLING something is "sharing" in your >> statement) > > Yes. That seemed to be the meaning of "share" that I was replying to > (at least that's how I understood it). I think that's the problem. E.g., if I said "Microsoft is sharing Windows" folks would look at me wondering what the f*** I was talking about? They wouldn't consider "share" to be "sell". Similarly, if I said "I am sharing cookies with my neighbors", they wouldn't wonder how much I was SELLING them for. Replace share with "distribute" would probably be less ambiguous to more folks. >>> Only if you decide to share the modified program. If you just want to >>> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. >> >> Conversely, "Not sharing" is NOT selling, distributing, etc. "Keeping >> it entirely to yourself". > > Exactly. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-20 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lvl1ka$716$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18138 |
On 9/20/2014 2:29 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> On 9/20/2014 3:19 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/2014 7:42 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> This is exactly the sort of fight I wanted to avoid - I tried to give
>>>>> you a few
>>>>> /technical/ pointers to why Linux might do a better job for you, and
>>>>> in trying
>>>>> to battle ignorance and myths I have stupidly let myself get drawn
>>>>> in. And for
>>>>> every point I correct, you post another three paragraphs of new
>>>>> imagined
>>>>> issues. I simply don't have the time and energy to spend battling such
>>>>> determined fixed positions - this is why I and a good many others
>>>>> usually avoid
>>>>> many of your threads.
>>>>
>>>> David, you refuse to understand the basic issue that drives me (and
>>>> others)
>>>> away from Linux: we want to avoid the GPL LIKE THE PLAGUE! I have
>>>> no desire
>>>> to invest time bettering a product that I can't then use AS I
>>>> PLEASE. And,
>>>> that I can't pass on to other "licensees" in the same way!
>>>
>>> I have trimmed this insanely long post down to one simple point so I
>>> can ask a
>>> question about it and hopefully get a simple reply.
>>>
>>> How does using GPL code like Linux prevent you from using it as you
>>> please or
>>> from passing the code on to others?
>>>
>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite. You can use it any way you
>>> wish on
>>> your own. But if you share your work with others you just have to
>>> share the
>>> source code as well. I don't see any restriction on who or how you
>>> share any
>>> of this. :S
>>
>> It *requires* you to share it!
>
> No, that is factually incorrect. You are free to modify GPL code all day long
> and not share it with anyone at any time. GPL talks about what you must do
> when you *do* share it.
"Sharing" meant to also include *sell* a product incorporating that code!
You can use GPL'd tools to create other works. But, if you take those
GPL tools and derive yet another product from them (or any portion of
them), then the license terms apply to those derived works as well.
IF YOU ONLY USE THAT DERIVED WORK INTERNALLY, then you have no practical
obligations. However, if you start selling or distributing that modified
(enhanced/derived/etc.) tool, then the license's terms apply.
>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers? Competitors??
>
> I am my employer and I don't use GPL code in my work. But that is only because
> there is very little GPL code available in the work I do. I mostly write my
> stuff from scratch so far. There are processors cores for FPGAs which I might
> consider using some day. But not so far.
If those cores are GPL'd, then you will have to conform to the GPL's terms
if you adopt one (for use in a product -- if you instead use one to create
an electronic flyswatter that you use in your office, no problems!)
>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't want to
>> *have to* share it.
>
> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors who use
> GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they won't even if I
> ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they aren't obligated to
> share with me.
Um, you might want to reread the terms of their license! And, if, indeed,
they are NOT complying with those terms, call the FSF-police and let
them badger them into compliance.
The whole point of the GPL is to *promote* sharing -- by requiring you
to propagate the licensed code (you are encouraged to also share your
improvements but can excise them from what you distribute if they are
clearly "freestanding"
2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
2c) ... These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
So, if I excise my "patches" from the "derived/modified" work, then I
can distribute *those* as "separate works" under a different license
(of my choosing).
This only makes sense when you are building a "module" or some other
object that has merit in a free-standing manner. NOT when you are
modifying something else and adding or altering its functionality in
some (small or large) way!
>> *I* may opt to share it; but, someone who embraces my codebase might
>> NOT want
>> to share it or his further improvements. E.g., a commercial entity that
>> wants
>> to exploit the work without sharing his enhancements, being called on to
>> redistribute the original sources that he received or even tipping his
>> hand as
>> to *what* codebase he based his product on! (e.g., if my license terms
>> force
>> him to include a notice that says "Portions copyright Don Y" that doesn't
>> tell anyone *what* sources he used, which version, changes, etc. And,
>> *I* am
>> under no obligation to provide those sources to those "other interested
>> parties", either! I can abandon it or take it in yet another direction,
>> entirely!)
>
> A bit long winded and confusing, but this is different. Here you are talking
> about a product that someone used GPL code in and now wants to profit by. Yes,
> here the GPL says you must share the original code as well as your modified code.
>
> Your code would be shared though him since he is obligated to share it if he
> used it in a product.
>
> If you are describing a situation where your code was written with GPL code and
> distributed that way but you also distribute it as stand alone... I find that a
> very odd scenario and one that is very unlikely. Certainly I have no horse in
> this race so I won't even try to figure it out.
The point is to let others accept your (my) code with as light a "touch" as is
legally possible. I surely don't want to place things in the public domain.
I *deserve* to hold the copyright on my works. However, telling others whom
I would like to ENCOURAGE to adopt those works that they have some "other
requirements" that they must additionally satisfy (and be prepared to defend
in a court of law) is entirely different.
