Slashdot Mirror

Has anyone even tried using this?

Ah, but GCC allows you to compile c programs with C++ style comments.

That shouldn't be surprising, since C++-style comments are C99 compliant. Thus, any compiler implementing the C99 standard should support them.

3) Everyone starts using freenet!

The book review states

IP is supposed to be a "limited" monopoly.

The parent poster states

Just like anything else..... all IP isn't necessarily bad. There's a heavy anti-IP slant on Slashdot, and that's a shame.

Neither of you appear to know what you're talking about when you argue in terms of "IP" (intellectual property). I would hope that this thread would bother to distinguish between the disparate areas of law that are covered under the largely useless term "IP".

Trademarks, copyrights, and patents (just to name three such areas of law) do not cover the same things, have different histories, raise different social issues, are acquired in different ways, and offer powers that last for differing amounts of time. Sometimes the power you gain via a copyright license conflicts with an extant patent. You simply cannot think clearly about these laws if you lump them together as if they were part of a cohesive whole.

For more criticism and enlightenment on the term, read the FSF's take on "intellectual property" and listen to RMS' talks on the U.S. Patent system or read the transcript. His breakdown of the major problems with patents on algorithms used in the development of computer software (so-called "software patents") are still very relevant.

The book review states

IP is supposed to be a "limited" monopoly.

The parent poster states

Just like anything else..... all IP isn't necessarily bad. There's a heavy anti-IP slant on Slashdot, and that's a shame.

Neither of you appear to know what you're talking about when you argue in terms of "IP" (intellectual property). I would hope that this thread would bother to distinguish between the disparate areas of law that are covered under the largely useless term "IP".

Trademarks, copyrights, and patents (just to name three such areas of law) do not cover the same things, have different histories, raise different social issues, are acquired in different ways, and offer powers that last for differing amounts of time. Sometimes the power you gain via a copyright license conflicts with an extant patent. You simply cannot think clearly about these laws if you lump them together as if they were part of a cohesive whole.

For more criticism and enlightenment on the term, read the FSF's take on "intellectual property" and listen to RMS' talks on the U.S. Patent system or read the transcript. His breakdown of the major problems with patents on algorithms used in the development of computer software (so-called "software patents") are still very relevant.

Here's the other answer that's always the same: what has been done before?

For example, the instructions for copyright assignment for major contributions to libstdc++ spend much of the page discussing the "if you're employed as a programmer, here's what your employer needs to sign" situation. Look it over.

DRM Capability: Although end-users prefer not to purchase ebooks protected with DRM (Digital Rights Management), publishers are certainly interested in the DRM capability of the universal ebook format. Thus, the universal ebook format must allow inclusion of DRM protection technologies as needed.

Take 2 minutes and read this article from RMS

From the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else until the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version, but in this scenario the client will choose not to exercise that right.

By the way, JBoss is licensed under the LGPL, but the same argument applies.

To the extent that you, or your licensees under the GPL, make any modifications to, or derive (through reverse engineering or otherwise) other software products and/or functionality from, the OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities ("Modifications and/or Derivatives"), neither OpenTV nor the GPL licenses you, implicitly or otherwise, under any OpenTV patents that cover the Modifications and/or Derivatives, whether alone or in combination with the OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities.

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.

Who is AOL? Who has to approve? [...] An employee working for AOL releases code under the GPL (not talking about things done on his own time) it's under the gpl, he is a representative of the company.

GNU advices, among other things, that in order to release code under GPL, even WRITTEN ON YOUR OWN TIME, you should get a statement from your employer saying that they claim no ownership of the code.

If you write code ON COMPANY TIME, then guess what, hotshot, THE COMPANY OWNS IT. You can't do squat other than write it and debug it. You have NO RIGHTS to decide how it's licensed. You may make suggestions to your boss, who can talk to his boss who can ... you get the idea.

Understand that the decision to release anything under GPL is a COMMERCIAL decision. We (coders, geeks, slashdotters, whatever) tend to view it as a philosophical decision, but it's not.

