Slashdot Mirror

That is why distributions have package management systems for GNU/Linux. A single command is sufficient to install/remove a package.

However, I understand your problem, when it comes to manual installation. There is a project GNU Stow to handle what you are talking about.

Looking at the Linux and GNU section I noticed one of the last paragraphs which reads:

"Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.

"People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation."

Or maybe from the other GNU/Linux referenced site.

I'm confused on this...isn't the reasons for calling linux GNU/Linux because it makes use of GNU products (like the compiler, libraries, applications - EMACS, etc) as part of the environment or distribution as a whole? By that same logic, I still don't see way GNU/BSD does not fit by RMS's own words. Does BSD have a completely different set of libraries, applications, compilers, etc that aren't GNU based?

I know of the split between ATT based Unix and the Berkley version of UNIX, but still...

Oh well...I guess in the end it's a to-mA-to, verses to-mah-to symantic argument..

Anyway, here's what the FSF has to say about free software, for anyone who's still not clear on the matter.

For reference, the GPL v2

See which licenses are on the FSF's list of Non-Free Software Licenses, but are listed on OSI's list of Approved Licenses.

For example, the Reciprocal Public License is Open Source but not Free. This is a useful distinction, in argument to Mr. Bedell's article.

Well, if you wish to get really pedantic about it. You could argue that once programs like GNU Emacs were placed under the stewardship of the GPL, they were emancipated from the bonds of proprietary software.

Yes there never existed a version of GNU Emacs that was ever locked down by a corporate master, but until GNU Emacs was licensed under the GPL is was not yet enlightened to the four freedoms.

But by then people may think you a bit strange, and start slowly backing away.

Hey! Where did every body go?

Uh, please show me a free software license that does not meet the OSI's Open Source Definition.

This ambiguity in the word "Free" is mearly an artifact of the industry backed Open Source Initiative's efforts to water down the pre-existing traditional definition of Free Software

Both Free Software Definition and Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' have laid out the differences pretty clearly for quite some time now. The differences are understood, and as apparent as the differences between BSD and GPL advocates. Stating he feels that the group that historically has been the most vocal should be swept under the rug is ludicrous, akin to Rush Limbaugh telling his AM radio audience that the Democratic party should be eliminated.

I'm not sure if anyone should RTFA, in this case it seems to just be a slow-news-day article designed to drive traffic to their site. Anyone disagree?

Both Free Software Definition and Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' have laid out the differences pretty clearly for quite some time now. The differences are understood, and as apparent as the differences between BSD and GPL advocates. Stating he feels that the group that historically has been the most vocal should be swept under the rug is ludicrous, akin to Rush Limbaugh telling his AM radio audience that the Democratic party should be eliminated.

I'm not sure if anyone should RTFA, in this case it seems to just be a slow-news-day article designed to drive traffic to their site. Anyone disagree?

You stumble into the discussion like a blind bat into a field of cactuses. Free software doesn't refer to software that is available at no cost. It refers to software that is Free.

You have it largely backwards.

Free software enforces your ability to improve/extend/add-to the project. Open source, in general, does not - because vendors can keep extentions secret..

That's a good part of the theory behind the creation of the open source movement. However, the businesses I've talked to are very interested in making private derivatives of free software--taking advantage of a freedom which the open source movement doesn't care about (in fact this was one of the FSF's initial objections to the early versions of the Apple Public Source License; one had to notify one central authority which, as they say, happened to be Apple, in a lot of situations one would commonly encounter, hence the license initially did not respect user's privacy). The same revision of the APSL which the FSF did not call a free software license qualified as an open source license.

But as this highly underrated essay points out, the open source movement provides business with a stamp of approval.

The FSF has no problems with the practical goals of the open source movement, except that those goals don't go far enough. Faster, cheaper development of less buggy programs is nice but says nothing about one's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify software at any time for any reason.

