Slashdot Mirror

you can find this quote here, it appears to me that it is written by RMS.

This is simply untrue. The FSF has a widely-accepted and very useful license list which includes these licenses and suggested ways of speaking about the licenses to avoid confusion about which license you're referring to:

I believe this list of licenses has a main purpose of showing which are compatible with the GPL, and thus which you can incorporate in your GPL program.

This is hardly the behavior one would expect to see if the FSF did not want to "accept the existence" of these other licenses.

i never read that before, i will certainly take a look, but take a look at this FAQ question.

gnu quote: "Of course, your software is not a contribution to our community if it is not free, and people who value their freedom will refuse to use it. Only people willing to give up their freedom will use your software, which means that it will effectively function as an inducement for people to lose their freedom."

nobody prefers using non-free software, but those are some pretty harsh words. I value my freedom, doesnt mean i wouldn't use non-free software. The same goes for many other people out there.

As for other free software, their feeling is not this bad, they are subtle for the most part, but they only say it is ok to develop new software as non-copyleft free software as a preference to non-free

for example, i found this.

gnu quote: "Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to defend their freedom. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, to lie down and do nothing is an act of weakness, not humility."

First of all, this is untrue, others still have full access to my source code. Secondly, how is this accepting the existence of non-copyleft licenses? This is more like attacking them.

This is simply untrue. The FSF has a widely-accepted and very useful license list which includes these licenses and suggested ways of speaking about the licenses to avoid confusion about which license you're referring to:

I believe this list of licenses has a main purpose of showing which are compatible with the GPL, and thus which you can incorporate in your GPL program.

This is hardly the behavior one would expect to see if the FSF did not want to "accept the existence" of these other licenses.

i never read that before, i will certainly take a look, but take a look at this FAQ question.

gnu quote: "Of course, your software is not a contribution to our community if it is not free, and people who value their freedom will refuse to use it. Only people willing to give up their freedom will use your software, which means that it will effectively function as an inducement for people to lose their freedom."

nobody prefers using non-free software, but those are some pretty harsh words. I value my freedom, doesnt mean i wouldn't use non-free software. The same goes for many other people out there.

As for other free software, their feeling is not this bad, they are subtle for the most part, but they only say it is ok to develop new software as non-copyleft free software as a preference to non-free

for example, i found this.

gnu quote: "Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to defend their freedom. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, to lie down and do nothing is an act of weakness, not humility."

First of all, this is untrue, others still have full access to my source code. Secondly, how is this accepting the existence of non-copyleft licenses? This is more like attacking them.

• Do you see binaries? Yes, called "Kernel Images"
  Are those binaries made from modified GPL code? Yes, the Linux kernel code
  Do you see a link to download the source used to make those binaries? No
  Inside the binaries, do you find "An offer to recieve the source code, valid for 3 years to any 3rd party"? No

They want everyone to follow their ways, they do not like the thinking of other non-gnu licenses.

No, they warn about the shortcomings of other licenses that don't ensure the freedoms of free software (in the case of MIT X11 and new BSD license).

Okay, they want what's best for the open-source community, and have obviously contributed quite a lot.

Although what they want is beneficial for both the Open Source and Free Software movements, the movement they are more properly associated with is the Free Software movement, which they began over a decade before the Open Source movement started.

But does anyone think it is unfair that others (X11, BSD license, zlib, etc) accept the existence of GNU, but not the other way around (this is shown by their philosophy documents, and also the nature of the GPL).

This is simply untrue. The FSF has a widely-accepted and very useful license list which includes these licenses and suggested ways of speaking about the licenses to avoid confusion about which license you're referring to:

[I]t is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead.

RMS gives talks where he tells people why he encourages contributions to X licensed under the X11 license (matching the rest of the project) instead of making a GNU GPL fork. See the Q&A section of some of the Free Software speeches--he tells people precisely why there is no GNU GPL fork of X and why such a fork is likely to be a bad idea.

This is hardly the behavior one would expect to see if the FSF did not want to "accept the existence" of these other licenses.

They want everyone to follow their ways, they do not like the thinking of other non-gnu licenses.

No, they warn about the shortcomings of other licenses that don't ensure the freedoms of free software (in the case of MIT X11 and new BSD license).

