Slashdot Mirror

Whole concept of IP, and more specifically, DMCA,
is that thing you paid for doesn't belong to you. It still belongs to company who license, not sell it to you.

There is no cohesive concept of "IP", as RMS is always keen to point out. So let's look at the thre main areas of IP:

Copyright: If you buy something, it belongs to you. All copyright means is that you aren't usually allowed to copy it.

Trademark: If you buy something with a trademark on it, it belongs to you. You simply can't replicate that trademark yourself.

Patents: If you buy something that is patented, it belongs to you. You just aren't allowed to build something that works in the same way.

In all three cases, if you buy something, it belongs to you. Stop promoting the RIAA/MPAA FUD.

There will still be a market for customising this software. It is likely to be smaller though.
Or as RMS put it in the GNU manifesto:

"Won't programmers starve?"

I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.

But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.

The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.

Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.

Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than that.)

And so is Richard Stallman

Free software (free as in freedom, not beer) can be sold for as much as the developer or redistributor wants to.
One of its example is Suse linux which charges for its distro. How can its developers lose their job when the distro works out great and they are getting resonable pay? (theoratically)

Having code out there that does everything and I just play lego and mash it together to me is just as bad to socieety as it teaches you not to figure out how to deal with shit on your own, but teaches you how to take other peoples work and integrate it into your own.

You seem to think that all blocks have been built, and writing a program can be nothing more than putting them together, if only you had the blocks. Even if this was true, I would not see the problem, but it isn't true anyway. There are always new things to be written. Not in 10,000 years will that end. You know why? Because the rest of the world is changing. 20 years ago, people thought that 640kB should be enough for everyone. Now we want more. That's not because the memory changed, but because there are faster CPUs and graphic cards to actually use that memory.

But as I said, even if it was true, there is no point in not doing it. That's the same as saying we shouldn't give anyone a car, because then they don't have the pleasure of inventing it for themselves. For learning reasons, many people write things that have been written before, and nobody has a problem with it. However, it is nonsense to keep available programs from people just because they might use them otherwise.

As for my example about taking others contributions to GPL'd work and integrating it back into my own -- you mis the entire point.[...]

Your example assumes that you know a better way to do things than what you see in the code. What if you don't? Will you write code that is worse, just because copying is not allowed?

All in all, you sound like the religious one. Prove my religion wrong or you are a heretic you say.

The philosophy section of gnu.org is nothing like the bible. The bible is full of stories, which religious people say you should believe are actually history (in a more or less literal sense.) The philosophy section is full of reasons why free software is indeed better than non-free software. For example, in Why schools should use exclusively free software, Stallman gives arguments for his statements. It's not a believe-it-or-not story, it's a clearly written article which makes some points. If you don't agree with the points (except the ethical base), then you're supposed to give arguments saying what's wrong with the article. Where does his logic fail? You are simply saying that the article doesn't actually defend anything, it just tells a story. Well, read it again. What he says is simply true, except School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole. That is an axiom, and if you don't agree with it, then there's no point in arguing. But all the other points are simple logic and facts, and I ask you again to tell me which facts are incorrect, or where the logic doesn't hold up.

I look at solely the ethics [...] If they cannot be free to think, they are less likely to contribute to society and more likely to do only that which contributes to themselves.

I am quite surprised to hear this from you. You may actually be right for your situation. What I'm saying is not that in all cases GPL'd code is the only Right Way. I'm saying that if you don't use GPL, then there must be a reason for it. You seemed to disagree, but the argument you make here may be a valid one. My point is that usually, GPL is simply better for society than BSD or closed source. If you have a reason, you should consider the effects of your choice. In some cases the conclusion may be that the GPL should not be used. But (I came to the conclusion that) it should be used by default, and there are very few reasons to do something else.

The current economics of society allow for this. It also allows for GPL and BSD ideals. Saying one is better than the other ignores the re

IE5.5 is no longer a supported browser... you can't even download it anymore. You can bet it's full of unpatched holes.

486s are not for Windows, they're for running Linux.. which has more then it's share of lightweight browsers.

Are you familiar with snort2pf?
What do you think of it? How does it compare with what you've done?

And how about the Snort DDOS rules?

> Secondly, under the GPL for non-commercial usage only

Wrong, see this.

Under the GNU GPL you could even sell copies of the Linux version of QT.

Secondly, under the GPL for non-commercial usage only

This is a contradiction of terms. If it's under the GPL, it is, by definition, usable commercially.

See this FAQ for more information.

