From: 2of1 <010...@gm...> - 2010-04-22 17:51:18
|
I'm trying to compile some code that requires the Windwos 7 SDK headers (specifically d2d1.h and it's includes for implementing Direct2D and DirectWrite). Is there an updated w32api available anywhere? I've tried copying the headers from the SDK directory to my msys include directory but that just caused the build to generate tons of errors. Any ideas? |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2010-04-22 19:08:01
|
> I'm trying to compile some code that requires the Windwos 7 SDK headers > (specifically d2d1.h and it's includes for implementing Direct2D and > DirectWrite). The additional Direct2D and DirectWrite headers and libraries are not currently part of w32api. If someone was willing to add them (using only publicly available information), I would be happy to add them. > I've tried copying the headers from the SDK directory to my msys include > directory but that just caused the build to generate tons of errors. MS headers are not directly compatible with MinGW. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d |
From: 2of1 <010...@gm...> - 2010-04-22 19:34:21
|
> The additional Direct2D and DirectWrite headers and libraries are not > currently part of w32api. If someone was willing to add them (using > only publicly available information), I would be happy to add them. > What's considered public info? Information from MSDN? I assume info from the MS headers themselves are off limits - because that would be the obvious source of info...? |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2010-04-22 20:48:05
|
On 22 April 2010 15:34, 2of1 wrote: > >> The additional Direct2D and DirectWrite headers and libraries are not >> currently part of w32api. If someone was willing to add them (using >> only publicly available information), I would be happy to add them. > > What's considered public info? Information from MSDN? Correct. > I assume info from the MS headers themselves are off limits - because that > would be the obvious source of info...? Correct. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d |
From: LRN <lr...@gm...> - 2010-04-22 21:23:24
|
On 23.04.2010 0:47, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > On 22 April 2010 15:34, 2of1 wrote: > >> >>> The additional Direct2D and DirectWrite headers and libraries are not >>> currently part of w32api. If someone was willing to add them (using >>> only publicly available information), I would be happy to add them. >>> >> What's considered public info? Information from MSDN? >> > Correct. > > >> I assume info from the MS headers themselves are off limits - because that >> would be the obvious source of info...? >> > Correct. > Or you can find the necessary info through experimentation (MinGW's msacm.h was written that way, i think) |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-04-22 21:39:28
|
LRN wrote: > Or you can find the necessary info through experimentation (MinGW's > msacm.h was written that way, i think) > That depends on the method of "experimentation". Reverse engineering is just as off limits as reading the MS headers. If you experiment by guessing the values and trying it out, then you are fine but document the method in the patch. -- Earnie -- http://www.for-my-kids.com |
From: David K. <010...@gm...> - 2010-04-23 04:04:37
|
> That depends on the method of "experimentation". Reverse engineering is > just as off limits as reading the MS headers. If you experiment by > guessing the values and trying it out, then you are fine but document > the method in the patch. > That depends on where it's done doesn't it? Here in Israel reverse engineering is completely legal as far as I'm aware... |
From: John B. <joh...@ho...> - 2010-04-23 22:47:13
|
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:24:40 +0400, LRN wrote: > > On 23.04.2010 15:34, Earnie wrote: >> David Kaplan wrote: > > In worst case you can use clean-room reverse engineering: let one person > do the dirty thing (reverse-engineer something, read proprietary source > code, etc), then document the information (behaviour, some values and > names - whatever might be needed). Then another person can use this > information to write clean code. It is legal to receive stolen goods? Your defence would be that the guy who read the proprietary source is the one who should pay the fine or go to prison? Is conspiracy to commit a crime also no longer a crime? Regards, Alias John Brown. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-04-24 00:03:10
|
