Slashdot Mirror

You are confusing that messy GCC stuff with what I am calling a "linking exception". I have also heard this called the "Gnu ClassPath exception" and several other things.

The gcc stuff I am talking about is the linking exception. See the FSF licensing FAQ:

"Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?"
Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile proprietary software using gcc."

and the Wikipedia article (which also talks about the Classpath exception):

"Compiler runtime libraries also often use this license, e.g. the libgcc library in the GNU Compiler Collection uses a very similar linking exception"

I think the "messy gcc" stuff that you are referring to is the very new gcc exception, which I agree is a mess and undesirable: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

And the FSF is being real assholes by not making an official name for this, other than silly games like Microsoft, the lack of this is the reason there is so much license proliferation. The "linking exception" allows me to protect the code I wrote, but allowing it to be *used* in closed-source programs (without weird restrictions on relinking or shared libraries the LGPL forces, which really just discourages anybody from using my software).

Well Stallman and the FSF put the "weird restrictions" into the LGPL for a reason. It is Stallman's fundamental belief that not only should you have access to the source code, but that you must be able to actually change that source code and use your changes in the program. Is this really important? It is for Stallman. One of his early motivations for the GPL was running into a printer driver he couldn't fix. More recently, GPL version 3 was a response to the "Tivoization" of GPL software. So really you're calling Stallman and the FSF assholes for holding to their principles.

Unlike the MS-PL, I allow people to *remove* the linking exception and go with plain GPL, so that my code can be used by people working on GPL code. Microsoft is certainly being assholes by saying you cannot do this.

Why should Microsoft go out of their way to be compatible with the GPL? They wrote a simple license that includes patent protection. You cannot relicense the MS-PL code under the GPL or any other license. There's nothing nefarious or unusual about this, though they could have done what Apache 2.0 did:

"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."

Note that nobody has ever "stolen" my code by making it GPL (or any BSD code for that matter), this is a FUD smokescreen by Microsoft to hide the real purpose, which is to pretend to make open source while making it useless for anybody who already has some open source code that is GPL.

That's an argument against any code restrictions beyond public domain for open source. After all, nobody "steals" your code when they don't give back, so why use a license that enforces that?

if I can do this, I can easily "steal" any MS-PL code and make it GPL-only by adding my useful changes and saying they are GPL with the linking exception.

I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind. If you make changes to the MS-PL source, you can only do so under the MS-PL license. If, however, you want to combine the MS-PL code with code that is clearly separate using y

You are confusing that messy GCC stuff with what I am calling a "linking exception". I have also heard this called the "Gnu ClassPath exception" and several other things.

The gcc stuff I am talking about is the linking exception. See the FSF licensing FAQ:

"Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?"
Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile proprietary software using gcc."

and the Wikipedia article (which also talks about the Classpath exception):

"Compiler runtime libraries also often use this license, e.g. the libgcc library in the GNU Compiler Collection uses a very similar linking exception"

I think the "messy gcc" stuff that you are referring to is the very new gcc exception, which I agree is a mess and undesirable: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

And the FSF is being real assholes by not making an official name for this, other than silly games like Microsoft, the lack of this is the reason there is so much license proliferation. The "linking exception" allows me to protect the code I wrote, but allowing it to be *used* in closed-source programs (without weird restrictions on relinking or shared libraries the LGPL forces, which really just discourages anybody from using my software).

Well Stallman and the FSF put the "weird restrictions" into the LGPL for a reason. It is Stallman's fundamental belief that not only should you have access to the source code, but that you must be able to actually change that source code and use your changes in the program. Is this really important? It is for Stallman. One of his early motivations for the GPL was running into a printer driver he couldn't fix. More recently, GPL version 3 was a response to the "Tivoization" of GPL software. So really you're calling Stallman and the FSF assholes for holding to their principles.

Unlike the MS-PL, I allow people to *remove* the linking exception and go with plain GPL, so that my code can be used by people working on GPL code. Microsoft is certainly being assholes by saying you cannot do this.

Why should Microsoft go out of their way to be compatible with the GPL? They wrote a simple license that includes patent protection. You cannot relicense the MS-PL code under the GPL or any other license. There's nothing nefarious or unusual about this, though they could have done what Apache 2.0 did:

"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."

Note that nobody has ever "stolen" my code by making it GPL (or any BSD code for that matter), this is a FUD smokescreen by Microsoft to hide the real purpose, which is to pretend to make open source while making it useless for anybody who already has some open source code that is GPL.

