Slashdot Mirror

It seems the whole point to your posts above is that the GPL isn't viral because you don't have to GPL the code--you just have to hire a lawyer and go to court or just opt out entirely. I guess that's a compromise.

You are also arguing based on a slightly different definition of 'viral'. In most discussions, it is used in the context of making larger works based on source code, not simply installing binaries that link against LGPL shared libraries.

...the code you incorporated into your proprietary product.

If that company ever distributed their proprietary code, it would have to be GPL.

(without looking at the GPL code as a baseline, because that becomes a copyright infringement, as it isn't a cleanroom implementation)

How is this possible after determining the GPL code isn't workable?

If you borrow a socket interface from a GPL product and put it into your application, does your entire application become a derivitive work of that socket interface? Of course not!

If you re-implemented the interface, no. If you borrowed the GPL code that implemented the interface, the resulting program has to be GPL.

Also, GPL != LGPL. GNU specifically uses the GPL on shared libraries where they want to enforce linked programs be GPL.

It grants rights, it does not take them away.

Pedant: It takes away rights that would otherwise belong to the public domain.

Your link to the GPL FAQ does not support your arguments:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

There's more but seven is enough. In short, any time they hint at not requiring re-licensing under the GPL, there is a catch. Either the author has to dual-license (one license being the GPL) or amend the GPL (no guaranteed propogation). Always, the GPL is in the equation.

Look, I am not anti-GPL (it _is_ a useful license), but I do understand the rationale behind the per-file licenses like the MPL (and its derivatives). If I write code today based on an existing code base, I really can't predict my future needs whether to redistribute it or not. If I go the GPL route, that changes the game plan. With the CDDL, the game plan is more controllable, if I organize my files properly and make a modular program.

It seems the whole point to your posts above is that the GPL isn't viral because you don't have to GPL the code--you just have to hire a lawyer and go to court or just opt out entirely. I guess that's a compromise.

You are also arguing based on a slightly different definition of 'viral'. In most discussions, it is used in the context of making larger works based on source code, not simply installing binaries that link against LGPL shared libraries.

...the code you incorporated into your proprietary product.

If that company ever distributed their proprietary code, it would have to be GPL.

(without looking at the GPL code as a baseline, because that becomes a copyright infringement, as it isn't a cleanroom implementation)

How is this possible after determining the GPL code isn't workable?

If you borrow a socket interface from a GPL product and put it into your application, does your entire application become a derivitive work of that socket interface? Of course not!

If you re-implemented the interface, no. If you borrowed the GPL code that implemented the interface, the resulting program has to be GPL.

Also, GPL != LGPL. GNU specifically uses the GPL on shared libraries where they want to enforce linked programs be GPL.

It grants rights, it does not take them away.

Pedant: It takes away rights that would otherwise belong to the public domain.

Your link to the GPL FAQ does not support your arguments:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

There's more but seven is enough. In short, any time they hint at not requiring re-licensing under the GPL, there is a catch. Either the author has to dual-license (one license being the GPL) or amend the GPL (no guaranteed propogation). Always, the GPL is in the equation.

Look, I am not anti-GPL (it _is_ a useful license), but I do understand the rationale behind the per-file licenses like the MPL (and its derivatives). If I write code today based on an existing code base, I really can't predict my future needs whether to redistribute it or not. If I go the GPL route, that changes the game plan. With the CDDL, the game plan is more controllable, if I organize my files properly and make a modular program.

"You use GPL - you get infected. The cure is either to GPL the entire product or pay a fine and surgically remove all GPL code."

The bold item above is exactly the kind of misinformation that propagates this myth about the GPL being viral. It is nothing of the sort.

You are required, when you agreed to the license, to release the source code to derivitive works based upon GPL software, i.e. the code you incorporated into your proprietary product. You don't have to GPL the entire product at all, and not a single case in the history of the GPL has ever even suggested that action.

When you agreed to the terms of the license by using the code covered by it in your product, you were bound by these clauses. If you think they're unworkable, you can simply stop using the code. Simple solution, write the replacement code yourself (without looking at the GPL code as a baseline, because that becomes a copyright infringement, as it isn't a cleanroom implementation).

Even the COPYING file in the Linux kernel (though LGPL) covers in detail exactly how to go about this, without making your "entire product" covered by the same license. If you borrow a socket interface from a GPL product and put it into your application, does your entire application become a derivitive work of that socket interface? Of course not!

I'm not sure where you're getting your GPL information, but it doesn't reflect reality. Please read the GPL directly, and also the GPL FAQ to correct those misconceptions you have about the license. Seriously.

Remember, the GPL is simply a license that allows you to copy and redistribute copyrighted software. It grants rights, it does not take them away.

"You use GPL - you get infected. The cure is either to GPL the entire product or pay a fine and surgically remove all GPL code."