John Brown wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:24:40 +0400, LRN wrote: >> >> On 23.04.2010 15:34, Earnie wrote: >>> David Kaplan wrote: > >> >> In worst case you can use clean-room reverse engineering: let one person >> do the dirty thing (reverse-engineer something, read proprietary source >> code, etc), then document the information (behaviour, some values and >> names - whatever might be needed). Then another person can use this >> information to write clean code. > > > It is legal to receive stolen goods? Your defence would be that the > guy who read the proprietary source is the one who should pay the fine > or go to prison? Is conspiracy to commit a crime also no longer a > crime? > http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Any-notes-HOWTO-for-w64--p13698020.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design -- Earnie -- http://www.for-my-kids.com |
From: NightStrike <nig...@gm...> - 2010-04-23 23:21:17
|
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Earnie <ea...@us...> wrote: > LRN wrote: >> On 23.04.2010 15:34, Earnie wrote: >>> David Kaplan wrote: >>> >>>> That depends on the method of "experimentation". Reverse engineering is >>>> just as off limits as reading the MS headers. If you experiment by >>>> guessing the values and trying it out, then you are fine but document >>>> the method in the patch. >>>> >>>> >>>> That depends on where it's done doesn't it? Here in Israel reverse >>>> engineering is completely legal as far as I'm aware... >>>> >>>> >>> But my acceptance of the patch needs to apply to any EULA, not just >>> Israel's law. And the courts will agree that "reverse engineering" is >>> an act of copyright infringement. >>> >>> >> That depends. > > The depend part is one that costs money and I am not willing to shell > out to pay for a lawyer. Can the FSF help in that area? |
From: Tor L. <tm...@ik...> - 2010-04-23 06:30:39
|
> If you experiment by > guessing the values and trying it out, then you are fine but document > the method in the patch. By the way, where can one find the documentation for how experimentation was used to come up with the existing, especially the oldest, parts of the w32api headers? Or are they just trusted to have been written in an acceptable manner? --tml |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-04-23 11:37:12
|
Tor Lillqvist wrote: >> If you experiment by >> guessing the values and trying it out, then you are fine but document >> the method in the patch. > > By the way, where can one find the documentation for how > experimentation was used to come up with the existing, especially the > oldest, parts of the w32api headers? Or are they just trusted to have > been written in an acceptable manner? > Yes, trusted. I actually wandered the same when reading the header that was pointed to in this thread which was documented rather well on where the values came from. It even documents ones that could not be determined but was left as a best guess, so the experimentation seems to have been legitimate. -- Earnie -- http://www.for-my-kids.com |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-04-23 11:34:14
|
David Kaplan wrote: > > That depends on the method of "experimentation". Reverse engineering is > just as off limits as reading the MS headers. If you experiment by > guessing the values and trying it out, then you are fine but document > the method in the patch. > > > That depends on where it's done doesn't it? Here in Israel reverse > engineering is completely legal as far as I'm aware... > But my acceptance of the patch needs to apply to any EULA, not just Israel's law. And the courts will agree that "reverse engineering" is an act of copyright infringement. -- Earnie -- http://www.for-my-kids.com |
From: LRN <lr...@gm...> - 2010-04-23 12:51:29
|
On 23.04.2010 15:34, Earnie wrote: > David Kaplan wrote: > >> That depends on the method of "experimentation". Reverse engineering is >> just as off limits as reading the MS headers. If you experiment by >> guessing the values and trying it out, then you are fine but document >> the method in the patch. >> >> >> That depends on where it's done doesn't it? Here in Israel reverse >> engineering is completely legal as far as I'm aware... >> >> > But my acceptance of the patch needs to apply to any EULA, not just > Israel's law. And the courts will agree that "reverse engineering" is > an act of copyright infringement. > > That depends. Copyright covers combinations of _words_ (code, in our case), that is - the _form_ of information, rather than its _meaning_. That is, #define SOMETHING_RATHER_STUPID 0xDEADF00D can be copyrighted by one person, while #define SOMETHING_RATHER_STUPID 3735941133 can be copyrighted by another person, despite the fact that they have the same meaning. And if you want to be sure, write like this: enum StupidThings { SOMETHING_RATHER_STUPID = 0xDEADF00D } it even LOOKS