Slashdot Mirror

I don't really understand why the GNU people have this large web page picking apart the old ASPL.

GNU also has web pages picking apart the MIT license, the BSD license, and the NPL. In addition, they pick apart several other licenses in their "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" page. They even argue against using their own LGPL!

Know this about the FSF, GNU and RMS: if the license is not GPL compatible strong copyleft, they don't like it and don't want you using it.

While I can understand viewing that this is a shortcoming, it seems like a fairly small one. The other "problems" mentioned in the link above have been "fixed", as they mention. Since the GPL already causes changes to be released (that's the whole point, eh?) whenever modified programs are "released" (without a good definition of what that means), the ASPL doesn't seem a whole lot different.

I don't really understand why the GNU people have this large web page picking apart the old ASPL when the new one is so much closer to their ideal. It does seem to cause more confusion of the issues than it clears up. I think they should state their problems with the current ASPL and forget the history lesson, or at least put clearer disclaimers that it is a bit of history.

APSL is really quasi-free.

OTOH, I seem to have picked up a flaw in the GPL...[deletia]...The reason being is many companies develop their own private modifications to software...[deletia]...If under a GPL license the company would have had to opensource their modifications

BZZZT... you're wrong.

The GPL does not require modifications of modified versions of software to be 'opensourced' if the modified program is not distributed to a third party, as explained in the GPL FAQ.

As I understand it (and by no means am I any sort of expert here), Stallman's main objection is that the APSL is asymmetric, in the sense that Apple, as the original creator of APSL'ed code, has more and different rights then subsequent modifiers of the code. Specifically, if you change ASPL'ed code, even if you don't publicly release the changes, you still have to notify Apple of the changes. In the eyes of GNU/FSF/Stallman, this is a violation of privacy which free software licenses should protect, and represents a central control over code which free software licenses should prevent. For more info, see This commentary on the GNU site.

If Apple uses the APSL [apple.com], then the source code could not be used in Linux [kernel.org].

The APSL is not compatible with the GPL. This means that you could not link the APSL code directly into GPLed code such as the linux kernel. However, i do not see why the rendezvous code would need to actually be in the kernel. It seems preferable to me that a linux implementation of rendezvous would be just a daemon or something, like inetd or any other number of things are, in which case it would just be a normal program and could be under any license at all.

If for some reason i can't forsee it is somehow necessary for the rendezvous implementation to be in the kernel, it could just be done as a kernel module; there is some dispute as to whether it is okay for linux kernel modules to be non-GPL, but a lot of people, including Linus Tourvalds, interpret the GPL such that OS kernel modules do not have to be GPLed.

I'm uncertain if Debian [debian.org] would accept any APSL submissions.

The GNU foundation doesn't like the APSL. However, debian is more aligned with OSI than they are with the GNU foundation. (Correct me if this is incorrect.) Anyway, in order for Debian to include software in its core distribution, that software must fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The APSL is on the OSI approved license list meaning it fits the DFSG and APSL code could be included in Debian's main codebase, no problem.

Incidentally, Debian does maintain a non-free portion to their distribution, it is just that this portion is not considered "part of the main distribution", and it is not always included with the install discs (it depends on how you obtain your copy of debian, as far as i can tell). But that's irrelivant here because the APSL is OSI certified!

The only reason Apple's decision not to use the GPL would be a problem, as far as i can tell, is that some people don't like to release code under non-GPL licenses, and those people may decide not to contribute to a rendezvous implementation. But other than a few offended people, that's about the extent of the problems the APSL presents.

At the same time, though, we see the "Red Hat = Microsoft?" articles and the subtle opposition to anything that is 'tainted' by capitalism

Go back and look at the discussion on that article. Nearly everything that was posted expressed support for Red Hat. Even though many of us personally use different distros, most of us have no problem with the Red Hat company. Some of us even admire them.

So in general, no, even though a vocal minority of free software advocates are anti-capitalism, it's not true for the whole. As Richard Stallman says, "Selling Free Software can be okay".