The bold item above is exactly the kind of misinformation that propagates this myth about the GPL being viral. It is nothing of the sort.

You are required, when you agreed to the license, to release the source code to derivitive works based upon GPL software, i.e. the code you incorporated into your proprietary product. You don't have to GPL the entire product at all, and not a single case in the history of the GPL has ever even suggested that action.

When you agreed to the terms of the license by using the code covered by it in your product, you were bound by these clauses. If you think they're unworkable, you can simply stop using the code. Simple solution, write the replacement code yourself (without looking at the GPL code as a baseline, because that becomes a copyright infringement, as it isn't a cleanroom implementation).

Even the COPYING file in the Linux kernel (though LGPL) covers in detail exactly how to go about this, without making your "entire product" covered by the same license. If you borrow a socket interface from a GPL product and put it into your application, does your entire application become a derivitive work of that socket interface? Of course not!

I'm not sure where you're getting your GPL information, but it doesn't reflect reality. Please read the GPL directly, and also the GPL FAQ to correct those misconceptions you have about the license. Seriously.

Remember, the GPL is simply a license that allows you to copy and redistribute copyrighted software. It grants rights, it does not take them away.

[The CDDL] is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL.

the Open Source Initiative decided it was "Open". It's not "Free" by the Free Software Foundation.

What, the CDDL? Is too Free! The FSF has it listed as a free software license right here. "This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. [...]" CDDL is free and open source. It's just incompatible (at a source-code merging level) with 60-80% of the software on a typical Linux distribution. Including the huge reperetoire of drivers that Linux comes with. Solaris is going to have a lot of fun re-inventing all those wheels. But oh well, that's life.

The GPL is not viral.

Well, why do you think, viral doesn't describe the paragraph 2.b) of the GPL adequately?

2.b) 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.

I don't question the way, GPL violations are handled at court today. But the GPL demands rights on your code which is problematic and made many open source projects either dual licensed (Mozilla, OpenOffice.org) or tagged with an exception (MySQL).

This is hardly a reasonable way to look at it. Many licenses are compatible with this, and the "viral" clause does not stop you from making the code available under any other license you like as well.

I think, it is a valid way. Do you remember the stories about the early days of the GNU project? It was basically RMS' anoyance that he was not granted access to a specific source code, so that he deceided, all source should be freely accessible for all hackers.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

Well, AFAIK you do not have to agree to the GPL to _download_ and _use_ Free software. The GPL is a copyright license, which provides you with the right to distribute the software. Assume that I sell or give you a GPL'ed program (and that I include the source and the license) - you are now in possesion of a legal licensed copy of the program, which you may install and use on your computer as much as you like (copyright/fair use allows the internal copying needed to use the software). If you choose to accept the GPL, you are granted additional rights, above and beyond what copyright/fair use gives you, to copy, distribute, and modify the program, as long as you distribute under the terms of the GPL. If you don't believe me, check the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) yourself. Term 0 spells out what activities are governed by the GPL.

CompuServe finally settled on the less unreasonable 5c per paid application that can encode GIF's, with no fee for decoders. That fee is no longer with us, as the patent has expired.

the known unisys patents (and releated 'gif tax') may have expired in 2004 or earlier, however, there is a duplicate patent (all praise the uspto!) owned by ibm that does not expire until 11 august 2006 (4,814,746).

ref:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html#venuenote
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/19/35919/4079

and unisys' web site states they have patents pending on 'improvements' to the now-expired patent.

ref:
http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw

so who knows if a simiilar fiasco will pop up again in the future.......

one industry does that all the time. when a profitable and popular prescription drug is about to expire and get in the hands of (legal) generic manufacturers, a "new" version of the drug is "invented" (typically the same exact forumla in an 'extended-release' form, which changes the inactive ingredients, not the drug itself) and that is enough to keep the "original" forumla from going generic.

I was surprsed to find no mention of Righard Stallman's original GNUpedia project (original announcement) - the original GFDL corpus access provider.

It's unfortunate that GNU gave up on their project when self-described Ayn Rand fanatic James Wales "stole the thunder" from their announcement by relicensing Nupedia under the GFDL - Richard Stallman's original plans for the GFDL Corpus - partly inspired by Ted Nelson's Xanadu - seem extremely relevant today as Wikipedia's neutrality and accuracy are questioned and more and more GFDL wikis spring up like mushrooms - Wikinfo, Dkosopedia, Demopedia, SourceWatch, Anarchopedia, InfoShop...

It has been said that many people learn Wikipedia's bias on political/historical topics the hard way, get discouraged and stop contributing to wiki encyclopedias altogether - which is a shame. Even administrators have been badgered off of Wikipedia, not to mention a host of users.

"please distribute it to your friends without any modification."

Sounds non-free to me, since its missing 50% of the essential freedoms of free software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# Freeware

"please distribute it to your friends without any modification."

