Slashdot Mirror

quote your source please.

--Ben

If you read the GNU free software page, all freedoms are assured to the user of the software. Just not to the distributors, since they cannot distribute a modified binary.

Of course, qmail and djbdns have no holes. Guaranteed. So there is no need to distribute a modified binary. ...the user is assured of all essential GNU freedoms.

Quote:

Moglen noted that Microsoft's confusion about the GPL's origins is not surprising. He said that "taking advice on what the GPL means from Microsoft is like taking Stalin's word on the meaning of the US Constitution.

Linux advocate- Hello, I'm from RedHat Inc.
Law maker- Who?

Linux advocate- Hello, I'm from the Linux Industry Consortium. Our members include IBM, HP, Sun and RedHat.
Law maker- Hello. Pleased to meet you. Would you like a coffee?

Such a group would be able to excert pressure in other areas. For example, whilst Andre Hedrik's effort in the IDE standards committee are greatly appreciated, he has himself said that his influence is limited since he is just a lone consultant and can't officialy represent Linux.

I agree that creating such a body is going to produce numerous problems such as keeping it small enough to be responsive whilst not excluding people who feel they should be represented, and defining its role closely enough to prevent it from influencing things like kernel development. I also accept that we already have groups like FSF and Linux International, but if RedHat are having to go and lobby lawmakers then these groups clearly don't have the required clout. Obviously they could be members of the "Linux Industry Consortium" (I am sure we could find a better name).

The same reason I don't -- because the BSD license doesn't have a hidden agenda.

The GPL certainly does not have a hidden agenda. The agenda is clearly and openly spelled out.

one question: who is this David Desrosiers guy?

The Bottom Line is that, if this is true, no matter how many lawyers Sony has, they're violating the license on POSE. and they can fight it all day, but in the end, they'll have to release their additions to the source.

moral of the story: big companies don't get open source. see the apple article posted today...it's a paradigm so far removed from their culture that they ignore it.

so if the FSF has to take them to court to enforce it, then they will...take this opportunity to throw some $$ their way.

http://www.fsf.org/help/donate.html

OT: gpl violations aside, that was probably the _most_ obnoxious email i've ever read.

"So as I'm sitting here working and playing with my Palm, people
tend to whip theirs out and play with it, as if to say "Hey, I'm one of
you, look, I have a palm too..!"

ya. because everybody's so concerned with impressing this guy.

Oh, that's crap. As I understand it, one way to troll is to completely go off the handle without bothering to address the substance of what you're objecting to. From that vantage, I don't see how "This argument is crap and I stopped reading" is any less trollish than unloading on RMS and his penchant for insisting that others follow his semantics. People are allowed to think that RMS's opinions are wrong. They are allowed to say so in very strong (even offensive) terms, and simply doing so doesn't make them trolls.

More to the point, if you'd read the entire article you would have hit some interesting stuff. While a good part of it is tiresome KDE vs. Ximian Gnome partisanship, there's also a perfectly reasonable call for the FSF to release information on their finances.

Point is, just screaming "troll" isn't a good enough argument against Powell's article. It fails to contest, for example, Powell's claim that

it is absolutely undeniable that the FSF has thrown its support behind a desktop controlled by two for-profit companies, one of which has an officer who sits on the FSF's board; the same company has purchased advertising aimed at confounding those who are seeking a desktop that is truly free in every rational sense of the word; and the other company has suggested that users can assist its product in surviving but help it avoid paying its bills by donating to the Free Software Foundation, or else an officer of that company has flung down and danced upon his fiduciary responsibilities by saying, in a communication that is part of his corporate function, that people might want to send money to the FSF instead of the company.

I mean, when you look at it that way, it reeks. If the FSF wants to represent the interest of hackers and geeks in the public sphere, I think it's perfectly reasonable that us hackers and geeks call them when they're out of line (or, as is the case here, when there's enough going on to make them look like they're out of line). Just because they're not the RIAA doesn't mean they're saints. If they're not doing anything wrong, the only thing releasing information would do is completely exhonorate them.

