> I'm sure your interpretation of it is the correct one Todd. I just don't > think the correct answer was to force development to stop by being > obnoxious. With no work there's no application. Whatever it was. That seems > a sad state of affairs to me. It seems there's a little free choice > available this week.
..uhm, i think i got the terms of the GPL wrong, then. I mean, if these guys are releasing a program (does it matter if they call it a beta if it's available for widespread use?) taking code from a GPLed project, and NOT releasing the source, is it not a violation? or is it only when they call the release "stable"? the latter doesn't make a lot of sense to me.. what keeps them from calling every release a "beta" time and time again? > > With no development, and no application being done, there's no code being > released anyway. It may actually have been something useful but we may > never know that now. Strict interpretation of rules and regulations; while > not a bad thing at all, may itself be judged as draconian as the > Everlasting Usurious Leasing Attack used by a certain proprietary software > company. i made the original post of this thread because i thought that this kind of "development of useful software" was being very unfair to people working on an *even more* "useful project" developers. > > In theory it would be well to have any adaptations or modifications of > source that's already available re-released; but this situation was so > unclear to me that I still don't see a "clear violation" of the GPL. All which part is unclear? i feel there's more to be found out too, however... > that I could tell from the limited information available was that some one > or more developer(s) was working on an open source media player for XBox the point is, the player was able to play DivX files. And to do that, it took code from Xvid and FFMPEG. the authors admitted to it, but kept making closed-source releases and telling people to "wait at least six months for the source" (maybe it's ok because they were only betas?) > and now they aren't. Temporarily apparently. The problem seems to be > (according to the FAQ they have posted) that they won't release the > application "to the general public" until there's a GPLed compiler So, the six months we were supposed to wait .... was that because they were trying to find a GPL compiler? and then, why did they even get to make beta releases if they are still looking for a compiler? > available; not one that belongs to Microsoft which they have _no_ rights to > open source. It also seems the player is never going to work without a mod OK, but it was their choice to get stuck with incompatible licenses in the beginning. Using code that forces you to open-source your work, and compiling with a program that forbids you to do it...? (or am i getting the compiler stuff wrong?) > chip, and I can't recall seeing any news about those being open sourced > either. Problem is that particular interpretation of their FAQ was made by > a human (me), not a lawyer or 'public servant' and may be incorrect too. > > While I would like to see every bit of software, and every application > available, be open sourced, I somehow doubt that's ever going to happen in > this universe. i think closed-source software is very necesary, even in Linux. And i also believe that most GPL die-hards will have to learn to live with that. I'm too much of a recently-arrived foreigner in the Linux community to turn into a <insert license/product/belief here>-diehard, but still, the way i understood the situation, i felt a little pissed off. (and i'm going to add a question here: is GPL's legal validity "proven" yet? as in lawsuits or something? i think some time ago i read something about it not being really "tested" for in-court real value) > I'm finished with this subject since I have no interest in that application > and as stated I'm not a lawyer either. Nor am I a program, developer, or > coder, or regulator. The best part is I don't own an X-Box and never will; > so I shouldn't complain when applications or products produced for it > aren't available under the GPL. I wouldn't give MS even _that_ much > satisfaction, whether they really lose money on sales or not. Mild > revulsion for that company and it's philosophies and actions pushed me away > long ago. I have no interest in "returning to the fold." :-) > > Wiser heads than mine will have to sort whether there was anything > questionable being done with the development. Sorry to have wasted people's > bandwidth with my opinions. ...any lawyers present? and even if there is none, i'm sure there is people on these lists that is more knowledgeable than me or Charlie.. if my interpretation of this problem was incorrect, i'd really like to know. -- Damian -- "Share your knowledge. It is a way to achieve immortality."(The Dalai Lama)
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
