Mono Relicensed MIT
At the Mono Project blog, Miguel de Icaza announced that the Mono runtime has been relicensed, moving from a dual-license slate (with LGPLv2 and proprietary optiona) to the MIT license. The Mono compiler and class libraries were already under the MIT license and will remain so. "Moving the Mono runtime to the MIT license removes barriers to the adoption of C# and .NET in a large number of scenarios, embedded applications, including embedding Mono as a scripting engine in game engines or other applications.
" De Icaza notes that Xamarin (which was recently acquired by Microsoft) had developed several proprietary Mono modules in recent years; these will also now be released under the MIT license.
Posted Apr 1, 2016 4:00 UTC (Fri)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (163 responses)
Posted Apr 1, 2016 9:49 UTC (Fri)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
Posted Apr 1, 2016 13:49 UTC (Fri)
by tshow (subscriber, #6411)
[Link] (1 responses)
Likewise, Apple is on the same trajectory as IBM and Microsoft, and is about 40 years behind IBM and 20 years behind Microsoft.
There was a time when IBM was the proverbial 900 pound gorilla. They were rich, they were successful, their whim dictated the success or failure of other companies. They were the Great Satan of Computing, as it were. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" was a phrase that IBM sales people would use during sales, with the subtext of "because if you don't buy IBM, we're going over your head and if *anything* goes wrong we'll be there to tell your boss who's fault it is".
Eventually (around 1995...), Microsoft managed to take the crown from IBM. It took IBM years to reconcile themselves to it; you can see it in things like OS/2; there was clearly a faction at IBM that thought they could fight their way back to dominance, but Microsoft took over the 900lb gorilla role and eventually IBM (mostly) reconciled with that. IBM is now a services company.
You're seeing the same thing now with Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft is having to realize that no, it can't dominate the way it did back in the 1990s and early 2000s. Interestingly, we're also seeing the kind of software quality problems from Apple that we saw from Microsoft when they were at the height of their powers. Things seem to start slipping when a company gets big enough that it's trying to hold down multiple fronts at once.
But I think Microsoft is in the process of becoming a cloud services company, and they're gradually realizing that as a services company they have to play nice with everyone. So what we're watching is the process of them going from a "crush everyone" strategy to a "we can make anything play nice with anything, whaddaya need?" strategy, with the old guard muttering quietly in the background that back in THEIR day, we wouldn't have put up with these shenanigans, we'd have shown these little whippersnappers what's what, what they need is a taste of the bayonet...
In a few more years the young'uns around here will wonder why anyone ever had a problem with Microsoft, much the way people do now with IBM. By that point, I presume we'll be watching this whole process again with Apple as the Great Satan starting to come to terms with an upstart unseating them.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 0:37 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Yeah, I've been around for a bit but am post-evil-IBM and smack in the middle of Evil Microsoft, having participated in debates at local computer/business clubs in NL arguing with a MS sales person over a decade ago... But I'm quite open to a changing MS, in no small part because I don't believe companies have a soul* ;-)
* or anything else for that matter
Posted Apr 1, 2016 16:09 UTC (Fri)
by kena (subscriber, #2735)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 1, 2016 16:17 UTC (Fri)
by ejr (subscriber, #51652)
[Link]
Posted Apr 1, 2016 18:48 UTC (Fri)
by orev (guest, #50902)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 1, 2016 22:00 UTC (Fri)
by jhoblitt (subscriber, #77733)
[Link]
Posted Apr 2, 2016 3:59 UTC (Sat)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link] (151 responses)
Posted Apr 2, 2016 4:22 UTC (Sat)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (149 responses)
Posted Apr 2, 2016 8:26 UTC (Sat)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 2, 2016 8:30 UTC (Sat)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Apr 3, 2016 0:33 UTC (Sun)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link] (146 responses)
Posted Apr 3, 2016 0:44 UTC (Sun)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (145 responses)
Posted Apr 3, 2016 12:05 UTC (Sun)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 3, 2016 17:34 UTC (Sun)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
You don't like that it's based mostly on proprietary stuff and not on Free(tm)(r)(c) Software? Then perhaps you should re-evaluate your assumptions about the merits of it and the strategy used to promote it.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 0:41 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
The largest actually *collaborative* IT project is the Linux Kernel. Granted, that's a single project. If you want multiple collaborative projects, you're probably looking at the Linux distro's.
The iOS ecosystem is a platform, a large one, sure. Collaborative I wouldn't call it, there are other platforms far more fitting that term.
Posted Apr 3, 2016 23:44 UTC (Sun)
by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
[Link] (134 responses)
"World's greatest collaborative project?" First, it's not a "collaborative project", it's a store where people buy stuff. Typically frivolous, overpriced crap. Second:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam
...the word "perspective" must not exist in your vocabulary.
*mic drop*
Posted Apr 4, 2016 4:31 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (133 responses)
You might not like my perspective, however it still leaves a problem with Free Software growing less relevant by the day.
And I say it's a good thing.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 8:54 UTC (Mon)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (129 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2016 9:02 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (128 responses)
In short, FSF's opinion is that progress in the IT world shouldn't happen unless it's all Free Software. See: emacs vs. LLVM-based autocomplete.
I have a completely opposite opinion. Anything that can ease the progress should be celebrated and promoted. So far liberal licenses seem to be doing this in an exemplary manner.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 9:15 UTC (Mon)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (125 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2016 9:30 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (124 responses)
"User subjugation" - are we in Godwin's territory yet? Nobody is subjugating iOS users, absolute majority of them bought iDevices because they solve their problems.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 10:35 UTC (Mon)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (19 responses)
Like Google but more so, Apple is subjugating its users. The fact that users voluntarily (mostly unknowingly) set themselves up to be subjugated doesn't change that fact. This is slavery in a microcosm. Compare this with labour laws: they limit what employers can require of employees, because otherwise people would voluntarily enter into actual slavery because it solves their problems (security, sustenance).
Posted Apr 4, 2016 12:00 UTC (Mon)
by ghane (guest, #1805)
[Link] (18 responses)
I cannot comment on the "unknowingly" part, as that would involve speaking with users; but if it is voluntary, how do we correct this? Short of legislating, and enforcing, that users must only use our approved "Free Software", what do you suggest?
The figure of 1 billion iDevices sold has been mentioned. Calling them ignorant slaves (my words) is not likely to be productive to the cause, unless the cause is to irritate them..
Note that this cuts both ways, Corbet has somehow convinced me, perhaps unknowingly, to part with $70 every year for nothing more than early access to a web blog! A blog that he gets Cyberax and you to write for, for free! Who will save me from his subjugation?
Posted Apr 4, 2016 12:15 UTC (Mon)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (17 responses)
I agree that theoretically Corbet is our overlord here, but a seven-day embargo is quite a far cry from 70 years after publication, and our esteemed editor is very conservative when it comes to deleting our posts. I tend to think of paying for LWN as more of a donation with benefits. There have been some calls for the LWN source code to be opened up though.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 15:49 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (16 responses)
You up for some learning as well as teaching?
Posted Apr 4, 2016 15:55 UTC (Mon)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2016 21:30 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2016 23:21 UTC (Mon)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (13 responses)
Sadly, the current phone market makes it next to impossible to maintain your freedom. The only somewhat practical free solution is to buy an Android phone, hack it, and put CyanogenMod on it, while resisting the urge to install the Google Apps and instead getting everything from F-droid. And even then you don't get free drivers (and thus no timely updates), since hardware companies routinely violate the GPL.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 23:57 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (12 responses)
"Trade a little privacy for less time learning how this arbitrary nerd stuff works? And avoid bricking my phone? Sure, sign me up! Here's my credit card number and map coordinates."