Lastly, let's not forget that they're a Foundation, not an individual. Organizations, whether foundations or corporations, can't (or at least, shouldn't be allowed to) claim the same rights as individuals.

Before you go off on me, here's my line of thinking: if you give an organization the same rights as an individual, the organization will have greater rights in a de facto sense. They have resources (time, money, personnel, etc.) to fight when their rights are infringed that individuals simply don't have. I mean, I don't have a legal team to fight for me when I say something that pisses someone off and they take me to court, but major corporations and organizations do. They, by entension, have more real free speech than I do simply because they can defend what they say and I can't -- this holds true even though we technically have the same rights.

The US Supreme Court made a huge mistake when it decided that corporations have personhood. Extending that outward, I think we have every right to see the finances of a corporation or organization, and every right to want to see them when that organization claims to represent us. It's always a good idea to be a little wary of anyone who claims to speak for anyone else, even if they're the FSF, even if they're right most of the time. Just because everything they did yesterday was good doesn't mean we can assume everything they're doing today is all peaches.

..something ought to happen.

every day, we hear stories about how all the venture capital has run out, and the free-services / free-software business model isn't working.

that's because you can't make money if your price tag is $0! but that's not the point. i can't help but think how long free software and free services have been available, but now that more people use them, everything fails?

if more people contribute their spare time and spare resources to a community of one sort or another, great things will continue to happen, just like they do today.

if you get over the idea that everyone needs to make lots of money to be happy, things are going to continue to change a lot.

---
if the rain comes, they run and hide their heads. they might as well be dead.

Oh one of noble but misguided intentions. Before dispensing of wisdom one must learn wisdom. After slaking thy thirst at the fount of freely available knowledge. Go forth and spread thy wisdom and your newly aquired conception of liberty throughout the mind of humanity.

Yes it might be a nightmare in terms of mods, meta-mods and meta-meta-mods but over all you could end up with a system whereby you'd know what the general feeling about the quality of your work and perhaps some useful proof-reading. The site could be cited as editor, perhaps.

This is by no means more than a half-baked idea of mine, merely a point of discussion perhaps...
BSY

Did you figure in shipping and handling? Each of those things is going to have a shipping charge of $8-12 from random pricewatch vendors. And of course more for big items like the case. (Not to mention that the lowest-priced listings from pricewatch are often suspect.) And, figure at least couple of hours for assembly and testing. I'd say it sounds reasonable to me.

But beyond that, the point of all this is not necessarily to provide the best deal possible. It's to provide a computer guaranteed to work with Linux (aka GNU/Linux) and to provide some financial support for the hardware database project. Look at the FSF's pricelist -- that's certainly more than you'd pay for the same stuff elsewhere. This is the same deal (or more accurately, will be once the non-profit is fully set up).

Aack! Should have used preview!

Of course, if you want to know *specifically*, you should read the license.
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.

Of course, if you want to know *specifically*, you should read the license.
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.

With these forced "upgrades", you are basically at the mercy of the supplier and whatever he wants to do with you.

Just another reason why Free Software is indispensable.

I am only grateful that we have a choice. Companies know this very well: that in Free Software, we have a choice; That with choices, we cannot be controlled by them; That the Free Software development model is the most powerful intelluctual property development model ever seen in human history. It is beyond the control of any single entity. It is definitely beyond their control. Instead of embracing it as the reality, they will do everything in their power to destroy the growth and proliferation of the Free software development model.

In the end, they will fail.

The cat is out of the bag. It is impossible to contain the intellectual power of all the minds on the internet.

We are in a war. Play your part.

Since the software licence for OpenSource stuff is rather important i figured this would be interresting...

