Slashdot Mirror

Please go away, troll.

That's one of the reasons the Free Software Foundation asks contributors to GNU projects to assign their copyright to them.

That's one of the reasons the Free Software Foundation asks contributors to GNU projects to assign their copyright to them.

doesn't the DMCA dis-allow it? If RIAA finds out that it might be capable of aiding in the distribution of copyrighted material (like floppies), we're screwed. Besides, Microsoft or SCO probably has a patent on it anyway, those useless losers. Anyway, the Zaurus wouldn't be cool unless it were completely free.

This message has been approved for use on Slashdot.

If you release your code into the public domain you are practising communism and advancing the cause of communism. Communism is working for the greater good.

I don't understand what you have against working for the greater good.

I don't have a problem releasing my code into the public domain, assuming it isn't something I think I can sell. If someone else can make a buck off something I wrote then more power to them. (Although I would appreciate it if they had the courtesy to offer me a job.) I do, however, have a problem with releasing my code only to have it co-opted by a bunch of communists who are hell intent on destroying the software industry.

That's why I disagree with your categorization of BSD/public domain as communism. Communism involves manifestos and propaganda and cults of personality. Communism is about destroying the capitalist establishment; something that public domain code doesn't do.

GPL may not be capitalism in the sense that you perceive capitalism but there is no denying that GPLed code comes with a price.

As I tried to explain before, capitalism is not just about buying goods for money; communist countries have money too. Capitalism is a specific economic system that has certain predictable behaviours (due to game theory). GPL'ed software does not exhibit these properties, but it does bear a strong resemblance to communism (again, in game theory terms).

That's just downright stupid. Do you leave your bike unlocked? DO you leave your house unlocked? Why make it easy or safe for people to steal your labor. That's communism.

As I said, I was only paraphrasing a common /. motto.

-a

Well, GNU Hurd has run more or less as well as it does today (i.e. not very well, on two specific machines in RMS's basement), since 1993 or perhaps even earlier. It's a toss up whether GNU/Hurd, GNU/BSD or GNU/Linux came first; mostly it depends on what you define as a complete operating system. BSD seems complete enough for most of its users and their rummage sale hardware. Linux will never be complete, because it's always playing driver catch-up with new hardware. Hurd... is complete in the way that special needs children are all winners for taking part.

Honestly it wasn't a criticism of his looks... It was meant as a joke. I just found it kinda ironic that he is seen as many as (for a lack of a better word) a 'prophet' or 'messiah' of software freedom and the guy looks like Jesus. While I don't see eye to eye with him, I'm glad to know there are people out there who stick to their convictions and are willing to do things because they feel they're right, not just for personal gain. Whether or not you agree with them that they're right is another matter altogether. :)

My main beef was that he took what should've been an article about the SCO/IBM case and used it to rehash what we've all been told before about the GNU/Linux argument and I'm just tired of hearing it over and over again. I don't think it was necessary to go over again for his argument... But then again it was his place to make whatever comment he felt was appropriate.

I'm not sure I understand your logic. The reason that 'Libre' can't be used is because Americans wouldn't understand it, is what I think you're saying. But RMS requires large number of pages to explain the word 'Free' as in freedom, which is a word used in America. So I don't think it would make many odds :-)

I'm not sure I understand your logic. The reason that 'Libre' can't be used is because Americans wouldn't understand it, is what I think you're saying. But RMS requires large number of pages to explain the word 'Free' as in freedom, which is a word used in America. So I don't think it would make many odds :-)

I'm not sure I understand your logic. The reason that 'Libre' can't be used is because Americans wouldn't understand it, is what I think you're saying. But RMS requires large number of pages to explain the word 'Free' as in freedom, which is a word used in America. So I don't think it would make many odds :-)

" 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"
(emph. mine)

The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

Funny, seeing as Free Software and Open Source are two entirely different things. They each have their own foundations. The Free Software Foundation, and the Open Source Initiative.

