Slashdot Mirror

If you want to upgrade to it on release day, I'd recommend using bittorrent to get the ISO (faster this way) and then doing an apt-get dist-upgrade with that CD-ROM as a new apt repository.

Perhaps he felt that the assertions were self-evident. After all, the people who drafted the GPL felt there was enough of a difference that they drafted the GNU Free Documentation License.

Right you are. What I should have said is: RMS "heartily suggests" the use of the GPL only, even to the point of saying not to use the LGPL for libraries. So I doubt a positive stance on non-GPL software represents him or his opinions.

Python is not free software, it's open source.

It's both. "Free software" is a superset of "GPL software".

They will and can sue Red Hat. Red Hat sells the software that Microsoft claims to own ip in. Red Hat will not sue any person that has contributed code to them. No, IBM wont come to the rescue, only you and I can do that. So do buy a copy of there software to support them. Or you can do as I do, become a member of fsf here

Wouldn't that undermine the GPL? If the linux kernel is in the public domain, companies could use it freely without having to give back.

It certainly would. But instead, putting up media for public access should be seen as mass-distribution.

Then your downloading the kernel source from some site isn't "copying" as meant in the GPL (see paragraphs 0 and 1), but merely your receiving the distributed source. The GPL then applies when you make copies of your received instance of the kernel source, or if you modify or redistribute the source.

-Tez

the restriction that stops you modifying network protocols

Please quote the relevant text from the latest draft

[...] I don't see why this is such a big draw for most developers.

This is probably because often, you just want to make a small change in a program to make it solve the problem at hand. With Free Software, this is relatively easy. With proprietary software, you need to convince the supplier to do it (and maybe you can have the result next year) or you may need to write a completely new program from scratch to solve it. Developers prefer being able to fix the software the right way. Note that this is also economically much more effective: it often takes less time to actually implement the fix than to try to convince the supplier to implement the fix. This is just one of the reasons why Free Software continues to be used more and more.

As an open source developer I would be mighty discouraged to learn that folks would rather shell out a few hundred bucks instead of using free software. It would make me ask myself "what the hell is wrong with our stuff that it can't even compete for free against a very costly competitor?"

Most of the Free Software is of higher quality than its proprietary counterparts (as many studies have found), so it is wrong to suggest otherwise. However, it is also true that people who are not aware of their Free Software options do buy proprietary software. This, I believe, is mostly an effect of the power of marketing, or in other words, to fool people to spend money on bad software that harm the buyer's interests as is the case with Microsoft Vista, for example.

As a Free Software developer, I'm very much encouraged with the huge success that Free Software is and that it continues to grow exponentially in a snowball-like fashion. Some people seem to think that the Free Software era started only now that Free Software has received the interest and understanding of politicians. I've been around since nearly the beginning and there has never been a reason to regret that.

It seems they may be entertaining the idea of keeping the code under the CDDL and dual-license it under the GPL, v3. I think it would be much more productive to skip the CDDL and switch entirely to GPLv3, as there are three big problems with keeping the CDDL:

• No GPL-only code import. More than 70% of all software available under an OSI-approved license is under the GPL (see Wheeler's essay, link below). Since Sun would require all GPL:d code they want to use to be dual-licensed as well, they can in fact only use GPL code that they can also get a CDDL-license for. This will be a tiny fraction, if any, of the vast amount of GPL:d quality code and libraries out there.

  For example, OpenSolaris on the SPARC can't be built from source today (nearly two years after it became available under the CDDL), because they lack an open source disassembler (yes, they need a disassembler, it's due to how the kernel debugger works). A well known and proven disassembler exists in the GNU binutils, ported to just about every useful processor type there is. OpenSolaris, I am told, wouldn't be able to use that, because it isn't dual-licensed under the CDDL and is unlikely to ever be.

• Fewer developers. If developers are forced to sign CA:s (contributor agreements) that make their contributions available under the CDDL, there is a risk that a section of the possible contributors from the GPL-only part of the world will not want to contribute.
• Smaller rate of adoption. This is a consequence of the previous two points. In turn, this leads to less demand for OpenSolaris skills, so there is money on the line here for people who know OpenSolaris or are thinking about learning it in order to make a living.

  For the obvious example of how GPL:d code is much more attractive and increases the rate of adoption even in cases when technically more advanced alternatives exist, consider that the BSD UNIX kernel never really took off in the way Linux has, even though in the early 90's the BSD kernel had an absolutely overwhelming technical lead at the time.