Right, so let me explain that the BSD license allows anyone to take the code and redistribute it, modified or unmodified, without providing access to the source. The GPL requires any distributor to provide access to the source, and requires that any modifications be licensed under the GPL to.

The FSF maintains a useful license page.

Why, those codes have decided that they like the possibility for other to sell there work and that they DON'T need to get the money in that case. If they don't like that they shouldn't use GPL or any other Open Sourced licence (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) The first criteria in the definition os open source is that this is possible. If you don't like it don't get into open source, or free software (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/selling.html).

Why, those codes have decided that they like the possibility for other to sell there work and that they DON'T need to get the money in that case. If they don't like that they shouldn't use GPL or any other Open Sourced licence (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) The first criteria in the definition os open source is that this is possible. If you don't like it don't get into open source, or free software (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/selling.html).

On its website the FSF encourages users to pay for the software they get from the FSF.

The FSF has a stated policy on charging for GPL'ed work, which you can read here.

Similarly, if I fix a bug in a piece of GPL'ed code I have to right to charge for the patch. Most people just don't bother because they don't rely on it for their living. I think a lot of the people complaining on this thread probably write proprietry software for a living. IMHO you are doing more damage to the Free Software Community than Libranet could ever do.

To answer someones question re donating to Debian, I haven't heard of any monetary donations to Debian/SPI from Libranet, but I believe they have provided some help with the core parts of Debian because its in their best interest to do so. BTW have you ever donated anything to Debian?

johno

ps: if you're going to flame me, at least read my links first so you know what you're talking about

On its website the FSF encourages users to pay for the software they get from the FSF.

The FSF has a stated policy on charging for GPL'ed work, which you can read here.

Similarly, if I fix a bug in a piece of GPL'ed code I have to right to charge for the patch. Most people just don't bother because they don't rely on it for their living. I think a lot of the people complaining on this thread probably write proprietry software for a living. IMHO you are doing more damage to the Free Software Community than Libranet could ever do.

To answer someones question re donating to Debian, I haven't heard of any monetary donations to Debian/SPI from Libranet, but I believe they have provided some help with the core parts of Debian because its in their best interest to do so. BTW have you ever donated anything to Debian?

johno

ps: if you're going to flame me, at least read my links first so you know what you're talking about

djbdns is not free software AFAIK.

Isnt this *exactly* what the GPL does? The exception in the GPL that allows it to be linked to proprietary OS components was only needed because there wasnt a Free operating system at that time. It seems to me that Qt is more free (in the RMS sense) than GTK+, since it activly encourages Free development on Free platforms while GTK+ can legally be used to develop proprietary apps on nonfree OSes. It would seem that the Qt licenses is closer to the goals of the FSF than GTK+ is. (See Why you shouldnt use the LGPL for your next library ) It seems to me Qt is doing the right thing while GTK is encouraging proprietary platforms (ironic, isnt it?)

Meanwhile, the GTK team is actively encouraging the development of Win32 and BeOS ports. In their eyes, no operating systems are more equal than others. And that is why they will win.

So small technicalities like Qts superior documentation or easy to use signal model, or a nice interface builder (ok, gtk has this too), and a nice, easy to use, consistant API doesnt matter? Unless you're hellbent on using C, I personally think Qt is a better choice in most cases.

And like you said.. nobody is stopping you from forking Qt and porting it to Win32. Why would you need the support of the Trolls for that? (Remember that Qt is their only product)

And i cant belive i'm replying to the obvious troll above.. the licensing wars *should* have gone away a long time ago.

-henrik

This particular budget cut is a travesty of magnificent proprtions. The celestial clock happens to be perfectly in tune with our technological advancement, to offer us this rare glimpse of our environment, as a species. To decide that we can't afford to redirect a few paltry resources to the task strikes me as narrow and crude. It's almost as if, as a species, we are too lazy to bother craning our necks a little to see what's outside the crib.