Posted Apr 5, 2016 1:03 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (3 responses)
To doze off again until things break even worse the next time. Boiling frog syndrome I'd say.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 2:44 UTC (Tue)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (2 responses)
If you're saying that NPM is poor and unpublish is grossly idiotic, then I agree. But that's a different thread.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 15:08 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2016 16:51 UTC (Tue)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Apr 5, 2016 8:01 UTC (Tue)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2016 10:48 UTC (Tue)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link] (3 responses)
Surely you must at least be willing to entertain the idea that if several billion people disagree with you, they might not *all* be imbeciles suffering from severe Stockholm Syndrome?
Most people do not consider the things that you hate so much to *be* abusive, at all.
I *want* my phone to track where I am, and to track where other people are. This allows it, for example, to give me weather reports and directions, locally relevant searches - and locally relevant *voice recognition*. Voice recognition that *actually works* because it has enough information about the surrounding area to make *intelligent* guesses about what you might have said, like the name of a nearby road or shop with questionable pronunciation. Tracking multiple people, in aggregate, allows it to give predictions about traffic patterns that are *actually useful* in working out when you might get to your destination, not on average, but *today*.
(I won't bother to harp on about everything else, but suffice it to say that location tracking is just a single example. I'm pretty much living in the amazing sci-fi future of my childhood, like at least once a week something makes me stop and think "this is the future - I'm living in the future now".)
Nobody is giving anything up out of 'despair'; we're using useful tools that intrinsically work by processing certain information, so of course we want them to have that information. Most 'enhanced privacy' things that are popular with a certain subset of FOSS advocates look like deliberate antifeatures to me, and apparently to most of the world if their behaviour patterns are any indication.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 11:18 UTC (Tue)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2016 12:13 UTC (Tue)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2016 15:12 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Exactly. I'm with Nye in that I want these functions - but I should have some certainty as to how it's used. Maybe it should be on my own private server, or a server I choose at least. Or maybe there should be decent protection offered by the law. Whatever - not the wild west it is right now. Because it is guaranteed to go wrong at some point. Next up - a company running your pacemaker (which needs a regular check-in to the cloud to function) goes bankrupt and shuts off the server...
Posted Apr 5, 2016 15:09 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2016 16:47 UTC (Tue)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link] (1 responses)
This seems to be a *much* more pertinent complaint about cloud services. Not based on ideology, because *everyone* glazes over questions of ideology when they don't share it, and convincing people to share your ideology is *hard*, but based on practicality.
I know I live my life assuming that any and all Google services will shut down tomorrow, or sooner, because history has shown that to be the safe bet. This is actually a constant nagging worry because I do currently pay for Gmail in particular, and I don't see any serious competitors, Free or otherwise. Some day I need to put some serious effort into contributing to Mailpile, but the realist in me says I will probably never find the time, because I won't really need it until it's too late :-(.
Posted Apr 14, 2016 3:10 UTC (Thu)
by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
[Link]
I recently wrote an email application and it's awesome: https://github.com/linuxrocks123/MailTask
It's probably not for everyone, but, for me, it's awesome, and even if no one else ever uses it ever, I'll be glad I wrote it. I'm trying to get other people to use it, too, though; hence it's FLOSS. It probably needs more docs but feel free to post issues on GitHub if you run into setup or usage trouble.
Mailpile is webmail. Webmail is (imo) brain-damaged nonsense.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 11:09 UTC (Mon)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (101 responses)
Exactly! Apple's ideology prevents FOSS software from reaching their customers. We all agree that there is something wrong with that.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 17:12 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (100 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2016 17:27 UTC (Mon)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (78 responses)
Which part of the GPL prohibits distribution in binary form or distribution by download?
Posted Apr 4, 2016 17:53 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (77 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2016 18:13 UTC (Mon)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (10 responses)
That would mean if someone would create an app store that would require availability of the source it would be all proprietary licenses' fault that they don't?
What if the license requires to distriminate based on ethniticy, gender or faith and the store restricts distribution to a subset of these?
Posted Apr 4, 2016 18:59 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (9 responses)
> What if the license requires to distriminate based on ethniticy, gender or faith and the store restricts distribution to a subset of these?
Suppose that the FSF in the GPLv4 suddenly decides to require people to kill small children in order to be allowed to distribute the software. Why do you want to kill small children?
Posted Apr 4, 2016 19:27 UTC (Mon)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (8 responses)
So the choice of the authors is bad by default?
> Oh, wow. I haven't seen such a masterful strawman in some time. May I also do it?
I don't know what a strawman is but I take the masterful as a complement.
> Suppose that the FSF in the GPLv4 suddenly decides to require people to kill small children in order to be allowed to distribute the software.
Well, the equivalent to the sitation would be that the GPLv4 require that you don't kill small children but the app store would, which in your model would be bad on the part of the license because the restrictions imposed by the authors are bad and the restrictions imposed by the store are good.
I don't think you would be ok with small children being killed, but maybe even in your model there are things a store can not impose and still be good?
Posted Apr 4, 2016 20:32 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (7 responses)
Note, that I don't argue that authors are not free to make bad choices.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 7:33 UTC (Tue)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (6 responses)
That at least gives it more perspective.
I guess that is a valid philosphy, but others will still believe that caring for the users is also valid.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 7:37 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (5 responses)
Why not release your code as Apache2 or BSD and help real-life users instead?
Posted Apr 5, 2016 8:03 UTC (Tue)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (4 responses)
But if I were, the best option would probably be to license the software as GPL in general, but upload the app with some simple proprietary license that allows the user to treat the software as licensed under GPL on their choice.
Then the app's license is proprietary as far as Apple is concerned and GPL as far as any user who wants that is concerned.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 8:12 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
> But if I were, the best option would probably be to license the software as GPL in general, but upload the app with some simple proprietary license that allows the user to treat the software as licensed under GPL on their choice.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 8:55 UTC (Tue)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (1 responses)
Wow, really? Can you provide a link? All I could find yesterday were some articles that claimed sime restrictions imposed by the app store would somehow be a problem, but nothing as concrete.
At least that should put all questions at rest which side is at fault, such an explicit rule makes it clear that it is the app store.
> A user will be able to get a GPL-ed source but won't be able to distribute it or even use it, except by paying Apple and putting their own devices in developer mode.
I am afraid I don't understand where you are seeing any problem there.
For using source you need to either be a developer or have easy enough to follow instructions, but that is a property of source code, not of the source code's license.
Also not entirely sure what you mean with the last part but my guess is you are referring that deploying a modified version onto an iOS device would require Apple's development tools and a device that allows out-of-store installation.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 15:14 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Posted Apr 5, 2016 15:13 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Posted Apr 4, 2016 19:50 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (64 responses)
That choice, of course, is their right. Just as it is my right to not give a proverbial bowel movement about Apple's platforms and instead support those who better suit my principles.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 20:23 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (29 responses)
Actually, I think Apple has a major legal problem on their hands with the app store and the GPL. Namely, that *Apple* can be held liable for J. Random Developer's actions. And rant all you like, it's actually not acceptable under any "civilized" legal code for one person to be held liable for another person's actions.
