IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Here is my grounds for poo-pooing your concern.
Think about this:
Darl McDLT, runs a business as an application service provider. Let us say that he has a potential customer that is having performance problem at the current provider they are using. They are using a CMS written in PHP and backended by MySQL, both released under the GPLv2. Pretty straight forward. Pretty much all the bells and whistles, just slow as hell, maybe becuase of not enough bandwidth to service the full load, or maybe just not enough processor umph for the job... in any case, said prospective customer says that if Darl can demo a faster system they'd switch in a heart beat.

Darl goes and does his stuff. Through his amazingly awesome programming skills, he, discovers a speedup for the SQL engine of MySQL. Solid, so solid in fact it reduces the time to start by half and speedsup SQL queries by a factor of 10. Muahahaha... nice coup there. Then Darl starts on the CMS. There he also discovers, just by removing a one line sanity check (that is prone to slow-down because of the massive amount of data it is checking against) in a file, and adding 3 quick-checks in 3 other files, doing the same thing but with constraints, gives him the same results and also significantly speeds up processing time by another factor of 4.

He then decides to rollout and deploy this customized-to-his-needs version. Does the Demo, lands the contract for the application providing. He makes lotsa money. All well and good. He has a huge competitive advantage.
Plain and simple explanation of events that happen all day long in Business, right? Right.

Followup questions for you:
  1. Is there any doubt he is well within the rights of the GPLv2?
  2. Is there any question that he is distributing the use of the CMS backended by MySQL?
  3. Is there any question, that he changed the code?
  4. Are you satisfied, that were you Darl's competitor, that he is using nearly identical hardware and bandwidth, that trounces your setup you pride yourself in being as "Good as it gets" in regards to tweaks and making the preoper optimizations for you platform?
  5. Yet Darl is using the same software and nearly the same hardware, yet his site is better than 20 times faster then yours and due to that can handle many more customers on that setup, stealing business away from you. Do this seem fair?
  6. Do you agree, that "technically" he *IS* distributing a binary usage, being used by hundreds (if not thousands) of people?
  7. If you do not think he is providing / selling / distributing / making-available-for-pay the Binaries of this CMS and MySQL, then what is he selling or providing?
  8. Based on you answer, please tell me how you can defend this? (yes I presumed you would not agree)
Based on this whole set of question's answers, I am going to pre-suppose you would rather keep the corporate welfare loophole, on a technicality, being proper.

What if both MySQL and the CMS were actually YOUR programs, that YOU copyrighted and released under the GNU GPLv2? What effect would that have on your stance? Would this affect your willingness to continue developing these programs, pro-bono?

You see, what Moglen and the FSF are trying to accomplish here, are trying to close those corporate welfare usage problems that are existing right now. There are companies using so heavily modified software packages (the actual source for these programs, not the "implemntation of them") that are selling them as a service. This is literally allowing the corporations to feed off the goodwill of the "FOSS Community". Look at Sun and how it is trying this same thing with Solaris, don't get me wrong, it is cool for them to try and grab a piece of the Free Developement available out there, but at what expense to other things?

I guess by now, you'll have ignored anything after the thrid numbered question. I am very upset, that you of all people don't get what this is calling for. It is NOT, ANTI-BUSINESS, just that it closes the loophole that has already been closed for the "distributors of binaries compiled from GPLv2 source", if it were so anti-business, why are so many businesses, starting to actually release source under the GPLv2, and more than likely will start using GPLv3, when the misunderstandings are worked out and everyone understands what "Web Services" really means.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New No. Wrong. And this is why
there is no 'loophole' to be closed.

1. Is there any doubt he is well within the rights of the GPLv2?

No. But under v3, he must publish his changes.

2. Is there any question that he is distributing the use of the CMS backended by MySQL?

Using a program is FAR different than distributing the program. Under this kind of sopistry, ALL multi-user programs are guilty of the 'loophole'.
3. Is there any question, that he changed the code?

Since that is posited, no doubt.

4. Are you satisfied, that were you Darl's competitor, that he is using nearly identical hardware and bandwidth, that trounces your setup you pride yourself in being as "Good as it gets" in regards to tweaks and making the preoper optimizations for you platform?

What competitors believe is irrelevant. You might believe that ANYTHING is 'as good as it gets'; so what? What gives you, as a competitor, the right to the efforts of your competition? Especially as the software HAS NOT been distributed in any way.

5. Yet Darl is using the same software and nearly the same hardware, yet his site is better than 20 times faster then yours and due to that can handle many more customers on that setup, stealing business away from you. Do this seem fair?

Darl is NOT using the same software - and as Darls competition, you have the right to optimize the software as well, so there is NOTHING 'unfair'.

6. Do you agree, that "technically" he *IS* distributing a binary usage, being used by hundreds (if not thousands) of people?

No. Not at all. Not in ANY WAY. This is sophistry, pure and simple. No binaries have been distributed; they are not running on the client's machine.

7. If you do not think he is providing / selling / distributing / making-available-for-pay the Binaries of this CMS and MySQL, then what is he selling or providing?

Use of his server. The binaries have never moved, they do NOT run on the client machines, not at ALL. THERE HAS BEEN NO DISTRIBUTION - except if you want to redefine 'distribution'. That IS the MO of your argument, no? In fact, you CAN'T redefine distribution like this - that's why the FSF feels this so-called 'loophole' has to be closed.

