Slashdot Mirror

If Troll Tech wanted to have "GPL with a commercial exception", they could simply license Qt under the GPL and offer a separate commercial license for sale like other companies do.

You did read this and Matthias Ettrich's comments here?

Unfortunately, even Matthias Ettrich misses the target in several of his replies (arguing about something different for what James Ramsey wrote and not adressing the real issues).

As I wrote at the bottom of this article on Advogato, there are a few things to keep in mind when you read the articles and comments posted on Freshmeat:

• There are no problems if you distribute a GPL'd program using Qt, as long as you only distribute the source code. But the GPL and QPL are incompatible if you distribute a compiled executable, because it would be a derivative work (see the explanation below) and the GPL does not allow the distribution of derivative works unless all parts of the work can be released under the GPL, with some exceptions that are debated in the editorial. For example, according to the exception stated at the end of section 3 of the GPL, it could be possible to distribute KDE binaries if Qt can be considered to be a standard part of the operating system and KDE is not distributed together with Qt (which would be a problem for all Linux distributions).
• The GPL cannot force you to change the license of other pieces of code and it cannot force you to use the code in some specific way (in fact, it allows you to do almost whatever you want with the code for private purposes), but it can (and does) prevent you from re-destributing the GPL'd code if you do not meet some conditions. One of these conditions is that all parts of a derivative work must be distributed under the GPL (see section 2b, the so-called "viral clause").
• If you are the author of a piece of code, you are free to distribute it under any license and to change the license (for new versions) at any time. However, this is only possible if you are the only copyright holder. If you have used any code that was contributed by someone else, then all contributors must agree on the new license. This is a problem because some KDE applications (not many, fortunately) have borrowed some code from other applications and it is not easy to get the agreement on the "Qt exception" from all authors and contributors. So although more than 90% of the KDE code could be considered to implicitely have the "Qt exception" because the code was written specifically for KDE, the status of the remaining parts of the code (especially in KDE applications that are not part of the core) should be clarified.
• Some people say that we need a new version of the GPL without the viral clause, because the current version is too restrictive and the new one would solve the KDE problems. But they fail to understand that some authors of GPL'd code do want this restriction, and chose to release their code under the GPL precisely because of it (this does not necessarily apply to all authors of GPL'd code, but those who are in that category cannot be ignored).

I recommend that you read Sam Tobin-Hochstadt's diary entry on Advogato (16 Jul 2000), in which he describes what is a ``derivative work'' according to the copyright law (17 USC Sec. 101). Since KDE falls in this category, section 2b of the GPL requires all parts of the derivative work to be published under the terms of the GPL. Parts of Qt (at least the macros and types defined in the Qt header files if you are linking dynamically, or even the whole Qt library if you are linking statically) are included in KDE binaries, and therefore must be re-distributable under the terms of the GPL. This is in conflict with the QPL version 1.0 (used for Qt 2.0), which adds some restrictions that are not compatible with the GPL. Even the QPL version 2.0 (planned for a future release of Qt?) would not solve these problems, as discussed in the Freshmeat editorial.

"complex bloatware" ... "integrated programming language" ... "web browser" ...

Oh, I get it now! You must be talking about Emacs, right?

The QPL is at best ambiguous; Troll Tech's FAQ is not:

11.Using the Free Edition, can I write software for internal use in my company/organization?

The Qt Free Edition is not intended for such use; it is our policy that when you are using Qt for free, you should in return contribute to the free software community. If you cannot do that, you must get Professional Edition licenses instead.

The QPL is far closer to the intent of the GPL than the LGPL, which is what I'm assuming you are advocating. All free software library authors should be concerned with is allowing people to write free software.

I'm concerned with not being forced to release software that I develop internally. That is clearly the intent of Troll Tech, and it clearly goes against the goals of the GPL and the LGPL. Here is a recent quote from RMS on the Plan 9 license:

[Plan 9 License:] You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.

[Stallman:] This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a basic right

As for "advocating" or "disguising", I'm doing neither. I'm merely stating my opinion that if Qt becomes the basis for the predominant Linux desktop, that will be very disadvantageous for the adoption of Linux as a whole, contrary to the stated goals of the KDE project.

Is it:

• A "hack" designed to make IIS look as stupidly slow on carefully "hacked-at" benchmarks as the IIS benchmarks make Apache look?

  No particular flaming intended here; in either direction, this represents "benchmarketing" as opposed to anything realistic.

  It may be as unrealistic to "real world" situations to use a highly tuned combo of TUX and Apache and make IIS "look sick" as it was for Mindcraft to use a heavily tuned IIS to make a poorly-tuned Apache look bad.

• Something that would be embedded into a sophisticated web application framework to make certain cases of page accesses run ravingly fast ?

  In which case someone building the next Slashdot might care, as they need to write finely-tuned code, whereas I, when running a lightly loaded web server at home, will have a hard time detecting differences between Roxen, Apache, Boa, and WN.

• Something that I could run in lieu of Boa as a tiny, fast web server?

