Slashdot Mirror

If the job is related to free software, we'd be happy to post it.

Lest you continue to think what I said, about how the RIAA is rewriting copyright law in such a way as to destroy the internet as we know it, is "hyperbole", why don't you read the court's decision in Fonovisa v. Alvarez, which came down just the other day?

There you will see the kind of nonsense the RIAA is feeding judges who have "incomplete understanding" of technology... and how the judges are actually buying it.

My friend, it takes money to fight this stuff.

And if the technology community doesn't get behind the RIAA victims, it will be a bloodbath that will affect everyone -- not just p2p music file sharers.

Meanwhile, I am gratified to say that the technology community is getting behind these folks.

The "Defective by Design" campaign of the Free Software Foundation has launched a fundraising drive to help the RIAA victims.

And the U.S. Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry filed an amicus brief in Elektra v. Barker.

So there is hope.

Lest you continue to think what I said, about how the RIAA is rewriting copyright law in such a way as to destroy the internet as we know it, is "hyperbole", why don't you read the court's decision in Fonovisa v. Alvarez, which came down just the other day?

There you will see the kind of nonsense the RIAA is feeding judges who have "incomplete understanding" of technology... and how the judges are actually buying it.

My friend, it takes money to fight this stuff.

And if the technology community doesn't get behind the RIAA victims, it will be a bloodbath that will affect everyone -- not just p2p music file sharers.

Meanwhile, I am gratified to say that the technology community is getting behind these folks.

The "Defective by Design" campaign of the Free Software Foundation has launched a fundraising drive to help the RIAA victims.

And the U.S. Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry filed an amicus brief in Elektra v. Barker.

So there is hope.

Gee, and I thought their purpose had something to do with writing good software, but I guess it's just about politics after all.

The purpose of free software has always been to promote freedom, an inherently political goal.

In the past few years, some people in the "open source" movement noticed that freedom also leads to good software, and have often championed the use of free software for reasons other than the promotion of freedom. As RMS put it:

For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement." For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

Gee, and I thought their purpose had something to do with writing good software, but I guess it's just about politics after all.

The purpose of free software has always been to promote freedom, an inherently political goal.

In the past few years, some people in the "open source" movement noticed that freedom also leads to good software, and have often championed the use of free software for reasons other than the promotion of freedom. As RMS put it:

For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement." For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

Gee, and I thought their purpose had something to do with writing good software, but I guess it's just about politics after all.

The purpose of free software has always been to promote freedom, an inherently political goal.

In the past few years, some people in the "open source" movement noticed that freedom also leads to good software, and have often championed the use of free software for reasons other than the promotion of freedom. As RMS put it:

For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement." For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

Where does it actually help the manufacturer?

It helps the manufacturer by increasing the likelyhood that people who value freedom will purchase their hardware.

If you don't value freedom, and choose to purchase locked-down hardware...well, that's sad.

If you are looking for more that fsfeurope's plain text diff, FSF is providing a strikethrough version of this second Draft, that highlights all the changed text from Draft 1, in LaTex, Postscript, and PDF

If you are looking for more that fsfeurope's plain text diff, FSF is providing a strikethrough version of this second Draft, that highlights all the changed text from Draft 1, in LaTex, Postscript, and PDF

If you are looking for more that fsfeurope's plain text diff, FSF is providing a strikethrough version of this second Draft, that highlights all the changed text from Draft 1, in LaTex, Postscript, and PDF

Speaking of history lessons and facts, let's not forget that RMS needed to due everything short of suing NeXt to open the Objective C compiler's and runtime's sources:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html

NeXt didn't want to contribute their code back to the Free Software movement. They even had some sneaky attempts (shipping just the .o files) to keep it proprietary. Only when lawyers got involved, did NeXt release their changes. They gave something back to the gcc community only when a gun was to their head.

The model reviewed by the article is just one of several types of Linux laptops sold by R Cubed Technologies, ranging in price from $999 to $1,454. I really think you're getting a better buying one of these Linux laptops than buying a Dell laptop where you have to pay the Micro$oft tax or one of those exhorbitantly expensive Apple laptops.

The R Cubed Linux laptops have Intel integrated graphics cards for which Intel has released 2D and 3D-accelerated open source graphics drivers that are capable of transparent windows and drop shadows with EXA as well as rotating cubes and wobbly windows with XGL and Compiz! Way to go Intel!

