Slashdot Mirror

Hello yintercept; I have just a few essential corrections to make here. I am not a lawyer, I'm just informed.

Right now you only have to make your source code available when you distribute via a CD.

That is incorrect. If you distribute over, say, by FTP, you still have to make source code available, under the terms of the GPL.

(Which version? The version of the GPL applied to the code, or a later version. It's your choice. We'll talk about "retroactive" in a moment.)

My take on the article is that it still leaves the loophole that people don't have to open source their code if they host the applications themselves.

If you distribute the code, you have to provide the source, as per the GPL.

But say it's GPL v2, and the code is a web service: It's something you run in Apache, and it provides functionality to clients.

Now you can take without returning: You can change the code, and ''because you are not distributing it,'' you don't have to provide the source of your change.

This is all okay by v2 of the GPL.

By v3 of the GPL, it will probably not apply.

Now, will v3 be able to apply ''retroactively'' on top of your v2 code? The article says "yes," but it is wrong.

If you don't believe me, you can e-mail rms@gnu.org yourself, and he'll respond. (I've emailed him twice in my life, and both times, he's responded. Who am I? I'm nobody. He's just very adament about responding to all e-mail. I swear to God, he's a machine. He must have come back from the future.)

Probably better yet: Read v2 of the GPL. You'll see that, if you want to, you can voluntarily bind yourself to v3. But you don't have to.


Personally, I will not be surprised if the GPL doesn't soon demand open sourcing all applications designed with GPL software.


The question has been raised before, in various incarnations. Please read the GNU.org FAQ entry on it.

Variants? "If I use Lilipond to write music, is the music GPLed?" "If I use gcc, is the output GPLed?" "If I use flex/bison, is the output GPLed?"

No, no, and, no. Nope. Not at all.

It'd be pretty rediculous if it were.

Who'd use a GPL'ed text editor, if everything you wrote with it had to be GPLed?

Nope.

I suspect that in the years to come there will need to be another retroactive change to the GPL to force the open sourcing of the code used to create web sites.

For that to be true, there would have to have been a first retroactive change to the GPL.

However, there is no such thing. It is a legal impossibility. The article that you are citing is just plain wrong.

Read GPL v2, write to rms, or talk with a developer who has studied these licensing issues.

Please understand: I'm not trying to beat you up about this. I'm just trying to keep the GPL's reputation fair.

People have legitimate grievances with the GPL: Some people don't like being teased with a large body of useful work, but feeling like they can't use it for their proprietary purposes. I can understand being ticked off about that. I can imagine being annoyed about that.

But this is a whole thing different. This is people thinking false things about the GPL: That it can be applied retroactively, and things like that.

Personally, I publish most everything I do at home straight into the Public Domain. I like it that way, and my code is of little consequence. That said, I can't bear to see the GPL slandered (libel, for the purists) like this. Especially here on Slashdot. It's very sad.

Politburo is pretty apropos. Stallman has talked about some government funded "free" software bureaucracy on more than one occasion.

So typical of Stallman. It's so clear that he's a megalomaniac where it's all about control and not about free code. Look at how he treated Ulrich Drepper and how he compared proprietary software developers to murderers and perjuring cops.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/19/203921 1&mode=thread&tid=117

Olson should know. He is one of a select few looking to review the current GPL and recommend updates for the public review process, which he says should happen before the end of the year.

Olson should know. He is one of a select few looking to review the current GPL and recommend updates for the public review process, which he says should happen before the end of the year.

Ordinarily that would be the case, however, the first version of the GPL was indeed specified as version 1.

Text

The section about specifying which versions you wish to apply to your code is verbatim.

The man (Linus) has avoided the common pitfalls of other Operating System leaders by picking battles carefully and not intentionally leaping into flamewars with those who would otherwise be productive contributers. He's certainly no God, but I'm coming to believe the guy has become pivotal for a reason.

I find it interesting that you simultaneously blame them for not being pragmatic enough reguarding binary drivers and deride them for not coming up with a more usable theoretical economic model (whatever that means). Sveasoft has a working economic model, that doesn't punish openness, or they probably wouldn't bother with it. Redhat has a business model as well. As does Progeny, and Novell.

