Slashdot Mirror

Excellent points. Also see http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g about the importance of maintaining our freedoms on the new, even more personal, computer: the mobile.

Btw is the iPhone an example of the BSD license failing to protect user's freedom? BSD is used in OSX, and OSX is used in the iphone. Would Apple still be able to decide what apps iphone owners can run if the BSD-licensed code was instead GPL?

Recall that the purpose of the GNU project was to create a Free operating system. This was accomplished, apart from the kernel. GNU wrote the compiler, debugger, compiler, scads of utilities, and such. Many contributers have and continue to add to the GNU project.

To quote GNU: "GNU is not simply a collection of useful programs. We started the GNU Project with a specific overall goal: to create a free software operating system, the GNU System. To keep the GNU system technically coherent, we make sure that the parts fit well together. So the evaluators judge programs based on how well they fit into the GNU system, as well as on their quality, usability, and the other characteristics you would expect. Based on the evaluators' report, Richard Stallman (the Chief GNUisance) makes the final decision on whether to accept the contribution." (http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html)

So, the GNU system is a defined and maintained collection of programs - not everything apart from Linux. Indeed, the FSF Software Directory offers a list of Free software, and, as a subset of this, a list of GNU software.

They do not lay claim to everything under the GPL, they work towards their own goal with their own work and the willing help of contributers.

Recall that the purpose of the GNU project was to create a Free operating system. This was accomplished, apart from the kernel. GNU wrote the compiler, debugger, compiler, scads of utilities, and such. Many contributers have and continue to add to the GNU project.

To quote GNU: "GNU is not simply a collection of useful programs. We started the GNU Project with a specific overall goal: to create a free software operating system, the GNU System. To keep the GNU system technically coherent, we make sure that the parts fit well together. So the evaluators judge programs based on how well they fit into the GNU system, as well as on their quality, usability, and the other characteristics you would expect. Based on the evaluators' report, Richard Stallman (the Chief GNUisance) makes the final decision on whether to accept the contribution." (http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html)

So, the GNU system is a defined and maintained collection of programs - not everything apart from Linux. Indeed, the FSF Software Directory offers a list of Free software, and, as a subset of this, a list of GNU software.

They do not lay claim to everything under the GPL, they work towards their own goal with their own work and the willing help of contributers.

He goes on tirades about the BSD license

Citation needed? He's said that the BSD license doesn't do all the things he wants the GPL to do, but you do know that the BSD license is recognised as a free software license by the FSF, don't you?

Modified BSD license

        This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

        If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of "the BSD license", because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.

        This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.

(From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses).

I see no tirade.

They already provide freely downloadable tools

Not free software tools.

for processing the encoded RAW footage into more common formats (http://www.red.com/support REDCine works on Intel Mac or Windows)

Not on any other platform.

and can export to TIFF, JPEG, and OpenEXR (and possibly more, those were just the ones I saw mentioned in the latest release notes).

What about the format which counts in digital still photography, namely Adobe DNG?

They're also putting out a SDK for the format so it can be integrated into more software. It's not exactly locked down.

If one can't see the source code of the SDK or at least the specifications of the file format, it is locked down. And I bet one cannot use the SDK in free software, nor in anyðing but MS Windows and Mac OS X AMD64.

The OP gives Ndiswrapper as a specific example, but asks a general question, and so far all the replies have been about the general question.

What about the specific situation of Ndiswrapper? There's a saying that "bas cases make bad laws," and Ndiswrapper is sort of like that -- it isn't a typical example of OSS.

Okay, first off let me say that I have two machines on my home network that have Ndiswrapper on them, and I'm grateful that it exists, because it saved me from having to drill holes through my hardwood floors and pull cables from the downstairs to the upstairs.

However, I'd be surprised if anyone had ever been under the impression that Ndiswrapper was anything more than a horrible, nasty, dirty kludge with no future ahead of it. The basic problem is that the manufacturers of the wifi cards don't disclose the relevant technical information that would allow third parties to write drivers, and they also don't support operating systems other than Windows. Anything the OSS community does to try to work around that is bound to work badly and be unsatisfactory. I've already seen that any time I upgrade from one release of Ubuntu to the next, wifi breaks, and I have to go back through all the steps of installing the drivers again. There's also the problem that binary blobs make it difficult to debug kernel crashes.

All of these problems show that ndiswrapper has always been nothing more than a band-aid, and nobody should have ever expected it to have a future.

