Slashdot Mirror

There are probably many "established" professionals in your area who would be more than happy to come in and give a presentation on Open Source in general, or Linux in particular. Check for a local Linux users group, or even a local branch of a related user group (like Perl Mongers, for exaqple). Even if the presentation is just for the teachers, it would probably be well received. If you are in the Boston area, contact the FSF. See the Linux User Group HOWTO for more info.

Sorry, but take a look at this:

http://www.fsf.org/software/libc/libc.html

Glibc 2.0 was supposed to be a stable release; most everything added afterwards is either to fix bugs or to become more standards-compliant. RedHat isn't to blame anyway:

[ink]# ldd `which realplay`
/lib/libNoVersion.so.1 => /lib/libNoVersion.so.1 (0x40013000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4001b000)
libXmu.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6 (0x4010e000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x40121000)
libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x4012d000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x40179000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4021d000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x4023a000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x4023d000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
libSM.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x4024e000)
libICE.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x40257000)
[ink]# ls -l /lib/libc.so.6
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Feb 22 10:17 /lib/libc.so.6 -> libc-2.1.2.so

The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

From: http://www.fsf.org/fun/jokes/softw are.terms.html:

Alpha Test Version: Too buggy to be released to the paying public.

Beta Test Version: Still too buggy to be released.

Release Version: Alternate pronunciation of "Beta Test Version".

I understand Mozilla is soon-to-be-beta, and this might scare away people from it's encryption, but could a possible crypto-related Open Source security hole be worse than a closed source 'to-be-enhanced-feature'?

And talking about 'to-be-enhanced-features', have you seen the <IMG SRC="file:///c:\CON\NUL"> bug with IE/Win98? It makes the whole machine crash and burn. You can possibly also send this in html-email to outlook-users. Apparently (you might want to confirm this information), this was posted on BugTraq a year ago, but has recently been reposted because it was never fixed.

Shit happens.

Here's an interesting project for someone with a little bit of time:
Make a website listing, detailing, and comparing all the current open source licenses that are being used. Set-up a nice clean web-site which is devoted to the different open source licenses that people have written up, perhaps with some sort of arguments for and against each one? Try to make it relatively impartial. Perhaps even try to get some of the OpenLaw people to contribute some time to analyze them in relation to various legal structures around the planet.

Heck, here's even a starter just off the top of my head and Yahoo:

• Apple Public Source License
• Artistic License
• GNU General Public License (GPL)
• GNU Library General Public License (GLPL)
• Netscape Public License (NPL)

I looked around a bit, but can't seem to find any site that really does this already cleanly and clearly. Any takers?

Here's an interesting project for someone with a little bit of time:
Make a website listing, detailing, and comparing all the current open source licenses that are being used. Set-up a nice clean web-site which is devoted to the different open source licenses that people have written up, perhaps with some sort of arguments for and against each one? Try to make it relatively impartial. Perhaps even try to get some of the OpenLaw people to contribute some time to analyze them in relation to various legal structures around the planet.

Heck, here's even a starter just off the top of my head and Yahoo:

• Apple Public Source License
• Artistic License
• GNU General Public License (GPL)
• GNU Library General Public License (GLPL)
• Netscape Public License (NPL)

I looked around a bit, but can't seem to find any site that really does this already cleanly and clearly. Any takers?

I had thought that Richard Stallman recently released a version of the GPL specifically for written documentation. But I'm having trouble finding any mention of it at the Free Software Foundation website. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me but you might want to look for it.

About GPL library, the position of the FSF is clear. The LGPL was a compromise and should only be used with libraries that replaced commercial equivalent (like libc) by letting commercial software be build against them (so the clause stipulating that you most provide a way for the user to relink their software against a new compatible version of the library). Libraries like GNU readline that provides a facility not generally available elsewhere should be licensed under the GPL (in the POV of the FSF - see Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library by RMS).

About the libapt case, Jason doesn't provides a special permission to Corel, although Corel press a little the issue. For the author of libapt, the Qt 2.0 library is free enough to be used with his library. So, it added this exception clause because, in the opinion of both Debian and the FSF, the small additional restriction add by the QPL are enough to forbidden the redistribution of software licenced under the GPL.

I hope this explain some issues. I'm glade to see that, even if you're not a fan of the GPL, you still respect its terms and the people who choose to distributed their software (even libraries) under it.

Thanks

No, EULAs and other click-wrap licensed are completely different from the GPL, because software companies won't allow you to see the conditions of the license until after you agree to it. Yes, they give you a yes/no screen, but at that point you've already bought and opened it, and software stores won't refund something that's been opened. In contrast, the GPL is freely accessible to anyone here.

At http://www.fsf.org/gnu/manifesto.html, where Stallman says:

For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.

Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting work for a lot of money.

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

Which is what Stallman advocates: banning commercial software and commercial software companies. The stated purpose of the GPL is to destroy all programming jobs which pay better than what is earned by a starving graduate student.

At http://www.fsf.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html,Richard says:

In the Free Software movement, we don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.