Your subject header ("Free softare is compatible with business") and the proposition on which your argument is based (" I'm intrigued that people are all about OSS not being opposed to business or profit...") are talking about two different movements with different goals and different criteria for judging software licenses. Whichever movement you wish to talk about, please state that clearly and consistently so as to not confuse readers who understand the difference between the two movements.

If you meant to talk about the Free Software movement, you should know this movement has nothing against commercialism. It is proprietary software which is the enemy of Free Software, not commercial software. Software patents are patents which cover ideas you might use in developing any software, thus impeding the development of all software. Software patents thus serve to limit the freedom the Free Software movement champions to let every computer user share and modify software.

This story has obviously been overhyped, as it will not mean the end to free (as in free beer) mp3 players (and some encoders, most likely). It will, though, mean the end to mp3 encoders/decoders in GPL'd software, in other words the vast majority of open source software. It will also mean no default mp3 support in your favorite GNU/Linux distro, most likely.

This is unfortunate for the open source community, but it will help to promote newer open standards with no patent or licensing problems to worry about. It will most likely not affect the general public, who will still be able to download winamp for free.

It suprises me that nobody in the open source community noticed this discrepancy before, as it has been listed on the licensing page for quite some time. As the Thomson lawyer said, it has been incompatible with the GPL for some time now. I suppose from now on people will be more careful before building patented proprietary technology into open source software, despite the fact that this type of patent makes no sense and hurts innovation by creating a closed standard.

Check out the GPL for information regarding patents. Here is a quote:

any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all

Since the Thomson licensing of mp3s does not allow "free use" for everyone, it is in violation of the GPL and therefore cannot be included in GPL'd software. Unfortunately, this means it cannot be in Red Hat or any other freely distributed GNU/Linux distro licensed under the GPL.

Who needs web-based email?

Toolkit for doing things that you aren't supposed to do at work:

• ssh
• screen
• lynx
• mutt
• epic
• ncftp

SSH to Linux box at home and "screen -r -d".

The best thing is it's all text, so it's indistinguishable from actual work to most people. And it's all encrypted.

We do, from time to time, have occasion to clarify our views on the GNU GPL, and we work hard to be responsive to questions from the community on them. This does serve to generate a lot of email traffic concerning the Foundation's opinions on GPL, and out of context pieces of the whole of such correspondence can be confusing. When we get pieces together that are particular good and clear, we post them on our philosophy page, as we did with Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GNU GPL, and in our GNU GPL FAQ.

As for the GNU GPL, version 3, we had indeed long ago seen Mr. Harris' proposal, but we did not feel it was representative of our plans for next version of the license. The copyright of the so-called draft of GPL Version 3 distributed alongside the article, thus, is incorrectly attributed to the Free Software Foundation. We do not hold copyright on it, nor did we have a hand in drafting it.

Efforts for development of real GNU GPL, Version 3 continue within the Foundation. We of course expect to have extensive public discussion before any draft is finalized as the official new version of the license. In March 2002, We approved the Affero GPL, which includes a draft of one major provision we are considering for the next version of the GNU GPL. Of course, when we do announce that a draft copy of actual "GNU GPL, Version 3" is available, it will certainly come directly from the Foundation.

Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation

We do, from time to time, have occasion to clarify our views on the GNU GPL, and we work hard to be responsive to questions from the community on them. This does serve to generate a lot of email traffic concerning the Foundation's opinions on GPL, and out of context pieces of the whole of such correspondence can be confusing. When we get pieces together that are particular good and clear, we post them on our philosophy page, as we did with Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GNU GPL, and in our GNU GPL FAQ.

As for the GNU GPL, version 3, we had indeed long ago seen Mr. Harris' proposal, but we did not feel it was representative of our plans for next version of the license. The copyright of the so-called draft of GPL Version 3 distributed alongside the article, thus, is incorrectly attributed to the Free Software Foundation. We do not hold copyright on it, nor did we have a hand in drafting it.