That's a good part of the theory behind the creation of the open source movement. However, the businesses I've talked to are very interested in making private derivatives of free software--taking advantage of a freedom which the open source movement doesn't care about (in fact this was one of the FSF's initial objections to the early versions of the Apple Public Source License; one had to notify one central authority which, as they say, happened to be Apple, in a lot of situations one would commonly encounter, hence the license initially did not respect user's privacy). The same revision of the APSL which the FSF did not call a free software license qualified as an open source license.

But as this highly underrated essay points out, the open source movement provides business with a stamp of approval.

The FSF has no problems with the practical goals of the open source movement, except that those goals don't go far enough. Faster, cheaper development of less buggy programs is nice but says nothing about one's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify software at any time for any reason.

Please avoid using the word "open" as a substitute for "free software". A different group, whose values are less idealistic than ours, uses "open source" as its slogan. If you are referring to them, it is proper to use their name, but please don't lump us in with them or describe our work by their label---that leads people to think we are their supporters.

Please avoid using the word "open" as a substitute for "free software". A different group, whose values are less idealistic than ours, uses "open source" as its slogan. If you are referring to them, it is proper to use their name, but please don't lump us in with them or describe our work by their label---that leads people to think we are their supporters.

RMS clearly explains why "Free Software" is his term of choice, and it has everything to do with changing behavior: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html Thanks for the opportunity for a flamewar, though.

``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

Not that I have anything against free beer.

Do you have a non-obvious point beyond the general observation that we need a good system of laws?

The fear is that enforcing licensure may require that people who aren't licensed and bonded software engineers may be forbidden from having access to a compiler or even from having access to a machine's root password.

Without licensing, you are already required to obey laws. What's your point?

If the government controls the distribution of compilers and debuggers, then the government can justify much harsher restrictions on what software may do. Have you read "The Right to Read"?

he US Patent system, had it worked correctly, would have saved a number of budding software companies from Microsoft.

You are repeating a myth that is easily debunked by examining how cross-licensing works from the perspective of the "budding software compan[y]". Quoting RMS from his talk on the danger with software patents (or listen to the speech):

This phenomenon of cross-licensing refutes a common myth, the myth of the starving genius. The myth that patents "protect" the "small inventor". Those terms are propaganda terms. You shouldn't use them. The scenario is like this: Suppose there is a brilliant designer of whatever. Suppose he has spent years starving in the attic designing a new wonderful kind of whatever and now wants to manufacture it and isn't it a shame the big companies are going to go into competition with him, take away all the business and he'll "starve". I will have to point out that people in high tech fields are not generally working on their own and that ideas don't come in a vacuum, they are based on ideas of others and these people have pretty good chances of getting a job if they need to these days. So this scenario, the idea that a brilliant idea came from this brilliant person working alone is unrealistic and the idea that he is in danger of starving is unrealistic. But it is conceivable that somebody could have an idea and this idea along with 100 or 200 other ideas can be the basis of making some kind of product and that big companies might want to compete with him. So let's see what happens if he tries to use a patent to stop them. He says "Oh No, IBM. You cannot compete with me. I've got this patent." IBM says "let's see. Let's look at your product. Hmmm. I've got this patent and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one, which parts of your product infringe. If you think you can fight against all of them in court, I will just go back and find some more. So, why don't you cross license with me?" And then this brilliant small inventor says "Well, OK, I'll cross license". So he can go back and make these wonderful whatever it is, but so can IBM. IBM gets access to his patent and gets the right to compete with him, which means that this patent didn't "protect" him at all.

Also, note how the difference in the number of patents obtained: IBM has the most patents (so many that they can insulate themselves from the damage the patent system causes). Most "inventors" are not multinational corporations like IBM, HP, Apple, Microsoft, etc. and if they have any patents at all they only have patents that cover the wonderful something they're working on.

Therefore, when IBM gets a license by pressuring a small developer into cross-licensing, IBM gets virtually 100% of the small "inventor"'s patents but gives a license for a very small percentage of its patents. When multinationals cross-license they don't have this imbalance, so they cannot be bullied into cross-licensing all that they have. The imbalance and ill effect for the small "inventor" point out how what you are saying is a myth. Your post is highly overrated.