The only real solution for the future is to spread good information about what cards work with OSS (no binary blobs). The FSF has some info here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/net/wireless/cards.html . The trouble I always have with this kind of situation is that these online lists are always out of date and inaccurate, and they also tend to systematically overstate the quality of support, e.g., when you I the OSS driver, I can't get it to work at all, or if I do get it to work it crashes all the time, or the full functionality isn't supported.

This is all qualitatively different from the situation where you just have an OSS project that doesn't have ongoing support. A more typical example of that kind of thing would be sox, which is a command-line utility for converting sound files between different formats, adding effects, and playing sounds. Its author hasn't been supporting it properly for a long time, so less and less of its functionality is working on, e.g., a fresh install of ubuntu. It's gotten to the point where, for me, it's basically useless. But that's no big problem, because other people have picked up the slack by writing similar software to replace it. The difference with Ndiswrapper is that the problem is more fundamental. The things that make Ndiswrapper a kludge are inherent to its purpose, which is to be a kludge.

The content must contain sufficient information for the content to be decoded.

People do not buy "content." They buy movies, music, software, etc. "Content" is a weasel word that transforms someone's potentially beautiful creative work into a mere commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and generate revenue. For more on this, read the FSF's "Words to Avoid" document.

So does you open source cat run Linux

That's "gnu/cat", you insensitive clod! And to my knowledge every Linux distro runs it.

and where can I get the source code?

Here you go.

(X) RMS

That's why we have FSF and OSS cataloguing those licenses that are actually Free and Open-Source. Ms-PL is on the FSF list as a "free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL" (which is to say, it's essentially the same as Apache License).

He begged anyone who would listen not to use the term "intellectual property" as was widely ridiculed, as in many things.

I, for one, agree with what RMS has to say about the blanket term "intellectual property". Use of the term reinforces misconceptions that benefit owners of some exclusive rights. Particularly, it invites drawing false parallels among copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, and between those legal traditions and real estate.

'This is the worst nightmares of the conspiracy theorists around surveillance coming true,' says Ronald J. Deibert, an associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto.

This is also an argument in favor of using open source software. I've been dubious in the past about claims that closes-source vendors couldn't be trusted, but apparently I was being naive.

Sounds like the FSF got this one right.

Could you elaborate? As in, point to the relevant sections of the license. Even though the license is quite readable, I'm not entirely willing to spend an hour or so analyzing it.

I can only guess that you're referring to the fact that the Affero GPL considers providing users access to a running application over the network as distribution.

If that is the case I have to disagree on this being a usage clause (see the GPL FAQ).

From my understanding of the GPL, this would only be true if the government is distributing the modified binaries to the terrorists. If the changes are internal-use only, there isn't a GPL conflict by not distributing the modified source.

I'm sure that they will be "distributing modified binaries to terrorists" at about 500 MPH :)

If they drop a smart bomb on someone that uses open source software in its circuitry, I'm guessing that's much like running GPL code on your webserver, and considered internal use only. Now if they use code under the Affero GPL, that could be interesting!

That passage is in the version 1 of the license, proudly displayed e.g. on http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html but not in the version 3 of the license, available for example at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html. On the first page there is this notice

"Note: The GNU Affero General Public License version 3 has been released. It follows the same basic structure as this license, but it is based on version 3 of the GNU GPL, and you can combine modules released under GPLv3 and the GNU AGPLv3. If you were thinking about releasing your software under this license, we recommend you use the GNU AGPLv3 instead."

It was an interesting point you brought up but fortunately it's been addressed.

I'm looking at:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

And I can't find the snippet you quoted as part of AGPL3, including the part you bolded. Please clarify.

Somebody mod parent down.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
"Preamble

The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works, specifically designed to ensure cooperation with the community in the case of network server software."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
"The Affero General Public License, often abbreviated as Affero GPL and AGPL (and sometimes informally called the Affero license) refers to two distinct, though historically related, free software licenses: (1) the Affero General Public License, version 1 (published by Affero, Inc. in March 2002, and based closely on the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2)), and (2) the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 (published by the Free Software Foundation in November 2007, and closely resembling the GNU General Public License, version 3 (GPLv3))."

If FSF considers it to be free software, how it is not free software, and by a lot of people you mean who?

Thanks for the support. The RIAA's motion is frivolous, and I will be responding to it in short order. The responsive papers are due October 13th.

It's just an obvious attempt on their part to weasel out of their liability for attorneys fees, after torturing this innocent woman for the past 3 years.

Some folks have indicated an interest in contributing financially.

