Slashdot Mirror

>The incompatability stems from the incompatability between v2 and v3. v3 is not "backwards compatible"; nor is it compatible with other licenses.

GPLv3 is compatible with other licenses, it is even more compatible than GPLv2. GPLv3 will be compatible to all license to which GPLv2 is compatible. For a list see GPL(v2)-Compatible Free Software Licenses. GPLv3 will be at least also compatible with the Apache license and afaik the Eclipse license.

A quick query. Stallman at http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html seems to imply that DVD players must be restriced by law (The DMCA). Is this so? If it is then, I can hardly see that Tivo are at fault for locking their product.

Given this, I get the impression that Stallman's argument is that this is of no concern of his! Either GPLv3 code must be non-locked-down, or not used at all.

Which is fair enough. Tivo will have to use software for which there is no restriction on them locking it down. Windows?

Which begs the question; are there applications which, under law, it will not be possible to use GPLv3 code in implementing, in that to do so would be either to fall foul of the DMCA, or the GPLv3?

Personally, I would rather Tivo used Linux, even if locked down, rather than Windows. Even if locked down, the source code would still be viewable (and auditable), whereas with windows...? Surely some freedom is better than none?

Sesostris III

The GPLv3 FAQ:

How is GPLv3 compatible with other GNU licenses?
The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other. The only time you can't combine code under two of these licenses is when you want to use code that's only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.

So strictly GPL2 stuff is incompatible.

If anyone has comments about discussion draft 4, make them asap. Here's the page where you can see the draft and where you can add your comments:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html

The plan is for the final GPLv3 to be published on June 29th, so comments should be submitted now so that there is still some time for them to be discussed and acted on.

For an explanation on the changes and the motivations of the current draft, see:

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript

sorry but they are not a yahoo group, they work together with defective by design, badvista, the FSF and the EFF among others: http://www.binaryfreedom.info/ http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/activists-inform-vist a-partygoers-in-boston http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/1033 .

Actually, it is mean to stop license proliferation of the 3rd type:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7188273245. html
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_so ftware_notes/why_gplv3_says_additional_permissions _are_removable
http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html

And the LGPL v3 is actually written in terms of the GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms- transcript.en.html#lgpl
http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl-draft-2006-07-27.html

So basically, the GPLv3 was designed to eliminated the need for any GPLv3-compatible license since any GPLv3 compatible license can be written as the GPLv3 license plus additional permissions. It might not be the most efficient way to specify your GPL-compatible license (e.g. the MIT license would be much longer if expressed this way), but it can be done. If the GPLv3 license existed, I doubt the GPL-like per file Mozilla license would have existed or the GPL-like for open source Qt license would have been created as independent licenses.

Actually, it is mean to stop license proliferation of the 3rd type:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7188273245. html
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_so ftware_notes/why_gplv3_says_additional_permissions _are_removable
http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html

And the LGPL v3 is actually written in terms of the GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms- transcript.en.html#lgpl
http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl-draft-2006-07-27.html

So basically, the GPLv3 was designed to eliminated the need for any GPLv3-compatible license since any GPLv3 compatible license can be written as the GPLv3 license plus additional permissions. It might not be the most efficient way to specify your GPL-compatible license (e.g. the MIT license would be much longer if expressed this way), but it can be done. If the GPLv3 license existed, I doubt the GPL-like per file Mozilla license would have existed or the GPL-like for open source Qt license would have been created as independent licenses.

Great analysis.

Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer and as such may have misunderstood the three laws in play here, but according to this interview segment with Eben Moglen, it sounds that his counter argument will be that through the patent deal with Novell, Microsoft knowing full well of the imminent introduction of GPL V3 knowingly extends their patent "protection" as per the provision of GPL V3. Now I agree, his argument doesn't clearly address the main concern of your analysis but to me he seems to rely on one law (copyright law) being able to affect another (patent law) through a third (contract law) and that to me seems to be a very risky position to take if not just very complex for non-lawyers to wrap their minds around.

It would be great if you could send your analysis to FSF in order for them to provide their reasoning around how they plan to tackle the question. If you do, please either add any reply you may receive to your /. journal or pm it to me since I'm very interested in their response.

