Slashdot Mirror

What you are missing is that the GPL allows (and encourages) selling free software, but it forbids taking away the rights of the recipient to further modify or redistribute the software. Caldera (UnitedLinux, by this philosophy, shows that they are just Caldera; Caldera has always done this) can't get around the GPL so I presume what they are doing is distributing source to all the GPL'd parts of the system and noting your rights in fine print somewhere while adding a few proprietary parts such that the whole integrated product cannot be redistributed and you have to pay a per-seat license. This means you're really just paying the license for a tiny amount of the product and not the whole OS.

You need to learn both logic and the facts before commenting.

> how can RMS say that all software should be free

Should but isn’t. Only software whose copyright owners released under the GNU GPL or some other free license is free.

> what he really means is free unless it is going to be used or distributed by someone he doesn't like?

It should be obvious from my last paragraph, but here it goes: copyleft does not mean free for all. It means free for those who will respect others’ freedom. Per-seat licensing schemes are a violation of freedom, and besides a violation of GNU GPL licensing. Also, it’s not about not liking someone, but what licensing someone uses to restrict someone else's freedom.

> I find it amusing that RMS and the other GPL zealots

How do you define a zealot? Why is being a zealot bad? What is a GPL zealot? Why is RMS one of them? Remember, a zealot is one who has zeal, and zeal in itself is a good thing.

> want unlimited freedom, unless of course such freedom would result in a choice or course of action that they might disagree with...

That RMS doesn’t want “unlimited freedom” I already proved, and anyway if he wanted that he wouldn’t have created copyleft and the GNU GPL, which are based on copyright, which in itself is a denial of absolute freedom, being an extension of property to the intellectual realm.

Now, denying the freedom to restrict others’ freedom somehow strikes me as completely reasonable.

You need to learn both logic and the facts before commenting.

> how can RMS say that all software should be free

Should but isn’t. Only software whose copyright owners released under the GNU GPL or some other free license is free.

> what he really means is free unless it is going to be used or distributed by someone he doesn't like?

It should be obvious from my last paragraph, but here it goes: copyleft does not mean free for all. It means free for those who will respect others’ freedom. Per-seat licensing schemes are a violation of freedom, and besides a violation of GNU GPL licensing. Also, it’s not about not liking someone, but what licensing someone uses to restrict someone else's freedom.

> I find it amusing that RMS and the other GPL zealots

How do you define a zealot? Why is being a zealot bad? What is a GPL zealot? Why is RMS one of them? Remember, a zealot is one who has zeal, and zeal in itself is a good thing.

> want unlimited freedom, unless of course such freedom would result in a choice or course of action that they might disagree with...

That RMS doesn’t want “unlimited freedom” I already proved, and anyway if he wanted that he wouldn’t have created copyleft and the GNU GPL, which are based on copyright, which in itself is a denial of absolute freedom, being an extension of property to the intellectual realm.

Now, denying the freedom to restrict others’ freedom somehow strikes me as completely reasonable.

You need to learn both logic and the facts before commenting.

> how can RMS say that all software should be free

Should but isn’t. Only software whose copyright owners released under the GNU GPL or some other free license is free.

> what he really means is free unless it is going to be used or distributed by someone he doesn't like?

It should be obvious from my last paragraph, but here it goes: copyleft does not mean free for all. It means free for those who will respect others’ freedom. Per-seat licensing schemes are a violation of freedom, and besides a violation of GNU GPL licensing. Also, it’s not about not liking someone, but what licensing someone uses to restrict someone else's freedom.

> I find it amusing that RMS and the other GPL zealots

How do you define a zealot? Why is being a zealot bad? What is a GPL zealot? Why is RMS one of them? Remember, a zealot is one who has zeal, and zeal in itself is a good thing.

> want unlimited freedom, unless of course such freedom would result in a choice or course of action that they might disagree with...

That RMS doesn’t want “unlimited freedom” I already proved, and anyway if he wanted that he wouldn’t have created copyleft and the GNU GPL, which are based on copyright, which in itself is a denial of absolute freedom, being an extension of property to the intellectual realm.

