Most companies using open source violate intellectual property rights
impossible
users to be "free" -- no cost and unencumbered by any any licensing
restrictions. But clearly that's not true. No cost? Yes, because the
software has zero value on the open market. But open source software remains
the exclusive property of the developers who created it, just like any other
software. And apparently that's placed most end users of open source
software in a bind..
"More than 65% of respondents who believed that they were not distributing
open source software were in fact providing software to customers, partners
or others outside the organization. In addition, only 22% of companies were
using any tools or services to determine whether software contained open
source, despite the fact that 84% use open source software."
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2010/06/30/4879060.htm
As confused as the Larry D'Loserites are about property rights, this is
hardly surprising.
peterwn
>
> http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2010/06/30/4879060.htm
>
And you made a posting here on virtually the SAME topic on 2 July
2010.
Can't you remember what you previously posted here?
AD.
> 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
impossible
news:c59a3d1a-6707-4b63...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
<unsnip Peter the Whiner's wanton censorship>
> And you made a posting here on virtually the SAME topic on 2 July
> 2010.
>
Yes. It's hot topic. Many companies are haviung to come to grips now with
the unexpected costs of complying with open-source licensing.
> Can't you remember what you previously posted here?
>
Yes, and I remember that you censored my post then, just as you have now.
What's the matter? You can't debate this issue on its merits. You have to
doctor posts like all the other Larry D'Loserites?
impossible
"AD." <anton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d11abee-3c05-48ce...@v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 3:55 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
<unsnip Anton the Wanton Censor's wanton censorship>
>> 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).
>
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.
peterwn
> "peterwn" <pmiln...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Have you any idea what the 'unexpected' compliance needs and costs
are? They would be fairly minimal unless the organisation in breach
thinks they can ignore the matter or decides to weigh in for a fight.
>
> > Can't you remember what you previously posted here?
>
> Yes, and I remember that you censored my post then, just as you have now.
> What's the matter? You can't debate this issue on its merits. You have to
> doctor posts like all the other Larry D'Loserites?
The allegedly censored parts are on the thread for all to see. The
matter has peen previously fully discussed on its merits - simply read
the thread you kicked off on 2 July.
Yes, you continue to deliver personal attacks. So why cannot YOU
discuss things on their merits instead of resorting to personal
attacks.
AD.
> 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
peterwn
Larry has never said or implied that. Larry knows precisely what the
situation with the GPL is.
impossible
"peterwn" <pmil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:05919ba0-bbd6-4c5b...@p11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The costs of compliance include, but are not limited to, developing a
compliance system and the processes to implement it, staffing oversight, and
training. Businesses that are in compliance need have no fear of being sued.
>>
>> > Can't you remember what you previously posted here?
>>
>> Yes, and I remember that you censored my post then, just as you have now.
>> What's the matter? You can't debate this issue on its merits. You have to
>> doctor posts like all the other Larry D'Loserites?
>
> The allegedly censored parts are on the thread for all to see.
Not in the the post you made, because you censored my comments! This is the
signature technique of the Larry D'Loserites, who are are afraid to have a
discussion that involves more that selected snippets of someone's remarks.
Sheer cowardice on your part!
> The
> matter has peen previously fully discussed on its merits - simply read
> the thread you kicked off on 2 July.
>
> Yes, you continue to deliver personal attacks. So why cannot YOU
> discuss things on their merits instead of resorting to personal
> attacks.
>
I've made no personal attacks. End the censorship and I will stop describing
you, quite accurately, as a wanton censor.
impossible
> On Jul 25, 9:10 am, "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 12:31 am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
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
>
> Larry has never said or implied that. Larry knows precisely what the
> situation with the GPL is.
>
<shakes head> It's really getting hard to tell whether I'm talking to
Larry's sock puppet, his lawyer, or Larry D'Loser himself. In any case, your
view of the property rights that inhere in the GPL is confusing to say the
least. But I suppose you can take some solace in knowing that 65% of all
companies using open source software are at least as confused as you.
Peter
> On Jul 25, 12:18 am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> "peterwn" <pmiln...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Yes, and I remember that you censored my post then, just as you have now.