Let's say I develop an app, and use a load of GPL code. I sell the binary on Apple's app store. As per the terms of the GPL, who is liable for providing the source? APPLE!!! (Or at least, that is a perfectly reasonable argument.) But do they even have the source?! THAT is why distributing GPL apps through a store like that is tricky.
I don't blame Apple, Google, et al for not wanting to get involved in that can of worms. And if you think that's being OTT, just look at the way Cisco et al are being sued for selling routers where they didn't even realise GPL software was being used!
Cheers,
Posted Apr 4, 2016 20:41 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Given Apple's already not-inconsiderable app review process, and the very voluminous T&C one has to accept in order to publish to the app store (last I checked it was over 50 printed pages) I find it hard to believe that Apple's seriously concerned about their direct liability from copyleft as opposed to any other type of copyright infringment.
> I don't blame Apple, Google, et al for not wanting to get involved in that can of worms.
Oh, I don't necessarily blame Apple or Google for wanting to ignore that can of worms, but since you brought it up, Google at least provides a supported mechanism for alternative app "stores", including those which seem to have no problems complying with copyleft source requirements. Apple, on the other hand, actively works against anyone trying to use non-blessed-by-Apple software on their platforms.
> And if you think that's being OTT, just look at the way Cisco et al are being sued for selling routers where they didn't even realise GPL software was being used!
As for Cisco, if they put their name on a box, it behoves them to know what's in that box. If Cisco *still* doesn't have the internal processes in place to keep track of the licenses of the software they incorportate into their products -- more than a decade after they first ran into that problem -- they only have themselves to blame.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 22:27 UTC (Mon)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link] (1 responses)
"I am not my brothers keeper" hasn't passed as a viable excuse since the excuse was first written down.
How *much* we are responsible is often debated. But the idea that we have some sort of responsibilty to each other is what knits society together.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 9:05 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Fair enough. But "best efforts" and all that. If you shoot someone and I get held liable that's called "miscarriage of justice".
Equally, if someone else knocks a pot of paint over, I see it and ignore it, then you slip and end up in hospital, I'm on the hook for negligence and that's fair - I knew about it and I should have done something about it.
That's the thing with the app store - if Apple knows people are breaking the rules, and does nothing about it, they are liable for the own inaction. That's why Cisco are in trouble on this point. At least, by trying to keep out of this situation, both Apple and Google at least have a defence of "best effort" if things go wrong. Cisco don't have that...
Cheers,
Posted Apr 4, 2016 23:09 UTC (Mon)
by lsl (subscriber, #86508)
[Link] (23 responses)
How is that any different from just taking a random proprietary app, change the name on it and upload it to the app store? This happens all the time. Those apps just get deleted as soon as they're noticed or someone complains.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 23:33 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (22 responses)
If Apple were to continue distributing a stolen app then they would be legally liable for up to $150000 per _copy_ distributed. Just like with the GPL.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 13:48 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (19 responses)
Eh, you say that as if apple didn't explicitly select to be in that position re: GPL'd programs. Also, you fail to provide convincing reasons to sympathize with apple when their terms of service take care to restrict the ability of users to copy a _free software application_ to their own devices or to use it for commercial purposes. On top of the unfounded sympathy for apple's restrictive (some would say exploitative - towards both users and developers) terms, your position carefully avoids sympathizing with the people who made sure to allow the users to arbitrarily run, modify and distribute their code, only to have a mediator impose arbitrary restrictions. Your narrative above pretends that there's some fear of "OMG so many $$" being awarded as damages for copyright infringement, as if there were some intense GPL litigation going on, whereas there's scarcely any. In fact, for the two cases of someone distributing a piece of copyleft software in the app store that I'm aware of, (GNU Go and an early port of VLC) both were simply removed from the app store and, legally speaking, the matter ended there. So the text quoted above reads as fear-mongering as well. All in all, I'm afraid this narrative is in need of a leg transplant.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 19:47 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (18 responses)
Coincidentally, is there any significant amount of non-trivial GPL-ed applications that might be interesting to regular tablet/phone users?
Posted Apr 7, 2016 23:16 UTC (Thu)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (17 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 1:32 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (16 responses)
> It's GPL-3.
Proof: https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/blob/master/LICENSE
Posted Apr 8, 2016 1:46 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (15 responses)
GPLv3 preventing abuse of users and non-free plugins?
Yeah, sure.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:03 UTC (Fri)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:07 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:23 UTC (Fri)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link]
Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:47 UTC (Fri)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:06 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (10 responses)
And let me quote the relevant part of it (out of the whole 60 lines of code):
>Intent intent = new Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW, Uri.parse("market://search?q=pname:" +
The parking and address plugins are similar in content.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:25 UTC (Fri)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:31 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (8 responses)
But be sure, download the source code and check for yourself.
To recap, OsmAnd is just another example of corporate shareware with paid versions providing additional functionality, that uses GPL to prevent other companies from providing competing offers.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:36 UTC (Fri)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link]
Posted Apr 8, 2016 19:29 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 19:36 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:05 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (4 responses)
It depends on hillshade file, which is not present in the default OsmAnd package. I just downloaded it and checked, again.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:13 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (3 responses)
log.info("Indexing hillshade file " + filename);
Hillshade files are available just like any other map: you download the file for the region(s) you're interested in.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:16 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:38 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (1 responses)
In any case, you may need to enable the plugin for contours in the plugin menu to be able to enable the hillshade or contour layers.
Posted Apr 9, 2016 20:22 UTC (Sat)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link]
Posted Apr 7, 2016 13:58 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (1 responses)
Eh, mispaste, the first paragraphs of the previous reply should have been: I'm wondering if there's some other online forum where you publish polemics on how proprietary software is EVIL because if apple were to distribute it illegally, they would be liable for $150k per COPY distributed :-) This makes zero sense on so many levels. (a) this $150k number originates from copyright law, the license has got nothing to do with it (b) your narrative isolates and only talks about the license you want to bash (c) your narrative axiomatically assumes that people should _not want_ Apple to be bound by copyright law (copyright law which they're making heavy use of for their profit, one could add).
Posted Apr 7, 2016 17:56 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
> (b) your narrative isolates and only talks about the license you want to bash
> (c) your narrative axiomatically assumes that people should _not want_ Apple to be bound by copyright law (copyright law which they're making heavy use of for their profit, one could add).
Posted Apr 7, 2016 12:37 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
All they have to do is some level of reasonable due diligence to ensure they're acting in good faith in distributing some software according to the applicable terms. Nothing GPL specific about that! And if some submission says it's using GPL software, then they could have a process to ensure the source is also uploaded and made available.
*Any* distributor of software - proprietary or FOSS - should do some basic checks to ensure licences are honoured. If they do that and also act reasonably when any issues are notified to them, I'd suggest any problems with wilful licence violations will fall on the upstream.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 12:56 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Apr 4, 2016 20:30 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (33 responses)
> They wilfully chose terms and conditions that exclude all copyleft stuff from their platforms when there was no technical reason to do so.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 0:50 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2016 1:40 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
> I'm sure they can argue they are just providing a platform and the actual producer/seller is the one doing the distribution. Heck, what's next, you demand the source code from the DHL dude delivering your new router?
However this is irrelevant in this case. There's an absolute trigger for copyright protection - it's the creation of a new copy. The law is quite specific on that point and Apple does create new copies of applications when you download them.