As far as hardware vs software, well we all know that some things fair better than others. You'd be crazy to do software radio instead of a simple set of DSPs. It's slowly becoming workable, but they still require a hefty set of hardware requirements, some of which is custom. It mostly comes down to parallelizablitity, and the your example, compression, is heavily data dependent. In GNUradio's denfense, their goal is a far more flexible (ie a programmable) radio, rather than a high performance radio. I think they're doing quite well at their goal.

...especially because RMS said recently that the changes will be details. There is a line in www.gnu.org's license list mentioning that the GPL v3 may be compatible with the Affero General Public License, which seems to implement something similar. However, I definitely don't think it will end up as absurd as this article makes it out to be.

As far as Linus Torvalds is concerned, it's okay to become dependent upon a proprietary revision system (BitKeeper), take credit for more work than he did (allowing interviewers to talk to him about the "Linux operating system" without correction that he is merely the initial author of a kernel), and generally position popularity as a higher priority than freedom. When it comes to the inner workings of the Linux kernel, you should certainly turn to him. But I strongly doubt that the free software community would have gotten as far as it has in the past 20 years if Torvalds' philosophy of pragmatism had been set out instead of RMS' philosophy of pursuing software freedom. The FSF has a great entry in their GNU/Linux FAQ" on this issue.

As for the value of these secrets, they're overrated and irrelevant. I'll have to leave it to others to find a somewhat recent post on Slashdot allegedly from someone who works at a video card manufacturer who said that the value of these secrets is highly overrated. There's also the conflict between what Linus Torvalds initially wrote and the value of these alleged secrets--if the secrets are so valuable, we dare not run any software which we can all inspect, share, and modify. It's also ahistorical--hardware manufacturers didn't always behave this way.

But what's really disturbing about the argument for helping proprietors preserve secrets is that it takes the side of those who would divide us and keep us helpless rather than help us acheive freedom while simultaneously making an honorable buck. Frankly, it's worth it to give up that innovation in exchange for more freedom. Innovation will come regardless, don't give up your freedom in the belief that we can't have freedom if someone claims that they won't innovate anymore. If they leave, there are plenty of other innovative people to replace them. The most innovative stuff, the reasons people buy and use computers came in freedom (e-mail and the web). It's our struggle to keep it free that really matters.

From the article:

"[...] I'd rather have a fully functional, if closed, Nvidia driver than a reverse-engineered one that limps along."

Giving up long-term goals for short-term gains is the hallmark of people who don't understand the struggle or the consequences (or are using popular hardware and don't care to think about how software freedom scales up). This is probably why the author frames the issue in the language of the open source movement -- "closed" software -- the movement which doesn't insist upon your ability to freely share and modify software.

Software freedom is valuable in itself, and proprietary software is rarely a means toward achieving that end. Accepting a proprietary program is a risky proposition because it can mean that people will become satisfied with the proprietary software and thus become less likely to write a free replacement. But even for those who dismiss the freedom to share and modify software, they should appreciate the ability to run the driver on different platforms anywhere, anytime, and maintain those programs as we go. It's not good to have to wait for some proprietor to cater to your computer's architecture, whether this means waiting for nVidia to update its i386 drivers for the latest Linux kernel revision, or hoping that some proprietor will distribute a driver for your wireless hardware in your non-i386-based computer.

We should value software which we can freely share and modify so that we aren't dependent on proprietors and they can't dictate to us what computers we use, how they run, and what interesting things we are allowed to do with them. It takes a little more effort to find hardware that works with free software, it can mean denying oneself some glitzy features, but it is worth insisting on freedom. The free software community has come a long way in the past two decades. As FSF legal counsel says, let's not give up the struggle because "we're a little closer to the front of the bus".

1. I can't find the license anywhere.
2. I can't find where to download the binaries.
3. I can't find where to download the source code.
4. It's available for free only to law enforcement.

