Slashdot Mirror

The article says "only free software compiler" which could mean either a compiler that is free software (as in FOSS), or a software compiler that is free.

No. "Free software" has been a term of art for over two decades, meaning software that is distributed under terms respecting the four freedoms. Any person educated in the field of software knows that the term "free software" does not refer to price.

"FOSS" is a recent term that attempts to conflate the Free Software movement with the Open Source Software movement.

It's this childish "Waah, its MS and not FOSS" attitude that make all of /. readers look like pimply basement dwelling dorks.

It's this childish attempt to redefine well-understood terms that makes you look like a corporate shill.

Send a letter to the Boston Public Library

        * Send this page to somebody

"I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management."
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl

Richard Stallman sent a letter to the Boston Public Library (BPL) asking them to abandon the system they currently use to distribute audio books, since this format requires the use of proprietary software. It is illegal in the US to release free software capable of reading these audio books because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) measures that are being imposed.

You can help by sending your own letter to the BPL (gref at bpl dot org) and by examining the policies of your own local library. We would be glad to see CCs of any letters you send at campaigns@fsf.org and to hear about any similar policies in place at libraries other than the BPL.

Please keep an eye on our DRM campaign area for future updates about this and other related issues
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl

Send a letter to the Boston Public Library

        * Send this page to somebody

"I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management."
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl

Richard Stallman sent a letter to the Boston Public Library (BPL) asking them to abandon the system they currently use to distribute audio books, since this format requires the use of proprietary software. It is illegal in the US to release free software capable of reading these audio books because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) measures that are being imposed.

You can help by sending your own letter to the BPL (gref at bpl dot org) and by examining the policies of your own local library. We would be glad to see CCs of any letters you send at campaigns@fsf.org and to hear about any similar policies in place at libraries other than the BPL.

Please keep an eye on our DRM campaign area for future updates about this and other related issues
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl

Send a letter to the Boston Public Library

        * Send this page to somebody

"I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management."
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl

Richard Stallman sent a letter to the Boston Public Library (BPL) asking them to abandon the system they currently use to distribute audio books, since this format requires the use of proprietary software. It is illegal in the US to release free software capable of reading these audio books because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) measures that are being imposed.

You can help by sending your own letter to the BPL (gref at bpl dot org) and by examining the policies of your own local library. We would be glad to see CCs of any letters you send at campaigns@fsf.org and to hear about any similar policies in place at libraries other than the BPL.

Please keep an eye on our DRM campaign area for future updates about this and other related issues
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl

Our libraries come up short with regard to overdrive...

Letter to the Boston Public Library
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html

        * Send this page to somebody

To the Management of the Boston Public Library,

Don Saklad forwarded me your message which reports that OverDrive Audio Books use "copyright protection technology" made by Microsoft.

The technology in question is an example of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)--technology designed to restrict the public. Describing it as "copyright protection" puts a favorable spin on a mechanism intended to deny the public the exercise of those rights which copyright law has not yet denied them.

The use of that format for distributing books is not a fact of nature; it is a choice. When a choice leads to bad consequences, it ought to be changed, and that is the case here. I respectfully submit that the Boston Public Library has a responsibility to refuse to distribute anything in this format, even if it seems "convenient" to some in the short term.

By making the choice to use this format, the Boston Public Library gives additional power to a corporation already twice convicted of unfair competition.

This choice excludes more than just Macintosh users. The users of the GNU/Linux system, an operating system made up of free/libre software, are excluded as well. Since these audiobooks are locked up with Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), it is illegal in the US to release free/libre software capable of reading these audiobooks. Apple may make some sort of arrangement to include capable software in MacOS (which is, itself, non-free software for which users cannot get source code). But we in the free software community will never be allowed to provide software to play them, unless laws are changed.

There is another, deeper issue at stake here. The tendency of digitalization is to convert public libraries into retail stores for vendors of digital works. The choice to distribute information in a secret format--information designed to evaporate and become unreadable--is the antithesis of the spirit of the public library. Libraries which participate in this have lost their hearts.

I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management.
Sincerely
Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
MacArthur Fellow
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html

Our libraries come up short with regard to overdrive...

