Slashdot Mirror

Kindly remember that theft is not piracy (piracy is copyright infringement)

No. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, I believe FSF definition for piracy is the most accurate.

"could go a long way towards restoring integrity and trust..."

that's the thing, integrity and trust are best built from accountability; all these bills of rights are less powerful than simply gravitating towards software that supports a simple "cvs annotate" (or equivalent). if large numbers of people can't/don't want to do that, that's fine, too; encourage them to make friends with programmers who can, today!

marketing is/was the funky game of the baby boomers; have the rest of us forgotten what it is to concencrate influence on improving oneself? who even cares about phaedrus and the insanity of excellence anymore! and by funky, i mean smelly like an old sock, fetid, stale, putrid, unwholesome, stinky, malodorous, rank, overgrown. i mean, "50% off!" where the price is typically at least 2x that in the first place! i mean, an advertisement on tv that says "the economy turns for me" w/ people THANKING a shopping bag, a piece of packaging, an unlikely to be recycled because it contains wax and/or plastic manifestation of something on the OUTSIDE! with equally DISPOSABLE HANDLES, even! i mean, psychologically fine-tuned megadoses delievered straight to the infant's eyes and ears so that their first words are brand names and jingle fragments! gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! i'm so tired.

Case in point, the replies by Eben Moglen were scathing yet calm, and were excellent examples of how you can make a strong point without sounding like a pissy little boy.

Case in point, the replies by Eben Moglen were scathing yet calm, and were excellent examples of how you can make a strong point without sounding like a pissy little boy.

How about the one that amazon.com took out (no 5,960,411) " Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network" You can get the details from gnu.org

Then there's IBM's patent on the ubiquitous progress bar. I found the datails here

You are quite correct. Patent law is designed to protect implementations and not ideas. However, that is not how it is being used, which in turn is one reason why so many people are getting het up over this issue.

Am I obligated to give away my webservice source code?

You are not automatically obligated to distribute your source code, and you are certainly not obligated to just give it away. However, if you sell webservice services, then your customers will expect that you make them the "owner of the data" which the webservice uses, and depending on the exact circumstances that may indirectly give these customers a right to get the source code upon request. Here are the details:

If you provide a webservice using a GPL'd webservice program (which you may have modified), then the "owner of the data" will be able to obtain the webservices programs under the terms of the GNU GPL, and this implies in particular that they will have a right to get the source code of the exact version of the program which you're using. The terms of the GNU GPL also require you to make a written promise to this "owner of the data" that you will be willing to provide the source code upon request. This ensures that the "owner of the data" will know about this right to the source code.

The "owner of the data" is typically a paying customer, and the fact that the customer has a right to get the source code increases the value of the service you provide. Therefore you will be able to charge a higher price and/or close more sales.

You can use the DotGNU development tools to program your own webservices (instead of just modifying the webservice programs which are distributed with DotGNU, or which others have made available under the GNU GPL) and then your are not required to make source code for these webservices available to the customer who is the "owner of the data". However, even in these situations where you are not required to make the source code available to your customers, we strongly encourage you to provide the source code to your customers under the terms of the GNU GPL anyway. We believe that this is ethically the right thing to do, and that it will be good for your business.

Now I thought the GPL would not prevent this sort of thing? Now I'm really confused.

I'm sure glad that GNU thinks they know what would be good for my employer's business and that my employer should charege more for their program (which is for schools).

I thought I had a good solid understanding of the GPL . I've taken the GPL quiz , read the GPL Faq before.

I thought the GPL only applied to copying and distribution of a program or derrived work. Not to running it privately on my own web site.

If I distribute my proprietary program, along side a DotGNU program / platform that executes it, I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.

If I do NOT distribute my proprietary program, but merely run it at my site, and merely sell it as a service, then I was definitely under the impression that the GPL did not apply since no distribution takes place.

Still, back to the case where I distribute my program, and a seperate DotGNU program to run it, then I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.

Maybe I had better just stay completely away from DotGNU. Stick with Apache and various Java tools instead.

Just a side note about the customer having their data he

Am I obligated to give away my webservice source code?

You are not automatically obligated to distribute your source code, and you are certainly not obligated to just give it away. However, if you sell webservice services, then your customers will expect that you make them the "owner of the data" which the webservice uses, and depending on the exact circumstances that may indirectly give these customers a right to get the source code upon request. Here are the details:

If you provide a webservice using a GPL'd webservice program (which you may have modified), then the "owner of the data" will be able to obtain the webservices programs under the terms of the GNU GPL, and this implies in particular that they will have a right to get the source code of the exact version of the program which you're using. The terms of the GNU GPL also require you to make a written promise to this "owner of the data" that you will be willing to provide the source code upon request. This ensures that the "owner of the data" will know about this right to the source code.

The "owner of the data" is typically a paying customer, and the fact that the customer has a right to get the source code increases the value of the service you provide. Therefore you will be able to charge a higher price and/or close more sales.

