Slashdot Mirror

• All charities compete for donors' mindspace
• Research funded by medical charities competes with research funded by drug companies.
• Food aid competes with local suppliers in recipient countries.
• Public Universities (==charities in many countries) compete with other educators.

Your average FSF programmer participates in for-profit ventures. You don't see FSF programmers competing for IT contracts and submitting zero cost bids in competition with local contractors.

The FSF has as its stated purpose the compete restructuring of an entire element of our economy. Why do some programmers undervalue the proprietary system they espouse that they feel it can't coexist with this collaborative movement? Is there a deep-seated inferiority complex so ingrained in these people such that they feel their perceived rightful place in society must be supported by secrets, and, if necessary, lies? Sad.

My point? Both Freed and Proprietary approaches have strength and weaknesses, so it should be a matter of "you do your thing and let others do theirs". If (unlike me) you believe FSF or others will achieve their ultimate goal of making proprietary software obsolete then you had better do something about putting yourself in a position to take advantage of it. I doubt whinging about it on /. won't stop it.

• All charities compete for donors' mindspace
• Research funded by medical charities competes with research funded by drug companies.
• Food aid competes with local suppliers in recipient countries.
• Public Universities (==charities in many countries) compete with other educators.

Your average FSF programmer participates in for-profit ventures. You don't see FSF programmers competing for IT contracts and submitting zero cost bids in competition with local contractors.

The FSF has as its stated purpose the compete restructuring of an entire element of our economy. Why do some programmers undervalue the proprietary system they espouse that they feel it can't coexist with this collaborative movement? Is there a deep-seated inferiority complex so ingrained in these people such that they feel their perceived rightful place in society must be supported by secrets, and, if necessary, lies? Sad.

My point? Both Freed and Proprietary approaches have strength and weaknesses, so it should be a matter of "you do your thing and let others do theirs". If (unlike me) you believe FSF or others will achieve their ultimate goal of making proprietary software obsolete then you had better do something about putting yourself in a position to take advantage of it. I doubt whinging about it on /. won't stop it.

I had a lot of respect for Metcalfe before he wrote this article. It's over, baby.
I'm sure Bob cares.

There's no place for commercial software. It's only hurtful, and if you would actually READ RMS's essays, maybe you would have a ... clue why

Bzzzt, wrong! :-) RMS has no problem with "commercial" software at all; it's "proprietary" software that he campaigns against. An FSF text explaining the differences can be found at:

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

When I read Stallman's paper ( The URL again), I got the impression that when he removed the obscenities from the GNU Emacs source code, he wasn't really afraid that he'd face a quarter-million-dollar fine and five years in prison if he failed to do so.

I thought it was pretty obvious that he was more making fun of the stupidity of the law, as well as, more seriously, arguing how truly bad it was, by pointing out what anybody, even Senator Exon, must see as an absurd consequence.

I am partly responding to a couple of posts above, which seem to be responding in genuine fear to the possibility that the Linux source code would be banned in Australia. This is obviously absurd, and I got the impression that this article also was using this example to show how awful the law is, but not actually suggesting that it would happen. It's not "When we put in these filters, Linux source will be blocked," but rather "If we were to put in these filters, Linux source would be blocked, so we clearly cannot do that."

Then again, it often happens that just when I think I've become entirely disillusioned, something happens that shocks me anyway, showing that I still had some ideals left -- something that I thought was plain common sense actually turns out to be idealism. Could this be the case here? I mean, what kind of idiots have you got running things down there? Or do I not want to know?

David Gould

Check out Richard Stallman's response to the USA's Communications Decency Act of 1996:
Censoring My Software

He found himself in the same situation. The gist is that the GNU Emacs package includes a copy of Weizenbaum's Eliza program, which has a feature to detect profane and obscene words and admonish the user to "watch your language, please". Of course, in order for this to work, the code has to contain a list of such words, which makes it obscene.

So, RMS distributed a special CDA-compliant version, whose Doctor program had that feature removed. Ironically, this means that if you swear at the new version, it will swear back at you, where the "obscene" version would not.