Can a copyright license control patent provisions? Can aspects of an agreement made (contract law) between a party and another be automatically extended beyond the agreement by actions performed and circumstances surrounding one of the parties for actions and circumstances not covered by the agreement itself? Muddy water this, to be sure.

The FSF has some guidelines, but in the end what the FSF believes doesn't matter (except for potential damages). What matters is what a judge will consider a "derived work" according to copyright law.

My personal belief (which diverges from the FSF party line) is that the actual mechanism to communicate between the GPL'ed and proprietary code won't matter as much as whether the person distributing the proprietary code also distributes GPL'ed code.

Check your facts. Here's more info about the LGPLv3. The LGPL has gotten less discussion; it's based on the GPL, so once the GPL is changed the LGPL basically follows suit.

The GPL3 will cause a GNU/Fork. There is enough money invested in customizing Linux et al that, even if Linux embraces GPL3 wholeheartedly, the non-GPL3'd system will maintain themselves indefinitely.

Why the FSF thinks this isn't so, or that trying to change the rules when the game's in play will work at all, is anybody's guess.

1. Darth realizes that he is doing something that requires a license under applicable copyright law. The GPL is the only license available.
2. The provisions of the GPL do not allow what Darth wants to do, so that Darth can not use GPL as a license if he does it.

Suppose that Darth goes ahead and does it anyway, what does the enforcement process look like? Darth gets sued under copyright law, like IBM did against SCO with IBM's counter claims. The free software side has to prove two things:

1. Darth has done something that requires a license under applicable copyright law.
2. The GPL does not protect Darth because Darth has not abided by its terms.

In order the suit to be successfull against Darth, both steps have to succeed. Step (2) can be optimized by the FSF, by adjusting the terms of the GPL, to make it as difficult as possible for Darth. The GPLv3 is an improvement in this process. Step (1) is the step that the FSF can not control, because the applicable copyright law is written by the legislature (in the U.S. that would be congress), not by the FSF! Therefore, step (1) is the weak point! If Microsoft is ever sued under the copyright law because of the coupons, Microsoft will attack the week point of the argument (1). This is what Microsoft's lawyers will say:

Microsoft has not and will not agree with any version of the GPL. Distributing these coupons does not require a license under applicable copyright law. Distributing coupons is not distributing software in the meaning of copyright law. Therefore the terms of the GPL (both versions) are irrelevant. The expiration date of the coupons is irrelevant. Game over.

The key assertion in the above is:

Distributing coupons is not distributing software in the meaning of copyright law.

If Microsoft can win on the key assertion. Then it will win. If the lawyers for the free software side can knock out the key assertion then they will win.

Why do the coupons exist in the first place? Why did not Microsoft just hand out SuSE installation DVDs? The reason is obvious. Microsoft did not want to become a GNU/Linux distributor. The coupons are a dodge to get around this. The whole raison d'etre for the coupons was that that Microsoft avoid becoming a GNU/Linux distributor! Can anyone believe that Microsoft allowed the coupon scheme to proceed, without first getting on Lexis and finding out whether the scheme would work? It is guaranteed that in some Microsoft lawyer's briefcase, there is a brief. And that brief deleniates in excruciating detail why the coupon scheme does not make Microsoft a GNU/Linux distributor. And the brief was checked and rechecked by multiple lawyers before the coupon scheme was ever allowed to proceed.

The free software argument against the MS-Novel coupon scheme, is a chain. And like any chain, it is only as strong as its weakest link. It is no good for free software advocates to sit back and congratulate themselves on how strong their strong point (2) is. Of course it is strong! The FSF deliberately designed the GPLv3 to make it strong! The point is, that Microsoft is not going to attack this strong point. Microsoft is going to attack the weak point (1).

Instead of congratulating them selves, free software advocates should be critically examining their own arguments looking for weak points. And when they find one, they should research the caselaw looking for ways to shore up their arguments! They should not be replying to the weak points with mere repeated assertion of what they hope should be true, instead they should do some real scholarship.

