Slashdot Mirror

So ''Open Source'' can refer to Free Software, but it can also refer to software not meeting the criteria above. It is also at times used to describe a particular software development model, although some parts of Free Software are developed in closed development models, and proprietary software is increasingly experimenting with open development approaches. This makes the term ''Open Source'' highly ambiguous, and indeed difficult for all areas that depend on precision in their language, such as science, law and politics.

So, on the one hand they are trying to say "there is no difference between free software and open source", and on the other they are pointing out that open source does not always mean the same thing as free software.

If they cannot even unify what they are saying with what they have said, what hope is there for them to unify developers?

their reputation in the open source world is marginal at best because they've always been half-hearted about it.

I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with that but just to provide an alternative opinion

"I think Sun has, well, with this contribution, have contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software. And it shows leadership. It's an example that I hope others will follow." - Richard Stallman

http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/sun_s_choice_of_the_gpl_and_rms_in_the_webcast

So buy a Windows machine and get a refund.

Don't forget the organisations that defend your right to write software, like FSFE.

And you don't have to be European to like FSFE's work. As well as fighting against software patents at the European level, we have people working at the UN/WIPO/WSIS global level to prevent harm in future treaty (such as TRIPS, which was the basis for the EU proposal to allow software patents).

And we do licence enforcement, campaigning for open standards, campaigning against the criminalisation of the grey areas of copyright law, and we supported SAMBA in their push to make the documentation published by Microsoft usable by free software developers. And more, but if I stop to think, then this post won't appear high enough to be seen :-)

You can donate, or join the Fellowship.

Richard Stallman points out how this works, and the specific value of cross-licensing, in his talk on "The Danger of Software Patents" or "Software Patents—Barriers to development". He's given this talk many times and recordings and transcripts are readily available (thanks to all you recorders and transcribers). He references an article in "Think" magazine, #5, 1990 (IBM's promotional magazine) which says that IBM gets "perhaps an order of magnitude" more value from cross-licensing than they do from licensing patents they own. The linked article quoting "Think" and the points raised there are well worth reading in their entirety—for IBM (the world's largest patent holder for many years running, by the way, thus compared to IBM everyone is "little") the trouble software patents create is hypothetical, for everyone else (including users) it's very real.

That just means the Gnome stuff in 8.04 will receive security updates longer than the KDE stuff in 8.04.

My thoughts exactly. Or, more specifically, one-fingered gloves. This would be more visible as a protest.

I don't think you're right. Everyone who has met Stallman seems to have to write something about being impressed by his physical appearance. This article is no exception. He is not wearing the uniform of others, but he is trying to intimidate people with his own styled appearance. If you have this hairstyle and are wearing these colors, then this somewhat reminds me of Dirk Gently, self-styled holostic detective, sporting an utterly unfashionably collection of garbs, but still, self-styled and cultivated and consciously so because of the effect it creates and has on people.
But I like Stallman for being self-styled and his own man. It's much better than a lot of nerds who are just wearing another uniform, the carefully cultivated nerd look. Yet they're dressing as they think they're supposed to, conforming to how others look. As someone who likes to think he's self-styled, all I've left to say is: 1) be your -own- man, 2) for the love of god, it is OK to have some style and class. Really! I won't condemn you as a lousy programmer for wearing good shoes.

This wouldn't be a change. Linus already used and advertised BitKeeper, which was completely proprietary software.

Relicensing the Linux kernel quite possible, if they want to.

...but this isn't a v2 vs v3 debate. Linus has never supported the idea that the freedoms to help yourself and to cooperate with others are valuable.

The free software movement already has many working kernels. Getting Hurd working is not the most important thing RMS could work on.

His job is to make sure that the free software movement will last - make sure people value it and protect it.

Here's a transcript of one of his talks, and there's more where that came from.

... if you have no intention of using it. Get your money back! http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/refund

And now InformationWeek have replied with a badly executed straw man:

• InformationWeek opens it's mouth to change feet

InformationWeek published an old mail claiming that it was "latest" post-GPLv3 news.

Hey, do I actually have to care about the FSF to get one of those c00l fsf.org email addresses?

No, not at all. Just to pay them monthly, you can otherwise loathe them.

I need a new permanent email provider

Well, they are just redirects, 5 in total IIRC.

and fsf.org would be teh shizznikegnite. Think of all the geek cred.

I don't need to think, I expererience it everyday. I just flash it and the kids just go, like, awesome ma nizzle. Fo' shizzle. (more seriously though, see https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join _fsf? or https://www.fsfe.org/en/fsfeuser/register/(set)/1 if you're at all interested).

