Posts by Vic

@ThomH

> For example, it's fact that Apple designed the Firewire port.

It isn't.

FireWire is Apple's implementation of (what was then) P1394. 1394 came from a multitude of sources; it's not Apple's invention, although they were a significant part of the WG, and drove much of the innovation.

Had Sony not been such utter dicks[1] about how they marketed stuff, we might well have been calling it i.Link now. But that's Sony for you...

Vic.

[1] I was working for Sony at the time, and was tasked with trying to find appropriate uses for i.Link. But I wasn't allowed to let on that i.Link was 1394 - they wanted it seen as a Sony proprietary technology, even though it wasn't :-(

Re: Hardly unbiased sources

> Quoting Naughton and Mueller on the GPL is a bit ridiculous

I've run out of upvotes for you...

Vic.

Re: how does that make GPL3 better than 2?

> a licence that let's users violate it knowing they can unilaterally restore their own rights

They can't. Section 8 allows violators who have put right their transgressions to have their rights reinstated only *provisionally*.

The copyright holder gets a say here; he can choose to terminate the violator's rights even if the transgression is fixed, up to 60 days after the violation has been put right.

Vic.

Re: EUPL

> GPL 2 is fairly free but carries the notorious "infection" risk

However, a reading of the licence, rather than the FUD that typically permeates such discussion, would show that that risk exists in notoriety, not in reality...

Vic.

Re: One problem with GPL3

> BACK WHEN IT WAS NEW (Hint hint article writer)

I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that.

GPLv3 is dated 29th June 2007. It's over 4 years old. Describing it as a "New GPL licence" in the article title really does speak volumes about the amount of research that went into said article.

Perhaps it was an honest mistake.

Vic.

Re: Have to agree

> well, is it REALLY that unlikely?

Yes.

To date, there have been many, many GPL violations - but hardly any of them get to court. The secret is in Section 5 of GPLv2 :

"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."

It's up to the infringer whether or nhot he's bound by the licence; he can either accept it (and get into conformity), or reject it (in which case, it's a clear-cut copyright infringement action). Just about everyone goes for the former option :-)

The only time GPL cases get to a court is when a defendant has decided to tough it out. Every single one of them has lost trying that approach - and some seem to have been hit quite hard (Best Buy lost a load of TVs, which went to charity)

Vic.

Re: Re: Strong message

> That works great if anybody thinks they will get caught when they commit a crime.

Indeed.

Tough sentences are pretty much wholly ineffective when the probability of detection tends towards zero.

IMO, this is about the one good thing coming out of the aftermath here: the Police are actually making an effort to investigate the crimes and prosecute the criminals.

It's just a shame they don't do this more often[1] - handing out crime numbers doesn't actually reduce the number of break-ins :-(

Vic.

[1] I know people will bleat about budgets here - if budgets are so tight, how come they can find the cash to post a bobby on a bridge to prevent the heinous crime of cycling on the pavement?

@Oninoshiko

> you just supposed they provide a offer

I have no reason to believe otherwise. If you have evidence, do post...

> If so they have to contact every copyright holder and secure a new license

Yes. This is true.

But because the Free Software community is interested in enabling distribution, rather than preventing it, I'm unaware of an instance where such a re-licencing was not forthcoming, once any violations had been sorted out.

> so lack even anecdotal evidence to this effect

As do most people. Shall we presume these people innocent unless evidence of their guilt comes along?

Vic.

@ First Dave

> you MUST provide a written notice of availability

That's what I've been arguing...

> it would be no surprise to me if this notice was missing

If you have evidence of transgression, go ahead and post it. Supposition really doesn't cut the mustard.

Vic.

@Gumby...

> According the the site that has the list, Archos is compliant on all but one product. the Archos 7.

I'm not overly familiar with the Archos line of products, but http://www.archos.com/support/download/software/sources/Archos7HT_GPL.tgz would seem to be the GPL components of the Archos 7 HT.

> Thus Archos isn't in full compliance

You've not demonstrated that. You've just reiterated someone else's claim - which might well be wrong.

Vic.

@Oninoshiko

> If not, a subsection b defense would also be invalid, and they are in non-compliance.

That is correct.

But if they have made the offer, they are in compliance - at least until someone requests the code.

Easy, isn't it?

Vic.

@ Chris W

> You're making a lot of fuss about a written offer making the software compliant.

Yes. That's because that is the wording of the licence.

> Could you please define written in legal terms?

No. That's up to you to get sorted out. I'm just reiterating what the licence *says*, rather than what some people would have you believe it says. These are not my words...

