Slashdot Mirror

Given that you undoubtedly agreed to allow the proprietary software to do a full body cavity search on you when you clicked through the EULA, the publisher has the right to do just that. Even if you're using a "legal" copy.

YOU have the right to refuse to use binary-only, spyware infected, jump-through-hoops licenced programs. Use Free Software instead.

"But I depend on the proprietary software to do my job." Then support the Free Software movement so someday you won't need to depend on proprietary software anymore.

There are two BSD licenses. The original BSD license had a clause that said that if you mentioned features of the software in ads, you had to mention that the code came from UCB. The current BSD license does not have this clause.

The FSF says that the original BSD license is not compatible with the GPL, because of this clause. Here is where FSF says this.

The license that Caldera used when they released some of the code Parens is talking about is very similar to the original BSD license. Here is that license.

If the FSF is correct about the advertising clause making such a license incompatible with the GPL, then it means that Linux does have a problem. When you mix code under the GPL and code that is under an incompatible license, you have to get special permission from the copyright owners of the GPL'ed code. You can't just take GPL'ed code and use it in such a mixed environment.

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.

This argument is frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a violation of professional obligation for Mr Heise or any other lawyer to submit it to a court. If it were true, no copyright license could permit the licensee to make multiple copies of the licensed program. That would make not just the GPL "illegal." Mr Heise's supposed theory would also invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL, MIT/X11, and all other free software licenses. It would invalidate the Microsoft Shared Source license. It would also eliminate Microsoft's method for the distribution of the Windows operating system, which is pre-loaded by hard drive manufacturers onto disk drives they deliver by the hundreds of thousands to PC manufacturers. The licenses under which the disk drive and PC manufacturers make multiple copies of Microsoft's OS would also, according to Mr Heise, violate the law. Redmond will be surprised.

......to BSD. Wha?!? They own that too?

Legal response

After reading the above, you can return to ignoring the whole SCO problem.

RMS is wrong about freedom. He is wrong because he requires the very existence of the thing he despises in order to allow his "Free Software" to exist, copyright. Ok, so he calls it copyleft, semantic twaddle.

Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''

van Rossum :

I guess one difference is that it has a long history, since it was first distributed in 1991. In those days nobody talked about "open source", and Richard Stallman [founder of the Free Software Foundation] wasn't very well known and the GNU General Public License didn't exist.

parent poster (Slothrup) :

WTF? The GPL didn't exist in 1991? I guess I was hallucinating when I was using GNU Emacs and GCC in the 80s.

Yes, I was also surprised at this large factual error.

GPL Version 2 : June 1991

GPL Version 1 : February 1989

Earlier forms of Copyleft licenses also existed from before 1989. The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985 and has of course always released its work as 'Free Software'.

p.s. Slothrup, I suggest evening tea at Miss Quoad's would be a suitable punishment for van Rossum's inaccuracy. As a man who named his language after an English comedy group, I'm sure he has the required sensibility to appreciate the full horror of this particular engagement.

• 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.)

Isn't Linux supposed to be GPL? Make copies for each system. Oh, but Redhat could be adding in special non-GPL applications (it's not a violation of the GPL to run a non-GPL application on a GPL OS). And I presume they are adding in support. Do you really need that support? Why not download Debian or Slackware, install a system and configure it as you like, and then duplicate it to all your servers. Then if you need a special non-GPL application, buy it for just the servers you need it. Of course if you need that application on every server, you're probably in for a lot of cost, anyway.

No, a copyleft is a license that is enforced through copyright law but that mitigates most of the harmful effects of copyright on software.

I think 90% of what you're concerned about is covered by the FSF's policy of getting the copyright to the code assigned to them in writing. If the work is being done out of a company's offices, does the FSF not also ask for documentation that the company is approving this donation of code? Of course, the Linux kernel may not have it so good, because Linus does nothing like this that I'm aware of.

Again, much of what you're saying SCO is claiming is not stuff I've read myself, and I've been trying to keep up on this case. If you have links to where they've explicitly retracted their contributions or those made by their employees in good faith, let me know. As I understand it, the things they're claiming are infringements aren't even things they wrote-- but things they think they have the rights to because of some old contract with Sequent or IBM.

So the GPL violates copyright law, eh? I thought the GPL is copyleft.

