Slashdot Mirror

For years Eben Moglen has been pointing out "Stallman was right" in his talks. Moglen regularly cites how Stallman got there years before the corporate-minded press (and thus repeater sites like /. don't promote that point of view). It's very much the problem we see with the open source advocacy for nonfree software (or, put differently, the open source enthusiasts' unwillingness to stand by their pitched development methodology). I understand it rankles to read someone pointing out that free software and open source aren't the same, but when it comes to endorsing proprietary software they certainly are not and this endorsement ought not be pushed aside. Red Hat has a cozy relationship with Microsoft which includes bundling .NET software despite patent claims that render such software nonfree particularly if one wants to do something with the software they can do with free software—adding covered code to another project.

You still see people here (even on this topic) posting something that demonstrates an unfounded belief they have more control over their nonfree OS-running computer than they have. "At least on PCs I could figure out what was crap, and delete it.", for example. Taking "PC" not to mean "personal computer" but computer running Microsoft Windows, there are plenty of examples of programs that either don't include working uninstallers or installers that purposefully leave something behind which can't be easily uninstalled (Sony's rootkit which also interfered with CD ripping, for example).

/.'s user-driven censorship scheme effectively increases the odds that freedom-talk goes unseen. If you want to see your post never get moderated up (and thus be less likely to show up for most /. readers using default settings), try pointing to any of the GNU Project's malware pages. These pages are highly informative lists which are helpfully divided into useful subcategories. They all explain how nonfree or proprietary software most computer users run deserve the alternative name "user-subjugating" and point to stories written by others, naming names and leaving no doubt as to their authenticity. /. wants clicks and like any click/like-oriented publication, adherence to established corporate norms is the heart of the effort. Stories like this come along once in a while but clearly the mainstay of tech press is convincing people to argue over minor technicalities while they narrow the allowable debate to which proprietary programs shall run on one's system.

Apple makes so much money yet has such an ugly history of mistreating the people with whom they do business in a variety of ways large and small: Mistreatment of workers who build their products (continuing in 2015 only changing due to activist and journalists compelling them to), copyright infringement, ebooks that won't work on jailbroken iThings, turning a blind eye to environmental degradation, making it needlessly hard for owners to take apart their products, teaching store staff twisted psychological manipulation, avoiding US corporate tax (which is already quite low), and more. Now we can add conspiring to fix prices. Hardly surprising given how unethical, illegal, and pernicious Apple has been.

We need accountability and prevention. Accountability should come in the form of corporate death penalties (as in the corporation's assets are seized to pay debts and the corporation no longer exists), and prevention in the form of publishing complete corresponding source code to all cars sold in the US as a part of the car. When you buy a car, you should own the car including all software installed on that car. Other countries would be wise to follow suit to protect their citizens and the environment from apparently malevolent multi-year fraudsters who wish to dodge ecological regulations.

The Free Software Foundation was right: all published software must be free. But since this situation highlights how fraud and abuse can be hidden in nonfree software, we can defend ourselves from this with strongly copylefted free software (right now that means AGPL v3 or later). I don't want anyone taking any car in for any work and coming out with nonfree software thus reintroducing this problem. You cannot have safe computer software without software freedom. And a strong copylefted free software license plus multiple freedom-minded contributors who are willing to pursue lawsuits will help defend against proprietary derivatives (as such legal work has done for the Linux kernel). As I said in the recent VW thread on this: I don't care about upstream copyright excuses should VW claim to have built their software on nonfree upstream code. Our individual and collective safety is far too important. This, like virtually everything else we do, is a matter of political will to do the right and just thing.

When people come around to seeing how an increasing dependence on computers (namely, putting computers in everything) means risking our lives, our civil liberties, our health, our freedom to move without being tracked, and more, we can easily justify pushing for more strongly copylefted free software.

I read the "single line of code" editorial as a distraction away from what matters: accountability and prevention.

Accountability can come in the form of lawsuits from affected car owners and those who can show the subsequent environmental harm caused a problem for them. Letting VW negotiate its own fate is ridiculous and, if the government's action with GM is any guide, unlikely to result in more than a slap of the wrist.

Prevention must also be dealt with, and strongly copylefted free software licenses will help here. Whether this was the result of a mistake (VW's years-long negligence) or planning (VW's years-long fraudulence) is a detail as far as prevention goes because either way VW should be freeing the complete source code to the cars and providing complete specifications for any code it cannot provide so as to allow the easiest possible reverse engineering. Any cost of purchasing code for freeing should be borne by VW.

VW is not in a position to dicker here. I don't buy the excuse of uncooperative upstream providers VW depends on for their code and the public shouldn't either. The stakes (our health) are too high to settle for less than complete corresponding source code under a strong copylefted license so that any published improvements are also free. Keep in mind, this is code car owners should have had from day 1 under a free license so they can fully own their own cars, taking code to experts they trust just like many take their car mechanisms to garages they trust to get fixed. Trusting the market got us where we are now, the market apparently will not grant us the freedom to let us help ourselves and our air-breathing neighbors by fixing the defective VW cars already out there since 2009 (over 480,000 of them). Not buying VW reaches the same conclusion. Not recognizing software freedom for its own sake and the preservation of that protection in copyleft will increasingly become a matter of life and death as we entrust more of our daily functions to software.

