I know I "hate" MEtoo, but,, Well said Todd. I think you expounded my thoughts as fast as I could type them, and just because 30 other list members do not add their .02$, I think you can count on a number of; "me too, Todd Flinders".
On Tuesday 08 October 2002 08:33 pm, you wrote: > On Tuesday 08 October 2002 06:42 am, Damian wrote: > > > 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. > > I was not advocating anyone being obnoxious. I also had nothing to do with > the original post. I just wanted to try to clarify some of the ideas that > were expressed about the GPL (not that I'm an expert, of course). I also > don't feel the original poster was advocating people to be obnoxious. S/he > was advocating making a voice about what s/he that was a GPL violation. > Taking action to stop a GPL violation is not necessarily obnoxious. > > > ..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? > > To the best of my understanding (and I'm pretty confident in this) if the > binaries are released as betas then the beta testers are entitled to the > source code. The exception would be if the beta testing was done "in > house". Regardless of the state of the code, if binary code is distributed > to another entity, that entity is entitled to source code. The external > entity must either be supplied with the source or given reasonable access > to acquire the source. With that being said, the original team can beta > test all they want in house without releasing source code. They are only > obligated to release the source when they distribute binaries to external > entities. On top of that, I believe they are only obligated to give the > source to those they gave the binaries. However, they are NOT allowed to > take away the freedoms offered by the GPL. The recipient of GPL source and > binaries is entitled to the same freedoms as the distributor. So, for > example, the external beta testers who received the binaries (if any) are > entitled to the source code and may distribute at no cost or commercially > the code to world+dog if they so choose. Again, I am no lawyer. > > > > 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. > > Hey, if my choice is no package or a package that violates the GPL then > I'll go with no package! That being said, my understanding was that the > development was continuing but that they would simply not being > distributing binaries or source until they reached a stable point. If > that's how they choose to do it, that is their right. We should be happy > that the GPL will not be violated. > > > 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?) > > If the binaries were distributed to external beta testers, than those > testers were entitled to the source. > > > > 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 > > This may be a problem with the licensing of available compilers. This is > not a GPL problem. There is nothing about GPL compilers or source code > covered by the GPL that mandates a GPL compiler. Therefore, this choice of > compiler must be for other reasons. We should applaud them for holding out > for Free Software solutions. > > > 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. > > Closed-source software is philosophically flawed, but that's an entirely > different debate. > > > (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) > > While the GPL has not made it to court, let's recall that it has a strong > lawyer influence and that many GPL violations including those from some > substantial companies have been settled in the favor of Free Software. The > GPL is not something to be taken lightly or dismissed as legally unsound.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