This isn't quite a flame; it truly is important for a piece of software that you want people to use to be described in an economical manner that makes it easy for people to determine its relevance.

That is one opinion. IMHO it is incorrect.

In that case, you are saying that RMS misunderstands the GPL, as RMS has repeatedly stated that position, and defended it as necessary to prevent the subversion of free software.

The important thing is that GPLed code remain GPLed. The executables are generated by the compiler. What if an OS-provided compiler is used which links in a propietary library without which the program cannot run? It is insane to say that this is wrong.

See this FSF text written by RMS. And point two of this one. And this other one.

It's supposed to be impossible to link a GPLed program to a library that can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and it's supposed to be impossible to link a GPLed library to a program that can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL. It was done deliberately. The only exception given was for OS components, and only because it was necessary to allow that in order to make free software available for those OSes.

(Yes, the definition of OS is fuzzy, and one can make the case that Qt is an equivalent of Motif, a system library for the X subsystem of the OS. That addresses this specific case, not the general.)

Steven E. Ehrbar

That is one opinion. IMHO it is incorrect.

In that case, you are saying that RMS misunderstands the GPL, as RMS has repeatedly stated that position, and defended it as necessary to prevent the subversion of free software.

The important thing is that GPLed code remain GPLed. The executables are generated by the compiler. What if an OS-provided compiler is used which links in a propietary library without which the program cannot run? It is insane to say that this is wrong.

See this FSF text written by RMS. And point two of this one. And this other one.

It's supposed to be impossible to link a GPLed program to a library that can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and it's supposed to be impossible to link a GPLed library to a program that can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL. It was done deliberately. The only exception given was for OS components, and only because it was necessary to allow that in order to make free software available for those OSes.

(Yes, the definition of OS is fuzzy, and one can make the case that Qt is an equivalent of Motif, a system library for the X subsystem of the OS. That addresses this specific case, not the general.)

Steven E. Ehrbar

That is one opinion. IMHO it is incorrect.

In that case, you are saying that RMS misunderstands the GPL, as RMS has repeatedly stated that position, and defended it as necessary to prevent the subversion of free software.

The important thing is that GPLed code remain GPLed. The executables are generated by the compiler. What if an OS-provided compiler is used which links in a propietary library without which the program cannot run? It is insane to say that this is wrong.

See this FSF text written by RMS. And point two of this one. And this other one.

It's supposed to be impossible to link a GPLed program to a library that can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and it's supposed to be impossible to link a GPLed library to a program that can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL. It was done deliberately. The only exception given was for OS components, and only because it was necessary to allow that in order to make free software available for those OSes.

(Yes, the definition of OS is fuzzy, and one can make the case that Qt is an equivalent of Motif, a system library for the X subsystem of the OS. That addresses this specific case, not the general.)

Steven E. Ehrbar

IANAL but here are some previous thoughts of mine on the GPL.

One of the things that software blurs is the distinction between software distribution and a public performance. Indeed in today's world an increasingly common use of GPLed software is public performance. (Think of slash!)

Unfortunately the GPL nowhere explicitly tackles the issues of public performance. From my reading, term 0 explicitly disclaims any relevance to public performance. Others may disagree. But I think that with the direction that this industry is heading it would be extremely useful to have a version 3 produced that explicitly addressed the question of public performance.

Cheers,
Ben

PS I would also like to see section 3 of the GPL replace "operating system" with the more general "basic operating environment". Why? Well can you GPL a Java applet? Look at the definition of "source code for a work". The standard Java libraries are often not part of the OS. But they are probably distributed with your JVM, and it makes no sense to make you worry about it!

He's got a very good point. If people want commercial software on linux, they're going to have to pay for it. If we want great free software, we're going to have to write it ourselves.

The strength of linux is that open source projects have no development or marketing costs. This is not the case for closed source software shops. This fantasy about big software companies releasing free closed source versions of their software can't last for long. They're only doing this now because the linux market is still growing, so offering free stuff gives them an opportunity to gain market share and recoup the costs later. This is exactly what Corel is doing by giving some products away for free while charging for their other products. They're trying to establish a brand.

Until these companies start adopting open source development methods, they will fail. It just doesn't make sense to spend tons of r&d money on an app to give it away.

ESR makes this very clear here. "When I speak at technical conferences, I usually begin my talk by asking two questions: how many in the audience are paid to write software, and for how many do their salaries depend on the sale value of software. I generally get a forest of hands for the first question, few or none for the second, and considerable audience surprise at the proportion." Corel is filled with people whose income depends on the sale of their software. And so is Deneba...

___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

Section 0 of the GNU GPL states:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

(Emphasis added).

I would argue that the GPL doesn't explicitly grant public display and performance rights, but implicitly grants these rights through the highlighted language above.

A question is whether or not the GPL grants rights unless otherwise denied (subject to compliance requirements), or only grants specific rights. My reading of the license, including the Section 0: language above, is that all rights required to run a program are granted unless otherwise restricted, and that only copying, distribution, and modification are specifically restricted.