EndSoftPatents.org makes multiple relevant points very clear in their warning against relying on Microsoft's "promise" for .NET core listing the limits and foreseeable risks in Microsoft's offer. It seems to me there's enough there to make anyone wary of relying on .NET and instead heed what the Free Software Foundation said in 2009 warning against developing in C#.

You asked:

Burz, I wonder if you'd say the same about all OSS software that's licensed under MIT or BSD but which lacks a patent promise? Because such software would be in an even weaker state from your perspective than Microsoft's OSS .NET.

I don't speak for Burz and I don't argue for anything "OSS", in fact this issue is one reason why looking at this from the perspective of the open source movement is so dangerous. But it seems to me that the FSF has explained this well as they point out in their aforementioned article, Microsoft is "the only major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and stated its intention to attack our community with patents" which makes Microsoft more of a threat. Also, there's more than one BSD license and it's better to be clear about what you're referring to.

EndSoftPatents.org and the FSF both manage to make their points referring to specifics, linking to their sources, and without using the word "Chinese" to denote confusion or incomprehensibility. So it seems to me that EndSoftPatents.org's conclusion, "This patent licence looks fine for users of the code published by Microsoft, but its protections disappear very quickly for those who wish to modify or re-use the code." is entirely sensible and hardly worthy of your offensive dismissal.

I am so disappointed in the open source community. It's like they don't care about the very foundation this community was built on.

The open source movement was started to never raise a user's software freedom as an issue. Read the FSF's essays (older essay, newer essay) on how open source differs from free software and you'll get a very clear explanation of how open source's goal to speak to business means accepting proprietary software and whatever other anti-user stuff businesses want to implement with proprietary software (DRM, spyware, back doors, patent traps, etc.). Mozilla's partnering with Adobe, the Linux kernel accepting and distributing proprietary software as part of the project (code which GNU Linux-libre removes), and Mono developers celebrating Microsoft's releasing .NET software under the MIT X11 license without acknowledging the danger of Microsoft's patent promise are just a few examples of how the philosophical differences between the older ethically-minded free software movement and the younger developmental methodology-focused open source movement play out on the ground.

"I was talking to a senior government official of this government about that outcome and he said well you know we've come to realize that we need a robust social graph of the United States. That's how we're going to connect new information to old information. I said let's just talk about the constitutional implications of this for a moment. You're talking about taking us from the society we have always known, which we quaintly refer to as a free society, to a society in which the United States government keeps a list of everybody every American knows." —Eben Moglen, "Innovation Under Austerity"

Eben Moglen gave a talk where he warned us about a conversation he had with an American government official who wanted a "robust social graph" of Americans. And again at Moglen's re:publica talk as Nicole Brydson reminds us. Of course, I'd prefer to point to a copy of this talk in a format friendly to free software, but I don't know of one.

Moglen reminds us in his talks about how right Richard Stallman (RMS) is, and how we need to do the work of sharing what RMS teaches to others. RMS was right (as per usual) we need software freedom more than ever. Social action based on an ethical grounding (not mere technical convenience or speedy development) is exactly what this situation calls for. I hope everyone will take the time to read or listen to Moglen's insightful talks and take them seriously. They're deeply engrossing and filled with interesting history, so much so that they reward repeated listening and social action.

It was one thing when it came to buying digital music. You could spend $1 to get the song that you wanted, rather than paying $25 to get a CD with the song that you wanted. That's a big enough price difference to make it worthwhile. But with e-books, it's just stupid to spend $15 on a e-book, while the actual book is only $17.

But you're merely haggling over price, as the old joke goes. I don't think digital handcuffs become acceptable at any price because I don't want to be taken advantage of. The physical book confers rights of ownership DRM is designed to take away regardless of how little one pays for the DRM-riddled alternative. As George Hoteling saw first hand years ago, one might not have right of first sale anymore. Even ostensible advantages one might imagine come nearly free in digital format aren't necessarily there like they should be as Wil Wheaton saw when he updated his iPod software with Apple software and lost all of his tracks only to learn Apple would restore them in what Wheaton called a "one-time only do-over to replace all of your purchased music, free of charge". Magnatune.com, on the other hand, lets you restore purchased tracks as many time as you want, share tracks with others, and Magnatune always sold its wares DRM-free. Inexpensive digital media doesn't become more attractive with restrictions management.

Wil Wheaton nailed it when he said "make it simple, make it cheap, and folks WILL buy it. Make it expensive and a pain to use? people will just BT". he gave a perfect example, he bought the Doctor Who episodes on iTunes and then when he crossed the Canadian border his videos wouldn't play so his first thought was 'If I would have just pirated it i'd be watching my shows now".