That's an argument against any code restrictions beyond public domain for open source. After all, nobody "steals" your code when they don't give back, so why use a license that enforces that?

if I can do this, I can easily "steal" any MS-PL code and make it GPL-only by adding my useful changes and saying they are GPL with the linking exception.

I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind. If you make changes to the MS-PL source, you can only do so under the MS-PL license. If, however, you want to combine the MS-PL code with code that is clearly separate using y

Don't laser printers compatible with Free operating systems still cost more than the early termination fee?

Yep. HP and Samsung makes some cheapo lasers that work with Linux, but they run non-Free drivers. If you insist on running only Free software, you will pay more for the printer.

Going off this list: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/printers

HP LaserJet P1005 (non-Free) is $79: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828115079
HP LaserJet P2055dn (Free) is $299: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828115365

So yeah about $220 more, but at the same time the Free one is a much more powerful printer - 35 ppm vs 15 ppm, 1200x1200 vs 400x600, etc. The manufacturers save a fair amount of money by moving all the processing to the host, so really only workgroup printers support Postscript in hardware.

On the other hand, an old HP LaserJet 4 or 5 will be cheap on eBay and support Postscript in hardware.

If the only reason you have to print is to print out bills, then yeah I could see getting paper bills as an option - it depends on your motive. If you're trying to stay away from paper because you don't want to waste physical resources, well, you're just shifting the printing to someone else. The company's printing will no doubt be more efficient, but then you have to add transportation to your house, so I'm not sure you're actually conserving anything.

If you're just trying to save money and not buy printer/paper/toner, then paper bills will help you do that. So will mooching off a friend's/workplace printer, but I'm not sure I'd recommend that long term. :)

I get PDFs from the utilities/banks and just print them as needed (which is usually never). I traded my USPS post office box for a mail scanning/forwarding service (http://www.earthclassmail.com, they're awesome) so the few paper bills I get are actually turned into PDFs for me. About $140 a year (depends on volume of mail); by comparison a PO Box is $132 (depends on location, size).

> How so? It's accepted as a free software license not only by the OSI but by the FSF as well.

Actually this may be a bit misleading. The MS-PL is firmly on their list of "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses". This means that they urge you not use this license and it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Doesn't the GPLv3 have a statement similar to this?

AFAIK the GPL3 says you have to open up your patents along with the source. It does not mention challenging the patents of others.

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

I'm not sure though, feel free to correct me.

GCC is making decisions to protect their intellectual property.

No, they're not.

RMS brings up the client vs. server issue,

Besides this, I'm surprised the article didn't make mention of the Affero GPL to force server-side code to be shared back.

As far as the parent comment:

What if the http server and database are free software, but the people who operate the server don't allow you to download all of their data in bulk and serve it yourself?

I for one think that might make an excellent optional addition to the GPL, as with Affero. If crowd-sourcing sites like Wikipedia didn't make their data available in bulk, they are much less appealing. Yes, one can make their own spider/scraper, but that is not exactly in the spirit of the data itself being wholly "free", assuming it is even possible with some sites to reverse engineer their complete data package. And nothing is to prevent the site from modifying their robots.txt file at any time to cause/force the Wayback Machine, etc. to stop distributing their archived copies (and taking the content offline or requiring paid access to it), thereby leaving every contributor in the lurch who expected to be able to get their content contributions back, even if those contributions were GPL.

On the other side, it would be interesting to see an optional clause compelling the exposure of the live database API (at least read-only, though maybe even a limited-but-meaningful write-access one for wikis, allowing perhaps for free but limited, registration-dependent keys), since sometimes the source of the data (by that I mean the site which is serving the data) is what is important, as it is trusted and contains the latest data which people wish to read or shape.

Actually, a site which acted to expose the write API (whether compelling others creating their own version to expose their data, data API, etc., or not), might be the only way Wikipedia could become more free--and someone setting up such a fork, if Mediawiki didn't do so itself, might be the one way people would actually switch sites. When the API is exposed, it can effectively produce a distributed wiki which addresses the issue of specific hosts being blocked (as Wikipedia has been and is in some countries) as well as opens up opportunities for alternative clients.