Please note, that even simple stuff like loading data from disk into RAM might count as a "distribution": http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html
Posted Apr 5, 2016 2:06 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
So I guess it's a good thing that the 50 or so page T&C everyone agrees to in order to publish stuff on the iOS App store includes a clause granting permission to Apple to do just that.
(And, I might add, so does every OSI-compliant software license..)
Posted Apr 5, 2016 2:11 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
There's also an issue with the "system library" clause which might not apply to Apple, since they actually _own_ the underlying system.
Again, you might argue that they don't apply, but this is just that - an argument, untested by courts. And the stakes are very high.
Posted Apr 10, 2016 7:49 UTC (Sun)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
I've read all your posts here and, again, there isn't a single, rational, convincing argument against the GPL. Perhaps accept that you won't convince others and stop argueing unless you have a good argument.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 14:36 UTC (Wed)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (11 responses)
Citation needed. Particularly in light of the well-known GCC Objective-C incident.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 17:08 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (10 responses)
All of this has stopped after GPLv3 switch.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 19:09 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Apr 6, 2016 20:06 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (8 responses)
> I think you keep forgetting that the GPL's main goal is to empower users, not developers.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 20:11 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (7 responses)
Yeah, it's totally the GPL's fault that the ToS Apple drafted years after the GPL was created is incompatible with the Apple ToS.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 20:32 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (6 responses)
And they open sourced the whole thing, even though they could have kept it closed. Think about it.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 20:43 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (3 responses)
And I really don't understand how a handful of applications being FOSS really absolves Apple of all the crap they sling at FOSS everywhere else.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 21:12 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
But hey, that handful of patches totally make all of the contributions to clang and WebKit completely irrelevant.
> And I really don't understand how a handful of applications being FOSS really absolves Apple of all the crap they sling at FOSS everywhere else.
Posted Apr 10, 2016 7:54 UTC (Sun)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (1 responses)
They opened CLANG for the same reason MS here opens Mono: to fight competition and strengthen its position and ecosystem. Same reason Google made Android open source. And once the ecosystem has crushed the competition, they close it off and strengthen their control, just like Google is doing with android now. Not impossible with the GPL, for sure, but far easier with a more 'business-friendly' license.
Posted Apr 10, 2016 20:46 UTC (Sun)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Yet it's still alive.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 0:09 UTC (Fri)
by lsl (subscriber, #86508)
[Link] (1 responses)
You mean as trivial as their ARM64 compiler backend that they kept closed and only released when the merging of an other, independently-developed, competing backend into upstream LLVM was imminent?
Posted Apr 8, 2016 1:39 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
> A number of you have asked about the 64-bit CPU in the iPhone 5s, and what that means for LLVM. The iPhone 5s is based on the ARMv8 / Aarch64 instruction set, but the clang compiler in Xcode 5 is based on a custom LLVM Aarch64 backend, not the one currently on llvm.org. Apple is committed to contributing its Aarch64 backend to the community (merging it "the right way" with the existing backend), but it was a significant amount of work, and will take at least several months to work out all the details. I'll keep you posted.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 13:50 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (15 responses)
Sheesh, the FUD campaign keeps on going. What the GPLv3 (since you speak of a patent clause, you're refering to GPLv3) is saying (Section 10) is that, if you're conveying a piece of software and then go around and sue the people you've conveyed it to for patent infringement, in relation to their use, further distribution etc of this piece of software, then you lose the license to distribute the software. At no time do you lose any right you have to enforce your software patents. Now, the sole inference I can make from the above is that you consider enforcement of software patents to be something that one should not hinder. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your claim though; if so, please clarify. Section 10 is the 'minimal patent defense' clause of the GPLv3 ("the authors of this program do not want to help you to both distribute a piece of software and sue the recipients for using it; the only thing they can/will do is revoke your license if you do so"). Section 11 is the actual patent clause and it says that if you're actually a copyright holder (i.e. a developer/contributor to a piece of software) who has specifically authorized use of their code under the GPLv3, then again you cannot go around suing people for patent infringement when they use your code. This, of course, does not apply at all to any redistribution of code through the app store. Which of the two clauses above seems unreasonable? With regard to source code, (a) this seems straightforward to enforce when people submit an application to the app store (b) the GPLv3 makes it even easier than the GPLv2 to cure (Section 8). Do you have a specific complaint there? If developers submit proprietary applications which infringe on others' copyright, how does apple deal with that and why is that solution not applicable to e.g. GPL'd software?
Posted Apr 7, 2016 18:23 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (14 responses)
No. GPL doesn't work like this.
Suppose that Apple has a patent license for showing animated background image with small kittens. Then they allow a 3rd party GPLv3 application which shows animated kittens.
Whoops. Clause 11 kicks in:
Apple now has to grant the transferrable patent license to all recipients. And before you object, "knowingly" bar is very low.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 19:34 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (13 responses)
Sheesh. I wonder how GPL defenders know almost nothing about the license they try to defend. Did you even read it? No. GPL doesn't work like this. Umm, I believe I've read it, and the part you quote below does not apply to what I typed in above; you do not lose any right you have to enforce your software patents, merely by distributing. Again, AFAIK that's not even possible via copyright law. Below, you shift the discussion to talking about software patent _licenses_, which is a different thing (and, needless to say, you don't lose those either by distributing something that's covered by the GPLv3). Oh finally something concrete to talk about. It is absolutely the case that apple is not allowed to distribute code which is under the GPL, when (a) that code might be infringing on patents (b) they /know/ that the code is infringing on specific patents and (c) they know that they, themselves (but not their customers and downstream recipients), are shielded against a patent infringement lawsuit as a result of a separate license. Say apple is notified of there being software patents that the code infringes on. If apple doesn't have a license to these patents, they have to stop distributing anyway. If apple does have a license to these patents, then they cannot be extracting value from GPL'd software by, yes, knowingly, exposing others to danger which they themselves are immune from. They are not _required_ to grant the a patent license to all downstream recipients. Indeed they can't be, as they are not the patent holder and the patent licenses they have might very well not be transferable (probably the case). What the GPL says in Section 11 (which you've quoted completely without context, even cutting in the middle of a sentence, to make a misleading point) is that you lose the right to distribute the software if this situation persists. If, despite the fact that there is a patent holder who might sue your customers, you wish to keep distributing it to them (and should we pretend there's nothing wrong with that?) the only way you can do that under the GPL is to either share in the legal risk by arranging no longer to be covered by any patent licensing agreement (as clearly defined in Sec. 11) or by negotiating a transferable patent license with the patent holder and transferring it your downstream recipients. In neither case are you forced to do anything with a patent license (that would again be legal fiction - you're not the patent holder, you cannot legally be forced into providing others any rights WRT the patent). In the specific case that you've brought forward, if you don't want to share in the danger with your customers or convince the patent holder to extend the license, then you simply stop distributing the software and are done. Your precious patent licenses (again, those are patent _licenses_, not _patents_ that you hold) are untouched, nor do I see how they could ever be touched. Of course, I imagine the authors of the GPLv3 (I never payed much attention to the discussions back when it was being drafted) did not so much word this to prevent a company or individual from exposing their downstream to "external" patent danger, as to incentivize entities to negotiate any patent deals to the best interests of the community around a piece of code that this entity is also taking advantage of. FWIW, to the degree that the GPL is mostly a tool to enable collaboration and to keep a somewhat level playing field for the collaborators, I would say this is pretty much in the spirit of all previous GPL versions. Oh, regarding the low bar of "knowingly". The next sentence to the one you half-quoted is If this is a low bar, please explain how.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 20:08 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (12 responses)
> FWIW, to the degree that the GPL is mostly a tool to enable collaboration and to keep a somewhat level playing field for the collaborators, I would say this is pretty much in the spirit of all previous GPL versions.