I'm glad to see that he's coming around to seeing this from a more wisened user's perspective, but apparently he still has much to learn about doing business with Apple and becoming more articulate about defining his interests. In 2006 Wheaton lost all of his iTunes tracks while "upgrading" to some version of iTunes. Wheaton contacted Apple and then Apple restored the lost tracks to his account. Wheaton treated this as a reason to do business with Apple ("If you make a purchase from the iTunes Music Store, and something horrible happens and you lose all your music, Apple will give you a one-time only do-over to replace all of your purchased music, free of charge.") instead of looking at this as a problem to be solved. Removing all DRM and letting users make copies of the media puts users in a position where users can rescue themselves from unfortunate losses. Users ought to be able to re-download purchased media as many times as they wish, and share tracks as well. Magnatune.com, by contrast, does all of this: they never got into the DRM game so Magnatune has no (apparently halfway) Apple-style backtracking to go through on DRM. Magnatune contributes to FLOSS player programs; programs that give technically-minded users the opportunity to inspect programs before you run them so users don't walk into the trap Wheaton experienced in 2006 with iTunes. Magnatune lets users re-download purchased tracks as much as the customer wishes upon supplying an email address at purchase time (for logging in). Magnatune also lets you share membership downloads with some friends. Purchasing media from Magnatune means you can play the media as much as you want without anyone tracking what you play, where you play it, or restricting what you use to play the media they sell.

Last I heart the EU forced Microsoft to release documentation to the Samba team so I don't think they can just sue Samba now anyway. http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2007/12/22/samba-team-gains-tech-docs-from-eu-microsoft-antitrust-suit/

The FSF almost invariably tries to contact companies and take a non-litigious approach first.

Quite right, the FSF has a history of contacting people first and silently arranging compliance.

Their goal is to promote OSS and they can do that a lot better by contacting companies and convincing them to comply and contribute, rather than costing those companies cash out of pocket and making them scared of OSS in future.

Actually the Free Software Foundation's goals have nothing to do with "OSS" (open source software) and should not be confused with that movement's goals. The FSF predates the open source movement, the Open Source Initiative, and the FSF is appropriately critical of the open source movement's goals. People from the FSF (most notably Richard Stallman) are the principal authors of the GPLs, and Stallman makes a sharp distinction between the free software movement (which he founded) and the open source movement. You can find clear descriptions of that difference and practical consequences of that difference in almost any of his talks online or the essay I linked to.

Unless that corporation is Wal-Mart and you need assistance with your DRM-riddled audio tracks. Or that corporation is Major League Baseball and you want continuous reliable service for your DRM-riddled videos (for which you pay a subscription fee). Or Apple and you dared to "upgrade" your iPod one too many times (in Apple's view) and Apple won't cooperate by restoring the tracks you paid for (and their software deleted). Or...

If you want reliability you want DRM-free media you can play/transcode as you need, and you need insulation from any single source of support. That insulation comes from the freedoms of free software. CentOS might be forked into something compatible one can transition into later because people with the technical skill and time to deliver a new compatible GNU/Linux distribution.

Try Magnatune. They:

• treat their artists far better than any of the major labels
• let artists license, not sign over, music for distribution so artists keep their copyrights
• let you listen to their entire catalog without charge
• work with music player programs (Rhythmbox, Amarok, Songbird, and proprietary software including iTunes)
• offer purchasing by the track, subscription (for streaming or download), and all-you-can-hear prices
• offer downloading in multiple formats including FLAC
• offer redownloading without hassle (compare this to what Apple told Wil Wheaton after Apple's software erased purchased tracks from his iPod)
• offer all tracks without DRM

People say that they want to focus on the open source development ideology first then the freedom later, but they never specify when the freedom part should come in and they never get around to teaching the freedom part. As more incidents happen where freedom is a great answer to the underlying problem (anything concerning digital restrictions management, for instance) I'm convinced that ordering one's approach in that way is a huge mistake for the pursuit of software freedom. So I am not convinced that a freedom-later approach is anything but a way to push freedom aside entirely. Richard Stallman addressed this point at FISL7 when an unnamed questioner and Michael Tiemann asked Stallman about this point:

Unnamed Questioner: Last year, Eric Raymond came to FISL and said that [the] Free Software Foundation didn't like [the] Open Source Initiative though they-

Richard Stallman: That's true.

Unnamed Questioner: [laughs] -though they wanted to be friendly and work together.

RMS: Well, their idea of working together is that together we should advocate just what we have in common, and what we have in common happens to be their position. The reason is the philosophy of free software, of the free software movement which I founded in 1983, focuses on freedom and community; on human rights for software users. Open source was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things, to hush them up, bury them, put them out of people's sight. So they talk about practical advantages that come if you use free software. Well, I also talk about practical advantages in my speeches. So here's what I say, and here's the part they say. Except that they've gone in more depth on it, and that is useful. You know, making the case to businesses that they'll get some practical advantage out of releasing, under usually a free software license. That's useful. But the point is, it's still a more superficial part of the issue. So what they're really saying is they want to cooperate and they wish we would cooperate by forgetting about what we consider the most important thing and joining them in saying only the superficial part. This is the way Eric Raymond puts it; he's very clever at asking us to abandon the most important thing and making it sound like he's only being reasonable.