Much of the confused discussion on the opensolaris-discuss mailing list (warning: it takes days to read this and you don't particularly want to) could have been avoided, had the participants read David A. Wheeler's recently updated essay Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else. and been at least vaguely familiar with the Free Software philosophy.

So what is it about the GPL that makes developers want to use it? I can't speak for others, but in my own case it boils down to this: in 1985, when I first came across the GPL, I thought about the matter and decided that the inheritance of my life-time software development work to future generations should not be that of a jail built out of proprietary source code. This excludes the BSD-type licenses, as they allow someone else to take away one or more of the four freedoms I've worked hard for to establish at every opportunity. (Even then, it was not always possible, unfortunately.)

On the other hand, the only reason I can see why developers may want to use BSD-type licenses are that they want to deny others one or more of the four freedoms, or need to be able to. If you are one of these developers, maybe you will reconsider your position on this some day when it is financially possible for you. It is now easier than ever.

If the message was more about "hey you can really do what you want with this" and not "hey it's cheaper than Windows lol!" they'd be better off.

What are you talking about? The former is exactly what the FSF's message is. And they're getting ridiculed for it all over the place. The "Open Source" movement was started in order to obscure the FSF's message in order to make it palatable to the suits, and they are the ones your criticism would be appropriate for.

So, Apple is bad because they continue to use DRM on the iTunes store. Brilliant. It can't be because, oh, I don't know, that the media companies would absolutely freak out if Apple unilaterally dropped DRM. They can't -- they would end up in court I suspect.

According to Fred von Lohmann of the EFF, Apple would not drop iTunes Music Store DRM even if they could. As I understand it (I don't recall exactly where, but I think it was from one of DVD Jon's recent blog posts on the topic), Apple employs DRM on tracks from labels that don't want DRM. von Lohmann concludes, quite rightly:

Apple's warm embrace of DRM here is every bit as reprehensible as Lexmark's effort to use DRM to eliminate interoperable printer cartridges and Chamberlain's effort to use DRM against replacement garage door clickers.

Incredible is the reaction on tech discussion sites like /. and digg where Lexmark and Chamberlain get almost universally razzed but people believe the line that Apple only reluctantly employs digital restrictions.

von Lohmann's post is quite informative and shows the real purpose of Apple's iTMS DRM—to lock in iTMS customers. DVD Jon builds on this in his recent blog posts.

Then there's Steve Jobs' recent lie about not "gum[ming] up" networks with third-party software, which the FSF debunked handily.

One doesn't need to delve too far into history to see how proprietors, no matter how slick their ads or how popular their consumer electronics, are not working in your best interests.

If you are not a lawyer, I cannot see how you could assert anything about the yet unpublished GPLv3.

Some entity owns the copyright to the linux kernel and associated utilities, and in the absence of a license, anyone who distributed or even installed the software would be violating the copyright. The copyright owners can, of course, GPL to allow widespread use. After granting the license to the whole world, could the owners, however, revoke Novell's license? I don't see why not. Licenses do get revoked. I don't believe that the GPL is irrevocable, although revoking the license is arguably counter to the spirit of the license. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html.

The FSF foundation is: "reviewing Novell Inc.'s right to sell new versions of Linux operating system software".

Corresponding Source includes scripts used to control those activities, interface definition files associated with the program source files, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by complex data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

The Corresponding Source may include portions which do not formally state this License as their license, but qualify under section 7 for inclusion in a work under this License.

Personally I think the entire FSF has gone completely of their rockers. I used to support RMS and FSF but I find their methods increasingly distasteful. I don't like the MS/ Novell deal and I don't like Windows but the fanaticism the FSF show with crusades like this and not to mention their BadVista campaign makes sick.

They are really not about freedom anymore, they are about making everyone do things their way.

[regarding the use of patent litigation insurance] Bradley M. Kuhn, executive director of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) added that the news "isn't a surprise."

"The U.S. Patent Office has been granting patents at an alarming rate. In fact, it's likely difficult today to write any software program--be it free software or proprietary--from scratch that does not exercise the teachings of some existing software patent in the U.S.A."

Moreover, the "FSF has long warned that software patents were very dangerous not only to free software, but to the software industry as a whole. We firmly believe that the world would be a much better place without software patents," Kuhn said.

[regarding the use of patent litigation insurance] Bradley M. Kuhn, executive director of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) added that the news "isn't a surprise."