Apache or BSD licenses are much more conducive to collaboration.
> If this is a low bar, please explain how.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 20:33 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (8 responses)
At which point Apple can stop distributing that specific work?
Posted Apr 7, 2016 20:44 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (7 responses)
And if this email goes unnoticed or ignored, then whoops.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 20:57 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (6 responses)
Well, yes, that's how they're distributing it.
> And quite likely from owners' devices.
Why?
> And if this email goes unnoticed or ignored, then whoops.
Sure, just like if you ignore a notice of copyright violation, then whoops. There are still no circumstances in which Apple could be forced to do anything with their patents.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 2:16 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (5 responses)
> Sure, just like if you ignore a notice of copyright violation, then whoops. There are still no circumstances in which Apple could be forced to do anything with their patents.
In this case it's enough for one employee to send an internal email and for their boss to ignore it (maliciously or just because of a regular human forgetfulness).
And this has actually been explained to me by a company lawyer.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 5:46 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (4 responses)
If so, restoration of any copyright infringing material would also leave Apple with liability?
> There's a legally prescribed way to give a notice and all companies have processes to take them into consideration.
Not in every country that Apple do business in, but that's besides the point. In the US, 512(c) shields you from liability only in the case where you're unaware that you're distributing infringing material. If this is a genuine concern:
> In this case it's enough for one employee to send an internal email and for their boss to ignore it (maliciously or just because of a regular human forgetfulness).
then the same argument can be made around straight copyright infringement.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 6:15 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
BTW, GPL-ed software _is_ copyrighted material.
> then the same argument can be made around straight copyright infringement.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 6:48 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (2 responses)
I send you an email. I attach the binary of a GPLed work. You back it up to iCloud. You restore your backup. Do Apple have an obligation to provide you with the source code on request? If not, then it's clearly not distribution under the GPL.
> BTW, GPL-ed software _is_ copyrighted material.
Well, yes.
> in one case Apple needs to ignore an external note of an infringement and in the other case just an internal memo is enough.
Like I said, that's not true. A service provider is only shielded from liability if it "does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing" (512(c)(1)(A)(i)). The takedown notice procedure is the defined mechanism for an external party to inform a provider of infringement, but if the provider becomes aware in some other way (such as someone inside the organisation noticing) then the shield is removed. Note that "actual knowledge" is the exact language used in GPLv3 - there's no reason to believe that different standards apply. If someone sending an email to their manager is enough to trigger the GPLv3 language, it's enough to trigger the DMCA language.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 6:58 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
However in case of iOS backups, it downloads new copies of binaries from iStore during the restoration process.
But yeah, that could be fixed fairly easily.
> but if the provider becomes aware in some other way (such as someone inside the organisation noticing) then the shield is removed. Note that "actual knowledge" is the exact language used in GPLv3 - there's no reason to believe that different standards apply. If someone sending an email to their manager is enough to trigger the GPLv3 language, it's enough to trigger the DMCA language.
If Apple distributes GPLv3 software then they're bound by GPL. They can't impose additional restrictions on the license. And the GPL says that Apple is on hook for patent clause.
And the only way to avoid it is to not distribute GPL-ed code. And they have requirements for authors that shield Apple from this scenario.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:10 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
Well sure - if Apple remove something from the store, a consequence of that would be that you wouldn't be able to obtain replacement copies from the store. Isn't that already true if an app is removed for copyright infringement?
> If Apple distributes GPLv3 software then they're bound by GPL. They can't impose additional restrictions on the license. And the GPL says that Apple is on hook for patent clause.
No. Apple have obligations if they have actual knowledge that they are relying on a patent license that they hold in order to be able to distribute the work. Once they have that knowledge, they can do three things:
1) Cease distribution
But that applies equally well to *any* work that Apple distribute - if Apple have actual knowledge that a work they are distributing infringing someone's copyright, they can do three things:
1) Cease distribution
Realistically, Apple are not going to choose (2) in either scenario. And outside that, the potential liability to Apple is identical in both scenarios. If Apple's concern is that an internal failure might result in them ending up in case (3) rather than case (1) then that applies equally to both.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 21:24 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (2 responses)
Let me quote the part _immediately_ before the sentence which you half-quoted from Section 11, which defines "patent license": I hope you'll agree with me that "have a patent license" clearly does not include the case of you being the patent holder. If you're a patent holder, but not a contributor (i.e. a copyright holder), who only conveys the software in question, then you do not automatically grant a patent license to the downstream recipients. Section 11 simply does not apply to entities which are conveyors of, but not contributors to, a piece of software. This is intentional and is meant precisely to make sure that conveyors will not grant patent licenses accidentally. I /was/ making a secondary claim though :-) [edit: oh now I see the "mostly" there, I just misspoke. Focus should be on "to the degree that"] Interesting point! Now all you have to do is back that up. I should hope that explicit communication within the company counts. What should one wait for, a majority of the company employees reading about it in the weekly newsletter? Please explain where the line should be drawn (and justify the line). This is not really unexplored legal territory here. Also, what mjg59 says.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 2:59 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
> Interesting point! Now all you have to do is back that up.
And this actually greatly bother me (me being a card-carrying liberal pinko commie socialist).
I make a prediction that in the coming years we'll see GPL-only projects being even further sidelined.
> Please explain where the line should be drawn (and justify the line).
Posted Apr 8, 2016 14:53 UTC (Fri)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link]
Let's not forget to mention how you (a) quote the GPL out of context to arrive at a fear-mongering conclusion (b) keep shifting your original claim to increasingly intricate cases when your previous claims are shown to be unsupportable. The typical scenario where you do not actually hold your own patents is that you've transferred them to a shell company which can sue for patent infringement while not being vulnerable to countersuits (since it doesn't actually produce anything). Is that the scenario you're talking about? If so, are we expected to sympathize with software patent aggressors here? If not, please provide the concrete scenario, how it applies to apple and why one would want to enable it. I'm afraid my weekly quota for posting online is almost out, so I'll have to postpone replying to the rest of your points (especially since they're about a separate discussion).
Posted Apr 7, 2016 12:29 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Your argument therefore is that authors of code shouldn't be able to place conditions on the use of their code? You're against copyrights?
Posted Apr 6, 2016 11:24 UTC (Wed)
by Del- (guest, #72641)
[Link] (20 responses)
The information content of your posts in this thread is unusually low. Are you trying to say that Apple is not OK with copy-left in general? It certainly sounds like you are making that argument, but then again, your signal-to-noise ratio is horrible in this thread.
You are against DRM, but still promote appstore as the greatest collaborative project (as if there is anything collaborative about it, but hey, let us redefine the whole English language to fit the discussion of the day).
Because one billion devices runs an OS, anybody not distributing their software on it must be doing it wrong. Do you even believe that yourself?
Posted Apr 6, 2016 17:24 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (19 responses)
> You are against DRM, but still promote appstore as the greatest collaborative project
Posted Apr 6, 2016 21:35 UTC (Wed)
by hummassa (guest, #307)
[Link] (18 responses)
> GPLv2 might force Apple to disclose their proprietary source.