I can't think of anyone who would cringe at burying a copyright notice in
some publication -- ink is practically free!
OTOH, agreeing to provide *my* sources (even WITHOUT their modifications)
to *others* -- presumably who also want to COMPETE in their market -- raises
the bar. Not only the (reasonably trivial) responsibility of putting it
on a publicly accessible server somewhere (for some amount of time) but,
also, ANNOUNCING to those competitors that you started with THIS codebase!
(I don't think many businesses are eager to share ANYTHING about their
products or processes! They fret when they have to disclose INGREDIENTS
on food labels -- and those say nothing about QUANTITIES, etc.)
>> David seems to think I *can* do this under the terms of the GPL. I believe
>> he is wrong. (read the GPL -- any version -- for yourself)
>
> I haven't seen anything by David that says this.
He has EMPHATICALLY stated that:
"I think you totally and completely misunderstand the GPL, totally and
completely misunderstand how it applies to an operating system like Linux,
and totally and completely misunderstand how open source development works,
where it is a good choice, and where it is a bad choice."
I believe I have stated what I *want* from a license. And, why the simple
"3 paragraph" example is so much more preferable (Gee, folks complain about
the lengths of my posts -- but not the length of the GPL vs. other licenses??).
Given that he is so convinced that I "misunderstand", I would like him to
clarify how the GPL lets me -- and anyone who embraces my codebase -- do
"whatever they want" with it! And still comply with the terms of the GPL!
Can YOU tell me how I can do this? How I can tell a potential commercial
entity that they can freely embrace my codebase in their products JUST by
adding those 3 paragraphs to some "user manual"? That, as long as they
have done exactly this, I will have no legal recourse to come after them
for violating the terms of the license, etc.?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-20 22:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lvlbqk$ek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18149 |
On 9/20/2014 7:09 PM, Don Y wrote: > On 9/20/2014 2:29 PM, rickman wrote: >> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote: >>>> On 9/20/2014 3:19 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>> On 9/20/2014 7:42 AM, David Brown wrote: >>>>>> This is exactly the sort of fight I wanted to avoid - I tried to give >>>>>> you a few >>>>>> /technical/ pointers to why Linux might do a better job for you, and >>>>>> in trying >>>>>> to battle ignorance and myths I have stupidly let myself get drawn >>>>>> in. And for >>>>>> every point I correct, you post another three paragraphs of new >>>>>> imagined >>>>>> issues. I simply don't have the time and energy to spend battling >>>>>> such >>>>>> determined fixed positions - this is why I and a good many others >>>>>> usually avoid >>>>>> many of your threads. >>>>> >>>>> David, you refuse to understand the basic issue that drives me (and >>>>> others) >>>>> away from Linux: we want to avoid the GPL LIKE THE PLAGUE! I have >>>>> no desire >>>>> to invest time bettering a product that I can't then use AS I >>>>> PLEASE. And, >>>>> that I can't pass on to other "licensees" in the same way! >>>> >>>> I have trimmed this insanely long post down to one simple point so I >>>> can ask a >>>> question about it and hopefully get a simple reply. >>>> >>>> How does using GPL code like Linux prevent you from using it as you >>>> please or >>>> from passing the code on to others? >>>> >>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite. You can use it any way you >>>> wish on >>>> your own. But if you share your work with others you just have to >>>> share the >>>> source code as well. I don't see any restriction on who or how you >>>> share any >>>> of this. :S >>> >>> It *requires* you to share it! >> >> No, that is factually incorrect. You are free to modify GPL code all >> day long >> and not share it with anyone at any time. GPL talks about what you >> must do >> when you *do* share it. > > "Sharing" meant to also include *sell* a product incorporating that code! > You can use GPL'd tools to create other works. But, if you take those > GPL tools and derive yet another product from them (or any portion of > them), then the license terms apply to those derived works as well. > > IF YOU ONLY USE THAT DERIVED WORK INTERNALLY, then you have no practical > obligations. However, if you start selling or distributing that modified > (enhanced/derived/etc.) tool, then the license's terms apply. BINGO. The point is you have not explained what is so onerous about the GPL. You seem to have a problem with the fact that others will be subject to the same conditions if they use your work which is GPL'd. So? So far you have not explained why *any* of your work would be covered by GPL. >>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers? >>> Competitors?? >> >> I am my employer and I don't use GPL code in my work. But that is >> only because >> there is very little GPL code available in the work I do. I mostly >> write my >> stuff from scratch so far. There are processors cores for FPGAs which >> I might >> consider using some day. But not so far. > > If those cores are GPL'd, then you will have to conform to the GPL's terms > if you adopt one (for use in a product -- if you instead use one to create > an electronic flyswatter that you use in your office, no problems!) Yes and that only makes sense to me. >>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>> want to >>> *have to* share it. >> >> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >> who use >> GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they won't >> even if I >> ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they aren't >> obligated to >> share with me. > > Um, you might want to reread the terms of their license! And, if, indeed, > they are NOT complying with those terms, call the FSF-police and let > them badger them into compliance. No, they have no obligation to distribute source to anyone they didn't sell or give the binary code to. > The whole point of the GPL is to *promote* sharing -- by requiring you > to propagate the licensed code (you are encouraged to also share your > improvements but can excise them from what you distribute if they are > clearly "freestanding" > > 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License. > > 2c) ... These requirements apply to the modified work as a > whole. If > identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, > and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in > themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those > sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you > > So, if I excise my "patches" from the "derived/modified" work, then I > can distribute *those* as "separate works" under a different license > (of my choosing). > > This only makes sense when you are building a "module" or some other > object that has merit in a free-standing manner. NOT when you are > modifying something else and adding or altering its functionality in > some (small or large) way! You get so hung up on the details you can't see the issues. >>> *I* may opt to share it; but, someone who embraces my codebase might >>> NOT want >>> to share it or his further improvements. E.g., a commercial entity that >>> wants >>> to exploit the work without sharing his enhancements, being called on to >>> redistribute the original sources that he received or even tipping his >>> hand as >>> to *what* codebase he based his product on! (e.g., if my license terms >>> force >>> him to include a notice that says "Portions copyright Don Y" that >>> doesn't >>> tell anyone *what* sources he used, which version, changes, etc. And, >>> *I* am >>> under no obligation to provide those sources to those "other interested >>> parties", either! I can abandon it or take it in yet another direction, >>> entirely!) >> >> A bit long winded and confusing, but this is different. Here you are >> talking >> about a product that someone used GPL code in and now wants to profit >> by. Yes, >> here the GPL says you must share the original code as well as your >> modified code. >> >> Your code would be shared though him since he is obligated to share it >> if he >> used it in a product. >> >> If you are describing a situation where your code was written with GPL >> code and >> distributed that way but you also distribute it as stand alone... I >> find that a >> very odd scenario and one that is very unlikely. Certainly I have no >> horse in >> this race so I won't even try to figure it out. > > The point is to let others accept your (my) code with as light a "touch" > as is > legally possible. I surely don't want to place things in the public > domain. > I *deserve* to hold the copyright on my works. However, telling others > whom > I would like to ENCOURAGE to adopt those works that they have some "other > requirements" that they must additionally satisfy (and be prepared to > defend > in a court of law) is entirely different. None of this makes sense to me. You say the GPL is too restrictive on those you share your work with but you want to retain your copyright... GPL doesn't take your copyright. It requires you to *share*. > I can't think of anyone who would cringe at burying a copyright notice in > some publication -- ink is practically free! > > OTOH, agreeing to provide *my* sources (even WITHOUT their modifications) > to *others* -- presumably who also want to COMPETE in their market -- > raises > the bar. Not only the (reasonably trivial) responsibility of putting it > on a publicly accessible server somewhere (for some amount of time) but, > also, ANNOUNCING to those competitors that you started with THIS codebase! > (I don't think many businesses are eager to share ANYTHING about their > products or processes! They fret when they have to disclose INGREDIENTS > on food labels -- and those say nothing about QUANTITIES, etc.) Yeah, some people don't like that, but many *do*. >>> David seems to think I *can* do this under the terms of the GPL. I >>> believe >>> he is wrong. (read the GPL -- any version -- for yourself) >> >> I haven't seen anything by David that says this. > > He has EMPHATICALLY stated that: > > "I think you totally and completely misunderstand the GPL, totally and > completely misunderstand how it applies to an operating system like > Linux, > and totally and completely misunderstand how open source development > works, > where it is a good choice, and where it is a bad choice." > > I believe I have stated what I *want* from a license. And, why the simple > "3 paragraph" example is so much more preferable (Gee, folks complain about > the lengths of my posts -- but not the length of the GPL vs. other > licenses??). > > Given that he is so convinced that I "misunderstand", I would like him to > clarify how the GPL lets me -- and anyone who embraces my codebase -- do > "whatever they want" with it! And still comply with the terms of the GPL! There is no license that lets others do "whatever they want" with your code other than just placing it in the public domain with no copyright and no restrictions. Is that what you want? > Can YOU tell me how I can do this? How I can tell a potential commercial > entity that they can freely embrace my codebase in their products JUST by > adding those 3 paragraphs to some "user manual"? That, as long as they > have done exactly this, I will have no legal recourse to come after them > for violating the terms of the license, etc.? But you started out talking about why you didn't *use* Linux. How is that related to giving away your code? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-20 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lvlr5r$l0i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18154 |
On 9/20/2014 7:05 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> It *requires* you to share it!
>>>
>>> No, that is factually incorrect. You are free to modify GPL code all
>>> day long
>>> and not share it with anyone at any time. GPL talks about what you
>>> must do
>>> when you *do* share it.
>>
>> "Sharing" meant to also include *sell* a product incorporating that code!
>> You can use GPL'd tools to create other works. But, if you take those
>> GPL tools and derive yet another product from them (or any portion of
>> them), then the license terms apply to those derived works as well.
>>
>> IF YOU ONLY USE THAT DERIVED WORK INTERNALLY, then you have no practical
>> obligations. However, if you start selling or distributing that modified
>> (enhanced/derived/etc.) tool, then the license's terms apply.
>
> BINGO. The point is you have not explained what is so onerous about the GPL.
Anything that would discourage others from embracing a codebase! Given that
there are many commercial concerns who avoid GPL'd code, this seems to be
a reasonable concern (ask THEM for their reasons why -- perhaps they dislike
the letter 'G'? -- it doesn't really matter to me what their reasons are. As
I said before, I am not interested in educating people as to why or how they
can embrace GPL.)
> You seem to have a problem with the fact that others will be subject to the
> same conditions if they use your work which is GPL'd. So? So far you have not
> explained why *any* of your work would be covered by GPL.
