Killfile both of them (Was: Paulie, dear friend. ;-))

[Paul L. Allen]

Warning.  Andreas has pulled his usual trick of quoting out of context
to make it look like I said things having the opposite meaning to what I
actually said in order to score points.  This wouldn't matter, except that
he is also giving comepletely misleading and incorrect information about
the GPL in order to score further points. 

I would advise everyone to killfile both of us because I will not let
incorrect crap like that go uncorrected even though I am now certain that
Andreas is trolling (yet again).  Those who are interested (more likely
bored) can watch as I expose each and every one of his incorrect
statements about the GPL and each of his tricks to score points. 

Andreas Ericsson writes: 

> Ok. So how about this. I have a copy of a GPL'd program. Ask me for the 
> source. Assume I say no (which I would, but only for you, Paulie). Would 
> the FSF lawyers have a case?

The way you have stated the problem, no.  I have many copies of GPL
programs.  I am not required to supply to source of them because they
are unmodified copies.  I am not even required to supply the source to
anyone I have given copies to, provided I tell those people how they
can get the sources. 

If you were distributing a version of a GPL program which you had
modified, then you are required to give the source.  That is what the
GPL says.  That is what all the accompanying documentation says.  Since
it's never been tested in court yet, I cannot say if the FSF would win
the case or not.  But then you deliberately misstated the problem because
you're trolling. 

>> 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.
> 
> Or refuse altogether.

No, it does not say that, troll. 

> The only thing the GPL really says is that I can't remove any freedom for 
> any other user.

And one of the freedoms it explicitly mentions is the right to modify
the program you have been supplied.  In order to do that, you have to
have the source.  But it says all this and more on many different pages
of gnu.org.  Why is it you have so much difficulty comprehending what is
written in clear English?  Oh, I know, it's because you're trolling and
you've used ellision to try to fool people into thinking that this
thread wasn't a discussion about the requirement to supply source code
IF you distribute modified binaries outside your organization. 

> Otherwise everybody running Nagios would have to supply means to 
> distribute the source for it.

Nonsense.  As it clearly states, if you distribute GPL programs to
second parties you must either include the source or tell them how they
can get it.  If you supply a version of a GPL program which you have
modified THEN you are required to supply the modified source upon
request.  Ooops, I forgot.  You've been excising parts of the thread
where it says "if you distribute modified GPL binaries outside your
organization" and pretending it was all about modifying the code for
internal use.  Troll. 

> That sort of scenario would seriously impede the free software movement
> by the simple expedient of adding obligations to the freedom (thus
> making freedom less free).

There are already obligations.  The obligation not to remove any of
the freedoms when you redistribute (you must at least tell people how
to get the source).  That obligation still applies if you have distribute
a program that you have modified.  People must still have the freedom
to modify the program you have supplied, and that requires the source. 

That does not force any extra obligation upon you.  You can choose not
to modify a GPL program.  If you do modify it, you can choose not to
distribute it.  But if you do modify it and distribute it you are bound
by the GPL to supply source on request. 

Of course, that was a very weak straw man you set up there.  It serves
only to demonstrate that either you totally misunderstand the GPL or
that you are so desperate to try to score a point you will say things
that are almost certain to be refuted and make you look even more
foolish.  Try googling for the first rule of holes...  Oh, I forgot, you're
trolling again. 

>> 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.
> 
> Quit being such a child.

It's being childish to point out that the rest of the FAQ contradicts
your foolish claims?  It's being childish to point out that your
erroneous interpretation can only be reconciled with the FAQ questions
if one question is rewritten to omit the words "for free" at the end
of one question and by totally rewriting another question?  Is it being
childish to point out the games you play to score points when you were
obviously wrong in the first place? 

> No. Sources must be available to all those I distribute the program in any 
> form to. Noone else, actually,

You are either misinformed or a fool.  Ooops, that's exclusive-or, I
should have used inclusive-or since it is quite possible you are both.
Oh no, I forgot again - you're a troll.  Unfortunately, there may be a
few other people reading this who believe the incorrect crap you're
spouting about the GPL and they need to know just how wrong you are
for their own benefit. 

