Dell chairman Michael Dell has cast doubt on the potential of Linux on the desktop, and also distanced himself from his own investment company’s $99.5m investment in Red Hat. “The Linux market started on the server and it’s stayed on the server,” he told a select group of journalists in London.
Michael Dell doubts desktop Linux demand
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Dude…word cannot the describe the amount of self delusion you’re swimming in.
I so hear you.
Back in 1997 I wrote a paper in which I argued that the Black Death had more to do with the rise of English as a literary language than the nationalism engendered by the 100 years war.
In the paper I used several works of literature long in the public domain to show that writers contemporary to The Plague spoke of societal upheval, the fact that the merchant classes spoke English, and the decline of French as a spoken language. (I also dug up data showing the estimated amounts of French speakers in England before/after.)
The work is copyright to me and I could choose to sell it for a profit, or post it for all to read.
But were we to employ You Know Who’s brand of logic, because I’ve used a little bit of public domain work in it, the whole paper should now be public domain. Anything else is theft.
Anyhow, I wish YKW good luck in overthrowing the BSD License. Because somehow, I think the UC Berkeley Regents have some good lawyers, and then on top of that he’s got to eradicate copyright law everywhere.
The guy you replied to never stated you should know how a computer works in order to be allowed to use it. He stated that you should know HOW to use it. There’s a huge difference.
Would we let someone who doesn’t know how to drive a car to drive a car? Operate a crane? Perform surgery? Why doesn’t the same thing apply to computers?
“The guy you replied to never stated you should know how a computer works in order to be allowed to use it. He stated that you should know HOW to use it. There’s a huge difference.”
Nope, actually he didn’t. Like you he probably thought he did though.
The mistake you are making is confusing knowing how to use a tool with knowing how to deal with the inherent flaws of a tool.
For example, to browse the web the user shouldn’t need to know more than how to start his computer, open a browser and then surf the web. That’s knowing how to use the tool.
You seem to confuse this with knowing how to secure a computer, that is deal with its flaws.
To get back to the toaster example. All someone using a toaster has to know is where to put the bread. Now according to you, a toaster that is broken and required you to turn off all other electrical appliances in the house in order not to blow up when used isn’t broken at all. It’s simply a case of a user not knowing how to use a tool (that is turn off all other electrical appliances), which is, to put it mildly a very weird definition of knowing how to use a tool.
Nice try at putting words in other people’s mouths: “He didn’t. He probably thought he did though.” Okay then.
What I said was this: In order to be allowed to use a computer, you should be educated about the basics. That means simple maintenance, cautions (ie. don’t kick the case when the hard drive is seeking, don’t install stuff you didn’t ask for, etc.), and what to do in the case of trouble. That is NOT too much to ask. People have the same level of basic knowledge when it comes to things like cars, then why not computers?
“Nice try at putting words in other people’s mouths: “He didn’t. He probably thought he did though.” Okay then.”
Nice try at avoiding what I said. And no, I didn’t put words into your mouth, I mainly disagreed with you.
“What I said was this: In order to be allowed to use a computer, you should be educated about the basics”
Actually what you said was:
“Would we let someone who doesn’t know how to drive a car to drive a car? Operate a crane? Perform surgery?” which is of course something completely different. ;-D
Anyway:
“That means simple maintenance, cautions (ie. don’t kick the case when the hard drive is seeking, don’t install stuff you didn’t ask for, etc.), and what to do in the case of trouble. That is NOT too much to ask.”
Actually yes, it is to much to ask. Computers are everyday tools now, like TV sets, radios, or typewriters. You don’t need to know things about basic maintainace for these things, why should you need them for computers?
“People have the same level of basic knowledge when it comes to things like cars, then why not computers?”
Do they really? I know a lot of people who don’t know anything about cars except how to drive them. But to stay with your analogy, that’s the reason that people give their cars regularly to someone who does know, who is a professional in the field, however, that is clearly not the case with computers, that is not the way computers are seen by most people and that is clearly not the way computers are marketed today.
In order to be allowed to use a computer, you should be educated about the basics … People have the same level of basic knowledge when it comes to things like cars, then why not computers?
Because you can’t run someone over and kill them using a personal computer? Because we (as a society) aren’t fascists and avoid infringing on freedoms without compelling public policy reasons? I’m sure (I hope?) you can come up with a whole list of other absurdly obvious reasons.
I was speaking more about the well-being of the car/computer, not whether you could kill someone with it or not. An experienced driver can still kill someone through a slip-up in their concentration.
I suppose we have different views on what a computer is. You say it’s an everyday tool like a TV, radio, and whatnot. I disagree. A computer is a very complex tool that can be used to accomplish many different tasks, ranging from the mundane to exceptionally difficult. Proper use and maintenance should be a basic skill set — if not for the sake of the computer, then for the sake of those who have to help these dullards regularily.
Oh, and chazwurth … I see that you are from the US. Given that fact, the following made me laugh:
… we aren’t fascists and avoid infringing on freedoms without compelling public policy reasons …
Take a look around your country. Just a thought.
“I suppose we have different views on what a computer is. You say it’s an everyday tool like a TV, radio, and whatnot. I disagree. A computer is a very complex tool that can be used to accomplish many different tasks, ranging from the mundane to exceptionally difficult.”
Yep, we really seem to have different views on this, however I don’t think something being complex and something being an everyday tool are mutually exclusive concepts.
Finally, I think it is really hard to avoid the conclusion that computers now have become everyday tools and necessary tools for a lot of people. For example, I don’t think it’s possible to go through university without using computers quite extensively. And don’t forget that computers are marketed not as complex tools, but as fun and easy to use machines for everyone.
Now if computers nowadays aren’t really up to what they are used for and to what they are marketed as, I really think that is a problem, but I don’t think it’s the users fault.
I suppose we have different views on what a computer is. You say it’s an everyday tool like a TV, radio, and whatnot. I disagree. A computer is a very complex tool that can be used to accomplish many different tasks, ranging from the mundane to exceptionally difficult.
Of course it’s a complex tool. We require licenses on the basis of danger or scarce resources, not complexity. Cars are complex, and require licenses. Guns are relatively simple, and where legal, usually require licenses. Training and licensing are required in these cases because the technologies in question are inherently dangerous. When the state requires licenses without such a reason, it’s nothing more than theft.
Proper use and maintenance should be a basic skill set — if not for the sake of the computer, then for the sake of those who have to help these dullards regularily.
For the sake of undercutting the tech-support industry and sacrificing thousands of jobs on the one hand, and requiring citizens to give the government money for licenses on the other? No thanks, I’ll side with the market on this one. If people want their computers to work, they’ll pay someone for help, or sucker a friend or family member to help them out, just like in every other industry. Can you provide some compelling reason it should be otherwise? Or do you think licenses should be required to operate everything but hand-operated butter churns?
Oh, and chazwurth … I see that you are from the US. Given that fact, the following made me laugh:
… we aren’t fascists and avoid infringing on freedoms without compelling public policy reasons …
Take a look around your country. Just a thought.
I’ll take the worsening situation here over a world in which we have to license things like our own right to use tools that aren’t inherently dangerous. Evidently, the world you’d like to live in is even worse than the modern-day U.S. in respect to arbitrary government power and basic rights.
Other people has build it no body came.. that’s why dell is still the leading pc maker.
ROFL.
anonymous through an anonymizer speaks about scientific evidence
.
however, he fails the first rule of scientifics publications: LIST YOUR SOURCES!
i’d very much to see a study which _scientifically_ measures the effects of OS on user productivity.
As a technical consultant at a competing company of dell (no, not IBM
I was always monitoring Linux and GNU software to find out if it was mature enough to operate as a full desktop system. Until recently I had my doubts. But with the appearance of Suse 9.3 or simmilar distributions and OpenOffice 2.0a this definitely changed.
To test my assumption, I migrated my working environment from XP to Linux – as an experiment on myself. The result:
* Until now, no major problems with Office Apps and interoperability with collegues and customers. (I only miss the ability to save flowcharts as visio exports)
* VPN to the office network works
* Software development in Eclipse is faster
* Software like Firefox, Oracle DB + client, VMWare, etc. are all available and running stable.
