Slashdot Mirror

You can ask for a fee, but you must also make it freely available to anyone that asks.

for every person that pays you for your software, there can be 10 or 100 or 1000 that won't send you a dime

Lovely, hey?

How big a fine to impose and what to do with the money.
I don't see a breakup as being able to remove MS from the seat of power it now holds. If you open sorced windows, they'd just create a new closed version with "extra features".
Therefore, I think MS should donate it's $30 billion in pocket change to the free software foundation, for advocating and implimenting Free open source software in schools and companies. Ultimately, with enough people working with and on Linux(with enough eyes all bugs are shallow), the government reserves the cash as an asset in the form of freely available software solutions. This does 2 things:

1. removes monopoly power by creating alternatives for not only americans, but everyone everywhere. These alternatives by nature of their open source license are guarenteed to always be available in the future.

2. provide public awareness of alternatives to windows while leaving MS "cashless", unable to rival the marketing power of the 30 billion retrieved in the case.

MS's monopoly needs to be brought down a few notches and I feel that MS should foot the bill for that.(no pun intended)

I realise this is a flame and that I shouldn't answer it but who have said that you can order a distro, have it set up for you for zero cost, give you support for zero cost and everything else for zero cost.

Before talking about free software in terms of the GPL (The licence Linux has) make sure you know
or at least have a some knowledge in what you are talking about. Browse an hour and you will realise that we are not talking about zero cost but different freedoms they think you should have with software. Of course you may not agree with this but at least you can debate it.

I realise this is a flame and that I shouldn't answer it but who have said that you can order a distro, have it set up for you for zero cost, give you support for zero cost and everything else for zero cost.

Before talking about free software in terms of the GPL (The licence Linux has) make sure you know
or at least have a some knowledge in what you are talking about. Browse an hour and you will realise that we are not talking about zero cost but different freedoms they think you should have with software. Of course you may not agree with this but at least you can debate it.

Yes, if he would indeed stand by his beliefs. He talks about freedom, but insists that you should not use the words you like. As long as http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html is there, RMS is a lier in my book.

You must cause any work that you distribute OR publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

If you read that slow 3 times you might become convinced that you understand what this crucial paragraph means. Do so now, before we proceed to test your Commie IQ.

Commie IQ Test Question #1:

You're an independent, sole proprieter, consulting programmer who obtains a copy of the source of a GPL'ed time-sheet application to which you add enhancements that could benefit a bunch of other independent, sole proprieter, consulting programmers. You give copies to a bunch of your business associates who are independent, sole proprieter, consulting programmers with whom you frequently collaborate. Are you required to license the enhanced time-sheet program, as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of the General Public License?

YES or NO

Commie IQ Test Question #2:

You're an employee of a Fortune 500 investment banking concern on Wall Street who, in that role, obtains a copy of the source of a GPL'ed time-sheet application which you enhance in a way that could benefit your employer if distributed to your fellow employees acting in their roles as employees. Being a good employee, you, in your role as said employee, proceed to realize the potential benefit to your employer by distributing copies of your enhanced program to a bunch of your fellow employees. Are you and/or your employer required to license the enhanced time-sheet program, as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of the General Public License?

YES or NO

Commie IQ Test Question #3:

You're a worker hero of the KGB during the Soviet Era who obtains a copy of the source of a GPL'ed time-sheet application which you enhance in a way that could benefit the workers of the world. Being a good worker hero, you, in your role as said worker hero, proceed to realize the potential benefit to the workers of the world by distributing copies of your enhanced program to a bunch of your fellow worker heros -- all within the Kremlin and its agencies world-wide. Are you and/or your glorious revolutionary withering-away state required to license the enhanced time-sheet program, as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of the General Public License?

YES or NO

Commie IQ Test Question #4:

Were Stahlman's parents members of the Communist Party?

YES or NO

Commie IQ Test Question #5:

Did Stahlman receive funding from the Soviet Union while establishing the General Public License?

YES or NO

Commie IQ Test Question #6:

Did a Jacob Schiff -- patrilineal ancestor of Al Gore's son-in-law and founder of major investment banking houses on Wall Street near the start of the 1900's -- finance Leon Trotsky's Bolshevick Revolution thereby starting the purges that Stalin ramped up to the extermination of tens of millions of people in eastern Europe just prior to WW II?

