Slashdot Mirror

folks don't really understand that they are giving their work away for free and can not reasonably expect anything in return. Not a salary, not an occasional trip, not even acknowledgement.

In one such argument, a person stated that his use of one of the BSD licenses was an "act of humility": "I ask nothing of those who use my code, except to credit me." It is rather a stretch to describe a legal demand for credit as "humility", but there is a deeper point to be considered here.

Humility is abnegating your own self interest, but you and the one who uses your code are not the only ones affected by your choice of which free software license to use for your code. 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.

Compiled applications are linked with the GCJ runtime, libgcj, which provides the core class libraries, a garbage collector, and a bytecode interpreter. libgcj can dynamically load and interpret class files, resulting in mixed compiled/interpreted applications.

i got modded "flamebait"

I didn't view it as flamebait, just an all-too-common lack of information about Gcj.

as if it were g++ modified for java syntax and linked to a java standard library, similar to the c/c++ philosophy.

Yes, that is the Gcj approach, but Gcj attempts to provide the best of both worlds including support for traditional VM-based usage models. (In fact, we would be happy to incorporate a Just-in-Time compiler into the runtime, but nobody has done so yet.)

gcj only makes native binarys from java source, INFO or byte compiled java code to run on a virtual machine. it is NOT a virtual machine.

Also GNU Classpath. Seems to me that if Redhat wants a free Java implementation, they would do well to contribute to existing effort, rather than starting yet another one.

The guys over at GNU are already working on this. The project is called Classpath, it's distributed under a modified GPL so it doesn't contaminate projects it's only linked with, and it's far along already. Most Java 2 classes have been implemented, even though they only claim to be 1.1 compliant.

>It is sad to me that a programmer capable of writing stuff like this is unable to find a job right now

It's sad, yes.

Surprising? No.

You don't catch flies with vinegar.

If he has a MAJOR attitude re-adjustment, he might find work, that's if he really _wants_ to work for another company (he doesn't seem the type, to me). But if he's working for someone else, getting $200,000 a year for it (yes, you said 6 years, but he specifically said the part he wanted the money for was his past 6 months of development of version 5.0) is simply not going to happen unless he's a programming God. And even then, it's next to impossible.

If his project is really that popular, why doesn't he start shilling himself out? He could offer consulting on his project, sell installs, sell patches / improvements to the project. I'm thinking of doing this with some open source software (that I *didn't* write, but seems somewhat unsupported) right now. It's money for the taking.

And no, he shouldn't just say he offers it and expect business to come to him. That's simply not how it works (if only it did). He needs to pound some pavement, so to speak. I don't even see his business name (if he has one) listed in his rant!

Unfortunately he's suffering from "Build it and they will come" syndrome, and "every user is a potential customer" beliefs. Time for him to do some market research and target who wants to cough up the dough, and if it is possible for that to happen while the project is free.

>That is mainly what his complaint is about.

Then he's on the wrong track. You just can't give something away for free and expect people to give you money. Even RMS explains this.

"Choosing the GPL to release the code is a deliberate act of abnegation on the part of the author(s), they are putting control directly into the hands of the users and reserving almost no rights for themselves."

Wrong. If your code doesn't use other GPLed code (or you get all the other authors permissions), you can release it under multiple liscenses. If you release it under the GPL, you can still release it under other liscenses later. You own the copyright. Distributing under the GPL doesn't give me "control" at all. I can't distribute your code under multiple liscenses. My right to distribute your copyrighted code is based on the GPL. Its simple, really, but apparently often misunderstood. If you are really releasing under the GPL, I recommend you actually read it.

It's constantly amazing to me too how many of the Gnu-Uber-Alles folks don't really understand that they are [placing their work in the public domain] ...

Hold on a minute ... free software, whether GPL, BSD License, Artistic License or whatever, is NOT public domain IP. The term "public domain" refers to works that are UNOWNED. The fact that a piece of software is released under ANY license takes it out of the public domain by definition. It is a copyrighted work just like any proprietary software package is and the license defines the scope of the permissions the author gives to you when he releases it.

and can not reasonably expect anything in return. Not a salary, not an occasional trip, not even acknowledgement. [Public means public], ...

and blue means blue (IOW, using self-reference in an argument means nothing), but "free software" doews NOT mean "public domain." If all the FSF was promoting was public domain software, there would be no NEED for the GPL.

