Slashdot Mirror

And Bill Gates stated that MS EULAs don't endanger privacy.

The text of the license is the only thing with a legal standing. Anything else you hear is just so much hot air. A statement by RMS might suffice as a promise that the FSF won't pursue you for violating the GPL in that manner. But it has no bearing on how Linus Torvalds or AOL-Time Warner might react.

And without seeing a quote, I'd doubt that RMS would've said something quite like that. (Especially considering that an "Organization" can be construed to be a huge group, like "US Taxpayers")

Maybe you're talking about this GPL FAQ. It says that you're not required to release modified versions. (The fact that you've modifed GPL code doesn't force you to either send patches upstream, or post it on your own website). But it doesn't let you forbid release either. That FAQ ends with "but the decision of whether to release it is up to you". Who is "you" in that sentence? It's not the manager or board of directors- it's every single person with a copy of the software. (Another FAQ makes this more explicit)

In any organization of nontrivial size, you'll eventually find someone who both wants to publish the code, and doesn't care about keeping his job (or is secretive enough to be anonymous).

Since Linux and the entire GNU project in not made to please business, I do not think it is right to make some all end-user-operating-system. The values that the Free Software Foundation has tried to build up with GNU would be lost by putting money into it.
These people who are using the system will not understand what it is, and as someone said "they will not even know what make is", or not even GCC.
I think GNU/Linux should remain the "free" Operating System which these Geeks can hack around with. There is more to it than money you know.

Free as in speech = price of $0.00, no strings attached, public domain.

Wrongo.. Price is whatever seller charges you for distribution. However taken from FSF webpage, buyer has these rights:

- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Not quite the same as public domain. And there can be strings attached depending on the license (e.g. GPL).

I think the Free Software Foundation might have a free firewall...

The Mplayer info page says that "MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This has been removed." It doesn't actually appear to have the license, except perhaps in some hunk of code I'm not going to bother downloading now. If they say it's GPL, then they're obviously referring to the GPL, so I can distribute binaries if I want. If they've got other documentation that's more restrictive than this, well, this one's on their web page, though they probably should have provided a link to the GPL themselves.

I think that the CC project is a great idea and some kind of P2P distribution is great too. I do have some some minor concerns though, one is over their share alike license.

On the FSF web site there is a short list of Licenses For Works Besides Software and Documentation and the Creative Commons Share Alike license is not mentioned, so I sent the FSF an email about this and the opinion seems to be that the Share Alike license would not be considered GPL-compatible, which I think is a shame. The email about this can be found on the cc-licenses list archive

And of course the GPL'd mldonkey, for those who aren't partial to Windows.

Dont forget to support fsf! Join now!

And, coincidentally, I went to college with him, so I have to give him a plug :-)

T

A loose interpretation of this

The Free Software Foundation (they who wrote the GNU GPL) have a good FAQ which tells you about as much as you can find out about it without needing a lawyer's advice.

Had they sold their product commercially, along with the source code in accordance with the GPL, they would have had more paying customers. In this case, distributing the source code would allow hackers more room to tinker, but the binary cd and installation still would be infinately more useful (and necessary).

Since they're distributing under the GPL, they can't put any restrictions on what can and can't be redistributed. The GPL says that the source code must be available along with binaries, but it also says that anybody can make the binaries available for free as well. If they want to restrict access to binary versions, they would have to release under something other than the GPL. Given the fuzzy distinction between "aggregating" and "combining" software for distribution, this might be tricky to pull off without risking legal problems.

Had they sold their product commercially, along with the source code in accordance with the GPL, they would have had more paying customers. In this case, distributing the source code would allow hackers more room to tinker, but the binary cd and installation still would be infinately more useful (and necessary).

Since they're distributing under the GPL, they can't put any restrictions on what can and can't be redistributed. The GPL says that the source code must be available along with binaries, but it also says that anybody can make the binaries available for free as well. If they want to restrict access to binary versions, they would have to release under something other than the GPL. Given the fuzzy distinction between "aggregating" and "combining" software for distribution, this might be tricky to pull off without risking legal problems.

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.

That's exactly what I'm saying. But the original poster--and, more importantly, the FSF--seem to look at it the other way. That is, if some recipient might not be able to exercise all his GPL rights, you can't distribute under the GPL at all.

