Post #218,615
8/10/05 12:57:50 PM
|
Made up my mind, the FSF *is* anti-business
Two words: embedded Linux.
Derivation of the conclusion is left to the reader. Unless someone wants me to elaborate. Think about my recent post on this topic for a hint.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #218,675
8/10/05 4:40:55 PM
|
Okay Skip^H^H^H^HBrett^H^H^H^H^HDrew.
That's enough out of you.
You stole my thunder. And shouldn't this be in "oh,Pun!"?
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,681
8/10/05 5:03:02 PM
|
Too right
Because business is anti-Freedom.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #218,757
8/11/05 8:04:51 AM
|
Okay, here it is
Remember my [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218429|Post #218429] to Imric where I described a situation where you rent a managed, sealed box from Oracle? I realized that's basically an embedded device. It is already possible with GPLv2 to ship an embedded device, say a DVR, without providing source, since you're not distributing the binary.
So now, with GPLv3, we're going to say that Google, for instance, would have to provide source since we're redefining "web services" to be a form of distribution. But if Google shipped a sealed box that does the same thing for your corporate network that their public site does for the internet, that "embedded device" is not distribution. But if they host that box for you, it's distribution.
How's that work?
The only reasonable explanation is that web services caught on and starting making serious money first. I suspect Imric is right: as soon as embedded devices -- or something else -- starts making money, we'll see GPLv4, which will define that as distribution.
Like he said in his first post on this, someone please tell me how I'm wrong.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #218,761
8/11/05 8:54:46 AM
|
Whattaya talking about?
When Linksys sold the wireless router running Linux, it fit your description.
And they had to release the source.
|
Post #218,770
8/11/05 9:33:37 AM
|
Hmm, trying to find a link
A router is different from a DVR. You are expected to have some control over it. IIRC there was a Linux-based DVR released, and there was some discssion over whether they needed to release the source. I'm trying to track down the references to see what came of that, but from what I read it wasn't considered a slam-dunk that they'd have to release it.
Part of the difference (again IIRC) was if you put the code on a non-flashable chip. Will try to find a reference to what I'm remembering.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #218,781
8/11/05 10:45:42 AM
|
TIVO
And they released the Linux portion.
[link|http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp|http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp]
|
Post #218,791
8/11/05 11:09:44 AM
|
Wasn't there a camp saying they had to release everything?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #218,800
8/11/05 12:02:29 PM
|
Big thread...
started by Stallman is [link|http://groups-beta.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_frm/thread/f609586bfde52161/6fd696df5f70379a?lnk=st&q=Tivo+source+code+release&rnum=1&hl=en#6fd696df5f70379a|here.]
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #218,801
8/11/05 12:14:20 PM
|
Classic
RMS presents the question to the newsgroup, a TiVO guy says "You could just ask!" 7 posts in and tells everyone where they can get the source (on CD) and for how much ($24.95) and everyone else spends the next 100+ posts bitching about the price.
--
Chris Altmann
|
Post #218,807
8/11/05 12:26:59 PM
|
That's all about price, though
Mentioned in passing was that they only have to distribute source for the stuff they modified. Is that the case? If I produced an embedded app like a TIVO and only installed completely unmodified Linux on it, and a custom app written in (for example) C++, would I have to make the source available for the unmodified OS I was using?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #218,808
8/11/05 12:29:10 PM
|
Applications that ride along do not need to be open source.
|
Post #218,813
8/11/05 1:08:58 PM
|
This is starting to sound like fertile ground for lawyers
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #218,814
8/11/05 1:26:55 PM
|
ObSentientLRPD: It got me an A+ on a biology paper.
|
Post #218,815
8/11/05 1:47:42 PM
|
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
|
Post #218,827
8/11/05 2:31:15 PM
|
Been that way for many internet EONs.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,853
8/11/05 4:11:19 PM
|
Today, you dance for my amusement.
|
Post #218,843
8/11/05 3:43:07 PM
|
Keeping you in touch with temptation.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #218,851
8/11/05 3:59:43 PM
|
Hello! Woody! Do you want join in vehement athletics?
|
Post #218,863
8/11/05 4:52:28 PM
|
Here is a better example
[link|http://www.fonality.com/|http://www.fonality.com/]
They just put a web interface in front of [link|http://www.asterisk.org/|Asterisk] and they ship you a box that uses the web interface. They have modifications to Asterisk, but they don't released because they didn't actually distribute Asterisk. What is the reason for a web interface you ask? None, other than to get around the requirements of the GPL.
Please tell me that this is not violating the intent, if not the letter, of GPLing Asterisk. I need the laugh.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #218,876
8/11/05 5:45:57 PM
|
Now *that* kind of "web service" *is* a loophole
Except that it's not. :-) To me "web service" means that it's accessed over a network. If it's installed on the same box it's just a service. When I write something that way I don't call it "web based", it's "browser based". Totally different thing. Sort of.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #218,901
8/11/05 7:01:58 PM
|
No, it is a loophole - see my reply to bepatient
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #218,879
8/11/05 6:09:41 PM
|
FWIW, Asterisk can be commercially licensed
--
Chris Altmann
|
Post #218,884
8/11/05 6:17:01 PM
|
Not really.
They are selling you the server box with the sofware. I would definitely define that as distribution.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #218,900
8/11/05 7:01:33 PM
|
Nope, they are not
My understanding is that they don't distribute Asterisk on that box. Just a proprietary front end that connects to Asterisk running on their servers.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #218,925
8/11/05 10:04:26 PM
|
Re: Nope, they are not
[link|http://www.fonality.com/pbxtra_pricing.html|http://www.fonality....xtra_pricing.html] PBXtra is a full-featured IP-PBX that runs on a custom server sitting in your office. The cost is $995, including the server! That and the other marketing material on the site lead me to believe that asterisk is on the box sold. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #218,940
8/11/05 11:28:28 PM
|
The source of my impression...
I know someone who they wanted to hire, and they walked him through what they did.
I'd trust that more than the marketing material.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #218,979
8/12/05 9:19:39 AM
|
Thats fine
But since they publish that info for mass consumption...I'd say these guys aren't "skirting" the GPL as much as simply and blatantly violating it.
But I will grant that if they are trying to skirt by this on defining themselves as a "web service" then you could either change the license or simply better define web service, which is what is being done. However, I don't think it would be necessary if someone wanted to sue them for violation of the license. Reasonable man theory and all.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #219,014
8/12/05 11:29:52 AM
|
I believe that they are not actually violating the license
As long as they don't redistribute Asterisk, they don't have to return their changes under GPL v2. The explanation that I heard suggests that, appearances notwithstanding, they are not actually violating the GPL v2. They're just leaning very, very hard on the loophole.
Perhaps this example may help demonstrate to Skip why Stallman might reasonably have changed his mind on this topic.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #220,320
8/21/05 2:24:07 PM
|
Still in wait and see mode!
This whole thing may be a non-issue. I hope so. I quit considering this; it's pointless until we can see.
[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.
|
|
Post #220,352
8/21/05 10:14:30 PM
|
Not so pointless
Whether or not this group is violating the license (which depends on facts that I know through hearsay and cannot prove), the fact that this is possible demonstrates that there is a loophole which can be used in ways that most people who use the GPL probably wouldn't like.
Whether or not it is a good idea to try to shut down said loophole is another isssue. But the point remains that the spirit of the GPL can be abused by putting an http rpc mechanism in front of GPLed code and shipping a proprietary thin client.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