Interesting idea cause it means you could theoretically write a receiver to decode digital signals (like TV) without paying for it?

It is already capable of tuning HDTV. Screenshots

you could use this hardware to pull in terrestrial HDTV.

You could, but you would be better off using the pcHDTV HD-3000 card which is designed to work well with terrestial, aka Over The Air (OTA), HDTV, "legacy" NTSC, and can legally ignore the FCC Broadcast Flag until June 2005.

To clarify, GNU Radio is a Free Software software defined radio implementation, and the USRP (Universal Software Radio Peripheral) is the semi-official reference hardware platform designed by Matt Ettus. The USRP is real-life useless without additional modules for basicRX (receiver) and/or basicTX (transmitter). Depending on the usage, you might require a up/down converter aka a transverter.

There are others working on similar hardware (e.g. SSRP for a bit simpler and lower cost, or the amateur radio oriented Flex-Radio) as well, and I expect that the USRP hardware will be copied, cloned, and improved upon in a short time.

"Aren't some of these companies small or midsized businesses that will go OUT of business if they can't get paid for what they're producing?"

I guess they'll have to go out of business then. What is the alternative, a police state with mandated DRM on everything, along with cameras making sure you're not copying what your not suppose to? Don't forget the cameras to make sure you are not reading anything without paying the authors for their hard work, including this sentence: That'll be $20 please.

We live in a digital age. Copyright should be reformed along the lines that free distribution is allowed for personal or non-commerical use. If the parties do not or will not reform they will quick see that people will do so anyway, it is difficult to keep information unfree in a free society. If noncommerical use is allowed then these 'pirates' will quickly see their cash flow evaporate, or better yet - the media companies should realize they are competing against free of charge distribution models (P2P) since the monopoly pricing that worked in the past does not work today.

[The] free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

• Producing text mixed with music examples (large ones between paragraphs, tiny ones in-line) is tiresome with traditional music notation packages, involving a lot of copying and pasting between notation and text processing programs. Lilypond-book makes this easy (there is only one source file that contains both text and music) An example: source [knoware.nl] and output [knoware.nl].
• Automated production of different output files from one source file is easy (using a script or a makefile). I routinely produce a violin and a viola version of all my teaching materials. Whenever I change something, it is automatically re-done in both versions.
• Even on a simple PDA one can create a lilypond file (all you need is a text editor and a few kB of memory). I am often away from home and I do a lot of my notation this way, in trains and between rehearsals.

I'm OT, but if you're going to compile a list like that, and leave off Chipwits, then either you missed out on one of the great Mac games of the 1980's or you need to turn in your Mac geek card.

Chipwits was great! You construct a program for a little robot by laying out "chips" with different instructions (move forward, turn left, pick up item, scan ahead, ...) and wire them together with T/F gates. Then, you set the little bot loose in a maze for him to explore. Blindingly simple to do, extremely difficult to do well.

Chipwits was a very addicting game. Mike Johnston (co-creator) was supposed to be releasing an update for Windows/MacOSX, but I haven't seen anything yet.

Closest you'll probably get to the original Chipwits is GNU Robots. (Disclaimer: I'm the original author of GNU Robots, but I handed that off years ago... looks like someone has picked it up again!)

Around 5 years ago I was looking for a way to have a secure-id sort of solution without having to buy the proprietary software and hardware without any success.

Have you looked at GNU SASL (Simple Authentication and Security Layer framework)?

I even looked into building my own (I know a little about microcontrollers for the hardware device portion) but was not able to come up with any suitable algorithm. It seems like the security of our Linux systems and other systems which require authentication could really benefit from something like this.

