Slashdot Mirror

Trolling the RTFA troll with an RTFA; good one :-) However, I guess the quote you mean is this:

"unless VmWare (sic) becomes free software. GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing."

I don't think there's anything new in that. In fact it's more moderate than their normal position which you can find in the clear statement in the FSF service directory.

You will not take advantage of contact made through the Service Directory to advertise an unrelated business (e.g., sales of proprietary information). You may spontaneously mention your availability for general consulting, but you should not promote a specific unrelated business unless the client asks.

Basically they have, and have always had, a policy that they won't provide you with a reference (in the sense of positive reference) unless you are happy to work against proprietary software. Given their public statements (just as an example) on the matter, anyone acting surprised about that is either a) ignorant b) stupid or c) pretending.

The entire history of GNU is based in Stallman's experience that cooperating with proprietary software companies can destroy open software development. I'm not at all sure that that's an unreasonable expectation. We've seen often enough that companies that mix one with the other tend to try to put their "premium" features into the proprietary software and that ends up with the open part being much weaker.

Trolling the RTFA troll with an RTFA; good one :-) However, I guess the quote you mean is this:

"unless VmWare (sic) becomes free software. GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing."

I don't think there's anything new in that. In fact it's more moderate than their normal position which you can find in the clear statement in the FSF service directory.

You will not take advantage of contact made through the Service Directory to advertise an unrelated business (e.g., sales of proprietary information). You may spontaneously mention your availability for general consulting, but you should not promote a specific unrelated business unless the client asks.

Basically they have, and have always had, a policy that they won't provide you with a reference (in the sense of positive reference) unless you are happy to work against proprietary software. Given their public statements (just as an example) on the matter, anyone acting surprised about that is either a) ignorant b) stupid or c) pretending.

The entire history of GNU is based in Stallman's experience that cooperating with proprietary software companies can destroy open software development. I'm not at all sure that that's an unreasonable expectation. We've seen often enough that companies that mix one with the other tend to try to put their "premium" features into the proprietary software and that ends up with the open part being much weaker.

I've released BSD-licensed programs that depend on Apache-licensed libraries. The GPL is not compatible with the Apache license, so I can't change the license of my code to the GPL, even if I want to.

The APLv2 is compatible with the GPLv3. The CDDL would be a better example (e.g., BSD with ZFS).

If I spend many hours thinking of very novel and original way of doing something useful, should I not be able to live off the resulting earnings for a while before the person who did not invest any time in the idea can just copy it and undercut me?

Your use of "novel" and "live off the earnings for a while" makes it sound like you're talking about patents, but the article is about copyrights. Copyrights and patents differ in their scope and their rationale, and the casual use of the term "IP" to refer to both confuses the issue by ignoring these differences. For one thing, patents are more defensible in this respect than copyrights because they last 20 years, not life plus 70. If you mean patent, say "patent"; if you mean copyright, say "copyright".

the whole GPL and open source concept relies on copyright law. Without the law of copyright and IP then some private company could just take any open source product they liked and then sell it or a derivative product for a profit.

Without copyright, it would be lawful to disassemble an app, comment it thoroughly, and spread it throughout the Usenets. Crackers would be encouraged to make software free.

Chromium OS is there so Google doesn't break GPL and other licenses.

Despite mostly being flamebait this part of your post raises the question of why there isn't an equivalent to GPL for web applications. Don't tell me Affereo GPL because the AGPL only varies from the GPL by section 13 which says that if webapps include a method of retrieving source code it can't be removed, but it doesn't say that users of the software get the right to the source code like the GPL does, and it doesn't say that applications that build upon webapps have any obligations.

So the AGPL is really like the LGPL, not the GPL, and it should be renamed the ALGPL. It also means we don't have any equivalent to the GPL for web apps because the AGPL doesn't propagate across networks and it can be easily subverted by adding proprietary code to a network library.

