Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 1) 304

"I've had a theory for some time that a lot of people lack genuine intelligence, but instead simply fake intelligence much like those automatic content generators for link farms generate informative text -- they just randomly piece together related information and, if the information is stitched together well enough, you can end up reading a paragraph before realizing that what you're reading, while it has a lot of words, isn't actually saying anything. Obviously to avoid detection, these philosophical zombies would have to employ a rather effective algorithm for faking intelligence, so exactly how to recognize them has been something I've been trying to figure out for a long time."

You certainly seem to do a good of mimicking what you describe. This paragraph while describing a "philosophical zombie" fails to make any point whatsoever and has no relevance to our discussion. Your previous post lead with a back-handed insult as well. Are all your arguments so poor that you feel the need to lead with baseless slander?

My argument on the other hand is clearly stated in the first line of the original post you responded to:

"Even then it's [gpl'd code + getting paid] only a problem coupled with a great deal of paranoia and misinformation about the "viral" nature of the GPL."

"So people aren't being sued over the use of GPL code? I'll give you that."

Failing to utilize billions of dollars worth of GPL'd code in a legitimate and compliant way when "you are correct in that merely using a library doesn't make a project a derivative work of the library" because of fear of lawsuits that never happen certainly sounds paranoid to me.

"the lack of lawsuits definitely doesn't imply that it is acceptable to violate the terms of the GPL"

Nobody is talking about violating the GPL. You yourself, as I just quoted, admit the usage scenarios I've described are not GPL violations.

""Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use the code." I'll give you that one too. Indeed, it's kind of central to my argument that no one is going to use this image library."

Interesting since this is the first mention of this particular image library you've made. My argument is that almost all uses of an image library such as this are not derivatives, do not violate the GPL, and that nobody feels they do strongly enough to bring lawsuits. Therefore failing to use it for fear of the viral nature of the GPL is baseless paranoia not sound legal advice. You have ceded every point required to support my argument.

My argument doesn't depend on people actually using the library rather than being paranoid. The library is a non-optimized reference implementation of a format the authors developed. Those who are not paranoid can optimize and share this non-production code (GPL'd result) then use it to add support in their browser, graphics editor, camera, etc (no GPL required). Those who are not paranoid can implement the format on the own and suffer a competitive disadvantage. If a closed source shop developed it you'd just get no free reference implementation at all.

It makes no difference to me.

Comment Re: GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 1) 304

"So while it may be OK legally to use that library in closed-source software, no one is going to do so as they don't want to be sued by authors who think otherwise, and especially if the FSF were to become involved, that lawsuit could prove to be quite costly."

As of yet these expensive lawsuits don't exist. Courts and not GPL authors decide what is a derivative work as that is a term from copyright and case law.

"admitting to that would defeat the entire purpose of the GPL, as its purpose is to leverage existing open-source code to force other developers to release open-source code."

Its purpose is to allow developers who believe in an open software ecosystem to provide source code to others who believe in the same. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use the code. How can you believe in the far more controlling and forceful terms of closed source models that even include EULAs to try to extend controls to usage which isn't even part of the rights granted by copyright and not support the simple "pass it n in the spirit it was given" philosophy of the GPL?

The LGPL was even created to allow making a clearer delineation so people who aren't like-minded can enjoy benefits at the risk of them exploiting the technicality to close things that really are just derivatives.

Comment Re: GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 1) 304

"If you link to GPL code, then your code must as well be GPL."

That actually depends on a lot of things. This is only actually true if your work is a derivative work and linking a library does not automatically make this true 100% of the time or even 20% of the time. Ultimately a court makes that call but generally it's only true if your work and the library essentially have the same function such as a gui using the lib from a cli utility to make a graphical equivalent. An 200k line x86 emulator that links a 2k line unmodified zlib library to add the bonus of being able to read compressed images would not be a derivative and would only need a link back to the original lib.

Where people have issues is when the are deliberately trying to "get around" the GPL by say making a compression tool with some features lacking in gzip and only linking its libraries to try to separate out own code. Obviously this is a derivative and someone is trying to steal from the original authors, profiting from their work without paying them for it.

