Slashdot Mirror

Probably whatever GPU is in a Respects Your Freedom certified laptop such as the Gluglug X60.

Then don't buy Broadcom. Requiring that a signed non-free blob be copied to the device on every boot is fairly strong evidence that NVIDIA and Broadcom have no plans to ever qualify a product for Free Software Foundation's "Respects Your Freedom" certification mark.

(Disclaimer: I am an Arvados developer)

The Arvados project is a free and open source (AGPLv3 and Apache v2) bioinformatics platform for genomic and biomedical data, designed to address precisely the issues raised in this article. Arvados features a 1) content addressed filesystem (blocks are addressed by a hash of their actual content rather some arbitrarily assigned identifier) which performs end-to-end data integrity checks , 2) fine-grained access controls, 3) a cluster scheduling system that tracks the input and output results of every job (enabling you to track processing pipelines and establish data provenance), and 4) data replication by default. Arvados is developed and commercially supported by Curoverse which is 100% committed to free software (in fact, one of the founders is a former employee of the Free Software Foundation.) I encourage slashdotters in the bioinformatics, big data, or data archiving space to come check it out and join the community.

[...] not everything has to be blessed by Stallmann to be acceptable

Regarding this point, Stallman certainly does endorse Free Software. And so much of what is in OpenBSD is Free Software—software that respects a user's software freedom—and the same goes for OpenSSL. Stallman (and his organization, the Free Software Foundation(FSF)) are known for standing up for a user's software freedom. Non-copylefted Free Software is Free Software. Furthermore, in 2004 the FSF gave Theo de Raadt an award for the Advancement of Free Software, "[f]or 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". A free system need not include GNU software or be licensed under a GNU license (such as the GPL) to respect a user's software freedom.

The FSF is quite clear why it doesn't list OpenBSD (or the other BSD distributions) in their list of Free system distributions:

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs.

Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called "blobs", and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term "blob" means something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called "projects" by BSD developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions âoecontain no blobsâ, it causes a misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.

No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers.

Including nonfree software and pointing users to nonfree software is quite common among those who endorse the open source philosophy, as the FSF has long pointed out (older essay, newer essay). The open source movement's philosophy is a development methodology built to toss aside software freedom for practical convenience in an attempt to be "more acceptable to business". So this philosophical difference sets up a radically different reaction in the face of reliable, powerful proprietary software. Quoting the newer essay:

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

"Are there any comparable websites? (Listing releases of open source projects)"

http://linux.softpedia.com/
http://www.opensourcesoftwaredirectory.com/
http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page

RMS charges $45 for his emacs manual, and Linus gives his course away for free? This must be wrong! Linus has chosen GPLv2, and therefore fell to the dark side of the FLOSS, but RMS has upgraded to GPLv3, he even wrote it!

As I understand it, RMS has three points:

1) DRM is bad.
2) Firefox implementing DRM is one piece of the problem.
3) Firefox is free to do whatever they want, but if they felt forced to implement DRM, it would have been better if they at least made an effort to warn the users about the risks. Instead they are publicly praising Adobe for their approach to DRM.

People who criticize RMS often don't even know what he said. That is not true of everyone, but most comments on the net are rather clueless about it. DRM is bad, that's not even controversial.

Here we go again. The usual FOSS battle between impossible idealism and pragmatism.

If Firefox wants to allow for a plugin that enables DRM, what of it? The users can make their own choice. They're not including it in the browser.

I know it's popular to pay lip service to the FSF but if they had their way we would all be hypocrites. Just posting on /. with all the evil minifed javascript would make us sinners. Of course, the FSF morals don't extend to it having qualms about taking HP, Google and IBM dirty money.

The idea that software needs to free is bullshit, i want to run whatever i want on my system. Don't you? I don't want my morals decided by the FSF.

The correct link for the FSF's high priority project list is

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/

The chorus of criticism for Richard's willingness to repeat his point of view here is far more repetitive and tiresome than RMS has ever been.

