0

http://beranger.org

RMS will not save the world - he has just killed the FLOSS, actually. We have already started to hear about strange license lockups...

Full story »
Jimbob's picture
Created by Jimbob 14 years 44 weeks ago – Made popular 14 years 44 weeks ago
Category: Legal   Tags:
peacemaker's picture

peacemaker

14 years 44 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago

0

I don't like saying it but this

I don't like saying it but this guy is clearly deluded. He doesn't understand that the GPL perpetuates freedom. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. You don't have to use GPL'd code. You don't have to distribute GPL'd code. But if you do you have to give people the 4 freedoms.

Using the GPL is like saying use my creation to do whatever you want. But if you are going to redistribute my code then you have to give everyone else the freedoms I gave you.

If you say use my creation anyway you like including to lock people in and restrict their freedom, that doesn't aid software freedom like the GPL does.

kiba's picture

kiba

14 years 44 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago

0

BSD is more unfree anyway. The

BSD is more unfree anyway. The ability to use copyright law to make softwares proprietary is the exercise of power, not freedom.

It is an artificial power, not freedom. It is monopoly power. There is nothing natural about being able to sue people when people are trying to modify softwares to suit their own need.

GPL just use the artificial power of copyright law but in a good way.

And oh, without RMS' political agenda, we wouldn't have the GNU project and everyone will still be using proprietary tools to compile their softwares.

ozuess's picture

ozuess

14 years 44 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago

0

And yet more FUD from people clearly

And yet more FUD from people clearly unable to read the GPL properly. it is clear from his use of typical FUD words like 'communistic', 'forces', etc. etc.
If anything, the GPL is ant-communistic, because it advances individual freedom. and it is RMS's political agenda that bright us to where we are today. if it weren't for him, there was no FOSS at all.
the gpl3 is a clear continuation of the spirit of v2. if you don't like it, then use another license. i'll keep using gpl, and so do 70% of developers.

mattflaschen's picture

mattflaschen

14 years 44 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago

0

What a surprise. He didn't like

What a surprise. He didn't like GPLv2, so he doesn't like GPLv3 either.

As for actual points:

1. The FSF certainly acknowledges that BSD is free, but explains why they prefer copyleft (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html). Basically, GPL software stays free. BSD software doesn't (e.g. there was/is a proprietary BSD-based networking stack in Windows)

2. The GPL does not require that changes be published. It requires that /if/ binaries are published, source be available. It is still possible to make private modifications. GPLv3 actually broadens this slightly, by allowing simpler subcontracting of modifications.

oencke's picture

oencke

14 years 44 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago

0

"I defy any lawyer to prove me

"I defy any lawyer to prove me the liability of the end-user in this kind of matters."

When you want to comment on patent issues you should make yourself comfortable with the basics of the patent law first.

Here we go:
"Nature of Patent and Patent Rights

The patent is issued in the name of the United States under the seal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and is either signed by the Director of the USPTO or is electronically written thereon and attested by an Office official. The patent contains a grant to the patentee, and a printed copy of the specification and drawing is annexed to the patent and forms a part of it. The grant confers “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” and its territories and possessions for which the term of the patent shall be generally 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c), from the date of the earliest such application was filed, and subject to the payment of maintenance fees as provided by law. ..."

and furthermore

"Infringement of Patents

Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale, or selling any patented invention within the United States or U.S. Territories, or importing into the United States of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement. ..."

This and more can be found on the site of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html

So, no lawyer was necessary to prove to you that patent threats (if based on valid patents) do hold water and can't be simply ignored. law is not always common sense, and neither is it always as righteous as it should be.

GPLv3 is not suicide, it is the next step needed to save ourselves from monopolistic software businesses.

beranger's picture

beranger

14 years 44 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago

0

oencke, you're too shallow to have

oencke, you're too shallow to have a legal relevance in what you said.

What you quote from "Infringement of Patents" under *using* can't possibly refer to the end user, but to the manufacturer. Otherwise, half of the U.S. population should go to jail for "using" counterfeited Chinese products or Chinese products that infringe American patents! (On this one, I am happy that the Chinese are infringing some patents.)