* Evolution is a valid replacement for Outlook and connects to exchange servers with an additional connector
The argument that users will need to re-learn everything is invalid. The KDE/Gnome user interface bears such a striking resemblance to XP that I often had to point out to colleagues that I was actually running Linux and not XP. OpenOffice takes some time to adjust. But mainly due to the icon-design/placement. It’s certainly not more than with major updates of MS Office.
Maintainability: End-Users in companies are not supposed to maintain their computer’s OS and installation base – neither with Windows nor with Linux. Whereas the latter offers more flexibility and by default in remote-management and tighter security because of a strict user-env/system-env separation.
In my opinion, the only points that prevent companies from switching are: Fear of the unknown, lacking internal know-how, following the masses.
The only bottleneck OpenSource has to overcome, is to convince the masses not to use proprietary formats for documents, worksheets, etc.
The faster the better – especially regarding software patents.
I know that you are trolling and trying to get me to do a lot of work for your enjoyment. So I’m just going to tell you to look at the many usability studies that have come out of the Universities and other reputable organizations.
ReactOS is where it is at
“To test my assumption, I migrated my working environment from XP to Linux – as an experiment on myself.”
There is your problem right there. Any study in which the observer and participant is the same person is *not* scientific. Didn’t you ever stop to think that your biases might invalidate the results?!
Two points I forgot:
* Since applications and OS are not interwoven in Linux, KDE and other applications still respond well while the email client opens a mail (sorry, this is only for people who know Outlook)
* Downloading a huge file with 10 ftp connections from the intranet was not noticable on my Linux machine (<5% CPU usage, no lags) whereas a colleague with the same hardware but without Linux could hardly work while downloading.
I suppose the loss of time when moving to Linux on Desktops/Laptops (education, learning curve, migration) can be balanced quickly with a higher productivity of the users and of course reduced license costs.
Show
me
ONE!
Just one of them. Any one.
(I’m not trolling, I’m having a good laugh of you.)
“There is your problem right there. Any study in which the observer and participant is the same person is *not* scientific. Didn’t you ever stop to think that your biases might invalidate the results?!”
1) I didn’t mention that this was a scientific study. I only stated my opinion and shared my experience.
2) Sometimes scientific studies get very questionable by looking at who’s the sponsor and what his are interests are. Which are these “reputable” organisations? Who is funding them? What universities? In what papers were the results published? Sometimes even Universities are biased (e.g. if they’re funded by the military)
You have to be mad to suggest the Outlook is “interwoven” with Windows. What kind of FUD are you trying to spread here? My computer responds perfectly to anything I do. Hell, I’ll be playing CS:Source in a 1152×864 window with 4xAA/8xAF on one monitor, while I’ve got iTunes, mIRC, Trillian, and Outlook 2003 all open and working, with no hitches. Hell, Diskeeper will kick in every now and then to defragment a hard drive or two, and I still feel/see no difference, except for the increased noise coming from the floor.
I regularily download/upload many, many things at once, both from/to my LAN and the Internet. I have yet to see any slowdowns when doing so.
Quit trying to spread FUD.
Well, Anonymous would state here that your opinion is *no* scientific proove.. but let’s skip that “fud” as you would name it
1) Get Outlook 2003 connected to an Exchange Server over ADSL WAN (Online mode)
2) Open the attachment of a mail that hasn’t been downloaded yet (only header)
3) Try to start another application via “Start”, switch to another aplication in the taskbar or create a new network connection, etc.
=> You WAIT until the whole attachment is downloaded and opened.
Now tell me, that Outlook and the Desktop-GUI (Explorer or OS) are _not_ interwoven. I suppose they use the same DLL which has some global variables and thus uses global semaphores to prevent threading/multi-process issues.
I do it daily, and there are no slowdowns whatsoever. Maybe get a real computer, yes?
Hell, my Outlook 2003 is minimized most of the time, and it checks for mail every 10 minutes. I’ll be playing a game or writing or watching movies off another computer over my network, and never have I witnessed Outlook 2003 to cause any kind of performance impact.
Is a P4 Centrino 1.4GHZ, 1GB Ram, Radeon 9600, 40GB enough ?
A minimized Outlook is not the problem, read my previous post again.
I read your post, and I think it’s complete bullshit, because I have *never* experienced such a problem. My co-worker, who has a ~4 GB Outlook 2003 data file, and in the order of about 35,000 messages, says that he’s never experienced such a problem either.
Oh, and one other thing …
Centrinos are not Pentium 4s.
Ive spent the last 7 days trying to install various distros, madrake fedora etc, if one worked for one thing it failed on another! Basic setup with wireless nic/apache/mysql/firebird/quasar didnt like fedora?!?/egroupware/ftpserver and the painfull samsung scx4100 printer (still dosnt work with samba and crashes)
In the end went for Windows with a virtual PC to sit quasar on – 2 hours later all done!
When Linux is that easy Ill listen.
“The interpretation of this academic license has been established by decades of use, and is beyond any conceivable doubt. ”
Thats why it whas “modified” and “changed” before. see 4-clause BSD , see 3-clause BSD , see 2-clause BSD. Its no longuer an academic license as the software are used for business purposes. Actually the license if not Free nor Open Source and is not giving rights at all, its just giving compliance line for being able to “use” the software or guideline for redistributions.
“Basically it says: do *whatever the heck* you want with my code”
Show me the exact line that give you that exact right in the license …
“except 1) stripping away the license, 2) using my name to endorse your stuff and 3) suing me if it doesn’t work as you expect. ”
You just modified the license in the interest to make your point , the license dont give you the above exeption as they are not exeption or write what you say and claim it gives and what this mention is not an exept its a do it or dont use the software, those are compliance for use, not right given.
– Show me the exact line that give you the right to modify the code ?
– Show me the exact line that give you the right to copy the software ?
– Show me the exact line that say you have the right to change the license ?
– Show me the exact line that say you have the right to make modification and call them your own ?
– Show me the exact line that say you have the right to close the modification you make and call them your own ?
– in clear show me the line that give you any right you claim are given by that license.
Its a protection license , it serve to protect the university of Berkley in protecting them from getting sued and giving them ownership , its not a free and Open source license at all, its giving no right to do anything at all.
People have been making claim in using it as such and this for decades but the right to do so is not given in the license.
Feel free to show me what my delusions are not making me see.
Anonymous (IP: —.anonymizer.com) ,
I am sorry , but I tried to search for the work you mention and I have failed to have any return at all , can you help with a direct link or say which institution did the test ?
Now I know that you dorks are trolling. It took less than 2 minutes on Google to find this link.
http://www.linux-usability.de/download/linux_usability_report_en.pd…
As you can see. Even with a highly biased study conducted by a linux organization, Windows is so usable that it can withstand sabotages by linux zealots and still come out slightly ahead. I wonder what would have happened if they had spent as much time configuring the Windows install as they did the linux install. Windows would have probably blew linux out of the water.
“If you build it, people will come.”
Who would build it?
The other day I was window shopping the web for a notebook and noticed a lot of boiler plates
“HP recommends Windows XP”
“Sony recommends Windows XP”
“Dell recommends Windows XP”
“Toshiba recommends Windows XP”
“Fujitsu recommends Windows XP”
“Gateway recommends Windows XP”
“Asus recommends Windows XP”
“Acer recommends Windows XP”
“(take your pick) recommends Windows XP”
Yawn. It has become a cliche.
I did not encounter a single
“(company) recommends (alternative)” – like Linux.
Why would any business-for-profit want to promote Linux on the desktop? It’s nothing but trouble – more work, competition, lower prices and lower profits. Not only for Microsoft but everybody. Like shooting yourself in the foot.
Ballmer once compared Linux to a cancer. The main characteristics of a cancer are fast and out of control growth at the expsense of the surroundings. Who’s the cancer here? Hmmm.
Thanks for the quick reply , and for providing a link to what you mention , I think that the study might have add some value in 2003 , but since we are in 2005 and that SUSE no longuer exist and got bought by Novell , I think I will read what this study as to say with a grain of salt as its talking of version that are really old and which are not default anymore , I will read this study again to see if its still some thing apply but , on my first read I did not see anything.