From the FSF website:

Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well.
...
In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.

So why is anyone talking about copyright When the GPL is specifically designed to provide copyleft? :)

Yeesh guys, go easy on these people. They bust their asses every day for us. Their GPL enforcement queue is usually about 50 cases deep. They're on the phones and on capital hill every day educating and lobbying industry groups and politicians. Say what you will about the GPL, you don't even have to like it or agree with it and perhaps you even think RMS is a narrow minded prick (for the most part RMS isn't even involved in the day to day operations at the fsf). They are making life easier for all of us.

Rather than boast about all of the work they do, they quietly work behind the scenes just so you can play Monday morning quarterback. They have one fulltime systems administrator who is *INCREDIBLY* overworked. They are doing everything they can to keep the boat together. Last year they were over $315,000 in the red. Thanks to the FSF associate program and some skillful fundraising they're back in the black.

Want to help? Go get your FSF associate membership. It's not that expensive and it goes a long way towards helping to protect your freedoms.

Incidentally, this is also old news. They had MD5 sums verified, and the servers were patched up and back online almost two full weeks ago. None of the software was trojaned.

Who am I? Just another hacker who bothered to pay for an associate membership (#1142)...

One would think that you believe FSF is a wealthy company, rather than a poor nonprofit. But you could help with that.

...band together. I have to say I was a little bit shocked to find out that the EFF only had 8500 members. Is that the best we could do? Are there only 8500 people who care about the fate of the 'Net? And the story for free software is even more sad. How many people here run Linux or Apache or Mozilla or OpenOffice or other free software? I'd bet Slashdot is coming close to having over 50,000 comments on the SCO debacle. And yet the FSF has only ~1,000 associate members. It's almost depressing.

You can not force your employer's code to be GPL by merely incorporating GPL code into it.

This has happened before. The FSF website even discusses this eventuality. The copyright authors of the code could sue your employer for copyright violation for putting the code into your employer's product in violation of their license, but that does not make the employer's product become GPL.

Interesting... Can you point to a link? I've just spent fifteen minutes scouring the FSF's website, and the closest I came was this FAQ for the GPL.

I was under the impression that in the case of a breach of contract, a judge could order the offender to comply with the terms of the GPL. But of course, IANAL, and I'd appreciate a correction.

yours

That's not quite true. Part of your derivitive work may also be a derivitive of some other work, which isn't available under a GPL compatible license. In this case, you _cannot_ distribute your work, and a term in the GPL is restricting from making that expression.

This is true, and it appears that RMS was very wise indeed to add this restriction, since this is the very restriction that really hamstrings SCO's attempts to hijack Linux. This restriction means that, in light of SCO's claims that an additional license is needed to run Linux, SCO cannot distribute Linux under the terms of the GPL, which means that their ongoing distribution of the kernel infringes the copyrights of all of the other kernel contributors (including IBM, which is suing over this point).

Even better, from a Free Software point of view, it means that if SCO's claims are proved valid, *no one* will be able to distribute Linux, which is a powerful incentive for the removal of the offending code. To do otherwise would allow people to add code to free software under a variety of licenses, which they would have the ability to change later.

So essentially, the GPL does not by itself restrict freedom of expression of derivitive works. But take two GPL-like licenses with different phrasing and then you are restricted. Which can be a substantial PITA.

Of course, it would be nice if mixing code licensed under another free license with GPL'd code were easier, but in most cases when the FSF says a license is incompatible with the GPL, it's not because of phrasing, it's because there's a real danger that someone could use the combination to exploit the GPL'd code in a way inconsistent with the intent of the GPL. It's not even an issue of trying to force GPLness on other licenses because there's a pretty good list of compatible licenses, some of which the FSF doesn't like and wouldn't recommend, but do not pose any risk to the GPL code that may be linked to code licensed under them.

First off: The government should subsidize Free Software not open source software as a whole, if it subsidizes anything.

Second: I don't think that the governemt should have any direct control over Free Software or the manufacture therof. Police and fire departments, as well as schools and other public institutions, are completely government controlled. I don't want the government to be able to make arbitrary rules for the code that I want to write as Free Software, which could feasibly happen if the government subsidized Free Software in the same way as the aforementioned institutes are.

