Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Would the world be a better place with no GPL and all software created
by those who now create code under the GPL putting it into the public
domain instead?



Microsoft would almost certainly have been displaced years ago by many
other companies building better products containing this code


Or... Microsoft would have used that code and used it to control
people in just the same way it does with every other piece of software
it touches.


The only software that they can use to control anyone is their OS, and
they can only do that as long as no one ships something competitive
enough to attract application development. That hasn't happened,
largely because of GPL restrictions on code that might otherwise have
been used in such products.



Isn't this why Microsoft hates the GPL and loves
permissive Free Software licenses?


I wouldn't say they love permissive licenses. Look how long they
shipped their own broken TCP/IP stack when the well-tested BSD version
was available and everyone on the network would have been better if they
had used it from the start (remember the win95 version where the retries
speeded up instead of backing off when packets were dropped due to
congestion?). Anyway it is the GPL that has kept them rich and in control.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Sun Jul 20 20:30:02 2008
Return-path: <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:29:47 +0300
Received: from chlorine.canonical.com ([91.189.94.204])
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>)
id 1KKcjD-0002St-1j
for tom@linux-archive.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:29:47 +0300
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chlorine.canonical.com)
by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>)
id 1KKchw-0001Ev-Sv; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:28:28 +0100
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.240])
by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <qrczakmk@gmail.com>) id 1KKcht-0001Ed-Le
for ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:28:26 +0100
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so1078732rvb.14
for <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>;
Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.74.18 with SMTP id b18mr858997rvl.80.1216574903487;
Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.99.8 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3f4107910807201028j1d65c73fre8175061e0aa9a08@mail .gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:28:23 +0200
From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Marcin_=E2=80=98Qrczak=E2=80=99_Kowalczyk?="
<qrczak@knm.org.pl>
To: "Ubuntu user technical support,
not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: Is it a bug?
In-Reply-To: <g5vpbv$8kv$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1216313978.487f7a7a314bf@webmail.if.usp.br>
<g5thno$ifr$1@ger.gmane.org>
<1216532318.27363.2.camel@chronic.localdomain>
<20080720172055.14a3ee42.peter.garrett@optusnet.co m.au>
<g5vpbv$8kv$1@ger.gmane.org>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3678741ceeebe6c7
X-BeenThere: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Ubuntu user technical support,
not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>
List-Id: "Ubuntu user technical support,
not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users.lists.ubuntu.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>,
<mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users>
List-Post: <mailto:ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>
List-Help: <mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>,
<mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com
Errors-To: ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com

2008/7/20 NoOp <glgxg@sbcglobal.net>:


In Hardy, locate doesn't
find the file in the trash (/home/<user>/.local/share/Trash/) folder, it
instead finds where it was.


This is because the locate database is updated daily. Wait until the
next day and it will be found in its current place.


Another interesting thing; if I search for the file via Tracker or
Nautilus, the file is not found.


This is because Tracker and Nautilus skip hidden files and directories
(those with the name beginning with a dot).

Tracker uses a database like locate (which indexes file contents too,
not just filenames), but it tracks filesystem changes in realtime.


However, if I search for the file using
Places|Search the file is found.


This is strange, because it does skip hidden directories for me.

This is indeed a mess, because file searching tools have partially
overlapping functionality. They differ in the balance between speed
and accuracy:
1. Read current filesystem contents? (find, mc / M-?, Nautilus/Find,
Places/Search)
2. Use a database which is tracked in realtime? (Tracker, Beagle,
Google Desktop)
3. Use a database which is updated by cron? (locate)
where 3 should really be subsumed by 2, but locate is much older and
simpler than the tools from group 2. They differ in whether they scan
only the home directory or the entire filesystem. They differ in
whether they look inside file contents (Nautilus/Find and locate
cannot). They differ in whether they skip hidden files and directories
(find & locate do not). They differ in the types of files they are
able to extract contents from. They differ in whether you provide the
top directory of the search or they return results about the whole
filesystem.