 From <URL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >: 

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

That much you appear to understand since you admit you have to supply
source to those you've supplied modified code.  But then you forget
that because the modified code is itself GPL, the people who received
modified code from you are permitted to give that to others and to
tell them how to get the source directly from the original distributor. 

 From the GPL at <URL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html >: 

   You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
   Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
   Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: 

   a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
   source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
   and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 

   b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
   to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
   physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
   copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the
   terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
   software interchange; or, 

   c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
   distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only
   for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in
   object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with
   Subsection b above.) 

See that?  The GPL itself says that if you distribute code that you
modified you MUST supply third parties with the source (for at least three
years after you stop distributing the modified code) upon request. 

Oops, that's a bit complicated for you to understand.  There are
several clauses and they involve conditional statments.  So from the
very same FAQ at <URL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html > that
you yourself quoted here: 

   "Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is
   entitled to take you up on it. 

   If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
   code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the
   source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the
   binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this
   written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries
   directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along
   with the written offer. 

   The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so
   that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order
   the source code from you. 

I know this is going to be a hard thing for you to grasp, but that
final paragraph is the key.  If you sell unmodified binaries you must
provide the source to any third party upon request.  The same applies
if you sell or give away modified binaries.  Third parties may receive
copies of those binarys and the GPL guarantees them the right to the
source so that they can play with or modify your modified code.  You
can bundle the source with the binaries or you can include information
telling people how to request the source from you and that offer has
to apply to third parties who receive copies of the binaries. 

> and I'm not allowed to charge extra for them receiving the sources

You're allowed to charge an outrageous copying and distribution fee
for the sources.  But you cannot prevent anyone prepared to pay that
fee from then giving copies away. 

> (we've had lawyers beating this inside out, and that's what they
> concluded

You need better lawyers.  Try getting them to fumigate their brains
with a Carbolic Smoke Ball (if you show tham the sentence and they
understand the joke then perhaps they're not as bad as they seem to
be). 

>>  The only choice you have in the matter is
>> whether you charge a fee for the source or not.
> 
> Bah. Silly, but I hereby announce that I will charge a fee of 100 000 000 
> US dollars for downloading software from any of the various mirrors I have 
> set up.

The GPL does not explicitly state that the copying fee be reasonable.  A
court however, might well decide that a copying fee of that size is an
attempt to evade the terms of the licence.  Drop the fee enough that a
court would consider it merely excessive rather than outrageous and
enough people could club together to raise the money for one copy,
which they then give away. 

> You left out two points here, and one addendum a bit further down;

I did, because the part I quoted already made it clear you were
completely and utterly wrong that it was unnecessary to quote any
further parts that also proved how wrong you were.  But you're a troll
who is feeding people total crap about the GPL, so let's see what you
have to say... 

> --[ snip ]---
>     * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor 
> (freedom 2).

Irrelevant to the point. 

>     * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to 
> the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to 
> the source code is a precondition for this.

It just proves, yet again, how wrong you are.  You have the freedom to
modify and release the modified binaries.  To be able to do so you must
have access to the source.  Whether you sell or give away your modified
binaries, the people who receive them have the SAME right to your source.
And that applies to any third parties who receive binaries for which
you control the source. 

> You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them 
> privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they 
> exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to 
> notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

You are not required to tell the world about your changes.  However,
you ARE required to tell those you distribute them to that the binaries
you supply are modified versions of existing GPL code and you ARE
required to tell them how they may obtain the source from you if
it was not bundled with the binaries. 

> Are you still insisting?

Oh yes indeed.  You have brightened up a dull Friday afternoon.  It
is so amusing trying to see you prove you are right by quoting things
which prove you are wrong.  It is also educational for those who, like
you, have a deeply flawed understanding of the GPL (they probably got
their misunderstanding by believing what you say). 

>>    A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.
> 
> Which is why it's illegal to supply the program in any form without making 
> sources available (since that would remove a freedom). It is still 
> perfectly legal to never share the sources for anything.

