Test your GNU knowledge

Post #40,273 by Gibbo 5/29/02 1:12:55 AM Reply	Test your GNU knowledge I'm not as much of an expert as I thought :( At this [link\|http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi\|quiz] I only got four correct out of eight.
Post #40,275 by kmself 5/29/02 2:27:36 AM Reply	Three wrong ...with the GPL/LGPL in front of me. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand? Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead. [link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|[link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|http://www.eff.org/...a_alert.html]]`
Post #40,276 by Steve Lowe 5/29/02 2:30:03 AM Reply	missed #2 Guessed on most of them, though. ----- Steve
Post #40,283 by hnick 5/29/02 7:29:57 AM Reply	Gahh... 50% is failing everywhere.... This grabs me as a great reason to NOT use GPL. There has to be a way to develop software without becoming a freaking lawyer. Yuck...
Post #40,288 by imric 5/29/02 8:12:30 AM Reply	Got BSD? 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.
Post #40,284 by static 5/29/02 7:43:20 AM Reply	I hope they're recording statistics. It would be educational to see which questions people tend to get wrong. I got 4 wrong. Not to turn this into a GPL discussion, but I don't see why providing a URL to the source code on a web server isn't sufficient. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #40,287 by imric 5/29/02 8:11:37 AM Reply	I dunno - because distribution of a URL might mean that the distributor could shirk the responsibility for making the source available? I mean the "Fred" might be inclined to simply provide the URL to a site not controlled an operated by "Fred" - the site could disappear, and the source be 'lost' that way... But then, I really couldn't say... My score doesn't exactly highlight me as a GPL expert, either... 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.
Post #40,286 by imric 5/29/02 8:05:46 AM Reply	Rats! Four wrong... :( 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.
Post #40,299 by ben_tilly 5/29/02 10:08:04 AM Reply	7/9 here without looking Did they change the quiz? You quote there as being 8 questions. I was fairly wrong about the LGPL. But I am irritated about the GPL question they missed. I think that their interpretation of section 3b of the GPL reflects neither common usage nor intent. OK, the wording of ...on a medium customarily used for software interchange... suggests a physical item with code on that, but s/on/in/ and you get the common understanding - the Internet is widely used for software interchange, and this is the first time that I have heard anyone claim that posting code on the web isn't enough. If their interpretation is true (and looking at the source, they probably had good advice), then that is something that I hope gets fixed in the next version of the GPL. :-( Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,317 by drewk 5/29/02 12:11:07 PM Reply	That's what I thought, too OK, the wording of ...on a medium customarily used for software interchange... suggests a physical item with code on that, but s/on/in/ and you get the common understanding - the Internet is widely used for software interchange, and this is the first time that I have heard anyone claim that posting code on the web isn't enough. <ObAOL>Me Too!</ObAOL> BTW I had two wrong. Mostly I guessed based on what I believed the intent of the license to be. The fact I got most of them right indicates to me that the wording is pretty good. Number 5 was a lawyer's dream. Totally impenetrable IMO. Number 6: I guess the actual requirement is that you either charge the cost of distribution or give source free to anyone who buys the binary? === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #40,321 by ben_tilly 5/29/02 12:25:07 PM Reply	The specification is section 3 of the GPL And reading the license closer, the restriction seems to be intentional. The last paragraph of section 3 provides that if the distribution mechanism is access to copy from a designated place, then making source code available in the same way counts as distributing it, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source. In other words if you put your executable on a website and the code along with it, that is OK. But if you ship someone a CD, then you have to be willing to ship them sourcecode as well. (Don't ask me why.) Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,322 by drewk 5/29/02 12:42:48 PM Reply	"Sorry, we're slashdotted" Sell the binary on CD, then put up a website behind a dialup, run off a Palm Pilot with Apache on it. Tell people they can dowload the 2 gigs of source there. Seems reasonable that the source should be at least as accessible as the binary, and in the same manner. I wonder if anyone actually tried this, or if the clause is anticipating a hypothetical? Imagine the brainstorming sessions to figure out ways to cheat the GPL. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #40,495 by Gibbo 5/30/02 8:58:18 AM 5/30/02 9:00:44 AM Reply	Of course I can't count. I did a degree in Pure Mathematics Edited by Gibbo May 30, 2002, 09:00:44 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #40,313 by Arkadiy 5/29/02 11:43:11 AM Reply	3 wrong out of 9 I am still reeling from LGPL stuff. I don't see why one is required to provide full source code for an app linked to a modified LGPL'd library. Paragrphs 2 and 6 of LGPL don't seem to require that.
