If I buy a book, I can resell it. If I buy a CD I can resell it. If I buy a copy of OSX, I can't resell it. Surely you can see the flaw. If someone ignores the GPL and distributes they're guilty of copyright infringement, without using legal gymnastics to claim that loading a legally purchased copy of OSX into RAM without Apple's consent infringes copyright.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The GPL and Apple's license are quite different. The GPL grants you freedoms that you did not legally have. Apple's license tries to restrict your legal freedoms.
They should send it back then. Powerstrokes are terrible compared to Cummings or Duramax.
1.1? Get off my lawn.
They will accept help, but they're not willing to spend time bringing new people up to speed when they're already behind schedule.
WTF. They are making 'open' software to support sharing between systems, so they want to restrict the use of the software! They should be removing restrictions, not adding them.
They are making 'free' software and want to ensure that everyone that uses their software has the 4 freedoms. It sucks if you're a middle-man trying to deprive your customers of their freedom, but it's great if you're an end user.
I would agree that this aspect of GPLv3 might be contrary to US Copyright Law in the same way that 99% of EULAs are contrary to the law.
There is a huge difference. The GPLv3 grants the user more rights than they would ordinarily have under copyright law if they abide by the terms. 99% of EULAs attempt to further restrict the users rights.
If you're "companies that want the ability to fix problems themselves", then why are you using RHEL to begin with? Certification and support only apply to binaries provided by Redhat.
What does DRM and keys have to do with the source code?
What good is source code if you can not run binaries created from that source code?
I should be free to take GPL'ed code, compile it into a binary, burn it onto a CD, defecate on that CD and then run over it with a truck if I want to.
You're free to defecate on as many CDs as you like as long as you don't try to pass them off to others without following the terms of the license.
I would argue that how the binary is packaged is of no business to the original copyright lowers and it is an overreach of their rights under copyright law. I should be allowed to package it how I see fit as long as I contribute any source code changes needed to compile the same binary.
You are completely bound by the wishes of the author if you want them to give you the right to distribute their works. Remember you have no innate right to distribute someone else's copyrighted works no matter how much you stomp your feet about it.
The GPL is designed to protect the freedoms of end users, not that of multinational corporations that want to make a buck off someone else's work without reciprocating.
Mint's version of Debian is coming along quite nicely actually. They'll be just fine if Ubuntu disappears.
I believe the Banshee developers are already on Novell's payroll. I think that's what pisses me off most. Novell would have been well within their rights to do what Canonical is trying to, but instead decided to let the Gnome project have any referrer money. Not only does Canonical give almost nothing back to the community, they actually go out of their way to bite the hand that feeds them.
It was maintained by a company that nobody had heard of for longer than it was by Novell. Somehow I'm sure they'll get by.
All of your local gas stations get their gas from the same place. It doesn't matter what brand the label on the pump says.