The fact that you can't find it doesn't mean it isn't open source. The fact that it might only ever be available to law enforcement doesn't mean it isn't open source, either. Not even the GPL requires that a work be distributed to whoever wants it. (Not that I have any delusions about this MS project being GPL'd...)

From the GPL FAQ (next to last question):
"The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.

What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit."

So, unless Microsoft Canada or certain law enforement agencies decided the give/sell you a copy of the (hypothetically GPL'd) application, you still wouldn't get a copy, yet it would still be freeware.

Have a read.

One stitch of GPL'd code and it is forbidden.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Section 7:... "... For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

as for the content industy

The entertainment media are not content with what threatens to destroy the centralized stranglehold on dissemination of works of authorship. (I'll assume that by "content" you mean what the law calls "works other than computer programs". When discussing law, it's most precise to use the language of the law.)

it is their got given right to make as much money as possible on their content. When they try to make money on my content there is a problem but so far that hasn't happened.

Yes it has. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976).

Is it a trademark? According to http://www.gnu.org/graphics/heckert_gnu.html the copyright isn't even owned by gnu.org, it's released under the Free Art Licence

No. Freely licensing your IP does not void the copyrights you hold on it. The copyright is owned by gnu.org (donated by the artist) and it's released under the FAL.

Is it a trademark? According to http://www.gnu.org/graphics/heckert_gnu.html the copyright isn't even owned by gnu.org, it's released under the Free Art Licence

"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."

"Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."

You don't lose the right to use the software by breaking the GPL. You lose the rights granted by the GPL, but the right to use it isn't one of those. It's a right you have automatically unless you sign it away, and the GPL just goes out of its way to avoid that.

Also, you only lose the rights on the particular piece of software you were in violation with. If you're distributing other GPL'ed software in compliance with the GPL's terms, you can keep doing it. They're considered separate agreements.

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

The issue is that you're only obligated to give the source to the people to whom you give/sell binaries. If you give the binaries to five customers, you have to release the source to those five customers.

Technically, if you do not disclose source code, you must provide, in writing, an offer valid for 3 years to disclose source code to those customers upon demand. The cost may not exceed the physical distribution cost of the source code.

As others have pointed out, the customers receiving the binaries and source are free to redistribute them, and probably cannot be constrained from doing so by any non-disclosure agreement..

Correct. NDA's cannot legally add limitations to the distribution of GPL-covered software. You may enter into an NDA with customers such that you agree to not distribute the modified software to any other party but your customers. But you cannot enter into any NDA that limits what your customers can do with the software once they've received it. And an NDA cannot trump your customers' rights to demand a copy of the source. Furthermore, if a customer was to redistribute a binary, the party receiving it would have the right to demand source from your customer. To meet that demand, the customer would be obligated to demand the source from you.

So when you get down to it, the GPL guards pretty well against this sort of thing by ensuring that any party involved can legally spoil this unethical business model. What would be really interesting is if an employee who was not under NDA with his employer disclosed the modified GPL software. In this case it would come down to whether the modified software is covered by trade secret law.

First, I'm very glad to see you recommend a free software program to do the job. I'm also glad to hear you point out the irony in the movement you helped start--here is an instance where pushing aside software freedom is not practical. I believe there are many more instances like this.

For those of you who don't get what I'm addressing, it's ironic that someone involved in starting the Open Source Initiative and the open source movement is telling you that this decision to go with BitKeeper was not practical. The open source movement, in its desire to talk to business, dismisses software freedom and makes a pitch on "solid pragmatic grounds" (according to the opensource.org website). This movement does not mind adopting proprietary software in much the same way as Linus Torvalds recommends that we do--use proprietary software when it is convenient because proprietary software is slightly less efficient than an "open source" program to do the same job. Torvals' message sets a very bad example and people would be far more wise to demand their software freedom.

The ZDNet article headline reads "Sun criticizes popular open-source license". Calling the GNU General Public License an "open-source" license is ahistorical and gives credit to the wrong movement, hiding the name of the real author of the license and the name of the movement for which the license was written.

By calling the GPL an "open source" license, the open source movement is allowed to grab credit for a trivial bit of work: constructing a set of rules which allow the GPL to be given the Open Source Initiative's imprimateur. This is nothing compared to writing the GPL and starting the free software movement.