Letter to the Boston Public Library
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html

        * Send this page to somebody

To the Management of the Boston Public Library,

Don Saklad forwarded me your message which reports that OverDrive Audio Books use "copyright protection technology" made by Microsoft.

The technology in question is an example of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)--technology designed to restrict the public. Describing it as "copyright protection" puts a favorable spin on a mechanism intended to deny the public the exercise of those rights which copyright law has not yet denied them.

The use of that format for distributing books is not a fact of nature; it is a choice. When a choice leads to bad consequences, it ought to be changed, and that is the case here. I respectfully submit that the Boston Public Library has a responsibility to refuse to distribute anything in this format, even if it seems "convenient" to some in the short term.

By making the choice to use this format, the Boston Public Library gives additional power to a corporation already twice convicted of unfair competition.

This choice excludes more than just Macintosh users. The users of the GNU/Linux system, an operating system made up of free/libre software, are excluded as well. Since these audiobooks are locked up with Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), it is illegal in the US to release free/libre software capable of reading these audiobooks. Apple may make some sort of arrangement to include capable software in MacOS (which is, itself, non-free software for which users cannot get source code). But we in the free software community will never be allowed to provide software to play them, unless laws are changed.

There is another, deeper issue at stake here. The tendency of digitalization is to convert public libraries into retail stores for vendors of digital works. The choice to distribute information in a secret format--information designed to evaporate and become unreadable--is the antithesis of the spirit of the public library. Libraries which participate in this have lost their hearts.

I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management.
Sincerely
Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
MacArthur Fellow
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html

Trivial and of no consequence? Oh do tell, what changes are needed?

Any of the GPL-compatible licenses on this page would do: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

I can think of many reasons why Sun would want to use CDDL over GPL

I have no problems with Sun picking a more liberal license than the GPL. But among the many licenses that are more liberal, they handcrafted one that was GPL-incompatible.

Sun is making their TCK freely available to any implementation or derivation of the GPL'd OpenJDK code.

Quite right, which answers your question of how Sun keeps control over Java and the OpenJDK: they control the TCK, they control who gets to use it, and they control their own dual-licensed implementation.

Many projects are dual-licensed, what of it?

You wanted an answer to the question of "How do you maintain control of the development of a GPL'd work?" This is one of several control mechanisms: Sun develops Java under a dual license and has a large non-GPL userbase. That makes forking the Java JDK unrealistic and pretty much ensures continued control by Sun.

Sorry, I was unclear (and a bit confused myself it seems)

You were quite clear, you were simply didn't know the facts. And that's my overall point: the details matter a great deal in evaluating what open source related activities by companies mean. Just because Sun releases a lot of code under the GPL and talks a lot about open source doesn't mean that they actually support the kind of open source that has actually brought us Linux and gcc.

We needed an open source license that allowed files released under the license to be linked with files released under other licenses.

There are many licenses that would have satisfied all of Sun's requirement and still been compatible with the GPLv2. The provisions that make the CDDL incompatible are obscure, technical, and largely useless. Have a look here for an explanation.

No, the only explanation why Sun picked a license with GPLv2 incompatible clauses is because they deliberately wanted to be GPLv2 incompatible.

The FSF defines what free software is because they came up with the term. With very few exceptions, software that isn't GPL compatible also isn't free software, although it may be open source software.

So it's incompatible with the GPL, not really 'free software'?

GPL-compatibility is not a requirement for free software.

A small victory, but an important one. Maybe Massachusetts can now be persuaded to move to an actual open, easy-to-implement and reliable standard to preserve government records. It can join Russia and Norway in using ODF.

Neither the GPL nor any other piece of paper constitutes a contract without more. A "contract" is the total legal obligations of the parties arising out of their agreement as enforced in law. Papers or digital records are neither agreements, nor obligations. [..] How the license is used in the context of a particular transaction controls whether it creates or becomes part of a contract.

So FSF won't act as pro bono GPL enforcement for code it doesn't own. Neither you nor the enlightened individual you're defending have given a valid reason why they should. Instead, you've accused them of being hypocrites. There are perfectly good reasons why they wouldn't (though according to them, they do initial investigation even on software they don't own).