Okay, they want what's best for the open-source community, and have obviously contributed quite a lot.

Although what they want is beneficial for both the Open Source and Free Software movements, the movement they are more properly associated with is the Free Software movement, which they began over a decade before the Open Source movement started.

But does anyone think it is unfair that others (X11, BSD license, zlib, etc) accept the existence of GNU, but not the other way around (this is shown by their philosophy documents, and also the nature of the GPL).

This is simply untrue. The FSF has a widely-accepted and very useful license list which includes these licenses and suggested ways of speaking about the licenses to avoid confusion about which license you're referring to:

[I]t is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead.

RMS gives talks where he tells people why he encourages contributions to X licensed under the X11 license (matching the rest of the project) instead of making a GNU GPL fork. See the Q&A section of some of the Free Software speeches--he tells people precisely why there is no GNU GPL fork of X and why such a fork is likely to be a bad idea.

This is hardly the behavior one would expect to see if the FSF did not want to "accept the existence" of these other licenses.

What you have to understand, which the anti-GNU zealots simply can't, is that for open source software to continue and prosper is in GNU's interest. That is their major goal.

No, the GNU project was formed over a decade before the Open Source movement began. The Free Software movement is different from the Open Source movement. The two movements have different goals but mostly get along.

What the hell kind of "open source" is this anyway?!

The kind it was designed to be--that movement doesn't consider the freedom to share and modify the program to be as important as the practical development advantages to a business. Sometimes this means approving licenses that are also considered free software licenses, sometimes it will not. The FSF has an informative article on the philosophical differences between the two movements.

CNet is running a peice on the Open Source And Industry Alliance an advocacy and lobbying group sponsored by the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

This is indeed great news. Now perhaps the OpenSource community can get behind this effort to politicise itself and vigorously advocate where it most counts, the halls of the U.S. Congress.

In its statment of principles and purpose, the OSAIA states:

Business, government and private individuals must be free to choose software and technologies that best suit their needs, independent of the methodologies or licenses used in their development.

The marketplace must be free of prejudice against open source software, whether through law, regulation, defamation or other means. OSAIA will act to achieve this goal."

This is a good start. The CCIA boasts a formidable stable of memebers including AOL, Kodak, Oracle, Fujitsu, Verizon, Yahoo and others.

There are several good resources on the web that are acting as clearinghouses for information that can be drawn upon as resources in this fight. Notably are TWikIWeThey , the Open Source Initiative , the Free Software Foundation.

Numerous weblogs are available as resources most notably Groklaw.
Pam has amassed an incredible wealth of links and facts surrounding the SCO v IBM issue. Another good site for legal info is the Daily Whirl which is a legal blog site index devoted to lawyers for lawyers covering among other subjects, copyright. GrepLaw and A Copy Fighter's Musings are two good places to start.

Finally, for those of you who want to develop good arguments against intellectual monopolies visit Boldrin and Levine's, Intellectual Property Page .

I think it's strange that people haven't remembered that GNU is a religion, and it's name is EMACS. As a vi user myself, I've never fallen into the path of righteousness, but those who seek an approved set of morals may find it here. Those who seek immediate repentance may pay their penance here.

I think it's strange that people haven't remembered that GNU is a religion, and it's name is EMACS. As a vi user myself, I've never fallen into the path of righteousness, but those who seek an approved set of morals may find it here. Those who seek immediate repentance may pay their penance here.

On this page, the second bullet says "It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code." This alone would make APSL GPL-incompatible.

The government concerns itself with the actual well-being of the citizens of the U.S.

GNU, on the other hand, consists of a loosely-associated group of zealots who run around yelling at people who don't use their name in vain. Unless you speak their language and laugh at their woefully outdated jokes, they judge you to be unworthy.

In short: the U.S. government matters. GNU does not.

The government concerns itself with the actual well-being of the citizens of the U.S.

GNU, on the other hand, consists of a loosely-associated group of zealots who run around yelling at people who don't use their name in vain. Unless you speak their language and laugh at their woefully outdated jokes, they judge you to be unworthy.

In short: the U.S. government matters. GNU does not.

"Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do. "

No; it's still GPL-incompatible. I am not convinced, however, that GPL-incompatibility is in any stretch a black mark on any license.