The GPL was written many years before the OSI started. Nobody who would form the OSI wrote the GPL. The GPL was written by the FSF (most notably, RMS, who gets far too little credit for his work here on Slashdot). The OSI has dismissed software freedom for a message which does not preserve user's software freedoms (for instance, the open source definition does not guarantee a user's privacy--the OSI approved the early revisions of the Apple Public Source License which required publication and notification of a central authority upon changing APSL-covered software in most instances. The FSF did not give its imprimateur to the APSL v1.x revisions, holding out until Apple changed the license in what would become the v2.x revisions.).

Let's give credit where credit is due. I think just as RMS tells us (repeatedly) that GCC is a free software program, not an open source program because it misstates the authorship and reason why the program was written (RMS was the initial author of GCC which he wrote to provide software freedom for GNU), we ought to give the author and intentions of the GPL proper mention by calling it a free software license. That cannot be done by calling it an open source license.

The ZDNet article headline reads "Sun criticizes popular open-source license". Calling the GNU General Public License an "open-source" license is ahistorical and gives credit to the wrong movement, hiding the name of the real author of the license and the name of the movement for which the license was written.

By calling the GPL an "open source" license, the open source movement is allowed to grab credit for a trivial bit of work: constructing a set of rules which allow the GPL to be given the Open Source Initiative's imprimateur. This is nothing compared to writing the GPL and starting the free software movement.

The GPL was written many years before the OSI started. Nobody who would form the OSI wrote the GPL. The GPL was written by the FSF (most notably, RMS, who gets far too little credit for his work here on Slashdot). The OSI has dismissed software freedom for a message which does not preserve user's software freedoms (for instance, the open source definition does not guarantee a user's privacy--the OSI approved the early revisions of the Apple Public Source License which required publication and notification of a central authority upon changing APSL-covered software in most instances. The FSF did not give its imprimateur to the APSL v1.x revisions, holding out until Apple changed the license in what would become the v2.x revisions.).

Let's give credit where credit is due. I think just as RMS tells us (repeatedly) that GCC is a free software program, not an open source program because it misstates the authorship and reason why the program was written (RMS was the initial author of GCC which he wrote to provide software freedom for GNU), we ought to give the author and intentions of the GPL proper mention by calling it a free software license. That cannot be done by calling it an open source license.

I agree with you on the GPL OS, but if you write code that can essentially lead to an aggregated work, you probably should read GPL FAQ Aggregation. One just needs to review license requirements if they intend to keep their code under a non GPL license.

Opening one's source is an opportunity, not an obligation

While this is an "opportunity", it's also an obligation if you create an aggregated work.

> If RMS had his way, [...] nobody would
> be able to make a living writing software (bad).

RMS has himself never said that, in fact he says exactly the opposite. You should read the GNU philosophy pages before spouting such nonsense, in particular this particular aspect.

The FSF says that you should charge as much as you possibly can for Free software. Redhad in particular is demonstrating this point very well.

Presumably you know that RHEL is more expensive than Windows yet is distributed under the terms of the GPL, and therefore the freeest form of Free Software according to Stallman.

Actually, Subversion uses a centralised system, which would not necessarily be the best choice for a group of developers used to decentralised control. Better choices would be GNU Arch or Darcs; however neither is really production ready at the moment, though Arch is getting there.

As a result, Linus may indeed end up going for Subversion, but through a lack of options rather than a personal preference

Considering what has transpired, the obvious choice is subversion:)

Not really. Subversion is like CVS that doesn't suck that much.

I'd rather advice Gnu Arch. It is free software (not "free" software) with many features of bitkeeper, like independent repositories (i.e. version controlled local branches w/o write access to central repository), cheap branching and many more.

Robert

I think the closest GNU alternative to BitKeeper is Arch.

I'm not familliar with both but from what I recall they're distributed version control systems as opposed to centralised CVS and Subversion.

