Slashdot Mirror

The Inquirer has an excellent article that describes how companies take from the Open Source Community and how few are giving back.

I would hardly call that article excellent. Of course businesses do this. The Free Software movement identified a licensing mechanism that allows them to do this long before the Open Source movement existed. The Free Software movement even has a name for this mechanism in licenses--non-copyleft licensing. Businesses love this because it is essentially a donation to their organization. The Open Source movement doesn't distinguish between licenses that have this and licenses that don't because their message is chiefly aimed at businesses.

And it wouldn't be the Open Source movement if it didn't work this way. That movement doesn't say users should have software freedom, that movement throws out ensuring all computer users the freedoms to share and modify computer software in order to pitch a message of practical advantages (which aren't always true). The Open Source movement puts you in the position of pleading for improvements (as Charlie Demerjian's article does) instead of giving you the freedom to either do the work yourself, build a community of like-minded programmers you can rely on, or purchase support from a set of programmers bidding for your business.

Demerjian's article also doesn't demand software freedom, perhaps because the movement he aligns himself with doesn't want you to talk about such things. But he does ask for increased representation which still falls short of real support:

Another benefit is community response. If you have a person on your staff active in the community, contributing code back and forth, fixing bugs, when you ask for something, the odds of it happening are infinitely greater.

With so many people signing up to put on chains (and paying for the privilege), there's no incentive for any proprietor to do this (and as a result few do).

Both you and Demerjian (author of the Inquirer article) should read the FSF's essay on Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' which includes a great description of the practical weaknesses of the Open Source movement:

At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.

He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)

People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?

He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

The Open Source movement eschews the one thing that would keep you from choosing non-free software--freedom. Without talking about software freedom, when so-called "Open Source" software fails you, you have no reason to reject a proprietary alternative.

I don't know Erik Andersen or whether he is unusually combative, but I see nothing wrong with his Hall of Shame. He's perfectly entitled to try to enforce his copyright, and publicizing violations seems like a reasonable way to go about it. And he isn't by any means alone. The Free Software Foundation enforces the GPL on software to which it holds the copyright.

Ok, so now that Java is on the retreat they try to enter a new area?

It's probably because there's no Java user community or usefull implementations out there. And it has virtually no practical application on the desktop for that matter. Maybe because it doesn't do 3D or sound. Or is not so usefull as far as scalable RDBMS abstraction or a real application server for the enterprise. Maybe they need to move into the mobile market. What's really needed is a good Java IDE to get developers on board. Changes should be driven by the software community and making the source open would help as well. Sun should also be making improvments in Java's next(?) version.

You're right, I guess "we" should just cut our losses.

Ok, so now that Java is on the retreat they try to enter a new area?

It's probably because there's no Java user community or usefull implementations out there. And it has virtually no practical application on the desktop for that matter. Maybe because it doesn't do 3D or sound. Or is not so usefull as far as scalable RDBMS abstraction or a real application server for the enterprise. Maybe they need to move into the mobile market. What's really needed is a good Java IDE to get developers on board. Changes should be driven by the software community and making the source open would help as well. Sun should also be making improvments in Java's next(?) version.

You're right, I guess "we" should just cut our losses.

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some 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. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

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? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some 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. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

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? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some 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. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

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? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

I have a company that am building an embedded device and plan to use embedded Linux, probably uClinux as its operating system. The hardware engineering design firm I am working with says that they are using WinCE in their projects "because of the lawsuit". The "lawsuit" is not stopping my company from using Linux, but it is interesting and disturbing to see very technical and well informed hardware engineers being taken in by SCO FUD.

Tangentially, I find it interesting that my patent attorney from a large and respectable firm in downtown Boston believes that the GPL is viral. I have forwarded him some information from GNU that should clear up his confusion, but it does disturb me that some people in the patent and copyright field are not doing their homework.

Anyway, I'm doing my little bit to educate "the masses"!

For people looking for more information about the GFDL:

Draft Debian Position on GFDL
Why you shouldn't use the GFDL
Official GFDL Text

Actually they are back "online" but reading here it seems most things won't be functional till "early January 2004".

So, do you admit that Linus copied the entire substance of include/errno.h from somewhere else?

