Slashdot Mirror

So if you distribute a PerlQT app internally you won't be able to assert copyright if an employee chooses to redistribute.

The GPL cannot dictate that. It would take a court case in front of a real judge to determine if the employee had the right to do so. What is the difference between an unauthorized employee release and someone breaking into the company and stealing the code for the internal app?

The true copyright holder has to release the code for the GPL or any other license to apply. Stealing doesn't automatically count. Here is the FSF's FAQ on the subject. Over and over in that answer they use the phrase "If you release". I doubt an unauthorized employee uploading something in the dead of night counts.

Click here for a complete understanding of the ethical code of any true /. 'member'..... http://fsf.org/

There are many arguments why, but the main is that hardware development is expensive and essentially serial. Software development can be parallelized (as Open Source has done) but this does not apply to processors. Chip fabbing doesn't scale. It makes economic sense to have a single dominant computer architecture, manufactured globally and powering everything from a PC to a gaming console to a cellphone.

The Cell processor is a dead end, just like the overpriced PPC OpenWorkstation products and the overrated Alpha line.

Bottom line: At modern clockspeeds architecture is irrelevant.

Sorry the link is
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

When is /. going to get a post correction feature?

Also good is the FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory http://directory.fsf.org/ Which allows you to search for free and legal alternatives under different categories. Good for finding out the names of things.

Do they use GCC, or their older, proprietary C compiler along with their cfront-based C++ compiler?

Indeed, GCC has had the following in the README.SCO file in the main GCC source distribution:

The GCC team has been urged to drop support for SCO Unix from GCC, as a protest against SCO's irresponsible aggression against free software and GNU/Linux. We have decided to take no action at this time, as we no longer believe that SCO is a serious threat.

For more on the FSF's position regarding SCO's attacks on free software, please read:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/sco/

If SCO is using GCC as their native C compiler, then perhaps this will prove the impetus needed for the GCC Steering Committee to remove support for SCO from GCC.

From the GPL FAQ http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #GPLUSGov, programs produced by employees of the US government (but not contractors) are public domain. You are aware how many drivers in linux have or had maintainers with .gov e-mail addresses?

Also, how many projects have started with DARPA grants? This retaliatory change would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.

I'm not sure what you mean by "BibDesk is GNU", but in any case it isn't. It is BSD licensed (according to its SF.net page, and is not a GNU project.

-Peter

So if the file doesn't say "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version" then that clause does not apply.

If you look at the linux kernel readme it says "It is distributed under the GNU General Public License - see the 19 accompanying COPYING file for more details. "

Also note that in the COPYING file it specifically states

"Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."

Next time, know what you're talking to before you call bullshit. This is from the 2.6.11 kernel. I didn't look at 2.6.12

Reguardless of whether Theo is right or wrong he should not be such an asshat.

If he wasn't such an asshat, then we likely wouldn't have all the documentation we need to have open up all those wireless devices for both BSD and Linux . Or OpenSSH. Personally I think this is a good thing.

http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html

It's not like telling a programmer how to communicate with the underlying hardware is going to tell them how it (the PCB/silicon) was designed, so why make this information secret?

Yes it does. Haven't you ever read a datasheet that revealed something cool about the way a device works?

Sometimes, for performance reasons, the device interface cannot be too abstract. The API will often end up mirroring a device's internal architecture, possibly exposing something novel that competitors haven't figured out yet. Nat Friedman, in an interview, commented on how graphics card manufacturers are understandably reluctant about providing open source drivers because more and more magic is being done in software.

One possible solution would be to move the magic into the firmware (though some people would consider this unacceptable) and present an abstraction to the OS driver. This might work. Then again, this might be just as inefficient as creating the abstraction in hardware.

A true Linux, make that GNU/Linux, zealot rarely plays first-person shooters since there are few, if any, good games that are free. Moreover any good FPS are likely to require binary drivers that taint his beloved kernel.

Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property".

Well, concerning the BIOS and hardware schematics you are correct. These hard realities certainly don't jive with the concept of open source. Fortunately projects are underway to correct this discrepency. free-bios open hardware

Unless it's the old bsd license it's not an issue. The old BSD license had an issue with the GPL, but it's not used much any more.

Compare orginal, and modifiedBSD licenses.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Unless it's the old bsd license it's not an issue. The old BSD license had an issue with the GPL, but it's not used much any more.

