Slashdot Mirror

For the ultimate in merging Linux with radios:

GNU Radio

From the FAQ:

It does signal processing in free software. This means you can learn from it, and modify it to do new things. The big idea is to give ordinary software people easy access to 'hack' the electromagnetic spectrum, that is, to understand the radio spectrum and think of clever ways to use it.

• The license under which the "historical" versions of Unix are released is a BSD style license with the advertising clause. The advertising clause makes it incompatible with the GPL, according to the license comparison at the FSF site. So, it is not legal to pull code from the historical Unix versions into the Linux kernel, unless the historical Unix code in question was licensed from UCB under the BSD license (UCB retroactively removed the advertising clause from their code).
• DMR worked for AT&T on the code is now owned by SCO. So SCO does have legal ownership of that code and is allowed to control how it is released. Much of it (including the code in question) was released under the license mentioned above, but that license conflicts with the GPL as used by the Linux kernel.

The article gets some concepts profoundly wrong when it comes to discussing licensing (which is at the heart of the article). These items may confuse readers not already familiar with copyright law and the Free Software community.

Toward the bottom of the article "Public domain soft-ware [sic]" is mentioned and the "X Window System and BSD operating system" are cited as "notable" examples. Then the article mentions a "license limitation" that is only true for the old BSD license. This clearly illustrates the author is confused about what the public domain is and that works cannot be both licensed (as these examples are, under different but largely similar licenses) and in the public domain. Placing a work in the public domain is not a license, no matter how liberal the license's terms may be. Putting a work into the public domain is the irrevocable abdication of all copyright power over the work.

The terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are used interchangeably, as if they both refer to the same thing (early in the article "Linux" is meant to refer to an operating system, later on "GNU/Linux" refers to an operating system). The GNU Project asks (and simple fairness requires) that we give GNU a fair share of the credit for their work in the GNU/Linux operating system. Technical precision requires us to distinguish between the Linux kernel and a GNU/Linux operating system. To these ends, the GNU Project publishes a FAQ on the issue of naming GNU/Linux, and an older essay.

Finally, just to be clear, the Open Source and Free Software movements are not the same. They have different philosophies, they began at different times, they were started by different people, and they speak to different audiences. The GNU Project's essay on the two movements and their social implications is helpful.

The article gets some concepts profoundly wrong when it comes to discussing licensing (which is at the heart of the article). These items may confuse readers not already familiar with copyright law and the Free Software community.

Toward the bottom of the article "Public domain soft-ware [sic]" is mentioned and the "X Window System and BSD operating system" are cited as "notable" examples. Then the article mentions a "license limitation" that is only true for the old BSD license. This clearly illustrates the author is confused about what the public domain is and that works cannot be both licensed (as these examples are, under different but largely similar licenses) and in the public domain. Placing a work in the public domain is not a license, no matter how liberal the license's terms may be. Putting a work into the public domain is the irrevocable abdication of all copyright power over the work.

The terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are used interchangeably, as if they both refer to the same thing (early in the article "Linux" is meant to refer to an operating system, later on "GNU/Linux" refers to an operating system). The GNU Project asks (and simple fairness requires) that we give GNU a fair share of the credit for their work in the GNU/Linux operating system. Technical precision requires us to distinguish between the Linux kernel and a GNU/Linux operating system. To these ends, the GNU Project publishes a FAQ on the issue of naming GNU/Linux, and an older essay.

Finally, just to be clear, the Open Source and Free Software movements are not the same. They have different philosophies, they began at different times, they were started by different people, and they speak to different audiences. The GNU Project's essay on the two movements and their social implications is helpful.

The article gets some concepts profoundly wrong when it comes to discussing licensing (which is at the heart of the article). These items may confuse readers not already familiar with copyright law and the Free Software community.