Sounds non-free to me, since its missing 50% of the essential freedoms of free software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# Freeware

See, that's the odd thing about America -- we have a thing called the Constitution which specifically requires that we tolerate even the most distasteful political speech. Talking is not a hate crime. Now, you may disagree with that, but TOUGH SHIT. If you're that upset about it, try to amend the Constitution.

I'm no neo-NAZI, but I support protection of their speech because tomorrow it could be DeCSS, or GPG, or Gnutella, or The Right to Read that The Powers That Be want to censor.

I understand FSF asserts a program that dynamically links to a GPL library is a derived work of that library, hence subject to the GPL. I have tried without success to discover the legal reasoning behind that assertion.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

I'm not sure I agree that the fact that modules are designed to run in a shared address space means in itself that they should be considered one work. There's going to have to be a legal ruling on that at some point, I think.

In this case? The fact that the organization which wrote the GPL says so

Why not use the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for fonts? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

From the GPL Faq

As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font, and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. (emphasis mine)

>According to statements by both Stallman and >Perens, they consider programmers are "evil" unless >they give away their work.

This is one misconception that I am growing desperately tired of...however like some kind of many-tentacled octopus, no matter how many times I try and step on it, it just keeps rising from the grave. There also admittedly aren't that many times when I'll come to the defense of RMS...but this *is* one of them. Go and read this. In it, RMS states that he doesn't have a problem with people selling GPL bound software at all.

The free/beer and free/libre debates and the associated misconception were ESR's entire motivation for adopting the term Open Source, so far as I know. Basically what Stallman says at the above link is that the ONLY demand that the GPL makes is that source be provided with binaries. End of story. To quote from his article:-

"Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it."
(Emphasis his)

I've started realising that it isn't actually so much RMS' philosophies themselves which bother me...it's the misconceptions that a lot of other ill-informed morons who claim to be his supporters develop and spread. RMS doesn't have anything against people making money from GPL-bound software AT ALL...He did it himself at one point with Emacs. He isn't Communist, and the GPL itself isn't, either. I repeat, all the GPL demands of people is that if you're going to distribute binaries in whatever manner, you also distribute accompanying source, so that said software has a chance to propogate itself. As long as both are sold together in the one package, you can charge as much money for said package as you like.

Much of your post is flamebait, but I'll note that Stallman has nothing to do with the open source movement. He has taken time to explain the differences between the movements. Stallman started the GNU Project to make the freedoms of free software real, and the rights free software confers upon the user are infectious--one can easily see how sharing and modifying software is critical to preserving freedom of speech, critical for restoring competition in the marketplace, and democratizing software development.

As for trying to use a license to prevent Nike from running a program because you object to their labor practices, you desire the kind of power over licensees that the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement tries to leverage. The FSF has explained why this license is a non-free license.

Unlike you writing and selling Harry Potter books (which, actually, I wouldn't object to you doing but given your writing sample here, I doubt you could match what fans of that series are used to reading), I need my computer to express myself politically in the way I choose to do and I use a computer to cooperate with other people in the way people in ethical societies should do. This includes distributing software for a fee, if I choose. Distribution is key to spreading copies of programs that help people, or spreading copies of improved programs. Distributing copies of a program for a fee is a great way to justify writing more free software. To maintain that I shouldn't be able to do these things is to advocate for a power we don't grant readers of books or other published works--I can buy and sell copies of other copyrighted works by leveraging my rights under the first sale doctrine. Ultimately, free software sets a better standard against which we can compare other software and see if the rights we have with free software are also granted to us. I'm not willing to give up these rights, so I place them high on my priority list when evaluating a program.

Much of your post is flamebait, but I'll note that Stallman has nothing to do with the open source movement. He has taken time to explain the differences between the movements. Stallman started the GNU Project to make the freedoms of free software real, and the rights free software confers upon the user are infectious--one can easily see how sharing and modifying software is critical to preserving freedom of speech, critical for restoring competition in the marketplace, and democratizing software development.

As for trying to use a license to prevent Nike from running a program because you object to their labor practices, you desire the kind of power over licensees that the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement tries to leverage. The FSF has explained why this license is a non-free license.

Unlike you writing and selling Harry Potter books (which, actually, I wouldn't object to you doing but given your writing sample here, I doubt you could match what fans of that series are used to reading), I need my computer to express myself politically in the way I choose to do and I use a computer to cooperate with other people in the way people in ethical societies should do. This includes distributing software for a fee, if I choose. Distribution is key to spreading copies of programs that help people, or spreading copies of improved programs. Distributing copies of a program for a fee is a great way to justify writing more free software. To maintain that I shouldn't be able to do these things is to advocate for a power we don't grant readers of books or other published works--I can buy and sell copies of other copyrighted works by leveraging my rights under the first sale doctrine. Ultimately, free software sets a better standard against which we can compare other software and see if the rights we have with free software are also granted to us. I'm not willing to give up these rights, so I place them high on my priority list when evaluating a program.