The GPL and the FSF are the direct result of an intellectual exercise to determine the best way to get to the end goal of freedom-to-modify code/Software. You may call that self-righteous and moralizing, I call it brilliant. RMS may seem a little too passionate for some, but that's because he is passionate, idealistic, and uncompromising in his beliefs. If you disagree with his beliefs, that fine. But saying, The FSF doesn't need him, bullocks I say. There is a "movement" available for those who disagree, talk with Bruce Perens.

I wanted to suggest everybody to stop using the term "GNU/Linux" and using "Linux" instead as a form of peaceful, non-confrontational protest against FSF's damage to Open Source enterprises.

Good Luck. Linux is GPL and uses GNU utilities. Almost all Linux Distros are GNU/Linux. Chicken and the egg.

From http://www.fsf.org/about/leadership.html

The Free Software Foundation is directed by:

* Richard M. Stallman, President
* Peter T. Brown, Executive Director

The Free Software Foundation has six people on its board of directors. They are:
* Geoffrey Knauth, Senior Software Engineer at SFA, Inc.
* Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University
* Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia University
* Henri Poole, Founder of CivicActions, a grassroots campaign technology consulting firm
* Richard M. Stallman, Founder of FSF and the GNU Project and author of the GNU GPL
* Gerald J. Sussman, Professor of Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Maybe you should take some time out to read a few essays or listen to full presentations, instead of reacting to sound bits fleeting across the web, before making your own useless sound bits.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

What is it about trying to protect users rights that gets so many people torqued?

Oh... I see, its the uncompromising demeanor of RMS. Tuff s#1T. Keep it up Richard.

Simon argues that we need to shift away from a "right to use" model in software, and toward a value model - targeted "bundles of value" to specific vertical market segments.

What on Earth does that mean? Another Matt you point to, says a little more, but I'm still confused by the concept and how you can make it practical. It looks like you don't get free software at all. Indeed, there seems to be little difference between your "bundles of value" and the way Sun has always done things. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

The "right to use" is freedom zero for me. Who on earth are you to tell me how I'm going to use "your" software on my computer? It seems like a given. Of course, it's not really a given if I can't modify your software to suit my needs. Once it suits my own needs, I might want to share that with my friends. What good is something I can't use to help others? Being able to share my improvements without your permission is also part of doing what I want with the software. Without these other three freedoms, I might as well be stuck with a binary file which I can only use as you intended. Getting people to pay you for development of code that suits your customers is all fine and good, but using that service to put restrictions on the user is not. How restrictive are your bundles really?

Now for practicality. How are you going to sell restrictive software when people are making less restrictive software for every purpose? Sun is famous for quality, I won't knock that. The problem for you is that free software is getting better all the time and for good reason. If I write a piece of software, I have little to gain by keeping it to myself and everything to gain by using publically available gpl'ed code as a base. Once I've made it work, I really don't mind posting it up and the copyleft is that little bit richer. After six years of free software restrictions as insignificant as an "I agree" button are odious,

The Stallman-esque extremists who want to avoid anything that they think is in some way capitalist are just as bad, though.

Not nearly as bad as the people who try to categorize others incorrectly. Stallman doesn't think that it's wrong to make money selling Free Software. To the contrary, he actively encourages people to do so. Just read the FSF's essay on selling Free Software. For people who can't bother to follow the link, a salient quote is (emphasis is from the original):

Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!

That doesn't seem like somebody who's opposed to capitalism.

Free Software is about securing freedom; keeping yourself free is a self-interest.

sorry I posted too soon, should probably have said Free Software Foundation rather than GPL, and should have backed it up with a URL

Soundcards they list only a few cards using the emu10k chipset.

Wired networking they have nothing. Wireless networking they list a few cards using the realtek and ralink chipsets.

Their information about all other hardware categories is equally sparse.

    "If you have a contribution to make to this section, please send it to ."

    "We are looking for volunteers to help us maintain this section, by doing research and reviewing reports we receive. If you would like to volunteer to help build this important resource, let us know at the above address."

Could someone please inform them about the thousands of devices and chipsets supported by GPL drivers under linux?

People! This license is under active development! If you have a problem with it, make *sure* to point it out *now* to the developers, if it's a bug it might be fixable in the near future.

People! This license is under active development! If you have a problem with it, make *sure* to point it out *now* to the developers, if it's a bug it might be fixable in the near future.

People! This license is under active development! If you have a problem with it, make *sure* to point it out *now* to the developers, if it's a bug it might be fixable in the near future.