” recommends Windows XP”
Its part of there OEM and licensing contracts if they fail to mention this they dont get the rebate which make them be competive with other Microsoft windows solution vendors.
Thats why Michael Dell is mentionning very loudly that he is not pushing GNU/Linux.
Go read this it explain some detail :
http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/07/07/1755223&tid=3…
I don’t know why I’m responding to you since it’s pretty obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but here we go. The text of the license is available at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php which is what I’m quoting from.
– Show me the exact line that give you the right to modify the code ?
The first line of the license says “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted…” That seems to say in plain English that you can modify the code.
– Show me the exact line that give you the right to copy the software ?
Again, the very first line of the license says “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms…” The provides you the right to copy (and redistribute to third parties) the code.
– Show me the exact line that say you have the right to change the license ?
There is no clause in the license which allows you to change the license because only the copyright holder can change the license.
– Show me the exact line that say you have the right to make modification and call them your own ?
I’ve already quoted the part of the license that says you can make modifications. And it’s copyright law which says that you can work that you did your own work. Just like with the GPL, you own the copyright on the modification so you can call that modification your own. That said, both licenses says you need to attribute the original author. In the BSD license it says “Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer” and “Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.”.
– Show me the exact line that say you have the right to close the modification you make and call them your own ?
I already quoted the first line … “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted”.
– in clear show me the line that give you any right you claim are given by that license.
Its a protection license , it serve to protect the university of Berkley in protecting them from getting sued and giving them ownership , its not a free and Open source license at all, its giving no right to do anything at all.
The very first line says that redistribution and use in source or binary form is allowed. I’m not sure how much more obvious they can make it for you.
People have been making claim in using it as such and this for decades but the right to do so is not given in the license.
Given that everyone in the world has thought this is how it works for decades and this license has withstood multiple lawsuits I’d think that’d be obvious enough for you.
“it’s pretty obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about”
Its pretty obvious that I am the only one who know’s what he is talking about.
“that *seems* to say in plain English that you can modify the code.”
no , thats your false interpretation. The right to modify the code is not given by the license.
“The provides you the right to copy (and redistribute to third parties) the code.”
no , again , thats your false interpretation the right to copy is not given by the license.
“There is no clause in the license which allows you to change the license because only the copyright holder can change the license. ”
The license can be made to give you copyright and can also be made to give you the right to change the license , this license does not.
“I’ve already quoted the part of the license that says you can make modifications. ”
No , because it dont exist.
“And it’s copyright law which says that you can work that you did your own work. ”
No , but then you never did study copyright law did you ? And you not certified as copyright lawyer.
“Just like with the GPL”
The GPL is copy left and as NOTHING to do with BSD as it is a REAL Open Source License and a REAL Free Software License.
The source code is always availaible and the software is always free as in freedom.
“you own the copyright on the modification so you can call that modification your own. ”
No …
“That said, both licenses says you need to attribute the original author. ”
No the BSD license does not , please provide the exact line which state that you have to attribute the original author.
It does not exist.
“That said, both licenses says you need to attribute the original author. ”
Again , no. Please , feel free to provide the “exact” line wich say you have to do that in the BSD license . It dont exist in this license.
” and “Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.”. ”
Again , it dont ask at all to give attribute to the original author. Its just naming a place where the license should appear.
“I already quoted the first line … “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted”. ”
Yes , you quoted it , that part , you the missinterpreted it , the meaning of the word are not those you offer , and think they say and mention at all , it does not in anyway shape or form give the “right” to close the modification and also it does not give you the right to claim them as your own. It is not part of the license and those right are not given at all.
“The very first line says that redistribution and use in source or binary form is allowed.”
lets start by correcting one thing wich you where wrong from the start , The first line is :
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
“Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:”
This line does not give you any rights in any way shape or form the right to modify the code , the right to copy it , the right to keep the modification as yours or even give you the right to change the owner, are not given in those line at all. Its only talking about Redistribution and where it can be used.
“I’m not sure how much more obvious they can make it for you.”
Simply put by making it legal to do what you falsely claim is right and given as right in this license by giving those right by writing them plainly into the license.
“Given that everyone in the world has thought this is how it works for decades and this license has withstood multiple lawsuits I’d think that’d be obvious enough for you. ”
Its not because you think you can install Microsoft windows on all your computer since you bought the product and that everyone around you do so that it is the legal way to do it.
Its the same thing , its not because the Regents of the University of California are not suing anyone now for what they have been doing for years illegaly that the action many are doing are legal or have become legal due to the way they are used.
Every lawsuit where about the right of the license to exist or the code included and covered in the license.
whats obvious to me is that your not a lawyer , your not an expert , you never add your code closed by this license and you dont know what that license really say and what right are really given : “None” exept for redistribution.
I stand by what I say :
– BSD is not Open source because the source can be closed and its not Free Software because some people can keep the change for only themself and make the code there slave and themself the owner.
– Open Source alone is crap because in this day and age Open Source alone can be made into closed source.
no , thats your false interpretation. The right to modify the code is not given by the license.
Please explain how “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted” means that you can’t modify the code?
no , again , thats your false interpretation the right to copy is not given by the license.
Again, please explain how “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted” means you can’t copy the code.
The license can be made to give you copyright and can also be made to give you the right to change the license , this license does not.
U.S. Copyright law requires a written declaration detailing any copyright transfer which occurs. Or, as it says it “Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.” A license has no power to grant a copyright transfer because it doesn’t meet that standard. And other countries (like Germany) don’t have any means to transfer copyright. Given that, care to explain how a license can cause a copyright transfer?
“I’ve already quoted the part of the license that says you can make modifications. ”
No , because it dont exist.
Umm, I quoted it for you. You can cover your eyes and refuse to see it all you want, but “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted” says modifications are permitted.
“And it’s copyright law which says that you can work that you did your own work. ”
No , but then you never did study copyright law did you ? And you not certified as copyright lawyer.
No, I’m not a lawyer, but I have studied copyright law. And according to section 102 of the U.S. Copyright Act, copyright is granted “in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” As soon as you create something, it is copyrighted. No license can take that right away from you, though (in the U.S. at least) you can transfer your copyright to another person or organization.
“Just like with the GPL”
The GPL is copy left and as NOTHING to do with BSD as it is a REAL Open Source License and a REAL Free Software License.
The source code is always availaible and the software is always free as in freedom.
And both of them work within the bounds of the copyright laws in your jurisdiction. Within the U.S. that means that any modifications you make are owned by you unless you transfer them to someone else. Or are you saying that U.S. copyright laws are wrong too?
“you own the copyright on the modification so you can call that modification your own. ”
No …
I’ve already quoted the relevant portions of the U.S. Copyright Act. Care to explain how they are wrong?
“I already quoted the first line … “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted”. ”
Yes , you quoted it , that part , you the missinterpreted it , the meaning of the word are not those you offer , and think they say and mention at all , it does not in anyway shape or form give the “right” to close the modification and also it does not give you the right to claim them as your own. It is not part of the license and those right are not given at all.
Yes, they do give you the right. They grant you permission to distribute the program in either source form or in binary form with or without modification. Those are the words in the sentence. What do you think that sentence means, it’s not that long?
“The very first line says that redistribution and use in source or binary form is allowed.”
lets start by correcting one thing wich you where wrong from the start , The first line is :
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
“Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:”
This line does not give you any rights in any way shape or form the right to modify the code , the right to copy it , the right to keep the modification as yours or even give you the right to change the owner, are not given in those line at all. Its only talking about Redistribution and where it can be used.
Can you read? What precisely do you think that sentence means then?
“I’m not sure how much more obvious they can make it for you.”
Simply put by making it legal to do what you falsely claim is right and given as right in this license by giving those right by writing them plainly into the license.
I don’t think they could phrase it any clearer.
“Given that everyone in the world has thought this is how it works for decades and this license has withstood multiple lawsuits I’d think that’d be obvious enough for you. ”
Its not because you think you can install Microsoft windows on all your computer since you bought the product and that everyone around you do so that it is the legal way to do it.
