Slashdot Mirror

OpenBSD (or any other OS) can't workaround backdoors in Intel/AMD hardware or firmwware.
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipe...

This is a topic for tonight's monthly meeting of Irish Free Software Organisation:

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2011-December/003005.html

Other mail starting the discussion:

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2011-December/003006.html

This is a topic for tonight's monthly meeting of Irish Free Software Organisation:

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2011-December/003005.html

Other mail starting the discussion:

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2011-December/003006.html

With my colleagues from Irish Free Software Organisation:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2011-April/002981.html

===========
Dear Mr. Crowley,

Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) opposes the extension of copyright
which may be put to a vote in JURI today or tomorrow, and we ask that you do
the same. Further, we ask for your support in requesting a new first
reading for this proposed directive.

Software companies with dominant market positions are increasingly using the
copyright of cultural works as a barrier to block other software developers.
Due to Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), music lovers can be required
to use the software of a small group of "approved" large software companies,
or be blocked from listening to DRM'd music.

A few large companies are protected from competition, and the majority of
software developers are locked out - including all the "small artists" of
the software field.

For people who object to DRM, or who don't find any acceptable software
among the "approved" group, there is still public domain works. Extending
copyright impoverishes the public domain and our cultural heritage.

Below is a selection of links to independent studies highlighting the harms
of copyright extension.

Yours sincerely,
CiarÃn O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54
Irish Free Software Organisation
http://ifso.ie/

  1. 8 Universities and policy centres issued this 2-page
        statement about how the proposal would harm Europe's culture
        and economy:
        http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Press%20Release%20Copyright%20Extension.pdf

  2. UK government's "Gower's review", which concluded that:

        "The European Commission should retain the length of
          protection on sound recordings and performersâ(TM) rights at 50
          years." (page "56" - which is the 60th page of the PDF document)

        http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf

  3. Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam:
        "Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound
        Recordings is a Bad Idea"

        http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf
===========

Sumatra PDF Do I want to trust something that comes from "blog.kowalczyk.info"?

Oh, I don't know.. Depends whether you trust FSF then. Trust hierarchy:
http://www.fsf.org/
http://www.fsfeurope.org/
http://pdfreaders.org/
http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/index.html

You surely won't find problem discovering the links between those sites, as it took me no more than two minutes.

For what it's worth, I use SumatraPDF for my LaTeX writings, as it's extremely small and fast, and renders some images better than Adobe Reader.

As part of my continuing attempts to diversify my trolling, and provide increased customer satisfaction, I would like to introduce the brand-new 'Last post'! The final post in this Slashdot thread.

From the makers of 'First post' and 'p1st fr0st'; Last post is the result of over two years R&D at Anonymous Labs plc. We took your feedback from First post* and produced what we believe is the next generation in Slashdot trolling.

You moderated, we listened!

Look out for amusing anagrams of Last post in the near-future. Our scientists are working tirelessly, right now, for your benefit. Not only that, but Anonymous Slashdot trolls are all available under a Creative Commons Spam-a-like permissive license! So you're Free to take the fruits of our considerable labour, and share them with other appreciative audiences around the Web.

Say it with me now:

Last post!!11!one

Note: anyone posting beyond this point will be kidnapped by snakes and thrown into a pit of Nazis.

* Mostly: -1 Offtopic and -1 Troll.

As part of my continuing attempts to diversify my trolling, and provide increased customer satisfaction, I would like to introduce the brand-new 'Last post'!

From the makers of 'First post' and 'p1st fr0st'; Last post is the result of over two years R&D at Anonymous Labs plc. We took your feedback from First post* and produced what we believe is the next generation in Slashdot trolling.

You moderated, we listened!

Look out for amusing anagrams of Last post in the near-future. Our scientists are working tirelessly, right now, for your benefit. Not only that, but Anonymous Slashdot trolls are all available under a Creative Commons Spam-a-like permissive license! So you're Free to take the fruits of our considerable labour, and share them with other appreciative audiences around the Web.

Say it with me now:

Last post!!11!one

Note: anyone posting beyond this point will be kidnapped by snakes and thrown into a pit of Nazis.

* Mostly: -1 Offtopic and -1 Troll.

Generally if a software is released under the terms of the GPL, the following freedoms apply. The FSF says:

"Your software shall grant you these freedoms:
* to run for any purpose
* to study and adapt to your needs
* to redistribute, so you can help others
* to release improvements, so everyone benefits."