... you can't expect jack in return. Those are the terms you choose when you use the GPL!

I don't believe anybody has said "the world owes FOSS developers a living ... " If they did, I must have missed it, but overall I agree with your statement. The primary reward one is entitled to for working on an FOSS project is intangible. If Red Hat hires you to work on Linux 8/5, that's gravy.

Feeling otherwise really is just feeling proprietary, like the fruits of your work is your property and you can expect something in return.

If I write software and publish it (for free or otherwise) under a license of ANY kind you better believe that it's my property. That's explicitly stated in the "Title block" that good programming practice requires me to put at the top of each function I code up. When I type "Copyright <ME&gt, <YEAR> that has as much legal effect as a cattle rancher branding his newborn calves.

Sorry, that's not what the GPL is about, the GPL is about giving up any control you have over how the result is used or how (or whether) you are compensated (beyond the GPL).

You apparently have not read ANY of the FSF's position papers on the politics and philosophy of the GPL and the Free Software Movement. The GPL exists to allow people who WANT to develop software and give it away to do so without fear of some corporation snapping it up, including it a closed-source product (in essence stealing their work without compensation) and making money off of it. The GPL does not require you to release your code for free or even to release it at all! (I am talking about original code here, NOT modified code) It specifies that anyone to whom you choose to release it will have the write to redistribute, modify, copy, etc. the code and if they choose to distribute the original code and/or any modifications they may have made, then they MUST do so under the GPL. The GPL exists to protect the rights of creators to determine the fate of their work.

The "[publicdom (the grammar fairy just died)]" isn't for the creator of the new work, [it]

You are correct sir! ... but you keep forgetting that licensed software is NOT public domain software. If you think otherwise, just check up on the record of enforcement of the GPL here, and here. The

It's constantly amazing to me too how many of the Gnu-Uber-Alles folks don't really understand that they are [placing their work in the public domain] ...

Hold on a minute ... free software, whether GPL, BSD License, Artistic License or whatever, is NOT public domain IP. The term "public domain" refers to works that are UNOWNED. The fact that a piece of software is released under ANY license takes it out of the public domain by definition. It is a copyrighted work just like any proprietary software package is and the license defines the scope of the permissions the author gives to you when he releases it.

and can not reasonably expect anything in return. Not a salary, not an occasional trip, not even acknowledgement. [Public means public], ...

and blue means blue (IOW, using self-reference in an argument means nothing), but "free software" doews NOT mean "public domain." If all the FSF was promoting was public domain software, there would be no NEED for the GPL.

... you can't expect jack in return. Those are the terms you choose when you use the GPL!

I don't believe anybody has said "the world owes FOSS developers a living ... " If they did, I must have missed it, but overall I agree with your statement. The primary reward one is entitled to for working on an FOSS project is intangible. If Red Hat hires you to work on Linux 8/5, that's gravy.

Feeling otherwise really is just feeling proprietary, like the fruits of your work is your property and you can expect something in return.

If I write software and publish it (for free or otherwise) under a license of ANY kind you better believe that it's my property. That's explicitly stated in the "Title block" that good programming practice requires me to put at the top of each function I code up. When I type "Copyright <ME&gt, <YEAR> that has as much legal effect as a cattle rancher branding his newborn calves.

Sorry, that's not what the GPL is about, the GPL is about giving up any control you have over how the result is used or how (or whether) you are compensated (beyond the GPL).

You apparently have not read ANY of the FSF's position papers on the politics and philosophy of the GPL and the Free Software Movement. The GPL exists to allow people who WANT to develop software and give it away to do so without fear of some corporation snapping it up, including it a closed-source product (in essence stealing their work without compensation) and making money off of it. The GPL does not require you to release your code for free or even to release it at all! (I am talking about original code here, NOT modified code) It specifies that anyone to whom you choose to release it will have the write to redistribute, modify, copy, etc. the code and if they choose to distribute the original code and/or any modifications they may have made, then they MUST do so under the GPL. The GPL exists to protect the rights of creators to determine the fate of their work.