I'm no kernel developer so I have no clue as to if Linus is "[being] a real idiot". However I do have a goodly bit of management experience and this kind of talk is bad no matter how you slice it.

You don't need to be a software developer of any kind to understand that it's a bad thing when Linus Torvalds told Andrew Tridgell to stop developing his free software network-compatible replacement for BitKeeper. If McVoy's retelling is accurate, I find it very disturbing and so should everyone else in the free software community. This is a very big sign that Torvalds is not the free software "posterboy" some take him to be. We don't tell one another what programs to write or not write without paying them, and we certainly don't impede another's desire to promote a free software alternative to a proprietary program. Impeding free software is harmful to the community.

This is remarkably one-sided of Torvalds as well. I'm sure Microsoft doesn't appreciate Samba servers being used instead of Microsoft Windows servers, yet the reason Samba is so good at what it does (and can replace some Microsoft SMB servers) is because Tridgell and the other Samba developers did the reverse-engineering work to figure out how the SMB protocols work in practice. I don't recall reading about Torvalds defending proprietary software being distributed by Microsoft by telling Tridgell to stop his Samba work; but BitMover's proprietary software has received that kind of attention from Torvalds. Torvalds is serving as a buttress for BitMover here.

As for Torvalds sometimes being a "real idiot", I can attest to that although I would never have called him names. I can think of instances where Torvalds inadvertantly embarassed himself when his opinion was sought on political matters. In such instances it is clear to all but the most ardent Torvalds fans that his reach exceeds his grasp. If I recall correctly, a recent Newsforge.com interview asked him what he thought of the upcoming GNU GPL v3 (possibly years before it comes out). This struck me as unwise since he does not closely examine copyright law or its ethical import for society (two of the things one needs to have down pat to offer critique worth considering regarding the GPL). For this advice I would have instead asked Eben Moglen or RMS, both authorities on the issues surrounding the GPL. By contrast, asking Torvalds about Linux kernel programming would be perfectly appropriate. I'd never think to go to Moglen or RMS for this information.

Saying these kinds of things to the press can only hurt the whole OSS movement as it give all the MS, Sun, et all shills plenty of ammo to use. [...]

You shouldn't fear "spin". You need to trust that people will examine what happened and be reasonable, discuss the situation, and find better arguments. Microsoft will distort history regardless of what we do. They've proven this with their college campus tours and interviews when they declare that free software is a "cancer" or will eat your "intellectual property" like Pac-Man. Brad Kuhn (former executive director of the FSF) said at a talk in Urbana, IL that the annual budget for the FSF is what Microsoft makes in 30 seconds, yet Microsoft has said that the FSF is a threat to software development worldwide. When we see something unethical going on, we need to speak up about it, no matter who is at fault. The cure for bad speech is more speech.

I know that a number of GPL'ed projects offer a GPL license and a Commercial license.

You know of a number of GPL'ed projects which distribute under the GPL or a proprietary license. The GNU General Public License (GPL) is a commercial license because business is done under this license. GPL-covered works are distributed for a fee. The GPL is in no way anti-business. Ironically, I've pointed out some significant ways in which the open source movement fails to speak to business interests as well as free software speaks to all computer users (the open source definition ignores any requirement for private derivatives, for instance).

But, if you want to create a closed-source/proprietary project [...]

The free software movement does not want to be confused with the open source movement and the open source movement works hard to distance themselves from freedom talk. Please reconsider trying to conflate the real and important differences between the two movements. The open source movement deserves far less credit than it receives with regard to the GNU GPL, considering they had nothing to do with writing it, building a community around it, and that the open source movement doesn't frame anything in terms of software freedom. Their work in bringing people to freedom is to be commended, but I think when associating a movement with the license (particularly in an article focusing on the license itself), it's important that we give credit to the FSF and associate it with the free software movement.

I know that a number of GPL'ed projects offer a GPL license and a Commercial license.

You know of a number of GPL'ed projects which distribute under the GPL or a proprietary license. The GNU General Public License (GPL) is a commercial license because business is done under this license. GPL-covered works are distributed for a fee. The GPL is in no way anti-business. Ironically, I've pointed out some significant ways in which the open source movement fails to speak to business interests as well as free software speaks to all computer users (the open source definition ignores any requirement for private derivatives, for instance).

But, if you want to create a closed-source/proprietary project [...]

The free software movement does not want to be confused with the open source movement and the open source movement works hard to distance themselves from freedom talk. Please reconsider trying to conflate the real and important differences between the two movements. The open source movement deserves far less credit than it receives with regard to the GNU GPL, considering they had nothing to do with writing it, building a community around it, and that the open source movement doesn't frame anything in terms of software freedom. Their work in bringing people to freedom is to be commended, but I think when associating a movement with the license (particularly in an article focusing on the license itself), it's important that we give credit to the FSF and associate it with the free software movement.

