Slashdot Mirror
Domain: fsf.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to fsf.org.
Comments · 2,536
-
Hypocrite is no more than an insult.It's hypocritical to have a different notion of "freedom" than him? Because I'm pretending to believe what I don't actually believe (that's what "hypocrite" means) if I believe in using different tactics to gain freedom? I don't think the FSF can be accused of using law to define their morality. They have their own idea, written about at length, which contains little mention of the law (save perhaps where they find it to be immoral). Rather, they think that we can and should prevent things like Tivoization and Linus thinks they're wrong for doing that.
So here Linus is parroting worthless, old slogans ("law isn't morality!" "you're hypocrites") instead of applying critical thought to his criticism which would make it worth reading. "Hypocrite" is nothing but an insult these days, not real criticism, or he'd have bothered to describe how, exactly they're pretending to believe something they don't (hint: you can't). I believe they've been quite up front about the exact sort of freedom they believe in, he just doesn't agree with it. But that is NOT hypocrisy. I really wish people would quit using that word, because it's a quick way to make an ass of yourself.
Speaking of which, hi Linus. I know you read Slashdot. Please know that I still think you do an awesome job at writing kernels, but I'm not going to suck up and pretend that I agree with you when I don't.
And lest anyone complain that I haven't made clear what RMS has to say about freedom, here's one quote (which doesn't have any confusion between morality and legality, nor does it pretend to believe something it doesn't):One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called "appliances") contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise.
Source -
Re:Fork?
You can't just willy nilly make your own derivative GPL.
And what if the FSF gave you permission?
-
Re:What Linus really said
I wish I had mod points...
Sigh... the author of the article seems to be yet another bozo trying to stuff words in Linus's mouth. Clearly people opposed to free software development have decided that trying to make GPL V3 a big issue will win them points.
What's interesting is that I haven't heard any criticism from the FSF over Linus's choice to keep the Linux kernel GPL V2. Clearly they want people to upgrade to GPL V3. In fact, here's RMS's editorial on the subject:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html
In it he doesn't even mention the Linux kernel. In fact he goes so far as to say it's OK to run a GPL V2 program side by side with a GPL V3 program.
I'm getting a little bit tired of this stuff. The spin doctors are working overtime to discredit free software developers. I think it's time we just ignored them and got back to writing code. -
Re:Fork?I was intrigued by what you said about not being able to make a new GPL-based license so I looked it up on the FSF website:
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to <licensing@gnu.org> for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.
Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself. -
Re:Linus is right
The GPL was devised primarily by RMS to promote his views on software licensing/distribution. If you don't agree with his views, why license under the GPL? Sooner or later, the license will be revised to match RMS's outlook.
There are tons of open sources licenses, so if you don't agree with the ideology behind the GPL, it doesn't make sense to use it.
-
Re:RMS Proffing
I had the chance to ask him 4 questions about IP
Everybody knows not to confuse the FSF with Open Source in front of RMS or to try to talk about "IP" with him. -
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Currently:
http://directory.fsf.org/gcc.html
Version 4.1.2 (stable) released on 2007-02-14
Licensed under GPLv2orlater, LGPLv2.1, GPL +.
http://directory.fsf.org/glibc.html
Version 2.4 (stable) released on 2006-02-01
Licensed under LGPL. -
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Currently:
http://directory.fsf.org/gcc.html
Version 4.1.2 (stable) released on 2007-02-14
Licensed under GPLv2orlater, LGPLv2.1, GPL +.
http://directory.fsf.org/glibc.html
Version 2.4 (stable) released on 2006-02-01
Licensed under LGPL. -
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
"with the GPLv3 parts replaced"
The list of GPLv3 is likely to get large, very fast. The GNU pieces are obviously going to be a top priority for conversion to the new license. I just visited http://directory.fsf.org/ and found 90% of the latest 10 most recently updated programs are all GPLv3, v2 or later, or v3 or later. Some are important systems code, including cpio and dmidecode. I see no reason that trend won't continue. -
Re:What matters is enforceabilityPeople are going back and forth about whether or not the GPLv3 will apply to Microsoft, but the real crux of the deal is that it won't matter if there is no one that both has the resources and the motivation to force Microsoft to comply.
How could it possibly stop Microsoft from doing anything they do as long as no one has the money or the reason to take them to court over it and see it through completion. IBM is the only company I can think of that would really have both, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to violate any of IBM's licenses, nor is it strategically positive for IBM to place themselve directly against Microsoft right now either.