Vic.

Re: Microsoft ties

> It does seem like Mr. Naughton has more than the recommended amount of ties to Microsoft:

That is what this is all about - same as it was the last time he opened up (shortly after which he removed the Microsoft info from his bio).

It is no real surprise that the usual Microsoft shills turn up here and elsewhere to try to milk the story, when it's just more FUD from a Microsoft lawyer that misrepresents the terms of the GPL...

Vic.

Oh dear...

> While I admit to not being a lawyer, that doesn't mean I can't read a contract. ;-)

I beg to differ.

> The reason I published the entire clause #3 is that you're again

> misinterpreting what you're reading.

Well, one of us is. Let's see how this pans out, shall we?

> Paragraph 3 has 3 sub clauses. The person distributing the code has to chose

> 1 of the 3 options.

Yes. Right so far One of the three.

3(a) and 3(c) are not relevant to ther situation - as I've already pointed out - so repeating them is jsut excess verbiage; it serves no purpose whatsoever, as we're not talking about 3(a) distribution, and nor are we talking about 3(c) distribution. One can only wonder at your reasons for thinking either 3(a) or 3(c) relevant to a discussion about 3(b). You can read a contract, can you not?

> B) You provide in writing an offer to produce the source code on request

Correct. Now look at what you have written: section 3(b) compliance requires *** A WRITTEN OFFER *** to produce source code *** ON REQUEST ***. See if you can spot, anywhere within section 3(b) a requirement to do anything more. Got one? Of course you haven't, because it isn't there. Section 3(b) requires the distributor to supply *** A WRITTEN OFFER *** to supply code on request. I does *not* require the distributor to supply code straight away - only on request. If you think this wrong, show the words that prove it. Got any? Of course you haven't, because they're not there.

> Now you're suggesting that if someone makes a written request for the

> source code, you don't have to be responsive.

I am suggesting nothing of the sort.

If you'd read what I actually posted - rather than what you imagine I did - you'll see that nowhere have I even intimated that it is acceptable to be unresponsive to requests for code under the written offer made during a section 3(b) distribution.

What I have said - what I am still saying - is that the offer does not need to be fulfilled until and unless a request for the code is made.

Thus claiming that a distributor is non-compliant because he has not publicly posted source is incorrect.

> With respect to Naughton, It appears that these companies are not in

> compliance with sub clause A, B

That's Naughton's claim - and as I've pointed out, it's a bogus claim. If Naughton has asked for code and been rebuffed, that would be a violation. If Naughton has failed to find a download site, that is not.

> The point you apparently are missing is that if you ship a product, you have

> to ship the code or a written offer

The point *you* are missing is that if you ship a product, you have to ship the code or a written offer. See the "OR" in the middle of that? That's good, because that's a word that actually is there. Moreover, that written promise needs to be fulfilled if it's ever called in. But if it isn't called in, then not passing the source to anyone is not a violation of the licence.

> Not having it available on your website, and not providing a written offer

> violates both sub clauses A and B.

But no-one is talking about not making the written offer. That's something that's come from the voices in yer heid. You might like to talk to someone about those...

Not having the code available no your website, but making the requisite written offer constitutes compliance with the GPLv2 section 3(b). And that's all there is to it, really...

> Therefore these sites are not in compliance and are open to litigation.

Do you have evidence that they are not making the written offer?

> Clearly reading and understanding what is written in a contract is not your strong suit.

Oooh, once again you make claims about the comprehension capabilities of others when the real problem is a combination of your inability to follow basic logic and your desire to fabricate information about what other people are doing.

Vic.

And again..

> It doesn't do you any good if you makestatements and clip only sub sections of the code.

It doesn't do you any good to quote largepassages and ascribe to them meaning whch simply is not there. You are making his up.

> In the preamble it says the following

Where in what you have quoted does it say what you claim? You are making up meaning which simply is not within the text you are quoting.

Next, you quote section 3. What bearing do clauses 3(a) or 3(c) have on any of this? We were discussing 3(b) distrbution, so you are simply quoting extraneous information. This would appear to bear the hallmarks of aweak argument.

But let's look at 3(b) because that *is* relevant. It requirs a *written offer* of source. Look through the words -a *written offer*. See if you can find anything in that clause that requires more than a *written offer* of source - such requirements are conspicuous by their absence. Your repeated attempts to claim more than is in the licence are simply not backed up by the text that is there. 3(b) does not requre you to post code until someone asks for it, and claims that a failure to have a download site equates to non-compliance are simply wrong. The licence just does not say what you claim, however repeatedly or verbosely you claim it.

