Slashdot Mirror

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.

...without having to sponsor development of any corporations, it is high recommended to visit the following page:
FSF's Scientific Software Directory

There really is a SFU; it is a subsystem, and these people are using it. But you can't use a subsystem by itself; a subsystem is useful only as part of a whole operating system. SFU now inludes Interix which is normally used in a combination with the GNU development toolchain and libraries : the system is basically GNU, with SFU functioning as the compatibility DDL Library layer.

Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the compiler toolset, which is SFU, and the whole system, which they also call `SFU''. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't promote understanding.

Programmers generally know that is a Subsystem. But since they have generally heard the whole system called `Interix' as well, they often envisage a history which fits that name. For example, many believe that once Softway Systems finished writing the posix compatibility DDL Libraries, they looked around for other free software, and for no particular reason most everything necessary to port a Unix-like system was already available.

What they found was no accident--it was the GNU system. The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. The GNU Manifesto had set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system, called GNU. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also outlines some of the original plans for the GNU system. By the time Interix was written, the system was almost finished.

Most software projects have the goal of developing a particular program for a particular job. For example, Softway Systems set out to build an environment to allow UNIX apps to be ported directly to NT. Donald Knuth set out to write a text formatter (TeX); Bob Scheifler set out to develop a window system (X Windows). It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.

If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? If you had access to the full source code of SFU with Interix, you might find found that, GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 60% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no compatable subsystem. SFU by without Interix itself could be about 20%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be `GNU''.

But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.

Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is a system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting major components, such as the assembler and linker, because you can't have a system without them. A complete system needs

Sadly, people like Stallman would rather get caught up in the political melodrama of the idea that "commercial software is evil" than deal with reality.

I would like to share my 2 cent concerning my experience in Linux mandrake recently.

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one
man, a Finnish student named Linus Torvalds. Since
these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up
to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but until recently Linux
has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic
downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing
policy, Linux is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft
Windows.

While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including
BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network)
server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the
same level of media attention as Linux. Linux Mandrake is just the
latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux.
Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm
and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT
preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint
at its zany nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image"
from the Mandrake-Linux web site. But don't worry,

this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware,
meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by
the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a
major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and
self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the
documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for
me in the "required configuration" section of the hocked to learn that
Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes
of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore,
a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although
the advocates of Linux self-righteously boast the efficiency of their
chosen operating system and deride the
"bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are
blatantly incorrect.

Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that
Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer
hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system?

Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my
many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake
reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity
applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web
browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best
efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to
encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of
Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to
recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used
software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to
learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus
Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer
for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the
most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of
software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are
mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their
commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked
by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses
are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software
is available for Linux. To add insult to i

Someone posted RMS's short story on Slashdot a week or so ago, but it seems topical now so I repeat it here: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

no, he's going to say screw you and find something else, maybe from someone else giving the software out for free.

Not if he already paid for the support or a warranty.

Basing things on support is horrible. A good peice of software won't need support. If someone has to call you to figure out how to work it, then the software has a problem.

Really? Perfect software won't need support. If your statement is correct there is no good software available today.

There is probably some forms of support that work, maybe you give the app away for free, but you charge for plugin that add features, or there is some prescription for an aspect of it, like you pay to have the program get feed info all the time (like a tivo like app, or a weather program would need).

Are you sure you really understand what free in free software stands for. The above example is how freeware works.

But in the end support fails on these ones to, because someone else won't have any intention of being a business, they will just be making something and giving every aspect of it away, and doesn't need support. At that point no free software business model will work.

as would any software business model.

Pay software will survive though. For one there is less diversity, thus more people using the same app which makes person to person (friends) support work better, and just nice to know that a big chunk of the world is using the same as you, so you get things like "oh hey, my bank lets me download my statements in the format my app uses".
Also known as standardization.

Also when something goes wrong with it, there is someone to hold responsible.

Also known as a warranty.

People want to buy stuff from solid companies that they know of, and can feel certain that company will be around.

Such as IBM or Sun...

But maybe you just confuse free beer with free speech. In that case disregard my post and go visit Free Software Foundation

So, merely knowing that a company is distributing a GPL covered program is not enough for you to request the source code. You must first obtain a copy of said program (and the offer of source code) from either the original vendor, or one of their customers (via redistribution under the terms of section 1 of the GPL).