Efforts for development of real GNU GPL, Version 3 continue within the Foundation. We of course expect to have extensive public discussion before any draft is finalized as the official new version of the license. In March 2002, We approved the Affero GPL, which includes a draft of one major provision we are considering for the next version of the GNU GPL. Of course, when we do announce that a draft copy of actual "GNU GPL, Version 3" is available, it will certainly come directly from the Foundation.

Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation

We do, from time to time, have occasion to clarify our views on the GNU GPL, and we work hard to be responsive to questions from the community on them. This does serve to generate a lot of email traffic concerning the Foundation's opinions on GPL, and out of context pieces of the whole of such correspondence can be confusing. When we get pieces together that are particular good and clear, we post them on our philosophy page, as we did with Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GNU GPL, and in our GNU GPL FAQ.

As for the GNU GPL, version 3, we had indeed long ago seen Mr. Harris' proposal, but we did not feel it was representative of our plans for next version of the license. The copyright of the so-called draft of GPL Version 3 distributed alongside the article, thus, is incorrectly attributed to the Free Software Foundation. We do not hold copyright on it, nor did we have a hand in drafting it.

Efforts for development of real GNU GPL, Version 3 continue within the Foundation. We of course expect to have extensive public discussion before any draft is finalized as the official new version of the license. In March 2002, We approved the Affero GPL, which includes a draft of one major provision we are considering for the next version of the GNU GPL. Of course, when we do announce that a draft copy of actual "GNU GPL, Version 3" is available, it will certainly come directly from the Foundation.

Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation

We do, from time to time, have occasion to clarify our views on the GNU GPL, and we work hard to be responsive to questions from the community on them. This does serve to generate a lot of email traffic concerning the Foundation's opinions on GPL, and out of context pieces of the whole of such correspondence can be confusing. When we get pieces together that are particular good and clear, we post them on our philosophy page, as we did with Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GNU GPL, and in our GNU GPL FAQ.

As for the GNU GPL, version 3, we had indeed long ago seen Mr. Harris' proposal, but we did not feel it was representative of our plans for next version of the license. The copyright of the so-called draft of GPL Version 3 distributed alongside the article, thus, is incorrectly attributed to the Free Software Foundation. We do not hold copyright on it, nor did we have a hand in drafting it.

Efforts for development of real GNU GPL, Version 3 continue within the Foundation. We of course expect to have extensive public discussion before any draft is finalized as the official new version of the license. In March 2002, We approved the Affero GPL, which includes a draft of one major provision we are considering for the next version of the GNU GPL. Of course, when we do announce that a draft copy of actual "GNU GPL, Version 3" is available, it will certainly come directly from the Foundation.

Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation

the trick here is to integrate texinfo (standard GNU documentation source format) generation with automake methodology (which assumes texinfo is hand-maintained). in the vein of foo2bar naming convention, the TWERP (Texinfo With Eval-Requiring Predelictions :-) file is processed to .texi with twerp2texi (which also handles indexing, automatic dependency tracking a la depcomp, and Makefile prep).

here's a simple example (from doc/ref/scheme-compound.twerp):

If you are unfamiliar with the inner
workings of hash tables, then this facility
will probably be a little too abstract for
you to use comfortably. If you are interested
in learning more, see an introductory textbook
on data structures or algorithms for an
explanation of how hash tables are implemented.

@twerpdoc (hashq (C scm_hashq))
@twerpdoc (hashv (C scm_hashv))
@twerpdoc (hash (C scm_hash))

The @twerpdoc directives expand to documentation on hashq (from Scheme) and scm_hashq (from C), mined from libguile/hashtab.c, and so forth. modify hashtab.c, do a "make" and the .texi (and .info and .html if enabled) is regenerated.

this differs from the article's system in that outline info (and document organization in general) is maintained in .twerp files, which "pull in" reference docstrings and other bits as needed from source, rather than adhering to "one source" doctrine. probably we will introduce more @twerpFOO directives (e.g., to do bit-field diagram or embedded DAG layout) in the future. for more info, see documentation on twerp2texi itself in the guile docs (in tarball above).

