Slashdot Mirror

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.

PHP License, Version 3.0
This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP add-ons.

...any semblance of freedom or sanity--yes. Big Brother just might.

But even if BB does manage to turn the world of entertainment into a fascist police state... it won't last. Therefore I've stopped fretting.

It doesn't create anything--if you are the copyright holder, you can release your software under more than one license, as answered by the GPL FAQ.

Am I the only one who is troubled by the blend of proprietary and 'open' systems surrounding PHP? I mean a proprietary system, Zend, powers PHP, plus to get best performance I'm suppose to license another proprietary system? I am a big advocate of Free Software and feel uncomfortable using PHP even though it is a great tool because of the strange mixture of proprietary and open development. Maybe it's just me.

Roll calling a few of our other favorite groups...

Free Software Foundation: Yep, say they're tax-deductable.
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Yep, they say they have 501(c)(3) compliance.
FreeBSD Foundation: Yep, section 2.5.1 on this page says they're tax-deductable too.

Seems like it'll take some work to find an OSS-supporting group that can't accept tax deductable donations.

I have no wish to anger anyone. I meant to use the term GNU/Linux to refer to the GNU system I run which happens to use the Linux kernel. Read about the issue here. I hope you will use the term GNU/Linux too.

Sorta, but not really. I could paraphrase it here, but I think quoting the actual text is more effective:

3. 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 do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

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; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

I recommend you read the entire text of the GNU GPL. Unlike some EULAs, it's actually quite clear and readable.

I really hate to get pedantic, but OpenSSL is Free Software. According to the Free Software Foundation, the OpenSSL license is a Free Software license incompatible with the GPL.

What you should have said is that the Free Software Foundation recommends developers use the GNU TLS library, but using OpenSSL in non-GPL projects is perfectly okay. Remember, GPL licensed software is only a subset of Free Software.

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

If you don't want to hand out source with the binary, then you can use 3(b), which says you have to provide a written offer to give it to _any_ third party. So if you take this option, you are required to distribute it to the public, for three years.

According to the GPL FAQ, you are only required to distribute it to people who have obtained the offer, not the public at large.

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.

Reading the GPL FAQ, that does seem to be the interpretation intended by the FSF:

The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?.

So I have a license to every GPL'd work ever distributed, though I may not have physical access to all those works.

From the article:

Microsoft's two existing open-source projects have used a type of open-source license from IBM called the CPL, or common public license, which some companies tend to favor because it clearly delineates some critical ground rules for an open-source technology's use. Analysts say that choice of license shows that Microsoft takes issue not as much with the broader open-source concept as with the GPL, a different type of open-source license used for Linux and other programs.

I would argue that the GPL has "clearly delinated ground rules", and I'm not sure what extra value is added by the CPL. The FSF licence list gives some hints that the CPL imposes extra requirements:

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL. For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Does anybody have any examples of why a corporation would prefer the CPL to the GPL?

From the article:

Microsoft's two existing open-source projects have used a type of open-source license from IBM called the CPL, or common public license, which some companies tend to favor because it clearly delineates some critical ground rules for an open-source technology's use. Analysts say that choice of license shows that Microsoft takes issue not as much with the broader open-source concept as with the GPL, a different type of open-source license used for Linux and other programs.

I would argue that the GPL has "clearly delinated ground rules", and I'm not sure what extra value is added by the CPL. The FSF licence list gives some hints that the CPL imposes extra requirements:

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL. For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Does anybody have any examples of why a corporation would prefer the CPL to the GPL?

I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement.

This is quote from the GNU Manifesto. It resonates with most GNU/Linux folks to varying degrees. Like many readers of this forum, I have made an implicit Faustian bargain with my employer and do not live up to these ideals at work. At home I do.

For Mac OS X, I recommend the following free software:
Audacity . Audio Editor.
Colloquy. An IRC Client.
Cyberduck. FTP client.
Fugu. FTP client.
Shiira. Web browser written in Cocoa.
Camino. Web browser.
Firefox. Web Browser.
Mozilla . Browser/E-mail/Composer/Address/Chat.
Thunderbird. E-mail Client.
GnuPG for Mac. GNU Privacy Guard for Mac = Encryption for the people!