Otherwise, who are we really expecting to take Microsoft to court? Novell? The Free Software Foundation? Please... Microsoft has been stalling the sum total of *Europe* for almost half a decade, if you think Novell or the FSF is going to force Microsoft to comply witht eh GPL you're delusional. Introducing!... In the left corner... weighing in at 90 pounds, sporting a long scraggly beard, receding hairline, ponytail, awful breath and "hacker BO"...surrounded by idealistic and hungry lawyers...wearing the Gnu Shorts...
Operators are standing by to take your on-line donation. -
Re:GPL3 not practical for Linux kernel
Search for "Revised Versions of this License." in this document http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
-
Re:Wait a secondI'm guessing the bits and pieces that make up any distro will gradually contain more and more GPLv3 software
Except that in practice, "gradually" probably means "the next time the FSF makes a point release of coreutils". The kernel may not be going v3 any time soon, but you can bet that most GNU packages will be switched as they're upgraded.
As of this very second, the above list already says that such common packages as cpio, gv, mailutils, radius, sed, and texinfo are "GPLv3orlater". Those are relatively simple and/or "static" packages, but still nothing I'd want to have pay someone to fork for me. I definitely would not care to maintain my own perpetually GPLv2ed branch of GCC, and I suspect that day will be coming very soon.
-
Here's the FSF quote, where's the BSD one?
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
That's Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF, saying "will be interesting to see".
BSD zealot strikes again?
I see no references to BSD in the original announcement, the article referenced from slashdot, or the summary.
Comment poster != Article writer != BSD Zealot.
Sheesh. -
Re:Grandstanding.
Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.
No, but the fact that it was copied from the FSF website would seem to at least somewhat imply it is endorsed by the FSF. -
Re:"Sensationalism" is correct.FSF said nothing like the summary implies Would it be easier for you if I linked you directly to the release from the FSF? Here.
Here's the Slashdot summary: Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.' Here's the quote from the FSF news release: The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated?
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software." So basically, you're talking out of your arse. -
Re:Grandstanding.
Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.
Is that so?
The only quote in the article from the FSF is a (rather general) statement about the iPhone being proprietary & DRM laden. Nothing about licensing at all.Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work--it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
-
Re:How isn't this FUD?
Why not link to the original article on the FSF website? (Tectonic isn't respecting the copyright of the FSF article "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.")
Slashdot is spreading the FUD here, the FSF isn't making an accusation: "it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software" isn't an accusation, neither is "What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone?". -
Re:How isn't this FUD?This is exactly what I'd expect from the FSF.
Yes, it is. Fortunately.
Context is everything, and unfortunately, TFA doesn't provide a great deal, but most likely Brown was responding to statements like this from Steve Jobs;
"You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up." Jobs' statement is FUD and needs to be challenged.The role of the FSF is to promote freedom of software and computing platforms. Systems like the iPhone which are closed to their owners as a matter of policy rather than technology are the antithesis of what the FSF stands for.
The comment from Peter Brown calling the iPhone crippled is accurate in the context of the FSF's mandate, and is an appropriate stance for the FSF to adopt. There's a better article here http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/iphone that summarises their attitude.
-
Re:Show me the FSF quote..
Check out http://www.fsf.org/iphone-gplv3
pretty much says the same thing.
The FSF are coming across as even more a bunch of whiney hippies than usual with this whole GPL3 fiasco. -
And what about the FSF's FUD machine?
The FSF has been roundly implying that the iPhone might contain GPLed software, and might violate the GPLv3.
Are they going to be held accountable for their coy accusations? Or are the FSF to be allowed to shamelessly impugn the underpinnings of other peoples' popular new products, for the sake of free publicity, without being told to "put up or shut up"? -
Re:Helping OutThis is a battle we should all be chipping into. Does anyone know of a website somewhere or other such ways we can use to donate cash to this fight? The RIAA has nearly unlimited funds (so it would seem). So, if we're ever to stop this enemy of the people, we're going to have to fight back in kind. In a lawsuit like this, we all need to help it through before it becomes just another RIAA victory due to lack of funds on the victim's (in every case, the RIAA is never the victim) side. If no such website exists, who could we trust to set it up and make sure 98% of the funds are distributed back to the attornies fighting this cause? Here's the link.
100% goes to the defendants fighting this cause. -
Yay for Trusted Computing
Remember folks, although the remote attestation features of TCPA could be used by online services to force you to use a particular "trusted" application/OS stack, locking you in to a configuration like "IE on Vista", that's not why they are there.
The point of TCPA isn't to enforce DRM or strengthen software monopolies. It's all about things that benefit you, like preventing cheating in online games, and... erm... many other things.