YES or NO

Commie IQ Test Question #7:

Does "distribute" mean the same thing as "publish" in paragraph 2.b. of the General Public License?

YES or NO

Answers:

1. YES
2. NO according to the FSF's lawyers & GPL FAQ
3. NO
4. YES according to folk-lore from Santa Rosa Hackers Conference
5. YES according to folk-lore from Santa Rosa Hackers Conference
6. YES

One thing is clear, however:

The Free Software Foundation follows in a long tradition of hostility toward the original American value placed on independent innovation -- instead favoring large organizations, whether they be Fortune 500 Wall Street investment bankers or governments.

In other words, "Commie Hipocrisy" is redundant.

Linux is the flagship that carries that ideal. It doesn't matter what it's called, everyone associates Linux with free (as in beer), and therefore should be exactly what he needs.

Actually, a lot of people tend to associate linux with open source, which, as we all know if different than free software. RMS wants to GNU out front so that the distributions people use will be associated with freedom (as in speach not beer). That is his goal as I see it.

links describing linux and its relation to GNU:

• Why GNU/Linux by RMS if you only read one of these links, make it this one
• Linux and the GNU Project by RMS
• The Debian homepage, read the first paragraph
• The GNU Project, look about 3/4ths of the way down

What about my mother's secret chocolate-chip cookie recipe? I mean, those cookies are good. She might stop making them for me if I start giving out her recipe! :-)

On a slightly more serious note, consider this: You say "Information wants to be free." There are many types of information. I'm going to classify software as a type of information (a veritable namshub, if you've read Snowcrash). Software is really just a set of instructions telling a computer to do something. So, software wants to be free. That's not an overly large stretch. The FSF holds this view. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but that's not really the point.

What other types of information are there, though? Let's wax ridiculous for a second. I just bought a great birthday present for my mother (the one who makes those fantastic cookies I'm not going to give you the recipe for). I'd rather keep it as a surprise, but "information wants to be free." This is an overly extreme case. But what about other secrets? What if I've fallen in love with this girl, but I don't think my mother is quite ready to deal with this, and in fact might disown me (and stop giving me chocolate-chip cookies - the horror! -). Should I tell her because "information wants to be free?" This is most certainly a piece of information, and it does affect her.

Lets wander back to the slightly more normal (but never away from cookies!). I don't think "information wants to be free." Or even if it does, I'm not sure I care. Information isn't a person. I don't want to restrict a person's rights to maintain information's rights. I would rather hold on to the freedom to choose my freedoms. If I choose to use a proprietary operating system that limits my freedom, that's my choice. Let me make it. If I choose to hold onto that freedom, that's just a different choice regarding the same freedom.

Although the FSF does not charge for software, they certainly do accept donations and have information about it here. Cygwin was developed very much in the spirit and philosophy of the GNU project, and if you make a donation and inform both FSF and Cygwin that it's a token of recognition for Cygwin, you can be certain that there will be good will and warm vibes all around. You'll also be helping Cygwin in a material way, because they benefit from the FSF's efforts, and the FSF has operating costs that you'll be helping them defray.

The LinuxPPC project also encourages donations to the FSF -- when you order their stuff online, there's a box where you can enter any amount you'd like to donate.

I'm probably sounding like more of a fan of the FSF than I really am here -- sometimes RMS grates me in the profoundest way -- but I just think this is what fits your desires best. There's nothing excessively material and unworthy about donating cash; many organizations make good use of it and will be deeply grateful. If that's a way for you to get a warm, fuzzy feeling, go do it. The fuzzies will surely come right back at you.

Yet all this time later, you are still having difficulty expressing your most fundemental point, that being "It's free like free speech, not free like free beverages."

I know there is a long tirade defending the use of the term free , but isn't it time to acknowledge the failure of this term and choose terminology that has more intuitive meaning, terminology that can express the ideal without requiring a lengthy explanation which most regular folks could care less about?

Perhaps I've misjudged your intentions. If so, please post an explanation of this comment of yours:

They give their view on selling software because they are trying to be deceptive. They know exactly what they are doing, but want to misdirect criticism.