You party with RMS? That's either cool, or very, very sad. :)

It would be shameful if Monkey's Audio's license became an OSI-approved license. It would point to a profound irony as well. Consider the situation from a business perspective and don't forget that the open source movement's chief audience is businesses.

According to the Monkey's Audio developer site: "If you're trying to make money, in any way, talk to me first.". This is a restatement of section 2 of the Monkey's Audio license ("2. The use of Monkey's Audio or the Monkey's Audio source code for any commercial purposes including, but not limited to, implementation in shareware packages is strictly prohibited without first obtaining written permission from the author.").

This means that you need additional permission beyond the license to do something you deserve the right to do--distribute modified or verbatim copies of the covered work for a fee; something you would have the right to do if Monkey's Audio license qualified as a free software license, which it clearly does not. The copyright holder could deny your business permission ad hoc. Choosing to deal with licensors like this means that you are choosing to build your business on sand (metaphorically speaking).

I can hardly believe I need to tell open source proponents about the value of paying attention to all computer users, including those in business. Semi-free software is insufficient. We should not exclude profit-minded users from free software. We should insist that everyone can enjoy the freedoms of free software.

So why is Monkey's Audio and so many of their users describing the software as "open source"? Because of a different shame, a failed attempt to supplant the free software movement by substituting a weaker definition tied to a different term that the OSI thought would address the ambiguity of the English word "free". Just like the FSF describes, "open source" here is probably being taken to mean the ability to view the source code. Anyone who has read the open source definition knows that merely seeing source code is explicitly not what the term "open source" means, yet this is the misunderstanding many come away with. So, now we have two movements: the older free software movement using an English word with multiple meanings provoking initial misunderstanding (which non-English speakers have no problem understanding to mean freedom not price). Free software is tied to the rights computer users need. The open source movement offers a misunderstood term (which remains misunderstood around the world), and which is tied to watered-down rights primarily aimed at benefitting businesses.

FLAC remains the easy choice primarily because it is free software. It might not compress best (but it compresses better than Shorten), but it works well enough and its inherent freedom offers a compelling case for long-term archiving.

It would be shameful if Monkey's Audio's license became an OSI-approved license. It would point to a profound irony as well. Consider the situation from a business perspective and don't forget that the open source movement's chief audience is businesses.

According to the Monkey's Audio developer site: "If you're trying to make money, in any way, talk to me first.". This is a restatement of section 2 of the Monkey's Audio license ("2. The use of Monkey's Audio or the Monkey's Audio source code for any commercial purposes including, but not limited to, implementation in shareware packages is strictly prohibited without first obtaining written permission from the author.").

This means that you need additional permission beyond the license to do something you deserve the right to do--distribute modified or verbatim copies of the covered work for a fee; something you would have the right to do if Monkey's Audio license qualified as a free software license, which it clearly does not. The copyright holder could deny your business permission ad hoc. Choosing to deal with licensors like this means that you are choosing to build your business on sand (metaphorically speaking).

I can hardly believe I need to tell open source proponents about the value of paying attention to all computer users, including those in business. Semi-free software is insufficient. We should not exclude profit-minded users from free software. We should insist that everyone can enjoy the freedoms of free software.

So why is Monkey's Audio and so many of their users describing the software as "open source"? Because of a different shame, a failed attempt to supplant the free software movement by substituting a weaker definition tied to a different term that the OSI thought would address the ambiguity of the English word "free". Just like the FSF describes, "open source" here is probably being taken to mean the ability to view the source code. Anyone who has read the open source definition knows that merely seeing source code is explicitly not what the term "open source" means, yet this is the misunderstanding many come away with. So, now we have two movements: the older free software movement using an English word with multiple meanings provoking initial misunderstanding (which non-English speakers have no problem understanding to mean freedom not price). Free software is tied to the rights computer users need. The open source movement offers a misunderstood term (which remains misunderstood around the world), and which is tied to watered-down rights primarily aimed at benefitting businesses.

FLAC remains the easy choice primarily because it is free software. It might not compress best (but it compresses better than Shorten), but it works well enough and its inherent freedom offers a compelling case for long-term archiving.

It would be shameful if Monkey's Audio's license became an OSI-approved license. It would point to a profound irony as well. Consider the situation from a business perspective and don't forget that the open source movement's chief audience is businesses.

According to the Monkey's Audio developer site: "If you're trying to make money, in any way, talk to me first.". This is a restatement of section 2 of the Monkey's Audio license ("2. The use of Monkey's Audio or the Monkey's Audio source code for any commercial purposes including, but not limited to, implementation in shareware packages is strictly prohibited without first obtaining written permission from the author.").