It is very clear from the "Nature of Patent and Patent Rights" what "using a patent means". When they say: "exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention", it is THE INVENTION, not the product! USING "THE INVENTION" IS ON THE PART OF THE MANUFACTURER, WHEREAS THE END USER ONLY USES A FINAL PRODUCT!

Using a final product is not the same as using the technology needed to make it. You don't need to know about infringed or non-infringed patents to buy a bottle of Coke and drink it!

As for the code, the developer might be infringing a patent, the end user does not, by simply using the binary. It goes to the same "using a Ford car with an illegally included screw patented by Toyota".

And again: when you buy something from Wallmart (or ALDI, should you be German), can you check, as an end user, whether the product is infringing any patent or not? Should you? Or should you go to jail for a manufacturer's legal fault?

snotbutter's picture

snotbutter

14 years 44 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago

0

you moderate my comment on your

you moderate my comment on your site, i bury yours on this.

-1 vote for you

peacemaker's picture

peacemaker

14 years 44 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago

0

One of berangers comments was: I

One of berangers comments was:

I HATE HAVING THE FSF TO *FORCE* ME TO DO WHAT THEY WANT.

They don't force you to do anything at all Beranger. Developers can do whatever they want with their own code. If they choose to perpetuate the freedom to use their code to all end users then they have to prevent people from breaking the cycle of freedom.

The only way to freedom is to have one rule: you can't prevent freedom. The GPL just prevents anyone from breaking that rule by using GPL'd code.

If you don't like it, don't use it. *No one* is forcing you to use GPL'd code. No one.

kiba's picture

kiba

14 years 44 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago

0

I didn't realize he is the writer

I didn't realize he is the writer from the blog. He get a bury for spreading BS lies about patent law.

Wikipedia clearly state that patents in most countries are state granted monopoly right to "to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the invention."

USING and others are the keyword here. So that include the users here. They don't specifically saying anything about manufacturer only.

I also failed to see the difference between inventions and products. Perhaps you would enlight us with your own definitions.

However I am not a lawyer here, so consult a patent lawyer or something.

As far as I know, patents lawsuit are civil case only. You can't go to jail for that.

The only reasons customers still use Chinese products is that companies are afraid to sue their own customers to oblivion, which might become a really nasty backlash.

And oh, patent laws are evil. They equal what I called corporate welfares and rent-seeker friendly.

Rent seekers are those who seek to manipulate economic environment for their own financial gain instead of being a fair but maybe ruthless competitor. In other words, associate it with evil monopolistic companies and organizations like the RIAA.

kjakobsen's picture

kjakobsen

14 years 44 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago

0

I like freedom. I am not that big

I like freedom. I am not that big of a fan of anarchy.
What he is asking for is anarchy, because even freedom has basic rules, to make everyone coexist with each other.

A free society does not mean, that i can do anything. Especially not if that anything, harms other people.

That is the very reason, why the GPL has clear limits.

aboutblank's picture

aboutblank

14 years 44 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago

0

He doesn't seem to understand the

He doesn't seem to understand the concept of "user subjugation" - the concept of depriving the user any of the rights of free software. He seems to want the power to subjugate other users to himself.

Starchild's picture

Starchild

14 years 44 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago

0

Anarchy does not mean "no rules".

Anarchy does not mean "no rules". It means "no rulers". Which is a totally different thing. The concept of free software is totally consistent with anarchism. Indeed I consider the GPL as an anarchistic license par excellence.

I can't say the author wants anarchy, he seems to want power and control over other people which is entirely against the spirit of anarchism.

I understand you are using the word 'anarchy' to refer to the concept of 'chaos' which is popular among people not familiar with anarchism, so I thought I provide a clarification.

kiba's picture

kiba

14 years 44 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago

0

Starchild: thank you for your introduction

Starchild: thank you for your introduction to anarchy.

Best karma users