If Trolltech has limited QT such that it cannot be used commercial, then QT is not licensed under the GPL. It may be a variant of the GPL, but it is not the GPL.

Jeremy

Well. He has spoken out against software patents and he feels strongly about RFID.

With screen and ssh.

Your shell account can also be hacked. But that doesn't stop people from using Screen, now does it?

Instead of laughing about how noone will use this, try to come up with how you could make it secure and usable instead.

what?! you're a graphic designer?

Screen over SSH :)

No, you cited an example, not the actual definition.

The "writing your own program" part is not part of the definition.

And no, it does not neccesarily mean decompiling. Decompiling is only one method of reverse-engineering. Examining the program by comparing input/output is another one.
Perhaps you'd never use a decompiler to reverse-engineer anything, but I'm guessing that you haven't either. There are many cases in which you can't use that method, or that method is simply to difficult.

But the actual code-writing is not part of the reverse-engineering process. Writing code is engineering. You're not reversing anything!

It's called 'reverse-engineering' because engineering is the process of going from an idea to a concrete thing, like an actual program or a bridge or a car.
Reverse-engineering is the study of the engineering product in order to figure out which ideas were behind it, reversing the process. Hence the name.

Some real-life examples:
Samba is an implementation of the Windows SMB protocl based on reverse-engineering. This was done through packet analysis, not through decompilation. It is therefore also 'clean room', because they haven't seen any actual code.

Hatari, an Atari ST emulator I've contributed to, has emulation of the Atari hard drive hardware which I coded after reverse-engineering the hard-drive interface protocol. Not having an actual Atari hard-drive to test on, or a full protocol spec, I did this through disassembling and studying the driver software. It is not clean-room, since I saw the other guy's code.

(However this is not a legal problem, because A) I didn't implement a driver, rather I implemented the 'hardware' part in software. and B) I didn't use any of their code and C) Nobody cares anymore anyway.)

Classpath, an reimplementation of the Java class libraries, is 'clean room'. Sun distributes its sources to these, but noone is allowed to contribute to Classpath if they have seen them, or if they've decompiled them. The Classpath project itself is not reverse-engineering. Although some reverse-engineering is probably done by means of writing small test programs to clarify omissions from Suns Java Specification.

Decompiling is not in itself cracking. "Cracking" depending on what meaning you chose, can mean many things, among others the removal of copy protection from software.
I've did so myself back in my Atari years. Cracking is a form of reverse-engineering, and usually (but not always) entails using a disassembler. The only difference between cracking and traditional reverse-engineering is the intent.

And in the USA this is also a legal difference: The DMCA prohibits reverse-engineering with the intent to circumvent a copyright-protection device. It expressly allows it in order to achieve interoperability.

If you're European, you can look at directive 91-250-EEC of the EEC (now EU), Article 6. This legislation has been implemented in laws of all member states, and it expressly allows decompilation for interoperability purposes.

I frequently endup using reformatting tools for bad code that i get handed to. I mostly use: indent (probably already installed on your machine), AStyle (far better than indent), and perlTidy, there's more xxxTidy programs like html/php, etc have a look on google... there's probably dozen of flavors around.

Or just call any IP-benevolent inventor a "Wardak" ...

I suppose that would depend on whose idea of intellectual property rights you are talking about. I think I know where the lions share of dotters stand.

A little disturbing that a google on the term will put WIPO right there at the top so you can't miss it!

Interesting, I couldn't get to the WIPO page by clicking that link. Maybe a piering issue on my end or perhaps they've been DDoSed. Not that I would eeeeeevvver suggest that doing so would be a fantabulous idea!

From the front page of gnu.org

"(GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX"; it is pronounced "guh-noo.")"

Though you're proablly just trolling, and I bit.

Pity the GNU boyz have such bad taste in words / frases, with a bit better marketing, PR and commercialisme (Yuch, 3v1l words) We would all be talking about how NOT-Unix us GNUs are instead of how UNIXy we Linuxs be.

-- My english is not borken, its advanced!

Actually, there has been an interview years ago (/. seems to be an early adopter :))

here is the announcement and here's the interview.

Well, It could be time for an update on what has happened within the last three years.

I haven't read the Possio Patent (and IANAL), so I don't really know if this is a software patent.

But selling a GPL-based (Linux) patent-protected product seems interesting if you look at clause 7 in the GPL.

...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...

