Slashdot Mirror

Paul Murphy (the LW author of the article) seems to have been fooled by the Plan9 folk's self-proclaimed status as "Open Source". However, neither the OSI nor the FSF agrees. The FSF has even posted a detailed analysis of the problems with the Plan9 license.

Now, depending on your own philosophy (or lack thereof), you may or may not care personally whether this code is truly free/OSS/whatever, but in practical terms, what it means is that neither Red Hat nor Debian is going to buy into this solution, which pretty much means that it's probably dead in the water. Oh, I suppose it might be accepted by the UnitedLinux folks, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

leastsquares wrote:

The initial question is whether the GPL has been violated by the UL guys as a result of their closed beta with an NDA.

Yes.

Such closed betas are not uncommon, even of GPL'd code.

Which is why the FSF, whenever they find out that such a distribution has occurred, goes out of their way to make sure that the company has made it clear to their beta testers that the NDA does not cover GPL/LGPL code.

It is apparent that some of us believe this to be legal, others don't. I think everyone agrees up to the point where we ask whether a closed beta is distribution, or not. There is a fine line to be drawn.

I see the situation differently, it looks to me that some people here feel it ought to be legal to NDA GPL code in a "closed beta", and are coming up with spurious arguments with little to basis in fact, in an attempt to convince themselves that it is legal. I have yet to see a credible argument that it is legal.

I am in the camp that believes that as a result of the NDA, the beta-testers should be considered as part of the organisation preparing the software for release.

Part of the organization how? You have a contract with the company, that doesn't make you an employee of the company. Even a contractor doing a work-for-hire for a company, invokes the GPL when releasing that work to the company. How does being someone who managed to get on the beta test program make you more a part of the company than someone doing work for the company?

Therefore, the GPL is not violated since the software is only being distributed internally, which I think everyone agrees is allowed.

I agree that internal use is allowed, but I don't agree that you can declare use outside the company to be "internal use" so trivially.

Other people (probably the majority) believe that the beta-testers are not part of the organisation and therefore the GPL is clearly violated.

I would like to point out that among the people who feel that a beta test is not internal use is the FSF, the authors of the GPL, and the single largest copyright holder of GPL software.

It would be nice to know which side of the argument is correct.

I would like to hear the argument. You've asserted that you think it's internal use, but you haven't offered any argument that would make it internal use.

In UL's case the spirit of the GPL isn't broken anyway because they have already announced that all source will be freely available for download once they are ready to make a proper release.

In UL's case the contract of the GPL probably isn't broken, because chances are they will make a statement clarifying that their NDA doesn't cover GPL/LGPL code, just like Corel did in the same situation.

The spirit of the GPL isn't "It'll be Free soon"; the spirit is: whoever uses the software has the freedom to use, examine, modify and redistribute the software. An NDA takes away that freedom. By using an NDA at all, UnitedLinux makes it clear that they are not interested in "the spirit of the GPL", but at least the law of the GPL can be enforced.

leastsquares wrote:

The initial question is whether the GPL has been violated by the UL guys as a result of their closed beta with an NDA.

Yes.

Such closed betas are not uncommon, even of GPL'd code.

Which is why the FSF, whenever they find out that such a distribution has occurred, goes out of their way to make sure that the company has made it clear to their beta testers that the NDA does not cover GPL/LGPL code.

It is apparent that some of us believe this to be legal, others don't. I think everyone agrees up to the point where we ask whether a closed beta is distribution, or not. There is a fine line to be drawn.

I see the situation differently, it looks to me that some people here feel it ought to be legal to NDA GPL code in a "closed beta", and are coming up with spurious arguments with little to basis in fact, in an attempt to convince themselves that it is legal. I have yet to see a credible argument that it is legal.

I am in the camp that believes that as a result of the NDA, the beta-testers should be considered as part of the organisation preparing the software for release.

Part of the organization how? You have a contract with the company, that doesn't make you an employee of the company. Even a contractor doing a work-for-hire for a company, invokes the GPL when releasing that work to the company. How does being someone who managed to get on the beta test program make you more a part of the company than someone doing work for the company?

Therefore, the GPL is not violated since the software is only being distributed internally, which I think everyone agrees is allowed.

I agree that internal use is allowed, but I don't agree that you can declare use outside the company to be "internal use" so trivially.

Other people (probably the majority) believe that the beta-testers are not part of the organisation and therefore the GPL is clearly violated.