Toward the bottom of the article "Public domain soft-ware [sic]" is mentioned and the "X Window System and BSD operating system" are cited as "notable" examples. Then the article mentions a "license limitation" that is only true for the old BSD license. This clearly illustrates the author is confused about what the public domain is and that works cannot be both licensed (as these examples are, under different but largely similar licenses) and in the public domain. Placing a work in the public domain is not a license, no matter how liberal the license's terms may be. Putting a work into the public domain is the irrevocable abdication of all copyright power over the work.

The terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are used interchangeably, as if they both refer to the same thing (early in the article "Linux" is meant to refer to an operating system, later on "GNU/Linux" refers to an operating system). The GNU Project asks (and simple fairness requires) that we give GNU a fair share of the credit for their work in the GNU/Linux operating system. Technical precision requires us to distinguish between the Linux kernel and a GNU/Linux operating system. To these ends, the GNU Project publishes a FAQ on the issue of naming GNU/Linux, and an older essay.

Finally, just to be clear, the Open Source and Free Software movements are not the same. They have different philosophies, they began at different times, they were started by different people, and they speak to different audiences. The GNU Project's essay on the two movements and their social implications is helpful.

The FSF would be fools to force such an issue. Tivo is trying to work with the system as well and maintain their advantage over their competators. Jerking them around with the GPL would simply drive them and others away, thats not what we want, (right RMS?)

I'm not RMS, nor do I speak for him, the FSF, or any of the Linux kernel copyright holders. However, you appear to misunderstand a significant point about the development of the GNU Project and GNU/Linux in particular. There's nothing foolish about requiring compliance with the generous GNU General Public License, particularly nothing foolish about insisting that people cooperate in the commons the GNU GPL builds for us all. Nobody is more important than anyone else in this partnership (including Tivo). It is Tivo's job, not ours, to find a way to make money with GPL-covered programs if that is their desire.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the GNU Project (and the continued development of the GNU/Linux operating system in particular) is not about achieving mere popularity at the expense of user's freedom to share and modify. From this essay:

People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road.

And this essay:

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

The FSF would be fools to force such an issue. Tivo is trying to work with the system as well and maintain their advantage over their competators. Jerking them around with the GPL would simply drive them and others away, thats not what we want, (right RMS?)

I'm not RMS, nor do I speak for him, the FSF, or any of the Linux kernel copyright holders. However, you appear to misunderstand a significant point about the development of the GNU Project and GNU/Linux in particular. There's nothing foolish about requiring compliance with the generous GNU General Public License, particularly nothing foolish about insisting that people cooperate in the commons the GNU GPL builds for us all. Nobody is more important than anyone else in this partnership (including Tivo). It is Tivo's job, not ours, to find a way to make money with GPL-covered programs if that is their desire.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the GNU Project (and the continued development of the GNU/Linux operating system in particular) is not about achieving mere popularity at the expense of user's freedom to share and modify. From this essay:

People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road.

And this essay:

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

Heise, a SCO lawyer, claimed that GPL was "pre-empted by federal copyright law", to which Eben Moglen, FSF General Counsel, replied. Heise repeats his argument in the CNET interview.

But in the same CNET interview Heise also says:

[Question:] What if, during the course of discovery or another time, you find that the code was originally under the GPL?

[Heise:] Using that hypothetical, if Caldera (International) put something into the GPL, with copyright attribution, the whole nine yards, they can't make the claim about what that thing is that they put in there. - -

So - according to Heise - GPL is valid after all!

The only way to make any sense of this is that Heise's real argument - at least today - is that "GPL is pre-empted by federal copyright law" if something is released under GPL without right owners consent... This is of course trivial: if you release someone else's program under GPL without her permission then the GPL is obviously not valid (in that particular instance). But if you release your own or somebody else's code with her permission under GPL then GPL is valid and enforceable.

Odd, I thought the IBM patent was issued before the Unisys one, why does it expire later?

AFAIK IBM has never licensed it's version of the LZW patent to GIF makers, so if the patent is valid people who use the software are still open to attack.