Let us not forget the anti-patent provisions of GPLv2! It includes an "im

"what happened to closing the ASP loophole? :-) I guess the FSF doesn't want to cause too much pain to folk like Google."
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-03-29-gplv 3-saas

(PS: the 'RMS fanboys' might be angry with you because you repeatedly call them names and suggest that the FSF is pandering to IBM and/or Google)

"Certain decentralized forms of peer-to-peer file sharing present a challenge to the unidirectional view of distribution that is implicit in GPLv2 and Draft 1 of GPLv3. It is neither straightforward nor reasonable to identify an upstream/downstream link in BitTorrent distribution; such distribution is multidirectional, cooperative and anonymous. In systems like BitTorrent, participants act both as transmitters and recipients of blocks of a particular file, but they see themselves as users and receivers, and not as distributors in any conventional sense. At any given moment of time, most peers will not have the complete file."

Problem is that you could then in theory ask any BT user to provide the source code for that binary. More here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/bittorrent-dd2.html

TiVo operates on a business model that GPL3 is **expressly** designed to eliminate.

See this essay by RMS and search for "tivoization".

Nothing in the least bit surprising here...

And you've missed the meaning of the word 'spirit'.

The GPL is not an end in itself. It is the mainstay of an attempt to protect the Four Freedoms:

"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."

(Emphasis mine.)

Collectively, they represent what many people call the spirit of the GPL. Admittedly, that's a bit of a back-asswards expression, but it'll do.

Novell and Microsoft undoubtedly have undermined the Four Freedoms through their patent indemnification tapdance. Likewise, the agreement to share information preferentially undermines the Four Freedoms as well. The patent agreement subverts the freedom to copy and distribute software, and preferential distribution of documentation subverts the freedom to study the software, which is a necessary precursor to the other three.

The compatibility matrix does not include the GFDL.
    http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq

So is the GPLv3 still incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentatio n_License

It makes using the text of, say, Wikipedia articles completely off-limits in a GPL'd program.

Why the FSF would promote licenses incompatible with the GPL is beyond me. And totally unnecessary IMHO.

Very shortsighted to promote artificial distinctions between code and data -- the kind of shortsightendess one would not expect from a Lisp hacker like RMS.

Would it have killed them to link to the actual draft and documents? Here are the links:

• FSFE's GPLv3 information page
• GPLv3 discussion draft 4
• An essay by RMS: Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3
• The rationale document of the changes

Would it have killed them to link to the actual draft and documents? Here are the links:

• FSFE's GPLv3 information page
• GPLv3 discussion draft 4
• An essay by RMS: Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3
• The rationale document of the changes

Would it have killed them to link to the actual draft and documents? Here are the links:

• FSFE's GPLv3 information page
• GPLv3 discussion draft 4
• An essay by RMS: Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3
• The rationale document of the changes

On the other hand, the third and latest draft does not prohibit Novell of any of its Linux offerings.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/0000 95013407012375/0000950134-07-012375.txt

The FSF has as much as said that they will target the Microsoft-Novell deal. http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale, and since it's not a matter of "if" GPLv3 becomes more than a draft, as much as it is "when"...

The current draft of GPLv3 can affect Novell's biggest source of cash - Microsoft. (and may also affect SUSE gaining more market share in the enterprise) If the final GPLv3 impacts the patent agreement between Microsoft and Novell, Novell has big problems. And (IMHO) increasing SUSE acceptance among enterprise customers suffers a setback.

Not always with open source drivers, but it will be able to be Linux-compatible.

While the Dell/Ubuntu deal is definitely a major victory in the name of “Linux” and Open Source, the inclusion of proprietary drivers will still prevent many people who value freedom--including me--from purchasing one of these machines. I run gNewSense, which is a distribution of GNU+Linux based on Ubuntu, minus the proprietary components (drivers, firmware, etc.) When I can purchase a machine that doesn't force me to use proprietary software in order to use any piece of its hardware, then I'll make a purchase. Until then, as some may say, “Close, but no cigar.”

From yesterday's direct2dell blog post on the topic:

For device types where a choice exists between a component with a non-Free driver and one with Free driver availability, in our Linux offering we'll opt to bundle the component with the Free driver. Wireless network adapters is one such example; Printers are another. We recommend Linux users buy our printers which have PostScript engines in them, as opposed to those which don't and for which no Linux drivers are yet available. The Tech Specs tab for each printer on dell.com show if it has PostScript or not.

Some components, particularly some video cards, have working 2-D open source drivers, open source 3-D drivers actively being clean-room written by the community, and closed-source 3-D drivers available from the video card manufacturer. In these instances, while we continue to encourage the development (by all parties) towards open source drivers, we will provide the closed-source drivers for people who wish to use them.