And at http://www.fsf.or g/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware, Stallman writes:

The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.

These, and other documents, reaffirm Stallman's goal of driving all commercial software (which he calls "proprietary" software even though that word has a different meaning in normal usage) out of the marketplace.

--Brett Glass

At http://www.fsf.org/gnu/manifesto.html, where Stallman says:

For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.

Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting work for a lot of money.

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

Which is what Stallman advocates: banning commercial software and commercial software companies. The stated purpose of the GPL is to destroy all programming jobs which pay better than what is earned by a starving graduate student.

At http://www.fsf.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html,Richard says:

In the Free Software movement, we don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.

And at http://www.fsf.or g/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware, Stallman writes:

The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.

These, and other documents, reaffirm Stallman's goal of driving all commercial software (which he calls "proprietary" software even though that word has a different meaning in normal usage) out of the marketplace.

--Brett Glass

At http://www.fsf.org/gnu/manifesto.html, where Stallman says:

For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.

Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting work for a lot of money.

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

Which is what Stallman advocates: banning commercial software and commercial software companies. The stated purpose of the GPL is to destroy all programming jobs which pay better than what is earned by a starving graduate student.

At http://www.fsf.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html,Richard says:

In the Free Software movement, we don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.

And at http://www.fsf.or g/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware, Stallman writes:

The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.

These, and other documents, reaffirm Stallman's goal of driving all commercial software (which he calls "proprietary" software even though that word has a different meaning in normal usage) out of the marketplace.

--Brett Glass

I think people forget that debian owes most of its software to the FSF, hell ANYTHING that uses GNU software depends on the FSF. If you hate richard stallman than stop using using linux. rember where http://www.fsf.org/ points to. He had a major part in everything you use.

May I also remind you that what this extremist wants to avoid is exactly whats happening. Linux is getting insanely commercialized. I was at linuxworld and all i could here were demos done by people with no clue about the product the were selling, the booth next to us(i work for angstrom microsystems), enlighten DSM, had some lady giving the same speech over and over again, i wanted to go ask if she even knew who the FSF was, and when i went to yell at them for their volume being too loud and preventing us from talking to potential customers, I got yelled at for "stealing traffic" this is what we DONT need.

if you want commercialization thenI think that the FSF should close up shop and stop producing software. Stallman could then go and help the BSD folks (DeRatt is also considered an extremist, that just happens to put out a great product)

Don't fight it, use it!

Since this law allows software peddlers to basically trick people and businesses into legally binding contract terms they may very well be unaware of, then why not just add some really nasty terms of your own?

1. Buyer hereby agrees to install a copy of this software on each and every computer owned by, or in the possession, of the business or organization.
2. Buyer hereby agrees to uninstall any and all copies of Microsoft Windows, in any version, including
   1. versions obtained for beta evaluation
   2. unlicensed versions
   3. networked copies
   4. copies co-existing with other operating systems
3. Buyer hereby agrees to make a donation in the amount of $1.00 (one dollar) to The Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a donation in the amount of $1.00 (one dollar) to the Free Software Foundation, for the first computer found running Microsoft Windows, doubling each donation for each instance of an additional computer found running Microsoft Windows.
4. Buyer hereby agrees, upon penalty of death, to never press either key labeled with a trademark of the Microsoft Corporation.

Well, the above might not fly, but you get the idea. Come up with something you can enforce, and stick it in there.

As long as there are eggs in the baskets of the Free Software Foundation etc, we'll be safe from Big Bad Corporations.

In the legal world, "I have X" means "Let's make a deal".

In the legal world, "Let's make a deal" means "I have information that you might need".

In the legal world, "I have information that you might need" means "I do believe I am in a position to screw you".

In the legal world, "I do believe I am in a position to screw you" means "Give me a lot of fucken money, now, you putz".

And that's why I'm in the Free Software world, not the legal world. I'd much rather live in a world of cooperation and mutual respect than in one where the fundamental driving force is hostility and greed. I like associating with people who don't let money rule their lives!

And, Mr. Montoya -- if you're looking for someone to offer you money to share that information, Slashdot is the wrong place to be posting about it. Try getting in touch with the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/); there you might be able to talk to people who could offer you a deal.

Of course, they're likely to turn you down, and I would do the same if I was in their shoes. See, this is our ballpark, and we play by our own rules. Those rules happen to include sharing and playing nice, not trying to hoard all the toys so the other children can't have them. If someone comes along who refuses to play nice, we just ignore them.

So good luck trying to make a deal, but I just don't think it's going to happen.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:

Open Source is very open (forgive the pun) in terms of what it applies to. I can Open Source my new Widget2000 code and only sell it to people who buy Widget2000 and require them to not reveal the source code to anyone else. Or I can Open Source it and post it on a public FTP site.

As someone else has pointed out, neither of those actions, by itself, meets the Open Source Definition.

