Slashdot Mirror

I don't give a damn to be honest. Since when has a licence to offer certain rights within limitations ever needed to be tested?

And stop whining about "theft". Would you also claim ownership of fire?

In the GPL there is a HUGE distinction between using and distributing GPL covered code.
You can use all that you want.
But if you distribute GPL code like CherryOS, here are GPL requirements that are not met by CherryOS
- you have to distribute the source of the GPL code, the full text of the GPL license, and a full acknoledgement of the authors.
- if you distribute, along with the GPL code a work that is dependant on that code, you have to distribute the whole work under the GPL terms.

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

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

There is only one standard editor.

I want the "all your plugins are belong to us" Borg plug-in.

first key concept: late-binding.

second key concept: single-root.

summary: this article talks about a non-single-root late-binding architecture. there are, of course, other organizations: the quintessential single-root late-binding program, and the raft of non-late-binding programs.

thus ends our cs moment of the day. we now return you to your regularly scheduled inanity...

The head line says that it is about free software, not open source. The difference is remarkable.

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

Or do some work on gcj to bring it up to scratch, of course.

The JVM source code IS AVAILABLE under the Sun Community Source Licensing. You can try it for yourself.

The SCSL is NOT an open source license (it doesn't give you the right to redistribute modified versions), but still it is much better than closed source. J2SE 5.0 is also available under the JRL (Java Research License) that allows sharing binary-based research distributions of Java.

Sun is preparing a tweaked license for J2SE 6.0 called JIUL (Java Internal Use License), in an effort to show that "the company wants to make Java as open source as possible while maintaining platform compatibility". You can read two recent articles on this topic in infoworld and news.com .

As for the GPL-compatibility, I remind you that most open source licenses are NOT GPL-compatible. Neither the Apache License nor the Mozilla Public License are GPL-compatible and this has not stopped the Apache httpd nor the Firefox widespread adoption in the open source community. Expecting Sun to release its JVM source code under a GPL-compatible license is nonsense. What we can realistically expect in the near future is a license scheme that would allow free redistribution in a company. They make this to please large companies like IBM, that has been complaining for some time now that the Sun JVM is not open source.

However, nobody is forced to use the Sun JVM. GCJ and Kaffe are GPL, aren't they?

Additionally, it is much slower than the JRE from Sun. Look at the stats to see how various free and not so free runtimes perform.

First off, it's not 'much' slower at all. Look closer, at all the benchmarks. It outperforms Sun in some tests too.

Second, certain optimizations were left out of that benchmark.

Third, this kind of pure-calculation-speed benchmark is not a representative measure for Java apps. Almost noone uses Java for pure-calculation tasks. In real-world applications, things like native-call speed end up counting much more. GCJ does much better in those areas.

(Indeed, I've personally run SWT client apps at a comfortable speed under an interpreter, simply because the native calls were fast enough not to disturb the user interface.)

Fourth, most of these benchmarks are iterative calculations, without native calls, and thus exactly the kind of application you'd expect a JIT compiler to do best at.

As noted here and here, it actually looks like there's been a LOT of progress in getting OpenOffice.org to run on open source software / Free software implementations of Java. Perhaps just make "must run on an open source Java implementation" one of the blocking bugs for OpenOffice.org, and don't ship until it works.

Kaffe is probably the oldest of all open source JVM projects. It is cleanroom implementation of JVM, which means no Sun proprietary JVM source code contamination. Until recently, it did not have JIT... One open source JVM implementation from IBM is Jikes Research Virtual Machine (Jikes RVM).

GNU Classpath, Essential Libraries for Java", is a GNU project to create free core class libraries for use with virtual machines and compilers for the java programming language.

Java is many things. It is a programming language. It is also a runtime environment in the form of a protable virtual machine. It also comes with a huge class library.

For some reason, that monkey Miguel went and decided to write his own version of M$'s Java clone, C#/.NET, for "Linux" (i.e. Unix-like OSes) to undermine everyone else's work.

Now, you can get branded Java from people other than Sun e.g. IBM. IBM is currently a great favourite of the slashdot peanut gallery.