One of the issues which many would like to have addressed in GPL v3 is a linkage of distribution triggers to web-based, embedded, and CORBA-linked applications. These constitute a significantly different copyright environment than the one in which the GNU GPL was originally written.

What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin

don't have a problem with people using my code for profit. A lot of people who use GPL do.

This is a huge distortion. I've never heard any of the people who are really serious about the GPL complain about making a profit off GPLed code. Hell, RMS made money for a long time by selling tapes of GPL programs. On the FSF web site, in fact, they say:

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.

That hardly sounds like people who don't want anyone to be able to make a profit from their code!

What people like the FSF do have a problem with is the idea of taking free/open source software and making it non-free/closed source. The GPL doesn't exist to prevent people from making a profit. The existence of companies that market GPLed software is proof that it doesn't accomplish that, even incidentally. The goal is to prevent people from taking software that is available in source form and releasing it without source.

don't have a problem with people using my code for profit. A lot of people who use GPL do.

This is a huge distortion. I've never heard any of the people who are really serious about the GPL complain about making a profit off GPLed code. Hell, RMS made money for a long time by selling tapes of GPL programs. On the FSF web site, in fact, they say:

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.

That hardly sounds like people who don't want anyone to be able to make a profit from their code!

What people like the FSF do have a problem with is the idea of taking free/open source software and making it non-free/closed source. The GPL doesn't exist to prevent people from making a profit. The existence of companies that market GPLed software is proof that it doesn't accomplish that, even incidentally. The goal is to prevent people from taking software that is available in source form and releasing it without source.

To copyleft a program, first we copyright it; then we add distribution terms

The GPL is the copyright.

The big question then is this: With the licence gone, but surely not the author's copyright, how can anybody legally distribute the software ?

It looks like that if you don't have a licence at all, then you can't do squat with the software. And that includes any and all "violators".

From The GPL"

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

Read some of the articles here.

There will always be criminals, and this does not apply to people who just want to steal something to get a free ride, but rather to the people who believe what's right about copyright.

No, but the point is that even a non-compatible license is only non-compatible with software that is licensed under the GPL. Since it's impossible to give away rights which are reserved under the terms of another license, all that this means is that the GPL is not binding in this case; ie when it conflicts with a pre-existing, non-compatible license that the original licensor wishes to maintain. Stallman had a good essay on the subject called "What does it mean to 'license' software"?, in one of the pop law mags. I guess that it will be on the website

All the legalism aside, and contrary to other poster's opinions, I belive that the spirit of the GPL is to insure that ideas are free.

And stay free.

I don't think that even in a grouchy mood RSM would insist that you must "free" your own ideas because you like his.

Then you apparently haven't read Why Software Should Not Have Owners or Why Software Should Be Free, both by RMS (not RSM). He explicitly states that "[m]y conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software.". He's not the least bit unclear about this. As he asked (and answered) in The GNU Manifesto:

"Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?"

"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.

You don't have to agree with RMS, but don't try to downplay his positions, or distort what the GPL does. One freedom the GPL is intended to ensure is "[t]he freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.", but it does that by containing a restriction that "you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms". Taking ideas from GPLed code and putting them into proprietary code would violate that restriction.

All the legalism aside, and contrary to other poster's opinions, I belive that the spirit of the GPL is to insure that ideas are free.

And stay free.

I don't think that even in a grouchy mood RSM would insist that you must "free" your own ideas because you like his.

Then you apparently haven't read Why Software Should Not Have Owners or Why Software Should Be Free, both by RMS (not RSM). He explicitly states that "[m]y conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software.". He's not the least bit unclear about this. As he asked (and answered) in The GNU Manifesto:

"Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?"

"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.

You don't have to agree with RMS, but don't try to downplay his positions, or distort what the GPL does. One freedom the GPL is intended to ensure is "[t]he freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.", but it does that by containing a restriction that "you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms". Taking ideas from GPLed code and putting them into proprietary code would violate that restriction.

All the legalism aside, and contrary to other poster's opinions, I belive that the spirit of the GPL is to insure that ideas are free.

And stay free.

I don't think that even in a grouchy mood RSM would insist that you must "free" your own ideas because you like his.

Then you apparently haven't read Why Software Should Not Have Owners or Why Software Should Be Free, both by RMS (not RSM). He explicitly states that "[m]y conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software.". He's not the least bit unclear about this. As he asked (and answered) in The GNU Manifesto:

"Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?"

"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.

You don't have to agree with RMS, but don't try to downplay his positions, or distort what the GPL does. One freedom the GPL is intended to ensure is "[t]he freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.", but it does that by containing a restriction that "you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms". Taking ideas from GPLed code and putting them into proprietary code would violate that restriction.

Probably your consumers haven't heard about the philosophy behind free software. "Consumers" have always been told that their software shouldn't be copied or modified, so I think it is normal for them to not realize what freedom they get from free software and to base their judgement only on convenience.