I would like to point out that among the people who feel that a beta test is not internal use is the FSF, the authors of the GPL, and the single largest copyright holder of GPL software.

It would be nice to know which side of the argument is correct.

I would like to hear the argument. You've asserted that you think it's internal use, but you haven't offered any argument that would make it internal use.

In UL's case the spirit of the GPL isn't broken anyway because they have already announced that all source will be freely available for download once they are ready to make a proper release.

In UL's case the contract of the GPL probably isn't broken, because chances are they will make a statement clarifying that their NDA doesn't cover GPL/LGPL code, just like Corel did in the same situation.

The spirit of the GPL isn't "It'll be Free soon"; the spirit is: whoever uses the software has the freedom to use, examine, modify and redistribute the software. An NDA takes away that freedom. By using an NDA at all, UnitedLinux makes it clear that they are not interested in "the spirit of the GPL", but at least the law of the GPL can be enforced.

Also, would you care to point out where the SISSL is incompatible with the GPL?

From the License List at GNU.org:

The Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.0. This is a free software license, not a strong copyleft, which is incompatible with the GNU GPL because of details rather than any major policy.

A popular free office suite is licensed under SISSL and Lesser GPL, similar to the way Mozilla is licensed (MPL/LGPL/GPL). Unlike the OpenOffice.org suite, this Liberty implementation doesn't seem to also be under a GNU license.

The main objectives of DotGNU are to build a webservices platform and a Virtual Identities system.

Maybe I can help the devil out a bit here :)

If the big problem is the X server I don't think it's a problem, FAIK it isn't GPLed.

I was bored and reading some rms propaganda and it looks like it is one of the reasons he started thinking copyleft in the first place (check the 2nd link, header Copyleft and the GNU GPL)

I'd go check out the license right now but my pizza's burning :P

Maybe I can help the devil out a bit here :)

If the big problem is the X server I don't think it's a problem, FAIK it isn't GPLed.

I was bored and reading some rms propaganda and it looks like it is one of the reasons he started thinking copyleft in the first place (check the 2nd link, header Copyleft and the GNU GPL)

I'd go check out the license right now but my pizza's burning :P

Is it under a 4-clause or 3-clause BSD license? OpenSSL is _still_ under the 4-clause license, with the `obnoxious advertising clause' which says that you have to mention the developers in all advertising materials.
Not such a big deal, you might say, but there are two big problems with this: 1) It's incompatible with GNU GPL, so no straight GPL software can use OpenSSL, and 2) it causes huge practical problems.

Theses issues are a big problems for Debian, in particular.

Is it under a 4-clause or 3-clause BSD license? OpenSSL is _still_ under the 4-clause license, with the `obnoxious advertising clause' which says that you have to mention the developers in all advertising materials.
Not such a big deal, you might say, but there are two big problems with this: 1) It's incompatible with GNU GPL, so no straight GPL software can use OpenSSL, and 2) it causes huge practical problems.

Theses issues are a big problems for Debian, in particular.

Is it under a 4-clause or 3-clause BSD license? OpenSSL is _still_ under the 4-clause license, with the `obnoxious advertising clause' which says that you have to mention the developers in all advertising materials.
Not such a big deal, you might say, but there are two big problems with this: 1) It's incompatible with GNU GPL, so no straight GPL software can use OpenSSL, and 2) it causes huge practical problems.

Theses issues are a big problems for Debian, in particular.

leastsquares writes:

Many Linux distributions first see light of day as closed betas.

The fact that it's a "closed beta" is not the issue here.

For example, the Xandros betas have been available to only a small number of people,

What Xandros has or hasn't done also isn't the issue here. I don't know any details about what Xandros did, but I remember hearing that they talked to key Debian and FSF people. I would be surprised if they released GPL software under additional restrictions (particularly since an earlier version of their distribution got slammed for doing the exact same thing back when it was first beta tested by Corel).

all of whom have signed NDAs.

That is the issue. It is perfectly legal to release your own code under an NDA, or your distribution of BSD-licensed code. However, the GPL does not permit you to redistribute the software with additional restrictions, so wrapping a distribution of GPL software in an NDA is solidly illegal.

It should be fairly simple for them to write the NDA containing appropriate holes for the GPL to peek through, something along the lines of "This NDA does not cover the software in this distribution licensed under the GPL, LGPL or any other license that explicitly precludes additional restrictions". This way, you still get a "closed beta", since nobody can redistribute the whole thing, but if people feel the need to redistribute a GPL'ed bit from inside the distribution, they retain the legal right to, as required by the GPL.

