Slashdot Mirror

After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:

• Video and audio recordings of both days of FSFE's recent international GPLv3 conference

Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:

• Transcript of Richard Stallman's talk from the 3rd international GPLv3 conference, Barcelona, June 22nd 2006
• Transcript of Eben Moglens's talk from the 3rd international GPLv3 conference, Barcelona, June 22nd 2006
• Transcript of Richard Stallman's talk from the 2nd international GPLv3 conference, April 21st 2006
• Transcript of Richard Stallman's GPLv3 presentation and Q and A from Torino, Italy, March 18th 2006

And two very useful docs:

• A diff from the first draft to the second
• A diff from the version two to this second draft of v3

After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:

• Video and audio recordings of both days of FSFE's recent international GPLv3 conference

Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:

• Transcript of Richard Stallman's talk from the 3rd international GPLv3 conference, Barcelona, June 22nd 2006
• Transcript of Eben Moglens's talk from the 3rd international GPLv3 conference, Barcelona, June 22nd 2006
• Transcript of Richard Stallman's talk from the 2nd international GPLv3 conference, April 21st 2006
• Transcript of Richard Stallman's GPLv3 presentation and Q and A from Torino, Italy, March 18th 2006

And two very useful docs:

• A diff from the first draft to the second
• A diff from the version two to this second draft of v3

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/fsfe-gplv3-ric hard-stallman.theora.ogg.torrent

posted AC cause I'm not a whore

Microsoft's side: a camera's view

I did try to read the reports, but the main themes in them seemed to be:

(1) it's industry standard to have incomplete documentation for something as complicated as that, so Microsoft complied by providing incomplete docs (Broy)

(2) such docs are aimed at specialists anyway, so only people with lots of background knowledge about Windows architecture, and Windows networking will be able to read and use them (Broy)

(3) Barnett asked for silly things and made mistakes (Broy)

(4) Barnett based his opinion on the documentation delivered by October 2005, and there was an update (Broy)

(5) Barnett used the documentation to try and figure out how to do two things: (a) add a user, and (b) propagate a password change (Finkelstein)

Damaging criticism for certain, but of course these reports were written to highlight Microsoft's point of view.

With all respect, but when you read e.g. SCO's pleading without being aware of their context you'd think that they had a point ... and a case. Then when you read Groklaw's comments and IBM's pleadings, you see how wrong you were. Reports like this are like camera's: they show you exactly what they show you, but you have no idea what they skirt. Microsoft does seem to have legitimate gripes, and I tried to find the original trustee report to see for myself, but I couldn't. So could you please tell me where I can find the trustee report so that I can verify the criticism?

But for me the bottom line is that Microsoft choose to describe their protocols in words. Text. Nowadays there are better ways of doing that.

FSFE's take on the matter

The FSFE gives a pertinent suggestio. See this link for FSFE's take on the matter: http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-relea se/2006q2/000137.html

They state that Andrew Tridgell (of Samba) estimated that Microsoft's protocols can be described in about 30,000 lines of IDL (Interface Definition Language), of which Samba has deciphered about 13,000 lines.

If what they claim is true (and I admit I can't judge that), then Microsoft could have delivered the entire interface specification in just 30,000 lines of formal description, and simply and deliberately choose the most inefficient method of documentation possible. In that sense directing a major effort at producing text-only documentation could just as well be seen as a major effort to pass the compliance test without actually producing any useful documentation. In other words the "written primarily to maximize volume (page count) while minimizing useful information." accusation by Taeus comes to mind.

Summing up

I'm sorry, but again given Microsoft's track record where it concerns honesty and fair dealing, and its ongoing insistence on providing "solutions" that exclude Opens Source competitors, it's hard not to lend credence to the claims by the FSFE and Taeus. Notwithstanding the reports from admittedly reputable experts provided at Microsoft's behest, which uniformly tend to take the position that protocol documentation can only mean giving dedicated experts a few clues about where to look, I remain deeply sceptical.

The Commission ordered Microsoft to produce "documentation" that's sufficient to allow others to produce intereoperable software, not how. If Microsoft chose to provide terribly voluminous and inefficient documentation, an obfuscation exercise in its own right, then I cannot see why this would excuse Microsoft from providing error-free and self-standing documentation (even though th

The Free Software Foundation Europe, who has been supporting the European Commission from the start, has launched a press release on the EC's decision.

Indeed, the MS anti-trust case is going well for us.

Last weekend, I met the vice-president of the organisation I work for for the first time. I've been working there over a year. I think I've met my boss 5 times.

We try to go to free software conferences more than normal so that we all bump into each other.