Its the same thing , its not because the Regents of the University of California are not suing anyone now for what they have been doing for years illegaly that the action many are doing are legal or have become legal due to the way they are used.
The EULA provided with Windows very explicitly says what you can and cannot do with it. The BSD license also explains what you can or cannot do with it. And given that it says that redistribution whether modified or not is allowed, I’m going to go ahead and believe the license. And since the Regents of the UC system don’t even own the copyright on much of the code licensed under the BSD license they couldn’t sue you at all (or do you also think that they can sue anyone who uses the BSD license?). But you still fail to explain how the very clearly worded license says something other than what it very clearly says.
Every lawsuit where about the right of the license to exist or the code included and covered in the license.
I can’t parse this sentence. Care to rephrase?
whats obvious to me is that your not a lawyer , your not an expert , you never add your code closed by this license and you dont know what that license really say and what right are really given : “None” exept for redistribution.
Would you care to explain how the lawyers working for the Open Source Initiative and the Free Software Foundation are wrong then? Cause they all say the license works how I say it does.
I stand by what I say :
– BSD is not Open source because the source can be closed and its not Free Software because some people can keep the change for only themself and make the code there slave and themself the owner.
– Open Source alone is crap because in this day and age Open Source alone can be made into closed source.
You do realize that isn’t the Open Source Definition? It’s also not the Free Software Definition. You do also realize that unless you start to offer some actual real facts instead of “I don’t think so, that isn’t true” means you get written off as a troll, right?
“means that you can’t modify the code? ”
means that the *license* dont give the right to modify the code.
“means you can’t copy the code.”
The *license* dont specificaly give you the right to copy the code or say you can copy the code.
“U.S. Copyright law requires a written declaration detailing any copyright transfer which occurs.”
I guess the BSD license is null and void then , wait there actually under Internationnal Copyright law not U.S. If they where U.S I would not care at all as I am not subject to anything at all US.
“Or, as it says it … copyright transfer?”
By giving rights and privilege to the user that are given in the copyright.
“I quoted it for you.”
yes …
“You can cover your eyes and refuse to see it all you want, but “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted” says modifications are permitted. ”
Yes , it just dont give the current user the right to make modifications and the right to close them. Thats that which is not in the license. the actual line is :
“Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:”
“No, I’m not a lawyer”
Good of you to admit it.
“but I have studied copyright law.”
I see why you did not make it into that field.
“And according to section 102 of the U.S. Copyright Act,”
Null and Void , anything US does not cover me at ALL.
“copyright is … person or organization. ”
Still dont apply as your quoting US law.
“And both of them work within the bounds of the copyright laws in your jurisdiction.”
Internationnal Copyright law are the same everywhere they are legal …
“Within the U.S. that means that any modifications you make are owned by you unless you transfer them to someone else.”
If copyright law where that simple. No.
“Or are you saying that U.S. copyright laws are wrong too?”
Yes , anything US dont cover or govern me at all.
“I’ve already quoted the relevant portions of the U.S. Copyright Act. Care to explain how they are wrong?”
The License is not an US copyrighted license …
“Yes, they do give you the right. ”
No …
“They grant you permission to distribute the program in either source form or in binary form with or without modification. ”
Yes , redistribution right but the license dont give any other right.
“Those are the words in the sentence.”
Partially , yes.
“What do you think that sentence means”
It give you the right to use the code as given to you and the right to redistribute it ( the copy you got ) once your finished with it , you can include the change too if the permission is given to you to make the change you can do so in binary and in source. No other right beside redistribution are given in that sentence.
“it’s not that long?”
No , its a problem in itself.
“Can you read?”
Yes , in english too , thats why I am answering you.
“What precisely do you think that sentence means then?”
It give you the right to use the code as given to you and the right to redistribute it ( the copy you got ) once your finished with it , you can include the change too if the permission is given to you to make the change you can do so in binary and in source. No other right beside redistribution are given in that sentence.
“I don’t think they could phrase it any clearer. ”
Its not clear at all since you and many are claiming and giving yourself right wich are not specificaly given in the license.
whats missing :
You are given the right to copy , the right to modify , and the right to close the code and the right to change the owner , and the right to keep modification you made only to yourself or those you decide to give it to only.
“The EULA provided with Windows very explicitly says what you can and cannot do with it. ”
EULA : end user license agreement. It happen that it is an illegal contract.
“The BSD license also explains what you can or cannot do with it.”
Its just there to protect the University of Berkley.
” And given that it says that redistribution whether modified or not is allowed”
Yes , “redistribution”
” I’m going to go ahead and believe the license.”
Your not at the moment.
“And since the Regents of the UC system don’t even own the copyright on much of the code licensed under the BSD license”
I guess add that one to what I say your wrong.
” they couldn’t sue you at all (or do you also think that they can sue anyone who uses the BSD license?)”
The possibility is availaible to them.
“But you still fail to explain how the very clearly worded license says something other than what it very clearly says.”
Its very clearly worded , yes , your just actually putting too much behind the word wich are there and missinterpret the actual meaning.
“I can’t parse this sentence. Care to rephrase? ”
Not sure its going to help any.
“Every lawsuit where about the right of the license to exist or the code included and covered in the license. ”
Every lawsuit that whas brought upon the BSD license until now have been whether or not the actual license whas legal in its existance and if the code under it whas not something else wich they could have taken from UNIX or something else. Never whas the right given by the license put into question or mentionned.
“Would you care to explain how the lawyers working for the Open Source Initiative and the Free Software Foundation are wrong then?”
Open Source : they have certified too many license for a start and many of which are license that the source can be closed to all or be sometime Open Source and other time closed source. BSD is a prime example.
Open Source in my opinion should be : that wich is Open Source at all time.
Free Software : Many license are accepted based on :
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
The words wich is missing from all those qualities is : AT ALL TIME.
Something which is truely free is free at all time, otherwise its a slave who as a good master who can be put in a cage if he change master or if/when the master change is mind ( its a metaphor , example ).
” Cause they all say the license works how I say it does. ”
No , but I am whilling to concede that it gives credibility and reenforce your arguments. Thats why I disagree strongly with both certification. Its why I also personnaly refuse to call BSD Open Source and Free software. Those word and meaning have higher meaning for me then the politics by wich they are called such by two well respected group giving the certification on them.
“You do realize that isn’t the Open Source Definition?”
Actually it is for me , its not the OSI definition of Open Source , that I will grant you.
“It’s also not the Free Software Definition.”
Actually it is for me , its not the FSF definition of Free Software , that I will grant you .
“You do also realize that unless you start to offer some actual real facts instead of “I don’t think so”
I did offer actual real facts , and I said I know it to be so. Its you who say I am wrong.
“that isn’t true” means you get written off as a troll, right?”
No , deluded , delusionnal or innacurate , zealot ( wich are good people for me ) or really stuborn would apply at this time . Troll : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
“right?”
No , Anonymous , you aint right.
Thank you for providing the link to the usability report.
It supports exactly what I was saying: In 2003 Linux was not yet an alternative. Although they say it was head-to-head with Windows – something I’d doubt in 2003. In the meantime this has changed. Windows was not improved (we’re still waiting for Longhorn) but Linux constantly does.
I find it a bit annoying that you and ZealotHater are always getting personal and are trying to insult persons who post reasonable arguments if they don’t fit your view. Competition is always good for the customers of products. It thrives organisations to improve their products. Imagine what Windows would be without Mac/Linux and vice versa. We’d probably still be writing Word-Documents in a terminal editor.
In this thread this guy has been proven wrong several times (actually, one could almost say *all* times..), and in fact I almost regret having replied to some of his long delirious messages. Since he insists on applying *his own* definition of “Copyright law”, “Open source”, “Free software” (that happen to differ from the definitions relied upon by the rest of the world..) it’s pretty clear that every reasonable/productive discussion is impossible.