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of Free Software, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

A few years back, the FSF made up some nifty badges for organizations/individuals to use on their websites to promote the use of ODF.

Enjoy!

[...] theres NO REASON to compel them to do so.

How about to make sure there isn't a backdoor in the baseband software?
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/replicant-developers-find-and-close-samsung-galaxy-backdoor

The NSA's activities should have us rushing to audit and open as much as possible.
"Trust us" isn't a viable business model anymore.

Why should one private company have the right to unilaterally declare this kind of planned obsolescence?

Because they made it?

You and the other responses to JDG1980 have missed the point.

Electrolux made my vacuum cleaner, but once I bought it they have no right to it. I can buy my vacuum bags and filters from Electrolux, or I can get clones of them from other manufacturers. With advances in 3D printing, I may even be able to replace parts of the machine itself without involving Electrolux.

It's not so with "intellectual property." I can't simply hire somebody else to support my Windows XP when Microsoft chooses not to. I have to get it from Microsoft itself, and Microsoft charges punitive rates to support Windows XP. You can't actually buy Windows. What you buy is a license to use Windows, with all the contractual limitations that Microsoft can apply.

This is a violation of intuitive, common sense concepts of buying. I have software, I should be able to give my friend a copy of it. Microsoft says each person will individually pay Microsoft for it. The conflict goes back all the way to the beginning of Microsoft, when people shared copies of Microsoft BASIC with each other. Bill Gates disapproved.

The disastrous end of Windows XP just proves that free software is the only long-term practical software.

I imagine the FSF doesn't have the resources to manufacture and distribute their own hardware, and it is still true that hardware is manufactured not copied. But perhaps you were not aware that the FSF runs the "Respects Your Freedom" campaign which currently endorses the Gluglug X60 laptop computer since December 18th, 2013 along with a 3D printer and a couple of wireless adapters one can connect to a computer via USB.

I imagine the FSF doesn't have the resources to manufacture and distribute their own hardware, and it is still true that hardware is manufactured not copied. But perhaps you were not aware that the FSF runs the "Respects Your Freedom" campaign which currently endorses the Gluglug X60 laptop computer since December 18th, 2013 along with a 3D printer and a couple of wireless adapters one can connect to a computer via USB.

Recommending any proprietary software to do any task is recommending a security hole. It's trivially easy for any proprietor to include code that spies on you, as computer programmers have long known and Edward Snowden has shown us again. No amount of experience running proprietary software will tell you what you need to know to fix its problems, share your fixes with others, hire others you have good reason to trust to fix problems on your behalf, or even allow someone you have good reason to trust to inspect the program to see if anything needs to be fixed (they're forbidden to do this work for the same reason you are). Picking one proprietary anti-virus program over another, picking one proprietary browser over another, or picking any proprietary program over another proprietary variant of the same kind of program is merely choosing your master. You cannot arrive at a trustworthy solution in this way.

Instead you should choose free (libre) software for your OS, your firmware (via Coreboot), and for all the software you run atop that system. Eschew services that require you to adopt non-free software and gain more control over your computer. The Free Software Foundation's Respects Your Freedom recently added a computer that meets these criteria. We should help them and help free software hackers write more free software to do the jobs we need to be done.

Indeed. As a curious fact, when US copyright was 28+28 years (until 1976) only 15 percent of the rights holders went for the 28 years extension. [1]

Richard Stallman has proposed that we used tax money to support arts. This way artists would get paid and not some uncreative fat cat execs. Also he suggests that funds be distributed e.g. using the cube-root of artist's popularity so we can have a wide base instead of a handful of super stars. [2]

[1] http://thepublicdomain.org/the... page 9
[2] http://shop.fsf.org/product/fr... page 125

I really don't understand this line of reasoning. What's the alternative? An iPhone?

If privacy is your concern, you certainly aren't better off with an iPhone. Instead of writing out my own list, I'll just copy from the Free Software Foundation website:

• These devices completely block free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's devices.
• Apple endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology.
• iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track you without your knowledge.
• iTunes won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora on these devices.
• iPhone is not the only option for smartphones. There are better alternatives on the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media formats, and let you use free software.