But it doesn't have to be this way. NASA isn't the only agency capable of sendiing the probe. in fact, maybe this feat could be accomplished on a voluntary basis? We have theories/plans for magical technology at our disposal, commercial support services to pester, potential launch capabilities and a wide variety of legal launch facilities around the world.

Consider: we have, just here at slashdot, the ears of a number of very technically capable individuals that might be persuaded to help create a Pluto Probe in an open sourced, ameteur manner. Corporate sponsorship would be soon to follow. Perhaps I haven't thought it out too carefully, but it is apparent to me that the potential to deploy a probe exists, despite the government.

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.

However, it's also worth remembering that a) RMS has philosophical objections to the APSL which he makes clear in his critique of the APSL and b) even if the license were "Free" that still wouldn't make it GPL-compatible.

However, it's also worth remembering that a) RMS has philosophical objections to the APSL which he makes clear in his critique of the APSL and b) even if the license were "Free" that still wouldn't make it GPL-compatible.

Actually, the Artistic License is considered to be non-free by FSF, because it is "too vague" and some passages "are too clever for their own good".

Other than that, the first 4 are considered GPL compatible (modified BSD) and the last 5 are non-GPL compatible, but still considered free software licenses.

Just wanted to clear that up =)

This comment is guaranteed to gather replies to the effect, of course it's free, it allows the users to do anything they like with the software, and if they modify it and release it to the public they have to release their changes in source as well for the betterment of all. (Of course this comment being prefaced with 'I'm sure to be modded down for this' is sure to be modded insanely up... I should consider doing that, it's almost guaranteed karma haven.) Well, good for the users I say. I also say screw the users, what about the developers? GPL software is anything but free for the developers (strictly developers, RMS will tell you users should be (and will become) developers as well). Here you have megabytes of perfectly good code floating around, and many libraries and snippets GPLed for no other reason than, well, everything else is GPLed, it's the easiest thing to do. Now anyone hoping to use such a piece of code must GPL their own software as well, and I bet at least half of GPLed software was licensed so without the author aspiring to any lofty goals of the FSF, most likely without the author having fully read or even understood the implications of GPL.

As always, this will be modded down as a troll

And why do you think that is? Could it be because you don't have your facts straight and are posting stupid comments about the Free Software Foundation before thinking twice?

They set up conditions for a definition of "free" and insist till the end of time that software is not "free" unless it follows the GPL

Go here and check what licenses make free software according to the FSF. Then come back in shame.

Every time there is a story on Slashdot these days that even vaguely concerns the FSF, it gets flooded by a bunch of losers who feel they have to talk crap about how bad this organisation really is.

The Free Software Foundation, and Richard Stallman in particular, deserve a lot of respect. If you've got something against them, at least have the decency to come up with some real arguments.

The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL.

A license need not be GPL to be GPL compatible.

The FSF has no power except its voice. If you don't like what FSF is saying, you can ignore them. If you don't want to play ball with them, you don't have to write code for tools that do.

But don't misreprent what they're saying. They prefer the GPL, no question. Beyond that....

> All right. So I'm supposed to read this "LICENSE" file that came with the program. But I'm an experienced Linux/BSD/Solaris/whatever user. So I just type "./configure" followed by "make install". I haven't read the license for this program at all.

Actually, the FSF recommends that you display relevant information whenever the program is started.

--

Can you imagine a court case some day that determines that all of the software you've developed falls under the GPL, and is now in the public domain?

What the heck does this mean?

Uh, well, first of all, GPL is not public domain. In fact, GPL is an answer against the public domain alternative as it allows you to free your software and still maintain rights to it. Check out http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/copyleft.html#WhatIsCo pyleft.

As to the vaguely implied possibility of the FSF or courts suddenly deciding to take away your GPLed software, have a look at the page describing how to GPL your software: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC4. The key lies in the difference between a license and copyright. You license your software under GPL, but still maintain the copyright on it. You can in fact give up that right and transfer it to FSF (the link escapes me at the moment).

