Slashdot Mirror

Overall, I'm glad to see more people encouraging the use of the GNU General Public License (GPL). No matter what their philosophical leaning, it helps me as a GPL licensor to have more source code to share and modify. There are two issues I'd like to comment on, one a correction and the other a general comment on one theme in the article. From the article:

"He asked IBM to deprecate its open-source license and instead put it under the General Public License, the most popular license for free software that gives users the freedom run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to modify and improve it and distribute copies. In contrast, an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted."

The GNU General Public License (GPL) is also copyrighted. The copyright for the GPL is held by its author, the Free Software Foundation, and this is clearly announced in the text of the GPL. So, the second sentence of theirs makes no sense because there is no contrast to speak of.

Generally, the proliferation of licenses is a burden in and of itself. Some of the reason for this has to do with the weaker standards of the Open Source Initiative, which allow more licenses to become OSI-approved. But I think the desire of businesses to get free labor is another factor which can't be ignored. Businesses distribute their code under a license which allows the business more flexibility to do things with contributed code than what contributors can do with the code copyrighted to the business. This inequity was a problem with the early releases of the Apple Public Source License. By contrast, the equity between copyright holders and contributors under the GPL is part of the reason why the GPL became so popular.

I have no idea how Sun ended up hated by Slashdot. They sell Linux, they open-sourced the Solaris kernel, they have cooperated with OSS operating systems to get them running on their hardware. Lets not forget a huge donation in the form of buying StarOffice and immediately open-sourcing it. The completely open and royalty-free SPARC architecture (as opposed to the far-from-open PPC). Few companies have done more.

There have been some back and forth on how they perceive Linux, but considering that Linux has been eating Sun's marketshare quickly the last decade they sure seem to have a very good relationship with Linux and related technologies.

There is a lot of confusion around there about what exactly is open source, free, copyrighted and/or proprietary software.

I suggest to everyone to read the Free Software Definition and the FAQs about the GNU GPL.

Yeah, even if you don't like RMS read them: they are very informative!

There is a lot of confusion around there about what exactly is open source, free, copyrighted and/or proprietary software.

I suggest to everyone to read the Free Software Definition and the FAQs about the GNU GPL.

Yeah, even if you don't like RMS read them: they are very informative!

Wiki and GNU FDL are tremendously different things.

On the one hand, Wiki is sort of this free-for-all "write something here" mess that sort-of works, but primarily seems to be good for finding out what you're wanting to look up from a reputable source to learn what you want. An indexing/information networking system, as it were.

On the other hand, the GNU FDL's only technological requirement is that in some manner a copy in the preferred form for human editing of the information (in an open format - a bit of a quirk) is distributed alongside any derivative of it (say, a printed book).

As for credibility and worth of information - well, Joe Blow can get a book "Plants Is Good" printed fairly trivially without a trace of the GFDL involved; whether or not anyone will happen to read it is a completely different matter. The GFDL doesn't make an education any less important, and I quite agree that an editor is a necessity. As an aside, I suppose the FDL may shift the necessity somewhat more towards having an actual education in the subject, as opposed to having paid a pile of money for a degree.

What you seem to be objecting to is a perceived lack of a filter to keep idiots from writing crap into the book. Simply put, such a filter is not in any way removed or even particularly discouraged. There isn't this "every man's opinion is worthwhile until voted down" thing that the wiki system seems to have.

To quote their preamble,

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or non-commercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.

What it does do is reduce the barrier to collaborative work tremendously. Where with traditional publishing I am hardly encouraged to write a section on something that I am knowledgeable about into my copy of a book, and then send that back to the recent publisher of the book for incorporation into their version, or for endorsement of my version (Endorsements are specially handled; if you make a modified version of a work, you must delete all previous endorsements, and acquire new ones if you want them).

Anyhow, I have work to do. If you want to take a look at what you're claiming would decrease the signal-to-noise ratio of published works, the GFDL is available at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html - it's about seven pages, not counting the navigation stuff up top. As for the FCP, it's nowhere near the maturity level it would need to be to displace even one normal textbook - but it's progressing. We'll see where it goes.