"The U.S. Patent Office has been granting patents at an alarming rate. In fact, it's likely difficult today to write any software program--be it free software or proprietary--from scratch that does not exercise the teachings of some existing software patent in the U.S.A."

Moreover, the "FSF has long warned that software patents were very dangerous not only to free software, but to the software industry as a whole. We firmly believe that the world would be a much better place without software patents," Kuhn said.

Linus Torvald's current position is that it will not, as he is unwilling to license his code under GPL V3.

That's exactly true. The Linux kernel itself is almost certainly going to stick with V2. But you can't do much with just a kernel, and a whole bunch of the userland tools are GNU projects. To name a few: bash, coreutils, shellutils, fileutils, tar, gzip, gawk, grep, sed, aspell, wget, which, emacs, gcc, gdb, make, autoconf, automake, libtool and hundreds more.

The GNU tools will almost certainly have their licenses changed to v3. I believe the FSF holds the copyrights specifically for that reason.

As much as people laugh at Stallman over "GNU/Linux", he has a pretty good point.

Linus Torvald's current position is that it will not, as he is unwilling to license his code under GPL V3.

That's exactly true. The Linux kernel itself is almost certainly going to stick with V2. But you can't do much with just a kernel, and a whole bunch of the userland tools are GNU projects. To name a few: bash, coreutils, shellutils, fileutils, tar, gzip, gawk, grep, sed, aspell, wget, which, emacs, gcc, gdb, make, autoconf, automake, libtool and hundreds more.

The GNU tools will almost certainly have their licenses changed to v3. I believe the FSF holds the copyrights specifically for that reason.

As much as people laugh at Stallman over "GNU/Linux", he has a pretty good point.

Linus Torvald's current position is that it will not, as he is unwilling to license his code under GPL V3.

That's exactly true. The Linux kernel itself is almost certainly going to stick with V2. But you can't do much with just a kernel, and a whole bunch of the userland tools are GNU projects. To name a few: bash, coreutils, shellutils, fileutils, tar, gzip, gawk, grep, sed, aspell, wget, which, emacs, gcc, gdb, make, autoconf, automake, libtool and hundreds more.

The GNU tools will almost certainly have their licenses changed to v3. I believe the FSF holds the copyrights specifically for that reason.

As much as people laugh at Stallman over "GNU/Linux", he has a pretty good point.

Linus Torvald's current position is that it will not, as he is unwilling to license his code under GPL V3.

That's exactly true. The Linux kernel itself is almost certainly going to stick with V2. But you can't do much with just a kernel, and a whole bunch of the userland tools are GNU projects. To name a few: bash, coreutils, shellutils, fileutils, tar, gzip, gawk, grep, sed, aspell, wget, which, emacs, gcc, gdb, make, autoconf, automake, libtool and hundreds more.

The GNU tools will almost certainly have their licenses changed to v3. I believe the FSF holds the copyrights specifically for that reason.

As much as people laugh at Stallman over "GNU/Linux", he has a pretty good point.

I think the article is poorly written, and as such leads to confusion rather than clarification. Looking over the comments seems to support this interpretation - they're all over the map. At the same time, it does capture the essence of community concern over this deal, and raised some interesting (at least to me) questions.

"The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it.

Well, don't speak for me on this. I still don't understand what is going on enough to say that the deal should be interfered with. That being said, I'm concerned by the lack of clarification and speaking to concerns on the part of Novell, so I understand where the suspicion is coming from; along the lines of 'if they're not looking to clarify, then what are they hiding?'.

They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft," Eben Moglen, the Foundation's general counsel, said on Friday.

And when I start thinking about possible outcomes of the agreement, this is what makes me paranoid. Why was Microsoft motivated to make this deal? So that Microsoft could deliver SUSE subscription licenses to Walmart? I don't think so.

As I understand it, the deal indemnifies Novell against patent violation accusations from Micrsoft. As such, all future Novell contributions to GPL's software must be viewed with a jaundiced eye, since it appears that Novell need not worry about patent violation action against their contribution, while any other developer who derives from the new Novell code has no such luxury.

Okay, so how does all this lead to "Critics called on the board to punish Novell by banning it from distributing new versions of Linux software, said Moglen."? Note IANAL - please comment if I am wrong here. I think that the term 'banning' is a bit of a misnomer here, isn't it? The FSF has the right to enforce the GPL as it sees fit, and as such any move to stop Novell from distributing GPL'd code would require court action on the FSF's part looking for an injunction against Novell distributing GPL'd code, wouldn't it? If the answer to this question is substantively 'yes', then the FSF would not be so much 'banning' Novell from doing anything as enforcing the GPL.