Can you imagine a court case some day that determines that all of the software you've developed falls under the GPL, and is now in the public domain?

What the heck does this mean?

Uh, well, first of all, GPL is not public domain. In fact, GPL is an answer against the public domain alternative as it allows you to free your software and still maintain rights to it. Check out http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/copyleft.html#WhatIsCo pyleft.

As to the vaguely implied possibility of the FSF or courts suddenly deciding to take away your GPLed software, have a look at the page describing how to GPL your software: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC4. The key lies in the difference between a license and copyright. You license your software under GPL, but still maintain the copyright on it. You can in fact give up that right and transfer it to FSF (the link escapes me at the moment).

I also think that it could well be argued that the license is prejudicial against commercial software developers with malicious intent.

Can you please explain how the GPL is prejudicial against any developer, commercial or otherwise? Anyone is free to use GPL'd programs, and anyone can modify and redistribute them, they just have to agree to the terms of the license. The GPL says nothing about commercial development, and contrary to your perception of FSF philosophy, RMS actually encourages the sale of Free software. Redhat is undoubtedly a commercial entity (full of commercial developers), and the only negative things I have ever heard RMS say about them is that they say "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" and "Open Source" instead of "Free Software." Microsoft, BTW, is also free to modify and distribute GPLd software, they just have to agree to the terms first. How in the world can you honestly think this is prejudicial or malicious. The fact that I choose to release the Stupendous-Transmogrifying Time Travel Simulator (TM) under the GPL does nothing whatsoever to Microsoft's ability to write their own software and sell it. They could even write a clone of my program, and as long as it doesn't use any of my GPLd code, I can't do anything about it. This is malicious!?! The horror! Compare this to proprietary software licenses. They don't give anybody the right to redistribute or modify anything under any circumstances.

Then there's the question of whether a lawsuit against a GPL violator could actually be awarded damages. The copyright holder is not using his copyright to secure a profit for himself, and it's damage to just such a profit that's supposed to be reimbursed in a copyright suit; you're not supposed to be awarded damages just because you don't like the way the violator makes his living. The courts might very well toss out all cases as frivolous.

Why don't you go out and test this theory yourself. The Disney company no longer distributes Song of the South, and they intend to keep it that way. By their own admission, they will never again make a profit off that movie. By your reasoning, you should now be free under copyright law to take your old videotape of the show and start running off your own copies for sale. Go ahead and try it and see how far Disney makes it in court before the case is thrown out.

Remember, we're talking about copyright here, not profitright. I don't have to attempt to make a profit off my code in order to be fully protected by copyright law.

Read some FSF philosophy ;)

The entire point of the GPL is to make the concept of "IP" obselete. To, litterally, squash the idea from the public mind.

The GPL depends on copyright, its is, at its very heart, an attempt to hack the copyright system to serve the ends of those who wish to eliminate "IP".

Don't take my word for it! Get it right from the fsf website. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy

For once, Microsoft was right. The GPL *IS* indeed designed to eliminate IP. That is its stated goal. I, for one, certainly am hopeful that it will be achieved.

-Steve

He does talk that way.


Is Microsoft The Great Satan? Apparently they're just one unusually large and nasty demon in the horde of Hell-spawned proprietary developers.

This guy is a seriously demented nutcase, as are his followers. I've been saying so for years.

There's a difference between reasonable free software supporters who see advantages in efficiency, education, and security, and Free Software fanatics who see a moral crusade against evil monsters releasing programs without giving away the source code (horrors!).

Various RMS quotes (gathered from the philosophy page at the FSF):

"GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area"
(Now where would someone see a threat to innovation in such an innocuous remark?)

"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."

"it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now."

"All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development."
(and he claims not to be a communist!)

"[in some utopian future where people work 10 hours per week] There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming."
(there never was a need; any programmer could survive flipping burgers now)

"The economic argument goes like this: ``I want to get rich (usually described inaccurately as `making a living')...''"