My work would be tainted by the GPL if it was derived from any GPL'd "product".
E.g., if I snip the network stack from the Linux (GPL'd!) kernel and use that
as the basis for my MODIFIED network stack, then I am subjected to the terms
of the GPL.
If I snip the network stack from the NetBSD (or FreeBSD) kernel (nonGPL'd) then
the issue goes away. This should be a no-brainer decision!
>>>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers?
>>>> Competitors??
>>>
>>> I am my employer and I don't use GPL code in my work. But that is
>>> only because
>>> there is very little GPL code available in the work I do. I mostly
>>> write my
>>> stuff from scratch so far. There are processors cores for FPGAs which
>>> I might
>>> consider using some day. But not so far.
>>
>> If those cores are GPL'd, then you will have to conform to the GPL's terms
>> if you adopt one (for use in a product -- if you instead use one to create
>> an electronic flyswatter that you use in your office, no problems!)
>
> Yes and that only makes sense to me.
As does the same for a piece of GPL'd software!
Now, REAL hypothetical for you: you have two essentially equivalent cores
that you can embrace. One license says: "Put a copyright notice in your
manual that acknowledges that a portion of YOUR PRODUCT was derived from
code that was originally copyrighted by ABC". The other license says
this PLUS: "Make available the sources for the core that you got from us
to all of your users/customers. If your modifications can not easily be
separated from that, then publish your modifications as well. And,
ensure that anyone to whom you sell or license your product/FPGA design
ALSO follows these rules"
Which core are you going to use, all else being equal?
At the very *simplest* level, the former license is far easier to
OBVIOUSLY comply with: "Here is the copyright notice that you required
printed clearly on page 12 of my manual." No wiggling around with
lawyers (potentially) arguing about whether your code fragment:
if (FatherName == "Bob") then...
is effectively the same as:
if (NameFather == bob) then...
etc.
(e.g., imagine specifying a logic term as a sum of products vs. an
equivalent product of sums -- and arguing about whether they are
just thinly veiled attempts to sidestep licensing requirements:
"No, this isn't 'Windows'; it's 'Doorways'!"
:-/
>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors
>>> who use
>>> GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they won't
>>> even if I
>>> ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they aren't
>>> obligated to
>>> share with me.
>>
>> Um, you might want to reread the terms of their license! And, if, indeed,
>> they are NOT complying with those terms, call the FSF-police and let
>> them badger them into compliance.
>
> No, they have no obligation to distribute source to anyone they didn't sell or
> give the binary code to.
Actually, 3b suggests otherwise:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
-----------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
The point is to get you involved in redistributing the GPL'd code.
>> The whole point of the GPL is to *promote* sharing -- by requiring you
>> to propagate the licensed code (you are encouraged to also share your
>> improvements but can excise them from what you distribute if they are
>> clearly "freestanding"
>>
>> 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>> parties under the terms of this License.
>>
>> 2c) ... These requirements apply to the modified work as a
>> whole. If
>> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>> sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
>>
>> So, if I excise my "patches" from the "derived/modified" work, then I
>> can distribute *those* as "separate works" under a different license
>> (of my choosing).
>>
>> This only makes sense when you are building a "module" or some other
>> object that has merit in a free-standing manner. NOT when you are
>> modifying something else and adding or altering its functionality in
>> some (small or large) way!
>
> You get so hung up on the details you can't see the issues.
The issue is when and how the GPL "attaches" to a work. I.e., if I can
make something that has inherent freestanding value (no GPL'd code
included), then it is free of the GPL's taint. (as it SHOULD BE!)
So, unless your work is free-standing in the absence of GPL'd code,
you're work is probably affected!
>>>> *I* may opt to share it; but, someone who embraces my codebase might
>>>> NOT want
>>>> to share it or his further improvements. E.g., a commercial entity that
>>>> wants
>>>> to exploit the work without sharing his enhancements, being called on to
>>>> redistribute the original sources that he received or even tipping his
>>>> hand as
>>>> to *what* codebase he based his product on! (e.g., if my license terms
>>>> force
>>>> him to include a notice that says "Portions copyright Don Y" that
>>>> doesn't
>>>> tell anyone *what* sources he used, which version, changes, etc. And,
>>>> *I* am
>>>> under no obligation to provide those sources to those "other interested
>>>> parties", either! I can abandon it or take it in yet another direction,
>>>> entirely!)
>>>
>>> A bit long winded and confusing, but this is different. Here you are
>>> talking
>>> about a product that someone used GPL code in and now wants to profit
>>> by. Yes,
>>> here the GPL says you must share the original code as well as your
>>> modified code.
>>>
>>> Your code would be shared though him since he is obligated to share it
>>> if he
>>> used it in a product.
>>>
>>> If you are describing a situation where your code was written with GPL
>>> code and
>>> distributed that way but you also distribute it as stand alone... I
>>> find that a
>>> very odd scenario and one that is very unlikely. Certainly I have no
>>> horse in
>>> this race so I won't even try to figure it out.
>>
>> The point is to let others accept your (my) code with as light a "touch"
>> as is legally possible. I surely don't want to place things in the public
>> domain. I *deserve* to hold the copyright on my works. However, telling
>> others whom I would like to ENCOURAGE to adopt those works that they have
>> some "other requirements" that they must additionally satisfy (and be prepared
>> to defend in a court of law) is entirely different.