Karmawhoring links:

• GNU Coding Standards: Keeping Free Software Free
• GNU Coding Standards: Accepting Contributions
• FAQ: Assign copyright

Who is AOL? Who has to approve? [...] An employee working for AOL releases code under the GPL (not talking about things done on his own time) it's under the gpl, he is a representative of the company.

GNU advices, among other things, that in order to release code under GPL, even WRITTEN ON YOUR OWN TIME, you should get a statement from your employer saying that they claim no ownership of the code.

If you write code ON COMPANY TIME, then guess what, hotshot, THE COMPANY OWNS IT. You can't do squat other than write it and debug it. You have NO RIGHTS to decide how it's licensed. You may make suggestions to your boss, who can talk to his boss who can ... you get the idea.

Understand that the decision to release anything under GPL is a COMMERCIAL decision. We (coders, geeks, slashdotters, whatever) tend to view it as a philosophical decision, but it's not.

Karmawhoring links:

• GNU Coding Standards: Keeping Free Software Free
• GNU Coding Standards: Accepting Contributions
• FAQ: Assign copyright

Who is AOL? Who has to approve? [...] An employee working for AOL releases code under the GPL (not talking about things done on his own time) it's under the gpl, he is a representative of the company.

GNU advices, among other things, that in order to release code under GPL, even WRITTEN ON YOUR OWN TIME, you should get a statement from your employer saying that they claim no ownership of the code.

If you write code ON COMPANY TIME, then guess what, hotshot, THE COMPANY OWNS IT. You can't do squat other than write it and debug it. You have NO RIGHTS to decide how it's licensed. You may make suggestions to your boss, who can talk to his boss who can ... you get the idea.

Understand that the decision to release anything under GPL is a COMMERCIAL decision. We (coders, geeks, slashdotters, whatever) tend to view it as a philosophical decision, but it's not.

Karmawhoring links:

• GNU Coding Standards: Keeping Free Software Free
• GNU Coding Standards: Accepting Contributions
• FAQ: Assign copyright

At any rate, in the specific case of QT, just a couple of comments - I can't see why the DoD wouldn't just go ahead and buy a commercial license anyway.

They are allegeric to paying license fees for software. Even though it's just a per-seat developer license, they're unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars for every developer who might have to edit the program in the future. Nevermind that 2 weeks of programmer labour nearly exceeds the cost of a license. Partly, this is due to capital expenditures coming from a different part of the budget than payroll. (If a manager has a programmer under him, he can't stop paying him without finding a reason to fire, or admitting that his department is overstaffed. But dollars to equip that guy can be easily diverted to other needs.)

(Obviously, the choice to buy Microsoft Windows comes from an entirely different part of the DoD than I am referring to. Paying $20 million for a giant site license doesn't feel as expensive as $1000/head, because the payment is temporaly disjoint from the installation)

The third parties reference is to a situation where you have distributed the program publically, and it's gone on from there to third parties.

Margins are much too far over to type very much more. But there's no reference to public distribution in the section on the third-party offer, or in the GPL at all. The GPL doesn't make any distinction between sending the program to a member of the public and simply making a copy. Section 3 says you can only make a copy if it is accompanied by an offer. Section 4 mentions that you "may not copy" except as described in section 3. Section 5 reminds us that section 4 is redundant, as copyright law already forbids copying software.

Obviously this can't come up if you don't do external distribution

It comes up if you make a "copy". It's the 3rd word of section 3. The GPL makes no mention of internal vs external use, or public vs private copying.

If there were such a distinction, and "external distribution" had some special meaning, then the GPL should've had some guidelines on exactly what qualifies as "external". If the Army writes a program and gives it to the Navy, is that external? Or are they both just part of the DoD organization? What about the IRS writing something to prepare your taxes, and giving it out to all payers of income tax? The "Citizens of the United States" are an organization too. (Once again, parts of the GPL FAQ resemble guidelines on this area. But they're not part of the license, and unless somehow demonstrated to be implied by the license text, they mean nothing)

I'm sure the DoD has plenty of experience with protecting secret data.