"if the patent is valid" is the important part, you see no "tiny problem" with two people patenting the same algorithm?

Hey, hey! Whats wrong with the free software song!?

You don't need to agree to the GPL to modify GPL software. You only need to agree to the GPL to distribute a version you have modified.
Nothing stops anyone taking a GPLed program, modifying it and using it personally. (Where "personally" applies to any legal "person".)

You are incorrect on this point, but don't worry, many others are as well. Quoting the Preamble to the GPL "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."

Quoting the GPL "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it."

So technically, you CAN'T modify it if you don't comply with the GPL. You don't have to release your changes to the code up unless you DISTRIBUTE it. You can change it all you want without disclosure as long is it stays inhouse.

Again. "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License."

The GPL divides your rights this way, Use (no acceptance of the GPL needed) Modify (must accept GPL, do not have to give out source code) Distribute (must accept GPL and must make source reasonably available). This is one of the good things about it, it treats each act as a seperate act, because they ARE seperate acts. The author has the right to limit your ability to modify their work.

You assumption is a common misconceptions, after all, the GPL is pretty unique in this respect. It was the first license designed to protect everyone as a whole as much as the original author. You can read a text version of the GPL here.

So SCO only has the right to USE any GPL software if they don't agree, as long as they do NOT modify it. Since they are saying the GPL is invalid, thus they do not agree with it, they are infringing on the author's copyrighted works if they modify any GPL programs for their own use, unless they have worked out a seperate license with the author(s) of the work they want to modify. Personally, I think this is enforcable, and the FSF have a potential case against SCO for distributing Linux that has been modified. It would be harder to prove they are USING it without a search warrant to see, but I am pretty sure they have modified some of the packages they have on their own FTP site, a clear violation of their license. This is one reason FSF recommends you assign your copyright to them, so a single agency can pursue legal action, instead of relying on several different copyright owners/authors.

No, according to the FSF.

Actually they can. Section 4 of the GNU GPL states that violations of the GPL automatically terminates distribution rights for GPL'd programs. The GPL also states that you must agree with the GPL or you don't have any distribution rights. SCO/Caldera has publicly announced their refusal to comply. I plan to exercise section 4 to revoke their right to redistribute Nmap. I just started on the wording and haven't yet run it by a lawyer (I will). But the announcement will probably be something like:

SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid. In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, OpenServer, and UNIXWare.

-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner
PS:I just posted a similar comment to an older SCO article, but it is more relevant here. Also I don't know if OpenLinux or any of their other products include Nmap. Most Linux distributions do, but Caldera wasn't exactly at the forefront of technology.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html

Not to piss on your parade, but the code in question has twice been licensed under the original BSD license, which is *not* GPL compatible. Therefore, the code in question cannot have legally been transferred into a GPLed product, namingly Linux, along that vector.

That's not to say that the code in question is definitely infringing. There are several other legitimate ways it could have gotten in there, but the "original BSD" license grant is not one of them.

As far as suing without disclosing the code, SCO will have to disclose to any defendents, but they would certainly ask the judge for sealed proceedings, which the judge would probably grant. So the defendent would know what specifically is alleged to be infringing, but would be legally enjoined from telling anyone else about it.

Not to piss on your parade, but the code in question has twice been licensed under the original BSD license, which is *not* GPL compatible. Therefore, the code in question cannot have legally been transferred into a GPLed product, namingly Linux, along that vector.

That's not to say that the code in question is definitely infringing. There are several other legitimate ways it could have gotten in there, but the "original BSD" license grant is not one of them.

As far as suing without disclosing the code, SCO will have to disclose to any defendents, but they would certainly ask the judge for sealed proceedings, which the judge would probably grant. So the defendent would know what specifically is alleged to be infringing, but would be legally enjoined from telling anyone else about it.