>
> None of this makes sense to me. You say the GPL is too restrictive on those
> you share your work with but you want to retain your copyright... GPL doesn't
> take your copyright. It requires you to *share*.
GPL doesn't take away anyone's copyright. They still are the legal
copyright holder. However, the GPL requires you to freely *share*
that which is covered by the GPL!
As copyright holder to a nonGPL'd work, I don't have to share with
*anyone* that I choose not to share with! Or, I can change my mind
later. Or, put different terms on each licensee. My choice, entirely.
"Microsoft Windows, Copyright XXXX Microsoft Corporation"
They don't have to make sources available. They don't have to agree to sell
you a BINARY license to their product! They can change their mind next week.
They can offer a license that is good for 30 days. Or, "one boot" (like the
99c per play iTunes example I mentioned).
However, if MS did something that caused their codebase to become tainted with
GPL'd code, then the rules are different! By embracing the GPL'd code, they
would have subjected themselves to its terms!
>> I can't think of anyone who would cringe at burying a copyright notice in
>> some publication -- ink is practically free!
>>
>> OTOH, agreeing to provide *my* sources (even WITHOUT their modifications)
>> to *others* -- presumably who also want to COMPETE in their market --
>> raises
>> the bar. Not only the (reasonably trivial) responsibility of putting it
>> on a publicly accessible server somewhere (for some amount of time) but,
>> also, ANNOUNCING to those competitors that you started with THIS codebase!
>> (I don't think many businesses are eager to share ANYTHING about their
>> products or processes! They fret when they have to disclose INGREDIENTS
>> on food labels -- and those say nothing about QUANTITIES, etc.)
>
> Yeah, some people don't like that, but many *do*.
And THE MARKET decides who to reward/punish! If consumers were concerned
about no ingredient labels on products (assuming this was legal) and
avoided those products, then the folks who didn't provide ingredient
lists would either have to change their policy or live with reduced
sales.
Obviously, the free software "market" has decided that the GPL isn't the
solution! If people disliked the fact that PostgreSQL isn't under the
GPL and *avoided* it -- in favor of MySQL (which is GPL'd, IIRC), then
the PostgreSQL folks would either decide to embrace the GPL *or* live
with the market that NOT embracing it leaves them!
>>>> David seems to think I *can* do this under the terms of the GPL. I
>>>> believe
>>>> he is wrong. (read the GPL -- any version -- for yourself)
>>>
>>> I haven't seen anything by David that says this.
>>
>> He has EMPHATICALLY stated that:
>>
>> "I think you totally and completely misunderstand the GPL, totally and
>> completely misunderstand how it applies to an operating system like
>> Linux,
>> and totally and completely misunderstand how open source development
>> works,
>> where it is a good choice, and where it is a bad choice."
>>
>> I believe I have stated what I *want* from a license. And, why the simple
>> "3 paragraph" example is so much more preferable (Gee, folks complain about
>> the lengths of my posts -- but not the length of the GPL vs. other
>> licenses??).
>>
>> Given that he is so convinced that I "misunderstand", I would like him to
>> clarify how the GPL lets me -- and anyone who embraces my codebase -- do
>> "whatever they want" with it! And still comply with the terms of the GPL!
>
> There is no license that lets others do "whatever they want" with your code
> other than just placing it in the public domain with no copyright and no
> restrictions. Is that what you want?
"Put a copyright acknowledgement in your printed documentation" is pretty damn
close to "do whatever you want"! I'm reasonably sure anyone using a GPL'd
product would be willing to "accept" those terms as well!
>> Can YOU tell me how I can do this? How I can tell a potential commercial
>> entity that they can freely embrace my codebase in their products JUST by
>> adding those 3 paragraphs to some "user manual"? That, as long as they
>> have done exactly this, I will have no legal recourse to come after them
>> for violating the terms of the license, etc.?
>
> But you started out talking about why you didn't *use* Linux. How is that
> related to giving away your code?
I've covered this in another post. Briefly, because I will consult the
sources for any OS that I am USING, here, in the natural course of maintaining
that software and LEARNING FROM THE WORKING IMPLEMENTATION THAT IT REPRESENTS.
