Slashdot Mirror

That's correct. It's not a new concept, really. It's the basic principle behind laws in any free society. For example, in the U.S., residents have the freedom to own and carry guns, but there are restrictions on their use of those guns. For example, they are restricted from firing their guns randomly near crowds of people. Those restrictions are in place to protect the freedom of others to assemble in crowds without getting killed by stray bullets. Limiting the freedom of individuals maximizes the freedom of a group.

As far as what GPL zealots say, who cares? People shouldn't pay significant attention to zealots anyway.

As for the rest of us (including RMS, apparently), the idea that we think selling free software is somehow wrong is a myth.

And as for the misuse of the English word "free", RMS has already made it quite clear that he doesn't really like it -- it's just an artifact of the English language's lack of a word like the French word "libre" (which is not the same word as "gratuit", although both words translate to "free"). For those of us who understand more than one spoken language, it's -- again -- nothing new.

donations to fsf can be done here.

It looks as if Red Hat is tipping its fedora to the Debian way. They will, I'm sure, continue to put quality free software out, but they are going to leave it to other people to distribute it. In fact, lots of great Red Hat tools have been finding their way into Debian already and it did not cost Red Hat a dime. Fedora will give you your free beer and keep you in the Red Hat family. Red Hat, it seems, is going to rely on you. Go make it happen.

...no feature is as important as freedom.

Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't suggesting the GPL suggested this. I had simply remembered the FSF suggesting it a long time ago.

Ender

Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't suggesting the GPL suggested this. I had simply remembered the FSF suggesting it a long time ago.

Ender

Pretty much the same here. I have Slackware 9.1, but not on by best pc.

After reading this article, I went ahead and bought a membership at fsf.org. It's $60 a year since I'm a student.

FSF Website

Donating is easy. You can even buy stuff that will put money in their hands.

Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.

I think you'd have to take a very limited view of the term "commercial interest" to come to that conclusion. For example, even the good ol' FSF considers the latest version of Apple's Public Source License "Free", so it seems hard to argue that Darwin doesn't qualify as a "Free Unix". And given that Darwin is at the core of Apple's OS X, which has a larger userbase than Linux, and an active developer community, it's hard to argue that there isn't enormous "commerical interest" in Darwin.

And what, pray tell, was the genesis of Darwin? It's safe to say that the commercializability of the BSD license probably has something to do with it, given the prominent role the "BSD Subsystem" plays in Darwin's architecture. So maybe it's shortsighted and hasty to call those arguements "theoretical" and "automatically incorrect".

and buy a lots of gifts for lucky draw. Nothing like the pleasure of lucky drawing. :)

My company will attach some donation forms of charities along with bonus, so that we can remember to help the needed. I'd recommend you attach these two forms:

FSF
EFF

:)

RTFL:: the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.

If I have legal problems that prevent me from agreeing with the GPL, I cannot use SAMBA on my network, period.

Actually, I don't think that's true. The way the GPL is worded, you can use (install, configure, run, etc.) GPLed software any way you want... but if you want to distribute binaries or modified versions of the software to someone else, you have to agree to the GPL first.

Here's the part of Section 0 in the GPL that talks about use:

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 fact that SCO still has a Linux kernel source RPM on their website after publically declaring that they don't agree to the license should make for an entertaining copyright infringement suit by IBM, OSDL, SGI, etc.

Yeah, I did think that was weird. But I suspect it's because the FSF wants contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs to assign their copyrights to the FSF. I'll guess that at least to the extent SCO copied and distributed IBM-created programs, if IBM had to assign its rights to the FSF, it is, then, the FSF that would enforce the GPL.

The effect is legal minefields, and blockage of development. The inability to create non-trivial technology without infringing on a patent-collecting conglomerate such as IBM.

As another poster has pointed out, patents are indeed used to entirely stifle a lines of development.

There is a description which I feel describes where patents are valid. Imagine a directed graph that is a tree. Advancing along tree's paths implies technological progress. A vertex stands for a point at which new developments can be made given the developments made to that point. The radiating edges from a vertex lead to the next step in progress. If we are technologically progressing and are at vertex V, then only developments which are at least 2 edge-lengths away from vertex V can be considered potentially patentable. Any vertex (development) adjacent to V cannot.

My point is that many patents are not 'deep'. If there are a million developmenets we can make from our current situation, merely finding one that noone else has seen is not worthy of a patent. A patent must show considereable progress, and not just be the next stepping stone.

Patents do not promote innovation; most inventions would have been created regardless of the concept of patents existing. Patents' microscopic value is in their ability to impede the progress of others; this hindering is not healthy for macroscopic technological development.

