Slashdot Mirror

This is not a dis of Mono, which I think is a fine project and generally a good thing(tm), but the are open source Java implentations. As Mono progesses, it will run into the same issues that the above projects have of being highly compatible, but not 100%. There will always be some compatibility issues.

Software license terminology is always confusing. I recommend looking at this explanation and nice diagram that shows catagories of software.

I've always wondered though, is software "open source" if you can look at the source code by not modify it? The word "open" is a little unclear in exactly what it implies. I guess that case is more of teasing-type proprietary software... You can look but don't touch! :-)

Seemed apposite.

Legally anyway. I haven't looked at the EULA for Gamespy (haven't downloaded it, actually), but I'm betting some large odds it'll have some clause in it saying they're not responsible even if it destroys your computer, sets fire to your home, and heralds the End of the World.

You mean like this one and this one, and this one, and every other EULA I've ever read?

Since there is a potential for them to share mp3 files accross those networks, they must be illegal.

The provision of source code regardless of whether someone purchases the binaries or receives them for free is not optional - as long as you release copies publically, you must provide the source code for no more than a nominal copying/mail fee. This is covered in the GPL faq:

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

The provision of source code regardless of whether someone purchases the binaries or receives them for free is not optional - as long as you release copies publically, you must provide the source code for no more than a nominal copying/mail fee. This is covered in the GPL faq:

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Uh?

Last time I checked, "pthread" is just an API, and on Linux you have at least two implementations of that:

• linuxthreads (kernel-based, uses the clone() system call, definively scheduled by the kernel), which is the one shipped with GNU libc (the one normally used, and the one used by the author of the article, btw).
• GNU Pth (completely userland).

IBM is also working to implement a M:N threading implementation with a pthread API, partially kernel-based and partially in userland.

under the new security system, GPL programs will not be able to be "trusted" by MS' hardware/software security system, so GPL based systems (like Apache web servers) will become unusable

First, Apache is not GPL’d.

Second, the guy mentioned (GNU) GPL as an instance of copyleft. MPL and GNU LGPL would be other affected licenses examples.

Third, the difference between merely free (or the Marketspeak ‘Open Source’) and free and copylefted software in this issue is that it affects copylefted software more drastically. Because with free, non-copylefted software like Apache, a company like Covalent can – and actually already does – take the free code and release proprietary, DRM-compliant binaries. Incidentally, that would kill most of the incentive to develop Apache as viable competition to MS IIS, but Microsoft will try hard to cover the fact in Congressional hearings and media events.

It would still possible to take GNU GPL code and generate supported, DRM-compliant binary distributions – too bad one wouldn’t be able to use the source code he earned by getting the binary to compile a DRM-compliant version customized to his needs. It is this restriction which would all but kill GNU GPL’d software.

under the new security system, GPL programs will not be able to be "trusted" by MS' hardware/software security system, so GPL based systems (like Apache web servers) will become unusable

First, Apache is not GPL’d.

Second, the guy mentioned (GNU) GPL as an instance of copyleft. MPL and GNU LGPL would be other affected licenses examples.

Third, the difference between merely free (or the Marketspeak ‘Open Source’) and free and copylefted software in this issue is that it affects copylefted software more drastically. Because with free, non-copylefted software like Apache, a company like Covalent can – and actually already does – take the free code and release proprietary, DRM-compliant binaries. Incidentally, that would kill most of the incentive to develop Apache as viable competition to MS IIS, but Microsoft will try hard to cover the fact in Congressional hearings and media events.

It would still possible to take GNU GPL code and generate supported, DRM-compliant binary distributions – too bad one wouldn’t be able to use the source code he earned by getting the binary to compile a DRM-compliant version customized to his needs. It is this restriction which would all but kill GNU GPL’d software.

A quote from 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." (emphasis added)

As there is no specific mention that the GPL applies only to source (it applies to computer programs, including binaries and object code, as specified in section 3), one can only take this to mean that forcing it to comply with Palladium would be imposing further restriction on the users ability to excercise the rights given to them by the GPL. This is itself breaking the GPL.

Just something for the GNU friendly legal types to chew on :)

..of The Right to Read fiction by RMS. They had SPA - Software Protection Authority, possessing unlimited rights on copyright control and license enforcement. And I thought that was a grotesque...
Sure RIAA is no SPA yet, but it is slowly getting there.

Sigh. Sure hope you're not writing any Open Source documentation ...

EDonkey Homepage

ML donkey homepage (my preferred Linux client)

Now, when I first read this, I was a psyched as the next slashbot. Hey, I use Linux at home as a desktop OS, at work as a high-throughput workstation OS, and also at work as a low-downtime server OS. It's the closest thing to the "perfect solution" to yet come out of the software industry.

So what could be wrong with its adoption by the German government?