Now, denying the freedom to restrict others’ freedom somehow strikes me as completely reasonable.

The GPL requires that:

• Modified copies must include "an appropriate copyright notice" (GPL Sec. 1). Note that the copyright notice is not the same thing as the license (the GPL)...it is something like: Copyright © yyyy name of author.

• "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." (GPL Sec. 2a.)

The original BSD license, in contrast, has an obnoxious clause requiring credit in any advertising, not just in the copyright notice and source code.

The GPL requires that:

• Modified copies must include "an appropriate copyright notice" (GPL Sec. 1). Note that the copyright notice is not the same thing as the license (the GPL)...it is something like: Copyright © yyyy name of author.

• "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." (GPL Sec. 2a.)

The original BSD license, in contrast, has an obnoxious clause requiring credit in any advertising, not just in the copyright notice and source code.

Fuck, man, just open up a copy. Don't tell me you don't have one on your computer somewhere.

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

The copyright notice, which is required to be there, will include the name of the person who originally authored it.

From the GNU site:

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''

a paper on the Hurd, and saw: Part 2: A Look at Some of the Hurd's Beasts but read it as
Part 2: A Look at Some of the Hurd's Breasts .

Nice mental image.

-yb

We tried this once with DAT (remember SCMS?) and MD, and look where that got us.

It got us special piracy taxes.

Way to go. Lets see history repeating!

We heard about Linux after its release. At that time, the question facing us was, ``Should we cancel the Hurd project and use Linux instead?''

We heard that Linux was not at all portable (this may not be true today, but that's what we heard then). And we heard that Linux was architecturally on a par with the Unix kernel; our work was leading to something much more powerful.

Um, yeah. More powerful... hmm. And now that Linux has been ported to everything from Pocket PCs to the Dreamcast... What's the point?

But we did start the Hurd, back then, and now we have made it work. We hope its superior architecture will make free operating systems more powerful.

Well, here's to finally supporting 56k modems. You've only got a little further to go till you revolutionize the industry with your superior architecture *g*

Porting GNU Hurd to L4

Status: Discussion. :(

They would only have to release the source of any modified GPL'd software. I can put vi up for purchase without providing the source code as long as I haven't changed it.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

I have been looking forward to this. Last quarter I migrated our entire server farm from a Linux/BSD/Windows ME combination (talk about support nightmares!) to Hurd, and I haven't looked back. The changelog promises new drivers (yum!) as well as support for files > 17MB and protected memory. It doesn't get any sweeter than this.

For those still using legacy systems, a little background: the GNU Hurd is the official GNU microkernel. Because it's smaller than Linux, you get faster I/O at the cost of greater instability, a tradeoff most sysadmins are quick to take.

I've used it in a production-level enterprise environment, at home on the desktop, and even on my palmtop. Even my grandmother can do the base install. This is truly the wave of the future.

I have been trialing GCC 3.1 and the C++ compilation is a major improvement over past version of GCC. Being C based the GNOME 1.4 and GNOME 2 libraries and most applications compiles and runs without too much hassle. However KDE 3.0.1 is somewhat more problematic, even when neither debugging support nor strict syntax checking is enabled..

This is not the fault of either the KDE or GCC developers. KDE was coded to support the "older" C++ style of pre GCC 2.9x and Microsoft's compilers and the GCC Team is following the new C99 & ISO 14882 C++ standards.

After kludgeing around the defects in the older GCC C++ template and library implementations, GCC 3.1 C++ is real joy to use. It makes it possible to program C++ in a completely new styles, that IMO can be far more productive.

It is difficult layering one type of programing style over another, the older C++ style libraries certainly make Windows programing a pain.

Would it not be better to wait for the KDE team to port KDE to a pure GCC 3.1/ISO 14882 style?

At the very least the debugging support is required for GCC's Profile Driven Optimizations which can greatly improve application performance.