Furthermore, as regards both the OSD--which is derived from Bruce Perens' Debian Free Software Guidelines--and GNU's (i.e. RMS's) definition of free software, your two examples of what you do with your Widget2000 source code are probably not as different as you may think. That is, even the GPL allows you to only give source code to people who pay you for your product--it just specifies that you can't stop them from revealing the code to anyone else, or indeed from licensing it to anyone else under anything other than the GPL. Likewise, posting your source code to a public FTP site doesn't make it open source if those who download it aren't allowed to redistribute the code, and use it in derivative works or fork it.

Unless your license allows these things, then the proper term for it is not "open source" but "revealed source". (Or so says the OSS language police.) Companies seeking to capitalize on the open source movement may call actions like the ones you describe "open sourcing", but they are not--as we have understood the terms. Of course, if even those of us on /. don't understand what open source really means, and point out such bastardizations of the term, then pretty soon it won't mean anything anyways.

ObDisclaimer: IANAL

Have you considered consulting with the Free Software Foundation about the issues you're dealing with? At the very least they'll be able to point you in the correct direction as to how to approach this or recommend a good attorney. Also, if you're a university student, you *MIGHT* be able to get some advice from your university's student legal department which provides such services for free (well, at least mine did).

If you do consult with an attorney, it's best to follow what other people have been recommending and document the heck out of everything.

Good Luck!

1. Computer science/coding is ill suited for patenting, because many "best practices", common practices, and obvious things simply aren't documented. The culture of programming is very much an oral tradition, learned by watching others and asking questions of them.

2. In the U.S., patent examiners have an incentive to not challenge patent applications - the applicant can haul them into court to explain why they denied the patent, but they don't have to explain why they approved it. Not to mention most examiners aren't involved/knowledgeable enough about computer science in the first place.

3. Patents these days are being used as another form of cash that is being traded around by companies - ie, Motorola and AMD cross-licencing patents, various companies trading patents for other incentives, etc. If you don't have patents, you don't have anything to trade for/with (okay, not a software example, but the principle still holds).

4. Challenging existing patents in court can get expensive, not something the average Joe can do. Some companies can get away with threatening to enforce patents, simply because whoever is "violating" the patent can't afford to fight it.

And there are countless examples of bad software patents, too numerous to mention, that effectively stifle innovation, contrary to the original intent of patents.

If you all remember the /. interview with the patent attorneys, you'll remember that it's actually advisable not to look up patents: if you get taken to court over a patent violation, you'll get a lesser penalty if you didn't know you were violating a patent than if you did know. Which creates sort of a catch-22 - develop a product, if it's violating a patent, you'll never know unless you get sued, at which point all your efforts have been wasted.

Much of this has been stated previously by RMS and/or ESR and various other people. A good resource for this is the FSF.

Man, it's a good thing you're not a lawyer. The Free Software Foundation and Tom Boutell would get their ass handed to them in court with your theory.

...many of us are willing to pay a few bucks for a good commercial tool when there's no open source alternative.

I don't have any problem with your endorsement (it is useful information, after all), but For Your Information, there is an Open Source product available that blocks banner ads, cookies, and such. Source available, no cost, and protected by the GPL, it is called "The Internet Junkbuster" and is available for free download from www.junkbusters.com. It functions as a proxy server, and guards your privacy.

Just FYI.

No. I don't think it has anything to do with the "coolness" of my hack. I expect IBM to take redistributing software in a form that violates the license as being a serious problem because as a member of the Business Software Alliance Policy Council it is part of their stated mission to take such issues seriously.

But please feel free to explain your opinion in more detail. Is it your feeling that the Free Software Foundation wrote the requirements for redistribution of a statically linked work into the LGPL only for Linus Torvalds and others who achieve the same "coolness hack" level? Has Alan Cox be considered to have written a cool enough hacks to expect the LGPL to be honored? Has Richard Stallman? Has any of the glibc maintainers? Would you even recognize any of the names of the glibc maintainer's whos copyrighted works have been pirated through IBM's actions? Have you kept up with glibc modifications to rate different programmer's "coolness hack" level? Or can even an "asswipe" (like yourself) be able to expect International Business Machines to honor federal copyright law and either honor the licensing conditions of redistribution of software works or not redistribute it at all?

Based on what I have read of the LGPL, it doesn't bring up any of the "asswipe"/"coolness hack" certification that you suggest. The LGPL was written to provide all parties involved in a software product equal access to modifing the LGPL work. This is done by requiring at minium that a redistributor to provide the source code to the LGPL work and at least the object files for accomplishing relinking to modified versions of the LGPL work if the redistributor statically links against that LGPL work. International Business Machines has failed to do this for over a year and has failed to honor requests for the object files for over six weeks. Is this really the actions of a supporter of the Linux community as a whole and supporter of the open source licenses commonly associated with that community's work? If not, then exactly what does IBM's statements of commitment to Linux/open source mean? It seems reasonable to me to expect key companies that benfit from the Linux community works to choose more carefully what actions from their business partners they are willing to put up with. So far IBM's "commitment" to Linux has been fluff and the LGPL violation regarding ADSM v3r1 level 0.1 for Linux continues...