You are Resident George W Bush and I claim my free five oil wars.  Could
you translate that from the original gibberish into English?  Oh I see,
it's part of your attempt to make people think this whole discussion
wasn't about distributing modified GPL binaries outside your organization.
Troll. 

BTW, the GPL combines copyright and contract law, both of which are civil
torts, not criminal offences.  The terms "legal" and "illegal" do not
apply to whatever it was you were trying to say.  Oh, if your lawyers
are bright enough, they'll know that copyright can become a criminal
issue in some countries if the scale of copying is large enough AND
the financial losses are great enough - it is hard to conceive of breach
of GPL copyright ever clearing that hurdle. 

>> Got it now?  The FSF/GNU/RMS philosophy of free software insists that
>> source code be available
> 
> if any form of the program is available

Your favourite trick!  Quoting out of context to create a straw man.
After carefully deleting all the places I said "if you distribute
modified GPL code outside your organization" and leaving only the
following words where I said "THEN you must make the source available
upon request" you can then try to win your point.  However, anybody
with a good enough memory or capable of threading can see that I DID
make statements of the form "If you distribute modified GPL code outside
of your organization then you must make the source available" and have
carefully ellided them so it appears that all I said was "you must make
the source available."  Troll. 

[...] 

>> Do you still want to insist that people can refuse to make the source
>> code available?
> 
> To everyone who hasn't received the program in any form; Yes.

But this discussion was about people who HAVE received the modified
program and the obligation to supply source upon request to third
parties who received the modified binaries. 

>> Will I have to paste half the gnu website here before
>> you admit that you were totally, utterly WRONG on this point?
> 
> As long as I don't supply binaries I don't have to supply the source.
> I have plenty of modified GPL'd programs. Go at me with every lawyer you 
> find and try and wring them from me. I'll be happy to take you all on in 
> court, and you'd make a complete fool out of yourself.

Again you use selective cutting to make it look as though I wasn't
talking of the distribution of modified binaries outside your
organization. 

>>  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.

You tripped up there.  You left in a bit where it's clear I was talking
about the distribution of modified binaries outside your organization.
Bwahahahaha.

> ... to all those who have received the program in any form. Others will 
> have to ask nicely.

And how are you going to prove that I don't have a copy which was passed
to me through a chain of dozens of others? 

>>> 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.
> 
> An operating system is made up of utilities.

And a kerne, as you yourself mentioned.  Troll. 

>>  It never did come up with the planned kernel and Linux, using many GNU
>> utilities, made Hurd development obsolete.
> 
> Wrong. It took me and many others several years to port the GNU utils to 
> work with the linux kernel, and the hurd is still being developed.

Hurd may still be being developed, but the development effort is
obsolete.  It might happen, but the chances are it will never catch up
to what the Linux kernel can do at any given time.  It might catch up,
but will anybody want it when there are the *BSD variants as well? 

>> As is typical with you, having found what you mistakenly
>> believed to be a major error in my post,
> 
> It was a major error. You were implying that people who download GPL'd 
> software have to make it publicly available to anyone who asks (two posts 
> later you admitted that it doesn't have to be for free and that would have 
> made it a minor glitch).

Nonsense.  It was always clear this discussion was about people who
receive modified GPL binaries and their right to the source.  That
was made clear several times in each of my posts.  Troll. 

>> GNU/FSF/RMS/the neurones in RMS's skull WILL take action whenever they
>> are informed of infringement.  They HAVE to.
> 
> So why don't you inform them that I'm sitting on a bunch of modified GPL'd 
> programs which I have no intention of ever making publicly available, even 
> if I was offered money to cover my expenses for doing so?
> They'll laugh even harder than I am.

If ever you distribute the binaries outside your organization, which is
what this discussion was about, and I get to hear of it, I most certainly
will. :) 

I would have denounced your dishonest quoting out of context as being
no better than the tricks used by the morons in alt.flame.  However, your
misleading statements about the GPL in the middle of a thread where
people are seeking clarification as to what obligations they have if
they distribute modified versions of GPL code outside their organization
means you are far worse than the morons in alt.flame. 

-- 
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