Let me explain to you: any source code that Apple could be "forced to disclose" would not be, in any capacity, "proprietary" as in "sole (intellectual) property of Apple" but it would be
A Derivative work (let's call it "D") of some Original work (let's call it "O") that was not a creation of Apple, but of third parties. Those third parties had the sole right to create derivative works, but they Licensed it to Apple (and to the General Public) under some conditions stated on the text of the General Public License (yeah, you grasp where I'm going here).
So, when Apple makes a derivative of a original work using the license granted by O's copyright holders under the terms of the GPL, the differences between D and O can never be "proprietary". It's not their work. D wouldn't exist if O didn't exist first.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 22:17 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (17 responses)
You find that intolerable? So does Apple.
Posted Apr 6, 2016 23:33 UTC (Wed)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (1 responses)
You mean, like Google is forced to disclose their proprietary code because they allow GPL applications to be sold through the Google Play Store? Yeah right.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 1:07 UTC (Thu)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link]
Posted Apr 7, 2016 12:55 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Apr 7, 2016 13:51 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (13 responses)
The app store predominantly distributes 3rd-party applications. I'm assuming you misspoke here and meant to say GPLvX, for some value of X. First, you persist in repeating the false claim that people would be forced to GPL stuff. Copyright does not work that way. All the GPL can do, and is trying to do, is to prevent people from creating proprietary derivatives of the GPL code, i.e. close it up. If you think that's unfair, let's talk about that, but you've been well aware for a while now that your claim above is false, only you keep repeating it as part of this FUD campaign. Second, which components, specifically, do you claim would end up constituting a derivative of GPL code if apple were to amend their ToS and subsequently distribute GPL'd projects? Further, which specific clauses do you base this claim on?
Posted Apr 7, 2016 17:42 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (12 responses)
After all, nobody is forced to GPL anything, right?
Posted Apr 7, 2016 17:52 UTC (Thu)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link]
On Linux very few system libraries are GPL'd (readline is one of the few exceptions). On Android/iOS no system libraries are GPL'd.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 18:03 UTC (Thu)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link]
Answer: the "system library" exception to the GPL applies.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 21:30 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (9 responses)
Umm, to me this reads like "I want to violate the GPL and include copyleft code into a proprietary product". Is that what you mean? If not, please provide a specific scenario to clarify (and see also rssid's reply re: the system libraries). Not by the GPL or any copyright license. A license is not a contract; all it can do is dictate the terms under which you are allowed to use/modify/distribute/etc the software. If you infringe on the license, you may be liable for damages as prescribed by copyright law. Now if you're feeling helplessly drawn to integrating GPL code... you're still not forced. You're given an _incentive_ to produce free software (specifically, software under a GPL-compatible, i.e. necessarily free, license), so as to be able to make use of the existing code base. If that doesn't appeal to you, and as has been pointed out a few dozen times by now, by quite a few people, you're free to not create derivatives.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 2:09 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (8 responses)
> If you infringe on the license, you may be liable for damages as prescribed by copyright law.
It's kinda like saying that you're totally free to go and kill people, but if you do this you might be captured by law enforcement and put into jail for life. But nothing stops you from doing it!
Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:49 UTC (Fri)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (6 responses)
That isn't even GPL or FOSS specific. Proprietary software could have disagreeable licence conditions too, not least the price.
If you disagree with that, then what you are disagreeing is the whole concept of authors having a say in how their code may be copied via copyright and/or you disagree with derivative works.
From reading your collective comments here on licensing make it clear that your problem is that you (and a few entities you favour) may not be able to do with other people's code exactly as you wish. Either that, or you simply don't have a coherent view of what rights you think a cod author should and should not have over that code, that doesn't reference your interests at least.
I ask again: Am *I* allowed to do whatever I want with *any* of _your_ code?
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:07 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (5 responses)
> If you disagree with that, then what you are disagreeing is the whole concept of authors having a say in how their code may be copied via copyright and/or you disagree with derivative works.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:14 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (3 responses)
The part where the GPL isn't applicable to code that you don't ship in the first place?
> No, I'm not. You're just misrepresenting the truth by cowering behind technicalities.
Um…wow. You're saying people shouldn't be free to license their code under the GPL because you (and Apple) don't like it.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:18 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
> Um…wow. You're saying people shouldn't be free to license their code under the GPL because you (and Apple) don't like it.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:43 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
> Uhm, sorry I was not clear. I meant that I absolute agree that authors should be able to use whatever license they want for their code. It's just that GPL is almost never a _good_ choice.
In your opinion. Others have different weighting functions.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:55 UTC (Fri)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Fixed it for you.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:52 UTC (Fri)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
"how do I release a software package linked with a GPL-ed library and which doesn't include its source code?"
That is the context for that statement in the child comment of "GPL forces one to comply with its terms if one wants to use it in their products.", along with the wider context of your comments which make it clear you have a major issue with the fact that some people might write code and make it generally available under conditions that don't suit you.
Why don't you just move on? Go find a BSD/MIT/Apache version, or a proprietary for-€ version, or else write it yourself, why not do that?
Why is it you find it so hard to accept that other people have made decisions about the conditions on their code that aren't "Let Cyberax (and other entities he favours) do whatever they want with the code, for no consideration in return"? If you don't have a problem with the notion of copyright, then what's the issue? Do you similarly go on long campaigns on forums of proprietary software? Or is just GPL?
Tell me, what are all the licenses that code you have copyright over is under? In particular, do you ever write proprietary software?
Posted Apr 9, 2016 7:10 UTC (Sat)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
It's a copyright license. What do you expect it to do?
If you don't like the terms of the GPL, don't base your code on GPL'ed software. If you don't like the terms of Microsoft's proprietary SDK license, don't base your code on Microsoft's proprietary SDK. Same difference. Your choice.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 14:06 UTC (Mon)
by nhasan (guest, #1699)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2016 17:11 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Next personal attack, please.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 12:24 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 7, 2016 17:37 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
> Cause you don't want others to have the same freedom with your own code.
Posted Apr 4, 2016 9:11 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (2 responses)
People are prepared to travel long distances at some inconvenience to look at the Taj Mahal. It is a major contributor to the economy in Agra today (nearly four centuries after it was built) because otherwise tourists would have much less of a compelling reason to go there. That may not have been Shah Jahan's original plan but it does make a difference now.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the iOS app store will have any influence on the economy anywhere, 400 years from now – never mind attracting people from far away to come look at it. And as far as I'm concerned it is a “collaborative project” only in the sense that Amazon and eBay are “collaborative projects”, IOW not that much – it relies on lots of people giving it stuff to sell but these people don't really collaborate with one another on improving the iOS app store or “ecosystem” (beyond making it more interesting by adding their stuff to it, anyway).
Posted Apr 4, 2016 9:20 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2016 20:25 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Cheers,
Posted Apr 4, 2016 8:48 UTC (Mon)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link]
Posted Apr 4, 2016 11:11 UTC (Mon)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link]
You count Mono as the "world's greatest collaborative project"?