You can find more about the differences at
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/

What about Arch? Does anyone actually use it? Most projects I've seen either use CVS, or Subversion.

no not subversion ... subversion is like cvs++ what the kernel guys want is something like cvs# so better start looking at arch .

"Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."

The progress of science has been enabled by open publication of theories and experiments. This same openness allows the best ideas to flourish and for development of technology-based industry wherever conditions permit, including lesser developed nations. The entire concept of "intellectual property" is not just a brake on the efficient operation of the free market system, but also impedes the progress of science and technology as a whole, progress which has helped improve the lives of millions.

Some resources are of limited supply and exhaustible; ideas are not such a resource.

So let me get this right. Your 'corporate firewall' makes it difficult for you to access CPAN and this means "CPAN SUCKS" ?

The first step in using CPAN from behind a firewall is to install the latest version of CPAN.pm. This might involve manually downloading the tarball and running 'make install', but it will be well worth that small effort.

The next step depends on your preference. I'd recommend installing wget. It works nicely with 'corporate firewalls' and CPAN.pm works nicely with wget.

Then you can use

perl -MCPAN -e 'install Some::Module'

What??

While I agree that those that infringe on the GPL should be pursued and prosecuted, I don't agree that "untreated" actions have any bearing on the validity of the GPL as a software copyright license.

From my vantage, there are two avenues for pursuing violators--one equals cash (as in lawyers), the other (in this case) equals exposing the truth (as you have indicated). As the article states numerous bloggers and others have pointed out that CherryOS is a blatant rip-off of the PearPC project. If the distributor had abided by the license (GPL) they could have packaged it under any name they wanted (barring trademark infringement) and sold it for whatever they wanted to... (providing they supply you the binary + the SOURCE code).

(If I may be redundant), as it is, they tried to sneak it under the GPL radar and market it as their own devise (device?), which is clearly and blatantly wrong, not to mention illegal.

However, and to the point: NOT challenging them in either of the two manners I have suggested does NOT in any way invalidate the legal strength of the GPL as a software license.

I totally reject the claim that the GPL has not been tested in court. As Eben Moglen says, it hasn't been 'tested' in court because the defendants have always known that they would lose.

To those who like to say there has never been a court test of the GPL, I have one simple thing to say: Don't blame me. I was perfectly happy to roll any time. It was the defendants who didn't want to do it. And when for ten solid years, people have turned down an opportunity to make a legal argument, guess what? It isn't any good.

The GPL has succeeded for the last decade... because it worked, not because it failed or was in doubt.

I agree with part of your statement. CherryOS was exposed by 'countless websites' and this had the appropriate effect. Nevertheless, the GPL is a solid license whether anyone sits on their butts (regarding infringement) or not.

I'm reminded of the Terrible Proposals from Nomic World - particularly #6, which (if adopted) would have required all future proposals to include page 106 of the 1961 Vladivostok telephone directory. (Nomic is a family of games in which changing the rules is a type of move. The Terrible Proposals were designed to exploit a rule that awarded points based on voting.)

Use GTypist.

yuo == fagotser

The only real problem Java has is that there is no good Free JVM. But I expect that will change in the future.

I too expect it will change, but the JVM and class libraries are very tightly coupled, meaning one can't really be complete without the other. Thus, I strongly encourage anyone who can to support Free (as in Freedom) Java efforts like GCJ, Kaffe, Jikes, and probably most importantly GNU Classpath.

The only real problem Java has is that there is no good Free JVM. But I expect that will change in the future.

I too expect it will change, but the JVM and class libraries are very tightly coupled, meaning one can't really be complete without the other. Thus, I strongly encourage anyone who can to support Free (as in Freedom) Java efforts like GCJ, Kaffe, Jikes, and probably most importantly GNU Classpath.

But Red Hat can't say "remove all instances of the Red Hat name from the site".

CentOS has every right to say that they rebuilt Open Source Code ... and say (and link to) where it was obtained from. That means that they have to mention both RedHat and the product (rhel). CentOS can't say that their product is a RedHat product, or that it contains a Red Hat product ... but they can say how it was made.

They also have every right to publish any documents that are either released via GPL ( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ) or Open Publication license ( http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ ) whether they contain redhat's name or not.