Actually, it is mean to stop license proliferation of the 3rd type:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7188273245. html
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_so ftware_notes/why_gplv3_says_additional_permissions _are_removable
http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html

And the LGPL v3 is actually written in terms of the GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms- transcript.en.html#lgpl
http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl-draft-2006-07-27.html

So basically, the GPLv3 was designed to eliminated the need for any GPLv3-compatible license since any GPLv3 compatible license can be written as the GPLv3 license plus additional permissions. It might not be the most efficient way to specify your GPL-compatible license (e.g. the MIT license would be much longer if expressed this way), but it can be done. If the GPLv3 license existed, I doubt the GPL-like per file Mozilla license would have existed or the GPL-like for open source Qt license would have been created as independent licenses.

That can work sometimes, but not always.

If we have an application with round buttons and they turn out to be patented, we just make ours square. That's ok because having round buttons is not the purpose of the application. But if we have an application whose purpose is to read and edit MS Word documents, and a patent says we are not allowed to do that, then that application is kaput.

Here are some good explanations of how the patent problem plays out and what we can and can't do about it: http://fsfe.org/transcripts#patents.

Clarity is good for everyone. The text is longer than v2, but it is more explicit and should be clearer. If you see a way to make it clearer, please submit a comment.

Here's some suggestions for how to increase simplicity.

For background, some links:

• Stallman on what GPLv3 will do about the Novell and MS deal
• What clause was added to version 2 of the GPL in 1991 to tackle the patent problem
• About the promise not to sue in GPLv3 (draft 2)
• Transcripts made mostly in 2006 of presentations mostly about GPLv3

Here's my post directive review of that project. But there's more to do.

Something very important this year is GPLv3. Here's a transcript of RMS on GPLv3, and one of something I said.

Thanks for that.

I keep a list of transcripts here:
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/

The FSFE Fellowship project has an advocacy section with a list of relevent videos:
http://fsfe.org/en/advocacy/videos

...that people might find interesting:

• Fellowship of FSFE: Is OpenXML now a standard?
• Groklaw: Novells "Danaergeschenk"

As Stallman explained at WSIS, if we argue based on cost, they can offer that too, but if we argue based on freedom, they're not even in the running.

If you are impressed with what the Free Software Foundation has done for people's freedom, think that the work they are doing on the GPL3 is important and want to show your support financially, you might like to donate to or join either the FSF or its sister organisations.

To read about joining please follow these links:

• Associate membership with FSF
• Fellow membership with FSF Europe
• Associate membership with FSF India

Richard Stallman discussed this in a Nov 1st interview. I've put a transcript online.

Whether the deal is good or bad, or partly good and partly bad, it is a good example for thinking about what patent protections should be in GPLv3.

A good focus for the discussion, IMO.

While companies can work out their own deals, and they might be able to do naughty things while still complying with GPLv2, we should be looking at our big deal. The GPL is the closest thing the free software community has to a social contract. We should be looking into how to prevent such harm for v3 of the GPL.

FSFE launched http://DRM.info, and participated in various activities for Day Against DRM.

• Georg: DAY AGAINST DRM: Launch of DRM.info, the DRM awareness portal
• Ciaran (me): DRM.info launched to mobilise more than market pressure
• Shane: Anti-DRM protest in Zurich
• Georg (again): Back from Day against DRM Protest in Zürich
• Maria: DRM for a new intern

FSFE launched http://DRM.info, and participated in various activities for Day Against DRM.

• Georg: DAY AGAINST DRM: Launch of DRM.info, the DRM awareness portal
• Ciaran (me): DRM.info launched to mobilise more than market pressure
• Shane: Anti-DRM protest in Zurich
• Georg (again): Back from Day against DRM Protest in Zürich
• Maria: DRM for a new intern

FSFE launched http://DRM.info, and participated in various activities for Day Against DRM.

• Georg: DAY AGAINST DRM: Launch of DRM.info, the DRM awareness portal
• Ciaran (me): DRM.info launched to mobilise more than market pressure
• Shane: Anti-DRM protest in Zurich
• Georg (again): Back from Day against DRM Protest in Zürich
• Maria: DRM for a new intern

FSFE launched http://DRM.info, and participated in various activities for Day Against DRM.

• Georg: DAY AGAINST DRM: Launch of DRM.info, the DRM awareness portal
• Ciaran (me): DRM.info launched to mobilise more than market pressure
• Shane: Anti-DRM protest in Zurich
• Georg (again): Back from Day against DRM Protest in Zürich
• Maria: DRM for a new intern

FSFE launched http://DRM.info, and participated in various activities for Day Against DRM.

