Slashdot Mirror

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

A royalty would be a payment to the original author; broadly publishing your source would not qualify. Be very suspicious of claims the OSD does not admit the GPL as a conforming license; it started out as the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which were designed for a purely Free and GNU-centric distribution, and the current maintainers still note GPL- and LGPL-related tweaks to the definition.

It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the Open Source Initiative, they guys who coined that term. If you go read their site, you'll find out that by Open Source they mean exactly what the Free Software Foundation means with Free Software or what Debian means with their Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Alejo.

Anyone who's heard RMS speak on the subject of free software will be well aware that the "free" bit doesn't just refer to the fact that you don't have to pay for it - it also refers to the fact that the user is free to do as he likes with the software. Because the source is available, he can modify it, something which can't be done with close, proprietary software.

The GPL also ensures that anyone who benefits from free software also has a responsibility to ensure that others can benefit from any improvements they make to it. It's a two-way street - if I use a piece of GPL'd software, and add extra functionality, I can't exploit it commercially (i.e. sell it to people) unless I make it available under the terms of the GPL.

Now, having said that, there is, of course, a danger that, if a piece of software was written and GPL'd by a company (or, indeed, an individual), they may decide to revoke it's free status and create a prorietary version. That is their right. There is nothing wrong in doing that, in and of itself. Obviously, there are some situations where companies have allowed something to be used for free until it becomes a de facto standard, and then started charging for it. But, with GPL'd software, things are different.

There is a danger that a company such as Red Hat could acquire the copyright to some open source software and revoke the GPL, in an attempt to profit from a commercial version, thus forking the software. However, some companies already have both free and commercial versions of their software, and it doesn't cause many problems. Plus, the potential for backlash against Red Hat should make them careful of doing this sort of thing.

In a sense, by going public, Red Hat has put itself in a position where it needs to be more careful about pissing us off than before. If the Linux community boycotted Red Hat, their stock price would take a serious nosedive.

However, I am concerned that Red Hat employs (and, therefore, controls) too many of the key open source programmers. I don't think there's any ulterior or sinister motive in it, but I would much prefer if, instead of employing these coders, they allowed them to go work for, say, the FSF, and sponsored their salaries.

That way, Red Hat would still be giving something back to the open source/free software movement, but it wouldn't actually be controlling it directly.

Just my 0.05! ;-)

D.
..is for Disastrous!

My only problem with this announcement is that the industry's "permitting" this use of MP3s implies that it's their decision, when in fact (well, in my opinion, anyway, which is the same thing) they don't have any authority whatsoever even knowing or caring about it in the first place, let alone permitting or forbidding it. Where would they even have gotten the idea in the first place, let alone how would they justify it, to think that this would be illegal?

But DJ's don't own the songs, they own a round piece of plastic.

IANAL, but this is my understanding: they own two things: the round piece of plastic, i.e., a physical medium containing a copy of the copyrighted work, and a license that permits them to use the work in a particular commercial setting. Does the license actually specify the physical process by which the work can be used? I.e., does it say "You may use the song in live performances by placing this and only this particular disc in a CD player and pressing 'Play'.", or does it say "You may use the song in live performances."? I can't imagine that it would be the former. I mean, why, except for them being typically heavy-handed? Even for them, this seems ridiculous.

Here's a similar case: what if a DJ is at a party and someone requests a particular song. The DJ says, "Yeah, I have that," but then he looks through his pile of CDs and finds that, while it's true that he owns the disc and has a live-performance license for it, he has forgotten that particular one at home. Then the host interjects, "Wait, I have that album." He owns a CD of the album but he does not have a live-performance license for it. The question is, if the host lends his physical disc to the DJ, could the DJ then, under his live-performance license, use that disc to perform the song, even though it's not the same particular disc that he owns? I think the answer should be an obvious "Yes". Perhaps the industry sees thing differently, but I can't imagine what they could object to about this situation. Also, what if the DJ's disc is lost or destroyed? Does he have to pay for the license again, or just buy a new copy of the disc? What about the "for archival purposes" fair-use doctrine? (I realize that Canada != USA, so maybe the "fair use" thing is different.)

As it is, in the process of performing it, the information passes through any number of intermediate formats as it is processed by various pieces of equipment, e.g., (note that I don't really know anything about professional sound equipment) bits get read by the CD player and converted to an analog signal and this goes through all sorts of mixers, equalizers, amps, etc., before going to the speaker, where the analog signal is converted from an electrical carrier to an acoustic one. Does the industry presume to have any authority whatsoever over exactly what steps the information goes through on its path from the DJ's round piece of plastic to the audience's ears? Of course not, as long as the DJ has paid for a live-performance license and no durable copies are given to anyone else. What's the difference of the bits make an extra stop (i.e., being compressed by Fraunhoffer's (sp?) algorithm and stored on a more convenient physical medium) along the way, all the while remaining in the DJ's possession and not being given to anyone else in a durable form? It sounds like they are just trying to continue to brand anything associated with MP3 as "illegal", while appearing magnanimous in this obviously-trivial case.

From the article:

DJs can buy a license giving them the right to burn their own compilation CDs of "useable tracks," instead of having to cart their whole CD collections around to their gigs.

I don't see how this could possibly not be considered to fall under "fair use" (though, again Canada != USA), or why it would require a special license.

Under Canadian law, a DJ convicted of making unlicensed reproductions with any technology could face serious fines and the confiscation of his equipment. Though there haven't been any such cases lately, Heindl points out that Canadian authorities have made examples of offenders in the past.

I could see it if the concern were over such copies being passed around, but two points: first, why would it be any different for a DJ than for any person making bootleg (don't call it "Piracy") copies of normally-purchased albums. Second, here it is again: why are they so obsessed with how many copies exist, as long as they are all in his possession and not performed in any unlicensed fashion? What seems to matter is whether he has the right to possess and perform the song at all. The closest thing that seems reasonable to me would be if we were talking about DJs using songs off of albums that they just bought at the record store, without paying for a performance license, or, better yet, completely bootlegged copies that they downloaded or got from friends. of course that would be illegal, but nobody's talking about that.

