Slashdot Mirror

The article says Oracle compares its US$15G/yr revenue to MySQL's US$30M/yr. But as Paul Graham says, it is OK to shrink a US$30G/yr industry to US$30M/yr, if your absolute share of the new US$30M is bigger than the one on US$30G was. Or in other words, MySQL will laugh to the bank on growing from US$30M, while Oracle will strive to keep their US$15G.

Also, IBM, Oracle and Intel did not make Linux. Richard Stallman created GNU, Linus used GNU and complemented it with Linux, and now IBM, Oracle and Intel help Linus with Linux and RMS with GNU.

I wonder how long will IBM and Oracle continue think they can sell proprietary servers on free platforms, without facing significant competition from free servers too. And how long Intel think they can sell proprietary machines to run free software without facing competition from free (think 'open') hardware? Now they are winning, IBM and Oracle using GNU/Linux to face competition from Microsoft, and Intel to crush proprietary RISC (think they ignoring OpenFirmware); but how long before we are running PostgreSQL (or better yet, Rel) on some OpenCores system booting with OpenFirmware or something the like? Not on the short term, for sure, but eventually maybe it is inevitable, unless DRM forces us into a police state.

spams

Not come across that myself. Never received an email from them to any email address other than the one I provided to them. The emails I do receive are in accordance with my preferences.

files frivolous patents

That's subjective

files lawsuits based on an allegedly "purely defensive" patent portfolio

So far as I'm aware, they haven't sued anyone since the One Click fiasco five or six years ago. At that time, their patent portfolio wasn't been sold as "defensive". I note the FSF's boycott of them ended in 2002 as they'd stopped suing people. It is probably true that their current patent portfolio is defensive.

pretends to oppose the current patent system while systematically abusing it

Ok, I think you're repeating yourself, and you're also guilty of over-simplifying. They did fund a stillborn attempt to get evidence overturning process and software patents. It was nice that they did it, but it demonstrated in the end that the situation wasn't as clear as any of us would like. Amazon responded, I think rightly, by building their patent portfolio, as you need to if you want to defend yourselves against patent claims by other groups in the same climate. The question is, if Bezos et al had had evidence handed to them on a plate that "frivilous" patents can easily be over turned, would they be worried enough to build themselves a defensive portfolio?

is consistently "the worst neighbor we can get away with being" as a matter of policy

I've not come across any examples of bad neighbourliness, at least, not since the One Click fiasco.

Now, on the other hand, you have to consider:

1. Amazon is one of the most innovative and inventive companies on the 'net. From popularizing online commerce in the first place by creating one of the first safe, solid, buying portals, they've introduced a large range of concepts that have been copied and relied upon from everyone from Yahoo Shopping to Apple iTunes Music Store. My favorite feature is the integrated reviews system, largely uncensored (Yes, you can find an example of someone who had their reviews removed, but a quick look at the majority of products will find bad, scathing, and even insulting, reviews in abundance) and an excellent system to evaluate products.

2. Amazon has one of the largest catalogues around, as a matter of policy. If they've found it exists, and it fits their categories, it has an ASIN. Even if they can't sell it, marketplace sellers can be very specific about the item they're selling, meaning buyers can be fairly confident about what they're getting.

3. Amazon has excellent customer support. I've never had an issue unresolved by them. I rarely have problems in the first place. I've never met anyone who had a problem with them. They also act as an "honest broker" between third party sellers and buyers, and a reliable one, which is more than can be said for Paypal.

These three facts between them are why, in the absense of current bad behaviour I do buy from Amazon. Of all online retailers, they're the most useful. Their inventive and innovative streaks do deserve support. And I can trust them.

What amazes me is the number of apologists who will do anything but admit the plain reality. Amazon sucks. We would be better off with pretty much any other company replacing them.

*Any* company? Heh. Good luck buying "War and Peace" from Staples.com...

Anyway, that's simply nonsense. They have no major competitors on the "We sell everything front", with the possible exception of eBay/Paypal. There are the aggregators/portals like Yahoo Shopping, but there the consistancy and reliability of the information is awful. Then you have other companies that specialize in a particular field but don't necessarily have that wide a range.

Rig

Wikipedia is under the GNU Free Documentation License, so there's nothing stopping you from selling the articles. There are already many mirrors, some of which have ads. However, I doubt many people would pay for what they could get for free. :)

The only front man I'd be happy with is Linus, and obviously we don't want him taken away from the kernel. So we're left with something like a power vacuum, and RMS is a nice plump shape to plug such a hole.