Then when you get around to reading the transcript of the interview or listening to it, you should be pleased to learn that Stallman is not with the Open Source movement. He takes pains to tell people that his movement, the Free Software movement, is older than the Open Source movement and pursues a different philosophy. Stallman doesn't speak for the Open Source movement.

In this interview he points out one of the differences between the two movements:

Now, this is an interesting example of the difference between Free Software and Open Source. Some people promote what they call "Open Source DRM". Now, recall the difference in fundamental values between Free Software and Open Source. In Free Software, our values are freedom and community. We want to be part of a community of free people. Whereas, in Open Source, they talk about making powerful, reliable software and they promote a development model. Now, for us, the question of how a program is developed is a secondary issue. I mean, if some models work better than others, fine -- use them. But that's not what's really important to Free Software, to people who value -- who support the Free Software movement and value freedom.

So, there are people who say that they could apply that development model to developing software designed to restrict us. And maybe it's true; maybe if people study and share and collaborate in developing software designed to take away our freedom, it might become more powerful and reliable in taking away our freedom. But that's a bad thing. That's evil. It's -- in spirit, it's similar to collaborative development of a virus. If something is evil, we don't want it to be done well. We want it to be done as badly as possible.

However, we in the FSF do hold the copyright to a huge collection of Free software, and will enforce that copyright with legal action where appropriate. (So far, it hasn't been appropriate; infringers tend to drop their pants and bend over once the FSF lawyers have had a little chat with their lawyers.)

(Yes, I'm a member of both the EFF and FSF, aren't you?)

However, we in the FSF do hold the copyright to a huge collection of Free software, and will enforce that copyright with legal action where appropriate. (So far, it hasn't been appropriate; infringers tend to drop their pants and bend over once the FSF lawyers have had a little chat with their lawyers.)

(Yes, I'm a member of both the EFF and FSF, aren't you?)

"The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs [...]

That might be the goal of both Microsoft and the Open Source Initiative or the goals of both Microsoft and the Open Source movement, but it is not the goal of the author of the GNU GPL—the most widely-used free software license. The goals of the Open Source movement are chiefly technological and economic and this is what makes them so attractive to business.

RMS, Eben Moglen, and the FSF make it very clear that the GNU GPL is about giving more computer users software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software and to defend those rights even for derivative works. This is not to say that business can't be a part of making this happen, but business needs are not given primacy here and for good reasons. Business sometimes perverts the fight for freedom into what Microsoft and other proprietary software distributors want—to create a warm, fuzzy appeal to non-free software, thus making a place at the table for those who work against what the FSF and the GNU GPL work to create and maintain.

As RMS makes clear in "Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"":

Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.

We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present themselves as "open source companies," hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.

This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using the term "free software." But companies do not seem to use the term "free software" that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term "open source" opened the door for this.

"The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs [...]

That might be the goal of both Microsoft and the Open Source Initiative or the goals of both Microsoft and the Open Source movement, but it is not the goal of the author of the GNU GPL—the most widely-used free software license. The goals of the Open Source movement are chiefly technological and economic and this is what makes them so attractive to business.

RMS, Eben Moglen, and the FSF make it very clear that the GNU GPL is about giving more computer users software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software and to defend those rights even for derivative works. This is not to say that business can't be a part of making this happen, but business needs are not given primacy here and for good reasons. Business sometimes perverts the fight for freedom into what Microsoft and other proprietary software distributors want—to create a warm, fuzzy appeal to non-free software, thus making a place at the table for those who work against what the FSF and the GNU GPL work to create and maintain.

As RMS makes clear in "Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"":

Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.

We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present themselves as "open source companies," hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.

This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using the term "free software." But companies do not seem to use the term "free software" that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term "open source" opened the door for this.

"The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs [...]

That might be the goal of both Microsoft and the Open Source Initiative or the goals of both Microsoft and the Open Source movement, but it is not the goal of the author of the GNU GPL—the most widely-used free software license. The goals of the Open Source movement are chiefly technological and economic and this is what makes them so attractive to business.

RMS, Eben Moglen, and the FSF make it very clear that the GNU GPL is about giving more computer users software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software and to defend those rights even for derivative works. This is not to say that business can't be a part of making this happen, but business needs are not given primacy here and for good reasons. Business sometimes perverts the fight for freedom into what Microsoft and other proprietary software distributors want—to create a warm, fuzzy appeal to non-free software, thus making a place at the table for those who work against what the FSF and the GNU GPL work to create and maintain.

