Slashdot Mirror

But thats redundant of them because the FSF does the same thing. OSI was founded on the idea that corporations are scared of the word "freedom" and people with beards.

Here is an example of the FSF being pig headed. GCC vs EGCS. EGCS was a free version of GCC taken up by Cygnus (a commercial company). EGCS was better about adding needed patches than GCC was, and was the only usable alternative for a while until the mainstream GCC incorporated the patches.

Here is an example of the FSF being pig headed. GCC vs EGCS. EGCS was a free version of GCC taken up by Cygnus (a commercial company). EGCS was better about adding needed patches than GCC was, and was the only usable alternative for a while until the mainstream GCC incorporated the patches.

Here is an example of the FSF being pig headed. GCC vs EGCS. EGCS was a free version of GCC taken up by Cygnus (a commercial company). EGCS was better about adding needed patches than GCC was, and was the only usable alternative for a while until the mainstream GCC incorporated the patches.

Free Software, in the GPL/FSF/Stallman sense is not about price at all. You should make money from your software, you should sell it- just allow people to study and modify it, redistribute and distribute it too.

What is the software you are creating? Software like Adobe Photoshop, or custom software for internal use/a client?

Don't forget - the FSF sells Free Software too. It helps them survive.

...but it actually is seeming to work (after weeks). Try this as your signature file:

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments. html

The GPL with a different name becomes GPL incompatible, which is annoying to say the least. I'd like to use the design science license - basically GPL clarified for non-programs - for everything I do, but I know I can't as that would make it GPL-incompatiable.

The submiter pointed out some negative side of it, but it is sure a victory for the openess of the world.
Victory of a battle, but not the war. Let's warm our hearts with hope and continue to fight.

The FSF favors the GPL for libraries over the LGPL.

I seem to recall that the FSF did quite a
lot of actions against some companies,
like one that was producing routers in
violation of the GPL.

And each time stupid people were crying out loud that the FSF was "enforcing" the GPL and that
they were communist, viral GPL, blah, blah, but that is beside the point.

So, yes, you can force people and companies
to abide to GPL, but not by yourself.

That's why if you are concerned about
company stealing the work of who
benefit as all, there is an easy way to
help :http://member.fsf.org/join.

Time to actually do something about this,
ladies and gentlemen.

"We all know that OSRM has come out to offer insurance against intellectual property claims for open source software. Recently, we've seen IBM open up 500 patents and SUN up the ante with 1600. But all of these moves are targeted at F/OSS software."

Of course those are targetted at free software, because free software is the main force opposing software patents. Check out who is giving their patents to free software, and then check out who is the main pusher of software patents in EU. What we have to realise is that IBM is not giving us patents just because IBM is nice. IBM wants us to shut up while it is lobbying for software patents in the European Union. Hopefully, we are not fools, and we will see the big picture and understand that it is harmful in the long run. And quite frankly it is harmful for both proprietary and free software developers. It is dangerous for anyone who cannot afford an army of lawyers. IBM will be safe with its proprietary software and with its free software, but your mom and pop's software shop will be always vulnerable. Please people, let's not wet our pants because IBM gave us some miserable patents to keep us quiet. Anyone who remembers WW2 knows that this is hardly a company that does not evil, like Google. Let's wait and see what those patents will give us in the countries that have software patents, and meanwhile lobby against such patents in the countries that don't, as hard as we possibly can. It's also a good idea to sign the Thank you, Poland letter to show our support. There is more info on FSF website. The politicians have to know what we want, and they will do what we want, because they want to get reelected. This is the most important thing to understand in politics. "Hey, look, we've got 50000 letters from around the world from people who are strongly against software patents. We'll have have a lot of support and good publicity if we vote against software patents. Screw IBM." This is how it works, folks. It's time to learn it and it's time to start acting. Don't even waste your time on reading those patents, just lobby against them even if those particular patents are ours (with strings attached, of course), because it doesn't mean that we'll get every IBM's and Sun's patents in the future, and the future is what we need to worry about.

Patents, already covered. Sun may at ANY time, due to loopholes in the license, close down everybody else distributing and working on "OpenSolaris". Besides, THEY own all YOUR changes (slave-license). In GPL ONLY YOU OWN YOUR OWN CHANGES (unless you donate it to the FSF).

OpenSolaris has a license incompatible with the FSF (Free Software License). While TONS of other licenses are indeed compatible with FSF and the GPL: Check it out..

Seeing your nick, you're a troll. This is not for you, but for those you might mislead.