quite different. Even better: #define MAKEADWORD(a, b) (a << 16 & b) #define SOMETHING_RATHER_STUPID MAKEADWORD(0xDEAD, 0xF00D) is also a different code (that can be copyrighted separately), even though in the end it produces absolutely the same thing (well, as long as your compiler knows how to optimize 0xDEAD << 16 & 0xF00D and does it the same way as it does for 0xDEADF00D) The idea that SOMETHING_RATHER_STUPID should be substituted by 3735941133 during the preprocessing phase of compilation is NOT copyrightable in any country, because ideas are not copyrightable by definition. To the point: most things about WinAPI are documented in MSDN and are in public domain. Things that are NOT documented in MSDN most of the time are just numbers, and numbers (as well as names) are not copyrightable. In worst case you can use clean-room reverse engineering: let one person do the dirty thing (reverse-engineer something, read proprietary source code, etc), then document the information (behaviour, some values and names - whatever might be needed). Then another person can use this information to write clean code. This is not a copyright infringement, because original (copyrighted) information is not used to produce a derivative (well, actually copyright infringement occurs when you distribute the derivative, but that's besides the point); non-copyrightable information is used instead (ideas, principles, processes, although the documentation that describes them IS copyrighted by the first person, but we're assuming that the first person publishes it in public domain). This doesn't work very good (i.e. you're taking certain risk) for _obscure_ information that might constitute a trade secret (in which case it's not covered by just copyright, but also by trade secret law; Windows kernel internals might be that kind of information), but PSDK sources are clearly NOT a secret of any kind (hell, you can download them for free, and Microsoft encourages you to look at them) and are covered ONLY by copyright. IMHO the information source restriction placed by MinGW developers is voluntary and is not caused by valid copyright concerns. Caution is a virtue, but this is really getting ridiculous. |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-04-23 16:37:33
|
LRN wrote: > On 23.04.2010 15:34, Earnie wrote: >> David Kaplan wrote: >> >>> That depends on the method of "experimentation". Reverse engineering is >>> just as off limits as reading the MS headers. If you experiment by >>> guessing the values and trying it out, then you are fine but document >>> the method in the patch. >>> >>> >>> That depends on where it's done doesn't it? Here in Israel reverse >>> engineering is completely legal as far as I'm aware... >>> >>> >> But my acceptance of the patch needs to apply to any EULA, not just >> Israel's law. And the courts will agree that "reverse engineering" is >> an act of copyright infringement. >> >> > That depends. The depend part is one that costs money and I am not willing to shell out to pay for a lawyer. > > To the point: most things about WinAPI are documented in MSDN and are in > public domain. Things that are NOT documented in MSDN most of the time > are just numbers, and numbers (as well as names) are not copyrightable. Are you willing to pay for a lawyer to give his opinion and then defend that opinion in court? If I create MyAPIOption1 and assign it a value, the value itself may not be copyrightable but the MyAPIOption1 is. It was my intellectual property that created it and I have a right to that property. So don't go steeling others property unless it is open in some open document. > > In worst case you can use clean-room reverse engineering: let one person I don't know that this is "worst case" (sic) but it is a viable option that I've been hoping that someone would take on. Create a SF project to write an English description of the values so that the values can be used freely. Yes, this even goes for the intellectual MyAPIOption1 since it is used only in explanation and not in code form. > but PSDK sources are clearly NOT a secret of any kind > (hell, you can download them for free, and Microsoft encourages you to > look at them) and are covered ONLY by copyright. > You cannot freely distribute the freely downloadable PSDK. You are free to use it but if you have to distribute it then you are SOL. You are also not free to copy the source from the header files, header files are source and are covered by a copyright and license and the license doesn't give me privilege to copy from it into my own files. > IMHO the information source restriction placed by MinGW developers is > voluntary and is not caused by valid copyright concerns. Caution is a > virtue, but this is really getting ridiculous. > Is it ridiculous that I don't want to pay for a lawyer to defend MinGW? Is it ridiculous that we want to provide a free and clear usage to distributable development API for the Windows environment? What I find ridiculous is the unending criticism of the way MinGW is managed. What I find ridiculous are the unbacked opinions that are given concerning copyright law. The caution we take is so that MinGW can continue to be a viable solution without worry the courts may someday shut it down, is that really a ridiculous caution? -- Earnie -- http://www.for-my-kids.com |