The "[publicdom (the grammar fairy just died)]" isn't for the creator of the new work, [it]

You are correct sir! ... but you keep forgetting that licensed software is NOT public domain software. If you think otherwise, just check up on the record of enforcement of the GPL here, and here. The

It's constantly amazing to me too how many of the Gnu-Uber-Alles folks don't really understand that they are [placing their work in the public domain] ...

Hold on a minute ... free software, whether GPL, BSD License, Artistic License or whatever, is NOT public domain IP. The term "public domain" refers to works that are UNOWNED. The fact that a piece of software is released under ANY license takes it out of the public domain by definition. It is a copyrighted work just like any proprietary software package is and the license defines the scope of the permissions the author gives to you when he releases it.

and can not reasonably expect anything in return. Not a salary, not an occasional trip, not even acknowledgement. [Public means public], ...

and blue means blue (IOW, using self-reference in an argument means nothing), but "free software" doews NOT mean "public domain." If all the FSF was promoting was public domain software, there would be no NEED for the GPL.

... you can't expect jack in return. Those are the terms you choose when you use the GPL!

I don't believe anybody has said "the world owes FOSS developers a living ... " If they did, I must have missed it, but overall I agree with your statement. The primary reward one is entitled to for working on an FOSS project is intangible. If Red Hat hires you to work on Linux 8/5, that's gravy.

Feeling otherwise really is just feeling proprietary, like the fruits of your work is your property and you can expect something in return.

If I write software and publish it (for free or otherwise) under a license of ANY kind you better believe that it's my property. That's explicitly stated in the "Title block" that good programming practice requires me to put at the top of each function I code up. When I type "Copyright <ME&gt, <YEAR> that has as much legal effect as a cattle rancher branding his newborn calves.

Sorry, that's not what the GPL is about, the GPL is about giving up any control you have over how the result is used or how (or whether) you are compensated (beyond the GPL).

You apparently have not read ANY of the FSF's position papers on the politics and philosophy of the GPL and the Free Software Movement. The GPL exists to allow people who WANT to develop software and give it away to do so without fear of some corporation snapping it up, including it a closed-source product (in essence stealing their work without compensation) and making money off of it. The GPL does not require you to release your code for free or even to release it at all! (I am talking about original code here, NOT modified code) It specifies that anyone to whom you choose to release it will have the write to redistribute, modify, copy, etc. the code and if they choose to distribute the original code and/or any modifications they may have made, then they MUST do so under the GPL. The GPL exists to protect the rights of creators to determine the fate of their work.

The "[publicdom (the grammar fairy just died)]" isn't for the creator of the new work, [it]

You are correct sir! ... but you keep forgetting that licensed software is NOT public domain software. If you think otherwise, just check up on the record of enforcement of the GPL here, and here. The

yes, now that linux has caught on, big corporations are contributing (!!!), but they live by and clear the same rules. but linux is as much about community as it is about computering.

I sure am glad that I switched to BSD.

Phffft. BSD is sooooo 20th century. I switched to GNU/HURD, a new OS for a new century.

...you might consider reading a dictionary and getting some insight about the newspeak invented only for one reason: to make copyright infringement look like a crime to ignorant public. Think about it. Then read this. Then think about it once more. Now you should know that my apparently funny and humorous words were indeed very sad.

Second, FreeCraft is NOT an attempt to copy a game. If the FreeCraft developers wanted a copy of Warcraft they would have bought a copy. That's not the point. FreeCraft is an attempt to make an equivalent game that is free software.

It's people like you who are trying (and failing miserably) to ruin the GNU operating system (specifically GNU/Linux). If you still don't understand why we create these programs, check out www.fsf.org.

warcraft II is considered intellectual property,

Don't use the term "intellectual property" when you're making specific arguments. See GNU's page on why. Specifically, talk about copyrights, patents, or trademarks; those three things are all that will hold up in a court.