Listen to one of the speeches Stallman has made on the topic of patents.

What you have described is closer to free (libre) sofware, not open source. Copyleft protected software is about enforcing the liberty of software users. Take a look at the definition . I belive others (not the FSF) have suggested using patents licenses to require all implementations to be free (as in speech).

Patents are ultimatly a bargin between the public and an inventor. When the public isn't getting a good deal, it is time to go back to the table. Where is my buy one congress critter get one free coupon?

What you have described is closer to free (libre) sofware, not open source. Copyleft protected software is about enforcing the liberty of software users. Take a look at the definition . I belive others (not the FSF) have suggested using patents licenses to require all implementations to be free (as in speech).

Patents are ultimatly a bargin between the public and an inventor. When the public isn't getting a good deal, it is time to go back to the table. Where is my buy one congress critter get one free coupon?

What you have described is closer to free (libre) sofware, not open source. Copyleft protected software is about enforcing the liberty of software users. Take a look at the definition . I belive others (not the FSF) have suggested using patents licenses to require all implementations to be free (as in speech).

Patents are ultimatly a bargin between the public and an inventor. When the public isn't getting a good deal, it is time to go back to the table. Where is my buy one congress critter get one free coupon?

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

That is NOT what free software means, I suggest YOU check out the FSF definition. The BSD license is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free Software License.

You are correct that anyone can make a proprietary fork of BSD software, but software under the BSD license is most cetainly free, although not copy-lefted.

That is NOT what free software means, I suggest YOU check out the FSF definition. The BSD license is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free Software License.

You are correct that anyone can make a proprietary fork of BSD software, but software under the BSD license is most cetainly free, although not copy-lefted.

--

That depends what you mean by open-source. Democracy doesn't depend on voting software being open-source in the sense of the official definition (which is virtually the same as the FSF's concept of copyleft), but the source code itself should be published.

Voters don't need the right to make unlimited copies and derivative works (free as in beer/speech) of voting software. We do need to be sure that our votes are counted correctly, which means being able to look over the source code of the software, compile it, and reverse-engineer any hardware components.

Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system. People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.

The record industry is doomed because we no longer need any industry to record data (musical or otherwise) thanks to personal computers which even using entirely free software can be better then entire recording studios few years ago. We don't need multi-million-dollar equipment, so there is no point in centralization. RIAA knows that and they are desperately trying to do anything to save their obsolete business model. They can only be safe if there is DRM everywhere and people need a license to publish their work in a way readable with most of the equipment of the future (Palladium/TCPA/etc.). In the past we needed the recording industry becuse they were the only ones who had the equipment. In the future we'll need the recording industry becuse they will be the only ones who will have the encryption keys. Thank god we have FSF, EFF and similar organizations fighting for our freedom because I'm sure as hell I don't want to live in such a future.

I found the article extremely insightful and persuasive, and I would urge everyone to read it carefully. It's important to note that the author is NOT in favor of the hellish "Secure Internet" of the future:

>"Certainly you can't be advocating this!"
>Well, duh . . . of course not! But this is where
>we are going, unless we change course, and soon.

He is absolutely right, and people who say otherwise are burying their heads in the sand. But it is important to realize that we as individuals can have an impact on whether this happens or not, based on our actions. We must act, and act in concert, to protect our freedom.

Our strategy must be to strengthen the countervailing forces that act as a check against the power of the "ownership class" which seeks to recentralize power in their hands. We can do this by building up a community of people who get benefits from the Free Internet, understand those benefits, and are politically organized to resist the coming attacks on the Free Internet.

Encouraging the growth and acceptance of GNU/Linux is a big part of this. Encouraging the growth and acceptance of P2P is another part. Educating the average computer user about his or her rights and freedoms is another part, and organizing ourselves politicalcally is the final and most challenging stage. We have numbers on our side, they have money. What can we do to start? Join the FSF and the EFF.

If we get organized we can prevail. If we don't, the power of the Internet to empower the individual will slip away. The decicion is ours. As Walker concludes:

>That decision will determine whether the long
>dawn of the Internet was, itself, a false dawn,
>or will continue to brighten into a new day for
>humanity.

No, but it's the job of the people who brought the packages into the distribution in the first place to keep up on licensing issues? (And don't say Nobody can spend that much time-- Debian's admins can and do.)

Also, keep in mind that the GPLv2's recommended boilerplate says in part, This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version (emphasis mine). Not everybody code maintainer uses that exact phrasing, but a great many do, and should GPLv2 be found to be invalid but the maintainer is uncontactable or uninterested or unconscious or whatnot, that phrasing gives an automatic out to packagers for whenever GPLv3 (or GPLv2.1, or whatever) is drafted.

