Slashdot Mirror

How about a GPL Merit Badge?

Great idea! It would of course have the GNU Head as the picture. Maybe more appropriate would be a Copyleft symbol so as to include all open projects.

...Java isn't free software.

Better compile time, code size, run time, ... all because of flawlessy old software!!!.

open4free © : gcc -Wall -pipe -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -march=i686

libstdc++ is distributed under GPL v2, but with the "runtime exception". So you can link your proprietary C++ code against libstdc++ and distribute your library without having to license your code under the GPL.

See http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/l icense.html

Free as in 'cost zero dollars'

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Note the line about "'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'"

some of the business managers hear that mantra one too many times and interpret it as 'we don't need to pay developers as much because software is supposed to be free'

If your manager is stupid, that's not my fault.

I'm not very well-versed here, but the free software movement appears to be about voluntarily giving up much of your intellectual property rights on software you develop. I don't see how this could lead to the problems you have with it.

"This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL."

The FSF is not selling a product. There is no offer to buy or acceptance of that offer. In fact, **there is no product** To quote from the GPL:

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Read it again: without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY. The FSF is being open that their code is not a salable product.

Anyone is welcome to come along and turn the FSF's code into a salable product. They can do this by offering a warranty that the code has a useful purpose and can do so for whatever price they choose. Again to quote from the GPL:

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

The generally low price for GPLd software is a consequence of unfettered competition, something monopolists have a problem with.

Now go and crawl back under your bridge.

Open source may very well be a response to M$. Free software, on the other hand, is a response to any domination - whether Microsoft's or any other company that likes to restrict the freedom of people with non-disclosure agreements or the elimination of choice through anti-competitive practices.

Somebody could re-sell GIMP for $200, and as long as they gave the source code to their customers it would be legal.

This is only partly true. According to the GPL ( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ), "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.", so you could claim that you're charging $200 for the transferrance, but I don't know how well it would hold up in court.
However, the license also states that when publishing something based off the GPL'd work, You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Actually, it's all to do with the GPL, as most other licenses (notably BSD and MIT) allow you to take source code, modify it, and then sell it in whole as your own product without releasing your modifications as source code.

And you should check your sources; Stallman came up with the GPL long before Microsoft had its monopoly.

This bug is acknowledged by the gcc developers, who are working on it. (They have some test fixes, but are not confident in them yet)

Most of the work for AMD64 support in GCC was spondored by AMD, but actually executed by Jan Hubicka (SuSE). Other companies were involved as well as shown on the AMD64 web site http://www.amd64.org/
As for GCC 4.0 being slower than 3.4 in the benchmarks shown, maybe it's just because of the issue described in the following message:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01733.html

Marcel

It seems that certain types of 64 bit floating point code suffer from some stupid optimizations done in the GLIB header files. I think it is worthwhile reading the following message for people needing fastest possible floating point code on AMB64 processors:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01733.html

Marcel

"not compiling cleanly" may have been a less-accurate description of the problem.

Yes, GCC 4.0 builds under Windows. See http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/buildstat.html, and the mingw-users mailing list. I don't think that --gc-sections is nearly as useful as some people seem to think it is. Even on ELF, the only target that supports it, its only supported when doing static linking (which obviously is not a binary size improvement over dynamic linking). Also, the -ffunction-sections option for GCC commonly used with this linker switch can inhibit optimizations. Even when -gc-sections can be used for an improvement, for much C code, it tends not to actually remove very much. The linker already has machinery to merge various sorts of the worst executable bloat, such as duplicate template instantiations. This switch is most useful for various pathological cases that most people, as near as I can tell, don't experience. If an executable is hugely bigger than it needs to be, your best bet is to examine the executable with objdump to determine exactly what is using up all of this space. Oftentimes its fairly easy to strip out extra unneeded fat. Aaron W. LaFramboise

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20973
GCC bug report
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-cvs&m=111451142117674& w=2
KDE CVS report

It involves some problem with register allocation. It seems only to miscompile KHTML, and there is already a patch attached to the GCC bug report (although the patch just disables the optimization that is causing the problem, rather than fixing the core problem itself).