Another thing to remember: Free Software is Free Speech, not Free Beer. Programmers can (and do) make money off of thier Free Software. Should the government subsidize commercial entities? I don't particularly agree with airline bailouts or other corporate gimmes that the government spends my tax money on; I would disagree just as much if the government was giving me money to write and sell Free Software as a subsidation (if I were selling it for profit as well.)

Now, I do agree that it would be nice to set up something like a grant system for Free Software programmers. I could write the government with a proposal for such-and-such program, get a government endorsement and some grant money, and write the code up. It would also be great if there were government coding standards that participants would have to keep to (think GNU coding standards.) This would garuntee that the taxpayer's money is going to a good quality product.

But I trust the government as far as I can throw it. The implementation I described would be ideal, but I'm sure that if the government got into software, it would just make a mess. The government is already creating enough of a problem as far as intellectual "property" laws and software patents. I don't think I want it meddling with my development plans any more.

Oh well. Just my 2c.

SCO seems to think that they can somehow steal all the GPL'ed code in the world. Absurd. Whatever their "intellectual property" is, they're not going to get any money from a community that has worked against proprietary moneyleechers the whole time.

Words fail to express my anger for SCOs attempts on Free Software. All I can do is donate to FSF.

ta-ta

GPL compatibility is like a one-way gift. You bow to the "all-GPL" crowd by allowing them to use your code on their terms, but they don't reciprocate by giving you the right to use their code on your terms.

Sort of like BSD-style licenses, aka proprietary-compatible licenses.

I don't think that the parent put that very well. Let me try to explain it better (if he means to say what I think he means to say):

The GPL implicitly says that it's not good to have a non-restrictive license (such as the BSD license) because it tries to turn code with such a license into GPL'ed code. On the other hand, it's also not right to have a license with more restrictions than the GPL (because it won't work with GPL'ed code). For instance, the major criticism by the FSF of the previous version of the APSL was that you always had to publish the source if you changed the code (even when you didn't distribute the binaries outside of your organisation). However, there is nothing in the Free Software philosophy that says that this is not right (this restriction is in accordance with all freedoms that define Free Software). A programmer who is more extreme than RMS might want to see to it that every change is given back to the community. To this purpose, he can devise a sort of extended GPL license. Unfortunately for him, code under such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. GPL'ed code can never be used together with code that has more restrictions, while it can restrict code with fewer restrictions (code with a GPL-compatible license).

The BSD license is different. A BSD-licensed codebase can be extended with more restricted code. It's up to to the maintainer of the main tree and individual users to decide whether they accept the license restrictions that the new contributions bring (which may only apply to contributed code itself). On the other hand, you can also contribute code with less restrictions (public domain code, for instance) and it can keep its original (lack of a) license. There is no one-way street towards a particular set of restrictions.

To recap, GPL compatibility can only lead to GPL'ed code. You can never benefit from GPL'ed code without adopting the same set of restrictions for your own code. BSD compatibility does nothing more than allow your code to be used with BSD-licensed code. You have the choice to restrict your own code more, less or differently than the BSD-licensed code.

True.

The biggest difference is that someone can add their code to BSD code and do whatever the hell they want, while under the GPL they must GPL their new code.

True again. Someone can add his code to BDS code, and restrict my freedom to use the resulting derivative work. The hypothetical someone's extra freedom can only come at the expense of the freedom of others.

Complaining about the GPL's terms is a bit like complaining that you can't go around hitting others: giving you the freedom to punch others takes away those others' freedoms. Laws against assault aren't restrictions on your freedom, they are guarantees of everyone's freedom. It's the same way with the GPL.

The FSF has very carefully thought out its license, and crafted it to ensure that code protected by the GPL, and its derivatives, will always be free for anyone to copy, distribute and use. You are free to do anything you like with GPL'ed code, EXCEPT to restrict others from having the same freedoms the author gave you.

If you LIKE the idea that someone can use your code to establish a monopoly and lock out everyone else, you included, then you should definitely use something like a BSD license for your code. If that idea bothers you, look for another license.

I think I can clarify the FSF's reasoning behind the three objections to the ASPLv2:

1) It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.

The clearly stated goal of the FSF is to create a protected body of code which may never be hidden from users of the code. This is because they think it poor form for someone to refuse to share their code (i.e., proprietary coders). Because a proprietary coder does not play nice (by sharing code), they do not wish to play at all with that person and set up the "copyleft" license to keep propriety coders out of their game altogether.