Give the kids choices. All of the above are free as in freedom as well as gratis.

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.

I wish some of us /.-ers that hate junk patents would get together to make a mockery of the current system.

Oh, wait...

We were always encouraged to write ideas up as patents; lots of the people there received regular royalties or bonus payments from their personal patent portfolios, sponsored/owned by NAI. With the buy-out of SpamAssassin, I'm not terribly surprised at this news.

One tiny peeve, though: it's pronounced "muh'k AFF-ee ".

IANAL but -- GPL, Section 3 (the section about source availability) starts with "copy and distribute", not just distribute.

Seriously, if I'm missing something (quite possible) let me know. But the way I'm reading this ... if I modify the source, compile said source - all fine and well. If I make even one copy of the result, I need to make source available. This would seem common in a project distributed among "... up to 50 developers working simultaneously ...".

The FSF has been covering their/our asses on this kind of stuff for years.

Now is the time to support the FSF, so they can fight this thing. It'd be awful if they had to give out private emails and other communication.

Become a member of the FSF and support them financially. (I am already a member). You can also send anonymous donations, or buy something from GNU Press.

In literal terms you may be correct, but his comparison with free beer software leads me to believe he was alluding to the Free Software Foundation's meaning of "free as in speech" software. Regardless of whether he was or not, freedom as he defines isn't particularly useful.

I've nothing against Minix incidentally, I quite like it in fact, and I understand his wish to keep Minix simple for the purposes of education; but his objection to people deriving works from Minix and distributing them, whether in prepatched source form or as a binary, is/was a mistake IMO.

Because I know funny. Down in the bottom batch of contributors...what's the least likely name you'd expect to see?

There may be moral issues with using illegally-made copies of proprietary software (it artificially reduces the perceived TCO of the software in comparison with competitors like free software, for example) but it's certainly not stealing.

You can find more information here, or by using a search engine.

Wrong. You don't have to agree to the license terms to use a software. It is wholly irrelevant to this question if you are the copyright holder or not; after all, the copy is already made. By the copyright holder. That is, you bought the copy from the copyright holder, and now you have the legal right to use it. The copyright holder may triy to impose additional restrictions on your use of the software, which is quite irrelevant to the fact that you already own a copy: if you find a way of using your copy without falling prey to the copyright holders attempts of castrating your usage rights, you may do so.
The GPL works similarly: you acquire a copy of the software (free of charge, in most cases), and thereafter you may use it. Without agreeing to the GPL. The GPL itself makes clear that:"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it".
However, if you make copies, you might have to agree to the GPL, since it is probably the only way to get permission to modify/copy the program (of course, you might have been allowed to make copies by the copyright holder, in which case you wouldn't have to agree to the GPL, but that is rather far-fetched).

datarescue is pushing IDA Pro as "free software" but is offering only a severely crippled demo for free, no source code, and it's only available to for certain purposes.

It seems they're violating pretty much every rule in the book.

Certainly not the first time a company has taken the name of freedom in vain, of course.

Not necessarily. At some point, they're going to start using tamper resistant hardware. Good luck mod-chipping that. The only hole you can actually count on, is digital-to-analogue-to-digital conversion, to get data out of your "trusted" box and into an ordinary computer. That might be fine for ebook pirates, but it's going to be one hell of a PITA for daily life.

Rather than planning to spend tens or hundreds of hours on work-arounds when this happens, it would make sense to donate tens or hundreds of hours of your wages to the EFF or similar organisations which are working to prevent this problem from prevailing in the first place.

Anyway, think that is a mistake doing that, even leaving the "free speech" argumentation on a side. More clients means more ways to access means more people that is at the very least aware of them, and a far richer network. Of course, they could had seen that a dangerous percent of the clients of that networks weren't their own client, but still that was not the right reaction.

Sun also pay $10,000 to FSF per year in patronage dues.

And on the flip side, Sun funds SCO.

