[News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Why enterprise still cannot accept Linux. ,----[ Quote ] | These companies that support Linux are not little fly by nighters either. | They are the giants and grand daddies of the computing world. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

  1. [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Why enterprise still cannot accept Linux.

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | These companies that support Linux are not little fly by nighters either.
    | They are the giants and grand daddies of the computing world. Three names
    | that every enterprise would immediately recognise and trust are IBM, HP and
    | Oracle. Those three companies support and endorse Linux and one of them even
    | produces it's own version of Linux which it guarantees.
    |
    | These companies and more don't sell Linux. They sell support for Linux. Their
    | market is targeted at the enterprises sector and it specifically addresses
    | the lack of support argument. Depending on the support contract you purchase
    | you can have up to 24/7 support and a guaranteed fix for your problem.
    |
    | Yet enterprise organisations still cannot accept that because Linux itself is
    | not produced by a single company. They can accept Microsoft and Apple because
    | they sell a right to use that operating system and also sell support for it.
    | However even that support is lacking. For one, if the problem is finally
    | determined to be a problem in the operating system there is no guarantee that
    | a patch will be supplied.
    `----

    http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/...pt-linux-25705

    It's a perceptual issue, not a technical issue, which is good news.


    Recent:

    New banking code cracks down on out-of-date software

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The banking industry has re-affirmed a policy that makes online banking
    | customers responsible for losses if they have out of date anti-virus or
    | anti-phishing protection. New Banking Codes for consumers and businesses took
    | effect on Monday. ┬*
    `----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...ing_code_2008/


    Microsoft's 10Q Risk Factors Lists Conceivable Liability for Data Leaks

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Improper disclosure of personal data could result in liability and harm our
    | reputation. We store and process significant amounts of personally
    | identifiable information. It is possible that our security controls over
    | personal data, our training of employees and vendors on data security, and
    | other practices we follow may not prevent the improper disclosure of
    | personally identifiable information. Such disclosure could harm our
    | reputation and subject us to liability under laws that protect personal data,
    | resulting in increased costs or loss of revenue. Our software products also
    | enable our customers to store and process personal data. Perceptions that our
    | products do not adequately protect the privacy of personal information could
    | inhibit sales of our products.
    `----

    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...25854/d10q.htm



    Related:

    Experts are calling for product liability for software

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "Product liability does not apply to software," Gerald Spindler
    | of the Faculty of Law of the University of G├Âttingen complained.
    | "But what if a whole company comes to a standstill due to faulty
    | software?" he mused.
    `----

    http://www.heise.de/english/newstick...932/from/rss09


    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Ah, from the horse's mouth: Microsoft just might be held legally
    | responsible for selling software that is insecure.
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...06112223522439


    Microsoft confirms OneCare zaps Outlook, Outlook Express e-mail

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft Corp. has acknowledged that a bug in its Windows Live
    | OneCare security suite has been causing users' e-mail to vanish
    | from Outlook and Outlook Express.
    `----

    http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9012499


    Your data or your life

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | As unlikely and alarmist as this sounds, it could really happen. Intracare
    | is the publisher of a popular practice management system called Dr. Notes.
    | When some doctors balked at a drastic increase in their annual software
    | lease, they were cut off from accessing their own patients? information.
    |
    | This situation is completely unconscionable. There can be no truly
    | open doctor-patient relationship when an unrelated third party is the
    | de facto owner of and gatekeeper to all related data.
    `----

    http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1709


    Windows XP repair disk kills automatic updates

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The company is getting a kicking from critics for this - the same people who
    | slammed the company two weeks ago when Microsoft forced a Windows patch on
    | users who had turned off automatic updates.
    `----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...s_update_flap/


    Microsoft Excel fails math test

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft Corp.'s Excel 2007 spreadsheet program is going to have to relearn
    | part of its multiplication table.
    `----

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/...soft_excel_bug


    Microsoft: Excel Bug Doesn't Add Up

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | If you've been depending on your Microsoft Excel software to do your number
    | crunching for you, you might want to grab a calculator and review your
    | spreadsheets before you send the document out the door. That's because the
    | latest version of Excel is housing bugs that are dead set on ruining your
    | reports.
    `----

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20070927/tc_nf/55613


    Use Health Vault, Lose Your Rights

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft has announced (NY Times Article) Health Vault. What should have
    | followed here is a review of the service by my actually trying it.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Heard enough? So had I. I'm absolutely going to pass on Health Vault. In
    | addition to looking like the Microsoft Passport debacle redux, this is a very
    | one-sided contract. They can harm you but you cannot harm them. There is no
    | way for any 3rd party to verify that their privacy and security software
    | works.
    `----

    http://www.linuxmednews.com/1191521272
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIakJzU4xAY3RXLo4RApVWAJ9U94BxSLj7+zRQjQI7nZ bcQsoIQgCfcoHR
    /QmtbzfOkCiXTwk+oqdjviw=
    =wzev
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:42:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Why enterprise still cannot accept Linux.