Copyright-wise even Microsoft understand that there's no difference between the local PC bus and the network by saying the Microsoft Office (and most of their applications) can't be made available to the public internet. You can't sell a remote desktop version of Microsoft Office because they propagate licensing conditions to the network. Copyright licenses can go whereever copyright goes, and copyright exists locally or across networks.

What we should have is a genuine GPL across the network, not the AGPL. If people do make network software they need to be able to provide GPL-style freedoms across the network but right now there is no license for this.

All these comments and nobody even mentions Free Software? I guess slashdot is indeed visited by too many windoze lusers...

Read and learn http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/mac-osx-mistakes-and-malfeatures http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/stallman_withdraws_apple_backdoor_claim/

This could be a very historic moment!

It could potentially be the first time the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a (benevolent) dictator! I'm pretty sure that still qualifies him as somehow politically active.

In all seriousness though - Linus' contribution was definitely revolutionary, and has changed the world in a very positive way. I can't imagine what evil regime I would be stuck working for if I hadn't started playing with Linux so many years ago.

If Linus were to win the prize, I would imagine that he should probably put the funds back into a charitable organization, since there are and were countless numbers of others who have made substantial contributions to the evolution of his kernel as well.

Maybe he could rename it the Han Solo Award and give it back to the Rebel Fleet.

One of the ways of introducing people to alternative software is to install it and have in sitting there on the menu. By removing the GIMP, they're just encouraging people to think that linux is "not ready for serious users."

I agree 100%. And judging from the response from the "monomaniacs" elsewhere on this topic you have identified a very important way of introducing people to FOSS. But one that runs counter to their apparent goals.

Part of the apparent goals of the monomaniacs is to steer any loose strays back into Microsoft lock-in, and ideally wholly back into MS Windows. The specious reasons offered for removal of GIMP look grounded in the idea that Ubuntu must become top-to-bottom Microsoft technology. Microsoft hasn't done much of any technology right during the time it's been around. Is it a wise choice to start letting them gut two fine distros, Ubuntu and Debian, to fill them with expensive, defective sublicensed software?

One confrontational approach might be to take Canonical to the Better Business Bureau for this fraud : it is not allowed to send someone a product, unsolicited, and then ask for payment later. That's what's happening with F-Spot (the M$ competitor to Solang, Digikam), Tomboy (the M$ competitor to Zim, Getting-things-gnome, Knotes and BasKet) or Banshee (the M$ competitor to Amarok, Rhythmbox, Totem and XMMS). Use now, pay later. If you compare the individual applications, you'll also see that the M$ version rather sucks, especially in regards to performance, but even in function and usability. The M$applications aren't built with reliable technologies. The regulars are and use python, c++ or java.

Mono, to name one of the problems, has a paper trail back to Microsoft via Novell and years of payments from Novell to Microsoft for said products. You use Mono with the understanding that it is a sub-licensed product that must be rented. The payment for the right to use it is paid by Novell for the time being. Who may be asked to pay may be up for grabs in the future, but patent law says it is the user and 5 years of receipts say that the payment is not just obligatory but accepted by the community. And standard business practice says that if it has become indispensible, then price is what the market will bear...

Lucid is not out yet, so there is time to undo or head off the damage done by the "monomaniacs"

One of the ways of introducing people to alternative software is to install it and have in sitting there on the menu. By removing the GIMP, they're just encouraging people to think that linux is "not ready for serious users."

I agree 100%. And judging from the response from the "monomaniacs" elsewhere on this topic you have identified a very important way of introducing people to FOSS. But one that runs counter to their apparent goals.

Part of the apparent goals of the monomaniacs is to steer any loose strays back into Microsoft lock-in, and ideally wholly back into MS Windows. The specious reasons offered for removal of GIMP look grounded in the idea that Ubuntu must become top-to-bottom Microsoft technology. Microsoft hasn't done much of any technology right during the time it's been around. Is it a wise choice to start letting them gut two fine distros, Ubuntu and Debian, to fill them with expensive, defective sublicensed software?