From: LRN <lr...@gm...> - 2010-04-23 17:09:35
|
On 23.04.2010 20:37, Earnie wrote: >> In worst case you can use clean-room reverse engineering: let one person >> > I don't know that this is "worst case" (sic) Worst case scenario is when you are paranoid and can't sneeze without consulting a lawyer. > but it is a viable option > that I've been hoping that someone would take on. Create a SF project > to write an English description of the values so that the values can be > used freely. Yes, this even goes for the intellectual MyAPIOption1 > since it is used only in explanation and not in code form. > Would a wiki suffice (a wiki on SF project, if you like, or MinGW wiki)? Because there's no way i am going to document the whole PSDK all by myself. I can, however, document some parts of it that i'd like to see in MinGW. >> but PSDK sources are clearly NOT a secret of any kind >> (hell, you can download them for free, and Microsoft encourages you to >> look at them) and are covered ONLY by copyright. >> > You cannot freely distribute the freely downloadable PSDK. You are free > to use it but if you have to distribute it then you are SOL. You are > also not free to copy the source from the header files, header files are > source and are covered by a copyright and license and the license > doesn't give me privilege to copy from it into my own files. > I've used 'free' as in 'at no cost, without registration, without any special access controls, and looking at it does not bind you with NDA', not as 'free as in speech' |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2010-04-23 23:02:07
|
On 4/23/2010 1:09 PM, LRN wrote: > Worst case scenario is when you are paranoid and can't sneeze without > consulting a lawyer. Welcome to 21st century America, the most over-litigated society in history, with more lawyers per capita than any other country -- 25% more than the next closest contender: US: Lawyers: 1,143,358 Pop: 303MM P/L:265 Brazil: Lawyers: 571,360 Pop: 186MM P/L: 326 If you think Earnie is paranoid, read overlawyered.com. Or review the SCO vs. Linux case. -- Chuck |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-04-24 00:08:36
|
LRN wrote: > On 23.04.2010 20:37, Earnie wrote: >> that I've been hoping that someone would take on. Create a SF project >> to write an English description of the values so that the values can be >> used freely. Yes, this even goes for the intellectual MyAPIOption1 >> since it is used only in explanation and not in code form. >> > Would a wiki suffice (a wiki on SF project, if you like, or MinGW wiki)? > Because there's no way i am going to document the whole PSDK all by > myself. I can, however, document some parts of it that i'd like to see > in MinGW. You would have to move your relationship away from MinGW and never post on the MinGW lists, it's wiki, and it's other public forum such as a bug tracker ever again. This is also true for anyone else who decides to help with your newly created project. We cannot have interaction between the two groups and they must be wholly isolated except for the outward facing documents produced by the groups. -- Earnie -- http://www.for-my-kids.com |
From: Oleksandr G. <gav...@gm...> - 2010-04-23 20:22:44
|
On 2010-04-23 15:24, LRN wrote: > Copyright covers combinations of _words_ (code, in our case), that is - > the _form_ of information, rather than its _meaning_. OK in all countries where defined copyright low. > To the point: most things about WinAPI are documented in MSDN and are in public domain. Why in public domain? Where statement from low or Microsoft that guarantee this? > Things that are NOT documented in MSDN most of the time > are just numbers, and numbers (as well as names) are not copyrightable. So I can open MSVC headers and copy/paste any numbers? If think so then variable names also not covered by copyright. Just copy all MSVC headers )) > In worst case you can use clean-room reverse engineering: let one person > do the dirty thing (reverse-engineer something, read proprietary source > code, etc), then document the information (behaviour, some values and > names - whatever might be needed). Then another person can use this > information to write clean code. This is not a copyright infringement, > because original (copyrighted) information is not used to produce a > derivative (well, actually copyright infringement occurs when you > distribute the derivative, but that's besides the point); > non-copyrightable information is used instead (ideas, principles, > processes, although the documentation that describes them IS copyrighted > by the first person, but we're assuming that the first person publishes > it in public domain). This doesn't work very good (i.e. you're taking > certain risk) for _obscure_ information that might constitute a trade > secret (in which case it's not covered by just copyright, but also by > trade secret law; Windows kernel internals might be that kind of > information), but PSDK sources are clearly NOT a secret of any kind > (hell, you can download them for free, and Microsoft encourages you to > look at them) and are covered ONLY by copyright. > Too hard to me and correctness is not obviously. Copyright is evil thing. For example C/C++ language defined by ISO, but according to http://www.iso.org/iso/support/copyright.htm you can not share parched copy of it or any part its, so this imply that you can not write standard library header from ISO standard without ISO permission?! Is there exist statement how legally create header file which in some case? What requirements need to satisfy for patch acceptance into MinGW project? -- Best regards! |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-04-24 00:16:16
|
Oleksandr Gavenko wrote: > > Is there exist statement how legally create header file > which in some case? > > What requirements need to satisfy for patch acceptance > into MinGW project? > I think this summarizes what you need fairly well, http://www.mingw.org/wiki/SubmitPatches. -- Earnie -- http://www.for-my-kids.com |
From: Tor L. <tm...@ik...> - 2010-04-24 17:22:40
|
> Copyright is evil thing. That is an odd thing to say on a mailing list for users of Free Software, a concept based on copyright. --tml |
From: Oleksandr G. <gav...@gm...> - 2010-04-25 21:03:50
|
On 2010-04-24 20:22, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >> Copyright is evil thing. > > That is an odd thing to say on a mailing list for users of Free > Software, a concept based on copyright. > Many licences do not require availability of source code. Peoples release its programs with source covered by such licence without additional restriction, and another people also don't put additional restriction. So sources live on honest of all these people. In that way live BSD/MIT licensed progs. If get out copyright low you can: 0. run the program for any purpose 1. study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish 2. redistribute copies and BSD/MIT licence statement according to this norm can be removed. But FSF also require availability of source code to get: 3. freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public So to get 3 they use copyright low that damage all time 0, 1, 2! For me third point is debatable. Summarize: they use weapon to protect freedom in same time as another use same weapon to damage freedom. But it nice have no any weapon. -- Best regards! |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2010-04-25 22:27:25
|
On 4/25/2010 5:03 PM, Oleksandr Gavenko wrote: > On 2010-04-24 20:22, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >>> Copyright is evil thing. >> >> That is an odd thing to say on a mailing list for users of Free >> Software, a concept based on copyright. >> > Many licences do not require availability of source code. True. > Peoples release its programs with source covered by such licence > without additional restriction, and another people also don't > put additional restriction. This is an assumption. MIT/BSD style licenses do not require that other users refrain from adding additional restrictions -- in fact, many "leechers" of BSD/MIT code DO in fact impose additional restrictions on their modified copies. For instance, it is widely rumored that Microsoft's networking stack was originally based on the BSD version. I wonder what they did to it. Heck, I'm not even SURE that the rumor is true. I don't know. I can't find out. They've imposed a new restriction on that source code: "Nobody is allowed to see the code unless they work for MS." > So sources live on honest of all these people. > In that way live BSD/MIT licensed progs. Sort of: BSD/MIT licensed code is "one-way": those who care about openness publish the result of their effort, so everyone benefits. Those who do NOT care, take it, and hide all of their subsequent changes -- freeloading off the efforts of others, more generous than they are. So the freedom goes only in one direction. I'm sure those poor graduate students at Berkeley feel really good about enabling Bill Gates to become a billionaire. And they will get their share of his riches just as soon as hell freezes over. > If get out copyright low you can: > > 0. run the program for any purpose True for GPL. NOT true for some BSD/MIT code -- because one who modifies the code is allowed to impose additional restrictions on their modified version: "Not allowed for use in military or government installations" is one restriction I've seen added to what was, originally, MIT code. The GPL explicitly allows "run the program for any purpose" AND requires that no modified version may impose additional restrictions. So, you're wrong on this. Strike one. > 1. study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish Great! Go tell me how Microsoft's networking stack has evolved over time, from its (??) BSD origins! You can't. Now, tell me how the Linux networking stack has evolved. You can. And always will -- because linux is GPL and will ALWAYS be open (libre). Not so for BSD/MIT stuff that is taken behind a corporate proprietary wall. So, wrong again. Strike 2. > 2. redistribute copies > > and BSD/MIT licence statement according to this norm can be removed. You can ALWAYS redistribute copies of GPL source code. It is not always the case that you can redistribute copies of binary applications that are GPL'ed -- sometimes the provider links the right to lawfully possess the binaries (e.g. the "service" that they provide of compiling them for you) to some licensing agreement (e.g. "you pay us money, we give you this GPLed binary"). However, if you satisfy THOSE requirements, such that you have a legal right to the provider's binaries, then (a) you can demand the source code under the GPL, and (b) you can compile your own binary, and (c) redistribute THAT. For instance: CentOS. Or DD-WRT. So I'm not sure exactly what you're objecting to, here. Call this a 'foul ball'. > But FSF also require availability of source code to get: > > 3. freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the > public > > So to get 3 they use copyright low that damage all time 0, 1, 2! Uh, NO. #3 is the WAY the GPL ensures that ALL users can do #0, #1, and #2. Strike three. > Summarize: they use weapon to protect freedom yes... > in same time > as another use same weapon to damage freedom. The only freedom lost is the ability to steal and profit from someone else's work by making insignificant changes hidden from the public and the original developer. Now, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING should be GPL; I use BSD/MIT on some of my own code. But I do that in the full knowledge that I am allowing some corporate jerk to take MY code, and use it/make money off it without publishing THEIR improvements. And each time I improve my version, they get to leech those improvements, too. But this discussion is wandering far away from the original "why do we need documented public domain pedigree for changed to w32api". -- Chuck |
From: LRN <lr...@gm...> - 2010-04-25 23:04:09
|
On 26.04.2010 2:26, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 4/25/2010 5:03 PM, Oleksandr Gavenko wrote: > >> On 2010-04-24 20:22, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >> >>>> Copyright is evil thing. >>>> >>> That is an odd thing to say on a mailing list for users of Free >>> Software, a concept based on copyright. >>> >>> >> Many licences do not require availability of source code. >> > True. > > >> Peoples release its programs with source covered by such licence >> without additional restriction, and another people also don't >> put additional restriction. >> > This is an assumption. MIT/BSD style licenses do not require that other > users refrain from adding additional restrictions -- in fact, many > "leechers" of BSD/MIT code DO in fact impose additional restrictions on > their modified copies. > > For instance, it is widely rumored that Microsoft's networking stack was > originally based on the BSD version. I wonder what they did to it. > Heck, I'm not even SURE that the rumor is true. > > I don't know. I can't find out. They've imposed a new restriction on > that source code: "Nobody is allowed to see the code unless they work > for MS." > > >> So sources live on honest of all these people. >> In that way live BSD/MIT licensed progs. >> > Sort of: BSD/MIT licensed code is "one-way": those who care about > openness publish the result of their effort, so everyone benefits. Those > who do NOT care, take it, and hide all of their subsequent changes -- > freeloading off the efforts