I dug out Unix 5th Edition because it's the closest to the original that I could find. Linus says that he copied his errno.h from Minix. Tanenbaum probably copied his from somewhere else. The chain of copying goes back to the original AT&T Unix code.

Compare with the paranoid attitude of gcc: gcc doesn't include copies of other people's system header files from, say, solaris or hp-ux; gcc includes scripts that manipulate the files on the end user's system, if the end user has legal copies of these files.

See this bit from the GNU coding standard:

Referring to Proprietary Programs

RMS has a stick up his a** about a lot of things, but better RMS's stick than Boies' dick.

I haven't read the Posix standard ...

Here is the 2003 version of the standard for errno.h.

The names are standardized in 2003 (and were probably standardized before 1991). But the values are not standardized. If you or I were to write an errno.h from that specifcation, the odds are incredible that we would happen to choose the same 31 values in the same order as the original Unix implementation. Personally, I would follow the order in the specification, which is alphabetical.

Again, from a legal point of view, it's a molehill. The actual value of those identical error numbers numbers is not $3,000,000,000. More like $300 or $3000. Ditto with the ioctl numbers. As you point out, the values of certain signal numbers (like SIGKILL) are well known. And all of these files are completely unrelated to SCO's claims that IBM copied SMP, NUMA, JFS, RCU code into Linux.

But from a PR point of view, it's damaging to us.
This activity looks uncomfortably like SCO's allegations about how Linux is developed. Here's Unix code; here's Linux code; the Linux code is a verbatim copy of the Unix code.

A nasty twist: because this is part of the ABI, it would be difficult and painful to replace include/asm-*/errno.h with a clean room implementation from the Single Unix Specification.

A note here: I'm not pro-SCO, and I'm not trolling. I'm looking to find the strongest SCO points because we're at war with SCO, so it's important to understand the strong points of the enemy's position.

You just made a very embarrassing mistake.

The FSF itself requires contributers to GNU software to give away their rights to the FSF.

I suppose it's okay for the FSF to do it, but not MySQL? Shut up, uninformed idiot.

They *do* enable recognition of some builtin mmx/sse functions (which are front ends for the asm instructions of the same name).

See here for the mmx header.

I do not know how this rumour

It's not a rumor, it's true. Your very own post shows how it's true.

First you say "You cannot slap another license or copyright header on BSD code." Then you go on with "You must retain the BSD copyright notice in the source code, and, in the case of binary redistribution,"

What you might not understand is that the latter statement doesn't prevent the former. It's entirely possible to slap another license on BSD code, while still retaining the previous copyright statement.

Just take a BSD program, modify two lines, paste the GPL to the front of the file, and you're done (when a file is under multiple licenses, anyone wanting to copy it must obey all of them.)

Adding additional copyright headers happens all the time with real code: any company that has touched a file will append it's own notice to the top, while leaving the others intact.

This is a better link to the GNU perspective on the matter.

I don't mean to stalk you in this story!

You can see KDE go the same way as netscape if UserLinux ever becomes popular.

KDE made a choice when it based itself on Qt. Times change and KDE's problems have changed - KDE is a good Free Software* desktop environment. But because Qt is GPL'd, it presents a barrier to proprietary development that is against the goals of UserLinux.

If being the default desktop of UserLinux is so important to KDE, why don't they re-implement their desktop ontop of an LGLP'd toolkit?

If it's not so important that they are willing to do that, then people should stop being upset. In the choice of a default there will be a winner and one or more losers. XFCE lost here too, but they're not whining. Only one desktop can be the default!

As for the Netscape comparison, I think there were other factors which led to Netscape's demise, like a bloated product (Communicator). Look how people prefer Firebird over Mozilla. There's still time for IE to be ousted - all the time in the world, from now to the end of time.

* Or is it? Look at what TrollTech say here - TT don't want you using Free Qt on inhouse projects, but the GPL says you can. This makes me distrust TrollTech.

But darlings, we're competing amongst ourselves.
Cooperation is the solution.
It's kind of a bummer that Bruce went this route since I have a hunch that the projects would've merged within a couple of years.
And they got to, I mean really.

Using the same session managers, settling on a file manager, a configuration system, and so on.