One confrontational approach might be to take Canonical to the Better Business Bureau for this fraud : it is not allowed to send someone a product, unsolicited, and then ask for payment later. That's what's happening with F-Spot (the M$ competitor to Solang, Digikam), Tomboy (the M$ competitor to Zim, Getting-things-gnome, Knotes and BasKet) or Banshee (the M$ competitor to Amarok, Rhythmbox, Totem and XMMS). Use now, pay later. If you compare the individual applications, you'll also see that the M$ version rather sucks, especially in regards to performance, but even in function and usability. The M$applications aren't built with reliable technologies. The regulars are and use python, c++ or java.

Mono, to name one of the problems, has a paper trail back to Microsoft via Novell and years of payments from Novell to Microsoft for said products. You use Mono with the understanding that it is a sub-licensed product that must be rented. The payment for the right to use it is paid by Novell for the time being. Who may be asked to pay may be up for grabs in the future, but patent law says it is the user and 5 years of receipts say that the payment is not just obligatory but accepted by the community. And standard business practice says that if it has become indispensible, then price is what the market will bear...

Lucid is not out yet, so there is time to undo or head off the damage done by the "monomaniacs"

One of the ways of introducing people to alternative software is to install it and have in sitting there on the menu. By removing the GIMP, they're just encouraging people to think that linux is "not ready for serious users."

I agree 100%. I would also add that part of the apparent goals of the monomaniacs is to steer people back to Microsoft lock-in, and ideally back into MS Windows. The specious reasons offered for removal of GIMP look grounded in the idea that Ubuntu must become top-to-bottom Microsoft technology. Microsoft hasn't done much of any technology right during the time it's been around. I don't see that it is a wise choice to start letting them gut two fine distros, Ubuntu and Debian, to fill them with expensive, defective sublicensed software.

One approach might be to take Canonical to the Better Business Bureau for this fraud : it is not allowed to send someone a product, unsolicited, and then ask for payment later. That's what's happening with F-Spot (the M$ competitor to Solang, Digikam), Tomboy (the M$ competitor to Zim, Getting-things-gnome, Knotes and BasKet) or Banshee (the M$ competitor to Amarok, Rhythmbox, Totem and XMMS). Use now, pay later. If you compare the individual applications, you'll also see that the M$ version rather sucks, especially in regards to performance, but even in function and usability. The M$applications aren't built with reliable technologies. The regulars are and use python, c++ or java.

Mono, to name one of the problems, has a paper trail back to Microsoft via Novell and years of payments from Novell to Microsoft for said products. You use Mono with the understanding that it is a sub-licensed product that must be rented. The payment for the right to use it is paid by Novell for the time being. Who may be asked to pay may be up for grabs in the future, but patent law says it is the user and 5 years of receipts say that the payment is not just obligatory but accepted by the community. And standard business practice says that if it has become indispensible, then price is what the market will bear...

Lucid is not out yet, so there is time to undo the damage done by the monomaniacs.

The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001. We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF. We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software.

Gringotts used to be goog. Gringotts saves info in encrypted files. You still need 1 password to decrypt the file, but you can have copies of the file in multiple places. See http://directory.fsf.org/project/gringotts/

Well , that's the point of licensing ( GPL or otherwise ) : so you can prove that you were the first to write the code.

No, that's a point of copyrights though they don't really prove the person owning the copyright in fact wrote it. Licenses themselves rely on copyrights. Part of the preamble of the GNU General Public License says "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it." My bold highlight.

Falcon

Well, I don't think they're defeatist either. It is true that Linux-for-everybody thing was never going to happen, but you see the True Believers on Slashdot every day, years after the initial effort crashed and burned.