I suppose this would have applied to Linux source as well, but GNU Emacs is the example that he chose to focus on at the time, and it works for the Australian situation now, as well. In a way, it is an even better example than the Linux source, because in Eliza, the obscenities are actually integral parts of the program's function, and especially because of the irony of the fact that removing them actually makes it possible for the program to output obscenities.

David Gould

Can we please stop using the term piracy for using unlicenced software? Call it copyright violation, or call it licence infringment, but not piracy. It is a ridiculous term that tries to equate intellectual property theft with "physical" property theft.

From the FSF website:

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it. Neutral terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying" are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor."

Hey ppl, why do we need to _pay_ for someone to teach? Isn't teaching supposed to be a pleasure (well, for me, it is, when it's not a clueless moron asking me silly questions he could've RTFMed by himself)? And doesn't Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator ?

If I were able to live without having to work, I would teach. For free. And make lots of Open Source.


(ok, I know, when you write "not a troll" in the subject it means you're trolling. Anyway, I think I had a point.)

Game copying devices have no legal purpose.

They'd sure like us to believe this, but I don't believe anyone can really be that stupid. Hence I suspect the above post of being astroturf. They don't explicitly make this statement on their page, probably because they know it's abusing the truth more than they can get away with, but they try to make it seem implicit.

What am I talking about? They state that "Game copying devices have no legal purpose..." Blah, blah, blah, "internet", blah, blah, blah, "illegal". However, they don't even explicitly claim that the devices have no other purpose, only that they have this "illegal" purpose. They completely ignore the backup/archival copy rule in connection to these devices, i.e., the fact that you might use the device (exclusively) to make your archival copy. They are probably hoping that what they said earlier (regarding downloading ROMs of games you already own) would carry over to this, but there is a difference. In this case, you really would be making a copy for yourself alone, from the physical medium that you own, rather than simply using the rule to justify making a bootleg copy from someone else's original.

They would certainly like us to believe that there's no difference, and IANAL, but they could hardly be dumb enough to have neglected to say it, if they really believe it's true. It seems more likely that they didn't think they could get away with it.

Even if this distinction doesn't do the trick, I for one have a serious problem with the very concept that a device can be illegal simply because it can be used for an illegal purpose. It's not illegal to be capable of doing something illegal, only to actually do it. See Richard Stallman's article "The Right to Read" (which, I see, someone else has also posted a link to a bit further down) for more on where that can lead. It's a very slippery, and very dangerous, slope.

All in all, I'm sorry to say, I am very disappointed at Nintendo's attitude. Even if their position is legally defensible, it is certainly not morally so. (Notice that they keep saying "it's illegal", but they don't really say "it's wrong." The closest they come is whining about how it costs them revenue, but that only makes it wrong if you buy their hidden premise that they are morally entitled to that revenue.) I don't think I can in good conscience buy any more of their products as long as they keep this up. I was probably going to buy a Nintendo 64 just for the new Zelda game, and I've been drooling like everyone else over the specs for their next system, but now I doubt I'll be able to bring myself to buy anything from them.

David Gould

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

> All GPL'ed stuff belongs to Stallman, read the license.


You can find the GPL here. If you actually do read it, you will find that noplace within it does Stallman, nor the FSF, claim copyright nor special privilege over GPLed software.

The license does contain some passage specific to software copyrighted by the FSF, for instance the following:


# 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into
# other free programs whose distribution conditions
# are different, write to the author to ask for permission.
# For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software
# Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation;
# we sometimes make exceptions for this.


Read that carefully. FSF does not claim to be the author nor the copyright holder of all GPLed software. Your claim is at best a myth, and at worst a lie which comes close to being FUD.

If you object to some particular provision in the GPL, release your software under a modified version. You could, for instance, strip out the versioning provision (the part which specifies that the licensed software may be licensed under newer versions of the GPL) or add a BSD-style credit-due provision.