As I understand it, the FSF is merely asking to see the text of the NDA, to ensure that it is worded so as not to violate the GPL.

As I see it, a closed beta is not a public release, and therefore not violating the GPL in any way.

The GPL does not say anything about "public release", it is a license for distribution, and a beta distribution, even a "closed" beta distribution, is still a distribution.

In these situations, making the full source available would not help anybody

I disagree, I have found source code helpful in many unexpected situations.

Your comment here makes me wonder if you understand the situation, the question isn't "is source code helpful", the question is "is UnitedLinux violating the GPL". I'll do a simplified rundown: take Alice, Bob, Carol and Doug. Alice writes a piece of software, and releases it under the GPL. Bob creates a software distribution containing precompiled binaries of many different programs under many different licenses, and sells a copy to Carol. Neither Bob, Carol nor Doug have any interaction with Alice or her legal representatives.

In order to legally distribute his package to Carol, Bob has accepted the GPL, and must abide by its terms (this is called a contract of adhesion). One of the terms is that he is legally obligated to make the source available to Carol (Section 3). Another is that along with the distribution, he must pass on a copy of the license to Carol, with no additional restrictions (Section 6). This ensures that, if Carol wishes, she can also accept the GPL and give a copy of Alice's software to her friend, Doug.

If Bob distributes his collection under an NDA, that doesn't change his legal obligations to Alice. It doesn't matter that Carol can get the source from SourceForge, Bob is obligated to make it available to her himself. It doesn't matter that Bob wants to keep the details of his collection under wraps, he is required to give Carol a GPL, unencumbered by the NDA or any other additional restrictions. He can legally use the NDA to cover other parts of his collection, but not Alice's GPLed software.

If Bob violates these terms, Alice has the legal right to sue, seek injunctions against Bob's distribution of her software, and so forth.

The current Bob (UnitedLinux) is not necessarily violating the GPL, the FSF is trying to determine if they are or aren't. I assume, given past history, if the FSF determines that UnitedLinux is in violation, they will offer advice on how to do what they want to do without violating the GPL, and not go farther unless UL makes no attempt to fix the situation.

(1. slower development due to extra hassle,

Cost of doing business.

2. most code is available from original sources anyway,

As described above, it doesn't matter. UnitedLinux has the legal obligation to make all the source code used to produce the GPL software they distribute available to the people they distribute to.

3. modified code will be in a state of unstable flux

That's an easy one, the source code to make available is the source used to create the binaries being distributed. If your code is in such "unstable flux" that you don't know what you compiled in order to make the binaries, then you certainly shouldn't be doing a commercial beta distribution.

At the point of full release, well, that's a different matter.

No, it isn't. The GPL makes no distinction between distribution to one person, and distribution to the general public.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be construed as legal advice. If you have an NDA to write, I strongly recommend you consult a real lawyer for advice on how to appropriately word it.

Just let them violate the GPL on such things.. everyone wins.

No, the community certainly does not win. The GNU project and Free Software were based on spreading the freedoms to share and modify software because these freedoms help make our world a better place. It sounds like you aren't familiar with why the GNU project was started.

Linux people get to stop bitching about lack of drivers for the product [...] Sure, it may be some what unstable since the community can't review it, but at least it'll be in existance.

Free Software advocates are not after mere popularity. Stability is one of the practical benefits one gains as a result of having the freedoms of Free Software.

Personally, if there was something I would make but didn't wanna give the source out to, I'd make it and release it binary only. If I got bitched at for not providing source, just remove it completely, hurting all the people who're using it.

So long as your program is not a derivative of copylefted Free Software, you might be able to legally do that (one would need more information about your program to be sure). You would be unwise to forgo all the trust you might have gained in the community, but that's your choice. Your dismissal of software freedom is remarkably short-sighted: this would hurt you too because someone who receives a copy of Free Software might help you develop the program, improving it in ways you never imagined. Distributing proprietary software cuts off the possibility of building a community of equals and encourages people to think poorly of you. After releasing GPL-covered software I'm pleasantly surprised at how inventive the community is and how much I benefit from their collective wisdom.

Just let them violate the GPL on such things.. everyone wins.

No, the community certainly does not win. The GNU project and Free Software were based on spreading the freedoms to share and modify software because these freedoms help make our world a better place. It sounds like you aren't familiar with why the GNU project was started.