One: It's another proprietary crap-pile from Apple.

Two: You're forced to pay for MacOS X, when you'd rather just put your own Linux distro in for Free.

Three: It's $499. Considering items one and two, that's highway fucking robbery for vendor lock-in.

= 9J =

(I am posting as AC to not be accused of Karma whoring, and I really think this post should be modded up.)

CowboyNeal wrote: "Poland, if you help us out again, I pledge to never, ever forget you."

PLEASE! Don't ask Poland on Slashdot! Contact the people who have helped before! They are not reading Slashdot!!!

There should be at least one link added to that story:
http://www.fsf.org/thankpoland.html

The Free Software Foundation writes: "We are placing the "Thank you, Poland!" banner at the top of the main page to thank the Undersecretary of State at the Polish Ministry of Science and Technology, Wlodzimierz Marcinski. This is in response to him blocking the European software patent vote on 21, Dec 2004, making him single-handedly responsible for keeping Europe software patent-free."

We should not only remember Poland, but we should remember the name of the person responsible for the last blocking of the European software patent vote, Wlodzimierz Marcinski, and even more importantly let him know what we think which is easy, read on.

There are links on the FSF website and info on how to send your letter to Polish Embassy, but there is also an easier and faster way to get your voice heard. There is a website http://thankpoland.info/ - The undersigned wish to express their sincere thanks to the Polish government for their action to remove the "A-item" of adopting the "Software Patent Directive" from the agenda of the Agricultural Council meeting on December 21, 2004. It would have been a horrible mistake for the European Union to adopt this "Software Patent Directive". - just enter your name and optionally add a short message, and it will be printed and sent to the Polish Ministry of Science and Information Technology with flowers. This takes five seconds.

Search Google for the name of Wlodzimierz Marcinski:
Wlodzimierz Marcinski
Wlodzimierz Marcinski (orig. spelling)
if you know to learn more, and find more open letters, or his CV - we don't have a lot of politicians in the US who have studied mathematics and who are actually professional programmers, do we? In Poland they do.

Remember that if the Polish Ministry of Science and Information Technology knows that they have the support of the whole world, they will do it again, I guarantee. Of course the best way is to send your own snail mail letter, but even your signature on the thankpoland.info letter is extremely important. Thank you.

Since Europe doesn't bend over as easily as certain other continents, I believe that Verizon should just learn to respect citizens, for it has no other choice if it is going to survive in a truly free society or face serious consequences (trade sanctions, anyone?). This is how capitalism is meant to work, but Verizon might have some trouble to understand it having been living under the pro-corporation anti-individual government umbrella for so long. This is nothing new, a lot of corporations had to change their shady laissez-passer tactics, there is no reason to believe that Verizon is going to be different.

If you're RMS, you probably believe that no one has the right to own anything and all inventions and ideas belong to the public,

Nonsense, RMS has never said that. Please read a more widely before making such malicious accusations again. Don't buy into M$ marketing smear and FUD campaign.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

You didn't check very closely then.

From the GPL:

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html

"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."

Further, yes. There have been many cases of one open source developer stealing others code. For example, a Red Hat employee once copied a BSD licensed driver, relicensed it under the GPL and stripped out the BSD license and attributions.

It doesn't happen very often no, but aggreeing to IBM's tems still would prevent any recourse.

However, the right to make private modifications (and keep them private) is essential for Open Source. Even RMS agrees, though I'm too lazy to find the proper URL.

You're quite corerct about private use: the GPL only applies when you distribute the software: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. (emphasis added).

However... I'm not sure if IBM's definition contradicts that? It seems to me that IBM are defining open source as software that makes the source available when distributed. I've probably missed something, though... (too little coffee).

If you are joking-that is stupid. Thus I will asume you are not.

Free Software has nothing to do with price but freedom. The people that make this software, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has a slogan: Free as in Freedom. Thus the Free Games refer's to their understanding of 'Free Software' click on the hyperlink...

If you are joking-that is stupid. Thus I will asume you are not.

Free Software has nothing to do with price but freedom. The people that make this software, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has a slogan: Free as in Freedom. Thus the Free Games refer's to their understanding of 'Free Software' click on the hyperlink...

I quite agree. The FSF is not focused on games as it is and I think that is their weak point (don't get me wrong; I love them! Their games are just not quite ready to compete. I use Debian.)

I think he had no real choice. As much as one would want to stick to his principles, if you are making a living of Free Software-you've got to let somethings seep through the cracks. Free non-game software is fine because the FSF has the resources to make it-but games... I don't know.