If you could drop the name-calling long enough to engage in an adult discussion, you'd see that Linus Torvalds doesn't speak for Free Software because he's opposed to it. He opposed Andrew Tridgell when Tridgell worked on a free program to allow users to pull data from Bitkeeper repositories. The FSF's FAQ entry on "strengthen[ing] Linus Torvalds' role as posterboy for our community" is helpful as well. On top of that, he has changed his position on giving GNU any credit at all. When his kernel was first announced he was ready to give GNU credit for what it is, now Torvalds denies GNU any credit and apparently believes that Linux is an operating system. His self-aggrandizing takes the form of routinely allowing interviewers to come away with that misunderstanding by never taking the time to correct their misstatements.

You are will must to be like it.

I don't understand what this sentence means. The grandparent post of this post is quite wrong about RMS' involvement in GNU and authorship of Emacs.

The only front man I'd be happy with is Linus, and obviously we don't want him taken away from the kernel. So we're left with something like a power vacuum, and RMS is a nice plump shape to plug such a hole.

If you could drop the name-calling long enough to engage in an adult discussion, you'd see that Linus Torvalds doesn't speak for Free Software because he's opposed to it. He opposed Andrew Tridgell when Tridgell worked on a free program to allow users to pull data from Bitkeeper repositories. The FSF's FAQ entry on "strengthen[ing] Linus Torvalds' role as posterboy for our community" is helpful as well. On top of that, he has changed his position on giving GNU any credit at all. When his kernel was first announced he was ready to give GNU credit for what it is, now Torvalds denies GNU any credit and apparently believes that Linux is an operating system. His self-aggrandizing takes the form of routinely allowing interviewers to come away with that misunderstanding by never taking the time to correct their misstatements.

You are will must to be like it.

I don't understand what this sentence means. The grandparent post of this post is quite wrong about RMS' involvement in GNU and authorship of Emacs.

Apart from that, you're the first person I've ever known to say that Richard Stallman isn't a "zealot".

Actually, I didn't say he was or wasn't a zealot. I asked you to justify calling him that. And you haven't done so.

I notice the difference in who is tarred with the term "zealot" and how the norm is defined. Business leaders are not called zealots yet they defend their views on "intellectual property", ownership of code, and control over how you use your computer to unreasonable extremes often lapsing into revisionist history and a profound disagreement from what their own organizations have done. Microsoft's Bill Gates, for instance, told an audience of unquestioning sycophantic students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that the GPL was an improper license for software distribution. He said this while Microsoft was doing distributing GPL-covered software in its services for Unix package which includes a number of GNU programs (a package of programs Microsoft had been distributing for some time). The public is ostensibly supposed to take Gates' talk as perfectly reasonable assertions of fact when they are demonstrably false. I contacted the University of Illinois about scheduling a rebuttal talk from someone at the FSF, and they gave me the runaround. In trying to schedule this talk, I learned that Gates had contacted UIUC and the University was apparently only too willing to have him talk.

RMS' talk is far more correct than incorrect and it is still impressive just how far ahead of the curve he was and is: his objections to software patents preceeded many and only now are we seeing real organized political objection to software patents (but not in the US, in Europe); the events in RMS' dystopic story "The Right to Read" are more within reach now than they ever were, but business proponents of so-called "Digital Rights Management" (itself a revealing term that reframes the debate away from its effect on users and towards asking you to agree with the publisher's desire for more control over users) don't want you to see this future because you might reject it; RMS discussed the problems with the Bitkeeper fiasco when many here were championing licensing power (and confusing that with freedom). The cleverness of the GPL in using copyright law to build a commons for all was ahead of its time and that license played a big part in building a social movement known as the Free Software movement. His arguments are ahead of the curve in that they aren't technocratic, they are framed on an ethical basis. This means that his arguments are far more likely to survive whatever technological changes come about, but a lot of Americans have trouble discussing things in ethical terms because we're taught by businesses to value and internalize business values. I'm sure this only touches on a few instances where RMS was right about important matters concerning our ability to stay free to communicate with each other and build a community of sharing information.

RMS does things I don't agree with, to be sure. But these points are few in number and of relatively little significance when compared to the things he deserves to be lauded for. I've recently posted on his take on the Creative Commons licenses. However from what I can see, RMS has much wisdom to offer and makes far far fewer missteps than others that /. readers would supplant him with if given the opportunity (like you endorsing Linus Torvalds in another post).

Apart from that, you're the first person I've ever known to say that Richard Stallman isn't a "zealot".

Actually, I didn't say he was or wasn't a zealot. I asked you to justify calling him that. And you haven't done so.