WarCraft II is a lot of things. In one sense, it's the set of rules that define the gameplay. In this sense, FreeCraft is the same as WarCraft. But this set of rules is not copyrightable. When Xerox invented the mouse, they made a rule that when the mouse moves towards the back of the desk, the cursor goes up. But that rule is not copyrightable. Some may feel that it is patentable, but nobody is asserting there are patents on WarCraft II's code that FreeCraft violated.

I said WC2 is many things. Besides being a set of rules, it's also the code that implements those rules. That is copyrightable. Are you asserting that FreeCraft copied the WC2 code?

Also, WC2 is the code, coupled with maps, graphics, music, manual, box, etc. I'm not sure if maps are copyrightable. (Written renderings of maps are, but I don't know about the maps in the abstract sense.) Graphics and music are copyrightable. The OP talked about the copied graphics, but that was FC reading legitimately-purchased WC2 graphics. The manual, box art, and a lot of the etc. is copyrightable, but nobody is claiming that was copied.

Yeah, graphics are the only things they didn't copy.

They also didn't copy the CODE. The code is copyrightable. The graphics are copyrightable. The music is copyrightable. The manual is copyrightable. The idea of the game, the look-and-feel, isn't.

In 1981, a little company called Sierra On-Line (a much different company in those days) wrote a game called Jawbreaker. Atari said that it captured the "magic of Pac-Man", and was therefore a violation of their copyright. Read about it. Then read about later similar suits. Learn.

Re-created... Identically. ...

Not textually identically (the code is different), but functionally identically. Like Linux copying Unix's functionality, AMD copying Intel's functionality, Amdahl and later Compaq copying IBM's functionality.

I personally find A Portrait of J. Random Hacker by Eric Raymond, especially the part entitled Weaknesses of the Hacker Personality, very interesting. A Portrait of the Hacker as a Young Man, from Free as in Freedom by Sam Williams is also certainly worth suggesting. Most of people don't know that, but Richard Stallman, the author of GNU, considers himself afflicted, to some degree, by autism, which makes it difficult for him to interact with people. I can honestly say I understand him.

However, given their attitude towards GIF images, my reply makes sexcellent sense.

Adobe could not be cool with a long tradition of GNU tools using mangled names of products for their GNU "clones."

Just a few:
Linux ~= Unix - Unix was a mangled name for Multix, btw.
gawk ~= awk - There are so many similarly-named command-line utilities that Stallman had a hand in that I don't dare try to list them. I think most of them even kept the names of the original Unix programs with little/no hassle.
KOffice ~= M$ Office - This is the suite that KIllustrator/Kugar belongs to. Boy, "office" is a word about as worthy of trademark as "illustrator." Wait, was that Microsoft being tolerant of trademarks!? I think so. Adobe is more viscious that M$?
KWord ~= M$ Word - more from KOffice suite.
Kivio ~= M$ Visio - KOffice suite again.
mrproject ~= M$ Project
AbiWord ~= M$ Word
KTron ~= Tron (the movie) - KDE group again. Threw this package in there to show that even the MPAA and Disney are tolerant (but not in all cases). Then again, Tron 2.0 is coming up, so maybe attention will come back.

Adobe could not be cool with a long tradition of GNU tools using mangled names of products for their GNU "clones."

Just a few:
Linux ~= Unix - Unix was a mangled name for Multix, btw.
gawk ~= awk - There are so many similarly-named command-line utilities that Stallman had a hand in that I don't dare try to list them. I think most of them even kept the names of the original Unix programs with little/no hassle.
KOffice ~= M$ Office - This is the suite that KIllustrator/Kugar belongs to. Boy, "office" is a word about as worthy of trademark as "illustrator." Wait, was that Microsoft being tolerant of trademarks!? I think so. Adobe is more viscious that M$?
KWord ~= M$ Word - more from KOffice suite.
Kivio ~= M$ Visio - KOffice suite again.
mrproject ~= M$ Project
AbiWord ~= M$ Word
KTron ~= Tron (the movie) - KDE group again. Threw this package in there to show that even the MPAA and Disney are tolerant (but not in all cases). Then again, Tron 2.0 is coming up, so maybe attention will come back.

You're absolutely right. A business can charge for / sell GPL software, providing that it also supplies the source code.