I think in the long run that GNU/Linux will win because people will realize at which point they were dependent on other companies/people. It will just take time to achieve because people may not see the advantage of using free software directly. And it will also take time to make some sort of applications available because of the patents surrounding them.

If you make MacOS X win, the same exact thing is likely to happen from what happened with Windows. This, because the economical system in which proprietary software evolve is based on competition (one winner, many losers) while with free software, the economical system is based on collaboration (everyone win).

Free software is not a matter of "freedom of choice" between different OS's or software, because free software resolve that point by permitting users to modify their applications if they wish. It is not a matter of "workability" either, since you can fix bugs or make them fixed by a developer around you.

That is the reason why it is important to promote the GNU/Linux platform as a free Operating System invented to give users certain freedom, rather than a technically-interesting alternative to Windows. Not to mention, the convenience brought by the "Linux" OS was possible mainly because of the freedom given to its users through the BSD license and the GPL...

This is also why it is important to call the system "GNU/Linux". Not only to give credit to GNU, but to make people realize what the "GNU" part of the system was made for.

Stallman and the FSF have sold their software to raise funds. Heck If you want to buy some GNU software go to http://www.fsf.org/order/order.html and splurge away.

Now, I'm sure that a lot of software that's used on college campuses has been pirated. Most of it was when I was in college a decade ago, so I doubt it's only gotten worse. At the time, the reasoning was "The software companies are cultivating future users who will pay for the software once they become employed. The students don't have the money to pay for it anyway, so it's not like they are losing a sale". A employed computer professional burning copies of Office 2K for his friends and family is another story. They certainly can pay for it and are robbing the company from a sale. There is no excuse for that.

Not everyone is a thief, so why should the majority be penalized because of the actions of a few? I've actually paid for shareware titles that I didn't have to. I occasionally buy boxed versions of software that I have legally downloaded for free just for the additional documentation (WordPerfect for example). The software publishers went through this phase in the 80s too and discovered that they lost customers because their anti-piracy efforts didn't stop the pirates, but did stop legitimate users from practicing prudent data recovery procedures. I can only see this hurting the OEMs and the software publishers. IMHO, it's pure greed.

I may certainly have as much disdain for M$ as the average slashdotter, so I don't buy from them. The rare occasions where I have, the software moves from machine to machine, where the old machine is stripped and the parts used for something else. If I can't move the software like that in the future, I won't buy it. Especially with the consumer audio/video equipment. I don't know how many CD players or VCRs that I've gone though over the years. Having to buy a different copy of a song/video because the existing player broke (or is at the house instead of the office) would be insane. BS tactics like this only drive me and people I talk to towards the Free Software community (and good old fashioned redistributable paper books).

I heard rumors of such a thing. Investigation of the FSF homepage revealev Harmony a "project was born to make KDE free software" that "aims to be API-compatible with Troll Tech's Qt toolkit". Doesn't seem to be very far along (look at current status) but all we have to do is wait and code.

You're not making any sense here. How can any license prevent an other person from selling "your own creation?" Through your written words, you've completely reversed the meaning of the thought you seem to be trying to convey. The GPL does not, and can not deprive one from selling one's own creation. It can do even less to deprive a third party from selling your creation--those GPL simply does not recognize those situations. In fact, the GPL allows, and the Free Software Foundation's The GNU Manifesto encourages you to sell your free software.

If you had any clue what Stallman has done for "alternative technologies" as well as technologies that could only be described as utterly mainstream (text editors, hyperlinked help systems, compilers, source code-level symbolic debuggers, rule-based expert systems like "make", etc.), you would have respect for the man's opinions, if only in light of his wealth of experience. I think it's unfortunate that promising alternative technologies are saddled with the appearance of self-important gas bag detractors who can't be bothered to read publically available documents and always seem to find their way to Slashdot.

--

He. I like (and share) that attitude, but you do realize that RMS (who developed the license) does not agree, right? In fact, the official GNU party line is that the Lesser GPL should only be used for non-exclusive functionality, since it doesn't coerce other developers to use free licenses. It's interesting to note that people seem to use the license for quite different kinds of libraries -- SDL, for example, provides a rather "unique capability", but is still LGPL... Well, just food for thought, or something.

I think this is the answer to your question. Many of the wonderful new Linux gaming APIs/libraries, for example SDL, are LGPL:ed so that they also can be used with closed-source games.

I think this is the answer to your question. Many of the wonderful new Linux gaming APIs/libraries, for example SDL, are LGPL:ed so that they also can be used with closed-source games.

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Not true. The following is more accurate:

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without being able to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source to their changes.

It is copyright law that would allow Microsoft to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source of their changes. For example, without copyright law, there would be no legal restrictions on reverse engineering.

Perhaps you meant to write:

With current U.S. copyright law, if the Linux source was not copyrighted (or rather copylefted), Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Notice, too, that I added the qualification U.S. copyright law since I doubt that all countries share the same concepts regarding "copyrights"; by this I mean legal systems that share the same view of copyrights defined in U.S. law, since it was the birth-country of the GPL, and not only just U.S. copyright law.