TCPA is a misunderstood technology. The EFF, the FSF and security experts are just making a knee-jerk reaction to something that they don't understand. Let me explain:
1. TCPA doesn't take away your ability to run whatever software you want. If every online service requires you to use (say) Vista, and uses TCPA to enforce this, you can just opt out of the Internet entirely and carry on running Linux or
2. TCPA doesn't spy on you, although it might be used to prevent you modifying software that does. But then you can just opt out of using that software. Again, it's your choice.
So, say yes to TCPA! Like atomic bombs and subdermal RFID chips, the technology isn't inherently evil, and it will certainly never be abused to reduce competition in the software marketplace, preventing free software interoperating with online services. -
Re:Wow.There should be a fund to help people sued by the RIAA fight back instead of paying extortion money. There is. Here's the link.
-
Re:Wow.Yes indeed, Go Ms. Lindor! Does anyone know if or how a fellow could donate to her cause?
1. To donate to defendants in RIAA cases, use this link.
2. If you wish to earmark the contribution for this specific case indicate that it's for "UMG v. Lindor".
3. Thank you. Bless you. -
What the %&@* does it mean?
From the linked commentary:
"In a sense it's only from today that we have enough text. So this is where the work begins. There's a lot of work to be done beyond the actual words themselves to get people to understand the license."
Not to worry, I've already got that sorted: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?fil
e name=gplv3-draft-4&id=3445 -
Re:bah, lawyerese, td;lr
There seem to be four committees; A, B, C, and D. There is also something called International GPLv3, although I'm not sure if this is another committee, as I couldn't find membership. Details at:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/discussion-committees
PJ was on A, along with Bruce Perens and Larry Rosen.
(Whether you think that they have managed to come up with a sleek thoroughbred horse, or a four-humped camel, is a matter for speculation!)
Sesostris III
-
I hereby
License this post under the GPLv3. To see your rights, go to http://www.fsf.org/
-
Re:Time for Sun to Shine
Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)
Oh, the silence...
In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.
The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.
It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents
Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.
FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe
Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development
GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.
FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.
FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing
Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change
Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.
Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers -
Re:Time for Sun to Shine
Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)
Oh, the silence...
In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.
The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.
It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents
Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.
FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe
Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development
GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.
FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.
FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing
Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change
Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.
Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers -
Re:Time for Sun to Shine
Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)
Oh, the silence...
In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.
The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.
It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents
Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.
FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe
Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development
GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.
FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.
FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing
Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change
Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.
Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers -
Re:Time for Sun to Shine
Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)
Oh, the silence...
In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.
The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.
It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents
Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.
FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe
Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development
GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.
FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.
FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing
Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change
Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.
Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers -
Re:Apache LicenceYes,it's compatible. I don't see it explicitly in the final documentation, but it was mentioned in a previous comment (GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft Rationale:
We are pleased to report that the Final Draft makes the Apache License, version 2.0, fully compatible with GPLv3. We are grateful to the Apache Software Foundation for working with us to achieve this long-sought goal. The concerns we stated in the Draft 3 Rationale were based on varying literal readings of section 9 of the Apache license that diered from the interpretation of section 9 held by the ASF itself. During the course of productive discussions with the ASF following the release of Draft 3, we ascertained that, to the ASF, the words \by reason of" in the section 9 upstream indemnication clause meant nothing broader or vaguer than \directly as a result of." Read in this light, section 9 seems to us a reasonable and fair approach to protecting upstream developers, even though we do not wish to adopt such a provision in our own license. The Final Draft makes the Apache indemnication clause compatible with GPLv3 by adding a new category of additional conditions in section 7 that may be applied, with appropriate copyright authorization, to material added to a covered work. Subsection 7f allows terms that require indemni- cation of upstream licensors and authors of the material by a downstream distributor who conveys with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that such assumptions directly impose on those upstream parties.
Also, from the Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3 document:
Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license. (For full information, see gplv3.fsf.org.) All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade. -
Re:Apache LicenceYes,it's compatible. I don't see it explicitly in the final documentation, but it was mentioned in a previous comment (GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft Rationale:
We are pleased to report that the Final Draft makes the Apache License, version 2.0, fully compatible with GPLv3. We are grateful to the Apache Software Foundation for working with us to achieve this long-sought goal. The concerns we stated in the Draft 3 Rationale were based on varying literal readings of section 9 of the Apache license that diered from the interpretation of section 9 held by the ASF itself. During the course of productive discussions with the ASF following the release of Draft 3, we ascertained that, to the ASF, the words \by reason of" in the section 9 upstream indemnication clause meant nothing broader or vaguer than \directly as a result of." Read in this light, section 9 seems to us a reasonable and fair approach to protecting upstream developers, even though we do not wish to adopt such a provision in our own license. The Final Draft makes the Apache indemnication clause compatible with GPLv3 by adding a new category of additional conditions in section 7 that may be applied, with appropriate copyright authorization, to material added to a covered work. Subsection 7f allows terms that require indemni- cation of upstream licensors and authors of the material by a downstream distributor who conveys with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that such assumptions directly impose on those upstream parties.