# What is this about GPLONLY symbols?

        * (REG) By default, symbols are exported using EXPORT_SYMBOL, so they can be used by loadable modules. During the 2.4 series, a new export directive EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was added. This is almost the same thing, except that the symbol can only be accessed by modules which have a GPL compatible licence (note that this includes dual-licenced BSD/GPL code). This new directive was added for these reasons:
                    o To clarify the ambiguous legal ground on which non-GPL (particularly proprietary) modules lie. A strict reading of the GPL prohibits loading proprietary modules into the kernel. While Linus has consistently stated that proprietary modules are allowed (i.e. he has granted an explicit exemption), it is not clear that he is able to speak for all developers who have contributed to the Linux kernel. While many think Linus' edict means that all contributed code falls under this exemption granted by Linus, not everyone agrees that this is a legally sound argument. The new EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL directive makes the licence conditions explicit, and thus removes the legal ambiguity.
                    o To allow choice for developers who wish, for their own reasons, to contribute code which cannot be used by proprietary modules. Just as a developer has the right to distribute code under a proprietary licence, so too may a developer distribute code under an anti-proprietary licence (i.e. strict GPL).
            Note that Linus has stated that existing symbols will not be switched to GPL-only. Developers of proprietary modules for Linux need not fear. Furthermore, it is quite unlikely that Linus will look favourably upon the introduction of new core driver APIs which are restricted to GPL-only modules. This would not be in the best interests of Linux. Linus has forwarded me a message he sent to someone else to clarify his views.

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

Well, we can at least expect it to come out before Hurd does ;)

There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.

Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.

Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.

It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Of course I'm still jealous of the freedoms of the BSD crowd, but only until I remember that freedom to run a wider range of software and hardware is much nicer than the freedom to turn my OS into a proprietary product, which I would never do anyway.

They do however require it if the project shall be part of the gnu project, which is different from just being GPL'ed

Here is what Richard Stallman actually said:

"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."

He then gives the GNU C library as an example where the LGPL was used, for the above reason.

The Qt library is another example where commercial developers, rather than being encouraged to GPL their software, simple choose to use Qt under a proprietary license. This is the exact opposite of what RMS wants to happen, and the Trolltech defenders know it.

The GPL is a copyright license. It grants you a number of rights that you would not otherwise have -- provided that you follow certain rules. If you read clause 0 of the actual text, http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, you'll see that it explicitly says that it only covers "copying, distribution and modification", because this is all that copyright regulates.

No reason to panic, we know what to do. It's all detailed in The Right to Read.

The Right to Read

Will you quit using the "Royal We"?

OpenBSD is my main operating system, with some Linux on the side. I don't want BSD to be like Linux. That's why I use it instead of Linux. That's why people use BSD. It does the job for them in a way that they like better. If they wanted Linux, they'd use Linux.

Both systems have their strengths. BSD is great if you want something lean. Linux is good if you want something very easy to maintain and don't mind a little GNU-bloat.* BSD is great if you want traditional Unix. Linux is good if you're not very philosophical and just want something that works. BSD is great if you don't want to recompile your kernel. Linux is great if you don't want to recompile your userland. BSD seems to consume less memory. Linux supports more binary-only software.

The point is, they have different goals, different strengths and weaknesses. I'm not in any hurry to see them merge. In fact seeing people advocate that here on Slashdot annoys the hell out of me. And I can tell you, the BSD developers and Linux afficionados out there would find the idea stupid too. If you posted your comment to a developer mailing list, if there'd be any reply at all, it would be along the lines of, "No. That's ridiculous. Stop getting in the way of our work." Though perhaps more polite.

* Yes, GNU has a noble goal but can be bloated. It's mostly bloated because it tries to be all things to all people. See the infamous GNU echo joke.

Of course not! It's not the standard text editor!

The debate over standards is a result of an over reliance on hardware. If software radio http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/ became an option the standards could be updated without altering hardware. Even better, a standard could be created for a standardised standards channel. When a deviced searched for other devices it would do so on a broadcast channel. The standard could then be downloaded over the standardised standards channel to set the device up to operate with the desired standard.

There is a help forum for lawyers at http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/lawyers.html

*nods at himself confidently*

More importantly, Yes, it is.

• restricted Bash
• ulimits
• iptables owner module w/ the DROP target
• chroot jail

• restricted Bash
• ulimits
• iptables owner module w/ the DROP target
• chroot jail

Sourceforge, Freshmeat, CPAN, GNU.org...

Isn't there already an opened source implimentation of "Hello World"?

Never one to procrastinate :-) I sent in my nomination at 9:30 Aug 4 (EDT) and recieved a reply.

"We are not currently seeking nominations for the Free Software Awards.
Please watch http://www.gnu.org/award/ for the call for nominations,
which is usually in the fall."

Now I have to remember to do it again.

