Briefly: Apple shareholder proposal, VLC app removed, Intel tablets

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    I dont care about getting others to "help" develop my software if they insist on restricting my right to sell it. A piece of software ( open sourced or not) which I use is effectively an API to me: a binary which works - anathema to the OS "community" - or a webserivce which works is all I need; and I can pay, or contribute if necessary.



    Just because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. If you chose to sell your software, what of it? You act as if the FSF people are knocking down your door making you GPL your code.



    Quote:

    What a gpl licence does is : sitting on other people's work ( which we all do) they demand that their software, even if merely 1% of some project, change the licence of all subsequent software using it to not just be free at sale but to show all it's source code, thus removing any intellectual protection.



    I know this is just too hard for you to comprehend, but no one is forcing you to put GPL code in your project. You act as if it isn't fair for someone to give code in exchange for yours. If you rather pay someone money than make your code GPL because you used someone else's work, go ahead.



    Quote:

    how much work in a GPL library is actually done by the GPL writers? None of the low level API they are using, they are not rewriting the Objective C api, or Posix api, or kernel, or compiler and for their little addition to the actual machine code generated by their library they demand the end of commercial software use from then on in. Get lost.



    So either use a LGPL library which most are or make your own. I'm sure the video lan people spend hundreds of hours developing x264, and they are not going to let you just take that and make money off of it without a cut.



    Quote:

    I have, as I said, contributed to MIT licences - which I see an engineers helping each other to write code - but restricted licences are a joke.



    I still fail to see how you can be angry that the only additional stipulation to the GPL is that the code be made available plus any changes. You received free, you give free.
  • Reply 102 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    Apparantly the "reality we call life" doesnt apply to software developers who want to make money. Everybody else will need to get paid though.



    That point was made to nht who complains that RMS is a nut job. So he is.
  • Reply 103 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    It's more like I separate ethics from software because software is just software...proprietary software is no more or less evil than open source software. There is real evil in the world. Microsoft isn't it. Neither is any other kind of proprietary software.



    That and because RMS and the FSF attempt to conflate their idiotic "freedoms" with genuine freedoms. Compare RMS' four freedoms with Roosevelt's four freedoms. One is inane. The other is important.



    In the grander picture of things, yes, there is evil in the world. But to say that proprietary software hasn't burned anyone in the past is ridiculous.





    Quote:

    What is it with you and freeloading anyway? It's not like you're a developer.

    The freedom for the original developer to choose the license for their work is lost in your scenario. The freedom of the developer is more important than the freedom of the user because the devs are doing all the work. When the users are paying for the work, then they get to choose.



    Handbrake, already being GPL is a poor example but if you take Apache as the example then Apache loses a lot by going GPL. But actual freedom for developers is something you don't understand or care about. And its hard to discuss freedom with freetards because they've redefined the language.



    Perhaps it is the third parties that use such software that is BSD, would lose if it went GPL.



    Quote:

    And if the FSF had its way then the only software out there would be "free" software.



    That's right. But it isn't as if they haven't already done the work to provide a lot of the work to do so, thus being hypocritical about it.



    Quote:

    The reality is that RMS is a freeloading fruit loop.



    Fortunately we have Linus who isn't a fruit loop or a free loader in charge of the Linux kernel.



    That's fine. But Linus also isn't opposed to DRM, or other pointless bull shit that restricts the freedoms of users. All he cares about is getting the job done.



    I value both opinions, but let's face it; countless times we all bitch about Adobe flash not being viable on the desktop, and especially on smart phones, and then you rally behind apple and want HTML5, an open standard that all can implement to succeed.



    If you don't care about freedom in software, why care about Flash hijacking the web?
  • Reply 104 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Excuse me if I think it's quite likely that the developers of Pidgin know more about the licensing issues associated with their software than you do. Unless you think they are stupid, or something like that?



    A lot of zealotry and religion in the FSF/GPL camp, and that's never a recipe for clear thinking.



    Uh, you can also re read my post about that and find that I agreed with you???
  • Reply 105 of 120
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


    ... I value both opinions, but let's face it; countless times we all bitch about Adobe flash not being viable on the desktop, and especially on smart phones, and then you rally behind apple and want HTML5, an open standard that all can implement to succeed.



    If you don't care about freedom in software, why care about Flash hijacking the web?