Under the GPL, you are FORBIDDEN to modify the code UNLESS you release your modifications to the public, and you are forbidden to distribute any copies of the code UNLESS you include that release of modifications, i.e. under the GPL,

Here's the actual text:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

So what's the problem? If you want to benefit from the community, but you don't want to put back in, don't distribute the program in any form, including binary.

Or you can distribute in binary and source form. Your intellectual property is still yours, but you've made it available for others to work with/improve. It's not a zero-sum game. You'll benefit in the long run.

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

It strikes me that SCO would show their best example. This is it?!?!? Hoary old code from 1973 that's been all over the net for three decades and is released under a license that allows the Linux developers to use it with impunity? If this is their best example, they are bound to lose.

However, the Heise article says (my translation):

Supposedly, around 700 critical lines of code for SMP-technology drifted from Unix into Linux releases 2.4 and 2.5. In total, SCO's testers are supposed to have found over 800000 lines of duplicated program code - an example from SCO is shown in the picture right (enlarged view).

i.e. that was just one example, chosen by Heise. If even 1% of what SCO says is true, this could get very nasty for IBM and/or Linux in general. <flame suit on>

Maybe we'll one day see the FSF sue the arses of the any programmers who stole code and signed false copyright assignment forms. You can see the text of one of those here. It includes this:

The Assigner hereby represents and warrants that it is the sole copyright holder for the Work and that it has the right and power to enter into this contract. The Assigner hereby indemnify and hold harmless the Foundation, its officers, employees, and agents against any and all claims, actions or damages (including attorney's reasonable fees) asserted by or paid to any party on account of a breach or alleged breach of the foregoing warranty.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

I simply don't accept Word attachments. I reply stating that I can't read them, and the file should be saved as RTF or PDF.

The .Net framework and development tools are also free, and can be downloaded. And efforts are being made for making .Net portable. Examples include Microsoft's own Rotor (Windows, FreeBSD and Mac OSX), Mono (Linux) and DotGNU (Linux).

Now I can freely use GNU/Linux again without worrying about legal threats.

You'll not see a link to Debian from the FSF/GNU sites for this reason.

You mean, like the one on this page, found by following "Links to other sites" from the main page?

You'll not see a link to Debian from the FSF/GNU sites for this reason.

You mean, like the one on this page, found by following "Links to other sites" from the main page?

I say guh-nwhatever. The GNU website says 'GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".' I think that the pronounciation of the "silent" G empasizes that it is free software. So, to me, gnome, gnutella and the likes all have pronounced G's.
Just my last two cents.

There are two major open source implementations of Smalltalk commonly available today: GNU/Smalltalk and Squeak. GNU/Smalltalk is more server-oriented, and does not support Smalltalk's traditional MVC GUI, espousing a new system based off Tk. It is fairly fast, and somewhat lighter weight than Squeak, making it a better choice for headless applications like application servers. Squeak is, at the moment, mind-blowingly huge, but it provides both the venerable MVC GUI and Morphic, which is derived from Sun Microsystems' Self programming language. It also has been ported to many non-Unix platforms, like Win32, WinCe, MacOS 9, etc.

Although RMS is obviously a very talented and intelligent individual, he seems hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others.

What does this mean? How would you distinguish "hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others" from presenting and implementing a compelling argument for free software?

He refuses to have anything to do with anyone who even has the slightest relationship with a non-free program. In effect he and his cohorts are effective enforcing their beliefs on others or cutting them completely off from their organization.

Is it required that RMS' deal with those that work against the goal to supply software freedom for all computer users?

How can you promote "free software" when you don't promote the "freedom to choose".

Choosing a license is often cited as the freedom to choose but can easily become the power to dominate users; choosing a free software license definately helps society. Choosing a copylefted free software license helps secure these freedoms for derivative works.

RMS and the FSF help help people choose licenses and software more wisely via the concept of copyleft. The FSF's licence list is quite informative and discriminating so people won't pick a license that doesn't serve their interests in the short and long term. From the look of some of the other posts in this /. thread, I'd say some still don't get the concept of why it is important to pay attention to the freedoms of derivative works.