I was working at Borland when we came out with a Linux IDE. (In 2001!) Total failure. That's the nice thing about actually having to work for a living, your mistakes come into conflict with reality. I think a wingnut can be defined as somebody who can't or won't submit their ideas to that test.

You're using a strawman argument, and you're completely wrong. The BSD license allows me to take the source, modify it, and give you source code with a restriction that you may not use it in a certain way, for example, I may include a restriction that you may not modify the code or re-publish parts of it.

The BSD is still an open source license. Even the Free Software Foundation says the (modified) BSD is compatible. The only restriction is that the authors of the code used have to be credited. And you can only restrict the use of your code, you make close it but you can not close the source you took from someone else. The source is still open source.

Falcon

Wrong. The BSD license and its ilk *are* Free Software licenses, they're just not "copyleft" which is a desirable but not vital quality as far as RMS is concerned. The ones that are OSS-but-not-Free are those like the license of Pine which disallows redistribution of modified works, or some of Microsoft's Shared Source licenses which disallow commercial redistribution at all.

If you wish, you can educate yourself further here, and the FSF's definition of Free Software here.

Wrong. The BSD license and its ilk *are* Free Software licenses, they're just not "copyleft" which is a desirable but not vital quality as far as RMS is concerned. The ones that are OSS-but-not-Free are those like the license of Pine which disallows redistribution of modified works, or some of Microsoft's Shared Source licenses which disallow commercial redistribution at all.

If you wish, you can educate yourself further here, and the FSF's definition of Free Software here.

The GPL has been tested in court? I must have missed this one.

No, actually you missed all of them.

In the US: http://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf

In Germany: http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/57353

In France: http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/09/big-win-for-gnu-gpl-in-france.html

Just google 'GPL tested court' for more links (there are older cases that got in front of a judge too)...

Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.

I think you don't understand the "OSS spirit" if by OSS you're talking about GPL, but feel free to rewrite my work and put my software on your "banned list" because you have some moral objection to the GPL. I have the open, effective development environment I want and am protected from plagiarism, so I couldn't care less about hollow threats.

Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.

If you think you wouldn't have a problem competing with a proprietary version of your own work maybe open source isn't your thing. (But I think you're naive if you actually think that, though)

Can't speak for the GP, but the AGPL is still a freedom based license. The fundamental purpose of the GPL is to enshrine the four freedoms, all of which are user freedoms. The AGPL simply recognizes that webapps were a loophole that people could use to deny users their (FSF) rights.

Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work.

Can't you see how in the example I just gave from personal experience the AGPL would have protected my code had it been released at the time, and how that falls pretty much directly in line with the stated purpose of the GPL?

"You have to give back" is the original purpose of the GPL..

You know, think of the children. Just read between the lines. It's about MAFIAA and Micro$oft closing down the free software ecosystem. Those guys just don't like competition, like wiseguys generally don't.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/

Micro$oft tried the treacherous compting trap and it's still slowly going onwards. Then they tried the patent FUD "we own the Linux kernel". And now they're playing this ACTA shit. What a bunch of crooks!

Thanks for that, but that's not what I was looking for. I'd like a reference to RMS's last post which contains a personal attack against Miguel.

I found it by finding Miguel's blog where the slashdot comment is repeated, but there is a link to http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/. I followed it, but it has a content-full post with no personal attacks.

The link you just provided is a bit surprising, but it isn't written by RMS. The quote is definitely making the rounds: I read about it yesterday, and Google is turning up many more commentators referring to it.

For example, Thom Holwerda (http://www.osnews.com/story/22225) thinks RMS has 'crossed a line' and the FSF should 'removed him from the stage' and that 'he has lost touch with reality'

It's picked up again by aross who thinks it's hard to believe, but also seems to accept it at face value. http://www.fosslc.org/drupal/node/550

It seems to me as a spectator that name-calling is very alive and well here, as is the postured over-reaction on the part of non-participants. Miguel offers this somewhat dippy comment: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Sep-23.html about how God loves all creatures, including Richard Stallman. The funny thing is, he suggests that RMS might want to talk about how to improve 'Free and Open Source Software', as if RMS has never made any suggestions in that line.