Other than that, it's pretty much email all the way, with a little irc.

The next big free software conference in Europe is the 3rd international GPLv3 conference in Barcelona, June 22/23.

Before that, I saw my boss in Manchester, England, and before that we met in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

• The dangers of software patents (transcript)
• GNU/Linux and the free software movement (his general talk)
• Copyright verses community in the age of computer networks
• GPLv3 (transcript)

There is also a page on GNU.org for audio recordings of (mostly) Richard's talks.

• Richard Stallman's presentation on the GPLv3 at FOSDEM; 2006-02-25
• Richard Stallman: "The Dangers of Software Patents" 2004-05-24
• Stallman's March 18th GPLv3 event, including q and a

Glad to see this increasing

Stallman: Digital Restrictions Management, and Treacherous Computing. Don't use the enemy's propaganda terms, every time you use those terms you are supporting the enemy.

[...]

Stallman: I think Treacherous Computing should be illegal. But I don't know how we're going to convince governments to actually do that because governments mostly are not very democratic anymore. They mostly are the pro-consuls of the mega corporations, their job is to keep us in line under the rule of the empire. That's why they run for office, they get into office, they do what the emperor -- the emperor being the mega corporations -- tells them to do, and their job is explaining to us why they can't do what we want them to do. It's very very sad and once in a while somebody has enough courage to refuse to obey, somebody like [sounds like Hugo Chavez].

The above should be flagged "sarcastic" for those who happen to lack such a barometer internally

No, it's true actually. A lot of businesses in Northern Ireland were poking at free software but no one wants to be first, so we're organising a big free software conference aimed at businesses. Stallman's name is a big draw. He knows it's a business audience and he'll adapt to that. He'll be including a substantial section about GPLv3, which has gotten a surprising level of interest from public administration bodies.

Interest has been huge and there were many requests for speaking slots that had to be turned down. I guess there will be a FOSS Means Business 2007 too, but one at a time. On Thursday we expect at least 300. The venue can hold up to 1150.

I think events like these, and the networking that happens at them, is more important than increasing efficiency of the software. We'll see.

Supporting the Summer of Code would enable Google to positively impact education in numerous ways. Educating the younger generation is an investment in the world's future, yet it so often seems to fall off the radar of those in charge.

How can Google support education with Free and Open Source Software? By improving apps that make it fun for elementary, junior high and high school students to learn. And how do you make it fun? By intertwining technology and using computers to their full potential as teaching tools. Take the KDE Education Suite for example: it has open source programs that teach Math, Chemistry, Physics, Foreign Languages and many more. Wouldn't it be nice if every third-world child had access to these?

By supporting college students who work on Free Software, Google would be raising awareness of its many advantages, not to mention giving participants the satisfaction that they've authored something that will be used by millions of people throughout the world. The Free Software foundation has compiled a list of testimonials from people at various educational institutions who have benefited greatly from using Free Software. But more importantly, using Free Software in educational settings teaches students about freedom and cooperation. Richard Stallman and FSF Europe have written great essays on this topic, titled:

Why schools should use exclusively free software
Why give precedence to Free Software at school?

Through Free and Open Source software, Google has the power to make the world a smarter place, enabling its people to make intelligent decisions that will affect all of us.

Do the right thing. The thing you are asked to do.

Read: Free Software Foundation Europe: "Microsoft offers poisoned apple" - "Praises premature in hindsight"

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.

Free Software Foundation Europe has already released an early comment on the issue, cautiously welcomming some of the new licenses:

MSNBC is just regurgitating Reuters.

... and if we go on past experience, when Stallman puts his thoughts onto paper, and he uses the review processes that he put in place to convert his ramblings into a license, the world becomes a slightly better place.

I am appalled at the lack of respect and trust being shown by slashdotters; give RMS enough credit to go find the details of the proposed clauses, and provide an informed response.ot

Here's a statement from Georg Greve:

there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters article published today and copied to several locations, including MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.

The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others will do the same.

As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.

Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring the true facts.

So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.

It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.

That has been a most unpleasant experience.

Regards,
Georg Greve
FSFE, President

> From the article:

The article is wrong. Unfortunately Georg Greve has been misquoted. (I've heard from him by email.)

Some GPLv3 information from the horse's mouth is in the recent FSFE press release about the GPLv3 process.

The headline should read - FSF Announces the GPL Version 3 Development and Publicity Project

And they should have read the announcement themselves to understand the purpose of the project:

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

One person in Europe does not represent the entire Free Software movement in Europe let alone every global voice in the Free Software movement.

I do not agree with many of the beliefs and ideas of Georg Greve as I'm sure many others do not and will have a say in the writing of the GPLv3.