If you can't provide an example of how the FSF is deceiving people, could I suggest that you should think a little harder before posting?

Failure is its own reward.

We do. There are many, but the Free Software Foundation immediately comes to mind.

I know that there are many (Micro$oft included) who undermine, overlook and/or deny the FSF's vast contribution to society. Needless to say, they are just ignorant or do so out of an ulterior motive.

Free Software does not mean GPL software. According to the FSF's license list, both the BSD license and the Apache license are free software licenses.
--
Niklas Nordebo | niklas at nordebo.com

The relevance of zero copy cost is that it makes distributed development efficient. Furthermore

Of course a great deal of the cost associated with software is in the development. That's a good reason why sharing development effort, and promoting the re-use of code, is a good thing for community as a whole. This is something that copyleft vigorously encourages.

I would further contend that the remainder of the cost (probably the major part) is in maintenance and support. Here's a big space for flourishing of businesses based on Free Software.

Please read and understand, then post if necessary; those first two steps are the most important!

The FSF's definition. This is not the same as copyleft. I support copyleft with more vigour than non-copyleft Free Software because it promotes more vigorously the growth of the pool of Free Software, and fights against the growth of proprietary software.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you not saying that while it's okay to make money off support, services, etc, it is somehow less moral to make money off actual software code, or in this case, closed source binaries?

Yes, I think it's less moral to make money off closed source binaries.

That's because there is more to be gained for society as a whole by the distribution of 'open source', Free Software.

As far as I can tell, that's what morals are all about - the benefit of society (or perhaps "life", or "intelligence", or "sentience"; some might say "the universe" - here's where I think the worthwhile argument is) as a whole.

I'm glad that you promote the use of Linux in companies, however I fail to see why you are so opposed to this.

I like Linux a lot. I think it's great that the community can be so close to the development of serious software and I get excited watching the pace of development. I also think most of the people in the community which has grown up around it are intelligent, interesting people. However, I wouldn't be so passionate if the licensing was different, and neither do I think it would have taken the geek community by storm in quite the way it has.

I am opposed to the increasing introduction of proprietary software into Linux because it diverts attention from what I see as the goal in hand - the growth of the Free Software community.

I hope you understand where I am coming from, even if you don't agree with me. Perhaps I am mistaken in trying to persuade people who just won't be convinced (at least for the time being...). However, I hope people won't blame me for standing up for something I believe in.

The FSF's definition. This is not the same as copyleft. I support copyleft with more vigour than non-copyleft Free Software because it promotes more vigorously the growth of the pool of Free Software, and fights against the growth of proprietary software.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you not saying that while it's okay to make money off support, services, etc, it is somehow less moral to make money off actual software code, or in this case, closed source binaries?

Yes, I think it's less moral to make money off closed source binaries.

That's because there is more to be gained for society as a whole by the distribution of 'open source', Free Software.

As far as I can tell, that's what morals are all about - the benefit of society (or perhaps "life", or "intelligence", or "sentience"; some might say "the universe" - here's where I think the worthwhile argument is) as a whole.

I'm glad that you promote the use of Linux in companies, however I fail to see why you are so opposed to this.

I like Linux a lot. I think it's great that the community can be so close to the development of serious software and I get excited watching the pace of development. I also think most of the people in the community which has grown up around it are intelligent, interesting people. However, I wouldn't be so passionate if the licensing was different, and neither do I think it would have taken the geek community by storm in quite the way it has.

I am opposed to the increasing introduction of proprietary software into Linux because it diverts attention from what I see as the goal in hand - the growth of the Free Software community.

I hope you understand where I am coming from, even if you don't agree with me. Perhaps I am mistaken in trying to persuade people who just won't be convinced (at least for the time being...). However, I hope people won't blame me for standing up for something I believe in.

That's because the Kompany is a proprietary software company.

I don't like it, you don't like it. The strange thing about this story is the number of people who seem to understand the need to modify code and distribute modifications (fix and submit patches) but don't care about the Free Software Definition.

From another perspective, suppose you write a program which uses the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC). Are you prohibited from releasing that software under the GPL because MFC is not GPL'd?