In addition, gcc comes with a Java-language to native code compiler as well as byte code (to run on the evil, nasty closed-soure Sun (or IBM or whoever's) JVM).

If you don't like Sun, or IBM, or Blackdown or kaffe's JVM, including their JIT compilers which can optimise to exceed the efficiency of statically-compiled code, then you can always revert to gcc's Java language compiler.

However, I'm sure these facts will be conventiently ignored for the sake of a good, heated argument, and many rants.

Java is many things. It is a programming language. It is also a runtime environment in the form of a protable virtual machine. It also comes with a huge class library.

For some reason, that monkey Miguel went and decided to write his own version of M$'s Java clone, C#/.NET, for "Linux" (i.e. Unix-like OSes) to undermine everyone else's work.

Now, you can get branded Java from people other than Sun e.g. IBM. IBM is currently a great favourite of the slashdot peanut gallery.

In addition, gcc comes with a Java-language to native code compiler as well as byte code (to run on the evil, nasty closed-soure Sun (or IBM or whoever's) JVM).

If you don't like Sun, or IBM, or Blackdown or kaffe's JVM, including their JIT compilers which can optimise to exceed the efficiency of statically-compiled code, then you can always revert to gcc's Java language compiler.

However, I'm sure these facts will be conventiently ignored for the sake of a good, heated argument, and many rants.

ummmm two things wrong there... A. .NET IS Java (1.3) Numerous lawsuits were filed, some lost, some won, but ultimately, Microsoft is still producing .NET

Secondly the very site you link to has links to 15 FOSS JVMs Some of which attempt to ensure full Java 2.0 suport.. (read JRE 1.5)

So what's the issue here? FOSS has a harder time keeping up with Sun's Java development, but because mono was ripped off by a fleet of laywers, FOSS developers can more perfectly implement it?

Oh yeah the problem here is someone is actually using Sun's Java in an Open Source app, which means it isn't FOSS... FOSS is an ideal, and you can build entire distro's off of it, but it's not going to appeal to everyone. I have Sun Java Installed on Debian Oh nooo... IMO your efforts are wasted trying to make the _entire_ open source community embrace FOSS principals. It's a lost cause, because free as in beer will always be embraced by part of the community.

Just because Sun java isn't free doesn't mean there aren't alternatives out there.

Kaffe,
GCJ,
Jikes RVM,
Cacao,
and
others. .NET has Mono and DotGNU. That's two. So how is it "much more free"?

It is because of people not thinking like yourself that we have a large variety of free software available for our computers. It has not always been like this and it might not be so until eternity. The fight for freedom is a continous effort, as history has taught us numerous times. Should we accept that what was once a viable alternative consisting of entirely free software slowly becomes more and more amputated as only non free software exist for performing many tasks? I for one think this is an important issue. An interesting read might be The Free Software Definiton.

Free, Open Source .NET implementation

Free, Open Source Java - oh, wait, there isn't any. No, really, there isn't. Read 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5.

Especially when it abuse the GPL to extort licensing fees out of developers?

How on earth is this an abuse of the GPL? Even RMS has praised Qt using the GPL:

"I am very pleased to see that Qt is now available under the GPL. This is a big win for free software and a great gift from Trolltech to the community."

Taking money from proprietary developers to fund development of Free Software? That sounds like a perfectly appropriate use of the GPL. From gnu.org:

If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries.

According to that, the only possible criticism I can see is that Trolltech also offer Qt under an alternative license to proprietary developers (for a fee). That's not an abuse of the GPL though, and they are using their licensing scheme to fund development of GPLed software.

it's all about enhancing TrollTech IP, not about enhancing the world of Free software and code reuse.

Trolltech's "IP" is the GPLed Qt. If developing GPLed software isn't "enhancing the world of Free Software", what the hell is?

It amazes me that GNU Stow has not been mentioned yet (http://www.gnu.org/software/stow).

If the software you are installing uses the autotools, it's this easy to install software:

$ mkdir /usr/local/stow/swiprolog
$ ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/swiprolog
$ make; make install prefix=/usr/local/stow/swiprolog

You can do all this as a non-root user (aside from creating the directory of course). So you will sure that swiprolog didn't write files in funny
locations.