No. I don't think it has anything to do with the "coolness" of my hack. I expect IBM to take redistributing software in a form that violates the license as being a serious problem because as a member of the Business Software Alliance Policy Council it is part of their stated mission to take such issues seriously.

But please feel free to explain your opinion in more detail. Is it your feeling that the Free Software Foundation wrote the requirements for redistribution of a statically linked work into the LGPL only for Linus Torvalds and others who achieve the same "coolness hack" level? Has Alan Cox be considered to have written a cool enough hacks to expect the LGPL to be honored? Has Richard Stallman? Has any of the glibc maintainers? Would you even recognize any of the names of the glibc maintainer's whos copyrighted works have been pirated through IBM's actions? Have you kept up with glibc modifications to rate different programmer's "coolness hack" level? Or can even an "asswipe" (like yourself) be able to expect International Business Machines to honor federal copyright law and either honor the licensing conditions of redistribution of software works or not redistribute it at all?

Based on what I have read of the LGPL, it doesn't bring up any of the "asswipe"/"coolness hack" certification that you suggest. The LGPL was written to provide all parties involved in a software product equal access to modifing the LGPL work. This is done by requiring at minium that a redistributor to provide the source code to the LGPL work and at least the object files for accomplishing relinking to modified versions of the LGPL work if the redistributor statically links against that LGPL work. International Business Machines has failed to do this for over a year and has failed to honor requests for the object files for over six weeks. Is this really the actions of a supporter of the Linux community as a whole and supporter of the open source licenses commonly associated with that community's work? If not, then exactly what does IBM's statements of commitment to Linux/open source mean? It seems reasonable to me to expect key companies that benfit from the Linux community works to choose more carefully what actions from their business partners they are willing to put up with. So far IBM's "commitment" to Linux has been fluff and the LGPL violation regarding ADSM v3r1 level 0.1 for Linux continues...

Heh, they should add:

D. No, that's why the codes are there.

That's exactly the right answer. Copy protection mechanisms have (or should have) no legal status whatsoever, since they simply serve to make the act of copying more difficult. Bootlegging (remember, don't call it "piracy") the content, i.e., violating the copyright by making and distributing unauthorized copies, is already illegal. The act of copying is not necessarily equivalent to bootlegging, because it can be done for legitimate reasons, such as a backup copy under "fair use", and the mere act of breaking the codes is certainly not even equivalent to that, since legitimate reasons include a desire for a DVD player under Linux, or simply a geek's "because it's there" response to an interesting challenge.

Having the ability to commit a crime is not the same as actually committing it. Copy protection mechanisms are an attempt by the content providers to prevent people from having the ability to copy content, and breaking the codes is a way to regain that ability, which is not illegal -- only using it is, and even that only if the use violates the copyright. Punishing someone for "having the ability to copy DVDs" simply because he has broken the code, regardless of whether or not he has actually copied any DVDs, would be like punishing someone for "having the ability to commit murder" simply because he owns a gun (or any deadly weapon, such as a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or even his bare hands), regardless of whether or not anyone has actually been killed.


David Gould

The GPL, on the other hand, is long and complex. It includes a political manifesto which is required to be included with every copy. It prevents commercial reuse of the code, which means that it is fundamentally unfair. Anyone can use the program for what he or she wants except the commercial programmer, who is precluded from incorporating it in a product that he or she does not give away. This provision was intended by the GPL's author, Richard Stallman, to reduce the salaries programmers can make for programming and thus hurt their livelihoods. See The GNU Manifesto , where Stallman explicitly states this intent:

"For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.

Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting work for a lot of money.

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned."

It does not seem to me that a programmer who wants to encourage his colleagues to contribute to a project should adopt a license whose explicit purpose is "ban" them from making a better living than a grad student!

The GPL also deters standardization by preventing commercial and closed-source products from using the same code base as open source products.

In short, the GPL is a poor choice. The time-honored BSD license, or the MIT X license (which is nearly identical), is a much better way to go.

--Brett Glass

Some chapters of Karl Fogel's book about CVS, (the Concurrent Version System, the source code control system used by many a free software project) are available under the GPL.

There's no way DVD-R media's going to come down in price for those reasons.

Put it this way: right now, hard drive space is less that $30/GB. That's based on an 18 GB Ultra-2 Wide SCSI drive I bought a few months ago for about $600. It's probably less now, not to mention how much less it would be for bigger, slower IDE drives. I haven't been paying close attention to such things, but I imagine it might be half of that. Hence, storing a 4 GB DVD movie on my hard drive would cost me about $120 worth of disk space on the U2W, or maybe $60 if I bought a cheap IDE drive. If Moore's Law stays with us for another five years, we'll see a little over three more doublings, bringing that down to $6-12 per movie, which is less than buying the movie normally, even if the disposable disk costs ~$5. So, even if removable media prices fail to keep up, ordinary disk space will become cheap enough to make "backing up" of single-use DVDs practical within five years, which is soon enough to matter. If I understand this right, the idea would be for these to replace rental DVDs, so the price would have to be in the same range (though no doubt they'll try to use this as an excuse to jack up the rental prices by another buck or two "in order to serve you better".)