Although the record companies will welcome the license fees, the small amount of revenue they will generate isn't the point at all, Robertson said.

"It's more a question of copyright control than generating revenues," he said. "It's important to keep things like copyright above board like this."

Ah, here it is! They are still trying to perpetuate the illusion that they should rightfully have complete control over the proliferation of physical copies of the data, and the perception of themselves as the one and only legitimate source for anything related to it. This is a very nasty tool that they use consistently in their propaganda: the equivocation between the concepts of licensing rights to information and the physical act of duplicating it. The two concepts are very different, but these guys jump back and forth at will, using each to "refute" arguments that are really about the other. The difference was not so important back when physical duplication was difficult and expensive, since they had an almost-but-maybe-not-quite monopoly on the ability to create copies. It was a service that they provided, along with granting licenses. Now, though, it's very easy to copy things, and there is no reason why people should need that service from them. They have absolutely no grounds for objecting to other people performing the physical copying as desired, as long as their licenses are respected.

They're acting as if they have both a patent on "a physical medium storing, in machine-readable form, the digital stream 0x6549cb5a67890f8460d..., or any data that represents the same audio signal", and a copyright on the song (both the composition and the performance) that is represented thereby. The patent would entitle them to control the creation of copies, and the copyright would entitle them to control the use of same. My sense is that they have the copyright but not the patent.

David Gould

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

If a copy of a newspaper falls off the back of a delivery truck, and I find to the newsstand to buy a copy, is it stealing for me to pick it up and read it instead?

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

IF, as I understand it (and I haven't checked, as the server is busy), they are not distributing source with their ROM image, nor giving instruction on how to obtain a physical copy of the source, nor placing source code in the directory from which you download the source. Note that part (c) of the above doesn't apply if they have modified the source. It only applies if they are mirroring the binary image, essentially.

As to the question of what the original poster is going to do with the source, who cares? He has a right to it under the GPL. If he wants it, he must be given it. If they can't give out the source, then they can't distribute their image.

Now, IANAL and I'm not a member of the GPL gestapo, but the original poster was right (assuming they really aren't offering source). Due to the /. effect it's not possible for me to check the veracity of his statement, so the above may be for naught.

The answer to all of your questions can be found at www.fsf.org

• Red Hat has shown that they are not confident about their own business strategy...

Change happens.

It seems Cygnus wasn't confident about their business strategy a few years back when they went from a Free Software support operation to selling packaged software that was complementary to Free Software (IDEs and the like).

I wonder if this means the new combined company will release everything GPL'd or if RedHat will start producing and selling for-fee packages? Or will Cygnus be run at arms length with no changes to either organizations? If this is the case, it's hard to see why RedHat's making this buy.

One HUGE potential synergy I see between Cygnus and a distro maker would be for Cygnus to polish up Cygwin (their Unix porting layer for NT based on Free Software) and have a distro package that has the Cygwin tools thrown in (probably on a separate CD). If you could add-in a Free Software X-Windows for NT then this could be viewed as a Linux compatibility package for NT, allowing interoperability and porting support between the two environments.

Let's face it, most organizations are not going to throw out all their Windows and go to Linux in the short term, but rather add in some Linux where it makes sense. Environments like Cygwin (if made mature) could be a boon to these customers allowing them to produce programs in Linux that could be easily ported to their Windows machines.

As you can see from the public ledger, distributed net has donated almost US$20,000 to selected non-profits such as EFF, FSF, and Project Gutenberg.

What money we have retained has gone directly to supporting the network and buying necessary equipment, and not to staff.

What is so difficult about understanding that free software means you have freedoms attached to it? You are not the first person to describe this sentiment. I would encourage you and others that have this sentiment to read the FSF web site. (www.fsf.org)

Long before the corrupted marketing term "open source" was "invented", the explanation of the FSF and GPL on the FSF web site convinced me that I have been unknowing victim of software "crimes of liberty" (not a FSF term). Consider that I pay for a sofware product that has a bug (all software has bugs, BTW). I cannot fix this bug myself (even though I am a programmer) and generally cannot expect or request that the company fix it for me within a reasonable amount of time. Further, said company generally will charge more money for the "upgrade". Morally, this is a crime. Why? It's dishonest. I paid money for a product with the expectation that said bug or feature is working correctly. Sure, accidents can happen and bugs are missed, but is this my fault? The company makes it my fault because they penalize me for it by charging me for an upgrade.

Take this scenario into the non-virtual world of products such as a cd player. If you purchase a cd player, take it home, and it does not work as you expect. What do you do? You return it! The manufacturer of the cd player doesn't charge you an upgrade fee! This is what great companies like Micro$oft have been doing to all of us for the past 15 years. Feels good, doesn't it?

Free != open source

--

Well, how does TurboLinux differ from the situation above? Well...

• TurboLinux figured out from the *beginning* that it was to their advantage to release their module under GPL. Caldera's distribution went through several revisions before they decided to make the source code available.
• The size modification to the kernel is smaller! NKFS was 2940 lines of code, IP_CS is 2781 lines of code
• IP_CS is better broken up into approx 60 functions whereas NKFS is only broken into approx 50 functions.
• The header files for NKFS has only two lines of comment explaining the purpose of the data structures. The IP_CS header file has comments next to every variable and function defined.
• The NDS browser uses RSA code which is under patent and US export control which means that Caldera probably will never release the entire source code (if any) of the program which uses the NKFS module. TurboLinux has indicated that as newer versions of the cluster server daemon comes out that they will release the source code to the older versions.
• NKFS has never been a part of the offical kernel source distribution and Caldera has never indicated that they will try to submit it for being included. IP_CS is also presently not part of the offical kernel source distribution but TurboLinux appears to be interested in submitting it for being included in future major versions of the kernel.
• The November 1999 Linux Journal lists Caldera's website as having had approx 10,000 visits whereas TurboLinux was listed as having less than 2,000. It seems clear that Caldera has five times the influce in pushing a prioritary fork.