I think you're a little mixed up there. When we criticize MS, we're often referring to the release of known buggy and badly implementated software to the general public. Instead the submitter of this article is referring to the "full potential" of the new optimization framework in GCC-4.0. It will, in theory, allow for much better optimizations to be performed on internal parse tree. But for now many of the CPU models are incomplete or non-existant, or something like that. The full potential of these optimizations will be delivered in a later release, either 4.0.x or 4.1, or perhaps a little of both. And the GCC team wouldn't have released GCC 4.0 with known, serious bugs.

Or perhaps I've just been trolled. Wouldn't be the first time. I see that this is your first comment on slashdot. Welcome. Just don't troll.

Wrong, at least on your first point. launchd is APSL-licensed open source. Oh, and these chaps seem quite happy with the APSL, so it'd be churlish to begrudge Apple that choice of license.

From an educational perspective, I'd be interested to know which Unix design ethics it violates, though.

"I have no idea why the folks at Sun think that Fortran is their competitor."

Maybe because of the inroads from free (GPL) compilers such as G95 and gfortran. Remember, SUN like open source when it suits them.

If I may say so myself, I thought copyright (and copyleft) were the way to go for protecting creative intellectual property...

Right. Among other things gcc4 has a Java front end http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html/. Swing support is incomplete but Java 1.4 support looks good otherwise.

Also, IBM has very good and complete clean room implementations of JVM and there are other commercial JVMs. So Sun has less real lattitude with their licensing terms than one might think.

Does this still apply to APSL 2.0?

A KHTML developer could call Apple and ask for the code, but they would tell him to go fly a kite. If Apple sent someone their derivative work (Safari), it wouldn't come with the code either. All the law requires Apple to do is to make their source available to those who have received Safari from Apple.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

Just use our code

ASOT, I'm glad you're here, but you know damn well that APSL is incompatible with GPL, so Apple's launchd code CANNOT be used in Linux.

Right, cause in the good ol' US of A they wouldn't come up with something like the DAT Tax or the Blank "Music" CD-R's (scroll down past the canada cd-r tax stuff).

[...]although for X related stuff, it's nice to be able to quit X and know your compile is still going

Although I'm sure many people already know this, I've found screen incredibly useful to manage my upgrades among other things. For example, at work you ssh into your home computer using xterm or whatever, run screen, and start an upgrade, leaving it on the background and closing the xterm if you want. When you get home, you resume your screen session and see how things are going. Very powerful utility.

Basically, I couldn't care less about so-called "open source". For me, it is and always has been about Freedom. Every time someone chooses a proprietary format, they limit the freedom of others. That needs to be stopped, or at least only done with awareness of the consequences to every member of society.

let's see how this late-entered comment that is only mildly off-topic fares against the great mass of fervent clickmongers that comprise the slashdot readership...

first off, i sometimes write and most of the time maintain free software (released under GNU GPL or LGPL, no exceptions) for my own happiness and other reasons. you may call it "open source" or whatever, but that particular confusion does not enter here. the relevant point is that writing computer programs is a skill that i search to improve in myself, and both the end product (software) and the search for self improvement are (for the most part) rewarding.

now, i'm not going to tell my personal sob story here on slashdot, but suffice to say that after a bit of looking around, i see enough suffering in the world to conclude that whatever i can do to help others cope w/ it, would be a Good Thing, not just for others but also for myself in that (like the improvement in skills associated with writing software), i can improve my own self-understanding in the process.

but what can i do to help others "cope"? i don't know anything more than how to think logically and to type quickly some strange symbols into the keyboard. and why just "cope"? that's pretty lame when it comes to helping people w/ their suffering compared to, say, providing health care or friendship or even a willing (if unprofessional) ear to the stricken.

my answer to this is to try to encourage people to write free software, since it is the only thing i am certain of. i imagine that if i were a user of software w/o ability to read, modify, change and share the software, the frustration upon encountering a bug or misfeature must be similar in some way to the suffering of others who may not have insight enough into themselves or their situation to read, modify, change and share the improved situation.

suffering is a bug in the happiness (or merely serenity if happiness is too much of a reach) of a person. to "cope" is to work around the bug. to improve the situation is to fix the bug. but to fix the bug you need the source code.

because i cannot relieve people of their suffering, the least i can do is to show a methodology for gaining insight into something (that being the source code of computer programs) and hope that the techniques can be transferred to other things.

anyway, that's why i do what i do. i have not answered the OP's question, but then again, i feel the answer i have given shares some overlap w/ the intent of the question. momentary overlap is what life is all about, after all...