That's the "free" in free software (contrary to open source).

Also the GPL doesn't allow discrimination; a "3rd party contract" can't change the terms of the GPL.
A company can't restrict the terms of the GPL just because it doesn't fit to their business-model. If they do so, they fail to comply with the GPL. If they want to restrict rights, they shouldn't have chosen the GPL in the first place.

I'd say: Forget about this restriction, it's invalid. You should be contacting the FSF or, specifically, the Freedom Task Force [1] about this case. They're from the european branch of the FSF, but I'm sure they can help you out anyway.

Alex.

[1] http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/ftf.en.html

You can download this proprietary software at no cost, but it's not free software (free as in freedom).

No one can see what it's doing, and no one can make changes, and no one can publish modified versions if there's any problem that users would like to see changed.

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.

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.

I don't really follow what GNU do with donations, but I donate to the FSF Europe -- and they're campaigning against DRM, standing up against Microsoft in court etc.

Oh come on, the only people on the ARPAnet back in 1978 were the nerdiest of the nerds. What were they going to do, throw their pocket protectors at the guy?

For reference, the people complaining about the spam on that page are her, him, and also this guy

I'm sure the DEC guy was quaking in his boots.

Nice way to keep the mean spirited issue at hand. You piss me off. I'm thinking that anyone whose web site is powered by Joomla http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Joomla!_License_Guidelines/ might actually take the hint if you kindly... KINDLY... ask them to produce the data in ODF formats.

Some of the people involved with this institution are well read and intelligent individuals. Talking like an asshat about them is not exactly an encouragement after all.

The content was put in a modifiable format, that's half the way there.

In case "Canada's non-profit and independent Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics" is reading their press, here are some suggestions:

Start here http://www.openoffice.org/

ARSTechnica http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2006/3/21/3278
http://www.osrc.org.pk/content/view/248/96/
http://www.fsfeurope.org/
http://openoffice.blogs.com/openoffice/2007/10/apple-adds-supp.html
http://www.e-cology.ca/canfloss/report/CANfloss_Report.pdf
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments

And this search is interesting reading http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Bodf+software+training+canada+education&btnG=Search

I am certainly not claiming there is mass infringement going on. If there was infringement, I think it was an honest mistake because someone thought it was okay to re-license someone else's code. Then Theo being Theo thought it was part of a vast Linux anti-BSD conspiracy. The fact that it was an honest mistake is why I'm willing to have these debates on Slashdot. I think it is important that we are all clear on what is legal and what is not.

Here are some links to a clarifying discussion by some people from the FSF.

I became aware of this issue (and the correct answer) during some heated debates about the GPLv3 over on Groklaw. The anti-GPL people were making the argument that the GPL was bad because it forced/allowed you to re-license BSD code without the author's consent. The pro-GPL forces made the same arguments as in the links above, saying that you are never allowed to re-license someone else's code without their permission.

I am certainly not claiming there is mass infringement going on. If there was infringement, I think it was an honest mistake because someone thought it was okay to re-license someone else's code. Then Theo being Theo thought it was part of a vast Linux anti-BSD conspiracy. The fact that it was an honest mistake is why I'm willing to have these debates on Slashdot. I think it is important that we are all clear on what is legal and what is not.

Here are some links to a clarifying discussion by some people from the FSF.

I became aware of this issue (and the correct answer) during some heated debates about the GPLv3 over on Groklaw. The anti-GPL people were making the argument that the GPL was bad because it forced/allowed you to re-license BSD code without the author's consent. The pro-GPL forces made the same arguments as in the links above, saying that you are never allowed to re-license someone else's code without their permission.

The fines will increase (exponentially I believe) until they pay. The court can freeze and seize their European assets and they have much of their money within the EU in Ireland as a US tax dodge. Also, the EU is by far MS's largest market. Not complying would be a BAD idea.

BTW, the legal detail is over at Groklaw (basically the court sided with the EC except a minor point about the EC giving too much power to the MS appointed monitoring trustee) and there is a joint FSFE/Samba press release. Also, the the court published the full judgement and other court docs.

Ignore the fines, they're nothing.

The important thing is that when MS eventually publish their specs, they will not be allowed exclude free software from using them.

This is what FSFE and Samba have been working for since 2001, not fines.