In the future, when you call on others to RTFM, please don't make claims which contradict the text of the relevant FM.

The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, so donations to them are tax deductable. I don't know if they want hardware or not, but money is always appreciated. :-)

Why? EGCS (the next gcc) already supports several 64-bit architectures like Alpha and UltraSparc, and incorporates the Haifa scheduler which can be a big performance boost.

It's non DFSG-free and it isn't free software according to the FSF. That means, at least to me, that it isn't free software. Remember, the Open Source Definition is more or less the same as the DFSG, so at least technically, there is no difference between free and open-source software.

At least the Baby Gnu (the one used as /. icon) is good and cute.

Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, unless they've been lying to us all these years.

Basically, the GPL attempts to simulate, as far as possible, a world in which there are no copyrights at all. If you read the material on copyleft at the FSF site, you should see that the existence of copyright is not something the FSF endorses.

I'm not really surprised by the modifications to the definition of Free Software. They are essentially just the codification of the objections that the FSF has to the tenets of the Open Source(tm)(s)(r) movement, and in that sense are essentially not anything new.

What I didn't know, before I had browsed around fsf.org site a bit, was exactly how overboard these people had gone. O fun! O joy! Check out the words-to-avoid page and learn about the new, improved GNUSpek! Helps you avoid "incorrect thinking"! Read about the pitfalls of the Open Source movement (it allows bourgeois companies to take advantage of the "fuzzy thinking" of the proletariat). Come to the FSF web site and correct your wrong thinking!

RMS complains rather vehemently about the injustice of copyright law and the penchant of the SPA of trying to get the government to enforce it. This, it just recently occured to me, ignores one simple fact: copyright law does nothing but create a default bargain between the author/publisher and the user. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you don't want your work to be covered by US copyright law, release it to people under your own agreement, as the FSF does with the GPL. [Technically, it's still covered by US copyright law, but you render that a moot point with the correct agreement terms].
The upshot of all this is that the pigs and the SPA are essentially doing nothing more than making sure that people keep their word, that they abide by the agreement they made in order to get access to the works.

Keeping your word is a good thing, no? And if the software you wanted to use wasn't worth the price you paid for it and the restrictions that came with it, then why did you buy it? There can be no reason. The simple answer is that in some way, for some reason, it WAS worth it.

[ASIDE: Now, that *reason* isn't necessarily just. Refer to the terms "network effect" and "lock-in"]

More importantly, RMS knows this. And yet, rather that merely exhorting people to release their works under an alternative agreement, he rails on and on and on about the evils of copyright, as if changing the default bargain will keep companies from using the most profitable (i.e., generally one of the more restrictive) bargain they can come up with.
But, RMS continues to rail on about how copyright violates the Right Of The People(tm) to share software with their neighbors.
Let me get this straight: I've got something in my head. You don't have any damned right to anything with it. Now, if I write it down and don't share it with you, you still don't have any damned right to it (and thus far, couldn't do anything about it if you did).

But, if you and I come to an agreement about the conditions under which I will show it to you (and only you), then you somehow magically gain the right to blab it out to everybody once I turn my back? Is this true even when you promised me you wouldn't? " Cooperation is more important than copyright," true, but keeping your word is often more important than cooperation. Personally, I think RMS is so concerned that the argument be viewed in his light because he'd like to see a lack of protection for creators and publishers enshrined in the consitution he refers to so much.

Don't get me wrong: I pirate [hah!] my fair share of shit. I sometimes even pirate stuff that I could afford to buy. However, I view this as something akin to petty theft (when I can afford it), and something a bit less than that when I can't. I certainly don't delude myself into thinking it's my right. And I don't worry about the SPA showing up on my doorstep either: it isn't the least bit interested in stopping piracy that doesn't result in a loss of income; it's just interested in making sure that those who can pay are scared enough to. As far as the SPA showing up and auditing businesses, more power to 'em! If a company is using software to make money, then it oughtta by golly be prepared to share the wealth with the people who gave them the software thant helped them make the money. And that's just all I've got to say about that.