He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.

At the end of the day, we both want to see free software succeed. But Richard, instead of opening new fronts to promote his causes, attacks his own allies for not being replicas of himself."

[Miguel] suggested that either himself, or Microsoft, or both, [were] [RMS's] "ally."

I have to agree with eldavojohn here, Concern. I believe you were mis-reading Miguel's statement and perhaps got co-references mixed up . I believe his own allies above is co-referent with neither Miguel, nor Microsoft. I believe Miguel was refering to the readers of RMS's article when he said "his own allies."

"It's no secret that Stallman doesn't like Mono

Actually, Stallman likes Mono. As a free software implementation of C#, that is. He sees Mono as a tool for letting old apps run in free software. What RMS opposes to (and many of us do) is about the usage of Mono to replace completely working, free software apps, and to add the burden of dependency to free software. And not just dependency, but dependency to some run time that is patented by MS - a company that does not hide their desire to destroy "Linux" using patents - many parts of which are NOT covered by any sort of "promise" from MS.

article by Stallman that criticizes Codeplex about its aims due to its origin at Microsoft.

I read Stallman's article about the codeplex 'foundation' and the criticism is not due just to its origin at Microsoft. The criticism in RMS' article is based solely on statements made about the foundation's intents. In fact, it almost looks like that the origin at Microsoft is merely the reason Miguel Icaza is defending this so passionately...

If that's the case, it is all the more reason why we need free software to do these jobs.

I can't stand those folks that insit apon "Intellectual Property".

For being one of the most free-software-leaning discussion sites on the internet, the level of derision here for Software Freedom day is odd.

There is no requirement for Software Freedom day to pass out CDs or leaflets or get in anyone's face. It can be as simple as having a BBQ and inviting your geekiest friends. If you happen to print out some flyers like this or this or yikes! even burn a free-software-infested CD I don't think you'll be hurting anyone. If you do happen to have an event, take pictures...it'd be nice to see what SFD really look like rather than dwell on the fear posed by a burnt-CD.

Happy Software Freedom Day!

You are more radical than the FSF, they consider (modified) BSD and the like to be free software (but they created the GPL because they felt that it was important that derivatives of free software also be free):

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

You summarize my thoughts exactly. And I would also add that this deal is flamed by another party: the FSF. (fsf.org seems to be down atm, but here comes the link: http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-09-google-book-settlement-objection )

"But under the proposed settlement, works released under the GFDL and similar licenses are lumped in with works under full restrictive copyright. Google would therefore be given permission to display and distribute these works without abiding by the requirement to pass the freedoms guaranteed under the GFDL on to Google Books readers."

    In the case Bilski v. Doll, the Supreme Court is reviewing the patentability of software for the first time since 1981. This is a very rare chance to fix things, and you're exactly the type of case they want to hear.

    For the most part, briefs are being submitted by the mega corporations and the groups of patent lawyers. Ordinary programmers and small businesses are not participating, and they're exactly the groups that are bearing the costs and restrictions of software patents.

    Please help spread the word. I'll be sending out more info about this in the coming days via the EndSoftwarePatents mailing list.

You seem to misunderstand what the FSF is about. They have no problem with Free Software that is not under the GPL or LGPL as long as the license is compatible. Compatibility is purely a pragmatic issue and there are plenty of compatible license to choose from. GNU is most definitely not a monoculture. GNU packages include a huge range of types of software from a huge range of developers, many working for various corporations. My very uninformed impression is that the BSDs are much more monoculture, which is not necessarily a bad thing since they're more focused on specific technical priorities.