Wow, you must be better at interpreting the GPL than the FSF's own lawyers!

For those too lazy to follow the link: the interpretation of the FSF (you know, the people who wrote the license) is that "valid for any third party" means "anyone who has the offer can take you up on it."

"Ripping off" free software is actually worse because it confuses the message of free software. The message of free software is that free people can co-operate to make tools for themselves that work. A ripped free software tool with "improvements" directly undermines that message by trying to convince people that they need some closed software to make their lives easier. Typically, the ripped version is inferior but the money involved will create a stream of advertising that says otherwise. Public education on the value, cause and workings of free software is an ongoing project.

It is too bad that a lot of people confuse Open Source with Public Domain.

No, these bozos knew what they were doing and did not limit their "theft" to free software. They knew that they were violating licenses for free software just as much as they knew they were violating M$'s license by distributing their floppy driver. Since having the obvious string matches pointed out, they have tried to replace them without bothering to replace binaries or release source code. As the easiest thing to do would be to release source code, these people are up to no good and know it.

We shall see if they come clean. If they don't and M$ does not clean their clock, we can draw further conclusions.

Wired magazine has an excellent four page article discussing Brazil's new approach to Intellectual Property rigths. Discussing everything from battling with the international pharmacutical industries, to song sampling, to the national adoption of Linux. Richard Stallman stated that India's political commitment to free software is, second only to Brazil's after attending a weeklong free software teach-in for members of the Brazilian national congress, where 161 out of 594 members of congress, from a broad range of parties, had signed up with the free software caucus - making it one of the largest caucuses in the Brazilian government. Later that week Stallman donned a robe and a halo made out of a compact disc and declared himself "Saint IGNUcius of the Church of Emacs" but was surprised to be upstaged when Gilberto Gil, Brazil's newly appointed minister of culture, said: "this whole process that led to the computer, to the personal computer, to Silicon Valley, this extraordinary degree of cognition that arose from the intersection of math and design and the crystallographic structures of quartz was made possible by acid trips." It even has its fair share of MS bashing for those whose goal in life it is.

The story was pending for over five hours. I think they were waiting for someone to submit one that didn't equate drug use to computers! I was merely quoting the Brazilian Culture Minister (p. 4). Just a quick FYI.

Ms. Rosen argued: "Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?"

There's at least one difference; when I die, my heirs must pay considerable inheritance taxes. Do there exist inheritance taxes on ownership of copyright? If it's to be considered a kind of property, such taxes should exist (or they shouldn't on real property; personally I believe that each person should do their best on their own, i.e. inheritance should be forbidden, but I don't know how to implement this without massive corruption).

I recommend Lessig's book, Free Culture for a great deal of discussion on copyright and related issues. The FSF sent its members a copy recently; you should join --- everybody else is doing it.

And FSF has never, to my knowlegde, engaged in actual commerce?

Your knowledge could use extending. Read more about books and CDs sold by FSF.

here, and I don't see where it "specifies" anything about fair use.

If you mean that making fair use of GPL'd source offers you a defence against charges of copyright infringement, you're correct, but that's not even remotely what the GPL says.

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.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Yeah, paranoia is fun and all, but I wouldn't mind a few links to support the downsides claim.
You'ld think IBM would know better than to associate the word "Trust" with "Technology". That combination is like a buzzword for suspicion to the Tech-wise.

Yeah, paranoia is fun and all, but I wouldn't mind a few links to support the downsides claim.
You'ld think IBM would know better than to associate the word "Trust" with "Technology". That combination is like a buzzword for suspicion to the Tech-wise.

This is often true.

The write-in option at my workplace has allowed me to donate to the FSF for several years using only its address:

Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330
Boston, MA 02111, USA

Usually I still give about 2/3 of my donation to the local United Way - there's a lot of worthy and underfunded organizations under that umbrella.

Some corporations have matching gifts policies to leverage your donation.

For example, in 2004, the Microsoft Matching Gifts program helped someone or some people in their donation of 500-999 to the Free Software Foundation.

Hasn't this wheel already been invented many many times?

How about Log4C++, a port of the canonical Log4J logging package for Java.

Rosen disagrees with FSF on many points -- specifically, whether dynamically linking creates a derivative work. And since FSF's lawyer is a law professor and Rosen is a two-bit hack, you should think twice about listening to Rosen. Incidentally, MySQL's lawyers also disagree with Rosen -- and have gone to court to defend the GPL.