Sun also pay $10,000 to FSF per year in patronage dues.

And on the flip side, Sun funds SCO.

Yeah, I know. I was replying to the comment that being able to specify a driver license as non-GPL is useless because all drivers must be GPL. That's entirely wrong, of course.

It dosn't matter if the distribution is "public" or not. Distributing to one other party is still "distribution".

Bullshit.

According to the FSF, anyhow. I figure they'd know about these sorts of things...

c.

IBM Public License, Version 1.0

This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The IBM Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL. For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

By the way, that same FSF page says the same about IBM's other open source license, the Common Public License, used in Eclipse.

I hope that a future version of the GPL will allow LGPL-style linking with code covered by GPL-incompatible "free software" licenses in cases where no proprietary software is linked in or perhaps that a future version of the GPL will address software patent problems in a way that is compatible with the IBM Public License and the Apache 2 License.

In the meantime, to me, the advantages of Postfix are less than the disadvantages of the obstacles to future code recycling. If the incompatabilities could be fixed by a change to either the GPL or the IPL, and if enough of the hype about postfix proved to be real, I would probably switch to postfix.

I know I am a statistically insignificant sample, but there are others, mostly developers, who care about being able to copy code between free software projects in general and GPL compatability in particular. So, Postfix gain that much more usage and support if and when this incompatability is resolved, such as, for the short term, by adding some exceptions for the GPL, as the CUPS project did.

From the GPL:

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.

Note the phrase "conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise)..."

By agreeing to "donate" to a patent holder, you might be endangering your rights to distribute under the GPL.

Maybe this would be good reading right now.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

Under the GPL everyone deserves freedom, even those that do things that many do not like. That's freedom people. While not perfect the alternative is much worse.

I'm thankful for the line "Free as in speech."

It needn't become popular, it only needs to become free.

I think it is unethical to taint the free software movment with this dogma.

RMS is the Free Software movement. To complain about him "tainting" it is like complaining about Bill Gates "tainting" the Windows movement. You might not agree with everything RMS says (even I don't, and I'm considered by many to be a Free Software evangelist), but he started the Free Software Foundation and is its mouthpiece.

Free software, in this context, means something other than what you think it does. (You have the inadequacy of the English language to thank for your confusion.)

> Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses

Sure! Published software should be free software. To make it free software, you need to release it under a free software license.

Unless you think he's joining the FSF to bring it down from the inside?

• Is not limited to the GPL
  
• Is well defined and agreed upon by many many programmers, users, and organizations
  
• Is not met by SUN's Java implementation
  

"How is unethical to want to get paid for your work?"

It is very ethical to get paid for your work. The same way a mathematician or physicist are paid for their findings. But, it is unethical not to share the results of your work with the society.

I recommend anyone interested on these subjects to read "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", Selleing free software, and "Why software should be Free"

"How is unethical to want to get paid for your work?"

It is very ethical to get paid for your work. The same way a mathematician or physicist are paid for their findings. But, it is unethical not to share the results of your work with the society.

I recommend anyone interested on these subjects to read "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", Selleing free software, and "Why software should be Free"

The FSF advocates releasing libraries under the GPL, not the LGPL, so the idea that a widget set "should" be released under the LGPL is debateable at best.

The only purpose of the LGPL is to allow code to be exploited for non-free software. Why should Linux developers want that? If they did, we wouldn't have the kernel taint system, and the kernel and its drivers would be LGPL.

Seriously, I don't think the Linux kernel supports anything other than the standard Unix filesystem layout.

The linux kernel will look at /sbin/init for its first process if you don't specify a location for it with init=/somewhere/else in the kernel arguments (given with lilo, grub, loadlin, or whatever loader you use.) If you specify a -b argument, it tries to start /sbin/sulogin before that. That's all Linux knows of the filesystem (and how to handle request for it, of course.)

Oh, and it knows about /proc and /dev, but they could be mounted anywhere as far as the kernel is concerned. It only knows about their contents (because it generates them, for /dev only in the case of devfs.)