I for one think that this article has done a great service by raising the issue. While I might not demand to only use "free" sites (client-side of server-side) myself, and while I might not always want to compel others to go that far in staying "free" by using such compulsory licenses in my own open source projects, I do believe it offers a good option to stimulate development of such fully-free sites, especially if the FSF's future server-side solutions will take into account optionally compelling the exposure of data API's and/or bulk data downloads as mentioned above.

RMS has always been about being as free as possible.

Remember that he started out writing Free Software (we really should just call it Software Libre so the 'Free' isn't misunderstood) on non-Free Software computer systems.

I think that RMS would love to not have to interact with non-free Cisco routers, nor medical devices running non-free device drivers, but sometimes that's the only choice.

I DO admire much of what Mr. Stallman stands for, and I'm glad there is a champion for free software ... but I live in the real world, where to buy goods, you need some government's currency, and to do anything electronically, you have to use SOME commercial software somewhere.

Ten years ago it was 1999, and running a Free Software desktop like RedHat wasn't the easiest thing to do. Over the past decade Free Software has come a long way and is being used in all kinds of new applications. But that doesn't mean that it's going to stop here and not be used to a greater extent over the next decade.

I'm not sure if there's a fully Free-Software credit-card processing library you can use to take credit cards online right now, but I'm pretty sure that most of the pieces exist already. Can you think of some limitation on why one couldn't implement such an online interface using completely Free Software?

I wonder, too ... does Mr. Stallman's PC have a proprietary BIOS, or did he write that code, too?

The FSF runs coreboot on most or all of their servers now. Due to lack of documentation, coreboot is still unable to run on any laptop (AFAIK).

RMS started working with an XO laptop (as that had a Free BIOS), but then abandoned that hardware when he felt that the project betrayed its commitment to providing children in developing worlds with a Free and Open software/hardware stack, snuggling up with Microsoft instead.

Right now I believe that he's using a Lemote Yeelong, which has a Free BIOS.

I don't think that RMS had a hand in writing any of the Free BIOS code that runs his laptop -- I think that he's benefiting from code that other people have written, the same way that some of those people have undoubtedly benefited from code that RMS has written or advocacy work he's done for Free Software.

RMS has always been about being as free as possible.

Remember that he started out writing Free Software (we really should just call it Software Libre so the 'Free' isn't misunderstood) on non-Free Software computer systems.

I think that RMS would love to not have to interact with non-free Cisco routers, nor medical devices running non-free device drivers, but sometimes that's the only choice.

I DO admire much of what Mr. Stallman stands for, and I'm glad there is a champion for free software ... but I live in the real world, where to buy goods, you need some government's currency, and to do anything electronically, you have to use SOME commercial software somewhere.

Ten years ago it was 1999, and running a Free Software desktop like RedHat wasn't the easiest thing to do. Over the past decade Free Software has come a long way and is being used in all kinds of new applications. But that doesn't mean that it's going to stop here and not be used to a greater extent over the next decade.

I'm not sure if there's a fully Free-Software credit-card processing library you can use to take credit cards online right now, but I'm pretty sure that most of the pieces exist already. Can you think of some limitation on why one couldn't implement such an online interface using completely Free Software?

I wonder, too ... does Mr. Stallman's PC have a proprietary BIOS, or did he write that code, too?

The FSF runs coreboot on most or all of their servers now. Due to lack of documentation, coreboot is still unable to run on any laptop (AFAIK).

RMS started working with an XO laptop (as that had a Free BIOS), but then abandoned that hardware when he felt that the project betrayed its commitment to providing children in developing worlds with a Free and Open software/hardware stack, snuggling up with Microsoft instead.

Right now I believe that he's using a Lemote Yeelong, which has a Free BIOS.

I don't think that RMS had a hand in writing any of the Free BIOS code that runs his laptop -- I think that he's benefiting from code that other people have written, the same way that some of those people have undoubtedly benefited from code that RMS has written or advocacy work he's done for Free Software.

he seems like a real barrel of laughs.

Don't buy from ATI Enemy of your Freedom

The FSF is working with The Recording Industry vs. the People to provide an Expert Witnesses Fund. Basically, they're providing computer experts to combat the misinformation spouted by the RIAA concerning technology.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/11/expert-witness-defense-fund-for-riaa.html
https://www.fsf.org/associate/riaa

Well they don't actually supply the experts. They've administered a separate fund, the Expert Witness Defense Fund, the purpose of which is to provide funds to the defendants with which to hire their own technical experts and/or consultants. The fund has provided financial support to the UMG v. Lindor case, and to the Capitol v. Thomas case.