Throughout the question, we can see that letting people do things which can be shown to be unethical, costly, and dismissive of freedoms we ought to cherish (such as freedom of speech) are considered "harangu[ing]" or "obnoxious", and yet nothing proprietors do is framed in that way.

I hope this doesn't mean that it's okay for them to deny me the freedom to share and modify. I hope this isn't yet another attempt to frame the debate so that the onus of responsibility is on me to justify myself without requiring business to justify treating me this way. Sharing and modifying is how computing worked since long before the free software community began, proprietary software is actually rather new, but that zeitgeist has been lost in large part. If it weren't for the free software community, we wouldn't have wonderful things like GNU/Linux systems.

I don't teach people about open source because that movement was built to cater primarily to business, and I'm interested in speaking to all computer users, not just businesses. I teach people about software freedom and related matters on my radio talk show (Digital Citizen, every other Wednesday on WEFT 90.1 FM from 8-10p) and I take calls. If you're in the Champaign, IL area then, I invite you to tune in and join the discussion. I don't think of open source as an enemy, I think of open source as a newer spin-off that loses a great deal of power in its argument by dropping any talk about freedom. One practical freedom that movement doesn't push for is private derivatives (making a copy of a program's source code, changing it to meet one's needs, and using it privately without telling anyone else it exists), something I've used a lot to solve my own computing problems.

I do this work for my radio show because I take threats including DRM, software patents, and so-called "trusted computing" (which the FSF refers to as "treacherous computing") seriously. The mainstream media never discusses these issues from the user's point of view, if they discuss them at all. Their focus invariably encourages the user to take the business perspective and ignore what these ideas mean for them. I think these topics deserve serious inquiry and challenge. Software freedom addresses these issues head-on and provides a viable path for us to be able to compete on the quality of the good or service provided, respecting the idea that what separates us from a dog-eat-dog jungle is working together and helping each other when we need help.

Throughout the question, we can see that letting people do things which can be shown to be unethical, costly, and dismissive of freedoms we ought to cherish (such as freedom of speech) are considered "harangu[ing]" or "obnoxious", and yet nothing proprietors do is framed in that way.

I hope this doesn't mean that it's okay for them to deny me the freedom to share and modify. I hope this isn't yet another attempt to frame the debate so that the onus of responsibility is on me to justify myself without requiring business to justify treating me this way. Sharing and modifying is how computing worked since long before the free software community began, proprietary software is actually rather new, but that zeitgeist has been lost in large part. If it weren't for the free software community, we wouldn't have wonderful things like GNU/Linux systems.

I don't teach people about open source because that movement was built to cater primarily to business, and I'm interested in speaking to all computer users, not just businesses. I teach people about software freedom and related matters on my radio talk show (Digital Citizen, every other Wednesday on WEFT 90.1 FM from 8-10p) and I take calls. If you're in the Champaign, IL area then, I invite you to tune in and join the discussion. I don't think of open source as an enemy, I think of open source as a newer spin-off that loses a great deal of power in its argument by dropping any talk about freedom. One practical freedom that movement doesn't push for is private derivatives (making a copy of a program's source code, changing it to meet one's needs, and using it privately without telling anyone else it exists), something I've used a lot to solve my own computing problems.

I do this work for my radio show because I take threats including DRM, software patents, and so-called "trusted computing" (which the FSF refers to as "treacherous computing") seriously. The mainstream media never discusses these issues from the user's point of view, if they discuss them at all. Their focus invariably encourages the user to take the business perspective and ignore what these ideas mean for them. I think these topics deserve serious inquiry and challenge. Software freedom addresses these issues head-on and provides a viable path for us to be able to compete on the quality of the good or service provided, respecting the idea that what separates us from a dog-eat-dog jungle is working together and helping each other when we need help.

F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the
Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject
Software, is requested to register with Government Agency by visiting
the following website: http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov. Recipient's
name and personal information shall be used for statistical purposes
only. Once a Recipient makes a Modification available, it is requested
that the Recipient inform Government Agency at the web site provided
above how to access the Modification.