This means that you need additional permission beyond the license to do something you deserve the right to do--distribute modified or verbatim copies of the covered work for a fee; something you would have the right to do if Monkey's Audio license qualified as a free software license, which it clearly does not. The copyright holder could deny your business permission ad hoc. Choosing to deal with licensors like this means that you are choosing to build your business on sand (metaphorically speaking).

I can hardly believe I need to tell open source proponents about the value of paying attention to all computer users, including those in business. Semi-free software is insufficient. We should not exclude profit-minded users from free software. We should insist that everyone can enjoy the freedoms of free software.

So why is Monkey's Audio and so many of their users describing the software as "open source"? Because of a different shame, a failed attempt to supplant the free software movement by substituting a weaker definition tied to a different term that the OSI thought would address the ambiguity of the English word "free". Just like the FSF describes, "open source" here is probably being taken to mean the ability to view the source code. Anyone who has read the open source definition knows that merely seeing source code is explicitly not what the term "open source" means, yet this is the misunderstanding many come away with. So, now we have two movements: the older free software movement using an English word with multiple meanings provoking initial misunderstanding (which non-English speakers have no problem understanding to mean freedom not price). Free software is tied to the rights computer users need. The open source movement offers a misunderstood term (which remains misunderstood around the world), and which is tied to watered-down rights primarily aimed at benefitting businesses.

FLAC remains the easy choice primarily because it is free software. It might not compress best (but it compresses better than Shorten), but it works well enough and its inherent freedom offers a compelling case for long-term archiving.

It would be shameful if Monkey's Audio's license became an OSI-approved license. It would point to a profound irony as well. Consider the situation from a business perspective and don't forget that the open source movement's chief audience is businesses.

According to the Monkey's Audio developer site: "If you're trying to make money, in any way, talk to me first.". This is a restatement of section 2 of the Monkey's Audio license ("2. The use of Monkey's Audio or the Monkey's Audio source code for any commercial purposes including, but not limited to, implementation in shareware packages is strictly prohibited without first obtaining written permission from the author.").

This means that you need additional permission beyond the license to do something you deserve the right to do--distribute modified or verbatim copies of the covered work for a fee; something you would have the right to do if Monkey's Audio license qualified as a free software license, which it clearly does not. The copyright holder could deny your business permission ad hoc. Choosing to deal with licensors like this means that you are choosing to build your business on sand (metaphorically speaking).

I can hardly believe I need to tell open source proponents about the value of paying attention to all computer users, including those in business. Semi-free software is insufficient. We should not exclude profit-minded users from free software. We should insist that everyone can enjoy the freedoms of free software.

So why is Monkey's Audio and so many of their users describing the software as "open source"? Because of a different shame, a failed attempt to supplant the free software movement by substituting a weaker definition tied to a different term that the OSI thought would address the ambiguity of the English word "free". Just like the FSF describes, "open source" here is probably being taken to mean the ability to view the source code. Anyone who has read the open source definition knows that merely seeing source code is explicitly not what the term "open source" means, yet this is the misunderstanding many come away with. So, now we have two movements: the older free software movement using an English word with multiple meanings provoking initial misunderstanding (which non-English speakers have no problem understanding to mean freedom not price). Free software is tied to the rights computer users need. The open source movement offers a misunderstood term (which remains misunderstood around the world), and which is tied to watered-down rights primarily aimed at benefitting businesses.

FLAC remains the easy choice primarily because it is free software. It might not compress best (but it compresses better than Shorten), but it works well enough and its inherent freedom offers a compelling case for long-term archiving.

If "design[ing] from the ground up to be more secure" is actually a point of the open source movement it is a mistake. After a certain amount of complexity, people are sure to inadvertantly write buggy programs. There's nothing wrong with trying to design secure programs from the start, but inevitably bugs will be found. Therefore to promise secure design from the start is a lie.

The free software movement, by contrast, avoids that lie because it offers a different message. The free software movement's message says that free software is inherently better because people have the freedom to share and modify free programs. Thus when bugs are discovered they can be fixed and the fixed version can be shared with the community. Nowhere does the free software message hinge on secure design from the start, however secure-by-design may be another side effect of the freedoms of free software. It makes far more sense to admit that humans are fallible, regardless of intention, and will design insecure software as a result.

For more on the differences between the movements, please read the FSF's essay.

Let's see, what do we have here... a kind of glorified text editor full of cryptic key commands that you have to memorise before you can get anything done, and with a few hooks into a web browser and other apps to give it the vague semblance of an operating system.

Yes, yes, I think we've seen this before.

The big problem with iTunes is its obnoxious habit of wiping iPod tracks it doesn't have in its own database.

The devil, of course, is in the details. What would the mandatory licensing terms be?

While there is something rather seductive about your suggestion, it would be very hard to anticipate all the situations for which this would apply. Starting with the "simple" proposition of judging the now standard worth of things or what portion of the sliding scale the work in question merits is daunting in and of itself.