They do. It involves the Security officer removing your hard drive and locking it in his safe at night, and is far too cumbersome to apply to a mere software program. And anyway, if a GPLed program were classified as secret, GPL section 7 comes into play: "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."

Meaning that if any piece of GPL code were accidently infected with top secret data, the entire program would have to be destroyed. (The hard-drives run through shredders, or thereabouts)

but I don't think it's within his power to forbid either.

GPL section 6: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".

In SCO & Unix: a comedy of errors there is a valid point about Linux being in risk for lack of clear copyrights management.

This is an risk that the FSF has reckoned with from immemorial times by their copyright assignment policy. Linus shortsightedness disguised as pragmatism unfortunately prevented him from following it. Hopefully SCO claims will prove unfounded, but had the GNU project been more expedient with the Hurd or Linus been more careful, we wouldn't be running into such risks and FUD now.

• "Hmm, /usr/war/robotank/doc/COPYING. Seems like an interesting file, I'll take a look at it. Why, it says here, in section 3, that I can copy and distribute the Program! Hey, the kids would love to see a copy of this! I'll just email it over to them!"

• "3. You may copy and distribute the Program () in object code or executable form provided that you also do one of the following ... 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"

Clarification: The QPL is indeed a FREE SOFTWARE license, and even RMS says so. It's not GPL compatible, but that's a different matter.

FWIW, this answer is supported here in the FAQ about GPL on the GNU website. It also seems to generally cover contract staff, too.

The GPL contains no "internal use" exception.

Really? The FSF seems to disagree with you

Are you a lawyer, and if so, why is the FSF's lawyers wrong and you right?

Isn't that what automake and autoconf are for?

I had previously considered the same issue you raise here, that perhaps it'd be too complicated to write a self-contained script that could handle the tarball installation over many different system layouts. Indeed, this is, apparently, the whole point of something like RPM. However, given that the aforementioned development tools are reasonably capable of dealing with differing system layouts, and considering that such layouts aren't in a high rate of flux, the target is not as difficult to hit as you seem to suggest.

It is wholly possible for Ximian to support other non-RPM/dpkg Unix derivatives with only a modicum of effort in comparison to their "Red Carpet" edeavour. The only reason they don't is, well, because they're a bunch of lamers.

Isn't that what automake and autoconf are for?

I had previously considered the same issue you raise here, that perhaps it'd be too complicated to write a self-contained script that could handle the tarball installation over many different system layouts. Indeed, this is, apparently, the whole point of something like RPM. However, given that the aforementioned development tools are reasonably capable of dealing with differing system layouts, and considering that such layouts aren't in a high rate of flux, the target is not as difficult to hit as you seem to suggest.

It is wholly possible for Ximian to support other non-RPM/dpkg Unix derivatives with only a modicum of effort in comparison to their "Red Carpet" edeavour. The only reason they don't is, well, because they're a bunch of lamers.

"Microsoft had a head start over open source"

um, the GNU has been available since 1984.. While Windows 1.0 wasn't out until 1985. GNU had a head start, it's just sad that it took another 7 years for it to mean anything.

The GPL never requires you to post code to a public site. You only have to give it to people who recieve binaries.

Right.

When you distribute that application to fellow DoD employees, you have two choices.

• 1. Give them unlimited permission to pass out copies to whomever they want. This is a violation of security clearance, and you could be prosecuted for treason.
• 2. Forbid them from handing out copies to anyone. Doing this will violate the GPL, meaning you have broken copyright law by duplicating the software.

Umm no. As long as it doesn't leave the DoD it's not 'distribution' under the terms of the license. You don't have to do shit.

If you have trouble understanding the second point, imagine that I want to sell a modified Gimp (GPL program), and that I first require all customers to sign a promise that they won't hand out copies. Then I sell them the Gimp, along with the GPL, whose permission to re-distribute I claim has been overridden by the other promise. See how that doesn't work?