Then again, you're absolutely wrong. The GPL guarantees the receiver the right of distribution. See Section 3 of the GPL.

So once you've sold ONE copy, the buyer can resell or give away as many copies as (s)he wants. Have A Nice Day.

I hope this page doesn't go away. I hope it is updated to the current state of the relevant U.S. patents on the LZW algorithm held by IBM and Unisys.

I hope the page doesn't go away because it makes a number of other points which are still valid including:

• Patent infringement can be charged against users of programs, not just the developers or distributors.
• PNG is technically superior (even if support for it is less popular) and we should do what we can to encourage its use.
• The reason why the GNU.org web pages don't use GIFs should apply to other patented algorithms as well (I'd be surprised to see GNU.org distributing an MP3 right now, for instance)

And I'm sure there are plenty of other valid observations. I consider that page to be a concise summary of some level-headed thinking on the subject of (what has come to be known as) software patents. It's often easier to point to that page than to get someone to listen to the speech on software patents or to read the entire transcript of the speech simply because the GIF page is shorter (but less comprehensive).

I hope this page doesn't go away. I hope it is updated to the current state of the relevant U.S. patents on the LZW algorithm held by IBM and Unisys.

I hope the page doesn't go away because it makes a number of other points which are still valid including:

• Patent infringement can be charged against users of programs, not just the developers or distributors.
• PNG is technically superior (even if support for it is less popular) and we should do what we can to encourage its use.
• The reason why the GNU.org web pages don't use GIFs should apply to other patented algorithms as well (I'd be surprised to see GNU.org distributing an MP3 right now, for instance)

And I'm sure there are plenty of other valid observations. I consider that page to be a concise summary of some level-headed thinking on the subject of (what has come to be known as) software patents. It's often easier to point to that page than to get someone to listen to the speech on software patents or to read the entire transcript of the speech simply because the GIF page is shorter (but less comprehensive).

Actually, the grandparent post was not a troll, but you rightly expressed a major problem the FSF has identified in a class of licenses called "copyleft". Unfortunately you have used terminology that suggests you misunderstand the philosophical basis of the movements you refer to.

Saying "The intent of GPL is to make sure that open code stays that way" can lead to confusion because you're talking about the GNU General Public License--a product of the Free Software movement, not the Open Source movement. The FSF wrote the GNU GPL over a decade before the Open Source movement began. More recently, they also wrote a description of troublesome language (including phrases such as "closed" source) so people won't confuse the goals of the Open Source movement with those of the Free Software movement.

OK, it doesn't specifically say "all published software should be free" in the license itself, but it is stated here and this is echoed in the preamble, only the wording is different. In any event - the preamble says it all. And even if it does make some interesting claims about the sad state of affairs with respect to US patents and what not - when I write and give away software that I think may be useful to others I do not intend the end user to be subjected to any kind of (arguably subjective) statement such as "any free program is threatened constantly by software patents". If I feel strongly about it I can contact my government or whatever, but I do not want my work to carry political messages like this, nor do I like to use anyone else's work that does (even if I agree with it).

From IBM's own mouth, they make over 80% of their revenues on custom integrations and support, which means that GPL software is a good choice from their perspective. Proprietary software wouldn't make them much more money.

There's probably at least a little wariness of the licensing mess they could get into doing integrations. A lot of integration software is container-based, like an application server; you deploy your program into another piece of software that provides application services.

Since the GPL FAQ regards plugins as covered by the GPL, it doesn't take much of a stretch to regard software deployed in a GPL'd container as also covered by the GPL. (The JBoss application server is LGPL'd, I would assume for that very reason.)

Given that, as a private company specialising in a particular vertical domain such as medicine or finance, you may wish to retain the domain knowledge encoded in your software for later resale, having it GPL'd by default may not thrill you.