Personally I think a person or company should be allowed to use free as well as non-free software together without reprimand from RMS and his organization.

Your subject header ("RMS promotes his views too strongly.") and this sentence suggest you are in favor of stopping RMS' freedom of speech. Is this what you are trying to convey?

It's better to use some free software then no free software [...]

RMS would agree here--in fact, he reiterated this in the interview when he answered a question about using WINE, a popular way to run Microsoft Windows programs without running Microsoft Windows:

"Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps. Much of our community focuses on practical benefits exclusively, and that doesn't show other users a reason to keep moving till they reach freedom. Users can remain in our community for years without encountering the idea. As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps."

[...] and RMS is effectively limiting his friends and support by enforcing his views on them.

Saying this twice doesn't make this more clear to me. RMS clearly explains how non-free software divides users and keeps them helpless. The social movement he started has worked to create an entire operating system people use every day. This movement has inspired others to do good things (including the Creative Commons and the Free Library of Science. Even the Open Source movement, which stands for different things than the Free Software movement, works to bring people to use and develop free software). Do you have more specific counterarguments to raise?

Although RMS is obviously a very talented and intelligent individual, he seems hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others.

What does this mean? How would you distinguish "hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others" from presenting and implementing a compelling argument for free software?

He refuses to have anything to do with anyone who even has the slightest relationship with a non-free program. In effect he and his cohorts are effective enforcing their beliefs on others or cutting them completely off from their organization.

Is it required that RMS' deal with those that work against the goal to supply software freedom for all computer users?

How can you promote "free software" when you don't promote the "freedom to choose".

Choosing a license is often cited as the freedom to choose but can easily become the power to dominate users; choosing a free software license definately helps society. Choosing a copylefted free software license helps secure these freedoms for derivative works.

RMS and the FSF help help people choose licenses and software more wisely via the concept of copyleft. The FSF's licence list is quite informative and discriminating so people won't pick a license that doesn't serve their interests in the short and long term. From the look of some of the other posts in this /. thread, I'd say some still don't get the concept of why it is important to pay attention to the freedoms of derivative works.

Personally I think a person or company should be allowed to use free as well as non-free software together without reprimand from RMS and his organization.

Your subject header ("RMS promotes his views too strongly.") and this sentence suggest you are in favor of stopping RMS' freedom of speech. Is this what you are trying to convey?

It's better to use some free software then no free software [...]

RMS would agree here--in fact, he reiterated this in the interview when he answered a question about using WINE, a popular way to run Microsoft Windows programs without running Microsoft Windows:

"Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps. Much of our community focuses on practical benefits exclusively, and that doesn't show other users a reason to keep moving till they reach freedom. Users can remain in our community for years without encountering the idea. As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps."

[...] and RMS is effectively limiting his friends and support by enforcing his views on them.

Saying this twice doesn't make this more clear to me. RMS clearly explains how non-free software divides users and keeps them helpless. The social movement he started has worked to create an entire operating system people use every day. This movement has inspired others to do good things (including the Creative Commons and the Free Library of Science. Even the Open Source movement, which stands for different things than the Free Software movement, works to bring people to use and develop free software). Do you have more specific counterarguments to raise?

Although RMS is obviously a very talented and intelligent individual, he seems hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others.

What does this mean? How would you distinguish "hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others" from presenting and implementing a compelling argument for free software?

He refuses to have anything to do with anyone who even has the slightest relationship with a non-free program. In effect he and his cohorts are effective enforcing their beliefs on others or cutting them completely off from their organization.

Is it required that RMS' deal with those that work against the goal to supply software freedom for all computer users?

How can you promote "free software" when you don't promote the "freedom to choose".

Choosing a license is often cited as the freedom to choose but can easily become the power to dominate users; choosing a free software license definately helps society. Choosing a copylefted free software license helps secure these freedoms for derivative works.