I notice the difference in who is tarred with the term "zealot" and how the norm is defined. Business leaders are not called zealots yet they defend their views on "intellectual property", ownership of code, and control over how you use your computer to unreasonable extremes often lapsing into revisionist history and a profound disagreement from what their own organizations have done. Microsoft's Bill Gates, for instance, told an audience of unquestioning sycophantic students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that the GPL was an improper license for software distribution. He said this while Microsoft was doing distributing GPL-covered software in its services for Unix package which includes a number of GNU programs (a package of programs Microsoft had been distributing for some time). The public is ostensibly supposed to take Gates' talk as perfectly reasonable assertions of fact when they are demonstrably false. I contacted the University of Illinois about scheduling a rebuttal talk from someone at the FSF, and they gave me the runaround. In trying to schedule this talk, I learned that Gates had contacted UIUC and the University was apparently only too willing to have him talk.

RMS' talk is far more correct than incorrect and it is still impressive just how far ahead of the curve he was and is: his objections to software patents preceeded many and only now are we seeing real organized political objection to software patents (but not in the US, in Europe); the events in RMS' dystopic story "The Right to Read" are more within reach now than they ever were, but business proponents of so-called "Digital Rights Management" (itself a revealing term that reframes the debate away from its effect on users and towards asking you to agree with the publisher's desire for more control over users) don't want you to see this future because you might reject it; RMS discussed the problems with the Bitkeeper fiasco when many here were championing licensing power (and confusing that with freedom). The cleverness of the GPL in using copyright law to build a commons for all was ahead of its time and that license played a big part in building a social movement known as the Free Software movement. His arguments are ahead of the curve in that they aren't technocratic, they are framed on an ethical basis. This means that his arguments are far more likely to survive whatever technological changes come about, but a lot of Americans have trouble discussing things in ethical terms because we're taught by businesses to value and internalize business values. I'm sure this only touches on a few instances where RMS was right about important matters concerning our ability to stay free to communicate with each other and build a community of sharing information.

RMS does things I don't agree with, to be sure. But these points are few in number and of relatively little significance when compared to the things he deserves to be lauded for. I've recently posted on his take on the Creative Commons licenses. However from what I can see, RMS has much wisdom to offer and makes far far fewer missteps than others that /. readers would supplant him with if given the opportunity (like you endorsing Linus Torvalds in another post).

Apart from that, you're the first person I've ever known to say that Richard Stallman isn't a "zealot".

Actually, I didn't say he was or wasn't a zealot. I asked you to justify calling him that. And you haven't done so.

I notice the difference in who is tarred with the term "zealot" and how the norm is defined. Business leaders are not called zealots yet they defend their views on "intellectual property", ownership of code, and control over how you use your computer to unreasonable extremes often lapsing into revisionist history and a profound disagreement from what their own organizations have done. Microsoft's Bill Gates, for instance, told an audience of unquestioning sycophantic students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that the GPL was an improper license for software distribution. He said this while Microsoft was doing distributing GPL-covered software in its services for Unix package which includes a number of GNU programs (a package of programs Microsoft had been distributing for some time). The public is ostensibly supposed to take Gates' talk as perfectly reasonable assertions of fact when they are demonstrably false. I contacted the University of Illinois about scheduling a rebuttal talk from someone at the FSF, and they gave me the runaround. In trying to schedule this talk, I learned that Gates had contacted UIUC and the University was apparently only too willing to have him talk.

RMS' talk is far more correct than incorrect and it is still impressive just how far ahead of the curve he was and is: his objections to software patents preceeded many and only now are we seeing real organized political objection to software patents (but not in the US, in Europe); the events in RMS' dystopic story "The Right to Read" are more within reach now than they ever were, but business proponents of so-called "Digital Rights Management" (itself a revealing term that reframes the debate away from its effect on users and towards asking you to agree with the publisher's desire for more control over users) don't want you to see this future because you might reject it; RMS discussed the problems with the Bitkeeper fiasco when many here were championing licensing power (and confusing that with freedom). The cleverness of the GPL in using copyright law to build a commons for all was ahead of its time and that license played a big part in building a social movement known as the Free Software movement. His arguments are ahead of the curve in that they aren't technocratic, they are framed on an ethical basis. This means that his arguments are far more likely to survive whatever technological changes come about, but a lot of Americans have trouble discussing things in ethical terms because we're taught by businesses to value and internalize business values. I'm sure this only touches on a few instances where RMS was right about important matters concerning our ability to stay free to communicate with each other and build a community of sharing information.

RMS does things I don't agree with, to be sure. But these points are few in number and of relatively little significance when compared to the things he deserves to be lauded for. I've recently posted on his take on the Creative Commons licenses. However from what I can see, RMS has much wisdom to offer and makes far far fewer missteps than others that /. readers would supplant him with if given the opportunity (like you endorsing Linus Torvalds in another post).