• Georg: DAY AGAINST DRM: Launch of DRM.info, the DRM awareness portal
• Ciaran (me): DRM.info launched to mobilise more than market pressure
• Shane: Anti-DRM protest in Zurich
• Georg (again): Back from Day against DRM Protest in Zürich
• Maria: DRM for a new intern

Thanks for that. The link didn't work, but I was able to guess the right link from it.

I also found the Debian video archive, which I didn't know existed. I'll try to get it added to FSFE's free software advocacy video list so that these things are in one place.

Here's the newsforge story ("Torvalds' comments on GPLv3 committees refuted").

I blogged about this and added more info about the committees.

One last think I want to point at is a side-by-side diff with the changes highlighted from draft 1 to draft 2 so everyone can see the responses to the public process that the committees talk about in the Newsforge article.

His webserver is MS, and it was down earlier. From Georg Greve's blog: Technical difficulties all around

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no problem being dependent on US software, which in turn has no problem failing on him.

I had to forget something. Here's a transcript of comments by Alan Cox.

Microsoft has another connection to the Abramoff scandal. Microsoft e.g. supports IPI, a right wing republican organisation which is involved in the Abramoff scandal - in fact its lobbyist Giovanetti openly had to admit it when his organisation was accused.

IPI represents MS interests at WIPO (euphemism for insults against NGOs), recently wanted to join the MS-EU antitrust case. This was rejected by the EU court of Justice for good reasons. See curia.eu.int

Further MS pays ACT, an SME association astroturf with the well-known lobbyist Jonathan Zuck. Close relations to DCI + ATL. I remind you of dead people letter campaigns of ATL... Guess for what company ATL did it?

Microsoft paid DCI's TechCentralStation journo-lobbying. TCS funds political radicals all over the world, spreads anarcho-capitalist ideas and insults France, Muslims, alledged socialists etc. The idea behind DCI is to inject radical views supporting their corporate sponsors into right wing sectarians and barraters.

My personal advice: when you hire the ... of US-lobbying and sent it all over the world, you'd better stop complaining about unfair reporting.

MS did not have luck before. Here at Germany Microsoft was involved in the Hunzinger scandal which forced a minister of defense, Mr. Scharping, to step down. Hunzinger's main corporate customer was Microsoft. I think it started when Hunzinger letters about a TV placement for Ms were leaked to the press and media professionals started to discuss the case. So Ms was involved in one of the few German lobbying scandals which had serious business consequences for Hunzinger. Microsoft quickly switched over to another lobbying firm but could not avoid bad press. This is a risk of MS lobbying: They burn lobbyists, they also burned Hunzinger, because smart people watch what MS does.

Last year a press worker for Microsoft Denmark, Marianne Wier, communicated to the Danish press (Borsen) a blackmail attempt of Mr. Gates himself, directed towards the Danish government. They were so sure of themselves that they even communicated it intentionally to the press. The scandal was echoed in the DK Parliament. ...

Linus is very confused. DRM is not necessary to protect your diary, and it is very easy to see why. I wrote down my thoughts here:

http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/marcus/weblog/linus _got_it_wrong_on_drm

Microsoft's general counsel said "Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels. We've decided to open this up so people can understand the issues."

Also a ZDNet article, FSF berates apathy over Microsoft antitrust case , reports that the FSFE has criticised EU IT firms for not supporting the EC in its antitrust case against Microsoft.

ZDNet report that George Greve said in a blog entry that "[the] FSFE has been working on this case for many years, from the original investigation, over the 2004 decision, to the European Court case where it is now one of two [active] remaining third parties on the side of the European Commission. I only hope that more companies will help us defending their interests in this -- to this date, FSFE has received virtually no support for this case from the industry. Consequently, all the credit belongs to the free software community, including in particular the Fellows of the FSFE."

Greve also responds to the new EU complaint by ECIS applauding it, but pointing out that this may seem inconsistent as Microsoft has already reached individual settlements with ECIS members such as RealNetworks and Sun.

Also there is a good Guardian article from a few days ago which summarises and criticises recent rebuffs by MS to the EC's decision.

Also there is an entry on Tod Bishop's Microsoft Blog, Lessig advocates Microsoft , reporting that Lessig supports Microsoft's InfoCard project.

People in Europe and Britain are kinda safe right now. Software patents are being granted, and are being used as the basis of litigation threats that the recipients can't afford to contest, but at least the courts are on our side, so far.

This situation is not stable. If China, India, and Latin America bring in software patents, then Europe will probably give in at a subsequent world trade agreement.