> Section B says ... you have to provide in writing an offer to provide the source code

Finally, you've said something correct. But note that it does NOT say that you have to post any code unless you are asked for it; this clause does not support your argument, just like it doesn't support Naughton's.

> So as you can see, RIF.

Indeed it is. Please do read wha is there in the licene, rather than just relying on the voices in yer heid again.

> BTW, I thought I was being clear that if you don't ship the source, but provide a link to your site where you host the source (for free) and document it, you would be in compliance.

No-one has argued any different. But what you haverepeaedly missed - as did Naughton - is that if you *don't* ship the source and you *don't* provide a download link, you can still be in compliance, because the licence does not require that link, it requires a *written offer* to supply source on demand, not before.

Please go and do the reading you exhort others to do; your comprehension skills appear to be somewhat lacking.

Vic.

@AC (why is it always ACs..)

> Apparently they are withholding important parts of the system.

If any manufacturer is witholding GPL code, then that is an issue FOR THAT MANUFACTURER. It is not a "legal time-bomb for Android". It is simply a copyright issue the same as using any non-licenced code would be. It is not an Android problem.

Vic.

@AC

> IANLA

That much is apparent...

> what Mr. Gumby (Hello!) wrote seems like an accurate paraphrasing of section 3 to me:

It is not.

> 3(b) - Accompany it with a written offer

This is the point: 3(b) requires a *written offer* to produce source on demand. It does not require the immediate production of source - it requires a *written offer* to produce it.

Thus 3(b) distribution does not require any source to be transmitted until and unless some asks for it.

This is why Naughton's arguments are such utter bollocks - failing to put source up for download is not non-compliance; failing to produce it should someone ask for it would be.

Now it is clear that by far the simplest way of ensuring compliance is just to stick it on a web site, but that doesn't mean that a more labour-intensive mmethod cannot *also* be compliant, should someone be suitably moronic to want to do it that way.

Vic.

Here we go again...

> Reading is fundamental.

It most assuredly is.

> The point is either you ship the source, or make it available.

I thought you said reading was fundamental?

Here's section 3(b) of GPLv2 :-

"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"

Show me where in that it says that you have to "ship the source, or make it available"...

> So if you don't ship it, you can easily set up a site for distribution.

You can. I would recommend any GPL distributors to do exactly that - it is by far the simplest method of compliance. But not doing so does *not* mean you are non-compliant - read the licence excert above to find out why.

> I would suggest you learn more about the law

And I would recommend exactly the same for you. As I did the last time you held forth on a subject you didn't understand.

Vic.

Re: Every manufacturer?

> every manufacturer you've ever heard of (with the single exception of Archos) is compliant

Archos has a download site at http://www.archos.com/support/support_tech/updates_gnu.html?country=us&lang=en - is this not compliance?

> good luck with your lawsuit. You'll be needing it.

Exactly.

Vic.

Re: Anyway, aren't pure clones okay?

> If I just install some standard Linux distro on a PC, even to sell the PC

If you sell it, that's likely considered a commercial distribution. Thus section 3(c) of GPLv2 doesn't apply

> I don't think I'm obliged to hand around the source code.

You are. Both section 3(a) and section 3(b) require you to hand out source code, either with the binaries (for 3(a)) or on demand (for 3(b)).

3(c) - which allows you just to point at your upstream provider - is only available for non-commercial distribution.

> I may not -have- the source code.

You need to get it. You may not redistribute commercially without it. Luckily, either you were given it with your binaries, or else you have a right to ask your upstream provider for it. Possibly both.

> I could be wrong about that.

You are.

> Aren't the minor Chinese Android tablet mawkers doing the same thing

Doesn't matter. If they are not distributing source, or at least offering to do so, they are in violation of the licence. That can be fixed[1] - but it needs action.

> The -point- of GPL is that typical use of the software -isn't- licence-encumbered.

Well - that's *one* of the points. The other is that GPL software cannot be made proprietary. I see that as rather more important.

Luckily for all of us, compliance with the GPL is *easy*. It amazes me how much effort certain companies will expend in trying - and ultimately failing - to circumvent the GPL.

Vic.

[1] GPLv3 alllows for automatic reinstatement of licence benefits once any violations have been sorted out. It was considered a bug in GPLv2 that such automatic reinstatement was not possible - nevertheless, the copyright owner is entirely capable of reinstating rights under GPLv2 once he has decided that and transgressions have been put right.

Re: Did you read the article?