Strictly speaking, the GPL cannot prevent you from distributing anything that you have written yourself, since you are responsible as the copyright holder for enforcing the license. However, you would need to add a special exception to the license giving others permission to link it against the MFC, or else nobody else would be allowed to distribute it.

Take a look at Galeon's license for an example of this. The Gecko library is under MPL, so they have to give special permission to link to it.

Explanation from the FSF's GPL FAQ.

Yeah, there is already a fairly detailed guide, although I think it could use some revising. Know your sysadmin at the FSFs humor archive is what you're looking for. I just discovered it myself a few weeks ago while looking for some rather obscure bit of EMACs trivia (is there any other kind?).

The link is http://www.fsf.org/fun/jokes/know.your.sysadmin.ht ml if slashdot garbles it.

This looks like it explicitly states that any product licensed under the ``GPL'' may not be used to `develop' any software used with the product. (Another part of the license explicitly includes all ``Open Source'' or ``Free Software'' products.) Before you complain this isn't really viral, consider: the license doesn't say `viral', it says `Potentially Viral'. If M$ says it might be viral, that's good enough for the purposes of the license.

Keep in mind that "the Software" in this case is the SDK itself, not software developed by the licensee. They're simply making it explicit that you're not allowed to snarf code (even sample code) from the SDK and republish it under an open source license. This doesn't mean you can't develop GPLed tools that use the SDK, except that you will have to add a special exception to your copyright notice that effectively bypasses the virality of the GPL with respect to the SDK (or whatever other non-free library you need). A similar exception permit

Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software.

3) What about the GPL? Well, what about it? Nothing Caldera is doing violates the GPL (at least, I can't prove it).

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

(more from the GPL)

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

It seems to me this is clearly not allowed under the GPL. However, the above quote includes the word 'herein' - meaning in the GPL. The GPL specifically states:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License;

A strange situation occurs (based on the information I have now): Caldera disallows use of their softare on more than one system, but it does not disallow redistribution. Much like 'shareware' licenses, which allow free distribution of the software, but use is limited.

Some people have argue that once you've obtained the software it's yours to do with as you please, but to redistribute the software (modified or not), you have to have permission from the copyright owner.

I don't think Caldera's model can survive. It can only work if none of the copyright holders decide to sue Caldera, and they actually have a much better distribution (to compensate for the loss in goodwill).

If this holds up, however, there is no longer any added value to the GPL versus some of the less restrictive licenses (BSD/MIT/X11 etc).

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.

Actually to correct my own statement before someone else does, what GPL effectively says is: "I retain copyright, but you may copy this source if you accept that the cost is making available the source to anything build with it and retaining this license in the copied source and adding this license to the derived product." Actually, the FSF copyleft page puts it even better (but with my emphasis)

"To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable."

Don't get me wrong, I like GPL. I don't see a problem with it "infecting" source, other than that it will turn some appalingly rich people into merely very rich people. But I do think that it is fair to describe it as viral, or Borg-like, or whatever. The mechanism is the same.

But as an aside, the Borg are only frightening and evil if you've already been brainwashed by the Federation "conform to the cult of individuality" programming. In the same way, GPL is evil only if you think that the good of a culture is served by allowing a few individuals to buy anything they need (competitors, politicians, laws) to protect their monopoly on production. Just because that's the way we've worked for a few hundred years doesn't mean it's the only way to work.

• The GPL is [..] a vaccine [...] against later abuse of your code by having someone, such as Microsoft, take your hard work, incorporate it into a proprietary product which is then extended and kept closed, marginalizing your project in the process

That's a pretty badly informed statement. Your protection against that happening isn't GPL, it's good old fashioned copyright. GPL just adds this: "I retain copyright, but you may copy this source if you accept that the cost is making available the source to anything built with it." Regardless of what you think GPL says, or what you'd like it to say, that's what it actually says.

IMHO, GPL can fairly be described as being viral, even by an advocate (such as myself), and doesn't "protect" against anything. The protection is through the copyright, which is why the FSF recommends assigning it to them so they can fight abusers who rip off GPL code without sharing back their source. Please take the time to read the copyleft pages at the FSF.