So why are we getting so upset over the fact that George Weiss of Gartner Group Inc. has "fork fears"?! Isn't this the same G. Weiss that in January had fears about the "chaotic nature of the [Linux] market." He goes on to state "... best practices would entail putting in place practices to discourage, if not ban, code hacking when using Linux." Does this guy really understand Linux? The fact is that being able to code hack linux is one of it's biggest advantages. Another advantage is the growing number of non-standard modules. For example: you get better performce with INN v2 if you have rawfs, your not going to get far on the network with a Madge token ring card unless you have loaded the non-standard Madge kernel module driver and if you want to really fork from standard kernel method just put a distribution together based around the results of the GGI Project or RTLinux. Non-standard kernel patches and modules have been around for a long time and IP_CS is no different. History has shown that the main Linux kernel can survive this "problem." So, hand a spoon to Mr Weiss' "fork fears" and enjoy what TurboLinux is providing under GPL.

• Pentium optimization
• Trying to support C++
• FORTRAN
• Pascal
• Ada
• Special forms of optimizations (IBM Haifa stuff, for instance)

The net result of the forks were that you could have a compiler that covers one purpose, but not necessarily more than one.

All of the things you mention above are good things to support. They all have their market and perhaps none of them would have been available had we waited for complete consensus among all GCC developers to bless every change.

Code forks are just healthy competition. Remember that? Competition?

You fail to mention that a lot of these things were eventually folded back into the latest GCC versions.

The EGCS split was eventually folded back into the mainline, and the result is a better GCC, I think. People were allowed to go their own way, proving their approach good and when the fork was unforked, it benefitted everyone.

I do support of some R/3 code where our local group has "forked" from the standard stuff SAP AG provides; it is a bear of a job to just handle the parallel changes when we do minor "Legal Change Patch" upgrades. We've got a sizable project team in support of a major version number upgrade; the stuff that we have forked will represent a big chunk of the grief that results in that year long project.

Oh, so you're having problems with parallel changes. Hmm... This is bad. I know. Don't make any local changes! Use the SAP out-of-the-box. Whew! That was easy, problem resolved, the badness of a code fork vanquished once and for all.

What's this I hear? You need those changes? Those changes are there for a good reason? Oh, well, I guess nothing worthwhile doesn't have a price, eh?

Sure, it's a bear to syncronize parallel updates, but that's no justification to never fork.

The ability to fork is an important aspect of the software's essential freedom. If we never fork, we're possibly missing out on important development direction that would be missed.

Besides, there already are a number of Linux code forks out there. People are still developing in 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and now 2.3 and 2.4 kernels. Each of these represent a fork. When someone improves a 2.2 kernel in some significant way, someone will probably try and integrate those changes into 2.3 and 2.4 kernels.

What people are really concerned about here is that Linus will no longer be have control over the forks.

My guess is that Linus would welcome the contributions. Remember that anything these TurboLinux people might do would be available to be merged into a Linus blessed kernel in the future.

Hey, if these are real improvements, I'm just glad they're putting them into a GPL OS rather than doing them (again and again) to some proprietary commercial OS.

The forks that have occurred in the *BSD world haven't seemed to hurt them. *BSD is gaining support all the time, we read. The various *BSD projects have learned a lot from one another. The only forks in *BSD that one might argue don't contribute to the Open Source world are the ones by BSDI and other commercial interests. Even these have probably helped popularized *BSD operating systems.

Handspring is not responding to emailed questions about the problem. Word on usenet is that they plan to release the source, but not now, and maybe not for the current version. Of course GPL Sections 5 and 7 clearly state that you can't distribute derivative works unless you're prepared to offer source at the same time.

-Peter, no longer so enthusiastic about Handspring

Is Sun's attitude the result of selling the Open Source concept while trying to downplay the Free Software aspect? Was Richard Stallman right after all?
Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''

One of the major figure responsible for the destruction of the original hackerdom was Bill Gates. When first version of his Basic was freely passed among hackers, Bill wrote an Open Letter, declaring Software should be proprietary, and asking hackers to pay license fees for each copy of his Microsoft Basic. As time went on, Bill Gates became the richest man on earth, building his fortunes on selling and manipulating proprietary software. Business became the way of life, backstabing is common, information fell under NDAs and patents and became the subjects of lawsuits, and The Dark Age was upon the computer world.

One of the last holdouts from the original hackerdom was Richard M. Stallman, or RMS, of the MIT AI Labs, who would stay to the True Way to the end. To keep the original vision alive, and to make Free Software against the tide of privatiziation, he founded the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation in 1983. He declared that he would write a complete Unix-like operating system, composed of only Free Software, so he can share with other people who have the same dream. He began by writing free replacements of basic Unix utilities, and a free C compiler (gcc). Gradually the FSF provided most of the foundation for a Free Software/Open Source OS infrastructure. The GNU tools liberate hackers from dependence on proprietary development tools and provide the foundation which enables other Free Software projects to flourish. And by 1991, these tools enabled Linus Torvalds, a Finnish CS student, to develop the Linux kernal. This kernel filled in the last missing pieces of a totally Free OS, and by 1992 RMS's original aim was practically fulfilled.

While the proprietary software universe continued with rises and falls of companies, Bill Gates of Microsoft went on for world conquest. The Microsoft Empire destroyed or assimilated competitors, and by 1997 virtually no alternatives existed. People became subjects of Bill Gates, whose power reached far and wide. People looked toward the sky for hopes of liberation, but no one seemed answering the call.

However with the spread of the Internet, the Free Software community, composed of GNU, Linux, Apache, Perl, BSDs, etc., quietly continued to develop more Free source code and gathered strength. Finally in 1998, beginning with Netscape looking to Free Software for allies in resisting Microsoft, the New Hope is shown to the world. The vision of the original hackers, a world where the Software is By the People, Of the People and For the People, is coming into being. The Revenge against Bill Gates is in full swing. The war for liberation is intensifying!