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

Maybe it's better to call one of these two versions Treacherous Computing then?

No, he means the GUN project, started by Richard Stallman. The GUN project (a recursive acronym for "Gun's UNIX... Not!") aims to develop a complete free operating system. GUN is widely used today in its GUN Linux variant.

IANACC (i'm not a c coder), BUT according to ftruncate it would seem that you can do just that

"However, sometimes it is necessary to reduce the size of a file. This can be done with the truncate and ftruncate functions. They were introduced in BSD Unix. ftruncate was later added to POSIX.1.

Some systems allow you to extend a file (creating holes) with these functions. This is useful when using memory-mapped I/O (see Memory-mapped I/O), where files are not automatically extended. However, it is not portable but must be implemented if mmap allows mapping of files (i.e., _POSIX_MAPPED_FILES is defined)."

I have seen RMS speak in public and have watched first hand as he acted beligerant, abrasive, and attempted to derail the whole thing any time someone disagreed with him by arguing pointlessly over semantics again and again rather than actually providing logical premises for most of the conclusions that he posited.

Please do tell us where we can find recordings, transcripts, or other descriptions of these arguments, I would love to read them and learn more about exactly what was asked and what RMS said in response.

Many open source conferenecs[sic] [...]

Is this one of the "semantic" points you refer to--getting the name of the movement and its philosophy wrong? RMS didn't start the open source movement and he has spent considerable time telling people he has nothing to do with that movement. A major chunk of his speech on how the GNU Project began is a patient explanation of the relationship his movement, the free software movement, has to the open source movement. He started the free software movement over a decade before the open source movement began. The two movements stand for different philosophies. And that essay shows that RMS is remarkably respectful when discussing the differences, unlike the Open Source Initiative which reduces the free software movement to "ideological tub-thumping" in its FAQ.

LUGs don't often invite him to speak because RMS will insist that the group change its name before he'll even consider it.

And why should he choose to attend a group which chooses to give far more credit to one man and that man's project than that project is due while simultaneously giving no credit at all to the GNU Project which has had such a tremendous effect? I happened to give LUGRadio another listen today and the people who host that show got into this argument on the show. Apparently they didn't realize how they shot down their own logic when one of them gave a list of 3 or 4 things RMS had contributed (an incomplete list to be sure) and then insisted that RMS would be exerting power over them if he were to reject their request for an interview on the basis that they give the GNU Project no credit (and give "Linux" all the credit). RMS has the right to determine where he will speak and there's no reasonable explanation for not giving GNU its fair share of credit. He would be endorsing the view to give Linux all the credit if he attends and speaks. RMS has already addressed this issue in some detail, with far better logic, and again, quite respectfully; far more respectfully than you or the LUGRadio people appear to have done:

"Is it true, as Barr writes, that some people see these actions as an ``application of force'' comparable with Microsoft's monopoly power? Probably so. Declining an invitation is not coercion, but people who are determined to believe that the entire system is ``Linux'' sometimes develop amazingly distorted vision. To make that name appear justified, they must see molehills as mountains and mountains as molehills. If you can ignore the facts and believe that Linus Torvalds developed the whole system starting in 1991, or if you can ignore your ordinary principles of fairness and believe that Torvalds should get the sole credit even though he didn't do that, it's a small step to believe that I owe you a speech when you ask.

Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. The GNU Project says, ``Please give our project equal mention,'' but Linus says, ``Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!'' Now envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes strong

I have seen RMS speak in public and have watched first hand as he acted beligerant, abrasive, and attempted to derail the whole thing any time someone disagreed with him by arguing pointlessly over semantics again and again rather than actually providing logical premises for most of the conclusions that he posited.

Please do tell us where we can find recordings, transcripts, or other descriptions of these arguments, I would love to read them and learn more about exactly what was asked and what RMS said in response.

Many open source conferenecs[sic] [...]

Is this one of the "semantic" points you refer to--getting the name of the movement and its philosophy wrong? RMS didn't start the open source movement and he has spent considerable time telling people he has nothing to do with that movement. A major chunk of his speech on how the GNU Project began is a patient explanation of the relationship his movement, the free software movement, has to the open source movement. He started the free software movement over a decade before the open source movement began. The two movements stand for different philosophies. And that essay shows that RMS is remarkably respectful when discussing the differences, unlike the Open Source Initiative which reduces the free software movement to "ideological tub-thumping" in its FAQ.