Now you need to Stow it (`apt-get install stow` on Debian):

# As root
$ stow /usr/local/stow/swiprolog

This makes symlinks into the /usr/local hierarchy.

When time for deletion comes:

$ stow -D /usr/local/stow/swiprolog

Its clean and has worked for me for many years.

I prefer screen.

[ Amendment IV ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want to read my stuff? Go ahead and crack it - no warrant necessary.

Get the rabbit installed on a machine behind your firewall
==> http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
Faster than freenet
==> http://www.i2p.net/
Encrypt Jabber
==> http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Jabber/jabberd.html
Onion Routing
==> http://tor.eff.org/
Emerging Network To Reduce Orwellian Potency Yield
==> http://entropy.stop1984.com/
Free Internet telephony
==> http://skype.com/
GNU-ified P2p
==> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnunet/


DO NOT DENY yourself about 2 hours @ InfoAnarchy.org
OMG! ==> http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Pag e
LearnLearnLearnLearn ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

=================EMAIL ENCRYPTION===============
GPG (Free PGP)
==> http://gnupg.org/
Integrated with Thunderbird
==> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Mutt can't be beat as a mailreader and integrates GPG wonderfully.
==> http://mutt.blackfish.org.uk/
==> http://www.mutt.org/links.html
==> http://wiki.mutt.org/index.cgi?UserPages

!!! Please do not immediately send newly created keys to the keyservers (as many HOWTOs instruct new users to). They are already overflowing with "test keys" and other people's experiments from over the years THAT HAVE NO EXPIRATION and will never be deleted. These keys are "orphans" and most will never be used. As keyservers sync together, and most keys are never deleted once submitted - GET YOUR KEY SETUP CORRECTLY AND HAVE PRACTICE WITH IT BEFORE SENDING IT OFF TO THE KEYSERVERS!!! Otherwise storage requirements will continue to grow and using these in the future will become more difficult FOR ALL. Please, if you are just starting out with PGP or GPG or GnuPG or anything similar (the last two are in fact the same thing) use manual key distribution to begin (ascii armor your public key with

$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org

and copy and paste it into an email body or attach it to an email

$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org > myPubKey.txt

to gain practice with GPG before uploading your key. This way if you need to create another you won't have uploaded your mistakes. Many choices need to be made and it's worth getting things right before "going public" with your new digital ID. Experiment with yourself and a few different email accounts or with some friends first.)

SET AN EXPIRATION OF 2-5 YEARS OR SO AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM BEFORE SENDING TO A KEYSERVER! Better yet is to HOST YOUR KEY ON YOUR WEBSITE (or try using http://biglumber.com/ instead to host your key and help c

Next, they'll prohibit students from borrowing each other's books

Next, they'll prohibit students from borrowing each other's books

Brazil is all talk with the Free Software, with the Lula government and what not, their big bruhaha forums, their highfalutin' Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil and speeches about "empowerement and technology transfer", but no action. No action, that is, except the government hiring consulting firms full of sysadmins that are making big bucks installing FOSS.*

The Brazilian government AFAIK is spending zilch, nada, on developing the code base that will save them millions. It's an exploitative mentality: you use, deploy widely, but don't give anything back. Except to the consulting $ysadmin$.**

I would like to see the Brazilian government spend money on the development of software they'll use. This would be money well spent. It's the sort of investment that actually saves money, becauses it creates better products and tools, and eases installation, deployment, and integration. FOSS depends on having a solid code base. If you're going to use that code base, you might as well pay something for it.*** This goes for individuals and governments, in particular governments who like to shout out loud their support for Free Software. The Japanese government is an example for all to follow.

---

* Many of those guys are, strangely, acquaintances of the individuals on the government. If there's a scam, I don't know, but it sure smells funny. I should know, I know some of them.