One of the major figure responsible for the destruction of the original hackerdom was Bill Gates. When first version of his Basic was freely passed among hackers, Bill wrote an Open Letter, declaring Software should be proprietary, and asking hackers to pay license fees for each copy of his Microsoft Basic. As time went on, Bill Gates became the richest man on earth, building his fortunes on selling and manipulating proprietary software. Business became the way of life, backstabing is common, information fell under NDAs and patents and became the subjects of lawsuits, and The Dark Age was upon the computer world.

One of the last holdouts from the original hackerdom was Richard M. Stallman, or RMS, of the MIT AI Labs, who would stay to the True Way to the end. To keep the original vision alive, and to make Free Software against the tide of privatiziation, he founded the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation in 1983. He declared that he would write a complete Unix-like operating system, composed of only Free Software, so he can share with other people who have the same dream. He began by writing free replacements of basic Unix utilities, and a free C compiler (gcc). Gradually the FSF provided most of the foundation for a Free Software/Open Source OS infrastructure. The GNU tools liberate hackers from dependence on proprietary development tools and provide the foundation which enables other Free Software projects to flourish. And by 1991, these tools enabled Linus Torvalds, a Finnish CS student, to develop the Linux kernal. This kernel filled in the last missing pieces of a totally Free OS, and by 1992 RMS's original aim was practically fulfilled.

While the proprietary software universe continued with rises and falls of companies, Bill Gates of Microsoft went on for world conquest. The Microsoft Empire destroyed or assimilated competitors, and by 1997 virtually no alternatives existed. People became subjects of Bill Gates, whose power reached far and wide. People looked toward the sky for hopes of liberation, but no one seemed answering the call.

However with the spread of the Internet, the Free Software community, composed of GNU, Linux, Apache, Perl, BSDs, etc., quietly continued to develop more Free source code and gathered strength. Finally in 1998, beginning with Netscape looking to Free Software for allies in resisting Microsoft, the New Hope is shown to the world. The vision of the original hackers, a world where the Software is By the People, Of the People and For the People, is coming into being. The Revenge against Bill Gates is in full swing. The war for liberation is intensifying!

One of the major figure responsible for the destruction of the original hackerdom was Bill Gates. When first version of his Basic was freely passed among hackers, Bill wrote an Open Letter, declaring Software should be proprietary, and asking hackers to pay license fees for each copy of his Microsoft Basic. As time went on, Bill Gates became the richest man on earth, building his fortunes on selling and manipulating proprietary software. Business became the way of life, backstabing is common, information fell under NDAs and patents and became the subjects of lawsuits, and The Dark Age was upon the computer world.

One of the last holdouts from the original hackerdom was Richard M. Stallman, or RMS, of the MIT AI Labs, who would stay to the True Way to the end. To keep the original vision alive, and to make Free Software against the tide of privatiziation, he founded the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation in 1983. He declared that he would write a complete Unix-like operating system, composed of only Free Software, so he can share with other people who have the same dream. He began by writing free replacements of basic Unix utilities, and a free C compiler (gcc). Gradually the FSF provided most of the foundation for a Free Software/Open Source OS infrastructure. The GNU tools liberate hackers from dependence on proprietary development tools and provide the foundation which enables other Free Software projects to flourish. And by 1991, these tools enabled Linus Torvalds, a Finnish CS student, to develop the Linux kernal. This kernel filled in the last missing pieces of a totally Free OS, and by 1992 RMS's original aim was practically fulfilled.

While the proprietary software universe continued with rises and falls of companies, Bill Gates of Microsoft went on for world conquest. The Microsoft Empire destroyed or assimilated competitors, and by 1997 virtually no alternatives existed. People became subjects of Bill Gates, whose power reached far and wide. People looked toward the sky for hopes of liberation, but no one seemed answering the call.

However with the spread of the Internet, the Free Software community, composed of GNU, Linux, Apache, Perl, BSDs, etc., quietly continued to develop more Free source code and gathered strength. Finally in 1998, beginning with Netscape looking to Free Software for allies in resisting Microsoft, the New Hope is shown to the world. The vision of the original hackers, a world where the Software is By the People, Of the People and For the People, is coming into being. The Revenge against Bill Gates is in full swing. The war for liberation is intensifying!

One of the major figure responsible for the destruction of the original hackerdom was Bill Gates. When first version of his Basic was freely passed among hackers, Bill wrote an Open Letter, declaring Software should be proprietary, and asking hackers to pay license fees for each copy of his Microsoft Basic. As time went on, Bill Gates became the richest man on earth, building his fortunes on selling and manipulating proprietary software. Business became the way of life, backstabing is common, information fell under NDAs and patents and became the subjects of lawsuits, and The Dark Age was upon the computer world.

One of the last holdouts from the original hackerdom was Richard M. Stallman, or RMS, of the MIT AI Labs, who would stay to the True Way to the end. To keep the original vision alive, and to make Free Software against the tide of privatiziation, he founded the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation in 1983. He declared that he would write a complete Unix-like operating system, composed of only Free Software, so he can share with other people who have the same dream. He began by writing free replacements of basic Unix utilities, and a free C compiler (gcc). Gradually the FSF provided most of the foundation for a Free Software/Open Source OS infrastructure. The GNU tools liberate hackers from dependence on proprietary development tools and provide the foundation which enables other Free Software projects to flourish. And by 1991, these tools enabled Linus Torvalds, a Finnish CS student, to develop the Linux kernal. This kernel filled in the last missing pieces of a totally Free OS, and by 1992 RMS's original aim was practically fulfilled.

While the proprietary software universe continued with rises and falls of companies, Bill Gates of Microsoft went on for world conquest. The Microsoft Empire destroyed or assimilated competitors, and by 1997 virtually no alternatives existed. People became subjects of Bill Gates, whose power reached far and wide. People looked toward the sky for hopes of liberation, but no one seemed answering the call.

However with the spread of the Internet, the Free Software community, composed of GNU, Linux, Apache, Perl, BSDs, etc., quietly continued to develop more Free source code and gathered strength. Finally in 1998, beginning with Netscape looking to Free Software for allies in resisting Microsoft, the New Hope is shown to the world. The vision of the original hackers, a world where the Software is By the People, Of the People and For the People, is coming into being. The Revenge against Bill Gates is in full swing. The war for liberation is intensifying!