I can't come up with a consistent reading of section 7 that makes any sense. Some have said it's only about ensuring that recipients can redistribute. But that would be strange, because the GPL considers the freedom to redistribute, without the freedom to distribute derivative works, insufficient. Besides, that's not what the FSF argues in the link I gave.

So my conclusion is that the example in section 7 is simply bogus and should be ignored. You don't have to worry about what laws, licenses, and contracts bind the recipients in order to distribute under the GPL.

Ok, as I said to someone else, I basically agree--except that the FSF seems to say otherwise in their position on the proposed W3C patent policy. So I think that the FSF is pushing the contractory viewpoint. Specifically, they are saying that modifications other people may make (that step outside the "field-of-use" license) are your problem.

It seems pretty clear to me that your obligations in section 7 are toward certifying the unlimited redistributability of code *you distribute*.

I can't see why you say that. The only part that is specific to redistribution is the "for example". Section 7 as a whole seems aimed at ensuring that recipients have all the rights granted by the GPL, which includes redistribution but also distribution of derived works. Why do you think it applies only to redistribution?

Since the GPL is a redistribution license and not a contract, there really isn't anything at all *legally* to stop SCO from exercising any patents they might have.

As I said to someone else, I think that SCO's past distribution of Linux implied a perpetual license to the patent. But IANAL.

I appreciate your effort. :-)

You're reading this as saying that I must take responsibility for all those who might receive the application

Exactly--or rather, that section 7 claims you must take this responsibility. Which is absurd. So I conclude that "section 7 doesn't fly".

Read in the context of the first sentence, the more likely interpretation of the example is: if the court tells me I'm allowed to give away the software, but I have to impose additional conditions on people who don't receive the software directly from me (those who receive the software "indirectly") then I'm not allowed to distribute the software at all.

This is utterly sensible. It just doesn't seem to agree with the "for example". Maybe I'm misreading the "for example", but it seems pretty unambiguous to me. Anyway, I would be happy to agree with you and ignore the example as non-normative, except ...

The real context for my criticism is the FSF's claims regarding the proposed W3C patent policy. Their position seems clearly to assume the "strong" interpretation of the example. (I have emailed the FSF about this and gotten no reply.)

This issue doesn't have much bearing on the SCO story (which I probably should have stated up front). At least, not for Americans, who wouldn't be able to distribute Linux without a patent license from SCO, plain and simple. Though the strong reading of section 7 would imply that even those outside the jurisdiction of the patent could not distribute under the GPL.

Wouldn't it be appropriate to use as many as possible of these vouchers for a purchase from FSF? Perhaps the FSF could make some sort of micro-edition of Gnu software to be bought for download (i.e. minimal cost for FSF)?

Wouldn't it be appropriate to use as many as possible of these vouchers for a purchase from FSF? Perhaps the FSF could make some sort of micro-edition of Gnu software to be bought for download (i.e. minimal cost for FSF)?

I realize that you were just kidding, but you can (should?) actually buy Free Software from the GNU foundation (see here). You might want to consider doing that with your vouchers.

You get a mess that is very difficult to legally handle. In fact, the FSF is very adamant about all contributions to FSF code having their copyright signed over to the FSF. They feel that the number of copyright holders of the Linux kernel will make any GPL violation court case with the Linux kernel harder to win.

- Sam

is a limitation on your freedom, I hardly think it's fair to call the GPL free (not that you did, but I kinda have to assume that's what the original poster meant by free, being that he used 2/3s of the FSF's name, and in capitals too). I, for one, feel completely comfortable calling any software where I may make modifications, distribute those modifications, and distribute the original software, free. But that's just me...

Yeah, it's just you ;-) Since you brought up the GPL; the SFS's position on the subject is:

Daniel Bernstein's licenses:
These licenses are not free software licenses because they do not permit publication of modified versions.

So I wouldn't call it "unfair" to call Dan Bernsteins licences "unfree" while calling the GPL "free." They defined the term after all...

I am pretty sure the GNU Emacs Manual on my bookshelf (mine is Sixth Edition, Version 18 March 1987) costs money. Yep, the order form in the back says I can order it for $10. And the GNU Emacs source on 1600bpi industry standard magnetic tape in tar format for $150. But that's from the June 1988 price list.

The FSF now sells a distribution of all the GNU source code for $345 to organizations or $85 to individuals. The Emacs manual, 15th edition for Emacs 21, costs $45.