There are OPIE calculators for MD4/MD5 in Java and for most handhelds, but it is tough to find a SHA-1 or RMD-160 implemention, and I have yet to run across any dedicated hardware device that does nothing but handle OPIE authentication. With the uncertainty about SHA-1, You might plan to implement only RMD-160 (160 bit Ripe Message Digest). Tokens would need a bit more CPU power to handle a few hundred rounds, but at least there is a good chance that RMD will still be a viable hash, long after SHA-1 falls.

whether I release the software under GPL or in the public domain, I can no longer make money from it

There exist ways to fund software development other than restricting the distribution of software through copyright:

• You can sell access to a live human being for technical support.
• You can sell copies of a copyright-restricted user manual.
• You can sell copies of copyright-restricted data such as clip art.
• You can embed a trademark into most of the screens, so that any redistributor has a lot of work to do to become compliant with trademark law, which is completely orthogonal to copyright law.
• Or you can refactor the copylefted components to run as a separate process, exchanging data on a pipe through a documented protocol, replacing "linking" with "mere aggregation" as the GPL FAQ explains.

The Planeshift license page states that the developers use a proprietary license for all game content, making only the actual program code open source. While they use practical-sounding phrases like "keeping resources" and "maximizing chances of success", this is clearly acknowledged as a way to keep people from forking the project (by making it impractical to do so).

One of the primary freedoms afforded by the GPL and other FOSS licenses is the right to fork. Without the ability to fork, a project can die or stagnate if the leaders lose interest or turn into assholes, even when there are other interested people who would be willing to keep that project alive. In other words, the ability to fork gives you "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)."

IMHO, any project that claims to be open source but deliberately attempts to prevent forks should be regarded with suspicion.

You kidding? Xerox's primary benefit is the fact that their company name is used as synonymous for "copy." Brand recognition is never a bad thing.

Xerox very much wants you to respect their trademark, even running an ad in Writer's Digest to encourage TM-correctness among writers.

but if I want to call it "Linux" for simplicity's sake, I have every freedom to do so, and there's nothing he can do about it without making himself out to be a hypocrite.

There's lots he can do; he can correct you, he can write letters, etcetera, none of which impinge on your freedom.

The FSF explictly aknowledges your right to be wrong :-) on the issue:

Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the operating system by any name you wish. We ask that people call it GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that those values of freedom brought the system into existence.

Back in '96 ("the year of the Intranet") I accidentally ended up getting paid to do web development work with Perl on Windows. I wasn't then, nor am I now, really a programmer (still less a hacker); I just happened to be a little better at abstract reasoning than anybody around me at the time.

I had never heard of the free software movement or the GPL, and the term "Open Source" hadn't even been coined. It's hard to imagine now how different the IT world was less than a decade ago. I chose Perl because it was free as in beer. At the time, it hadn't even occurred to me that you could apply the other meaning of the word "free" to software.

Then one day, while avoiding work, I was browsing through the documentation for Perl, and came across the following:

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.

At the time I was a union delegate in a big multinational company, so I knew in intimate detail the awful nature of the institution. I hated my job, didn't know anybody who didn't hate theirs, and despaired of ever finding a vocation that I wasn't ashamed of.

Reading the GPL, and then going to the GNU website and devouring everything there was a life-changing experience. RMS demonstrated that it was possible to make a living without compromising on ethics, and for the first time in my life I felt that there was a place for me in the world, if not as a genious hacker, then at least by applying the same moral principles to whatever field I had an aptitude for.

I stopped using proprietary software myself. Over time, I stopped installing proprietary software for my friends, and now I run a business supporting free software.

It all started with running a free program on a non-free operating system. If the free world had enforced strict border controls, on the dubious logic that more people would migrate if they weren't allowed to visit, I wouldn't be a part of it now, and my life would be a lot poorer for it.

At this time of the year it is worth stopping to remember this crazy guy with long hair and wild ideas about helping your neighbour, and how he changed the world.

Thanks RMS!

I don't think X is part of the GNU project though the FSF has some opinions on it.

As for Y. I have no idea what that is.

As I said the other day, Stallman himself is the perfect example of using free software on proprietary OS'es. That's how the GNU project started, and today they still make reasonable efforts to keep their software portable.