LPI will tentatively be holding a number of events at the WSIS conference in December, including an open source workshop and a certification exam lab; it is also our intention to put a Linux "live" CD in the hands of every WSIS delegate. We will have at least six people at the conference, working to ensure that the delegations are capable of overcoming the anti-open-source FUD which is no doubt going on.

To that end, LPI has submitted a commentary on the WSIS activities, now part of the official WSIS documentation, that is stirring some interest. Anyone who is interested in helping LPI's efforts at WSIS is invited to subscribe to the LPI@WSIS mailing list.

The FSF is participating through the WSIS Working Group on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks; RMS is on the group's steering committee and Georg Greve of FSF Europe is one of the co-ordinators.

If they can distribute the binary profitably for $6.95 then they should have no problem distributing the source for an additional $6.95. Also, as explained in the GPL FAQ, you must provide "equivalent access" to source and binary.

For instance, I don't have a clue whether or not its ok to use a dynamically linked GPL library with a closed source app. Honestly I don't even really know how I would find answers to this short of posting here or hiring a lawyer.

You can't just link your app to a library licensed under the GPL if you're not obeying the GPL yourself. But you CAN link to library licensed under the LGPL, even if your software is closed source.

I think the licenses are pretty clear, to read them is the best way to know what it's all about.

For instance, I don't have a clue whether or not its ok to use a dynamically linked GPL library with a closed source app. Honestly I don't even really know how I would find answers to this short of posting here or hiring a lawyer.

You can't just link your app to a library licensed under the GPL if you're not obeying the GPL yourself. But you CAN link to library licensed under the LGPL, even if your software is closed source.

I think the licenses are pretty clear, to read them is the best way to know what it's all about.

Would you mind telling us which company this is?

It really is very simple. If you want to use GPL software, then obey the rules. GPL is to benefit the people who release GPLd software, it's not meant to be a free lunch for all the parasitic leecher-companies out there.

I often have to sign an NDA, sometimes just to get a job interview. If the terms are reasonable, I have no qualms about this: the agreement is just a written form of an implicit agreement I see as part of my professional ethics. If somebody trusts you with sensitive information, it is simply wrong to be careless about passing that information on.

It occurs to me this argument is partially about the attitude gap between the open-source (or "free") software community and the closed-source (or "commercial") software community. Thing is, these two communities don't have to be enemies. Yeah, some OS people think that commercial software is evil, and some commercial software people think that the OS movement is economically clueless. But the reality is that no one model is the best possible one for all kinds of software. Some projects will prosper if they're driven by volunteers who just want to advance the state of the art. Others will only succeed if they're driven by well-capitalized entrepeneurs out to make a buck. Neither model is likely to go away, and I predict that more and more companies will come to rely on both.

Obviously, thousands and thousands and thousands of people can do this. We have in GNU/Linux and the BSD's OS' which are either equal to or far superior to their proprietary equivalents.

Service-based business models have cropped up around Free Software. Indeed, Free Software is the best software to use if you want to engage in a service-based business model, since it makes service easier, as bugs are more easy to track and fix. Furthermore, many companies donate some of their programmers to work on Free Software, to fill (or help fill) needs that they may have. Finally, many programmers contribute to Free Software on a part-time basis.

Actually vim is not an official GNU project, in that the copyrights are not owned by the fsf. Of course it is GPL'd and most people prefer to use it on a GNU system :-)

That's not at all true. For a long time the FSF got most of its money by selling tapes of GNU code. They continue to sell copies of GNU software on their website, so RMS would be pretty hypocritical to criticize others for selling free software. (Hypocricy has never struck me as being one of RMS's failings; he's unusually true to his principles.) There's a page about selling free software on the FSF web site, and it should clear up confusion on this matter. The FSF positively encourages anyone who's distributing Free Software to charge as much for it as they think they can get away with. A particularly salient quote from that page (emphasis is theirs):

So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

That sure doesn't sound like an objection to selling software to me!

When I say Free, I don't mean that this stuff isn't going to cost money because I realize that it will. Actually, the Free Software Foundation is a not for profit organization that helps support the development of Free software. There are many ways to donate and many people are already doing it. I have my employer automatically deduct a donation from my paycheck (and my employer pays the administrative fees). Some employers even match the donations of their employees. Check into it.

I have licenses to all those issues that SCO is suing IBM for. If I didn't have them, I certainly wouldn't indemnify them.

So do I buddy. It's right here.

aaditya@member.fsf.org

I call bullshit. You need to go RTFWebsite

ESR has already stated how he feels about being the guidon holder for open source.