The main purpose of the 3.2 release is to correct a couple of problems in the C++ ABI, with the intention of providing a stable interface going forward. Accordingly, 3.2 is only a small change to 3.1.1.

Save yourself some time and deploy GNU Hello. And yes, it really does include a mail client.

Prior Years' Software Award?

Does it predated 1998?

When did Knuth win it? Because he was a nominee, but I don't see him in that list.

--- snip ---

People such as Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Larry Wall, who have already received this or other awards for their contributions, are not eligible for the Free Software Award.

--- snip ---

see: http://www.gnu.org/award/award-1999.html

I can see where you might have received that impression from Stallman's article, from this quote:

My conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software

However, this is not all that he is arguing. The main question is:

It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party, called the ``owner''?

This is an ethical question, and he specifically points out that he is questioning current law based on his interpretation of ethics. To clarify: he is not just encouraging free software; he is arguing that software ownership should not be a legal institution.

My response was about his treatment of the question of whether software should have owners. And I think it is pretty clear that the bulk of his paper (the section I quoted included) was focused on why software should not have owners. This is definitely about copyright; if referring many times to the "owners" of "software" isn't enough of a clue, he refers to the ethicality of copying software in his opening paragraph.

I hope this clears things up.

my favorite browser for rendering: http://lynx.browser.org/ the one for efficiency: http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/wget.html

No wonder you hate Stallman. You haven't got frickin' clue one.

Actually, I don't hate Stallman. I was just explaining why people think he's a commie. However, I'd like a little more explanation about the "You haven't got...clue one." I think I explained fairly well the reason I think Stallman disagrees with the concept of ownership.

To quote Stallman:
Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor: ``I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I can have a copy for myself.''

Since we're assuming in this hypothetical situation that software can be owned by its author(since otherwise there wouldn't be a problem here), he's clearly advocating sharing someone else's property. Yes, he doesn't believe that software should be owned, but that's beside the point in this example. Either he's begging the question or he's changing his assumptions in the middle of the argument, and either way his argument only works if he doesn't understand or doesn't agree with the institution of property. I have enough respect for Stallman to grant that he understands the institution of property, so therefore I must assume that he doesn't agree with the institution of property.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

It only mentions beer once,:

``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.''

The 'free as in beer' never meant that there was no cost associated with it - just that the grantor/giver has already borne the cost. And this is part of the social contract of the gpl - that people recognize that their 'free as in freedom of speech' code has an actual cost, hence a real value, and that, if they can, they should try to put back a bit into the well they've drawn from.

So, how is that a troll?

I think you're missing the point a bit though.

Having a public charter and public records means the organization is transparent. While transparency is important to democracy, it does not make the FSF in itself democratic.

I'm an FSF contributor. Do I have any say in how the FSF is directed? No I don't. Now I'm fine with that fact, but it can't be said to be a democratic organisation.

What is more irritating is that the FSF, or rather it's benevolent dictator RMS. Does, despite this, concern itself with polical and technical details of the software contributed to it. Such as features he may feel undermines his goals ("And now it would be better now if you take these changes off your web site, and don't mention that they exist.", and dictating what programming language they should be written in ("RMS stated that the use of C++ was unacceptable for the GNU Project").

I find this unfair, undemocratic, and antithetical to the main idea of collaborative free software development: That influence on a project is gained through making contributions to it. Not by bystanders arbitrarily dictating what's "GNU" and what's not.

I think you're missing the point a bit though.

Having a public charter and public records means the organization is transparent. While transparency is important to democracy, it does not make the FSF in itself democratic.

I'm an FSF contributor. Do I have any say in how the FSF is directed? No I don't. Now I'm fine with that fact, but it can't be said to be a democratic organisation.

What is more irritating is that the FSF, or rather it's benevolent dictator RMS. Does, despite this, concern itself with polical and technical details of the software contributed to it. Such as features he may feel undermines his goals ("And now it would be better now if you take these changes off your web site, and don't mention that they exist.", and dictating what programming language they should be written in ("RMS stated that the use of C++ was unacceptable for the GNU Project").

I find this unfair, undemocratic, and antithetical to the main idea of collaborative free software development: That influence on a project is gained through making contributions to it. Not by bystanders arbitrarily dictating what's "GNU" and what's not.

"the freedom to change it if we like"

Open Source does not mean you can change it. You can have a look at the source code, this doesn't mean you are allowed to make modifications or derivative work.

As another AC posted, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html for a better/longer explanation.

John K. Berg.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html

You don't drop support, but nobody is much interested in picking it up either.