Post #40,324 by ben_tilly 5/29/02 12:45:23 PM Reply	That one is laid out pretty clearly There are four basic cases. The first is that the resulting work as a whole is a unit, in which case you can make it a library and distribute the whole thing as LGPL - requires distributing source publically. The second is that you choose to use the GPL exemption - requires distributing source publically. The third is that you can go for the exemption in section 5 by letting the user link the two - which they did not choose to do (they shipped it linked). The fourth is that you can do what they did and make it available under terms of your choosing so long as those terms meet certain restrictions. Those restrictions include that you have to provide any data and utility programs needed for customers to reproduce your executable for themselves, and you need to allow modification of the work for the customer's use. You do not have to allow public redistribution by the customer though. In the 3 of the four cases that are consistent with what they did (shipped the work linked to the library), you have to provide source. In real life people just dynamically link and avoid the issue. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,592 by Arkadiy 5/30/02 4:16:42 PM Reply	Re: That one is laid out pretty clearly So, would it be enough to provide .o files instead of source? That would allow the user to re-link the app with another version of LGPL'd library.
Post #40,608 by ben_tilly 5/30/02 6:30:07 PM Reply	Exactly Or, more to the point, the user could look at the LGPL library, then write another library that meets the API and link to that. The way that the LGPL is looser than the GPL is pretty much that the LGPL allows the creation of proprietary derivative works. It doesn't allow the distribution of them in a still proprietary form, but you can create them. Linking does, of course, create the proprietary derived works that I mentioned. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,624 by Arkadiy 5/30/02 8:00:28 PM Reply	I think you got it a bit wrong Both GPL and LGPL allow creation of derived works. Both disallow distribution of such works unless the code is available. The difference is in the definition of derivative work. For GPL, linking to code (statically or dynamically) is considered derivative work. For LGPL, dynamic linking is not considered a derivation. When static linking is used, LGPL is a unclear to me. Apparently, you must provide the code that links to the library in such a form that allows re-linking to different version of the library (object files?). It may be that in the case you modified the library, you must provide the applicatiuon that links to it in a form that makes debugging of library possible (source code?). Like I said, I am a bit unclear there.
Post #40,734 by Brandioch 5/31/02 1:53:35 PM Reply	That was my understanding. For LGPL, dynamic linking is not considered a derivation. And, therefore, you do not have to release any source code. At least, that was the way I understood it. The LGPL was created to allow proprietary apps to link to libraries and such in such a manner that would NOT necessitate the release of the proprietary code. Ben, if this is incorrect, could you/would you explain under what circumstances a proprietary app could run on a GPL/LGPL'd OS/library? Aside from the bit about having everything built into the app in the first place. I'm confused on this, now.
Post #40,879 by ben_tilly 6/1/02 8:53:51 PM Reply	I believe you are right.... And you just demonstrated why I got 2 wrong. :-) Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,326 by Brandioch 5/29/02 1:03:33 PM Reply	Ditto. I missed that one. I thought that you would only have to release the source for the modified LGPL library. Okay, suppose, in theory, that you have two companies. Company A modifies the LGPL'ed library and releases full source. Company B writes a proprietary app that uses the modified LGPL'ed library. Would Company B still be required to release the source for their app? I don't see that. So, what is the difference when there is one company instead of two?
Post #40,328 by ben_tilly 5/29/02 1:24:58 PM Reply	Red herring One company, two company, doesn't matter. They shipped them linked together. That is the issue. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,370 by inthane-chan 5/29/02 4:25:14 PM Reply	7/9 Damn, not bad for somebody who's never read the GPL itself... And I reasoned each one out from what I knew of the GPL + LGPL already. By the way, does RMS remind anybody of the kook (Andy) from Cryptonomicon who sued the protagonist over the survival simulation software? Anybody think this is intentional? InThane - Now running Ashton rev 2.0
Post #40,415 by folkert 5/29/02 7:52:28 PM Reply	Opposite of Karsten... Three Right.... But then again... I really don't get into the forensics of the GPL or LGPL. Well, I guess I should really REALLY read it soon.. as I am really starting to push things a bit. `greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!`
Post #40,425 by Meerkat 5/29/02 8:45:51 PM Reply	Heh, I can beat ya there... Woo-hoo! ONE right!! But then I only skimmed the questions, because heck, it was boring me to tears. Yes, yes, I know it's all very important and stuff, but man, it read like some kind of ugly Microsoft licencing monster thing. This is not a good advert for the GPL. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.

Welcome to IWETHEY!