You can use the DotGNU development tools to program your own webservices (instead of just modifying the webservice programs which are distributed with DotGNU, or which others have made available under the GNU GPL) and then your are not required to make source code for these webservices available to the customer who is the "owner of the data". However, even in these situations where you are not required to make the source code available to your customers, we strongly encourage you to provide the source code to your customers under the terms of the GNU GPL anyway. We believe that this is ethically the right thing to do, and that it will be good for your business.

Now I thought the GPL would not prevent this sort of thing? Now I'm really confused.

I'm sure glad that GNU thinks they know what would be good for my employer's business and that my employer should charege more for their program (which is for schools).

I thought I had a good solid understanding of the GPL . I've taken the GPL quiz , read the GPL Faq before.

I thought the GPL only applied to copying and distribution of a program or derrived work. Not to running it privately on my own web site.

If I distribute my proprietary program, along side a DotGNU program / platform that executes it, I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.

If I do NOT distribute my proprietary program, but merely run it at my site, and merely sell it as a service, then I was definitely under the impression that the GPL did not apply since no distribution takes place.

Still, back to the case where I distribute my program, and a seperate DotGNU program to run it, then I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.

Maybe I had better just stay completely away from DotGNU. Stick with Apache and various Java tools instead.

Just a side note about the customer having their data he

Am I obligated to give away my webservice source code?

You are not automatically obligated to distribute your source code, and you are certainly not obligated to just give it away. However, if you sell webservice services, then your customers will expect that you make them the "owner of the data" which the webservice uses, and depending on the exact circumstances that may indirectly give these customers a right to get the source code upon request. Here are the details:

If you provide a webservice using a GPL'd webservice program (which you may have modified), then the "owner of the data" will be able to obtain the webservices programs under the terms of the GNU GPL, and this implies in particular that they will have a right to get the source code of the exact version of the program which you're using. The terms of the GNU GPL also require you to make a written promise to this "owner of the data" that you will be willing to provide the source code upon request. This ensures that the "owner of the data" will know about this right to the source code.

The "owner of the data" is typically a paying customer, and the fact that the customer has a right to get the source code increases the value of the service you provide. Therefore you will be able to charge a higher price and/or close more sales.

You can use the DotGNU development tools to program your own webservices (instead of just modifying the webservice programs which are distributed with DotGNU, or which others have made available under the GNU GPL) and then your are not required to make source code for these webservices available to the customer who is the "owner of the data". However, even in these situations where you are not required to make the source code available to your customers, we strongly encourage you to provide the source code to your customers under the terms of the GNU GPL anyway. We believe that this is ethically the right thing to do, and that it will be good for your business.

Now I thought the GPL would not prevent this sort of thing? Now I'm really confused.

I'm sure glad that GNU thinks they know what would be good for my employer's business and that my employer should charege more for their program (which is for schools).

I thought I had a good solid understanding of the GPL . I've taken the GPL quiz , read the GPL Faq before.

I thought the GPL only applied to copying and distribution of a program or derrived work. Not to running it privately on my own web site.

If I distribute my proprietary program, along side a DotGNU program / platform that executes it, I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.

If I do NOT distribute my proprietary program, but merely run it at my site, and merely sell it as a service, then I was definitely under the impression that the GPL did not apply since no distribution takes place.

Still, back to the case where I distribute my program, and a seperate DotGNU program to run it, then I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.

Maybe I had better just stay completely away from DotGNU. Stick with Apache and various Java tools instead.

Just a side note about the customer having their data he

making links is hard!

It is such a handy utility. I can fire off a long job, and detach the screen; go home and reattach to it, to see how its going; and then come back to work and continue. It's so beautiful. <sniff>

The GPL does not require you to give away modifications you make. You only have to provide source to the public if you provide binaries to the public.

Of course software patents cause problems. SCO Group has used them to unleash legal hell on Linux. We can't say we haven't been warned.

Once again comes from the FSF's Richard Stallman.
People interested in software patents should definitily read this and this .

It's a bit sad seeing how often RMS is right and how much abuse he gets from people who can find nothing else to criticize than his style.
Yes people, he is very blunt and unbending but that's okay because he is right!

Once again comes from the FSF's Richard Stallman.
People interested in software patents should definitily read this and this .

It's a bit sad seeing how often RMS is right and how much abuse he gets from people who can find nothing else to criticize than his style.
Yes people, he is very blunt and unbending but that's okay because he is right!

This is one of my major complaints about the GNU Systemlords. They want to force everyone to use thier license for all programs, even ones they didn't write. This is why the GPL was written that way--so anyone linking to a GPLed library has to release their program under the GPL.

This is one of the reasons I'm migrating to FreeBSD. Their system libraries and utilities aren't GNU based. The compiler is GNU's, but oh well, maybe I'll try TenDRA.

You problem wasn't directly from GNU, but I've heard the GNU developers plan to change all their libraries to GPL (instead of LGPL)??? This includes libc. Guess which libc Linux uses? Read their site, it's very "interesting."