Yeah, better install Linux, because god knows MikTeX, emacs, and vim aren't available for Windows...

But I do agree with you. Once you learn LaTeX you will spit on anything like equation editor for the rest of your life. These days I can write math in tex almost as fast as I can by hand.

Well, as I read the GPL, if said government agency creates a GPLed tool and distributes it internally, then they must also make the source available internally; I see no exceptions allowing you to not provide source to employees on demand.

Making and using multiple copies within one organization is not "distribution". The agency counts as a single entity.

Replying to myself, but the content really isn't as great as I thought it would be from the executive summary section.

For example, they assert that the output of GPL programs will be covered by the GPL - a point of view expressedly disavowed by most legal experts and by the authors of the GPL itself! I quote:

The GPL expressly provides that software compiled with the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) is not infected by the GPL. Presumably the Free Software Foundation considers other GPL compilers will infect the compiled software.

Which is utter BS. The FSF's opinion on the matter is clearly stated here: that not only is program output not covered by the GPL, but that it would probably impossible to arrange for it to be even if you wanted it to be.

Then on the subject of writing GUIs, network clients, and the like, which interact with GPL'd programs without actually deriving any code from them or linking directly to the GPL'd code, the authors of this report say:

It has been argued that if these programs are written with specific open source software in mind, they will be infected by the relevant open source licence . . . The legal position is unsettled.

It "has been argued" by whom, we wonder? No answer is forthcoming. This is classic weaselling. Again, the FSF explicitly state here that the intent of the license is that if two programs are separate executables, the license of the one does not affect the other. So if even the very creators of the GPL do not argue that such programs are "infected", where IS this alleged controversy coming from?

Seriously, either New Zealand law is very different from US law and the GPL has a very different meaning in New Zealand, or this is FUD, or it's merely poorly researched. But my opinion of this report is falling fast the more of it I read.

Replying to myself, but the content really isn't as great as I thought it would be from the executive summary section.

For example, they assert that the output of GPL programs will be covered by the GPL - a point of view expressedly disavowed by most legal experts and by the authors of the GPL itself! I quote:

The GPL expressly provides that software compiled with the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) is not infected by the GPL. Presumably the Free Software Foundation considers other GPL compilers will infect the compiled software.

Which is utter BS. The FSF's opinion on the matter is clearly stated here: that not only is program output not covered by the GPL, but that it would probably impossible to arrange for it to be even if you wanted it to be.

Then on the subject of writing GUIs, network clients, and the like, which interact with GPL'd programs without actually deriving any code from them or linking directly to the GPL'd code, the authors of this report say:

It has been argued that if these programs are written with specific open source software in mind, they will be infected by the relevant open source licence . . . The legal position is unsettled.

It "has been argued" by whom, we wonder? No answer is forthcoming. This is classic weaselling. Again, the FSF explicitly state here that the intent of the license is that if two programs are separate executables, the license of the one does not affect the other. So if even the very creators of the GPL do not argue that such programs are "infected", where IS this alleged controversy coming from?

Seriously, either New Zealand law is very different from US law and the GPL has a very different meaning in New Zealand, or this is FUD, or it's merely poorly researched. But my opinion of this report is falling fast the more of it I read.

I agree with you. Lesser GPL

Here's parts of Section (bold mine):5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables. When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.

It looks to me that if I link to any library, my code is now a derivative. I'm sorry but the Q&A up on GNU is not a license so it doesn't matter what is said. The license will be what a judge will rule on.

My point is I will need a lawyer to understand this stuff and make sure I don't violate it. I'm not knocking it or anything, I'm just saying that a PRUDENT organization will understand the license completely - including getting legal advice.

I'm trying to find the article about Stallman's suit against NeXT regarding the Objective-C compiler. That is an example of what happens when you think you understand the GNU licenses.

Within an organization != distribution. The GPL FAQ is quite clear on that.

Of course, RMS doesn't believe you as the developer should have a say in what license you choose.

Where do you get that idea? The essay "Freedom or Power?" would suggest otherwise, particularly when Stallman and Kuhn acknowledge that copyright holders have the power to choose whatever license they wish. Developers writing derivative works can choose what code they want to base their work on. Thus, it seems to me that developers certainly have a say in what license they choose, whether choosing a license for their own copyrighted work or in making a derivative work.

The FSF says more about their objection to the original Artistic license than you're repeating. What did they say when you asked them for more specifics about their objections? They aren't an organization to refrain from offering such information about licenses that matter—their objections to the Apple Public Source License are noteworthy. They also point to a revised version of the Artistic license that is a GPL-compatible Free Software license. Perhaps it simply isn't terribly pressing to offer extended commentary about an old version of a license. Also, as a practical measure, so few programs use the first Artistic License relative to other Free Software licenses it really isn't a compelling case to argue about it.