LUGs don't often invite him to speak because RMS will insist that the group change its name before he'll even consider it.

And why should he choose to attend a group which chooses to give far more credit to one man and that man's project than that project is due while simultaneously giving no credit at all to the GNU Project which has had such a tremendous effect? I happened to give LUGRadio another listen today and the people who host that show got into this argument on the show. Apparently they didn't realize how they shot down their own logic when one of them gave a list of 3 or 4 things RMS had contributed (an incomplete list to be sure) and then insisted that RMS would be exerting power over them if he were to reject their request for an interview on the basis that they give the GNU Project no credit (and give "Linux" all the credit). RMS has the right to determine where he will speak and there's no reasonable explanation for not giving GNU its fair share of credit. He would be endorsing the view to give Linux all the credit if he attends and speaks. RMS has already addressed this issue in some detail, with far better logic, and again, quite respectfully; far more respectfully than you or the LUGRadio people appear to have done:

"Is it true, as Barr writes, that some people see these actions as an ``application of force'' comparable with Microsoft's monopoly power? Probably so. Declining an invitation is not coercion, but people who are determined to believe that the entire system is ``Linux'' sometimes develop amazingly distorted vision. To make that name appear justified, they must see molehills as mountains and mountains as molehills. If you can ignore the facts and believe that Linus Torvalds developed the whole system starting in 1991, or if you can ignore your ordinary principles of fairness and believe that Torvalds should get the sole credit even though he didn't do that, it's a small step to believe that I owe you a speech when you ask.

Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. The GNU Project says, ``Please give our project equal mention,'' but Linus says, ``Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!'' Now envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes strong

Thinking of Windows as an operating system is the same as thinking of Linux + BASH + XFree + KDE as an "operating system."

Well, that IS what "operating system" means, after all...

A single low-level kernel is NOT an operating system, it's just part of one. The Linux kernel, for example, is not by itself an operating system, since it cannot operate alone.

Typical moron who just does not get it.

Linus Torvalds did more in 10 years to popularize open source software than GNU did in double that...

Well, DUH!

Stallman goes out of his way to make the point that he has little to do with the Open Source movement.

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

QUOTE: "We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word ``open'' to describe free software, or its contrary, ``closed'', in talking about non-free software.

Also, if you are going to replace the GNU userland, are you going to write your own compiler as well?

Have you seen the GNU "coding standards"? All based on RMS' personal preferences, all insane.

When a feature is used only by users (not by programs or command files), and it is done poorly in Unix, feel free to replace it completely with something totally different and better. (For example, vi is replaced with Emacs.)

Have you seen the GNU "coding standards"? All based on RMS' personal preferences, all insane.

When a feature is used only by users (not by programs or command files), and it is done poorly in Unix, feel free to replace it completely with something totally different and better. (For example, vi is replaced with Emacs.)

You are not in the same position with non-free software as you are with free software. Free software can be fixed by the user themselves (obviously, this requires skill) or by hiring someone to do the work. If those dormant Sourceforge projects are not developing fast enough for you, you can do something about that.

Freedom is not the same as skill. This is not about getting people to do your work for you any time you want it done without paying them to do it (if that's the level of support you want, pay a programmer and get them to work on your schedule with your priorities in mind). And this is not about "OSS" which RMS does not represent and has taken much effort to distinguish himself from. It's about the pragmatic idealism which the open source movement rejects, giving users the freedom to decide how their software is improved.

He's talking about the kernel, hence he respects the name it was given--Linux. He asks people to do the same when speaking of the OS in which the Linux kernel is most commonly used so that both projects get a share of the credit--GNU/Linux.

Time to read the GNU/Linux naming FAQ, perhaps.

> EULAs insist that you cannot use the software without accepting them.

The same is true of the GPL.

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."

Well, normally you have the "right" to put code you find on your computer into your own programs and sell it.

Moreover, the GPL does allow me to do that, although under certain conditions: the final product must be distributed with source code and licensed under the GPL. Provided I make sure of that, I can sell GPL'd software to my heart's content.

you normally have the right to distribute your own code under any license you choose. If you accept the GPL and put some GPL code into your program, you lose that right.