GPL compatibility is like a one-way gift. You bow to the "all-GPL" crowd by allowing them to use your code on their terms, but they don't reciprocate by giving you the right to use their code on your terms.

I don't think so, no. According to the FSF, the APSL is free but not GPL-compatible.

GNU thinks its better than the first, they still dont like it (they are quite picky). Read here.

Easy. Source distribution should be optional. If I recommend a free piece of software to somebody in the windows world I want it to come in one downloadable file, with an installer with lots of dialogue boxes.

this was moderated as Insightful? Funny at the most if it was cynical humour :) Anyway, for those that don't even know what's Free Software and could be fooled by such a statement, here's a short piece of information:

Check the link, but in short, any software which is licensed in such a way that you are free to: 0. run the program, for any purpose; 1. study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (you need source code for this); 2. redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor; and finally 3. improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (you need source code for this) then that said software is Free Software.

The GNU GPL, the most applied Free Software license allows you to do all that, but if you give copies, wether modified or not, the very same rights you have, you have to share.

dmorin is obviously confusing the GNU GPL with Free Software in general, which is one common mistake. There's a lot of Free Software that is not GPL'ed. Click here for a detailed analysis of Free Software licenses, GPL compatible and incompatible, and of non-Free Software licenses..

Many distributions distribute source code alongside the binaries because that's the easiest (and also the cheapest) way to comply with the terms of many Free Software licenses (namely that you need the code to be able to exercise your freedoms properly), but I'd say that most non technical users won't even touch a line of code (leaving the work for the geek friend or consultant).

Installing software can be as hard as typing: apt-get install ThisProgram (under Debian GNU/Linux), which will automatize the process of finding any unsatisfied dependencies and installing all you'll need for running ThisProgram. In some cases, it even suggests other additional optional packages that will improve ThisProgram's capabilities.

Now compare with: download; double click; pass through a lot of PITA dialogs (get some options wrong by the way); then maybe reboot.

Not funny at all :)

Don't take it wrong, it's a common mistake. But I hope I was clear enough.

Easy. Source distribution should be optional. If I recommend a free piece of software to somebody in the windows world I want it to come in one downloadable file, with an installer with lots of dialogue boxes.

this was moderated as Insightful? Funny at the most if it was cynical humour :) Anyway, for those that don't even know what's Free Software and could be fooled by such a statement, here's a short piece of information:

Check the link, but in short, any software which is licensed in such a way that you are free to: 0. run the program, for any purpose; 1. study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (you need source code for this); 2. redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor; and finally 3. improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (you need source code for this) then that said software is Free Software.

The GNU GPL, the most applied Free Software license allows you to do all that, but if you give copies, wether modified or not, the very same rights you have, you have to share.

dmorin is obviously confusing the GNU GPL with Free Software in general, which is one common mistake. There's a lot of Free Software that is not GPL'ed. Click here for a detailed analysis of Free Software licenses, GPL compatible and incompatible, and of non-Free Software licenses..

Many distributions distribute source code alongside the binaries because that's the easiest (and also the cheapest) way to comply with the terms of many Free Software licenses (namely that you need the code to be able to exercise your freedoms properly), but I'd say that most non technical users won't even touch a line of code (leaving the work for the geek friend or consultant).

Installing software can be as hard as typing: apt-get install ThisProgram (under Debian GNU/Linux), which will automatize the process of finding any unsatisfied dependencies and installing all you'll need for running ThisProgram. In some cases, it even suggests other additional optional packages that will improve ThisProgram's capabilities.

Now compare with: download; double click; pass through a lot of PITA dialogs (get some options wrong by the way); then maybe reboot.

Not funny at all :)

Don't take it wrong, it's a common mistake. But I hope I was clear enough.

That's an interesting tidbit... and here's part of section 7 the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html:

"... If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program...."

If you read the text like a conniving a$$hole, then maybe SCO has something here.

When the GPL talks very specifically about distribution, not usage. With the kind of stealthy patents which are out there, like Gif and MP3, this may be intentional to protect the author or distributor of original works from being trapped by the GPL between copyright violation and patent violations.

This may be how SCO is arguing that even though they are distributing Linux, they can still encumbur it with patents regarding its usage.