Sure, the price increase is quite a bit more than inflation, but as Emacs gets bigger, the documentation also must grow to cover the new features. And not only do you get the full source for all GNU programs from a trusted source (Free Software Foundation Inc.) through a trusted channel (a well-known shipping company), making the distribution extremely hard to spoof, but you also help support the development of the free GNU/* operating system.

Supposedly, mldonkey supports SoulSeek. Haven't really tried that, though...

The original poster seems to suggest that his professor uses articles from magazines that Fortune 500 executives would read. The question would be more, what high profile or "high brow" publications contain good articles as an introduction to open source?

On another note, I wouldn't agree that the text of the GPL would be a good introduction to open source. It's in legalese, and the subtleties would be too many and obscure for an introduction-style classroom environment. The GPL FAQ is a great complement, though. On the other hand, "The Catherdral and the Bazaar" is a top class introduction to the philosphy of open source development. Has it ever been reprinted in the Harvard Review or another similar magazine?

Éibhear

No you're not though, the program could be linking in a different library at run time to the one it was coded against.
With *some* libraries, you may be able to do that, technically (borderline cases). However, the running program is *still* including the code it needs. In certain cases, maybe it's the user who's breaking a license, and not just the distributor. You can't treat them all in the same way as long as you have copyright. Tough.

Now if Wine had been GPL instead of LGLP would have have ment that all windows programs under through Wine would then become GPL?
Only those made using the winlib, if it was GPL'ed instead of LGPL'ed. You would need to expect the coders to honour the library, of course.

What if you use piping? Can a program pipe through a GPL program without being absorbed by the GPL licence?
LOL a pipe is a means to connect the stdout of one program to the stdin of another. That's two different running programs. All those supposed doubpts are quite clearly explained in the GPL FAQ. If it invoves fork & exec you're on the clear. The output of a GPL'ed program is not covered by the GPL. Same thing for input , etc... etc...

Now, go read the faq, see how it all clears up. In doubpt, many mailing lists exist. Ask a simple question...

No you're not though, the program could be linking in a different library at run time to the one it was coded against.
With *some* libraries, you may be able to do that, technically (borderline cases). However, the running program is *still* including the code it needs. In certain cases, maybe it's the user who's breaking a license, and not just the distributor. You can't treat them all in the same way as long as you have copyright. Tough.

Now if Wine had been GPL instead of LGLP would have have ment that all windows programs under through Wine would then become GPL?
Only those made using the winlib, if it was GPL'ed instead of LGPL'ed. You would need to expect the coders to honour the library, of course.

What if you use piping? Can a program pipe through a GPL program without being absorbed by the GPL licence?
LOL a pipe is a means to connect the stdout of one program to the stdin of another. That's two different running programs. All those supposed doubpts are quite clearly explained in the GPL FAQ. If it invoves fork & exec you're on the clear. The output of a GPL'ed program is not covered by the GPL. Same thing for input , etc... etc...

Now, go read the faq, see how it all clears up. In doubpt, many mailing lists exist. Ask a simple question...

No you're not though, the program could be linking in a different library at run time to the one it was coded against.
With *some* libraries, you may be able to do that, technically (borderline cases). However, the running program is *still* including the code it needs. In certain cases, maybe it's the user who's breaking a license, and not just the distributor. You can't treat them all in the same way as long as you have copyright. Tough.

Now if Wine had been GPL instead of LGLP would have have ment that all windows programs under through Wine would then become GPL?
Only those made using the winlib, if it was GPL'ed instead of LGPL'ed. You would need to expect the coders to honour the library, of course.

What if you use piping? Can a program pipe through a GPL program without being absorbed by the GPL licence?
LOL a pipe is a means to connect the stdout of one program to the stdin of another. That's two different running programs. All those supposed doubpts are quite clearly explained in the GPL FAQ. If it invoves fork & exec you're on the clear. The output of a GPL'ed program is not covered by the GPL. Same thing for input , etc... etc...

Now, go read the faq, see how it all clears up. In doubpt, many mailing lists exist. Ask a simple question...

No you're not though, the program could be linking in a different library at run time to the one it was coded against.
With *some* libraries, you may be able to do that, technically (borderline cases). However, the running program is *still* including the code it needs. In certain cases, maybe it's the user who's breaking a license, and not just the distributor. You can't treat them all in the same way as long as you have copyright. Tough.

Now if Wine had been GPL instead of LGLP would have have ment that all windows programs under through Wine would then become GPL?
Only those made using the winlib, if it was GPL'ed instead of LGPL'ed. You would need to expect the coders to honour the library, of course.