Both QT and GTK could still be available as options for developers, if they were made compatible.

On competition.

Its an interesting point - GNOME was originally started because Qt, which KDE was based on, wasn't "free software". But now it seems KDE is more "free software" than GNOME is.

Remember part of the point of free software is not just that its free to use, but free to modify and use the code for new programs. The only "drawback" being that if you base your software on free software, you are required to make your modification free software too.

Perens says in the article that his decision is not because of one being technically superior, but because you can make proprietary GNOME software for free, but if you make KDE software it has to be either GPL or you pay a lot of money to the makers of Qt.

The reason for this, I assume, and I haven't got the time to check it out, is because GNOME libraries are mostly LGPL, whereas the core Qt library for KDE is GPL only. The "Lesser" LGPL license lets you make proprietary software by screwing over free software developers and using their libraries without giving anything back to the community that provided the entire platform you are developing on. Even GNU says you should not license you're free software libraries LGPL.

The irony is that, as you point out, GNOME was supposed to be a "free" alternative to KDE, with all the GNU zealots following behind it for that reason. But now it seems the GNOME developers are getting fucked by the "open source" crew that were originally blamed for the travesty of KDE using a non-free development kit.

People have often told me that French is, in some ways, more expressive than English. But, I think there is nothing about English that cannot be fixed.

Similarly, why didn't Larry put his energetic and brilliant expressiveness into C? C (and later C++) needs that expressiveness.

C and C++ Interpreters exist. For example, CINT C/C++ Interpreter.

I think it would be great if GCC had a switch or an add-on that could turn it into an interpreter. GCC already as most of the rest of the kitchen sink: "GCC is the GNU Compiler Collection, which currently contains front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...). Further frontends are available."

An "ugly hack", as you say, it just a challenge waiting for a brilliant programmer like Larry to make it beautiful.

I think I have part of the answer to my question. I think Larry could not see into the future. I'm guessing he didn't realize that all languages either die or become complete. I'm guessing he might not have made Perl if he had realized that he would commit 16 years of his life to make a language that would lose its quick-and-easy aspect and become as complicated as any other.

So, today are we getting excited about tech converging (eg. your phone+camera+pim+kitchen-sink) or are we getting excited about the tech diverging into hundreds of specialised interconnected devices?

With all the 'innovation' these days it's getting hard to keep track ;)

Landrocker

...how a primary Open Source project like Perl turns out to have been there long before this whole Linux thing?

Since linux is based on the GNU tools it is logical for many of them to be older (much older in some cases: The first version of Emacs came out in 1976)

another reason is that in the early days of microelectronic hackerdom, sharing was the norm and not the absurd exception. People often forget that free software came for commercial software.

1. Locate a frog at your local pet store, or net one in the local pond! You'll want to start small and work your way up to larger frogs.
2. Lube him and your eagerly awaiting anus thoroughly with your favorite anal lube!
3. Tie a string to each of his legs. You don't want him crawling up there and dying, out of your feeble reach!
4. Slowly stuff and work the frog in, he may fight you for a minute or two.
5. Enjoy as he squirms and slowly suffocates in your anal cavity.
6. Afterwards, have Michael eat the frog out of your ass! He'll even finance your frogs and maybe throw a tip your way!
7. WARNING: Don't start with a frog too large or use dead frogs. Their legs can easily pull off, leaving you with a dead frog with no legs in your ass.

• *_A_N_U_S_F_R_O_G_*
  A_________________A
  N_____(GO_LUNUX!!)N
  U__________/______U
  S______o..o_______S
  F_____(.--.)______F
  R__/\(.,...,)/\___R
  O^^___^^__^^___^^_O
  G_________________G
  *_A_N_U_S_F_R_O_G_*
  

Actually vi *is* the standard UNIX text editor.

ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

One user mentioned a bandwidth concern, I would like a adress it.
I was working on a project like this, and am now looking into contributing to GNUNet, a similar project. My framework had peers moving data in a similar way as these ants. The way I looked at it was that most of the time I select some files, let them download, and come back later. I'm sure the downloading takes only ten or twentey minues, but I'm at work or busy otherwise. Once I'm done downlaoding my computer just sits there folding. The bandwidth is going un-used!
There is plenty of bandwith sitting idle out there, so long as the ants are clever enough to avoid busy relays noone will really notice the drop in their performance. I think that they would have a similar approach (it seems it would work this way as a concequene of their ant design).
I sincerely hope that one of these true P2P private networks takes off in a big way, till then I will support them in every way I can.