Also, from the Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3 document:
Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license. (For full information, see gplv3.fsf.org.) All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade. -
GPLv3 can save the day. Do your part!How would the community have coped with two of the largest vendors doing so?
The community would have survived, but much time would have been wasted on dealing with FUD and other unproductive arguments. As long as none of the leading business-supported distributions (currently Redhat and Unbuntu) is affected, the damage is much more limited.
Therefore, it's important to react now, as long as it's essentially just Novell, and support the GPL version upgrade from version 2 to version 3.
-
Re:Timing
Hey, do I actually have to care about the FSF to get one of those c00l fsf.org email addresses?
No, not at all. Just to pay them monthly, you can otherwise loathe them.
I need a new permanent email provider
Well, they are just redirects, 5 in total IIRC.
and fsf.org would be teh shizznikegnite. Think of all the geek cred.
I don't need to think, I expererience it everyday. I just flash it and the kids just go, like, awesome ma nizzle. Fo' shizzle. (more seriously though, see https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join _fsf? or https://www.fsfe.org/en/fsfeuser/register/(set)/1 if you're at all interested). -
Re:Video streaming?
Yes, they use video streaming sometimes. "Often" is to strong a word, but they have been doing it more as of late due to the GPLv3 process. To sum it up, it's Vorbis and Theora.
-
Re:donations
-
website or ftp also okIIRC putting it visibly and gratis for download on your public website is also OK: linksys and tivo
At least IIRC this is a new explicit clause in GPLv3 to make it easier for "box-sellers" such as Linksys and TiVO to provide the required source. IMHO it would have been just as easy and not extremely expensive to put just an extra, source CD in the box (I don't own either so I don't know if they actually do this anyway).
In the *DRAFT* GPLv3 version it says at 6.3b:
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, either (1) to give anyone who possesses the object code a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) to provide access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
so option (2) is OK because they put the source for free on their public website for everyone to download. (There's nothing in the GPLv3 about the slashdotting effect though so don't all go there to check it out! That tivo site was already slow!)Disclaimer: IANAL, and the ink of that piece of the GPLv3 I quoted isn't yet dry I believe.
-
Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity
The negative reaction is very simple to understand. Most people here do not want to see the OSI being relevant or authoritative in any way, but simply wish for the FSF to be the sole arbiter of the definition of FOSS, and/or the ability to enforce said definition.
All the comments focus on the fact that OSI != "open source". Please provide any supporting evidence that concerns the FSF in this (especially funny since the FSF dislikes the term "open source" and never uses it).
Personally, I think that sucks.
Well, then don't worry any longer since the reason for your sulking only exists - as usual, unfortunately - in your head. Let it go and be happy.
The OSI allow for a far more inclusive definition, with a broad plurality of licenses.
Any specifics? All the generally used licences are considered free software by both. Others aren't simply present in the FSF site. Curiously the Apache Licence 2.0 is in both sites as free software, but OpenBSD doesn't think so. Perfectly within their right, but I'm hoping that you'll take this opportunity to warn all slashdoters about the "zealotry" of the OpenBSD "fanboys", that lack your beloved "inclusive definition" of "open source".
Of course, in the minds of FSF fanboys,
Oh my, wasn't expecting that one.
that's exactly the problem; they think the GPL is the only license with the right to exist.
Provide any reference to support this. Do visit the FSF Licences site, where they say, amongst other things, that "...If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice...". Also, for extra points, provide a similar statement from any BSD site, just to see their "inclusive definition" of licences (again, doesn't bother me and completely within their right).
They're going to seek the outright destruction of any organisation which tries to promote an idea contrary to that.
Now your delusions assume an epic scale, with total destruction. I would repeat the "provide supporting evidence" mantra, but when one reaches this point all bets are off.
What does my opinion matter, though? I'm just a troll;
Can't disagree with you there.
someone else opposed to the FSF juggernaut who therefore, in the minds of its' cultists, also needs to be erradicated, or at least silenced.
Ahh... now I see. By "silenced" you mean "made to actually support the completely ridiculous statements he makes". In your bubble world you shouldn't be called up on you complete BS, because it's an attempt to "silence" you, made by the "cultists" of the "FSF juggernaut". Well, just to make you wake up screaming at night I've updated my
Hooray for freedom.