So a competitor can buy their product. They are then entitled to the source code from Possio since they chose to build on GPLed software. The competitor can now modify the source to fit their own hardware and sell it. If Possio sues for patent infringment, they lose their right to distribute the code in their own product.

I also found this PDF document about Possios US market entry with some patent discussions.

Is it any wonder people think Linux users are a bunch of flaming homosexuals when its fronted by obviously gay losers like these?! BSD has a mascot who leaves us in no doubt that this is the OS for real men! If Linux had more hot chicks and gorgeous babes then maybe it would be able to compete with BSD! Hell this girl should be a model!

Linux is a joke as long as it continues to lack sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. Don't you wish the guy in this pic was you? Are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?! Wouldn't this just make your Christmas?! Yes doctor, this uber babe definitely gets my pulse racing! Oh how I envy the lucky girl in this shot! Linux has nothing that can possibly compete. Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Wouldn't this be more liklely to influence your choice of OS?

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Don't be a fag! Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

$Id: ceren.html,v 7.0 2004/01/01 11:32:04 ceren_rocks Exp $

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty

I'm getting tired of repeating the same points over and over again so I will summarize my points for the last time. Feel free to get in the last word if you must.

1. Any direct linking to any library, or indeed any linking at all that involves shared address space, results in a combined program which must be released as GPL. (Source: If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.... the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.)
2. As an exception to the previous point, if the shared library is included with the OS then the GPL exempts you from the previous requirement. (Source: ...if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them without any conditions.... the requirement to distribute source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a linked executable containing them.)
3. As an exception to the previous exception, you are not allowed to take advantage of the previous exception if you are distributing the executable accompanied by the library itself. (Source: ...unless that component itself accompanies the executable.)

I'm getting tired of repeating the same points over and over again so I will summarize my points for the last time. Feel free to get in the last word if you must.

1. Any direct linking to any library, or indeed any linking at all that involves shared address space, results in a combined program which must be released as GPL. (Source: If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.... the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.)
2. As an exception to the previous point, if the shared library is included with the OS then the GPL exempts you from the previous requirement. (Source: ...if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them without any conditions.... the requirement to distribute source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a linked executable containing them.)
3. As an exception to the previous exception, you are not allowed to take advantage of the previous exception if you are distributing the executable accompanied by the library itself. (Source: ...unless that component itself accompanies the executable.)

I'm getting tired of repeating the same points over and over again so I will summarize my points for the last time. Feel free to get in the last word if you must.

1. Any direct linking to any library, or indeed any linking at all that involves shared address space, results in a combined program which must be released as GPL. (Source: If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.... the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.)
2. As an exception to the previous point, if the shared library is included with the OS then the GPL exempts you from the previous requirement. (Source: ...if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them without any conditions.... the requirement to distribute source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a linked executable containing them.)
3. As an exception to the previous exception, you are not allowed to take advantage of the previous exception if you are distributing the executable accompanied by the library itself. (Source: ...unless that component itself accompanies the executable.)

... was just released.

Only available on mirrors, currently.

... was just released.

Only available on mirrors, currently.

*SIGH* :)
No, it's about "free as in _free_ beer". If you go to a festival and get free beer, e.g. because a company is advertising that particular sort of beer.
Compare free beer to software which is free in the sense that you can download it for no cost, but probably without source code or no right to do something useful with the source code. Many small windows utilities were (are?) distributed in this form.
The whole thing about free (beer)/free (freedom) came from 'RMS' Richard M. Stallman, the hated and loved head of the GNU project.

To read about his definition of 'free software', look here.

It's come from a joke.

There are two types of people - those who want stuff for free and those who want to be free to use different stuff.

The first type want free beer. The second want the right to make the beer.

So Linux may be or may not Free as in Beer depending on where you get it but it's always Free in licensing due to the GPL.

Microsoft offer much that is Free as in Beer but little which allows you freedom in using it.

You may find a better description at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html or http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FreeAsInBeer

Hope that clears it up a little.

WRONG. Both the APL V2.0 and the MPL are 100% free software licenses. Don't believe me, get it srtaight from the FSF. What you are probably referring to is that these licenses are GPL-incompatable, however GPL-incompatable != non-free.

Read the FIRST PARAGRAPH here and try not to spread FUD.

I'm very grateful it's not true copyleft, since I've had to integrate this code into existing commercial modules. Truly "free as in freedom" licenses allow that, and Apple is to be commended for picking a license that allows this (since they could have released under a different license and bypassed any such restriction themselves as the copyright owners).

A little surprised OpenSSL isn't GPL compatible.