Electric is a CAD system for electrical engineers much like Cadence. See it here.

One of my senior projects for electrical engineering in college was to evaluate this product and compare it to commercial products like Cadence. My group found it robust, feature-rich, and even easier to use than its commercial counterparts.

Another poster has answered this below..

Is this true? (Hopefully using the right term...I mean itemized lists with roman numerials, numbers, letters for each part)

If you mean "itemized" or "enumerated" lists then yes there is a limit it appears you can go 5 deep.

The following will give a "Too deeply nested" error. Due to the "sub sub sub sub sub sub item"

N.B. It it not very pretty due to having to get past the "comment compression filter"...

\documentclass{article} \begin{document} \begin{itemize} \item Item \begin{itemize} \item Sub item \begin{itemize} \item Sub sub item \begin{itemize} \item sub sub sub item \begin{itemize} \item sub sub sub sub item \begin{itemize} \item sub sub sub sub sub item \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{document}

As with many aspects of LaTeX however if you find it doesn't do something it probably means it's not prudent (from a structural perspective) to do it anyway. For example if you really need that level of deep reference you may well be better off with part,chapter,section, subsection, ... . . .,itemize etc... Ironically I tried posting this reply with some deep nesting, slashdot posts are limited to three levels deep! ;-) Of course if you wish to you can always override the builtins with your own "super list" or something.

Also, can ya'll post some good links to a newbie learning LaTex..and some good reference sites that have all the tags layed out with good explanations?

Sure, below are a list places I would reccomend starting, you havn't said if you use Windows, *nix or Mac so i've added both (sorry if you are a Mac man you'll have to Google yourself).

• Editing:
• • *nix If you are a *nix user I would reccomend the following editing combination.
  • XEmacs
  • AucTeX. A sophisticated editing mode for LaTeX
  • preview-latex. Places the rendered equations and images directly in the editor window making "equation tuning" and other tasks a snip.
• Windows
• • WinEdt. A very sophisticated text editor for Windows. Its forte is LaTeX. It is not free, but well worth the money.

• Learning resources:
• • Getting started
  • Good overview
  • A list of symbols
  • The not so short introduction to LaTeX2e
  • Tips and tricks
  • BibTeX help.

• Other random stuff
• • dvipdfm. For converting the output of LaTeX into PDF (highly recommended)
  • Prof. Knuth's home page(The author of TeX).
  • CTANThe Comprehensive TeX Archive Network. Here you will be able to download packages, utilities and tools that do not come by default in your LaTeX distribution.

-ed

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some 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. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

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? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

SSL is based on X.509 certificates, not PGP keys

fight eula vendor lock-in. support the eff. support the fsf

But society decided long ago that that's a sacrifice we're willing to make in order to promote creativity.

That's exactly the thing - that decision was made before the digital age. Copyright was never meant to affect the individual. In its original conception, copyright only affected corporations - those with the ability to copy.

Copyright is not there to promote "Creativity" but to promote "Science and Useful arts" which according to the original interpretations (original copyright laws), means promoting the Public Domain. Copyright has since long stopped promoting the Public Domain.

Lets assume that the original copyright laws were a good balance between the restrictions on individuals and the promotion of the Public Domain. Consider that the original laws:
A) Had everything go into the public domain in 14 years by default or 28 years if extended.
B) Restricted copying when it was a difficult and expensive operation not carried out by individuals
C) Came to promote the Public Domain and to stop NDA's and information secrecy (by offering an alternate way to profit than NDA's/secrecy)

Now consider that current laws:
A) Have everything never go into the public domain (thus not promoting Science and Useful arts as specified and originally interpreted)
B) Restrict copying which is virtually costless (a very heavy restriction on every individual in the world today).
C) Encourage information secrecy by granting copyrights even on things such as binary data that does not promote Science and Useful arts via inspiration of new works.

I would say that the old-time balance of copyright was definitely violated.