Of course, I love the idea of being able to store my movie collection on a hard drive for the same reason that I like MP3s: not for making bootleg copies (remember, don't call it "piracy"), but for the convenience of having everything in a jukebox-like system, instantly available, without needing to flip disks around, plus track memory, playlist management, etc.

There's a certain almost poetic beauty to the way this idea juxtaposes with the "archival backup" provision of "fair use", isn't there? When I rent an ordinary disk, I clearly don't own it -- I just have possession of it for the period of the rental and I'm entitled to view it, but that's all. However, if I buy a self-destructing disk, then I do own the physical medium. They may be willing to sell it to me for a rental price on the theory that it will self-destruct, but barring some really fancy legal footwork on their part, I don't see how they could justify denying that I am entitled to use it according to "fair use", including the right to "make a backup copy, solely for archival purposes in the event of [must...keep...straight...face] the loss or destruction of the original".

Of course, what they should really do is just grow up and realize that they can't absolutely prevent bootlegging, and that they don't really need to do so, since it won't stop people from buying from them anyway, rather than continue to be such greedy bastards with their increasingly ridiculous attempts to control everything, which only serve to impede other desirable, and perfectly legitimate, uses (see above), but that's been said before.


David Gould

Here is an example illustrating that the GPL contains ambiguous usage of terms it wishes it were not ambiguous, "copy" and "distribute":

For example, if [something] would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If a corporation makes copies within the corporation, then they are still copies, that's the law of copyrights. Therefore, I would read "all who receive copies" to include employees, but the end of that sentence above would also imply that it means the same thing as "distribution". The GPL wants "distribution" to be "extra-corporational" only, but it is hard to make that case when "all who receive copies" includes all who do receive actual copies. Other less than clear quotations include "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place..." Wording like that is not particularly problematic, but nor does it distinguish intra-company from inter-.

The GPL goes out of its way to finesse the shrink wrap EULA problem. It says, you do not have to accept this license, but then you do not have any other authorization to have this copy. So, every copy that a company makes has this restriction on the company. But the only way an employee can be given a copy, is if the employee gets a copy that has all of the terms of the GPL, including a copy of the GPL itself, but that includes the viral right to redistribute derivative works. How does the employee know which parts bind on the company, and which on the employee? It is ambiguous.

The GPL has additional ambiguous language (with my addition in italics):

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) i.e. this does not exclude terms and conditions of employment that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, [... goes on to the quote I used above]

The supposed loophole that started this thread is to have everybody join one corporation. I don't think that that loophole exists. I think the loophole is in the other direction: corporations may not safely modify GPLed software and use it "internally" unless the FSF owns the copyright. The FSF suggests turning the copyright over to them so they can enforce the licenses. I think in this case it means they won't enforce this aspect of it. IANAL, so perhaps what I see is ambiguous would not be ambiguous to a judge.

Understand, this is not FUD, I'm not bashing the GPL. I like the viral aspect, I'm just trying to make sure it works. My suggestion: tighten up the language, as the GPL itself says that it will do from time to time.

Copyright law forbids you to make copies, whether or not EULAs do. GPLed software does not grant you the right to copy unless you agree to the distribution terms. I don't see how GPLed software is distinguished from any other copyrighted material. I can't copy copyrighted books, or music , etc. I can't distribute GPLed software binaries unless I agree to make the source available, including modifications. It does not distinguish between who copies are distributed to.

P.S. The post this is a reply to talked about a "loophole". The rest of this thread is about a loophole. This question is about whether the GPL is more restrictive than I've heard told.

Your claim was that the GPL was designed to lower programmer's salaries.

The section that you quoted is in response to the anticipated question "Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive."

In the answer, RMS says that won't happen (and in fact he's been proven correct by Linux) and then goes on to posit how the existence of this large body of software will reduce the incentive for people to produce non-free software, with which they could probably make more money.

This is just a recognition that you can make more money from producing something that is scarce versus producing something that is freely available. People who object to the GPL often seem to enjoy promoting an artificial scarcity to forward themselves.

The Holy Grail of Software Engineering for 40 years has been reuse, reuse, reuse. These artificial scarcities have served to make software reuse very spotty and poorly practiced. The GPL is the only license that enforces a discipline of software reuse. This is a good thing.

As I said, RMS saw that as an effect of the GPL, not as a guiding principle. If it had been, it would have been up front in the Manifesto per se, and not in the anticipated objections section.

Look, I don't agree with RMS on everything. His redefinition of the term "free" is not really completely reasonable. He has an unjustified utopian view about a post-scarcity world. I also don't agree that the wide adoption of GPL'd software will mean less pay for programmers. Most of the remuneration for programming I've received is for maintenance work or pay for specific modification that would typically not be available in public sources. The GPL only serves to increase the opportunities for pay for this type of work.