Linux people get to stop bitching about lack of drivers for the product [...] Sure, it may be some what unstable since the community can't review it, but at least it'll be in existance.

Free Software advocates are not after mere popularity. Stability is one of the practical benefits one gains as a result of having the freedoms of Free Software.

Personally, if there was something I would make but didn't wanna give the source out to, I'd make it and release it binary only. If I got bitched at for not providing source, just remove it completely, hurting all the people who're using it.

So long as your program is not a derivative of copylefted Free Software, you might be able to legally do that (one would need more information about your program to be sure). You would be unwise to forgo all the trust you might have gained in the community, but that's your choice. Your dismissal of software freedom is remarkably short-sighted: this would hurt you too because someone who receives a copy of Free Software might help you develop the program, improving it in ways you never imagined. Distributing proprietary software cuts off the possibility of building a community of equals and encourages people to think poorly of you. After releasing GPL-covered software I'm pleasantly surprised at how inventive the community is and how much I benefit from their collective wisdom.

Just let them violate the GPL on such things.. everyone wins.

No, the community certainly does not win. The GNU project and Free Software were based on spreading the freedoms to share and modify software because these freedoms help make our world a better place. It sounds like you aren't familiar with why the GNU project was started.

Linux people get to stop bitching about lack of drivers for the product [...] Sure, it may be some what unstable since the community can't review it, but at least it'll be in existance.

Free Software advocates are not after mere popularity. Stability is one of the practical benefits one gains as a result of having the freedoms of Free Software.

Personally, if there was something I would make but didn't wanna give the source out to, I'd make it and release it binary only. If I got bitched at for not providing source, just remove it completely, hurting all the people who're using it.

So long as your program is not a derivative of copylefted Free Software, you might be able to legally do that (one would need more information about your program to be sure). You would be unwise to forgo all the trust you might have gained in the community, but that's your choice. Your dismissal of software freedom is remarkably short-sighted: this would hurt you too because someone who receives a copy of Free Software might help you develop the program, improving it in ways you never imagined. Distributing proprietary software cuts off the possibility of building a community of equals and encourages people to think poorly of you. After releasing GPL-covered software I'm pleasantly surprised at how inventive the community is and how much I benefit from their collective wisdom.

They would have to be rewriting from the ground up. And they'd have to rewrite everything.

*******

GPL FAQ

Q: Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?

A: No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

********

Or, they're distributing their version of Linux without any GPL'ed code in it. That would be kinda like giving someone a goldfish in a tank with a shiny plastic castle in it, except that there is no tank, no water, no goldfish, and no shiny castle inside of it.

Yes. I think it's clear that you can't beat MS at their homecourt.

You need to take the battle somewhere else

The GPL states that you must make the Source Code freely avilible [sic] to your customers...

It also says you musn't interfere with their rights granted by the GPL:

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

Seems pretty clear to me: "You may make copies and give them away provided you give the recipients all the rights which I gave you."

So if it's a closed beta only the people who recieve [sic] that beta have right to that source... and anyway, all the programmes are available on the internet (freshmeat) and as part of other distro's [sic]...!

Yes, this is true. However, you miss a couple of important points:

1. While it's correct that "only the people who recieve [sic] that beta have right to that source," the people who receive the source have certain rights which are granted by the license. To restrict those rights means that the license has been violated and any prior rights granted to the distributor have been revoked.
2. Although "all the programmes are available on the internet (freshmeat) and as part of other distro's [sic]," that doesn't mean that they're the ones doing the distributing in this case. All that means is that when someone distributes an app through Freshmeat, that person must offer the source code and full GPL rights to it. When UnitedLinux distributes GPL-covered programs, they must do the same thing. It doesn't matter that other people already do it; "other people" cannot fulfill your obligations under this particular distribution license.

who is going to prosecute them?

The FSF asks that authors of GPL software tranfer the copyright to the FSF, so that the FSF can take action against violators.

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software for which the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to . We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required.

who is going to prosecute them?

The FSF asks that authors of GPL software tranfer the copyright to the FSF, so that the FSF can take action against violators.

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software for which the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to . We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required.

Theft involves posession of an item changing hands.

So true, and so often misunderstood. The property parties and the corporations who fund them are interested in making everything ownable. Together they have done a considerable job training people to think exclusively in terms of property. This is one of the biggest problems talking about copyright power--almost invariably someone brings up "intellectual property" and the boundaries of allowable discourse are half laid out before you get into the discussion. Consider the FSF's input on it and Thomas Jefferson's quote about how ideas are not property:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his tapir at mine, receives light without darkening mine. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Has your opinion changed about free software vs commercial software because of your unfortunate experience?