A lot of people dismiss and mock RMS, but he already asked and answered a lot of these questions himself many years ago. Maybe it would help some people to periodically read through some of his writings. (I know reading things you don't agree with or like is unpopular with many around here.) RMS has made intelligent decisions on a lot of these issues.

Another thing that comes up all the time around here is selling free software, which seems to confuse a lot of people but was handled by RMS a long time ago, too.

An explaination in RMS' own words.

Around 20 years ago a programmer at MIT quit his job to develop a complete and free Unix-style operating system--the GNU system. That programmer was Richard Stallman, also known as rms, the founder of the Free Software Foundation.

Since 1984 he has fought for software freedom and created the concept of free software. Software is considered free if users have the following four freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition.

Copyleft licenses protect these four freedoms. The most prominent license is the GNU General Public License, which allows the author to retain a copyright and permits redistribution and modification under terms designed to ensure that all modified versions of the software remain under copyleft terms.

In this period of threats to freedom, Federico Biancuzzi interviewed this freedom paladin.

FB: GNU/Linux (the complete OS!) is probably the most known free software project. What do you think about the fact that Linux (the kernel!) uses a proprietary program to manage its source code?

RMS: It is unfortunate when anyone uses proprietary software. Using it publicly for the development of a prominent free software package is particularly unfortunate, because it sets a bad example for the community.

FB: Isn't there any free alternative under development?

RMS: There are already free programs that do the same basic job. Linus Torvalds feels they are not convenient enough, and he values convenience more than he values standing firm for freedom. I think that is leading the community in the wrong direction.

As part of the GNU Project, Tom Lord is developing a new free source control system called Arch, which we hope will outdo the proprietary ones.

But just because we are competing with proprietary software on issues of technical merit doesn't mean we think people should choose the program for source control based on technical qualities alone. That would mean assigning zero value to freedom itself. If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have.

FB: What do you think about proprietary software? Does it have low quality? Is it unsecure? Does it restrict freedom too much? Is it unethical?

RMS: Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. It may also be of low quality or insecure, but that's a secondary issue. I will reject it even if it is the best quality in the world, simply because I value my freedom too much to give it up for that.

FB: Would you accept a federal law in the United States to enforce the distribution of source code with every type of software?

RMS: I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure--like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.

Of course, some software companies would object to this, j

Around 20 years ago a programmer at MIT quit his job to develop a complete and free Unix-style operating system--the GNU system. That programmer was Richard Stallman, also known as rms, the founder of the Free Software Foundation.

Since 1984 he has fought for software freedom and created the concept of free software. Software is considered free if users have the following four freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition.

Copyleft licenses protect these four freedoms. The most prominent license is the GNU General Public License, which allows the author to retain a copyright and permits redistribution and modification under terms designed to ensure that all modified versions of the software remain under copyleft terms.

In this period of threats to freedom, Federico Biancuzzi interviewed this freedom paladin.

FB: GNU/Linux (the complete OS!) is probably the most known free software project. What do you think about the fact that Linux (the kernel!) uses a proprietary program to manage its source code?

RMS: It is unfortunate when anyone uses proprietary software. Using it publicly for the development of a prominent free software package is particularly unfortunate, because it sets a bad example for the community.

FB: Isn't there any free alternative under development?

RMS: There are already free programs that do the same basic job. Linus Torvalds feels they are not convenient enough, and he values convenience more than he values standing firm for freedom. I think that is leading the community in the wrong direction.

As part of the GNU Project, Tom Lord is developing a new free source control system called Arch, which we hope will outdo the proprietary ones.

But just because we are competing with proprietary software on issues of technical merit doesn't mean we think people should choose the program for source control based on technical qualities alone. That would mean assigning zero value to freedom itself. If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have.

FB: What do you think about proprietary software? Does it have low quality? Is it unsecure? Does it restrict freedom too much? Is it unethical?

RMS: Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. It may also be of low quality or insecure, but that's a secondary issue. I will reject it even if it is the best quality in the world, simply because I value my freedom too much to give it up for that.

FB: Would you accept a federal law in the United States to enforce the distribution of source code with every type of software?