Anyone who wants to contribute to Ms. Lindor can do so here. Anyone who wants to contribute to the Expert Witness Defense Fund, which helps people like Ms. Lindor with hiring experts and tech consultants can do so here. Anyone who wants to contribute to me, to help me with the work I do in my blogging and getting the word out, can do so here. Another way to help out my blog is to make purchases through the affiliate ads I post on the blog. (If there are products or services you're looking for that aren't represented there, let me know, and I'll try to get affiliate ads posted for them.

Here is my post providing the details of the accusations.

The RIAA's litigation campaign is in its death throes, as are the 4 big record companies who are behind it. I guess this is the way dying hyenas act, they lash out. Not to worry, they will still lose.

If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that.

See Section 9 of the GPL v3:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.

'It has become fashionable to describe copyright, patents, and trademarks as "intellectual property". This fashion did not arise by accident--the term systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion. Anyone wishing to think clearly about any of these laws would do well to reject the term.'

False: DynaSoar's assertion that estoppel by laches applies as strongly to copyrights and patents as it does to trademarks.

False: Nursie's assertion that laches "certainly does not apply to copyrights or patents."

True: Something in between.

Confusing: The term "intellectual property", which encourages people to draw false analogies among copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

Good to see the game being given as freeware, but free software would be better!

No requirement that you keep the source available for X years, like the GPL?

Not that I can see. I'll quote the relevant paragraph from AGPLv3:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

The whole argument for FOSS 3D video card drivers is just silly in my opinion. Very very very few people have the skills necessary to write good drivers for these chips

Here's how the Ubuntu restricted drivers installer explained it to me: If the developers of other kernel or X components can't use their debuggers to trace execution through a kernel module (or a user-mode process that has equivalent hardware access to the kernel), they can't provide support for a system that includes such a module, other than "go back to VESA". So it isn't as much a license issue as the ability to see what the code is doing and how it is interacting with other code on the same machine; even a more restrictive license such as the Microsoft Reference Source License might be a step up.

the drivers are some of the most important IP in a graphics card

Unless you mean "Internet Protocol" (and you don't), the term "intellectual property" has some undesirable baggage associated with it. It implies to the reader that 1. copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets are more alike than they really are, and that 2. owners of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets deserve exclusive rights comparable in scope to those of the holder of a plot of land. Worse, the abbrevation of "intellectual property" as "IP" implies to the reader that these two positions are so self-evident that the reader ought to have already accepted them by now.

Of course, I don't game at all

Do you babysit children who game? I do.

To those not aware, the FSF Associate Membership program (referral link) is more of a supporter appreciation program. As such, Associate Members do not speak on behalf of the Free Software Foundation. Only FSF staff are authorized to make statements on behalf of the FSF.

Of course, I am an Associate Member (#795), so what I just said above is solely my opinion and not the official position of the Free Software Foundation.

Err... Or something.. like that. :)

The GPL DOES NOT ban commercial use. See the FAQ: Commercial Use.

I think you are confusing the terms Commercial and Proprietery.

1. http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_help.html
2. http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw
3. http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html

The last is listed on their high priority projects. Unfortunately there are precious few motherboards that support coreboot. I do plan to buy one however and to tell them that's why I'm buying it.

1. http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_help.html
2. http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw
3. http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html

The last is listed on their high priority projects. Unfortunately there are precious few motherboards that support coreboot. I do plan to buy one however and to tell them that's why I'm buying it.

1. http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_help.html
2. http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw
3. http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html

The last is listed on their high priority projects. Unfortunately there are precious few motherboards that support coreboot. I do plan to buy one however and to tell them that's why I'm buying it.

1. http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_help.html
2. http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw
3. http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html

The last is listed on their high priority projects. Unfortunately there are precious few motherboards that support coreboot. I do plan to buy one however and to tell them that's why I'm buying it.

I read somewhere that they even removed GLX- which basically represents linux's only sane graphical development. That is just sad.

Don't get me wrong- I love opensource technologies, but let's face it... part of what makes linux awesome is the fact that it's generally supported by some important commercial things like adobe flash and nvidia (for its drivers) and such- and how about mplayer? I am more in the "screw licenses" boat than the "boycott anything without gnu written on it" raft.

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows

The XO's usual software load is not 100% free; it has a non-free firmware program to run the wireless chip. That means I cannot fully promote the XO as it stands, but it was easy for me to solve that problem for my own machine: I just deleted that file. That made the internal wireless chip inoperative, but I can do without it.

Software engineering, Stallman style.

Certainly any laptop with Atheros wireless, Intel graphics and sound is going to work nicely.

For a more comrehensive list, look here:

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

Wireless cards here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/net/wireless/cards.html
(baslically, Ath9k, Ath5k or Ralink).