He honestly seems to support that programmers should be materially impoverished, not enriched, by their rare and highly useful talents. They should do it "for the good of humanity". To Hell with a new computer every year, high-speed internet, and a comfortable home for your family.

There's every bit as good a reason to argue that people should let any stranger come along and take his car whenever one wants (see how much more use it gets! there's a profit for society!), or farm and give away all the food beyond what they need to survive (how evil to be willing to let it rot if nobody is willing to pay for it!).

But none of those ideas make sense. People want more money than they need to survive; generally the more the better. People can be selfless in emergencies, but on the whole, they look out for themselves first. Telling people that they shouldn't follow their own self-interest may be met with public applause but will be disregarded in action, assuming that they won't serve themselves is just plain wrong.

These economically unsound ideals are exactly why the Free Software movement is so often compared to communism: if you go by the FSF propaganda, it is based on the same wrong assumptions about human nature!

Aside from a few fanatics and students (who make lousy stuff because they're just learning how), people program for some benefit from the final result. Many free software programmers just want the software they're working on. Some want to build up their resumes, others plan to sell documentation, service, or even merchandise. Some hope for donations or sweetheart stock deals.

The reality is generally quite sensible. We're still working out how to properly reward innovation, and there's still a lot of unsound FSF rhetoric infecting most discussions, but when you look at actions rather than words, progress is occuring toward a reliable system of rewards.

While I think RMS tells himself he's being self-sacrificing and noble by not "getting rich by cheating his neighbors", I think he's got some ulterior motive. Namely, I think he wants to be a celebrity. He's a ruthless self-promoter through putting his name on everything GNU and FSF then pushing the GNU name (anyone remember LiGNUx?). Like communist revolutionaries, idealistic rhetoric masks private ambition.

RMS and the FSF are threats to any reasonable economic behavior WRT software, whether free or proprietary. We have to be ready to denounce such lunatics if we don't want to be tarred with the same brush.
---
Karma casino, place your bets!

He only retains the right to enforce the GPL. He may not revoke a once granted license. That's why its called copyleft.

• Is the software OpenSource?
  We believe that it conforms to the provisions of the Open Source Definitions (OSD), and have submitted the license for certification, but we have not heard back.

--

It's really the intellectual property that matters, that this is freely available to the public. Anyone can then take this design specification to a manufacturer with a fabricator lab and have it designed. The fact that these designs will be freely avialable to the public is what is new, but designing hardware from specification certainly is not (Sun Microsystems' SPARC Microprocessor is designed by Texas Instruments. Before even a single componenent is produced, the entire chip is simulated in software!)

The important thing here is that the best ideas of the public are put into the design(s) for the benefit of all the public. That way, anyone attempting to design that type of hardware does not have to begin from scratch, re-inventing the wheel, but can just pick up where others left off and add improvements. I think this is most important essence of the Free Intellectual Property ideal. *That the best resources of the world are put to use in designing solutions for the entire community*. Another subtle advantage is peer review. No single person has all the best ideas; wherever an idea is found wanting, it can be debated upon, and the best idea adopted. The fact that it is totally Free and almost free certainly helps too.

The Free Software Foundation.

What? A charity to fund software development? What an good idea. Too bad they only work with Free Software... What is this Open Source stuff again?

The Right to Read is a small story written by RMS which I read some time ago.

When I first read it, I thought that (a) RMS is not a very good writer and (b) what he sketches is vastly exaggerated.

After seeing this copy protection scheme I still think RMS doesn't write very good stories, but I'm beginning to suspect that his dystopia isn't that far-fetched at all.

You see, hard drive encryption is not where it ends! Soon, everyone will be using it and you won't be able to get anything done for your school or company without it. Until now we have managed to avoid things like this but when cryptographic hard drives are involved, things will get a lot tougher. What will they come up with next?