    Because Windows has better applications, especially for the desktop.
    Then you can add in the fragmentation of Linux and you can also include the
    fact that the GPL scares the suits and their attorneys and there you have
    it.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    In article ,
    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > And GPL does scare the suits, though in a more rational
    > world one would merely ensure that the source code
    > repository is properly policed, then exported.


    I don't think it is so much GPL itself that scares them, but the FSF,
    and RMS in particular. RMS/FSF have some interpretations of parts of
    GPL that are at odds with copyright law, and with the case law. This
    means that it is possible to obey the GPL, and *still* have the FSF get
    on your ass.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  4. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    On 2008-07-01, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> And GPL does scare the suits, though in a more rational
    >> world one would merely ensure that the source code
    >> repository is properly policed, then exported.

    >
    > I don't think it is so much GPL itself that scares them, but the FSF,
    > and RMS in particular. RMS/FSF have some interpretations of parts of
    > GPL that are at odds with copyright law, and with the case law. This
    > means that it is possible to obey the GPL, and *still* have the FSF get
    > on your ass.


    No it isn't.

    You might make RMS angry but the most he can do is use stern language with you.

    Although most companies have no interest in "using" free software
    in a manner that will get RMS angry at you. Most computer users
    are just that "users".

    They aren't developers or resellers.

    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  5. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    In article ,
    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > media in order to sell them". I'd be curious as to whether
    > Microsoft Word has any technical innovations, compared to
    > OpenOffice -- but suspect Joe Average wouldn't care, as


    You can find a partial answer to this in the OpenOffice bug tracking
    system, where people have entered enhancement requests for those areas
    where Word is better.

    The biggest for me is outline mode. I want to use a word processor as
    more than just a fancy psuedo-WYSIWIG typesetting system. I want to use
    it to help me compose my document. The good news here is that the
    OpenOffice developers, after years of not getting it, have acknowledged
    that Word's outline mode provides useful functionality that cannot be
    achieved with OO, and that it is important to add this to OO. The bad
    news is that they said it will require a lot of work, and so is going to
    take a while.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH

    wrote
    on Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:12:51 -0500
    :
    > On 2008-07-01, Tim Smith wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>> And GPL does scare the suits, though in a more rational
    >>> world one would merely ensure that the source code
    >>> repository is properly policed, then exported.

    >>
    >> I don't think it is so much GPL itself that scares them, but the FSF,
    >> and RMS in particular. RMS/FSF have some interpretations of parts of
    >> GPL that are at odds with copyright law, and with the case law. This
    >> means that it is possible to obey the GPL, and *still* have the FSF get
    >> on your ass.

    >
    > No it isn't.
    >
    > You might make RMS angry but the most he can do is use
    > stern language with you.


    Or file a lawsuit, like the SFLC:

    http://thinkingopen.wordpress.com/20...gpl-in-the-us/

    I'm a little puzzled, as I have no trouble building BusyBox
    (using standard Gentoo emerge). It is possible Gentoo is
    missing some of Monsoon's source.

    >
    > Although most companies have no interest in "using" free software
    > in a manner that will get RMS angry at you. Most computer users
    > are just that "users".
    >
    > They aren't developers or resellers.
    >


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
    A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  7. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    In article , Homer
    wrote:
    > Those "interpretations of parts of GPL" that Smith disingenuously
    > alludes to, are not "interpretations" at all, but are in fact clearly
    > stated in the body of the license itself:
    >
    >
    > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
    > sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
    > Corresponding Source under the terms of this License
    >


    [H]omer is as confused as usual, and so has no idea what this discussion
    is about.