Yes, I know it says they decided to use the LGPL for libc, but read the document closely. Whenever it will suit their strategy, they'll change it to GPL. Stallman hates Linux because it stole the thunder from his kernel. Who knows, someday he may very well change GNU libc to GPL just to mess with Linux users.

This is one of my major complaints about the GNU Systemlords. They want to force everyone to use thier license for all programs, even ones they didn't write. This is why the GPL was written that way--so anyone linking to a GPLed library has to release their program under the GPL.

This is one of the reasons I'm migrating to FreeBSD. Their system libraries and utilities aren't GNU based. The compiler is GNU's, but oh well, maybe I'll try TenDRA.

You problem wasn't directly from GNU, but I've heard the GNU developers plan to change all their libraries to GPL (instead of LGPL)??? This includes libc. Guess which libc Linux uses? Read their site, it's very "interesting."

Yes, I know it says they decided to use the LGPL for libc, but read the document closely. Whenever it will suit their strategy, they'll change it to GPL. Stallman hates Linux because it stole the thunder from his kernel. Who knows, someday he may very well change GNU libc to GPL just to mess with Linux users.

1) Permits redistribution of the program licensed, in this case MySQL, so long as redistribution contains that same license.
2) Permits modification of the program licensed, also MySQL, so long as the source code of the new derived product is both available, and licensed to others under the GPL.

I don't recall anywhere in my readings of the GPL that it said "If you use a product based upon our work, that product must also be licensed as ours is, or you must pay us licensing fees". Consider what such a scheme would be. Any program that has auxillary hooks for other programs to interface with it that is licensed under the GPL must then be GPL'd. This includes any program written with GCC (under GPL, I believe), any program written on linux, any and all drivers, etc.

Looking up the MySQL thing, it seems to me that they are being misleading. They are releasing their program under a GPL-like license. Rather, it should read something like this:

So long as you are distributing MySQL with your non open source project, you will need to purchase a license. If you are not distributing MySQL with your product or it is open source, it is licensed to you under the GPL.

Frankly, I find that kind of suspect, as their site states:

The software from MySQL AB listed below is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and is provided "as is" and is without any warranty.

Something I found interesting from www.gnu.org's FAQ on the GPL:

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

Translation: If MySQL is claiming that the program is released under the GPL, and the most that your aux program ever does is use library hook

The official GNU/Hurd page.

The help-hurd mailing list archive.

The official GNU/Hurd page.

The help-hurd mailing list archive.

IBM is contributing to GCC...specifically, this thread on the GCC mailing list talks about how they are collaborating on introducing autovectorization support.

How ironic it is that in order to gain the pratical advantages Jones wants us to have, we must leverage the freedoms the free software community has fought so hard for over decades--the very freedoms Jones downplays:

To do that, the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user. [...]

They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the software, as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care that most of their software comes from a single source. In short, they don't care about the fundamental issues behind open source software at all. But they do care about price, quality, availability, security, simplicity, and interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be the software choice.

Software freedom is championed by the Free Software movement (hence the name "Free"), not the Open Source movement. Perhaps Jones is unaware of the philosophical differences between these two movements. The Open Source Initiative has done valuable work in bringing people to freedom by endorsing free software licenses (including the GNU GPL, the most widely-used Free Software license). However, the Open Source movement focuses on telling business that they can develop better programs by making their source code available to the community of hackers willing to do good work without charge. This is considerably different from backing the freedoms to share and modify programs that, in turn, allow us to enjoy these practical advantages.

The Free Software Foundation tells us that we need more freedom talk so when we bring people into the free software commnuity through practical gain we give them a reason to stay with free software--when some proprietor offers a temptation (which might offer a better practical advantage), they'll be able to recall that software freedom is the one advantage proprietors can never provide.

Increasingly users do care about software freedom, though perhaps it takes some bad times with a proprietor to make them think about the ways in which the non-free alternative is poor. This is why we see governments pushing for Free Software, like the Brazilian government is doing. You don't get government officials like Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nunez writing a scathing letter to Microsoft and standing behind Free Software (not Open Source, as he was clear to point out) without understanding the advantages of self-reliance and freedom.

"Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.

In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely."

according to the FSF gif will be patented technology in at least one country (Canada) until Wednesday 7 July 2004.

it should absolutely refuse to run if magic_quotes_gpc is OFF

I hope php-nuke does not rely upon register_globals

Since PHP-Nuke is popular and GPL, there are a few PHP-Nuke derivatives that have been locked down pretty well. Start by looking at Nuke Fixes, Nuke Resources and Nuke Forums. The derivatives worth a look that I know of are:

• MyPHPNuke
• Postnuke
• Nuke Cops PHP-Nuke Enhanced Bundle

it should absolutely refuse to run if magic_quotes_gpc is OFF

I hope php-nuke does not rely upon register_globals

Since PHP-Nuke is popular and GPL, there are a few PHP-Nuke derivatives that have been locked down pretty well. Start by looking at Nuke Fixes, Nuke Resources and Nuke Forums. The derivatives worth a look that I know of are:

• MyPHPNuke
• Postnuke
• Nuke Cops PHP-Nuke Enhanced Bundle

Man, some people just can't be bothered to do any real research on their own...

Here you go Einstein, straight for the horses mouth: Reevaluating copyright, by Richard Stallman (1996).

Since your total lack of understanding of the motivation behind the GPL indicates that you're part of the attention-challenged MTV generation, I'll spare you the difficulty of reading such a lengthy article and just highlight the relevant bits below. In the future, try to do two things: (1) don't rely on others to do your research for you, and (2) don't argue with those better educated than yourself.

The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made--which means, in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.

So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they *could not use*. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do.

But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do!

Once copying is a useful and practical activity for ordinary people, they are no longer so willing to give up the freedom to do it. They want to keep this freedom and exercise it instead of trading it away. The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it--time for the law to recognize the public benefit that comes from making and sharing copies.

Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?

A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.

Q: What does it mean to say a license is "compatible with the GPL".

A: It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can combine code released under the other license with code released under the GNU GPL in one larger program.

The GPL permits such a combination provided it is released under the GNU GPL. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits this too.

So let's see. You want to use Trolltech's excellent toolkit, without paying them for it? Great... Hell, according to the FSF, stuff like this is supposed to be GPL'ed! Why do you think the LGPL is called "The Lesser GPL?" RMS says that "when a library provides a significant unique capability" it should be released under the GPL. Qt is one of the best GUI toolkits out there. Its a competitive advantage for free software projects like KDE to have it be GPL rather than LGPL.

You can find some info on Amazon and the one-click patent here.

There are three possibilities here.

One is to issue statements condemning SCO. That's the level where the FSF is at. See README.SCO in gcc 3.3.1 Here's a link.

README.SCO

Another possibility would be to remove support for SCO operating systems from FSF products, but leave the license alone. So people would be free to download the FSF source and maintain their own SCO versions of it.

A third possibility would be to change the license to restrict people and companies who act like SCO is acting.

The FSF is currently pursing action #1: including README.SCO files with its products. Personally, I am in favor of action #2: removing the SCO-specific code from FSF products.

Perhaps you should read this. The DeCSS issue is about a whole lot more than cryptography. Some day, the only way to electronically communicate with 90% of the population will involve secret standards. Some day, when you want to point out how the President is breaking his campaign promises, you won't be able to pull an old story out of your archives. Some day, when your car breaks down, you'll have to pay a king's ransom for repairs because only one organization can legally circumvent the copy protection device. Some day, if old content ever enters the public domain, you won't be able to access that content because a few naive judges think this issue is limited to cryptography.

Spoken like a person that has not spent years of his life devloping an IP.

Spoken like someone who thinks that their ideas are original, like they didn't get ideas from anyone else. There are plenty of people who spend a lot of time developing something but a lot of them recognize that their work is just like everyone else's--their work is fodder for the next incremental advance in expression. There's nothing new under the sun, as Shakespeare said; no idea comes from nothing and you have no legitimate sole claim to the expressions of your ideas. You benefit from a leaky copyright system--fair use helps preserve freedom of speech. Copyright power is supposed to be limited.

Second, you cannot understand how ideas work by thinking in terms of "IP" (intellectual property). That phrase is prejudicial and a mish-mash of laws that can sometimes conflict with one another. What we're talking about in this thread primarily concerns copyright policy and the anti-social idea that copyright is property (which even the law doesn't completely agree with), so call it by its name.

Ironically, Itagaki's concern would seem out of place in other areas of life, maybe even an outright affront to people's right of expression--nobody would balk at you modifying a recipe to suit your needs (even a recipe from a copyrighted recipe book published commercially), adding a room on to your house, or changing the brake pads on your car without going to the manufacturer's garage. Nor would they balk at helping other people do any of these things by distributing information or kits on how to do it. But modify a videogame? Maybe we should take the lessons from the dojinshi market more seriously. According to the Dojinshi article, artists (who I'm sure "have a financial and emotional investment" in their work) all effectively share with each other and cultivate a comic book market that consumers apparently enjoy.

The thing is that the constitution doesn't specific mention this sort of case. Intellectual property should and is protected at the same level as property. Such a level where choosen by the founding fathers becuase they discovered that the the intellectual property is vital to a growing economy. In other words, this dessicon is correct under the constitution.

Really? The constitution does not mention "Intellectual property." It does, however, specifically mention things such as copyrights and patents.

Nice signature... proud to be a Republican. I generally do like to vote Republican because I generally tend to agree with them more than Democrats, but I wouldn't say I was proud of it because frankly both political parties in this country suck eggs.

I get the impression that you are eating the party line right up. That's plainly obvious when you make statements suggesting that the founding fathers considered "intellectual property." Whether you agree or disagree with organizations such as GNU, you should go to www.gnu.org and read GNU's position on so-called intellectual property.

To sum up GNU's position: Intellectual property is a term that does nothing but confuse the issues of copyrights, patents, trademarks and other areas of law.

As far as this case is concerned, I see in the article that the judges only ruled that trade secret law trumps free speech rights for this case. They also issued a ruling that the case should be reexamined to find out if any trade secrets actually were violated. I suppose I can view that as a reasonable ruling. However, I would not be able to fathom another ruling that any trade secrets were actually violated. Furthermore, it's generally accepted practice that once a secret is out in the open, it's no longer a trade secret and so no longer deserves the protections.

I wouldn't consider this a setback but more of a readjustment to fit the case in the legal framework where it should have been in the first place.

Heck, if sendmail were so insecure, why is OpenBSD still including it in it's base?

I really like the fact that 3 paragraphs into the article there is a huge biline[sic] on how and why linux is good. It also explains the GPL, BSD, and it all seems accurate! I don't know who 'Daniel James' is (the author of the article), but it is obvious that he has done research...

I had some problems with that section of the article. In general, I found the section could have been significantly shorter and less confusing had it referenced clearly written essays distributed by the GNU project.

• The way "Linux" is used confuses the reader because James uses the term to describe an operating system and a mysterious project somehow related to "Linux". James never clearly identifies that Linux is and always was a kernel--a typically user-invisible chunk of a complete GNU/Linux system. It is now possible to run the GNU operating system under a kernel replacement (such as the GNU Hurd). When James talks about "GNU" you don't really know what relationship GNU and Linux have to one another:

• It's a common misconception that Linux was created by a lone student in Finland. In fact Linus Torvalds still leads the project to this day, more than 10 years after he began it, but the operating system has been contributed to by thousands of people. It builds on the considerable work of developers who had dreamt for many years of making a free UNIX, many of whom worked on the GNU project.

  The project Linus Torvalds works on is the Linux kernel. James would be better served by referring to any of the GNU project's works on the topic ("Why GNU/Linux", "Linux, GNU, and freedom", and the "GNU/Linux FAQ") more clearly explaining the distinction between GNU and Linux. These essays also introduce and link to essays on software freedom (which James addresses later on).

• Later James talks about "open source software" even though he just spent time explaining software freedom. Perhaps James is unaware of the differences between the two movements and that the GNU General Public License (which he talks about later) was written by and exemplifies the thinking of the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Initiative. The Open Source Initiative merely added the GNU GPL to a list of approved licenses years after the GPL was already in widespread use in the community. You can't understand what makes the GPL so special in terms of the Open Source movement. While it is true that the Open Source movement brings users to the GPL, and that's great, this movement champions a development methodology, not software freedom (the issue at the heart of the GPL).

• James says, "It [the GNU GPL] insists that any improvements to GPL-licensed source code have to be made available under the same terms..." but that is not quite right--the GPL only compels publishing the source code to distributed copies and derivatives. Private derivatives are a requirement for software freedom, as the definition for Free Software points out:

  You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

  Perhaps this would have been a good place to point out the GNU GPL FAQ, another GNU project publication. If one is going to take the time to clear up Microsoft's distortions (as James does below), noting that the GPL allows private derivatives should be okay.

• James also says, "This co

I really like the fact that 3 paragraphs into the article there is a huge biline[sic] on how and why linux is good. It also explains the GPL, BSD, and it all seems accurate! I don't know who 'Daniel James' is (the author of the article), but it is obvious that he has done research...

I had some problems with that section of the article. In general, I found the section could have been significantly shorter and less confusing had it referenced clearly written essays distributed by the GNU project.

• The way "Linux" is used confuses the reader because James uses the term to describe an operating system and a mysterious project somehow related to "Linux". James never clearly identifies that Linux is and always was a kernel--a typically user-invisible chunk of a complete GNU/Linux system. It is now possible to run the GNU operating system under a kernel replacement (such as the GNU Hurd). When James talks about "GNU" you don't really know what relationship GNU and Linux have to one another:

• It's a common misconception that Linux was created by a lone student in Finland. In fact Linus Torvalds still leads the project to this day, more than 10 years after he began it, but the operating system has been contributed to by thousands of people. It builds on the considerable work of developers who had dreamt for many years of making a free UNIX, many of whom worked on the GNU project.

  The project Linus Torvalds works on is the Linux kernel. James would be better served by referring to any of the GNU project's works on the topic ("Why GNU/Linux", "Linux, GNU, and freedom", and the "GNU/Linux FAQ") more clearly explaining the distinction between GNU and Linux. These essays also introduce and link to essays on software freedom (which James addresses later on).

• Later James talks about "open source software" even though he just spent time explaining software freedom. Perhaps James is unaware of the differences between the two movements and that the GNU General Public License (which he talks about later) was written by and exemplifies the thinking of the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Initiative. The Open Source Initiative merely added the GNU GPL to a list of approved licenses years after the GPL was already in widespread use in the community. You can't understand what makes the GPL so special in terms of the Open Source movement. While it is true that the Open Source movement brings users to the GPL, and that's great, this movement champions a development methodology, not software freedom (the issue at the heart of the GPL).