Video cards are here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/video
(basically Intel, and increasingly ATI and VIA).

Sound cards are here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/soundcards
(various).

This list is already out of date, as the amount of new hardware with fully open source driver support increases all the time.

Certainly any laptop with Atheros wireless, Intel graphics and sound is going to work nicely.

For a more comrehensive list, look here:

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

Wireless cards here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/net/wireless/cards.html
(baslically, Ath9k, Ath5k or Ralink).

Video cards are here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/video
(basically Intel, and increasingly ATI and VIA).

Sound cards are here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/soundcards
(various).

This list is already out of date, as the amount of new hardware with fully open source driver support increases all the time.

Certainly any laptop with Atheros wireless, Intel graphics and sound is going to work nicely.

For a more comrehensive list, look here:

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

Wireless cards here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/net/wireless/cards.html
(baslically, Ath9k, Ath5k or Ralink).

Video cards are here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/video
(basically Intel, and increasingly ATI and VIA).

Sound cards are here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/soundcards
(various).

This list is already out of date, as the amount of new hardware with fully open source driver support increases all the time.

Certainly any laptop with Atheros wireless, Intel graphics and sound is going to work nicely.

For a more comrehensive list, look here:

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

Wireless cards here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/net/wireless/cards.html
(baslically, Ath9k, Ath5k or Ralink).

Video cards are here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/video
(basically Intel, and increasingly ATI and VIA).

Sound cards are here: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/soundcards
(various).

This list is already out of date, as the amount of new hardware with fully open source driver support increases all the time.

I am willing to bet he is unhappy with BSD the same way he is with Debian, Ubuntu and pretty much every other Linux distro. Not their license, which he does not like as much as the GPL, but is still fine with.

See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
Modified BSD license.

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

Knowing which hardware devices support GNU/Linux is important not only for practical reasons---you want your hardware to work with the software that you want to use---but also for ethical and political reasons. You can help the free software movement by purchasing hardware from manufacturers who support our goals and not purchasing from those who don't.

If this is something that some people want, then that's great, more power to them. But I'm left with a lot of misgivings:

1. If I was really serious about running a system with no binary blobs, I think I'd probably run OpenBSD. The level of hassles you encounter with an OS basically depends on how big its audience is and how many resources it has available. When it comes to something that's even more obscure than OpenBSD, I'm chicken. And I'm not clear on what advantages GNewSense would have over OpenBSD.
2. If you have hardware whose only linux support is via binary blobs, then you can't use GNewSense, because your hardware won't work. If you have hardware that has linux support via OSS drivers, then you don't need GNewSense, you can just install ubuntu and select OSS drivers rather than any binary drivers that are also available.
3. All other things being equal, I'd love to buy only hardware that's got good OSS support, and run only OSS drivers. Unfortunately, doing that is much, much harder than it should be. For example, I bought my kids $200 Linux boxes to put in their rooms, and we don't want to drill holes and run cables, so we're using wifi for those machines. The wifi cards I bought had Rt61 and Rt2500 chipsets. The FSF says that the Rt2500 has support from open-source drivers, whereas the Rt61 doesn't. But actually, the OSS drivers for the Rt2500 don't really work in my experience. That is, if you install the Linksys binary-blob drivers via ndiswrapper, and you start Gnome, you get a little logo that shows you you've automatically established an internet connection, it shows you the power level, everything works. If you install the OSS driver, then apparently none of that works. No, my kids are not going to open a terminal window every time they want internet access and type cryptic commands. If you search on ubuntuforums.org, you'll find dozens of threads about getting Rt2500 wifi to work using ndiswrapper, with lots of discussion of the various pitfalls, etc. Why would people be putting that amount of effort into installing the binary blobs if the OSS support actually worked well, as the FSF claims?
4. Their faq sort of makes it sound like other distros are toilet seats in public restrooms; they have lots of invisible germs that you'll get on you, and you won't know it. Realistically, I think Ubuntu and Debian make it reasonably clear when you're installing closed-source software. The faq mentions GLX as an example where you can inadvertently installed non-OSS software on Debian or Ubuntu. Rather than installing a very obscure distro, wouldn't it be easier just to install something like Ubuntu, do the research to find out that GLX isn't free (by someone's definition of free, which may or may not agree with yours), and then make a choice not to install it?

Well, there is second foundation already. Also the Mule is out there.

All of what you said may have been insightful were it not for the fact that Dell was trying to trademark the term, not patent anything.