Even the tools clause only forbids "tools ... licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software." As I read this, that doesn't rule out the vast majority of open source tools-- it rules out tools which enforce a license upon the materials created or modified with them.

This isn't really much of a restriction, because it's very unusual for a development tool to impose conditions on materials created with them. One notable case was the old Bison license. Bison copied a large chunk of GPL-covered code into its generated output, thus "infecting" a program compiled with it. This irritated enough people that FSF created an exception. Think about it: just working on your code using Emacs doesn't create obligations for anyone, or grant rights or immunities to anyone, on the code you've pulled up! Also notably, some decidedly non-free tools, such as the level editors supplied with many games, place conditions on what you can do with what you create using them, such as requiring that levels you create not be used for revenue-generating purposes. Neither free software nor Microsoft is a villain here; this is merely alarmism.

Even the tools clause only forbids "tools ... licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software." As I read this, that doesn't rule out the vast majority of open source tools-- it rules out tools which enforce a license upon the materials created or modified with them.

This isn't really much of a restriction, because it's very unusual for a development tool to impose conditions on materials created with them. One notable case was the old Bison license. Bison copied a large chunk of GPL-covered code into its generated output, thus "infecting" a program compiled with it. This irritated enough people that FSF created an exception. Think about it: just working on your code using Emacs doesn't create obligations for anyone, or grant rights or immunities to anyone, on the code you've pulled up! Also notably, some decidedly non-free tools, such as the level editors supplied with many games, place conditions on what you can do with what you create using them, such as requiring that levels you create not be used for revenue-generating purposes. Neither free software nor Microsoft is a villain here; this is merely alarmism.

I always found it funny that, in a backhanded way, the GNU project is just one more thing Xerox invented.

--

When listening to the verbal sparring between open source advocates and Microsoft, it's interesting to notice what's not being talked about. Look at any side of the debate. Do you see any mention of BSD?

Quite a few licenses qualify as open source, according to those who define the term. In attacks on open source, such as the recent commentary by Microsoft's Craig Mundie, the headline and opening comments target open source in a general way. But one doesn't have to read far to see that the only open source license under attack is the GNU General Public License (GPL).

To add to this focus on the GNU GPL, there has been almost no response to Microsoft from within the BSD community.

Are there any large repositories of Open Source work that are somewhat mature? I know the Free Software Foundation has a lot of code, as do some of the linux distribution sites. I would think that these at least should be consulted.

Free vetcor map data? Good luck!
You're absolutely right, I know, I've been looking for public digital maps myself, but it seems impossible to get some of decent quality. And maps = expensive as hell. That's got to change, it's only data after all, and I happen to agree with the FSF when it comes to data. When everyone has a GPS module, public map data of high quality may become a possibility.

Of course, a much faster way is simply pirating these maps. Once map data is avaliable, it's very hard to say "that is OUR map data!" since, well, the terrain lies there.

I suspect you are trolling but I am going to reply anyway...

Internet Explorer is not free just like Mozilla is. Show me the source code for IE - you can't because it's not free. (Speech v Beer) For a definition of free software see the Free Software Foundation website at http://www.fsf.org

Winzip is not a Microsoft application.

The hundreds of gigabytes(?) of free programs he had were probably not written by Microsoft. Are you sure you don't mean megabytes. Do you know how big a gigabyte is?

As for your last paragraph - it speaks for itself. Microsoft are not in the business of giving power to people, they are in the business of making money. To them that means taking power away from users.

Let's say that MS bundle a GPL program on Windows CD. This mean that all of Windows now must be GPLed.

No it does not.

The GPL is here. It claims no such thing.

Please stop promoting FUD.

First of all there is no such thing as bad press in my opinion. Second of all I think the intention is to allow modification of the source as long as credit etc is given. As for the license itself, it seems to me a lot of developers/companies want to have a licence with their own moniker stamped on it.
I'll spare typing the list..you can find the list of licences at Licence list

Why not simply release it under an already existing license?
Just don't release it under the Drivers License....the wait in line will discourage its release.