2) It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.

This is simple game theory. If two players are going to play a game, the fairness of the rules is directly related to the rules being applied equally for both players. It dosen't matter if you don't like the judgemental tone of the word 'unfair' or not. If one player is granted rights that the other player is not granted, then the game is unfair by definition.

3) It is incompatible with the GPL.

This really is just a practical observation for maintainers of GPL software to know that they can't link in ASPL code with a GPL code base and redistribute the result (unless, of course, they are the copyright owners of said GPL code and grant an exception).

If I may make an observation, the reason that the FSF seems so prickly to you is because you haven't taken the time to know their motives and goals. It turns out that the Free Sofware Foundation has a very well defined philosophy (check their web site for details) which, in turn, allows them to publish some very 'definitive' papers on the compatibility or lack thereof of a given software license.

Plase mod parent down, it does not deserve Score 4, Insightful.

FSF's new comments on the license say something very interesting:

In version 2.0 of the APSL, the definition of "Externally Deployed" has been narrowed in a way that is appropriate for the respect of users' freedoms. It has always been the position of FSF that the freedom of Free Software is primarily for the users of that software. Technologies, like web applications, are changing the way that users interact with software. The APSL 2.0, like the Affero GPL, seeks to defend the freedom of those who use software in these novel ways, without unduly hindering the users' privacy nor freedom to use the software.

If you mean GPL'd software, no. According to this page, the FSF still considers APSLv2 incompatible with the GPL. Though they don't explain why. At some point, I really like to see a comprehensive listing of why each of the free-but-not-GPL-compatible licenses are designated such. I mean, it's all well an good for the GPL to say "It's not ok to use this license", but I find such a statement annoying without at least a brief note along the lines of "it's incompatible because it prevents you from doing $foo, which is allowed under the GPL" Or something.

I've changed all my licenses so that my software cannot be installed on SCO operating systems:

Maybe other free software developers will do the same?

Please explain to me how adding unreasonable restrictions is compatible with free software. Retard.

Well, it's not that hard. Anyone who can do a Windoze install can do Red Hat and the Red Hat is easier. Of course there's worlds of free help available through your local LUG. If your want your hand held and can't find a friend to do it, you can wait for an install fest or ask around for someone like me who will go to your house or business for a modest fee.

You are right about the distinction between the distros, but it's best to explain the whole free software thing first. You can do that in about 10 minutes. Intereste users can then read the free software site on their own. I've made a little newbie lectures, including "Where does free software come from." to sum it up for myself and others. After that, the different distros make sense and you can start to try and match the user with a distro that will make them happy.

I think that's what Ian was getting at, keeping the user informed and meeting their needs. It's the user's needs that are important. Everything possible should be done to make meeting those needs easy and the user should never be kept in the dark about the way things work. Lock-in is an evil thing and I hope he's not right about the intentions of some vendors.

Even if he's right, lock in is still difficult with free software. I recently moved a machine from Red Hat 7.3 to Debian stable and was able to keep all of my data. Some of the user configurations were off, but it was much easier than any Windoze move I've ever made.

Propriatory drivers and closed source software tacked onto free software definatly degrades the user experience. I've got a wireless network card from a company that touts, "Linux support". It's got some RPMs that may work on Red Hat 7.3 and 8.0, but I've had a very hard time making them run under Debian. It came with "source" that included a precompiled object module. I've had a hard time matching up that silly module with a particular kernel and I'm about fed up with it. I may try to set up a Red Hat box, but it will be a dead box that will have a kernel fixed for freaking ever. Changing the sofware around it will be a pain. That's not Red Hat's fault, it's the card maker's fault. It shows where things can go.

I'm concerned about the recent increase in GPL stories lately where companies that are embracing Linux are being carefully scrutinized. Maybe it's counterproductive to constantly play the hardline approach when Linux is finally starting to get decent drivers...

No, it's not bad at all. Anyone who distributes should be held liable for honoring the terms of the license under which they are given the permission to distribute. As Eben Moglen said, don't give up because we're a litle closer to the front of the bus (by settling for infringements and proprietary software). The goal is software freedom--the FSF wrote the GNU GPL to create a body of software that we could all share and modify freely so we can help make a better world. You don't need to worry about "chasing away companies" because it is their responsibility to comply with copyright law, just as it is the responsibility for those who distribute copies of songs to comply with copyright law. It is not your responsibility to look after Linksys' bottom line.