If a piece of code has its copyright assigned to FSF, that code is guaranteed to stay free. If the code remains under the ownership of the author, the author could close it off at any time. Further, if FSF owns the code, they have absolute control over how a violation is dealt with. They act as their own legal counsel. If instead, they're simply providing legal services to the author, then they must prosecute the violation as the author dictates, which may not be in the interests of the FSF or the code itself. Imagine if they put months of effort into building a case against a violator, only to discover that the author is dropping the case because the company agreed to pay him 10K? Talk about throwing money down a gaping, bottomless pit.

The guy you're defending is an idiot. I say this because no intelligent person could write, "If I'm not going to hold my own copyright, why not just specifically disavow copyright and let it enrich everybody via the public domain?" The answer, obviously, is that the author wants the software to be GPL'ed, but doesn't have the time, interest, or expertise to prosecute infringement himself.

I hesitate to call you an idiot as well, but you do buy into the same line of reasoning. Further, no intelligent person could write, "And then you realize that the only way to get that protection of freedom with them involved if it is ever challenged, is to give up your freedom and give them the copyright." No, you have the option of hiring your own lawyers (perhaps even the same lawyers who also provide services to the FSF) on your own dime.

I have a simple solution for you: if you like the GPL, use it. If you prefer GPL2 to GPL3, don't use GPL3. If you think making your software public domain makes it "more free" than any of the standard open source licenses, then use public domain. I defy you to find a single word in the grandparent's post that indicates that the GPL is the only license anyone should ever use, yet you have the temerity to write, "The bottom line is that there are all sorts of reasons people wouldn't want the restrictions and some of the issues the GPL places on their works. It doesn't mean they are retarded or any less then you." This leads me to question either your honesty, or your reading comprehension.

Neither of you have shown that there is any hypocrisy in the FSF's decision to only prosecute violations of FSF-owned code. Why should they waste their scarce resources on behalf of an author who has some other agenda than supporting open code?

from: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violatio n.html

"The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same."

(my emphasis)

In what way does this resemble "won't pursue shit"? They can't be the ones to bring the suit, but it certainly looks like they'll help.

The FSF investigates and pursues GPL violations on its software on all platforms. I've handled violations on Windows, MacOS X, GNU/Linux, and embedded devices. We provide complete instructions for reporting violations on our web site; if you're finding any kind of violation on FSF-copyrighted software, please don't hesitate to contact us.

-- Brett Smith, FSF Licensing Compliance Engineer

Intellectual Property

Be careful with that word. The FSF says that the term "Intellectual Property" is "a propaganda term designed to confuse people" (as they stated in a recent press release). Thereforw, be a sheep and always clearly state whether you mean, copyright, trademark, patent, trade name, trade secret, goodwill or what kind of IP you mean. Never use the generalizing term! God forbid.

About "(...) question as to whether Microsoft knew the GPL could change": Lots of the software (but not the Linux kernel) that Novell sells and makes is currently licensed under the GPLv2 but with the extra wording

This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.

At the time of the Microsoft--Novell deal (november 2006), the GPLv3 creation process was already well underway (since the end of 2005), and IIRC one of the stated goals was to prevent the current U.S.A (and almost E.U) software patent mess from afflicting GPLed software (but, I can't find any quotes or references for that so it may be my imagination).

And secondly, about the MS-Novell deal: Let me quote a (large) part from RMS's GPLv3 launch speech, about the Microsoft-Novell deal:

Another threat to our freedom comes from software patents. I'm sure you've heard about the Novell-Microsoft deal, which was dangerous, because, effectively, Novell is going to pay Microsoft to give customers protection from some of Microsoft's patents. Well, if Microsoft, or anyone, can make users pay for the privilege of running free software, that takes away from freedom zero: the freedom to run the program as you wish. We can't sit idly by and let that happen.

Now, GPL version 2 had a change in it from GPL version 1 to protect us against use of software patents to make the program effectively non-free. But, it only applies when the distributor gets a patent license. Well in the Novell-Microsoft deal, they were clever, and Microsoft didn't give Novell a patent license. So, they slipped through this crack in GPL version 2. Well, in GPL version 3, we don't have this crack anymore--such deals are not allowed.