FSF, GNU, GPL and all that was started by Richard Stallman, RMS from here on. Open Source, OSI and the Open Source Definition was first drafted by Bruce Perens. They are very similar in nature but have a lot of differences in the details. There FSF focuses primarily on GNU GPL and LGPL, The OSI and OSD are more broad, and do include the GPL under its terms, but also a variety of other licenses. The OSD sets up a moral standard, with 10 (originally 9) Sections to define a set of common guidelines a license must have to be considered Open Source.

The philosphies of these two men differ slightly. Where as RMS believes ALL software should be free and no commercial software should exist, Bruce Perens believes both can co-exist and co-mingle for the greater benefit of both. If you've ever seen the movie Revolution OS, they talk a good amount about the differences between FSF and OSI and GPL and OSD. Bruce Perens is even quoted as saying that the major difference is RMS believes all software should be GPL, and anything that isn't hurts the GPL. RMS doesn't seem such a 'great leader' after you get into the details. Granted, he's done a lot of good things, I hear the non-jews had a good life in Nazi Germany too.

So, yes, RTFM indeed.

Enough said. theRegister: RTFM!! Must be a slow news day.

That interpretation hinges on the definition of the word "distribute" and is one of the grey areas in the GPL. My personal take is that an employee, acting as an agent of his/her employer during work hours is not the recipient of a distributed copy of the software and has no right to expect the source code to be forthcoming.

However, if the employees are given the software to install on machines they own, or the software is given to independent contractors, then the GPL comes back into play. Interestingly, my take on this is pretty close to the FSF interpretation. Here's a quote for the lazy: 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. .

Did I mention that the GPL FAQ should be required reading if you are going to try and comment on specifics of the GPL?

• "Distributing under the GPL" means exactly and only placing GPL license text in your source. The act of doing so isn't the same as meaning it.
• You can't sue someone for "infringing the GPL". The GPL isn't a law. You sue someone for infringing your copyright. You can do that if anyone distributes your copyrighted and GPL licensed code regardless of whether they are retaining GPL licenses and attaching them to their modifications. The GPL just gives them their defence. But it's not a contract, and it grants no clear or unarguable protection.
• If you sue people for violating your copyrights despite attaching GPL license text to your source, that does not clearly disallow you from using the GPL defence against me if I sue you for duplicating my copyrighted source. Confused? Read the GPL. The GPL self destructs if you "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License". Suing a third party for violating your copyright (after you've stopped distributing my copyrighted source) isn't covered.
• There is no clause in the GPL that requires anyone to license their code in perpetuity. All it says is that if you distribute my code with a GPL license attached, I indicate that I agree not to sue you for performing that duplication. The instant that you stop duplicating my copyrighted source, I have no leverage over you.
• The same applies in spades to patents. There is no clause in the GPL that requires you to grant licenses for your patents, either while distributing or in perpetuity. All it says is that if you pursue your patents while duplicating my copyrighted source, you have no right not to be sued. Again though, once the duplication stops, you can go hog wild pursuing your patent claims.

We all need to take a deep breath and realise that there is a serious threat here. You may think that the GPL gives you unbreakable rights in perpetuity. You'd be wrong. Read it. Try and find the clauses. They aren't there.

The problem that SCO has is that they may still be duplicating other people's copyrighted code. Doing so while prosecuting patent rights removes the protection that the GPL gives them from being sued, so get your suits in now. But heck, the GPL is only a gentleman's agreement anyway. It doesn't have the force of law, nor is it a contract. You can sue anyone for duplicating your code regardess of whether you attached a GPL license to it or not, arguing that it didn't form a contract, or that it's revokable because it doesn't grant rights in perpetuity.

This isn't black and white. SCO have left themselves liable to being sued, but that doesn't mean that they invalidate their right to sue others for duplicating their copyrighted source. The only winners here will be the lawyers. And no, I'm not one, but I've paid enough to them to accept that the GPL is a huge mess (because it doesn't mandate unrevokable and in perpetuity) and that this was an inevitable situation sooner or later.