GNOME 2.0 is due for release soon enough, at the very least the GNOME libraries and core should also be included at a United Linux "main component".

I have been trialing GCC 3.1 and the C++ compilation is a major improvement over past version of GCC. Being C based the GNOME 1.4 and GNOME 2 libraries and most applications compiles and runs without too much hassle. However KDE 3.0.1 is somewhat more problematic, even when neither debugging support nor strict syntax checking is enabled..

This is not the fault of either the KDE or GCC developers. KDE was coded to support the "older" C++ style of pre GCC 2.9x and Microsoft's compilers and the GCC Team is following the new C99 & ISO 14882 C++ standards.

After kludgeing around the defects in the older GCC C++ template and library implementations, GCC 3.1 C++ is real joy to use. It makes it possible to program C++ in a completely new styles, that IMO can be far more productive.

It is difficult layering one type of programing style over another, the older C++ style libraries certainly make Windows programing a pain.

Would it not be better to wait for the KDE team to port KDE to a pure GCC 3.1/ISO 14882 style?

At the very least the debugging support is required for GCC's Profile Driven Optimizations which can greatly improve application performance.

GNOME 2.0 is due for release soon enough, at the very least the GNOME libraries and core should also be included at a United Linux "main component".

I have been trialing GCC 3.1 and the C++ compilation is a major improvement over past version of GCC. Being C based the GNOME 1.4 and GNOME 2 libraries and most applications compiles and runs without too much hassle. However KDE 3.0.1 is somewhat more problematic, even when neither debugging support nor strict syntax checking is enabled..

This is not the fault of either the KDE or GCC developers. KDE was coded to support the "older" C++ style of pre GCC 2.9x and Microsoft's compilers and the GCC Team is following the new C99 & ISO 14882 C++ standards.

After kludgeing around the defects in the older GCC C++ template and library implementations, GCC 3.1 C++ is real joy to use. It makes it possible to program C++ in a completely new styles, that IMO can be far more productive.

It is difficult layering one type of programing style over another, the older C++ style libraries certainly make Windows programing a pain.

Would it not be better to wait for the KDE team to port KDE to a pure GCC 3.1/ISO 14882 style?

At the very least the debugging support is required for GCC's Profile Driven Optimizations which can greatly improve application performance.

GNOME 2.0 is due for release soon enough, at the very least the GNOME libraries and core should also be included at a United Linux "main component".

Having recently taken the Free Software Quiz, I can tell you that not only is "being online" not a requirement, but it is not even sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the GPL. From the GPL FAQ:

I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?

You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user is on a network. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.

If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.

Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.

Having recently taken the Free Software Quiz, I can tell you that not only is "being online" not a requirement, but it is not even sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the GPL. From the GPL FAQ:

I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?

You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user is on a network. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.

If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.

Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.

Of course, the moment they start enforcing those patents, they lose the right to use these patents under the GPL. go look for yourself. It basically says, you may not use any patented technology in a gpled program unless you can offer free unrestricted licensing terms to all comers.

I think just about everything redhat sells incorporates GPLed software, no?

This means they may be charging people to transfer ownership of the software....

... even though the software has already been paid for?

Yep. Welcome the bizarre world of software "licencing", based on the concept that reading parts of a program into memory as they are needed is making a copy, and thus subject to regulation by copyright. You can own the disk but, under this bogus theory, not have the right to "copy" it into memory.

Since we humans read text by copying it from the page to our short-term memory (via our eyes), I'm waiting for someone to apply this to books...until you no longer have the right to read. After all, how is copying from printed text to synapse structure and electrical potential any different than copying from magentic alignments to electrical potential?