Basically, the problem is the German government itself. While it is ancient history to most Americans, the two World Wars (I and II) still loom menacingly in the minds of many Europeans.

Likewise, the hard line taken by GNU, the FSF, and people like RMS and ESR, has reminded more than one person of the fascism practiced half a century ago in Germany. Indeed, it's taken all of RedHat's marketing skills to overcome this image in selling Linux to corporate customers.

I just think that at this point, we don't want to be seen as "cutting deals" with those that might conceivably tarnish Linux's already questionable image. The general public already associates Linux with hackers and pirates; let's try to leave Nazis out of it.

That said, there are plenty of other places that we should be trying to woo with OSS. "Good guys" like France, England, and even Canada, could be great for Linux's reputation in the global community.

For all the evil that Micro$oft represents, one thing must be acknowledged: they understand the importance of public perception. I'd hate for Linux to underestimate this, and go the way of BeOS and OS/2.

The acid test of any license is whether it's DFSG [debian.org] free and can thus be included in Debian, Mandrake and other Free Software distributions.

Er, no. The Open Source Definition and the Free Software List of Freedoms are used a lot more commonly than the DFSG, which the OSD to a certain extend replaced. I think you just saw this as an excuse to advocate Debian ignoring well known yardstick of the Open Source / Free Software community. Mandrake use the OSD themselves to define what should and shouldn't be in their distro, as do Red Hat (both of which do include proprietary apps, eg Netscape 4, when there are no stable OSS alternatives).

Groups like Apple and the DivX team have been known to release purportedly "open source" software under look-but-don't-touch style licenses.

They are lying. As there's as little to stop them saying a proprietary application is Open Source under the DFSG as there is the Open Source Definition.

BSD is not a free software license and I would never deliberately contribute code to a BSD project.

The GNU folks, who coined the term (I think), would tend to disagree with you.

I didn't even take into account all the cannibalization that goes on in the entertainment industry. Actors, being so valuable, manage to suck up all the extra revenues that the movie studios manage to bring in with extensive copyright. Music and movie studios cannibalize each other with advertising.

I can't really back this up entirely, but this is my position: If there were less money at stake, there'd be less money to pay actors, less money to waste on advertising, but the output, would remain the same, because the public demand would remain the same.

Think about advertising. If I spend 100 million dollars on advertising, and you spend 100 million dollars on equally effective advertising for a competing product, we end up where we started. Advertising is a necessary evil, but I believe that will be the first thing to go, along with exorbitant actor's salaries if reduced copyright led to reduced revenue for the entertainment industry.

Plus, read this:
creative motivation

Of course, it's always important to consider the source; I don't think Richard Stallman would post any studies which didn't support his theory. But still, this cannot be ignored, and adds a whole new dimension to this question.

At least FSF doesn't think that GPL and BSD license are compatible:

GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses

But then again, who cares what RMS thinks about BSD license... I couldn't find a real reason for this incompatibility.

If it's GPL'd, the above isn't possible. However, it's also much more difficult to incorporate unhacked VP3 support into their players and encoders, because they have to write their own code rather than just using the available library.

What about the LGPL, The GNU Lesser General Public License? I'm not trolling, I would really like to know the disadvantages of releasing Ogg libraries under the LGPL. I thought that the LGPL would be ideal for such things like Ogg Vorbis and other Ogg libs (like it is for SDL which is used by lots of proprietary projects, for example) and I'm curious why BSD/X11 type licence was chosen over the LGPL.

You didn't know? I must warn you, you will go deaf if you listen to it.

Getting these people over to Free operating systems will require a fundamental shift in thinking, one that emphasizes thier freedom. This cannot be a war of features (ie that a GNU/Linux system is better than Microsoft Windows), rather it must be an issue of what freedoms the Microsoft users have lost, and how we can replace the things they "need" from thier old system with equilivant Free utilities.

I've been using free software OS's (mostly Debian) exclusively for quite a few years now — I do so for philosophical reasons, rather than stricte technical ones, i.e. I consider the whole technical superiority of my working environment a nice side effect of the freedom I have.

I always smile while reading about every new “improvement” from Microsoft. First of all, I think about Microsoft users: “How much more will they stand?” I think “No way! This time Microsoft has gone to far, people will never agree to such EULA/DRM/etc.!” But people keep suprising me every time. When I talk with MS users about the freedom and privacy issues the usual answer is “Yeah, but what are you gonna do...”

Few years ago I thought that people usually don't give a damn about their freedom to see, modify and redistribute the source code of programs they use, so I thought that the technical aspects of free software (security, stability) however they are not the main reasons for me to use it, should be the main subject while telling people why they might consider using Debian or other free software OS, instead of Windows.

Now I see that the freedom is more important to people than ever before, because they almost don't have any freedom left. I used to tell people that I use Debian because I don't like rebooting every time some program crashes. Now I tell people that I use Debian, because I think my freedom and privacy are very important to me, and it seems to be more interesting to them with every new version of Windows.