But, I find RMS's opinions reasoned. I find his detractors hysterical. For example, you said that it's not far off the mark to call RMS a communist. A communist wouldn't say:

• "
• There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive."

As RMS states in his GNU Manifesto. Somehow, RMS protestations and plain statements that show he is not a "Communist" are always ignored.

-Jordan Henderson

If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours. You can try and hide your actions by cloaking it in phrases like 'making a backup', or it 'they won't notice' or whatever, but there can be no argument that it is theft.

Copying information or art is very different from stealing physical goods, so the word "theft" is inappropriate for use when referring to copying or copyright infringement. If I steal your bong, you can't use it to smoke anymore. But if I make a photocopy of few pages in a book you own a copy of - or a make a MP3 of a song you own a copy of, you can still read that book and listen to that song. Using the words like theft and steal is almost as confusing as using the word piracy to talk about copyright infringement. Furthermore, making copying impossible takes away my right to fair use of information and art that I have purchased.

Why do you think people have this opinion of young computer people being pirates? Could it possible be because they hear comments from pirates trying to defend the undefensible?

The of the word pirate sin this context is confusing. Consider alternatives like "those who infringe copyright" or "those who share information and art." See http://www.fsf.org/philoso phy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy for details.

Your use of the words "pirate" and "piracy" in this context is confusing. Consider alternatives such as "making unauthorized copies of" or "sharing". See http://www.fsf.org/philoso phy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy for details.

Isn't this why the FSF came into being? Others have been burned in similar situations. The FSF lists the problems with non-free software:

When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.

Your use of the of the phrase "copyright theft" and the word "theft" in this context is confusing. Consider alternatives such as "making unauthorized copies of" or "sharing".

Copying information or art is very different from stealing physical goods, so the word "theft" is inappropriate for use when referring to copying or copyright infringement. If I steal your bong, you can't use it to smoke anymore. But if I make a photocopy of few pages in a book you own a copy of - or a make a MP3 of a song you own a copy of, you can still read that book and listen to that song. Using the words like theft and steal is almost as confusing as using the word piracy to talk about copyright infringement. If you mean copyright infringement, say copyright infringement. These other words serve only to color or mislead. See http://www.fsf.org/philoso phy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy for details.

We met at Rice University about a year and a half ago. I was a student of Arkansas' residential high-school for mathematics and science (modelled after the Illinois school you helped create). Now I am at CERN searching for the Higgs Boson... The `God Particle' as you called it. I think a great deal about how research and education are carried out today and the great possibilities that technology has brought us. I know that a great deal of the slashdot readers are strong proponents for a movement in the software industry called the `open source' movement. The fundamental principle behind this movement is a freedom of information. I am curious what room science can make for such a movement. Do you foresee a way in which research can move to an open source paradigm while retaining the stringent process of peer review? Do you foresee any novel ways that we can use today's current technology to combine research and education?

Kyle Cranmer

The word "pirating" has a colorful folkloric flavor to it that blurs the real truth. The word 'theft' or 'stealing' is more accurate.

Copying information or art is very different from stealing physical goods. If I steal your bong, you can't use it to smoke anymore. But if I make a photocopy of few pages in a book you own a copy of - or a MP3 of a song you own a copy of, you can still read that book and listen to that song. Using the words theft and steal is almost as confusing as using the word piracy to talk about copyright infringement. If you mean copyright infringement, say copyright infringement. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/wor ds-to-avoid.html

Read some damn psuedo-intellectual website run by tenured do-nothings for the counter arguement to mine.

Pseudo-intellectuals don't get MacArthur fellowships. Richard M. Stallman does.

Thanks. It was very informative. I have a bit of a problem with some of it, however: why on earth shouldn't I use software that doesn't have an entirely free license? I prefer open source / free software / your name here but I certainly won't limit myself to it.

In short, if I write something by myself, I'll use the GPL or LGPL (to keep it simple, if nothing else). If I modify or write a patch for something else, I'll use the appropriate license (APSL, Netscape PL, etc.).

I find their reason for using the GPL over the LGPL interesting. It boils down to: the GPL is preferable because it is less free. In a sense, it makes GPL-covered code FSF-proprietary by not allowing private companies to use it in proprietary code.

I also thought it was funny that they said that the Artistic License contained "some passages [that] are too clever for their own good". Apparently they don't approve of Larry Wall's literary antics.

While I think it's great that they're making it open source, I think it's important to consider what license it will be under. Will it be Free Software? If so, great!

(see This page at the Free Software Foundation to find out the difference between open source software and free software.)

The private sector is free to continue pirating^H^H^H^H^H^H purchasing Windows for its use.

Your use of the word pirate in this context is confusing. Consider alternatives such as "making unauthorized copies of" or "sharing". See http://www.fsf.org/philoso phy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy for details.

That page reads like a religious zealot's "These products are Evil, and these are Blessed" list. Not only should the believer not use the SCSL on their software, they should also avoid software that is published under it. I guess in the same fashion a "True Christian" avoids movies with Patric Duffy or Richard Gere, since they are evil, heathen buddhists.