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/

The biggest problem is that it took 10 years to get to this point, and Microsoft still hasn't disclosed the specs for how to make interoperable products. We're fortunate that the Free Software way of doing things is rebost enough to survive in spite of this, but profit-oriented companies simply can't hold out long enough for this kind of legal system to really help.

What we need is clear legal rules that vendors with dominant market positions must adhere to genuinely open standards for all protocols and document formats, and of course we also need a genuinely non-corrupt standardization organization Microsoft doesn't sell us something as an "open standard" which really isn't.

The biggest problem is that it took 10 years to get to this point, and Microsoft still hasn't disclosed the specs for how to make interoperable products. We're fortunate that the Free Software way of doing things is rebost enough to survive in spite of this, but profit-oriented companies simply can't hold out long enough for this kind of legal system to really help.

What we need is clear legal rules that vendors with dominant market positions must adhere to genuinely open standards for all protocols and document formats, and of course we also need a genuinely non-corrupt standardization organization Microsoft doesn't sell us something as an "open standard" which really isn't.

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.

Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)

Oh, the silence...

In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.

The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.

It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents

Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.

FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe

Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development

GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.

FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.

FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing

Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change

Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.

Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers

If anyone has comments about discussion draft 4, make them asap. Here's the page where you can see the draft and where you can add your comments:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html

The plan is for the final GPLv3 to be published on June 29th, so comments should be submitted now so that there is still some time for them to be discussed and acted on.

For an explanation on the changes and the motivations of the current draft, see:

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript

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.

Around 1990, I found out about the danger of software patents. So in GPL version 2, we developed the section that we called "liberty or death for the program", although informally, because in GPL version 2 the sections don't have titles. This said that if you agree to any sort of patent licence that would limit the rights that your users would get, then you couldn't distribute the program at all.

Back then, when RMS talked about patents, many people dismissed it as "political posing", "fanaticism", "I like Linux but this is to much politics, RMS is an extremist", well, you get the idea. Some years latter and here we are, knee-deep in patent threats. To reinforce that the GPLv3 has extra provisions against this forms of sidestepping the licence:

A few years ago, I realised that there were other ways software patents might be used to make software non-free, so we're designing GPL version 3 to block them too. For instance, one issue is, what if the developer of the software has a patent on it, or rather, has a patent on some particular computational technique used in the program. (...) However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a pate

Around 1990, I found out about the danger of software patents. So in GPL version 2, we developed the section that we called "liberty or death for the program", although informally, because in GPL version 2 the sections don't have titles. This said that if you agree to any sort of patent licence that would limit the rights that your users would get, then you couldn't distribute the program at all.

Back then, when RMS talked about patents, many people dismissed it as "political posing", "fanaticism", "I like Linux but this is to much politics, RMS is an extremist", well, you get the idea. Some years latter and here we are, knee-deep in patent threats. To reinforce that the GPLv3 has extra provisions against this forms of sidestepping the licence:

A few years ago, I realised that there were other ways software patents might be used to make software non-free, so we're designing GPL version 3 to block them too. For instance, one issue is, what if the developer of the software has a patent on it, or rather, has a patent on some particular computational technique used in the program. (...) However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a pate

You link is broken. The following should work:
http://www.germany.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/br ussels-rms-transcript.en.html

Correct. Further, GPLs v2 and v3 have clear statements saying that it's ok to sell covered software.

Enabling businesses to be built up around free software is essential for the progress of the free software movement. Our licences just have to ensure that those companies cannot harm the movement (neither intentionally nor under pressure from MS).

So if you distribute the software, you can't hide the source, and you can't sue the users for patent infringement, and you can't put it on a device that is set up to allow you to continue to modify without also giving the recipient that freedom. (Boo-hoo, you lose the "freedom" to screw others.)

And in the other direction, there is a warranty disclaimer so that distributing the software doesn't put people's business at risk.

Here's a summary of what's new in GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript

As is typical of this type of FUD article, the author talks nothing about the actual content of the licence, and instead just gives baseless summaries and gossipy predictions.

In the tivo situation, GPLv3 ensures that everyone is free to modify the software and to run modified versions instead of the default version. This would allow Tivo users to remove the spyware that's in the default software. A Good Thing, IMO.