So, thank you Microsoft! You make people need free software!

That is the best way to ensure that the strength of Free Software (and other movements who want to come along) remains strong at its base while still expanding, even if the progress is slow, slow growth of staunch supporters is healthier than fast growth of people comparing application features.

Unfortunately those other movements who want to come along don't say about freedom at all. A small percentage of PC users have heard about this new open-source operating system called Linux, made by Linus Torvalds who doesn't care about politics and philosophy and made his OS for fun and who thinks it's main advantages over proprietary software are of strictly technical nature. Almost no one of them has heard about GNU, about free software, about The Free Software Foundation, about the GNU philosophy or about software being free as free speech while not necessarily being free as free beer, etc.

The most important advantage of GNU/Linux distributions and other free software operating systems is totally unknown to most of people, even those who knows about alternative OSs. But I agree with you that it is very important and freedom/privacy issues should be the main points in free vs. proprietary software discussions. If more people think so, we might eventually see the GNU project ideals which they've been talking about for almost twenty years, finally reaching people's minds.

Getting these people over to Free operating systems will require a fundamental shift in thinking, one that emphasizes thier freedom. This cannot be a war of features (ie that a GNU/Linux system is better than Microsoft Windows), rather it must be an issue of what freedoms the Microsoft users have lost, and how we can replace the things they "need" from thier old system with equilivant Free utilities.

I've been using free software OS's (mostly Debian) exclusively for quite a few years now — I do so for philosophical reasons, rather than stricte technical ones, i.e. I consider the whole technical superiority of my working environment a nice side effect of the freedom I have.

I always smile while reading about every new “improvement” from Microsoft. First of all, I think about Microsoft users: “How much more will they stand?” I think “No way! This time Microsoft has gone to far, people will never agree to such EULA/DRM/etc.!” But people keep suprising me every time. When I talk with MS users about the freedom and privacy issues the usual answer is “Yeah, but what are you gonna do...”

Few years ago I thought that people usually don't give a damn about their freedom to see, modify and redistribute the source code of programs they use, so I thought that the technical aspects of free software (security, stability) however they are not the main reasons for me to use it, should be the main subject while telling people why they might consider using Debian or other free software OS, instead of Windows.

Now I see that the freedom is more important to people than ever before, because they almost don't have any freedom left. I used to tell people that I use Debian because I don't like rebooting every time some program crashes. Now I tell people that I use Debian, because I think my freedom and privacy are very important to me, and it seems to be more interesting to them with every new version of Windows.

So, thank you Microsoft! You make people need free software!

That is the best way to ensure that the strength of Free Software (and other movements who want to come along) remains strong at its base while still expanding, even if the progress is slow, slow growth of staunch supporters is healthier than fast growth of people comparing application features.

Unfortunately those other movements who want to come along don't say about freedom at all. A small percentage of PC users have heard about this new open-source operating system called Linux, made by Linus Torvalds who doesn't care about politics and philosophy and made his OS for fun and who thinks it's main advantages over proprietary software are of strictly technical nature. Almost no one of them has heard about GNU, about free software, about The Free Software Foundation, about the GNU philosophy or about software being free as free speech while not necessarily being free as free beer, etc.

The most important advantage of GNU/Linux distributions and other free software operating systems is totally unknown to most of people, even those who knows about alternative OSs. But I agree with you that it is very important and freedom/privacy issues should be the main points in free vs. proprietary software discussions. If more people think so, we might eventually see the GNU project ideals which they've been talking about for almost twenty years, finally reaching people's minds.

Getting these people over to Free operating systems will require a fundamental shift in thinking, one that emphasizes thier freedom. This cannot be a war of features (ie that a GNU/Linux system is better than Microsoft Windows), rather it must be an issue of what freedoms the Microsoft users have lost, and how we can replace the things they "need" from thier old system with equilivant Free utilities.

I've been using free software OS's (mostly Debian) exclusively for quite a few years now — I do so for philosophical reasons, rather than stricte technical ones, i.e. I consider the whole technical superiority of my working environment a nice side effect of the freedom I have.

I always smile while reading about every new “improvement” from Microsoft. First of all, I think about Microsoft users: “How much more will they stand?” I think “No way! This time Microsoft has gone to far, people will never agree to such EULA/DRM/etc.!” But people keep suprising me every time. When I talk with MS users about the freedom and privacy issues the usual answer is “Yeah, but what are you gonna do...”

Few years ago I thought that people usually don't give a damn about their freedom to see, modify and redistribute the source code of programs they use, so I thought that the technical aspects of free software (security, stability) however they are not the main reasons for me to use it, should be the main subject while telling people why they might consider using Debian or other free software OS, instead of Windows.