Free Software and commercial software are not opposites. Free Software and proprietary software are opposites. It can be okay to sell Free Software.

Here's the link on expiring electronic books

And Richard Stallman's take on it: The Right To Read

.

as to more moral licensing, I have always believed that the GPL can be modified to include clauses for corporate, educational, and governmental customers (all different pricing structures of course). this way the customers that can afford it must pay some small fee.

Considering that that modification would place the GPL into the category of "Non-Free Licenses", I highly doubt it.

Relevant quote from the Free Software Definition:

A free program must be available for commercial use....

Books, you know? Nice, analog, books. No mod chip required.

What if the books you are required to use for school, etc., are available only in a digital, encrypted, pay-per-view format? Then you have Richard Stallman's dystopic short story, "The Right to Read".

...you can find an Open Source emulator...

Actually, I think this is yet another shortcoming of the Open Source movement--people don't seem to understand that merely releasing source code does not qualify as "Open Source". Take a look at the license for Jagulator (the emulator referred to in the parent post). It is brief, so I'll quote it in its entirety here:

The only conditions I lay down on the use of this source code are as follows: (a) If any part of Jagulator is used in any other Jaguar Emulator then do the decent thing and include a greet, thanks or other information that mentions the fact. (b) Don't just recompile the code and release it as something else, thats just plain LAME !. (c) Have Fun :) :) :)

Nowhere are you explicitly granted the ability to modify the source code, distribute the source code, or distribute derivative works (although the license suggests you do by placing terms on what you must do if you choose to distribute a derivative work). Jagulator would be far more valuable if the author would use an extant copylefted Free Software license. I suggest the GNU GPL would be appropriate because it would allow the author ("RealityMan") to share in the improvements others make to the emulator and keep the emulator from becoming proprietary software.

for a free remake of pqmagic, try GNU parted. actually, it doesn't support all the new filesystems, not even reiser (which brings its own tools for that), but it's a good start. works well for me when resizing FAT partitions.

> just because someone does not buy into your philosphy doesn't entitle you to claim they are doing something which they are clearly not.

What I am claiming they are doing is to create proprietary lock-in by developing and distributing proprietary software. This way they benefit from other distributions work without giving the expected counterpart. This they are doing, and this is free riding as I understand it.

> If you can't accept other people having other ideas and their own philosophies, then you shouldn't even talk about freedom.

I can accept, and I do, that people have other ideas. What you cannot expect is that they go unchallenged. As we see it, challenging proprietariness, free riding and software hoarding is called standing for freedom.

> What GNU software calls for is what's stated in the license - asking for stuff which is not covered in there is cheating.

No.

The GNU GPL is a part of GNU. Other parts are GNU FDL, GNU LGPL, all the source code and documentation under these licenses, the philosophy and political papers, education and political activism, up to and including the advocacy of the necessity of free software and open standards for all users, specially government, by legal means if necessary.

Licensing, including the GNU GPL, is just one of a range of fronts in this wider battle.

Please read the GNU philosophy if you doubt me.

• Try out different open source packages for various applications. Run through them and find bugs. Check the project's website and report those bugs.
• If you're proficient at programming, contribute code to an open source project.
• Encourage people to run other OSes. For the non-techies, try Lycoris or Elx.
• Find out which congresspersons are sympathetic to this issue and write to them. Find out which one's aren't and write to them, too. Find out which one's are on the fence and write to them as well.
• Contribute money, time, or both to some organization like the EFF, CDT, GNU/FSF, or by purchasing or donating to your favorite open source application and/or linux distro.
• If you are in a tech position at a company or government agency, point out the benefits of going to an open source platform for your organization.
• Put plugs on your personal websites.
• Actively boycott companies who violate these principals. (Note: This does NOT mean companies who sell software. This means companies who try to monopolize the market [Microsoft] or support the DMCA [Adobe].)
• Don't let the bastards wear you down.

Any other ideas?

The biggest problem with DRM is not the idea of protection in the first place, but the idea that if company x goes bust in y years, then all documents "protected" by their technology become inaccessible...

Playing Devil's Advocate:

Is that really the biggest problem with DRM? The hypothetical future in Stallman's "The Right to Read" emerges pretty naturally from the idea of universally adopted DRM. An open source, free software DRM server would speed adoption of these technologies tremendously.