All of this is not an argument not to use open-source or GPL'd software by default, of course. But it does suggest that integration and vertical application vendors might be more than a little wary of the full GPL where it applies to container-like software.

i'm a pro, so they say, i'm a pro, dontcha know?
spread my fertilizer all 'round, sit back, watch things grow.
mostly crabgrass, bayobabs, the occasional lemon tree.
my clients, bless their ignorance, dig lifetime dependency.

i write code, so they say, i write code, heads explode!
actually, spend all day grepping the Net, node by node.
paint on a nice splashscreen for those who would pay me,
slap on a license to bill. (get it? haha! i just slay me!)

what's this newfangled free software jazz i hear about?
why do i have to swear fealty to some borg just to shut it out?
can't i just continue to shovel my fetid wares?
one hand in the client's purse, one on her private hairs?

reality bites, gotta relate, reality bites, damn this shite!
who was the idiot who taught me that thought was like sight?
i close my eyes yet still gardens of others seem to thrive.
i dose on lies yet still truth and freedom will not dive.

If you actually go to the Free Software Foundation's notes on this topic by RMS and read them, you will answer your own question.

Basically if it is new functionality, you are encouraged to make it GPL. If it is existing functionality, you should use LGPL so that it can be linked into non-Free aplications.

Yet another case of RTFM.

frob

It would also be nice if we could get someone with a boom box pumping out "the Free Software song."

Brilliant! Pipe in Richard Stallman's rendition at 140 decibels! That ought to be far more effective in getting the SCO weasels to surrender than when the BATF blasted David Koresh and the Branch Davidians with nonstop recordings of Tibetan monks chanting.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

Other, less rigorous open or public domain works may have problems.

hopefully theyll put virtual terminals back in Solaris10

In the meantime Screen is your friend.

Grandparent wanted free software. Plan 9 doesn't count. It prohibits private modification. It requires people outside the USA to obey USA export controls. It seems to prohibit distributing some component programs without distributing the whole thing.

In addition, the license's retaliation clause effectively grants all Plan 9 contributors a license to every copyright that a user owns. For example, if an employee of The Walt Disney Company were to install Plan 9, Lucent would be allowed to hold a Disney DVD copying party. This may seem like a good thing at first, but imagine this: If an employee of the Free Software Foundation were to install Plan 9, Lucent would be able to distribute every GNU program as proprietary software.

So it's patents now? SCO don't have any patents that are relevant. If they did, they would have included reference to them in their lawsuit. This is premium-quality BS. The "issue" that SCO has is that IBM and other UNIX licensees have been GPL-ing and submitting stuff that SCO claims is their intellectual property. If this is what has been happening, that cannot be Torvalds' fault. The fault (if any) lies with the submitters. It's not unreasonable for Torvalds to assume that if a patch comes from IBM that IBM has the right to submit it.

Essentially, what SCO is now saying is that if you license UNIX, any ideas that you (perfectly legally) incorporate into your version of Unix belong to SCO, because... well because of course, you couldn't have created it without SCO's huge contribution. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call "shenanigans" at this point.

Incidentally, I would point to this link, where the FSF argue that the term "intellectual property" is not useful - because it can be used by disreputable organizations (like SCO for example) to confuse matters relating to copyright, patents, trade secrets etc.

My name is Mike, and I thank you for having the courage to come forward with your problem.

The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

Bravo! [clapping]

Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system)

I'm sensing anger here, but I feel it is a bit misplaced. Linux does support Token Ring generally. Unlike FAT32, ext2 does not need defragmentation. Perhaps you should confer with a support group that discusses your distro?

Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.

Hold on a second, if I understand you correctly, you are concerned that under the GPL which states that you have to release the source code of your modifications if you plan to distribute the binaries of your code, you will have to release your source code. But at the same time, you don't plan on distributing any code outside of the company. I don't understand your confusion, my son, but if you never plan on releasing anything outside of your company, you never need to worry about releasing the source code.

I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it.

Damn it! You were doing so well. Why did you fall off the wagon. Was it me? Did the community not do enough to support you?

I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

INTERVENTION! Here's some reading material for you. Open source principles,GPL, and where you can find help. Please read them and when you're ready, you can rejoin the group.

Personally, I think it's great that software is Open Source by OSI's definition, but 9 times of 10 I prefer Free Software over Open Source.

i wonder if this new revised license has fixed any of those problems?

here is the statement from RMS.

When I saw the announcement that the Plan 9 software had been released as "open source", I wondered whether it might be free software as well. After studying the license, my conclusion was that it is not free; the license contains several restrictions that are totally unacceptable for the Free Software Movement. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.)