1. Take my job, please.

2. Understand my job, please.

Further, if you can find someone who will do all of that, and perhaps more, you need to send him an e-mail, because he wants to know about it. Why not use this as a starting point when you're looking.

As for what ESR has done for the Open Source Community-at-large, ponder this, batman: You need the idealists, the pragmatists, and yes, even the more wild. Why? Because the community they're speaking in the name of, and the communities they're speaking to are just as diverse. It will be these men, and the relevant foundations that write the amici curiae in support of Linux, the GPL, or Open Source in general, when the time is necessary.

When was the last time you said thanks?

From FSFs license list:

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.


Ciaran O'Riordan

aaditya@member.fsf.org

Where does the line get drawn between physical property and intellectual property, and what rights do you have if you HAD purchased it, but it's gone now?

We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear. We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of the disjunctive license of Perl.

The problems are matters of wording, not substance. There is a revised version of the Artistic License (dubbed "The Artistic License 2.0") which is a free software license, and even compatible with the GNU GPL. This license is being considered for use in Perl 6. If you are thinking of releasing a program under the Artistic License, please do investigate other GPL-compatible, Free Software licensing options listed here first.
[link]

make that GNU/linux

thanks to RMS

Right now we need strong language; we need people willing to put it on the line and kick business and government.

You're telling me this hotheaded rant is somehow a constructive contribution to the fray? I think I much prefer Linus' "smoking crack" comment (humorous, short, to the point) and the much more level-headed responses given by RMS and the FSF. I also very much appreciate Red Hat's contribution. ESR sounds like an angry 12-year-old.

Right now we need strong language; we need people willing to put it on the line and kick business and government.

You're telling me this hotheaded rant is somehow a constructive contribution to the fray? I think I much prefer Linus' "smoking crack" comment (humorous, short, to the point) and the much more level-headed responses given by RMS and the FSF. I also very much appreciate Red Hat's contribution. ESR sounds like an angry 12-year-old.

Lois, she is implying that either Open-Source is based on the destruction/weakening of IP rights, or encourages the violation of IP rights, and you wouldn't want to be one of those kinds of people, now would you?

Nice troll, the whole question only makes sense if you don't examine it.

Some of what Microsoft and others consider "IP rights" deserve to be destroyed. Microsoft should not have the right to tell you how to use their software. I can do what I want with any of my other property. I can read a book anyway I want including out loud in a room full of friends, lend it to friends and sell it. These are things Microsoft does not allow you to do with your software. How copyright law was perverted into this strange, one user at a time, non transferable, you can't say bad things about Microsoft, straight jacket is beyond me. How Microsoft considers the restrictions they put on their users a "right" they have is also beyond me. The free software foundation has a much better idea about what your rights are, check it out yourself, you might learn something, even if you are an evil troll.

I certianly do not encourage the violation of any law, regardless of how silly. When that law is morraly wrong, I will violate it myself and encourage others to do so. Never let bad laws make you a bad person.

Fortunately, I'm not caught in any of Microsfot's evil snares and I don't have to figure out ways to defeat them, because free software is all about sharing methods of getting things done. I don't need Microsoft's crap and I don't recomend it to anyone. Free software has produced whole operating systems that are easy to use and of exceptional quality. I own my computer and all the softare that runs on it in a way that terrifies the likes of Microsoft. The few restrictions the authors place on my distribution of that software has little effect on me. The whole "IP rights" you think of make no sense whatsoever to me because I don't need anything from people who would violate what I consider my rights.

What Lois says implies a violation of my ability to distribute code under the GPL. That would be a terrible violation of everyone's IP rights.

To suggest that such organizations should actual spend more time trying to figure out what is right, or what is the best course of action for all will just bring a harangue about one's naivity.

More people need to know that this is how politics work. Most are taught that voting is doing their part in politics, but that isn't even half of it. People need to "associate" with others of like mind or like profession to help exert influence. This is the ideal behind which political parties were created.

I actually wish more people would become members of an association if only to vote for who the Board Members of their PAC should be. This is the real way to effect laws in the US as it is the Board Members who have oversite of the PAC's lobbyist(s). I wish more geeks (no offense, to me it's a compliment) would think of that next time they're at Frys buying yet another $30 hub or wireless mouse. It's not money itself that is the key, it's where the money goes. If you're sick of stuff like this bullroading and want to change it, you know how to do it.

I'll step off the soapbox now...

Almost entirely unrelated, but I became an associate member of the Free Software Foundation today :-)... so at least I can feel I'm doing my bit to help such matters.

If this kinda thing makes you angry, put your money where your mouth is and join the FSF...