Selling the program to outside customers and simply using it in-house are two entirely different situations though. See this entry in the GPL FAQ.

The only difference between GPL and BSD in this context would be if the DoD had some reason to distribute the program in question to the public. As long as it's used exclusively in-house it doesn't matter at all.

You're a whining idiot. Please read Selling Free Software and learn the real difference between Free Software and Open Source: namely, that Open Source is designed not to raise the issue of freedom. I think freedom is important, so I advocate Free Software, not Open Source.

You're a whining idiot. Please read Selling Free Software and learn the real difference between Free Software and Open Source: namely, that Open Source is designed not to raise the issue of freedom. I think freedom is important, so I advocate Free Software, not Open Source.

Let's not forget the wonderful combination of ratpoison and screen, as detailed in a great Freshmeat article. I have been using this setup for several months on a slow laptop and found it great (once you get the hang of the keybindings, and customize them so they don't screw up Emacs). Not only does it not take any memory to speak of, but by always seeing everything full screen, you use all of your valuable laptop screen real estate.

If you are concerned over the treat of lawsuits over intellectual property then you are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.

While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.

Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option when licensing Timeline Inc's Data base technology. That license puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.

Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.

However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.

The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since SCO claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code SCO has distributed and any GPL'ed derivative, the same implicit licence and right to SCO's intellectual property the code imposes upon.

SCO has acknowledged deals with Suse and Lindows to distribute SCO's intellectual property in GPL'ed Linux, but the GPL license does not grant anyone or any organization the right to append extra terms and conditions upon the recipients of the GPL licensed source code.

It is very easy to effectively fold the current development branches of the Linux kernel and any other GPL'ed code back into SCO's distributed GPL'ed sources. This would grant the same implicit license for the infringed SCO intellectual property to the all the current development.

You are in a better legal position using the GPL'ed Linux platform and other GPL'ed software, than you are using Microsoft's or any other closed source software.

Are SmartEiffel, GNU Smalltalk, or GNU Common Lisp somehow unsuitable? Why are you seriously considering proprietary versions, regardless of price?

Are SmartEiffel, GNU Smalltalk, or GNU Common Lisp somehow unsuitable? Why are you seriously considering proprietary versions, regardless of price?

4. "...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."

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."

I've never heard of JBoss before, but it seems it will turn almost any J2SE into a J2EE. But where do I get my J2SE (a Java 2 Standard Edition, runtime environment, libraries, and compiler) so that it works correctly?

Right now, on my GNU/Linux system with a PowerPC CPU (a Macintosh), I'm running Blackdown Java (J2SE) 1.3.

Anonymous Coward wrote: It is real, effective, efficient and fit my need ;) In my case

1. Java is sometimes not real. Programs using the GUI (JFC/Swing) are not working. I can't get the latest version of Java 1.4, because its not ported to PowerPC.
2. Java is sometimes not effective. Java is my preferred programming language, and usually effective. It would help if I could use collections with generics, but once Java 1.5 is out providing this, it probably won't be ported to my platform.
3. Java is sometimes not efficient. Interpreted Java bytecodes are fast enough for me, but my platform does not provide JIT or HotSpot acceleration.

I am watching potential sources of ports (Blackdown, GNU Classpath, GCJ, and Jikes RVM) for emerging Java 1.4 or 1.5 that actually works. Until then I won't have working Java.

Anonymous Coward wrote: What MS fears the most is Linux + Java. Because it is a more powerfull that they can even provide. However in my case, working Java is an incentive for me to switch to an x86 computer with Microsoft Windows, in order to run Windows + Java.

Mickey Mouse (TM Disney) is a fictional character (trademarked), and the renditions are copyrighted. The idea of a cartoon mouse is not subject to copyright, patent of trademark. So, while you're right (IMHO, IANAL) about virtual characters (your particular design is yours), you're playing fast and loose with the legal theory.

What you patent is a method, not an idea. Ideas are not patentable. That is a key component of patent law. Similarly with copyright and trademark law. It's a very important distinction that goes to the heart of the reason these laws were established, to encourage the dissemination of both ideas and means. The idea is free from the 'getgo', and the implementation/method/rendition will become free eventually.