When I first read Stallman's RTR, it seemed loony and beyond belief. Now, several years later, it seems prescient and ominous. I can imagine something vaguely like it coming to pass. Donating our efforts to help create this future seems mindbending.

Admittedly, there are lots of arguments for building open source DRM technologies, and one of them, like you said, is to prevent their monopolization by proprietary interests. But if we have a choice between helping them grow and stymieing their adoption in the first place, shouldn't we choose the latter?

the whole reason Gnome was created was people didn't like KDE.

Minor nitpick. The reason GNOME was created was because KDE (QT libs specifically) was not Free.

As far as Win32 IM solutions go, this is better than Trillian...how? The answer: "It's open source!" isn't valid. While it may become better in time, right now Trillian is the flat out king of Win32 IM solutions in terms of versatility and usability.

Your critique is right-on; it is a natural consequence of following the Open Source movement. If all you value are the practical ends of a program (i.e., more features, better features, versatility, usability) you will use whatever meets those needs including using proprietary software. The FSF has an essay which lays out this argument quite well. This is why it is important to understand the difference between the Open Source movement and the Free Software movement.

I value my software freedom and therefore I recognize that Trillian, like any other proprietary software, can not help me retain my software freedom. When the community retains their software freedom they can write the software which will meet practical needs; we are dependant on ourselves. If we sacrifice our freedom we become dependant on a proprietor. Therefore I prefer Free Software and I will not use Trillian.

From what I can see, it appears Trillian is proprietary software. Therefore I have the same reservations I have with any other proprietary software. One such reservation being that I wouldn't trust Trillian to encrypt my conversations so that only the parties I intend to talk to can decrypt it. I prefer to have the community of hackers working for me which is why I prefer Free Software.

1.)Some debuggers may need to be updated to work in the "Palladium" environment, but they can still work.

Doesn't this sound eerily similar to the following passage from Stallman's Right to Read?:

There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.

Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.

Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.

Don't forget GNUnet. Completely encrypted and anonymous file sharing.

This one is actually geared towards file sharing too. You can do keyword searches of the network! :)

open source / free software...

Unfortunately the benefits you name are not championed by the Open Source movement or their particular set of approved licenses. Consider the Apple Public Source License: it grants far greater power over derivative works to Apple than is reasonable (I suspect this is a major reason why programs under that license have so far failed to capture a large audience of support). Yet the Open Source Initiative backs this license, listing it as one of their approved licenses.

By contrast, the Free Software movement says the APSL is not a Free Software license and urges people to avoid the license and all works licensed under it. What your list includes is quite close to freedoms the Free Software movement pointed out over a decade before the Open Source movement began: The first and third items on your list are freedom 0 ("the freedom to run the program for any purpose"--the Free Software movement doesn't distinguish between government use and civilian use, they speak to all computer users). Freedom 0 is not guaranteed by the APSL. Selling copies of the software (your second item) is required for a software license to be a Free Software license.

open source / free software...

Unfortunately the benefits you name are not championed by the Open Source movement or their particular set of approved licenses. Consider the Apple Public Source License: it grants far greater power over derivative works to Apple than is reasonable (I suspect this is a major reason why programs under that license have so far failed to capture a large audience of support). Yet the Open Source Initiative backs this license, listing it as one of their approved licenses.

By contrast, the Free Software movement says the APSL is not a Free Software license and urges people to avoid the license and all works licensed under it. What your list includes is quite close to freedoms the Free Software movement pointed out over a decade before the Open Source movement began: The first and third items on your list are freedom 0 ("the freedom to run the program for any purpose"--the Free Software movement doesn't distinguish between government use and civilian use, they speak to all computer users). Freedom 0 is not guaranteed by the APSL. Selling copies of the software (your second item) is required for a software license to be a Free Software license.

open source / free software...

Unfortunately the benefits you name are not championed by the Open Source movement or their particular set of approved licenses. Consider the Apple Public Source License: it grants far greater power over derivative works to Apple than is reasonable (I suspect this is a major reason why programs under that license have so far failed to capture a large audience of support). Yet the Open Source Initiative backs this license, listing it as one of their approved licenses.

By contrast, the Free Software movement says the APSL is not a Free Software license and urges people to avoid the license and all works licensed under it. What your list includes is quite close to freedoms the Free Software movement pointed out over a decade before the Open Source movement began: The first and third items on your list are freedom 0 ("the freedom to run the program for any purpose"--the Free Software movement doesn't distinguish between government use and civilian use, they speak to all computer users). Freedom 0 is not guaranteed by the APSL. Selling copies of the software (your second item) is required for a software license to be a Free Software license.