Now I see that the freedom is more important to people than ever before, because they almost don't have any freedom left. I used to tell people that I use Debian because I don't like rebooting every time some program crashes. Now I tell people that I use Debian, because I think my freedom and privacy are very important to me, and it seems to be more interesting to them with every new version of Windows.

So, thank you Microsoft! You make people need free software!

That is the best way to ensure that the strength of Free Software (and other movements who want to come along) remains strong at its base while still expanding, even if the progress is slow, slow growth of staunch supporters is healthier than fast growth of people comparing application features.

Unfortunately those other movements who want to come along don't say about freedom at all. A small percentage of PC users have heard about this new open-source operating system called Linux, made by Linus Torvalds who doesn't care about politics and philosophy and made his OS for fun and who thinks it's main advantages over proprietary software are of strictly technical nature. Almost no one of them has heard about GNU, about free software, about The Free Software Foundation, about the GNU philosophy or about software being free as free speech while not necessarily being free as free beer, etc.

The most important advantage of GNU/Linux distributions and other free software operating systems is totally unknown to most of people, even those who knows about alternative OSs. But I agree with you that it is very important and freedom/privacy issues should be the main points in free vs. proprietary software discussions. If more people think so, we might eventually see the GNU project ideals which they've been talking about for almost twenty years, finally reaching people's minds.

Getting these people over to Free operating systems will require a fundamental shift in thinking, one that emphasizes thier freedom. This cannot be a war of features (ie that a GNU/Linux system is better than Microsoft Windows), rather it must be an issue of what freedoms the Microsoft users have lost, and how we can replace the things they "need" from thier old system with equilivant Free utilities.

I've been using free software OS's (mostly Debian) exclusively for quite a few years now — I do so for philosophical reasons, rather than stricte technical ones, i.e. I consider the whole technical superiority of my working environment a nice side effect of the freedom I have.

I always smile while reading about every new “improvement” from Microsoft. First of all, I think about Microsoft users: “How much more will they stand?” I think “No way! This time Microsoft has gone to far, people will never agree to such EULA/DRM/etc.!” But people keep suprising me every time. When I talk with MS users about the freedom and privacy issues the usual answer is “Yeah, but what are you gonna do...”

Few years ago I thought that people usually don't give a damn about their freedom to see, modify and redistribute the source code of programs they use, so I thought that the technical aspects of free software (security, stability) however they are not the main reasons for me to use it, should be the main subject while telling people why they might consider using Debian or other free software OS, instead of Windows.

Now I see that the freedom is more important to people than ever before, because they almost don't have any freedom left. I used to tell people that I use Debian because I don't like rebooting every time some program crashes. Now I tell people that I use Debian, because I think my freedom and privacy are very important to me, and it seems to be more interesting to them with every new version of Windows.

So, thank you Microsoft! You make people need free software!

That is the best way to ensure that the strength of Free Software (and other movements who want to come along) remains strong at its base while still expanding, even if the progress is slow, slow growth of staunch supporters is healthier than fast growth of people comparing application features.

Unfortunately those other movements who want to come along don't say about freedom at all. A small percentage of PC users have heard about this new open-source operating system called Linux, made by Linus Torvalds who doesn't care about politics and philosophy and made his OS for fun and who thinks it's main advantages over proprietary software are of strictly technical nature. Almost no one of them has heard about GNU, about free software, about The Free Software Foundation, about the GNU philosophy or about software being free as free speech while not necessarily being free as free beer, etc.

The most important advantage of GNU/Linux distributions and other free software operating systems is totally unknown to most of people, even those who knows about alternative OSs. But I agree with you that it is very important and freedom/privacy issues should be the main points in free vs. proprietary software discussions. If more people think so, we might eventually see the GNU project ideals which they've been talking about for almost twenty years, finally reaching people's minds.

Getting these people over to Free operating systems will require a fundamental shift in thinking, one that emphasizes thier freedom. This cannot be a war of features (ie that a GNU/Linux system is better than Microsoft Windows), rather it must be an issue of what freedoms the Microsoft users have lost, and how we can replace the things they "need" from thier old system with equilivant Free utilities.

I've been using free software OS's (mostly Debian) exclusively for quite a few years now — I do so for philosophical reasons, rather than stricte technical ones, i.e. I consider the whole technical superiority of my working environment a nice side effect of the freedom I have.

I always smile while reading about every new “improvement” from Microsoft. First of all, I think about Microsoft users: “How much more will they stand?” I think “No way! This time Microsoft has gone to far, people will never agree to such EULA/DRM/etc.!” But people keep suprising me every time. When I talk with MS users about the freedom and privacy issues the usual answer is “Yeah, but what are you gonna do...”