    Open source and open standards are two completely different things, and have nothing to do with each other. An open standard is about not allowing a single company to control something like the Web, like Adobe would like to do with Flash and Microsoft tried to do with IE. Open source software has nothing to do with that other than that open source developers are free to create their own implementations of open standards. Stop trying to confuse the issue to support your position.
  • Reply 106 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Open source and open standards are two completely different things, and have nothing to do with each other. An open standard is about not allowing a single company to control something like the Web, like Adobe would like to do with Flash and Microsoft tried to do with IE. Open source software has nothing to do with that other than that open source developers are free to create their own implementations of open standards. Stop trying to confuse the issue to support your position.



    Why wouldn't it? If IE was open source Microsoft couldn't keep a stranglehold on the web, and would be forced to give its improvements it made to everyone, not just itself.
  • Reply 107 of 120
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


    I still fail to see how you can be angry that the only additional stipulation to the GPL is that the code be made available plus any changes. You received free, you give free.





    Why? I just gave a friend of mine some code for his iOS app and he will sell it online. I dont want a cut. I have published some code online in blog format. Licence is MIT, or an unrestricted as possible. ( Frankly i haven't licensed it - whatever licence that is).



    Now if some fretard were to come along, change a line of code, and make the thing GPL he could demand that all users of that code ( largely mine but built on the work of others, as always) not only cannot use that modified code commercially, but would have to open up their additional source code which they may not want to, and which may be 99% of their project.



    I would like a licence which made that kind of restriction - which is what it is - illegal. Call it MIT+ - you can use this code without restrictions except this - you cant apply a more restrictive licence to it.



    And yes, I can use LGPL. So what. I can use MIT, or Apple's free source code. This argument is against the GPL fretards who want their insane philosophy to be universal , and how one of their numbers has reduced choice on the App store by invoking his licence's restrictions, and blaming Apple for the restrictions imposed by his own philosophy.
  • Reply 108 of 120
    focherfocher Posts: 687member
    VLC was developed and licensed under an open source license. If you don't like the license, don't use VLC. People use software licensed under much more restrictive terms every day (like every piece of commercial software), but there are complaints about the restrictions in GPLv3? Which is 100% intended to keep the software unencumbered?



    His point is that the VLC developers who actually built the program released it under terms that were intended specifically to ensure that users retained the unencumbered nature of software. Then someone else came along, took the code, commercialized it (which is fine under the GPL), but released it under more restrictive conditions.



    It's not a religion, it's a different license. The people who actually wrote the software got to choose, and they choose the one that protects the software from being closed off. Those who criticize GPL licensed software should get a reality check, because you use it every day.
  • Reply 109 of 120
    focherfocher Posts: 687member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I've been in the industry since Commodore 64 days and I can honestly say that I have *never* seen a really good piece of software that was open source. There's a lot of great code snippets out there, and quite a few projects that have become useful and even indispensable, but a shipping product? ... not so much.



    You probably ought to get off the Internet then, because



    1) Linux. You may not personally run it, but you undoubtedly connect to services that do.

    2) Most TCP/IP stacks are from open source implementations.

    3) Apache HTTP server is the most popular HTTP server, so you likely access one every day.

    4) Many programs are compiled by gcc, an open source compiler. Better stop using those programs because very likely you're using one.

    5) Firefox, Safari (the WebKit portion), and Chrome. Open source.



    Your problem is you've just taken the results of open source for granted.
  • Reply 110 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    Now if some fretard were to come along, change a line of code, and make the thing GPL he could demand that all users of that code ( largely mine but built on the work of others, as always) not only cannot use that modified code commercially, but would have to open up their additional source code which they may not want to, and which may be 99% of their project.




    You can't change a line of someone else's code and stick the GPL on it and that be legaly binding on the original party, any more than someone can take the linux kernel and make it GPL v3. Even if the new work created was GPL, he/she would still have to follow the original license of the code that was taken.



    Other than that, I agree on your other points.
  • Reply 111 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by focher View Post


    You probably ought to get off the Internet then, because



    1) Linux. You may not personally run it, but you undoubtedly connect to services that do.

    2) Most TCP/IP stacks are from open source implementations.

    3) Apache HTTP server is the most popular HTTP server, so you likely access one every day.

    4) Many programs are compiled by gcc, an open source compiler. Better stop using those programs because very likely you're using one.

    5) Firefox, Safari (the WebKit portion), and Chrome. Open source.