Some of the differences may be historical accidents. Some of the
differences are caused by admin-oriented or user-oriented attitude of
particular tools. Some combinations are probably impossible for
performance or security reasons, e.g. extracting contents from all
kinds of files should not be done in real time, and Tracker / Beagle /
etc. should probably continue having a separate database for each
user.

They have been some attempts at unifying them. I remember patches
which made Nautilus/Find use Tracker or Beagle when available. This
has been abandoned because too many things work differently depending
on the searching backend: while using a database instead of scanning
the filesystem make searching faster, some files cannot be found at
all (e.g. when they are located outside the home directory and the
database stores only the contents of the home directory, or when a
network drive is mounted inside a home directory but is not scanned by
Tracker).

It would be nice if the mess was cleaned up a bit. For example:
- Nautilus/Find should be unified with Places/Search
- they should be able to use Tracker / Beagle etc., but falling back
to actually reading the filesystem when searching outside indexed
regions or on explicit request (perhaps they should detect that some
subdirectories are not indexed even though the top directory is
indexed, and in this case offer to search them directly for slower but
more complete results, after displaying the results obtained from
Tracker / Beagle)
- they should skip hidden files or not depending on the Nautilus
setting of displaying them
- locate should be able to track filesystem changes in realtime

--
Marcin Kowalczyk
qrczak@knm.org.pl
http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Anders Karlsson wrote:


Just so that I understand this right.

Any license which will permit being replaced by the GPL, when the
software it covers is combined with software under the GPL - is
compatible with the GPL?


Anyone except the copyright holder cannot replace the terms of the
license. If I developed software and licensed it using any of the
licenses compatible with the GPL, that original software stays under the
license I released forever. Software Freedom Law Center published a
paper describing the effect of combining BSD and GPL license if you are
interested in the details


http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

Note that the specific details maybe dependent on the copyright laws of
your region too.


Rahul




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Please explain how a work containing any GPL'd material can contain
any that is not covered by the GPL, given the 'work as a whole'
provision in the license. While there are indeed licenses that
permit their own terms to be replaced by the GPL when used in this
way, that means the terms _become_ the GPL, not that different terms
are or can be, by design, compatible.


Not quite. A license such as your beloved modified BSD license does
not permit relicensing. What makes it compatible with the GPL is that
it grants all the permissions granted by the GPL, and it doesn't
establish any requirements that are not present in the GPL.


If I add some bsd code into a gpl'd work, could I then distribute the
resulting binary and only the previously gpl'd code? This would be
permissible if the bsd code retained its own license. Instead, I
believe it becomes encumbered with the gpl restrictions - and could not
be used otherwise.



I have a beef with representing restrictions as freedom.


You seem to not understand the difference between freedom and power,
and insist in demanding power when what you deserve and have is
freedom.


No, I understand that restrictions are not freedom.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com



--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Anders Karlsson wrote:

And any license that does not permit itself to be replaced or
over-ruled by the GPL - is hence incompatible - even if it explicitly
permits combination with the GPL for any derived work or combination
work.

Am I understanding this right?


This part is incorrect. If has additional requirements but explicitly
states that the combination is compatible with GPL, then it is. Affero
GPL (AGPL) is a example of this.


http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined
work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will
continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work
with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU
General Public License."


Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Les Mikesell wrote:

Alexandre Oliva wrote:



You seem to not understand the difference between freedom and power,
and insist in demanding power when what you deserve and have is
freedom.


No, I understand that restrictions are not freedom.

Maybe that is because you are looking at it as a developer, and not
as an end user. It is the freedom of the end users that is being
preserved.


Mikkel
--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 20, 2008, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > They have said that they were going to block non GPL
>> modules

>> Who did?

> http://www.linuxactionshow.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=247

> http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

Aah. I somehow got the idea you were talking about GPLv3 doing
something about it.

If Linux developers had gone down that path, they'd have created
inconvenience for people who make uses that are permitted by copyright
law, such as those who load their own private modules, never
distributed, and therefore never licensed, and a few other situations
involving works that are allegedly not derived works.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

If Linux developers had gone down that path, they'd have created
inconvenience for people who make uses that are permitted by copyright
law, such as those who load their own private modules, never
distributed, and therefore never licensed, and a few other situations
involving works that are allegedly not derived works.