Ironically, in this capitalist world it may not be the state muffling free speech and human rights but large corporations and cartels. We need a cushion between consumers and companies, being able to copy materials at will is one such cushion.

It may be, for example, that the company (particularly if its Indian developers' grasp of English doesn't extend to legalese) doesn't properly understand the difference between GPLed code and public domain code. In the case that the company doesn't want to cooperate, the subsequent wrangling will go better if the FSF still has the "We'll go public with this" bargaining chip on their side.

If anything, the comment could have been re-phrased better as Linus+Minix+(gnu tools)=Linux, but (apologies to Andy Tannebaum) I don't believe Linus ever used any of the minix source on his development path, since he says just that in the initial announcement of his plans.

aem

As with any business, traditional companies lobby, both in court and in the legislature, for laws to protect their interests. Often the laws these companies advocate hinder open source software development, or are otherwise antithetical to the values of many members of the open source community. Among the legal defeats that the open source ommunity has suffered:

• legal recognition for software patents
• UCITA
• Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) bans on reverse engineering
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

• future versions of the Communications Decency Act
• Carnivore
• internet gambling statutes

• Recording Industry Association of America
• Federal Bureau of Investigations
• Business Software Alliance
• Software and Information Industry Association
• Disney Corporation
• Microsoft Corporation

Non-profit organizations that help defend our online freedoms, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, League for Programming Freedom, the Free Software Foundation, and the ACLU get their funds from companies and individuals who share values with them, e.g. open source companies and programmers. If the individuals and companies sympathetic to these organizations are impoverished or go bankrupt, the non-profits can't effectively fight for the freedoms we want.

In contrast, it is not a "contribution" to buy a copy of Civ:CTP, however nice the folks at Loki are.

The thing that is most irritating about the whole "commercial games" thing is that there are so many middlecritters in between you and the producer of the game. If you pay $40 for a game, it is unlikely that Loki sees much more than $10, which makes this a pretty inefficient way of getting funding to them.

I've bought games (well, one game) from them, so it would be pretty hypocritical to argue that it's dramatically evil to spend your money that way.

It's just a bit silly to regard this as a "contribution" when it's largely likely to be a contribution to the bottom line of the retailer rather than the producers...

source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Unless I have the right to run this program under Windows 2000 (for stability) and to ftp these "punch cards" to my friend in Holland for free, it does not meet RMS's definition of free software.

I propose that you either port your "punch card" software to Visual Basic, GW-Basic, QuickBasic, and perl, and release it under the GPL, or withdraw your offer of "closed-source" software, which is not welcome on this forum.

Thanks, cunt!

Love,
Slashfucker

The licensing is ... BSD-style, which qualifies ... not as free software ... as defined by [the] FSF.

Sorry, but this is flat out wrong. The old BSD license with the advertising clause did not qualify as free software, because it required you to mention all the contributors to your software in any advertising you did. Image if all the software in RedHat were covered by such a clause - then redhat would have to purchase a full page any time they wanted to advertise, just for all the credits!

The new BSD license is Free Software in the FSF sense; You can see an FSF classification of software, under which the BSD license is classified as Non-Copylefted Free Software. Also see A comprehensive list of software licenses and how they are classified

The licensing is ... BSD-style, which qualifies ... not as free software ... as defined by [the] FSF.

Sorry, but this is flat out wrong. The old BSD license with the advertising clause did not qualify as free software, because it required you to mention all the contributors to your software in any advertising you did. Image if all the software in RedHat were covered by such a clause - then redhat would have to purchase a full page any time they wanted to advertise, just for all the credits!

The new BSD license is Free Software in the FSF sense; You can see an FSF classification of software, under which the BSD license is classified as Non-Copylefted Free Software. Also see A comprehensive list of software licenses and how they are classified

• Free Software Foundation
• OpenBSD
• Apache
• NetBSD
• PostgreSQL
• SAMBA
• FreeBSD
• LinuxFund.org
• KPFK radio