This guy’s point is just to spread FUD over a license (BSD) he doesn’t like, because it’s too little restrictive for his tastes. I don’t know, maybe it’s time to stop feeding the troll/crapflooder…
I have personnally the utmost admiration for Moulinneuf. I think it’s refreshing to have someone who really think(s) different(ly), doesn’t fear contradiction (occasionnally providing it himself), is solid as a wall, immutable as a mountain and casts a new and very original eye (some would say totally nuts) on the free software world.
I sincerely hope that he will never be banned from posting here. In another thread I made the petty suggestion that he should GPL his brain so that someone could debug it. I retract that suggestion now. I love the way he is. He is perfect and I would like, if that was possible, with the permission of the moderators, to name him OSNews’ Resident Clown.
Michael Dell’s complaint that they can’t support Linux on their desktops is pretty poor actually. They quite happily ship RHEL3 (and soon to be RHEL4 I suspect) pre-installed on their servers and – equally importantly – offer to ship Poweredge servers *with no OS* (which wipes out the “support” excuse completely).
If they can ship no OS with their servers, then why can’t they ship with no OS on their desktops? Explain that one, Mike! (Answer clue: Microsoft would threaten to remove their OEM volume discounts if Dell tried it).
“In this thread this guy has been proven wrong several times”
To prove me wrong , you would actually have to change how Internationnal Copyright Law work. Good luck.
“(actually, one could almost say *all* times..)”
No , because what your standard answer is : “This is how other people perceive it , this is how the license is since its creation , this how everyone in the world does it , this how it work in the US”
Perception of people as nothing to do with written law , the license is so good that it whas changed at least 4 time and is the basis for numerous others derivative , everyone break the law so it must be ok , the US law dont apply Internationnaly , they dont apply at all to anyone else but the Etats-Unians inside the United States …
” and in fact I almost regret having replied to some of his long delirious messages.”
Its not long its a point per point answer. write less crap , it will shorten the lenght of my answers.
“since he insists on applying *his own* definition of “Copyright law”, “Open source”, “Free software” ”
I dont insist , I am offering a clear and precise basis for what I say and why I say it. I know usualy for you saying : its from the US will get you : Ha yes its from the US so it must be good. In my case as a real American what dont please me I work to change it, I aint afraid at all to go on the opposite side of how things are accepted and perceived in the US.
Internationnal Copyright law : I have never sugested that they are in anyway wrong.
Open Source certification is a self OSI admited mess , too many license and the wording is making it possible for many None Open Source license to get certified in its current state. As it is for those reason that at this moment in time I am not in agreement or in acceptance of any certification By the OSI.
Free Software is another thing its about “freedom” , hence when something can be closed and not free for all to be used , I put in serious doubt the actual review that lead to the certification of The “modified” BSD as accepted as free Software , it gets even worst when one go read the actual rights given by the mentionned license ( none , beside redistribution ).As it is for those reason that at this moment in time I am not in agreement or in acceptance of any certification of any BSD as free software by the free software foundation.
“(that happen to differ from the definitions relied upon by the rest of the world..)”
The rest of the world is not the US. Definition can be changed and adapted to the current reality.
“it’s pretty clear that every reasonable/productive discussion is impossible. ”
That one you got right , there is no discussion to be add with you and people like you , you aint reasonnable or productive , you aint even qualified to discuss law or anything logical , your biased and defend a proprietary self serving agenda.
“This guy’s point is just to spread FUD over a license (BSD) he doesn’t like”
FUD : Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD
“a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative but vague or inaccurate information on a competitor’s product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer software industry and has since been used more broadly.”
I am not being negative about BSD , I am not vague at all and I dont offer inacurate information at all on a competitor product.
I am being precise on Internationnal copyright law , and the written word and right given by a license in the license not its perception or accepted use for past decade by some.
” because it’s too little restrictive for his tastes.”
I am not talking about the restriction , I am taking about the actual right given and the actual removal of right and freedom by the license , whats Open at all or Free at all about closing code and not giving perceived rights in the license ? answer : Nothing.
” I don’t know, maybe it’s time to stop feeding the troll/crapflooder… ”
I know , its time , to close the loophole that enable legitimacy and respectability and acceptance of some undeserving license. Otherwise you turn those that are really Open Source and Free as in freedom into a mockery by association. Example :
BSD is more free then the GPL because the code can be closed and kept only by the last person to modify it.
NO , freedom is not the same thing as beeing put in shackle and have your destiny dictated for you by some owner or dictator.
Insulting me and calling me name dont change the fact I offered.
the license is so good that it whas changed at least 4 time
Do you know how many times the GPL has been revised ?
“Do you know how many times the GPL has been revised ?”
2 so far ( if you dont count the revision procedure process ) , 3 is in the work , revised is not the same thing as changed. For me at least.
I will add that revision in the GPL , have nothing to do with change in the BSD license as those are two different license.
Both “modification” also serve to demonstrate that change can be made to correct the situation , if its right , change can and will be be made to make it more right and closer to perfection.
You do know that BSD and GPL are not at all the same right?
I will grant you that at this point in time they share some important certification.
This is the last time I’m going to respond to an insulting post from a person that cowardly hides behind an anonymizer.
“Do you have any evidence of that and an explanation of how those changes, if they exist, affect the results of the study. Or are you just grasping at thin air for anything that does not make you look like a complete idiot. LAME!”
You’re always using the same arguments in your futile attempt to invalidate others arguments. You act like a wannabe academic. I could as well turn it around childishly and ask: Do you have any evidence that proves that Linux is not more mature than Windows? But that was not my point. I wanted to talk about impressions, opinions and not _prove_ my impression against narrow minded people.
Windows and Linux are both mature operating systems with their advantages and drawbacks. I personally favour OpenSource because one doesn’t have to financially support a company whose owner is one of the richest men on the world. That’s all. I don’t think people using or favouring Windows are lame nor those of other operating systems.
Goodbye Mr. Anonymous…
“NO , freedom is not the same thing as beeing put in shackle and have your destiny dictated for you by some owner or dictator.”
A fact that is known to less and less people nowadays, unfortunately. Might be because CNN and FOX keep telling you otherwise over and over and over and over and over again.
“Insulting me and calling me name dont change the fact I offered.”
Insults are usually a common resort for the lack of arguments.
Nevertheless it’s interesting to see that one “side” tries to discuss objectively whereas the other uses terms like “lame”, “clown”, “idiot”, “troll” if they don’t agree.
A clear indication that further discussions are of little use.
Hmm, actually it’s quite funny. I get the impression that those who keep swearing around here might be on the payroll of a certain organisation to prevent any form of reasonable discussion. Congratulations to them: “You won !”
Yes ! I’m part of a conspiracy. I falsely pretend that the BSDs are free software so that me and my friends can take the whole world in our claws and make everybody a slave.
Whatever your definition of free is, it certainly contradicts to the FSF’s definition, since the FSF lists the modified BSDL as free, but not copyleft:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicen…
(hope this link doesn’t get cut, if it does here’s it again in two lines):
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/
licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
Now you can of course argue that the FSF is not in a position to (re-)define the word free. If that’s what you want to say, please do so explicitly since it would save us from lots of misunderstandings.
“I wanted to talk about impressions, opinions and not _prove_ my impression against narrow minded people.”
Oooohhh! I get it! You were just interested in inane chatter and not comparing your views with others and maybe learning something or finding out if in fact they are correct. Well let me join in:
I like the color red but not purple.
I think anchovies on pizza is gross.
I like to do things that are fun.
Weee! Isn’t this pointless.
“I falsely pretend that the BSDs are free software so that me and my friends can take the whole world in our claws and make everybody a slave.”
thanks for admitting it
Sure. How bad I am, to label FUD the very accurate information that your very reasonable friend is spreading, in his very sober and concise comments, about the BSD license.
“Whatever your definition of free is”
Its not my definition , its whats free as in freedom is and symbolize.
“it certainly contradicts to the FSF’s definition,”
contradicts , no , the FSF is just a little bit politicaly complaisant and open then I am. Things that can be closed for me dont deserve the mention Free Software.
” since the FSF lists the modified BSDL as free, but not copyleft: ”
Yes , according to there review , modified BSDL pass because in certain case ( before someone do what is the norm with bsdl aka close it ) its Free Software. thats why I whant the “at all time” added , because your not free sometime and at other time not free , your always free or your not , its an absolute.