There's a really great movie idea in the making here.

A mammoth, recently resurrected to glorious fanfare and world-wide acclaim, soon finds himself alone in the City, where even the bright lights, the hookers and the orange circus peanuts can't appease the emptiness he feels inside, until suddenly, just when he's just about to end it all by snorting up a drum full of drain-cleaner, he get's a mysterious phone call from a wacky Russian scientist (played by Christopher Lloyd), who turns out to be the one that found his 'mother' in the first place, but who got brushed aside by the media and science establishment alike in the initial fanfare of the find. He's found another carcass, in even better condition than the first, but if the world finds out about it, it could be taken away, and our hero would lose his only chance at finding True Love. The Wacky Scientist has a plan, but no, it's impossible...or is it?...

This movie proposal is, of course, released and available for use under the terms and conditions of the GPL.

It's a tragedy of the contemporary imagination that it cannot concieve of any motivation other than profit - that it has actually come to believe that monetary gain is the only effective motivator.

A fairly clear debunking of this motivational claim is available here on the FSF site. I also refer you to Maslow's heirarchy of needs - short version is that when one is no longer anxious about one's material well being, one persues more elevated "needs," such as the need for creativity and intellectual expression. (Those institutions which depend on our drive for material accumulation thrive by using media to artificially maintain our sense of material anxiety, by linking it to social anxiety - ie, we won't be happy and shall lack social credibility without a New Car, New Shoes, the Right Deoderant, a Bigger Car, a Bigger House, etc.)

As less money is available to academic research environments, and our media culture continues to elevate the materially successful as heroes above the scientifically, culturally and intellectually successful, this whole "only profit will motivate people" line becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, unfortunately, and it's especially tragic to see it promulgated among those of us who a. have the least to fear as far as our material well-being is concerned and b. have the most to gain by valuing intellectual achievement for its own sake. The spiritual virus, our new sickness-unto-death, is among us.

Just buy the FSF's T-shirt instead. It's rather stodgy-looking, but it has the GNU Preamble on the back. You'll get more use out of it than that dumb CD set with no Netscape or KDE, and the FSF will make more than a dollar selling it to you (one would hope). If you felt really magnanimous you could even buy the shirt and donate enough to bring the total up to $29.95.

Just goes to show what a treacherous business selling distributions can be.

Heh, RMS probably will not like his namesake distribution because it's not being presented as GNU/Linux.

There are some in "this movement" who would take issue with the characerization of "piracy" as a "guerilla tactic". To these people, the very term "piracy" is a pejorative used for political purposes.

This is a particularly clear reference written by someone who arguable started "this movement".

I'm not sure I agree with this view, but it is representative of many, I believe.

Well, I have to admit that this is an angle that never occurred to me. I didn't know that the GPL did not apply to the copyright holder.

However, I've seen a lot of GPLd software, including things distributed by the FSF that contained copyrights other than the FSF. gnuchess comes to mind immediately, but I'm sure I've seen many others.

I can't find where the GPL requires that changes must become copyrighted to the FSF. In fact, quite the contrary, the GPL uses the terms "Copyright Holders" in several places apparently acknowledging that multiple parties would hold copyright.

It seems that if we were to submit changes back to the FSF with our own copyrights on them, and these changes were accepted by the FSF and the FSF made these available to others, that the GPL would be binding on both by the following provision (GPL Version 2, June 1991, full text available here:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

This could bring about a bizaare situation if the FSF tried to reissue software under a different license on which others held copyrights. The FSFs license to use any changes contributed by these other copyright holders could be terminated, yet the FSF might have made changes that were dependent on these changes. Other people's rights to redistribute, change, etc. etc. etc would not be affected. The FSF would only be allowed to distribute changes prior to the other copyright holder's additions and they could distribute patches that are dependent on the other copyright holders, but not the entire work.

This applies to those who might try and encumber a piece by making a change, putting their copyright on the change, but releasing under the GPL, too. They could, theoretically, change the license for their addition, but then they would have lost all rights to the base code.

In truth, I think it's outlandishly unlikely that the FSF will be releasing anything under a fee-based license, ever.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread. I don't find it at all unlikely that Sun might re-release StarOffice (or any of the other things that they're throwing out under SCSL) under a fee-based license in the future. Also, as you point out, the SCSL (unlike the GPL) does not prevent the copyright holder (licensor) to remove the right to use something so licensed at a later time. I believe, but I'm not certain about this as the SCSL is a lot harder to understand than the GPL, that Sun could get you addicted to StarOffice and have you paying for it later. There's no question in my mind that they could get you to pay for later releases, including releases that have changes required to run on newer hardware.

If those who are calling for Sun to change the provisions of the SCSL are listening, I think this should be #1 on the list. That once you are using SCSLd software, you have a grandfathered right to use it and derived works (changes you or others who are using this software might make to get it to run on newer hardware, for example), at least for your own use, in perpetuity. This is not asking for the viral nature of the GPL, just that you have the right not to have a given set of SCSLd code out yanked from under you.

This would be allowing SCSLd software to branch out into "limited universe GPLd versions". These "limited universes" being the Community that is using a given release of some SCSLd software.

Now that I think about it, it's extremely unlikely that Sun would do this. This would allow MS, for example, to create a Java++ and go their own direction, which is what the SCSL was originally designed to prevent.

Sheesh, it would have been so much simpler had Sun just used GPL... Which is taking us all the way back to the topic of the story in the first place. I knew I could get back on topic if I tried!

I guess I should be careful about the term 'proprietary'. I would agree that the only intellectual property that is not 'proprietary' in some way is public domain and GPLd software definitely is not in the public domain.

GPLd software is proprietary in a very odd way. Anyone can do anything they want with it except make derived works not covered by the GPL. There's also some positive responsibilities of someone distributing something derived from GPLd works to include the text of the license, FSF copyright notice, change history, source code to changes, or provide a pointer where the source code can be obtained, etc.