To keep people in Britain and Europe safe, people in Britain and Europe must take action - and one easy way to do this is to donate to competent, active groups such as FSFE. One way to do this is to join The Fellowship of FSFE, and also encourage others to join.

Here's a webpage about how and why to support FSFE's Fellowship campaign.

George Greve(FSFE):
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/the _vienna_conclusion_sponsorship_politics_influence

For those of you who are interested in the entire story and its background, here are the links:

• 16 November 2005: The Vienna Conclusion: Sponsorship+Politics=Influence
• 22 November 2005: The next Vienna Conclusion: So it WAS Microsoft that asked to delete Free Software
• 22 November 2005: And the price for DRM promotion goes to...
• 23 November 2005: Vienna manipulations in the press
• 25 November 2005: More news about the Vienna Manipulations
• 25 November 2005: Microsofts implementation of democracy

The best overall analysis and description of the situation so far was written by Germanys largest IT news provider, the Heise Verlag. They have the story online in both English and German.

For those of you who are interested in the entire story and its background, here are the links:

• 16 November 2005: The Vienna Conclusion: Sponsorship+Politics=Influence
• 22 November 2005: The next Vienna Conclusion: So it WAS Microsoft that asked to delete Free Software
• 22 November 2005: And the price for DRM promotion goes to...
• 23 November 2005: Vienna manipulations in the press
• 25 November 2005: More news about the Vienna Manipulations
• 25 November 2005: Microsofts implementation of democracy

The best overall analysis and description of the situation so far was written by Germanys largest IT news provider, the Heise Verlag. They have the story online in both English and German.

For those of you who are interested in the entire story and its background, here are the links:

• 16 November 2005: The Vienna Conclusion: Sponsorship+Politics=Influence
• 22 November 2005: The next Vienna Conclusion: So it WAS Microsoft that asked to delete Free Software
• 22 November 2005: And the price for DRM promotion goes to...
• 23 November 2005: Vienna manipulations in the press
• 25 November 2005: More news about the Vienna Manipulations
• 25 November 2005: Microsofts implementation of democracy

The best overall analysis and description of the situation so far was written by Germanys largest IT news provider, the Heise Verlag. They have the story online in both English and German.

For those of you who are interested in the entire story and its background, here are the links:

• 16 November 2005: The Vienna Conclusion: Sponsorship+Politics=Influence
• 22 November 2005: The next Vienna Conclusion: So it WAS Microsoft that asked to delete Free Software
• 22 November 2005: And the price for DRM promotion goes to...
• 23 November 2005: Vienna manipulations in the press
• 25 November 2005: More news about the Vienna Manipulations
• 25 November 2005: Microsofts implementation of democracy

The best overall analysis and description of the situation so far was written by Germanys largest IT news provider, the Heise Verlag. They have the story online in both English and German.

For those of you who are interested in the entire story and its background, here are the links:

• 16 November 2005: The Vienna Conclusion: Sponsorship+Politics=Influence
• 22 November 2005: The next Vienna Conclusion: So it WAS Microsoft that asked to delete Free Software
• 22 November 2005: And the price for DRM promotion goes to...
• 23 November 2005: Vienna manipulations in the press
• 25 November 2005: More news about the Vienna Manipulations
• 25 November 2005: Microsofts implementation of democracy

The best overall analysis and description of the situation so far was written by Germanys largest IT news provider, the Heise Verlag. They have the story online in both English and German.

For those of you who are interested in the entire story and its background, here are the links:

• 16 November 2005: The Vienna Conclusion: Sponsorship+Politics=Influence
• 22 November 2005: The next Vienna Conclusion: So it WAS Microsoft that asked to delete Free Software
• 22 November 2005: And the price for DRM promotion goes to...
• 23 November 2005: Vienna manipulations in the press
• 25 November 2005: More news about the Vienna Manipulations
• 25 November 2005: Microsofts implementation of democracy

The best overall analysis and description of the situation so far was written by Germanys largest IT news provider, the Heise Verlag. They have the story online in both English and German.

I was thinking of joining the FSF a few days back. Being european, I searched for a European division of FSF. I found this site. However, its page design made me suspicious. It looks too corporate to be FSF. FSF and GNU use simple design, not too colorful. Do you know if it's affiliated with FSF? I just need to make sure, cause I wouldn't like my donation to go to phisers. The site is called FSFE not FSF Europe. Also on the logo down the page it says FSFEurope not FSF Europe. And I couldn't find any link to FSF or some acknowledgment that they are affiliated. On the FSF site, I couldn't find any FSF Europe link, either. Then I found this site, which looks trustworthy, but it uses the same logo as fsfe.org. What's going on? (btw i'm posting as AC cause i modded)