To me, you seem new to this. ;-)

RMS does believe that all software should be free, he is one pillar of OSS.

RMS has nothing to do with OSS, and says so all the time.

I on the other hand feel that OSS software ... [snip]

You can feel whatever you want, but you can't just make up your own meaning for the term "open source". "Open source" should mean what its coiners said it means, and they are very clear about it. They say "open source" is a better development methodology.

In this particular case the definition of "Free Software" should fall under the category of software that dosen't give a private company absolute control of your data.

You can't just make up your own meaning for "free software", either. If everyone uses the terms to mean what they want, how will we ever communicate? Your definition has nothing to do with that which has been in common usage for 15 years.

MS is capable of creating "Free Software", and even selling it with thier current UELA if they so choose.

Utter nonsense.

P.S.:

RMS is more important because he's writen Emacs and Hurd, where as I've only spit out a few drivers, is absurd.

No offense to you, but RMS is more important (in the context of this debate) than you (and me and the rest of slashdot) because he's a bona fide genius who's thought about this issue more than any of use ever will.

Open source is supposed to be about freedom.

But in either form ("open source" or "free software"), it's revisionist bullshit.

Free software, according to Stallman and the FSF, is about the essential freedom to share and modify software. They explictly reject the choice to produce and use proprietary software as a freedom. That makes as much sense, they say, as the "freedom to choose slavery". Free software is about as far away from "freedom to choose" as you can get.

How about open source, that much more convenient doctrine? According to its founders,

The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves.

So while ESR may support the freedom to choose in general (he does), that is not at all what open source is about. Open source is about convincing the world that it is a better development methodology. Most of its adherents would be perfectly happy it it killed off proprietary software, thus eliminating "choice".

So, the "freedom to choose" may be your philosophy, or Tim O'Reilly's philosophy, but it is not that of free software or open source.

One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespace thank you very much).

The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. To put it bluntly, Perl scripts will still look less beautiful than our friend Mr Goatse. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD^H^H^H^H Perl is dying. Larry is buggering it up the ass without lubricants, just like Shoeboy is doing to Larry's daughter.

Yes the issues were fixed, no RMS is way not cool with the QPL. The solution was for Trolltech to license Qt under a dual GPL/QPL license. I can't think of anyone out there who actually uses the QPL side of it, but people are certainly happy with the GPL part.

It ain't GPL-compatible, but it is Open.

Yes the issues were fixed, no RMS is way not cool with the QPL. The solution was for Trolltech to license Qt under a dual GPL/QPL license. I can't think of anyone out there who actually uses the QPL side of it, but people are certainly happy with the GPL part.

It ain't GPL-compatible, but it is Open.

A lot of people do prefer RMS's OS to Linus's.

as it would mean [that Sigma would] have to GPL all the software which is aggregated with it as well).

Wrong. The GNU General Public License "infects" only other code that runs in the same process space, not code that's merely aggregated onto a storage medium with GPL code or code that interacts with GPL code through message-based interprocess communication such as a pipe or socket using a well-defined interface. Read more in this section of the GPL FAQ.

Please note that the DishPVR 721 software also includes some proprietary elements that are not subject to the GPL. You cannot perform a working DishPVR 721 software build without the additional proprietary code.

This discussion was held before but here goes:

Combining two pieces of software more than just calling each other through the shell constitutes them being one program, especially in this case where the software won't even *compile* without the missing (proprietary) code. This is not allowed under the GPL - either the entire software is released under the GPL or you can't release it under the GPL at all. (see here)

Admittedly, it's nice of them to release the code and make it avaliable to the public, I'm sure it'll be interesting for everyone - but once again, the GPL is beaten.

what the hell is a git?

Is that like tool?

RMS makes a better counter-argument than I could make.

Also see the last quote on this page.

Patents cover ideas, whereas copyright covers (written) "works".

-Peter

You laugh at Microsoft because they have to fix security in their software all the time.