RMS and the FSF help help people choose licenses and software more wisely via the concept of copyleft. The FSF's licence list is quite informative and discriminating so people won't pick a license that doesn't serve their interests in the short and long term. From the look of some of the other posts in this /. thread, I'd say some still don't get the concept of why it is important to pay attention to the freedoms of derivative works.

Personally I think a person or company should be allowed to use free as well as non-free software together without reprimand from RMS and his organization.

Your subject header ("RMS promotes his views too strongly.") and this sentence suggest you are in favor of stopping RMS' freedom of speech. Is this what you are trying to convey?

It's better to use some free software then no free software [...]

RMS would agree here--in fact, he reiterated this in the interview when he answered a question about using WINE, a popular way to run Microsoft Windows programs without running Microsoft Windows:

"Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps. Much of our community focuses on practical benefits exclusively, and that doesn't show other users a reason to keep moving till they reach freedom. Users can remain in our community for years without encountering the idea. As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps."

[...] and RMS is effectively limiting his friends and support by enforcing his views on them.

Saying this twice doesn't make this more clear to me. RMS clearly explains how non-free software divides users and keeps them helpless. The social movement he started has worked to create an entire operating system people use every day. This movement has inspired others to do good things (including the Creative Commons and the Free Library of Science. Even the Open Source movement, which stands for different things than the Free Software movement, works to bring people to use and develop free software). Do you have more specific counterarguments to raise?

This is what RMS means by Free. I have never heard of him using the word in any way that is not consistent with those principles.

I'm not trying to incite a flamewar. I AM, however, interested in seeing what SlashDotters have to say about this concept: It seems to me that there is a "double standard" on "piracy" (I hate that word; see this page for some reasons why not to use this word) here. When people "pirate" the MPAA's latest, no one cares, but when people "pirate" anime, people here get upset. Why?

The FSF doesn't restrict it's definition of "free software" to the GPL. Their definition also includes the kind of software you refer to with "free software". So they actually demand less freedoms from the license than you. You can view their 4 basic required freedoms here.

The GPL is a device that ensures the code that is licensed under it will always be free (by their definition) for it's users. It prevents anyone from removing the four basic freedoms from other users. Is the ability to control others really a freedom?

Copylefted software and software licensed under the GPL are just a type of free software, no more, no less. The GPL was originally devised, because Stallman felt it would have been discouraging for the free software developers if all the non-free software companies had always been able to incorporate all the work into their products and build upon them.

If there was no copyright protection for software, the GPL would not be needed. Binary-only distribution would not be viable in such a system.

free != gratis

see also here

Personally, I've never seen much point in limiting uSUage to a defined group. Better to keep the password secret.

van Rossum :

I guess one difference is that it has a long history, since it was first distributed in 1991. In those days nobody talked about "open source", and Richard Stallman [founder of the Free Software Foundation] wasn't very well known and the GNU General Public License didn't exist.

parent poster (Slothrup) :

WTF? The GPL didn't exist in 1991? I guess I was hallucinating when I was using GNU Emacs and GCC in the 80s.

Yes, I was also surprised at this large factual error.

GPL Version 2 : June 1991

GPL Version 1 : February 1989

Earlier forms of Copyleft licenses also existed from before 1989. The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985 and has of course always released its work as 'Free Software'.

p.s. Slothrup, I suggest evening tea at Miss Quoad's would be a suitable punishment for van Rossum's inaccuracy. As a man who named his language after an English comedy group, I'm sure he has the required sensibility to appreciate the full horror of this particular engagement.

van Rossum :

I guess one difference is that it has a long history, since it was first distributed in 1991. In those days nobody talked about "open source", and Richard Stallman [founder of the Free Software Foundation] wasn't very well known and the GNU General Public License didn't exist.

parent poster (Slothrup) :

WTF? The GPL didn't exist in 1991? I guess I was hallucinating when I was using GNU Emacs and GCC in the 80s.