• James says, "It [the GNU GPL] insists that any improvements to GPL-licensed source code have to be made available under the same terms..." but that is not quite right--the GPL only compels publishing the source code to distributed copies and derivatives. Private derivatives are a requirement for software freedom, as the definition for Free Software points out:

  You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

  Perhaps this would have been a good place to point out the GNU GPL FAQ, another GNU project publication. If one is going to take the time to clear up Microsoft's distortions (as James does below), noting that the GPL allows private derivatives should be okay.

• James also says, "This co

I really like the fact that 3 paragraphs into the article there is a huge biline[sic] on how and why linux is good. It also explains the GPL, BSD, and it all seems accurate! I don't know who 'Daniel James' is (the author of the article), but it is obvious that he has done research...

I had some problems with that section of the article. In general, I found the section could have been significantly shorter and less confusing had it referenced clearly written essays distributed by the GNU project.

• The way "Linux" is used confuses the reader because James uses the term to describe an operating system and a mysterious project somehow related to "Linux". James never clearly identifies that Linux is and always was a kernel--a typically user-invisible chunk of a complete GNU/Linux system. It is now possible to run the GNU operating system under a kernel replacement (such as the GNU Hurd). When James talks about "GNU" you don't really know what relationship GNU and Linux have to one another:

• It's a common misconception that Linux was created by a lone student in Finland. In fact Linus Torvalds still leads the project to this day, more than 10 years after he began it, but the operating system has been contributed to by thousands of people. It builds on the considerable work of developers who had dreamt for many years of making a free UNIX, many of whom worked on the GNU project.

  The project Linus Torvalds works on is the Linux kernel. James would be better served by referring to any of the GNU project's works on the topic ("Why GNU/Linux", "Linux, GNU, and freedom", and the "GNU/Linux FAQ") more clearly explaining the distinction between GNU and Linux. These essays also introduce and link to essays on software freedom (which James addresses later on).

• Later James talks about "open source software" even though he just spent time explaining software freedom. Perhaps James is unaware of the differences between the two movements and that the GNU General Public License (which he talks about later) was written by and exemplifies the thinking of the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Initiative. The Open Source Initiative merely added the GNU GPL to a list of approved licenses years after the GPL was already in widespread use in the community. You can't understand what makes the GPL so special in terms of the Open Source movement. While it is true that the Open Source movement brings users to the GPL, and that's great, this movement champions a development methodology, not software freedom (the issue at the heart of the GPL).

• James says, "It [the GNU GPL] insists that any improvements to GPL-licensed source code have to be made available under the same terms..." but that is not quite right--the GPL only compels publishing the source code to distributed copies and derivatives. Private derivatives are a requirement for software freedom, as the definition for Free Software points out:

  You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

  Perhaps this would have been a good place to point out the GNU GPL FAQ, another GNU project publication. If one is going to take the time to clear up Microsoft's distortions (as James does below), noting that the GPL allows private derivatives should be okay.

• James also says, "This co

I really like the fact that 3 paragraphs into the article there is a huge biline[sic] on how and why linux is good. It also explains the GPL, BSD, and it all seems accurate! I don't know who 'Daniel James' is (the author of the article), but it is obvious that he has done research...

I had some problems with that section of the article. In general, I found the section could have been significantly shorter and less confusing had it referenced clearly written essays distributed by the GNU project.

• The way "Linux" is used confuses the reader because James uses the term to describe an operating system and a mysterious project somehow related to "Linux". James never clearly identifies that Linux is and always was a kernel--a typically user-invisible chunk of a complete GNU/Linux system. It is now possible to run the GNU operating system under a kernel replacement (such as the GNU Hurd). When James talks about "GNU" you don't really know what relationship GNU and Linux have to one another:

• It's a common misconception that Linux was created by a lone student in Finland. In fact Linus Torvalds still leads the project to this day, more than 10 years after he began it, but the operating system has been contributed to by thousands of people. It builds on the considerable work of developers who had dreamt for many years of making a free UNIX, many of whom worked on the GNU project.

  The project Linus Torvalds works on is the Linux kernel. James would be better served by referring to any of the GNU project's works on the topic ("Why GNU/Linux", "Linux, GNU, and freedom", and the "GNU/Linux FAQ") more clearly explaining the distinction between GNU and Linux. These essays also introduce and link to essays on software freedom (which James addresses later on).

• Later James talks about "open source software" even though he just spent time explaining software freedom. Perhaps James is unaware of the differences between the two movements and that the GNU General Public License (which he talks about later) was written by and exemplifies the thinking of the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Initiative. The Open Source Initiative merely added the GNU GPL to a list of approved licenses years after the GPL was already in widespread use in the community. You can't understand what makes the GPL so special in terms of the Open Source movement. While it is true that the Open Source movement brings users to the GPL, and that's great, this movement champions a development methodology, not software freedom (the issue at the heart of the GPL).