Because these two projects don't use the GPL to release their work. The Apache foundation uses the ASL which discourages forking in ways that wouldn't quite jive with adding in GPL code and OpenBSD uses the BSDLicense which allows code to be incorporated into non-free programs in ways that don't work with the GPL (though the FSF terms it as a compatable license these days). Basically, the differences aren't all that big of a deal unless you like picking fights with RMS. The little obscure differences between these different licenses are avaliable here if you actually had any interest in learning about these issues.

________________________

Tax benefits.

Investors aren't going to pitch money in unless they see a return, which they aren't going to get.

Which means you look for benefactors, not investors.

It's a nice idea (in a socialist collective kind of way) but I just don't see it getting off the ground

The idea of charity or non-profit is not necessarily socialist. As for not getting off the ground, the FSF has been operating this way pretty much since the beginning.

Ryan T. Sammartino

The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity (like the Read Cross, apparently).

They use donations and sales of books, CDROMS, etc, to pay developers.

Ryan T. Sammartino

The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity (like the Read Cross, apparently).

They use donations and sales of books, CDROMS, etc, to pay developers.

Ryan T. Sammartino

The way I see it, OSS underlies business. It enables it, it provides tools, but not (buzzword coming) solutions, which is what the software business is all about. If we had to rely on Microsoft networking, or Lotus Notes to commuicate, I don't think we would have gotten as far as we have. Look at HTML, TCP/IP networking. While they're not something you can get from the FSF website, they're an open standard that users. industry, and pretty much the whole world has agreed on.

Where I work we're also buying some Linux products to handle security. Why not just download the stuff? We save the time it would take to administer it, we get expert code, and I still have the ability to monitor the goings-on of my software. That's worth the money right there, especially since it's not mine ;-) It's a service, really. Rather than pay me, an admitted non-expert, overtime, take me away from other projects (I don't mean /.), and generally hit the brakes for other aspects of the business, we'll get it done for us. It's quick and easy.

If you can build a company that makes a profit from OSS tools, do it! You can't sell them, that's the catch. I think that the computer service industry is really in it's infancy right now. Will Capitalist Pigs provide services for x and y? You bet they will.

I leave other business applications of OSS as an exercise to the readers ;)

That depends on how it is to be used. If it is not going to be distributed, then you can mix them as much as you want. There is a FAQ concerning this. If you think about it, it's not much different than some proprietary licenses. Go to the about: screen with Netscape. I'm sure they had to follow the licensing terms of all those companies in order to distribute the program.

Not only that the FSF encourages distributors to charge for software, with the notion that this is a prime opportunity to secure funding to further develop Free Software-- something I'd say Yellow Dog is involved in. Certainly the $30-$40 for the set of disks you get from YDL is not making anyone a multimillionaire-- their 1.2 distribution was dang nice, imho, and I'm guessing that 2.0 would be money well spent as well (especially if you're not going to be a hardline Free Software zealot and only use the main tree from Debian).

For this very reason the FSF started their own server using the SourceForge software. The FSF plans to use it to manage their projects but, like SourceForge, it is open to the public. All the amenities of SourceForge without having a single point of failure.

Everytime I turn around, it seems like I read a letter to the editor from RMS making a distinction between open source and free software, or between the Linux kernel and the GNU/Linux operating system. By constantly using his position as a (semi-)celebrity to associate himself with one small, relatively radical subset of open source movement in general, I think he may alienate some folks out there.

RMS is the leader of the free software movement, which long (better than 10 years) predates the term "open source". He's arguing a very specific position -- that freedom is important in its own right, independent of any business advantages that may come from the use of open source. He's not trying to argue from a business perspective, and should not be judged on that basis.

Since RMS most likely won't get up there and emphasize that there are alternatives to the GPL that may be attractive, I wonder how widely his ideas will be accepted by the people who have the money.

Read the license page on the FSF's web site. It lists a very large number of licenses, which it groups into "GPL-compatible", free but not compatible with the GPL, and non-free, and gives specific reasons why each is placed in each category, and recommends reasons for choosing particular licenses. While I doubt that RMS will go into deep discussion of this at his talk -- that would be appropriate for a presentation at a conference, not a general lecture -- his position demonstrates extensive thought, certainly not "one size fits all". Again, as for the issue of money, that's not what he's trying to address.