    Here's an example. Suppose you want to write a program to implement a
    public key cryptography system, which you intend to distribute in source
    form under a free license that is not compatible with GPL. You have a
    function in that program that multiplies two arbitrary precision
    integers. In order to make it as convenient as possible for people who
    want to use this code, you write it so that it can be compiled with any
    of several different libraries to do the arithmetic.

    So, your code looks something like this:

    my_big_int big_int_mul( my_big_int * x, my_big_int * y )
    {
    #if USE_BSD_MP
    ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    from the BSD MP library...
    #elif USE_GNU_MP
    ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    from the GNU MP library...
    #elif USE_TZS_BSINT
    ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    from my public domain big integer library...
    #elif USE_LIBTOMMATH
    ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    from the LibTomMath library...
    #endif
    }

    According to RMS and the FSF, this source can only be distributed under
    GPL or a GPL-compatible license, because some users will link it with the
    GNU MP library, and that makes it so your distribution of that source
    code is an "implicit distribution" of the GNU MP library!

    You can search all you want in copyright law, and you'll find nothing
    about "implicit distribution". You'll won't find a single statute or
    case that supports the notion that you need permission of the copyright
    owner of GNU MP (or BSD MP, or LibTomMath) to distribute that code.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  8. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > So, your code looks something like this:
    >
    > my_big_int big_int_mul( my_big_int * x, my_big_int * y )
    > {
    > #if USE_BSD_MP
    > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    > from the BSD MP library...
    > #elif USE_GNU_MP
    > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    > from the GNU MP library...
    > #elif USE_TZS_BSINT
    > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    > from my public domain big integer library...
    > #elif USE_LIBTOMMATH
    > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    > from the LibTomMath library...
    > #endif
    > }
    >
    > According to RMS and the FSF, this source can only be distributed under
    > GPL or a GPL-compatible license, because some users will link it with the
    > GNU MP library, and that makes it so your distribution of that source
    > code is an "implicit distribution" of the GNU MP library!


    I think you're pulling that interpretation out of your ass.

    > You can search all you want in copyright law, and you'll find nothing
    > about "implicit distribution". You'll won't find a single statute or
    > case that supports the notion that you need permission of the copyright
    > owner of GNU MP (or BSD MP, or LibTomMath) to distribute that code.


    And you'll find nothing about "implicit distribution" at the FSF,
    either. In fact, about the only places you'll find the phrase are in
    discussions of the Plan 9 operating system and in your tag-team troll
    attacks on the GPL with rjack and Alexander Terekhov at gnu.misc.discuss.

    --
    There's always free cheese in a mousetrap.

  9. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > So, your code looks something like this:
    > >
    > > my_big_int big_int_mul( my_big_int * x, my_big_int * y )
    > > {
    > > #if USE_BSD_MP
    > > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    > > from the BSD MP library...
    > > #elif USE_GNU_MP
    > > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    > > from the GNU MP library...
    > > #elif USE_TZS_BSINT
    > > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    > > from my public domain big integer library...
    > > #elif USE_LIBTOMMATH
    > > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    > > from the LibTomMath library...
    > > #endif
    > > }
    > >
    > > According to RMS and the FSF, this source can only be distributed under
    > > GPL or a GPL-compatible license, because some users will link it with the
    > > GNU MP library, and that makes it so your distribution of that source
    > > code is an "implicit distribution" of the GNU MP library!

    >
    > I think you're pulling that interpretation out of your ass.


    Your Google-fu is weak today, Linonut. The example I gave above is
    paraphrased from the source for RIPEM. The source code was distributed
    under a free license, and had options to link with several libraries for
    the arbitrary precision math. It also made use of a library from RSA
    (the company, not the public key algorithm) called RSAREF, that
    implemented RSA's patented algorithms. This library was freely
    available in binary form, but not source.

    RMS objected:

    >


    <http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/
    browse_frm/thread/e117072f9260d78a>


    >
    > > You can search all you want in copyright law, and you'll find nothing
    > > about "implicit distribution". You'll won't find a single statute or
    > > case that supports the notion that you need permission of the copyright
    > > owner of GNU MP (or BSD MP, or LibTomMath) to distribute that code.

    >
    > And you'll find nothing about "implicit distribution" at the FSF,
    > either. In fact, about the only places you'll find the phrase are in
    > discussions of the Plan 9 operating system and in your tag-team troll
    > attacks on the GPL with rjack and Alexander Terekhov at gnu.misc.discuss.