...

Here's more from FSF: https://www.fsf.org/news/free-... You can find similar info from a million other sources if you don't like that one.

At least with Android you have a choice in who makes the phone, and one can simply root an Android to be done with the bullshit. Not happy after rooting? Run something like Ubuntu. You have to essentially break an iPhone to get admin access, then what? It's still the same shitty phone, forever.

I'm no fan of either (or Windows), and really hope to one day see an affordable (FOSS) alternative, but saying this is why I am giving up on Android and then going over to a proprietary device like iPhone, or even Windows (haha who am I kidding?) is just bonkers.

Except for all the companies that do develop and distribute GPL'd software, notably Cygnus (one firm that charged large sums of money for GCC enhancements) and now Red Hat which bought Cygnus. And there's no evidence Apple "accidentally infringe[d]" when they chose to stop distributing GNU Go rather than include complete corresponding source code after being caught infringing the GPL. There's no evidence accidental infringement was at work when Apple "prefer[ed] to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store" (as the FSF put it) when Apple was caught violating the GPL in their distribution of VLC. There's no evidence NeXT accidentally forgot to comply with the GPL back when they commercially distributed their illicit GCC variant to NeXT users. In fact, as Brad Kuhn points out, the FSF has long worked with those not in compliance to silently get them into compliance. We only hear about the cases where the company is obstinately refusing to comply for long periods of time before GPL enforcers at the FSF or Harald Welte (who holds copyright on some code in the Linux kernel) publish details of the ongoing GPL non-compliance. The FSF has a history of seeking compliance rather than punishment. Your characterization of "getting smacked" for accidental infringement is not at all supported by available facts from the aforementioned parties. Regardless of license, how any copyright holder behaves in the face of copyright infringement is up to them, not the GPL.

But the real tip off in your response harkens back to the main misunderstanding of this issue—different values lead to different conclusions. It's important to explicitly draw out those values and conclusions so one isn't led into a trap. The older free software movement doesn't share the same values as the younger open source movement. Caving into business desires for control over the user via proprietary derivatives of free software is okay with the younger open source movement and objectionable to the older free software movement.

The GNU GPL isn't honestly described as an "open source" license because that framing misconstrues what the GPL says and why the GPL exists. The GPL was written by Richard Stallman whose main work since his time at the MIT AI lab has been the pursuit of software freedom for all computer users. Stallman is clear to explain this history and correct people on this issue at virtually every talk I've heard him give, so it's not hard to find a recording of a talk where someone, such as you, tries to position his work in terms of a movement that doesn't agree with his values. The open source movement was founded to "sell" free software to businesses by being silent about the main issue the free software movement stands for—a user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify all published computer software. This leads to very different outcomes when faced with reliable, powerful proprietary software. The open source movement does not care for a serious discussion of ensuring user equality of access. So when you frame the FSF and the GPL in terms of "open source" and a priority to get companies to use GPL'd software (thus objecting when companies like Apple can't proprietarize GPL'd software), you fundamentally misunderstand what the free software movement is about and why the GNU Project exists.

The free software movement is not about a popularity contest. A wider audience which comes at the expense of software freedom for all is unwelcome (very much in line with the ethic of "a freedom is a privilege unless enjoyed by one and all"); those acts are called out and carefully explained so others become wise to their tactics. There are businesses that develop and (even commercially) distribute free softwa

Apple's management (notably Steve Jobs) and some people who work for Apple used to work at NeXT. When NeXT needed a compiler, they chose to base their work on GCC. NeXT got caught distributing the GCC Objective-C frontend in violation of the GPL in what Brad Kuhn (longtime FSF employee and GPL violations enforcer) called a "calculated" infringement. It's reasonable to consider that when Jobs and company lost that fight they decided to get away from GPL'd software because they had experience with a copyright holder who defended their license. Sadly, Apple is building quite a record of copyright infringement. Apple got caught distributing VLC and GNU Go in violation of the GPL. Apple also got caught commercially infringing upon some writers' copyright. So perhaps Apple's switch from GCC toward a non-copylefted free compiler has at least as much to do with control over the user as any technical issues. After Apple's other illegal and unethical behavior, maybe Apple is just getting tired of the bad press.