As I said:

"You actually have to modify the GPL'd code or incorporate it into your source AND distribute it before the GPL kicks in. The LGPL was created to spell this out in some cases but that doesn't mean the LGPL was actually needed in the first place, just that the LGPL makes it more explicit."

You might find speculation to the contrary but you won't find a court ruling on any piece of GPL'd code counter to what I've said here.

"Of course, if you're only using this code internally, that is just a technicality, but linking to a GPL library means you potentially have a lot of work on your hands if you ever decide to commercialize your internal code."

If you are using code internally the terms of the GPL don't matter. The mere use of software does not require a license as copyright law does not grant the right to restrict usage. And the GPL allows commercial distribution. It simply requires you make the source available (of your modifications) along with the sale and with GPL v3 all the patent rights required for the next person in line to do the same.

Comment Re: GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 1) 304

Even then it's only a problem coupled with a great deal of paranoia and misinformation about the "viral" nature of the GPL.

Your shell script does not become GPL'd by virtual of calling a GPL'd binary even though they combine in memory. Nothing else becomes GPL'd by using something which was distributed under the GPL via it's intended interface either.

You actually have to modify the GPL'd code or incorporate it into your source AND distribute it before the GPL kicks in. The LGPL was created to spell this out in some cases but that doesn't mean the LGPL was actually needed in the first place, just that the LGPL makes it more explicit.

There is a lot of paranoia on this issue. Another example is a number of platforms being used on the web server side and fear of using GPL'd code. Program output != program distribution. The GPL does not apply to server side code used to product output consumed by clients. There are number of projects making a profit selling dual licensing to people who don't need it based on this.

Comment Re:GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 1) 304

No that is the closed myth about open source. That is is viral and infects your software. Unless you are making a modification of the reference encoder your work is not a derivative work, merely distributed alongside. It's the same reason you don't need to worry about what license tar is distributed under when you write a shell script.

Comment Re:Security (Score 1) 308

Linux and mac users are definitely not a small minority in the embedded space. Ever heard of Android? Or the raspberry pi, arduino, roku, chromeos, probably at least a dozen less well known gadgets in your home right now. I'd venture the most die hard windows fan has half a dozen linux bits running in their home.

And more and more the computing isn't even happening on your system, it's happening on web based systems which are almost universally running linux as their back end.

Linux is without question the most dominant platform on Earth even if it isn't the most visible to end users. The only threat to Linux is that it's only good up to about 100k concurrent connections. Scaling to 1M+ doesn't actually require dropping linux though, it just requires an app design that moves threading logic away from OS threads and into the userspace.

Comment Re:I'll make sure to let me sister know (Score 1) 164

Also is $50 the price on the bottom line of the bill or the advertised price? In my experience you add about 30% to whatever the plan rate is in the US for what you are actually going to pay with like $1 of it actually being taxes vs parts of the price the carrier has opted to add as a surcharge so they can advertise a lower price than they charge.

Comment Re:good (Score 2) 164

The cost of access to communication and exchange with the rest of the people in the world? Are you kidding or just being deliberately obtuse? Phone links are today what highways were to Ancient Rome.

Slow broadband and reduced connectivity is absolutely what will make a country irrelevant in time just as roads made Rome great and Infrastructure once made the US great.

Comment Re:good (Score 1) 164

Ummm... wtf. Did you just curse people of the US to be stuck with IPhones despite most of us picking androids? That cold, cold and cruel.

Apple tech is definitely more appropriate for socialist communist mentality with a central authority deciding what is best for everyone. Android is the wild wild west of the mobile OS world and everyone has the right to bear arms. If anything the US would definitely be android and Europe would be the bastion of the IPhone. If Apple isn't the phone counterpart to the BBC I don't know what is.

Comment Re: Of course, this is natural. (Score 1) 164

You seem to be confused, it was definitely the US. Only one carrier wanted to push real 4G. The others thought there was more value in monetizing smaller increases in bandwidth, the opposition was led by AT&T who is usually first in line to fight bandwidth increases.

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol