Slashdot Mirror

No, you ignorant fuck

Spoken like a true genius. It takes real intelligence to provide us all with such profundity and splendor!

If it means anything, as a sysadmin, I've been served with a DMCA request because a client was doing as the original poster did - copying materials and displaying them where the materials were protected by a trivially obtainable login/pw.

The only way that copying a NYT article to Slashdot could even remotely be construed as an affront to coypyrights is if the poster did not credit NYT or if the poster changed the text.

Let's see - copyright belongs to the author. "A copyright provides its holder several exclusive rights to control the reproduction, import and export of a work of authorship.".

Copyrights protect, among other thing, the the GPL: "Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom."

Perhaps you should read 10 Big Myths about copyright explained?

You know, I can't believe I've written this much in reply to a post as lame as this one....

Wrong. RTFW

actually, there is a project to port HURD to the L4 microkernel (L4ka, I believe). Check it out here. The HURD idea isn't dead, it just hasn't gotten enough initial momentum yet. As kernels get more and more complicated, microkernels will become a more and more desireable option.

Actually he *did* charge for EMACS all those years ago..

Excerpt taken from: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

GNU Emacs

I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was beginning to be usable. This enabled me to begin using Unix systems to do editing; having no interest in learning to use vi or ed, I had done my editing on other kinds of machines until then.

At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the question of how to distribute it. Of course, I put it on the anonymous ftp server on the MIT computer that I used. (This computer, prep.ai.mit.edu, thus became the principal GNU ftp distribution site; when it was decommissioned a few years later, we transferred the name to our new ftp server.) But at that time, many of the interested people were not on the Internet and could not get a copy by ftp. So the question was, what would I say to them?

I could have said, "Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a copy for you." Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, "Mail me a tape and a SASE, and I will mail it back with Emacs on it." But I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.

GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.

So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development. We will use TeX as our text formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free, portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.

Eh, no that's the Open Source Initiative. Compare this with this

Basically, OSI just wants the source to be available for practical reasons (safety, compatibility, etc.), while FSF wants all software to be free (as in speech and beer). You may ask money for your software, but you cannot stop someone else from giving your software away for free (beer), so effectively you're stuck with a charge-for-support-and-the-box business model.

That's not at all true. For a long time the FSF got most of its money by selling tapes of GNU code. They continue to sell copies of GNU software on their website, so RMS would be pretty hypocritical to criticize others for selling free software. (Hypocricy has never struck me as being one of RMS's failings; he's unusually true to his principles.) There's a page about selling free software on the FSF web site, and it should clear up confusion on this matter. The FSF positively encourages anyone who's distributing Free Software to charge as much for it as they think they can get away with. A particularly salient quote from that page (emphasis is theirs):

So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

That sure doesn't sound like an objection to selling software to me!

Join us now and share the software, you'll be free ... hackers!!! you'll be free!!

FSF Song

check out : E-Dreams for another rockin' performance of that song.

From the article's first question:

"You gave Linux, the operating system, to the world free, in effect jump-starting the open-source movement."

First, Linux is not an operating system and it never was. What Linus Torvalds began was a kernel -- a necessary and valuable portion of a complete GNU/Linux operating system, but not the entirety of it. Linux is now being collectively developed by many people around the world, including Torvalds. In 1984, Richard Stallman began working on GNU years before Torvalds began working on what would become Linux. Many people would join Stallman and develop that operating system. Second, According to the Open Source Initiative, the Open Source movement was a reaction to Netscape releasing the source code for its web browser. It was this act that "jump-start[ed]" the Open Source movement. The people who started that movement did so in 1998, seven years after Torvalds released Linux.

I was under the, possibly mistaken, impression that IBM had assigned all their copyrights in the Linux kernel to the FSF. If that is the case, how can IBM claim SCO violated their copyright. Wouldn't the FSF have to make this claim?

From FSF Statement on SCO v. IBM
The Foundation notes that despite the alarmist statements SCO's employees have made, the Foundation has not been sued, nor has SCO, despite our requests, identified any work whose copyright the Foundation holds-including all of IBM's modifications to the kernel for use with IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the Foundation by IBM--that SCO asserts infringes its rights in any way.

Don't forget, Amazon supports inane software patents. Why would ccats support this predatory practice for a $1 referral fee?

Tom Adelstein was fired from Bynari Inc. At least that what a public filing indicates. He also has an agreed mutual consent with the company related to disparagement.

...

Nothing bad shows up on this guy.

Now that is an interesting conclusion.

No records indicate that he had any employees. So, your wife must have worked for someone else. Did she work for Bynari? If so, she worked for an officer of the company. He's not listed in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws as an officer.

I don't have any problem believing that whatever public records exist will show a corporate structure that was different from the day to day operations of the "company". Bynari's Dallas office was basically a storefront, with Tom's office out front, and a bullpen where all the techs worked. At the time it was like two developers, the "CIO", my wife, and maybe a few others. There were a CFO and a CEO off site somewhere IIRC, as well as contacts of Tom's in various countries around the world working on some kind of consultancy basis so Bynari could claim worldwide operations in their press releases. But everyone in the Dallas office certainly reported to Tom, and the outside people worked through him to the extent any of us could tell what was going on. Emails we got after we left indicated at some point he turned on the "CFO" and "CEO" as well.

In 1999, he was nominated as the FSF Man of the year.

The nominees list is here: http://www.gnu.org/award/award-1999.html

Their nomination criteria makes it sound like anyone can nominate anyone, and I'd put money he's on that list because he either nominated himself or got a friend to do it. He can't hold a candle to the real luminaries on that list, either in dedication to FOSS or pure code/technology contributions. At the time I knew him, his workstation was running some Windows variant with Linux in VMWare (probably so he could try to establish some kind of cred with his techs), and he used FrontPage to make his web pages. He got in a long argument with my wife over whether he wanted to let her use server side includes on their web stuff, because he claimed that SSI stuff ran on a separate web server port, and it might break the ability of other news sites to view/syndicate their content.

Tom Adelstein was fired from Bynari Inc. At least that what a public filing indicates. He also has an agreed mutual consent with the company related to disparagement.

...

Nothing bad shows up on this guy.

Now that is an interesting conclusion.

No records indicate that he had any employees. So, your wife must have worked for someone else. Did she work for Bynari? If so, she worked for an officer of the company. He's not listed in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws as an officer.

I don't have any problem believing that whatever public records exist will show a corporate structure that was different from the day to day operations of the "company". Bynari's Dallas office was basically a storefront, with Tom's office out front, and a bullpen where all the techs worked. At the time it was like two developers, the "CIO", my wife, and maybe a few others. There were a CFO and a CEO off site somewhere IIRC, as well as contacts of Tom's in various countries around the world working on some kind of consultancy basis so Bynari could claim worldwide operations in their press releases. But everyone in the Dallas office certainly reported to Tom, and the outside people worked through him to the extent any of us could tell what was going on. Emails we got after we left indicated at some point he turned on the "CFO" and "CEO" as well.

In 1999, he was nominated as the FSF Man of the year.

The nominees list is here: http://www.gnu.org/award/award-1999.html

Their nomination criteria makes it sound like anyone can nominate anyone, and I'd put money he's on that list because he either nominated himself or got a friend to do it. He can't hold a candle to the real luminaries on that list, either in dedication to FOSS or pure code/technology contributions. At the time I knew him, his workstation was running some Windows variant with Linux in VMWare (probably so he could try to establish some kind of cred with his techs), and he used FrontPage to make his web pages. He got in a long argument with my wife over whether he wanted to let her use server side includes on their web stuff, because he claimed that SSI stuff ran on a separate web server port, and it might break the ability of other news sites to view/syndicate their content.

Really?

Do you not find the Win32 API and all existing wrappers utter crap like most good programmers do?
If you do - how can you program on Windows, are you masochistic?

Do you not believe in the freedom to change and redistribute software?

Do you use weak editors and tools like Visual Studio, C#, etc or the vastly superior alternatives such as (a well-configured) emacs, Python, Pyrex, etc?

Do you, as a programmer, not appriciate the ability to debug, seek or at least report bugs in the software you use?

Do you not mind the utter lack of control you as a user have on the software you use?

Yes you have to type, but GNU Parted has always worked nicely for me. They even have floppy images you can boot from.

Remember, folks. Clicking on an Amazon referral link for ccats is a slap in the face for software innovation.

It is interesting to note that every NetBSD software, including NetBSD itself, requires a Red Hat product, in fact owes its practical existence to Red Hat GCC.

Yes, RMS warned about these kinds of situations, which is why he's a hardliner on the concept that you shouldn't use anything but open source.

If you want freedom, use open source. In this case, you have a choice to trade that freedom for features. The freedom you trade might be some of that freedom you have to work on open source software.

Actually, the freedoms the Free Software movement talks about were defined over a decade before the Open Source movement came into being. RMS has been quite careful to distinguish the Free Software movement from the Open Source movement.

The Open Source movement isn't the enemy of the Free Software movement, in fact the Open Source proponents have brought a lot of awareness to many free licenses (including the GNU GPL). There's a difference in philosophy that doesn't prevent working together, but it does mean there's a difference in focus. The Open Source movement seems more interested in the practical consequences of software freedom (particularly as they can benefit businesses) than the freedoms to share and modify software.

Yes, RMS warned about these kinds of situations, which is why he's a hardliner on the concept that you shouldn't use anything but open source.

If you want freedom, use open source. In this case, you have a choice to trade that freedom for features. The freedom you trade might be some of that freedom you have to work on open source software.

Actually, the freedoms the Free Software movement talks about were defined over a decade before the Open Source movement came into being. RMS has been quite careful to distinguish the Free Software movement from the Open Source movement.

The Open Source movement isn't the enemy of the Free Software movement, in fact the Open Source proponents have brought a lot of awareness to many free licenses (including the GNU GPL). There's a difference in philosophy that doesn't prevent working together, but it does mean there's a difference in focus. The Open Source movement seems more interested in the practical consequences of software freedom (particularly as they can benefit businesses) than the freedoms to share and modify software.

GNU's home page recommends that you say it "guh-new." To me, that makes sense: saying "new software" sounds confusing.

Now if they could do away with the semantic arguments (free, Free, gratis, libre, free-as-in-whatever, GNU/Everything) then we'd be all set. :)

OK, history lesson, anybody remember "ed"? Am I remembering correctly?? After so many years, us old guys get forgetful ... Bill's Vi was a bolt on for Ed so we could see a full screen of text, instead of just a few lines at a time, right?

I find it hard to believe nobody has linked to my favorite editor joke yet:

Ed, man!

Where is this leviathon to receive my keystokes and my hours of macro programming?

Here I mean. Preview, pre...

Years of developing software brought me to XEmacs, which is just a subtle variant from FSF's/Richard Stallman's GNU Emacs. Functionally they're, for most practical purposes, identical. Like Emacs, XEmacs has got a learning curve like an Olympic ski jump and it takes a good long while (months) before you're very productive with it. But I can do just about everything with it that I do on a computer: email, programming, Usenet, personal information management (including scheduling and a contact database), screenplay formatting, XML, even ASCII drawing with Emacs' picture-mode.

In short, it's legendary, and probably most everyone here has heard of it. But for those who haven't, and who have a penchant for twiddling and fiddling with software that has about ten thousand options and endless opportunities for customization (gotta learn elisp, a lisp variant, to do it), then I highly, highly recommend XEmacs or, if you want to be a free software purist, go with GNU Emacs, but you'll have to download the source for the moment because last I checked the GNU ftp servers were still recovering from an exploit and trying to gather checksums for potentially compromised software. Yikes!

As far as my writing habits go, it's been enormously convenient for me to apply the quick navigational keystrokes I've learned for Emacs to my writing projects. Everything just becomes so much faster and intuitive. And doing most everything from one customizable editor allows me to create an environment that I understand from my own personal viewpoint without having to learn a slew of special features and keystrokes from other software packages.

Emacs isn't for everyone, I will say that. And since learning many software packages for special purposes -- one for HTML editing, one for XML (like XMLSpy), one for screenplay formatting (like Movie Magic Screenwriter) -- isn't exactly a trial given that it seems like most people's brains seem to adjust to whatever "mode" of work they're currently engaged in, many will choose that route. But again, if you feel so inclined, give Emacs a try, you might grow to love it. But be prepared to give it time.

Oh, and there's always Vim. It's an excellent, ultra-powerful editor that's basically for people that wished they could grok Emacs but, for some sad reason, simply can't.

Advertising? Please. I'm just pointing out Slashdot's busiest pro-Amazon troll. Isn't it nice to be able to put a face to those anonymous "buy the book here and give me my dollar" posts?

In the meantime, you should really check out why Amazon is bad for software innovation.

Get them here.

Then go make your favorite compiler or windowing system work better on this.

To use it, you have to agree to the GPL.

I did not say otherwise. They could use Linux internally while still charging others to use the patents involved.

You contradict yourself. It doesn't matter wether the company contributed relevant code or anything at all when it comes to patents.

Read sections 7 and 8 of the GPL. These are the only two sections on patents. They discuss the distribution of GPL'd code. They do not talk about using the code.

Also, check this FAQ item. This is the version of "use" I am talking about.

I don't see why this gets +5, Funny. It should be +5, Insightful. Or possibly -1, Redundant, as RMS has been warning about exactly this danger [gnu.org] since the dawn of time. (Sorry, the link isn't precise but it's in there somewhere..)

GCC has been made illegal.

The Right to Read. Double-plus ironic.

Right now Richard Stallman is the first link in a Google search for RMS, that's going to take time and effort for Microsoft to change, and any astroturfing attempt on Microsoft's part would probably be met by a grassroots effort to keep Stallman at the top.

RMS himself, on the other hand, doesn't need to make much effort at all to take advantage of the situation. It would be easy for him to tack a short rant about DRM, TCPA, "Trusted computing", and all the other current buzzwords onto the top of the political "action items" on his home page, so that even more mainstream people looking for information on MS/RMS are directed to GNU/RMS instead. It would also be easy to make sure that his essay The Right to Read, which looked like a paranoid rant in 1997 and looks like a prescient description of DRM policies today, gets read by many of the MS/RMS websearchers who hit his site "by mistake".

I hope this isn't a coincidence; I hope some Microsoft exec intentionally chose "RMS" as a snide little poke at Stallman - that would make it sweeter when it backfired.

Actually, digital restrictions management protects authors[1] from consumers in several ways:

1. it helps to enforce the author's exclusive right under Title 17, United States Code, to authorize reproduction or modification of a work;
2. it often extends the author's monopoly to prohibit uses otherwise exempted from Title 17 exclusive rights, especially those exempted in 17 USC 107, 109, 117, and 1008; and
3. it raises the cost of publishing a work, thereby protecting established authors from individuals who are consumers but who would become authors.

The "anti-consumer" sentiment toward DRM typically relates to reasons 2 and 3.

[1] U.S. copyright law uses "author" and "works" instead of "creator" (n) and "content" (n). Mr. Stallman agrees that we should use the same terminology used by the letter of the law.

Sadly, no, he designed this site. :-/

BTW: Where does it say that all GNU projects have to have really crappy web sites?

E.g. it will automatically add to every buffer access the neccessary boundary checks. When fed with C-Sources, there are not enough meta informations to add these kinds of checks.

Yes there are.

There's nothing in the C language spec that requires your compiler to permit buffer overflows or heap attacks, and indeed it's possible to disallow them at runtime.

Nobody does it, of course, because it adds a lot of overhead and, in the case of GC, less control. Well, that and, since nobody does it, the tools to do it aren't very mature.

Java [...] explodes in out of memory situations. [...] Then there are the subtle but devastating differences between the various Java runtimes. As well as the fact that the same isolationist principles that make Java immune to buffer overflows also make it very hard to interact meaningfully with the [...] system (ever tried setting creation dates on a file? ownership?).

Java [...] explodes in out of memory situations. [...] Then there are the subtle but devastating differences between the various Java runtimes. As well as the fact that the same isolationist principles that make Java immune to buffer overflows also make it very hard to interact meaningfully with the [...] system (ever tried setting creation dates on a file? ownership?).

"How long until you need to get license for your child when he is born so that he can speak his native language? How about a license to learn/teach a foreign language in shool?"

Take that idea further, and you've got the start of an essay similar to right to read

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill- advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''

The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)

If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.

``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.

Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.

According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US. See http://www.wipout.net/ for a counter-WIPO campaign.

The NT Emacs FAQ has a number of simple solutions for generically swapping Ctrl/CapsLock under WinNT/2kXP, either permanently (no driver needed, just a registry hack) or per-user (needs a driver). Go here.

It works much better than I expected.

I wish I was skilled enough to help out with the project because I think it will become important in the future and now that MS is after the same sort of application you can image what will happen.

The GIFT (the GNU Image-Finding Tool)

Once again, for the benefit of the retarded. Linux is a kernel. Userspace programs run on the kernel. Userspace programs are written in programming languages, then compiled for an architecture, and operating system.

Are you saying the current ATM software doesn't need to be "customized" for Windows XP/Embedded? Or just that it would be more difficult to "customize" for Linux than Windows? I would think an application running the QT for framebuffer that was talked about recently would be significantly less complex, and would require fewer "experts to keep them running". If not there are others available

Keep in mind Linux is available for $0.00 per processor, which is (my math is a little shaky this morning) 100% cheaper.

Microsoft are not stupid if they are making a windows version for ATMs they will *Make sure* it is 100% secure.

This has to be a troll, but I'll bite. Microsoft is more concerned about ATM's than nuclear powerplants?

If it was mandated for the entire population, it would indeed change how free the software is, I believe.

Think of the four freedoms that Free Software offers you:-

# 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 for this.
# 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 for this.

Now I don't think any mandated software offers you the freedom to run. What's free about it if you HAVE to run it?