Later, Michael Tiemann says the following in response to RMS' statement on Raymond:

Michael Tiemann: Hi Richard, I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked earlier about Eric Raymond. I wanted to point out a fact: which is that while Eric Raymond was formerly the president of the OSI he no longer is. Eric does speak for himself but less and less for the OSI. I would also like to clarify that as president of the OSI I have always supported the GPL as a model license for developers. It's the license-it's the only license I have chosen to work under other than the LGPL for my own programming. And I recognize your position, which is to say that if I am not talking about freedom first and foremost I am burying freedom but I think myself differently-

RMS: Well, you might be doing something in between. There are things in between. When Eric Raymond was the president of the OSI I could perceive this intention to bury talk of freedom very clearly, and there are others who talk about open source and clearly are trying to bury talk of freedom. That doesn't apply to everyone who uses the term ["open source"]. What is true of their use of the term is that it generally doesn't call attention to freedom very much.

Tiemann: But in this conference I do want to support that what you are doing is incredibly valuable and I respect it tremendously.

RMS: Well thank you.

Also, when it comes to being practical, it's notable that the most widely used free software licenses is the GNU GPL. People also seem to use other GNU licenses a lot also. So I am not con

I don't recall Major League Baseball refunding accounts for their subscribers when MLB left their subscribers out in the cold. Maybe they restarted their on-demand recorded baseball viewing service with another DRM provider, but I'm referring to the people who did not continue doing business with MLB. Did they get a prorated refund for the service they were not able to use? I'm guessing that DRM-riddled services nowadays include language in the contract that says when the service dies the customer agrees to forfeit the remainder of their subscription fee, so it will be up to consumers to organize and make state/federal law that forces providers to give prorated refunds.

I saw this kind of thing coming when I thought about the implications of copy prevention ("copy protection" is pro-publisher propaganda) back in the 1980s, as I'm sure many posters here did. Without the freedoms of free software (one can only really implement digital restrictions management in user-subjugating/proprietary software) the implications of DRM are even more important (librarians take note!). Today I still think about the implications of DRM (1,2). As a result I only do business with media distributors that don't screw me or the people they work with (Magnatune, for example, has far better policies than any of the other more well-advertised media distributors). I mention this because /. posters all too often believe that one "votes" with their money and should spend accordingly. I don't agree that money should constitute votes, but I do think our spending reflects our values. Yet I don't see many posters on this discussion forum actually talking about spending their money wisely.

I don't recall Major League Baseball refunding accounts for their subscribers when MLB left their subscribers out in the cold. Maybe they restarted their on-demand recorded baseball viewing service with another DRM provider, but I'm referring to the people who did not continue doing business with MLB. Did they get a prorated refund for the service they were not able to use? I'm guessing that DRM-riddled services nowadays include language in the contract that says when the service dies the customer agrees to forfeit the remainder of their subscription fee, so it will be up to consumers to organize and make state/federal law that forces providers to give prorated refunds.

I saw this kind of thing coming when I thought about the implications of copy prevention ("copy protection" is pro-publisher propaganda) back in the 1980s, as I'm sure many posters here did. Without the freedoms of free software (one can only really implement digital restrictions management in user-subjugating/proprietary software) the implications of DRM are even more important (librarians take note!). Today I still think about the implications of DRM (1,2). As a result I only do business with media distributors that don't screw me or the people they work with (Magnatune, for example, has far better policies than any of the other more well-advertised media distributors). I mention this because /. posters all too often believe that one "votes" with their money and should spend accordingly. I don't agree that money should constitute votes, but I do think our spending reflects our values. Yet I don't see many posters on this discussion forum actually talking about spending their money wisely.

How would I know if the company you work for is not your own company? Incorporation is easy to do and consultancies exist. Just more reason for us not to assume we understand the entire situation for every individual even if we understand the situation for most people.

I oppose the RIAA's efforts because I don't think they approach copyright infringement wisely or in a manner that is socially defensible. I will not assist the RIAA in propagating the language of "piracy" nor conflating copyright infringement with theft.

I concur. And it's even worse than you describe. As I understand it, not all iTunes is DRM-free. Some tracks that Apple distributes still have DRM and there are plenty of other reasons to reject doing business with Apple including:

• the presence of DRM in their other products,
• funding the large corporate labels means helping the RIAA further attack the public, not getting as many restores of lost songs as you need
• not get in the way of your first-sale rights
• and not getting your music under a license that allows sharing even when you pay for the tracks

I'd rather reward distributors that treat me well, like Magnatune.com which never had DRM (and therefore had no two-faced explanation about how they'd like to get away from DRM). Magnatune lets me play and share all tracks from their catalog (they're all under the CC By-NC-SA 1.0 license and I don't have to buy anything to get copies of tracks under this license). Magnatune doesn't treat their artists differently by letting them buy better promotion on Magnatune's website. Magnatune earns my lifetime subscription fee. Apple earns the outrage of my non-technical friends who bought various Apple products and later discovered the lock-in, proprietary, and expensive loss of their rights.

...a baby killing, tax and spend, socialized medicine advocating, way out on the left wing commie liberal democrat

Don't worry, abortion is a nice wedge issue they can use to distract you from discussing the money issues that affect far more people far more profoundly (including distracting away from corporate crime). It's a good thing that the Republicans are so intent on keeping government small. Imagine how much egg they'd have on their face if they were responsible for creating the Department of Homeland Defense with almost $45B/year budget.