Instead of dictates, it could be a matter of litigation. You'd have to set it so that the job of the court in question was to resolve the matter in the interests of the public, including but not limited to, providing incentive to the creator.

At that point, someone wanting to obtain Fiona Apple's album, Extraordinary Machine legally, could ask Epic for licencing terms. If none are offered or are unreasonable, one could litigate, in this case most likely as a class-action. Assuming they didn't end up settling, the court would then dictate the terms to the standard of a reasonable outside opinion.

The application for patent law would be roughly the same. Additionally, the court would be empowered to invalidate patents that are brought before it if they do not benefit the public good or do not pass the sniff test. This would probably cause a bit of a rush at first, but this would probably be a better place without the one-click patent.

Filing fees would be minor but there would be arbitration fees assessed at the end of the process, even if the matter is settled out of court.

For example now Linus is developing some custom made programs to manage patches, and has discarded all Open Source alternatives like Arch, SVK, and others without any given explanation or reason.

Perhaps the reason is that he does not want to promote a Free BitKeeper alternative.

Rather than "Starter Edition," here's some suggestions, if anyone from Redmond just happens to read this. (I know they won't do it - it's more a mental exercise while I eat)

1. Go download this, and make it natively multi-user if it isn't already. Give it a strong native security model, too...you can get some ideas here, and the best part is, they won't mind you doing that if you don't try and patent said ideas. Also, modularise your GUI, and don't prevent users from accessing the CLI when they want to.

2. Have the CLI composed of this and this for us CLI types.

3. Make the Add/Remove Programs panel essentially a net-aware frontend for either this or this.

4. Use this for hardware detection. Also re drivers, get rid of the suicidal policy of seeing third-party hardware vendors as the enemy, and actually support them...via tools, docs, etc. These people are your friends...they'll help you stay relevant.

5. Download this and use it as your default FS, and then get this and this, (although you already seem to know about this last one) and incorporate both of those into your stock UI. You've essentially got WinFS right there, without all the added complexity you'd no doubt throw into it if you tried to code it from scratch.

6. For the Agent angle, incorporate the last point, as well as putting help/docs in a non-binary format, making them searchable with this, converting said search results for use with this, and then use the AIML output as input for something like this. Also, instead of making the agent a tightly anthropomorphic personality, make it more generic, and more as though it's simply "the operating system" communicating with a user, rather than that dog or Clippit instead.

7. Give Outlook a major overhaul. This and this are examples of directions it IMHO should go in.

Just some random ideas, anywayz. Dreaming's fun. ;) I'll probably get modded Offtopic, but it was worth it.

One idea would be to protect yourself.

I don't know how advanced Tridge's tools are, but GNU CSSC (downloadable from the the GNU FTP servers) has a certain amount of read-only compatibility with BitKeeper. See also the BitBucket project (code here).

yup, because the democratic way works so well.

I get this sort of vibe from some F/OSS people, most notably RMS, who adovcated outlawing proprietary source code in the GNU Manifesto.

This is a lie. Here is the GNU manifesto. At no point does it advocate outlawing proprietary software. RMS says that proprietary software is destructive, but he doesn't go so far as to say that it should be illegal.

Additionally, the Bitscope interface is documented well enough that we will be writing one for an automated hardware validation test

According to McVoy, that's "riding on their coat-tails", and immoral.

"we want to control our tools, rather than have our tools control us."

This is an attitude aligned with open-source software. The Free Software movement goes further than that, so you would be wise to draw the distinction between the two.

I've also heard a fair few comments that say the same. TheIndividual seems to get a lot of stick in particular :-
http://slashdot.org/~TheIndividual/journal

No surprise really, as he's re-distributing their "product", but the fact of the matter is that if they're selling/distributing GPLed works to the public then they *must* give back by providing the source (of the modifications), which they don't seem to want to do, hence the whole subscription "beta" thing that they use as a workaround to not distribute it publically. Given that someone can take the source and just fork it/give it straight away for free, it's obviously not in Sveasoft's interests to give it out, and they appear to be heavy-handed in their enforcements: DMCA takedowns? When you're building upon others' hard work? Hmmmm, hardly seems in keeping with the whole open-source ethic to me.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

I don't claim to be an expert on the GPL, but from my interpretation of it, and the above linked FAQ, it seems to me that what they're doing is somewhat dubious at best, and non-GPL-compliant at worst. I guess it's a tricky one when you're trying to make money from open-source; in Sveasoft's case I think they've taken the wrong approach, but hey, that's their call. If you like their product and it fits your needs, and you don't think they're doing anything wrong with regards to the GPL (or just don't care), then go for it - my brother's got a sub with them and he's happy enough. As with the parent, though, I'm afraid I wouldn't touch it myself.