Another group has started using the term "open source" to mean something close (but not identical) to "free software". We prefer the term "free software" because, once you have heard it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom.

I don't have time to play with such a thing. I'm too busy developing the neural network in my skull.

But does anyone know why they chose macadamia nuts? Seems a very strange choice

It's a better choice than using linux gnuts, as the smell of burning flesh isn't pleasant.

You've obviously not familiar with the Free Software Foundation's and the GNU project's philosophy if you need to ask that question. I recommend you read at least Why software should not have owners and more of the essays on the GNU/FSF website according to your interest.

This document shows the status of the g77 project. It was last updated in May of this year, and there are a few cryptic references to some work being done to support Fortran 90 (the most current standard developed by ISO/WG5).

From the g77 documentation here and here we see that Fortran 90 is at least partially supported in the compiler - some support only available via a compiler option.

Adding these together we see that their incomplete Fortran 90 feature set is still being developed, and we will probably see full support before a 4.0 compiler release.

As far as Fortran 95 and Fortran 2003 - I haven't found any concrete proof to support the previous poster's claim. But to his his credit, I have not searched the mailing lists and newsgroups.

This document shows the status of the g77 project. It was last updated in May of this year, and there are a few cryptic references to some work being done to support Fortran 90 (the most current standard developed by ISO/WG5).

From the g77 documentation here and here we see that Fortran 90 is at least partially supported in the compiler - some support only available via a compiler option.

Adding these together we see that their incomplete Fortran 90 feature set is still being developed, and we will probably see full support before a 4.0 compiler release.

As far as Fortran 95 and Fortran 2003 - I haven't found any concrete proof to support the previous poster's claim. But to his his credit, I have not searched the mailing lists and newsgroups.

This document shows the status of the g77 project. It was last updated in May of this year, and there are a few cryptic references to some work being done to support Fortran 90 (the most current standard developed by ISO/WG5).

From the g77 documentation here and here we see that Fortran 90 is at least partially supported in the compiler - some support only available via a compiler option.

Adding these together we see that their incomplete Fortran 90 feature set is still being developed, and we will probably see full support before a 4.0 compiler release.

As far as Fortran 95 and Fortran 2003 - I haven't found any concrete proof to support the previous poster's claim. But to his his credit, I have not searched the mailing lists and newsgroups.

Your post is more likely to be read if it is not made anonymously. Slashdot makes it very easy to skip past "Anonymous Coward" posts.

Just like when a book author writes a book and they do a few thousand hours research, you don't get all that research, you just get the end product. Nor do you get an electronic copy in full mark-up.

I understand you don't get these things with the work today, but I'm addressing how copyright should work, not how it works now. Simply restating the status quo doesn't justify the status quo.

Publishing research for a computer program is entirely different from publishing source code when the program enters the public domain. Research that leads to something is different from seeing the preferred form for modifying the work. But different kinds of works are hard to discuss simultaneously because they are put together differently and function differently in the world. With books, for instance, you already have a good deal of the material that comes closest to being the analog of computer source code--the work itself. I would consider requiring the distribution of electronic markup for the book, however. With computer programs there is a different situation. It is possible to obscure the source code in such a way that one effectively denies the public the opportunity to do the modifications that the public should be allowed to do with a PD computer program.

Applying copyright in order to push a specific political agenda is plain wrong.

Then you must not like copyright at all because that is what copyright originally set out to do in the US--give authors an incentive to write and publish more work. In exchange, the government gives up some of the public's natural rights. The question is which of the possible ways to strike the copyright bargain is the best way for the public (because that is who copyright was built to benefit).

In fact, it's an attept to do exactly what so many here accuse the RIAA of doing, enforcing a business-model into profit by law.

But it's okay to deny the public the ability to modify the PD work fully because it may somehow interfere with commercial gain? I say no, when a work enters the public domain modifying the work should no longer be the exclusive domain of the former copyright holder. This means distributing source code when the work enters the public domain.

I think RMS' advice in his essay on misinterpreting copyright regarding how to strike a new copyright bargain is helpful:

One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and observe the results. By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in publication occur, we will learn how much copyright power is really necessary to achieve the public's purposes. We must judge this by actual observation, not by what publishers say will happen, because they have every incentive to make exaggerated predictions of doom if their powers are reduced in any way.

The entire essay is well worth anyone's time to read because it is so useful in debunking people's arguments which try to justify placing the publisher's copyright privilege at the same level of importance as the public's (or above that of the public). RMS makes it quite clear why this is wholly wrong and misguided.