Likewise, some people don't fully understand the GPL. They think that if someone is selling GPL'd software, then they must give the source code away to everyone for free. Really, all GPL requires the seller to do is provide a copy of source code to their customers. Sure, the customer can then turn around and give that source code away to anyone for free, but the seller is under no obligation to do so, because they're only providing software to the buyer. The GPL is not about giving away all your rights as a software manufacturer or retailer, it's about preserving the rights of the buyer.

If the German government is the sole customer of the Kroupware program, then the developers of that program are under no obligation to put up an anonymous access FTP site and say, "Free Downloads for Everyone!" They are only obligated to provide the source code to their buyer. The German government could then distribute it for free to all German citizens, but the citizens could then likewise distribute it for free to the rest of the world. The GPL is not about restricting rights; it's about preserving them.

Yes. That's cool.

But the Educational implications are way underrated. If there is homework, and you do it on your laptop and it's multichoice, the Teacher could look at the Homework due this week, see what's not understood, and help the Students understand this in the lesson.

The ordinary feedback is way slow (student brings homework, attends lesson, teacher can apply his knowledge only one week later. So, until you really know something it takes up to 3 weeks!)

If the Feedback loop can be shortened with technology, that'd be way cool, and this wireless technology puts the required infrastructure in place.

Now we just need open source tools, maybe like liblearn.

They only need to make the source available if they distribute the binary. If it was kept for internal use, they wouldn't have to make anything available to anyone.

Right?

But there's really no downside for them to allow distribution of their custom code, as long as someone else pays for the bandwidth. In fact, the wider testing/scrutiny of the code would be a plus.

Can you imagine if all governments started doing things like this? The rate of useful development for open source software would skyrocket. Not only would it let more coders work on projects full time, but maybe a tighter focus and clear specs would improve the usability of the resulting software. And even if, say, the Ruritanian government's groupware project failed, the successful Armenian groupware project would step up to fill the gap.

It amazes me that, in my country, individual local councils hire incompetent companies to screw up important services like benefit distribution when they should be clubbing together to develop a GPL'd local government suite. Sure, you wouldn't get widespread use of such software by a big pool of users, but it still makes sense to have 50 councils funding something they can all use rather than each one getting a bespoke solution. I suppose they each have different legacy tardware, but even so...

<Sigh.> What was my point again?

Or would some else do better, such as the GNU Free Documentation License FDL be better? Or something completely different and maybe new? I just have the feeling that GPL is tailored for software in a way that makes it incomplete or even invalid for licensing a TV show.

Does someone have more insightful input than my "feelings" ;)

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough :-)

Linking is done at runtime. That means that when a .NET program is distributed, it is not linked but only states which functions should be called in what is practically cleartext. I'm sure you're familiar enough with the CLR to be aware of this. The GPL says that you can link for your own personal use as long as you don't redistribute the _linked_ form. If I were wrong, then writing non-free documentation about GPL'd APIs as O'Reilley has done would also be illegal, which is really a bit silly.

The GPL FAQ also states that pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. Even if someone happens to argue the absurd case that linking for your own personal use without redistribution is now somehow against the GPL (which is what I think you were trying to say), facilities like .NET remoting can be used to prove that .NET programs do not link and that an entire Qt# session can be run through a TCP/IP network.

Qt# is an excellent workaround for Trolltech's licensing scheme. There is really no way they could demand a licensing fee from a proprietary Qt# user. Distributing proprietary Qt# applications without a Trolltech license is compliant to both the word and the spirit (well, kinda) of the GPL.

Epson has been much more friendly than most violators. Epson on their own chose to put up that web page and admit their violation publicly. We did not require them to do so. Almost always, compliance is reached through private discussions between the Free Software Foundation and the violating party. Only rarely (usually because a third party posts on slashdot ;) does the public even become aware of the compliance efforts underway.

You can read FSF's General Counsel's essay for more details on FSF's GNU GPL enforcement efforts.

Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation

If downloaders are freeloaders, doesn't that make Mandrake a freeloader, too? After all, they do have LOTS of open source software. They even built upon another distro themselves. Plus, its not really ethical to force people to lie (click here if you're a member) is it? Especially when they're obligated by the GPL to offer the software for free, and they've got lots of nonprofit orgs providing them with free mirrors.

