Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual propertyrights

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by AD., Jul 24, 2010.

  1. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jul 24, 3:55 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > As confused as the Larry D'Loserites are about property rights, this is
    > hardly surprising.


    You seem to be confused about whether the confusion of the people you
    claim to be confused is in any way linked to the confusion of the
    confused people who took part in that survey (ie confusion based
    marketing exercise). That you were confused about who was actually
    confused by the survey is hardly surprising (or confusing).

    After all, you did dig yourself a rather deep hole by confusing a
    survey of Eclipse users as being a survey of open source developers a
    while back.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 24, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jul 25, 12:31 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > 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.


    Evidence please.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. AD.

    peterwn Guest

    On Jul 25, 9:10 am, "AD." <> wrote:
    > On Jul 25, 12:31 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Evidence please.
    >


    Larry has never said or implied that. Larry knows precisely what the
    situation with the GPL is.
     
    peterwn, Jul 25, 2010
    #3
  4. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jul 26, 2:24 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> Evidence please.

    >
    > http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2010/06/30/4879060.htm


    You're still confused. Nothing in that article provides evidence that
    anyone has preached that open source software is free from all legal
    restrictions.

    That is a fictional strawman of your own making, and without evidence
    that companies have fallen for some "preaching" you really have no
    point.

    Anyway isn't that survey one of those marketing exercises trying to
    sell something just like the laptop warranty one you rightly trashed
    earlier for exactly the same reason. What makes this one different?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 25, 2010
    #4
  5. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jul 26, 3:56 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> wrote in message
    > > You're still confused. Nothing in that article provides evidence that
    > > anyone has preached that open source software is free from all legal
    > > restrictions.

    >
    > Gee, I can't imagine where all those companies got that notion. Larry?


    So you somehow imagine that Larry and his mates have personally
    consulted all those companies and convinced them all that GPL software
    has no legal restrictions at all? And he did such a good job that all
    those companies didn't bother to do their own checking?

    haha that is beyond confused, you are completely delusional.

    Don't Free Software zealots love endlessly debating the legal
    ramifications of the GPL. So why would they then tell these companies
    that there aren't any? You haven't even shown anyone claiming the GPL
    has no restrictions anyway.

    Not only don't you have any evidence, but your little fantasy doesn't
    even make sense. You should tell your doctor that the meds aren't
    working.

    > > That is a fictional strawman of your own making, and without evidence
    > > that companies have fallen for some "preaching" you really have no
    > > point.

    >
    > Most companies using open source violate the intellectual property rights of
    > open source developers - that's the point. Care to comment?


    Nope - don't care.

    > > Anyway isn't that survey one of those marketing exercises trying to
    > > sell something just like the laptop warranty one you rightly trashed
    > > earlier for exactly the same reason.  What makes this one different?

    >
    > No one has refuted the results of this survey. No one.


    Really? No one? How would you know? Did you ask everyone? Wow!

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 26, 2010
    #5
  6. AD.

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    On Jul 25, 12:31 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > 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.


    Surely that depends on the flavour of open source?

    You can use things with a BSD or MIT license in any way you want,
    including incorporating them into your own code. At the very most you
    need to acknowledge this somewhere in your documentation (and with
    many things not even that).

    I've contributed to a few open source projects and prefer ones with
    those licenses because I would find it very frustrating to not be able
    to use things I've helped to improve in my daily work.

    Some GPL projects are ok. Things such as GCC are used to produce your
    own work, but are not legally incorporated into them.
     
    Bruce Hoult, Jul 26, 2010
    #6
  7. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jul 26, 11:56 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > Don't be ridiculous! Companies that stumble into using open source software
    > in violation of intellectual of intellectual property typically do so
    > because their Larry D'Loserite staffers/managers  in IT have been given too
    > much free rein.


    You still haven't given any evidence that GPL zealots think the GPL
    has no legal restrictions. Not even that most of them think that or
    that even a significant minority think that, you haven't even shown a
    single prominent one so far. You haven't even shown a single non-
    prominent one yet either. It shouldn't be that hard to find just one -
    after all you can usually find one idiot on the net that believes
    anything, so even though finding just one isn't really enough to make
    any kind of point it is still more than you have shown.

    That was your claim - it is up to you to prove it.

    Without showing that GPL fans don't know about its legal restrictions
    (which is a delusional fantasy only you seem to believe in), your
    claims don't even make sense. After all the GPLs legal restrictions
    are the whole point of it and the main reason GPL fans like it in the
    first place - otherwise they would just use BSD style licenses.

    And so without making that link then for it to be the fault of those
    D'Loserites, they would then have to be deliberately infecting their
    companies products as part of some global GPL conspiracy with a 65%
    success rate. Which is an even more delusional fantasy. Which one is
    it?

    And you'd still need to disprove any number of more rational scenarios
    - eg:

    * The violations were due to lazy/ignorant freeloading developers or
    managers taking shortcuts and hoping they didn't get found out.

    * The people who answered the survey were not fully informed about ALL
    the software the company distributed. These kinds of surveys don't
    exactly get top priority.

    etc

    Maybe if you go back on your meds, you might be able to grasp how
    delusional you were.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 26, 2010
    #7
  8. AD.

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:21:47 -0700, AD. wrote:

    > the GPL has no legal restrictions.


    GPL-licensed software does have restrictions.

    You may not take GPL'd code that you have received and release it under
    any other license that restricts what other people can do with it or who
    they can give it to.

    If you make any modifications to GPL'd code and distribute the
    modifications in pre-compiled object form you must also make the
    modifications available in usable source code form and the modifications
    must be released unencumbered under the GPL and freely available.

    If you can't comply with those terms then you are not licensed to use the
    software for any purpose or in any way.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Jul 27, 2010
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Au79
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    379
    Liza Smorgaborgsson
    Jan 30, 2006
  2. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Intellectual Property and Open Source", Van Lindberg

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Jan 5, 2009, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    640
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Jan 5, 2009
  3. peterwn
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    324
    Bruce Sinclair
    Jul 26, 2010
  4. Judges 13:18
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    441
    Gunnar Gren
    Jul 30, 2010
  5. AD.
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    324
Loading...

Share This Page