Has anyone looked into the product by www.hype ric.com before?

[Paul L. Allen]

Andreas Ericsson writes: 

>> The GPL is quite clear that the source be available upon request.
> 
> No. It quite clearly states that noone can be forced to do anything they 
> don't want to with regards to the source. What part of the below FAQ entry 
> is it that you don't understand?

I understand it all.  And also the other FAQ entries which show the
meaning you ascribe to it is incorrect.  And also all the other pages
on the site which show that you are wrong. 

> --[ snip ]----
> * If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it 
> available to the public without a charge?
>     No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives 
> them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For 
> example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site 
> for the general public.
> --[ snip ]----

Note that it does not say you can refuse to supply the source.  It says
that you can refuse to supply the source FOR FREE.  Think upon the
difference between the two.  Note also that it says "if someone pays
your fee."  It does not say "if you CHOOSE to make the source available
for a fee and somebody pays it."  Not making the source available is NOT
an option, as the other FAQ questions make clear.  The source MUST be
available if you distribute the code, or a modified version of it,
outside your own organization.  The only choice you have in the matter is
whether you charge a fee for the source or not. 

To pre-empt you attempting to misinterpret other bits of the FAQ, I'll
quote part of <URL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >: 

   The Free Software Definition 

[...] 

   Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
   distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
   it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: 

   * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). 

   * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
   needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
   this. 

[...] 

    A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. 

[...] 

   In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved
   versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of
   the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary
   condition for free software. 

[...] 

   In the GNU project, we use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms
   legally for everyone. 

Got it now?  The FSF/GNU/RMS philosophy of free software insists that
source code be available and the way this is enforced is through the GPL,
aka copyleft.  One of the purposes of the GPL is to ensure that source
code IS available. 

No, that's probably not enough for you.  So from the copyleft page at
<URL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html >: 

   Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and
   requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free
   software as well. 

   The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public
   domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and
   their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows
   uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.
   They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a
   proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified
   form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the
   middleman has stripped it away. 

   In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to
   redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off
   the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have
   freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we
 ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the
   software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to
   further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has
   freedom. 

Do you still want to insist that people can refuse to make the source
code available?  Will I have to paste half the gnu website here before
you admit that you were totally, utterly WRONG on this point?  If you
take GPL code and modify it and redistribute the modified program outside
your own organization then that modified code is also covered by the GPL.
Source code MUST be available for ALL GPL code. 

>> The right
>> for the company to use even the unmodified code for any purpose is also
>> void and the company may be sued simply for using the code at all.  A
>> company might be stupid enough to try to withhold the source but would be
>> unlikely to continue along that path when faced with legal action by GNU.
> 
> GNU is an operating system (Linux is the kernel, which is a quite separate 
> thing).

Sigh.  GNU was meant to be a re-implementation of Unix. It started with
various utilities and ended up extending them and creating new ones.  It
never did come up with the planned kernel and Linux, using many GNU
utilities, made Hurd development obsolete.  But the foundation stone in
all this, and perhaps GNU's most important "product" is the GNU Public
Licence. OK, technically the organization behind the GPL is the FSF, but
I wanted to avoid confusing people like you by introducing unnecessary
detail. 

Those who didn't know the full details would be confused if I
said FSF would act over a breach of the GNU Public Licence, which can
be found at www.gnu.org (which is the official FSF web site, so it
says).  Those who did know the full details would realize I'd made a
harmless simplification to avoid making the post any longer.  Unless they
had an axe to grind, like you. 

> No. The Free Software Foundation would act. GNU only acts when the 
> programs that are part of it are run.

And the FSF would act because RMS wanted them to.  Shall we take it
one level deeper and attribute the action to neurones firing in RMS's
skull?  As is typical with you, having found what you mistakenly
believed to be a major error in my post, you could not resist also going
after any trivial simplifications I made to keep the length of the post
down.  Your compulsion for comprehensive victory has, as usual, led to
your comprehensive defeat.  I expect your next move will either be more
foolishness or to claim to have plonked me again. 

>> If any company had misbehaved in such a way, been taken to court and won
>> then we'd all know about it because the GPL would be dead.  If any 
>> company
>> had misbehaved in such a manner and GNU ignored the issue the GPL would
>> also be dead because a copyright holder who is informed of breach of
>> copyright but takes no action effectively relinquishes the copyright.
> 
> No. He/she still retains copyright and can take actions for as long as the 
> laws in the country where the violations took place states that he can.

Incorrect.  Note that I said "effectively relinquishes the copyright." In
most countries, legal precedent has established that if a copyright holder
does not take action against infringements they are informed of then they
are deemed to have let the copyright effectively lapse.  Use it or lose
it.  Stamp on infringers immediately or lose the right to do so. 

This is why large media organizations respond so quickly and so heavily to
even minor infringements. If some kid puts an image of Mickey Mouse [tm]
on a website and Disney get to hear of it then their lawyers immediately
send the kid a very threatening letter and follow up with a law suit if
the letter is ignored.  They have to do this every time they are notified
of infringement or risk losing the right to take action against other
infringers.  The same goes for trademarks and patents.  Vacuum cleaners
are usually referred to as Hoovers because Hoover didn't crack down quickly
enough against that usage and thereby lost the right ever to do so. 

GNU/FSF/RMS/the neurones in RMS's skull WILL take action whenever they
are informed of infringement.  They HAVE to.  Otherwise when they do
try to take action against another infringer, the new infringer will say
"I know of a previous infringement of which they were informed and took
no action, therefore it was reasonable of me to infer that they were no
longer interested in taking action against infringers and I was free to
do as I wished."  Case over, decided for the defendent. 

> Maybe you should stop being stubborn when it's obvious that you're wrong?

Excellent advice, applied to the wrong person. 

-- 
Paul Allen
Softflare Support 



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users
::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. 
::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null