You should consider contributing to the FSF who handles a lot of GNU GPL infringement cases preventing them from going to court. I suspect that the terms of the GPL are simply unfamiliar to a lot of organizations who deal in GPL-covered works. This doesn't mean they're exempt from obeying the terms of the license, it just means they might need assistance in being compliant.

If a program can spit out code, notwithstanding code that does more than the minimum to complete the requested task, then the only creative element is the wizard user's decisions. Therefore it should belong to the user regardless what the license. Primarily because the wizard user has already paid for the creative elements of the development environment by purchasing the IDE.

If the code does more or differently from what the wizard user asks (like efficient design, or using one piece of code, where the wizard doesn't actually do anything but give the wizard user a security blanket), then stick that in a library and charge for the library. Otherwise that wizard is a contradiction in itself.

Stop trying to give users licensing heebie-jeebie, you can make your money otherwise (licensed libs), and quit trying to make creative people pay for their own creativity.

I have no problem making a buck on Free Software. Neither does FSF

I have a problem where someone tries to charge the developers. That's extortion.

Interesting to see how GSM data connections affect voice call pricing. With a laptop connected to GPRS enabled mobile phone it is already possible to use VoIP programs to get voice calls essentially free if a fixed monthly fee data connection is available.

Even with a data limit of 1M Bytes, two hours of voice are possible with 64kbit/s data rate. More hours are possible with compression, I believe GSM phones use about 8kbits/s and voice quality is still acceptable.

With a mobile phone that can run TCP/IP and some VoIP program like GNU oSIP voice calls can be free, so charging current prices works only if mobile operators can ban VoIP.

Why have you not stepped away from the words "Open Source"?

If you go here there is a venn-like diagram showing that Open Source is a broadly inclusive definition, and how the GPL that you push is a small part of the Open Source universe.

You had said on Techocrat.net:
"It is not the job of Linux advocates to support BSD"

At The Bazzar you said:
'The new BSD licence is great. It allows a GPL license to be added, and the code protected'.

And in the Open Group Open Source document you talk about "Assure that Open Source developers can participate in standards that are operated or facilitated by the Open Group, including the certification programs operated for those standards. This may require a special rate structure or coordination of corporate sponsorship for the Open Source project to go through certification.

Promote broad certification of Open Source software by encouraging certification of a publicly available and redistributable version of an Open Source program, rather than a particular vendor's instance of that program. This will allow multiple Linux vendors to coordinate their activities on certification, so that a larger collection of Open Source becomes certified than any one vendor would achieve on their own. "
This document ignores Open Source running on platforms like Solaris, AIX, AT&T-UNIX-IP-Free'ed-BSD's, or even Windows. How does running on GNU/Linux like platforms make it an "Open Source" program and 'worthy' of certification?

If you only wish to support the GPL and GPLed software, why do you keep using the words Open Source? There is a definition of what you actually advocate in word and deed called Free Software.

Gates is deliberately attempting to misinform the general public here. Reverse engineering of software and protocols is perfectly legal, but he uses the term "cloning" to make this legal activity sound like the illegal activity of copying. Then he uses the misleading term, intellectual property to hide what he is talking about. So he's trying to hint that reverse-engineering falls into the same category as copyright infringement.

The reason they only support rm or wma is because they want to enforce digital restrictions management. This is also the same reason they only support Windows. They put a self-destruct in the movies you d/l so you don't get to keep it or make backup copies.

Boston, Massachusetts and its environs are filled with incredibly geeky things. Boston is the home of the Free Software Foundation, Ximian, and OSDN. Just across the river, Cambridge is the home of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, undeniably a geek Mecca. Next door to MIT is Harvard University (as the MIT t-shirts say, "Harvard: Because not everybody can get in to MIT"). Plus we've got the Big Dig, which despite its infamy for budget overruns, corruption, and defacement of the city landscape, is also home to some incredibly geeky marvels of engineering! And of course, many other geeks of note live and work in and around Boston.

Giving you a great benenfit of doubt that you are not just trolling, here's a link where you can learn the difference between "free as in speech" and "free as in beer." While one may not be important to you, you should at least know the difference (and understand what is meant by "free" software).