Well, I'm laughing at Linux because your line of supported applications and games is comparable to the Mac section in any general computer store on Earth.

what in practise - makes the GPL spread to new code - when does your software become automagically governed by GPL?

IANAL, but I believe the answer is: when your software is considered a derived work of GPL'ed code, according to the copyright law of the land.

There is, as far as I can tell, no "bright line" between when this does and does not happen, nor can one be made to exist, short of "everything infringes" or, more practically, "nothing infringes".

I've written about this principle in length on USENET's gnu.misc.discuss group in the past, if you want to search for my posts from years ago.

But the main thing to remember is: just because we're dealing with technology here doesn't mean we can expect to, or expect the law to, draw us a nice, technologically clean "line" between infringing copyright and not infringing it.

So, the question being "does my program derived from GPL'ed code?", two things, at least, must be answered:

1. What actually constitutes your program, which, in copyright terms, is the "work"?

2. Does that work contain a substantial portion of someone else's GPL'ed code?

Anyway, since the GPL "protects" code no further than copyright law defines "derived work", it cannot definitely answer the question.

Instead, all it can do is limit the degree to which copyright law's view of a "derived work" might extend beyond what the GPL intended to protect.

Hence things like the "mere aggregation" clause.

Thanks for that correction. Sorry, I forgot that GPL software is free (as in speech), but not always free (as in beer). Moment of stupidity. :P

I took a look at The Free Software Definition to brush up after my mistake; have a read for yourself if you need. innocent_white_lamb, you seem to know your stuff already, though. :)

The question is, can we explain the GPL FAQ in a short, clear and understandable way. In other words (or ironically) the problem is that we need the huge FAQ which just confuses people. Imagine showing that FAQ to your boss, who doesn't know anything about GPL before. After he/she has read it, and got confused, how do you summarize it so that he can use the information in his business.

We at the FSF are saddened by this GPL violation. Because we do not hold copyright on Xvid, we can't act directly. We support the Xvid developers' effort to get full GPL compliance from Sigma. If you're interested in how we enforce the GPL when we hold copyright, please see our attorney Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GPL.

Most interesting of all, will the FSF actually do what it always said it'd do, and protect this GPLd software?

I find it frustrating every time I hear Linux users (whom I usually expect to have a clue) drool over the sickening and ugly desktop that is OSX.

But its Ok, because Darwin is free and Open Source, right? Right?

Wrong.

Apple are lying to you. Darwin is not free as in freedom. It is more restrictive than any other license, effectively asking you to accept that it covers running code, not just redistribution. Then there's the lack of privacy - any modifications have to be disclosed to a single, monopolistic party - Apple.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html. The FSF boycotted Apple, remember. Apple are not the saviour of the desktop, they are not a wonderful company, and they are not embracing freedom. Apple are just as evil, monopolistic and money-hungry as the rest of them.

And what program besides a text editor makes a 30k file?

What program besides a text editor is useful for writing a sermon?

BTW, if you are interested in creating a free outline font, I would like to invite you to the Free UCS Outline Fonts project I started a couple of months ago on Savannah.

With kind regards,
Primoz Peterlin

Man. All you guys are smoking crack. It's quite obvious that notepad is the best simple text editor. Who the fuck wants all this other bullshit? Vi is fucking impossible to use and Emacs...what the fuck??

I hope RMS isn't singing it...

The article didn't make it clear (at least to me) why [no[n] physical property] made a difference.

Why break away from text editors? I would LOVE to see an 'Ed for Dummies' !

(N.B. I actually had to write an Ed clone for a CS course a while back so I actually know how to use that editor. My father, a unix sysadmin in days of yore, still speaks fondly of Ed, cursing the devilish vi users.)

From: patl@athena.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti)
Subject: The True Path (long)
Date: 11 Jul 91 03:17:31 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs,alt.slack

When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi *and* Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like, 'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

Ed, man! !man ed

ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)

NAME
ed - text editor

SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
---

Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED! "Ed is the standard text editor." And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs

Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

"Ed is the standard text editor." Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

golem$ ed

?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hell o?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?