More info here: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript#tivoisation

Would it have killed them to link to the actual draft and documents? Here are the links:

• FSFE's GPLv3 information page
• GPLv3 discussion draft 4
• An essay by RMS: Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3
• The rationale document of the changes

Richard Stallman's quote: "The Two years ago, a thorough study found that the kernel Linux infringed 283 different software patents, and that's just in the US. Of course, by now the number is probably different and might be higher." http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms- transcript.en.html#patents

Here's Stallman citing the original report, in context:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms- transcript.en.html#patents

Squirts Ballboy is just showing what a fine leader of Monkeysoft he is.

I have only followed EU & German law, but the situation is far from resolved:

http://www.euro-copyrights.org/index/14/49

However, there is no right to hack, where a user wants to benefit from the limitations to copyright. It is thus not allowed to circumvent the measure, even if the circumvention is done solely for e.g. private copying or citing the protected content.


http://fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/

The Software Patent Directive was rejected by the European Parliament on the 6th of July 2005, ... However, the struggle is not over

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070426-cont roversial-copyright-directive-passes-european-parl iament.html
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/

The European Copyright Directive (com(2001)29ec) greatly increased the scope of copyright law. As well as prohibiting unauthorised copying of information, copyright law now restricts how the public can use technology to access or view copyrighted information. ... Writing software to share files with others over a network could be copyright infringement; it's a grey area.

Writing (and then publishing) code that implements p2p transfer is a grey area? I liked my right to ignore EULA-restrictions that could not be upheld in german court (and the fact that this was so obvious that to my knowledge it was never even tried).

Laws are changing and Germany has a few people in government positions that have learned the terror scare mongering tactic far too well, have interests in certain business-related questions themselves and occasionally (after some kid thought killing a bunch of others would be a good idea) generate publicity by proposing to ban this-and-that (Mr. Thompson would be proud).

The acting minister of interior has shown no restrictions to change the constitution (read: remove rights) under the flag of protecting the people;
it will happen again sooner or later. And it will happen to free software (first they come for the encryption & deassmbler guys).

I have only followed EU & German law, but the situation is far from resolved:

http://www.euro-copyrights.org/index/14/49

However, there is no right to hack, where a user wants to benefit from the limitations to copyright. It is thus not allowed to circumvent the measure, even if the circumvention is done solely for e.g. private copying or citing the protected content.


http://fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/

The Software Patent Directive was rejected by the European Parliament on the 6th of July 2005, ... However, the struggle is not over

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070426-cont roversial-copyright-directive-passes-european-parl iament.html
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/

The European Copyright Directive (com(2001)29ec) greatly increased the scope of copyright law. As well as prohibiting unauthorised copying of information, copyright law now restricts how the public can use technology to access or view copyrighted information. ... Writing software to share files with others over a network could be copyright infringement; it's a grey area.

Writing (and then publishing) code that implements p2p transfer is a grey area? I liked my right to ignore EULA-restrictions that could not be upheld in german court (and the fact that this was so obvious that to my knowledge it was never even tried).

Laws are changing and Germany has a few people in government positions that have learned the terror scare mongering tactic far too well, have interests in certain business-related questions themselves and occasionally (after some kid thought killing a bunch of others would be a good idea) generate publicity by proposing to ban this-and-that (Mr. Thompson would be proud).

The acting minister of interior has shown no restrictions to change the constitution (read: remove rights) under the flag of protecting the people;
it will happen again sooner or later. And it will happen to free software (first they come for the encryption & deassmbler guys).

Squirts is trying to be "aggressive". He consistently talks like a fool.

Here's what Stallman really said, in context:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms- transcript.en.html#patents

There is not "a" or "the" CC licence, there are 13 or more. Some allow redistribution, and some don't. It's important to differentiate, even if CC don't do so.

Stallman has explained this.

quote:

Copyright law exists. Patent law exists. They have almost nothing in common in terms of the requirements that they put on the public. Trademark law also exists. It has nothing in common with copyright law or patent law about what it requires of the public. So, the idea that there is some general thing which these are instances of already gets people so confused that they cannot understand these issues. There is no such thing. These are three separate unrelated issues, and any attempt to generalise about them guarantees confusion. Everyone who uses the term "intellectual property" is either confused himself or trying to confuse you.

And if someone else says something about "intellectual property", I will not respond directly to what he said without first explaining the confusion buried in it, because you see, the confusion buried in a statement is usually more harmful than whatever may be false that he actually tried to say.