Yes, I was also surprised at this large factual error.

GPL Version 2 : June 1991

GPL Version 1 : February 1989

Earlier forms of Copyleft licenses also existed from before 1989. The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985 and has of course always released its work as 'Free Software'.

p.s. Slothrup, I suggest evening tea at Miss Quoad's would be a suitable punishment for van Rossum's inaccuracy. As a man who named his language after an English comedy group, I'm sure he has the required sensibility to appreciate the full horror of this particular engagement.

We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.

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

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* 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.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

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.

The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.

The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.

In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.

In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.

However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.

Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.

Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't effectively block your freedom to release modified versions. Rules that ``if you make the program available in this way, you must make it ava

> There has been some work on using graphics cards for computation. The tough part is figuring out how to rephrase your algorithm in terms of what the GPU can handle.

Isn't there a lot of sloth involved in reading your results back as well?

Meanwhile, users of GCC can exploit whatever multimedia SIMD instructions their processor supports by telling the processor you want to use them. For x86 see this and this; for other architectures start here. (Notice the GCC version in the URL; the supported options sometimes change between versions, so you should look in a version of the GCC Manual that matches what you're actually using.)

I confess I haven't benchmarked these options, but in theory they should boost the performance of some kinds of number-crunching algorithms.

BTW, Linuxers can find what multimedia extensions their CPU supports with cat /proc/cpuinfo, even from a user account. Look for multimedia support in the list at the end of the cpuinfo. Lots of those extensions only support integers or low-resolution fp numbers, but IIRC SSE2 should be good for high-precision FP operations. Use google to find out what your extensions are good for.

And post us back if you do some benchmarking, or find some good ones on the Web.

> There has been some work on using graphics cards for computation. The tough part is figuring out how to rephrase your algorithm in terms of what the GPU can handle.

Isn't there a lot of sloth involved in reading your results back as well?

Meanwhile, users of GCC can exploit whatever multimedia SIMD instructions their processor supports by telling the processor you want to use them. For x86 see this and this; for other architectures start here. (Notice the GCC version in the URL; the supported options sometimes change between versions, so you should look in a version of the GCC Manual that matches what you're actually using.)

I confess I haven't benchmarked these options, but in theory they should boost the performance of some kinds of number-crunching algorithms.

BTW, Linuxers can find what multimedia extensions their CPU supports with cat /proc/cpuinfo, even from a user account. Look for multimedia support in the list at the end of the cpuinfo. Lots of those extensions only support integers or low-resolution fp numbers, but IIRC SSE2 should be good for high-precision FP operations. Use google to find out what your extensions are good for.

And post us back if you do some benchmarking, or find some good ones on the Web.

> There has been some work on using graphics cards for computation. The tough part is figuring out how to rephrase your algorithm in terms of what the GPU can handle.

Isn't there a lot of sloth involved in reading your results back as well?

Meanwhile, users of GCC can exploit whatever multimedia SIMD instructions their processor supports by telling the processor you want to use them. For x86 see this and this; for other architectures start here. (Notice the GCC version in the URL; the supported options sometimes change between versions, so you should look in a version of the GCC Manual that matches what you're actually using.)

I confess I haven't benchmarked these options, but in theory they should boost the performance of some kinds of number-crunching algorithms.

BTW, Linuxers can find what multimedia extensions their CPU supports with cat /proc/cpuinfo, even from a user account. Look for multimedia support in the list at the end of the cpuinfo. Lots of those extensions only support integers or low-resolution fp numbers, but IIRC SSE2 should be good for high-precision FP operations. Use google to find out what your extensions are good for.

And post us back if you do some benchmarking, or find some good ones on the Web.

Well, it is amongst people who object to being mailed Word documents, anyway. They're just a really bad format for publishing information in.

See Richard Stallman's 'no-word-attachments' article, for example...

Your understanding of the GPL seems to be severely flawed. But then again...