But two issues that really affect Americans in their everyday lives are war and health care. And when it comes to health care the Democrats are just as in favor of the corporatized health care delivery system the US has as the Republicans are. The Democrats of today are running as fast as they can from the universal health care Truman proposed 60 years ago, Americans just can't be allowed to have what Ralph Nader calls "a program with quality and cost controls and an emphasis on prevention". HMOs give to candidates in both parties and that's the way those candidates like it despite that a majority of Americans in CBS and CNN polls say they'd prefer universal health care even if it means higher taxes to pay for it (an oddly supportive notion given that the US spends "twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita."). Kucinich/Conyers' health care plan (HR676) hasn't garnered a lot of cosponsors. I guess it will take a few more million Americans doing without health insurance (and thus making health care significantly more costly as well as making chronic care virtually unavailable until disaster strikes) to change that; over 45 million so far and this figure is going up.

When it comes to the continued occupation of Iraq the Democrats won't stop funding it out of a shared desire to "control [...] our major economic competitors in the world -- Europe and northeast Asia (China and Japan).". Sabre-rattling with Iran is also fodder for both major political parties. War crimes a plenty, according to AWARE (an Illinois-based anti-war group). All this for trillions Americans could have spent on domestic issues, chiefly those of the poor.

Really, the Democrats and Republicans aren't very far apart on these two major issues of the day (both money issues).

Merely building on the parent, not objecting: Time will tell but it's times like these that tell us where people's loyalties are. Why are people are so interested in what Microsoft has to say about their vaporware? Lots of people did the same thing when Microsoft announced IE8's allegedly passing Acid2. It's particularly telling to read open source proponents go on about what a meritocracy open source represents in other contexts and yet see so many discussing this vaporware as if it's real. No code, no proof, no credit, no exceptions? Apparently Microsoft gets another pass.

Meanwhile, free software web browsers like Firefox are out there doing the work in a provable way by distributing regular publicly-visible updates (nightly builds in Firefox's case) all the while allowing users to run, share, and modify the work. There's no question what these browsers are capable of and where there's room for improvement, no need to speculate about what might be. And no hindrance finding out what free software browsers are really doing with our data when we run them.

Although it didn't come up in this story with Stephen Colbert, I believe I can address why the Democrats and Republicans are part of the problem when it comes to American electoral politics: Ralph Nader is currently suing the Democrats for the stunts they pulled to keep him off the ballot when he ran in 2004 as an independent. It's worth your while to learn why Nader is suing and ask yourself if you are better served by having a few corporate candidates to choose from or more candidates spanning the political spectrum of ideas on the ballot. Voters aren't sufficiently outraged to support non-Democrat/non-Republican candidates, choosing to not vote at all most times. But their anger at the process is rising while the two major parties put up what Lawrence O'Donnell calls "virtually indistinguishable candidates" (and, let me assure you, after canvassing for signatures to get someone on the ballot in a local Congressional race, I know there's plenty of anger out there on this issue).

If you want to have a more informed view of the power which the Democrats and Republicans hold and how they use that power to keep candidates off the ballot, I suggest looking into

• the materials Nader's lawyer Carl Mayer referenced in his interview on yesterday's Democracy Now! (video and audio in a variety of formats),
• the Open Debates website, particularly their criticisms of the current American presidential televised presentations by which most American voters learn about the allowable range of debate in the US—the televised "debates" are a sham run by a partisan and corporate-sponsored group called the "Commission on Presidential Debates" which is headed by former Democrat and Republican higher-ups
• both discs of the 2-disc DVD "An Unreasonable Man" (a related entry from my blog), the recent documentary about Nader. In the candidacy portion of the movie (which isn't most of what's on these discs), the question before you isn't whether you agree with his politics, it's why he and so many other candidates have a hard time running. The second disc has a series of short videos on apropos topics including "What happened to the Democratic Party?" and "Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S.".

The real rub in Colbert's rejection is that he was polling higher than some Democrats (according to one brief clip Colbert played on his show last night). Perhaps the Democratic Party wanted to be the group that shut those Democratic Party candidates out, not let some citizen show them up and point out how managed American elections really are.

"Open Source" is about securing people's freedom...

No, "open source" is not about software freedom and it never was. The open source development methodology has to do with writing more reliable software, more quickly, and at lower cost. To understand why this misses the point the free software movement raises, consider this excerpt from "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software":

"The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that?

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom. So I have to do without it. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it."

I'm glad open source proponents use the GNU GPL and help secure software freedom for the users of those programs, I'm also glad open source proponents work together with free software activists on a variety of issues. I'm even glad that people go into depth on how to make money and license software under free software licenses (most notably: the GPL and LGPL). But these business-oriented discussions are not the most critical issues—human rights for software users and building community are more substantial issues. The open source movement was defined in part to get away from the "freedom talk" free software activists engage in, thus it's no surprise that when some people talk about "open source" they're not calling attention to freedom very much. Some open source proponents, such as Eric Raymond, want to talk about what the two groups have in common which means often talking about only the open source movement's values. The organization founded to champion open source's values, the Open Source Initiative, has considerable work to do to reframe the debate such that software freedom is an important part of that movement, assuming they want to make that a goal in the first place.