---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity. "Ed is the standard text editor." Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!

When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!! TEXT EDITOR.

When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their "edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.

Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

"My system" is technical purity incarnate and the embodiment of all that is good in the universe. "Your system" is a loose collection of hacks done by experimental gerbil subjects on amphetamines. Remember those two constants in any debate of this nature and much of what gets said will come into the proper perspective. -- John Hubbard, in c.o.l.m

Vi Improved

This is a little off-topic and as the subject says I am a newbie to Slashdot and the finer details of copyright law, and IP, and (list is way too long) but here goes anyway...

Most of the posts seem to agree that if you buy a CD, you can legally make a back-up copy for yourself, but it is ilegally to give (not loan, give) that copy to a friend.

However, most of the posters on this site seem to promote free software. "As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse."

My question is, to those who agree that it is unethical (yes I know that illegal != unethical but I'm sure that some here do find it unethical) to make a copy of a music CD that you bought to a friend, how can you justify making a copy of a program that you bought, and giving that to a friend.

It's a different way of releasing software, but it still has very strong and significant restrictions on it's use.

Name one such use -- one that does not derive from licensing restrictions placed by someone else on non-GPL'ed code.

Here is the GPL, point out where it discriminates against corporations, individuals, governments, or anyone else, in terms of their right to use the software, as source code or binaries.

It definatley provides some advantages to both the general puplic and the govenrment. I don't think the NSA should ignore Linux, but I don't think they should give it significant pereferential treatment either.

What part of "Linux is not an individual or corporation" do you not understand?

They aren't giving Linux preferential treatment -- they're giving the public preferential treatment! (Or, they were.)

If Linux happens to be, for whatever combination of reasons, the best public product for the job they have at hand, then there's nothing wrong with them enhancing it instead of, say, OpenBSD -- and vice versa, should they wish to enhance that.

Again, Linux is a free public product, like the C language, or the Ada language, or the FORTRAN language -- in some cases, products that, via trademark especially, have some "onerous restrictions" beyond those of the GPL (like, you can't call something X unless your implementation passes a rigorous test suite).

It's obviously throwing your brain a curve because, unlike standards, it's an actual free implementation, which post-1980s software kiddies generally can't conceive of in a "Free As In GNU" sense.

But the government has long been in the "business" of freely enhancing free public implementations of software as well -- implementations that have almost always been competitive with proprietary offerings in their day.

Linux is just another case of this.

And if it wasn't for Microsoft wetting its pants over Linux as a competitor, we wouldn't be having this discussion -- it'd be assumed a reasonable thing for government to do. (There might be some mumbling resentment over not picking a *BSD, of course, which gets into technical issues I'm not prepared to address.)

So, the question is this: why are you working as a shill for Microsoft's business interests?

It's not a lie. For example, any employee of any corporation cannot legally include a GPL product in any of their own work without explicit permission of a signatory executive officer of the company.

So a corporation can legally include a GPL product in any of their own work.

Which means saying that GPL'ed source code cannot be used commercially IS A LIE, your attempts at deflecting the issue notwithstanding.

Your position that GPL software is "specifically available to everyone" applies more to the LGPL, which doesn't have a poison pill clause like the full GPL. This position of yours is really misrepresentative.

Here is the GPL. Search it for the text "commerc", and you'll find only one occurrence, in a trivial and unrelated place.

The GPL has no poison-pill clause against corporations or commerce.

You, sir, clearly know that, given your detailed and willfully-misdirected rebuttal to my explanation, so you are intentionally lying.

Therefore you, sir, are a liar.

I love to be elitist.

I love to flaunt my l33t sk3llz in front of the unwashed masses, but I know that it is the time I put into the craft and not any innate talent that separates "us and them."

I was lucky enough to grow up in a middle-class family and be exposed to the computer from the age of 3. I was lucky that my father, who dropped out of engineering in college, and I sat down through my childhood and went through basic programming skills. I'm lucky that I was enrolled in a preschool where I learned logo.