of others, more generous than they are. So > the freedom goes only in one direction. > > I'm sure those poor graduate students at Berkeley feel really good about > enabling Bill Gates to become a billionaire. And they will get their > share of his riches just as soon as hell freezes over. > > >> If get out copyright low you can: >> >> 0. run the program for any purpose >> > True for GPL. NOT true for some BSD/MIT code -- because one who modifies > the code is allowed to impose additional restrictions on their modified > version: "Not allowed for use in military or government installations" > is one restriction I've seen added to what was, originally, MIT code. > > The GPL explicitly allows "run the program for any purpose" AND requires > that no modified version may impose additional restrictions. > > So, you're wrong on this. Strike one. > > >> 1. study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish >> > Great! Go tell me how Microsoft's networking stack has evolved over > time, from its (??) BSD origins! > > You can't. > > Now, tell me how the Linux networking stack has evolved. > > You can. And always will -- because linux is GPL and will ALWAYS be open > (libre). Not so for BSD/MIT stuff that is taken behind a corporate > proprietary wall. > > So, wrong again. Strike 2. > > >> 2. redistribute copies >> >> and BSD/MIT licence statement according to this norm can be removed. >> > You can ALWAYS redistribute copies of GPL source code. It is not always > the case that you can redistribute copies of binary applications that > are GPL'ed -- sometimes the provider links the right to lawfully possess > the binaries (e.g. the "service" that they provide of compiling them for > you) to some licensing agreement (e.g. "you pay us money, we give you > this GPLed binary"). > > However, if you satisfy THOSE requirements, such that you have a legal > right to the provider's binaries, then (a) you can demand the source > code under the GPL, and (b) you can compile your own binary, and (c) > redistribute THAT. > > For instance: CentOS. Or DD-WRT. > > So I'm not sure exactly what you're objecting to, here. Call this a > 'foul ball'. > > >> But FSF also require availability of source code to get: >> >> 3. freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the >> public >> >> So to get 3 they use copyright low that damage all time 0, 1, 2! >> > Uh, NO. #3 is the WAY the GPL ensures that ALL users can do #0, #1, and #2. > > Strike three. > > >> Summarize: they use weapon to protect freedom >> > yes... > > >> in same time >> as another use same weapon to damage freedom. >> > The only freedom lost is the ability to steal and profit from someone > else's work by making insignificant changes hidden from the public and > the original developer. > > Now, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING should be GPL; I use BSD/MIT on some > of my own code. But I do that in the full knowledge that I am allowing > some corporate jerk to take MY code, and use it/make money off it > without publishing THEIR improvements. And each time I improve my > version, they get to leech those improvements, too. > > But this discussion is wandering far away from the original "why do we > need documented public domain pedigree for changed to w32api". > > -- > Chuck > I think the point my tongue-tied compatriot (?) was making is that GPL's strength comes from copyright, i.e. it uses copyright to give people freedom, while proprietary licenses use it in the opposite way. But the law underneath is the same for both. I should note here that Stallman clearly stated that despite this fact (GPL relying on copyright) FSF is not going to support copyright law tightening; quite the opposite - FSF is all for loosening copyright law, as long as this doesn't give proprietary software any advantages (see his amendment to Pirate Party's copyright proposal, should be somewhere at FSF's website). That is, copyright here is a tool or a weapon, not a goal or icon. Which is why it is perfectly normal for a Free Software adept to say that copyright is evil, since by default it gives the author exclusive rights that can be (and are) easily abused. Obviously this refers to copyright's present state, not to the idea of a law about information at a whole. |
From: Tor L. <tm...@ik...> - 2010-04-26 08:52:15
|
> Which is why it is perfectly normal for a Free Software > adept to say that copyright is evil Copyright as a concept? Or some specific implementation in some specific country? Oleksandr just said "Copyright is evil thing". To me that sounds like saying the copyright concept; i.e. that the creator of a work has the right to say how it is copied and used, is evil. Which I found odd. --tml |