Compare orginal, and modifiedBSD licenses.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

I'll be charitable and assume that you, sir, are a troll. If not, you're confusing the terms of the license with the text of the license.

Note that you are free to take the GPL, modify it and create the TrebleJunkie Public License. From the FSF Faq: Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to licensing@fsf.org for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.
Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.

Linus Torvalds took the GPLv2, removed one clause (the "or any future version" part) and released Linux under it. In this sense, the GPL - the text of the GPL, written by RMS - is free. Go ahead and study it, copy it, modify it, use it in ways that RMS would never have envisioned or intended.

You are not free to take code licensed under the GPL and re-distribute it under a modified license. This is one of the terms of the license. That is, the license, when applied to some particular piece of software does not allow you to change those terms.

There is no inconsistency in RMS' opinion, at least in this case.

As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Armstrong was working for RCA. RCA was the dominant player in the then dominant AM radio market. By 1935, there were a thousand radio stations across the United States, but the stations in large cities were all owned by a handful of networks.

....Armstrong's invention threatened RCA's AM empire, so the company launched a campaign to smother FM radio. While FM may have been a superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician. As one author described, "The forces for FM, largely engineering, could not overcome the weight of strategy devised by the sales, patent, and legal offices to subdue this threat to corporate position. For FM, if allowed to develop unrestrained, posed ... a complete reordering of radio power ... and the eventual overthrow of the carefully restricted AM system on which RCA had grown to power."

....Armstrong resisted RCA's efforts. In response, RCA resisted Armstrong's patents. After incorporating FM technology into the emerging standard for television, RCA declared the patents invalid--baselessly, and almost fifteen years after they were issued. It thus refused to pay him royalties. For six years, Armstrong fought an expensive war of litigation to defend the patents. Finally, just as the patents expired, RCA offered a settlement so low that it would not even cover Armstrong's lawyers' fees. Defeated, broken, and now broke, in 1954 Armstrong wrote a short note to his wife and then stepped out of a thirteenthstory window to his death.

....This is how the law sometimes works. Not often this tragically, and rarely with heroic drama, but sometimes, this is how it works. From the beginning, government and government agencies have been subject to capture. They are more likely captured when a powerful interest is threatened by either a legal or technical change. That powerful interest too often exerts its influence within the government to get the government to protect it. The rhetoric of this protection is of course always public spirited; the reality is something different. Ideas that were as solid as rock in one age, but that, left to themselves, would crumble in another, are sustained through this subtle corruption of our political process.

Free software is a GNU thing.

The BSD license is a Free Software license.

To make things crystal clear:
You do not have to use the GPL to have Free Software.

I don't belong to the FSF, and I won't give money to them, because I see them as a largely philosophical organization, whose philosophy I don't completely agree with. By the same token I would not give money to a political party that I disagree with.

It is possible to donate money directly to particular projects, and I would consider doing that. However, GCC is not on the list of projects that you can support by direct donation ...

The BSD license, both original and modified, are also Free. (source)

I recently had a sudden rush of blood to the wallet & in a fit of altruism (or selfish desire for more freedom and cool software) I joined both the FSF and the EFF - both excellent causes and presumably close to the heart of many slashdotters.

When the "welcome" packages arrived from each I was rather surprised to see the EFF has of the order of ten times more members than the FSF! I'm FSF member #30xx, and the docs say there are 2,1xx active members. The EFF on the other hand has 24K something members.

Not sure what the moral is, except that I wish more people donated to the FSF. Why not send em $20 and think of it as a small contribution towards the costs of glibc and gcc, two vital programs without which there'd be no Linux, no BSD and no Apple OS X.

Since Keepass is windows only, I suggest Linux readers Gringotts or this article for other ideas. Also have a look at FSF's suggestions for encryption here.

"... Why is it that when it comes to software you demand complete freedom..."

Because software is like speech.

(IOW, you actually answered your own question.)

"It is a list of examples. I'd say installing software you bought blatantly falls within the realm of a "Fair Use". I'm sure virtually any judge will agree."

I'm quite sure that installing software counts as fair use--and section 117 allows you to alter your software, but only as far as the modifications allow you to install/use the software.

I haven't seen any other part of title 17 that contradicts 17 USC 106 (the owner of copyright under this title ... has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize ... [the preparation of] derivative works based upon the copyrighted work).

"Well, the GPL and similar licenses do not need to grant you that permission."

Hmm? The following parts of the GPL mention modification:

Preamble: We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software. ...

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ...

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. ...

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. ...