But it's clear that differing values are at the heart of this issue; not having Apple use GCC doesn't "harm GCC" at all. The fight for software freedom was and is the reason for the GNU Project including starting GCC. Apple is welcome to help improve and distribute free software, including allowing its users to share in that freedom. This isn't a popularity contest no matter how much Eric Raymond and other open source advocates want to frame the issue in that way. As RMS said, "If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom."

Apple's management (notably Steve Jobs) and some people who work for Apple used to work at NeXT. When NeXT needed a compiler, they chose to base their work on GCC. NeXT got caught distributing the GCC Objective-C frontend in violation of the GPL in what Brad Kuhn (longtime FSF employee and GPL violations enforcer) called a "calculated" infringement. It's reasonable to consider that when Jobs and company lost that fight they decided to get away from GPL'd software because they had experience with a copyright holder who defended their license. Sadly, Apple is building quite a record of copyright infringement. Apple got caught distributing VLC and GNU Go in violation of the GPL. Apple also got caught commercially infringing upon some writers' copyright. So perhaps Apple's switch from GCC toward a non-copylefted free compiler has at least as much to do with control over the user as any technical issues. After Apple's other illegal and unethical behavior, maybe Apple is just getting tired of the bad press.

But it's clear that differing values are at the heart of this issue; not having Apple use GCC doesn't "harm GCC" at all. The fight for software freedom was and is the reason for the GNU Project including starting GCC. Apple is welcome to help improve and distribute free software, including allowing its users to share in that freedom. This isn't a popularity contest no matter how much Eric Raymond and other open source advocates want to frame the issue in that way. As RMS said, "If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom."

I wonder what RMS would think of a more "business-friendly" license where a commercial entity selling software could take software that's publicly-available, modify it, and then distribute that to paying customers, but not back to the community, but where the license required them only to distribute the modified source code to those same customers, however the customers were not allowed to distribute it themselves.

RMS wouldn't like it. That's essentially what the most minimal definition of "Open Source" means -- Source access. When that company goes out of business you can't really outsource patches, you have to maintain it yourself which may be more expensive -- If you even can maintain it, the code may require a special compiler or the hardware could require code signing system that you don't have. Which is why the GPL exists as it does: To ensure that you will be able to use and improve the software you rely on even without the further input or permission of those who created it.

RMS doesn't do "Open Source Software" he does "Free Software" instead. The whole Free Software thing kicked off because he got a new OS, and his printer wouldn't work with it. He needed the driver source, and found another coder who had the same hardware and driver source, but they were required to sign a "business friendly" NDA such that that they could not pass on the code they received.

TL;DR: You don't have to "wonder what RMS would think", he created the GPL expressly to ensure customers had freedom from such "business friendly" (freedom limiting, sharing preventing) software. It's covered in his book: Free as in Freedom (2.0)

You'll be delighted to hear that for people in the USA and Germany, the process is now just sign it and scan it:

• 2011 announcement for USA
• 2012 announcement for Germany

More countries will follow as the legal advice comes in.

You'll be delighted to hear that for people in the USA and Germany, the process is now just sign it and scan it:

• 2011 announcement for USA
• 2012 announcement for Germany

More countries will follow as the legal advice comes in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OuterCurve

Read https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/microsoft-codeplex-foundation

Obviously one of their goals is to push "open source" at expense of free software.

"Freeloaders" might be useful but are they then freeloaders? The use might be publicity or bug reports, even code contributions. Of course they can also do harm but again the title might be misleading then. However, the goal of a free software project is not the large amount of its users but the unwavering freedom it gives its users. And even if your goal is to have the maximum amount of users, copyleft is the way as only it guarantees that your code will remain free (for the copyright term duration, which is quite a long time these days).