Few years ago I thought that people usually don't give a damn about their freedom to see, modify and redistribute the source code of programs they use, so I thought that the technical aspects of free software (security, stability) however they are not the main reasons for me to use it, should be the main subject while telling people why they might consider using Debian or other free software OS, instead of Windows.

Now I see that the freedom is more important to people than ever before, because they almost don't have any freedom left. I used to tell people that I use Debian because I don't like rebooting every time some program crashes. Now I tell people that I use Debian, because I think my freedom and privacy are very important to me, and it seems to be more interesting to them with every new version of Windows.

So, thank you Microsoft! You make people need free software!

That is the best way to ensure that the strength of Free Software (and other movements who want to come along) remains strong at its base while still expanding, even if the progress is slow, slow growth of staunch supporters is healthier than fast growth of people comparing application features.

Unfortunately those other movements who want to come along don't say about freedom at all. A small percentage of PC users have heard about this new open-source operating system called Linux, made by Linus Torvalds who doesn't care about politics and philosophy and made his OS for fun and who thinks it's main advantages over proprietary software are of strictly technical nature. Almost no one of them has heard about GNU, about free software, about The Free Software Foundation, about the GNU philosophy or about software being free as free speech while not necessarily being free as free beer, etc.

The most important advantage of GNU/Linux distributions and other free software operating systems is totally unknown to most of people, even those who knows about alternative OSs. But I agree with you that it is very important and freedom/privacy issues should be the main points in free vs. proprietary software discussions. If more people think so, we might eventually see the GNU project ideals which they've been talking about for almost twenty years, finally reaching people's minds.

Man, I've been waiting for screen to get adapted to Solaris for years.

I got used to it during my shell-term AT&T Unix(tm) days. It made true multilple-session work possible. I was absolutely astounded as my PPP session was running under Windows 3.1.

It was amazing to have this true multitasking capability back in 1992 -- and you didn't have to use a mouse!

The zsh command line is the easiest, fastest, most efficient interface ever devised

Is there something about GCC 2.95 we should know. I assume you are talking about maybe a STL problem.

The GCC standard C++ library has been completely re-written, and I would venture to say that it is now probably one of the most standards-compliant implementations now available.

You can read more about it here.

Jefferson once explained that the Freedom of Speech ends at yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. In the same way, the concepts of Fair Use are given limitations.

Signet books include this with the copyright:

All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form. For information address Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 757 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

It is the intent of Fair Use that allows for Slashdot to link to various information within NPR's site, and it is Fair Use that allows you to release a GPL'd programme that use basic pieces of the Windows Operating System. However, it is the article "Intent and Fair Use" that prevents you from writing a Star Trek® novel without getting permission from Viacom/Paramount, and is the same article that prevents from taking public domain code and reselling at as your own. And don't think for a moment prophit is the all inclusive to the limitations of Fair Use.

Let me quote from the GPL FAQ on this subject:

Do I have "fair use" rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?

Yes, you do. "Fair use" is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about it--in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license.

Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what kinds of use are considered "fair" varies from country to country.

Fair Use also precludes "conditions of release" which would include NPR's Terms of Use and related policies. Otherwise, I could put 1984 in its entirety on the Internet, but as explained as, "All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form," which includes even quoting the first chapter. However, if I were reviewing the book and quoted a particular scene that relates to the reason why I gave it a particular review, that would be within Fair Use.

Anyone, like yourself, who treats Fair Use as a free for all must become all miffy about Google having lost the right to keep a particular article in its archive, and you probably don't understand why people are demanding that Star Trek® be made available as public domain on some level.

You obsess over the concept of "deep linking," as if, some how, this relates to anything discussed. They're not preventing linking, they're simply restricting excessive use of index referencing. This is not unlike the request by the Better Business Bureau to reduce excessive linking to their sites, particularly by those with no need to reference it at all. It was one thing to show your own record at the BBB, but just linking to it as a generic reference was unnecessary.

Half of Fair Use is dependant on commonsense and open interpretation. If Fair Use was absolute, the DeCSS wouldn't have been as large as an issue as it is.

"Creating an index or catalog is critical to all management of information, whether digital or otherwise. Without this exception, book authors could prevent libraries from listing thier works in card catalogs, because the book title and 10-20 word description would be "copyrighted" and reproducing it would be a violation of copyrights of the author. Luckily, the Founding Dads and the Courts have realized that this is absurd - that it harms no one to catalog and index information - and if a small bit of 'right to copy' is granted, well, so be it."

This statement only shows how you attempt to apply what is allowed by Fair Use (the need for indexing) and then stretch it to where it does not apply, hyperlinking. Hyperlinking is a failed form of indexing, this is why a programmer releasing their work under the GPL is required to include it, verbatim, with their work:

Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?

Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.

It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license, instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.

The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in the program.

Yea of DotHead Foolishness. I don't know where you think you've made sufficient argument, but if this were to goto court, you would find that Fair Use would be insufficient to uphold undesired linking.