>> What's the matter? You can't debate this issue on its merits. You have to
>> doctor posts like all the other Larry D'Loserites?
>
> The allegedly censored parts are on the thread for all to see.
It appears that impossible's understanding of usenet etiquette is as
deficient as his understanding of software licence compliance matters.
AD.
> 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
peterwn
If 'Peter the Whiner' and 'Larry D'Loserite' are not personal attacks,
then Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny must really
exist.
Bret
I notice it doesn't claim to be female anymore.
Bruce Sinclair
.. and the surprise here is ... what exactly ? :)
Suggest leaving it to play in its sand box alone (ie without replying). :)
impossible
"peterwn" <pmil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf5d41f-f56b-423b...@k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If Peter the Whiner is going to keep whining about his nickname, I would say
that constitutes a definitive proof that the nickname is apt. As for Larry
D'Loser, he's a cowardly drive-by troll who refuses to engage in a debate of
any sort that he can't manipulate through censorship. There's nothing
"personal" about calling a loser like that a loser.
impossible
>> 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
>>
>>>
>>> situation with the GPL is.
>>>
>>
>> <shakes head> It's really getting hard to tell whether I'm talking to
>> Larry's sock puppet, his lawyer, or Larry D'Loser himself. In any case,
>> your
>> view of the property rights that inhere in the GPL is confusing to say
>> the
>> least. But I suppose you can take some solace in knowing that 65% of all
>> companies using open source software are at least as confused as you.
>>>
> 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?
> 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?
> 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.
AD.
> "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> 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
impossible
>> 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?
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.
> And he did such a good job that all
> those companies didn't bother to do their own checking?
Without clear and consistent processes to ensure compliance with
intellectual property rights, a company is just asking for trouble..
> haha that is beyond confused, you are completely delusional.
>
Whatever.l
> Don't Free Software zealots love endlessly debating the legal
> ramifications of the GPL.
No. Free Software zealots love to endlessly parrot the last blog they read.
> 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.
That says it all.
Bruce Hoult
> 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.
AD.
> 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
impossible
"Bruce Hoult" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:828e6f93-1e45-40e2...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Agreed. The problem is that relatively few companies are even aware that
they need to think about open source licensing terms. They have largely
bought into the whole "free as in speech" metaphor, which works well for the
customer, naturally, but turns out to be a decidedly poor way of describing
the intellectual property rights of open source developers.
Judges 13:18
So, someone does the work for you for free, you take it, claim the
total ownership of it all, sell it and keep all the money?
Choice, bro!
And then, when someone comes and tells you it is not on,
than you whinge your arse out about open source compliance!
Ripper!
BTW, commercial software you have bought has exactly zero value on
the market. Why? Because you cannot sell it. Legally, that is.
Bruce Sinclair
>impossible wrote:
>> Giveaway software published by open source developers is assumed by most
>> users to be "free" -- no cost and unencumbered by any any licensing
>> restrictions.
While your rant is not new, it is still wrong. Of course. :)
(snip)
>BTW, commercial software you have bought has exactly zero value on
>the market. Why? Because you cannot sell it. Legally, that is.
Sometimes. As you suggest, many licences say they aren't transferrable. Some
are of course.
impossible
"Judges 13:18" <acc...@beaurat.at.gmail.fullstop.com> wrote in message
news:4C4ECA61...@beaurat.at.gmail.fullstop.com...
> impossible wrote:
>> Giveaway software published by open source developers is assumed by most
>> users to be "free" -- no cost and unencumbered by any any licensing
>> restrictions. But clearly that's not true. No cost? Yes, because the
>> software has zero value on the open market. But open source software
>> remains
>> the exclusive property of the developers who created it, just like any
>> other
>> software. And apparently that's placed most end users of open source
>> software in a bind..
>>
>> "More than 65% of respondents who believed that they were not
>> distributing
>> open source software were in fact providing software to customers,
>> partners
>> or others outside the organization. In addition, only 22% of companies
>> were
>> using any tools or services to determine whether software contained open
>> source, despite the fact that 84% use open source software."