I am quite thankful that I'm not associated with that cult that once upon a time actually had a point.

The Free Software Foundation has a page explaining several of the more common licences, and whether they are truly Free or not (the APSL is not Free)

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/licen se-list.html

--

For the details on why the APSL is NOT a Free (speech) software licence go here:

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html

--

The was-it-worth-it debate just starting
is amusing and, yes, there may be
problems to come, and, yes, I'm sure
many contractors and vendors hyped the
Y2K bug to their benefit. Nevertheless,
that we needed to do this
last-minute-fixup-panic itself tells
legions about the misreable state of
software technology. To provide proper
service, the compliance of any software
with end-of-century dating should have
been totally transparent. Indeed, the
"opaqueness" of software to customers is
a launchpad for a major diatribe: It is,
indeed, part of the argument of the
Free
Software Foundation, that to really use
software, customers of necessity need
much more than binaries.

But, also, the Y2K phenomenon shows that
Americans -- claiming to embrace
technology in all forms -- actually
worship it rather than use it.
Technology appears to be an
ultra-talisman, making one rich if one
invests in it or can take a new fad
public, and ultimately solving all one's
problems, even if one doesn't understand
how. There may have been hype in the IT
industry about Y2K, but if that were
deliberate it may have been so simply
because those concerned knew Americans
do not respond to sense or logical
arguments, that they need emotion to
move them, whether to support a sports
team, a military campaign, to change
their own habits, or to take reasonable
precautions. Hence, Sputnik is a
challenge to freedom, the Evil Empire
must be beaten, and the world will melt
down if we don't fix our ubiquitous
computers.

Note that the per capita density of
computers, understanding of technology,
and preparedness for Y2K varied by
orders of magnitude across countries on
the planet. Yet we haven't yet heard of
any documented Y2K problems. Right now,
the winners seem to be those
governments, laughed at heartily by all
of us when they first made their
apology, who decided to take action when
they saw Y2K problems appear in other
countries, realizing that they would
have at least 12 hours notice.

We have a long way to go to make
software technology as reliable as a
television. But demanding that software
vendors toe the line typically demanded
of others, whether the vendors name has
"Microsoft", "Sun", "IBM", or "Red Hat"
in it, can only hasten that arrival.

this is not possible with linux, as paragraph #7 of the GPL prohibits distribution of the software in this case.

another license which is more free in the patents issue is the MPL/NPL. here the original author grants the user a license for all his patents necessary to use the software.

somthing which really should be changed, is that the open source definition doesn't mention patents at all. software is not free unless it's free of patent alfortihms or comes with a license to use them.

software is protected under the copyright- and the patent-law. ( unlike physical machines, which are just protected by patents ). the copyright-law is necessary for free software to be able to enforce the copyleft to keep it free. the patent-law doesn't bring any benefit to free software. and we should as soon as possible start to learn how to deal with it.

patent-law gets promoted to foster innovations. i think this is plain silly. look it the innovations which where used to build the internet. the internet's basement is free software (apache, bind, sendmail, linux, *bsd, perl, php, majordomo, ... ) and all these didn't get developed BECAUSE of patent-law, but DESPITE it.

we need to deal with patents in all open source licenses and in the open source definition! write to Your congress-guy today!

this is not possible with linux, as paragraph #7 of the GPL prohibits distribution of the software in this case.

another license which is more free in the patents issue is the MPL/NPL. here the original author grants the user a license for all his patents necessary to use the software.

somthing which really should be changed, is that the open source definition doesn't mention patents at all. software is not free unless it's free of patent alfortihms or comes with a license to use them.

software is protected under the copyright- and the patent-law. ( unlike physical machines, which are just protected by patents ). the copyright-law is necessary for free software to be able to enforce the copyleft to keep it free. the patent-law doesn't bring any benefit to free software. and we should as soon as possible start to learn how to deal with it.

patent-law gets promoted to foster innovations. i think this is plain silly. look it the innovations which where used to build the internet. the internet's basement is free software (apache, bind, sendmail, linux, *bsd, perl, php, majordomo, ... ) and all these didn't get developed BECAUSE of patent-law, but DESPITE it.

we need to deal with patents in all open source licenses and in the open source definition! write to Your congress-guy today!

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/licen se-list.html

• LinuxOne's GPL violation status:
• • They acknowledge the requirement to provide a written offer in the README on the CDROM
  • They acknowledge the problem when contacted by phone
  • They have failed to follow through on providing the source code on their FTP site
• Caldera has distributed OpenLinux Demo CDs without source code or a written offer of source code.
• • The CDROM README file does no discuss the availablity of the source code at all
  • Caldera refuses to respond to email on the subject
  • Caldera refuses to address the problem when contacted by phone stating a policy of requiring software authors to contact the Caldera contact assigned to them at the time Caldera choose to redistribute their software (however, Caldera has not assigned contacts to GPL authors, only to companies authoring commerical licensed software). They have refused to acknowledge that there is any problem.
• Linux Systems Labs in their product titles implies that entire CDs are covered by the GPL when in actuality the CD conatins several packages that are not covered by the GPL (this act is described as a GPL violation by the Free Software Foundation)
• Linux Central when a binary only CD is ordered does not supply any written offer of source code availablity
• Cheap Bytes when a binary only CD is ordered does not supply any written offer of source code availablity
• IBM has been in violation of the LGPL for over 400 days since the time they have distributed unsupported ADSM for Linux. To date, they still have not made the object files for ADSM available for accomplishing relinking against modified versions of the LGPL material. There is every reason to believe that IBM will remain in violation of the LGPL throughout the entire 1999 year.