Perhaps you are confused with system files such as GNU init, GNU libc, GNU bash, and so on? Perhaps what you call the Linux kernel is in fact mostly GNU then. Please do some reading before making fun of RMS, just because he wants to make a better world.

A quote from the link: [I]f 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. Please help us, by calling the operating system GNU/Linux.

Here's the text of the article to relieve the stress from the site. Slashdot operators: please link to it from the feature.

Introducing the RMS-Lint

Introduction

A new tool aims to revolutionize the way people communicate with the famous free software evangelist Richard M. Stallman, (also known by his initials - "RMS"). Its project leader Shlomi Fish has more to say of it:

"RMS-Lint is called RMS-Lint because like most lints it warns on many things that are obviously not errors, because there's a chance that they are. RMS-Lint is an interactive speller that runs over the document word by word with a sophisticated look-ahead and look-behind and warns the user over any word or combination of words that may irritate Stallman, or otherwise will be frowned upon by him."

RMS-Lint's Rules

In accordance to the Free Software Foundation's list of words to avoid and other documents available on the FSF Site, the following rules are recognized by RMS-Lint:

• Warns on every use of the term "Linux" not preceded by "GNU/". This is due to the fact that Stallman advocates using "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux" to refer to the entire operating system. It especially warns on "the Linux kernel" (because the kernel part is redundant as Linux is just the kernel).

  Legitimate use of the term "Linux" to refer to just the kernel are also warned about, but can be overridden.

• Warns on every use of the term "open source" and even the word "open". Replacements are "free software", "free", "revealed", "viewable", and the bootload of synonyms from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". Also warns on the terms "closed-source" or "closed".

• Warns on every use of the term "free" for fear it may be used to imply costlessness. As for legitimate uses of the term ("free as in free speech"), it should be noted that being a lint, RMS-Lint attempts to cover every possible error, not just the ones that actually are such. Replacements are "liberal", "libre", "costless", "gratis", and you also have an option to ignore it.

• Warns on every use of the term "pirate" or "piracy". It is our belief that when talking to Dr. Stallman, people won't usually wish to talk about the sea-faring robbers, but instead on illegitimate copying of one form of media or another. Thus, RMS-Lint warns on every such use and suggests the alternatives of "illegal copier/copying", or "bucanneer".

• Warns on every use of "Intellectual Proprety" or "IP" (a common short form of it). The developers of RMS-Lint realize that IP can also mean the "Internet Protocol" (as in "IP address", "my IP is '192.168.1.1'"), but we believe that when corresponding to RMS, such use will be relatively uncommon, and does not justify risking mentioning "intellectual property" to him.

• And much, much more...

Opinions on RMS-Lint

Eric S. Raymond, a long time friend of Stallman, and the chief leader of the open source movement, expressed a great deal of content from the availability of this tool. "I've been waiting for such a thing all my life. Communicating with Richard has become more and more difficult, and RMS-Lint can easily make it much better."

Raymond's long time collaborator Bruce Perens also expressed happiness that RMS-Lint has become available. "Modern-day open source enthusiasts find it more and more difficult to communicate with Richard Stallman due to his terminological whims. RMS-Lint is just the tool that can help them validate their E-mails for RMS' correctness."

Meanwhile, Richard Stallman himself expressed dismay from this project: "RMS-Lint is an unsatisfying symptomatic cure for a big problem.

those are the people that really deserve the money.

Let's see:

1- The Free Software Foundation
2- The Open Source Initiative
3- The Open Source Development Labs (They employ Linus Thorvalds)
4- The Source forge

That's only a few of the more obvious ones. I'm pretty sure they'd knew what to do with a few hundred million dollars each.

And yes, the EU could decide to fund various universities with that money for various open-source projects, or set up their own foundation to best spend the cash on worthy F/OSS developers.

> Remember, the GPL says basically "If you create a copy of give it to someone, anyone who gets a copy can request the source code from you and you have to provide it" It really is that simple.

I don't remember it saying that, because it doesn't. Then again, I've read the GPL, especially Section 3 and you - oh so very clearly - haven't.