** In fact, I'm lying a bit here: there's a small bunch of government employees developing some stuff. But they're too slow, small in numbers and lacking in expertise. And also, there are small research grants. All this sums up to almost nothing. How many times have you read about a big project the Brazilian government funded on FOSS (except the usual replacement of Windows desktops?) For instance, there is a huge opportunity for KDE and GNOME usability studies, a huge oppportunity for office integration via OO.org. Where are they? Not to be found...

*** How much money have _you_ donated to a FOSS entity like GNU or OpenBSD this year, even though _you_ use their software on a daily basis?

With the Linux kernel locked into v2 of the GPL and exposed to international copyright and software patent attacks only code secured within the high walls and protective defenses of GPL v3 will be safe for FOSS developers. With the kernel sufficiently undermined developers and users alike will need to find a new, more protected, codebase from which to operate. That codebase is The Hurd.

I would expect that the GPL version 3 will be backwards compatible with GPL Version 2.

Although there will be top legal minds writing GPLv3, that compatibility is likely to be impossible. I haven't seen a draft of GPLv3 yet, but I know that one focus is to enable users of software to get access to the source, even if they don't have access to the binaries.

Such a restriction (something like "you must offer the users of the software a copy of the source, or the same offer you got") would be constitute a "further restriction", violating section 6 of the GPLv2: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

(On the other hand, if there is no further restriction in GPLv3, then it won't vary substantially from GPLv2, and there will be little motivation for anyone to change)

The only way GPLv3 and v2 may be compatible is by falling back to clause 10, the brute force way: "If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission"

FUD is way oldschool from long before Slashdot. Any old *.advocacy UseNet groups would sling FUD around like politicians sling mud.

EULA I believe is actually coined from within EULAs themselves (ie, "This End User Licence Agreement ("EULA")..." (gotta love nested quotes and parentheses, too)).

MS/M$ also predates Slashdot. It was often used my Mac Advocacy folks way back in the day.

OSS and F/OSS (yes, the F is for Free) are newer, coined by the free/open source software communities, of which Slashdot is a major feature.

GPL is likewise a F/OSS term, for the GNU General Public License, see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html for details.

HTH. YMMV. HAND.

At the time it was published, it was easy to look on Richard Stallman's story, The Right To Read, as dystopian hyperbole. It was easy to believe that he was writing about an exaggerated worst case that could never come to pass. Sadly, with each passing year it looks more and more like the only thing he was wrong about was how quickly it could happen.

You are putting words in my mouth here in the way you quoted my statement. I said "intellectual property rights" and preservation of intellectual property rights does not imply a copyright monopoly.

The United States Code refers to no such thing as "intellectual property rights". There are privileges under copyright law (17 USC), privileges under patent law (35 USC), and privileges under trademark law (parts of 15 USC). Using the term "intellectual property" confuses copyrights, patents, and trademarks, which is why I changed "intellectual property" to "copyright".

As for replacing "rights" with "monopoly": Under the construction of Congress's constitutional power to enact copyright law, copyright is not a right but a privilege. In theory it's a useful privilege "to promote the progress of Science" (that is, knowledge), but it remains a privilege nonetheless. This privilege takes the form of a monopoly on reproducing a given work or even on unintentionally creating similar works after having been exposed to a given work. Perhaps "copyright privileges" might have been a less loaded term than "copyright monopoly".

The biggest problem in this whole discussion is that both sides seem to have pretty unreasonable positions

Another Slashdot user has remarked that the pro-copyright and anti-copyright factions had roughly the same positions in the 1780s when the U.S. Constitution was written, and the "to promote the Progress" construction we know today along with the 28-year maximum copyright of the 1790 Act were the compromise between the two sides. Why not revive this compromise?

Can't get the content if you can't pay the creator.

Did you mean "Can't get happiness if you can't pay God"? When discussing legal issues such as copyright, it's best to use the same words used in the statute, such as "works of authorship" and "author" rather than "content" and "creator".

More likely, did you mean "Can't get the works if you can't pay the author?" In that case, what's your position on the issue of orphan works?

It seems you might not have heard about the Free Software Song.

Caution: the .au file linked to on the page is the audio equivalent of the goatse.cx guy.