Other alternatives for the WRT54G:
http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Survey s&op=results&pollID=16

http://www.dd-wrt.com/
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php

It's the double standards about this argument that bother me. If it was not for proprietary software, the GPL movement and the GNU free software directory would not exist.

You really should read some history of the whole open source movement. All the software Stallman was originally using WAS at least somewhat free (at least implicitly, if not explicitly). The FSF was created as a result of Stallman's later encounters with proprietary software, not because the mood just suddenly struck him after having been previously relying on proprietary software.

Your claim here fails for any number of reasons, the most obvious being that it doesn't even make logical sense. If there was no proprietary software, then by your own definition of the situation, everything else would HAVE to either free software, or we just wouldn't have any software at all.

"If it takes half a minute to apply a patch and remember the
changeset boundary etc (and quite frankly, that's _fast_ for most SCM's
around for a project the size of Linux), then a series of 250 emails
(which is not unheard of at all when I sync with Andrew, for example)
takes two hours."

Generally speaking, applying a series of Arch changesets is a fast operation--it's nothing more than 'diff' and 'patch' with rename tracking. The bottleneck is running "tla changes" prior to commit, which determines what files have been altered by the series of patches.

Here is an email in which a knowledgeable Arch hacker demonstrates Linux kernel 'tla changes' benchmarks under 20s. That's a relatively minimal penalty, and it's incurred once per merge, not once per patch.

It is a mistake to conflate "open source" and GNU.

• GNU started over a decade before (1984) the open source movement (1998).
• GNU was started to make an entire free software operating system.
• The open source movement rejects software freedom to pursue a message they believe businesses want to hear.

As RMS has said in regards to working on GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection:

"Open source advocates do contribute to our community, when they work on free software packages, but our community is older than that movement, and owes its existence to the idealism that movement rejects. It was built by the free software movement, so it is the free software community. If you help us, please keep in mind that what you're helping is the free software movement."

It is a mistake to conflate "open source" and GNU.

• GNU started over a decade before (1984) the open source movement (1998).
• GNU was started to make an entire free software operating system.
• The open source movement rejects software freedom to pursue a message they believe businesses want to hear.

As RMS has said in regards to working on GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection:

"Open source advocates do contribute to our community, when they work on free software packages, but our community is older than that movement, and owes its existence to the idealism that movement rejects. It was built by the free software movement, so it is the free software community. If you help us, please keep in mind that what you're helping is the free software movement."

It is a mistake to conflate "open source" and GNU.

• GNU started over a decade before (1984) the open source movement (1998).
• GNU was started to make an entire free software operating system.
• The open source movement rejects software freedom to pursue a message they believe businesses want to hear.

As RMS has said in regards to working on GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection:

"Open source advocates do contribute to our community, when they work on free software packages, but our community is older than that movement, and owes its existence to the idealism that movement rejects. It was built by the free software movement, so it is the free software community. If you help us, please keep in mind that what you're helping is the free software movement."

Here's another one where Stallman compares proprietary developers to perjuring cops and murderers.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html

So, in conclusion, big frickin' deal. BK got a few years of valuable, free beta testing, Linus got some work done, and the Open source folks got a reminder as to why the Free source folks got religon.

Somehow Arch was immediately mentioned on the original thread about Linus's intent to switch away from BitKeeper, but somehow only Subversion has been mentioned on this one. Arch was created specifically with the goal of replacing BitKeeper as the SCM for the Linux kernel source, as it says on their web page:

It is somewhat well known, these days, that some of the core developers of the Linux kernel are using a revision control system which is not free software. There is a need to create a free software alternative to that system and to do so is one of the goals of the arch project

The term "open source" is equally ambiguous: it sounds as if all it means is you get to look at the code, not modify it. And many authors in the press have defined it this way.

Free software is quite simple to clarify: "free speech, not free beer." Anyone who hears that will get it. Look how short and simple the Free Software definition is; just four bullet points. Compare that to the Open Source definition. It may not make as good a buzzword, but "free software" ultimately does the best job getting the point across.

Now steady on. I don't think RMS has ever said that the GPL should force the release of code that is used in a 'public' way like yahoo.com but not otherwise distributed. All we've seen is interviews with other FSF folk like Eben Moglen who have said that this issue among others is being considered, and that there will be an extra long consultation period before version 3 is released.

In fact, RMS has explicitly said that a licence that doesn't allow private versions of software is non-free. The original APSL required you to publish any changes you made to the code - much stricter than the GPL which says only that what you do release, you must release under the GPL. RMS quite rightly said that this makes the original APSL non-free. You might like to read what RMS actually says before deciding that he disagrees with you.

Finally, isn't it most sensible to allow GPL version 2 or any later version *at your option*, and let the users decide whether they wish to move to the new version of the GPL when it's announced? If the new version is unreasonable, people will be free to stick with v2.