Jefferson once explained that the Freedom of Speech ends at yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. In the same way, the concepts of Fair Use are given limitations.

Signet books include this with the copyright:

All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form. For information address Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 757 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

It is the intent of Fair Use that allows for Slashdot to link to various information within NPR's site, and it is Fair Use that allows you to release a GPL'd programme that use basic pieces of the Windows Operating System. However, it is the article "Intent and Fair Use" that prevents you from writing a Star Trek® novel without getting permission from Viacom/Paramount, and is the same article that prevents from taking public domain code and reselling at as your own. And don't think for a moment prophit is the all inclusive to the limitations of Fair Use.

Let me quote from the GPL FAQ on this subject:

Do I have "fair use" rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?

Yes, you do. "Fair use" is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about it--in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license.

Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what kinds of use are considered "fair" varies from country to country.

Fair Use also precludes "conditions of release" which would include NPR's Terms of Use and related policies. Otherwise, I could put 1984 in its entirety on the Internet, but as explained as, "All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form," which includes even quoting the first chapter. However, if I were reviewing the book and quoted a particular scene that relates to the reason why I gave it a particular review, that would be within Fair Use.

Anyone, like yourself, who treats Fair Use as a free for all must become all miffy about Google having lost the right to keep a particular article in its archive, and you probably don't understand why people are demanding that Star Trek® be made available as public domain on some level.

You obsess over the concept of "deep linking," as if, some how, this relates to anything discussed. They're not preventing linking, they're simply restricting excessive use of index referencing. This is not unlike the request by the Better Business Bureau to reduce excessive linking to their sites, particularly by those with no need to reference it at all. It was one thing to show your own record at the BBB, but just linking to it as a generic reference was unnecessary.

Half of Fair Use is dependant on commonsense and open interpretation. If Fair Use was absolute, the DeCSS wouldn't have been as large as an issue as it is.

"Creating an index or catalog is critical to all management of information, whether digital or otherwise. Without this exception, book authors could prevent libraries from listing thier works in card catalogs, because the book title and 10-20 word description would be "copyrighted" and reproducing it would be a violation of copyrights of the author. Luckily, the Founding Dads and the Courts have realized that this is absurd - that it harms no one to catalog and index information - and if a small bit of 'right to copy' is granted, well, so be it."

This statement only shows how you attempt to apply what is allowed by Fair Use (the need for indexing) and then stretch it to where it does not apply, hyperlinking. Hyperlinking is a failed form of indexing, this is why a programmer releasing their work under the GPL is required to include it, verbatim, with their work:

Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?

Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.

It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license, instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.

The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in the program.

Yea of DotHead Foolishness. I don't know where you think you've made sufficient argument, but if this were to goto court, you would find that Fair Use would be insufficient to uphold undesired linking.

If they use GPLed software to draw mickey, then would Mickey then be covered by the GPL?

No. A cluster running the Linux kernel was used to render Titanic starring Leonardo DiCrappio, but it didn't put Titanic under GPL. See the GPL FAQ entry: Can I use GPL-covered editors to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools to compile them?

All spelling in context, all emphasis is quasi steller's:

I love the free software (open source, whatever you want to call it) movement and I believe that this vulnerability could show the strength of the open source movement, if it is delt with correctly.

If you love the free software movement as you claim, please take the time to learn the difference between the two movements so you won't be confused anymore and think that they refer to the same thing with different names.

I don't really have any experience with Scheme yet. I have been going through a tutorial and have been very impressed with the language's simplicity and mathematical nature compared to the languages I know: '(Pascal C C++ Java Python). I have seen references to CLOS-like object systems for Scheme, such as tiny CLOS and GOOPS, though I haven't tried them yet.

I have to admit that some Perl snippits sometimes look like they're describing DNA in some obscure markup. Of course, it's well documented that DNA is actually C.

Since Darwin is now "open source", maybe there's a chance that the major holes in this legacy security system will finally get patched.

I didn't mention "open source", I mentioned Free Software and there is a big difference between the two movements. But since you mentioned the Open Source movement, it's worth noting some flaws in Apple's license, flaws that should scare away supporters of either movement. With this offer it's doubtful Apple will ever gain the kind of development momentum they desire, certainly not that which can compete with the development of Free Software. The last two paragraphs of that GNU essay on the APSL are particularly astute considering the parent's comment.

Since Darwin is now "open source", maybe there's a chance that the major holes in this legacy security system will finally get patched.

I didn't mention "open source", I mentioned Free Software and there is a big difference between the two movements. But since you mentioned the Open Source movement, it's worth noting some flaws in Apple's license, flaws that should scare away supporters of either movement. With this offer it's doubtful Apple will ever gain the kind of development momentum they desire, certainly not that which can compete with the development of Free Software. The last two paragraphs of that GNU essay on the APSL are particularly astute considering the parent's comment.