You can't find the clause because it's not there. Can you quote it? No, so please stop talking out of your arse lest the more exitable slashbots believe you rather than taking the time to read it themselves.

How about you read the license rather than expecting to be spoon fed the answer?

That said, I need the practice. Open wide! Here comes the choo choo train!

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.)

Now, would you like me to wipe your arse for you?

No, they don't. Read sections 2 and 3 of the GPL (version 2) again. Carefully. The FSF's short write-up on selling GPL'ed software might come as something of a surprise to some folks who've not taken the time to look into it.

Placing software under the GPL helps to ensure that it will remain free and that the author will retain the copyright, but it doesn't guarantee that anyone will come offering money to use it. So long as the next person/company down the line abides by the terms of the GPL regarding copyright notices and source code availability the original author isn't automatically entitled to any monetary compensation.

GPL'ed stuff has been a part of some commercial products for a while now. Bundling useful GPL stuff with a Non-GPL proprietary product is a way to provide customers with a set of useful tools which enjoy a wide base of support. WindRiver's V5.1 VxWorks RTOS development suite for SunOS/Solaris is a case in point. And it's perfectly OK under the GPL so long as there's a clear seperate between the GPL and Non-GPL code. GPL code can form the basis for a viable commercial product, even if the source must be readily available, since the number of people with the skills and/or resources to duplicate the derivative work will undoubtedly be much less than those who just want to make use of it without poking under the hood. And for those who do want to poke around, more power to them.

A good example of a commercial product built on Linux and GPL'ed code is Tivo. You can download the source and fiddle around with it if you want to. Has that stopped Tivo from making money? No. Do they pay royalties or other monies back to the original authors of the GPL'ed code? Only if they feel inclined to do so. I don't know if they do or not.

IMHO the LRP died not for lack of technical elegance or application potential, but more for lack of marketing inspiration. Placing a project under the GPL means that one must think about capitalizing on the free distribution and the exposure offered by the open source environment. It's my considered opinion that unless one is willing to offering consulting services, custom modifications, or a useful product in a nicely packaged form ready for use, then just GPL'ing something and expecting the bucks to start rolling in when someone else picks it up and runs with it is only somewhat less realistic than buying weekly lottery tickets and hoping to hit the jackpot.

The alternative, and naive, view that GPL means that it's all free (as in free beer), while wrong according to the FSF, is perhaps a more kindly and community-minded take on it. But it too will lead to starvation just as quickly as unrealistic expectations of income.

So if someone takes some GPL'ed code, modifies it to suit their needs, puts it on a nice silk-screened CD, writes a manual and makes money off of it, then so long as they also make the sources available to the purchaser and keep the copyright notices intact, about the only thing the original author can say is "Shucks, I should have thought of that".

Second, FreeCraft is NOT an attempt to copy a game. If the FreeCraft developers wanted a copy of Warcraft they would have bought a copy. That's not the point. FreeCraft is an attempt to make an equivalent game that is free software.

It's people like you who are trying (and failing miserably) to ruin the GNU operating system (specifically GNU/Linux). If you still don't understand why we create these programs, check out www.fsf.org.

$500? Didn't you hear that Photoshop is now part of the free software movement now?

Kazaa may be free software. That doesn't make Photoshop Free Software, it makes it pirated.

Except that the Gimp is no match for Photoshop.

The Gimp is free. It's also Free. The Gimp rocks.

The GPL is great. But don't force anyone to use it. That defeats the purpose of 'free' software.

Let's say I'm the government. Suppose I force John Q to use a piece of free software (e.g., OpenOffice). If he were a government employee, though, I wouldn't give him any choice of software in the first place. So let's suppose he's a member of the public. To 'force' John to use OpenOffice, someone must distribute it to him. But they can't do that without passing on the offer of source.