DISCLAIMER: I Am Not A Lawyer, so my understanding of the GPL or any outher legal matter might be even more flawed and my opinions on legal matters as expressed below are not legal advice.

I am going to give you a CD. It has one track on it and the rest is empty, ready for more sessions. But if you add another track to it, you have to give it back to me, and make it available for anybody else I give this CD too. You may not sell the CD to anybody or profit in any way other than the cost of the medium.

With that argument you totally miss the point of the GPL. Your example is about distributing two tracks unrelated on the same medium. IIRC, the GPL expressly allows that. But for the sake of discussion, I'll assume (for the rest of this post) that you made a correct point.

See all those restrictions? See, that's not a gift. You don't own that CD. You can't even use that CD in some of the ways you might want to. You are not FREE. I have granted you the rights to listen to it, but told you what you can and can't do with it.

So what? I can use that CD in any way I want to, as long as I don't distribute it or a modified version of it. Consider a typical shrink-wrap-EULA-CD for a moment. You give me a CD. Accompanying the CD is a contract in fine print that says that I

• cannot give this CD to anybody else
• cannot add the track I want to add
• cannot flange, then phase your track and give it to my friend who would laugh his ass of
• and cannot do a gazillion of other things useful or not

Honestly: Which CD do I like better? Clearly the GPL'd one. And stop to whine. Naturally it's not a gift. Nobody has ever, ever said Linux or gcc or emacs or whatever was a gift! No, really. Go, check the GNU homepage. They don't lie to you, so there's no need to get shitty about all that marvelous software not being a gift. Because it's not. And you knew it. So don't whine about it. Okay?

How is this different from copyright? Because you can give it to more people? Because I say you can change it and you don't have to clear it with me? I am still imposing restrictions on your use. And it may be a very happy hippy thing to prevent people from benefitting from other people's public works, but the fact is that you won't benefit from them anyway.

It's not so. I won't go into detail, because the rest of this thread makes it clear that the GPL is copyright with additional rights for the licensee. So what if you impose restrictions on my use? First, you don't. Use is unrestricted. Then, your restrictions on my redistribution and modifications is utterly okay for me. It's your software. I never said that by downloading it or paying someone to burn it on CD and print a beautiful manual it became mine. You worked for it. You decide how I can redistribute and modify it. If you decide that I can only give other people copies if I first stand on my head and blow my nose, then so be it. If I don't like those restrictions, I will simply not redistribute or modify your software. As for the alleged fact that I won't benefit of my work anyway, how about Linus Torvalds? I lost track somehow when he left Transmeta, but do you think those hired him simply because he was such a cool guy? No thought that Linux could have had to do with it? Okay, they didn't pay him for Linux but it surely opened some doors for him. So, how's that not profiting?

If you can get something for free, or you can pay for something, which do you do? Do you pay $1 to download Kazaa Lite, or get it free from the website? Do you buy Linux on CD, or tie up sunett's ftp? Sure, some people might, but in no case is anybody getting rich off SELLING free software. The GPL's major selling point as a license -- "protecting developers rights to make money off of their hard work" -- is a tot

It appears that the machine was cracked using a ptrace exploit by a local user immediately after the exploit was posted. (For the ptrace bug, a root-shell exploit was available on 17 March 2003, and a working fix was not available on linux-kernel until the following week. Evidence found on the machine indicates that gnuftp was cracked during that week.)

Now I wait for Stallman to put a price on my head for not only calling the Hurd Linux, but also for not calling it GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux. :)

Exactly!

As for "they don't seem to have full backups", the reason they are requesting the MD5 sums is that any backups from after march could have been compromised as well. They are asking for verification from the people that uploaded the files to them if I understand it correctly.

You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program

some people don't like amazons patent policies. these guys for example

why not Amazon or Bookpool?

Try here for some discussion.

Do you keep 5 months worth of backups? Well? Do ya?

Well, cut them some slack, then!