That is why the Free Software Foundation begins its description of copyleft with the following:

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In my opinion, a problem with the current U.S. copyright law can be found in the following definition of public domain (from Merriam-Webster OnLine).

Main Entry: public domain
Function: noun
Date: 1832
1 : land owned directly by the government
2 : the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone

In particular, I have a problem with the second definition. My own "common sense" definition of public domain would read as follows.

2: the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent held by any individual person, and are not subject to appropriation by any one person because they belong to the community at large

We have Locke to thank for the idea that public domain merely means that the thing in the public domain is waiting for any owner to come plant a flag in it. If you are a libertarian and think that Locke is the end-all and be-all of the philosophies of freedom, then you'll have no problem with this. However, I do not agree that Locke is The Answer nor do I find the definition of public domain based on his notions of property rights to be "natural" or intuitive. I think that there might be some benefits to the notion of reforming copyright laws such that it would allow for "my" alternative second definition of "public domain". Of course, the GPL is an attempt to invent a public domain according to "my alternative" second definition, which does not exist in the current world of copyright law, which is why it is not called a copyright but rather a copyleft.

But not to pick a nit...

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Not true. The following is more accurate:

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without being able to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source to their changes.

It is copyright law that would allow Microsoft to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source of their changes. For example, without copyright law, there would be no legal restrictions on reverse engineering.

Perhaps you meant to write:

With current U.S. copyright law, if the Linux source was not copyrighted (or rather copylefted), Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Notice, too, that I added the qualification U.S. copyright law since I doubt that all countries share the same concepts regarding "copyrights"; by this I mean legal systems that share the same view of copyrights defined in U.S. law, since it was the birth-country of the GPL, and not only just U.S. copyright law.

That is why the Free Software Foundation begins its description of copyleft with the following:

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In my opinion, a problem with the current U.S. copyright law can be found in the following definition of public domain (from Merriam-Webster OnLine).

Main Entry: public domain
Function: noun
Date: 1832
1 : land owned directly by the government
2 : the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone

In particular, I have a problem with the second definition. My own "common sense" definition of public domain would read as follows.

2: the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent held by any individual person, and are not subject to appropriation by any one person because they belong to the community at large

We have Locke to thank for the idea that public domain merely means that the thing in the public domain is waiting for any owner to come plant a flag in it. If you are a libertarian and think that Locke is the end-all and be-all of the philosophies of freedom, then you'll have no problem with this. However, I do not agree that Locke is The Answer nor do I find the definition of public domain based on his notions of property rights to be "natural" or intuitive. I think that there might be some benefits to the notion of reforming copyright laws such that it would allow for "my" alternative second definition of "public domain". Of course, the GPL is an attempt to invent a public domain according to "my alternative" second definition, which does not exist in the current world of copyright law, which is why it is not called a copyright but rather a copyleft.

But not to pick a nit...

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Not true. The following is more accurate:

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without being able to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source to their changes.

It is copyright law that would allow Microsoft to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source of their changes. For example, without copyright law, there would be no legal restrictions on reverse engineering.

Perhaps you meant to write:

With current U.S. copyright law, if the Linux source was not copyrighted (or rather copylefted), Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Notice, too, that I added the qualification U.S. copyright law since I doubt that all countries share the same concepts regarding "copyrights"; by this I mean legal systems that share the same view of copyrights defined in U.S. law, since it was the birth-country of the GPL, and not only just U.S. copyright law.

That is why the Free Software Foundation begins its description of copyleft with the following:

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In my opinion, a problem with the current U.S. copyright law can be found in the following definition of public domain (from Merriam-Webster OnLine).

Main Entry: public domain
Function: noun
Date: 1832
1 : land owned directly by the government
2 : the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone

In particular, I have a problem with the second definition. My own "common sense" definition of public domain would read as follows.

2: the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent held by any individual person, and are not subject to appropriation by any one person because they belong to the community at large

We have Locke to thank for the idea that public domain merely means that the thing in the public domain is waiting for any owner to come plant a flag in it. If you are a libertarian and think that Locke is the end-all and be-all of the philosophies of freedom, then you'll have no problem with this. However, I do not agree that Locke is The Answer nor do I find the definition of public domain based on his notions of property rights to be "natural" or intuitive. I think that there might be some benefits to the notion of reforming copyright laws such that it would allow for "my" alternative second definition of "public domain". Of course, the GPL is an attempt to invent a public domain according to "my alternative" second definition, which does not exist in the current world of copyright law, which is why it is not called a copyright but rather a copyleft.

But not to pick a nit...

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Not true. The following is more accurate:

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without being able to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source to their changes.

It is copyright law that would allow Microsoft to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source of their changes. For example, without copyright law, there would be no legal restrictions on reverse engineering.