I am not a supporter of the Open Source Movement, but I was glad when one of their leaders told me they don't consider the license acceptable either. When the developers of Plan 9 describe it as "open source", they are altering the meaning of that term and thus spreading confusion. (The term "open source" is widely misunderstood; see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/philosophy/free-software-fo r-freedom.html

Here is a list of the problems that I found in the Plan 9 license. Some provisions restrict the Plan 9 software so that it is clearly non-free; others are just extremely obnoxious.

First, here are the provisions that make the software non-free.

You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.

This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a basic right.

and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media.

This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.

Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement,

This seems to say that when you redistribute you must insist on a contract with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.

1. The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall terminate automatically if (i) You fail to comply with all of the terms and conditions herein; or (ii) You initiate or participate in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor and/or another Contributor.

This seemed reasonable to me at first glance, but later I realized that it goes too far. A retaliation clause like this would be legitimate if it were limited to patents, but this one is not. It would mean that if Lucent or some other contributor violates the license of your GPL-covered free software package, and you try to enforce that license, you would lose the right to use the Plan 9 code.

You agree that, if you export or re-export the Licensed Software or any modifications to it, You are responsible for compliance with the United States Export Administration Regulations and hereby indemnify the Original Contributor and all other Contributors for any liability incurred as a result.

It is unacceptable for a license to require compliance with US export control regulations. Laws being what they are, these regulations apply in certain situations regardless of whether they are mentioned in a license; however, requiring them as a license condition can extend their reach to people and activities outside the US government's jurisdiction, and that is definitely wro

The availability of working code is a pitfall, to be sure. You can mitigate these risks by familiarizing yourself with the GNU Coding Standards and Information For Maintainers of GNU Software.

The availability of working code is a pitfall, to be sure. You can mitigate these risks by familiarizing yourself with the GNU Coding Standards and Information For Maintainers of GNU Software.

The real question is if governement agencies should be allowed to use expensive licensed software for which there is a viable alternative in the OS/FS community (read without paying required license fees). I think we have since long passed the time that we should believe that e.g running GNU/Linux in combination with OOo is at least as expensive as well know commercial products and can dismiss these statements as FUD.

I for one think they should not buy those products, though it is not any better where I live. In those cases, they are not only throwing our hardly earned (and often reluctantly paid) tax money out the window, which could be used for far better alternatives, they are also increasing the power of a monopolist, a self fulfulling prophecy.

I think this is the strength of the Australian proposal and the ISC tries to oppose (instead of using the money 'equally' (?) for the own population, it would now go to a few companies, from which a lot of them are foreign (not Australian).

"So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent 'touching up' Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors."

Always ask your lawyer before you sign the deal. Besides, "making the changes freely available" means giving people the source code if you give them the binaries. You don't have to give the binaries or source to anyone except the investment firm. The GPL also makes it clear that you and the investment firm can separately agree that they will not redistribute the binaries or code.

"Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable."

Replace your lawyer--he can't read. The GPL does not require you to license things under the GPL simply because they were compiled with gcc.

If you don't believe me, read it yourself.

And stop trolling.

It's already been used to decode HDTV signals.

Slashdot also covered this technology a couple years ago.

A receiver with a wideband IF output (ie just about any ham receiver), a PC, and a soundcard. That ain't so special; some of you need to free your minds, much less free your radios.

In the GNU Coding Standards, there are a couple of paragraphs about the issue of using/referring to Unix code, as well as accepting code from other contributors whose sources (no pun intended) are unclear. The necessity of being extremely careful with these things is now becoming painfully clear...

I hate to be anal about this, but (and here it comes) not all of us believe in "Intellectual Property". Of course, you might not have the same issues as the Free Software guys, but they actually started the whole scene -- not the OSS guys, so I hope that letter was very clear.