    Your problem is you've just taken the results of open source for granted.



    Or get off this web site since it runs on Linux and Apache. Of all ironies...
  • Reply 112 of 120
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


    You can't change a line of someone else's code and stick the GPL on it and that be legaly binding on the original party, any more than someone can take the linux kernel and make it GPL v3. Even if the new work created was GPL, he/she would still have to follow the original license of the code that was taken.



    Unfortunately it could take a legal team to demonstrate you, the original coder weren't freeloading off GPL code. Code lineage can be a real pissing contest unless the earlier versions are VERY obviously posted someplace and listed as copyright pre-GPL version entity. Big institutions that do academic or commercial OS code and post under a non-GPL are usually fine because they have the infrastructure and institutional server logs to stand on. Small companies can be vulnerable because trust of their record-keeping has to be established. I don't know if anyone has actually been screwed by this or not, but I do know lawyers involved in code are leery of this because it can be expensive even if the owning company is in the right.
  • Reply 113 of 120
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


    Why wouldn't it? If IE was open source Microsoft couldn't keep a stranglehold on the web, and would be forced to give its improvements it made to everyone, not just itself.



    And, if pigs had wings...



    Now you are arguing that non-open source software ought not be allowed to exist? Sorry, but your argument has completely jumped the shark with your conflating of open source and open standards.
  • Reply 114 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    And, if pigs had wings...



    Now you are arguing that non-open source software ought not be allowed to exist? Sorry, but your argument has completely jumped the shark with your conflating of open source and open standards.



    This is how you operate, isn't it? Putting words always in other people's mouths.



    Proprietary software can exist. But don't whine about it and complain about the GPL and the FSF when proprietary software and companies that make them screw you over because they managed to kill every one off by embrace, extend and extinguish.
  • Reply 115 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChiA View Post


    http://www.domzilla.net/en/iphone-apps/movieplayer/

    http://cinexplayer.com/



    Whilst these aren't free like vlc they won't break the bank either.







    True and I don't need his pity nor vlc on an iDevice. It's always been a buggy piece of software on the Mac; current version crashes half the time I quit the app.

    On reflection it's the only app on my Snow Leopard Mac that crashes every day of use, not even Flash does that!



    On Linux it is a great option, but on Mac most everything it does is better done via other apps. Video conversion is better handled by MPEG Streamclip, broadcasting video is better done with Apple's quicktime broadcast app or even over the web using a site like UStream. Mplayer is a nice lightweight video player that supports many formats. VLC does combine all those things but I'm not terribly impressed with the how it does it & the UI for setting it up, especially windows version, is terrible.



    One thing I'll say for VLC though, I love the flexibility in playback, choosing monitor to play to, manually controlling aspect ratio, it has some very nice playback features. As fro the bugginess, it hasn't been buggy for me so I can't comment on that.
  • Reply 116 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


    It's a legal issue, as in, Apple isn't going to change its TOS for GPL software by removing the one clause that means nothing to the end user: The limit of 5 unique downloads for different computers.



    Aside from that, the only issue Apple would have is that they could be sued, and since lawyers rule the earth, they rather not host the app. Simple as that.



    Even if Apple hadn't changed its TOS, it would have been able to continue distributing VLC, notwithstanding the fact that VLC was GPL licensed, if only all the developers in the VLC camp had been on the same page. The fact is, only the copyright holders have legal standing to bring up a GPL license violation suit.



    Some of the VLC developers didn't care about the fact that the iOS App Store's distribution method technically violated the GPL. Some of them didn't even agree that it WAS a GPL violation. (Or perhaps most of them? Only one person from within the VLC project has actually spoken against this.) Remember, as well, that VLC is dual-licensed under both GPLv2 and GPLv3, specifically because they couldn't get unanimous agreement amongst all the code contributors that GPLv3 was actualy an improvement over GPLv2.



    If they had been able to bring this one disagreeing developer on-side, then the distribution method could have continued indefinitely, despite technically being a violation, without anybody being sued -- as long as the copyright holders had continued to agree with it.
  • Reply 117 of 120
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


    Even if Apple hadn't changed its TOS, it would have been able to continue distributing VLC, notwithstanding the fact that VLC was GPL licensed, if only all the developers in the VLC camp had been on the same page. The fact is, only the copyright holders have legal standing to bring up a GPL license violation suit.