As RMS makes clear in "Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"":

Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.

We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present themselves as "open source companies," hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.

This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using the term "free software." But companies do not seem to use the term "free software" that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term "open source" opened the door for this.

The GPL did one thing very right. It said that companies that "improve" software have to give those improvements back to the community.

Actually this is incorrect. See "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?".

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

Also take a look at the following whitepaper (PDF), it dispels some of the myths surrounding the GPL (it's dated 2002, but these myths/misunderstandings are still around today).

The free software and free culture movements are full of great people including Lawrence Lessig. I got a chance to interview him. During the interview he expressed his over commitment to the movement. Lets acknowledge the larger organizations in order to reduce strain on any one figure. All of the people at Creative Commons, Electronic Freedom Foundation, Free Software Foundation, etc. deserve credit for their dedication to the cause (if you will).

That said, one critical aspect to promoting a digital culture is supporting revolutionary projects and artists. Some examples are Project Orange, Cactuses and Chance. Each has a different unique aspect but each hopes for a future which is better for artists. They aim for equal opportunity for artists to sustain themselves. Free software tools along with flexible creative licenses will allow this.

The most important aspect of Creative Commons licenses is that it allows for a new art form, remix art.

Alteration can create something unique.

You can create a unique Alteration.

For more interviews with revolutionary people/projects see my own project, Open Road Trip.

For about 7 years now, Red Hat has been badmouthing the Free & Open Source K Desktop Environment and the Qt framework that KDE is built on. Both KDE and Qt are licensed under the GPL, the Free Software license with the strongest copyleft/forced sharing protections that ensure the users' rights to control their own computers.

I know for a fact that Red Hat employees have embarked on a FUD campaign against KDE by spreading outright lies about its licensing. One such lie that they've been perpetuating is that thrid-party companies can't write proprietary software using Qt and KDE: this is plain wrong, because a company that wants to write proprietary software based on Qt can simply play by the proprietary rules and buy a proprietary license from Trolltech (the makers of Qt). This arrangement is only fair, and it provides a financial incentive for companies to write open source software. Furthermore, revenues from prorietary development go directly into improving the Free & Open Source Qt framework. This dual-licensing arrangement is a WIN-WIN situations for ordinary users like you and me.

Now, I'd understand if Microsoft were spreading this FUD, but for a company like Red Hat that pretends to be 100% for open source to be doing this is downright hypocritical.

• What the FSF has to say for itself about this is excellent, as usual.
• What Defective by Design has to say for itself is usefull too.

Yes, universally used DRM will eliminate free software and form a basis for universal censorship and information control. Even the author agrees to that, but he thinks that something else can and will happen all by itself and we don't need these "political" people. It's very easy to see how wrong he is.

The threat is as real as the pressure M$, the BSA, the RIAA, the MPAA, book publishers and news publishers can put on device and law makers. How many "normal" people will chose software freedom over "popular" music and movies? Look at the way the RIAA ran music shops: RIAA exclusive or no RIAA at all! It's not that people are stupid, it's that the choice they will be given is unacceptable: let us control anything that's a media player or you don't get any media. Right now, while the big publishers are behaving and few people know about alternative media, it's easy for people to get trapped by convenience. If nothing is done now, lawmakers might remove all choice by mandating DRM in all devices. Then the nascent free media movement can be crushed and the radio empires will survive their technical obsolescence and be able to push down restrictions analog media never had.

Stallman's answer in 1985 was to create F/OSS software, not to outlaw proprietary software, nor to use unlawfully copied proprietary software. F/OSS was and is able to compete in the marketplace.

Hmmmmn, good point - my analogy was flawed.

Now let's look at DRM. DRM is a flawed, ultimately unworkable attempt to control copying of "content" files. If the FSF had a workable alternative to DRM, then they should put it forth and let it compete for our hearts and minds and dollars.

DRM can be used to protect any digital file - including software. It affects the FSF directly (DRM measures can remove some freedoms granted by the GPL) and is a legal and social problem, there is no technical solution.

Better yet, if they want to work a political angle, why not work on/against legislation such as the DMCA? Why waste the effort on DRM, which in my estimation is going to turn out to be one of the big non-issues of the century.

I take your point that the DMCA is the whip that enforces DRM, but the FSF is going working on the DMCA, not too mention even more dangerous items, like the wipo netcast treaty, and software patents.