The last category is devices for which no open source drivers are available at all, such as software-based modems. In our desktops these are add-in cards, so you can substitute a hardware-based modem available from your local electronics store quite easliy. However, we can't substitute hardware-based modems in our notebooks without redesigning and significantly increasing the price of the system. If it's important to you to have a hardware-based modem, you would add one into your PC Card or ExpressCard slot.

My bone of contention comes from several decisions Dell has made:

• Opting to go with ATI and NVIDIA instead of Intel for 3D graphics.
• Using softmodems that don't have free drivers in these machines. There are softmodems available that have free drivers. For the desktops, hardware modems could've been used “out of the box”. Dell still chose the proprietary softmodem route across the board. While it is true that I could purchase one of their desktops and replace the modem, I would still be giving my money to the manufacturer of the proprietary hardware. I simply won't do that.

On the bright side, however, Dell did state the following directly after explaining the three “categories” of drivers (emphasis mine):

Dell recognizes the importance of open source, GPL-licensed drivers which are maintained upstream in kernel.org. They allow users the widest choice of Linux distributions, effectively taking the specific hardware and distribution out of the decision-making process and let you focus on solving your business problems. We will work with our hardware partners to develop, test, and maintain Free drivers, and continue to make progress towards that goal for all drivers. Most drivers are in good shape now, but there's clearly longer-term work to be done. Work that we're doing now at the driver level will pave the way for more Linux offerings in the future. There's no way to please everyone, but I'll continue to shar

Not always with open source drivers, but it will be able to be Linux-compatible.

While the Dell/Ubuntu deal is definitely a major victory in the name of “Linux” and Open Source, the inclusion of proprietary drivers will still prevent many people who value freedom--including me--from purchasing one of these machines. I run gNewSense, which is a distribution of GNU+Linux based on Ubuntu, minus the proprietary components (drivers, firmware, etc.) When I can purchase a machine that doesn't force me to use proprietary software in order to use any piece of its hardware, then I'll make a purchase. Until then, as some may say, “Close, but no cigar.”

From yesterday's direct2dell blog post on the topic:

For device types where a choice exists between a component with a non-Free driver and one with Free driver availability, in our Linux offering we'll opt to bundle the component with the Free driver. Wireless network adapters is one such example; Printers are another. We recommend Linux users buy our printers which have PostScript engines in them, as opposed to those which don't and for which no Linux drivers are yet available. The Tech Specs tab for each printer on dell.com show if it has PostScript or not.

Some components, particularly some video cards, have working 2-D open source drivers, open source 3-D drivers actively being clean-room written by the community, and closed-source 3-D drivers available from the video card manufacturer. In these instances, while we continue to encourage the development (by all parties) towards open source drivers, we will provide the closed-source drivers for people who wish to use them.

The last category is devices for which no open source drivers are available at all, such as software-based modems. In our desktops these are add-in cards, so you can substitute a hardware-based modem available from your local electronics store quite easliy. However, we can't substitute hardware-based modems in our notebooks without redesigning and significantly increasing the price of the system. If it's important to you to have a hardware-based modem, you would add one into your PC Card or ExpressCard slot.

My bone of contention comes from several decisions Dell has made:

• Opting to go with ATI and NVIDIA instead of Intel for 3D graphics.
• Using softmodems that don't have free drivers in these machines. There are softmodems available that have free drivers. For the desktops, hardware modems could've been used “out of the box”. Dell still chose the proprietary softmodem route across the board. While it is true that I could purchase one of their desktops and replace the modem, I would still be giving my money to the manufacturer of the proprietary hardware. I simply won't do that.

On the bright side, however, Dell did state the following directly after explaining the three “categories” of drivers (emphasis mine):

Dell recognizes the importance of open source, GPL-licensed drivers which are maintained upstream in kernel.org. They allow users the widest choice of Linux distributions, effectively taking the specific hardware and distribution out of the decision-making process and let you focus on solving your business problems. We will work with our hardware partners to develop, test, and maintain Free drivers, and continue to make progress towards that goal for all drivers. Most drivers are in good shape now, but there's clearly longer-term work to be done. Work that we're doing now at the driver level will pave the way for more Linux offerings in the future. There's no way to please everyone, but I'll continue to shar

This was one of the biggest problems with the Free Software movement before Open Source came along.. no-one talked about the benefits that businesses could get from the community. For a while, no-one talked about anything else, and then it went quiet again. RMS will tell you that we need to talk about freedom. I happen to agree, but we also need to talk about the practical advantages of open software development too.