No need to move to a proprietary hosting service like Github.

I wrote about this previously: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/savannah

Depending on your level of trust/paranoia, you should consider the security boundary to be your app and the libraries statically linked into it. By the time it gets anywhere close to the NIC, it is out of your control.

Not necessarily. If you can't trust your computer, then as soon as you touch it, your information is out of your control.

Your home intranet isn't likely to contain much (if any) data that isn't going to the public Internet, and assuming your switches are working properly, it should not be possible for your router to see non-broadcast traffic directed towards a different device anyway. Obviously, that reasoning fails if your switch is a managed device that can be potentially reprogrammed to change the switching behavior, but that's atypical for home networks, which I thought was the main point of discussion in this thread.

Well, my home intranet has plenty of data that aren't going on the Internet.

But back to the original problem. My $50 home router does indeed have a built-in managed switch, and can be reprogramming to do port mirroring. My home router can be reprogrammed to do a lot. But that doesn't even matter. You can tell a lot from a network by using broadcast packets, such as Microsoft NetBIOS and Apple Bonjour.

The point is that a router is not just a hardware device. They're general-purpose computers. I'm in control of my router, like I'm in control of my computer. Most people aren't. The OP asked, Can Commercial Hardware Routers Be Trusted? The answer is No, and it was naive to assume otherwise.

http://www.fsf.org/news/gluglug-x60-laptop-now-certified-to-respect-your-freedom

http://www.fsf.org/news/gluglug-x60-laptop-now-certified-to-respect-your-freedom

but for the FSF, all JavaScript is snooping, and shouldn't be allowed

Please point your browser to https://www.fsf.org/ and view the source. Search the page for "" and see if the FSF really believes what you claim.

The version of Coreboot is used has been substantially modified so as to remove all optional firmware and microcode updates from the source code. The certified version of the source and binary can be found here, http://ryf.fsf.org/

From the Giving Guide: "Project Gutenberg over Amazon". The problem with relying exclusively on Gutenberg is that you'll end up with an impression that nothing happened after 1922 because that's the cutoff for U.S. perpetual copyright. This means, for example no World War II to spur the development of electronic computers in the first place.

If you consider the "software freedoms" of the Free Software movement to be entirely void of meaning, then that philosophical stance would seem just "new speak." Why do you think Free Software (as in Speech) does not provide real freedom not found in proprietary lock-in to free (temporarily, at least) as in beer? Do you not think that the Free Software environment produced around, e.g., the Gnu utilities and the Linux kernel has not contributed positively to society, and it is not worth fostering such goals and aspirations in future generations?

What is the "lack of freedom" preventing you from doing?

How bout booting the raspberry?

https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computers

https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computers

All software was free in the beginning, no revolution, all evolution. Software was only included under copyright in 78 or around that time... RMS's genius is seeing the value in that and his tenacity of doing what was called impossible. Read the RMS books, he's a saint and a genius.

http://shop.fsf.org/product/book_bundle/

The FSF has a shop for these sorts of donations...

http://shop.fsf.org/

I remember about 20 years ago RMS asking if we wanted to buy any of the FSF's GNU software on tape, predominantly to support the FSF financially. Today you can buy autographed books, shirts, reference cards, stuffed GNUs and everything else under the sun. This is not a hard problem..

Associate Member Benefits for Free Software Foundation:
https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf
This depends upon how much you want it to look like a donation.
http://www.fsf.org/associate/benefits

EFF has similar things:
https://supporters.eff.org/shop/eff-gift-membership-certificate
Several of the larger open source organizations also have shops with hats and T-shirts and the like.

Associate Member Benefits for Free Software Foundation:
https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf
This depends upon how much you want it to look like a donation.
http://www.fsf.org/associate/benefits

EFF has similar things:
https://supporters.eff.org/shop/eff-gift-membership-certificate
Several of the larger open source organizations also have shops with hats and T-shirts and the like.