The FSF is working with The Recording Industry vs. the People to provide an Expert Witnesses Fund. Basically, they're providing computer experts to combat the misinformation spouted by the RIAA concerning technology.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/11/expert-witness-defense-fund-for-riaa.html
https://www.fsf.org/associate/riaa

Well they don't actually supply the experts. They've administered a separate fund, the Expert Witness Defense Fund, the purpose of which is to provide funds to the defendants with which to hire their own technical experts and/or consultants. The fund has provided financial support to the UMG v. Lindor case, and to the Capitol v. Thomas case.

The FSF is working with The Recording Industry vs. the People to provide an Exper Witnesses Fund. Basically, they're providing computer experts to combat the misinformation spouted by the RIAA concerning technology.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/11/expert-witness-defense-fund-for-riaa.html

https://www.fsf.org/associate/riaa

Some more scary shit

Although the proposed treaty's title might suggest that the agreement deals only with counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines), what little information has been made available publicly by negotiating governments about the content of the treaty makes it clear that it will have a far broader scope, and in particular, will deal with new tools targeting "Internet distribution and information technology".

I think that Bilski might have something to say about this patent. ... were this patent not (ahem) patently for entertainment only.

The MAFIAA goons might well be on this wagon too but this is something much bigger. This kind of a false flag operations spree requires some major muscle. Think about it, who's got a great track record in spreading FUD and a loads of dough to make it all go down smooth?

Micro$oft. This is a side line of the ACTA plot to kill the Free Software ecosystem.

Everything under a GPL license is part of the GNU project. That includes Xorg, GNOME, etc. Have a look at the GNU Packages page. GNOME is called the "GNU Desktop".

You mean like this one that has absolutely nothing to do with working on open source software?

If you're so committed, why don't you have any free offerings? O'Reilly has tons of selections freely available online, and likely tons of books hidden in storage that are both out-of-print and never to return (at least without serious revision). Why not open up and share them?

The ePubBooks.com site says it wants ePub to be to books what MP3 is to music ... the only way that can happen is if there are tools to publish content, legal and questionable, and have free, questionable, and licensed media be easily shared. MP3 is what it is today because it was used for noncommercial purposes without restrictions. What resulted was a complete change in paradigm, putting the record stores almost completely out of business and then moving on to threaten the whole recording industry with a new model fronted by iTunes.

Is the book industry ready for such a transformation? You've got a bit of an advantage, with no easy way for users to "rip" books from bound tombs to ePub files, but that's only a temporary fix as user demand will push forward digital releases soon enough.

Brace yourselves and prepare. Is this the right path? Is there money to be made while still playing fair? Who will be the "iTunes" of books (and can they get there without DRM)? Take inspiration from Audible and friends, but also note the red flags waved around regarding what DRM does and why it is bad (and why even Apple ended up discarding DRM in the end).

You want ePub to take off? Take out the DRM. Offer books for free. Make it easy for users to publish free (and non-free) ePub books. Make it more accessible on everything from desktops to portable devices: standard readers across platforms, F/OSS ePub software (readers, converters, writers, and RSS/RDF-to-ePub aggregators) that leads the way rather than just limping along, etc.

Yes, you will start by losing money, just like MP3 did. But in the end, there will be a better product that can be shared and loved by all. And there's still profit to be had, too.

This is in fact the original intent of Stallman: to exploit copyright law to produce a license that truly frees software. The term "Copyleft" was invented to describe this hack of the copyright law that empowers instead of restricting.

See the copyleft essay at:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/copyleft.html

GPL2 and GPL3 includes the "system library exception" text. There is also a special license on the GCC runtime.

drew,

I've been assuming that the FSF wouldn't support a licence that didn't allow redistribution. The Free Software Definition specifies the following freedoms:

• 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.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

What I'm looking for is a licence that allows all freedoms except 2 (the freedom to redistribute). That's because freedom 2 is utterly incompatible with the production of commercial software, except where that software is consultingware, or tied to expensive hardware in some way.

As an aside: in his article Why Software Should Not Have Owners, Stallman completely misunderstands the point of the voluntary interaction between individuals that underpins a free society:

Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.

In fact, if you want to use software, then the owner of the software may nominate the terms under which you use it. Obviously you are free to accept or decline, but once you've accepted, you must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Everyone should have the power to set the terms of an agreement - and the power to accept or decline that agreement.

