Posted on 08/12/2007 8:55:08 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I was only giving some good advice to help keep him from falling into the “free software” trap laid out by radical leftists, funny watching you come unglued whenever their motives are exposed LOL.
No you weren't, and you calling it a "trap" in this post shows you weren't. Want to give good advice? How about "Make sure you comply with the license when you distribute a derivative work of someone else's code."
You want a trap? Go buy MS SQL Server, do a benchmark against Oracle, and publish your results. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do, covered by the 1st Amendment, right?
You want a trap? Go buy MS SQL Server, do a benchmark against Oracle, and publish your results. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do, covered by the 1st Amendment, right?
You know by now he has no good answer for that..
I believe, technically, the license basically says that the source code (original and modified) must be distributed (or at last available to anyone who wants it) with the binaries. That is, anyone you distribute the software to has the rights to get the source code as well. For an "internal" distribution, this does mean that you do not have to release your changes/additions "into the wild", but you still do have to release them to your own users.
Which shell or language are you doing this in?
I have *never* seen it interpreted it that way. If you set up the desktops and servers for your business you are the app owner. Users have no right to the code under the GPL unless you give them the binaries to install rather than just pushing it out for them
Bash is about the best shell you can use (IMHO) though I use Bourne, the orielly book is not a bad one..
Actually, there are recognized, legitimate ways to keep your code for distributed works private, but I doubt you’re going to care.
For example, you can write a standalone executable which calls the GPL’ed work, distribute it and not release the code. See, no trap!
It’s only if you modify the GPL’ed code itself that you need release the result.
It obviously is a trap, despite your denials in support of the leftists who lay it. In fact large companies like Linksys have even been threatened and eventually turned their code over, so it is so deceptive it can trap most anyone, you’re a perfect example of the deceit as well.
Thanks, unfortunately as you can see there are a couple of freeepers so committed to the FSF’s “copyleft” requirements they’d rather throw up red herring attacks against Microsoft than admit the dangers you face when using GPL software in your projects.
Maybe anyone stupid enough to not read the plain language of the license before distributing another's copyrighted work.
Cisco/Linksys was engaged in for-profit software piracy on a absolutely massive scale. They got off light.
It’s only a “trap” for people who are foolish enough to mistake “free” for “public domain”.
Sorry #53 was for you:
Thanks, unfortunately as you can see there are a couple of freeepers so committed to the FSF’s “copyleft” requirements they’d rather throw up red herring attacks against Microsoft than admit the dangers you face when using GPL software in your projects.
Actually, no. If you statically link to it you're apparently bound by the GPL (even if dynamically, in Stallman's opinion). This is why I think the MPL (Mozilla) is better, because it clearly states what you said -- you have to modify the actual MPL code and redistribute for the license terms to kick in.
I don't think the interpretation, either way, has ever been tested. It's a bit fuzzy who the recipient of the distribution is on a managed workstation. It's a slippery slope, though -- look at TiVo. They could claim that since they remotely upgrade the software automatically, that they don't need to distribute the source code. I think it's just safer to go with the "if you give 'em the binary, give 'em the source" strategy across the board.
But that's just hair-splitting, really. The fundamental point is that if it's a "contained" release, then the source code does not have to be distributed outside that containment.
#53 and 54 were for you. You’ll also see them calling people “stupid” and “fools” for not unnderstanding the copyleft tricks from the FSF, such as “free doesn’t actually mean free”.
Tivo does not own the hardware! The company owns the managed workstation.
I think it's just safer to go with the "if you give 'em the binary, give 'em the source" strategy across the board.
I dont, I think some situations it is best to not give the binary.
But that's just hair-splitting, really. The fundamental point is that if it's a "contained" release, then the source code does not have to be distributed outside that containment.
Except the recipiant can distribute it outside this is why they, in a closed environment, should not get it in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.