The clowns at MSNBC chose to post an article with a headline and quotes that would portray the Free Software movement the way they would like the rest of the world to see it. Their objective is not journalism or truth but to polarize those who do not have the time or understanding to discover the truth for themselves.

burnin

In fact, the feedback process started today:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3

Here's the announcement:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

Boy, am I glad that /. did not report on this trivial news, but instead on this well researched msnbc artile...

In fact, the feedback process started today:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3

Here's the announcement:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

Boy, am I glad that /. did not report on this trivial news, but instead on this well researched msnbc artile...

No, the GPL3 will not have these provision?

How do I know?
Because the process of drafting and discussiong the GPL3 has just started.

Here's todays press release from the FSF Europe
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

and here:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3
is the mailing list, in case you want to participate in the discussion.

No, the GPL3 will not have these provision?

How do I know?
Because the process of drafting and discussiong the GPL3 has just started.

Here's todays press release from the FSF Europe
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

and here:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3
is the mailing list, in case you want to participate in the discussion.

To me as a European, the fact that you have the DMCA in the USA seems absurd. The PATRIOT act seems absurd.

You mention not being able to say fire in a movie theater being absurd. How about not being allowed to say anything that might lead someone to do something violent, or writing anything construed as promoting violence or terrorism? This is law in the UK and Netherlands and is on its way to the EU.

How about having all of your telephone/cell traffic saved and archived for one year, and all of your internet traffic archived for 6 months? Sound crazy? Absurd? Luckly it is still a proposal, but that sure makes the USA PATRIOT Act library records section look good.

I am pro-freedom everywhere and not trying to defend America. Just be aware of contollers who want to rob you of your freedom in Europe as well.

At least in the case of FSFE, this is clearly wrong; I propose to check the list of their activities: United Nations World Summit on the Information Society, IPR Enforcement Directive, reform of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

The FSFE has its roots in Free Software, but much of its work is more towards "informational human rights" -- which makes a lot of sense: software is what shapes the information society, so it makes sense to not only demand freedom, but also implement it.

• Association For Free Software (AFFS)
• Free Software Foundation Europe

The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) has a very interesting press release on the subject at
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000109.html

Here it is:

Free Software Foundation Europe:

No software patents in Europe, requests EPO review instrument

After years of struggle, the European Parliament finally rejected the
software patent directive with 648 of 680 votes: A strong signal
against patents on software logic, a sign of lost faith in the
European Union and a clear request for the European Patent Office
(EPO) to change its policy: the EPO must stop issuing software patents
today.

"This outcome does not affect patents on high-tech inventions in any
way," explains Stefano Maffulli, Italian representative of FSFE:
"High-tech innovation has always been patentable, and even if the
directive had been passed with all proposed amendmends, it would have
remained patentable. It is important to point this out because the
proponents of software logic patents have tried to confuse people
about high-tech inventions being subject of this directive."

FSFE's president, Georg Greve adds: "The parliament understood this
when it amended the directive in the first reading to keep high-tech
innovation inside and software outside the patent system."

"Unfortunately, the council of the European Union ignored this
decision of the Parliament and removed those amendments. Many MEPs
were appalled at this obvious corruption of democratic process that
day and seem to have lost faith in seeing their amendments treated
with more respect this time."

"Rejection of the directive became the very last option to send a
clear and strong signal against software patents in Europe," Greve
continues. "The Free Software Foundation Europe commends the European
Parliament on this decision: in the interest of harmonisation we would
have preferred a directive along the lines of the first reading, but
we understand that rejection became the last realistic option to avoid
doing irreparable harm to European economy."

Jonas Öberg, vice-president of FSFE: "This reaffirms the 1973 European
Patent Convention (EPC), which excludes software from patentability.
The European Patent Office (EPO) has largely ignored this central
convention and granted approximately 30.000 software patents in the
past years: this must stop today! The EPO should not be allowed to
further ignore European policies!"

Georg Greve explains the proposal of FSFE: "Much trouble was caused by
the inability of the European Union to hold the European Patent Office
responsible for acting against agreed-upon policies: unlike other
parts of a democratic executive, the EPO is not liable for the
decision it takes. We propose to establish an EPO supervision
instrument that holds the EPO management liable for its decisions and
prevents further patent system degradation."

About the Free Software Foundation Europe:

The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charitable
non-governmental organisation dedicated to all aspects of Free
Software in Europe. Access to software determines who may
participate in a digital society. Therefore the Freedoms to use,
copy, modify and redistribute software - as described in the Free
Software definition- allow equal participation in the information
age. Creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software
politically and legally, and giving people Freedom by supporting
development of Free Software are central issues of the FSFE. The
FSFE was founded in 2001 as the European sister organisation of the
Free Software Foundation in the United States.