Just 'cause they're attacking DRM doesn't mean they've forgotten everything else!

There already is a smaller scale version of Silicon Valley roughly centered on Boston, Massachusetts. The partial circle defined by Route 128 (and to a lesser extent the larger one surrounding it defined by Route 495) has most of the required properties already. Heck, it even has the same elevated levels of Asperger's Syndrome that Silicon Valley has.

I think a bigger point is the number of colleges and universities in the Massachusetts area (like MIT, Harvard, Northeastern, and Boston University, to name just a few). Plus, besides Boston, there are numerous other technologically advanced places in that ring (including Cambridge, Saugus, Waltham, and Billerica, to name just a few). If you do a look-up on the saga of ODF and the history of OASIS and/or GNU you'll find a lot of these places mentioned -- OASIS originated in Massachusetts, the Free Software Foundation is headquartered in Massachusetts, and AFAIK Massachusetts was the first government to sanction a special "Open Source Software Trough" to encourage the usage of open source software within both its own branches as well as its local community governments. It's not clear to me where the weird view that Massachusetts is somehow against free software, open source and information sharing that some are espousing is coming from...

Note that it's perfectly possible to have a Linux completely without Linus by forking the Kernel. Note that it's NOT possible to have a Gnu/Linux without any trace of Gnu tools (which DO exist, by the way).

Let me reiterate, for clarification. Your initial statement was that RMS pushes for GNU/Linux because it will bring in more publicity for GNU, with the downside that some people might assume that GNU was responsible for the "entire Linux package" (emphasis mine). My response was that, given the two options "Linux" and "GNU/Linux," the former is much more likely to make people assume that Linus is responsible for the entire package, whereas the latter gives each a pretty equal share.

If your argument is that GNU is an organization, where Linux is a "product" (GNU/Linux ~~ Microsoft Windows), then I can see that being a problem. I've always seen GNU as the project to make free software tools (as in, GNU == [glibc; gcc; ...]), where the Free Software Foundation was the organization.

FSF/Linux isn't very fair, definitely, so I agree with you if that's your problem with it.

In order to participate in the Contest, you must be a professional or amateur embedded developer and 18 years or older; however, residents of the following countries are ineligible to participate due to legal constraints: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.

This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.

They could even do that and it would be OK. Who ever said the development team is obligated to compile to your favorite architecture and distribution? More often than not they do but it does not matter if the code is free. Your distribution can and will pick up the changes soon enough, and that's the way the vast majority of users should get the vast majority of their software.

I'd like to hear of a situation where leaving it in source was not actually good enough. The only one I can think of would be where the user has upgraded a production system. They did this to get a new feature that might be nice but discovered a few bugs that were costing them money. The solution is to test and fix the bugs before moving the production system. I'd love to hear the story if anyone has one.

The X Window System has always been considered Free Software by FSF. Look at the categories here, section "Non-copylefted free software".

What planet do you live on? There's lot's excitement for people who discover GNU/Linux. Expectations are typically low, thanks to massive FUD campaigns. A by product of that FUD is an air of the dangerous and new that's irresistible to many. Those that bother to try and stick with it long enough to overcome the bad habits of commercial software are amply rewarded. In the end, they find the joy of free software, which continues to grow. Browsing software repositories is like walking through a candy store where everything is free and the candy only gets better as time goes on. New programs make it feel like Christmas all year long. What does the five year and counting M$ train wreck release cycle have to match that? Zip, zero, zilch, hype, FUD and other hot air.

Most of the people I know have barely heard of free software and are heavily FUDed about it. They have this strange notion that it's hard to use and won't work with their hardware. Some even confuse it with copyright violation and think it's somehow tainted and immoral. Big players, like IBM, Lowes, Chrysler, etc, have helped to alleviate the "rebel" image but the FUD still stick because the big dumb vendors like Dell still don't offer a GNU/Linux desktop machines for end users.

Anyone who's used a GNU/Linux system for any length of time knows the FUD for the BS but the discovery never ends. Media players are a prime example. I've been using free software since Red Hat 5.x in 1998 and I've watched a steady and constant improvement. Back then, things were so nasty I did not even bother with sound. Then came vorbis, sox, autoconfiguration, ALSA, xine and suddenly audio is easy. Today, you can get live CDs that run Amarok, which has to be one of the finest media players available. Amarok excels as a media player as Konqueror and Firefox excel as browsers. Everywhere you look at a GNU/Linux system you see more excellence. The product is greater than the sum of the parts and M$ can't keep up to save their life. Hell, they are finally getting a browser with tabs and a multiple desktop GUI, but it's so bloated and top heavy with, virus checking and DRM it won't even work.