I think RMS really is a communist, even though he strongly denies it. He's not authoritarian or fascist at all, though those are often confused with communism. But really -- "to each by his need, from each by his ability".

In it, he proposes that those taxes should go to the recording artists based on polls to determine popularity. That suggests "To each according to his ability" rather than need. In other words, it encourages doing something useful rather than being needy as communism does.

In the context of Free Software, his philosophies apply to the distribution of information, not of material things, which communism concerns itself with.

Regarding economics, Free Software specifically allows itself to be sold with the profits completely retained by the seller. Something I would consider more compatible with marxist ideals would be more along the lines of "Free for non-commercial use" and "Pay x% of your profits if you're making money with this. We'll make sure it gets to a needy person".

Also, rms' philosophy on copyright and patents is completely within the bounds described by Thomas Jefferson, who predated the idea of communism.

Quoth Mr. Jefferson:

"It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors... It would be curious... if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

http://www.linuxworl d.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-11/lw-11-rms.html

As far as shooting ourselves in the foot, there isn't much to loose here. When I spoke with Derik a Tivoli, he explained to me about all the other platforms they support and if I would just switch over to a different platform THEN they would consider not violating the license on the material they distribute. And take a look at the score card here:

• Linux for x86
• • Illegal distribution of outdated ADSM client version 3 release 1 level 0.1
  • Not support to the extent of not even supporting meeting licensing conditions for material distributed
• No ADSM server available
• No Tivoli Storage Manager (ADSM) v3.7 client available
• No Tivoli Storage Manager (ADSM) v3.7 server available

• Linux for RS/6000
• No ADSM client v2 or v3 available
• No ADSM server v2 or v3 available
• No Tivoli Storage Manager v3.7 client available
• No Tivoli Storage Manager v3.7 server available

But just like a used car dealer, International Business Machines will say ANYTHING to make a sale:

IBM is committed to supporting your choice of platform and operating systems -- a commitment we're extending to the support of Linux[tm], the open-source operating system

It has been for longer than "a while!" It has been over a YEAR since Slashdot reported on this client. Since that time, IBM's "commitment" to extending "support" has failed to even acknowledge that they have licensing conditions to meet when redistributing LGPL works!

Shooting ourselves in the foot?! HELL NO. Shooting ourselves in the foot is looking to IBM as the "good guy" right after Sun correctly there lack of acknowledgement of Blackdown. Shooting ourselves in the foot is defending IBM's actions because U. of California compiled their package for them. IBM's illegal activity isn't defendable. Not by a non-support statement and not by a statement of U of Cal's involvement. Illegal activity is not a valid way of promoting Linux. Defending this package is just defeneding diluting the percentage of valid backup packages that make of the options for backing up Linux. There are other alternatives from companies that do support Linux and do support acknowledging and honoring the LGPL. Demanding that illegal packages do not pull customers away from valid solutions is not shooting yourself in the foot. Shooting yourself in the foot is defending the defacement of LGPL in the name of "extended support" for a package that isn't even supported.

IBM's "commitment" to extending support is not what Linux needs. It shouldn't be part of the global domination plan to get Linux distributed by used car salemen and software pirates. Sun will at least listen EVENTUALLY to the Linux community. Has IBM really demonstrated that they are doing something more than trying to make an extra buck with meaningless fluff. Is it really shooting yourself in the foot to point out that IBM's marketing hype is useless when the reality is their flagship backup (key item in support, don't you think) product "it not supported by [them]" to the extend of even being an illegal redistribution of LGPL material. Is it really shooting yourself in the foot to point out that IBM hypes themselves up as supporting opensource while their actions attack a common free software license. No, what is shooting yourself in the foot is to defend such a monster. IBM is not the good guy in the Open Source community. IBM is not a good guy in the Free Software community. Sun might have it's problems but they are FAR from being the two-faced beast that IBM has become. Cashing in on the open source name and not actually honoring it is not a defendable action. Ever.

RMS consults to pay the bills (remember, we IP opponents believe work-for-hire is the appropriate business model for software), and by most accounts his rates are quite high. The prices of FSF products also show a lack of discomfort with money. IMHO you're just making things up because you think they sound bad, not because you actually know anything about his real life.

Stick to lies that aren't so easy to refute. Nobody who reads his manifesto can honestly think "programmers will be no more useful than someone who stands on a street corner and makes funny faces" is his goal.