TFA also muddies the waters by slipping in the GPLv3 without explicitly saying so; at least that's how I am interpreting it: "If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March.

The inference here is that the GPLv2 is not being violated by the Novell/Microsoft agreement. As several posters have noted, it appears that the GPLv2 is being violated (e.g. section 7). so either the community doesn't have all the information, or we don't know how to interpret/apply the GPL. I either case, it shows that we really need a cogent source of information and summary regarding this deal. I've watched Eben Moglen's ogg (jeez folks, can't you get your hands on a better microphone, this is barely listenable!) video http://gplv3.fsf.org/static/FSF_Eben_Moglen_Appeal .ogg and in it Eben intimates that the GPLv3 is required in order to fight the Microsoft/Novell deal. Again, The inference here is that the GPLv2 is not being violated by the Novell/Microsoft agreement. There is really no other readily accessible info regarding this deal that I can find on fsf.org; there appears to be some activity in the discussion forums, but these require registration for access (there's a bit of irony for ya!). So I don't have access to the deal itself, and I really don't seem to have access to a thoughtful interpretation of the deal. If anyone knows where to find some well thought out material on the deal, please post.

If the GPLv3 really is required to fight the possible evil implications of the dea

Free as in beer? Have you read the FSF's page on the GPL?

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.

...certainly, but is it worth it?...why support closed software? That seems like a horrible idea to me.

...certainly, but is it worth it?...why support closed software? That seems like a horrible idea to me.

In the case of DRM, theres one very strong way to fight it - with your wallet. Use alternatives where possible. Spread the word about products that contain oppressive DRM. Encourage others to do the same.

I also can't understand the naming. Free and open standards are one of the most important things today a organisation like the "Free Standards Group" could do a great job in this area. Now merging this into a "Linux Foundation" just doesn't fit.

If you want a Foundation which cares about Free Software in general why don't support one of the Free Software Foundations? They exist exactly for this task. I don't know where you living but today you can find a Free Software Foundation in North America, Europe, Latin America and India. If you don't live in one of this regions just select one of them which is near your location or which you like most.

Did anyone who purchased one of these phones ask for the source? They don't have to put the source out there for the general public.

Actually, according to the GPL, if they don't provide the source with every phone then they DO have to give it to anyone in the general public upon request - until they've sold or otherwise "distributed" the last one and for a period of time thereafter.

Actually, according the the GPL, they don't. They just have to give it to anyone who uses the binary. However, most of the time anyone in the general public could be a user, but that's not assured.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic>
and
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid>

Did anyone who purchased one of these phones ask for the source? They don't have to put the source out there for the general public.

Actually, according to the GPL, if they don't provide the source with every phone then they DO have to give it to anyone in the general public upon request - until they've sold or otherwise "distributed" the last one and for a period of time thereafter.

Actually, according the the GPL, they don't. They just have to give it to anyone who uses the binary. However, most of the time anyone in the general public could be a user, but that's not assured.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic>
and
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid>

This will change things drastically. Solaris is a mature OS with some unique tools that could really benefit Free Software: DTrace, ZFS, etc. GPL licensed OS's would really benefit from this stuff. DTrace and ZFS will be included in Mac OS 10.5. But up until now they have been licensed under Sun's CDDL which is incompatible with the GPL.

If Linus ceases to be bull-headed and moves the kernel to GPLv3. The Sun move will be great, Gnu/Linux will be able to integrate these new tools. Sun will be able to use and improve GPL licensed tools more easily. Everyone wins. Except proprietary software developers and MS in particular.

What if Linus continues to be an ass and refuses to license the kernel under GPLv3? Free software developers who do not want their work to be used in DRM or hardware that locks the user out of their software will move towards Gnu/Solaris! The Samba team, Alan Cox, all the GNU projects could all shift focus to Solaris as the default kernel. There is already a Debian-based Gnu/Solaris and this could become the main focus of Debian work. Would Ubuntu Gnu/Solaris be far behind?

If the second case happens Linus could continue with GPLv2 only for the kernel and see the importance of Linux diminish or he could give in and license it under "GPLv2 or later" and contain the hemorrhage.

Interesting, interesting.

It's not wrong to be biased against things that are bad ideas. What do you think of slavery, Communism and apartheid? Do you think we should have a neutral point of view in regards to these things?

DRM is a technological abberation. So say various experts. But perhaps you know better.