However, your assertion that the FSF could release a GPLd work, such as a modification of gcc, under fee-licensing only is not true.

Quoting from the GPL (Version 2, June 1991) full text available here:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

• a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

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

Or, are you saying, as is sometimes heard, that the GPL is not legally binding and thus could be broken at whim?

Not really. Note that the "GNU" in "Debian GNU/Linux" is part of "GNU/Linux", i.e. the operating environment based around the Linux kernel. Debian is not a part of the FSF, although we maintain strong ties to the FSF (see e.g. Debian GNU/Hurd).

The Debian project has always encouraged others to use Debian GNU/Linux as a basis for building distributions as Corel has been doing, and SGI, O'Reilly and VA are doing now.

Debian proper ("main") is and will continue to be 100% pure software, but the Debian Social Contract is pragmatic enough to acknowledge that our users may want to use non-free software.

In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting[....]

- The GNU Manifesto

"Won't programmers starve?"

I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.

But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.

The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.

Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.

Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than that.)

In truth, the situation could become even more dire than Stallman predicts. If the GPL makes it impossible for programmers to build on existing software and profit from their work, programmers will naturally be unemployed. The few that are left will do "grunt work" such as making minor tweaks to GPLed code. And, yes, they'll be young, cheap, or foreign labor.

It's time to change direction now. Open source is a good thing, but the GPL -- which attacks programmers' livelihoods -- is not.

-- Brett

While I'm sure this makes a lot of sense to you, not everyone shares your religious beliefs.

I am well aware of that fact.

It's fine to use those beliefs to determine the parameters of your own behaviour. What's not fine is to use the tenets of your religion as moral backing for public policy.

Why not? Am I supposed to have to pretend to be a secularist to participate in a public debate? That's hardly "freedom of religion."

Since we are talking public policy here, I suggest that you either limit your proposal to countries with explicitly religious governments, or try again with a secular support for your position rather than a religious one.

Sorry, I'll pass on that suggestion, for a couple of reasons. One is that I think the problem of "what is a person? what defines humanity?" is irreducibly religious. Any answer will ultimately boil down to religious (or irreligious) reasons, to our beliefs about ultimate reality and meaning. To pretend otherwise is a fraud, and I think we'd get further if we just admit that this really is a religious debate. Then there might be at least the possibility of clear definitions and real working compromise.

We have actually contrived to invent a new kind of hypocrite. The old hypocrite ... was a man whose aims were really worldly and practical, while he pretended that they were religious. The new hypocrite is one whose aims are really religious, while he pretends that they are worldly and practical... It is a fight of creeds masquerading as policies.... We are all, one hopes, imaginative enough to recognize the dignity and distinctness of another religion, like Islam or the cult of Apollo. I am quite ready to respect another man's faith; but it is too much to ask that I should respect his doubt, his worldly hesitations and fictions, his political bargain and make-believe.
-- G. K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World

The other reason is that I'd really rather write plainly about what I believe on this issue, rather than translate it into secular terms. I trust that people who don't share my particular religion are perfectly capable of translating into their own terms, and seeing what makes sense to them.

I cite as an example Richard Stallman, who, although an athiest, has based his Free Software philosophy squarely on the Golden Rule (a Christian teaching). Why? Because it makes sense to him. Look at the abolitionist and civil rights movements as well. Those were religious movements, which others who did not share the same religious views still joined in because the argument made compelling moral sense to them anyway.

I recommend that people who think all public discourse ought to be stripped of the religious basis of its participants go read The Culture of Disbelief : How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion by Stephen Carter.

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own."
-- G. K. Chesterton

Your opinion follows the same lines of those presented by RMS in an opinion he wrote on the subject. While "killing Microsoft" may seem more immediately gratifying, making them play fair would work much better in the long run.

The GPL was written to ensure that free software continues to be made free. Such effort is not wasted. It can continue to be included in free software

Open only means you have the right to look. Additional rights may or may not be granted by particular licenses. That's why I personally dislike the term "Open Source". It's too vague, although it is useful as a "Big Tent" moniker.

In reference to other points brought up in this thread (not just your article):

The term self-perpetuating is, as most words are, somewhat inaccurate. But it is not pernicious. Although we may have to coin new language to deal with the terms of the debate, I don't think that something that connotes disease is really appropriate. The FSF deals with some of these linguistic issues.

I wish only to focus on why the term viral is inappropriate in this debate.

Let me begin by attempting to understand, without malice, the the other side. The basic point of the other side seems to be "Once I put GPL'ed code in my program, the program becomes freer than I would have originally liked". This injection of freedom that changes the program into "something else" is what people are referring to when they call something viral. Am I correct in my understanding?

I don't agree with this position, because it says that any precondition for use and anything that imposes additional responsibility is equivalent to a disease. Also, the GPL itself does not appear to support this position. I admit there is some language that made me think twice, but it is heavily qualified.

I am trying hard not to quote the GPL itself because:

• It's here
• I am not a lawyer.
• RMS can do a better job defending it than I can.
• I start to feel like a missionary quoting the bible. The world has many of those.

However, I do think that Open Source is annoyingly complicated for me. I know that with free software, I can take it and reshape it, and redistribute it without worrying about taking away anybody's rights. I find these redistribution rights too restrictive in other licenses (some of which merely give you the right to look at the source- whooopee).

I had no idea this would take me an hour to write. I've got to get back to work.

The GPL was written to ensure that free software continues to be made free. Such effort is not wasted. It can continue to be included in free software

Open only means you have the right to look. Additional rights may or may not be granted by particular licenses. That's why I personally dislike the term "Open Source". It's too vague, although it is useful as a "Big Tent" moniker.

In reference to other points brought up in this thread (not just your article):

The term self-perpetuating is, as most words are, somewhat inaccurate. But it is not pernicious. Although we may have to coin new language to deal with the terms of the debate, I don't think that something that connotes disease is really appropriate. The FSF deals with some of these linguistic issues.

I wish only to focus on why the term viral is inappropriate in this debate.