As for your objection that it is RMS' opinion alone which determines whether a license qualifies as a Free Software license, you would do well to support the point, not just state your opinion on the matter as if its above justification.

The FSF says more about their objection to the original Artistic license than you're repeating. What did they say when you asked them for more specifics about their objections? They aren't an organization to refrain from offering such information about licenses that matter—their objections to the Apple Public Source License are noteworthy. They also point to a revised version of the Artistic license that is a GPL-compatible Free Software license. Perhaps it simply isn't terribly pressing to offer extended commentary about an old version of a license. Also, as a practical measure, so few programs use the first Artistic License relative to other Free Software licenses it really isn't a compelling case to argue about it.

As for your objection that it is RMS' opinion alone which determines whether a license qualifies as a Free Software license, you would do well to support the point, not just state your opinion on the matter as if its above justification.

The only reason Vista will suck that really matters is enough. It undermines the Freedom of software users.

That's only the recording of his second talk, the one on GPLv3. He also gave the opening keynote where he talked about software patents. There are other recordings of his software patents speech given at other events on the GNU project philosophy audio page, but he software patent talk at FOSDEM was particularly interesting because of his comments about EU democracy at the end. From looking at the names of the files, I don't think any of them contain his software patents speech - which is strange since the camera crew did record it.

RMS has four philosophical criteria in his definition of free software:

1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
4. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

See The Free Software Definition

OSI has a more specified, practical, but less philosophical definition that may be found here.

The chief difference appears to me to be in RMS's "freedom 0". An Open Source license can impose some restrictions on the end user, limited restrictions to be sure, but some restrictions. It may not be a simple matter to apply RMS's criteria -- his definition is not as specific as the OSI one, but it is not purely subjective based on RMS's whim. That in turn means that there is a difference, and the terms are not identical.

Given, that -- if you read the gnu materials -- RMS is not disparaging to Open Source. He says quite clearly, "... the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free."

No. There is a difference, albeit not very great to non-partisan onlookers. Check out gnu.orgs explanation here.

They also examine some licenses here, some of which are listed as Open Source on opensource.org.

When I read Linus's criticism's of the DRM issues in V.3, I was inclined to agree with him. I have found him to be reasonable and non-partisan in the past while RMS has always come accross as highly ideological. Ironically, having read TFA, I find RMS's explanations to be enlightening, and believe that Linus has not represented what V.3 is trying to do. I suspect that Linus has been polarized abit due to conflicts with RMS on these issues, causing him to be perhaps a little bit less reasonable and more partisan than is normal for him.

No. There is a difference, albeit not very great to non-partisan onlookers. Check out gnu.orgs explanation here.

They also examine some licenses here, some of which are listed as Open Source on opensource.org.

When I read Linus's criticism's of the DRM issues in V.3, I was inclined to agree with him. I have found him to be reasonable and non-partisan in the past while RMS has always come accross as highly ideological. Ironically, having read TFA, I find RMS's explanations to be enlightening, and believe that Linus has not represented what V.3 is trying to do. I suspect that Linus has been polarized abit due to conflicts with RMS on these issues, causing him to be perhaps a little bit less reasonable and more partisan than is normal for him.

Tell me what non-malicious use this tool can be used for? I understand that you're separating the tool from the decision of the tool-user (same arguement used by gun control critics, "guns don't kill, the person who pulls the trigger does") but it neatly sidesteps what the tool can and can't be used for. In the case of guns, this is a tool specifically designed to create a devistating, damaging impact from a lump of lead and/or copper at a specific point in space. Leaves little to the imagination, doesn't it? The same can be said of DRM; it is a tool specifically designed to control exactly what program can run on a given piece of hardware and/or control the flow of data on the same piece of hardware. Guns can be used for hunting (a use that is recognized as valid by a majority of people) or for murder (a use that is considered invalid by a vast majority of people). DRM can be used to secure information (a use that many would consider valid) or to directly control what you can or can't do with your computer (a use that many would consider invasive, unethical, and in some cases, immoral). There's just one last piece to this arguement: in the case of a gun, the owner of the tool uses the tool to affect a 3rd party (who is the recipient recieving the bullet), and the person pulling the trigger is (hopefully) the gun owner (i.e. the tool owner is using the tool). In the case of DRM, this is reversed; the owner of the computer is the recipient of the tool's effect, and a 3rd party decides on wheather or not they "pull the trigger". If you "own" your computer, then why does someone else have the right to determine what you can and can't do with it? Thus, it becomes an issue not of protecting copyright interests or preventing software piracy, but one of incredible vendor control. Want to use a software package that competes with a package that is also owned by Microsoft? Too bad. Microsoft can stop you from running that program. Your choice will be one choice - and that choice might not be what you want.