    I don't recall exactly what name they've used for their notion that
    distributing code that can be linked to something is implicitly
    distributing it.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  10. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >> > So, your code looks something like this:
    >> >
    >> > my_big_int big_int_mul( my_big_int * x, my_big_int * y )
    >> > {
    >> > #if USE_BSD_MP
    >> > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    >> > from the BSD MP library...
    >> > #elif USE_GNU_MP
    >> > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    >> > from the GNU MP library...
    >> > #elif USE_TZS_BSINT
    >> > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    >> > from my public domain big integer library...
    >> > #elif USE_LIBTOMMATH
    >> > ...code to multiply my two big ints by calling functions
    >> > from the LibTomMath library...
    >> > #endif
    >> > }
    >> >
    >> > According to RMS and the FSF, this source can only be distributed under
    >> > GPL or a GPL-compatible license, because some users will link it with the
    >> > GNU MP library, and that makes it so your distribution of that source
    >> > code is an "implicit distribution" of the GNU MP library!

    >>
    >> I think you're pulling that interpretation out of your ass.

    >
    > Your Google-fu is weak today, Linonut. The example I gave above is
    > paraphrased from the source for RIPEM.


    How is my Google-fu weak? I googled for "implicit distribution"+GPL
    and came up with what I found.

    > The source code was distributed
    > under a free license, and had options to link with several libraries for
    > the arbitrary precision math. It also made use of a library from RSA
    > (the company, not the public key algorithm) called RSAREF, that
    > implemented RSA's patented algorithms. This library was freely
    > available in binary form, but not source.
    >
    > RMS objected:
    >
    >>

    >
    > <http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/
    > browse_frm/thread/e117072f9260d78a>
    >
    >> And you'll find nothing about "implicit distribution" at the FSF,
    >> either. In fact, about the only places you'll find the phrase are in
    >> discussions of the Plan 9 operating system and in your tag-team troll
    >> attacks on the GPL with rjack and Alexander Terekhov at gnu.misc.discuss.

    >
    > I don't recall exactly what name they've used for their notion that
    > distributing code that can be linked to something is implicitly
    > distributing it.


    You're the one trying to put the phrase "implicit distribution" into
    people's mouths. The link you show doesn't even contain the word
    "implicit".

    All it shows is RMS saying this:

    It is not as easy to bypass the GPL as some people might think.
    The GPL does not permit what is being done with RSAREF and GNU mp,
    and as soon as I found out about it (a couple of hours ago)
    I informed the distributors of this.

    and the rest of the thread does not really make it clear what exactly is
    being discussed.

    So let's work some more Google-fu to make up for the paucity of
    information uncovered by your search:

    http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/rsaref.txt

    RSAREF(TM) 2.0: A Free Cryptographic Toolkit
    General Information

    RSA Laboratories
    Revised April 15, 1994

    So what's the license?

    1. RSAREF is free for personal or corporate use under the
    following conditions:

    o RSAREF, RSAREF applications, and services based on
    RSAREF applications may not be sold.

    o You must give RSA the source code of any free RSAREF
    application you plan to distribute or deploy within
    your company. RSA will make these applications
    available to the public, free of charge.

    Perhaps RMS object to that. Or to this:

    4. You must use the interface described in the RSAREF
    documentation.

    o The published interface of RSAREF consists of those
    procedures and data types listed in the files
    "global.h" and "rsaref.h", as described in the RSAREF
    library reference manual (the file "rsaref.txt"). If a
    procedure is not documented in the library reference
    manual, then it is not considered published, even if an
    application could access it without modification to
    RSAREF.

    o Furthermore, the published interface is understood as
    the reasonable interpretation of the descriptions in
    the library reference manual. Although it may well be
    possible to perform other operations with procedures
    listed in "rsaref.h" than what is described in
    "rsaref.txt", only the intended operations (e.g.,
    Diffie-Hellman key agreement with the Diffie-Hellman
    procedures) are considered to follow the published
    interface.

    Or to this, in the actual license (instead of in the explanation section):

    1. LICENSE. RSA grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable,
    perpetual (subject to the conditions of Section 8) license for
    the "RSAREF" program (the "Program") and its associated
    documentation, subject to all of the following terms and
    conditions:

    c. to modify the Program in any manner for porting or
    performance improvement purposes (subject to Section 2) or
    to incorporate the Program into other computer programs for
    your own personal or internal use, provided that you provide
    RSA with a copy of any such modification or Application
    Program by electronic mail, and grant RSA a perpetual,
    royalty-free license to use and distribute such
    modifications and Application Programs on the terms set
    forth in this Agreement.