The Creative Commons and MIT licenses also grant the licensee permission to modify/prepare derivative works--because otherwise that right is reserved to the copyright holder.

While I agree that EULAs are bullshit, and that the folks on debian-legal are, for the most part, overly paranoid, I believe they have stated in the past that they require a license to grant the right to prepare derivative works because otherwise, US copyright law reserves that right to the copyright holder.

As discussed many times on Slashdot, the FSF projects for a free Flash replacement and free Java replacement is a pretty good cause. Details here: http://www.fsf.org/news/free-java-and-flash.html

That, or look long term and put it towards protecting our rights: so the EFF get it.

Free Java/Free flash?

http://www.fsf.org/news/free-java-and-flash.html

Organizations on "our side" can be just as misguided in their support of copyright law as anyone else. That said, however, they're using the current laws of society to pursue a goal (free software) as best they can. Changing copyright law might help us all reach that goal more quickly, but they have to work within today's legal framework if they want to get results today

large changes to a system that has been in place for at least 100 years take time. It seems the FSF, although humourous at times is starting to get just as bad as the MPAA.

If you think that's incorrect, go ahead and explain why. How exactly does having a copy of a song on your hard drive harm anyone any more than not having that copy on your hard drive, given that you aren't paying any money whether it's there or not

well, if it's a copyrighted song, program, or movie, it hurts the original creator. Sharing commerical works devalues that work over time. (think of what happens to the value of the dollar if it is well known that 99% of all money used is counterfeit). Just because something can be copied easily doesn't mean its value is 0.

It's just human nature. If someone has a choice between something that's free and something that costs money, they will choose free.

I could say the same thing about software under the GNU. Who does it hurt when I use it in a commerical application (without releasing the source?). The original sourcecode is still there to use for free. The free software police thinks differently, however.

Quote:

Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as "Copyright 1999 Linda Jones"), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL).

A quick perusal of any GPL'd software in the world would have shown how full of shit the guy was.

Quote:

Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as "Copyright 1999 Linda Jones"), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL).

A quick perusal of any GPL'd software in the world would have shown how full of shit the guy was.

Quote:

Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as "Copyright 1999 Linda Jones"), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL).

A quick perusal of any GPL'd software in the world would have shown how full of shit the guy was.

Quote:

Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as "Copyright 1999 Linda Jones"), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL).

A quick perusal of any GPL'd software in the world would have shown how full of shit the guy was.

Hello, world is more complicated than it seems.

Bot license are missing some final and decisive wording , both have the same flaw, those words which are missing : AT ALL TIME.

I'd've thought that "at all times" (or, more popularly, "perpetual") tended to be assumed. Isn't that what a "blanket statement" is?

I'm guessing that what you want is for each entity internally distributing (not merely externally distributing) software to make their changes public to the whole world. But someone shouldn't LOSE MONEY when their little script for internal use becomes slashdotted and the bandwidth bills go up: that'd discourage work. I apologize if this is a strawman - it was the only scenario I could think of that could fit with what you'd said.

Alternatively, perhaps you're getting free software and copyleft mixed up - they aren't the same. Free software only looks at the one distributor and descendants (i.e. one transfer), while copyleft deals with all successive transfers.

Bot license are missing some final and decisive wording , both have the same flaw, those words which are missing : AT ALL TIME.

I'd've thought that "at all times" (or, more popularly, "perpetual") tended to be assumed. Isn't that what a "blanket statement" is?

I'm guessing that what you want is for each entity internally distributing (not merely externally distributing) software to make their changes public to the whole world. But someone shouldn't LOSE MONEY when their little script for internal use becomes slashdotted and the bandwidth bills go up: that'd discourage work. I apologize if this is a strawman - it was the only scenario I could think of that could fit with what you'd said.

Alternatively, perhaps you're getting free software and copyleft mixed up - they aren't the same. Free software only looks at the one distributor and descendants (i.e. one transfer), while copyleft deals with all successive transfers.

I'm sick and bloody tired of people suggesting that Stallman wants everything to be GPLed, that Stallman thinks the BSD license isn't free, that Stallman thinks earning or owning or using money at all is evil, bla, bla, bla. It's all crap.

If Id released Doom 3 under, say, the BSD license, in which case it would be okay to make a proprietary game with it, Stallman would be happy because he considers the BSD license to be a free software license, as evidenced here on the FSF website, and all Stallman wants is for software to be free.

You people are worse than the "BSD is dying" trolls, honestly.