Perhaps you meant to write:

With current U.S. copyright law, if the Linux source was not copyrighted (or rather copylefted), Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Notice, too, that I added the qualification U.S. copyright law since I doubt that all countries share the same concepts regarding "copyrights"; by this I mean legal systems that share the same view of copyrights defined in U.S. law, since it was the birth-country of the GPL, and not only just U.S. copyright law.

That is why the Free Software Foundation begins its description of copyleft with the following:

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In my opinion, a problem with the current U.S. copyright law can be found in the following definition of public domain (from Merriam-Webster OnLine).

Main Entry: public domain
Function: noun
Date: 1832
1 : land owned directly by the government
2 : the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone

In particular, I have a problem with the second definition. My own "common sense" definition of public domain would read as follows.

2: the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent held by any individual person, and are not subject to appropriation by any one person because they belong to the community at large

We have Locke to thank for the idea that public domain merely means that the thing in the public domain is waiting for any owner to come plant a flag in it. If you are a libertarian and think that Locke is the end-all and be-all of the philosophies of freedom, then you'll have no problem with this. However, I do not agree that Locke is The Answer nor do I find the definition of public domain based on his notions of property rights to be "natural" or intuitive. I think that there might be some benefits to the notion of reforming copyright laws such that it would allow for "my" alternative second definition of "public domain". Of course, the GPL is an attempt to invent a public domain according to "my alternative" second definition, which does not exist in the current world of copyright law, which is why it is not called a copyright but rather a copyleft.

But not to pick a nit...

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Not true. The following is more accurate:

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without being able to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source to their changes.

It is copyright law that would allow Microsoft to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source of their changes. For example, without copyright law, there would be no legal restrictions on reverse engineering.

Perhaps you meant to write:

With current U.S. copyright law, if the Linux source was not copyrighted (or rather copylefted), Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Notice, too, that I added the qualification U.S. copyright law since I doubt that all countries share the same concepts regarding "copyrights"; by this I mean legal systems that share the same view of copyrights defined in U.S. law, since it was the birth-country of the GPL, and not only just U.S. copyright law.

That is why the Free Software Foundation begins its description of copyleft with the following:

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In my opinion, a problem with the current U.S. copyright law can be found in the following definition of public domain (from Merriam-Webster OnLine).

Main Entry: public domain
Function: noun
Date: 1832
1 : land owned directly by the government
2 : the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone

In particular, I have a problem with the second definition. My own "common sense" definition of public domain would read as follows.

2: the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent held by any individual person, and are not subject to appropriation by any one person because they belong to the community at large

We have Locke to thank for the idea that public domain merely means that the thing in the public domain is waiting for any owner to come plant a flag in it. If you are a libertarian and think that Locke is the end-all and be-all of the philosophies of freedom, then you'll have no problem with this. However, I do not agree that Locke is The Answer nor do I find the definition of public domain based on his notions of property rights to be "natural" or intuitive. I think that there might be some benefits to the notion of reforming copyright laws such that it would allow for "my" alternative second definition of "public domain". Of course, the GPL is an attempt to invent a public domain according to "my alternative" second definition, which does not exist in the current world of copyright law, which is why it is not called a copyright but rather a copyleft.

But not to pick a nit...

Use JunkBuster. It's free software.

--

I have a few issues with this article

1. This is the big one: Mr. Meyer makes the classic "Free speech, not free beer" mistake. The FSF and the Free Software community in general have no problem with sellingsoftware. In fact, the FSF generates revenue through the sale of software.
2. Free software advocates do explain the rational basis for their code of ethics. The example of a car in which you are not allowed to "look under the hood" is used. Almost anyone, even people who know nothing about the workings of internal combustion engines, would agree that it would be wrong for a car company to make a car that doesn't let you look at the engine. We have a right to fix (or even "enhance") our cars, hire someone else to fix our cars, or help our neighbor by fixing his car.
3. He never backs up his claim that free software advocates think Microsoft is the "Great Satan" and tries to paint free software users as being jealous of Microsoft's success. Generally, in my experience, members of the free software community don't care about Microsoft any more than other proprietary software company. They avoid using Microsoft software as much as possible, resent the "embrace, extend, extinguigh" policy, and joke about Microsoft being evil, but very few people actually consider Microsoft evil.

Mobile 'phones have already entirely replaced land lines for a few people I know, and have become the primary contact for many others. Around 40% of the UK population own a mobile phone, I believe Finland leads the world with over 70% usage. Extremely competative markets have put pricing within reasonable reach for many unemployed and students, even school kids. Mobile 'phones are sold in pre-packaged boxes in supermarkets.
Part of this is because most European telcos stopped charging the mobile 'phone owners for receiving calls quite some time ago. I understand that this still isn't always the case in the US?
In the UK, the coverage is very good in reasonably densely populated areas, and weak only in the very least densly populated areas of the country.
With upcoming technologies like GPRS and UMTS, mobile data will become a sensible proposition. Given that the mobile phone operators need to make 370UKP (about $590) profit from every man, woman, and child in the UK to just cover the costs of the recent radio-spectrum auction, you can bet that the companies will be heavily pushing products suitable for everyone, from accessing AOL and shopping channels to real-time video conferencing. You can also bet that the 'web pads' and the like, will be using CPUs from Transmeta and ARM, and hopefully those that aren't running EPOC will be running a free O/S.