Further information: http://www.fsfeurope.org/

The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) has a very interesting press release on the subject at
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000109.html

Here it is:

Free Software Foundation Europe:

No software patents in Europe, requests EPO review instrument

After years of struggle, the European Parliament finally rejected the
software patent directive with 648 of 680 votes: A strong signal
against patents on software logic, a sign of lost faith in the
European Union and a clear request for the European Patent Office
(EPO) to change its policy: the EPO must stop issuing software patents
today.

"This outcome does not affect patents on high-tech inventions in any
way," explains Stefano Maffulli, Italian representative of FSFE:
"High-tech innovation has always been patentable, and even if the
directive had been passed with all proposed amendmends, it would have
remained patentable. It is important to point this out because the
proponents of software logic patents have tried to confuse people
about high-tech inventions being subject of this directive."

FSFE's president, Georg Greve adds: "The parliament understood this
when it amended the directive in the first reading to keep high-tech
innovation inside and software outside the patent system."

"Unfortunately, the council of the European Union ignored this
decision of the Parliament and removed those amendments. Many MEPs
were appalled at this obvious corruption of democratic process that
day and seem to have lost faith in seeing their amendments treated
with more respect this time."

"Rejection of the directive became the very last option to send a
clear and strong signal against software patents in Europe," Greve
continues. "The Free Software Foundation Europe commends the European
Parliament on this decision: in the interest of harmonisation we would
have preferred a directive along the lines of the first reading, but
we understand that rejection became the last realistic option to avoid
doing irreparable harm to European economy."

Jonas Öberg, vice-president of FSFE: "This reaffirms the 1973 European
Patent Convention (EPC), which excludes software from patentability.
The European Patent Office (EPO) has largely ignored this central
convention and granted approximately 30.000 software patents in the
past years: this must stop today! The EPO should not be allowed to
further ignore European policies!"

Georg Greve explains the proposal of FSFE: "Much trouble was caused by
the inability of the European Union to hold the European Patent Office
responsible for acting against agreed-upon policies: unlike other
parts of a democratic executive, the EPO is not liable for the
decision it takes. We propose to establish an EPO supervision
instrument that holds the EPO management liable for its decisions and
prevents further patent system degradation."

About the Free Software Foundation Europe:

The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charitable
non-governmental organisation dedicated to all aspects of Free
Software in Europe. Access to software determines who may
participate in a digital society. Therefore the Freedoms to use,
copy, modify and redistribute software - as described in the Free
Software definition- allow equal participation in the information
age. Creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software
politically and legally, and giving people Freedom by supporting
development of Free Software are central issues of the FSFE. The
FSFE was founded in 2001 as the European sister organisation of the
Free Software Foundation in the United States.

Further information: http://www.fsfeurope.org/

We finally did it! My best congratulations to you all, and let us celebrate and remember this day. :-)

Thank you!

- http://www.fsfeurope.org/
- http://www.ffii.org/

It seems that both apple and nokia are strongly in favor of having software patents in the EU. I think one the given reasons for why this is necessary is that without software patents, they'll get eaten alive by open source developers.

However, neither company seems to have a problem using open source software to futher their business objectives. So, it seems like they're simulanteously using and try to hobble open source so it can't compete with their proprioritary offerings. So wouldn't the best characterization of their behavior be selfish exploitation rather than 'support' of OSS.

http://www.germany.fsfeurope.org/projects/fellowsh ip/fellowship.en.html

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)

Time to sign the petition to name WIPO appropriately.

Has anybody had trouble getting the source to simply mepis?

FSF Europe mailing list had a complaint about this recently.

I just thought I'd mention it; sometimes GPL responsibilities aren't fully understood; giving away GPL binaries for without charge free doesn't fulfil GPL requirements.

Sam

This is a substantial piece of progress for widespread recognition and acceptance of OSS.

No, it is a substantial piece of progress for widespread recognition and acceptance of the older free software movement. The FSFE doesn't speak for "OSS" (open source software). In fact the FSF tells us that the two movements are not the same. This essay explains much and is one of the most underrated essays the FSF has published.

While I'm sure that the open source movement will get some increased publicity from this (largely from people who don't understand what "open source" really means or don't know the difference between the philosophies of the two movements), it's important to understand recent history and see how the messages of the FSF and OSI differ. It's also important and fair to give credit where credit is due. Here, that means using the phrase "free software". I don't know who wrote the blurb at Wikinerds, but they were wrong. The FSFE's press release doesn't mention "open source" or "OSS" at all. Your article is vastly overrated.