However, instead of simply saying that Novell can't distribute GPL version 3 covered programs under their deal, we found a cleverer thing to do with it. When Microsoft updates to versions that are covered by GPL version 3, GPL version 3 will extend this patent protection from the customers of Novell to everybody who uses those programs. Effectively, we found a way to turn that deal against Microsoft and make it backfire. So, it's extremely important for free software to upgrade the license to GPL version 3. So that, Novell, in the course of time, will put in the new versions, and thus our community will get this benefit. It has to be done fairly soon, because if we wait too long, Microsoft may distribute all its coupons and then we won't be able to turn the deal against them anymore. So, get your programs relicensed soon, it's very important. We expect all the maintainers of GNU software to relicense in the next few months--it's important. But, other free software developers should also relicense.

IMHO, his quote

they were clever, and Microsoft didn't give Novell a patent license

Disclaimer: I'm tired, and pissed of at "the votes of the Swedish jury".

About "(...) question as to whether Microsoft knew the GPL could change": Lots of the software (but not the Linux kernel) that Novell sells and makes is currently licensed under the GPLv2 but with the extra wording

This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.

At the time of the Microsoft--Novell deal (november 2006), the GPLv3 creation process was already well underway (since the end of 2005), and IIRC one of the stated goals was to prevent the current U.S.A (and almost E.U) software patent mess from afflicting GPLed software (but, I can't find any quotes or references for that so it may be my imagination).

And secondly, about the MS-Novell deal: Let me quote a (large) part from RMS's GPLv3 launch speech, about the Microsoft-Novell deal:

Another threat to our freedom comes from software patents. I'm sure you've heard about the Novell-Microsoft deal, which was dangerous, because, effectively, Novell is going to pay Microsoft to give customers protection from some of Microsoft's patents. Well, if Microsoft, or anyone, can make users pay for the privilege of running free software, that takes away from freedom zero: the freedom to run the program as you wish. We can't sit idly by and let that happen.

Now, GPL version 2 had a change in it from GPL version 1 to protect us against use of software patents to make the program effectively non-free. But, it only applies when the distributor gets a patent license. Well in the Novell-Microsoft deal, they were clever, and Microsoft didn't give Novell a patent license. So, they slipped through this crack in GPL version 2. Well, in GPL version 3, we don't have this crack anymore--such deals are not allowed.

However, instead of simply saying that Novell can't distribute GPL version 3 covered programs under their deal, we found a cleverer thing to do with it. When Microsoft updates to versions that are covered by GPL version 3, GPL version 3 will extend this patent protection from the customers of Novell to everybody who uses those programs. Effectively, we found a way to turn that deal against Microsoft and make it backfire. So, it's extremely important for free software to upgrade the license to GPL version 3. So that, Novell, in the course of time, will put in the new versions, and thus our community will get this benefit. It has to be done fairly soon, because if we wait too long, Microsoft may distribute all its coupons and then we won't be able to turn the deal against them anymore. So, get your programs relicensed soon, it's very important. We expect all the maintainers of GNU software to relicense in the next few months--it's important. But, other free software developers should also relicense.

IMHO, his quote

they were clever, and Microsoft didn't give Novell a patent license

Disclaimer: I'm tired, and pissed of at "the votes of the Swedish jury".

You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.

If you don't look carefully, that seems to get turned on its head with most applications of the GNU GPL. I'm a big fan of free / open source software, and I release much of my code under the GNU GPL, but I've never been happy with the "or any later version" bit. It's stupid. The default example given in "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" says to include this text:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

(Lifted from GNU GPL2, but the same text is there in GNU GPL3.) If you copy/paste that into your program (as many developers do) it creates confusion, and I think this is where some of the conflict over the GNU GPL and "viral" accusations comes from. The effect is that I could release Version 1.0 of my program under GNU GPL2. With that text there, someone else may redistribute Version 1.0 of my program to others with the GNU GPL3 license.

Better would have been to leave out the "or any later version" bit. I really wish the FSF hadn't put that in the default example.

Fortunately, this gets some attention in the GNU GPL, and I hope most developers read and understand the whole of the GNU GPL before they apply it. Here's the text from GNU GPL3:

14. Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

(You'll find the same text in section 9 of GNU GPL2, btw.) That is the only place "or any later version" shows up, except for the example at the end. So I now encourage developers to not use the "or any later version" text (and specify the version of the GNU GPL) if they want to ensure a particular version of the GNU GPL. Then you don't fall into the trap of worrying about how the FSF will modify later versions of the GNU GPL to do something you're not comfortable with.