“hope this link doesn’t get cut”
OSnews php script is really good at linking , it worked here.
“Now you can of course argue that the FSF is not in a position to (re-)define the word free. ”
No , the definition is right , it just as a hole in it written as it is that allow license that are not all the time free as in freedom to pass and be certified , and I would like it to be closed. Details ? yes , but the kind that get BSDL to be called Free Software or not.
“If that’s what you want to say, please do so explicitly since it would save us from lots of misunderstandings. ”
Thats not what I whant to say.
You insulted someone without disproving them, I think that’s considered flamebaiting: A form of trolling.
Which is what I’m doing now.
I’m not going to address your ramblings about how a 7 sentence licence works anymore.
“U.S. Copyright law requires a written declaration detailing any copyright transfer which occurs.”
I guess the BSD license is null and void then , wait there actually under Internationnal Copyright law not U.S. If they where U.S I would not care at all as I am not subject to anything at all US.
What would requiring a written transfer of copyright ownership have to do with the viability of a license? And like I said in my previous post, depending on what jurisdiction you live in, you may not be able to transfer copyright at all (like in Germany). Does that mean that the BSD is invalid in Germany? How about the GPL?
“Or, as it says it … copyright transfer?”
By giving rights and privilege to the user that are given in the copyright.
The user has no rights under copyright law. Or do you mean the rights given to the author? It’s not possible to give someone all of the rights under copyright law since copyright law gives special rights to the original author above and beyond what the copyright owner has. For example, see Article 6 of the Berne Convention which lists the “Moral Rights” an author has over his work even after transferring copyright. But given that you’re such a copyright law expert I’d think you’d know this stuff already.
“And according to section 102 of the U.S. Copyright Act,”
Null and Void , anything US does not cover me at ALL.
“copyright is … person or organization. ”
Still dont apply as your quoting US law.
“And both of them work within the bounds of the copyright laws in your jurisdiction.”
Internationnal Copyright law are the same everywhere they are legal …
First, there is no such thing as International Copyright law, the closest thing would be the Berne Convention Treaty. Second, the Berne Convention Treaty leaves lots of parts up to the invidivual members to decide, so no, it’s not the same everywhere (for example, Article 14 Section 3 which states “The procedure for collection and the amounts shall be matters for determination by national legislation.”).
“Within the U.S. that means that any modifications you make are owned by you unless you transfer them to someone else.”
If copyright law where that simple. No.
Well then perhaps you’d like the relevant parts of the Berne Convention: “The protection of this Convention shall apply to:
(a) authors who are nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works, whether published or not;
(b) authors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works first published in one of those countries, or simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union.” See, under the Berne Convention, if you live in a country under the treaty you don’t even need to publish your work to have copyright on it. Otherwise, you get the copyright as soon as you publish it in a Berne signatory. Would you like to disagree with the Berne Convention too?
“Or are you saying that U.S. copyright laws are wrong too?”
Yes , anything US dont cover or govern me at all.
No, but I’m guessing the Berne Convention does. And since that also contradicts what you’re saying you seem to be running out of options.
“Red Hat is not GNU/Linux. Its not a GNU/Linux desktop leader either. ”
Actually I think even RMS likes RedHat politically speaking. They only ship free software. They contribute CODE back. They are no desktop leader (they gave up on that almost two years ago) but they are certainly all about Free software.
I don’t see how they aren’t GNU/Linux.
His statements have little to do with Linux’s goodness as an OS.
Read the article carefully. He’s saying it wouldn’t be profitable for Dell to offer Linux on desktops. It’s actually pretty easy to see how this might be true.
First, as someone else here pointed out, he’d likely lose discounts from MS. That’s a bundle of cash right there.
Second, remember he mentioned drivers. Especially for very desirable cutting-edge equipment like the latest 3D graphics cards, I imagine OEMs would charge Dell quite a premium for having to do double work (create the latest drivers for two OSs instead of one). Yes, folks like NVidia do put out Linux drivers, but these are made available on a “when we have time” basis.
It’s different with servers, because the driver situation doesn’t exist. (Anyone know of servers running SLI’d 6800 Ultras?) There, the traditional competition was with “big iron” running Unix. When Intel began building more powerful relatively budget-priced processors capable of running server-class machines, Linux and Windows became viable alternatives to Unix in the server space. That’s what Dell meant when he said Linux “started” on the server – he’s talking about the OS as a commercial force.
I was waiting for someone to point out that there is no “international copyright law” per se. Beside the Berne Convention, there is also the Universal Copyright Convention and World Trade Organization agreements that are recognized by member countries (the U.S. and Canada being said members). Then of course there are bilateral copyright treaties between many countries (again the U.S. and Canada) which cover enforement of copyright. So no, you can’t completely ignore U.S. copyright law because you live in Canada (or most of the rest of the world).
Here is a link of international copyright relations the U.S. has with other countries:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf
Here are some Canadian copyright links:
http://accesscopyright.ca
http://copibec.qc.ca
>You insulted someone without disproving them
Actually, I disproved “Moulinneuf” not once, but many times:
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10604&limit=no#375479
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10604&limit=no#375554
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10604&limit=no#375860
..and he goes on repeating over and over the same FUD over BSD software. And in any post he adds *tons* of further crap. What should I do? I don’t have neither the time nor the will to reply to him point by point.
Pick the latest post. The guy says:
“Yes , according to there review , modified BSDL pass because in certain case ( before someone do what is the norm with bsdl aka close it ) its Free Software.”
Now, this statement alone contains nothing less than 3 (*three*) things that are totally wrong, and 1 thing that’s misleading.
1) “close it”: totally wrong. Nobody can close any BSD code, that is bound to remain freely available, to anybody and for any purpose, forever.
2) “do what is the norm with bsdl”: totally wrong. Sometimes people write proprietary extensions to BSD code (and I wonder who gets hurt by that.), but it happens far more often that BSD code gets extended with other free/open software.
3) “in certain case (…) its Free Software”: totally wrong. BSD is always Free Software. If you say otherwise, you *must* specify that your definition of “Free Software” differs from the one adopted by the rest of the world (FSF included). Otherwise you’re simply lying.
4) “modified BSDL pass”: this is very misleading. Not only the modified BSD license is recognized by FSF as Free Software: the *original BSD license* (the one with 4 clauses) is also recognized as well as Free Software, by FSF. It’s clearly written in the link I posted in one of the comments I linked above.
Now, Chris, since you’re complaining, just tell me: should I reply point by point to this guy with comments that are *4 times* as long as his, in order to dispel all the FUD he’s pouring?
Or there’s a point when you should simply acknowledge that somebody is simply a troll/crapflooder, and nothing more?
And would that be a matter of insults, or a matter of facts?
(Moreover, about what you call “insults”: calling somebody a troll, or a FUDster, isn’t like calling him an idiot. Being a troll/FUDster is a matter of behaviour. The same goes with crapflooder = somebody who posts comments full of crap. It’s certainly a disparaging term, but I wouldn’t say it’s an insult).
I don’t have neither the time nor the will =
I have neither the time nor the will
is also recognized as well as Free Software =
is also recognized as Free Software
I wrote:
calling somebody a troll, or a FUDster, isn’t like calling him an idiot. Being a troll/FUDster is a matter of behaviour. The same goes with crapflooder = somebody who posts comments full of crap. It’s certainly a disparaging term, but I wouldn’t say it’s an insult
On second thoughts, I have to take that back: it’s wrong. I thought of a counterexample: on the same basis, one could argue that “motherf***er” isn’t an insult since it has a behavioural connotation..
“I’m not going to address your ramblings about how a 7 sentence licence works anymore.”
I discribed how this license really works. I spoke of the right and privilege given by the license. ( none , beside redistribution )
I will not adress anything based on US laws and misconception as they dont apply at all to this recognised Internationally copyrighted license. The Us laws dont apply to me or anyone else other then Etats-Unians inside the United States.