• GNUmed
• Polyxmass
• AMIDE
• SOFA

You want something like Stet, but with this controversy figure as the metric instead of user comments.

I always thought Stet would be great for a general-purpose user-annotation site, but like you never got around to building it.

It's economics. The three-app version is the same cheap version the were selling dirt cheap in piracy-ridden countries to try and undercut the pirate market. They don't want the cheap version to be full-featured, so they don't undercut their higher priced sales of the more full-featuerd version. This is called an anti-feature, and they use it to make you pay more money.

It's a similar case with fair trade coffee. A farmer of fair trade coffee gets paid twice as much as a farmer of regular coffee (and the coffee tastes the same), but the difference in price that has to be passed on to consumers is only a few cents per cup. Why do you have to pay twice as much for the fair-trade coffee at your coffee shop? Because fair trade coffee is just a way for the consumer to say "I'm willing to pay more money to get nothing."

Apache is Open Source, but not GPL compatible (it lacks the 5th freedom -- freedom for the GPL to virally infect it). This is a big "fuck you" to linux and FREE software in general. They might as well have left it proprietary or released under their shared source license.

Wrong again. The Apache License is compatible with the GPL v3, according to the Free Software Foundation.
And there are only four software freedoms.

No it is compatible with GPLv3, and Apache licensed software and Linux have always played nice (there's this minor thing you might have heard of, called 'httpd').

http://www.fsf.org/news/2008-12-cisco-suit

Nokia doesn't give a shit about the Free Software bullshit (and neither does anyone else of relevance). [...] They have more important things to do than suck up to Stallman.

Apart from being a corporate patron of the FSF, perhaps?

May I point out the Free Software Foundation's essay "Selling Free Software" http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html

(IANAL, blah, blah...)

If you're not the copyright-holder of a piece of GPLed software, you have the right to sell copies of the software, but you do not have the right to sell the legal, controlling rights to that software.

Here's the relevant bit from the FSF's GPL Licensing FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

It's interesting that the FSF talks about selling copies rather than just about licensing a copy. I believe their point is that in order to distribute the software (for free or for money) it's necessary for you to transmit a copy to someone else, and because the GPL puts restrictions on distribution, not use, there's no point in using the term "licensing".

> I've gotten around this in the past by having the GPLed code in a plugin form that is dynamically specified and then dynamically loaded so that the application is significantly distanced from the GPLed code.

Dynamic loading is not sufficiently decoupled. See the GPL FAQ:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins

copyright and patent most certainly are not the same, though the disgusting I"P" propaganda term is certainly designed to make you think they are by lumping them together.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/not-ipr.xhtml

[Stallman] has a very rigid definition of [free] ... it doesn't include the freedom to take something and make it not free.

Actually, Stallman's definition of free is straightforward and intuitive, and it does include BSD, MIT, public domain, etc. What you may find objectionable is that he prefers copyleft. As a practical matter, due to the nature of copyleft, he prefers licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL. Take a look a the FSF's page on licenses for more information.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/

If you can, cite a case law that covers something like using sockets to avoid GPLing your program.

You are looking as courts as the one's granting the rights, not the GPL and the FSF, this is the wrong approach.

It's ambiguous because the license itself is ambiguous on this issue.

again, FUD.

Reposting the FSF link:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation [fsf.org]

Specifically, your concern is this part, I assume:
But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

This section of the FAQ is legal conjecture about what the FSF thinks might be an issue. And while I can see their point, in practice it would be difficult to keep with the separate process space guideline and "exchanging complex internal data structures" guideline without red flags going up as it would almost assuredly mean you are using common structure and data definitions during the build process which would be source of the GPL violation.

You are citing authorities I have no way to verify.

Yup. anyone could claim anything. One must evaluate based on what is said and independent corroborating facts instead of reputation. Its harder, but better.

Furthermore, lawyers can be wrong, just like anybody else, and case law is what counts.

Case law is important *only* if there is serious ambiguity and a hostile party. One can always ASK the FSF if they have an issue BEFORE it becomes an issue. The WANT to help!!

Furthermore, the FUD thing is old. Courts only LIMIT rights based on law, they do not grant rights. The GPL defines what rights you have to GPL code. The only thing the court can do is limit the FSF's rights, and thus far the GPL has been held up as valid in all tests.