If SCO has the examples, why can't they show it? Well, they claim that the Linux-community is going to remove this code then. However, it would not be a problem. They could for example buy a distro, with kernel sources, that would proove that the code was there. And I don't think it in the Linux-community is able to remove the code without large amounts of email discussing the topic. Furthermore, for me at least, it would be a hard stroke to get to know that Linux ain't as free as they claim. When I use a gpl'd product, I suppose it to be free. As GNU says, software should be thrusted.

stay out of management, dude. screen scraping job: one programmer, one assistent, one month delivery, one month customer training (or alternatively, a N-year service contract). oops, i forgot, one year patent-search unless it is completely free software. :-/

Actually all the GPL does is is to forbid you from distributing closed source software.

Which the FSF, who wrote the GNU General Public License over a decade before the Open Source movement existed, asks you to call "non-free" or "proprietary" software, not "closed source". That way people don't get the wrong idea and think that their work has to do with the Open Source movement and that movement's different values.

Actually all the GPL does is is to forbid you from distributing closed source software.

Which the FSF, who wrote the GNU General Public License over a decade before the Open Source movement existed, asks you to call "non-free" or "proprietary" software, not "closed source". That way people don't get the wrong idea and think that their work has to do with the Open Source movement and that movement's different values.

Ah yes, the GIF patent. That stopped any free software using GIFs.

Your description glosses over a number of pertinant details. Unisys and IBM were both issued patents covering a compression algorithm commonly used in GIFs (U.S. patents 4,558,302 and 4,814,746, respectively). This presented a problem for those who wanted to deal in the patented algorithm because it meant there were two organizations to deal with to comply, not just one. Generally, as patent law is "harmonized", it becomes easier for corporations (who hold the vast majority of patents) to prevent the spread of Free Software worldwide.

If either IBM or Unisys decided to not issue a license to Free Software developers, issue licenses that depend on a per-unit charge, or place limits on how implementations can use the covered idea (so-called "field-of-use restrictions"), we all lose.

As BurnAllGIFs.org describes, Unisys changed the terms on licensing and can do it again. Software patents in general and this patent in particular contribute to an uncertain playing field on which to distribute software that no reasonable person would dismiss so quickly.

The MP3 patent's licensing terms don't even prohibit legal Free Software implementations - you pay a one-off licensing fee, and you're fine. There seem seem to be plenty.

That's not completely true and it doesn't accurately describe the situation in front of us now. According to mp3licensing.com, which details the licensing fees to distribute MP3 software, "[a] per unit royalty is taken on mp3/mp3PRO products and applications, such as ripping software, jukebox applications, mp3/mp3PRO-enabled CD/DVD players and portable mp3/mp3PRO players." Per-unit fees are incompatible with Free Software licensing because Free Software can be shared and modified freely, so there are no legal Free Software MP3 encoders. For decoders, one should look at the one-time license fee. The amount of money paid to Thomson depends on what is being licensed. The one-time fees start at US$50,000. How many of the programs you listed have paid the appropriate one-time fee to Thomson so they can legally distribute their programs in countries that honor U.S. software patents?

The reality is, those patents haven't killed MP3 or GIFs.

Nor were they meant to--quite to the contrary, leveraging the patents is done after the ideas described in the patents are in widespread use. Discovering a new format is patent-encumbered takes the shine off the new format. Awareness of the patents in both of the cases you talk about were raised after the public had widely used them. That's one of the ways patent holders make money. What's more socially relevant is what effect this has on the users, not some measure of popularity of a format.

RedHat received some press for removing MP3 decoding software from its GNU/Linux distribution. RedHat GNU/Linux is a very popular GNU/Linux distribution. So that means a lot of RedHat users lose unless they obtain a patent license or infringe upon Thomson's patent.

The effect on the users is what RMS' talk on this subject focuses on as well (approximately 17m into the talk, according to the transcript). RMS tells the story of a compression algorithm that was about to be used in a compression program but couldn't be used because a patent had been issued covering the very same algorithm. RMS learned of this patent a week before that program was set to debut. I doubt that is the only time a program "died before it was born" (quoting RMS' description of the program that implemented the patented algorithm).

I think you are glossing over some of the key points that make software patents so unpalatable to all but the richest businesses.with extant patents which they want to leverage against the public, or enough money so they can cross-license with the patent holder.

Multiple?

That song alone must be a pretty effective method of birth control.