“Does that mean that the BSD is invalid in Germany? How about the GPL? ”
Its valid since its in use so does the GPL wich is something tottaly different. I fail to see where I said I am trying to invalidate them as a license , I said many people give it right and privilege wich are not in the license , and they dont meet my requirement of Open Source and Free Software even do they are certified as such by the OSI and the FSF and I am in disagreement over those certification and explained why.
Copyright : means right wich come with the copy. Its somehow twisted in the United-States but then where not going to go into the track record of the worst country copyright offender of all time.
“there is no such thing as International Copyright law”
Then I guess I need not to reply to you at all. As its what I am talking about. Its rather unpleasant to see you try to impose your US copyright law as Internationnal Copyrights law. You seem to be on a fishing trip and making your point as you go along , and keep on pushing your agenda and laws even do its does not apply at all.
Lets trow away the license and we will talk Law with someone who as no clue how internationnal Law are done.
Go read on the subject , pass the class and the exam then comeback. A good start if your not interested in doing so is this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_law
You take exerpt and bit from many place and say : I am right because those words re-aranged into the order I wish to see them give me the right to do what I spoke of and also give all my false point validity. It dont work that way at all.
Your not funny at all to rewrite everything as you please and see fit , just for the sake of winning , when like in this case its not even open to arguments.
Your point is as clear as day, but Moulinneuf has clouded vision. The guy is either doing this for fun, or he really does not comprehend true-to-life logic.
I’ve been having a kick reading this discussion.
“Red Hat is not GNU/Linux. Its not a GNU/Linux desktop leader either. ”
Yes , Red Hat is part of GNU/Linux , its NOT GNU/Linux or Red Hat is a GNU/Linux distribution but Red Hat is Not all of GNU/Linux. Still having fun pulling phrase our of there context I see …
“Actually I think even RMS likes RedHat politically speaking.”
And this as anything to do with what I said because ?
“They only ship free software. ”
Not Red hat , they also ship propietary product.
https://www.redhat.com/apps/isv_catalog/browse_by_vendor.html
“They contribute CODE back. ”
Yes , everyone does … Red hat less then others for the 3.2 Billion they got , but thats something entirely different.
“They are no desktop leader (they gave up on that almost two years ago)”
No , there management never realy add a real interest in the desktop or to be really precise the public desktop.
“but they are certainly all about Free software. ”
No , they are about profits , its not bad to be for profits , its just not what most people think they are all about.
“I don’t see how they aren’t GNU/Linux.”
There is Debian , Mandriva , Canonnical , Novell , etc …
They are part of it not entirely it by themself.
“there is no “international copyright law” per se. ”
Internationnal means in many country , worldwide means in all other country on the planet , and I am supposed to be the one with problem in English.
Yes there are International copyright law … If it where a US thing only as some of you suppose , I would be on the floor laughing real hard , US laws only apply To Etats-Unians inside the United-States and is marked US copyrighted.
“So no, you can’t completely ignore U.S. copyright law because you live in Canada (or most of the rest of the world). ”
I am under the Govern of Internationnal copyright laws and Canadian copyright law , I am not subject or under any US copyright law , make no mistake you do not impose your law on us ( Real American from CANADA ) or are we subject to your law at all.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf
“Relation” dont mean we are subject to your laws. It mean we will listen if you have a complaint and we follow the threaty and convention we ratified and follow the organization guideline of which we are a member of.
BTW just a tought your commander in Chief and President said : The UN is irrelevant , I will assume he meant all threaty and convention governed by the UN are null and void.
US laws are illegal in CANADA and dont apply at All.
“there is no “international copyright law” per se. ”
Internationnal means in many country , worldwide means in all other country on the planet , and I am supposed to be the one with problem in English.
No, international means between nations. Definition 1 from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=international: Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations. So, yes, you are the one with the English problems. And, no, there is no such thing as international copyright law.
Yes there are International copyright law … If it where a US thing only as some of you suppose , I would be on the floor laughing real hard , US laws only apply To Etats-Unians inside the United-States and is marked US copyrighted.
I hate to tell you this, but Canada is a signatory to the Berne Convention. Which means that the snippets I posted in my last message apply to you.
“So no, you can’t completely ignore U.S. copyright law because you live in Canada (or most of the rest of the world). ”
I am under the Govern of Internationnal copyright laws and Canadian copyright law , I am not subject or under any US copyright law , make no mistake you do not impose your law on us ( Real American from CANADA ) or are we subject to your law at all.
Again, there is no such thing as international copyright law. And you are under the Berne Convention which says the same thing as U.S. copyright law (it has to since the U.S. is also a Berne treaty member). And if you read the pdf given, you’d see that Canada and the U.S. have treaties which can put you under U.S. jurisdiction for various copyright infrignments.
“Relation” dont mean we are subject to your laws. It mean we will listen if you have a complaint and we follow the threaty and convention we ratified and follow the organization guideline of which we are a member of.
And, as pointed out, the Berne Convention is one of them.
US laws are illegal in CANADA and dont apply at All.
I really don’t think you should be telling people to go to law school if this is the extent of your knowledge.
Now, go be a good boy and read the Berne Convention and then come back and tell me how you aren’t automatically assigned copyright for your own work (which you’ve disputed). And then explain how an unsigned license agreement can cause a copyright transfer.
You’re really too funny.
“They only ship free software. ”
Not Red hat , they also ship propietary product.
https://www.redhat.com/apps/isv_catalog/browse_by_vendor.html
That is a list of programs which are certified to run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, not programs that they ship.
“Actually, I disproved “Moulinneuf” not once, but many times:”
No , but then again you dont know what proof and disproved means , I guess.
” http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10604&limit=no#375479“
FUD aint a magic word prooving you as right …
“http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10604&limit=no#375554“
“So (of course…) FreeBSD is both Open Source and Free Software. ”
No , they are certified as such at this time by the OSI and FSF at this time.
“http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10604&limit=no#375860“
“The interpretation of this academic license has been established by decades of use, and is beyond any conceivable doubt. ”
“Basically it says: do *whatever the heck* you want with my code, except 1) stripping away the license, 2) using my name to endorse your stuff and 3) suing me if it doesn’t work as you expect. ”
to which I replied :
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10604&limit=no#376097
2..and he goes on repeating over and over the same FUD over BSD software. ”
Its not FUD. And I actually dont repeat myself.
“And in any post he adds *tons* of further crap. What should I do? I don’t have neither the time nor the will to reply to him point by point.”
I dont add any crap at all just facts , stop lying would be a good start. And stop making up nonesense as you go along.
“Now, this statement alone contains nothing less than 3 (*three*) things that are totally wrong, and 1 thing that’s misleading. ”
No its entirely accurate.
“Nobody can close any BSD code, that is bound to remain freely available, to anybody and for any purpose, forever. ”
Mac OS X
“Sometimes people write proprietary extensions to BSD code (and I wonder who gets hurt by that.), but it happens far more often that BSD code gets extended with other free/open software. ”
The norm is people take BSD code add to it and close it. Otherwise the BSD code would make GNU/Linux code look like a dwarf in numbers and not the opposite as it is.
“BSD is always Free Software. If you say otherwise, you *must* specify that your definition of “Free Software” differs from the one adopted by the rest of the world (FSF included).”
I whas refering to the closing of BSD code , not to my definitions of what is Free as in freedom and what constitute real free software. You have failed to provide why something that wich can close the modification added to free software and keep them for themself even when sold stil deserve to be called Free Software.
“this is very misleading.”
No , because one pass the compatibility test with the GPL will the other dont :
GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses
BSDL
GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses
BSD
“in order to dispel all the FUD he’s pouring”
No FUD on my part.
“No, international means between nations”
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=international:
1. Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations: an international commission; international affairs.
2. Extending across or transcending national boundaries: international fame.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=international&ls=a
“Which means that the snippets I posted in my last message apply to you. ”
Its not a direct and full quote. So , no , and some of it whas changed over the years.
” there is no such thing as international copyright law”
Great I can do whatever I whant with US copyright as its not protected under copyrighted Canadian Law … Not really the case , there are International copyright law.