See also Stallman, The Definition of Free Software, which has an interesting parallelism to this!. In my own career, originally software was unpatentable, because it was composed of algorithms, which are mathematical constructs, which are proprerties of the universe that are discovered, not invented.

Also, though I don't have numbers at hand, I believe that the vast majority of patents are owned by companies - one or more actual people have to the inventors, but in most cases the patents are immediately signed over to their employers pursuant to employment agreements. After that, many are sold or transferred.

Finally, I would think that your ownership depends strongly on the contract you agreed to when you joined the game. If the game contract says the game host (or whomever) retains all rights, you're out of luck. Again, IANAL...

GCJ?
And as the 1.5 compiles to compatable byte code, can automaticly use the new 1.5 features (with the exeception of new classes.

While SCO has yet to provide any substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.

The outcome of this case puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.

Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers a safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property.

However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to any intellectual property, patents, trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.

You are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.

<offtopic - sorry>

Much in the way that AOL forced Nullsoft to pull their nascent "Gnutella" technology when it first came out, it appears AOL has once again forced Nullsoft to yank distribution of their "Waste" secure P2P-based file sharing and messaging software.

Slashdot.org announced [slashdot.org] the product this morning, and by afternoon it is officially gone from the Nullsoft site.

Fortunately, the Internet routes around censorship and the software is still available here [str8dog.com] (along with an interesting chat forum on the subject) and, undoubtedly, in other places around the net.

It's likely that the source and binaries for this much-needed freedom-inducing GPLed [gnu.org] software will be making an appearance on a freesite [sourceforge.net] at some point in the not-so-distant-future.

Yes folks, history, once again, repeats itself.

</offtopic>

It's official...

Much in the way that AOL forced Nullsoft to pull their nascent "Gnutella" technology when it first came out, it appears AOL has once again forced Nullsoft to yank distribution of their "Waste" secure P2P-based file sharing and messaging software.

Slashdot.org announced the product this morning, and by afternoon it is officially gone from the Nullsoft site.

Fortunately, the Internet routes around censorship and the software is still available here (along with an interesting chat forum on the subject) and, undoubtedly, in other places around the net.

It's likely that the source and binaries for this much-needed freedom-inducing GPLed software will be making an appearance on a freesite at some point in the not-so-distant-future.

Yes folks, history, once again, repeats itself.
I guess it just shows to go you, that when it comes to kick-ass software Justin Frankel is still the man!

It's official...

Much in the way that AOL forced Nullsoft to pull their nascent "Gnutella" technology when it first came out, it appears AOL has once again forced Nullsoft to yank distribution of their "Waste" secure P2P-based file sharing and messaging software.

Slashdot.org announced the product this morning, and by afternoon it is officially gone from the Nullsoft site.

Fortunately, the Internet routes around censorship and the software is still available here (along with an interesting chat forum on the subject) and, undoubtedly, in other places around the net.

It's likely that the source and binaries for this much-needed freedom-inducing GPLed software will be making an appearance on a freesite at some point in the not-so-distant-future.

Yes folks, history, once again, repeats itself.
I guess it just shows to go you, that when it comes to kick-ass software Justin Frankel is still the man!

Ah, quite right, Linux support is important.

Of course, I do understand that Neuros *officially* supports Linux, in beta, while Apple hasn't; it's all be community stuff for the iPod.

Oh, and aac is a standard, though arguably not open, while ogg is open, but not a standard. Semantics are a bitch, aren't they?

Ignoring the fact that he just posted the text from one of the links in the original article.. if you go to his first WASTE Description link, you'll find that he just neglected to use full paths.

download available
download source
GPL license
more information about network architecture
more information about security

WASTE is a software product and protocol that enables secure distributed communication for small (on the order of 10-50 nodes) trusted groups of users.

WASTE is designed to enable small companies and small teams within larger companies to easily communicate and collaborate in a secure and efficient fashion, independent of physical network topology.