RMS also complains at length about the fact that publishers profit more than artists from copyright non-infringement, although I'm not sure exactly how relevant this is given his contention that artists don't have any more right to a work than users do.

This ignores yet another blatantly true statement: if authors didn't make more money by
going through a publisher than by not, then they would not.

Now, I agree with all the Utopians out there on this point: that era's probably gonna come to a close pretty soon. Just ask the RIAA. And to that, I say "good riddance!" But to imply that, in the present day, a publisher's income from things that don't get
pirated is somehow ill-gotten gains, despite the money that the publisher put into it (manufacturing, marketing, etc.) is ludicrous. Percentage-wise, publishing a book or a program is probably a bigger gamble for the publisher than it is for the author. As ye sew, so shall ye reap, or something like that.

Also, don't get me wrong on two other counts:

a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in.

b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a
good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software.

cheers ya'll,

-k. ^-^

I'm not really surprised by the modifications to the definition of Free Software. They are essentially just the codification of the objections that the FSF has to the tenets of the Open Source(tm)(s)(r) movement, and in that sense are essentially not anything new.

What I didn't know, before I had browsed around fsf.org site a bit, was exactly how overboard these people had gone. O fun! O joy! Check out the words-to-avoid page and learn about the new, improved GNUSpek! Helps you avoid "incorrect thinking"! Read about the pitfalls of the Open Source movement (it allows bourgeois companies to take advantage of the "fuzzy thinking" of the proletariat). Come to the FSF web site and correct your wrong thinking!

RMS complains rather vehemently about the injustice of copyright law and the penchant of the SPA of trying to get the government to enforce it. This, it just recently occured to me, ignores one simple fact: copyright law does nothing but create a default bargain between the author/publisher and the user. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you don't want your work to be covered by US copyright law, release it to people under your own agreement, as the FSF does with the GPL. [Technically, it's still covered by US copyright law, but you render that a moot point with the correct agreement terms].
The upshot of all this is that the pigs and the SPA are essentially doing nothing more than making sure that people keep their word, that they abide by the agreement they made in order to get access to the works.

Keeping your word is a good thing, no? And if the software you wanted to use wasn't worth the price you paid for it and the restrictions that came with it, then why did you buy it? There can be no reason. The simple answer is that in some way, for some reason, it WAS worth it.

[ASIDE: Now, that *reason* isn't necessarily just. Refer to the terms "network effect" and "lock-in"]

More importantly, RMS knows this. And yet, rather that merely exhorting people to release their works under an alternative agreement, he rails on and on and on about the evils of copyright, as if changing the default bargain will keep companies from using the most profitable (i.e., generally one of the more restrictive) bargain they can come up with.
But, RMS continues to rail on about how copyright violates the Right Of The People(tm) to share software with their neighbors.
Let me get this straight: I've got something in my head. You don't have any damned right to anything with it. Now, if I write it down and don't share it with you, you still don't have any damned right to it (and thus far, couldn't do anything about it if you did).

But, if you and I come to an agreement about the conditions under which I will show it to you (and only you), then you somehow magically gain the right to blab it out to everybody once I turn my back? Is this true even when you promised me you wouldn't? " Cooperation is more important than copyright," true, but keeping your word is often more important than cooperation. Personally, I think RMS is so concerned that the argument be viewed in his light because he'd like to see a lack of protection for creators and publishers enshrined in the consitution he refers to so much.

Don't get me wrong: I pirate [hah!] my fair share of shit. I sometimes even pirate stuff that I could afford to buy. However, I view this as something akin to petty theft (when I can afford it), and something a bit less than that when I can't. I certainly don't delude myself into thinking it's my right. And I don't worry about the SPA showing up on my doorstep either: it isn't the least bit interested in stopping piracy that doesn't result in a loss of income; it's just interested in making sure that those who can pay are scared enough to. As far as the SPA showing up and auditing businesses, more power to 'em! If a company is using software to make money, then it oughtta by golly be prepared to share the wealth with the people who gave them the software thant helped them make the money. And that's just all I've got to say about that.