I don't expect you to fully understand this. Maybe when you're a little older. Sorry if I sound patronizing, and I don't mean to be hurtful, but I don't have the time right now to color my writing in rose for you.

It was not me you were referring to, but I hold the same oppinions. From my experience, it is the young and ignorant who support copyright in its current form.

If you want to educate yourself, please read some of Richard Stallman's informative and interesting papers.

Isn't it amazing how seriously slashot readers really don't take .NET?

60 posts talking about a Microsoft fledgling technology here says so much more than 300 slashbots flaming each other on the other "Microsoft's New Core OS Team Learning from Linux" thread.

Microsoft is a smart company. No really, they must be. If you have shed loads of money, you can pay lots of smart people enough money to make them work hard enough to roll out products which will do something "acceptably well" at worst, "reasonably well" at best. That can't be denied because of the number of users Microsoft has. Yes, there's smart people who use Microsoft technology too.

Microsoft has recognised our strengths so I think it's time to acknowledge what Microsoft does well. The opening flames on the Server CE technology could be turned another way - isn't the MSSQL Server code ripe for an overhaul like someone going at it like a hatchet to make it run on embedded/compact devices?

The zealots don't do us any good. It slows Linux adoption and makes us look like nutters. And there are quite a few smart Linux people who like .NET as well.

Disagree (at least for docs). Instead of .doc formats, students can submit/email things in .rtf formats. I think you overestimate the migration costs and inconveniences here. It's not as though MS Office won't be around on certain desktops or OpenOffice can't convert legacy MS Office docs with their filters.

Another question is whether the "hostility" you describe is worth the extra licensing costs that universities and school districts end up having to pay. These costs are not trivial. Another advocacy letter here reminds us that it is the MS Word format, not the OO format, that it causing aggravation and increased support costs.

Does it support Kodak Easyshare cameras?

The Kodak Easyshare cameras I've seen are USB mass storage devices--you don't really need Kodak's proprietary software in order to get a copy of the pictures from the camera on to your computer. This is probably why you could "surf the cameras [sic] memory in Explorer" and why you will probably be able to do the same thing in any other OS that supports USB mass storage devices. On top of that, gPhoto supports many cameras including the Kodak Easyshare DX4900 and the gPhoto front-ends work flawlessly with the DX4900. I'm guessing it probably supports your Kodak camera too. gPhoto is Free Software.

You know, you could have just posted a link to Right to Read and saved yourself the trouble of trying to sound original.

The FSF apparently disagrees with you, check out their homepage which links to both petitions mentioned previously.

I vigorously disagree with the assertion that online petitions are worthless. Guess what? Change doesn't start when people high up decide to take notice and do something about it... it take's a few committed people (as Margaret Meade said) convincing other opened minded people to make some noise about something. With a sufficient amount of time and circulation of an idea, it has the opportunity to gain momentum to the point where it can force change. The key idea here is getting other people involved, and what easier way than to have someone sign a petition?

No. The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.

Making and using multiple copies for yourself is not distribution.

The GPL kicks in when and only when you distribute copies. At that point it applies because copyright law applies -- not because there was a contract or promise. Just the same, you obey speed limits because they are the law, period -- not because you promised or signed a contract.

No. The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.

Making and using multiple copies for yourself is not distribution.

The GPL kicks in when and only when you distribute copies. At that point it applies because copyright law applies -- not because there was a contract or promise. Just the same, you obey speed limits because they are the law, period -- not because you promised or signed a contract.

Consider supporting the following groups:
Free Software Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
... and read

The Danger of Software Patents

Consider supporting the following groups:
Free Software Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
... and read

The Danger of Software Patents

Consider supporting the following groups:
Free Software Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation

... and read
The Danger of Software Patents

-t

Consider supporting the following groups:
Free Software Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation

... and read
The Danger of Software Patents

-t

Sure it would be nice to get popular really quickly.

It's interesting to note the GNU project's essay about the X Consortium and Open Group's plan for developing X and an essay on GNU/Linux naming. Both essays cite some calls for chasing popularity at the expense of software freedom. I think we're better off as a community letting popularity take a back seat to freedom.