Some bits of information about WASTE:

• WASTE is currently available for 32-bit Windows operating systems, and as a limited functionality server for FreeBSD and MacOS X. Porting to other operating systems should be a breeze, as the source is provided (and the network code itself is pretty portable).
• WASTE is licensed under the GPL.
• WASTE currently provides the following services:
  • Instant Messaging (with presence)
  • Group Chat
  • File browsing/searching
  • File transfer (upload and download)
• Network architecture: WASTE uses a distributed architecture that allows for nodes to connect in a partial mesh type network. Nodes on the network can broadcast and route traffic. Nodes that are not publicly accessible or on slow links can choose not to route traffic. This network is built such that all services utilize the network, so firewall issues become moot. more information.
• Security: WASTE uses link-level encryption to secure links, and public keys for authentication. RSA is used for session key exchange and authentication, and the links are encrypted using Blowfish in PCBC mode. The automatic key distribution security model is very primitive at the moment, and may not lend itself well to some social situations. more information.

SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. If Linus is guilty of patent violation, SCO is guilty of copyright violation.

Section 7:

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Strange thought, don't you have to actually do something to violate a patent? The code in and of itself does not violate the patent. And if SCO violated Linus' copyright by distributing their patented code under GPL... then they're suing because Linus doesn't have a license... ugh.

Ugh!

I wonder, if RMS is so against such an innocent GIF, why he never criticize Flash?

I wish I didn't see the future so clearly sometimes, but I wrote the following a good few years back...

The "No problem Bugroff" license.

Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation devised, in addition to some marvelous software, the GNU General Public License (GPL for short). Or the CopyLeft it is sometimes called.

It is quite a revolutionary document, using the "copyright" tool to to protect your right to use free software.

Unfortunately using copyright to protect free software is a lot like using a Jackal to guard the hens.

In fact, various inconveniences relating to this have resulted in modifications such as the LGPL (Library General Public License) and more recently the NPL (Netscape Public License)

I call these matters mere inconveniences, the real damage will occur when the Jackal's, (sorry, I mean lawyers), actually get to test the GPL in court for the first time.

Thus enter my version.

Its very simple.

Entirely consistent.

Completely unrestrictive.

Easy to apply.

The "No problem Bugroff" license is as follows...

The answer to any and every question relating to the copyright, patents, legal issues of Bugroff licensed software is....

Sure, No problem. Don't worry, be happy. Now bugger off.

All portions of this license are important..

• "Sure, no problem." Gives you complete freedom. I mean it. Utterly complete. A bit of a joke really. You have complete freedom anyway.
• "Don't worry, be happy." Apart from being good advice and a good song, it also says :- No matter what anyone else says or does, you still have complete freedom.
• Now bugger off. The only way to get rid of pushy Jackals is to ignore them and not feed them. The GPL is just begging somebody to take it to court. Can't you just see it. Exactly the same thing that happened when some twit (not Linus) registered Linux as his own personal trademark. People got upset, started a fund, and hired, off all ruddy things, a Jackal to try and defend the chicken! Who really benefits from this trademark / patent / copyright thing anyway? The lawyers. Who made it up in the first place? The lawyers.

OK so the last part of the license sounds a bit harsh, but seriously folks, if you are a :-

• Lawyer asking these legalese questions... You should go off and learn an honest trade that will actually contribute to life instead of draining it.
• Programmer asking these legalese questions... You have amazingly powerful tools in your hands and mind, use them to ask and answer the worthwhile questions of life, the universe and everything. Stop mucking about with such legal nonsense and get back to programming.
• User/reader asking these question... Don't worry. Go off and be happy. Have fun. Enjoy what has been created for you.