RMS also complains at length about the fact that publishers profit more than artists from copyright non-infringement, although I'm not sure exactly how relevant this is given his contention that artists don't have any more right to a work than users do.

This ignores yet another blatantly true statement: if authors didn't make more money by
going through a publisher than by not, then they would not.

Now, I agree with all the Utopians out there on this point: that era's probably gonna come to a close pretty soon. Just ask the RIAA. And to that, I say "good riddance!" But to imply that, in the present day, a publisher's income from things that don't get
pirated is somehow ill-gotten gains, despite the money that the publisher put into it (manufacturing, marketing, etc.) is ludicrous. Percentage-wise, publishing a book or a program is probably a bigger gamble for the publisher than it is for the author. As ye sew, so shall ye reap, or something like that.

Also, don't get me wrong on two other counts:

a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in.

b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a
good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software.

cheers ya'll,

-k. ^-^

I'm not really surprised by the modifications to the definition of Free Software. They are essentially just the codification of the objections that the FSF has to the tenets of the Open Source(tm)(s)(r) movement, and in that sense are essentially not anything new. What I didn't know, before I had browsed around fsf.org site a bit, was exactly how overboard these people had gone. O fun! O joy! Check out the words-to-avoid page and learn about the new, improved GNUSpek! Helps you avoid "incorrect thinking"! Read about the pitfalls of the Open Source movement (it allows bourgeois companies to take advantage of the "fuzzy thinking" of the proletariat). Come to the FSF web site and correct your wrong thinking! RMS complains rather vehemently about the injustice of copyright law and the penchant of the SPA of trying to get the government to enforce it. This, it just recently occured to me, ignores one simple fact: copyright law does nothing but create a default bargain between the author/publisher and the user. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't want your work to be covered by US copyright law, release it to people under your own agreement, as the FSF does with the GPL. [Technically, it's still covered by US copyright law, but you render that a moot point with the correct agreement terms]. The upshot of all this is that the pigs and the SPA are essentially doing nothing more than making sure that people keep their word, that they abide by the agreement they made in order to get access to the works. Keeping your word is a good thing, no? And if the software you wanted to use wasn't worth the price you paid for it and the restrictions that came with it, then why did you buy it? There can be no reason. The simple answer is that in some way, for some reason, it WAS worth it. [ASIDE: Now, that *reason* isn't necessarily just. Refer to the terms "network effect" and "lock-in"] More importantly, RMS knows this. And yet, rather that merely exhorting people to release their works under an alternative agreement, he rails on and on and on about the evils of copyright, as if changing the default bargain will keep companies from using the most profitable (i.e., generally one of the more restrictive) bargain they can come up with. But, RMS continues to rail on about how copyright violates the Right Of The People(tm) to share software with their neighbors. Let me get this straight: I've got something in my head. You don't have any damned right to anything with it. Now, if I write it down and don't share it with you, you still don't have any damned right to it (and thus far, couldn't do anything about it if you did). But, if you and I come to an agreement about the conditions under which I will show it to you (and only you), then you somehow magically gain the right to blab it out to everybody once I turn my back? Is this true even when you promised me you wouldn't? " Cooperation is more important than copyright," true, but keeping your word is often more important than cooperation. Personally, I think RMS is so concerned that the argument be viewed in his light because he'd like to see a lack of protection for creators and publishers enshrined in the consitution he refers to so much. Don't get me wrong: I pirate [hah!] my fair share of shit. I sometimes even pirate stuff that I could afford to buy. However, I view this as something akin to petty theft (when I can afford it), and something a bit less than that when I can't. I certainly don't delude myself into thinking it's my right. And I don't worry about the SPA showing up on my doorstep either: it isn't the least bit interested in stopping piracy that doesn't result in a loss of income; it's just interested in making sure that those who can pay are scared enough to. As far as the SPA showing up and auditing businesses, more power to 'em! If a company is using software to make money, then it oughtta by golly be prepared to share the wealth with the people who gave them the software thant helped them make the money. And that's just all I've got to say about that. RMS also complains at length about the fact that publishers profit more than artists from copyright non-infringement, although I'm not sure exactly how relevant this is given his contention that artists don't have any more right to a work than users do. This ignores yet another blatantly true statement: if authors didn't make more money by going through a publisher than by not, then they would not. Now, I agree with all the Utopians out there on this point: that era's probably gonna come to a close pretty soon. Just ask the RIAA. And to that, I say "good riddance!" But to imply that, in the present day, a publisher's income from things that don't get pirated is somehow ill-gotten gains, despite the money that the publisher put into it (manufacturing, marketing, etc.) is ludicrous. Percentage-wise, publishing a book or a program is probably a bigger gamble for the publisher than it is for the author. As ye sew, so shall ye reap, or something like that. Also, don't get me wrong on two other counts: a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in. b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software. cheers ya'll, -k. ^-^ a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in. b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software.