Armed with his source, John is completely free to create, or employ someone else to create, his own personal version of OpenOffice. He has full access to the protocols, formats and APIs used. So there's nothing he dislikes about OpenOffice that he couldn't change. John has access to as many alternatives as he could want. He is free.

Now explain how that defeats the purposes of free software. (Here is a list of John's freedoms: FSF link)

Dumbass must work for microsoft or something, trying to convince people we shouldn't have games on linux.

I don't know what I find the most insulting: that you said I am dumb, that you called me an "ass," or that you suggested I might work for Microsoft. Do you think I would advertise GNU on my user informations page, if I worked for Microsoft? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I don't even use proprietary software and I find it offensive, that you are implying I have no moral standards suggesting, that I could write such a software.

From WordNet (r) 1.7:
pro bono
adj : done for the public good without compensation

This is not what boises & co. are doing. Pro bono is what Eben Moglen does for the Free Software Foundation. Compensation only when you win is what slip-and-fall ambulance chasers do.

IBM knows how to handle public relations, they have some experience in the matter. Slashot (especially Slahdot) shouldn't be trying to play with the big boys by printing every story they see.

If SCO wants to claim Linus was behind the WTC terrorist attack, let them. If they want to sue Alan Cox for 98 billion dollars, let them. Whether or not they have a case is irrelevent (and for any mis-quoters out there in SCO-land, you don't). You do not ever argue with a fool or a drunk.

Leave them shout from the hill-tops that the entire world is against them, let them buy the senators if they want to/can afford to, if you ignore them, they'll have nothing left to do except go to court and show IBM's big hairy lawyer their ass.

If and when this does go to court, OSS doesn't need SCO to be able to say "look at these terrorists, they saying stealing is ok".

Whilst the tech-news sites keep reporting this as the story, SCO has no reason to go to court because having their name in the NYTimes is what they want, it doesn't matter if their in the cookery section with a recipe for SCO-nuts (Tm) or whether they have a fifteen page expose on Linus and his law-breaking dog (does Linus have a dog, I don't know, geeks seem to like cars more..go figure).

While everybody is running around like headless chickens talking about how SCO is evil,SCO is wrong, no way can SCO be right.... the SCO-board are sitting in their office laughing at your comments. They set up the fire and you are stoking it for them.

They know their going to lose a court-case against IBM, whether by fair or patent-foul. They don't want the court-case, they can't have the court case. What they want is "IBM" to appear next to "owe 3 billion" or "can't be trusted" in the Post or Times so the Big Blue has no choice but to make it go away.

If the tech-savy readers start talking about this to their friends, their friends become interested and so will the Post and Times, suddenly the headlines appear...(yes, more often and wilder than at present)

Ignore the lunatics, ignore the fools and the drunks, this will go away if you let it go away, it very likely doesn't involve you, don't demand retribution, don't demand countersuits. If you must do something find a nice OSS-hackers email address and express your support, email IBM and tell them you love them (all they really want is love :). If you want to be more substantial, donate to the EFF, donate to Linus, donate to the FSF or the OSI.

You can't win by shouting louder, you only lose your voice.

hmms... you're right on the part where you got to be somethinng in the beginning.

OpenSource != FreeSoftware, but OpenSource does bring more freedom, odd isn't it?
WTF? Are you even mildly aware of the absurdity of what you just said?
Please allow me to first make it well clear that _ANY_ license that is officially recognised by the FSF as a Free Software license is an Open Source License, but the opposite is not true, since some licenses recognised as Open Source do not give you the four fundamental freedoms.
However, there is some irrational belief that BSD=OpenSource and GPL=FreeSoftware. Well, that's true, but the implied meaning is that BSD!=Free Software and GPL!=OpenSource. Well, that's false and absurd. It proves, however, you understand neither of both concepts.