Furthermore, there's nothing that says you can't be fairly compensated for your time in putting the source on CD and mailing it (just be sure to obey clause 3b of the GPL - you can't include the administrative overhead of keeping track of the source in your cost for producing a source CD)

Were I an embedded developer, here's what I'd do:
1) Read the GPL. It's not that long, and as license go is very, very readable.
2) Place a "GPL compliance" notice in the printed documentation (along with any other required compliance notices, like FCC or other legal notices) that says something like: "Some of the source code used in FOOPRODUCT is covered under the Gnu General Public License (Gnu GPL). Persuant to the terms of that license, FOOCOMPANY will supply the relevant source code on demand for three years from the date this product was sold. Send inquiries to gplcompliance@foocompany.com and refer to FOOPRODUCT build number 123456a." (or "refer to the model number stamped on the bottom of the unit")

When I first bought my first linux CD from LSL, they printed the required GPL notice around the edge on the top of the CD. You could probably shorten the notice a bit, too, and get it down to something that could easily be put on a disklabel.

Then, set up an autoresponder at that address that says "here's what a CD of the GPL'ed source costs for us to copy, here's how much we'll charge you for shipping and handling, here's who to contact to actually order the source".

Then, I'd prepare .iso's of the GPLed source that went into each release of the product - you do have everything under version control, right? - and stick them somewhere in permanent storage. You don't have to go nuts here, making sure that the iso is nicely structured or anything. Just put the source to the GPL'd parts in whatever format you already have it on the CD. No one says that you have to carefully think through UI considerations in your GPL section 3b compliance.

If it's part of the regular process for releasing a version of the product, (and archiving all the source somewhere permanent should be part of that regular process anyway) we're not talking about much additional overhead at all.

huh? Read my post again :p

I never said it was a: "bootloader" front-end script
Like you, I said it was a: "bootloader front-end script"

(My disagreement was with the title of the article)

anyway...
I forgot to also include a URL in my first post for the GRUB BSD hackers request, so here it is.

Ciaran O'Riordan

As I recall, being royalty-free is a step in the right direction but insufficient for the Free Software community to be able to continue to innovate. The FSF made their concerns quite clear--if the W3C allows field-of-use restrictions to encumber standards, one is prevented from developing software that goes outside the prescribed activity.

I didn't see any language in Tim Berners-Lee's statement that directly addressed this concern.

Just FYI, it was a patent issue with the SQL Server case, not a copyright. There is a big difference... especially since the typical Free Software adherent tends to (as I do) feel that software patents should not be valid patents. If I had my way, MS wouldn't even have needed to license Timeline's patent on an algorithm.

I was with you until you started spewing this. To build on your anaology earlier: the design of gears is standard, the gears themselves cost money. Programming is just specialized manufacturing why should it be free?

You are confusing two orthogonal properties of software: that of cost and that of freedom. Free software can come with a price tag.

To quote the Free Software Definition: 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.

In the U.S. flooding a market with a product at well below cost, if you are a monopoly, is called "dumping" and is quite illegal.

Your basic copy of Red Hat Linux costs $39.95-$149.95. Your basic copy of Windows XP costs $99 - $299. It's a market whenever someone uses the product, no matter what they eventually pay for it. And Red Hat gives away free copies because they have to. Microsoft gives away free copies because...?

SCO is not "locking down their IP rights". THey are trying to assert IP rights they do NOT have. You CANNOT claim to have a "trade secret" if everyone and his pet duck has had virtually unfettered access to it for TEN years. SCO did not have anything that EVERYONE did not already know, was taught in universities, etcetera.. that's the point.

The original poster displays just the kind of confusion that has RMS rant on why you should not call anything intellectual property.

The difference here is between copyright and trade secrets (I don't think that patents are an issue, and SCO doesn't even have the trademark). While SCO has copyright to the UNIX sources, as the parent poster so eloquently puts it; they clearly cannot claim trade secret status, since the cat (or pet duck) was let out of the bag several years ago. Once it's been known it's not secret, per definition.

SCO most certainly will be trying to argue that they have trade secrets in court (that's what their press releases sounds like), and having a good defence against that (whether it comes from SCO or others) is hence of great interest.

To fall into the trap of banding about 'Intellectual property' is playing into the hands of the FUD-meisters at Microsoft and others, there's really no such thing.