I honestly don't care if Windows won't let you play a song without putting a quarter in your floppy drive. What I care about is that there are valid alternatives; that shipping a general purpose box that only allows one OS to be run on it is seen as anti-competitive, no matter what boogeyman we use to scare Congress (or whatever your local law-making body is called).

You will care if the music is your legal posession and you have already paid for it. Now, a 3rd party could charge you over and over and over again for the "privledge" of listening to "your" music. This is already happening with printed material, which, ironically, was predicted by Stallman himself. He clearly understands the danger it presents not just to you the consumer/buyer/owner, but to society at large.

There will be no valid alternatives, unless you can afford to mask your own chips, fab your own motherboards, etc. As far as shipping a single-use box goes, it is not illegal; and we certainly can't claim monopoly action, can we? (Double-jeopardy rules apply now that the manufacturer of Windows has already been found a monopolist). Frankly, the whole point of TPM was to provide Microsoft a means of complete control.

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Translation: RMS believes in Free Software. ESR believes in Open Source.

Ever heard of GNU autoconf?

I run most of my stuff under Linux, so no .exe required...

On the other hand, gcj produces nice native executables. ;-) It doesn't support Swing (yet) but does support SWT.

I haven't looked at it in detail yet, but the JCVM project that was donated to Apache Harmony seems interesting as well.

I agree that most of the people using these sites couldn't care less about the principles underlying the "free culture" and/or "info anarchism" movements. Nearly all of them probably want nothing more than to get a better deal (i.e. free) on popular music and movies. For all I know, the people running the site may share those priorities.

It doesn't matter.

The very fact that they see nothing fundamentally wrong with using these sites to download music and movies demonstrates that they are in agreement with those movements, and do not believe that access to information ought to be regulated by copyright. Their personal motivations, whether principled or pragmatic, are entirely irrelevant. The popularity of "file-sharing", however motivated, proves that most people do not believe that the copyright system is in their best interest. That the RI/MPAA have succeeded in overruling the general population on this matter demonstrates their own tenacity and political influence, as well as the general corruptability of our government.

As for the GPL, is has been pointed out numerous times, here and elsewhere, that the GPL exists purely in response to copyright. The GPL exists because purely public domain software could be integrated into a copyrighted derivative work; if the resulting software could not itself be copyrighted, then there would be no need for the GPL. There are a number of anti-copyright articles listed on the FSF's own site, on their Philosophy page, so I don't think that they would mind the GP's link.

Freedom for the Culture!!!

``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

Put into those terms, it's perfectly clear what he means. I think the confusion comes from the way that people appreviate that and talk about "free as in beer". When you put it that way, the first thing that comes to my mind is, "but beer isn't free".

You were probably modded 'troll' because you started on about DRM as if it actually mattered [emphasis mine]

You're only proving plasmacutter's point about Apple zealots and DRM. DRM does matter. It matters because DRM tells us what we can and cannot do with the software/media that we bought. It matters because we, as in the user, have to give up control of our computers and files when we accept DRM. It matters because if nothing changes within the next few years, we're all going to be using locked down computers. I have lusted for Macs since OS X was released years ago, but since the Intel switch and Apple's stance with DRM, I have lost much of my enthusiasm with Macs and Apple in general. I don't want to buy a machine with TPM chips that may be used for much more evil purposes (such as locking down my media). I want to buy a machine that does what I, the customer wants, not what Apple or Microsoft or the **AA wants. Thankfully I can still buy and build some computers that aren't DRM-encumbered.

DRM matters. That's the bottom line. And I, for one, am not going to give up my freedoms, even for "ease of use" and other minor benefits. Nobody should tell me what I can do with my media, or with a certain OS (points at Apple and OS X), but that's why I don't use that stuff anyway; I prefer to be free instead.

Wrong.

"Theft" has always meant just that. "piracy" to mean other than armed robbery on the high seas is a very recent trend, one which serves the interests of the copyright cartels by making copyright infringement sound more harmful and serious than it is.

I'm not the only one saying this, either.

Last July, Apple asked Anton Altaparmakov, lead developer of the Linux-NTFS project, to dual license the Linux-NTFS driver under the APL so that the Intel version of OS X can read/write files on Windows partitions (presumably for dual-boot computers). The problem pointed out by other Linux-NTFS developers is that the APL is not GPL compatible, and any changes made by Apple to the driver will be unusable in Linux. As one person put it:

This would open up a one-way street: towards OS X and away from GNU/Linux and any other OS based on the GPL.