Another sadly common absurdity is that the GPL gives you less freedom than BSD. Well, that is true but only if you hate that nobody can make it non-free, or if enjoy the possibility to harness power over other people, or that eventually somebody does so, or that you just simply won't object until they come after you and there's no one left to object.

Nope. People in the free software world modify their software to do exactly what they want. This is one of those reasons there's so much good quality free software available. If you can't find exacly what you need, which is rare if you break the task into it's parts, you can make the tool you lack.

I'm going to donate my $13 to the EFF.

Let me make the job easiler for everyone. :)

EFF
FSF

Remeber now, sharing is stealing, never share your password, never try to understand how things work against the will of you masters and be grateful, very greatful all day long. Your letters will be read to eliminate the enemies of the United States. Your location will be known from the devices your carry and all of us will be much safer when we get the house of the future from Microsoft.

Anyone want to join me at the bridge? I'll be smashing my car and throwing my old M$ software into the cold waters. The hope for US software is the hope for all software, freedom. If the software in my cell phone and car were free, I might feel like I owned them.

The problem is they force you to purchase an aditional service contract whenever you install a new "instance", presumably, whatever the source of your RH server installation. So effectively, they restricted the GPL, which they are not allowed to do:

• from art. 4 of the GPL:"...Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.. ..."
• from art. 6:"... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ..."

Simple solution: install aditional servers from a different distributor (SuSE, Gentoo, ...), but that defeats the benefit of having a more or less uniform install base...

Or don't buy these services, and use RH for free (the beer variety).

BSD code is perfectly GPL compatible. You can include it line-for-line, but IIRC you have to keep the copyright notice and BSD license in the file.

See?

Even Windows is "Open Source". If you really want the benefits that we are all talking about here we need to think about how we can encourage the use of Free Software (rather than bastardized Open Source Software).

Take a look at the FSF website for more information regarding the benefits of Free Software.

The problem with all this "Open Source" software advocacy (and the main reason there is no effective advocacy of it in government) is that there are too many interpretations of what it is. You have everything from ESR's idiotic concept of non-Free OSS all the way to Microsoft's pay2play OSS. If everyone would simply get on the same page with the correct FSF interpretation of FREE SOFTWARE, advocacy of FS would be much more effective.

It's why open source is a grass roots movement. We aim to capture hearts and minds on a fundamental and righteous level. We target the wallet second.

Open source saves the government money. Open source would create more governemnt jobs, by not only keeping existing support personnel, but also by creating openings for developers that would tailor systems to the ever-evolving government technology base and needs. It makes complete sense to switch to open source. Why we don't switch is easy to see: Microsoft gives military politicians plenty of incentive not too.

Britian, France, Japan, Peru, China and Germany are all moving to Linux and open source. Hell, some are even writing up legislation that gives incentives to businesses that do so as well. Why aren't we (the United States)?

Have you read the GPL?

(emphasis added)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

to the courts.

Remembering that most lawyers and judges are not all that knowledgable about programming, SCO could use 80 lines of plagerism to claim that there is a much deeper pattern of copying and paraphrasing going on (disregarding the fact that the vast majority of kernel contributers have had no access to propietary kernel code of any type). And the courts are influenced by the political environment of the time.

I've begun to view the underlying issue here as not one of SCO's ownership of particular code, but more an issue of ownership in general. There is a school of thought that believes that ownership is a neccessary aspect of all things and that things (objects, ideas, actions) only have value if they are paid for. This philosophy has been touted by such notables as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Ronald Reagan, George W Bush and his father. For the user base of GNU/Linux to not see this lawsuit as the beginning of yet another battle in the struggle to curtail the free distribution of ideas (source code are ideas) among men and women would be a mistake. If SCO were to convince the court that the 80 lines of code somehow bestowed upon the Linux kernen a taint (trade secrets) that cannot be removed, then the court may be conned into believing that the kernel is in part owned by SCO and that the distribution of the code and/or binaries should be accompanied by the paying of royalty. In addition, there has been an increasing attitude towards Free Software and Open Sourse that these ideas somehow endanger the economy of the United States (ask around, you'll see what I mean).