Why learn about some code that I can't/am-not-willing to incorporate into
my own codebase? Why "infect" my codebase with a license from an encumbered
piece of software when I can, instead, USE (day to day) unencumbered software
and learn from *that*?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 03:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lvlune$s9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18166 |
On 9/21/2014 2:25 AM, Don Y wrote: > On 9/20/2014 7:05 PM, rickman wrote: >>>>> It *requires* you to share it! >>>> >>>> No, that is factually incorrect. You are free to modify GPL code all >>>> day long >>>> and not share it with anyone at any time. GPL talks about what you >>>> must do >>>> when you *do* share it. >>> >>> "Sharing" meant to also include *sell* a product incorporating that >>> code! >>> You can use GPL'd tools to create other works. But, if you take those >>> GPL tools and derive yet another product from them (or any portion of >>> them), then the license terms apply to those derived works as well. >>> >>> IF YOU ONLY USE THAT DERIVED WORK INTERNALLY, then you have no practical >>> obligations. However, if you start selling or distributing that >>> modified >>> (enhanced/derived/etc.) tool, then the license's terms apply. >> >> BINGO. The point is you have not explained what is so onerous about >> the GPL. > > Anything that would discourage others from embracing a codebase! Given > that > there are many commercial concerns who avoid GPL'd code, this seems to be > a reasonable concern (ask THEM for their reasons why -- perhaps they > dislike > the letter 'G'? -- it doesn't really matter to me what their reasons > are. As > I said before, I am not interested in educating people as to why or how > they > can embrace GPL.) > >> You seem to have a problem with the fact that others will be subject >> to the >> same conditions if they use your work which is GPL'd. So? So far you >> have not >> explained why *any* of your work would be covered by GPL. > > My work would be tainted by the GPL if it was derived from any GPL'd > "product". > E.g., if I snip the network stack from the Linux (GPL'd!) kernel and use > that > as the basis for my MODIFIED network stack, then I am subjected to the > terms > of the GPL. Isn't that easy enough *not* to do? We started out talking about *using* Linux. Everyone knows that if you modify Linux and then ship it you have to make your mods available. No one disputes that. > If I snip the network stack from the NetBSD (or FreeBSD) kernel > (nonGPL'd) then > the issue goes away. This should be a no-brainer decision! > >>>>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers? >>>>> Competitors?? >>>> >>>> I am my employer and I don't use GPL code in my work. But that is >>>> only because >>>> there is very little GPL code available in the work I do. I mostly >>>> write my >>>> stuff from scratch so far. There are processors cores for FPGAs which >>>> I might >>>> consider using some day. But not so far. >>> >>> If those cores are GPL'd, then you will have to conform to the GPL's >>> terms >>> if you adopt one (for use in a product -- if you instead use one to >>> create >>> an electronic flyswatter that you use in your office, no problems!) >> >> Yes and that only makes sense to me. > > As does the same for a piece of GPL'd software! > > Now, REAL hypothetical for you: you have two essentially equivalent cores > that you can embrace. One license says: "Put a copyright notice in your > manual that acknowledges that a portion of YOUR PRODUCT was derived from > code that was originally copyrighted by ABC". The other license says > this PLUS: "Make available the sources for the core that you got from us > to all of your users/customers. If your modifications can not easily be > separated from that, then publish your modifications as well. And, > ensure that anyone to whom you sell or license your product/FPGA design > ALSO follows these rules" > > Which core are you going to use, all else being equal? Since when is all else equal? > At the very *simplest* level, the former license is far easier to > OBVIOUSLY comply with: "Here is the copyright notice that you required > printed clearly on page 12 of my manual." No wiggling around with > lawyers (potentially) arguing about whether your code fragment: > if (FatherName == "Bob") then... > is effectively the same as: > if (NameFather == bob) then... > etc. > > (e.g., imagine specifying a logic term as a sum of products vs. an > equivalent product of sums -- and arguing about whether they are > just thinly veiled attempts to sidestep licensing requirements: > "No, this isn't 'Windows'; it's 'Doorways'!" > :-/ > >>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>> who use >>>> GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they won't >>>> even if I >>>> ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they aren't >>>> obligated to >>>> share with me. >>> >>> Um, you might want to reread the terms of their license! And, if, >>> indeed, >>> they are NOT complying with those terms, call the FSF-police and let >>> them badger them into compliance. >> >> No, they have no obligation to distribute source to anyone they didn't >> sell or >> give the binary code to. > > Actually, 3b suggests otherwise: > > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three > years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your > -----------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be > distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium > customarily used for software interchange; or, > > The point is to get you involved in redistributing the GPL'd code. Only if you ship the code. >>> The whole point of the GPL is to *promote* sharing -- by requiring you >>> to propagate the licensed code (you are encouraged to also share your >>> improvements but can excise them from what you distribute if they are >>> clearly "freestanding" >>> >>> 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in >>> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any >>> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third >>> parties under the terms of this License. >>> >>> 2c) ... These requirements apply to the modified work as a >>> whole. If >>> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the >>> Program, >>> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in >>> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those >>> sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you >>> >>> So, if I excise my "patches" from the "derived/modified" work, then I >>> can distribute *those* as "separate works" under a different license >>> (of my choosing). >>> >>> This only makes sense when you are building a "module" or some other >>> object that has merit in a free-standing manner. NOT when you are >>> modifying something else and adding or altering its functionality in >>> some (small or large) way! >> >> You get so hung up on the details you can't see the issues. > > The issue is when and how the GPL "attaches" to a work. I.e., if I can > make something that has inherent freestanding value (no GPL'd code > included), then it is free of the GPL's taint. (as it SHOULD BE!) > > So, unless your work is free-standing in the