Posted Apr 5, 2016 14:00 UTC (Tue)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (4 responses)
Right. It is of course important to deconstruct the above, well, claim. However, it seems to me it's even more important to discuss some meta considerations. This is not to do with any qualities of the person I'm replying to, but with a larger pattern I notice in these posts which, to me, appears to be the primary means by which they're trying to sway people closer to their position. And IMHO this pattern needs to be talked about far more than the individual posts. Off the top of my head, some claims I remember coming from the same poster in the last few weeks are: The GPL is cancer, infective, it propagates to everything it touches and of course is viral. [GPL software] isn't actually free in any sense. Let me put aside the discussion on whether or not there is any kind of valid point behind those posts for a bit. From my PoV, what I see is a series of posts specifically phrased to agitate, making what the poster can be reasonably sure will appear (to a large percentage of the readers) to be preposterous claims, with absolute conviction and no supporting argumentation (definitely not at the time of the claim). FWIW, I see two aspects here which are problematic. One of course is the setting of the agenda. Constant discussion on the utility or undesirability of (various versions of) the GPL in the comments on LWN, necessarily shifts the perception of the license in this community from uncontroversial or, at least, a reasonable licensing choice (perhaps my perception is skewed, but I think that was the social norm here, say, 5 years ago) to "eh, permissive seems to be the safe choice here, nobody ever got called out for going with permissive". Regardless of what one thinks about social norms marketing, I hope we all agree that perception matters. Now, this agenda setting would be OK (if someone honestly thinks there's something hugely problematic about X, they should feel comfortable in speaking up and directing attention to X), but for two things. (a) So far, the strategy for maintaining interest in this (judging by the narrative seen so far) non-topic is not to present convincing arguments, but to manipulate people into engaging, i.e. the strategy employed by trollumnists and linkbaiters. (b) propaganda-style repetition of the same old narrative, pretending it wasn't just torn down (in the eyes of other participants at least; not addressing their arguments is a means of keeping the discussion going, instead of moving it forward). There's a second aspect in which the (IMHO consciously) absurdly exaggerated nature of those claims is problematic. I find it hard to believe that this practice is intended to convince; AFAICT, it only serves to stretch the spectrum of expressed opinions so far in the desired direction, so as to unduly skew any 'compromise' position in favor of the poster's position. I mean, any casual, disinterested, or just mildly interested reader will very likely not take the trouble of following the arguments (or lack thereof). Even if they come out with the feeling that one side is clearly more convincing and the other side is 'at most 10% right', a 10% shift towards an artificially exaggerated position might still be a lot. Which is not to say there might not be an element of venting here too (we all need to rant, occasionally). This is understandable, but I would humbly suggest that venting is better done among friends and can be toxic to discussion forums. I dare say we've all been there of course.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 17:48 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2016 21:54 UTC (Tue)
by lsl (subscriber, #86508)
[Link]
How come? Over the last few weeks your posts really come across as though you were beaten up by someone utilizing a printed-out GPL hardcopy. That's not what actually happened, is it?
Posted Apr 6, 2016 4:39 UTC (Wed)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 6, 2016 12:29 UTC (Wed)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link]
Umm, this FUD campaign has been going on for a while now, yah. Seems jra at least was tired of it by October 2015. Unfortunately, with FUD campaigns there's no winning ('winning' here would be an actual discussion). Don't play and there'll be dozens of deceptive or misleading comments standing uncontested at a central discussion forum. Try to engage the originator in a discussion and they'll put up a pretense of debating while repeating their narrative and ignoring any inconvenient points you make. Hence my 'meta' post above.
Posted Apr 3, 2016 15:56 UTC (Sun)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link]
Posted Apr 3, 2016 13:36 UTC (Sun)
by dakas (guest, #88146)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 3, 2016 15:43 UTC (Sun)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (1 responses)
https://github.com/mono/mono/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT
It is far more important for MS to get more adoption of .NET compared to the patent licensing revenue.
Posted Apr 3, 2016 15:52 UTC (Sun)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Posted Apr 1, 2016 22:40 UTC (Fri)
by ChingDucXiabong (guest, #107997)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 2, 2016 6:49 UTC (Sat)
by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452)
[Link]
Posted Apr 2, 2016 8:28 UTC (Sat)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted Apr 2, 2016 9:13 UTC (Sat)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link]
Mono Relicensed MIT
I have seen it suggested that some of the groundwork for moving in this direction was actually set up during the reign of the chair-thrower.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Rail...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building
Mono Relicensed MIT
Well, and Taj Mahal is just a shrine serving no useful functions at all. So?
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
And then this happens and the hipsters realize that they made the wrong choice... Forgetting it the next day of course.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Apple is perfectly OK with other open source licenses. It's GPL that is causing problems.
Mono Relicensed MIT
I was under the impression that the app store policies where the ones imposing restrictions.
Not likely distribution via the iOS app store specifically as the GPL predates iOS, right?
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Also the fault of the ideology of the app authors for not wanting to discriminate against their fellow humans, yes?
Mono Relicensed MIT
Not a "fault" per se, but yes.
> Also the fault of the ideology of the app authors for not wanting to discriminate against their fellow humans, yes?
Oh, wow. I haven't seen such a masterful strawman in some time. May I also do it?
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
If it includes 'GPL' in it, then quite probably yes.
Mono Relicensed MIT
A license in favor of the user is bad, licenses or store restrictions against the user are good or at least not as bad.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
It's spelled out quite explicitly in the Apple developer agreement.
Even better. A user will be able to get a GPL-ed source but won't be able to distribute it or even use it, except by paying Apple and putting their own devices in developer mode.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Anyone with access to a GPL-ed source can distribute it, e.g. putting it on a digital media and given that to someone, or uploading it to a server.
In that case I also don't see how using e.g. a BSD licensed source would not also require that. Again a property of having access to a programs source, independent of the source's license.
We solved it this way.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Wol
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Wol
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
If Apple were to continue distributing a stolen app then they would be legally liable for up to $150000 per _copy_ distributed. Just like with the GPL.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Correct. However, companies think about maximum potential damages. On one hand there's a possibility of multi-million damages and on the other hand the loss of GPL applications.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Like Sygic? Or a plethora of other similar applications?
Of course it is. It would eventually allow authors to charge for a non-free version with more features, while eliminating all the competition.
> * Pull-requests and translations:
> - All pull requests are accepted under MIT License (most honorable contributors are mentioned in AUTHORS list)
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
> OSMAND_COMPONENT_PLUS));
>try {
> stopService(intent);
> startActivity(intent);
>} catch (ActivityNotFoundException e) {}
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/tree/master/OsmAnd/sr...
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
If Apple were to continue distributing a stolen app then they would be legally liable for up to $150000 per _copy_ distributed. Just like with the GPL.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Correct.
Incorrect.
Incorrect. I have never advocated violating licenses, I'm advocating avoiding certain licenses for new projects.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Apple was A-OK with GPL up to GPLv3.
Apple distributes applications from the market and so they're on hook for GPL's patent and source code clauses.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
And they probably told Apple not to risk it.
DHL in particular is shielded by the common carrier laws. They are not legally responsible for the contents of parcels. You _might_ be able to go after the seller of the router (be it a brick-and-mortar store or an online retailer).
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Apple was A-OK with GPL up to GPLv3.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Like, you know, clang? That they developed fully from scratch?
By keeping them off iStore. I know.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
They are pretty trivial.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
They usually have some internal changes for iOS builds that take some time to be cleaned up and pushed to the mainline clang which has a very linear development model (they still use SVN).
A 'handful'? Really? If you want to do mud-slinging then why not call all FSF products something like "insignificant trinkets" or "obsolete obsessions"?