What if you use piping? Can a program pipe through a GPL program without being absorbed by the GPL licence?
LOL a pipe is a means to connect the stdout of one program to the stdin of another. That's two different running programs. All those supposed doubpts are quite clearly explained in the GPL FAQ. If it invoves fork & exec you're on the clear. The output of a GPL'ed program is not covered by the GPL. Same thing for input , etc... etc...

Now, go read the faq, see how it all clears up. In doubpt, many mailing lists exist. Ask a simple question...

From the GPL FAQ:
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.

Do you think Neverwinter Nights is going to link to any GPL-licensed libraries? I'd love to get my hands on the source code for that...

You need something to do with your life? Go to the Free Software Foundation, find a project and start coding or writing man/info pages or something. If you aren't working for freedom, you are part of the problem. If you aren't technical, find an online forum where you can tell people about Linux. It doesn't have to be a computer-related forum, everybody online cares deeply about their OS--tap in to that passion and help us take over the world!

I think the very idea that someone in the mainstream has gotten the idea that we are anti-business/anti-profit is very BAD, as it constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement behind free software and the open source development model.

On the contrary it shows that they have a very good understanding of the movement behind free software.

Who in the mainstream is going to align themselves with us, if we give them the impression that we're anarchists and commies?

They are not. But if you want to shed that image you need to stop acting like Software Communists.

Here's a detailed step-by-step example that shows how this problem could play out: Programmer P downloads the Konqueror web browser, receiving it under terms of GPL.
P learns of a new web standard that requires exercising a technique for parsing URLs that is patented by Corporation C. C has licensed the patent under an RF, non-exclusive license, but with a "field of use" restriction that says the license can be used to "implement the standard". The standard, as it turns out, covers only what browsers must do with URLs, and says nothing about the server side or clients that aren't user browsers.
P implements this technique in Konqueror, and seeks to redistribute the modified version on his website so that other users can benefit from Konqueror now complying with the standard. If he does, he is bound by the GPL under copyright law, because he is redistributing a modified version.
However, he knows full well of a condition on that code that contradicts the GPL (violating Section 7) -- namely, he knows that C's patent license prohibits folks from taking his URL parsing code and putting it into, say, a search engine. Therefore, under GPL Section 7, he is prohibited from redistribution.
You might think that he can simply assign his copyright to the existing copyright holder of Konqueror let distribution happen from that source. They could distribute under GPL, but they would be granting a self-contradicting license. Nothing (to my knowledge, but IANAL) prohibits someone from distributing copyrighted works under licenses that make no sense and are self-contradictory. However, it is certainly true that those who receive distribution of the works are stuck and can't undertake further distribution or modification themselves.

Thus, regardless of who makes the changes, the result either shuts down distribution or forces the original developer to abandon GPL. Both outcomes are very unfortunate.

You say you are going to stop using Borland because you don't like the whip hand that you live under and yet you're migrating to Microsoft? Hello? Perhaps you should investigate Free Software and liberate yourself.

I don't think this will be a problem with the Classpath library, since iits license provides the "library exception", but in general it will make linking with other GPL licensed software a hassle.