I look at my cousins, and I see that many of them never saw a computer except the few times they could use a dilapidated Apple IIe at their under funded school. I saw them taught by elementary teachers who still cringe at the word algebra.

Of course people are entering college with less than ideal study skills! Many have never needed to learn how to learn in an academic setting.

The good news is that we all can learn how to learn more effectively. The bad news is that many are already 10 to 15 years behind those in luckier positions.

Now, on how to bridge the gap... I'm partial to the Core Java series, especially the Fundamentals book. It's quite readable for a language book, and doesn't require any experience.

The best way to prepare for a test in CS is to First, take every programming assignment and code pieces on paper with a time limit. Then type in the results and see the mistakes. Finally, after solving the problem, try to code it on paper again with the same time limit.

The key to CS tests is often rote memorization. I remember seeing many people fail to answer a question because they didn't remember a command in class that made part of the problem trivial. Again, the solution is to write on paper first, then approach the computer.

How to take notes in class? Teach Mind mapping. Teach the basics -- Between mind mapping and rewriting notes, I had a 15% advantage on every test I took in school.

People seem to have coding tips here already, so I'll skip to organization. How big is the group? If you have more than 5-7 people, split them into groups of 5-7, as this has been empirically shown to produce the best results (I know Bormann was involved with research on this topic...) Randomly assign the groups, then let people trade. That, or divvy up topics after groups are decided, and then people can trade as necessary. Let them choose one person to be accountable to a director. That way, groups are being managed rather than hordes of people.

Finally, let rewards be having their name put on part of the work. It looks great on resumes and grad school applications. This may just be sufficient motivation for high-powered individuals to take ownerships of writing parts of the project. Bring in some English or Journalism majors and offer them editor credits. The goal should be writing well enough that the English major can understand the topic well enough to correct it. This insures that the writing will be accessable to your target Audience.

Good luck! And don't forget to open source the license for the world to use! :)

RMS is right on the money. Right To Read

And digital prohibition is a good term for it.

Stallman wrote a wonderful piece of science fiction on the subject. If you want to think about where this is going, it's worth reading.

When you think about how it's possible for such a small industry (content is infinitessimal compared to, for instance, consumer electronics) to have such incredible influence, remember that politicians have a unique respect for those who control the media.

It's a remarkably cynical viewpoint, but the television in some ways restored an old social order called the monarchy. Content actually is King. More specifically, those who control the TV rule the world. I mean, think about it; that joke doesn't quite get the laugh it used to. Anyone who'se ever worked for a cause and felt the crushing, inevitable apathy of the world around them knows what I mean. Five minutes on Oprah could mobilize tens of millions of people to vote or to read or to free Tibet, but at the moment its highest calling is to sell beer and diet drugs.

And the days when the media owners were innocent and principled are ancient history. They know what they're doing. The federal government's ONDCP editing scripts of prime time TV shows? Disney making anti-file-sharing propaganda cartoons? Oh, they know exactly how it works.

They may be doomed anyway, but the content trust will fight brutally to the end. They'll take whatever we wont fight to the death over. They'll leave a wake of ruined lives and an ocean of lost opportunity in their wake. If we're lucky, our children and their children will get to clean up the mess we make today.

Well, the U.S. government does place restrictions on one's right to give software away (in the case of strong cryptography). Hence OpenBSD is based in Canada.

But do these U.S. export restrictions apply to free software? The current crypto export regulations (section 740.13(e)) seem to grant an export License Exception for publicly available source code and object code compiled from publicly available source code provided that the original publisher of such code notifies crypt@bis.doc.gov (cc: enc@ncsc.mil) of the code's public availability. (Notification seems not to be required for mirrors.)

Hence Mozilla is based in the United States, where the only restriction on exporting OSI Certified(tm) open source encryption software is that it not implement a system primarily designed to restrict the fair use of a copyrighted work.

The Free Software Movement was founded in 1984, but its inspiration comes from the ideals of 1776: freedom, community, and voluntary cooperation. This is what leads to free enterprise, to free speech, and to free software.