I unable to play Stallman singing " Free Software song ". Does anyone have a link to a music file of *him* singing it in another music format (ogg/mp3)?

dominik@schnitzer.at, mozparty-at-subscribe@relax.ath.cx, dominik@schnitzer.at, david_markvica@web.de, johannes_richter@gmx.net, kairo@kairo.at, rossi@chello.at, markush@world-direct.com, cbiesinger@web.de, jenskager@gmx.net, jo-at-mt@gmx.net, johann.petrak@gmx.at, dviper01@gmx.net, simon@simonschwaighofer.net, dreckskerl@glump.at, wt-lists@trexler.at, dusty@strike.wu-wien.ac.at, kasparhauserjr@hotmail.com, b.schallar@gmx.net, mutato@libero.it, phil@goli.at, diddalick@gmx.net, studio@paw8.com, croco@utanet.at, petru@paler.net, jlemmerer@node.at, bigkub@time2change.at, patrick@seher-it.at, ronald@hartwig.at, mozilla_party@webterminate.com, stefan@kleinhans.it, horst.jens@gmx.at, jjan@gibts.net, mjahn@agency.at, gpoul@gnu.org, green@eggs.ham, gerhard.hipfinger@openforce.at, mailto:moz@moz.org>, florianweinwurm@yahoo.com, christian@precht-jensen.dk, Bill_Gates@microsoft.com, Tux_the_penguin@linux.rules.microsoft.sux.open.sou rce.is.the.way.to.go.net, domi@schnitzer.at, joe_ringmaster@gmx.at, sifu@isohypse.org, dk@perm.ru, nobandwidth@bigpond.com, nobandwidth@bigpond.com, luke@strangemonkey.com, mrundataker@optushome.com.au, mcgarry@tig.com.au, chris@think.net.au, Mathias.Burbach@Bigfoot.com, acuteparanoia@optushome.com.au, syzh401@cse.unsw.edu.au, maillist@jasonlim.com, ram@digitalmethod.org, jason@sydneypubguide.net, geek@digitalone.com.au, curious@ihug.com.au, bill@maidment.com.au, kristof@staesis.org, bill@microsoft.com, belle@netset.net.au, ksosez@softhome.net, jruderman@hmc.edu, andyed@surfmind.com, down8@yahoo.com, mozparty@sigkill.com, bulbul@ucla.edu, gavin-mozparty@doughtie.com, roger@digitalfountain.com, matt@linuxschooltorrance.com, mozparty@ventura.nu, rombouts@compuserve.com, ian@freenetproject.org, tristanreid@yahoo.com, groovefx@yahoo.com, jj@lacasabonita.com, gmoudry@hotmail.com, eyezero@yahoo.com, ian@primewave.net, jlawson7@adelphia.net, el_arturo@att.net, janie@freenetproject.org, 145371217@numenor.net, infinite_8_monkey@yahoo.com, charshman@divus.org, mozparty@shadowlurker.net, john@marinapacific.com, ilanterrell@yahoo.com, aafes@psu.edu, bustamam98@yahoo.com, mozparty@myunixbox.com, yaten@sbcglobal.net, joelinux@pacificnet.net, dgc@penguino.net, poserskater69@yahoo.com, lheartb@hotmail.com, ncmother@zimage.com, daniel@likeicare.com, digital.evil@lycos.com, cjeburke@yahoo.com, jblow@hotmail.com, zachary.anthony@verizon.net, boogah@23.org, mebelost@yahoo.com, nickkricheff@netscape.net, mikemcg@ucla.edu, gogomozilla@denofslack.net, mike@mm1.com, seanmcoleman@attbi.com, jsm@bigfoot.com, hoarycripple@crippl3.net, mozparty@nslu.x.myxomop.com, mozparty@camworld.com, mozpartyNYC@isoga.net, ccarlen@netscape.com, h@rediffmail.com, lefever@rcn.com, tedjackson@accounting.org, darren@ny.com, marlon@nyc.com, plui@hyperreal.org, dzeluff@zeluff.com, joel@natividads.com, ken@bigbadapple.com, treebeard@treebeard.net, florent@nyc.com, chad@macristy.com, spud@montelshow.com, gbman_of_gvill@yahoo.com, eam-mozparty@learningpatterns.com, pkrause@primavera.com, tossoffus@yahoo.com, ryan@pantz.com, nichomof@eecs.tulane.edu, billg@microsoft.com, DevilsRejection@msn.com, petergunn@hotmail.com, bagerj@sullcrom.com, isaac@structuredsystems.net, bobk@panix.com, ngellner@hotmail.com, luke@sigterm.org, vivake@yahoo.com, jon@mediavortex.com, groovefx@yahoo.com, brendan@sighup.net, jds@panix.com, bluerose@bluerose.com, chris@allermann.net, dimkal@yahoo.com, preppyl@yahoo.com, blujoker@blujoker.net, nowell_h@hotmail.com, aragorn@cs.stanford.edu, treed@cpr.com, brt204@nyu.edu, andreas@antonopoulos.com, dj@randomwalks.com, lists@pote.com, mike@mhudack.com, reliable57@yahoo.com, jared@geek-boy.com, ondadl@mac.com, floss@myrealbox.com, xod@thestonecutters.net, mozilla@sectae.net, tywonm@screamingmedia.com, Odin_NT@hotmail.com, crooney@panix.com, bg25222@binghamton.edu, eugenem@brainlink.com, dave@downneck.net, romspace@mac.com, sdaejo@yahoo.com, masseo1@yahoo.com, jim@fearandloathing.net, mike@mjoy.us, miles@openly.com, LuciferSD@hotmail.com, nsdilwor@intertechmedia.com, chrisdowden@yahoo.com, pgs10@columbia.edu, sbrennan@ovid.com, lthomiso@rcn.com, paralox@paralox.ath.cx, Jester_458@yahoo.com, jsadove@beltion.net, stuehmke@yahoo.com, mike@realfx.com, alex@risky-roosky.com, shava@efn.org, kra10@columbia.edu, saihung@ix.netcom.com, gropo@mac.com, scottnym@yahoo.com, shaas@vibe.com, roon_toon@hotmail.com, ajaygautam@yahoo.com, jhdaly@mindspring.com, manuel@sphinx.ms, very_itchy_rash@yahoo.com, emeldrum@drew.edu, jeld@mindless.com, as867@columbia.edu, slams@penguin.rutgers.edu, wassa@columbia.edu, tony@vegan.net, zilla@bibliotrack.com, zeno_lee@hotmail.com, fosh@fishnet.cx, linux@gpl.us, jblow@hotmail.com, dkrook@hotmail.com, ivesti@yahoo.com, arek@arekwyderka.com, bljoechang@yahoo.com, brian@tribrothers.com, sparky@marklife.org, charles@softwareprototypes.com, scottkundla@hotmail.com, ccharabaruk@meldstar.com, ian@pottinger.ca, netdemonz@yahoo.com, diatribe@mailcity.com, nick@tomkinet.com, shawnlin@yahoo.com, sculley@pathcom.com, herd.killing@rogers.com, dave@renouf.com, aliyamin@hotmail.com, aswitzer@ispgn.com, netm0nkey@ispgn.com, hyakugei@hotmail.com, geduggan.mozparty@peri.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, lwhite@darkfires.ca, jorel@the-wire.com, js@tap.net, davew@tap.net, tmh@whitefang.com, vid_mozillaparty@zooid.org, anon@foolswisdom.org, morris_mk@yahoo.ca, colinmc@idirect.com, marcus.brubaker@utoronto.ca, akish@kishcom.com, nconway@klamath.dyndns.org, jason@thegeekcave.com, rampaging_simian@hotmail.com, garret@sirsonic.com, piowie@myrealbox.com, m5m5m@yahoo.com, ivan.brovko@net-sweeper.com, returnofthedorks@hotmail.com, axxackall@yahoo.com, tednye@sympatico.ca, darren.fuller@bell.ca, jbailey@nisa.net, swangeo@yahoo.ca, Hercynium@yahoo.com, cinetron@passport.ca, jotaroh@hotmail.com, aghajani@principle.com, fzv@yahoo.com, rocketmail_com@rocketmail.com, foo@bar.com, wolfe@alt.net, drew@xyzzy.dhs.org, jimmiejaz@nixhelp.net, bofh@swma.net, nilesh_mehta@email.com, mslack@rogers.com, m-cahill@rogers.com, tworkowski@sympatico.ca, george@openlight.com, irina@openlight.com, ilia@lobsanov.com, rjs@tao.ca, paul-mp@it.ca, alvarolists@aycuens.com, xan@dimensis.com, ike@lab.org, miguel@asiinfo.net, marevalo@marevalo.net, iolalla@yahoo.com, peluz0n@justice.com, weeddeveloper@yahoo.com, alfonsobugs@terra.es, sgala@apache.org, z_gringo@hotmail.com, santiz@madritel.es, murphy@litio.net, fox@mozilla.gr.jp, party@mozilla.org.uk, danj@fledgeling.com, fun@thingy.apana.org.au, moz@the-allens.net, onelists@hotmail.com, joel@fysh.org, simon.mozilla-party-if-its-in-central-london@rumbl