Let me begin by attempting to understand, without malice, the the other side. The basic point of the other side seems to be "Once I put GPL'ed code in my program, the program becomes freer than I would have originally liked". This injection of freedom that changes the program into "something else" is what people are referring to when they call something viral. Am I correct in my understanding?

I don't agree with this position, because it says that any precondition for use and anything that imposes additional responsibility is equivalent to a disease. Also, the GPL itself does not appear to support this position. I admit there is some language that made me think twice, but it is heavily qualified.

I am trying hard not to quote the GPL itself because:

• It's here
• I am not a lawyer.
• RMS can do a better job defending it than I can.
• I start to feel like a missionary quoting the bible. The world has many of those.

However, I do think that Open Source is annoyingly complicated for me. I know that with free software, I can take it and reshape it, and redistribute it without worrying about taking away anybody's rights. I find these redistribution rights too restrictive in other licenses (some of which merely give you the right to look at the source- whooopee).

I had no idea this would take me an hour to write. I've got to get back to work.

The GPL clearly states that when redistributing a binary resulting from GPL'd source code that either the source code or a written offer for providing the source code has to accompany the binary. So, does the Corel Linux CDs provide either the source code to all the GPL packages or a written offer? If they aren't then they are violating the terms of the General Public "License."

But, so what? Seriously... so what.

The Free Software Foundation gives a How-To Spot a GPL violation but it stops short, once you spot it then you simply contact the copyright holder. But...

• What if *YOU* are the copyright holder?
• Where is a Howto on GPL enforcement?
• Where is a FAQ on enforcing the GPL?
• What is the best way to serve and document that an offical request has been provided for a distributor to correct their business practices when distributing the GPL package?
• What do you do if your an individual developer and a distributor has ignored for over 2 years requests to follow the requirements listed in the GPL?
• What is a method accepted by the US Courts on putting a value on the package or a dollar amount on the "damages" due to GPL violation?
• What is the maxium amount of damages that can be claimed in small claims court?
• How do you go about filing a GPL violation in small claims court?

Myself--I'm going to publish future works under the latest BSD license. The BSD license "restrictions" are ones that I'm prepaired to enforce. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer and no one is giving me any law advice so I can be any different. The BSD license lets me be just a programmer without making any claims to how the package should be used that I'm not prepaired to back.

The point Corel's actions make is to let programmers be programmers and give up on getting them to enforce an ideology that they aren't prepair to back. Whinning about GPL violations is like crying about j-walkers. In the end, there is no point in continuing to publish code under the GPGFR joke (formally known as GPL).

The GPL clearly states that when redistributing a binary resulting from GPL'd source code that either the source code or a written offer for providing the source code has to accompany the binary. So, does the Corel Linux CDs provide either the source code to all the GPL packages or a written offer? If they aren't then they are violating the terms of the General Public "License."

But, so what? Seriously... so what.

The Free Software Foundation gives a How-To Spot a GPL violation but it stops short, once you spot it then you simply contact the copyright holder. But...

• What if *YOU* are the copyright holder?
• Where is a Howto on GPL enforcement?
• Where is a FAQ on enforcing the GPL?
• What is the best way to serve and document that an offical request has been provided for a distributor to correct their business practices when distributing the GPL package?
• What do you do if your an individual developer and a distributor has ignored for over 2 years requests to follow the requirements listed in the GPL?
• What is a method accepted by the US Courts on putting a value on the package or a dollar amount on the "damages" due to GPL violation?
• What is the maxium amount of damages that can be claimed in small claims court?
• How do you go about filing a GPL violation in small claims court?

Myself--I'm going to publish future works under the latest BSD license. The BSD license "restrictions" are ones that I'm prepaired to enforce. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer and no one is giving me any law advice so I can be any different. The BSD license lets me be just a programmer without making any claims to how the package should be used that I'm not prepaired to back.

The point Corel's actions make is to let programmers be programmers and give up on getting them to enforce an ideology that they aren't prepair to back. Whinning about GPL violations is like crying about j-walkers. In the end, there is no point in continuing to publish code under the GPGFR joke (formally known as GPL).

LinuxOne will support these new technologies with its sophisticated proprietary device drivers...

While this will certainly not win the good graces of RMS, last I knew it was Linus's interpretation that linking a binary-only driver with the Linux kernel did not constitute a "derived work" per the GPL. Given that much of the kernel is © Linux Torvalds, I'd say that his interpretation goes.

Of course, this is a colossally stupid thing to do. But it's not actually illegal.

"Cleverness kills wisdom"
-- G. K. Chesterton, What's Wrong With The World Today

LinuxOne will support these new technologies with its sophisticated proprietary device drivers...

While this will certainly not win the good graces of RMS, last I knew it was Linus's interpretation that linking a binary-only driver with the Linux kernel did not constitute a "derived work" per the GPL. Given that much of the kernel is © Linux Torvalds, I'd say that his interpretation goes.

Of course, this is a colossally stupid thing to do. But it's not actually illegal.

"Cleverness kills wisdom"
-- G. K. Chesterton, What's Wrong With The World Today

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Free Software licenses are a sort of nomic aikido, using features of copyright law to forcibly simulate a world in which copyrights simply aren't available. The abolition of copyright on computer programs is part of the FSF's stated goal. The founders have also been very vocal about opposing software patents, and they're hardly alone in that. I don't know of any stance they hold on trademarks, beyond a basic expectation of honesty.

I would suggest providing technical articles and documentation under the OpenContent License. As for editorials and opinions, where modification isn't warranted, the tagline from the Free Software Foundation's Web site may be appropriate:

"Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved."

Of course, every need is different. Review the OPL carefully before using it, because its intentions are not applicable to every form of content out there.

Christ, buddy, I hope you never look at what the Free Software Foundation thinks you'll pay for a CD.

Christ, buddy, I hope you never look at what the Free Software Foundation thinks you'll pay for a CD.