    No, the FSF is who gets to decide who gets sued for GPL violations. The original copyright holder can only decide to sue for their copyright which is held for their code, not the rest of the GPL code.



    Quote:

    Some of the VLC developers didn't care about the fact that the iOS App Store's distribution method technically violated the GPL. Some of them didn't even agree that it WAS a GPL violation. (Or perhaps most of them? Only one person from within the VLC project has actually spoken against this.) Remember, as well, that VLC is dual-licensed under both GPLv2 and GPLv3, specifically because they couldn't get unanimous agreement amongst all the code contributors that GPLv3 was actualy an improvement over GPLv2.



    If they had been able to bring this one disagreeing developer on-side, then the distribution method could have continued indefinitely, despite technically being a violation, without anybody being sued -- as long as the copyright holders had continued to agree with it.



    Apparently the version put on the App store was using GPL3 contributed code. GPL2 does not have the DMCA poison pill. It is stupid viral licensing issues like this that make me not want to have anything to do with GPL code in general, but I won't touch GPL3 based projects with a 10 foot pole. I'm a bit softer on LGPL2, but I'm still leery of it.
  • Reply 118 of 120
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I've been in the industry since Commodore 64 days and I can honestly say that I have *never* seen a really good piece of software that was open source. There's a lot of great code snippets out there, and quite a few projects that have become useful and even indispensable, but a shipping product? ... not so much.



    Even the big "stars" of open source like Linux and OpenOffice are essentially bad, buggy copies of others original work. How incredibly ironic is it that the core "products" of the open source movement which is presumably all about freedom and creativity and originality are actually all derivative works? Copycat works that are closer to the originals than any of Microsoft's copies of Apple's work.



    The GPL is (IMO of course), nothing more than the last gasp of a movement that simply didn't work. The idea was that if everything was open, then creativity would flourish, the worst instincts of capitalism would be kept at bay, and we'd all be free. We were eventually supposed to move towards the goal of everything being open and the world would be a better place. When this didn't actually happen, the last hope was the GPL license. The idea was that making the "freedom" *viral* would (essentially) force people to be free and open.



    Guess what? It turns out that you can't "enforce freedom" and the majority of the people taking advantage of the "freedom" are not creatives, but copiers, cheaters, and those with less imagination and lesser skills than the rest of us.



    You're jocking, isn't?
  • Reply 119 of 120
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    No, the FSF is who gets to decide who gets sued for GPL violations. The original copyright holder can only decide to sue for their copyright which is held for their code, not the rest of the GPL code.



    I'm afraid you're the one who's mistaken -- or perhaps we're just squabbling my choice of wording.



    The FSF owns the copyright over the software that's part of the GNU project, and they possibly also own the copyright over certain other pieces of software. Those pieces of software are the only things over which the FSF has standing to sue over GPL violations. (This also, of course, applies to any projects that qualify as "derivative works", for copyright purposes, of any of the GNU project's software. That is, if another software project uses pieces of FSF-owned, GPL-licensed, code in their project, either by way of source copy-and-paste, static compile-time linking, or (but some would disagree with the enforcability of this) dynamic run-time linking.)



    If any other project, unaffiliated with the FSF or GNU, also happens to choose to apply the GPL to their code, but otherwise their code is not derived from any GNU- or FSF-owned software, then the authors of those other projects are the ones who have standing to sue over GPL violations. Those other projects might enlist the FSF's help in refining their legal understanding of the license, but ultimately it's the copyright holder that must make the decision to pull the trigger.
  • Reply 120 of 120
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


    (but some would disagree with the enforcability of this) dynamic run-time linking.).



    The FSF might claim this but they'll likely never sue over it. Even static linking is iffy. They might lose and suddenly GPL turns into LGPL. The key is what constitutes a derivative work. No derivative work and it doesn't matter. Now linking (static or dynamic) probably implies that one is a derivative work of the other but it's not always so. If I had developed a proprietary library/subcomponent/plugin prior to writing a GPL'd project and used it in other systems you going to have an impossible time selling the idea to the court that this is a derivative work and is governed by the GPL license just because I reused it with other GPL code. The argument would be that this is aggregation and not derivation. I would have to release all project code that was a derivative of other GPL code.



    I would find that pretty funny but freetards wouldn't and RMS isn't stupid. Even if he was eben would stop him.



    ObDis: IANAL
Sign In or Register to comment.