e.net, bigboyjim@excite.com, andrew.and.friends.iff.central.london@sent.freeser ve.co.uk, itwillbecentrallondon@mozilla.org.uk, noahsark2x2@tiscali.co.uk, mmm-central-london@smileyben.com, jonathan-for-central-london@peepo.com, dave-Party-in-Central-London@dgta.co.uk, DJGMOL@netscape.net, srick@europe.yahoo-inc.com, moz-party@zpok.demon.co.uk, moz-party-central-london@trickofthelight.org, marc@brosystems.com, party@budge.net, rillian@telus.net, uphillsurfer@hotmail.com, edward@debian.org, mozilla@robertbrook.com, reagan@technomoose.com, lew@saltbeefsandwich.co.uk, osama@afghanistan.com, barking@insaneworld.org.uk, john@billabong-media.com, leith@cs.bu.edu, mozparty@noseynick.org, jonasj@jonasj.dk, bugzilla@kenneth.dk, chr_damsgaard@hotmail.com, alring@email.com, hp.grondal@get2net.dk, martin@marquentein.dk, Lovechild@foolclan.com, Kim@schulz.dk, kl@vsen.dk, mbendix@dunghill.dk, schnitzer.at@tange.dk, tommy@svindel.net, moz10@pbb.dk, dezral@despammed.com, nick@tioka.com, ask@fujang.dk, gecko@c.dk, spam@deck.dk, bugzilla@gemal.dk, b@bogdan.dk, kenneth@gnu.org, jee@email.dk, daniel@rtfm.dk, umfalvo@yahoo.com, christian@ostenfeld.dk, xor@ivwnet.com, Jason@screaminweb.com, alex@spamcop.net, dustym@riseup.net, rmcgee1@earthlink.net, dr_zeus@hotmail.com, chris.lozano@myrealbox.com, looney_binn@yahoo(dot)com, apendell@attbi.com, dantrevino@wrevolution.org, fireball1244@mac.com, tommyo@hargray.com, natas@redtailboa.net, emmett_in_dallas@yahoo.com, razzbuten@yahoo.com, igdavis@truculent-telephone.org, foobar@null.net, bob@kludgebox.com, cgrimland@yahoo.com, ghamlett@swbell.net, bgood@inceptual.com, slot0k@pogox.org, kwhudson@netin.com, jimjamjoh@softhome.net, jimmys@utdallas.edu, charlesv@mfos.org chris@focus2.com jest6r@hotmail.com steve@ncc.com, usrg@mail.utexas.edu, steve@deltos.com, alex@avengergear.com, mkoenecke@alum.haverford.edu langley@hex.net mordred@inaugust.com swapan@yahoo.com drosoph@hotmail.com, goulash1@mac.com, ean@brainfood.com, vj@vj.com lpret42@hotmail.com bugoff@hotmail.com chad@digitaltriage.net, stewart@digitaltriage.net scottvr01@yahoo.com adam@dfwuptime.com dsaint@gnumatt.org naltrexone42@yahoo.com, webmaster@bast.net, tommyo@hargray.com, ladd@kryp.to, jtaylor5@bayou.uh.edu, jgschmitz@linuxmail.org, enslaver@enslaver.com edfierro@yahoo.com, moz@photonsphere.com, rayw@fuckmicrosoft.com, rfmobile@swbell.net, kevin@unif.com trident5@bigfoot.com Erik_Osterholm@ieee.org, tmunson@houston.rr.com, alessi_brand@hotmail.com, rballa1@lsu.edu, wasted@kewlhair.com, jofficer@martinapparatus.com, idiot@mylinuxisp.com, j0sh01@ev1.net faust@wintermarket.org bouncer@hotmonkeyporn.com tk-mozparty_@perljam.net janisch@students.zcu.cz, aha@pinknet.cz kuzi@atlas.cz