Why should Stallman hold his tongue? He laid out the rationale for free software 20 years ago; everything he foresaw has come to pass. I'm amazed he has any patience left. At some point, there's only so much that one man can do. Sooner or later, you, I, the rest of us who write (or use) software are going to have to choose whether to stick up for those beliefs, or bend over and be screwed. To Stallman's credit, he hasn't given up yet.

Is there anything in the GPL, or in the FSF contract where an author signs over rights to his/her work, that prevents the FSF from someday licensing that author's work as a commercial fork?

FSF/GNU projects require you to sign over the copyright on patches. Let's ignore that the FSF exists to "promote computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs." (from the FSF Homepage) for a while.

Suppose the FSF would some day make up their minds and start releasing FooBar 1.1 under a non-free license. The FSF owns the copyright on the FooBar1.1 project so nothing prevents them from doing so. BUT FooBar1.0 is still licensed under the GPL so someone else will step in and maintain the free version. People will use the free FooBar1.0 branch and the FSF is out and earns nothing on FooBar1.1. (See the XFree86 licensing changes for a similar, real world example of such dynamics)

The GPL doesn't change any of this. General and Public though it may be, it's still a License, creating an artificial monopoly in the copyright holder. All that the GPL does is give express permission to make more than one copy, and to distribute changes without having to separately contact the original author. The copyright holder is still responsible for pursuing violators. In other words, it takes power away from the monopoly holder, without reducing their burden to prosecute. That's why some people don't like it.

If you don't want to have a license at all, you have to put your work in the Public Domain. Then free market arguments apply, as the product is no longer regulated. At that point, (unlimited) supply will always keep up with demand. Notice that RMS didn't put his software in the Public Domain. As you say, he's clever.

Personally, I think Intel has pretty much lost control of the enthusiast segment. The majority of enthusiasts look for value and performance when it comes to hardware and quite honestly, the Intel platform definitely doesn't have any "value" attached to it.

From the performance numbers published on numerous online publications, Intel has lost the Dual-Core War. The only competing factor that Intel has right now is the possibility to keep their prices low enough to attract those with strict budget. And before I end this column, I would like to forward a special note to Intel: Please make sure your next generation of processors isn't as atrocious as the Prescott, as AMD is making you look pretty silly right now.

The most uncooperative company is Intel, which has started a sham "open source" BIOS project. The software consists of all the unimportant parts of a BIOS, without the hard parts. It won't run, and doesn't bring us any closer to a BIOS that does run. It is just a distraction. By contrast, AMD cooperates pretty well.

You can help our campaign by buying AMD CPU chips and not buying Intel, and by publishing statements about what you are doing. Likewise, buy motherboards that support Free BIOS. See http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/supportlinuxbios.html for info on which companies cooperate and which models and motherboards are supported.

When you do this, tell your friends and your coworkers. And please tell us, too -- please write to bios@gnu.org to tell us that you have chosen what to buy because it supports a free BIOS.

Personally, I think Intel has pretty much lost control of the enthusiast segment. The majority of enthusiasts look for value and performance when it comes to hardware and quite honestly, the Intel platform definitely doesn't have any "value" attached to it.

From the performance numbers published on numerous online publications, Intel has lost the Dual-Core War. The only competing factor that Intel has right now is the possibility to keep their prices low enough to attract those with strict budget. And before I end this column, I would like to forward a special note to Intel: Please make sure your next generation of processors isn't as atrocious as the Prescott, as AMD is making you look pretty silly right now.

The most uncooperative company is Intel, which has started a sham "open source" BIOS project. The software consists of all the unimportant parts of a BIOS, without the hard parts. It won't run, and doesn't bring us any closer to a BIOS that does run. It is just a distraction. By contrast, AMD cooperates pretty well.

You can help our campaign by buying AMD CPU chips and not buying Intel, and by publishing statements about what you are doing. Likewise, buy motherboards that support Free BIOS. See http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/supportlinuxbios.html for info on which companies cooperate and which models and motherboards are supported.

When you do this, tell your friends and your coworkers. And please tell us, too -- please write to bios@gnu.org to tell us that you have chosen what to buy because it supports a free BIOS.

Ok, now we are talking.

The GPL covers all associated works, not just modifications of the code and extends this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.

Lets see.

I have library A, covered by the GPL.
I also have library B, covered by say the original XFree86 license.
I have my own code C, license still to be determined.

I combine those into product D.