Quite right, and an excellent opportunity for those who care about independent music and musicians to show their support by playing the stuff you won't hear on corporate radio. This is why I remain optimistic about Internet radio; it will change for those who can't afford/won't pay the rates for RIAA tracks. These ridiculously high rates could end up serving the interests of unsigned musicians in a way that the RIAA only talks about. This also means good things for those who want to play more non-music programming as the new rate schedule will open up time in their schedule. When the new fee schedule kicks in, smaller broadcasters will have a tough programming decisions to make.

Today Gosling says the "immense amount of testing and design work" is not thought to be "anywhere near as good as having thousands of talented eyeballs just stare at it and think about it", but he didn't always say this and Sun didn't always license Java software in line with this sentiment. Gosling's claim might be true, but I think the freedom Sun's relicensing gives users is far more significant. Also important for the free software community is the lesson of free software pressure.

Not long ago, Gosling poo-pooed the idea of turning Java into an "open source project": "If Java turned into an open source project, the enterprise development community would go screaming into the hills.". In the same article, author Glen Kunene described Gosling as being "ambivalent about Apache's Harmony".

Similarly, Richard Stallman once described Java as being a trap because one could write free software programs in Java that depended on features only non-free Java software provided. He also wrote about what a non-event it was that Sun allowed more people to distribute its then non-free Java software.

Taking all of these quotes and descriptions at face value, assuming nobody was lying, what explains the change in view? I believe that the competitive pressure created by free software Java implementations pushed Sun to stay relevant. As the free software Java implementations became more functional and more likely to replace Sun's Java software, Sun saw they could free their implementation and continue to compete. In so doing, Sun also became a top contributor to the free software community and got free software luminaries (Stallman and Eben Moglen) to speak in support of their relicensing.

Today Gosling says the "immense amount of testing and design work" is not thought to be "anywhere near as good as having thousands of talented eyeballs just stare at it and think about it", but he didn't always say this and Sun didn't always license Java software in line with this sentiment. Gosling's claim might be true, but I think the freedom Sun's relicensing gives users is far more significant. Also important for the free software community is the lesson of free software pressure.

Not long ago, Gosling poo-pooed the idea of turning Java into an "open source project": "If Java turned into an open source project, the enterprise development community would go screaming into the hills.". In the same article, author Glen Kunene described Gosling as being "ambivalent about Apache's Harmony".

Similarly, Richard Stallman once described Java as being a trap because one could write free software programs in Java that depended on features only non-free Java software provided. He also wrote about what a non-event it was that Sun allowed more people to distribute its then non-free Java software.

Taking all of these quotes and descriptions at face value, assuming nobody was lying, what explains the change in view? I believe that the competitive pressure created by free software Java implementations pushed Sun to stay relevant. As the free software Java implementations became more functional and more likely to replace Sun's Java software, Sun saw they could free their implementation and continue to compete. In so doing, Sun also became a top contributor to the free software community and got free software luminaries (Stallman and Eben Moglen) to speak in support of their relicensing.

Today Gosling says the "immense amount of testing and design work" is not thought to be "anywhere near as good as having thousands of talented eyeballs just stare at it and think about it", but he didn't always say this and Sun didn't always license Java software in line with this sentiment. Gosling's claim might be true, but I think the freedom Sun's relicensing gives users is far more significant. Also important for the free software community is the lesson of free software pressure.

Not long ago, Gosling poo-pooed the idea of turning Java into an "open source project": "If Java turned into an open source project, the enterprise development community would go screaming into the hills.". In the same article, author Glen Kunene described Gosling as being "ambivalent about Apache's Harmony".

Similarly, Richard Stallman once described Java as being a trap because one could write free software programs in Java that depended on features only non-free Java software provided. He also wrote about what a non-event it was that Sun allowed more people to distribute its then non-free Java software.

Taking all of these quotes and descriptions at face value, assuming nobody was lying, what explains the change in view? I believe that the competitive pressure created by free software Java implementations pushed Sun to stay relevant. As the free software Java implementations became more functional and more likely to replace Sun's Java software, Sun saw they could free their implementation and continue to compete. In so doing, Sun also became a top contributor to the free software community and got free software luminaries (Stallman and Eben Moglen) to speak in support of their relicensing.

Carl Malamud wrote an insightful letter which addresses this issue. Part of that letter reads:

C-SPAN is a publicly-supported charity. Your only shareholders are the American public. Your donors received considerable tax relief in making donations to you. You and your staff were well paid for your excellent work. Congressional hearings are of strikingly important public value, and aggressive moves to prevent any fair use of the material is double-dipping on your part. For C-SPAN and for the American public record, the right thing to do is to release all of that material back into the public domain where it belongs.

C-SPAN could regularly upload broadcast-quality raw footage to The Internet Archive (archive.org). Archive.org could transcode the material into a variety of formats (including Ogg Vorbis+Theora which they're now doing for videos) and we can all enjoy the works we're paying for through tax relief and cable TV subscription. Certainly C-SPAN is taking a step in the right direction, but if this footage should be in the public domain, a "liberal" copyright license (as C-SPAN puts it) isn't good enough.