----------8<--------------------8<----------
begin-base64 644 getem.gz
H4sIADlvCz0CA+2YXWvbMBSG7/0rTj NDbmpbkj9id+RibDAYFAq7HIUqiRwr
dWRPtkm7tv990rx2iROHzAQGQxc2nH NsLB69ryWddxfejAuvyiw6HV8XP3ie
Uy9y0diS03FW1+WV5202G3eeNbPZY8 7FfeXOi7W3pHnO5GPlYVpK7Gb1Oh9b
aSGBAxdwV7Hv4GwAgY/urEUBupLqCl 3PmHQr4trc/XLzWdea6SnfsVOLp/AN
nArsFG7h+VkHqQqcAAVwa9UZE8DmWQ EjG11Bdc/LkoulemBksbxiW7XNktX1
a00H4DiSpUwyOR3ZcqTCpmLSoUsmap WhOjMvhHqnYWA37UguXsfSfroumnn2
ezhWyt+DvhaFYO39TDyTZJdnTWtOha BuFWqkq3JpkP4l0vCwRLGR6Jl4KnnO
mHrX2H4w06jDVGaFWFBkHH8Wha6oaP X5hC/Jpf9i/qRGpf+aJkYIAVb3jlQR
xkRlDdMepqtGHGMKWO1I3xJEJQjZSv gq4W8nApUISGcSrvmDmYCzTkAHb27w
HsEb9+GNFM2oS/ODEIbmIJoJgkloaJ 5Oc00lnvR6H7fe38Wpz1oG6CCgJEkS
tWDF4S7SVO8QUGSgDvF8oDwfGs+fie Z+u+omQiFCiekCDKIZday+RhgFSB0H
jDqHeP3X3j7snrBufOwbffYvSMQ/vb ES+QEyR6WjNI+0U/YO/5GP4wdDc4DX
QxIrdcZk3+uB8Xo/z6j336k7JbssP3 39iJD9xF+0PP9E1Kj1IF1/ohslh90/
wROIY9LynZYEva3w/ztE6yfGlIcokB 4AAA==
====
----------8<--------------------8<----------

1. Decode the Base64-encoded file getem.uue to getem.gz, run:
   uudecode getem.uue
2. Unzip the gzipped getem.gz to getem, run:
   gunzip getem.gz
3. Set the -rwx------ permissions, run:
   chmod 700 getem
4. See if the script doesn't contain any "rm -rf /" or other trojan/logic bomb (remember to always do it with scripts downloaded from Internet!), run:
   less getem
5. And finally run the script:
   ./getem

There's insignificant cost to running the compiler twice as often

Unless, as several people commented in this story, management demands that you run antivirus software with the following policy: every time you run the compiler, you also run the virus scanner on the compiler binary, and the virus scanner takes twice as long as the compiler itself.

or looking something up in a manual or on the web.

Not if the CBDTPA passes, free software is declared illegal, and the operating system vendor makes its NDA'd developer manuals pay-per-read.

"Gnu Public License".

Actually, General Public License. That's why it's known as the GNU GPL.

See the FSF's website

I think some of you are expressing concern because you don't want the mass public using anything but Windows. When everyone starts moving in on your elite OS, it no longer is the cool thing to use, so you must find something else to move on to....

Maybe now people will start using the Hurd :)

oever asks:

Where is the problem exactly with patents in GPL-ed software?

Worst case scenario: a patent could make it illegal to use a particular software package, even one licensed under the GPL. Depending on patent laws, it could also interfere with redistributing GPL code.

If a company has a patent on a software technique and writes and distributes GPL code to implement it, anybody can use this code. Or can't they?

Potentially not. The GPL is a copyright license, it gives people the right to distribute the software. It is not a patent license, it does not grant people the right to use any patents.

A patent holder who is friendly to the Free software community will provide, seperately from the GPL, a license permitting anyone to use, for free, the patent within the context of software licensed under a Free Software license. The DFSG makes a good set of guidelines for this purpose. Generally such licenses are void if you sue the patent holder over their use of your own patents. These are called Royalty-Free patents (or RF Patents). Some companies, whose patents are purely defensive, give a royalty-free license to everyone who isn't suing them.

To my knowledge, SCC has not done this for the patents connected to SELinux. This is why people are upset.

And can people modify that code? I guess one cannot write new GPL-ed code that does the same thing.

You can modify existing code or write new code if and only if you do so within the bounds of the above discussed patent licenses.

Or can a company charge you for using the GPL-ed code with patents?

Yes they can. Let's say the ACME Software company comes up with a great streaming video codec, they post the specifications online and encourage people to use it. A group of people take those specifications and make programs to make, broadcast and view ACME video, the program gets distributed widely. Two years later we find that prior to publishing the spec, ACME quietly filed for a patent, and it has come through.