You have some very mistaken ideas about copyright. Copyright covers distribution, but copyright does not cover use. Check out the Wikipedia article on copyright; it's the most useful, least biased introduction I can find in ten minutes.

> EULAs insist that you cannot use the software without accepting them.

The same is true of the GPL.

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."

Well, normally you have the "right" to put code you find on your computer into your own programs and sell it.

Moreover, the GPL does allow me to do that, although under certain conditions: the final product must be distributed with source code and licensed under the GPL. Provided I make sure of that, I can sell GPL'd software to my heart's content.

you normally have the right to distribute your own code under any license you choose. If you accept the GPL and put some GPL code into your program, you lose that right.

You have some very mistaken ideas about copyright. Copyright covers distribution, but copyright does not cover use. Check out the Wikipedia article on copyright; it's the most useful, least biased introduction I can find in ten minutes.

The CPL is a very nice license, simular to the LGPL in what rights it gives to the user, and the FSF has no philosophical objections with it. However it is not compatable with the GPL for technical legal reasons.

"For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)"

Private or custom software is software developed for one user (typically an organization or company). That user keeps it and uses it, and does not release it to the public either as source code or as binaries.

[...]

In general we do not believe it is wrong to develop a program and not release it. There are occasions when a program is so useful that withholding it from release is treating humanity badly. However, most programs are not that marvelous, and withholding them is not particularly harmful. Thus, there is no conflict between the development of private or custom software and the principles of the free software movement.

It seems that proprietary software meant to control a piece of hardware that a company is selling as a stand-alone "black box" unit would be OK by RMS. In other words, in the cases I mentioned, the purchaser is really buying an MRI unit or an ABS system - the fact that it comes with software is mostly beside the point.

Well it is listed under "moral choice" but I would say it was because he wanted to fix a problem with the printer.

Go read: About The GNU Project

I think it is multiple choice for most. 1, 2, 3, and 4 fit my philosophy on free software

No. The idea of the Free Software movement is a world in which there is no restriction on software - everyone has access to the source and can do with it what they wish. Modify it, give it away, print it out and eat it, whatever.

You're correct -- I was referring to implications, not really the basic ideas, which are refreshingly simple, and don't bother to delve in utopianism.

Economics don't come into it *at all*

Beg to differ. The GNU Manifesto is a profoundly economic treatise, and it does envision a different economy, the post-scarcity world.

Merely having access to the source of the software you use does not automatically lead to everyone living well.

Very true. But the idea is that the resources for everyone to live well are there in the first place. It's just that our economic system brings about so much injustice that not everybody gets to benefit from it. Free Software is an important step in that direction.

The FSF, which has a very good grasp of American copyright law, maintains that setting conditions for merely running the software is outside the powers of a copyright holder in most circumstances. The early revisions of the Apple Public Source License were criticized on this basis, noting the cruel irony that would result if trying to make a free software license resulted in extending copyright power.

Read this.

I'm also not falling for the support straw man. I'm entirely willing to believe that at least SOME people are willing to pay for innovation...How do you think Apple are making a profit from OSX? Come to that, why do you think some people prefer Distro X over Distro Y? Because there are innovations present compared to other distributions...Distro X might have better package management, nicer UI features...any number of different things. Other thing is...sure, all the seperate elements of Distro X might be open source and floating around in the aether...but do you really think Joe Six-pack is going to know how to pull all those disparate elements together, integrate them, and make them work together as a functional OS? I think not...and so if you *can* do it, Joe Six-pack is going to pay you for it...because you're either saving him a huge amount of time, or giving him something which he wouldn't have the technical knowledge to produce for himself at all.

The only reason why a lot of people associated with Linux in particular might think paying for an operating system is wrong is because they've been indoctrinated to think that by the free-beer/free-libre confusion. However, the general public have been doing it for years. And again...even if all the individual pieces are open source, assembling a distribution is still a service...a reasonably difficult and valuable one. If you'd ever tried to get Glibc to compile, you might understand why, even though it's open source, I still think people should be willing to pay a certain amount for Linux. The person charging them will have earned the money.