>aggressive stance SFC takes with busybox GPL violations
I would hardly call enforcing their license an "aggressive stance". When a company enforces their right against those that violate the terms of their proprietary license it's considered "normal" but if a Free Software developer does the same thing it's considered being "aggressive"?
Sony never originally intended to comply with the requirements of the GPL. They did violate the terms of the GPL. That isn't speculation. The reason they ever complied is because they were forced to.
For those saying that there isn't a problem as long as the original authors are not willing to go to court over the violation. Think about what you are saying for a minute. You are basically saying "it's OK to pirate someones work as long as they don't enforce their license on me personally". Yes it's "piracy" as the same companies have defined it -copyright infringement-.
I realize I'm not your target user-base, (I browse with no-script and don't own any social media accounts) but you should know that without javascript to load your fonts the default "cursive" font for most people is going to be (what appears to be) comic sans....
Where I live you can walk into a shop, buy a smart phone, then pop in a sim card and be off. Can you not do this in the US?
You don't pay any monthly service and I don't see how the carrier you have chosen to buy a sim card from has any basis for claiming that the phone I'm using is somehow not owned by me.
Since I purchased my first mobile phone around ~11 years ago this is how I have always done it.
I think that is opening up a can of worms I would rather not see opened. Technically caching could be seen as copyright infringement.
Quite a few ISP's run transparent proxies for caching and technically every time you visit a website you are creating a copy of it on your local drive. If I disable javascript or run other scripts (like via grease-monkey) I am also technically creating "derived work".
You are correct about the AGPL, just be careful with wording it like "everything that it touches".
Yeah, sorry. I think that was a poor choice of words on my part.
For instance, if you have a website that uses AGPL code to produce an HTML page and non-AGPL code to provide a PDF from that HTML page, the two packages would indeed touch, but there would be no obligation to release the non-AGPL code, just the AGPL code.
Interesting, in your example, if your application calls the AGPL code that is used to generate the HTML wouldn't your application also have to be released under the AGPL? Or do you only have to make available the AGPL "HTML generation library" and the changes you have made to it (if any)?
I thought that it had already been established that if you use a library under the GPL any code that uses/calls that library must be released under the GPL. The only reason companies can use GPL code server side is because it is not run on the user's machine (technically not "releasing it"), which was the basis for the creation of the AGPL, to "fix" this "loophole".
edit:
Thanks skore, yeah I think your example still stands. Specifically, in the wikipedia article you linked this part:
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs.
To continue the original example, if your program just runs the HTML generation program and supplies user data via a command line argument then it need not be released under a compatible license. But on the other hand if you were to "copy and paste" the functions from that program into yours, it would need to be licensed under a compatible license.
Does this mean that as soon as I run something on a network (or just the internet?) I am required to push my changes back upstream immediately?
Warning: If any of the following is incorrect, I would really appreciate someone correcting me. I use the AGPL, and if I'm incorrect, I would like to know.
You never have to push your changes back upstream. I'm not aware of any license that requires you to submit your changes back to the original author. You just have to make it accessible to your users.
Just like the GPL, you can run AGPL code on a private network and not have to publicly release the source code. It's when the network is public that you have to make the source code available.
If I visit your website, enter in some data, a script/lib licensed under the AGPL does something with it and returns a result. You must release the source code of "everything that it touches".
If you have a business and on the company Intranet you have the same script, while the employees (users) are entitled to have a copy of the source code, you are not required to publicly release the source code. Of course, other laws prevent those employees from also releasing the source code to the public and AFAIK they "trump" copyright laws eg.NDA.
Since a lot of OSS code is contributed by companies, they don't really have any incentive to contribute to an AGPL project (in most cases).
I don't know, companies contribute to GPL licensed code even when they don't explicitly have to. Just off the top of my head, tarsnap comes to mind, he contributes back to libarchive even though he is not required to do so.
That doesn't mean I don't see your point though. You could just as easily suggest that if libarchive was licensed under the AGPL that tarsnap wouldn't have used it in the first place due to the fact he would have to release the source of the entire stack.
So I think you argument should really be "Why should companies even use software under the AGPL" not "Why should they contribute back". I don't really have an answer for that, but the same argument was made about the GPL and companies still use GPL licensed software. I'm sure if you asked rms that question he would say something about not caring about companies that want to restrict his freedom....
On one hand, it conjures up pictures of a real slimeball, the typical "snake oil salesman".
On the other, I get the impression he is a really charismatic individual. It certainly takes some skill to stand up in front of a bunch of people, take away something from them and convince them that they are better off.
Once upon a time I used to love zenhabits. I used to look at what Leo had accomplished (losing weight, living minimally, doing what you love (blogging) and building a business around it etc.) and thought he was worth listening too.
Over time I started noticing that you could pretty much pick anything published on his blog and find an earlier post contradicting it. Try it for yourself, find a post you like on the blog and then google "[subject] site:zenhabits.net" and smile as you see the contradictions that appear.
Life isn't straight forward and if it was as easy as following simple step by step instructions the "self-help" industry would be redundant. Life is difficult, do whatever it is that works for you and if anyone says they have found the "secret to success" take it with a grain of salt.
I can't agree that e-ink is a dead end. Perhaps you have never had the opportunity to spend some serious time to compare reading on an LCD screen to a e-ink display.
Tablets are great, but as long as they still have LCD (backlit etc.) screens they can't even be considered an alternative for anyone who actually does any serious reading. You can also pick up an ebook reader where I'm from for about 1/5th the price of even the most basic tablet.
If anything I think ebook readers are going to become even more popular. As e-ink or similar technology is refined and becomes even cheaper to produce I can easily imagine them becoming almost like disposable "throw-away" devices.
Also, in my opinion, your initial logic is incorrect. You talk as if "full-featured web-browsers like on the PC" is the "end-goal" for future reading devices. Well, we have always had that -on PC's- and they were the problem, not the solution. The e-ink display is the "solution" to the eye strain (among other things) that come with reading on a backlit display. So to suggest that is the goal seems to be as if we are going backwards.
It's a fair argument that overall percentage is low, but if you are catering towards a more technical audience (submitting to HN would count as that in my books) then I imagine the % of those using some form of Javascript blocking software is much higher.
Plus as mentioned, it isn't like it takes much effort, a noscript tag and a paragraph saying that it is a pure JS web app/what it does is enough.
You really should have a fallback page for browsers with no Javascript. NoScript has become increasing popular and the "Javscript Free" page of a site is the first page those users will see (even if they go on to temporarily allow javascript for your app).
In your case, it is just a blank white page. Since you are asking for suggestions, I would suggest you just make it display a message. One for suggesting users with older browsers to download chrome or firefox and another message directed at those with Javascript intentionally disabled which gives a very brief outline of what your app does and why they should enable JS to play with it.
e: I clicked through to the other mashups you have created which you linked in your other comment. They all do the same thing, just bring me to a blank page.
ee: To those down-voting, what do you disagree with? Do you not think pure JS web apps should have HTML fallback pages or do you disagree with the way I said it?
I would hardly call enforcing their license an "aggressive stance". When a company enforces their right against those that violate the terms of their proprietary license it's considered "normal" but if a Free Software developer does the same thing it's considered being "aggressive"?
Sony never originally intended to comply with the requirements of the GPL. They did violate the terms of the GPL. That isn't speculation. The reason they ever complied is because they were forced to.
For those saying that there isn't a problem as long as the original authors are not willing to go to court over the violation. Think about what you are saying for a minute. You are basically saying "it's OK to pirate someones work as long as they don't enforce their license on me personally". Yes it's "piracy" as the same companies have defined it -copyright infringement-.