See The Right To Read

Thanks for the response. It's quite clear (a welcome change from some of the other pieces I've seen.) Some comments:

Regarding the vehicle analogy, think of it like this: If Linux became incredibly popular but none of its new supporters cared about Freedom (or any ideal the original coders cared about), would you ditch it? Note that it doesn't have to become anti-free here, merely that that new majority doesn't think it's all about freedom. In other words, if by becoming popular Linux loses the meaning you had once invested in it, would you then commit yourself to converting the heathens or find a new monastery, as it were? (Granted, this may be moving away from the author's original work, but I think the question is still interesting.)

Regarding the philosophical aspect, my question is this: is the freedom granted with software valuable because it is or because it creates further benefits? In more philosophical language, is software freedom's desirability intrinsic or operational? I have no problem with promoting freedom because it allows other things that you deem good, from crushing nuts to customizing your machine to being able to share programs with your friends without acting against either your moral code or the law. But note that in these cases, it's not about freedom; it's about these good things that you want to happen. You want softer hides, not the ability to use a rock to soften hides. Granted, in most cases that ability or freedom is going to be necessary to achieve your end, but you're still valuing the tool according to the desirability of the result.

In other words, it's not all about freedom, it's all about the neat stuff you need freedom to obtain. Stallman has an essay on freedom; in the piece, though, he evaluates non-free software in terms of the harm it does and free software in terms of the good it promotes. In doing so, he unconsciously relegates "freedom" to the status of "best tool" instead of the end goal I often see it being trumpeted as.

The significant part I see in this is that it puts RMS and ESR on the same page: they're both making utilitarian arguments for the promulgation of open/free software. The difference then becomes that RMS puts an explicit moral component (but NOT identical with freedom) in his equation for social benefit while ESR's is either implicit or nonexistent. If I'm correct, then, the next step for the Free Software people to do is articulate the moral position that emphasis on freedom supports without identifying the position with freedom.

The reason I'm getting so picky about terms is because I worry that people are mistaking the thing required for the thing desired. And I think that's why some people might eventually leave: they might get what they wanted but not realize it because they lost their focus (or never clearly articulated it.) THAT's the danger I see.

Thoughts? Comments? I may have stuff wrong; just let me know and I'll re-evaluate. Thanks for writing back; I went a little over-the-top hoping for a response, and you generously responded. I'll probably be away most of the next few days, so you might need to mail me directly before this thread gets shoved back into obscurity. Thanks.

Yeah, you're right on many of your points. However, he does predict a dire future for Linux, he predicts that the Linux community will hate Linux. That's a dire future if you ask me.

You write "if your vehicle became so popular it outran your ideology, would you stick with the vehicle? This author of this article is betting you'll ditch the vehicle. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him." I don't understand what you are saying here. If you are saying "If Linux became no longer Free, you would ditch it", I probably would, but I see no way of that happening without major changes to the world today. If you are saying as the original author did, "If Linux became popular, you would ditch it", I certainly would not ditch it just because it became popular.


Now, as for explaining Freedom as if I were defending it in a philosophy class instead of a soapbox, here goes. Note, I am limiting my discussion to Freedom in a software context, which is clearly defined, as opposed to Freedom in the abstract, where there is much dispute over the definition.

Before I talk directly about computers and software, let's look at a simpler, but related situation, a simple tool, say a rock. At one point way back in our evolution, we knew nothing about rocks, they would usually just sit there. If we were unlucky we might stub a toe on one, or one might fall on us in an avalanche. At some point, someone took a rock and realized you can do something with it, perhaps they figured out how to break open nuts, perhaps soften hides, perhaps use it as a weapon, or any one of hundreds of things you can do with rocks that we take for granted today. Regardless, before this person figured out the trick with the rock, hundreds might have figured out the exact same thing, but it didn't matter because nobody shared the knowledge. Once this person shares the knowledge, it has a chance of surviving, it has a chance of becoming part of humanity's arsenal of technology, and spurring on further innovations in other people. The knowledge is not the important thing, the shared knowledge is important.

Given that, if a person (Oog) figures something out, they decide whether or not it's worth telling someone else (Ug). When Ug hears it, they get to decide whether it's worth passing on. Should Oog have the right to prevent Ug from passing on the knowledge? I say no. Knowledge of how to do things is too important, it should not be kept hidden. There is no good way of forcing Oog to share, but once it is shared, Oog should not have the means to coerce Ug to keep quiet about it.

That is how we learned how to use rocks to crush nuts, that is how we learned how to build a machine to remove seeds from cotton, that is how we learned how to tell a computer to edit our letters. It's all the same, the computer is just a tool, and software is just knowing how to tell a computer how to do something.

The shrinkwrap software industry depends on preventing the user from sharing software. Let's us as an example a program to balance your checkbook. A mainstream, shrinkwrap software company will give you the instructions for your computer to balance your checkbook, but they won't let you give those instructions to anyone else. Furthermore they won't let you use their instructions to let you figure out how to tell the computer yourself, and they won't let you modify the instructions to your computer to suit your needs. This is not good for civilization, because it is restricting access to our collective technology. Our society is poorer because of the restrictive license than it would be if it were Free Software.

These arguments apply to all forms of technology, whether it's how to run a computer, or how to suture an artery, or how to run a business. I focus on the software aspects of it because that's what I do, I'm a programmer.

On a personal level, it's pretty obvious that Free Software is a good thing ("Wow! I can use it and it's free! I can share it with my friends!"). I hope I've made it clear that it's a good thing on a societal level, given the assumption that "Technology, that is collective knowledge of how to do things, is a good thing for society". I think that's sufficient to defend Free Software from a philosophical standpoint. If you disagree, let me know.

----

Is RMS trying to assimilate Perl as well?

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Mozilla is DFSG free. Even RMS believes it is free software, although he still quibbles on a few details. How much more do you want?

Of course, eventually someone will not like the direction that the Apache group is going and will create a new distribution (ala Linux) with a different aim.

I don't think that this will actually affect Apache development in any way, the code will remain under the BSD license.

Rather, the ASF was obviously formed to create a supporting organization for Apache and its sister projects (mod_perl, PHP, ...)

So in effect it is much like the Free Software Foundation and Software in the Public Interest. It just hasn't got its nonprofit status yet.

--