Not to mention the Konqueror / Safari fiasco where Apple complied to the terms of the LGPL by the skin of their teeth, making it impossible for open source developers to port changes upstream.

In November, Apple has again tried to hijack Linux-NTFS code, this time by suggesting that it be licensed under the LGPL. This was promptly rejected by one main developer, who threatened lawsuits.

"even in the colloquial sense"

This is off the main topic, but you do understand the term piracy has been used in an official legal sense for 200 years now representing what I believe you are referring to as 'colloquial', don't you?

Its not a made up / reappropriated word that just came out a few years ago designed by the BSA / RIAA / MPAA and Microsoft...its meant copyright infringement as well as hijacking on the high see since before your grandparents were alive.

Just re-educating everyone that had been tainted by Stallman's Words Which Will Be Double++ Illegal In The GnuSpeak (located in its base form here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# Piracy ).

Note: Stallman does not state that this word is not a correct and meaningful definition and is careful not to be inaccurate, but has worded this so that a casual reading and a later misquote of it will play directly into that connotation.

GnuSpeak--

And blaming the mozilla foundation is blaming the exact wrong "side" for any difficulity explaining licences to people.

The Mozilla Foundation explains the licensing in plain english. The GPL always had an "English" preamble. And creative commons even has "deeds" that are as clear as language can get including translations in plenty of languages and icons representing a certain use. (creativecommons.org even has a "wizard" for people who want to select a license)

I am still, However, looking for a human readable version of microsofts licensing policy. As far as I know I would have to figure out what constitutes:
A. an educational/business/goverment organisation
B. a computer (Maybe a mainboard, maybe a processor, maybe a procesor core, maybe something with a mac address plus a set of PCI identifiers and a processor serial number)
C. a "software upgrade" (Didn`t you have to buy your dells with an installed microsoft OS because the organisational licensing only is about "updates" to this OS?)
D. a hurricane victim (tsunami victims need not apply)

Its all explained in this 44 page word file.

So yes, licensing is confusing for "normal people" or busineses. But when you work together with Microsoft (Through the BSA or other lobbyists) to make people follow licenses... then you could get help from their side by asking for understanable licences to enforce.

Some of the licenses allow for people to charge for distributing the software

Not just some but all free software licenses, by definition.

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.

Not only that, but education is often manipulated by anti-consumer special interest groups. I hope Google will try to reverse that trend by helping developers perfect educational Free Software applications to the point that they are robust and usable by kids of all ages. The kids will then find out first-hand what the Free Software model of be sharing and collectively improving is all about.

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.

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.

I'd love to see Google continue and expand its Summer of Code program, which last summer funded 400 students worldwide to work on the Free and Open Source projects of their choice. Each student was rewarded $4,500 and the project they were improving received $500 to cover the mentors' time and expenses.

By enabling students to contribute to Free Software at an early age, Google would not only be doing society a favor, but it would also introduce those students to the concept of working with a large group of talented, motivated contributors coming from vastly different backgrounds.

The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX like operating system which is free software: the GNU system, (GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX"; it is pronounced "guh-noo," "noo" being like the American "new"). Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as "Linux", they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems.

MAC is faster to rip, slightly smaller files and is also now open source. (Did not used to be.)

Only downloads that work on Microsoft Windows, a proprietary operating system published by a U.S. company, are available. Even the FAQ is in a Windows proprietary format (.chm). It may be faster if you're already on Windows, but is it faster than native FLAC on Wine? And is it faster inside a Virtual PC than FLAC is natively on a Mac?

Monkey's Audio itself is also not free software for the same reasons as old versions of the Apple Public Source License. The Monkey's Audio license has the same "Disrespect for privacy" and "Central control" problems mentioned in FSF's article about the old APSL.

> As soon as I can install and uninstall 90% of the programs I use outside of the
> command-line, and never EVER have to run "make" again, then I'll be a desktop Linux user
> again.

Welcome back on board then.

http://www.gnu.org/software/sourceinstall/

One big reason Qt is GPL'd is that it allows them to sell licenses to those who want to develop proprietary Qt applications. This, using your reasoning, makes them no better than Fluendo.

By licensing Qt as Free and Open Source Software under the GPL, Trolltech is encouraging developers to also release derivative work to the community as Free Software.

If a third-party wants to develop proprietary apps on the Qt framework, then they are not sharing back to the community and it is only fair that they compensate Trolltech. Share and share alike, but if you don't want to share, pay up. Qt licensing makes perfect sense, and it is how Free Software was designed to work and be self-funding.