I'm not really surprised by the modifications to the definition of Free Software. They are essentially just the codification of the objections that the FSF has to the tenets of the Open Source(tm)(s)(r) movement, and in that sense are essentially not anything new. What I didn't know, before I had browsed around fsf.org site a bit, was exactly how overboard these people had gone. O fun! O joy! Check out the words-to-avoid page and learn about the new, improved GNUSpek! Helps you avoid "incorrect thinking"! Read about the pitfalls of the Open Source movement (it allows bourgeois companies to take advantage of the "fuzzy thinking" of the proletariat). Come to the FSF web site and correct your wrong thinking! RMS complains rather vehemently about the injustice of copyright law and the penchant of the SPA of trying to get the government to enforce it. This, it just recently occured to me, ignores one simple fact: copyright law does nothing but create a default bargain between the author/publisher and the user. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't want your work to be covered by US copyright law, release it to people under your own agreement, as the FSF does with the GPL. [Technically, it's still covered by US copyright law, but you render that a moot point with the correct agreement terms]. The upshot of all this is that the pigs and the SPA are essentially doing nothing more than making sure that people keep their word, that they abide by the agreement they made in order to get access to the works. Keeping your word is a good thing, no? And if the software you wanted to use wasn't worth the price you paid for it and the restrictions that came with it, then why did you buy it? There can be no reason. The simple answer is that in some way, for some reason, it WAS worth it. [ASIDE: Now, that *reason* isn't necessarily just. Refer to the terms "network effect" and "lock-in"] More importantly, RMS knows this. And yet, rather that merely exhorting people to release their works under an alternative agreement, he rails on and on and on about the evils of copyright, as if changing the default bargain will keep companies from using the most profitable (i.e., generally one of the more restrictive) bargain they can come up with. But, RMS continues to rail on about how copyright violates the Right Of The People(tm) to share software with their neighbors. Let me get this straight: I've got something in my head. You don't have any damned right to anything with it. Now, if I write it down and don't share it with you, you still don't have any damned right to it (and thus far, couldn't do anything about it if you did). But, if you and I come to an agreement about the conditions under which I will show it to you (and only you), then you somehow magically gain the right to blab it out to everybody once I turn my back? Is this true even when you promised me you wouldn't? " Cooperation is more important than copyright," true, but keeping your word is often more important than cooperation. Personally, I think RMS is so concerned that the argument be viewed in his light because he'd like to see a lack of protection for creators and publishers enshrined in the consitution he refers to so much. Don't get me wrong: I pirate [hah!] my fair share of shit. I sometimes even pirate stuff that I could afford to buy. However, I view this as something akin to petty theft (when I can afford it), and something a bit less than that when I can't. I certainly don't delude myself into thinking it's my right. And I don't worry about the SPA showing up on my doorstep either: it isn't the least bit interested in stopping piracy that doesn't result in a loss of income; it's just interested in making sure that those who can pay are scared enough to. As far as the SPA showing up and auditing businesses, more power to 'em! If a company is using software to make money, then it oughtta by golly be prepared to share the wealth with the people who gave them the software thant helped them make the money. And that's just all I've got to say about that. RMS also complains at length about the fact that publishers profit more than artists from copyright non-infringement, although I'm not sure exactly how relevant this is given his contention that artists don't have any more right to a work than users do. This ignores yet another blatantly true statement: if authors didn't make more money by going through a publisher than by not, then they would not. Now, I agree with all the Utopians out there on this point: that era's probably gonna come to a close pretty soon. Just ask the RIAA. And to that, I say "good riddance!" But to imply that, in the present day, a publisher's income from things that don't get pirated is somehow ill-gotten gains, despite the money that the publisher put into it (manufacturing, marketing, etc.) is ludicrous. Percentage-wise, publishing a book or a program is probably a bigger gamble for the publisher than it is for the author. As ye sew, so shall ye reap, or something like that. Also, don't get me wrong on two other counts: a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in. b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software. cheers ya'll, -k. ^-^ a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in. b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software.