    Or this:

    The Program may not be used directly for revenue-generating purposes.

    And there's more. So we really ought to clarify what RMS was talking about
    in his objection.

    --
    Kinkler's First Law:
    Responsibility always exceeds authority.
    Kinkler's Second Law:
    All the easy problems have been solved.

  11. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    >
    > And there's more. So we really ought to clarify what RMS was talking about
    > in his objection.


    RIPEM contained no GPL code:

    >


    Stallman's objection was that RIPEM included conditional code to call a
    GPL'ed library. The author or RIPEM later made a quick and dirty new
    big int library that had the same interface as GNU MP, but was public
    domain. Stallman then dropped his objection, because now the calling
    code in RIPEM could be used with a non-GPL library.

    Their position seemed to be basically that if you write this code:

    some_gpl_function(...);

    and distribute your source, *and* the only available implementation of
    that function is under GPL, then you are effectively also distributing
    that GPL code, because people who receive your code are going to go get
    the GPL library, and link it with your code. When someone makes a
    non-GPL implementation of some_gpl_function available, then your
    distribution does not necessarily induce people to get the GPL code to
    make your code useful, so you are no longer doing that effective
    distribution.

    Someone posted a decent summary of the FSF's position in one of the
    threads:

    >


    There are several other threads that discussed this. Unfortunately,
    this was in 1993, so much of the discussion took place on mailing lists
    that aren't available in Google, and in private emails.

    The FSF's position caused a lot of consternation, as people tried to
    figure out where it was coming from. The first theory was that they
    were claiming some sort of interface copyright on GNU MP, so that you
    weren't allowed to write code that used that interface.

    The closest you can get in copyright law to the kind of restriction the
    FSF wants in this situation is "contributory infringement". Here's how
    that works. Suppose I give you some code that can be used to help you
    violate, say, Microsoft's copyrights. You do so, and Microsoft is
    pissed off. If the code I gave you had no substantial use other than
    infringing copyrights, then I can be found guilty of copyright
    infringement.

    Contributory infringement would not apply in a case like the RIPEM case,
    though. For party X to be a contributory infringer to party Y's
    infringement, party Y has to be infringing. GPL allows you to take GPL
    code an non-GPL code and combine then on your system for your own use.
    When you do that, you are not infringing, and therefore it is
    *impossible*, as a matter of law, for someone to be a contributory
    infringer for supplying you with that non-GPL code.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  12. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    On 2008-07-02, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> And there's more. So we really ought to clarify what RMS was talking about
    >> in his objection.

    >
    > RIPEM contained no GPL code:
    >
    >>

    >
    > Stallman's objection was that RIPEM included conditional code to call a
    > GPL'ed library. The author or RIPEM later made a quick and dirty new
    > big int library that had the same interface as GNU MP, but was public
    > domain. Stallman then dropped his objection, because now the calling
    > code in RIPEM could be used with a non-GPL library.
    >
    > Their position seemed to be basically that if you write this code:
    >
    > some_gpl_function(...);
    >
    > and distribute your source, *and* the only available implementation of
    > that function is under GPL, then you are effectively also distributing
    > that GPL code, because people who receive your code are going to go get
    > the GPL library, and link it with your code. When someone makes a
    > non-GPL implementation of some_gpl_function available, then your
    > distribution does not necessarily induce people to get the GPL code to
    > make your code useful, so you are no longer doing that effective
    > distribution.
    >
    > Someone posted a decent summary of the FSF's position in one of the
    > threads:
    >
    >>

    >
    > There are several other threads that discussed this. Unfortunately,
    > this was in 1993, so much of the discussion took place on mailing lists
    > that aren't available in Google, and in private emails.
    >
    > The FSF's position caused a lot of consternation, as people tried to
    > figure out where it was coming from. The first theory was that they


    It's pretty simple really. The FSF thought that RIPEM was a derivative
    work based on the linking. RIPEM tried to sidestep the problem by not
    being the ones to do the linking.

    > were claiming some sort of interface copyright on GNU MP, so that you
    > weren't allowed to write code that used that interface.