The difficulties that Free Software and Open Source Software pose to implementation of manditory DRM (censorship )is interpeted as a threat to not only to the distributers of movies and music but also to the political and law enforcement industries that see media as a way to shape the opinions, ideas and beliefs of the American citizenry. For an example we need only to look at the media coverage of the 2000 presidential election results and the lack of criticism over the courts refusal to mandate a meaningful recount and the subsequent appointment of a George W. Bush by 5 Supreme Court Justices.

An other example would be the casting of the DeCSS code as a "piracy tool" by virtually every news source covering the dispute, when in fact, DVDs can and are pirated without the use of the DeCSS code by software that incorporates licensed code provided by the DVD makers (Expert Guides' DVD Copy. There has been little noise from the MPAA over this tool or software like it, and no mention of such software in media coverage of the DeCSS case.

If the courts are affected by a political stance that views Free Software as somehow being "bad" (for the economy, for national security, etc), then this case is not about 80 lines of code, but about Free Software in general. If the case is decided in favor of SCO, the court may decide on a remedy that is not as simple as removing the offending code.

--ptw

Of course such a license can be created. It is called the GPL. See sections 2 and 3 available here. Enforcement is easy - bring a copyright infringement action. Identification of infringers is harder, but not impossible.

Uh no, being required to pay a licensing fee violates section 7 of the GPL. It would then be illegal for anyone to distribute the program at all.

With all the FUD and name-calling among SCO, IBM, Novell, Microsoft, etc. etc., I am realizing more and more the foresight of the FSF in establishing its requirements for copyright paperwork when submitting code (link to FSF docs).

It is important to realize that even if the Linux kernel itself is somehow victimized, the GNU tools and the GNU/HURD should be untouched. The BSDs, Mac OS X, and Solaris should fair very well, too, if only because their legal problems are already dealt with. However, I really think SCO's claims against Linux are a long shot (of galactic proportion, unless, of course, they planted the code maliciously), so my hope is that SCO is the only true casualty once all this is over.

Why the heck doesn't the FSF have this on the FRONT PAGE!! After all, Linux is GPL, and isn't the copyright of all GPL software supposed to be transferred (maybe not exclusively, I'm not sure) to the FSF expressedly for legal protection reasons?

Anybody??

Since the 1960's, the intelligence community> has used private corporate contractors, such as Wackenhut, The Curry Company, Scientologythe Music Corporation of America (The Curry Company's parent corporation), and the Mafia to gather information and diseminate disinformation. The changing nature of the information economy, due to the internet and Free Software, threatens the quite lucrative monopoly on information and populace control (hence the recent activities of the RIAA and the MPAA).

It seems to me that the Intelligence Community and the private contractors, who have seen thier profits dwindle since the end of the cold war, seek more to control IT in order to both increase thier ability to monitor the daily lives of private citizens, and to limit the access to information that may inform us about thier covert activities.

The concern of the CIA over technology is not one of information gathering, but one of information, and populace, control.

The GPL clearly states:

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.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Threatening Redhat, SuSE and Linux users in addition to IBM, clearly ran afoul of "Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." It was an attempt to restrict the rights of users to code that SCO had intentionally released. From that moment on, SCO did not have a valid license to distribute Linux. Yet they continued to do so.

Every Linux kernel developer now has grounds to sue SCO for violation of the GPL. I would suggest a coordinated effort, filing suits in as many jurisdictions as possible simultaneously. It is dirt cheap to file in small claims court in the US. Let them die the death of a thousand cuts.

• If the proprietary code consists entirely of stand alone programs (doesn't sound likely).
• If the proprietary code is calling LGPL libraries, but it seems clear that they are talking about the GNU licence and not the LGPL licence.