The difficulty you're having stems from the fact that you're trying to force us [...] into your mindset.

The difference is we don't share your beliefs.

I don't believe that it is your right or freedom to have unmitigated access to software I write.

I don't believe that you have some vague "freedom" that is violated by proprietary software.

Conversely, I believe that I have the freedom to do whatever I wish with software I write. If that involves keeping it closed-source and selling it, then that is my freedom. If you do not like the fact that my software is closed-source, then you are free to not buy my software.

You say that we have not given you any good reason as to how we can morally develop proprietary software. I say you haven't given me any reason as to why writing proprietary software is immoral.

Yes, I have read RMS's papers. No, I don't agree with his reasoning.

As another poster said, that FSM advocates somehow elevates software, which I view in nearly the same manner as the computer components I buy, to some human right... frankly it baffles me. I've tried to understand where I'm comming from, but it makes about as much sense as you screaming in a department store that you have a "right" to the latest TV, and that you shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

BTW when you say "I've tried to understand where I'm comming from, but it makes about as much sense as..." I'm guessing you meant something different.

Darwin is under the APSL version 2 not the GNU license. The FSF considers that version 1 is not a free license while version 2 is.

GNU/Darwin is a BSD based on Darwin plus only free software packages.

Darwin is under the APSL version 2 not the GNU license. The FSF considers that version 1 is not a free license while version 2 is.

GNU/Darwin is a BSD based on Darwin plus only free software packages.

Darwin is under the APSL version 2 not the GNU license. The FSF considers that version 1 is not a free license while version 2 is.

GNU/Darwin is a BSD based on Darwin plus only free software packages.

BTW the battle to make these changes is another example of the FSF winning an important battle for freedom. The APSL version 1 asserted rights with regard to running software which if upheld by a court would have been a major extension of copyright law.

"Legislate" is the wrong term. It's best desribed as "asking." He's asking you to call it GNU/Linux. That's all. You don't have to do it, you don't have to listen. But he's asking you.

He doesn't want to take it away from you. He never says that, and he says quite the opposite.

From his site:

"Why not sue people who call the whole system "Linux"?

There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people to call the system "GNU/Linux" because that is the right thing to do.

Shouldn't you put something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system "GNU"?

The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those who would make proprietary versions of free software. While it is true that those who call the system "Linux" often do things that limit the users' freedom, such as bundling non-free software with the GNU/Linux system or even developing non-free software for such use, the mere act of calling the system "Linux" does not, in itself, deny users their freedom. It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what name people can use for the system."

Could that be any clearer?

Well, RMS explained why he thinks non-free software is anti-social twenty-something years ago (see this essay on the FSF site, for example, which expands on what he'd already written in the GNU manifesto).

Amongst the flames & trolls there were some detailed & reasonably thoughtful responses (including from someone who's got as 'Foe' - hi spectecjr:) - & the only argument I heard that stood up as not obvious Straw men, irrelevant, or based on a misunderstanding, was that some developers do not consider the four freedoms described by the GNU philosophy page to be fundamental freedoms.

The best counter-argument to that that I can think of is that it is only a matter of degree; the freedom to study, redistribute (etc) software is less important than the freedom not to be beaten to death by government clowns, say, but that does not mean that the software freedoms are not, in themselves, important.

I have a bad feeling I'm getting into areas dealt with my philosophy-101; can anyone else (a) advance sensible reasons why intelligent, informed people might produce non-Free s/w, and (b) refutations of those reasons.

Please, no confusion with 'Open source' development advantages or disadvantages - I'm specifically interested in the purely MORAL arguments made by RMS.

Arguments such as 'my family has to eat', 'how would programs like Photoshop be developed if it was Free?', "I am free to distribute software I write under any license I like", etc etc, are missing the point. I'd hate to find myself deciding that the reason is that proprietary developers consciously dismiss the moral / ethical issues as uninteresting or irrelevant. I know there are a lot of people here working on proprietary as well as Free s/w and you can't all be trolls :)

In no particular order:

- RMS was useful at one time but he should now leave serious persons do the real work.
- RMS is too extreme
- RMS is a crackpot
- RMS is a communist
- RMS is a dirty hippy that smells bad
- GNU/Linux is childish/idotic/ego-driven
- The GPL is not free/ viral etc...

I just wish for once all the idiots who will inevitably spout their mouth would just shut up.

Richard Stallman has consistently proved he was a true visionnary. He forsaw the problems with software and copyright law 20 years ago and devised an extremely clever answer : the GPL.