But to the best of my knowledge, SCO has been rattling on about copyright and trade secret, not patents.

with 1 CPU $699

Yeah, I don't like that licensing scheme. I like their other one much better. You see, it's this new thing called the GPL. I know you're all skeptical, but it's really a cool license, and the price is much better. SCO may try to hold you to those terms and make you give out modifications that you make to anyone that you give binaries to, though so be careful! ;-)

SCO employee is given the brush off in GCC list by RedHat employee

GCC list: SCO systems and 'Target Deprecation'

SCO employee is given the brush off in GCC list by RedHat employee

GCC list: SCO systems and 'Target Deprecation'

Does linux have anything remotely resembling .Net? Other than mono, of course.

You mean, somthing like dotGNU?

> Gotta love how they don't link to project Gutenberg on the books page. :D

Nor do they link to free-as-in-speech software sites like SourceForge, Savannah or TuxFamily. I presume they've seen those are dangerous terrorists advocating - horror ! - sharing and cooperation. Even when they want to show a human face, the MPAA & Co. are pretty transparent...

Here's a corrected version:

1. Sell free software (+ $1,000,000,000)
2. Send the invoice (- $0.35)
3. Get the check (check for $1,000,000,000)
4. Go to the bank (- $gas)
5. Pay my bills
6. Check bounces
7. ???
8. Profit!

Its stated purpose is (or was) to undermine unjust and immoral copyright laws.

This is probably wandering away from the topic at hand, but your statements are rather compelling. I've never heard such a claim before, and a quick Google revealed no results. Reading the frequently asked questions at Gnu's website didn't reveal such a vewipoint either.

I've always been told that the reasoning behind the GPL was to insure that code once in the public domain would never disappear and become 'lost'. It's happened time and again. Freely produced code gets developed by a group, becomes the defacto standard, and then the group disolves. Spurious patches are added, but there is no organized project behind it. Then some company picks up the software, gets investment, and starts developing oft requested features. Soon, they're far in the lead of the free version that no one develops anymore, and they charge a bundle because they've become the new de facto standard.

This situation would exist with the proposed scheme, but only on a grander scale. Since copyrighted works would suddenly become so much less valuable, people would be even more reluctant to release code. (Let alone other works.) Further, the GPL'ed code would be public domain in two years. At that point, a private company can take the code, start making improvements to it, keep it all closed source, tight lock and key, and start making a bundle. Is this perhaps a good thing? Perhaps, but I don't think so. That company wouldn't be anywhere if it weren't first for the great effort put into the initial development, and those developers deserve to get something back for their work.

When I release code under the GPL, my intention is not one of improving the economy and propping up new entrepreneurships. My intent is to make an improvement which benefits others and which will likely come back to benefit me. As I see it, the GPL isn't about good morals as much as it is a certain amount about well-intentioned greed.

Its stated purpose is (or was) to undermine unjust and immoral copyright laws.

This is probably wandering away from the topic at hand, but your statements are rather compelling. I've never heard such a claim before, and a quick Google revealed no results. Reading the frequently asked questions at Gnu's website didn't reveal such a vewipoint either.

I've always been told that the reasoning behind the GPL was to insure that code once in the public domain would never disappear and become 'lost'. It's happened time and again. Freely produced code gets developed by a group, becomes the defacto standard, and then the group disolves. Spurious patches are added, but there is no organized project behind it. Then some company picks up the software, gets investment, and starts developing oft requested features. Soon, they're far in the lead of the free version that no one develops anymore, and they charge a bundle because they've become the new de facto standard.

This situation would exist with the proposed scheme, but only on a grander scale. Since copyrighted works would suddenly become so much less valuable, people would be even more reluctant to release code. (Let alone other works.) Further, the GPL'ed code would be public domain in two years. At that point, a private company can take the code, start making improvements to it, keep it all closed source, tight lock and key, and start making a bundle. Is this perhaps a good thing? Perhaps, but I don't think so. That company wouldn't be anywhere if it weren't first for the great effort put into the initial development, and those developers deserve to get something back for their work.

When I release code under the GPL, my intention is not one of improving the economy and propping up new entrepreneurships. My intent is to make an improvement which benefits others and which will likely come back to benefit me. As I see it, the GPL isn't about good morals as much as it is a certain amount about well-intentioned greed.