He even goes on to say that since there is any proprietary code in the kernel, that the GPL itself is nullified as a valid license for the kernel.

Lets use Darl's words against him. Lets say there is proprietary code within the kernel. Lets say that, as a result, the GPL is not a valid license for the kernel. This simply means that SCO cannot distribute the kernel under the GPL, and must distribute it under some other license agreement. However, since:
1) There is bound to be much more code within the kernel that is not SCO-proprietary, and..
2) That code is copyrighted by the originating authors, and..
3) They will not be allowing SCO to license their code under anything other than the GPL (which it was previously released under), then..
4) SCO cannot distribute the current Linux kernel without violating copyright law.

The solution, of course, is to identify the proprietary code and replace it. The obstacle, of course, is to identify the alleged proprietary code when SCO will only do so under a NDA. There's no point in rehashing those topics, as they're covered in depth in every /. thread with SCO in the title..

I think its time for the FSF to take a stand and notify SCO through legal channels that they are violating copyright by relicensing the OS community's code under a different license. Donate to the FSF now!

He even goes on to say that since there is any proprietary code in the kernel, that the GPL itself is nullified as a valid license for the kernel.

Lets use Darl's words against him. Lets say there is proprietary code within the kernel. Lets say that, as a result, the GPL is not a valid license for the kernel. This simply means that SCO cannot distribute the kernel under the GPL, and must distribute it under some other license agreement. However, since:
1) There is bound to be much more code within the kernel that is not SCO-proprietary, and..
2) That code is copyrighted by the originating authors, and..
3) They will not be allowing SCO to license their code under anything other than the GPL (which it was previously released under), then..
4) SCO cannot distribute the current Linux kernel without violating copyright law.

The solution, of course, is to identify the proprietary code and replace it. The obstacle, of course, is to identify the alleged proprietary code when SCO will only do so under a NDA. There's no point in rehashing those topics, as they're covered in depth in every /. thread with SCO in the title..

I think its time for the FSF to take a stand and notify SCO through legal channels that they are violating copyright by relicensing the OS community's code under a different license. Donate to the FSF now!

You would suggest that either the FSF is not selling "quite a bit" of software, or else a large proportion of FSF software was paid for, when neither need be true.

I suggest that the FSF sells a teeny-tiny amount of software. This is quite true, although I can't prove it. I do have certain facts to support me, such as my never having met anyone who has bought software from them, even though I am seated just 6 km from an FSF office.

They're content with selling enough to pay the bills (in conjunction with donations and other means of support).

That's backwards. 67% of their income is from individual donations. Much of the rest from corporate patrons or foundation grants. Actual "sales" are a tiny bit on top of that.

And, try to imagine what's going through the head of a person about to "buy" softwrae from the FSF. Chances are, much of her motivation for the purchase is not just to acquire the software (which could probably be performed quicker either by downloading it, or grabbing a Linux CD from a local store), but to voluntarily contribute to the FSF. Their sales are virtually a disguised form of charity.

Stallman actively seeks to destroy anyone that wants to get paid for writing software (he spins it as "no one should be forced to pay for software", "information wants to be free", etc.). Stallman will do anything if it means that his vision of free software (his "final solution" if you will) will be realized.

Stallman actively seeks to destroy anyone that wants to get paid for writing software (he spins it as "no one should be forced to pay for software", "information wants to be free", etc.). Stallman will do anything if it means that his vision of free software (his "final solution" if you will) will be realized.

The more I read, the more I value the efforts of the GNU project and the FSF. At the very least, GNU/FSF offers a wedge against crap like this.

If you find value in the work of the GNU project and FSF, please consider offering your support in the form of your

1. time/talents,
2. money,
3. or both.

My-my-my-my (U can't touch us)
SCO tries to bill me so hard
Makes me say, "Oh my Lord, thank you for blessing me
With a mind to think about the O from SC"
It feels good
When you know you're right
A superdope winner in a court fight
And SCO knows as much
And they'd just get beat-uh!
U can't touch us

I told you homeboys
U can't touch us
Yeah, that's how we livin' and you know
U can't touch us
Look in the GPL, man
U can't touch us
Yo, let me bust the funky code
U can't touch us

Stop! RICO time!