• James says, "It [the GNU GPL] insists that any improvements to GPL-licensed source code have to be made available under the same terms..." but that is not quite right--the GPL only compels publishing the source code to distributed copies and derivatives. Private derivatives are a requirement for software freedom, as the definition for Free Software points out:

  You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

  Perhaps this would have been a good place to point out the GNU GPL FAQ, another GNU project publication. If one is going to take the time to clear up Microsoft's distortions (as James does below), noting that the GPL allows private derivatives should be okay.

• James also says, "This co

I really like the fact that 3 paragraphs into the article there is a huge biline[sic] on how and why linux is good. It also explains the GPL, BSD, and it all seems accurate! I don't know who 'Daniel James' is (the author of the article), but it is obvious that he has done research...

I had some problems with that section of the article. In general, I found the section could have been significantly shorter and less confusing had it referenced clearly written essays distributed by the GNU project.

• The way "Linux" is used confuses the reader because James uses the term to describe an operating system and a mysterious project somehow related to "Linux". James never clearly identifies that Linux is and always was a kernel--a typically user-invisible chunk of a complete GNU/Linux system. It is now possible to run the GNU operating system under a kernel replacement (such as the GNU Hurd). When James talks about "GNU" you don't really know what relationship GNU and Linux have to one another:

• It's a common misconception that Linux was created by a lone student in Finland. In fact Linus Torvalds still leads the project to this day, more than 10 years after he began it, but the operating system has been contributed to by thousands of people. It builds on the considerable work of developers who had dreamt for many years of making a free UNIX, many of whom worked on the GNU project.

  The project Linus Torvalds works on is the Linux kernel. James would be better served by referring to any of the GNU project's works on the topic ("Why GNU/Linux", "Linux, GNU, and freedom", and the "GNU/Linux FAQ") more clearly explaining the distinction between GNU and Linux. These essays also introduce and link to essays on software freedom (which James addresses later on).

• Later James talks about "open source software" even though he just spent time explaining software freedom. Perhaps James is unaware of the differences between the two movements and that the GNU General Public License (which he talks about later) was written by and exemplifies the thinking of the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Initiative. The Open Source Initiative merely added the GNU GPL to a list of approved licenses years after the GPL was already in widespread use in the community. You can't understand what makes the GPL so special in terms of the Open Source movement. While it is true that the Open Source movement brings users to the GPL, and that's great, this movement champions a development methodology, not software freedom (the issue at the heart of the GPL).

• James says, "It [the GNU GPL] insists that any improvements to GPL-licensed source code have to be made available under the same terms..." but that is not quite right--the GPL only compels publishing the source code to distributed copies and derivatives. Private derivatives are a requirement for software freedom, as the definition for Free Software points out:

  You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

  Perhaps this would have been a good place to point out the GNU GPL FAQ, another GNU project publication. If one is going to take the time to clear up Microsoft's distortions (as James does below), noting that the GPL allows private derivatives should be okay.

• James also says, "This co

I really like the fact that 3 paragraphs into the article there is a huge biline[sic] on how and why linux is good. It also explains the GPL, BSD, and it all seems accurate! I don't know who 'Daniel James' is (the author of the article), but it is obvious that he has done research...

I had some problems with that section of the article. In general, I found the section could have been significantly shorter and less confusing had it referenced clearly written essays distributed by the GNU project.

• The way "Linux" is used confuses the reader because James uses the term to describe an operating system and a mysterious project somehow related to "Linux". James never clearly identifies that Linux is and always was a kernel--a typically user-invisible chunk of a complete GNU/Linux system. It is now possible to run the GNU operating system under a kernel replacement (such as the GNU Hurd). When James talks about "GNU" you don't really know what relationship GNU and Linux have to one another:

• It's a common misconception that Linux was created by a lone student in Finland. In fact Linus Torvalds still leads the project to this day, more than 10 years after he began it, but the operating system has been contributed to by thousands of people. It builds on the considerable work of developers who had dreamt for many years of making a free UNIX, many of whom worked on the GNU project.

  The project Linus Torvalds works on is the Linux kernel. James would be better served by referring to any of the GNU project's works on the topic ("Why GNU/Linux", "Linux, GNU, and freedom", and the "GNU/Linux FAQ") more clearly explaining the distinction between GNU and Linux. These essays also introduce and link to essays on software freedom (which James addresses later on).

• Later James talks about "open source software" even though he just spent time explaining software freedom. Perhaps James is unaware of the differences between the two movements and that the GNU General Public License (which he talks about later) was written by and exemplifies the thinking of the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Initiative. The Open Source Initiative merely added the GNU GPL to a list of approved licenses years after the GPL was already in widespread use in the community. You can't understand what makes the GPL so special in terms of the Open Source movement. While it is true that the Open Source movement brings users to the GPL, and that's great, this movement champions a development methodology, not software freedom (the issue at the heart of the GPL).