Please Bruce Perens come back to your roots. I was so proud when I read your "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again" essay. Please don't let a million dollars put you back into the open source and proprietary camp again.

Your point is well-taken, but I'm not sure what roots you're talking about here. Bruce Perens is part of the group that started the Open Source movement--the movement that wants to "sell" Free Software by never mentioning the software freedom and only talking about the practical advantages of a software development methodology. They do this because they believe this will make the software easier for other people (chiefly businesses) to adopt. The advantages that the Open Souce movement touts come from having software freedom, so it's quite ironic that the Open Source movement champions the practical benefits of software freedom while distancing themselves from freedom talk. This leads to a built-in flaw for the Open Source movement: people can't justify choosing the software the Open Source movement wants you to run and develop if there's a proprietary program that better meets your practical needs.

The Free Software Foundation wrote an interesting essay on the differences between the Open Source and Free Software movements that also discusses shortcomings of focusing on the Open Source movement's goals.

Sure it would be nice to get popular really quickly.

It's interesting to note the GNU project's essay about the X Consortium and Open Group's plan for developing X and an essay on GNU/Linux naming. Both essays cite some calls for chasing popularity at the expense of software freedom. I think we're better off as a community letting popularity take a back seat to freedom.

Please Bruce Perens come back to your roots. I was so proud when I read your "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again" essay. Please don't let a million dollars put you back into the open source and proprietary camp again.

Your point is well-taken, but I'm not sure what roots you're talking about here. Bruce Perens is part of the group that started the Open Source movement--the movement that wants to "sell" Free Software by never mentioning the software freedom and only talking about the practical advantages of a software development methodology. They do this because they believe this will make the software easier for other people (chiefly businesses) to adopt. The advantages that the Open Souce movement touts come from having software freedom, so it's quite ironic that the Open Source movement champions the practical benefits of software freedom while distancing themselves from freedom talk. This leads to a built-in flaw for the Open Source movement: people can't justify choosing the software the Open Source movement wants you to run and develop if there's a proprietary program that better meets your practical needs.

The Free Software Foundation wrote an interesting essay on the differences between the Open Source and Free Software movements that also discusses shortcomings of focusing on the Open Source movement's goals.

Sure it would be nice to get popular really quickly.

It's interesting to note the GNU project's essay about the X Consortium and Open Group's plan for developing X and an essay on GNU/Linux naming. Both essays cite some calls for chasing popularity at the expense of software freedom. I think we're better off as a community letting popularity take a back seat to freedom.

Please Bruce Perens come back to your roots. I was so proud when I read your "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again" essay. Please don't let a million dollars put you back into the open source and proprietary camp again.

Your point is well-taken, but I'm not sure what roots you're talking about here. Bruce Perens is part of the group that started the Open Source movement--the movement that wants to "sell" Free Software by never mentioning the software freedom and only talking about the practical advantages of a software development methodology. They do this because they believe this will make the software easier for other people (chiefly businesses) to adopt. The advantages that the Open Souce movement touts come from having software freedom, so it's quite ironic that the Open Source movement champions the practical benefits of software freedom while distancing themselves from freedom talk. This leads to a built-in flaw for the Open Source movement: people can't justify choosing the software the Open Source movement wants you to run and develop if there's a proprietary program that better meets your practical needs.

The Free Software Foundation wrote an interesting essay on the differences between the Open Source and Free Software movements that also discusses shortcomings of focusing on the Open Source movement's goals.

Do I have "fair use" rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?

Yes, you do. "Fair use" is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about it--in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license.

Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what kinds of use are considered "fair" varies from country to country.

Being neitehr a very good coder nor someone who understands "legal speak", I'm just checking to make sure I understand this.

No, you can't do that. You either have to ask the original copyright holder of the contributions permission or re-create the contributed code. Otherwise you would be violating the copyrights of the creator of the contributions. What you do with your own code is of course your own business.

It's the "What you do with your own code is of course your own business." bit which is tripping up my understanding - as well as other people's. And it doesn't help that no-one here sees to agree either.

So you write something. It contains some GPL code. it also contains some homebrew code - some of which you might wish to remain proprietary (for whatever reason).
Now some people would say that you need to GPL all of your own code as well to distribute it. But that might not always be an option.