Is this really the alternative you are looking for?

So it seems to me that you'd need to go to Sun and ask, "Hey, will you port all your feature-rich Java libraries to my Java-esque language that compiles to machine language executables?"

Don't ask them. Ask the GCC team.

Richard M. Stallman has written a fiction story called "The Right to Read", which is very relevant to the current subject.

It's to do with freedom.

When you put DRM on stuff, you're restricting freedom. Taking the DRM off, or as in this case preventing it's addition, restores freedom.

When you violate a EULA, you are taking freedom you shouldn't, really, but you are increasing your freedom. To follow it is to reduce your freedom.

But the GPL is about giving freedom, & the only restriction is there so noone can take all the rest of the freedom away. When you violate it, you're taking away freedom from other people.Remember, you only have to publish when you put out binaries.. otherwise it's your choice. I won't go into detail here, but if you read /. you should have some idea. If not, go to http://gnu.org/ & check it out.

What most people here seem to want, myself included, it greater freedom. DRM takes that, GPL grants it. That is the reason behind most of the (seeming) license hypocracy on /., I'm sure. It's definately the reason for me.

Oh, & sorry if this post sounds like a broken record... "freedom...freedom...cheese...freedom"

First, I'm not interested in "open sourc[ing]" anything. I'm interested in software freedom, the message which the open source movement works hard to ignore or marginalize (for examples see Chris DiBona's interview where he gets the difference between open source and free software very wrong, or Mark Webbink's essay on licensing where he goes around the barn to not use the word "copyleft" even though that's the concept he finds so useful, or the OSI's FAQ where they describe free software as "ideological tub-thumping". Then contrast that to the more clear and respectful description of the difference between the two movements published by the FSF).

Second, I don't think there's anything wrong with asking nVidia to make the software for their 3D drivers free software, nor do I think there's anything wrong with asking Adobe to make Photoshop free software. I don't think there's anything wrong with purposefully not getting involved with these programs (or buying from these companies) until they distribute freedom to their customers.

As history shows, there is competition in many markets where people put the effort into making competition happen. The GIMP and Photoshop are competitors, there is interest in making a 3D video card that uses free software to drive it. There was a time when the Linux kernel was not advanced enough to do real work with, but now it is useful for everyday work by millions around the world.

We should not be so quick to accept whatever some proprietor is handing us just because it is available here and now.

Sun has done a wonderful job with java and documentation. The only thing that I would like to see added to it would be links to items that reference each function/object.

Uhh, this may be true for some parts, but lots of the documentation is crap. Look for example at javax.swing.text.rtf.RTFEditorKit: "We didn't wrote this but hope to improve it later" or even better javax.swing.JViewport: "Hey we have a cool and fast implementation but won't tell you what a JViewport is". The API docs are full of this, and if you are trying to implement the API like the folks at GNU Classpath (including me) then you will see that Sun's JDK isn't really good. Besides this funny things in the documentation there are lots of redundant methods (some of them deprecated), stuff that behaves different than documented (again look closely at RTFEditorKit!) etc etc

You, sir, don't get it.

You're criticizing a company for selling Linux distros under the terms dictated by the creators of the distro. If you order a laptop with Fedora Core 3, Red Hat doesn't see a penny. If you order RH9 with a 12 month tech support contract, Red Hat gets paid for it. It works this way because that's how Red Hat says EmperorLinux needs to do it.

So, who is getting ripped off?

Further, you fundamentally misunderstand the GPL. It says nothing about "free as in beer" and in fact everything on the GNU website specifically denies that intention. All that is required under the GPL is that you cannot sell a binary without giving the recipient access to the source code as well. If I want to sell a custom kernel for $500 a pop, more power to me.

Again, nobody is getting ripped off. They're just taking what is being offered, and redistributing it under the terms of the offer. They're also sending kernel patches back to the kernel maintainers, which is something they're not legally obligated to do.

I know people who have bought from EL, and they've been most impressed with the tech support they've received. Impressive tech support isn't cheap. If their "value adds" have no value to you, you can buy the same laptop model elsewhere and figure out how to install Linux on a laptop yourself. It's tricky, but it will help if you download a really nifty kernel customized for laptops.