They haven't done anything like this. Someone proposed a patch and it
was rejected for the reasons you outlined among other things.


Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 20, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I add some bsd code into a gpl'd work, could I then distribute the
> resulting binary and only the previously gpl'd code?

No, you have to provide the whole with the permissions and the
conditions set forth in the GPL, which the modified BSD license
permits you to do.

> Instead, I believe it becomes encumbered with the gpl restrictions -
> and could not be used otherwise.

When part of the whole, yes. When took in isolation, it's still under
the modified BSD license, and its headers will say so, and there has
to be a copy of the license distributed along with the code.

>> You seem to not understand the difference between freedom and power,
>> and insist in demanding power when what you deserve and have is
>> freedom.

> No, I understand that restrictions are not freedom.

So, let's see, just because you're prohibited from using software for
stealing money from others' bank accounts, and you could decide to
change any piece of software to do just that, then no software
whatsoever can be free, because it's under a restriction?

Just because you're prohibited from removing the copyright notice and
the license from code under one of the various permissive licenses,
it's not free, because it's under a restriction?

You seem to have a very odd understanding of what freedom is about.
You appear to disregard the fact that one's freedom doesn't invade
someone else's freedom. If you were the only person in the universe,
and you could change physical laws to suit your wishes, then you might
be able to equate freedom to 'no restrictions'. Once others enter the
picture, what you claim as freedom, if claimed by the others, would
turn into power usable against you: threats to *your* actual
*freedom*. I don't think that's an outcome you'd be interested in,
and you wouldn't be so selfish as to wanting that kind of power only
to you, so there's some inconsistency in your stance.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Les Mikesell wrote:

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Or... Microsoft would have used that code and used it to control
people in just the same way it does with every other piece of software
it touches.


The only software that they can use to control anyone is their OS, and
they can only do that as long as no one ships something competitive
enough to attract application development. That hasn't happened,
largely because of GPL restrictions on code that might otherwise have
been used in such products.

...

Anyway it is the GPL that has kept them rich and in control.


You've got to be trolling me.

I can't remember when I've ever heard a statement about the GPL or
Microsoft that was so far removed from reality. There are numerous
alternatives to Microsoft which aren't licensed under the GPL: OS X and
FreeBSD being two examples under very different licenses.


You seem to be asserting that if we all used the BSD license, or
something else that doesn't require distribution of software to include
source code and redistribution rights, then *someone* (or everyone)
would have taken the Free Software that's available and ... done
something ... that challenged Microsoft, reduced their market share, and
created a competitive system. If you believe that, then explain how
that hasn't happened, despite high-quality systems available from
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and the like?


The truth of the matter is that GNU/Linux is dominant among Free
Software unix-like platforms *because* of the license, not in spite of
it. People contribute to GPL licensed products because the license
protects their investment. If they put money into improving a GPL
licensed product and attempt to make a living from that, they know that
someone else won't reduce the value of their investment by selling a
proprietary derivative that offers features that they can not. When we
improve a GPL product, we benefit from that, and so does everyone else
who uses the product. If we allow proprietary derivatives, we reduce
the incentive to invest in Free Software. When someone builds a
proprietary derivative, they're not investing in Free Software, they're
investing in their proprietary product.


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

* Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> [20080720 19:42]:
> Anders Karlsson wrote:
>> And any license that does not permit itself to be replaced or
>> over-ruled by the GPL - is hence incompatible - even if it explicitly
>> permits combination with the GPL for any derived work or combination
>> work.
>>
>> Am I understanding this right?
>
> This part is incorrect. If has additional requirements but explicitly
> states that the combination is compatible with GPL, then it is. Affero
> GPL (AGPL) is a example of this.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

Thanks Rahul for taking the time to be plesant and provide useful
answers to a genuine question. You are a credit to your employer and
to the organisation you represent.

> "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
> permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
> under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined
> work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will
> continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work
> with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU
> General Public License."

So the part of the work that is non-GPL licensed, can stay non-GPL
licensed in the combined works and derivatives?

Thanks!

/Anders

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list