My $0.02.

-jh

The problem with deals like the MS-Novell deal is that they have the potential to partition our community. Such deals are also bad from a purely economic point of view, as they give an unfair advantage to a single distributor. I don't think we want any future deals like this, so the GPLv3 included provisions designed to ensure that you can't just choose who will get patent protection - you must extend the protection to everyone if you do offer such protection at all.

Remember that the GPL is designed to protect the users of computer software, and I think GPLv3's provisions against patent protection deals is a good thing. We must attack such deals as a community. The Slashdot headline is a bit too speculative, but I think FSF would have a valid case if this reached the court one day, but IANAL (I'm not a lawyer).

Full disclosure: I'm a Contributing Member of the FSF.

I copy from the GPLv3 FAQ written by brett:

I think you are looking at it from the inside out. While I don't disagree with what you say, I think the crux of your issue fall on several things that aren't stated clearly.

First is that Linux has created a sort of exception to the GPL where he claims it is ok to run anything as long as it uses normal system call from the kernel. This is what gave us the idea of separating user-land from the kernel-space. There are a lot of people who don't think he has a right to make this exception to the GPL but it has been this way for a while.

Second, the exception your mentioning is if there is a proprietary work and you create a GPLed work that uses it. I believe you even represented it this way. Where the problem comes in is when a proprietary app links into a GPLed work. This is what I think the parent was attempting to say which I agreed with.

Third, You mention the uses of BSD and LGPL style licenses. I know the list is long and that I would certainly miss a lot if I tried to name them. But these weren't the ones we were talking about.

I tried to do a google search to check my facts and it appears this issue is riddled with back and forth interpretations on this. I was hoping the FSF had a faq about (I did see the exception you were talking about though). In the GPLv3, it declares all the libraries as part of the covered works. Here is a link to where they show that not only is linking as we noted not proper, but it shows how GPLv2 only and GPLv3 libraries and programs cannot be linked or put together. Even GPLv2 and LGPLv3 is incompatible which demonstrates the outside in approach. Also, it goes so far that you have to relicense LGPL for use with regular GPLed works in some situations.

Here is another site that attempts to deal with the issue for embedded developers It brings up the same concerns and lists some of the issues surounding the Linus position and all. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with the GPLv3 since it was written 6 years ago.

I am thinking it is a problem to the uneducated. Most proprietary companies in the windows world would probable fall into that category. I think it might be likely that they see the need to create for the platform less important then th need to be clear on the license and terms. I just don't think they are messing with taking the time. FUD goes a long way in this and MS has been their bread an butter for quite a while so they are probably listening to it.

...you're yet another Linux zealot who takes everything as an attack.

If I may diffidently suggest, the common participant in every argument you've ever had is... you. If you keep having the same arguments, it's at least conceivable that you have something to do with that.

it was refreshing to find one user who didn't have his head so far up his ass that he couldn't have an honest conversation. I even mentioned to him how he may be able to help spread Linux.

Oh, you mean here? Ah, yes, no one has ever thought of handing out LiveCDs before. Good one!

But let's see what you say in that comment: "I guess that's the catch-22. Linux needs big software to get the user base that it take to make it worth big software's investments to support Linux." And let's see what I had to say: "But there really is a chicken-and-egg problem in the desktop arena, and just saying 'Y'all need to try harder' isn't going to cut it... there still aren't many commercial games for Linux, because there isn't a big market for Linux games, in part because... there aren't many commercial games for Linux. That's a real problem, and that's what I and others are referring to when talking about the trouble of invading a monopoly market."

I guess I will keep thinking that. You certainly seem to, though you don't appear to recognize it when it's not stated in precisely your wording...

Neither RMS nor the GPL nor the FSF says you CAN'T charge for your work; in fact they encourage you to charge as much as your customers will pay.

See here and here.

Here is a totally random example: http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsof t-windows-vista

From that page they express anger that when you sign the license you agree to the following "ridiculous" item:

"You give Microsoft the right, through programs like Windows Defender, to delete programs from your system that it decides are spyware."

