On Aug 12, 2:45*pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > So when did you change from saying companies were unaware they were
> > shipping GPL code (which is largely what the survey said) ....
>
> No, that's not what the survey said and that's not what I said. The survey
> quite clearly that most companies simply pay no attention whatsoever to open
> source licensing restrictions -- they behave as if either (a) they're
> completely unaware that these licensing restrictions exist or (b) they're
> completely unaware that they have any responsibiliy to comply with these
> restrictions.
Really? Your own quote from the survey indicates otherwise:
"More than 65% of respondents who believed that they were not
distributing
open source software were in fact providing software to customers,
partners
or others outside the organization."
They "believed that they were not distributing open source software"
not that they were unaware of the restrictions as you'd like to twist
it.
>
> > ....to saying
> > they had been led to believe it was all OK by GPL advocates who think
> > the GPL has no restrictions?
>
> The two statements go hand-in-hand. Why else would oithwerwise law-abiding
> companies so cavalierly disregard the intellectual property rights of
> developers unless they were led to beleive that no such proiperty rights
> existed?
Umm because they "believed that they were not distributing open source
software". The very quote you supplied that you now are trying to make
say something else.
> And gee, I can't imagine whyere they got **that** idea. Can you?
Let me guess? Larry told them? He's so convincing! yeah right.
> To
> its credit, the Linux Foundation is taking steps now to correct that
> misconception.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/nz.co...204348fdda6ae7
> > "That seems to be what most companies think, yes. Open source software
> > software really isn't actually "free as in free speech", as the Larry
> > D'Loserite ideologues would have you believe. You can't just do what you
> > please with open source software, and more than you can with closed source
> > software. Either way, there are intellectual property rights that must be
> > respected.
>
> I stand by every word of that statement, including the part you censored
> that I've now restored <shakes head>
That's because I didn't disagree with the part I snipped. And it
doesn't make any difference to what you said anyway.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/nz.co...40cc1a9d808004
> > "The problem is that relatively few companies are even aware that
> > they need to think about open source licensing terms. They have
> > largely
> > bought into the whole "free as in speech" metaphor, which works well for
> > the
> > customer, naturally, but turns out to be a decidedly *poor way of
> > describing
> > the intellectual property rights of open source developers. "
>
> I stand by every word of that statement, as well, including the part you
> censored that I've now restored <shakes head again>
That's because I didn't really disagree with that part. And it doesn't
make any difference to what you said anyway.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/nz.co...1569e2feba8658
> > "Yes, *open-source compliance is a mass of confusion. Most companies
> > (65%,
> > according to the survey) that use open source never give a thought to
> > the
> > licensing restrictions involved. Which isn't surprising, of course --
> > for
> > years you've had Larry D'Loserite ideologues preaching the notion that
> > open
> > source is "free" from all legal restrictions. Companies are learning the
> > hard way now that this is simply not true."
>
> I stand by every word of that statement, too, including the part you
> censored that I've now restored <shakes head once more>
Well you should thank me for that one - you were completely misquoting
the survey (see above and below). You look even worse with that bit
back in place.
>
> > You still haven't shown any GPL advocates claiming the GPL has no
> > legal restrictions.
>
> From the Home Page of GNU:
<snipped the GNU homepage stuff>
>
> There's not one solitary word on that page about licensing restrictions.
> Nothing. Just freedom, freedom, freedom. Freedom Blah, blah, blah -- the
> usual Larry D'Loserite come on. Most pertinent to this discussion, it's
> about "freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor" !!!!
> Just like businesses have been doing for your years without any
> consideration as to whether or not they were violating someone's
> intellectual property rights.
So you obviously don't understand the difference between "Free
Software" and "Copyleft".
That homepage directly links to the "Free Software Definition":
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Which in turn mentions that not all Free Software is Copyleft - and
that links to the definition of Copyleft:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
Most Free Software licenses are not Copyleft - eg BSD, MIT, Apache
etc. These licenses don't have the same complex legal restrictions on
distribution that Copyleft licenses (eg the GPL, LGPL etc) do.
Copyleft licenses are a subset of Free Software licenses - yes I know
subsets confuse you, but bear with me...
The copyleft definition plainly spells out those restrictions. They
didn't spell them out in the Free Software Definition because those
restrictions are license specific and don't apply to most Free
Software licenses.
And that copyleft definition is only two clicks from the homepage. How
many other organisations make their licenses and legal restrictions
that obvious?
And anyway, even if they didn't point it out in that short homepage
summary - that is not the same thing as explicitly denying there are
any restrictions as you claimed. You're grasping at straws if you
think a legal dept would just skim the homepage rather than read the
details.
>
> Browse through the rest of the GNU site and, sure, you'll find what you need
> to know about the vast array of GPL licensing restrictions. But the point is
> that there is a widespread impression among businesses, validated by the
> survey you tried to cover up, that open source really is all about "free as
> in free speech" and that they therefore have no obligation to respect to
> intellectual property rights if they so choose. I mean, really...How else
> would you suppose someone might interpret "free as in free speech" other
> than free as in free speech, unencumbered by any any licensing restrictions?
Aside from implying that legal depts really are completely sloppy and
don't research anything, you're still misquoting the survey. The
survey said they were unaware of the distribution not that they were
aware of the distribution but unaware of the restrictions.
And that is backed up further down the survey page you linked to:
"Are you generally familiar with the requirements of the GNU General
Public Licenses (such as the GPL, LGPL and AGPL) for open source
software? Yes 68.0% A little 24.0% No 6.7% Not sure what it is 1.3%"
Only 8% said they were unfamiliar with the requirements of the GPL.
Those numbers would need to be reversed for all those "potential"
violations to be because they didn't understand the GPL. Maybe they
were all lying or misinformed? But wouldn't that invalidate most of
their other responses as well?
There is also no stated connection between:
"More than 65% of respondents who believed that they were not
distributing open source software were in fact providing software to
customers, partners or others outside the organization"
and the verified number of actual license violations (they didn't
specify copyleft software - just open source) they just talk about the
the potential risk of GPL violations. Just distributing something
doesn't automatically mean you are violating the license. Plenty of
open source licenses allow unrestricted distribution.
Another important point: that 65% figure is actually 65% of the 59%
that said they weren't distributing open source software, which makes
it only 38% of the total respondents that were unaware they were
distributing open source software. That is another blatant
misrepresentation on your part.
If you want to make stuff up, you're going to have to do a better job
than that. You really don't have a leg to stand on.
>
> No off you go, you miserable twit! *I'm done with you.
Phew! I sure hope you follow though with that.
--
Cheers
Anton
Similar Threads