Does this mean that Richard Stallman trying to shove "GNU/Linux" down people's throats is really a misappropriation of a trademark?

1. In 1983 Richard Stallman initiates the GNU project. That's the project to create a fully Free Software operating system.
2. 8 years later, in 1991, Linus Torvalds first announces a kernel that works with GNU software, and later on releases the very first release of his kernel for an i386 computer to work with the GNU operating system
3. The addition of Linux to the GNU operating system results in the GNU/Linux variant, which is the GNU system running with the kernel called Linux

• A free email service. GMail offers free mail forwarding and I presume some other services do so as well.
  
• A university alumni address. There's a good chance your alma mater offers one. Universities benefit because they get to stay in contact with potential alumni donors. Institutions of higher education are more stable than almost any other entity in society, so the odds joe@alumni.example.edu will still work 50 years from now are as high as you can hope for.
  
• A for-pay forwarding service. Pobox has been around since 1995 and I've been a customer since 1996. The current price is $20 a year for three pobox.com addresses and some other features like spam filtering. As for whether customers can rely on any one company to stick around, Pobox's current FAQs have long since been "corporatized" but a rough paraphrase of a question in an earlier version went something like this:

  Q: How do I know you'll be around in the future?
  
  A: Will you? (Ha! Didn't think of that, did you?)

  
  I prefer my pobox.com address over my university's alumni address because the latter assigns a letter-and-number userid I've never liked. I could always start using my gmail.com address instead, under the presumably-safe assumption Google and GMail will be around for a long time, but as a firm believer in TANSTAAFL I can't believe that GMail and/or forwarding mail to another address will remain free forever. Meanwhile, Pobox has a more than ten-year history and counting with better than 99.44% uptime. Even were I to switch to GMail for my day-to-day email access as opposed to the Emacs-based mailer I've been using for more than a decade, I suspect I'd still give out my pobox.com address instead of the gmail.com one.
  
  If you prefer gaining a permanent address by supporting a worthy nonprofit, two possibilities are IEEE and the Free Software Foundation. Each costs annually considerably more than $20, of course; if FSF would offer some sort of lifetime membership for a reasonable sum I'd probably do it, though.

Wrong. The FSF lists BSD as a Free Software license - in fact, it also includes "being in the public domain" as a GPL-compatible "license" - http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html

Says who? Code under the GPLv2 can be linked with a lot of other code; all that matters is that the licenses are compatible.

Right, but what does "compatible" mean? The answer is that "compatible" means that the other license is "more Free" than the GPL, by which I mean that it imposes fewer restrictions on redistribution. The reason for this is the following clause in the GPL:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." (Section 6)

For example, the original BSD license is incompatible because it contains an advertising clause -- an additional restriction -- while the new BSD license is compatible because that clause was removed. The Affero GPL is incompatible because it has additional restrictions about programs distributed as web services. The CPL is incompatible because it requires the licensing of any relevant patents.

I have seen no indication that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible.

The GPLv3 will be incompatible with v2 (again, without the "or later" clause) for the same reasons as the Affero GPL and the CDL: it will contain additional restrictions regarding patents and distribution as a web service. Also, I'm not sure why you've never heard of this; not only does one person say that it's "always been known", it's even in the FSF's FAQ (see the "compatibility matrix"!

A grandfather clause will not exempt distributors from the preceding patent text.

me - "They can own it, so long as they abide by the terms of the GPL, like IBM and everyone else. "
you - Really? Not two days ago you said "Linux is GPL, so it does not have owners".

OK, free software has owners but the only thing they will do is keep you from screwing the user. GPL 3 will prevent M$ and other big dumb companies from using patents to screw the user too, which is why M$ is in a pickle over this Novel deal. If M$ wants to use free software, they are going to have to give up their patent FUD. The deal is, "cooperate or do it yourself." M$'s ability to do things on their own never was great and they are out of non free companies to bully.