For a package to be considered part of the GNU project, it generally needs to be under the GPL or LGPL, but GNU people never say "you should use no non-GNU software." All they say is "you should not use non-Free software." Notice that though Linux is released under the GPL, it is not part of the GNU project and this doesn't prevent anyone (even RMS) from recommending Linux as part of a GNU-based system.

Where does your hostility come from? Does it make you angry that the FSF wants software to be as Free as possible for the maximum number of people? Of course if you had the time, you could write all of your own software which would give you personally maximum freedom, but that's not practical in the real world. Everyone has to depend on someone else's software at some point.

As for my personal software use, I prefer to use things that are Free or Open Source, whether it's GPL, LGPL, a BSD or X11-style license or any other. I know that if it's Free or Open Source, it won't stop me from doing anything I want with it. When I release code, the license depends on the situation. Often, it's an extension to existing code, so it makes the most sense to use the license of what I'm contributing to.

...and what "GPL" libraries would those be EXACTLY?

GNU SASL, Lib Gtop. Of course, the classic one is ReadLine.

Now that's wasn't too hard was it?

...and what "GPL" libraries would those be EXACTLY?

GNU SASL, Lib Gtop. Of course, the classic one is ReadLine.

Now that's wasn't too hard was it?

...and what "GPL" libraries would those be EXACTLY?

GNU SASL, Lib Gtop. Of course, the classic one is ReadLine.

Now that's wasn't too hard was it?

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA. You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

I think that would cover it.

If anti-copyright proponents would be unhypocritical, they would demand that software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends.

Yes, if only someone would demand software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends. Damn those hypocrites!

Does anybody know if this woman is accepting contributions? Maybe the proper way to fight this BS could be to put our money where our mouth is. I would certainly send some money to support her.

I'm sure you could send the contribution to her attorneys.

In my personal opinion, the best place to which to make contributions to fight the RIAA scourge is to make a tax deductible contribution to the Expert Witness Defense Fund managed by the Free Software Foundation. All the proceeds of the contributions will go to helping RIAA defendants retain the help of tech experts and tech consultants. They made a $3000 grant to Ms. Thomas to enable her to hire an expert witness.

Which side you believe is the side you already believe.

No, which side I believe is whichever side gets their facts right. Which certainly isn't you. Let me address some errors in your first paragraph:

There is a small but vocal group of Free Software zealots who make life miserable for anyone who thinks that the GPL isn't the end-all and be-all of Open Source licenses.

No, they don't because they would never call the GPL an open source license. 'Open Source' is a term used by a group who came after the FSF and who want to distinguish themselves from the FSF mostly by playing down the idea of freedom. No Free Software 'zealot' would describe the GPL as an Open Source license. That you conflate the two movements show you haven't done your homework.

They frequently point out problems they perceive with other licenses like BSD without conceding that their perspective may not be applicable/correct/logical/reasonable.

Your very next sentence and you are wrong here too. The FSF maintains a list of licenses on their website and give their analysis of each one. They categorise the BSD license as a Free Software license and a perfectly acceptable one to use. From their discussion:

Modified BSD license: This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

And then you finish your paragraph with two incendiary sentences:

These are what I call the Free Software Fascists. They claim to work for the greater good of the OSS movement, but their actions are only self-serving.

Yeah great, anyone can describe someone as a fascist. It's a great word to spit out. But do you have any concept of the history of the word and the basic political position it describes? Because if you do, I would like you to show any one way in which the FSF could be described as fascist (hint: show that they are in favour of a high degree of co-operation between corporate interest and government). And no they do not work for the greater good of the OSS movement because they were around more than ten years before that movement and its aims are not theirs. And finally to describe their actions as only self-serving would be funny if it wasn't so deluded as they have clearly served the whole world by making a massive library of software free to use without anything asked in return. Anything at all.

People like you who want to attack the FSF should first get your facts right. It is tiresome to see the FSF continually misrepresented. They have pages and pages of text on their website, clearly and rationally spelling out their position. Are you just simply too lazy to read it? Either that, or would you like to declare a personal interest? Because you have provided absolutely no rigorous argument against any of their positions.