Not only that but he gave us great software to work with. Some he wrote himself (GCC, GDB, Emacs), some he inspired others to write.

He warned us many times when few would listen. About the importance of protecting freedom. About the importance of tracking copyright ownership. About software patents. About the right to read. Every time he's been criticized, ridiculed or dismissed as a lunatic and every time he was right.

It is time to recognize Richard Stallman's place in history as a great modern philosopher.

So I, for one, would like to thank deeply RMS for dedicating his life to our freedom. For standing tall when no one else would.

Live long, RMS, and never give up.

Actually, you do. See section 3 of the GNU General Public License:

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also...

Use the voucher to buy software from the free software foundation: https://agia.fsf.org/order/

Actually the GNU project did not fill in the holes that others left out; it was the original idea to create a free operating system. The FSF produced all the basic parts of GNU which needed to exist before the kernel could be written. The FSF kept changing the design of their own kernel for various reasons (technical and copyright) and in the end Linus made a working kernel with GNU before the FSF (althought their Hurd kernel is now relatively stable--I used it the other day).

Oh, really? How do you explain this entry in the FSF page on "categories of free and non-free software", then? Or this page on the BSD license, where it explicitly lists it as "free"? (While excoriating the advertising clause, which has been invalidated.)

The only explanation for RMS agreeing with the analysis I take issue with is that he's being inconsistent. This would not surprise me in the slightest.

Oh, really? How do you explain this entry in the FSF page on "categories of free and non-free software", then? Or this page on the BSD license, where it explicitly lists it as "free"? (While excoriating the advertising clause, which has been invalidated.)

The only explanation for RMS agreeing with the analysis I take issue with is that he's being inconsistent. This would not surprise me in the slightest.

Oh, really? How do you explain this entry in the FSF page on "categories of free and non-free software", then? Or this page on the BSD license, where it explicitly lists it as "free"? (While excoriating the advertising clause, which has been invalidated.)

The only explanation for RMS agreeing with the analysis I take issue with is that he's being inconsistent. This would not surprise me in the slightest.

• Freedom 0) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
• Freedom 1) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
• Freedom 2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but FYI, the APSL (AAPL is Apple's ticker symbol) was revised, and is now considered to be a free (but GPL-incompatible) open-source license.

From your link:

Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 2

This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve the software released under this license. More explanation is available

Anyway, here's what the FSF has to say about free software, for anyone who's still not clear on the matter.

For reference, the GPL v2

I could be wrong, but IMO, they aren't the same licenses. The GPL and BSD licenses differ quite a bit.

Both the BSD licenses and the GPL are free and open source licenses. That even includes the old BSD license with the advertising clause that was incompatible with the GPL.

But your thought is a good one (and correct) even if your example is flawed. A better example would be Apple's AAPL, which is an open source license that is neither free nor compatible with the GPL.

See http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.htmlfor an excellent overview of licenses and how they affect your freedom and/or protect you as the author.

Many Open Source licenses are not free (by either the FSF/GNU definition or the BSD Folks' definition), and clearly a distinction is both necessary and important. Anyone claiming otherwise quite obviously has an ulterior motive and agenda which they feel is furthered by obfuscating what is implied by a Free License and what is implied by an Open Source License, and that agenda certainly appears to be at odds with the free software community and a large part of the open source community.

According to OSI, the ASPL is an open source license. And from the very document you linked to, the FSF "considers the APSL to be a free software license". It's just not GPL-compatible.

Not an Apple fanboy by any stretch, but let's be fair.

Okay, so with your link you have proven my point... look at how many projects Apple *takes from* and look at how many they *maintain or contribute to*. How useful are their OSS projects to non-OS X users?

The APSL is also not compatible with the GPL.

Look, justify your love for Apple any way you want, but your rationalizations don't change the fact that Apple does not give back what they take from Free Software. And it won't change the probability that Apple will try to kill this iPodLinux project.

-Jem

Nice troll :) Of course you realize that free software is NOT always Open Source Software. I don't capitalize the letters (in Open Source) because it looks better, but because it's a specific term that happens to have a precise definition.

Some history of the definition Open Source

The Open Source Definition is derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Bruce Perens composed the original draft; it was refined using suggestions of the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution developers in e-mail conference during most of June, 1997. They then voted to approve it as Debian's publicly stated policy. It was revised somewhat and Debian-specific references were removed at the origination of the Open Source Initiative in February 1998.