You really should get a grip on software freedom before you rag on it. When and if you ever do, you will expect much more from M$. The only way they can provide that is to finally join the big happy free software family.

they do not have the developers necessary to fork everything that will be GPL3.

Think about what you're saying. SuSE is going to have a team dedicated to their fork of GCC? Glibc? emacs? binutils? Ah hell, why am I individually listing the hundreds of gnu packages in use that will very quickly be shifted to GPL3?

Not going to happen, and SuSE would die very, very quickly if they had a product freeze for more than just a couple weeks.

Of course sales have been rather slow with Vista. Most people are broke after xmas. It wasnt even an option this last christmas. Prepare for this christmas. (say it aint so) http://badvista.fsf.org/

Digital Rights Management. Digital Restrictions Management is the FSF's retconning of the term in an attempt to obtain better accuracy. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Digital Rights Management already tells me that someone else is "managing" my rights to my stuff.

That, and you're being overly pedantic. I wonder if they have a movie about such pedantism on DVD Disk?

Ok, I'm seeing a trend here and I think I have figured outnthe confusion. When you agree to accepting the GPL license, You do so for each and every license to each and ever product. Right? well, the singular form is because each covered program has it's own license and you essentially have to accept that license to convey that work. "A covered work" is consistant in this because you would check the license of each work to determine if you had a right to it. If they are a GPLv3 covered work, then you are not allowed to use it.

Now, this means every time you encounter a GPLv3ed work which is a covered work, you cannot convey it because you were in violation of the fourth paragraph of section 11. Now take all your attempts of using A for a singular method and combine that with All GPLv3 covered works and on the whole, that is what you cannot convey.

If you still are in doubt or not, I still encourage you to check with the FSF directly. They might want to change something again. Here are some contact sources if you don't have them already. I'm pretty sure their intent is to mean any GPLv3 software and I'm also pretty sure they are representing it as that.

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work,

(b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License

In an object-oriented language such as Java, if I use a class that is GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it, in what way does the GPL affect the larger program?

Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class.

Apache currently has many Java-based Apache 2 licensed projects. The Apache 2 license is incompatible with the GPLv2.

Does releasing Java under the GPLv2 effectively prevent the use of Apache 2 code (or any commercial code)? Does this mean that the only Java programs that can be used with the GPLv2 copy of Java are those under the GPLv2?

It's a bit, if you will, like having private property...

Copyright is all about private property of information.

Copyright is a temporary monopoly on distribution rights. I'm generally pro-copyright myself although there are strong arguments on both side of the debate. Like many debates this one is easily polarized by the extremists. I'm strongly against software patents, I think trademark law needs to be revisited and I consider myself a moderate in the copyright debate. Copyright terms are too long and information is now duplicated at zero cost.

then there are the clever guys who think they're all stealthy and subtle if they pack it as "fair use", "civil rights", etc. Add a bit of "information wants to be free", "copying != theft", "you can't stop the flow of information", etc, rhetoric. Most of them ammount to nothing more and nothing less than effectively abolishing copyright, if they had their way.

Every time you view a typical web page you make a copy of copyrighted material, it's displayed on your monitor and stored on your drive. So copying really isn't theft (otherwise you would be a criminal!) and fair use exemptions are required for modern distribution. Tell me, am I a 'clever guy' or do I just hold some tenuous link to reality that you do not?

The GP never claimed the GPL does not rely on copyright law, he claimed the free software does not. You attempted to rebuke something that was never claimed.

That reciprocity is brought about through the protections of copyright law, which defines ownership.

No, it defines the right to make copies otherwise it would be called 'copyown'.

If you don't own it, you can't license it.

It is not possible to own rights, rights are 'held'. Thus we have the concept of rights holders and licensees (who may themselves be granted the right to sub license).

Remember that the lawyers profit from muddying the water, it's important that we think clearly about copyright and use the correct terms when discussing it.

Face it, in the eyes of the FSF, copyright is an evil which they have decided to pervert for good.

Not at all! In fact, later this month, Stallman will be talking in Sweden making suggestions to the Pirate Party encouraging them not to loosen copyright too much! Free software needs copyright.