If you see any chance that your school might refuse to allow your program to be released as free software, it is best to raise the issue at the earliest possible stage. The closer the program is to working usefully, the more temptation the administration might feel to take it from you and finish it without you. At an earlier stage, you have more leverage.

So we recommend that you approach them when the program is only half-done, saying, "If you will agree to releasing this as free software, I will finish it." Don't think of this as a bluff. To prevail, you must have the courage to say, "My program will have liberty, or never be born."

Go back to Venezuela. Fucking communists.

The text in question is not part of the GPL itself; it is part of a section, outside the license, entitled "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs".

Ok, thanks for explaining, now I kind of see what bothers you, even though I still don't agree that this is malice, or that it's being done in the sole interest of the FSF, while disregarding the freedoms of the people releasing code under the license. Point 9. clearly explains what's with the "or later" clause. Maybe it is still quite implicit about the fact that you could also use this version only, which somebody might want to do. But you have to consider that the FSF thinks that would a bad idea, so not worth encouraging in the license itself.

So, if somebody never reads point 9. of the GPL, but still wants to apply the license to her code, she might think that the only way she could do it is by copying (but not reading) the big chunk of text from the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" to every source file and adding her name there. While I'm sure some people actually did this, the fact is that they didn't even try to understand that one of the many consequences of doing this would be that they allow the code to be distributed under updated versions of the license, which the FSF might one day write. Well, if they failed to understand this and still applied the license then they and not the FSF are to blame if the license doesn't suit their needs. The FSF could have gone into whatever detail you want explaining this, still it would have made no difference into this dont-read-dont-think-apply-license-scenario. At least the default wording chosen by the FSF is the most permissive one, which means that if you just go with that you always have the choice to relicense later under something more specific.

As you point out, the FSF has had 15 years during which it could have published updated information about the ramifications of the recommended clause. This would not have required changing the license itself.

The FSF cannot know what "the ramifications of the recommended clause" might be for your particular project. That's why most companies and many individuals hire copyright lawyers, if they need this kind of advice. The FSF cannot know what your exact goals are when applying their license, so what they assume is that since you are using a Free Software license you care most about Freedom, and that's what they offer you by default. And, true, this is not appropriate for everyone. Organisations like MySQL are actually not so much interested in Freedom, but they like the GPL because of its vitality and its incompatibility with proprietary licenses, and build their whole business model on top of that. So should the FSF now also explain what the benefits of dual licensing are? And since they are there, maybe they should also explain what the benefits of proprietary licenses are. You see the point? FSF would be quite biased in this matter, since their stated goal is to promote Freedom, not the opposite of it.

I'm not objecting to the fact that the FSF didn't say anything about this in 1991; I'm objecting to their continued silence on the matter, right up until the point at which it became an issue with the next version of the license, over 15 years later.

You are plain wrong. The Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL goes into more detail and explains the rationale behind the "or later" recommendationand why you should (not must(!)) use that formulation. Also, if you check the transcripts of Richard Stallman's talks, you will see that he always gave a similar answered when asked about the clause. The fact that there was not so much emphasis on that clause in the discussions until recently, is caused by the fact that until recently there was no GPLv3 in the work

The text in question is not part of the GPL itself; it is part of a section, outside the license, entitled "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs".

Ok, thanks for explaining, now I kind of see what bothers you, even though I still don't agree that this is malice, or that it's being done in the sole interest of the FSF, while disregarding the freedoms of the people releasing code under the license. Point 9. clearly explains what's with the "or later" clause. Maybe it is still quite implicit about the fact that you could also use this version only, which somebody might want to do. But you have to consider that the FSF thinks that would a bad idea, so not worth encouraging in the license itself.

So, if somebody never reads point 9. of the GPL, but still wants to apply the license to her code, she might think that the only way she could do it is by copying (but not reading) the big chunk of text from the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" to every source file and adding her name there. While I'm sure some people actually did this, the fact is that they didn't even try to understand that one of the many consequences of doing this would be that they allow the code to be distributed under updated versions of the license, which the FSF might one day write. Well, if they failed to understand this and still applied the license then they and not the FSF are to blame if the license doesn't suit their needs. The FSF could have gone into whatever detail you want explaining this, still it would have made no difference into this dont-read-dont-think-apply-license-scenario. At least the default wording chosen by the FSF is the most permissive one, which means that if you just go with that you always have the choice to relicense later under something more specific.

As you point out, the FSF has had 15 years during which it could have published updated information about the ramifications of the recommended clause. This would not have required changing the license itself.