At least you didn't use the phrase 'Intellectual Property'

Read this soon.

A belongs to B. B belongs to C. Calling A part of C is wrong?

The problem with "intellectual property" is that people who use the term tend to reinforce the misconceptions that 1. copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets have more in common than they actually have, and that 2. they should be treated more like real or personal property, with stronger exclusive rights.

That it's actually attractive enough an idea to make it the theme of an advertising campaign is even better. Perhaps "Vista free" is this year's "Fat Free" of the computing world. Imagine the Vista logo with a red circle and strike on the box of PCs, phones, printers, scanners, external media, routers and switches along with the text: "Don't worry. This product does not contain or require Windows Vista." Or maybe this nice logo.

I had typed a response to this but I think slashdot ate it. I think it went something like this: You are an exceptional person and I greatly admire the continued commitment you have to the cause. I am not of the opinion that all lawyers are sleezeballs or anything like that and the phrase was meant to amuse as it typically does here though I suppose they'd be Maine country lawyers. Either way, you seem to be an exception in many ways. That you take the time to fight the case is not exceptional, there are a lot of great lawyers out there. That you ALSO take the time to update us, to keep us aware of the problems, and give us hope is above and beyond what I'd expect of anyone in any field. I did have a question: Does your client, if you can say, have a homepage or anything where they accept donations to assist them with their legal fund? As the first comment (hell both really) didn't suit properly I'll add that, in short (or really long actually), I truly appreciate the information you're sharing with us and thank you greatly for the time you take to keep us in the loop.

Thanks very much for your kind words.

In response to your question,

-you can contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense fund by PayPal here, or by sending it to my firm and indicating that it's for Marie Lindor;

-you can contribute to the expert witness defense fund here;

-you can contribute to the legal defense funds of Tenise Barker, Joan Cassin, and/or Victor Torres, or to my blog, by making payment to my firm and indicating which defendant it's for;

if you want to contribute to a defendant being represented by another firm, I assume you can send payment to that firm and indicate which case it's earmarked for;

if you want to contribute to my blog you can send the payment to my firm, indicating it's a general contribution to the work of the law blog.

Also you can help support our work by patronizing the advertisers on Recording Industry vs. The People. We frequently have "affiliate ads" listed in the sidebar. If there are particular products or types of products you would be interested in, email me and I'll try to get advertisers of those products.

Whoops,

That should be:
http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html

Besides having contributed to GPL'd software before linux even existed, I am directly involved and have been one of the major proponents of GPL compliance in a company that has paid enough money to the FSF to have their logo posted at the FSF's Patron's Page. We ship products every day with GPL compliance and have contributed major amounts of funding for GPL projects.

If FSF does more moronic things like this it would be my official recommendation to not supply more funding directly to the FSF but fund other GPL projects directly.

You asked:

And why didn't any of the previous FSF actions against Apple bother you?

That did bother me, RMS boycotted apple and then Apple eventually complied. Richard Stallman announced the End of the Apple Boycott in 1995.

Let me re-iterate that for you: Why RMS and FSF may have theological/political differences with Apple, Apple is is full compliance with the FSF/GNU license terms of the software that they contribute to and distribute.

The people at FSF who are involved in this petty irrelevant protest are only making the FSF look bad and those people are not contributing to Open Moko
when they are at an apple store wasting everybody's time.

--jeffk++

I don't care what you criticise Apple for, unless it's plain wrong. If it's wrong, I'll correct you, generally. You said:

If the FSF had said that it's completely impossible to write F/OSS for the iPhone, then yes, it's a lie, but so far all I've seen are comments pointing out that they obfuscate it needlessly

From The FSF rant:

iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones.

So I guess you agree with me that they're lying, then ?

Simon.

This, to my understanding, is not the FSF. It's a blogger with the user name Johns on their site (Just look at the address: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/apple-challenge ) .

The conspiracy side of me wonders if Microsoft set this up. Think about it: Microsoft does some open source stuff, 24 hours later there is a lots of attention to this which all ignores that it is not the FSF but a blogger. Is Microsoft trying to pull a open source coup?

Thats the problem. It's not the FSF, it's a member of the FSF blogging on their site. No one seems to get that. Look at the address: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/apple-challenge . That said, the blogger is completely insane.

Well i followed the liks from
http://www.fsf.org/ to
News and Activism to
DefectiveByDesign.org to
I guess it's FSF.

Nice 6 years, huh?

Well i followed the liks from
http://www.fsf.org/ to
News and Activism to
DefectiveByDesign.org to
I guess it's FSF.

Nice 6 years, huh?