VMWare manages to sell a proprietary product which is based on GPL'd code. How do they manage? Could it be, because they are literate?

Nice troll.

More likely, it's because they have more faith in their lawyers. It's the FSFs Official Position that linking to a GPLed library must cause the entire program to be released under the GPL. Perhaps VMWare just had more faith that a court would find for them.

Or it could be that VMWare doesn't link to any GPL libraries (the EULA you linked certainly doesn't mention anything about it) and you're fantastically full of shit.

Care to read what RMS says on the subject? He says he specifically put in the "anti-TiVo" clause because while you can get the source code you can NOT run it on the TiVo. Well no shit. Lets be honest here-do you HONESTLY think that hackers would have been running code on their TiVo just for fun? Or would it have been to either A-allow you to easily pull vids off the device, thus making sure the *.A.As pull the plug on the TiVo, or B-to get free TiVo service?

But notice how not a single time does RMS say anything about TiVo or their right to survive his GPL, because he don't give a shit. All he cares about is his "four freedoms" and I think it wouldn't be hard to prove that RMS is about as anti-business as you can possibly get. So is it a surprise that yet another company wouldn't touch GPL with a ten foot pole? There is a GOOD reason why companies talk about "GPL infection", it is because GPL V3 is anti-business period. All RMS has EVER cared about is hacking and if said hacking puts a company under? Bonus. But don't yell "straw man" when RMS' own words are against you.

I'm still not a lawyer, so I don't guarantee the accuracy of any of this.

The GPL explicitly states that running a program is not within the scope of the licence. The FSF believes that combining code to run in the same address space makes them a single program but starting another program doesn't make your program a derivative work of that program. The FSF is not likely to say that something non-free is allowed unless it is.

One important distinction is whether the program uses any of the library's implementation; for example, CutePDF contains nothing of the innards of Ghostscript (which is distributed separately) and can use any other PostScript to PDF converter that can be called as a separate program in a similar fashion. If there is nothing of Ghostscript (or whatever) in your program, there is no copyright case either. Whether including a header file from a library (and linking dynamically to a user-provided copy of the actual library) actually includes anything copyrighted in your program is ultimately a matter for the courts, but it is more likely to make your program a derivative work if it contains descriptions of data structures used by the library.

I'm still not a lawyer, so I don't guarantee the accuracy of any of this.

The GPL explicitly states that running a program is not within the scope of the licence. The FSF believes that combining code to run in the same address space makes them a single program but starting another program doesn't make your program a derivative work of that program. The FSF is not likely to say that something non-free is allowed unless it is.

One important distinction is whether the program uses any of the library's implementation; for example, CutePDF contains nothing of the innards of Ghostscript (which is distributed separately) and can use any other PostScript to PDF converter that can be called as a separate program in a similar fashion. If there is nothing of Ghostscript (or whatever) in your program, there is no copyright case either. Whether including a header file from a library (and linking dynamically to a user-provided copy of the actual library) actually includes anything copyrighted in your program is ultimately a matter for the courts, but it is more likely to make your program a derivative work if it contains descriptions of data structures used by the library.

'Remember when TiVo went by the letter of the GPL (v2) but not the apparent spirit? A new section of GPL v3 was born.'

This is actually the most relevant point in the entire discussion. The iPhone app store falls foul of exactly this clause in GPL3, created to address a very similar issue. John Sullivan at the FSF addresses the problem here:

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix

"Apple's approach runs headlong into an important part of the GPL's copyleft approach -- the principle that anytime someone shares a copy of a GPL-covered program with another person, she also needs to provide that person with the installable, human-readable source code for that program. This ensures that everyone who gets a copy of a program also gets the raw material needed for any study and modification. This freedom is not meaningful if the computer on which the software is meant to run arbitrarily rejects any potentially changed version installed by the user simply because it has not been signed or approved by a "higher" authority. The latest version of the GPL (GPLv3) includes a provision to address the threat posed by this tivoization and put a stop to this method of depriving users of freedom."