The final, unmatchable and exciting discovery is how free software really works. Far from being evil, free software is morally superior. No free software project has ever sued a public school for copying a text editor and none ever will misuse the government and laws in such a hideous way. What Microsoft dissmisses as "Communism" is actually co-operative capitalism and free market innovation at it's finest. Getting something for nothing and finding out that's the way it should have been all along feels great. The lies and harm M$ heaps on free software all backfire and the user is left with an unshakable commitment to their own software freedom.

2 points. You apparently forgot to RTFA. The violation claimed is neither about only runtime linking or building and distributing a unitary kernel. The violation claimed is that in building the module (for subsequent runtime linking), not a unitary kernel, certain "copyrightable information" is used that ends up in a binary distributed on the CD without source code. That would be GPL violation if it weren't for the fact that the information probably isn't copyrightable (it's just symbols that serve a functional purpose, see Feist, Atari, etc.), and even if they are barely copyrightable, it would be a Fair Use under a number of cases.

2nd point is that Eben Moglen is probably pretty bad as a counsel. Law professors make bad counsel because they get confused between what the law is and what they think the law should be. (see FAIR v. Rumsfeld). He is obviously so in love with the GPL and OSS that he glosses over a number of issues with the GPL. Just look at his recent publications, all about how OSS is communist and anarchist and therefore great. Also notice how he doesn't teach IP.

For real proof that the FSF is wrong, read http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html .

They clearly say that runtime linking is a GPL violation, with maybe just runtime linking and executing only main to be a borderline case. Yet they sure don't like citing authority for that proposition.

The fact is, Eben and the people at FSF think they can override copyright law with the GPL, ignoring that, since it is based on copyright law, all the normal copyright exceptions apply. This includes generous amounts of factual but not legal copying for intercompatability as well as a broad fair use defense for the same purposes.

This is an issue that has been discussed before. See this Free Software Foundation FAQ and this Kernaltrap discussion, which includes Linus Torvalds' own statements. As I understand it, the rule is that if you combine GPL code with other code, you must release the result under the GPL. If the other code is proprietary, you can't release it under the GPL, with the result that you can't release the program at all. The issue is what is considered "combination". The crucial thing is that the combination must be such as to create a derivative work. Simply putting the two programs on the same CD does not create a derivative work. Creating a single binary, as when the kernel links to a library or driver, does create a derivative work. There is an exception for libraries that are a normal part of the system, but since the drivers in question are not normally distributed with the OS, I don't think that that exception applies.

The upshot is that the letter-writer appears to be correct. If you distribute a single binary in which the proprietary drivers are linked into the kernel, you are in violation of the GPL. You can work around this by including the drivers in the distribution as separate files and loading them dynamically.

The FSF is probably a good place to ask questions about how the GPL applies in cases like this.

The Free Software Foundation??

That's who and why and I can understand that.

Her reaction is generally "just plan better". I argue that the industry has been struggling with this issue for decades. I don't think we're all morons to have built so much infrastructure and come so far, but we still can't solve the simple parts like accurately identifying how long it will take us to accomplish our goal.

Hmmm, I'm still not sure what you want to explain but I'll take a swing anyway. I can think of social, technical and legal complexities to software development. I've talked to my wife about all three. You might be thinking of something completely different.

Talking to my wife is not all that hard, even though she has no interest in programming. Her first and only practice was some kind of basic in grade school. She was an interior designer for a Steelcase for eight years and understands all three classes of difficulties.

Others have done a great job explaining complexities in terms of free software. Voices from the Open Source Revolution has a lot of clear thinking from software masters. Vixie's article about software engineering is particularly germain. You can also get a lot of good thought from the Free Software Foundation's philosophy pages. The Cathedral and the Bazaar deals with the issue explicitly. Indeed, there's an embarrassment of riches matched only by the wealth of text editors in the free software world.

So, how do you get from there to dinner table conversation with the wife who's never written a line of code? It's the same way you try to simplify everything and the largeness of the subject actually helps.