As per the terms of the GPL, D in its entirity is indeed covered by the GPL.

This does not mean that B ad C are automatically covered by the GPL except for when they are part of D.

If I replace GPL with MPL in the above statement, nothing changes except that everywhere where it says GPL now, it will say MPL.

So, the GPL does indeed force itself onto D, but not ontop B and C. It does however require that B and C do not impose restrictions on D that are not covered by the GPL.

The FSF is very clear about that you can do this, even when releasing C with a completely incompatible license, provided that you explicitly permit linking to GPLed code in your license, read this

This is sligtly more restrictive then the MPL in wording, but not in practical effect. Since the MPL extends to a derived work, it simply causes the same effect here.

Most commerical licences don't do this.

No, they usually have entirely different restrictions, such as restrictions on distribution, restriuctions on providing 3rd parties with source code etc etc.

Many open source licences (including the MPL) require modifications to the code to be published but don't extend this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.

For all I can see, the MPL does this as well. You can still use code from the Mozilla project without complying with this requirement but only because of their multiple ,licenses for their code, not because of the MPL.

This prevents use of other libraries.

Only when that use imposes new restrictions on the work derived from such a library, otherwise they don't, see above.

This is the intent.

Yes, it is the intent to extend the 'freedom' to access and modify the software to a derived work. This is freedom for the USER, not the developer.

I think this causes unfair limitations. We don't accept them so don't use GPL code

I don't see why those limitations are unfair, I can quite see why they are undesirable.

Because they are in quite a few cases undesirable, I don't use the GPL for my own work when I can avoid it, but I really fail to see why it is unfair for anyone to put specific conditions on the use of the work they create.

You can (and probably do) disagree with the goal that the GPL tries to achieve, and again, that is perfectly fine with me, I happen to agree with their goal but not their methods (just like you as per your own words) but I fail to see why it is unfair for someone to put some conditions on the use of their work.

What is more, I do think there are some valid arguments to make against the GPL in specific cases. They have little to do with fairness and everything with what situation is desirable.

For example, I believe it is a very bad idea to release sample implementations of a protocol as GPL code, instead, a 2 clause BSD style license should be used. This is because it encourages use of such sample code by everyone and does not put any limitations on the derived product.

Using the GPL for such code would only result in development of comparable but possibly incompatible implementations.

YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries. Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.

... lack of Token Ring support ... unable to defrag its ext2 file system ... copyrighted under something called the GPL

You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about, neither technically nor legally.

Also, you were surprised that your access to the source code came with some conditions? Please remind me to never hire you as a consultant. Checking facts like that first before you invest considerable time and money is one of the most basic skills you should have.

btw.: It's not copyrighted under the GPL, it's copyrighted under the Berne Convention. It is licensed under the GPL. Big difference.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released.

Fire your lawyer and hire someone who can read

YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries. Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.

... lack of Token Ring support ... unable to defrag its ext2 file system ... copyrighted under something called the GPL

You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about, neither technically nor legally.

Also, you were surprised that your access to the source code came with some conditions? Please remind me to never hire you as a consultant. Checking facts like that first before you invest considerable time and money is one of the most basic skills you should have.

btw.: It's not copyrighted under the GPL, it's copyrighted under the Berne Convention. It is licensed under the GPL. Big difference.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released.

Fire your lawyer and hire someone who can read.

YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries. Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.

YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries. Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html
We need more support and BSD and Linux etc need to come together on this. I see the article and while it is great wifi is more supported we need more than just wifi we need a site like http://www.pricewatch.com/ that is complete with data and grade the manufactor ( A,B,C,D,F ) based upon cooperation etc. While I applaud Theo for what he has done we have a long way to go and I think Slashdot could put up such a site and even earn revenue from it ! Think of the PR ! Also I am running 3.7 and way to go Theo Happy B-day !

Last I checked, microprocessors weren't software, and the FSF is interested in a free BIOS.

No jihad, just one standard. 'nuff said.

The BIOS'es on which GNU software runs is non-Free software, and even the non-microcode HW of the CPUs are non-Free; the hardware/software distinction is meaningless in Stallman's model. Yet he's not complaining about the trap.

Crap. You're either entirely ignorant of his position and consequently making up a position and attributing it to him for the purpose of trolling or else you ARE aware of his position on non-free Bioses and are lying about it for the purpose of trolling.

Maybe I should be asking "who's the troll"?

Maybe we should be answering "that would be you".