> Are the actual Android distributors (HTC, Samsung, etc) distributing the source code

HTC have quite a bit at http://htcdev.com/devcenter/downloads

Samsung has https://opensource.samsung.com/

So yes, they do appear to be distributing source. I've not checked compliance for every single binary they ship, but they do appear at least to be attempting to comply.

Vic.

Nonsense.

> These are the young people who simply haven't been provided with the

> educational and employment opportunities that they deserve.

They have been provided with every educational opportunity. To a large extent, they have *chosen* to eschew such opportunities. The State is at fault only inasmuch as it permits an environment where children can make decisions with such onerous consequences at such a young age - but given the reaction I have seen[1] from some parents when a school attempts to discipline a child, it is hardly surprising that we end up with what we've got. That's democracy in action.

Vic.

[1] My missus is a teacher. Irate parents seem to be part of the job, particularly when you point out that children shouldn't be truanting if they expect any future employment opportunities...

@Magnus

> This is not a protest

That's what I said...

> it is what happens when society loses it's voice.

No. These rioters are making no effort to speak. If they wanted to protest their social conditions, they'd be burning symbols of the oppressor state, not furniture warehouses. They'd be smashing up Council offices, not snaffling consumer electronics goodies.

> to pretend there is no underlying cause

No-one's pretending there aren't underlying social ills - but this isn't an exmple of them showing their collective head. We aren't seeing "Smash the State", we're seeing "OMFG Free Shit".

Vic.

Re: Irrelevant

> What we have here, my baby boomer chums, is a revolt.

Bullshit.

If this were a revolt, the rioters would be trying to make a point. There would be some sort of direction in what they wre trying to achieve.

This is just looting. There's no attempt to change society - just an attempt to grab big tellies from shops. It is crime, not social commentary.

Vic.

@ShelLuser

> @Vic

I have no idea why you use my name in your response; it doesn't seem to be pertinent to anything I wrote.

Have you just had a parallax moment?

Vic.

Re: Crime

> has pretty much fallen hand over fist since the mid nineties

*Reported* crime has fallen.

It is commonplace these days, IME, to meet people who have been the victims of crime but have not reported it - because there is a tendency for the Police to do precisely fuck all about anythnig that is reported.

Such an attitude did not seem to be so prevalent 20-odd years ago.

Vic.

@LPF

> the sooner they get some 80's styles policing with the end of s tuncheon the better

You might be right.

But you assume that the Police will use those truncheons on the right people; the case of Ian Tomlinson shows that such assumptions simply cannot be made safely.

The rioters are clearly responsible for their own actions here, but in other circumstances, the Police have been at least as much the cause of problems as they are the solution; whilst Police officers are less than absoutely trustworthy[1], it is a very dangerous plan to give them the role of judge, jury and executioner...

Vic.

[1] How are Cleveland Police getting along this week, I wonder?

Re: Contract

> the helmets and armour wouldnt be worth squat if it wasnt for the flms.

Not *completely* true.

There was a documentary made a few years ago about the Humboldt squid - a particularly vicious and cunning predator. The divers all wore armour to protect themaselves from the squid, and were attached to the boat with steel cables to prevent them being dragged off.

The armour was all Storm Trooper stuff. It was claimed in the film that it had been made by the same guys as did the Star Wars armour, so it's probably this geezer.

Nevertheless, the intrinsic value of this armour is not nearly as much as the additional merchandising value...

Vic.

Re: hot patching

> you can't afford to reboot. Ever.

IMO, if you can't afford *any* reboots, you've got insufficient hardware to cover your SLA...

I tried Ksplice some years ago. I see it as a very interesting project - but I wouldn't use it on a production system. I found it way too complex to be certain of success (although my trial splices did work). I think I'd add an extra server to cover the reboot cycle...

Vic.

Re: /0

> What happens if you patent something *and* GPL it?

GPLv2 has an implicit patent grant both in Section 0 ("The act of running the Program is not restricted") and in the Preamble ("To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all"). That stood for some considerable time, and was considered by many to be sufficient.

GPLv3 changed this to an explicit patent grant (all the above, slightly modified, plus the downstream licencing in Section 10, the whole of Section 11, and some odds & sods besides).

Oracle's seeming attempts to convert this to something non-GPL would complicate matters a little (Oracle may distribute their own code how they like, and are not bound by the terms of the GPL in respect of it unless there is anything there they do not own), but they'd get hit with an "unclean hands" defence (amongst other things) if they even thought of trying patent games with formerly-GPLed code

Vic.