The reason they licensed it under the MPL is so that it could be used in proprietary software. It is OK to call it "open source", but it is not "free software"

The FSF recognize the MPL as a free software license.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html

Well, for a start, I don't see what paying for Club access has to do with anything. 'A mirror list' is not among the privileges of Club membership. So I don't know where you get that argument from

I got the idea from mandriva doing everything possible to shove the paid stuff in your face along with not being a club member for two years. I stopped being a club member when the website changed and all the good stuff was hidden from site. When I was a club member, I knew were everything on the site I needed was. Once the changes started happening, I started having to login to get things because it was constantly being removed from general access. There goes that idea.

Second, when you Google for 'Mandriva Mirrors', the CookerMirrors page on the wiki is result #4, the 2007.0 mirror list on api.mandriva.com is #10, and the Club mirror finder (which works for non-Club members) is #6. So the answer to that would be 'not very long', I think.

I shouldn't have to google from something that should be in plain site on the companies website. Why is it that mandrake/mandriva is attempting to make it hard for people to get anything without signing up for the club services? Why is everything a challenge in finding docs and support at the damn website and you are demonstrating that we have to use Google to get access to this secrete information? The GPL says the source needs to be in the same place or accessible from were the binary is distributed.

You are also badly misreading it in terms of where the source code is to be made available. The paragraph you quote is not compelling the source to be made available in the same place as the binaries. It's saying that if you, say, sell a GPL-covered product as a time-limited download, then it's OK to provide the source in the same place; you don't have to make it available permanently as a non-time-limited download, and if the buyer doesn't download the source at the same time as they download the binaries, hard cheese. In other words, it's entirely irrelevant to the situation we are discussing.

You know, I had this elaborate reply set up with references to all the sections in the GPL were I was going to point out were I was correct. Instead I decided to erase it and just simply link to a couple of items in the FSF faq section describing how the GPL is to be viewed. If you are in disagreement with it, then I suggest you ask them why I can get that opinion I have of the GPL and who the asshole is that echoed that opinion in writing the faqs.

I will say one thing first though. What that quote says is that IF you distribute the program by download the source requirements can be satisfied with offering the source there instead of the standard written offer. And because the written offer says it needs to be available for three years, I'm suggesting that the Updates that were made to a "GPL"ed piece of software are "GPL"ed too and the 3 years apply to the source for those updates. I'm not aware that mandriva provides the source for the corresponding updates in any way other then downloading them. If I can write and get the corresponding source files for all updates to 10.1 or 2005LE up to the end of life for the product for the cost of copying it and distributing it, please let me know. But as far as I can tell, the only offers for source is the standard source cd's if you write in or by the power pack editions. Non of these cover the updates that were offered by mandriva.

This faq item here says you need to link to the source in the same location as the b

Finally, note that free software distributions like Debian, clearly label n binary blobs required by the Madwifi drivers as non free and these are not included by default.

The point that PC World misses is that non free has problems in both the Linux and Windoze world. The magic of GNU/Linux is that it's Free Software. When you mix in binary blobs, you are once again a helpless user. Others have noticed that Atheros does not release specifications required to build drivers. That's too bad, but they are not the least friendly wireless company.

That's why the new GPLv3 draft now includes a definition of "patent license" to include deals structured in this devious manner:

GPLv3 Draft 3 S.11 For purposes of the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" means a patent license, a covenant not to bring suit for patent infringement, or any other express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent.

That's about all one could ever say in favor of a Microsoft product. They will always asymptotically approach useability.

That's true if you consider "dumb" usable. The trend I've noticed is less control, less flexibility, fewer 3rd party vendors (aka choice) and more annoyance and auto-wrong features. Security and stability have remained poor and have trended down.

They have pulled out the stops in their breakage of XP though. Today I watched someone try to rebuild an XP laptop. He'd done it manytimes before because someone stuck him with admin responsibility for 15 of them. The process had changed on him this time and it failed. The usual tedious process of manually downloading "updates" fell apart and the automatic process took over and could not be stopped. A couple hours later, I stuck my head in to see how it was going and he was reading a M$ support page about "silent failures". Better him than me.

This "upgrade" cycle has the feeling 95 to 98 did but worse. Eerything fell apart at once and the answer was to buy a new one. This time the "new one" is a computer with about 4 times the hardware. BadVista's got the scoop on this one, Vista - Arrogance & Stupidity, "No sane person wants Vista, so Microsoft is making sure they have no choice."