The people most competent to advise you are undoubtably the Free Software Foundation. You need to get relevant help immediately. Your work contract with your company almost certainly states that anything you do while being paid by them belongs to the company. It is much better to have the licensing issues ironed-out before the changes are made than after the fact.

The bottom line for me is that software maintenance sounds much easier under the Free Software / CatB model, but it's not. You still have people trying to read your code, which is equivalent to reading your mind.

--

No one seems to be mention a few basic common sense observations of this whole thing.

1) The latest "New World Order" (NWO was originally coined 50 plus years ago) is collapsing at a geometric rate, at least in terms of control over information and "intellectual property".

2) The legal system (like the political system) is pathalogically controlled by big business.

3) Control over information when it has already passed into the realm of electrons is rather futile. "Hey Bob, here's a new protocol that will solve this problem." "Frank, let's see if we can tunnel this in that." "Hey Jim, fuck them, we'll reinvent the system from scratch." BUT, this doesn't mean the existing empire won't execute a few heretics before Rome burns.

4) Until, "Soviet-style" tactics are capable of being enforced everywhere simultaneously (which ofcourse, they never will), human beings are going to generally do what they feel is morally and ethically sanctioned. (Pass the pliers, I think I've got a tooth-ache)

5) Most people feel that music is more "art" than "commodity" and therefore sharing art with ones fellow human beings is morally acceptable, even more so when it is easily accomplished, technically speaking. (Rip the Mona Lisa in two and send me a piece when you get a chance) Some people even believe that software is more "art" than "commodity", god forbid!

6) Since when does Meta11ica deserve this much free publicity, they've been crap since I was in highschool (a long time ago). Ratbastard$. Hypocrite$.

7) Given that the powerful corporations that have money and influence will continue to try to put a plug in all the holes in this stuck pig, we better brace ourselves for more and more 1984-style attempts at conforming the behaviour of the average technologically adept human being into a moral and ethical mold set out by organizations like the RI@@ and MP@@.

Their viewpoints as echoed by the emerging legal arguments seem to me to be more like:

"Attention Citizens, anything less than you shoving your hard earned cash down our corporate throats is now punishable by death."

8) Prepare for the Int3l white paper(s) to come true and for attempts at $Corporate$America$-sanctioned IP rights-controlling CPU and hardware to become the standard (adopted through the backdoor ofcourse).

9) I guess the average commercial software houses out there (read N@pster) haven't figured out what the Internet is all about. Single point of failures are exactly that.

And the most important point of all. All those people out there who are up in arms about this MP3/D3CSS/N@pster issue but who are not contributing actively to the Free Software Movement are helping seal their own fates. We all need to fight together to keep software and hardware doing what we want it to do, whether or not $Corporate$America$ feels that it is "right".

Those bastards developing are probably the same corporate bastard$ that are going to restrict your freedoms first, not last.

And you can never be quite sure if those Open$ource friends of yours might be interested in selling out provided the technological solution to our (their) own demise is elegance, efficient and well coded.

Okay, so maybe that was more than a few simple observations. You get what you pay for...

PS. It's much more effective if the sheep have internalized the fox's belief system and feel that the external coercion is in fact their own belief system. In the best case, they'll slaughter themselves. In the worst case, they'll probably just bitch about it on Slashdot.

On the splash page for the ArtistDirect chat (which is no longer there, so I'll have to paraphrase), you said that you knew of no profession where the practitioners regularly perform their services for free.

Let me introduce you to a profession that has a long and glorious history of altruistic giving:

Software Development.

Have a look at the GNU Manifesto, the Cathedral and the Bazaar, and other important works from the Free Software Movement. You'll find them most fascinating.

There was a dark age in the software industry when companies were imposing draconian copy-protection schemes on their users, because they didn't think they could trust them. It didn't work. The ensuing renaissance has seen the rise of Open Source software (essentially free for the download), and has provided prosperity for many enlightened corporations such as Red Hat, Caldera, and others who nobody thought would ever make money with "Free Software".

You, like us, are driven by an insatiable desire to ply your craft. You, like us, would be doing this even if there was no money in it to begin with. We all do what we do because it is our one true happiness in life. Why pollute your true ambition and poison the good will you have with your fan base, just to line the pockets of your lawyers? They're the only ones who benefit from such bitterness.

In 1994, he made his opinions public on the gnu-announce mailing list (gatewayed to Usenet in gnu.announce) in an article titled Why You should not use Tcl. This of course started a huge flame ware in gnu.misc.dicsuss and comp.lang.tcl. He followed it up with another article (which I can't find right now) which detailed his objections further. (I remember distinctly his stating that Tcl's arrays aren't true vectors since they don't have O(1) access)

It was RMS's complaints about Tcl which caused the creation of Guile project. The reason that Guile multiple translator front ends was so that it could replace Tcl as an extention language with no user visible changes.