CentOS must mark each instance of Red Hat as (R) ... and they should have a disclaimer that says CentOS is not producted by, supported by, or affiliated with RedHat, INC. , which CentOS had, and RedHat forced them to remove.

Btw, getting rid of copyrights will also destroy every open source project as some greedy company would be able to easily rip off the hard work of the developers.

If you eliminate IP then selling ideas would be against the law. All ideas would be free and without copyrights any idea is public domain. I mean of course you wouldn't be able to provide yourself a means to live if you were in the trade of ideas.

On the other hand, perhaps you meant "expressions" instead of "ideas" throughout your posting; you certainly didn't elaborate on specifics.

Ok, what we really need, is for all us F/OSS enthusiasts to go out, buy an island, and form our own country, with an entirely FDL'd constitution. w00t! Open Source Government here we come!

And of course, ( and may the gods of software have mercy on me for the heresy I'm about to commit ) GCC is the be-all end-all we should compare everything to ? C'mon....seriously. Wasn't GCC CREATED in part as an ALTERNATIVE to the other ( for various reasons ).

Yeah, and NeXT didn't exactly THRUST ObjC into the forefront of PC-based ( or any other SYSTEM based software ) development. As I recall, just before NeXT got sold to Apple, there was a release ( although I'm not entirely certain it was a commercial level release ) of NeXT for X86-based CPU's. Did Apple ever push that ?

Look, stop being so defensive about it. I'm not going to sit here and say that C++ is the be-all end-all of software development languages. But there a WHOLE lot more developers who program in C++ than in ObJC. Why is that again ? Given it's been a pre-processor source language for GCC for that long, the question still remains....why do you think it hasn't ( or didn't ) reach "critical mass" ? You're not actually going to play the "C++ hype" card are you ?

C'mon. C++ may not necessarily be "friendly" by modern standards, but at least C++OX is still being managed as a language with a clear standard. Who again manages the ObjC standard again ?

Check out GNU's own page for the answer to that:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html
( Psst..Huge Spoiler: Nobody manages a standard for Objective-C or Objective C++ )

And to really bake folks' noodles, try this on for size:

http://cs.northwestern.edu/~josha/objcpp.pdf

I most especially like the part about how in OS X, Objective-C++ mysteriously disappeared from the NeXT libraries.

C'mon...ObjC has it's uses, but could Apple have made NeXT ( OS X ) more accessible to C++ developers, and not anchor themselves so tightly to Smalltalk-ish syntax ( Oh, I just know some SmallTalk Guru will come down on me about that statement ).

The point is that while C++ continues to grow and evolve...ObjC has for the most part, not done so.

Again, nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.

Although it should be legal to rip a DVD to make a backup, there are IP issues with using DeCSS. DVD player manufacturers must pay a licensing fee to use the DVD format.

Given the vagueness of the term "intellectual property", it's best to call these copyright, patent, or trade secret issues what they are. In this case, most DeCSS-based DVD players appear to violate patents on MPEG-2 video and Dolby Digital audio.

Maybe not ads...

The right to read

Surprising that you got into MIT (or maybe you didn't.. you know, you might just be lying to make point here!! *gasp*!!).

Actually, yes, I'm an MIT alumnus. I don't think MIT makes its alumni records public on the web, but you can check for my photo in Technique (the MIT yearbook); I'm in the book for the class of 1992. If that still doesn't satisfy you, I'm sure you can call the Institute and verify that a Robert Poole did in fact study there from 1988 to 1992. I believe the registrar's office should have that information. I'd place a scan of my diploma online, but I don't feel like being a target of identity theft.

From the wikipedia article[...]

Since when has Wikipedia been an authoritative source of any information? Since just about anyone can contribute, the peer review and fact checking that would go into any garden variety encyclopedia would seem to be missing. But let's ignore that for the moment:

The term "X Windows" (in the manner of "Microsoft Windows") is officially deprecated and generally considered incorrect, though it has been in common use since the inception of X and has been used deliberately for literary effect, for example in the UNIX-HATERS Handbook.