It is GPL compatible. See this. Any software that used a modern BSD license (without the advertising clause) is GPL compatible.

The bitch is from BSD authors, because you can include BSD code into GPL projects, but you can't include GPL code into BSD projects. This is because BSD allows you to NOT release code for distributed binaries, and this is not allowed in the GPL.

BSD is actually MORE Free than GPL (as an author, you can take other BSD code, make programs, and NOT release your code if you want), but the GPL offers better protection for users, because if you distribute the binaries, you MUST provide access to the source.

I used GNU parted to detect my partitions and re-create the partition table. I then re-mke2fs'd my /boot, and re-installed the kernel RPM to rebuild that. Finally, I ran LILO again, crossed my fingers, and rebooted.

Worked out just fine :-).

OpenSSL is not Free software. That'd be the GNU TLS library; OpenSSL is under a BSD-style license. Would you have prefered them to validate GNU TLS because it's Free?

Is it any wonder people think Linux users are a bunch of flaming homosexuals when its fronted by obviously gay losers like these?! BSD has a mascot who leaves us in no doubt that this is the OS for real men! If Linux had more hot chicks and gorgeous babes then maybe it would be able to compete with BSD! Hell this girl should be a model!

Linux is a joke as long as it continues to lack sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. Don't you wish the guy in this pic was you? Are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?! Wouldn't this just make your Christmas?! Yes doctor, this uber babe definitely gets my pulse racing! Oh how I envy the lucky girl in this shot! Linux has nothing that can possibly compete. Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Wouldn't this be more liklely to influence your choice of OS?

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Don't be a fag! Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

$Id: ceren.html,v 7.0 2004/01/01 11:32:04 ceren_rocks Exp $

Is it any wonder people think Linux users are a bunch of flaming homosexuals when its fronted by obviously gay losers like these?! BSD has a mascot who leaves us in no doubt that this is the OS for real men! If Linux had more hot chicks and gorgeous babes then maybe it would be able to compete with BSD! Hell this girl should be a model!

Linux is a joke as long as it continues to lack sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. Don't you wish the guy in this pic was you? Are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?! Wouldn't this just make your Christmas?! Yes doctor, this uber babe definitely gets my pulse racing! Oh how I envy the lucky girl in this shot! Linux has nothing that can possibly compete. Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Wouldn't this be more liklely to influence your choice of OS?

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Don't be a fag! Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

$Id: ceren.html,v 7.0 2004/01/01 11:32:04 ceren_rocks Exp $

GNU Radio

Mono definately has legal issues that need to be cleared up before it should be used. Microsoft can currently kill Mono anytime they wish.

• Microsoft HAS NOT put anything under a royalty-free licence by submitting the standard to the EMCA. The EMCA stipulates that the C# standard has to be released RAND (Reasonable & Non-Discriminatory) Licence. Microsoft can start charging fees at any time for implimenting a C# VM.
• Even if they never start charging money, they have pantented the Hell out of the standard and can sue Mono for infringment.

Java is not the best for command line programs mainly because VM initialization is expensive (in terms of time). This could be possibly alleviated by having a system-level VM that was initialized at boot time.

Or using an ahead of time compiler, which is included by default in most modern Linux distributions.

Java is not the best for command line programs mainly because VM initialization is expensive (in terms of time).

True, although this has improved over time.

I have written a number of command line utilities, and while the first call to one of them requires some patience (five to ten seconds), subsequent calls to any of them are just as quick as native programs because the JVM program and the runtime environment are in file system cache. I use those tools a lot and so I don't mind the first call being slow.

I should try some day to compile one of them using gcj. Haven't looked at that in a long time.

Apple currrently sells Emacs for $799. That's pretty cheap

Good deal, but you can get it much cheaper
here.

you just need people to trust the certificates that you issue.

Yes well for that to happen one would have to trust the authority that signed the certificates to do some identity checking on the stuff they sign. Now verisign once signed a cert for microsoft.com to someone not from microsoft probably charging their usual amount for that. I would hate to think how accurate someone doing signing in his/her spare time would cope with thousands of certificate applications. I also wonder how secure someone can keep a private key without at least some cash for some secure computers.

There is a simple solution to the certificate price though. Use a pgp style webs of trust. The gnu implementation for TLS (ssl) is already there. Also isp`s could give a cheap/free certs to their customers. They already should know something about their identity (billing) and signed e-mail makes it really easy to identify mail as non-spam. That means the recover their cost in no time once the spam starts to drop.