Did you check out the link (directly under the OPEN SOURCE paragraph) about the legal issues.

http://www.algore2000.com/g etinvolved/legal_notice.html

It seemed pretty strict with the requirements and there was a really interesting little quote that said, "If Gore 2000 selects your material for use on our website we will contact you with further legal requirements. "

It may be "Open Source", but I doubt it meets the requirements for " Free Software" (as mentioned earlier today.)

...blah, blah, blah, Microsoft, blah, blah, blah...

Next!

A more considered view of Microsoft comes from
people who were regarded as too inflammatory to
``sell'' free software to business and the masses
(the raison d'être of the ``Open Source''
movement)---the FSF in the essay
``Is Microsoft the Great Satan?''.

---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,

Read the essays at the FSF on the subject. "Free software" doesn't mean that you don't pay for it.

Richard's and the FSF's contributions are worth acknowledging... but not in every breath I take.

Richard has a history of his own flavor of politically correct speech. See Confusing Words which You Might Want to Avoid ("because they imply an opinion that we hope you may not entirely agree with"): "Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as 'sharing information with your neighbor'" when discussing "piracy". After all, you wouldn't want to "imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them," would you? (*sigh*)

I have a serious problem with the assumption that "free" software automatically refers to "free according to the FSF", because it seems to me that the GPL sacrifices important freedoms in some areas in an attempt to preserve it in others.

But the term "copyleft" was specifically invented by RMS, at least as far as I know, and it's discussed extensively at the FSF web site, so I regard RMS and the FSF as having a legitimate claim on the word.

As near as I can see, this license would not be regarded by the FSF as a "copyleft", but they're the ones to be the judge of that.

There is, however, a crying need for a standardized open software license that simultaneously makes source available for hacking, allows contributing hackers credit for their work, does not require the original source (person or company) to sacrifice all of their intellectual property rights, and protects the originating source against litigation in this crazy lawyer-ridden society. Netscape, IBM, Apple, and Sun are all struggling with this, and doubtless more is to come. If O'Reilly wants to host another Grand Summit, this would be a good topic. The sooner we have a uniform "Commercial Open Software" license that we all understand, the sooner we can stop quibbling about this nonsense and get back to hacking.

Craig

My personal opinion is that licenses should first be read as moral obligations, and after that they should be gone over by lawyers. -- Linus Torvalds, March 1999

No, because it is the only license that perpetuates the FSF concept of freedom at the expense of a concept of freedom held by many other people.

"Freedom" is too important a word to allow it to be exclusively defined by one person or organization.

Craig

The essay advocates the use of the GPL as a trap and a snare for software developers who would like to make a living from their work. The idea is to license a vital library under the GPL, and then cry "Gotcha!" when a developer is either forced to use that library or uses it without seeing that it's GPLed.

Attempts by the FSF (and by RMS, its leader) to stamp its moniker on Linux show that, while the FSF doesn't profess an interest in money, it is very much interested in power and control. This is why it advocates "freedom" and yet makes its software non-free to parties against which RMS spitefully bears a grudge (commercial software developers).

