Posted on 08/31/2003 11:27:24 PM PDT by Coral Snake
Yes. By hardware key, I mean dongle. Specifically, an Aladdin Hardlock with memory, which come in a USB version, and a parallel port version. We use the memory section to turn on and off different purchaseable features.
Yahoo has been getting ever more stingy with their bandwidth. I'm going to have to find an alternative anonymous image hosting site.
Hey!! I'm not shilling1! I'm a genuine apologist2 for Microsoft!!
1Main Entry: 1shill
Pronunciation: 'shil
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: 2shill
Date: circa 1914
1 : to act as a shill
2 : to act as a spokesperson or promoter
2Main Entry: apol·o·gist
Pronunciation: &-'pä-l&-jist
Function: noun
Date: 1640
: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
I think the point you miss about SCO's "evidence" is that they have been making massively expansive claims regarding what they own. Given what I've read of the history of Unix, these claims seem to be rather tenuous. Indeed, their lawsuit seems to be much more like a pump and dump than anything else. Look at SEC filings on the matter. I've also seen some analysis in the past month or so that would indicate that the thinly traded company is being manipulated greatly. The only reason I can see for SCO refusing to lay bare the code that allegedly infringes is because they have no leg to stand on when subjected to careful scrutiny.
Like many in the open source movement have said, if they show us what infringes, we will gladly remove it. The history of the linux kernel is quite well documented, and has mirrors far and wide. Once we know where to look for infringments, it will be quickly ripped out and replaced by even better code most likely. SCO is smoke and mirrors by a company that has collapsed to become nothing but a few lawyers trying to bludgeon us with the power of the state.
Richard M Stallman, The Leftist King of the Free Software Foundation
Linus Torvalds, The Commie's Son and Kernel Maintainer
Eric Raymond, Anarchist and "Neo Pagan"
Okay, so you have hangups about certain personalities. Even the most foolish fool can have a good idea... occasionally... once in a while. But to project Marxism upon all three and then reject everything they've touched (notwithstanding the fact that all three are living in this country and contributing to the economy by choice) seems pretty juvenile to me. I don't know any of these guys, and I've never even e-mailed them. But they all have a right to think whichever way they want, and if you write good code then who cares what your political direction is?
... BECAUSE OF THE BASIC SOCIALIST NATURE OF THE LICENSE no one has been able to make any significant money from this feature though Red Hat has made a few of "kinda sorta" profits on its Linux distribution before dropping it for a pure "services" approach to GPLed software.
We'll explore the "socialist nature" question later. What has Red Hat dropped? They just released version nine. They have a beta out for version ten. The only thing they've dropped is support for 7.3 and earlier, effective at EOY 2003.
.. the GPL REQUIRES open source distribution while more traditional Open Source license like BSD and MIT merely encourage it.
Yup, if you're going to distribute your changes, you must include the source code. If you don't like it, keep your stuff to yourself and don't re-distribute. That's the deal. You got the software for free in the first place, the least you can do is contribute something, so quit whining about it. This license gives you the RIGHT to modify and copy without paying a fee -- no commercial software license will let you do that for any amount of money.
(If you have ever heard the term "poison pill" when referring to one of the GPL's provisions THIS is that provision. It basically TERMINATES your GPL software distribution privilege if you distribute a program that has as much as a SINGLE function call in it if that call comes from a GPLed programmer's library if you do so in a closed source commercial program.
So that's what you mean by "poison pill"... okay. Software licenses usually cancel themselves if you violate the terms of the license.. what's the big deal?
This "poison pill" provision is what also makes the GPL communistic and "viral".
In your mind, with visions of Karl Marx dancing on sugar plums, perhaps. If the idea of a legal document saying that you can't take someone else's property and pass it off as your own is "communistic", then The Ten Commandments is "communistic" as well. So is most of US law. But that's okay, you have a right to think and say whatever you want to under the US Constitution (I dare say you wouldn't call that "communistic" as well.)
It was DESIGNED with the express purposes of stealing commercial code that comes onto contact with it for the "collective good" of the "community".)
Two points on this:
Quoth the poster:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifyingthe Program or works based on it.(These sections are basically the reason that programmers trying to make a profit from the distribution fee provisions of the GPL will to so WHEN PIGS FLY!!! They are basically a copyright warning used to implement the "poison pill" provision legally. They make ANY conventional means of taking advantage of the distribution fee provision virtually impossible.)
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.
Those two paragraphs went straight over your head, didn't they? Allow me to clarify: Copyright law gives you a right to USE a program copyrighted by someone else, but you cannot COPY or MODIFY or DISTRIBUTE unless you are given an explicit right to do so. That's what GPL does. It does NOT say that you can't earn some money by selling GPL code, only that you cannot charge for the source code. See this note in the GPL FAQ.
7.... For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.(This section is basically a leftist dig at software patents written in legalese (yecchh!!!) basically it terminates the GPL for "free software" found to violate such patents or copyright law in a court of law and bans the cross licensing of such patents if they remain proprietary. If this single section did not exist in the GPL and cross licensing between between GPLed software and proprietary software were allowed the SCO v IBM case might not have even been filed let alone made it to court.)
This section apparently escaped you as well.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces....(This allows for bans on the distribution of GPLed software to nations where it may violate software patents or interface copyrights. The main problem here is that does NOT allow for such bans on enemy nations or terrorist organizations who may use the open code for something like Linux to learn how to crack its security provisions or build terrorist weapons like computerized "drone" aircraft full of WMD materials. This aspect of the GPL's lack of ability to keep source code out of the wrong hands probably makes it the best "legal" tool for ESPIONAGE ever developed.)