• James says, "It [the GNU GPL] insists that any improvements to GPL-licensed source code have to be made available under the same terms..." but that is not quite right--the GPL only compels publishing the source code to distributed copies and derivatives. Private derivatives are a requirement for software freedom, as the definition for Free Software points out:

  You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

  Perhaps this would have been a good place to point out the GNU GPL FAQ, another GNU project publication. If one is going to take the time to clear up Microsoft's distortions (as James does below), noting that the GPL allows private derivatives should be okay.

• James also says, "This co

Perhaps you should give specific examples of why you think that it is "garbage", so that I can reinterpret them in a new light. Simply getting rid of the unconstitutional laws will not help for long, as Congress will simply pass them again in a forms.

We all know that allowing laws like the DMCA to be passed is definetly NOT what Ben Franklin had in mind for a free state. And while the New Constitution isn't perfect, I would rather have that than this.

As for management authorisation, I was lucky - my manager was cool, he said if I wanted some GPL software to give him a copy of the licence and install the sw, which would then prompt him to read it. That was 18 months ago and he hasn't said anything yet. Oh, I forgot two , perl from either ActiveState or Indigo Star depending upon your particualr OS (Indigo works on older versions and includes Apache) and Regina Rexx because I like rexx (I used to be a mainframe guy) and it's the macro language for the Hessling editor. Of course Cygwin has the option of including perl there too, it's a matter of what you want to do. I went for ActiveState instead of Cygwin when I set up my work box as it was a later version - I should have checked which was the more stable. As cygwin is under continuous development (join the mailing lists) it's probably superceded ActiveState now.
HTH. (i'm sorry if anything is broken, as preview has done just that, if there's a problem I correct when /. allows the next post).

As for management authorisation, I was lucky - my manager was cool, he said if I wanted some GPL software to give him a copy of the licence and install the sw, which would then prompt him to read it. That was 18 months ago and he hasn't said anything yet. Oh, I forgot two , perl from either ActiveState or Indigo Star depending upon your particualr OS (Indigo works on older versions and includes Apache) and Regina Rexx because I like rexx (I used to be a mainframe guy) and it's the macro language for the Hessling editor. Of course Cygwin has the option of including perl there too, it's a matter of what you want to do. I went for ActiveState instead of Cygwin when I set up my work box as it was a later version - I should have checked which was the more stable. As cygwin is under continuous development (join the mailing lists) it's probably superceded ActiveState now.
HTH. (i'm sorry if anything is broken, as preview has done just that, if there's a problem I correct when /. allows the next post).

Never attribute to malice what you can explain by stupidity.

Indian search on Windows. Only 10th result is good. First one is Windows Media Player, 2-6 are about Tablet PC with the same page for WinXP for Tablets appearing twice. There are also such wonders of relevance as Windows into the Soul of Satyajit Ray and Windows to the Universe - Jupiter.

Search for Windows at MSN is only marginally better. The poster of the story overlooked that first 4-6 results are "Featured sites", which (as well as "sponsored") is the marketese for "advertisements". Amazon will happily sell to MSN searchers practically everything. Heck, the second result for shit offers that I "Purchase Expensive Shit" on Amazon. I shit you not.

There are other gems at the MSN, like a "featured" result, suggesting that "MSN 8 offers a better browsing experience: Try it free for 60 days." when you search for netscape or gnu.org results starting after 12th position when you search for gnu. The first result, of course, being the famous E-gnu.com African Safari Travel...

MSN (despite their claims to the contrary) is a mix between marketing crap and inferior technology. Thanks, I will pass.

If HDTV can't be sent over a PCI bus then how do you explain this?

You're right - my apologies for contributing to the SCO overload. May I suggest instead:

Buy nothing at all - use the FSF!

If this idea grows and spawns multiple sites, how much time will it pass until the RIAA/MPAA/WIPO/(insert another draconian patents regulation entity here) start shutting them down?

The right to read looks more close te reality each day.

This argument gets put forth a lot -- that even though the contested code was released under a liberal free software license, it still cannot be included in the kernel because it is "incompatible" with the kernel's license.

The thing to remember is that when the Free Software Foundation states their opinion about a license, this is in their interpretation of the license, and, more importantly, how this relates to the inclusion of other software into GNU software. When the FSF speaks about something, they are usually referring to how the issue relates to them and the software they distribute.

Linus and the other copyright holders of Linux may decide that code covered by the BSD+Advertising license is not incompatible wth the GPL, and release the combination. Remember, too, that some people release software under two licenses, one the GPL, one which the FSF considers incompatible with the GPL. Of course, such combinations may not be legally valid, and may not hold up in court, but that question is for if and when it becomes an actual legal matter.

These are not the software licenses you are looking for. Move along. Move along.

That's nice, but gnutella is not actually GNU software.

One minor correction: you cannot sell copies of GPL'ed source code beyond the cost of media. You can charge for the binaries whatever the market will bear.

See 'Selling Free Software' for a more complete explanation.