No, Mandrake is not a freeloader. The people at MandrakeSoft have created all-new software (most notably the Mandrake Installer) and have written a good chunk of code. They have worked to create an entirely new product which, while based on the products of others, does contain the fruit of their labour.

The labour was not provided without cost. In the article, two points are clearly made: 1) there are a substantial number of developers working daily at MandrakeSoft and 2) the result of these costs is that MandrakeSoft is not profitable, i.e. they are NOT making money because they are working too hard to make a better product for you who wish to download it for free. The GPL, contrary to your belief, does not preclude charging money for software. In fact, the idea that those who work should not receive any form of compensation is in itself absurd. If you are giving the fruit of your labour out under the GPL and did not want people making money from it, you chose the WRONG license. Perhaps a license such as that used for the Diku MUD code would better suit you.

The little guys of open-source aren't in it for the money. They do it because they like it. I speak as one who uses one of the little distros [gentoo.org] which made it into the top 10 less than a month after it went beta, and which still doesn't make money (and doesn't plan to). And I have contributed a couple of improvements of my own to my disto.

Let's face it. Right now any group producing a Linux distribution is a "little guy" in the Open Source world, with the possible exception of the NSA. And I don't know that any of them are currently profitable entities, though several are corporate entities. It would have been a better deal for all of them to be nonprofit orgs perhaps, and indeed this is the direction, again stated in the article, that Mandrake seems to be going. Of course the problem with this model is it makes it tougher to get the money which has driven all of this. I think you are forgetting there are costs involved no matter what, for servers and bandwidth and people to work on this stuff. This is why these groups who are providing the software you want are trying to find services people will pay money for to fund that work. And don't think just because you are firmly esconsced in some random distro of the month that hasn't figured out it might have a big bill from its provider yet you are not profiting from this work. People all over on different distros, including lots of coders working for corporations working often on employers paid time are making improvements to tools you care about as we type. It is good that you contribute code. I applaud that effort. I want to encourage it. But it is unfair for you to discourage people from contributing monetarily, or distros from asking for such contributions. In fact if you one day wish to be employed as a professional coder you will find it is helpful if the company you work for has money to pay you with.

The pursuit of money is a necessary evil in a Capitalist society. Money pays the rent and the electric and the help. Money makes this stuff possible. To deny this is folly. But then this is /. ...

> I don't know how long it may have taken a genius like you...
>...freeloaders...
> Schmucks like you ....
> You schmucks ... Warez...

Hey ! Wash your mouth out and consider the following instead of being abusive:

The Mandrake download page requires you to either:
A. Have previously *paid* them a minimum of $60
OR
B. *State* you *will* pay them a minimum of $60 in future

There is no other option that allows you to download their software.

What's to stop them hiking this 'download price' from $60 to $1000000?

Sec 2.b. of the GNU license states that packages based on GNU-licensed software must also be licensed "as a whole at no charge to all third parties". What they are doing seems to violate this section, and Section 3 as well. (though I cannot say for sure).

The GNU version of the classic hello world program actually contains a mail reader.

And thus we have GNU Hello, a Hello World program which includes, amoung other things, a frickin' mail reader.

(Although it's main purpose is as an example of GNU coding style, it's still pretty nuts...)

J

FPGAs

In the dystopia, those would be available only to licensed and bonded developers.

The biggest problem with Linux, in my opinion, is the excruciatingly painful way in which drivers and other kernel extensions are installed--often involving recompiling the kernel.

Windows: Manufacturers provide the drivers. OS provides the specs.

Linux/BSD/Unix-in-general: OS provides the drivers. Manufacturers provide the specs.

The implications of this in the marketplace are obvious. Every Windows user knows that any piece of hardware they buy will have drop-in drivers included. Every Unix user knows that this week's hardware won't work with last week's OS.

Example One: NetGear PCMCIA card. As many of you know, NetGear products ship with Linux drivers as source code (not drop-in). This card shipped with drivers for linux-2.2, but I was using linux-2.2.4. Driver did not work.

Example Two: New Rage128 card. XFree86 supports Rage128. But this was a PCI card newer than my version of XFree86. The card was not in the PCI database, so XFree86 did not know what it was.

I don't see Linux/BSD/UNIX making it on the desktop until the *Nix releases *stable* driver APIs or DDKs. Actually, I'll go out on a limb and say RMS is full of crap for arguing against the Uniform Driver Interface.

the only way they can stop me is to make C compilers illegal and punishable by death...

RMS has that situation covered.