What if both MySQL and the CMS were actually YOUR programs, that YOU copyrighted and released under the GNU GPLv2? What effect would that have on your stance? Would this affect your willingness to continue developing these programs, pro-bono?

No effect. Under GPL2 I have no right to another's efforts unless the software is distributed. GPL3 effectively eliminates the availability of source code as a desireable feature for business, though.
and more than likely will start using GPLv3, when the misunderstandings are worked out and everyone understands what "Web Services" really means.

Fantasy. I've read the proposed license a dozen times, and I'm truly afraid I DO know what 'web services' means to the FSF.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Exactly the kind of response I expected.
You are missing the entire point.

If you profit from giving access to your modifications through a service charge, then you have distributed access to those binaries, though on your machine, you still are breaking the spirit of the GPLv2.

Therefore the GPLv3 is addressing it.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New Horsecrap.
The binaries have not gone anywhare; the SOFTWARE has not been distributed.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New The binaries have not been distributed . . .
. . but the effect of Web services is as if binaries have been distributed. Many outside users are accessing those binaries which are modifications of GPL'd code without any benefit having been returned to the writers of the original code or to the community.

It is easy to see why the FSF considers this a loophole, especially given the increase expected in Web services, so I suspect this clause will be kept. Providers of Web services will need to find another way to achieve a return from their modifications than by keeping them secret. Those that figure out some other value will be key beneficiaries.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New And then GPL4.
Brett Glass was right.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Or most OSS used for web services won't be GPL3
     This has been bugging me. - (imric) - (72)
         It's the usual cack. - (pwhysall) - (13)
             Nonsense, Peter. - (imric) - (12)
                 I repeat. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     I care about this, Peter. - (imric) - (2)
                         I don't doubt that you care. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             It's true that it may be less of a problem - (imric)
                 the fact that you dont distribute your software - (boxley) - (1)
                     disgruntled >>--> Whistleblower laws. -NT - (imric)
                 Also, looky here: - (pwhysall) - (5)
                     ICLRPD (new thread) - (Steve Lowe)
                     Woo hoo. - (imric) - (2)
                         Remember, existing GPLv2 software will remain GPLv2 - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             ROFL - just posted that is a mitigating factor... - (imric)
                     He who controls the compiler... - (ChrisR)
         How is it ridiculous? - (JayMehaffey) - (36)
             Bravo. -NT - (folkert) - (23)
                 Guess you don't want to use application source - (imric) - (22)
                     Here is my grounds for poo-pooing your concern. - (folkert) - (6)
                         No. Wrong. And this is why - (imric) - (5)
                             Exactly the kind of response I expected. - (folkert) - (4)
                                 Horsecrap. - (imric) - (3)
                                     The binaries have not been distributed . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                         And then GPL4. - (imric)
                                         Or most OSS used for web services won't be GPL3 -NT - (tonytib)
                     Another train of thought, I need to mention. - (folkert) - (5)
                         question, using go-global - (boxley) - (1)
                             I knowest not. -NT - (folkert)
                         Since MS software is licenced per user - (imric) - (2)
                             No... there is only one user. - (folkert) - (1)
                                 Again, ridiculous. - (imric)
                     Excuse me. I am a programmer. - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                         there is a place for all kinds - (boxley) - (1)
                             Perl's licensing situation is interesting - (ben_tilly)
                         Not at all, Ben. - (imric) - (5)
                             Perspective is all - (ChrisR) - (4)
                                 Pirates? - (imric) - (3)
                                     Pirate analogy is a different issue - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                         I disagree - (broomberg) - (1)
                                             The original instigation for FSF - (ChrisR)
             How is that a 'loophole' unless - (imric) - (11)
                 It's a loophole for the FSF. - (pwhysall) - (6)
                     http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=21 - (imric) - (2)
                         Your point? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             I started this - (imric)
                     Business Interests - (ChrisR) - (2)
                         Most businesses... - (pwhysall)
                         Same difference, if the apps are GPLed. -NT - (imric)
                 It's contrary to the spirit of the GPL - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                     Except, of course - (imric) - (2)
                         Not anti-Buisness - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                             *shrug* same as BSD - (imric)
         Sorry Skip, you are lacking some significant clues - (ben_tilly) - (3)
             Ruining business? - (imric) - (2)
                 And you're still missing the point - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                     And that's what I did - I slept on it. - (imric)
         I was going to say something smart-ass here, - (broomberg) - (14)
             No. You are not listening. Just like the rest. - (imric) - (13)
                 Re: No. You are not listening. Just like the rest. - (bepatient)
                 Religion? - (broomberg) - (5)
                     Listen carefully, now. - (imric) - (4)
                         A collective yawn - (ChrisR) - (3)
                             Long term = 0 - (bepatient)
                             I don't think he's talking about selling mods . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                 Correct - reselling not the point. - (imric)
                 I think I understand where you're coming from. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Yeah. I think the 'coming fork' is a bad thing, though -NT - (imric)
                 I think this is where you are going wrong - (JayMehaffey)
                 I am not missing this point. - (folkert) - (2)
                     I see what you're saying - (imric) - (1)
                         BTW, this discussion should really be moved to (new thread) - (imric)
         Several things - (ubernostrum) - (1)
             More good points (new thread) - (imric)

A mindset is a terrible thing to waste.
101 ms