RMS's grudge goes back to the days when Symbolics, the LISP Machine company, spun off from MIT's AI Lab. RMS abhorred the notion that someone might -- horrors! -- make money off of the research in which he'd participated. He has despised all commercial software developers since and has broadened his contempt to include anyone who makes money via intellectual property. Symbolics failed, but the grudge remained.

Those who truly want to write software that's free to all should not fall for the FSF's loaded rhetoric. Use a license such as the MIT X license or the BSD license, and let your fellow developers re-use your code for any purpose. By doing so, you'll thwart the FSF's quest for power by creating software that's free for all -- not just "free for those people and uses of which the FSF happens to approve."

--Brett Glass

Not true... read RMS talking about the love of his life, "Alix", in the "Open Sources" article...

After all, you can't mention commerce to Richard Stallman without him pointing you at one of the FSF position papers that says the very behaviour you're complaining about is absolutely okay-fine.

What's crappy about their politics? They happen to believe that freedom is more important than convenience. If you would prefer to give up your freedoms in exchange for a little convenience, you're welcome to forego Debian's "crappy politics" and use software that restricts your freedoms.

To the poster who complained that Debian doesn't like anything they must be purchased, I must tell you that I believe you have misunderstood. For a program to be included in Debian, it must be free in the 'freedom' sense, not necessarily gratis. In order to be included in the main distribution, a piece of software must meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. As a byproduct, most commercial programs connot be included, but that is because the licensing imposes restrictions on the software (including things like royalties), so the software cannot be considered free.

Dear AC,

Can you read? No? Just basic english? You think so? So go here and spend some time leraning about the subject you so forcefully babble about.

Now go up in this same page and read the transcript of Bruce's post in the comment "Why It's Time to Talk About Writing Free Software (Score:2)".

Then stop suffering your ignorance upon us:

Anyone, and I mean *ANYONE* who thinks that Richard Stallman is a good advocate of "Open Source" is wrong. Just plain wrong.

Anyone, I mean *ANYONE* who thinks Richard Sallman would even consider being an "Open Source" advocate has probably been away from the planet during the past year.

He's not. He's an advocate of GNU CopyLeft, and fuck all else, really. You're worried about people who seem strange in the public media, and you want to advocate Stallman?

I fail to remember the name of your last code contribution to the communitary pool, AC. Please enlighten me before barking about programmmers and ideals far beyond your level of understanding.

The man is practically a rabid dog when it comes to anything even *remotely* commercial, including the occasional rip on the idea of people getting paid to work on open source.

I dont even think this plain LIE must be answered. Check the link above.

Good grief. Few things could be as bad for the freedom of the movement as RS, who represents the Stalin of open source ideals.

Against the enlighted enterprise CEOs, the freedom fighters of modern day, I guess. And again, stop using Stallman name and the expression Open Source in the same phrase. Learn to say Free Software. Learn to live with it.

Can I get a witness from the congregation?

Thank God that some one besides the Free Software Foundation is picking up the torch to explain the (IMHO) major differences between OSI and Free Software.

I, too, thought that the OSI was a "good thing". That is until folks like Digital Creations are starting to twist free software in to purely a profit making endeavor. They happen to be the first blatant example, but not the last, I am afraid. (See my letter to the editor for Feb 11, 1999 issue of Linux Weekly News for further explaination.

I share in Bruce Parens belief that

The Open Source certification mark has already been abused in ways I find unconscionable and that I will not abide.

It might also be a good idea to actually read the advertising clause -- it has nothing to do with adding acknowledgement to the source files. What it says is that you have to mention them when you advertise.

...controlling Intellectual Property and tying it to a particular machine.

Bit by bit, Richard Stallman's paper The Right to Read (from the 2/1997 Communications of the ACM) is coming true. Read this paper. It's scary, especially when you realize that he's talking about things that are already happening, or at least being proposed.

David Gould