However, I could make a very strong case that in fact the GPL is one of the best licenses that a business could use in licensing its free source output. The reason, interestingly enough, is that the GPL is probably the strongest widely-accepted license there is for protecting program source against proprietary use by someone else. It's interesting that the situations where the FSF recommends use of the LGPL -- a weaker license -- are those where the software in question is a commodity implementation of a standard, such as libc. The parallels between software that a business would typically try to keep closed and sell for money and GPL'ed software, and software that a business would freely give away and LGPL'ed software, are significant. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html quite clearly notes that the purpose of the GPL is to build up a significant portfolio of IP that may be used freely by anyone so long as they agree to put any derived distributed work under the same conditions.

I see in RMS passionate beliefs, and also unwillingness to compromise. Could it hurt the open source movement in the long run?

As I noted above, RMS's position is in fact quite nuanced; the LGPL itself is a compromise of sorts, and he even agrees with the decision to LGPL Ogg Vorbis, on the grounds that uptake of a free alternative to MP3 is of sufficient importance that even the existence of proprietary programs using Ogg Vorbis will benefit the free community.

It means that you haven't been brainwashed.

Here's what the Free Software Foundation has to say about the word "property".

Intellectual works are fundamentally different from limited economic goods. To pretend they are the same is pure foolishness.

The word "property" implies something that can be taken away from you. Nobody can take intellectual works away from you unless they steal the physical disk that it's stored on.

If intellectual works were truly property and followed the laws of economics, their price would be basically the "marginal" cost of production. Fixed costs have very little relevance in the pricing of commodities. Granted, video games aren't commodities, but there are enough producers around that it should be a true marketplace. But it isn't, due to government intervention in the market.

Bryan

If they kept the GPL'ed code seprate from their code ie use GPL'ed librays and wrote there own interface compiled as seprate files then the files that DO NOT contain GPL'ed code would not be subject to the GPL.

If I write a program that uses one file(compiled) that has GPL'ed code then, that file is subject to the GPL any other files that do not contain GPL'ed code are NOT SUBJECT to the GPL.

WRONG!! Wrong wrong wrong!

The "How to Apply these Terms to Your New Programs" section of the GPL specifically mentions the subject of linking:

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License.

Avery Lee did not release his code under the LGPL, and did not release it as a library. It was released under the GPL. Therefore, any code linking into his code must be released under the GPL. That's how it is, whether Vidomi likes it or not. Taking Avery's code and turning it into a library does NOT change the code license from the GPL to the LGPL. Morover, in their initial release, Vidomi clearly bundled Avery's GPL code with their own as one package. That means, whether Vidomi likes it or not, their code is already licensed under the GPL, and they MUST released their source code. Once GPL, always GPL.

• about a week after the courts rule that the GPL is unenforceable [...] programmers stop releasing code, and go to work for large corps, and things go back to the Way They Were

Please take the time to actually read about GPL copyleft. Copylefted source is copyrighted. Even if a court rules that the "must give source" clause is void, that doesn't void your copyright. Go ahead and sue.

The nightmare scenario is a really bonkers judge ruling that GPL code is public domain (which it explicitely isn't). However, that would have huge implications for all forms of corporate copyright, so it's hard to see even a US judge going that far.

This is correct as far as it goes, but there's more. If your code is linked to GPL'd code you must GPL your code as well. Even this is still an oversimplification. The complete license itself is here.

Have you seen the prices the FSF charges for CDs of software?

Where's that definition?

There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit.

And neither is it wrong with free software companies using free software for profit. There are also a lot of free software companies today selling free software for profit. So I don't understand what you're arguing.

And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).

There has always been a need for free software. That's why we have GNU/Linux today, and lots of companies selling free GNU/Linux distributions.

Oh, and in case you haven't got the point yet, "free" in this context was never about price, it's about freedom. This was what was mentioned in the article, and what you completely failed to realize. I'd recommend reading up a bit on the the definition of free software. There you have a definition.

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

And, in the APSL commentary section - http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html:

In January 2001, Apple released another version, ASPL 1.2. This version fixes two of the fatal flaws, but one still remains: any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published. The APSL 1.2 has taken two large steps towards a free software license, but still has one more large step to take before it qualifies.

Disrespect for privacy

The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.