absence of GPL'd code, > you're work is probably affected! Bingo! >>>>> *I* may opt to share it; but, someone who embraces my codebase might >>>>> NOT want >>>>> to share it or his further improvements. E.g., a commercial entity >>>>> that >>>>> wants >>>>> to exploit the work without sharing his enhancements, being called >>>>> on to >>>>> redistribute the original sources that he received or even tipping his >>>>> hand as >>>>> to *what* codebase he based his product on! (e.g., if my license >>>>> terms >>>>> force >>>>> him to include a notice that says "Portions copyright Don Y" that >>>>> doesn't >>>>> tell anyone *what* sources he used, which version, changes, etc. And, >>>>> *I* am >>>>> under no obligation to provide those sources to those "other >>>>> interested >>>>> parties", either! I can abandon it or take it in yet another >>>>> direction, >>>>> entirely!) >>>> >>>> A bit long winded and confusing, but this is different. Here you are >>>> talking >>>> about a product that someone used GPL code in and now wants to profit >>>> by. Yes, >>>> here the GPL says you must share the original code as well as your >>>> modified code. >>>> >>>> Your code would be shared though him since he is obligated to share it >>>> if he >>>> used it in a product. >>>> >>>> If you are describing a situation where your code was written with GPL >>>> code and >>>> distributed that way but you also distribute it as stand alone... I >>>> find that a >>>> very odd scenario and one that is very unlikely. Certainly I have no >>>> horse in >>>> this race so I won't even try to figure it out. >>> >>> The point is to let others accept your (my) code with as light a "touch" >>> as is legally possible. I surely don't want to place things in the >>> public >>> domain. I *deserve* to hold the copyright on my works. However, >>> telling >>> others whom I would like to ENCOURAGE to adopt those works that they >>> have >>> some "other requirements" that they must additionally satisfy (and be >>> prepared >>> to defend in a court of law) is entirely different. >> >> None of this makes sense to me. You say the GPL is too restrictive on >> those >> you share your work with but you want to retain your copyright... GPL >> doesn't >> take your copyright. It requires you to *share*. > > GPL doesn't take away anyone's copyright. They still are the legal > copyright holder. However, the GPL requires you to freely *share* > that which is covered by the GPL! Which is exactly what you said you wanted to do, share your work. > As copyright holder to a nonGPL'd work, I don't have to share with > *anyone* that I choose not to share with! Or, I can change my mind > later. Or, put different terms on each licensee. My choice, entirely. No, you can't share your code and then later decide not to... unless you forbid those you share it with to share it again. Is that your intent. > "Microsoft Windows, Copyright XXXX Microsoft Corporation" > > They don't have to make sources available. They don't have to agree to > sell > you a BINARY license to their product! They can change their mind next > week. > They can offer a license that is good for 30 days. Or, "one boot" (like > the > 99c per play iTunes example I mentioned). > > However, if MS did something that caused their codebase to become > tainted with > GPL'd code, then the rules are different! By embracing the GPL'd code, > they > would have subjected themselves to its terms! > >>> I can't think of anyone who would cringe at burying a copyright >>> notice in >>> some publication -- ink is practically free! >>> >>> OTOH, agreeing to provide *my* sources (even WITHOUT their >>> modifications) >>> to *others* -- presumably who also want to COMPETE in their market -- >>> raises >>> the bar. Not only the (reasonably trivial) responsibility of putting it >>> on a publicly accessible server somewhere (for some amount of time) but, >>> also, ANNOUNCING to those competitors that you started with THIS >>> codebase! >>> (I don't think many businesses are eager to share ANYTHING about their >>> products or processes! They fret when they have to disclose INGREDIENTS >>> on food labels -- and those say nothing about QUANTITIES, etc.) >> >> Yeah, some people don't like that, but many *do*. > > And THE MARKET decides who to reward/punish! If consumers were concerned > about no ingredient labels on products (assuming this was legal) and > avoided those products, then the folks who didn't provide ingredient > lists would either have to change their policy or live with reduced > sales. > > Obviously, the free software "market" has decided that the GPL isn't the > solution! If people disliked the fact that PostgreSQL isn't under the > GPL and *avoided* it -- in favor of MySQL (which is GPL'd, IIRC), then > the PostgreSQL folks would either decide to embrace the GPL *or* live > with the market that NOT embracing it leaves them! Really? The market has decide? Seems to me like there is tons of the GPL stuff all over the place. >>>>> David seems to think I *can* do this under the terms of the GPL. I >>>>> believe >>>>> he is wrong. (read the GPL -- any version -- for yourself) >>>> >>>> I haven't seen anything by David that says this. >>> >>> He has EMPHATICALLY stated that: >>> >>> "I think you totally and completely misunderstand the GPL, >>> totally and >>> completely misunderstand how it applies to an operating system like >>> Linux, >>> and totally and completely misunderstand how open source development >>> works, >>> where it is a good choice, and where it is a bad choice." >>> >>> I believe I have stated what I *want* from a license. And, why the >>> simple >>> "3 paragraph" example is so much more preferable (Gee, folks complain >>> about >>> the lengths of my posts -- but not the length of the GPL vs. other >>> licenses??). >>> >>> Given that he is so convinced that I "misunderstand", I would like >>> him to >>> clarify how the GPL lets me -- and anyone who embraces my codebase -- do >>> "whatever they want" with it! And still comply with the terms of the >>> GPL! >> >> There is no license that lets others do "whatever they want" with your >> code >> other than just placing it in the public domain with no copyright and no >> restrictions. Is that what you want? > > "Put a copyright acknowledgement in your printed documentation" is > pretty damn > close to "do whatever you want"! I'm reasonably sure anyone using a GPL'd > product would be willing to "accept" those terms as well! No, that is not the same. If you don't retain copyright someone else is free to copyright it and prevent *you* from sharing it. That is total freedom to do with it as they please. >>> Can YOU tell me how I can do this? How I can tell a potential >>> commercial >>> entity that they can freely embrace my codebase in their products >>> JUST by >>> adding those 3 paragraphs to some "user manual"? That, as long as they >>> have done exactly this, I will have no legal recourse to come after them >>> for violating the terms of the license, etc.? >> >> But you started out talking about why you didn't *use* Linux. How is >> that >> related to giving away your code? > > I've covered this in another post. Briefly, because I will consult the > sources for any OS that I am USING, here, in the natural course of > maintaining > that software and LEARNING FROM THE WORKING IMPLEMENTATION THAT IT > REPRESENTS. > Why learn about some code that I can't/am-not-willing to incorporate into > my own codebase? Why "infect" my codebase with a license from an > encumbered > piece of software when I can, instead, USE (day to day) unencumbered > software > and learn from *that*? Why indeed. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 01:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lvm2b1$4dk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18169 |