The Term "Intellectual Property" is misleading. See what I wrote in a Newsforge article about it. To sum up, IP consists of copyrights, trademarks and patents, which are different legal tools for different purposes and should not be grouped together. Furthermore, Intellectual Property is not property. It is a contract between the originator and the public, and violating it, does not damage the well-being of his tangible property as crimes such as theft or sabotage do.

No, the GNU/Linux argument is not about recognition. He'd like that, too, but as he says here:

if there were nothing at stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have already done.

GNU is about freedom. Linus doesn't seem to care much about that. The fsf wants people to know about their goals, therefore they want to have their name on their work. Not for the credit, but to let people know about what they want.

So they wouldn't really have a problem if RMS would get all the credit, as long as the message would reach the people.

I would like to share my 2 cent concerning my experience in Linux mandrake recently.

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one
man, a Finnish student named Linus Torvalds. Since
these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up
to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but until recently Linux
has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic
downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing
policy, Linux is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft
Windows.

While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including
BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network)
server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the
same level of media attention as Linux. Linux Mandrake is just the
latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux.
Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm
and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT
preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint
at its zany nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image"
from the Mandrake-Linux web site. But don't worry,

this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware,
meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by
the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a
major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and
self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the
documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for
me in the "required configuration" section of the hocked to learn that
Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes
of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore,
a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although
the advocates of Linux self-righteously boast the efficiency of their
chosen operating system and deride the
"bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are
blatantly incorrect.

Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that
Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer
hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system?

Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my
many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake
reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity
applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web
browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best
efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to
encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of
Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to
recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used
software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to
learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus
Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer
for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the
most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of
software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are
mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their
commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked
by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses
are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software
is available for Linux. To add insult to i

The problem only creeps in when the author accepts code submissions from others; what is the licence regarding that additional code?

This is exactly why the FSF insists that when you contribute to a FSF project that you give the original author/maintainer full rights to your contributed code. That way they never need to contact you to should issues surrounding licencing arise. (in other words, you gave them the code, no strings attached)

Of course none of this applies if the original author is linking/using preexisting GPL'd code in his new project. Then, the whole thing must be released.

FYI, gettext is GPLv2 only. The library it appears he's linking it, however, is LGPL.

However,

You can't imagine the UN would take such a controversial stance would you?

Furthermore, they (I think it was the UNESCO, couldn't find the link), issued a very critical report on DRM, exposing it for the pending cultural disaster it is.

Unfortunately, this understanding doesn't penetrate throughout the UN. On the other extreme, you have WIPO, which is completely dominated by a *cough*superpower*cough*, takes their orders from entities like USPTO, is not open to debate and works tirelessly to strip away the rights you thought you had to participate in the cultural and scientific advancements of society.

Nope. There are several UN funded projects that have assisted FOSS. If a single desktop manual got MS all worked up, then they would have quit a long time ago when UNESCO sponsored the Free Software Directory or when UNCTAD released a favorable report that said OSS could boost IT sector in developing countries.

They could even have gotten upset when the IOSN released their FOSS primer (introducing FOSS to govt policy makers) or worse, their upcoming FOSS policy primer (guide on how to create national FOSS policies). They even held a meeting where policy-makers from over 20 Asia-Pacific countries all called for greater exploration of FOSS.

Instead, Microsoft announces a slew of partnerships with the UNDP and other UN agencies. Microsoft doesn't quit in a huff. They are far more mature than that.

Ob disclaimer: I don't speak for the UN, IOSN or Microsoft

It took me a while to pin down what I think is wrong with that argument and it's this: that promise is not enforced under contract law. It's just part of a classical unilateral permission to use someone else's copyrighted work and hence must be enforced under copyright law.

I think you have the right idea, however, in looking at available legal remedies in deciding what to call the GPL. I would argue that under certain circumstances, contract remedies are available for breaches of the GPL. In particular, suppose that A is the copyright holder, B is a distributor who has elected option (b) under section 3 of the GPL, and C is recipient of a covered binary, not necessarily from distributor B. I think that C as an intended third-party beneficiary of the section 3(b) agreement between A and B should be able to sue to enforce it, even if A herself is for some reason no longer interested in enforcing it. Third-party beneficiaries are allowed to bring such a suit under contract law, but not under copyright law alone. Since the GPL generally will satisfy all the legal requirements of a contract, I see no reason for a court not to allow such a suit, and in this suit, the GPL would clearly be functioning as a contract.