The solution that seems most right would be to put the GPL code segments on the CD (or whatever) with the binaries, and also make the various GPL parts avialable for download. That would certainly seem to satisfy the "redistributing under GPL" part, as well as keeping the rights to one's own code in-house.
But there is disagreement as to whether that's enough.

There's always the GPL the code, but charge for service contracts possibility. I'm pretty certain that that wouldn't contravene the GPL, but it also wouldn't work in all situations.

You could always GPL everything, as (as far as I can tell) you're still allowed to charge for distribution. It might still jar to GPL your stuff, but charging for well-pressed discs with dead-tree documentation (and perhaps the above-mentioned better support) would be a legitimate charge. (The GPL text itself does see to support this.)

There is, of course, the best way that's been mentioned already in this thread. Find the original author or copyright-holder and see if you can purchase a license specific for your use. So that instance of the code woudn't be GPLd, but the author would get fair compensation for their work.
But, as has also been brought up, sometimes GPL code can't be easily traced to one author or rights-holder. Plus if the original author falls off the face of the earth, it could prove difficult to obtain a license.

There's also the LGPL option. In that if you really don't have the option to code parts yourself, look for LGPL code. You can use that, as far as I can tell. Plus if you GLPd (or LGPLd) what you could it would certainly show willing to comply with the spirit of Open Source, even if you prefer some aspects of your own code to remain in-house.

That's only how it looks like to me, though. And a lot of it is me hoping I've got the right interpretation. luckily, not currently coding anything, it doesn't matter if i get it wrong. But I can see a great need for something easy fo people to understand so that they don't get it wrong accidentally - and make it more obvious when it's not accidental.

This is the basis for something that I'm planing right now, long way off, but these are the keys to the next gen P2P network. Once in the wild, there is no way to take it down. =)

To avoid risks of reinventing the wheel, try looking at GNUnet

From section 0:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

That is the answer, but doesn't straightforwardly answer your question. Or rather it answers it with a resounding, "Maybe."

If you use a compiler, and the output of that compiler includes copied bits and pieces from the compiler, then that result is pretty clearly a derived work and would be GPLed. If you use a compiler and it doesn't include bits and pieces, then that result is not GPLed. Without looking at the output of the compiler, you can't actually tell.

The GPL FAQ addresses this explicitly. While it might be nice if they talked more about what GCC specifically does, it is clearly implied that the copyright holder thinks that the output of code compiled with GCC is not derived from GCC. Even if that opinion is wrong, I suspect that a good lawyer could make a case that you were acting in good faith based on the representations of the copyright holder, and get you off the hook. Furthermore the answer given speaks volumes about the attitude of the FSF on this issue. Even if they found that they had a case, I think that you could trust them to be fairly reasonable in their pursuit of it.

Note that the discussion of Bison shows exactly how easy it is to have a standard tool unexpectedly make its output into a derived work (though you are OK with Bison because they made a special exemption for it).

As always, IANAL and this is not legal advice.

It's not explicitly defined because that is rightly the purview of legislators and judges, not copyright licensors. As a license and not a contract, the GPL does not attempt to define derivative work - it uses the definition in copyright law. Which you can read for yourself in the case of US federal law. (It would be interesting to know if the Berne Convention or other international agreements regulate the definition of derivative work).

Unfortunately, there is not a lot of case law on the concept of derivative work as applied to software, in the US - because the GPL is rather unusual in how it creates actual controversy over what is a derivative work. With other license styles there may be theoretical debates, but only with the GPL does it seem to be a vital issue for a company to know what kind of linking is allowed. So you're right, it is ambiguous - but only because the law in many jurisdictions is likewise amiguous.

Bring on the cases, I say! Let's see how it fares in court.

3. The GPL has many bizarre concessions and terms, such as requiring those who distribute GPL software to distribute it by mail at anyone's request, charging only the cost of media.

That's not correct. If you read it - rather than relying on someone else's poor recollection, your own poor recollection, or rumour - you'll see that it actually says:

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

By the way, I think you're going to have trouble making your case if you want to try and argue that the Internet is not "a medium customarily used for software interchange". And other than that, I can't see any interpretation of the GPL that accords with your FUD on that point.

``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.''