On a side note, verisign which owns thawte sells comverse/verint spying equipment. Reason enough to doupt if their private key is used for just making money from signing certificates.

HTH

The vandy monster :)

This might be a good time for you to look into a spell checker.

GJC is the cure to all mono induced ailments.

One problem, I have to bundle a vm to make it autorun.

Your mono stuff looks like it can do this and totally open source.

If you're on Windows with an NTFS partition, look for the utility linkd.exe. I've found it to be most useful.

Hey, I said very, not unnecessary. Its one thing to put your ignorance concerning licensing schemes on display for the entire world to laugh at, its quite another to put words in my mouth.

"The GPL simply makes it clear that you cannot take someone else's code, add three lines, and call it your own to 4) PROFIT!"

I'm sorry, thats not the correct answer. What consolation prize do we have for our brave little contestant? Why its a copy of the GPL license so he can read it himself! Thanks for playing.

The GPL says a lot more than you can't sell code that was licensed by it (interestingly enough, it actually says you can sell the code, more proof of your ignorance concerning issues surrounding licensing code). Say you want to use some library or module in your program to perform some common function that you don't want to have to code yourself. Guess what? In order to do that, your entire project must itself be licensed under the GPL. If you are planning to license it under something else (even another open source license that is not compatible with the GPL), you are barred from using that code. That is again a major restriction. Compare that to other less restrictive licenses such as public domain software, the CPL, AFL (not the football league), or even the LGPL. Maybe there are good reasons for that restriction. Just as the Pentagon has good reasons for restricting access to nuclear missile silos or I have good reason to restrict access to certain files on my computer so that only root can play with them. But to say that the GPL is an unrestricted license is an outright lie. I quote now from the Preamble from the GPL itself:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

If you have personal issues surrounding the word "restricted", thats between you and your shrink. Most of the world recognizes that there are often benefits to putting restrictions on things in certain situations. But I'm not going to ignore the facts concerning the GPL license just so I won't hurt your feelings.

MeshCube OpenSource Distribution

This will become the main site for the MeshCube OpenSource distribution. (Until we have set up our webshop at http://www.meshcube.com, we also abuse the domain meshcube.org for hosting our order form.)

The MeshCube is a new hardware platform dedicated to WirelessLAN mesh routing, developed by [http://www.4g-systems.biz 4G Systems, Hamburg]. With a 400MHz ["MIPS"] processor, 64MB RAM and 32MB flash, and up to 8 MiniPCI cards, it is powerful enough to provide excellent security and encryption, and flexible enough for custom applications and modifications. See http://meshcube.org/english/specs.html or HardwareSpecs for more details about the hardware.

The MeshCubeDistribution is the Linux distribution running on the MeshCube. Its main features are MeshRouting, autoconfiguration of networking, an emphasis on security (IpSec, VPN), and a compact design (to fit on the 32MB flash). It is completely licensed under the GPL and will be developed here in our CVS in true Open Source manner. We happily accept patches and additions, but please be patient -- it takes some time to evaluate patches and import sources into CVS.

We have set up several mailing lists for communication related to the project. Please subscribe here. We've also set up a Bugzilla (bug tracking system); please use it to report any bugs you may encounter.

There is a feed of packages you can use to install new software on your cube and to update your installation. See HowTo/InstallPackages for instructions.

This wiki is free to edit for anyone and currently divided into four sections: HowTo, MeshRouting, HardWare and SoftWare.

Frequently Asked Questions

CVS

Mailinglists

Bugzilla

DownLoad

I have not found any hint on this wiki to an IRC-Channel for people which uses the meshcube, so i opend one. madd.

* Server:......irc.freenode.net

* Channel:...#meshcube

According to the GNU website if Debian wanted looking glass they could have it.

Remember the whole KDE debacle about Qt not being free enough? Multiply that by a few million times and you'll see why Looking Glass won't make it past "gee, that's cool" in the Linux world.

The fact that YOU mentioned this, not knowing ANYTHING about Java on Linux and it got moderated +4 by uninformed ZEALOTS that were too lazy to search google for "java gnu" and "qt gpl" is WHY its an issue, not because it really IS an issue.

Qt is GPL'd btw, has been for years, so there is NO issue. Just keep spreading the FUD buddy....

According to RMS,

THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH JAVA ON GNU/LINUX.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH JAVA ON GNU/LINUX.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH JAVA ON GNU/LINUX.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH JAVA ON GNU/LINUX.

Get it? Can we not spread FUD now? Thanks.