FYI The GPL is not a contract, it is a license. There is a difference which has been written about by the FSF as well as Groklaw.

As I read the GPL, a distributor who elects option (b) under section 3 of the GPL makes a legally enforceable promise, one enforceable by both the license grantor and most likely by third parties. Such a distributor has thus entered into a contract obliging them to distribute certain source code in exchange for a license.

Prof. Moglen's main point is that the mostly likely remedies for breach of the GPL are copyright remedies, not contract remedies, and thus that it is useless for a defendant to argue that the GPL is not an enforceable contract. This is certainly true. It does not mean, however, that a court may not treat the GPL as a contract in certain circumstances, for example by allowing third parties to sue to enforce the requirement to distribute source code under GPL section 3(b), a remedy clearly grounded in contract law, not copyright law.

Thirdly, the difference between contracts and licenses is far more than their similarities.

In U.S. law, perhaps the definative definition of "contract" is that in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, section 1:

A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance fo which the law in some way recognizes as a duty

although some EULAs may think they are contracts or try and impose contractual obligations, there is no mutual agreement entered into between the parties beforehand, nothing that specifies payment made for good or services received or penalties under contract law. It's just a license - permission to do something which you otherwise would not be allowed to do.

Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work.

In that case, a court would be enforcing a promise (to provide the source code) that was given in exchange for a license to distribute copyrighted material. That sure smells like a contract to me.

My reading is that if a person distributes under the GPL and chooses either option (a) or option (c) under section 3, the GPL functions as a simple license--permission to engage in a certain use of copyrighted material. If the distributor chooses option (b), however, the GPL functions as both a license and a contract. That is, the license to distribute under the GPL is granted in exchange for a promise to distibute source code on request in the future.

Ultimately the label doesn't matter a great deal, since copyright remedies are generally more desirable to a free software author than breach of contract remedies are. In particular, copyright law allows damages without any proof of harm. There are two places where having contract remedies available could be useful:

1. Contract law would allow specific enforcement of the promise to distribute source under certain circumstances, meaning that the court could actually force the release of source code to derived works and not merely award monetary damages. This is only likely in U.S. law where monetary damages were somehow inadequate.
2. Contract law would also allow enforcement by third parties that were intended beneficiaries of the contract. That is, GPL section 3(b) might give persons other than the copyright holder the right to enforce the promise to distribute source code. Copyright law itself gives third parties no cause of action for copyright breach. This could be very important if, for example, the original copyright holder went out of business or for some reason decided to abandon its commitment to free software.

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. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

(Emphasis added.)

When MySQL AB speaks "Commercial" they really mean proprietary.

This confusion is being laid down on MySQL AB themselves for not following wise advice from the FSF.

So put aside MySQL AB's stubborn remarks and read this:

Of course you can make a Commercial program linked with the GNU GPL. You can make Free Software and charge for 1st sale copies. What you can't is turn a GPL'ed software into a non-GPL'ed program.

But you can still make lots of businesses with it!

Come to think of it, many don't follow FSF's advices and call them fanatics or worse things. The funny thing is, they never force nothing upon you, they simply advise you, give you an example, and criticize you when you go "yay proprietary".

Maybe you should read more of what's on their site instead of relying on what your friend or idol says.

Thx for the comment. We (MySQL AB) are not the judge on this. Therefore we are careful not to make statements that may be oversimplifications, as that may mislead our customers. Our comment on connections was based on the GPL FAQ on FSF.org:

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation

It says this (boldfacing by me):

"What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged)."

and this:

"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."

But, again, lets remember that only a court of law can take an affirmative position on this. FSF and MySQL AB can only provide their best advice and their presentation of their intent.

Please also note that we are very happy when our users use MySQL under the GPL (as /. does!), but we don't see it as our responsibility to provide a detailed legal analysis to every user. We proudly think we have done a fantastic deed in licensing MySQL under the GPL in the first place, and we think it is only fair for us to assume that the free software / open source community needs little help in coming to terms with the GPL.

I hope this sheds some light on our logic. Many people look to us as the foremost authorities on the GPL. But that's not what we are. We are a software development organisation that provides software to the FOSS community and to commercial users, and that provides additional commercial services to the commercial users. We hope we can be a role model for other open source developers who want to stick to their FOSS principles and ALSO build a great and lasting business.