scat@reboot.cz, petr@dousa.cz, ruzicka@core.cz, roman@management.cz, hojan@students.zcu.cz, tille@soti.org, cas.tuyn@hetnet.nl, aeon@pandora.be, sensi_millia2000@yahoo.com, crypto@shiftat.com, jan.fabry@vsknet.be, monkeyboy@fruru.com, adulau@foo.be, johan@linux.be, karu@pobox.com, soggie@soti.org nick@tomkinet.com, why_are_you_too_lazy_to_drive_1_hour_to_toronto@yo u_lazy.com try_grammer_class_a_while@get_a_life.com john@interlynx.ca asharp@axo.cc, unionstation@ryder.ca, prade@hotmail.com, 2600@hamilton2600.ca, chris.lozano@myrealbox.com, dantrevino@wrevolution.org, jksteinhauer@netscape.net, i_love_junk_email@yahoo.com, cmiller@surfsouth.com, jan@bestbytes.de, me@phillipoertel.com, sebastian@pixelsalon.de, ccozan@andtek.com, ben@itlib.de, martin.ament@gmx.de, pulsar@highteq.net, muid@gmx.de, cedi@zooomclan.org, soapy@soapy.ch, deep_blue_ocean@gmx.ch, stamp@zooomclan.org, hans@switzerland.com, milamber@zooomclan.org, mtettea@switzerland.com, cylander@zooomclan.org, duke@zooomclan.org, pegirun@gmx.ch, pilif@pilif.ch, mlati@yahoo.com, Mozillzooom@holophrastic.com, erichiseli@yahoo.com, la_burdet@yahoo.com, rkoerber@gmx.de, dotzmasta@hotmail.com, B.Eckstein@cli.de, rtfm@linux.de, info@phosmo.de, gz@disintegrated.de, byronbay@gmx.de, stiwi@mac.com, mage@koeln.netsurf.de, mozilla@portfolio16.de, wrede@fh-aachen.de, ilikemozilla@html.de, cloud@final-fantasy.de, sfricke@sfricke.de, info@flossbau.de, no@dom.de, julian.suschlik@gmx.net, omero@m4d.sm, lapo@lapo.it, alcor78@email.it, info@fuelcat.it, mutato@libero.it, ildella@inwind.it, a.marabini@spinthehumanfactor.com, uomoman@criticalbit.com, thefl74@netscape.net, elbardo@libero.it, clem131@libero.it, t-i-e@bigfoot.com, gng74@libero.it, moz.party.20.gnes@spamgourmet.com, ema.cerqui@libero.it, ubertob@tin.it, mozparty.20.anagoor@spamgourmet.com, gianpaolo@preciso.net, ian@deepsky.com, marco@porciletto.org, planetx2100@hotmail.com, billabong@tiscalinet.it, piofree@libero.it, skunkyboy@tiscalinet.it, vincenzo@mondopiccolo.net, macmatteo@interfree.it, contreras@jce.it, hereandnow@libero.it, pza@students.cs.mu.oz.au, caedwa@students.cs.mu.oz.au, mgi@students.cs.mu.oz.au, bah@humbug.net, mfp@cs.mu.oz.au, nospamplease@indevelopment.org, peter@simplyit.screaming,net, pmj@users.sf.net, xanni@sericyb.com.au, agh@kalcium-is.com, felicityconsult@ozemail.com.au, lucas@lucaschan.com, andrewg@nopninjas.com, andym@abnormal.com, ts@meme.com.au, jasonpell@hotmail.com, syngin@gimp.org, mhammond@skippinet.com.au, szutshi@devraj.org, rmoonen@bigpond.net.au, fawad@fawad.net, ufs@softhome.net, kotrade@yahoo.com, ben@benscorp.com, stevesmith@columbus.rr.com, kkimmelosu@yahoo.com, neal.lindsay@peaofohio.com, pat@linuxcolumbus.com, chrisbaker@iname.com, hiroki2c@yahoo.com, seth@remor.com, jsohn@columbus.rr.com, ross@nanonet.net, mark@cushman.net, swinghammer.2@osu.edu, roberto.12@osu.edu, farhat@hotmail.com, pgunn@dachte.org, jwagner@gcfn.org, bp@osc.edu, joepletch@postmark.net, dsherman@iwaynet.net, glenn@uniqsys.com, bernstein.46@osu.edu, trent_reznor@nothing.com, erikniklas@bobanddoug.com, walters@gnu.org, timo@bolverk.net, annek25@aol.com, jlamb@leader.com, bart@osc.edu, jason@mcvetta.org