This is in stark contrast with how Fluendo operates -- its business model is based on handcuffing users and denying them the right to use, study, modify, redistribute, and improve the source code of GStreamer's DRM, proprietary plugins. Not only that, Fluendo actually pays patent licensing fees to the RIAA and MPAA, making those monopolies even richer and more powerful than they already are.

So if you're Fluendo customer, you can be sure part of your money goes into the pockets of the media barons. And if you're a GStreamer developer, you can be sure that your code will be used by the same entertainment moguls to rip off and spy on their users through DRM.

One big reason Qt is GPL'd is that it allows them to sell licenses to those who want to develop proprietary Qt applications. This, using your reasoning, makes them no better than Fluendo.

By licensing Qt as Free and Open Source Software under the GPL, Trolltech is encouraging developers to also release derivative work to the community as Free Software.

If a third-party wants to develop proprietary apps on the Qt framework, then they are not sharing back to the community and it is only fair that they compensate Trolltech. Share and share alike, but if you don't want to share, pay up. Qt licensing makes perfect sense, and it is how Free Software was designed to work and be self-funding.

This is in stark contrast with how Fluendo operates -- its business model is based on handcuffing users and denying them the right to use, study, modify, redistribute, and improve the source code of GStreamer's DRM, proprietary plugins. Not only that, Fluendo actually pays patent licensing fees to the RIAA and MPAA, making those monopolies even richer and more powerful than they already are.

So if you're Fluendo customer, you can be sure part of your money goes into the pockets of the media barons. And if you're a GStreamer developer, you can be sure that your code will be used by the same entertainment moguls to rip off and spy on their users through DRM.

is which version of the the GPL? ;)

Don't fight DRM itself

DRM is an insult to human dignity, and it WILL be abused, funneling money to the abusers so that they can bribe politicians, so that they can abuse some more. The buck has got to stop, and by raising this issue to the forefront of the computer user community, we just might be able to pull it off.

Closed-source software is not always bad, but its obscurity lends itself to being used in DRM schemes that enslave users. As a developer of Free and Open Source Software, I don't want Hollywood bosses to hijack my software in order to handcuff users and rip them off. I care about my users' rights and about my own, and I certainly don't want my work to make the RIAA's life any easier.

That's why I don't waste my time on GStreamer. Helping out multimedia apps licensed under the GPL (such as Xine and VideoLAN) is much better use of my time.

What the LGPL does, is allow LGPL'd libraries to be used by non F/OSS programs. Even then, it requires access to the source code and build system, so that the LGPL'd parts of that program can be changed and then replaced to be used by the program, even if the program is compiled statically. The LGPL does not in any way permit hiding the source of those libraries themselves. Thus, it is perfectly possible to rip out the DRM parts of any LGPL licensed GST plugins.

Did you not know this, or did I miss your point? I can agree that it could have been wise to license GST under the GPL, but I don't see it being for the reasons that you describe. Also, as I see it, it is better if any proprietary programs can use GST, because that still gives a better user experience in the end (since the user won't have to maintain several plugin repositories).

External references: The LGPL and the GPL.

What the LGPL does, is allow LGPL'd libraries to be used by non F/OSS programs. Even then, it requires access to the source code and build system, so that the LGPL'd parts of that program can be changed and then replaced to be used by the program, even if the program is compiled statically. The LGPL does not in any way permit hiding the source of those libraries themselves. Thus, it is perfectly possible to rip out the DRM parts of any LGPL licensed GST plugins.

Did you not know this, or did I miss your point? I can agree that it could have been wise to license GST under the GPL, but I don't see it being for the reasons that you describe. Also, as I see it, it is better if any proprietary programs can use GST, because that still gives a better user experience in the end (since the user won't have to maintain several plugin repositories).

External references: The LGPL and the GPL.

Gstreamer is GPL

Wrong, GStreamer is LGPL only. The GStreamer website is adamant about denying developers the right to license contributed code under the GPL:
We require that all code going into our core package is LGPL. For the plugin code, we require the use of the LGPL for all plugins written from scratch or linking to external libraries.

Fluendo, the company that controls GStreamer, wants to link their DRM plugins to LGPL code contributed by the naive independent developers, who don't realize that by writing LGPL multimedia code, they might as well be working for the RIAA and MPAA.

Xine on the other hand is GPL, and any code that links to Xine must also be GPL. So even if someone decides to make DRM plugins or apps for Xine, they will have to give users the source code to those plugins. There will inevitably be some users who know how to extract the useful part of the codec while leaving out the DRM restrictions. As the KDE developer Aaron Seigo eloquently put it:
DRM + source code = no DRM

Now I realize why Richard Stallman warned against using LGPL for any code, including libraries. Too bad the makes of GTK and GNOME didn't listen. But thank God the makers of Qt and KDE did!