If they are using the GPL software in conjunction with their proprietary software and not releasing the proprietary source under GPL, they are in direct violation of the GPL.

Even though they claim that the proprietary elements are not subject to the GPL, The GPL License does not entitle them to use GPL software in conjunction with it unless they're seperate stand alone programs.

If they are unwilling to abide by those licence requirements, then they are not legally entitled to use the GPL software and need to write their own code.

See the license page for more information.

Uh, actually, it looks like you need to read the GPL yourself.

You absolutely can `make software that is available for sale from software that's been released under the GPL.' Red Hat, SuSE, etc., do it every single day, when they patch the Linux kernel and release their versions. You are not restricted from selling software that you've come up with by modifying stuff previously released under the GPL. The restriction is simply that whether you sell it or give it away, it too must be released under the GPL.

But don't believe me; read the relevant part of the GPL FAQ.

HTH.

Uh, actually, it looks like you need to read the GPL yourself.

You absolutely can `make software that is available for sale from software that's been released under the GPL.' Red Hat, SuSE, etc., do it every single day, when they patch the Linux kernel and release their versions. You are not restricted from selling software that you've come up with by modifying stuff previously released under the GPL. The restriction is simply that whether you sell it or give it away, it too must be released under the GPL.

But don't believe me; read the relevant part of the GPL FAQ.

HTH.

I thought you were only on the hook to provide source to whoever you distributed binaries to -- not *everyone* (unless, of course, you are giving away the binaries).

This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL. When you release a binary under the GPL, you are obligated to provide the source code to "any valid third party." The term "any valid third party" indicates anyone who has received a copy of the binary -- whether it came directly from you or not. In effect, you do need to be prepared to distribute source to anyone who requests it (although, technically, I believe that you could require proof of possession). (Also, posting the source publicly (e.g., on a website or ftp server) doesn't necessarily absolve you of your obligation. You still need to provide the sources to anyone who requests them (e.g., if someone doesn't have internet access, you can provide the sources on disk).

The GPL faq is very useful in answering these types of questions.

"The Panther!" wrote: Do you know how to read? Try reading the GPL. It requires any derivative works to also be GPL. That's a restriction, because it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL. Ironic that you appear not to read much either. Here is a whole page on the details of how you can sell GPL software. You will be interested to discover that the FSF encourages you to sell your GPL'd software. I'm sure what you mean is "nobody will pay." But a crack software engineer like you is no doubt providing manuals & support, and I'm sure your customers will be glad to pay for that. Yes, derivative works have to be GPL. But if you only change 20-lines, why do you think you should be paid for the whole app? No author will let me slap a new cover on her book with my name & charge for that, either. enjoy your reading, Matt

The GPL is the core of the Free Software movement. "Free" in this context doesn't mean "no price", it refers to "freedom". I would recommend reading, say, this to see what we're all talking about when we say "free".

Now repeat after me.
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
...

In case anyone hasn't already been beaten over the head by this, the two licenses are very different and serve different circumstances and individuals. There is no right or wrong here, just two great licenses.

Summary:

GPL=Free software must remain always free.
BSD=Free software should be free even to not to be free.

Correct license? Whichever you prefer or suits your project better.

Other alternatives? Sure, but trolls don't care. ;-)

The Mozilla Public License (MPL). This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

I just can't see how this particular choice of license makes things better for the Linux community. NASA seems to be deliberately slapping us in the face with this.

It seems, from the PDF document (page 8) that their intent is to enable commercial exploitation of their code:

The Mozilla Public License (MPL) attempts to strike a middle ground between promoting free source development by commercial enterprises and protecting free source developers. Like the GPL, it requires that any and all changes to code (derivative works) covered by the license must be made publicly available. [snip]

I'm sure that NASA hopes to collect a fat bribe ... no, a fat license fee ... no, a ``contribution to the Space Program''. That's what I said above, in the preceeding paragraph: this robbery is motivated by a desire to gouge me a second time for the work I paid for once.