RMS: I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure--like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.

Of course, some software companies would object to this, j

Around 20 years ago a programmer at MIT quit his job to develop a complete and free Unix-style operating system--the GNU system. That programmer was Richard Stallman, also known as rms, the founder of the Free Software Foundation.

Since 1984 he has fought for software freedom and created the concept of free software. Software is considered free if users have the following four freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition.

Copyleft licenses protect these four freedoms. The most prominent license is the GNU General Public License, which allows the author to retain a copyright and permits redistribution and modification under terms designed to ensure that all modified versions of the software remain under copyleft terms.

In this period of threats to freedom, Federico Biancuzzi interviewed this freedom paladin.

FB: GNU/Linux (the complete OS!) is probably the most known free software project. What do you think about the fact that Linux (the kernel!) uses a proprietary program to manage its source code?

RMS: It is unfortunate when anyone uses proprietary software. Using it publicly for the development of a prominent free software package is particularly unfortunate, because it sets a bad example for the community.

FB: Isn't there any free alternative under development?

RMS: There are already free programs that do the same basic job. Linus Torvalds feels they are not convenient enough, and he values convenience more than he values standing firm for freedom. I think that is leading the community in the wrong direction.

As part of the GNU Project, Tom Lord is developing a new free source control system called Arch, which we hope will outdo the proprietary ones.

But just because we are competing with proprietary software on issues of technical merit doesn't mean we think people should choose the program for source control based on technical qualities alone. That would mean assigning zero value to freedom itself. If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have.

FB: What do you think about proprietary software? Does it have low quality? Is it unsecure? Does it restrict freedom too much? Is it unethical?

RMS: Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. It may also be of low quality or insecure, but that's a secondary issue. I will reject it even if it is the best quality in the world, simply because I value my freedom too much to give it up for that.

FB: Would you accept a federal law in the United States to enforce the distribution of source code with every type of software?

RMS: I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure--like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.

Of course, some software companies would object to this, j

OpenEHR uses open-standards based archetypes as "flexible easily understood templates" for specifying complex systems that are inevitably going to evolve overt time - as health systems always do.

Thomas Beale is lead on the archetype work,

How fortunate it is, then, for the programmers of some of those programs that the GNU GPL and LGPL exist.

You claim that RMS is not "pushing for wider adoption of free software" but that's why he goes on speaking tours around the world. Eben Moglen too, talks to groups about his work with the FSF (and recently his take on the whole SCO debacle). I'd hardly call it petty to remind people to preserve software freedom, certainly in comparison with what I'm reminded of when I'm asked to call the whole system "Linux".

When it comes to free software adoption by government, my experience differs from your views. Brad Kuhn, executive vice president of the FSF, went on the record saying that governments should use free software in a talk at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Earlier this year, I wrote an article published on Counterpunch.org about free software voting machines and RMS wrote me to thank me for writing the article. He and I both acknowledge that free software voting machines are not enough to overcome our current electronic voting machine problems, but they are a step in the right direction and this would solve a problem many districts will face later on.

I wonder if you could run a stable kernel and debug a new kernel at the same time.

The GNU system (also called GNU/Hurd) is completely self-contained (you can compile all parts of it using GNU itself). You can run several instances of the Hurd in parallel, and debug even critical servers in one Hurd instance with gdb running on another Hurd instance.

If you read the FSF's FAQ on the matter, I think you'll find that they respect everyone's freedom to call the system what they want, and that they ask that people name the principal parts of the system, of which they ask that you consider GNU and Linux (not Linux alone) to be such parts:

Q: Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is absurd.)

A: What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project.

If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it.

Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is "Linux". It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).

You apparently consider Apache and BSD code to be significant contributions, yet you hide their contributions by calling the whole system "Linux".

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This wording will allow for non-free relicensing, if RMS or his descendents decide to change the GPL. I pressume that most of the software in a standard Linux distribution is Licensed this way.

GPL intentionally drives a wedge between the open and closed source communities.