There is a tendency to, we all have it, to follow other people in their choice of terminology. If someone says an outrageous thing and he uses the term intellectual property, you will feel drawn into responding in the same terms. So, learn to resist that temptation.

http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/torino-rms -transcript.nl.html

Oh absolutely. Given that the conference was organized by the Free Software Foundation Europe - whose slogan, I note, is "Free As In Freedom" - of course they would assume he meant free in the nautical sense.

Then /. readers should be taught the real value of "the freedom of choice" and myths about how the market will cater to our interests as users if there were fewer restrictions on it. Your freedom to control your computer as you see fit simply isn't adequately addressed by either. Richard Stallman reminds us in his talk about free software from Zagreb on 9 March 2006:

It's a mistake to equate freedom to "the freedom of choice". Freedom is something much bigger than having a choice between a few specific options. Freedom means having control of your own life. When people try to analyse freedom by reducing it to the freedom of choice, they've already thrown away nearly all of it and what's left is such a small fraction of real freedom, that they can easily prove it doesn't really matter very much. So that term is very often the first step in the fallacious argument that freedom is not important.

To be able to choose between proprietary software packages is to be able to choose your master. Freedom means not having a master.

FSF have tried all along to achieve compatibility with the Apache licence. The current status is that the patent language is now similar enough for the two licences to be compatible in that respect, but a new problem has been found which would make them incompatible. I expect a solution is being looked for.

This is discussed in the transcript in the section Patent retalisation and the Apache licence (the transcript is split into sections and there is a menu for easy navigation and linking).

For some reason, i can't help but feel a sigh of relief when reading someone's post who has actualy read the GPL draft and understand what is says.

My copy of the GPLv2 says nothing about "passing on" rights.

mmm... my mistake. I got that from Stallman's address to the 5th international GPLv3 conference. Sadly, he's talking about phraseology already in the GPLv3 draft at the time of the Novell-MS announcement, and not how v2 works as I had originally thought. So my bad.

On the other hand, it's not a million miles away from this:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.

You just have to look at it from the other perspective.

Wow. I'm glad you know all the details of the deal, the intent of the two companies and the legal rules that apply. Thanks for sharing that.

IMHO, obviously. I take it from the sarcasm (was I rude to you?) that you might have a different theory on their motivation? Perhaps I could encourage you to share it. I'll be interested to see if you have any better support for your view than I have for mine.

>And no the open source "versions" of SPSS (namely PSPP) are crap at best,
> as with most of Open source projects, they *start* fine but they are halted
> after the planning and a bit of developing have been done and the developer
> gets bored.

If you really want to see an open source project go beyond the initial stage,
when the developer gets bored, you and other interested users could:
1 get in touch,
2 raise some money,
3 fund further development from who you want.

I'm serious.
http://www.italy.fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-20 06-03-09.en.html#directly-funding-free-software-de velopment

--Luca

Technology solves some problems, and being free to help yourself and cooperate with others solves other problems. If you want both technical superiorty and the freedoms of free software, it's best to use the free software product.

With the technically superior product, you can't do anything to make it free. But with the free software product, you can make and support technical improvements to it - in the directions that you want them.

So the good long term bet is the free software package. Stallman explained this well last November in Tokyo:

• http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-tran script.en.html#q1

So this is good news.

Technology solves some problems, and being free to help yourself and cooperate with others solves other problems. If you want both technical superiorty and the freedoms of free software, it's best to use the free software product.

With the technically superior product, you can't do anything to make it free. But with the free software product, you can make and support technical improvements to it - in the directions that you want them.

So the good long term bet is the free software package. Stallman explained this well last November in Tokyo:

• http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-tran script.en.html#q1

So this is good news.

The point you make in the first paragraph is correct. Stallman points this out:

We keep looking for ways to protect the users from the danger of software patents, but there's only a limited amount that any software licence can do this. The thing that makes software patents so dangerous is that somebody that you've never heard of and with whom you have no relationship whatsoever can have a patent covering a technique that you implemented, and sue you for the code you wrote.

This is precisely why software patents are so bad, and since you have no relationship with that person, there's no opportunity for any licence on your software to have any effect on him. So all we can do is get rid of a small part of this large danger for all software developers.

Quoted from here (scroll to the audience member's 2nd intervention): Stallman speaking in Bangalore

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

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

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