So long as we, the American public, are covering C-SPAN's bills (more than that, actually, as Malamud points out in his letter), we should democratically decide what to do with C-SPAN's programming—all of it, not just the Congressional hearings and floor footage. Perhaps this could take the form of C-SPAN (or their parent corporation) working for hire, thus giving us the power of copyright in all of those works. We could then decide to forgo that power, place all of their work into the public domain, and relieve ourselves of ever having to read another embarrassing legalistic threat when anyone uses C-SPAN footage for any purpose (including commercial use). But certainly what C-SPAN is proposing simply doesn't go far enough down the path they're headed on.

Quite right; as RMS says in his updated version of an underrated essay on gnu.org:

We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being misidentified as open source supporters.

The notion that people would want to get credit for their work and not be identified with a movement that conveys a different message is apparently difficult for some people to understand and act upon. Witness the number of people who will refuse to give GNU a share of the credit and instead refer to a "Linux operating system" when that system features GNU software. The GNU/Linux naming FAQ responds to every rebuttal I've seen.

Lots of people don't understand the differences between the movements, even when those differences explain the vastly different results we see on the ground (such as explaining why free software movement proponents say proprietary software is anti-social and open source movement proponents endorse installing and running proprietary software). For years, the OSI told people the differences were "ideological tub-thumping" and that was about the most insightful explanation they had to offer. Meanwhile, the FSF was publishing a different and far more respectful explanation which was recently updated.

The OSI's president, Michael Tiemann, said the OSI is changing; distancing themselves from the views of Eric Raymond ("Eric does speak for himself but less and less for the OSI."). I hope that the OSI will be able to bring its audience around to understand why ethical understanding is important. Businesses greatest achievement has been to get people to believe they can separate what they do from ethics, and it's important we challenge that perception; in many cases this is a life or death matter. But there is much for the OSI to do because of the wedge they created; for example, convincing people that approving of similar sets of licenses is all there is to say on the subject (another followup to your post illustrates this point). RMS discussed the differences between the movements and Tiemann president responded.

People who fall into the trap of installing and using proprietary video card drivers then later discover that their video card (which still works fine) is no longer "supported" by the latest driver update would disagree with you that "Video cards are already well-supported by their manufacturers.".

I believe this kind of thing happens more than others know, particularly as GNU/Linux distributors that distribute proprietary software make it easier for users to acquire proprietary software (as I understand Ubuntu is working on). Users shouldn't be left without their software freedom, nor should they have to choose between updating their system kernel and using their video card.

Making users helpless and keeping them separate is no way to live. Users need software freedom now.

No, that's not all I'm saying. I don't think it's fair to the topic to condense one's thoughts to sound bites (where one is inevitably constrained to repeating the same cliches which give power to the status quo).

I appreciate it when open source minded hackers deliver free software to people, and I am grateful when open source advocates stand with the free software community pushing for no software patents and no DRM. We need more social solidarity to make better lives for ourselves, and I'm grateful that the free software movement argues for increased social solidarity. But when you say "the Open crowd is paving the way to the Free approach" you wouldn't know that to look at the chosen audio and video formats. Not one of the alternatives provided can be played on a completely free software system for many users around the world saddled with governments who adopt software patents.

Far more credit is due to the free software movement than the open source movement has made it acceptable to say aloud. The free software movement was working on and distributing eminently practical free software before the open source movement existed. Some of the software worked on then is still critically important today (such as GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection, initially written by RMS who initially called it the GNU C Compiler). Today, the important license work on the most widely used licenses (GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, and GNU FDL) isn't being done by the Open Source Initiative, it's being done by the Free Software Foundation including RMS, who is credited as the chief author of GPLv3. GPLv3 represents the first GPL that anyone in the open source movement has ever participated in because the two prior versions predate the OSI and the open source movement.

I've written more on the topic of free software and open source, so I won't repeat it here except to say that I am reminded of RMS' response to a questioner at FISL7 (quoted at the previous link) and how "open source" became a useless phrase, according to Eben Moglen.

No, that's not all I'm saying. I don't think it's fair to the topic to condense one's thoughts to sound bites (where one is inevitably constrained to repeating the same cliches which give power to the status quo).

I appreciate it when open source minded hackers deliver free software to people, and I am grateful when open source advocates stand with the free software community pushing for no software patents and no DRM. We need more social solidarity to make better lives for ourselves, and I'm grateful that the free software movement argues for increased social solidarity. But when you say "the Open crowd is paving the way to the Free approach" you wouldn't know that to look at the chosen audio and video formats. Not one of the alternatives provided can be played on a completely free software system for many users around the world saddled with governments who adopt software patents.