Thus far the courts have ruled that the GPL is what it says it is and the language is plain enough. What organizations like Cisco are trying to to in the courts is limit the powers of the GPL, and are failing.

The basic idea of GPL is valid, but what I'm talking about are the finer issues, such as what constitutes "mere aggregation". If you can, cite a case law that covers something like using sockets to avoid GPLing your program.

Maybe you misunderstood my original post, but "combine the programs to create a greater program" is a bit ambiguous. I suspect intentionally so.

It's ambiguous because the license itself is ambiguous on this issue.

The GPL and its supporting documents describe exactly the methods by which programs can be created and how any encumbrances work. You are obscuring the facts in order to spread FUD.

Provide a quote then. Use GPLv2 please, since that's the version under suit, the one most commonly used, and the one I've studied in detail.

As long as the GPL program runs unmodified in its own process space, absolutely, yes.

The FSF disagrees with you:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."

While I am not a lawyer, I have worked with several IP lawyers in creating GPL compliance guidelines.

You are citing authorities I have no way to verify. Furthermore, lawyers can be wrong, just like anybody else, and case law is what counts.

I'm sure Linksys was aware of their responsibilities and always intended to release the source. Reading the actual complaint, the problem appears to be that Linksys didn't release the exact source corresponding to the released versions, didn't release everything needed to compile the source, or didn't release updated source to go along with new versions. It just sounds like stuff that got overlooked in the rush to get the software out.

To correct that, the FSF wants Linksys to appoint a Free Software Compliance Officer to make sure the source is always available.

If you mean that Linksys/Cisco could have avoided this at any time in the past five years by releasing the code, you are probably right.

If you read the complaint, the FSF acknowledges that Linksys* has already released most of the code they are required to release. The big problem is that Linksys has a habit of releasing the binary versions first, then neglecting to release the source until the FSF complains and dragging their feet even then.

The bottom line is that the FSF wants Linksys to be more proactive about releasing source files (by appointing a Free Software Compliance Officer) and to pay them for past abuse.

* The complaint specifically and exclusively references Linksys products. It says nothing about IOS or any Cisco-branded products.

"The "Free" part of FOSS is defined namely as the part which allows a user to make and distribute copies of the software without paying a licensing fee (such as the GNU license). The "Open Source" part refers to the free as in libre ability to make changes to the source code, thus Open Source. This is how I see it and I think is the prevailing view."

Nope.

There is Free Software. As in the Free Software Foundation. http://www.fsf.org/ This is about Freedom, not price. Libre and not gratis.

There is Open Source Software. As in the Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ This is the "marketing" of Free Software under another name so as not to scare people with the word Free.

FOSS is F/OS/S or Free Software combined with Open Source Software. [Free/Open Source/Software] That is the history of it to the best of my recollection and given with some short cuts and some language that may upset some but is not meant to. A way to call the thing by both names at once.

"The bottom line is everything costs something, whatever it is labeled."

Well, yes and no, but as I say, Free Software has never been about price. That is often a pleasant side benefit, but it is not the game. The game is freedom.

all the best,

drew

Now, since you started with GPL, then entire project is GPL. It doesn't matter what the university or company states they owned. GPL overrules...always as previous court cases have shown.

Uh, citation needed.

If you extend a GPL work but your changes belong to someone else then you are unable to licence your changes under the GPL (because you don't own them). GPL and copyright are separate. See the GPL FAQ, item "How do I get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the GPL?" or the copyright disclaimer section at the bottom of the GPL itself.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic Your statement seems to only apply if I initially distribute binaries without source.

But once in a while the manufacturer suggests installing another BIOS, which is available only as an executable. This, clearly, is installing a non-free program--it is just as bad as installing Microsoft Windows, or Adobe Photoshop. As the unethical practice of installing another BIOS executable becomes common, the version delivered inside the computer starts to raise an ethical problem issue as well.

Reyk Floeter, an OpenBSD developer, explains his position like this:

there is a major difference between binary blobs and firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro CPUs. asking the vendors for releasing their firmware source code is just ridiculous or a nightmare since I don't even want to see this code

Here's your problem: Open Source is not Free Software.

"Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."