>>
>> http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2010/06/30/4879060.htm
>>
>> As confused as the Larry D'Loserites are about property rights, this is
>> hardly surprising.
>>
>>
>
> So, someone does the work for you for free, you take it, claim the
> total ownership of it all, sell it and keep all the money?
> Choice, bro!
>
That seems to be what most companies think, yes. Open source software
software really isn't actually "free as in free speech", as the Larry
D'Loserite ideologues would have you believe. You can't just do what you
please with open source software, and more than you can with closed source
software. Either way, there are intellectual property rights that must be
respected.
> And then, when someone comes and tells you it is not on,
> than you whinge your arse out about open source compliance!
> Ripper!
>
Tell it to Larry D'Loser -- he's the one thinks that intellectual property
is a myth.
> BTW, commercial software you have bought has exactly zero value on
> the market. Why? Because you cannot sell it. Legally, that is.
Just because you're a nym-shifting sock puppet doesn't give you a license to
be completely stupid. Commercial software products are sold on the open
market at the price that buyers are willing to pay. Free-as-in-beer
software has no value value on the open market, so it is given away. Neither
category of software has any resale value -- commercial software, because
license agreements typically forbid that, and free-as-in-beer software,
because...well, zero + zero = zero. Got it?
AD.
> Just because you're a nym-shifting sock puppet doesn't give you a license to
> be completely stupid.
Nah, a nym shifting sock puppet would really need to get one of those
licenses from you.
With one of your complete stupidity licenses, he'd be able to put his
own words in other people mouths and claim all sorts of wild fantasies
without any evidence. He'd be able to completely misread survey
results. He'd be able to claim blog postings can't be trusted, and
then a few days later rely on blog postings that agree with him to
make stuff up. He'd be able to claim survey results are biased because
they come from a company selling something, yet a few days later use
survey results coming from company selling something to make more
stuff up. He wouldn't need to ever back any argument up. If he ever
paints himself into a completely contradictory corner he can't
sidestep out of, he can just claim censorship and run away.
So speaking of those contradictory corners, have you yet found any
examples of:
* GPL "ideologues" who don't think the GPL has any legal restrictions
* Evidence that companies actually believed these supposed ideologues
* Open source software that is as restricted as closed source software
* Closed source versions of Linux
* Evidence that all Eclipse users are open source developers
etc
Or do you need some more time? I can come back later if you like.
If you can't find any of that stuff, don't worry - you can just try
the old favorite "you're censoring me" tantrum or just fling around
enough abuse for long enough that everyone forgets about your original
claim. It never fails, then you'll be ready to respond the next time
one of Larry's posts makes you go all tingly with anticipation.
--
Cheers
Anton
peterwn
> 2010-07-27 Judges 13 18 <acco...@beaurat.at.gmail.fullstop.com>:
>
>
>
> > BTW, commercial software you have bought has exactly zero value on
> > the market. Why? Because you cannot sell it. Legally, that is.
>
>
> Buy a copy of, for example, adobe photoshop or what it's called these
> days. You can sell if you do not like it.
<commercial>
Even better, download a copy of GIMP for free. If you do not like it,
just uninstall it. The GPL allows you to execute the code to your
heart's content, even in a commercial environment. There are no GPL
conditions affecting such use.
GIMP is available for both Windows and Linux and can be made to run on
just about any processor for which a Linux 'tool chain' is available.
</commercial>
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> You can sell [proprietary software] legally, at least where i live.
If it requires “activation”, the vendor may charge a fee, or refuse to
reactivate it altogether.
impossible
"Gunnar Gren" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4c52c143$0$74748$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se...
> 2010-07-30 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>:
>> In message <4c517172$0$74749$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se>, Gunnar Gren
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You can sell [proprietary software] legally, at least where i live.
>>
>> If it requires ???activation???, the vendor may charge a fee, or refuse
>> to
>> reactivate it altogether.
>
> Perhaps, but if you have a legal copy you can do what ever you like
> to make it work.
No, you can't. You don't own the software -- just a license to use it. You
can do whatever the terms of the license allow you do with that software and
no more.