So, basically, the Wikipedia article backs me up on this. The term has been in common use since the inception of X. How is this quote in any way, shape, or form a negation of what I wrote? Oh, yes... they "deprecated" the term "X Windows." Which doesn't stop people from continuing to use the term, regardless of whether some people want the term to die for political reasons. The X Consortium is free to request that people use one of the officially "blessed" names for X11. That doesn't mean I have to do what they ask.

And that thing about RMS and other MIT people calling it X WindowS (not by mistake) -- yeah, right. I believe you.

Well, besides the fact that the very Wikipedia article you quoted admits that the term "X Windows" has been in common use since the inception of X (i.e., since X was created, which was at MIT), I actually have some articles I can point you at:
A transcript of Richard Stallman's speech at NYU on May 29th, 2001
Section 29.21 of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual
A site containing choice quotes from RMS
A transcript of an interview with RMS
In addition, there's at least one other article I couldn't track down, but it was cited recently on Slashdot.

And BTW, common usage doesn't make 'then' and 'than' interchangeable. It's still an error when you do that. Same thing with X.

Actually, no, you're comparing apples and oranges here.

First off, "common usage" is not to be confused with "common errors." People make common grammatical and spelling mistakes for a variety of reasons; for instance, two words might sound the same or similar but be spelled differently. (Thus, the confusion of "then" and "than.") The two words are not used interchangeably except by the ignorant.

Examples of common usage trumping antiquated grammar or spelling rules:

• So-called "split infinitives." Once upon a time, a grammarian who thought that Latin-derived rules of grammar should apply to English decided that infinitives should never be split. Most modern English authorities agree that there's nothing wrong with split infinitives, and in fact, the split infinitive form of a sentence is often less cumbersome to speak. (Spoken language is primary; written language derives from spoken language.) So, "To boldly go where no man has gone before

Surprising that you got into MIT (or maybe you didn't.. you know, you might just be lying to make point here!! *gasp*!!).

Actually, yes, I'm an MIT alumnus. I don't think MIT makes its alumni records public on the web, but you can check for my photo in Technique (the MIT yearbook); I'm in the book for the class of 1992. If that still doesn't satisfy you, I'm sure you can call the Institute and verify that a Robert Poole did in fact study there from 1988 to 1992. I believe the registrar's office should have that information. I'd place a scan of my diploma online, but I don't feel like being a target of identity theft.

From the wikipedia article[...]

Since when has Wikipedia been an authoritative source of any information? Since just about anyone can contribute, the peer review and fact checking that would go into any garden variety encyclopedia would seem to be missing. But let's ignore that for the moment:

The term "X Windows" (in the manner of "Microsoft Windows") is officially deprecated and generally considered incorrect, though it has been in common use since the inception of X and has been used deliberately for literary effect, for example in the UNIX-HATERS Handbook.

So, basically, the Wikipedia article backs me up on this. The term has been in common use since the inception of X. How is this quote in any way, shape, or form a negation of what I wrote? Oh, yes... they "deprecated" the term "X Windows." Which doesn't stop people from continuing to use the term, regardless of whether some people want the term to die for political reasons. The X Consortium is free to request that people use one of the officially "blessed" names for X11. That doesn't mean I have to do what they ask.

And that thing about RMS and other MIT people calling it X WindowS (not by mistake) -- yeah, right. I believe you.

Well, besides the fact that the very Wikipedia article you quoted admits that the term "X Windows" has been in common use since the inception of X (i.e., since X was created, which was at MIT), I actually have some articles I can point you at:
A transcript of Richard Stallman's speech at NYU on May 29th, 2001
Section 29.21 of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual
A site containing choice quotes from RMS
A transcript of an interview with RMS
In addition, there's at least one other article I couldn't track down, but it was cited recently on Slashdot.

And BTW, common usage doesn't make 'then' and 'than' interchangeable. It's still an error when you do that. Same thing with X.

Actually, no, you're comparing apples and oranges here.