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
And now WebKit is mostly Apache2. The few remaining LGPL pieces are not used by Safari anymore.
Mono Relicensed MIT
> They are pretty trivial.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Apple distributes applications from the market and so they're on hook for GPL's patent and source code clauses.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Sheesh. I wonder how GPL defenders know almost nothing about the license they try to defend. Did you even read it?
> If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either
Mono Relicensed MIT
Sheesh, the FUD campaign keeps on going. What the GPLv3 (since you speak of a patent clause, you're refering to GPLv3) is saying (Section 10) is that, if you're conveying a piece of software and then go around and sue the people you've conveyed it to for patent infringement, in relation to their use, further distribution etc of this piece of software, then you lose the license to distribute the software. At no time do you lose any right you have to enforce your software patents.
Suppose that Apple has a patent license for showing animated background image with small kittens. Then they allow a 3rd party GPLv3 application which shows animated kittens.
Whoops. Clause 11 kicks in:
If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either
Apple now has to grant the transferrable patent license to all recipients. And before you object, "knowingly" bar is very low.
“Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Yes. Or if they own the patent in questions.
Nope. GPL is a vehicle for "software freedom" promotion. Promoting collaboration is decidedly a secondary goal.
You need one employee to send an email about violations and that might be enough for the "knowingly" bar to trigger.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Restoration of an iDevice from a cloud backup might well be considered "distribution".
There's a legally prescribed way to give a notice and all companies have processes to take them into consideration.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Correct.
Not really. The situation is different - in one case Apple needs to ignore an external note of an infringement and in the other case just an internal memo is enough.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Details matter. In this case iCloud acts as a dumb storage of the stuff you upload into it. Apple is not liable in this case.
Yes, OK. However, you're still missing the point.
Mono Relicensed MIT
2) Ensure that they can provide a license to downstream recipients
3) Do nothing and incur copyright liability
2) Ensure that they have a license to distribute the work
3) Do nothing and incur copyright liability
Mono Relicensed MIT
It is absolutely the case that apple is not allowed to distribute code which is under the GPL, when (a) that code might be infringing on patents (b) they /know/ that the code is infringing on specific patents and (c) they know that they, themselves (but not their customers and downstream recipients), are shielded against a patent infringement lawsuit as a result of a separate license.
Yes. Or if they own the patent in questions.
In the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” is any express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement). To “grant” such a patent license to a party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against the party.
FWIW, to the degree that the GPL is mostly a tool to enable collaboration and to keep a somewhat level playing field for the collaborators, I would say this is pretty much in the spirit of all previous GPL versions.
Nope. GPL is a vehicle for "software freedom" promotion. Promoting collaboration is decidedly a secondary goal.
Apache or BSD licenses are much more conducive to collaboration.
If this is a low bar, please explain how.
You need one employee to send an email about violations and that might be enough for the "knowingly" bar to trigger.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Actually, it might in case of subsidiaries or other complicated structures.
I believe that to be successful software projects need to have a reliable and significant income stream. Without funding a project can really succeed only in niche areas (like academia) or/and as a hobbyist toy. GPL (the _real_ GPL, not dually-licensed corporate shareware) greatly reduces the number of available ways to do it.
It's OK where it is. Just avoid the GPL.
Mono Relicensed MIT
I hope you'll agree with me that "have a patent license" clearly does not include the case of you being the patent holder.
Actually, it might in case of subsidiaries or other complicated structures.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Not the copyleft (MPL is fine) but with the [L]GPL in particular. GPLv3 has extremely dangerous patent clauses and GPLv2 might force Apple to disclose their proprietary source.
It's simple - I want stuff that benefits actual real-life breathing users now. iStore does this. GPL doesn't.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
> Let me explain to you: any source code that Apple could be "forced to disclose" would not be
Let me repeat, Apple may be forced to disclose their proprietary code if they allow 3rd party applications into their App Store.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Let me repeat, Apple may be forced to disclose their proprietary code if they allow 3rd party applications into their App Store.
Mono Relicensed MIT
You mean, like Google is forced to disclose their proprietary code because they allow GPL applications to be sold through the Google Play Store? Yeah right.
The relevant Android code (that most play store apps link to) is not proprietary. It is Apache-licensed. Some of the APIs connect to proprietary stuff like Google Play Services, but I believe the "system library" exception would apply there. (But then it would to Apple's iOS too.) Plus in Android's case there are two levels of linking -- you link to the open-source and Apache-licensed AOSP, which has APIs to connect to a proprietary Google Play Services; I doubt any court would claim that the proprietary stuff is thereby "infected".
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Let me repeat, Apple may be forced to disclose their proprietary code if they allow 3rd party applications into their App Store.
Mono Relicensed MIT
A simple question: how do I release a software package linked with a GPL-ed library and which doesn't include its source code?
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
First, you persist in repeating the false claim that people would be forced to GPL stuff.
A simple question: how do I release a software package linked with a GPL-ed library and which doesn't include its source code?
After all, nobody is forced to GPL anything, right?
Mono Relicensed MIT
To me this means that GPL forces one to comply with its terms if one wants to use it in their products. In particular, it forces opening of the source code. The rest is just details.
And this is just useless lawyering.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
What part of: "GPL forces you to disclose your source code if you distribute it as a part of your product" is incorrect?
No, I'm not. You're just misrepresenting the truth by cowering behind technicalities.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
> The part where the GPL isn't applicable to code that you don't ship in the first place?
Highlighted.
Uhm, sorry I was not clear. I meant that I absolute agree that authors should be able to use whatever license they want for their code. It's just that GPL is almost never a _good_ choice.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
To me this means that GPL forces one to comply with its terms if one wants to use it in their products.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Actually, no. I do use a Mac desktop, but my phone is Android and I don't have other Apple products.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
What code I or my company releases is under permissive licenses.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Well, and Taj Mahal is just a shrine serving no useful functions at all. So?
Mono Relicensed MIT
I can see people coming to Cupertino to look at the giant statue of Steve Jobs that will be erected some time soon, probably.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Wol
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Or perhaps making the world's greatest collaborative project greater, thus bringing improvements to the life of hundreds of millions of people.
[Apple's app store] is the world's greatest collaborative project
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
These dozens of comments all being sparked by my comment that "all this stuff is released under the MIT license" after the Microsoft acquisition of Xamarin... and I primarily meant the proprietary extensions, not the LGPL stuff. Lesson to me to be clearer when posting? Or would this thread have happened anyway?
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Or would this thread have happened anyway?
Mono Relicensed MIT
Well, LGPLv2 is becoming less and less interoperable, and upgrading to LGPLv3 would have implied a patent license.
The main criticism against Mono, long before getting acquired by Microsoft, has always been the lackadaisical stance towards being patent-encumbered.
Moving to MIT license does nothing to change that. Rather it cements the "no patent grant implied" state that always had been the main argument against relying on Mono.
This merely clarifies that Microsoft is not going to rely on copyright for monetizing Mono, but since Microsoft did not rely on copyright for monetizing C# either, maintaining the previous revenue model would have been contradictory under common corporate ownership.
In other words: this is not really newsworthy. It's just common sense license cleanup after hauling Mono into the corporate mothership, consolidating the patent trap strategy of C# and Mono so that you can choose the bait to swallow without bothering about copyright.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
This kind of attack is really not welcome here; do not do it again.
Please
Mono Relicensed MIT