Far more credit is due to the free software movement than the open source movement has made it acceptable to say aloud. The free software movement was working on and distributing eminently practical free software before the open source movement existed. Some of the software worked on then is still critically important today (such as GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection, initially written by RMS who initially called it the GNU C Compiler). Today, the important license work on the most widely used licenses (GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, and GNU FDL) isn't being done by the Open Source Initiative, it's being done by the Free Software Foundation including RMS, who is credited as the chief author of GPLv3. GPLv3 represents the first GPL that anyone in the open source movement has ever participated in because the two prior versions predate the OSI and the open source movement.

I've written more on the topic of free software and open source, so I won't repeat it here except to say that I am reminded of RMS' response to a questioner at FISL7 (quoted at the previous link) and how "open source" became a useless phrase, according to Eben Moglen.

Are proprietary software installs (such as the proprietary software Opera web browser) being cited as a source of problems for upgrading Ubuntu GNU/Linux systems? While I can see how that could pose a problem, the irony is more interesting because I remember the language used in the press release talking about Opera's availability for Ubuntu GNU/Linux: "Ubuntu will always be free, and will not have restrictive licenses associated with it.". I'm guessing this refers to the cognitive dissonance of a special repository for non-free packages and using free to mean gratis rather than the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify (which would include gratis distribution if one can get a copy from a friend).

Fluendo now offers a free MP3 plugin for GStreamer that has the necessary patent license for end users.

They mean gratis, not that this plugin necessarily gives you the freedoms of free software (for those of you who live in countries saddled with software patents). You could install and run this plugin but doing so would be installing non-free software on your machine. For the rest of you, the Fluendo GStreamer MP3 plugin is free software, licensed under the MIT X11 license. Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement, talked about this during the first GPLv3 conference when discussing what was then known as the "Liberty or Death" clause of the upcoming GPL. The GPL strives to not only create software freedom (the freedom to share and modify computer programs) but defend it in the face of new threats like software patents (patents on algorithms used in computer software):

The need for this provision was underlined by a recent article talking about a GStreamer plugin which includes source code distributed under an X11 license, or so it says. But then when you read further you see, in fact, that that's not the whole of the license; there's a patent license involved also, and that, in fact, it's not free software at all! And this was presented as a way of making things better for our community. So you believe that a non-free program can make things better for people, that it's a step forward, as the author of the article I read did, then you might think what they did was great. But if your goal is to make sure--is to defend user's freedom, to establish a community of freedom, to spread the idea that freedom is important, than you cannot accept the idea that such a thing is a positive step. It's a surrender, not an amelioration. And so the "Liberty or Death" article of the GPL is just as important as it ever was.

I discussed this some more at the time on my blog.

It would be nice if the FSF actually noticed trends that damage people's understanding of the GPL and did something about them. For example, many programs place the GPL in the role of a click-through license. This makes no sense whatsoever, and leads people to think that the GPL is a EULA and that it applies to *users* of GPL'd sofware. On top of that, it lends credence to the notion that click-through licenses are worth something.

The FSF is not the copyright holder to a lot of GPL-covered software (probably most GPL-covered software). So there is only so much they can do. Their lack of litigiousness is a benefit to society. We would be worse off if they spent their resources suing people to convince them of the righteousness of their argument like the RIAA does. But to say the FSF doesn't "notice trends damage people's understanding of the GPL and [do] something about them" or that the "FSF doesn't do jack" is simply wrong.

• Members of the FSF (including GPL author Richard Stallman, Prof. Eben Moglen, and former FSF Executive Director Brad Kuhn) have gone on speaking tours taking questions from all comers, including during dinner after the talk. The talks are often recorded and available online in formats one can play with free software licensed to share verbatim in any medium, even commercially. I feel privileged to have been at the 2006 recent FSF member meeting in Cambridge where I met Prof. Moglen and heard him speak. I was so impressed with his talk, I later aired it on my radio show and I share copies of it with people on my blog.
• The FSF has published a GNU General Public License FAQ and that FAQ contains an entry which addresses your concern:

  Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?

  Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.

  Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the software to bypass this.

You said:

They [the FSF] claim that any application utilizing MySQL as its SQL database is combining the two applications into a new program and thus either a) becomes subject to the GPL or b) must purchase a commercial license from MySQL. Gee, what could make them want to interpret it that way? Yet while MySQL is flaunting this definition all over the place, the FSF has done nothing to correct them.

What, exactly, constitutes a derivative work in software hasn't been completely argued and drawn out in court yet. This, taken in combination with the FSF not being a copyright holder on MySQL, makes it unreasonable to expect the FSF to correct any misunderstanding MySQL exhibits in their licensing. But the FSF has made numerous statements about what they think on the issue of linking and derivative works. Prof. Eben Moglen, counsel to the FSF, even filed a friend of the court brief to Judge Saris in the MySQL v. NuSphere/Progress case. John Palfrey reported that Judge Saris referred to Moglen's brief and a counter brief as "classic book-ends" because they had drawn opposite conclusions on the matter of what is a derivative work. Judg

Indeed, Stallman vs. Torvalds is giving Torvalds quite a bit too much credit and higher billing than he deserves.

But it's hardly surprising for a publication which calls Linux an operating system instead of a kernel. Also, I don't think this has much to do with profit-making as it's quite possible to make profit doing free software work (writing free software, changing free software, and handling customer issues regarding free software). I go into more detail on these points on my blog.