Au contraire, the SCO maintainer is still active.

Alternatively you could take a look at COBOL For GCC

GCC did not get an "anti-SCO" clause, as that would be incompatible with the GPL. They did consider dropping support for SCO from the compiler, but eventually decided not to take action.

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Does KDE and Gnome have the same goals, or are they very different?

<flamebait>

KDE's goal was to build a robust, high-quality, open-source desktop environment for UNIX workstations.

Stallman didn't like the fact that they were using a non-Free library (the Qt toolkit), so a competing desktop environment was started.

Qt changed its license to the GPL (according to Stallman, much better than the LGPL for libraries).

The GNOME project continued their efforts because they didn't like the fact that the Qt toolkit was GPLed because those nasty, proprietary... er, I mean nice, friendly corporations couldn't use it to build non-Free software without paying for a special license. Apparently, the LGPL is a much better license for libraries, according to the GNOME guys. Even though Stallman says otherwise, and it was his philosophy that led them to starting the project in the first place.
</flamebait>

Okay, so it's flamebait, but isn't that essentially the problem? The GNOME guys insisted Qt wasn't good enough because it was non-Free, then Qt was released exactly how Stallman recommends, and now Qt isn't good enough because it's too Free?

Incidentally, the primary flaw in this particular paper is Mr. Perens' assumption that differentiating and non-differentiating technologies are in different projects.

I find no support for this claim in the paper itself. As far as I can tell Mr Perens makes no assumptions about the relative proportion of differentiating and non-differentiating code in any particular project. Perhaps you would be so kind as to actually quote the relevant text that demonstrates such an error.

In reality, over 90% of the average project is non-differentiating, while 10% of it *is* differentiating.

Again, kindly cite a reputable source. Otherwise I am tempted to suppose you imagined this statistic.

The GPL operates largely under the assumption that given this scenario, the developer would naturally make the Right Decision to contribute the 10% he has to write in return for the 90% he doesn't.

Wrong. The GPL operates on the assumption that providing a free ride to proprietary software companies is not advantageous to the free software movement. There have been cases where companies have contributed code to a free software project because the alternative of releasing an improved proprietary product was not available, but this is just gravy. The real point is to eliminate the need for a project to compete with proprietary alternatives derived from the same codebase. Read the GNU philosophy pages if you don't believe me.

And there is the *specific* economic impact of the GPL, distinct from the economic impact of other licenses: the fact that it has compelled a great many businesses to do business *less* efficiently, and to write code that they would not have to write at all without the license that restrains them.

Exactly why should this be regarded as a problem for the free software community? Only businesses that create proprietary products are affected -- that is to say, the competition. This makes the alternative of choosing a business model compatible with free software that much more attractive.

curl -s http://slashdot.org/rss/index.rss | grep /title | sort -u

Kids these days, I tell ya.

Commercial is not a synonym for "non free"

As
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

puts it:

'Please don't use "commercial" as a synonym for "non-free." That confuses two entirely different issues.

A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or non-free, depending on its license. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or non-free, depending on its license. The two questions, what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have, are independent.

In the first decade of the Free Software Movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 90s, free commercial software started to appear.

Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that "commercial" means "non-free" will tend to think that the "free commercial" combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word "commercial" in that way.'

Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?

According to RMS, no.

-Adam

Microsoft: Oh we love C++, now it's Visual C++! (embrace, extend), in order to help maintain vendor lock-in.

Would this be the wrong moment to point out that Visual C++ is currently one of Microsoft's most standards-compliant products?

Compare Microsoft's extensions with GCC's. Quiz: which of Microsoft and GNU do you think are introducing more portability problems by embracing and extending the C and C++ languages?

Tell me, who enforces open source license?

"you just don't get it." ... "luckily you are in a minority".

hmm, sounds like a programmer just lost the "it" that he acuses other of not getting. here, the "it" is access to source code and wherewithal to munge it to be most useful. when a programmer of such software says "our way is better" to a user, he challenges the user to become (or ally with) another programmer to fork the project. maybe that's what is desired, but the smoother way would be to separate mechanism and policy, concentrate your programming-fu on the mechanism and let the users twiddle the policy bits as they see fit.

happy users means less pressure to fork. of course, those who live by the fork you may wish to die by it, as well, for completeness or symmetry or whatever. that's fine, too.

Or download a copy of his Free Software Song - if nothing else it'll definitely make them laugh. :-)

Or download a copy of his Free Software Song - if nothing else it'll definitely make them laugh. :-)