“And you are under the Berne Convention which says the same thing as U.S. copyright law (it has to since the U.S. is also a Berne treaty member).”
Well no , on its the same thing , no the US did not and still dont have any power over the Berne convention and what whas decided there. And no the US law are not Legal In Canada.
“And if you read the pdf given, you’d see that Canada and the U.S. have treaties which can put you under U.S. jurisdiction for various copyright infrignments. ”
Read it , No , but then you can ask for extradition , No Canadian in CANADA will ever be under U.S. jurisdiction ever.
“And, as pointed out, the Berne Convention is one of them. ”
Yes , we agreed to some of the term , but they are not the same as US copyrighted law. And those applied to 1886. there whas no computer in 1886 either …
” really don’t think you should be telling people to go to law school if this is the extent of your knowledge.”
Thats not the extent of my knowledge but whats the point of replying with more then is needed to someone who is refering to something which whas made in 1886 and who say because he is from one Country who participated in Berne and who happens to have copyright law of its own that the law of is country due to Berne automaticaly apply to my country and all others who participated to Berne.
US Copyright law , Berne Convention , Internationnal copyright laws , Canadian Laws , all those are *different* but with some similar content and subject. You cant Mix them or interchange them as you will as they are not the same at all , a bit Like BSD and GPL.
“read the Berne Convention”
I did
“and tell me how you aren’t automatically assigned copyright for your own work (which you’ve disputed).”
No , that would be the point you put forward , and are using as it would solve the no right given in BSD as , according to you , the right to ownership cant be given in the license , too bad the GPL is also a copyright license and does exactly that give ownership to the user.
Oh , yes , I can assign my right to someone else , would be one answer to your problem/question. The problem is I was not discussing that , you brought it in and your stuck going nowhere with it.
“And then explain how an unsigned license agreement can cause a copyright transfer.”
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
“6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.”
“And then explain how an unsigned license agreement can cause a copyright transfer.”
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
“6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.”
Thats a sublicensing clause, not a copyright transfer. Really, do you have the foggiest clue what you’re talking about?
I’d pick apart the rest of your comment piece by piece but I’d just be repeating things that I already did. So how about just giving up, you don’t even need to admit that you’re wrong, just giving up will do.
“That is a list of programs which are certified to run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, not programs that they ship”
No , its program that they ship. they even do support service and install service on them for a fee. thats why its in there software catalog under solution.
“Thats a sublicensing clause,”
No , its not.
” not a copyright transfer.”
Yes, it is.
” Really, do you have the foggiest clue what you’re talking about? ”
Yes , I aint you.
“I’d pick apart the rest of your comment piece by piece”
No , you would change the subject and say something clueless and or just a tad bit related but false just as you have been doing so far.
“but I’d just be repeating things that I already did.”
Your not repeating yourself and you have not said one single point which whas valid at all.
“So how about just giving up”
Your giving up you making thing up as you go , fine by me.
“you don’t even need to admit that you’re wrong”
I whas not wrong at all. you where.
“just giving up will do.”
would be fun that you explain what I should give up , I whas right and factual and I gain nothing nor loose anything by replying to you.
gnu.org #243459] BSD should be removed from the List of Free Software Certified license
“Dave Turner via RT” <licensing@fsf.org>
I guess the only thing I can say to this is “don’t be more Catholic than the Pope.”
—
-Dave “Novalis” Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation
So because the BSD license is more “free” than the GPL, they want to get rid of it? Take your GPL trolling somewhere else.
Oh, and about the Redhat thing … this is a quote from the very web page: “This is a list of 340 certified vendors with applications running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.”
Nowhere does it say they SHIP that software. It’s a listing of RHEL-certified software.
“That is a list of programs which are certified to run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, not programs that they ship”
No , its program that they ship. they even do support service and install service on them for a fee. thats why its in there software catalog under solution.
Please note the URL carefully!
https://www.redhat.com/apps/isv_catalog/browse_by_vendor.html
There, in the middle, you see where it says “isv_catalog”? Good, now what do you think “ISV” stands for? Your responce will probably be very entertaining as will your personal definition of what “independent” means.
Your responce is just off the wall (once again)! I suppose that you are going to say that they sell all of the certified hardware listed on the website under the “hardware catalog” section as well! Go ahead, call up Red Hat and try to order your PeopleSoft or SAP software solution.
As for U.S. copyright law, if you feel it doesn’t pertain to you in the least, set up a website to give away U.S. copyright music and software. We can all read about you in the newspapers.
“what do you think “ISV” stands for? ”
Independent software vendor.
“as will your personal definition of what “independent” means. ”
http://www.onelook.com/?w=independent&ls=a
“Your responce is just off the wall ”
I just know the difference between shipped and made. Probably another mistake on my part.
“I suppose that you are going to say that they sell all of the certified hardware listed on the website under the “hardware catalog” section as well! ”
If I got your answer right none of those mentionned here :
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/hwcert/list.cgi?component=Red+Hat+Enterp…
can be bought with the help of Red Hat. Good to know
“if you feel it doesn’t pertain to you in the least”
Its not a feeling.
“set up a website to give away U.S. copyright music and software.”
Why would I stole someone else property to proove “your” point , I read , understand and respect license and choose them according to what they say , include and give.
“We can all read about you in the newspapers. ”
Its public knowledge here that all laws from the US including US copyright Law dont apply here.
Stop insulting the Frenchman by making association with me and a link between it and your insults. Unlike You I have a name : Moulinneuf.
“So because the BSD license is more “free” than the GPL, they want to get rid of it? Take your GPL trolling somewhere else. ”
No , the answer is , Moulinneuf you right but the basis of our acceptance is purely based on politics and beside it would piss off some in the BSD community , “so dont be more catholic then the pope.”
And yes , I now agree with you , I have changed my mind since BSD is Free Software and it is certified as such by the FSF and they rightfully give the permission to close the source with any modification and the GPL does not then the GPL is less Free then BSD.
“Oh, and about the Redhat thing … this is a quote from the very web page: “This is a list of 340 certified vendors with applications running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.” ”
Yep its a direct quote I confirm it.
“Nowhere does it say they SHIP that software. It’s a listing of RHEL-certified software.”
I absolutely agree , nowhere does it say ship that software. Its not like I can go call there service branch have them ship me both there server and the product on certified hardware or have them refer me to one of there local consultant wich can offer a complete turnkey solution for me , no Sir , its Red Hat they dont do that.
…
Respond to you makes me want to cry, but I struggle along anyways for some reason.
“Thats a sublicensing clause,”
No , its not.
” not a copyright transfer.”
Yes, it is.
The first sentence of section 6 says “6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.”
Do you see the word in bold print? It says receives a license. The GPL provides a license which you can sublicense. It does not do a copyright transfer. As I already said, there is no way to transfer your copyright in Germany so if you interpretation is correct it would invalidate the GPL in Germany. Since German courts have ruled the GPL valid (twice now, actually), your interpretation can’t possibly be correct. Again, you can read right? Cause if you diagree with me you either can’t read or you have no clue how a copyright transfer is different from a license.
Next, you’ve said both
No , its program that they ship.
and
“Nowhere does it say they SHIP that software. It’s a listing of RHEL-certified software.”
I absolutely agree , nowhere does it say ship that software.
In a matter of 5 posts. So which is it, do you actually admit you were wrong and Red Hat doesn’t ship those third party programs, or do you still think they do?
And finally …
No , that would be the point you put forward , and are using as it would solve the no right given in BSD as , according to you , the right to ownership cant be given in the license , too bad the GPL is also a copyright license and does exactly that give ownership to the user.
Oh , yes , I can assign my right to someone else , would be one answer to your problem/question. The problem is I was not discussing that , you brought it in and your stuck going nowhere with it.
You’re the one talking about giving ownership to the user. I asked you for the clause that does that in the GPL and you quoted section 6. Section 6 talks about licenses, not about any transfer of rights and ownership. And as I stated above, in some places you can’t transfer ownership at all. So make up you’re mind, are you talking about copyright transfer or not? Or do you seriously not understand the difference between these things? I’m about 99% sure that you don’t have the faintest clue how copyright law works in any jurisdiction.