And pray tell, do you know of any other software license, whether free or non-free which can do this? Okay, certain EULAs state that you're not allowed to do benchmarks, or critique the product, but how enforcable is this... really?
9..... Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.(This may actually be the most dangerous part of the GPL of all with the possible exception of the "poison pill" provision. Eventually leftist groups like the Free Software Foundation, The Open Source Intitative and "Free Developers" want to make a monopoly as pervasive as Microsoft is now for the Marxist software development model represented by this license for virtually all computer devices that will ever be made. That is basically what the version changes alluded to are all about.)
It's simply a version control system. If a certain version works for you, use that. You don't have to be governed by the latest one. See this note in the FAQ. It's pretty flexible. For example, Linus has decided that the kernel work will be protected by Version 2, for whatever reason. If someone tries to pull a fast one with, say, Version 5, we don't all have to follow. So don't worry; Stallman can't use this to take over the world.
The basic goal of the "Free Software" movement as a whole is essentially to make software under the GPL as pervasive a monopoly as Microsoft is now by the use of a classic Marxist means.....
This whole section of yours is as ridiculous as it seems. We free-software types don't want a monopoly. We need commercial software. Those guys research the market and give us all a sense of where things are going. They know better than us what the customers want. They give us something to emulate.
Commercial software needs us. We give them competition that they cannot squelch in traditional ways, so we keep their prices in check and make them concentrate on their quality.
We provide an alternative to the socialist single-sourced one-platform-for-the-masses mentality in the commercial software world. The GPL protects our software from being stolen by the socialists for their own gain. They have the money to do pretty much whatever they want to do. It is the legal document of the GNU General Public License, written by a lawyer in easily understandable plain english, which holds Microsoft, et al, at bay. They've read the document and they understand it. Nobody wants to be the first to test this thing in court, except perhaps SCO. It's formidable.
But it's far from being communist. It is a Declaration of Independence for the software hobbyist.
.. END THE SINGLE SEAT LICENSE POLICY and replace it with a by the family or by the business licensing policy.
Agreed.
I just finished a project for a client using open source software available on sourceforge.com. I needed some java code that would allow me to read and modify a PDF file.
After ten minutes of looking on google, I found that a class library developed by Etymon Systems would do the job. I downloaded it from sourceforge, looked at it, compiled it on my system, wrote an application using it, and my app is now up and working.
Since it is open-source, I can support it myself if need be. The source is well written, well documented, and serves as an excellent piece of promotion for Etymon's consulting and software development services.
In the process of using it, my application displayed a problem. The stack trace showed me which function the problem was in (the PDF file I was trying to parse used an obscure feature that the Etymon software did not support). I added code to the Etymon function to handle the feature, recompiled and I'm in business. No hour-long waits on a customer service line. No Customer-service person with complete lack of English skills. I fixed the problem and moved on.
Sure it is, given the hugely larger number of individuals involved. I suspect one can find an example of virtually every "motivator" that exists with some individual or other--I simply point out the "barn-raising community" aspect as one possibility among many.
A lot of folks (Coral Snake being one) seem the have the idea that the American colonial/republic phenomenon was mostly about capitalism, which it is not. Both individual AND "communal" approaches have existed side-by-side from the beginning. Unfortunately, many of the "communal" approaches (citizen militia, local school boards, etc.) have been largely co-opted by government--but there are STILL come out there (see any bake sale for a school/church group).
"Most" is a weasel word. If you don't touch *ANY* GPL source code then you have nothing to worry about as the GPL won't affect anything you write. I don't see the problem you are having with the GPL unless you are using GPL code. If you don't want to abide by the terms of the license, then stay away from it. It's pretty simple.
Who's the leftist here? Why do you want to get the government involved in what is a non-governmental sharing of code? Do you have to run to the government teat everytime you want something? "I know, let's pass a law." "Let's ban something." Spoken like a true Marxist.
It seems your only objection to the GPL is that the author doesn't let you do whatever you want with their code. This is nothing more than greed on your part, plain and simple. You seem to object to someone giving away a product, letting you modify it but then not letting you close the source and sell it for several hundred dollars per license. I don't personally care for the GPL license, but it is pathetic to hear the "principled stances" against it from businessmen who whine about how the GPL, unlike the BSD license, doesn't let them get something for nothing.
Perhaps the GPL bashers should have "code welfare" wherein they are entitled to other people's code even if it GPL'd. That sounds awefully similar to the whining from them about how "music pirates" feel they have a right to musical works.
And therein lies a fundamental difference between many libertarians and conservatives. We libertarians tend to see capitalism as a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Property and happiness which in turn lead to a peaceful society are the end, and if people want to work together for free then that's their perogative as property owners and producers.
Many "anti-Communists" sound like Fascists. Capitalism is about pluralism. It is about being able to form your own economic relationships with others. Libertarian Capitalism and Libertarian Socialism can coexist in the same society. Under a Libertarian (ie culturally Capitalistic) society you can have privately controlled worker communes working together with privately owned companies. I for one am sick of those who see a communist under every rock and tree and want to have the "one pure and true economic relationship" be established as the only legal one.
If you believe in economic freedom, you see no evil in the GPL. No one is forcing you to use it and no one is forcing you to use software written with it. If you are so inclined, you could rewrite any GPL'd library under the BSD license by simply emulating its behavior with new code. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from writing a new GTK-compatable library under their EULAs and using it for Linux apps. Nothing.
But, the dongle solution is far more maintainable than than scourge of SysAdmins everywhere, the reviled and hated FlexLM monstrosity.
Bingo--the problem arises when one is coerced into specific actions by government edict. I have always liked the term "free enterprise" FAR better than "capitalism". The very notion of "capitalism" is VERY overly simplistic (as is Communism, Socialism, etc.).
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.