You start with what a program is and everything flows from there. My wife, like most people, understands modularity. "You eat an elephant one bite at a time," is one of her favorite sayings. She also has a basic idea that a program is something that takes information and does something with it. It does not take too much to explain that programs expect specific organization of their inputs to be able to deal with it and that smaller, simpler programs are easier to work with that big complex ones, and the wife then understands modular programming. It's a division of labor kind of thing that runs right into group development and organizational and social complexity. How do you know what the customer really needs? How do you make decisions about meeting those needs and turn those into a blueprint that you can follow? The free software world has solved those problems by letting the customer make the software themselves, and those customers have been organizing themselves very well. At that point, you zoom back into the perspective of a developer getting their hands on some huge project. If you can imagine that the free software developer knows what they want to accomplish, you are then faced with another embarrassment of riches: so many great tools, each of which can take years to explore. Did I say "free software developer"? Yes I did, because I did not want to wade into the swamp of NDA's, cross licensing, binary blobs and other horror stories of legal complexity. That can come later. By now, your wife's head will have popped but you will have explained software development complexity.

Like most things, none of the parts is particularly difficult, there's just a lot of parts.

I'm going to have to disagree here. FOSS isn't about avoiding profit. Free software merely thinks there are things more important than profit, that need to be ensured first. Namely, the freedom of the user, as defined in the free software definition. If you can do that and make a profit, go for it.

If you were minded to you could find out for yourself what Theo has contributed. Scan the source tree of just about any project the OpenBSD team ships and hunt for openbsd.org. If by chance you don't find anything then search again for "De Raadt" or some of the other developers' names. More likely than not you'll find code contributions.

If that's not enough, look at the number of companies Theo and his team and users have lobbied to release documentation thus helping all projects. Note also the Free Software Foundation and others respect and have honored Theo's work and contributions. In 2004 the Free Software Foundation presented Theo with the FSF Software award

For recognition as founder and project leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, Theo de Raadt's work has also led to significant contributions to other BSD distributions and GNU/Linux. Of particular note is Theo's work on OpenSSH. Theo's leadership of OpenBSD, his selfless commitment to Free Software and his advancement of network security, were cited by this year's award committee.

Oh, spare me. How far back do you want to go? If you like, let's go on a merry treasure hunt for the man or woman who came up with the idea of sharing or altruism. Heck, let's talk about Jesus for a while, shall we? He certainly had some strong ideas about putting the collective interest before yourself, but I'm pretty sure he didn't put the bible out under the BSD license.

The success of GNU/Linux and, to a lesser extent, the BSD's, inspired the modern Open Source software movement. Yes, they had predecessors, both directly and in spirit. How is your argument any more than tangentially related to what I was trying to say, anyway? Why did you pick out such an irrelevant tidbit to nit-pick? My overarching point, in case you were too busy gazing at the patterns in the carpet, was that free software has ideals beyond the creation of better software in less time. Simple. And, I would think, rather hard to refute, since those ideals are enshrined in black and white.

Keep up the pressure! This is a step in the direction of liberated video driver code.

RMS has been visible on the video driver front as well: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest .html

If the theological debates could be set aside, a unified front may help sway the video card manufacturers.

I believe that if you buy a copy of his book, "Free Software, Free Society" that he will be happy to provide his "Happy Hacking" autograph, as he did for my copy.

(Then read it all, especially the chapter "The Right to Read"!)

Also, FSF Associate Members can get him or Eben Moglen to record a personalized greeting if they convince three other people to join the FSF.

You can actually buy GNU literature signed by RMS himself. Head over to https://agia.fsf.org/order/#manuals and check the offers in the "General Titles" section.
 
A nice thing to have, and definately a proper way to spend your money - the FSF is a benevolent effort, and will become even more important in the years to come, when our lives will depend even more on computers and software than they do right now.

He've been doing it for some time. As soon as Free Software, Free Society hit the shelves you could order a signed copy and in fact, I did. That way you support the FSF and you get something neet in return. Remember kids, members of the FSF get, among other things, a 20% discount on all GNU Merchandise. That include the impressive GNU Age t-shirt! So waste no time and join the FSF as an Associate Member so I can get my voice mail message by Richard Stallman.

He've been doing it for some time. As soon as Free Software, Free Society hit the shelves you could order a signed copy and in fact, I did. That way you support the FSF and you get something neet in return. Remember kids, members of the FSF get, among other things, a 20% discount on all GNU Merchandise. That include the impressive GNU Age t-shirt! So waste no time and join the FSF as an Associate Member so I can get my voice mail message by Richard Stallman.