As least the US has people passionately campaigning for freedoms

Hello,

Copyright is an agreement between a content creator (author, musician, artist, etc) and society, to grant them a temporary monopoly on their work, allowing them to profit from their efforts. There is no inherent right of a person to control his works indefinitely. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an original thought, as all thoughts are the results of building upon previous ideas. Once they have earned their profit, other people must have the right to build upon these works. This is progress, and should be nurtured.

The WIPO's plan to extend copyright terms is contrary to this goal. The term "Intellectual Property" itself is a sick attempt at treating ideas like real estate. WIPO's proponents are interested only in controlling people, controlling what they read, what they hear, and what they think, for the purposes of extracting maximum profits from stale ideas. Extending copyrights can serve only one purpose: to funnel more money directly into the pockets of record executives, publishers (not authors), and the like. For society to truly progress, the old works that these companies hold hostage need to be released into the public domain, so new artists can build on those ideas, creating NEW copyrighted work to profit from.

The fact is, each time copyright terms are extended, creativity grinds to a halt as artists are restricted from using those works. We must fight to *shorten* copyright terms, so that old works that have become a part of our culture can be built upon, creating new works for the future of our culture. If we keep extending copyright terms as we are, we wage a war on creative thought. The result of this can only be stagnation, and death. You're probably thinking "but how can we reward artists for their hard work?" and the answer is that copyright already does that just fine, it doesn't need to be extended or strengthened. Anybody in favour of strengthening copyright is simply looking to keep profits flowing without having to bother creating anything new or interesting.

Unfortunately, in our society, copyright has been extended to the point of bastardizing it's original purpose. It no longer rewards creative artists; it merely supports aging cartels resisting changes to their business model that will be necessary for them to survive in the Information Age.

I am a concerned citizen, thank you for your time.

References:

Lessig on WIPO
WIWO

http://fsfeurope.org/help/donate.html (for FSFE donations).

If anybody wants to learn how you can donate to FSFE you can visit this page: http://fsfeurope.org/help/donate.html

I have found the special license for the rights of the author [Fiduciary Licence Agreement] that I was on about. It was created as an FSF-Europe project.

I have found the special license for the rights of the author [Fiduciary Licence Agreement] that I was on about. It was created as an FSF-Europe project.

Redmond is taking some clues from Rome

But the FSFE (Free Software Foundation Europe) claim that the BSA (Business software Alliance) (aka Microsoft's hitmen) asked [item 6] the FSFE for help to combat the Italian governments latest crazily stringent proposed copyright laws (which require formal permission from the government before copying anything in digital form even if one has a "copyright" license or even if one holds the "copyright"--from what I can tell).

• http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2004q2/000060.html

• http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2004q2/000060.html

Kinda strange, but DO YOU READ what you cite?
Quoting:
Last Wednesday Elmar Hucko, head of a government department in the Ministry of Justice, announced at an event in Berlin that the Federal Government would vote against the controversial software patent directive of the Council of Ministers of the European Union

Germany will NOT vote against SWPATs and probably never will. ArsTechica fell for an uninformed Heise news where the reporter was not listening carefully.

What they said is the same they always said: "We will not vote for it." -- which means they are planning to abstain, not vote against it.

And they are abstaining for the wrong reasons, also.

The babbling about "not wanting US like situation" is entirely insubstantial. Nothing but hot air to distract from the fact that they are indeed working on total patentability.

So do not misunderestimate the German BMJ.

They are are among the hardest hardliners.

The FSFE was more informed -- and issued a statement to ask them to actually walk the path that the news see them walking on:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2004q2/000059.html

this is a bit old, but sf.net hosts many non-free software packages. don't be fooled by slashdot. the retaliation against this is http://savannah.nongnu.org/ so adjust your advocacy appropriately. thank you

Yes, it does. The term free software refers to software, a noun, and free, an adjective. The term Free Software is a proper noun that refers to any software whose licensing terms fall under the four guidelines that define the proper noun. Those guidelines can be found via this link. In English, proper nouns are capitalized.

You can disagree as to whether or not it is a valid concept or even a valid designation, but like other formal concepts with proper nouns, such as Freudian theory or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, it is a proper noun and thus capitalized. (Yes, MADD is a group, but I'm giving it as an example of something you might disagree with but is nevertheless capitalized).

--
Evan

I was wondering, does a website exist that lists these settlements? The FSF has a website for reporting GPL violations, but I cannot find any page that lists the outcomes of such disputes. I did find this mailing list posting suggesting the GPL might be unenforcable in Germany.