(With some apologies to MC Hammer, but mostly to the people who read this.)

Has GPLed software been sold? Yes. Haven't you purchased a Linux distro before? The FSF even sells their GPLed software! (Order link)

Is it viable??? Ask a company like Red Hat; they're in the black because of GPLed software and related services (one could argue that they are two completely different ways of getting revenue, but service contracts and software go hand and hand in the corperate world). GPLed software in the mainstream is just starting to become established; it's too early to say if it's a dead-end or not. Companies are gun-shy to change any of their methods in a conservative move to their stockholders.

You might want to check out the Free Software Foundation

It really seems to me that thee his effective conclusion is that things like Microsoft's licenses aren't binding because the consumer buys their software, takes it home, and then finds out that (s)he suddenly has this wierd license presented that binds him/her to not do all sorts of things that weren't apparent when the purchase contract was completed.

A GPL license, on the other hand, doesn't bind the normal consumer from doing anything that isn't already prohibited by law. As such the claim that the consumer was 'blind-sided' by the contract (my language here) doesn't apply.Where the GPL kicks in is only where someone tries to do stuff that Copyright law would normally prevent. As such one would have to conclude that (( unless the person is simply violating copyright law)) a person distributing GPL code must first understand enough of the contract to accept the grant of extra rights and thus also the grant of requirements that go with the extra rights.

He seems to feel that the acceptance of extra requirements for people redistributing GPL software could be framed as 'payment' for the extra rights that the GPL is allowing.

His caveat is that where you could run into trouble with the GPL is that it's written in English -- not German. Lack of a German language GPL might be a problem -- although at this point he seems to get into the question of pan-national rights that come with EU rules.... I think he concludes that there's definite wiggle room, even there, but seems to suggest that it might be a good idea to come up with versions of the GPL in languages other than English.

((actually, I think that The FSF already has translations, but it might be a good idea to at least point people to the multilingual GPL availaibility in current copyright notices.))

At the end of the day, integrating a contributed patch in, say, libreadline is not different from integrating libreadline in a bigger app. In both cases, you are bound by the license terms chosen by the original author of the code you want to use.

The FSF itself recommends to do as they do, i.e. to ask contributors to give up their rights. However, I don't expect them to put libreadline in the public domain so I have an easier standing in court if I want to enforce my license.

That combined with their track record of trying to force free software projects to use their licenses even if the authors would rather use a more liberal one doesn't make them look good. The FSF, and the GPL, are an attempt to artificially build a community primarily based on legal threats, not consent. Maybe that was a good idea decades ago when all of RMS' colleagues went to work for Symbolics, but now it is an anachronism. We don't need it anymore, and it's a hassle for huge parts of the free software world.

There are better ways to do that, man.

And that's actually the Linux kernel, as opposed to other parts?
Correct, the kernel.

They need to grow up over there. Especially since in THIS case it IS Linux under attack and NOT the GNU Project.

I'd say their view of copyright law, software programming, and giving respect by calling things by their given name is considerably "grow[n] up". What you don't appear to understand is that SCO's language is purposefully unclear so they can leave their options open on what to sue for. The FSF was simply being thorough in their explanation by showing that SCO's language lead to a losing case.

Their problem is the fear of becoming irrelevent and I have some news for them.

No on both counts--their fear is probably closer to not having enough money to do all the things they want to do, and no you don't have any news for them. Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know what contributions the GNU project has made to our community (ideological and programmatic). The political forces are at work challenge both the Open Source and Free Software movements and must be met by focusing our efforts on lobbying for political support, not just more code.

Getting a working GNU/Hurd system has been accomplished and looks to me like it is now in the stage where it is not ready for most computer users but it does boot. Improvements and extensions to the system (as well as getting the Hurd on a new microkernel) continue to arrive. This is all significant and needed progress but more code will not help stop harmful policies from being adopted under the cry of "harmonization" (such as EU adopting software patents or stopping the US Congress from extending the term of copyright again), nor will it stop various US states from adopting legislation that could (among other things) make it illegal to have a firewall unless the local telecommnications corporation says otherwise, or a host of other things that adversely affect our community. The FSF continues to speak on these issues and support Free Software development; the FSF is relevant nearly 30 years after they began.

Don't think that developing code must be done instead of working on other issues. All this and more needs to be done and is being done all at the same time.