Here it is, straight from the GNU's mouth:

"APSL version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a license that would qualify."

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

With this proviso:

This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for your software.

(Darwin is not yet under APSL 2.0

Never caught the purpose of this 'HURD' thingy though. Isn't that some hardcore Stallman stuff?

I'm sure a lot of people thought the same about Linux when it started. It does provide the same functionality as other Unix like systems, but it is based on a different design philosophy. It is completly non-monolithic

Almost everything is running in userspace as a server, (except for the microkernel), it promises greater scalability through its massively multithreaded and highly granular design.

Yeah, it is Stallman's concept and part of his project, but it is different enough from everything else out there to be significant.

Check out the Debian Gnu/Hurd for a distribution, and the GNU Hurd page for some docs.

In fact, in your scenario, you're dead wrong. All the food company needs to do is have a performer who's willing to work for them play your song per the compulsory license. Using your song in their ad without your permission is entirely legal even during the copyright term.

No. Only every time you want a copyright in it [ must you spend money and waste your time completing some registration process]. Do you seriously care about, e.g. your copyright in your /. post to which I'm replying to?

On the other hand, if I wrote a five-page article about this topic and put it up on a web site, that would be different. In this particular case, I might allow copying because I'd want as many people to see my article as possible. But copyright is still useful to me: I might use a license that doesn't allow derivative works, so no one could make it look like I said something I didn't. Perhaps I would decree that "verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved."

What I don't like about having to pay money and register copyrights is that it will be easier for those with deeper pockets to register copyrights. Copyrighting should not be a privilege reserved for the rich.

Also, consider that copyright is required for the concept of copyleft (or "share-alike," as Creative Commons calls it) to work. I think it can be argued that copylefted works are sometimes more beneficial to the public than PD works.

I don't normally flame people on Slashdot, but IMO your knee-jerk pro-authority attitude is the root cause of all our problems in England. Having people with your sort of attitude around is a real drag. The kind of things you want don't make anyone safer, they make life harder and more dangerous for everyone.

Man that really bugs me. Linux does not live or die by GNU alone. It is a system, and yes, GNU is part of that system, but so is Xfree86, so is GNOME, KDE, etc.

If SCO added code to the Linux kernel or GNU environment without distributing it, fine. If they released their changes, voluntarily or no, then according to the terms of the GPL paragraph 2(b), the modified work must be licensed under the GPL also. The GPL is quite explicit about this requirement: SCO are unable to distribute (non-SCO) Linux or GNU sources under any other copyright license. Any attempt to do so would violate paragraph 5, and make SCO liable to a criminal infringement lawsuit from the FSF.

[theory] The reason we haven't seen such a suit yet is that the FSF realize the ramifications of the above paragraph, and believe that SCO has already forfeited copyright 'protection' by distributing GNU/Linux. The FSF don't have to spend money to do anything about it, since IBM's own lawyers will raise this point in court anyway. [/theory]

This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing.

In the US at least, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. And in any case, SCO seem to have IP lawyers crawling out of the woodwork. It seems reasonable that they'd at least bother to have one of them read the copyright on works they're copying for the purpose of commercial distribution. Not to do so would be like me saying "I'm going to tape football games and add a few 3D special effects, then I'm going to replay them in public areas, and charge admission" and then pretending not to know I need written permission from the NFL and the home team.

There's only one true Longhorn.

If by "explicit exceptions in the comments" you mean using the LGPL instead of the GPL, then yes, most GNU C libraries (including glibc) do have them. I pointed out one particular GNU C library (Readline) which doesn't.

If by "explicit exceptions in the comments" you mean using the LGPL instead of the GPL, then yes, most GNU C libraries (including glibc) do have them. I pointed out one particular GNU C library (Readline) which doesn't.

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"

Nope - that bit is talking about the article subject but not relevant to the part of my post which you quoted. The relevant section would be
this one

That means you have a required library that you can't ship under gpl, or ship it's source, or treat it as system-exception library (since MS doesn't ship it with the OS) - so you can't write a GPLed app using MS C-runtime (or MFC or VB runtime or .NET runtime or...).