My understanding is that ACME would have the legal right (though not the moral right, IMHO) to charge everyone who uses that software, or who has used it in the two year period while the patent is pending, for each time they use the software, or distribute files that were made with that software. This scenario is not that different from what Unisys did with LZW encryption, and GIF files.

Note: I am not a lawyer, none of the above should be construed as legal advice.

oever asks:

Where is the problem exactly with patents in GPL-ed software?

Worst case scenario: a patent could make it illegal to use a particular software package, even one licensed under the GPL. Depending on patent laws, it could also interfere with redistributing GPL code.

If a company has a patent on a software technique and writes and distributes GPL code to implement it, anybody can use this code. Or can't they?

Potentially not. The GPL is a copyright license, it gives people the right to distribute the software. It is not a patent license, it does not grant people the right to use any patents.

A patent holder who is friendly to the Free software community will provide, seperately from the GPL, a license permitting anyone to use, for free, the patent within the context of software licensed under a Free Software license. The DFSG makes a good set of guidelines for this purpose. Generally such licenses are void if you sue the patent holder over their use of your own patents. These are called Royalty-Free patents (or RF Patents). Some companies, whose patents are purely defensive, give a royalty-free license to everyone who isn't suing them.

To my knowledge, SCC has not done this for the patents connected to SELinux. This is why people are upset.

And can people modify that code? I guess one cannot write new GPL-ed code that does the same thing.

You can modify existing code or write new code if and only if you do so within the bounds of the above discussed patent licenses.

Or can a company charge you for using the GPL-ed code with patents?

Yes they can. Let's say the ACME Software company comes up with a great streaming video codec, they post the specifications online and encourage people to use it. A group of people take those specifications and make programs to make, broadcast and view ACME video, the program gets distributed widely. Two years later we find that prior to publishing the spec, ACME quietly filed for a patent, and it has come through.

My understanding is that ACME would have the legal right (though not the moral right, IMHO) to charge everyone who uses that software, or who has used it in the two year period while the patent is pending, for each time they use the software, or distribute files that were made with that software. This scenario is not that different from what Unisys did with LZW encryption, and GIF files.

Note: I am not a lawyer, none of the above should be construed as legal advice.

Coincidentally I'm drafting a project proposal which includes GPL'd software and contains some patented component. As they are not going to release the code to anyone else outside their organization, under abovesaid and this, they do not need to worry too much about conflicting of both license as long as they don't distribute their code outside their organization, and at the same time under the protection of patent-law.

I wish I could win the bid but my competitor send some MCSEs to spread FUD that we are using viral licenses and my software is infested with virus. Well that's another story to tell. :(

Where is the problem exactly with patents in GPL-ed software?

You should read the GPL. In the introduction, it states: "We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." For the details, you should check sections 7 and 8 of the GPL.

If a company has a patent on a software technique and writes and distributes GPL code to implement it, anybody can use this code. Or can't they?

Let's put this in a different way: if a company distributes some code for which they own a patent under the GPL, then the only way for them to comply with section 7 of the GPL is to allow royalty-free usage, redistribution and modification of the code. Otherwise, they would not be allowed to distribute the code under the GPL. They would have to stop distributing it, or change the license.

According to the gpl, they appear to have two choices:

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

So if these mods are in the kernel they will either need to licence the code to everyone, or stop distributing SELinux.

here the man sing

hear the man sing

First:

The class is generally populated by students from a wide range of backgrounds and interests-liberal arts and science types. While we use C++, the language isn't really the issue.

You'd better believe it's the issue. Language determines design is a Bell Labs aphorism. Another way of saying the same thing is that the (human) language in which you think and speak determines what you can think and speak about.

While I happen to be a big fan of C++, I will go on record as saying that it's not a good language to use for beginner programmers. (Neither is Java.) I'd say either Python, or Pascal (you know, that language whose major design goal was to teach introductory programming).

At least, if you are going to use C++, use a good text like Accelerated C++ by Koenig and Moo. Otherwise you'll spend too much time teaching "how to use C++" and not enough time teaching "how to write a good program."

Second:

Rather, the goal is to introduce basic programming ideas like loops, logic, modular programming etc. What are some of your favorite programming assignments that would be appropriate for students at this level?

My favorite prof in the intro sequence gave us a module that drew playing cards on the screen. (All ASCII-based with ANSI escape sequences for colors, no annoying graphics programming.) We had to write the logic to play Solitaire.

While there are a lot of problems that CS majors would find cool to solve, those aren't necessarily the same ones that will grab the interest of people "from a wide range of backgrounds," as you say your audience is.

actually according to the *LAW* it's copyright infringement i believe and not theft. there is a distinction in the eyes of the law. the gnu folks talk about this and it makes sense to me.