In short, if you don't like what they're doing, it's possible to do it yourself. How is that worse than "Bill and the Boys?"

And whoosh, there goes the joke.

The "GNU public license" does not exist, references on google are mistakes.

GPL

When did RMS get an account on /.? Although, I must admit, the username is appropriately chosen.

To clear up your obvious confusion, please read the GNU group's distinction then ask yourself, do you really think the poster meant free software as in software that doesn't cost anything or free software as in software that gives you freedoms.

The distinction is important and you cavalierly mix Open Source with Free Software. Bad, bad, bad.

Except that it is the GNU General Public License, not the "GNU Public License", which is what the poster was pointing out.

Amazon is really pushing its APIs to open-source developers and is trying very hard to become part of the open-source community. Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly sat side by side at OSCON to tout how small developers could use Amazon's API to make lots of money. This worries me.

There are lots of informative and geeky lectures available at:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

rms on the subject if someone hasn't read that yet.

"Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?"

Either you ask this question/try to make this point a lot, or others are constantly doing so as well.

I do not mean to be rude or insulting, but it sounds a bit foolish and here is why...

You do understand that the GPL is a "copyleft" copyright license, right?

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

You will note this from that link:

"Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''"

So, why should it be odd that people who like the gpl should not like using copyright to take away freedom?

"*Especially* when it hurts - respecting copyright only when it's convenient is nothing but greed and hypocrisy."

Generally, there is a reaction when people use copyright as an instrument of greed, or ignore copyright to further their greed. Yes? No?

Copyleft was created because of the belief that people should have access to code. This was standard operating procedure in the early days of computing from what I have read. When programs began to be copyrighted and code withheld, the idea of copyleft was brought forward to counteract the negative impact of the new practices.

Now, you may agree or disagree with people who hold these views, but you should be able to see how, from their point of view, they are being consistent. I am not saying the people responsible for creating the idea of copyleft hold these views mind you. I just think some people who like the idea of copyleft feel this way.

In fact, I often wonder if we are better off with copyleft copyrights on software that we would be if software were not subject to copyright, but that is just a mental excercise. Do you think we will ever be in that situation in your lifetime?

Please also note, that if people seeking to enforce the GPL were like the **AA or **A crowd, you would be likely to see headlines and stories like this:

Federal agents raid Cisco headquarters and manufacturing plants today!

[Federal agents seize all cisco products alleged to contain code in violation of copyrights (GPL code.)

Cisco also faces fines of up to $(big number) for each device found to contain code in violation of federal copyright laws.

There is also a possibility of jail time for those found to be responsible for these acts of piracy and theft.]

Somehow, the GPL proponents don't seem to use these tactics now do they?

all the best,

drew

More realistically Linux is the kernel which is in the more technical sense the OS (OS is the software layer which manages the software, this line is not easy to draw in every OS, but with linux it is pretty clear).

An operating system is more than a kernel. Take a look at the Single Unix Specification and see what sort of things an operating system specification deals with.

If we consider terms like "Unix" and "POSIX" to be terms relating to operating systems (and we do), then the GNU system must also be considered an operating system.

GNU makes some nifty software that happens to be in the list of applications that Redhat distributes along with the Linux OS.

Incorrect. In 1984 - long before Linux was a gleam in Linus's eye - the GNU project set out to write a complete Unix-like free software system.

By the early 90s, every piece of this operating system was in place except the kernel. People started droping Linux into the center of the system and bam!, GNU/Linux

Except that GNU was started for software freedom years before the open source movement existed. GNU was not about pushing anything "open source". Making a fork of GNU into a proprietary OS would definately not be considered any kind of advantage because such a program would deny software freedom to its users. Nor is the focus of the free software movement an issue of perfecting a development model aimed at rallying unpaid labor to work on one's program.

I suggest learning more about the difference between software freedom and what the open source movement is pitching.

You may kill me now

Hey I'va had a hard day, I can troll now :p

No
I believe the Free Software Song would be torture in most places in the world.