I mean what on earth is it supposed to do? They act as though Windows Defender is deleting competing products or something. (obviously false) Deleting spyware is a "good thing". Yet they are clearly implying that "Oh, that sneaky windows defender, Microsoft must have some list somewhere of programs it doesnt want you to have and is covertly deleting them!" Talk about spin, yeesh. The entire rest of the page is arguably fuddish as well, but I dont really have the time to argue over ever single sentence on there. And this is just one quote out of a gazillion from people who will interpret everything MS does as being evil and sneaky.

Do you think that post makes the free software foundation look good?

A ringing endorsement from the usual AC losers:

It's no wonder that even the pro-Linux posters here hate you. You drag them down by association.

As usual, the AC is not "pro-Linux". Asking the AC to understand free software is almost hopeless. Such clueless hatred along with the usual M$ PR drones, who have great memories when it comes to tracking and troubling me, means I must have said something right. Thanks AC!

The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another. Metro_Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.. 545 U.S. 913, (2005). Rather, the doctrine of secondary liability emerged from common law principles. Id. Under those common law principles, one infringes a copyright contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging a direct infringement. The elements of a claim for contributory copyright infringement are: (1) direct infringement by third party; (2) knowledge by the defendant that third parties were directly infringing; and (3) substaintial participation by the defendant in infringing activities. See Newborn v. Yahoo!, 391 F. Supp.2d 181, (D.D.C. 2005); see also Newborn v. Yahoo! Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C 2006) (finding defendant was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees after prevailing upon plaintiff's frivolous and objectively unreasonable contributory copyright claim). Merely supplying means to accomplish infringing activity cannot give rise to imposition of liability for contributory copyright infringement. Id.;see also A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 239. F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). One infringes a copyright vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913.

The judge is basicly saying that indirect infringement requires direct infringement. If this principle were applied to the "coupons expiration date + gplv3" theory, it would say that Microsoft is not guilty of infringement if Novell is not guilty of direct infringement.

Free software advocates, in their zeal to get Microsoft, should not attack this principle, because that would make it easier for the RIAA to persecute innocent people accused of copying songs.

Because of the grandfat her clause, the FSF has all but admitted it does not intend to proceed against Novell.

Isn't the whole point of Open Source to have "freedom"?

Yeah. All those GNU guys managed to complete were a compiler that supports 20-odd languages, a shell, the full set of portable, POSIX-compatible UNIX tools (sed, awk etc), a cross-platform plotter, a PostScript interpreter, a chess engine, a complete system for internationalisation, a C library ... oh, and about 5,000 other applications and tools.

And they only wrote those since they were all needed to compile Emacs.

Richard Stallman doesn't agree with being called an "open source software figure" or with being considered part of the "open source movement". The "open source" movement is a fork of the "free software" movement started by Richard Stallman. Although "open source software" is practically identical to "free software" for just about all practical purposes, the fundamental philosophy of the Open Source Initiative differs significantly enough from the viewpoint of Stallman's Free Software Foundation (FSF) that the FSF will, if participating at all at "open source" events, put up a big "we're not part of the open source movement!" banner. A good discussion of the difference between "open source" and "free software" from the FSF's perspective is here.

Richard Stallman doesn't agree with being called an "open source software figure" or with being considered part of the "open source movement". The "open source" movement is a fork of the "free software" movement started by Richard Stallman. Although "open source software" is practically identical to "free software" for just about all practical purposes, the fundamental philosophy of the Open Source Initiative differs significantly enough from the viewpoint of Stallman's Free Software Foundation (FSF) that the FSF will, if participating at all at "open source" events, put up a big "we're not part of the open source movement!" banner. A good discussion of the difference between "open source" and "free software" from the FSF's perspective is here.

A: You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.

If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.

Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.

If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via FTP.

You would benefit from actually reading the GPL-2 then. This is the second sentence, verbatim:

By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software — to make sure the software is free for all its users.

A little more research and you would find their classic free software definition which outlines exactly what they mean by free. I draw your attention to freedoms 0 and 2:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor

The GPL-2 failed to secure those on two accounts: patents and DRM (unless controlled by the user). The GPL-3 covers both those cases and even allows for DRM which is under control of the user.