Of course, in reality the FSF and the OSI are two competing organizations - one a Massichusetts bases nonprofit, one a California based nonprofit - and like most industry competitors, much of their success depends on their marketing of intellectual property like "Free *" and "Open *".

FOSS is a highly redundant term.

Uh, not really. How else would you describe a license that meets both the FSF 's criteria for free and is a OSI approved license

In short.

• Most Open Source Software is Free Software
• Almost all Free Software is Open Source Software.
• Some free software is Free Software
• Some open source software is Open Source Software
• All GPL software is both Open Source and Free.

Free Software is not necessarily Open Software

Free Software is always open. I don't capitalize the letters because it looks better, but because it's a specific term that happens to have a precise definition.

FOSS(Free and Open Source Software) is really the most accurate way to refer to what you called "Free Software". It is both free and open.

FOSS is a highly redundant term. I do agree that the unwashed masses don't get it, because of the bloody coincidence of "free" in the english language. Most other languages are better off and don't use the same terms for "freedom" and "no money".

Then again, even americans do get it, if they care and it's been driven home often enough. I don't know anyone who takes "free" for "$0" in the phrase, say, "The land of the free".

Around 20 years ago a programmer at MIT quit his job to develop a complete and free Unix-style operating system--the GNU system. That programmer was Richard Stallman, also known as rms, the founder of the Free Software Foundation.

Since 1984 he has fought for software freedom and created the concept of free software. Software is considered free if users have the following four freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition.

Copyleft licenses protect these four freedoms. The most prominent license is the GNU General Public License, which allows the author to retain a copyright and permits redistribution and modification under terms designed to ensure that all modified versions of the software remain under copyleft terms.

In this period of threats to freedom, Federico Biancuzzi interviewed this freedom paladin.

FB: GNU/Linux (the complete OS!) is probably the most known free software project. What do you think about the fact that Linux (the kernel!) uses a proprietary program to manage its source code?

RMS: It is unfortunate when anyone uses proprietary software. Using it publicly for the development of a prominent free software package is particularly unfortunate, because it sets a bad example for the community.

FB: Isn't there any free alternative under development?

RMS: There are already free programs that do the same basic job. Linus Torvalds feels they are not convenient enough, and he values convenience more than he values standing firm for freedom. I think that is leading the community in the wrong direction.

As part of the GNU Project, Tom Lord is developing a new free source control system called Arch, which we hope will outdo the proprietary ones.

But just because we are competing with proprietary software on issues of technical merit doesn't mean we think people should choose the program for source control based on technical qualities alone. That would mean assigning zero value to freedom itself. If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have.

FB: What do you think about proprietary software? Does it have low quality? Is it unsecure? Does it restrict freedom too much? Is it unethical?

RMS: Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. It may also be of low quality or insecure, but that's a secondary issue. I will reject it even if it is the best quality in the world, simply because I value my freedom too much to give it up for that.

FB: Would you accept a federal law in the United States to enforce the distribution of source code with every type of software?

RMS: I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure--like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.

Of course, some software companies would object to this, j

No, the MPL is not compatible with the GPL. Sorry to say.

the hardware we are producing will only run the software we create.

That's fine, if people create their own software. But if people, instead of creating their own, use GPL'ed software, they should obey the GPL. (If they don't like the terms of the GPL -- don't use it).

The idea behind the GPL is that the software will always remain free. The FSF defines free to include "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs".

But TiVo use a "trick" to prevent people adapting the software. This is within the letter of the GPL, but against the spirit of it. So the FSF are amending the GPL so its letter is closer to its spirit.

And yet people frequently do buy products that have embedded software that they cannot alter. The role of the GPL is to further the aims of the Free Software Foundation and it is exactly this kind of thing which the FSF was created to overcome. Read the history of the project if you haven't already.

1) The FSF can create different versions in the future, and everything under the old licenses is effectively retroactively dual-licensed.

The FSF consists of little more than Richard Stallman.

What happens when Stallman gets hit by a bus? Who controls the FSF (and through it GPL) then? How many millions would even partial control of the GPL be worth these days? Maybe loosen those "troublesome restrictions"?

2) The LGPL is all based on object "linking". What the hell is the legal definition of "linking"? The idea of linking will become increasingly irrelevant in the future; it's like a 1980's OS-specific license.

3) What happens to the legal status of GPL'ed projects when some company manages to retroactively claim a patent on some double click feature? At that point, does it not become illegal to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL? Won't that invalidate the whole license for that software package?

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

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.