    Not quite. The fact they were cool with the interface being cloned
    clearly shows this.

    [deletia]

    It's a boundary that probably shouldn't have been pushed but it's
    pretty simple to see where the FSF was coming from. I expect that
    much of the consternation was coming from people that have problems
    with the original link-as-derivative part of the GPL to begin with.

    --


    The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
    Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  13. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    * JEDIDIAH peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > It's pretty simple really. The FSF thought that RIPEM was a derivative
    > work based on the linking. RIPEM tried to sidestep the problem by not
    > being the ones to do the linking.
    >
    >> were claiming some sort of interface copyright on GNU MP, so that you
    >> weren't allowed to write code that used that interface.

    >
    > Not quite. The fact they were cool with the interface being cloned
    > clearly shows this.
    >
    > [deletia]
    >
    > It's a boundary that probably shouldn't have been pushed but it's
    > pretty simple to see where the FSF was coming from. I expect that
    > much of the consternation was coming from people that have problems
    > with the original link-as-derivative part of the GPL to begin with.


    That too

    --
    Can anything be sadder than work left unfinished? Yes, work never begun.

  14. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, MisundertandLinux

    On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:54:54 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > and distribute your source, *and* the only available implementation of
    > that function is under GPL, then you are effectively also distributing
    > that GPL code, because people who receive your code are going to go get
    > the GPL library, and link it with your code.



    Without the GPL library there will be a compile-time error? Then I don't
    see that as a GPL violation.



    -Thufir

  15. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > It sounded like the FSF was trying to use an angle similar to Darl
    > McBride's dumb "Linux is using our riffs" theory.
    >
    > To me, RMS got tangled up in his own beard thinking too hard about the
    > RSA implementation.


    I think what goes wrong occasionally at the FSF is that they sometimes
    forget GPL is necessarily only an approximation to what they would like.
    They made a decision to make their licenses only add to the user's
    rights to the software, not take any rights away the user would
    otherwise have (they make a point of how this is different from most
    commercial software licenses), and they have made a point to try to
    avoid having their licenses be seen as contracts.

    That puts a constraint on them. They have to start with the rights and
    restrictions imposed by copyright law, and the only operation they can
    do (due to their self-imposed restriction on the kind of license they
    want to do) is lift some of those restrictions. Since copyright law
    includes some rights that let people do things that are not nice in the
    FSF's view, and they are only lifting restrictions, not reducing rights,
    of necessity those not nice things are not stopped by the GPL.

    We're going to see similar problems in the future, I predict.
    Specifically, (1) there are things allowed by copyright law under the
    first sale doctrine that can lead to GPL binaries being in circulation
    without the corresponding source, and with no one required to cough up
    the source, and (2) there's going to be some serious tension between
    AGPL and 17 USC 117 in the United States.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: [News] Enterprises Look for Someone to Blame, Misundertand Linux

    In article <15gtj5-8p2.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer
    wrote:
    > This is not about "inducing". AFAICT from the limited information you've
    > provided, it was the case that the aforementioned code could /only/ be
    > built if it was built against GPL licensed software, since there were no
    > alternatives at the time. Therefore the /outcome/ could *only* be that
    > distributing the *resultant binary* would be in violation of the GPL.


    Nope. RIPEM could be built without using GNU MP. You could
    *optionally* build it to use GNU MP instead of the library that came
    with it.

    >
    > But again, expressing concern for situations that very likely encourage
    > GPL violation, is not the same as making an actual accusation of GPL
    > violation, nor is it any form of legal enforcement or "reinterpretation"
    > of the GPL.


    > The RIPEM developers were clearly circumventing the GPL by passing the
    > responsibility for the /inevitable/ violation of the GPL on to third
    > parties. That is most certainly something for Stallman to raise an


    What /inevitable/ violation of the GPL by third parties?

    First of all, RIPEM was fully functional without any GPL code. When you
    decided to build RIPEM, you could decide with MP library you wanted to
    use with it. You were not required to pick GNU MP.

    Second, according to the FSF themselves, IT IS NOT A GPL VIOLATION FOR
    AN END USER TO LINK GPL CODE WITH NON-GPL CODE.

    I've posted links to several old usenet threads, containing *hundreds*
    of messages discussing this issue back when the incident occurred,
    including one that starts with a post from RMS. You might want to
    actually read some of those messages.

    --
    --Tim Smith

+ Reply to Thread