First off, "common usage" is not to be confused with "common errors." People make common grammatical and spelling mistakes for a variety of reasons; for instance, two words might sound the same or similar but be spelled differently. (Thus, the confusion of "then" and "than.") The two words are not used interchangeably except by the ignorant.

Examples of common usage trumping antiquated grammar or spelling rules:

• So-called "split infinitives." Once upon a time, a grammarian who thought that Latin-derived rules of grammar should apply to English decided that infinitives should never be split. Most modern English authorities agree that there's nothing wrong with split infinitives, and in fact, the split infinitive form of a sentence is often less cumbersome to speak. (Spoken language is primary; written language derives from spoken language.) So, "To boldly go where no man has gone before

Here's MY bid for longest palindrome:
A man, a plan, a canal: Panama!

A man, a plan, a canoe, pasta, hero's rajahs, a coloratura, maps, snipe,
percale, macaroni, a gag, a banana bag, a tan, a cat, a mane, paper, a
Toyota, rep, a pen, a mat, a can, a tag, a banana bag again, or: a camel,
a crepe, pins, spam, a rut, a Rolo, cash, a jar, sore hats, a peon, a
canal, Panama!

For numerically/verbally challenged folks, the split happens at the y in
Toyota...

Indeed, RMS ceded control, but remember that control of GCC essentially had to be yanked away and placed into a steering committee

No matter who you are, these transitions are never easy. Linus has set Linux up better than most projects, but still there is by design one central kernel (a very good design by the way, so far, for now, and for quite a while to come).

Debian really needs to sort their shit out on APSL2. There is far too much fallout from petty hang-ups from individuals with relatively vaguely argued opinions, and this 289856 bug entry for howl demonstrates it amply: Vague uncertainties about the status of APSL2, suggestions that it be discussed ignored by those who don't like it, and steps taken towards removal.

APSL2 is now both OSI approved and deemed "ok to use and improve software which other people release under this license" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html by the FSF. Any objections Debian people have against it should now be strongly justified rather than vaguely hinted at, so we can stop getting these silly bug reports which escalate a vague licence issue to full-scale removal without a proper discussion.

So how is this an advantage over del.icio.us, exactly?

"Open Source" has a lot to answer for in hiding the point of "Free Software". I suggest reading GNU.org's Why Free if you don't get this.

I'm sure this will be redundant by the time I post it, but: no. Formatting a disk simply initializes the filesystem to a null state. All your data is still happily sitting there on the disk, waiting to be overwritten. The filesystem figures it's empty space, but it can be recovered if it's not overwritten.

This is why tools like shred exist.

The best resolution of a lawsuit is for that company will admit using the source and comply with the GPL.

See section 4 of the GPL. They violated the license, so now they have no right to the code at all. The only way for them to comply with the GPL now is to stop using all PearPC code.

They will continue sell the support and easy installer just like Red Hat, Novell, etc..

Redhat, Novell, etc., comply with the GPL when they sell software. CherryOS has not. They have no legal right to sell this code. It's copyright infringement, plain and simple.

The so-called "reciprocity" requirement of the GNU GPL does not exist. There is no requirement for me to seek out MySQL AB so I can send them a copy of a distributed MySQL derivative. Under the GPL, I don't even have to notify you that this MySQL derivative exists nor that I have distributed it to others. The way you word things, it sounds like you believe that I have an obligation to share my changes upstream. I can find no language in the GPL v2 to support this.

Also, the GPL is a commercial license. It's perfectly fine for me to distribute copies of MySQL or a MySQL derivative for a fee. I can develop a MySQL derivative or distribute verbatim copies of it for a fee as part of a business.

You can ask those who are making money with MySQL to pay you or to seek you out to make sure you get a copy of their improvements to the program, but the GPL does not require these things.

But since you're new to the hardware side of things, maybe this will provide an easy transition: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/.

Basically, it's a software-controlled receiver/transmitter, which makes it easy to pull signals out of the air, store and analyze them, and generate your own signals for broadcast.

I saw a nifty demonstration of it once. So I've already told you about everything I know.

As to your actual question, I agree with the general consensus: It's a crypto problem, not a hardware problem. Best of luck with it.