"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. 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.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* 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. "

I am Ashamed of you people, this is slashdot and someone here has just given us a Dorothy Dixer. (Please note this is my interpretation I'm tiny whinny bit biased) Well you see there was this Operating system called Unix that was written in the 1960's.... AT&T which was a phone company couldn't sell, due to the laws at the time, software so they allowed Unix to used by University's for a small fee. [this is probably a bit loosely based on truth here] In the 1980's the laws changed and AT&T could sell software. Well AT&T said everything to do with Unix is ours and any software that has been added to Unix by the University's is also ours and pays us Mega amounts of cash to use it. Well some people at University of California Berkeley (UCB) got very annoyed with this and released a version of UNIX without any AT&T code. This version was called BSD 4.4-lite a court battle then ensued that ran until the mid 1990's. Novell then purchased Unix from AT&T and some sort deal was done and UCB no longer distributes BSD. heres a link to the story. http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html so lessons learnt 1) You will get sued 2) If you hang in there you might just win 3) Be prepared to cut a deal 4) [maybe this should have been first] Get a good lawyer !!! 5) You ever here of a guy called Richard Stallman ? - sort of the same thing happened to him but he started something called the free software foundation. http://www.fsf.org/

it's closed source nature, combined with its almost universal presence in scientific research is very troubling.

Ditto any Microsoft or Adobe product.

Can't say we were not warned, though, can we?

I guess the other software wasn't very Free then to start with if it disallows something as simple as linking with a GPL package, was it? After all, any GPL software can link with any other without legal complications...

Nice troll. The CDDL is roughly equivalent to the Mozilla Public License. It makes no demands on code linked to it at all. It is a per-file license, and can be linked with any other code unless the other code's license explicitly prohibits it. You can mix CDDL, Apache licensed, BSD licensed and any other per-file license together into a single program.

It is the GPL which makes this a problem. The GPL states that, if you distribute a GPL'd program, all parts of the program must be covered by licenses which impose the same conditions as the GPL and no others. The CDDL (along with every other Free Software license on this list) does not fall into this category. This means that you do not have a distribution license for the GPL'd software if you attempt to distribute it along with any software under any of these licenses (and they link together - 'mere aggregation' is allowed).

Apple would have the same problem distributing bash on OS X if their libc were APSL'd (like most of the rest of Darwin), but since it comes from FreeBSD they kept the BSDL, which is GPL-compatible.

Any GPL'd software can link against any other GPL'd software without legal complications, but you can say the same about the CDDL, the APSL, the ASL, and even a load of proprietary licenses. It's only when mixing with the GPL that any of these have problems.

If the CDDL is the problem then it is not Free.

Well, the Free Software Foundation list it as a Free Software License, and the Open Source Initiative class it as an Open Source License, so it certainly seems free.

In this case, the GPL is the problem. The CDDL is a per-file license. This is why Apple can put ZFS and DTrace into OS X, linking directly against their code. Because the CDDL'd code they get from OpenSolaris is under a per-file license. The same is true of FreeBSD - they can put ZFS code into their kernel and the CDDL only affects those portions of the kernel. People who don't want to use ZFS still get a BSDL kernel, people who do get a BSDL kernel with a few CDDL components. Linux, on the other hand, can't incorporate any of this code, because of the GPL.

The CDDL isn't the only license to be incompatible with the GPL. The FSF maintains a long list of Free Software licenses which are incompatible with the GPL. Other notable examples include the Apache Software License (version 2 is compatible with GPLv3), the Apple Public Source License, and the Mozilla Public License. None of these license place any requirements on the final product, only on the code released under that license, and so all three can be mixed together without issue.

Any author which places his work under one of RMS's licenses retains the copyright to the code. One of the FSF's recommendations is for the author to identify himself in materials that accompany his software. This makes resolving legal issues of software ownership much easier for everyone involved. RMS's licenses do not remove the copyright holder's ability to re-license future editions of his software, or to release his software under multiple licenses.
Undoubtedly, RMS wants *everyone* to use a license which guarantees your freedom to inspect and modify the software which you receive. Notice that this desire has not been made a requirement of even the GPLv3. [1]

In short, you're getting your panties in a wad over a man with a strong -differing- opinion. I recommend that you save your hysterics for something important.

[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF

Stallman's definition of "free": stuff he likes. His definition of "not free": stuff he doesn't like.

Not true. FSF, practically Stallman's baby, lists several licenses that Stallman doesn't like too much as "free".

Not even Stallman's opponents can claim that he has ever labeled a license "free" or "not free" based on anything other than the four freedoms that he defined. If you want to contest whether the four freedoms represent the fundamental freedoms, that's an entirely separate argument.