Indeed. Freedom to say your, er, opinions, and freedom to actually give them any supporting substance. You seem to love the first, but fall short on the latter. -
CLARAty Open Source License- not really
© 2006 California Institute of Technology ("Caltech").
IANAL, but I don't think this license meets the definition of either free software or open source. The 1st distribution and usage condition says that a user cannot use the software to make a commercial product, and cannot sell it commercially. This violates FSF freedom 0 (and OSI freedom 6), and the FSF's site even specifically states:
This software, including source and object code, and any accompanying documentation ("Software") is owned by Caltech. Caltech has designated this Software as Technology and Software Publicly Available ("TSPA"), which means that this Software is publicly available under U.S. Export Laws. With the TSPA designation, a user may use and distribute the Software on a royalty-free basis with the understanding that:
1. The Software shall not be used for commercial production or sale of any commercial product or derivative incorporating the Software. Should the user desire to use the Software for any such commercial purpose, the user must contact the Office of Technology Transfer at Caltech to obtain permissions and pay the appropriate royalty; and
2. THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS WERE CREATED BY THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) UNDER A U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA). THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE (AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES UCC 2312-2313) OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, FOR THE SOFTWARE AND RELATED MATERIALS, HOWEVER USED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL CALTECH, ITS JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, OR NASA BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND/OR COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CALTECH, JPL, OR NASA BE ADVISED, HAVE REASON TO KNOW, OR, IN FACT, SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY.
RECIPIENT BEARS ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY CALTECH AND NASA FOR ALL THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE ACTIONS OF RECIPIENT IN THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE; and
3. Caltech is under no obligation to provide technical support for the Software; and
4. All copies of the Software released by user must be marked with this marking language, inclusive of the copyright statement, TSPA designation and user understandings.
``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
As a result, this software isn't "free as in freedom". -
Re:GPL = no commercial use
-
Re:Will somebody please explain...
I for one haven't made the switch because of the GPL. It's complicated..
But why do you care? As a user it has no impact on you at all. That makes it easier to understand than a Microsoft or Apple EULA.
Luckily Slashdot is not the final arbiter of the GPL. Why not just go straight to the horses mouth? That can't be hard, can it? -
Re:How many binaries involved?
Well, the original poster could just choose one from the FSF's list of GPL Compatible Licenses.
-
GPLv3: licensing by proxyAt very least, I'd suggest requiring that contributors allow you to relicense their code to future versions of the GPL at your discretion. In fact, the GPLv3 last call draft includes a provision that endorses such a licensing model: If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide whether future versions of the GNU General Public License shall apply, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of any version is permanent authorization for you to choose that version for the Program.
-
Ask the FSF
The GPLv3 Wiki FAQ is here:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ_Update
You can check the questions already on it to find if yours is answered, and if not, add your question to it. I added a couple of questions and within a couple of days, someone had merged them into one and answered it. -
Re:Is this really that bad of a situation?
Well it's not really about MS code, but code that was created by Novell and is found to infringe on MS patents. There's an interesting bit in section 2 of the rationale http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale (PDF document) which essentially means that Novell is protected from not being allowed to distribute GPL3 software because MS is a direct distributor of Novell SLES (due to their coupons), thereby granting a full patent sublicense once the GPL3 is in effect in any part of Novell SLES.
The paragraphs disallowing a party that cannot fulfill the GPL3 terms from distributing are worded as follows in the draft (section 12[7]):
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey the Program, or other covered work, so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program. -
Re:Even so,
You can obfuscate any code you writing, regardless of what licence(s) you use for distribution. N.B. Obscucation is likely to make your code much more difficult to debug. The only difference with GPL is that someone else can unofuscate it and distribute that version.
Wrong. The GPL does not allow you to obfuscate your code. Here is the relevant paragraph from section 3 or the GPL (emphasis mine):
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
Obfuscated code would definitely not be the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" and is therefore not allowed by the GPL. This requirement is present in the GPLv2 and will also be present in the GPLv3. In the GPLv3 (current draft), check the definition of "Source Code" and "Corresponding Source" in section 1.
-
Re:Answersglibc is not LGPL, though -- it is "GPL with the libc exception" glibc is indeed licensed under the LGPL. See the following link:
http://directory.fsf.org/glibc.html -
LGPLv3On point 2, you're incorrect. There is no LGPL 3 Yet, just as there is no GPLv3 yet. But here's a draft of GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, which will be released at the same time GPLv3 is released.
-
Re:Some answers
No, I meant this:
"One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called "appliances") contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise."
From http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html