So the problem is not that the app is being charged for (this is fine), but that it's on the app store at all. This violates the spirit of the GPL in general (as it makes one of its fundamental freedoms 'not meaningful') and the letter of GPL3. The letter of GPL2 would not be violated (it's a situation the original GPL authors had simply not considered), provided that the app is accompanied by its source code or a written offer to supply it (presumably the source is not included in the app store download, but is the written offer? - it's not enough just to have the source on the personal site of the iPhone version's authors).

Published at http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix, "Why free software and Apple's iPhone don't mix" is one of a series of articles detailing the threats posed by Apple's iPhone to the free software community. It focuses specifically on Apple's "tivoization" model of requiring every application installed on the iPhone to have an approved cryptographic signature, a restriction which is incompatible with version 3 of the GNU General Public License and with user freedoms to share and modify free software in general. (emphasis added)

The URL referred to makes this case based on a quote of the GPLv3 "Installation Information" clause,

"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

Even then, I wonder if "incompatible" is not overstating the case. 1) Does conveying here "occu[r] as part of a transaction in which..."? 2) Who exactly is "retain[ing] the ability to install modified object code..."?

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

Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it...

Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!

(Emphasis is in the original.) So not only does the FSF think that it's acceptable to charge money for GPLed software, they strongly encourage it.

As mentioned in the article, the Free Software Foundation is calling on Amazon to release the Kindle's software as free software, and drop the DRM: http://www.fsf.org/news/amazon-apologizes. The Kindle is already a GNU/Linux system running largely free software -- it would be a short step for them to do so, and the only real way to make sure this or something like it doesn't happen again. This is, after all, the 3rd time in a year they have pulled something like this, despite supposedly being sorry each time.

Right, so now I am an MS troll

Actually, what I said was "assuming you are not just trolling on behalf of Microsoft" I would like a response. In other words, if you are simply trolling, don't bother. Thanks for giving me one.

What DOES bother me is when either of them are striving to extend their political influence

How is he striving to extend his political influence? By advocating free software? There is a pretty long list of parties who are exerting real influence on politicians. Stallman is simply doing what every company does when they bring a product to market. If you honestly believe that Steve Ballmer wouldn't like every computer to run Windows, and isn't striving to extend his political influence to achieve that goal, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

He demands 100% compliance with his growing list of restrictions, or you aren't free

"Growing list of restriction?" A quick glance at the "What is free software?" page covers the same ground it always has, as far as I can tell. I won't recite the four software freedoms, but they are the only "restrictions" I know of that bind developers who license their software under the GPL. What do you mean by a "growing list?" Can you provide more information please?

Freedom is not a list of restrictions

Neither is the GPL. It enumerates the qualities that the FSF believes software (or more accurately its license) must possess for them to consider it "free." It's no different than me saying without self-determination I am not free. If you want to see that as me placing a "restriction on freedom" that's your business, but I don't see how you can define something without identifying the qualities it possesses.

In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen."

Wow, I don't even know where to begin with that. Let me give you my take:

He wants to extend rights, define the qualities that make software free and do so to protect the interest of users, protecting them from being subjected to the will of developers. At least that's what I get from "the freedom to run the program, to study how it works, to share it with others and to make improvements to it." (sorry, I know I said I wouldn't recite the list, but I felt it was necessary to make my point).

You are most certainly entitled to disagree with Stallman, to think the GPL is BS and to voice your opinion to anyone who will listen. I'm not questioning that. But you haven't done much to convince me Stallman is restricting anyone's rights. If you write code, don't license it under the GPL if it offends you. If you simply use software, then you can happily ignore the GPL altogether, since (unlike every EULA I've ever read) it places no restrictions on the user.