On 9/21/2014 12:28 AM, rickman wrote: > On 9/21/2014 2:25 AM, Don Y wrote: >>>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>>> who use >>>>> GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they won't >>>>> even if I >>>>> ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they aren't >>>>> obligated to >>>>> share with me. >>>> >>>> Um, you might want to reread the terms of their license! And, if, >>>> indeed, >>>> they are NOT complying with those terms, call the FSF-police and let >>>> them badger them into compliance. >>> >>> No, they have no obligation to distribute source to anyone they didn't >>> sell or give the binary code to. >> >> Actually, 3b suggests otherwise: >> >> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three >> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your >> -----------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete >> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be >> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium >> customarily used for software interchange; or, >> >> The point is to get you involved in redistributing the GPL'd code. > > Only if you ship the code. The question is: if I make the sources available to "customer A" under terms of the license, am I similarly required to make it available to NONcustomer B? "ANY third party"?? I.e., if I *sit* on the sources and only use them "internally", I don't have to give anyone anything! But, once I've opted to publish or produce something (distribute it), am I obligated to provide the GPOL'd sources to "anyone who asks"? As long as they are willing to pay a "duplication fee"? >> The issue is when and how the GPL "attaches" to a work. I.e., if I can >> make something that has inherent freestanding value (no GPL'd code >> included), then it is free of the GPL's taint. (as it SHOULD BE!) >> >> So, unless your work is free-standing in the absence of GPL'd code, >> you're work is probably affected! > > Bingo! In practice, it's pretty hard to "modify something" and still end up with your changes being something that is "free standing". >> As copyright holder to a nonGPL'd work, I don't have to share with >> *anyone* that I choose not to share with! Or, I can change my mind >> later. Or, put different terms on each licensee. My choice, entirely. > > No, you can't share your code and then later decide not to... unless you forbid > those you share it with to share it again. Is that your intent. If I own the copyright outright -- without the terms of GPL applying -- I can elect to sell licenses, today -- subject to the licensing restriction that prohibits the licensee from disclosing or otherwise making known the contents of that licensed software. Next week, I can decide not to sell any more licenses! A week later, I can elect to change the license terms to allow licensees to "do with it as you wish". Because there are no OTHER encumberances on MY code. >> And THE MARKET decides who to reward/punish! If consumers were concerned >> about no ingredient labels on products (assuming this was legal) and >> avoided those products, then the folks who didn't provide ingredient >> lists would either have to change their policy or live with reduced >> sales. >> >> Obviously, the free software "market" has decided that the GPL isn't the >> solution! If people disliked the fact that PostgreSQL isn't under the >> GPL and *avoided* it -- in favor of MySQL (which is GPL'd, IIRC), then >> the PostgreSQL folks would either decide to embrace the GPL *or* live >> with the market that NOT embracing it leaves them! > > Really? The market has decide? Seems to me like there is tons of the GPL > stuff all over the place. The market DECIDES, not "has decided". There is a lot of FOSS software that is NOT GPL'd! I.e., the "market" hasn't made a clear cut "decision".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lvmfmt$1j6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18172 |
Op 21-Sep-14 10:27, Don Y schreef: > The question is: if I make the sources available to "customer A" > under terms of the license, am I similarly required to make it available > to NONcustomer B? "ANY third party"?? My understanding of GPL is that you only required to make the source code available to "Customer A". However if "Customer A" decides to share the code with "NONcustomer B" or "ANY third party" it is allowed to do that. I.e. GPL gives your customer the same rights to the code as you and doesn't allow those rights to be restricted or taken away in a derivative product.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-21 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lvmbkf$88s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18166 |
On 21/09/14 08:25, Don Y wrote: > Obviously, the free software "market" has decided that the GPL isn't the > solution! If people disliked the fact that PostgreSQL isn't under the > GPL and *avoided* it -- in favor of MySQL (which is GPL'd, IIRC), then > the PostgreSQL folks would either decide to embrace the GPL *or* live > with the market that NOT embracing it leaves them! > Don, your arguments are all over the place, and you are mixing in all sorts of issues from different places. It is extremely difficult to discuss things with you when you are incapable of sticking to the point. The discussion was about the /Linux kernel/, and whether the fact that it is under the GPL makes it somehow "evil" and restrictive, and that no sane developer would use it because of the GPL. A database server like PostgreSQL and MySQL is completely different. Most people don't modify or adapt them - they use them as-is, and almost nobody cares about the licenses other than that they are free to use. MySQL is many times more popular than PostgreSQL because it has a reputation for being faster and easier to use than PostgreSQL (which is seen as more advanced but more complex), and has become more well-known. It's a difference in technical features and market familiarity - the license doesn't come into it. (Please don't digress into how PostgreSQL is actually faster or easier than MySQL - I already know, and it is irrelevant here.) The only people who really care if these are under the BSD or the GPL are EnterpriseDB and Oracle, and they both do perfectly well with the licenses they use and commercial and open source models they use. There is plenty of place in the world for the BSD and the GPL licenses, as well as many others. You can see this from the vast amount of software available under both these licenses - the "market" has decided that the choice of license depends on the type of software and the preferences of the author.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web