I realize that success has many parents and failure dies an orphan, and the GPL is clearly successful in spreading software freedom (it is also the most widely used free software license), but these differences are real and should not be ignored because they conflict with one's mistaken view that what we're seeing today started with the open source movement (and therefore should be framed exclusively in light of that movement's values, ignoring any discussion of software freedom).

The FSF has asked that their work not be lumped in with the work of the open source movement because the two movements (free software and open source) are different and have different ramifications. There is good reason why, despite the GPL being frequently misattributed as an "open source" license, you won't find the phrase "open source" anywhere in the GPL.

Misstating this difference gives the impression that the Open Source Initiative (OSI) or the open source movement as a whole had something to do with writing the GPL (any version). The GPL predates the open source movement and all the OSI did was write their rules for license acceptance such that they could place the GPL on a list of approved licenses. Writing the seminal license of the free software community is a far more significant act than placing a license on a list of licenses.

There would be no need to clarify this in GPLv3 because it's not a GPL issue per se. However, it is covered in the GPL FAQ because it comes up a lot with regards to the GPL:

In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.

So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case.

You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.

> There's no rule that you have to use GPL software.
> If you don't want to use someone elses work, you
> are free to write it all yourself.

While that is indeed true, that is not the issue. I already know I can license my own code in any way I want. The concern is that by preventing code sharing, the GPL community forces duplication of already existing capabilities. This is not a big problem for the company that has to rewrite, say, libpng, but it is a problem for the user, who now has many copies of libpng wasting his disk space and available memory. If everyone used LGPL instead of GPL for all free code, this problem would not exist, but the free code will still stay free. Think about it.

> Note that most ways of linking applications
> together do not trigger GPL clauses.

Yes they do. Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html .

The BSD places restrictions and requirements too - you have to keep the original author's name in the source code. If you're going to say "no restrictions and requirements" then you can only really use stuff for which the source code is in the public domain. If copyrights hadn't been extended this might not be that much of a problem, but as things stand you're going to have to accept some restrictions to be able to get anything done. A license which gives you the four freedoms is good enough for me.

"... the G in GPL means GNU ..."

It actually stands for 'General'. See the GPL FAQ.

Thank you much for your vision and steadfastness in sticking to it.

First off, this is a post purely about what is allowed under the GPL - I'm not commenting on what's covered by the spirit of open source development.

The post said Nevertheless he's thinking about obfuscating his changelog and only open the source as packages when he's doing a release, which is, as he says, his right under the GPL

A lot of people have spoken about software being written under the GPL being open source and available to others. However, as I understand this case from the quote above, the original poster is talking about using code not released by the forked development, but generated during the development process that may or may not end up in the final version.

However, the GPL applies to modified code that is copied and distributed. Please see this quote from the GNU GPL FAQ (sorry for the TLAs).

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

As an example, if I write an application based on an open source software project, but do not distribute it, I have no obligation under the GPL to release the source code for it.

However, if at a later stage I did distribute it, I would have to make the source of what is included in the release available, but not all the code in my repository, for example, unused classes and test harnesses.

So to conclude, I think that the second manager was legally within his rights to obfuscate the code being used during development and only provide source code at relase, as he threatened.

In this case there is no question. The GPL is the license that people who want cooperation choose. If you choose the Modified Berkely Licenses or whatever, then incompatible forks are possible. The Mozilla Public License is specifically designed to allow incompatible forks.

The GPL is the license which says clearly and upfront:

If you want to fork then you will still have to share and cooperate. Whether you like it or not.

In this case there is no question. The GPL is the license that people who want cooperation choose. If you choose the Modified Berkely Licenses or whatever, then incompatible forks are possible. The Mozilla Public License is specifically designed to allow incompatible forks.

The GPL is the license which says clearly and upfront:

If you want to fork then you will still have to share and cooperate. Whether you like it or not.

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "

If the changelog is a component of the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, then it is classified as part of the source code.

Now, why threaten witholding or obfuscating the changelog, in this situation, if it isn't preferred when making modifications?