Marten

And productivity software will always be on the commercial side of the software industry anyway. Besides, (if you want to refer to the browser wars) if IE had its way, you'd have two disjoint subsets of the World Wide Web - one that is based on Microsoft-dictated standards (Microsoft-only versions of CSS and Java, for instance), and one that isn't. Although Mozilla started out buggy, it's causing a lot of people to switch. It had a rougher start, but it's turned into, essentially, a better product.

Now, if you'd like to compare apples with apples, look at gcc versus MS Visual Studio. It's a faster, better-working compiler, has a better debugger (ever even looked at xgdb? It kicks MS in the 455), and is easily integrated into a widely used standard interface - the UNIX/LINUX shell. As a matter of fact, here is a list of software that's open source, and free. Compare them to their closed-source, proprietary counterparts, and you'll find that the OSS has better documentation, better functionality, and tends to educate users rather than coddle them.

Nothing. Nothing at all against bundling non-GPL spyware.

But, as the FSF points out, you have to tell your users that the program is GPL and that you will give them the source. Its not enough to just point them somewhere else. Additionally, they have made at least minor modifications to the program itself in order to change its name and appearance.

It seems they let just about anybody post to Slashdot these days.

I thought Linux was supposed to be free.

You thought wrong. Nowhere is it required that Linux be distributed for free; it's only that you must be able to distribute it yourself for whatever charge you chose, including free; also that you must distribute the source to anyone to whom you distribute the binary.

So if a friend subscribes to YDL net, he has the authority to redistribute it to whomever he cares to for whatever price he sets it at. Many distributors of Linux have simply chosen to distribute their product for free, as that's where the price is driven and the marginal extra that they may be able to make isn't worth the headache.

But in this case YDL has chosen not to make it free. Read the GPL FAQ for yourself to learn about this.

They could have either done a rewrite, or have gotten all the original writers' permission.

Under the GPL, the original writers stil hold their copyrights. By modifying the code, they submit to the terms of the GPL, but what they write is still theirs. And if the original writer wants to do away with the GPL on a GPL-licensed work, he can contact the other authors, and since they each all hold unencumbered copyrights to their own works, a closed version may be made.

Even if they cannot get permission from all those who wrote the code, if they remove the code written by those who dissent, they can still close the work.

The GPL is a very solid license. It is also quite readable. You can read it at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html.

I still can hardly calm down. Please tell me, when GNU's Now Unix, I should send my cheques directly to Darl, shouldn't I? Or to SCO? Maybe Caldera? Or was it Tarantella? I am confused... Is it in Santa Cruz or Utah? Redmont, you say? You mean, I should pay the pimp Bill directly instead of using Darl, his bitch? What was the brothel called again? Caldera? SCO? Canopy? Microsoft? "Open" Linux my bloody arse... This is outrageously frightening. Please, let GNU continue being Not Unix. Thank you.

That in turn is a large part of the popularity of the GPL. Microsoft can't appropriate GPL'ed code. They can distribute it, just like anyone else can, and they do. But they can't kill the organization that actually produces it. They can't prevent users from extending it.

In the long run, open source can outlive its original owner. The current controversy over X and the FreeS/WAN transition to Openswan both illustrate that.

Just because it is free does not mean you can afford it.

Zenity lets you display Gtk+ dialog boxes from the command line and through shell scripts. It is similar to gdialog, but is intended to be saner. It comes from the same family as dialog, Xdialog, and cdialog, but it surpasses those projects by having a cooler name.

Oh, by the way, if you really want a recylce bin for Linux rm, then your whish is granted here, and here, and and other places