This usage is explicitly addressed in the GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGP LToolsForNF

Nope. If the .h file is generated, then it is not source code, according to the definition in the GPL, because it is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".

I didn't presume anything, I read the GPL license.

Specificly:

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.

Once a developer decides to use/copy/update any code under the GPL, he/she is accpecting the GPL license period. There is only one person telling how to license your copyrighted code, and that is the orginal developer of the software.

So if you don't like your code to be licensed under the GPL, go make your own.

1. A method of placing an order for an item comprising:

under control of a client system,

displaying information identifying the item; and

in response to only a single action being performed, sending a request to order the item along with an identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system;

under control of a single-action ordering component of the server system,

receiving the request;

retrieving additional information previously stored for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request; and

generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request using the retrieved additional information; and

fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the item

whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model.

The rest is either applicable to all e-commerce patents, fully implied by that statement (what, they're going to send the client a single-click button without the "single-action ordering component of the server system" to back it up?), or just useless filler ("receiving the request"? What, they're going to psychically divine the request?).

I present claims 13-26 as evidence of my "the single action is a sound generated by a user/selection using a television remote control/depressing of a key on a key pad/selecting using a pointing device/etc... all possible permutations of basic hardware and software setups" claim. (Those are quotes.)

Meanwhile, this patent is uselessly vauge because to the extent that it protects a valid innovation, it provides no details about how to implement the system. "15. The method of claim 11 wherein the displaying includes displaying an HTML document provided by the server system." may sound like a HOW-TO to you, but that's no more then a requirements specification to an engineer, it's not even the beginnings of a design, let alone a usable system.

Finally, it's uselessly vague because it presents no guidelines on how to distinguish from another potential "single-click" ordering system that does not infringe this patent. Rather then patenting a single implementation or even a single design, it patents the whole idea and that's a serious perversion of the patent system.

To summarize, that's

1. too vague to meaningfully describe an invention
2. too vague to implement to any degree at all
3. too vague to be a useful discriminant about whether something violates a patent (resulting in an excessively broad in

ok, look here then or if you are too lazy, then i quote

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
(emphasis mine)

have you checked the gcc archives to see if this change in gcc was sent to them? they dont need to do that, but i suspect they did, so that they dont need to patch future gcc versions. a lot of commerical companies use gcc, and a lot of the bug fixes are performed by those compaines and sent back to the gcc team. even apple build MacOS with gcc.

Actually, making the code available online is just fine if that's where the binaries are. See the GPL FAQ; source and binaries have to be "in the same place." I know that doesn't apply in this case, since the binaries aren't online, but as a general statement about everything GPL'ed, what you've said is not true.

First they came for the people who shared Busta Rhymes
and I did not speak out
because Busta Rhymes sucks.
Then they came for the people who shared Avril Lavigne
and I did not speak out
because Avril Lavigne sucks.
Then they came for the people who shared Incubus
and I did not speak out
because Incubus sucks.
Then they came for me
and I laughed because The Free Software Song
doesn't belong to the RIAA.

If you want GNU-Darwin background and a balanced view, ignore Pudge's "FUD" and try the following links.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2003/ 1/20/191655/929
http://www.gnu.org/brave-gnu-world/issue-25.en.htm l
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/12/01/2 028254&mode=thread

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Well GNU even considers FreeBSD non-free software because of the BSD license.

Incorrect. From The GNU License List:

[GPL-compatible Free Software Licenses]
The modified BSD license.
(Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the "General" section.)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.


[GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses]
The original BSD license.
(Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in the "UCB/LBL" section.) This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. If you want to use a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, it is much better to use the modified BSD license or the X11 license. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the original BSD license.

Basically because of the advertising clause in the original BSD license, that license is considered GPL-incompatible. GPL incompatibility basically means that you cannot incorporate code licensed under those terms into a GPL project in any way. For instance, it is technically a GPL violation to link a GPL'd program (either statically or dynamically) to OpenSSL, though many projects look the other way (gaim, however, does not look the other way there, for instance).

For example consider this from the GPL FAQ:

Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use PL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?

Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.

Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons--for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.

As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs.

This makes it pretty unclear. A Wizard is certainly "copy[ing] parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons". It sounds like Bison has an explicit exception for this case, but that's just pragmatism because other comparable tools existed.

- adam