I was under the impression that the GCC project had special wording added to the GPL so that you didn't have to GPL your project simply because it was compiled using GCC libraries and such. Am I correct in this?

I belive the issue there is around the C++ standard libraries, and yes, there's an exception in that case.

If this is true, I don't understand what the big deal is about migrating GCC (in particular) to GPL3.

I don't think there are any technical or legal issues around GCC and the GPL (IANAL). Personally, I think it's purely political, in the sense that a lot of people who would like the GPLv3 to fail in general are going to oppose it every chance they get, and in particular in a high profile project like GCC.

That said, there's a temptation to dismiss all critics of the new licence as astroturfers for MS/Tvio/whoever, and I don't think that's wise. This is the first time the FSF has exercised the power implicit in all that "... or later" boilerplate, and it's easy to form the feeling that they're throwing their weight around, especially in that attracts so many individualists and libertarians as the Free Software Movement.

I think this needs sensitive handling from the FSF, or they risk seeing opposition to the wait-and-see camp. I'm just worried it'll turn into an outing for the "if-you-don't-like-it-use-windows-instead" crowd.

You are totally, completely free to _use_ a GPLv3 program for whatever you want, and you're even guaranteed to be able to do that on the device it came on, if any. Of course, if you want to distribute the program yourself, you have to give receivers all the same rights.

That doesn't sound like "you are free to use this however you want, except for things we disagree with" at all, to me.

Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"? Many ways to use software (almost anything including the word "firmware", for example) necessarily involve redistributing it.

(Also of interest is that the FSF's own "Free Software Definition" demands freedom of (re)distribution. Therefore I consider GPLv3 to be not only non-free, but hypocritical.)

You're objecting to FUD and not spreading it? Are you sure?

Could you please point out any published comment by RMS in which he describes non-GPL free software licenses as dishonorable? Any published comment to the effect that developers should not have the freedom to use a license of their choosing?

He believes that the user's freedom is paramount and that the GPL v3 is the best license to defend that freedom. He strongly advocates that position. Apparently, you disagree with it, and that's fine. But do you think you're doing yourself any favours by calling him a communist and claiming that he advocates laws that would obligate you to use his preferred license?

Oh, the Free Software Foundation has an extensive list of licenses, too. It lists 66 free software licenses (your OSI link lists a similar number, 60).

The point of the hardware provision is so that the rights that YOU have decided to let end users have when using and distributing YOUR code are not changed or loopholed around. It's YOUR code. YOU get to decide by the license how people legally can use it. That's what the license agreement is for.

The GPL states your RESTRICTIONS (in this case non-restrictions) that you require of the user/distributer of your code. I don't want people taking my code and using it in a box that violates principals that the GPL was written for.

From the FSF Website:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

You should also have: (from the previous paragraph on the website)
"The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity."

Now you can disagree with the FSF's statement. That's OK. You don't have to. But its THEIR license and the license reflects the values of the FSF. By using it I'm agreeing with it and applying the license restrictions to my code.

If you don't like it, don't use my code and don't use code with the GPLv3.

Why are people so bitched up over the FSF's license when Microsoft's license is FAR more restrictive AND you have to pay $$$ for it?

Linus's email was dated June 20th, 2007. That was less than a month ago. I suspect the text of the GPLv3 license he was commenting on didn't change between that date and the date it was released: June 29th, 2007.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223
http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched

The "pretty ok" article you link, however, is dated several months ago: March 28, 2007.

I listened to a talk RMS gave about the GPLv3. It was long and painful. Basically he added clause after clause to take care of cases that he had not thought of before (eg Tivo). But to me it makes it far less elegant and basically impossible to understand by the masses. I think it would be better to keep GPLv2 which can be understood. Sure some Tivo-ish companies may abuse the spirit of it be its better to keep it simple. In RMS's talk he said they changed some wording to make it more international and defined all the terms better. I am OK with that. So lets move to a GPLv2.1 instead of 3.

Take a look at the list of GNU software, and see how much you use.

Please read the FSF's explanation why voting machines can use GPLv3 software. There is no need to spread misinformation.

And now the FSF is revising it. We need your help!

Nope. It's the Afferro GPL.