In 1994, he made his opinions public on the gnu-announce mailing list (gatewayed to Usenet in gnu.announce) in an article titled Why You should not use Tcl. This of course started a huge flame ware in gnu.misc.dicsuss and comp.lang.tcl. He followed it up with another article (which I can't find right now) which detailed his objections further. (I remember distinctly his stating that Tcl's arrays aren't true vectors since they don't have O(1) access)

It was RMS's complaints about Tcl which caused the creation of Guile project. The reason that Guile multiple translator front ends was so that it could replace Tcl as an extention language with no user visible changes.

--

There was a reference to such a beast in Brave GNU World #11. However at that time it was still vaporware, and I can find no other mention of it.

... pretty soon there'll be a thundering herd

You mislepped 'HURD'. Hope this helps.

Oh, and HURD doesn't thunder. It moves very slowly towards a point which recedes infinitely towards the HURD release event horizon.

Unless the [hypothetical] original license had some sort of clause saying "these terms can be changed at our whim, and you have to watch our website to find out these changes" like most corporate licenses. Although i wonder if these clauses are enforcable (or at least were pre-UCITA...)

However, because no license is included in the source code as originally made available, it could be argued in court that no permission to distribute was ever granted. Perhaps this is Mattel's angle.

IANAL, of course, but i would think that the comment quoted in other posts puts the code under the GPL. Either way, i wouldn't be too surprised to see Mattel try to get it pulled anyway... Wonder how many sites mirroring it will include disclaimers along the lines of "This code was obtained under the Gnu General Public License (GPL), which grants permission to freely redistribute the program and source. Although the copyright has since been assigned to Mattel, there is NO provision for changing the licensing terms of this copy, so it remains under the terms of the GPL. Any copies downloaded from this site will also remain under the GPL as specified by the terms of the GPL." (if for some odd reason anyone WANTS this disclaimer, go ahead and take it)

-----

So while the Linux kernel is not a part of GNU as such, I don't think that rms is out of line expecting that Linux and Linux distributions acknowledge the debt they owe to GNU and the FSF. Without FSF tools, Linux never would have progressed beyond the "obscure hobbyists' amusement" stage.

Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the emotional argument and the economic argument.

The emotional argument goes like this: ``I put my sweat, my heart, my soul into this program. It comes from me, it's mine!''

This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast, consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years.

One other question. Where are all the Slashdotters who spend half of each patent discussion criticising Coble? He made a useful, coherent sensible arguement, which is actually the norm. Oh well.

I'm certain I have no idea who/what you are talking about.

What is the argument for coputter programs deserving a different sort of protection

Ahem.

http://www.oreillynet.com/patents/
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/amazon.html

"It is almost complete," said the dark figure in his leather office chair.

"Soon those open source fanatics will be drawn to GNOME, and we will control them, just like we control the masses, this open source thing will cease, and once again Microsoft, in all its closed source glory, will rule the world! MUHAHAHA!"

The Balmer clenched his fist and gnashed his teeth as he thought about invading the open source community. Breaking them down and making them use Microsoft sanctioned software and user interfaces, this Linux thing was getting to be bad for business and it had to be stopped, quickly.

"With Miguel de Icaza safely under our control from that thought research project we did a while back and having him copy Microsoft style interfaces, we can begin expanding the project to other leaders in the open source community."

"Sir," one of the millitarily dressed officers spoke up, "we have confirmed Linus Torvalds is also under our control, getting him to work for a proprietary company was the test, and it was successful."

"Soon, RMS will have quite a change of philosophy and that General Public License will become the Microsoft Public License," The Balmer continued "ESR's Geeks with Guns will mysteriously transform into Wierdos with Windows, there will be no stopping us!"

Will Microsoft rule the world? More importantly what will happen to RMS's singing career? Tune in tomorrow, same world domination time, same world domination channel!

-- iCEBaLM

I would show the benefits of GPL software. Or in other words, the disadvantages of closed-source software.

Namely, I would start with:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philoso phy.html

And then print out this article for your teacher as proof of the GPL, since {s/}he didn't believe you.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Come on people, lets build up a collection of papers we can use to show the un-educated _WHY_ GPL software is better.

Cheers

I would show the benefits of GPL software. Or in other words, the disadvantages of closed-source software.

Namely, I would start with:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philoso phy.html

And then print out this article for your teacher as proof of the GPL, since {s/}he didn't believe you.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Come on people, lets build up a collection of papers we can use to show the un-educated _WHY_ GPL software is better.

Cheers

I would show the benefits of GPL software. Or in other words, the disadvantages of closed-source software.

Namely, I would start with:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philoso phy.html

And then print out this article for your teacher as proof of the GPL, since {s/}he didn't believe you.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Come on people, lets build up a collection of papers we can use to show the un-educated _WHY_ GPL software is better.

Cheers