1. "Don't complain." Sure, complaining is not criticism or bug report filing. People should not complain about free software any more than they should look any other gift horse in the mouth. Bug reports and constructive email rock. People should not be encouraged to "complain"
2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems." God, but that's old FUD. Sure, the "average user" won't go coding. That does not make the software less free or that freedom any less of a blessing. He might as well take the next step and claim that free software will never make a friendly interface / GUI / usable kernel etc. Oh wait, he does.
3. "All software should be free" Uses a false analogy to argue that no software should be free. Software can be coppied without cost. The choice between free and non free software that do the same thing should be obvious to anyone. Because of this all software should be free and what is not will be sooner or later. "all code can somehow be developed for "free", without there being a price to be paid somewhere" Nope, there's no price to be paid with free software because there's no force involved. If free software does something you want, you are free to use it, modify it and share it. Generally, using free software as a base for your own projects saves time and money. Giving back your modifications costs little or nothing.
4. "Open Source software is always better than closed, proprietary software" I can say that free is better. I can also say that free software, despite Neil's FUD, develops quicker and becomes technically superior in time. KDE and GNome both kick Winblows ass, despite M$'s laser sharp attention to ... their bottom line. I'm not sure what you are using Neil, but newer stuff is better.
5. "Scratching the personal itch" - Yawn, I'm getting tired of this guy saying that there are no free user friendly tools. A good example of itch scratching working is gphoto2 and digikam. Digikam is KDE's digital camera front end and album keeper. It gets it's power from hundreds of camera drivers found in libgphoto2, which in turn was made possible by thousands of people scratching very personal itches, sometimes over $40 cameras. There's nothing like it in the commercial world and I expect it to continue to get better. When software is released GPL, everyone wins and it goes all the way back to the average user's desktop.
6. "More choice is always better" He acts like preselection of reasonable options does not exist. Neil, go get a copy of Knoppix of Mepis and see that a distribution can be made on a single CD that does EVERYTHING even the power user such as yourself could want. Amazing how all that "bloated", "designed by committee" software can do what no laser focused commercial software maker can, isn't it?
7. "Conclusion: It's Not So Simple". My conclusion is that Neil needs to check out some more free software. Anyone who still thinks that Windows has better interfaces is missinformed. Also, no one really thinks that "Sometimes restricting the choices might not be a bad idea." when it comes to themselves. Neil might be afraid of a free software desktop, but I'm sure he's glad he can have one if he changes his mind.

I've heard most of this stuff for years. Some of the user interface issues were once true, but they are no longer. Gnome back in 1998 was about as good and in many ways better than Windows 98. The people in Redmond would love for free software users to read this kind of tripe and n

Sveasoft cannot refuse source access FOR THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A BINARY FROM THEM.

This is incorrect. If Sveasoft have ever, in the last 3 years, provided binaries to a customer without providing source, then they are bound by 3b of the GPL (emphasis is mine):


b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;


If Sveasoft have made use of 3b by not shipping source with their binaries, then they are obligated to provide the sources for those particular binaries to anyone who asks for it, for 3 years after shipping the GPLed software in its binary form.

And the question there is whether this "unreleased" source is GPL'd. One would expect that anything based on a GPL'd codebase would be GPL'd if made available officially or unofficially.

That's correct - anytime you distribute a GPL'ed program, you have to make the source available, even for "unreleased" versions. The FSF's GPL FAQ says so.

In this case, pre-releases are available, and the distribution of pre-release source should be protected by the GPL. If we consider released pre-releases to be releases, then, Sveasoft's actions against those distributing pre-release source are illegal - but it's a complex 'if'.

If Sveasoft gives out the binaries, they have to give out the source - it's just that simple. Now, I have to admit that I've always felt the FSF was off-base on this issue. Even in the world of Free Software and Open Source, there is reasonable justification for "controlled release" of code that is still under test. But the GPL doesn't have a "restricted beta" concept, so that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

This DOES violate the GPL; section 3b requires that they provide the source code to any third party (but they can charge for it).

Wrong. The GPL requires that the distributor of a binary make the source to that binary available. If you obtain a binary from Svensoft, then Svensoft is the distributor of that binary to you, and they are compelled by the GPL to make source available to you. BUT if you turn around and give the binary to someone else, well, guess what Mr. Distributor, you're going to have to make the source available too.

No, as a distributor, you have to offer some means of obtaining that source code. If it was redhat, it would be enough to give him redhat's FTP mirror list. In this case though, unless these subscriptions are transferrable (which they appear to not be) then it is not enough to just say "get it from this company" because that company will not give it to them.

If you give someone GPL'd code, you become the distributor, and by the letter of the license, YOU have to make the source available somehow.

Now, its not necessary that you have to be the host of the source, or you have to actually touch the source itself, but if for some reason you cannot see to it that your users cannot get the source, you cannot comply with the GPL. Pointing someone to some other FTP site is enough*, until that FTP site goes down.

* the fsf states that since not everyone has internet access, you are supposed to comply with a demand for physical media.