The FSF cannot know what "the ramifications of the recommended clause" might be for your particular project. That's why most companies and many individuals hire copyright lawyers, if they need this kind of advice. The FSF cannot know what your exact goals are when applying their license, so what they assume is that since you are using a Free Software license you care most about Freedom, and that's what they offer you by default. And, true, this is not appropriate for everyone. Organisations like MySQL are actually not so much interested in Freedom, but they like the GPL because of its vitality and its incompatibility with proprietary licenses, and build their whole business model on top of that. So should the FSF now also explain what the benefits of dual licensing are? And since they are there, maybe they should also explain what the benefits of proprietary licenses are. You see the point? FSF would be quite biased in this matter, since their stated goal is to promote Freedom, not the opposite of it.

I'm not objecting to the fact that the FSF didn't say anything about this in 1991; I'm objecting to their continued silence on the matter, right up until the point at which it became an issue with the next version of the license, over 15 years later.

You are plain wrong. The Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL goes into more detail and explains the rationale behind the "or later" recommendationand why you should (not must(!)) use that formulation. Also, if you check the transcripts of Richard Stallman's talks, you will see that he always gave a similar answered when asked about the clause. The fact that there was not so much emphasis on that clause in the discussions until recently, is caused by the fact that until recently there was no GPLv3 in the work

I invite you to make these comments on the official GPL v3 site. That way, the licence authors and other interested parties will be able to take them into consideration.

might help if you gave them the link to the GPLv3 Comment Site.

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the 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 a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Boston, MA, USA. We rely on support from individuals like you to carry out our worldwide mission to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of all free software users.

Its importance has been known to me, and to a few in the tech community, all along. In fact, in Elektra v. Barker, where this battle is being played out in Manhattan, the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all weighed in with amicus curiae briefs, showing how the RIAA's lawsuit against a young nursing student living in a Bronx housing project could ultimately shut the whole internet down if the RIAA's legal argument for such an expansion of the Copyright Act were to be adopted by the Court. The case is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 PM, in federal court in Manhattan, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

It is so important for the tech community to get behind the RIAA defendants, because the battle being played out in the RIAA v. Consumer arena will have far-reaching implications, way beyond the world of sharing music files.

The Defective by Design group, part of the Free Software Foundation, has indeed recognized the importance of it and is trying to raise funds to help the RIAA victims.

Additionally, the attorneys defending these cases are in desparate need of tech people to serve as consultants and/or expert witnesses, especially in the areas of (a) hard drive forensics, and (b) hash, metadata, internet file transmissions, etc. Compare, e.g., the RIAA's bogus "expert" statements here (pdf) and here (pdf) with the genuine independent expert witness declaration (pdf) which shut down the RIAA's operation in the Netherlands.

When I click on the [Watch FSF's year end video appeal.] link on http://www.fsf.org/ with my embedded media player, it plays instantly... like flash video, except it takes up the whole page and is way better quality that most flash video you see around. That's a theora video, and I'm not seeing the downside.

This is a discussion about a license, the GPL, not EULAs. If you wish to discuss EULAs, please find another forum.

Of course since this is all university sponsered research. It's all free of patents and free for slashdotters to create their own devices in the comfort of their basement labs to give away to the masses who have seen the light and repented their evil ways.

It will do more good than some uses.

2006/12/15 BadVista.org: FSF launches campaign against Microsoft Vista http://badvista.fsf.org/

(yes, GNU is a project of the FSF)

Well, it's a project principally sponsored by the FSF. Certainly they have a close connection, but they're hardly equivalent.

Quote: " I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software...

Well, that's hardly a "clearly stated agenda to eradicate proprietary software" as you claim, any more than a "get firefox" button is a clearly stated agenda to eradicate Opera.

"... using a proprietary (18k characters) program... make a copy... saying ``No'' to proprietary software."

Well, that certainly shows Richard Stallman's personal disapproval of proprietary software. But it doesn't look to me like a "clearly stated agenda to eradicate proprietary software".

"The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for...

This is an internal policy concerning the office computers used by the FSF. It doesn't really constitute their "agenda".

http://www.fsf.org/about describes the FSF's "worldwide mission to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of all free software users". Is that what you were alluding to? It's the closest I can find, but it doesn't say anything about eradication.

FSF's "long-term" perspective has also given you GCC, among other things. The failure of one project does not mean that their philosophy is flawed. Like there haven't been a few dead ends in Linux kernel development?