Plus, there's precedent for this. Oddly, I couldn't find links to buy software on CD or DVD, though.

UEFI was never intended to improve security. Along with Microsoft's extensions it was designed as a lock-in tool. Too bad we had to wait until it pops up everywhere just to accept reality.

FTFY. There were plenty of warnings, but people like to deny what's there standing in front of their noses.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot

No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.

Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software. In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.

Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.

A non-developer user would care about those freedoms because that's the only way they can guarantee they control the program and what it does for them. More info here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html A developer would pick a license that puts users first when the developer thinks that the users of the program should have control of the said program, and what it does.

1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;

2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software

However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.

Yes, those licenses are closer to the public domain. They both have problems, tho: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.

Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software.
In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.

Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.

1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;

2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software

However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.

The [L]GPL keeps the software FLOSS, but actually removes freedoms from the user/developer.

Copyleft makes sure that users retain freedoms, including the freedom to hire developers to make the software do what the user wants.

No, copyleft puts software first, and the user second. If that's a good or bad thing is rather subjective though. Personally, I dislike that, but I understand that others think that keep software free is more important the individuals.

No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.

Something like the ISC/MIT grant the user more freedom, including the freedom to make the software non-free.

Perhaps the difference is that in the FSF philosophy, the "freedom" to take freedoms away from users isn't a freedom to begin with.

The FSF critizicies copyright, but uses it as a key tool maintain it's goals. Without strong copyright laws, something like GPL is totally impossible.

1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software

The conflicting portion of the GPL here is not a shortcoming. It is a very intentional and IMO positive part of its design. Sad that they're trying to work around it. As far as I can tell this is still a GPLv2 violation though:

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

This. This is a loss for FLOSS.

And how is this not still a GPLv2 violation?

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

This was news to me, and every news article just vaguely mentions it without providing details. For those unfamiliar, here is an article by the Free Software Foundation explaining the incompatibility. and here is another article which represents a more nuanced position.

I don't understand how they think this will work. LibVLC is LGPL, and unless they got consent from _every_ VLC contributor or the terms and conditions changed dramatically the last couple of months they can't distribute it on the iOS App Store. Sorry, but you picked the wrong license if that was something you wanted to do.

Wow. It wasn't easy to find the legal facts here, but there's no problem with LGPL and Apple App Store. The problem is with GPL and AGPL. It's the stuff that was GPL that had to be relicensed to Mozilla, not the LGPL stuff.

Read more RMS. He's e.g. for copyright, as long as it's not practically eternal, like today, unconstitutionally. This is a good package http://shop.fsf.org/product/book_bundle/

Rent charging is an essential part of capitalism. So are patents. So maybe they are cool in your neighborhood.

Microsoft submitted C# and the core libraries to ECMA and ISO for standardization. In doing so Microsoft committed to offer license for any patents essential to implementation under RAND terms (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory).

But your FUD is a strawman anyway, since you have not explained how Microsoft could escape the patent grant they have given to anyone who implement C# and core libraries. Such grants cannot be revoked by a buyer of a patent.

Make up your mind, are "C# and the core libraries" offered free or under a RAND? Also "C# and the core libraries" is only a part of what the Mono project needs to subsist independently.

I'm unconvinced. I'm not a layer but the FSF has lawyers that understand this much better and they recommend against it. I'd rather take advise from the lawyers of the FSF than some random guy in slashdot.

I find it especially ironic in a discussion about comparison between Java and C#, where only one of the vendors have actually tried to sue. And it is not Microsoft.

He asked about Mono. The situation with Java is similar I know.

I am just worried that Google is trying to do more to force us to use their tools, rather than allowing us to use our favourite messaging clients., but with their service.

...and just a month after the FSF "commend Google for doing the right thing and respecting the importance of full federation", after they reversed a Jabber invite block they started in March as an "anti-spam" measure. I guess it's now an "anti-privacy" measure, right Google? Or is it an "anti-Facebook" one? Oh, Larry Page...