Don't get me wrong, I like Eclipse and use it a lot. It's faster and better looking than Netbeans (plus I have no use for the GUI builder part of Netbeans), and SWT is a great idea. I'm just pointing out that there are still license incompatibilities lying around between major free software projects (remember the Python licensing controversy?), and wish that copyright holders will do something to resolve them.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has launched an associated membership program. Support Free Software by becoming an FSF associated member. From the FSF website: On Monday 25 November 2002, we launched the FSF Associate Membership program. Now, you can support FSF by becoming a card-carrying associate member. You can find out about the rates and benefits of membership, sign up to be an Associate Member, login to edit your membership options, and even read briefly about some current projects of FSF.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has launched an associated membership program. Support Free Software by becoming an FSF associated member. From the FSF website: On Monday 25 November 2002, we launched the FSF Associate Membership program. Now, you can support FSF by becoming a card-carrying associate member. You can find out about the rates and benefits of membership, sign up to be an Associate Member, login to edit your membership options, and even read briefly about some current projects of FSF.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has launched an associated membership program. Support Free Software by becoming an FSF associated member. From the FSF website: On Monday 25 November 2002, we launched the FSF Associate Membership program. Now, you can support FSF by becoming a card-carrying associate member. You can find out about the rates and benefits of membership, sign up to be an Associate Member, login to edit your membership options, and even read briefly about some current projects of FSF.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has launched an associated membership program. Support Free Software by becoming an FSF associated member. From the FSF website: On Monday 25 November 2002, we launched the FSF Associate Membership program. Now, you can support FSF by becoming a card-carrying associate member. You can find out about the rates and benefits of membership, sign up to be an Associate Member, login to edit your membership options, and even read briefly about some current projects of FSF.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has launched an associated membership program. Support Free Software by becoming an FSF associated member. From the FSF website: On Monday 25 November 2002, we launched the FSF Associate Membership program. Now, you can support FSF by becoming a card-carrying associate member. You can find out about the rates and benefits of membership, sign up to be an Associate Member, login to edit your membership options, and even read briefly about some current projects of FSF.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has launched an associated membership program. Support Free Software by becoming an FSF associated member. From the FSF website: On Monday 25 November 2002, we launched the FSF Associate Membership program. Now, you can support FSF by becoming a card-carrying associate member. You can find out about the rates and benefits of membership, sign up to be an Associate Member, login to edit your membership options, and even read briefly about some current projects of FSF.

Here are the corrected links:

Benefits

Sign Up

Yeah, I'm cheap...
so what.

Here are the corrected links:

Benefits

Sign Up

Yeah, I'm cheap...
so what.

For the umpteenth time, there is a difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". Free Software gives you freedom in terms of use, but it does not guarantee free prices. The GPL even says that developers may sell their code for as much as they like, so long as they offer the source code with the provisions of the GPL for no more than that price again.

Sure, and the person I sell it to is then "free" to sell my software to anybody they like for as much as they like, or just give it away. Check the GPL FAQ:

"...if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."

The site is here.

At present, the article's links are pointing back at Slashdot itself. The full page with the links pointing correctly are here.

Yeah, I was wondering about that also. I certainly care about the future of Linux and wish for it to prosper but there are better causes out there than a software company. A better way to contribute to the community at large might be to help out FSF, instead of a corporation.

According to this:

The FSF promotes the development of free software -- particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants. The FSF helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of software freedom.

And when looking at the detail here here, it speaks nothing of FSF support. So I guess an uninformed guess would be "no, not for Gnome"

There are two meanings of the word "free" at work.

There is free (as in beer), which you do not have to pay for.

There is Free (as in speech), which does not restrict what you can do with it.

Obviously there can be no universal freedom. There is a saying "Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose". You are not (or should not) be free to yell "Fire" in a crowded enclosed space. Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation and the GPL is software that you are free to modify, and distribute as you wish, for any payment you wish. You cannot place restrictions on the software as to what can be done with it after you have given it to someone.

You get something for free (as in beer). If you modify it and distribute it, you must give everyone the same freedoms that you were given. To me it seems a small price to pay for getting the original software for free.

I'm not a GPL fanatic, but I like some of the ideas behind it. In todays software economy, lots of money is made by selling the right to use software, something you can't do with Free (as in speech) software. But many companies spend a lot of money on custom software that is never traded on the open market, either by developing in house or contracting out the work. In these cases companies could save a lot of money by adapting an existing product to their needs, rather then writing everything from scratch.

I wandered a bit, but this shoudl serve as a quick intro into free and Free software.

There are two meanings of the word "free" at work.

There is free (as in beer), which you do not have to pay for.

There is Free (as in speech), which does not restrict what you can do with it.

Obviously there can be no universal freedom. There is a saying "Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose". You are not (or should not) be free to yell "Fire" in a crowded enclosed space. Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation and the GPL is software that you are free to modify, and distribute as you wish, for any payment you wish. You cannot place restrictions on the software as to what can be done with it after you have given it to someone.

You get something for free (as in beer). If you modify it and distribute it, you must give everyone the same freedoms that you were given. To me it seems a small price to pay for getting the original software for free.

I'm not a GPL fanatic, but I like some of the ideas behind it. In todays software economy, lots of money is made by selling the right to use software, something you can't do with Free (as in speech) software. But many companies spend a lot of money on custom software that is never traded on the open market, either by developing in house or contracting out the work. In these cases companies could save a lot of money by adapting an existing product to their needs, rather then writing everything from scratch.

I wandered a bit, but this shoudl serve as a quick intro into free and Free software.