dominik@schnitzer.at, mozparty-at-subscribe@relax.ath.cx, dominik@schnitzer.at, david_markvica@web.de, johannes_richter@gmx.net, kairo@kairo.at, rossi@chello.at, markush@world-direct.com, cbiesinger@web.de, jenskager@gmx.net, jo-at-mt@gmx.net, johann.petrak@gmx.at, dviper01@gmx.net, simon@simonschwaighofer.net, dreckskerl@glump.at, wt-lists@trexler.at, dusty@strike.wu-wien.ac.at, kasparhauserjr@hotmail.com, b.schallar@gmx.net, mutato@libero.it, phil@goli.at, diddalick@gmx.net, studio@paw8.com, croco@utanet.at, petru@paler.net, jlemmerer@node.at, bigkub@time2change.at, patrick@seher-it.at, ronald@hartwig.at, mozilla_party@webterminate.com, stefan@kleinhans.it, horst.jens@gmx.at, jjan@gibts.net, mjahn@agency.at, gpoul@gnu.org, green@eggs.ham, gerhard.hipfinger@openforce.at, mailto:moz@moz.org>, florianweinwurm@yahoo.com, christian@precht-jensen.dk, Bill_Gates@microsoft.com, Tux_the_penguin@linux.rules.microsoft.sux.open.sou rce.is.the.way.to.go.net, domi@schnitzer.at, joe_ringmaster@gmx.at, sifu@isohypse.org, dk@perm.ru, nobandwidth@bigpond.com, nobandwidth@bigpond.com, luke@strangemonkey.com, mrundataker@optushome.com.au, mcgarry@tig.com.au, chris@think.net.au, Mathias.Burbach@Bigfoot.com, acuteparanoia@optushome.com.au, syzh401@cse.unsw.edu.au, maillist@jasonlim.com, ram@digitalmethod.org, jason@sydneypubguide.net, geek@digitalone.com.au, curious@ihug.com.au, bill@maidment.com.au, kristof@staesis.org, bill@microsoft.com, belle@netset.net.au, ksosez@softhome.net, jruderman@hmc.edu, andyed@surfmind.com, down8@yahoo.com, mozparty@sigkill.com, bulbul@ucla.edu, gavin-mozparty@doughtie.com, roger@digitalfountain.com, matt@linuxschooltorrance.com, mozparty@ventura.nu, rombouts@compuserve.com, ian@freenetproject.org, tristanreid@yahoo.com, groovefx@yahoo.com, jj@lacasabonita.com, gmoudry@hotmail.com, eyezero@yahoo.com, ian@primewave.net, jlawson7@adelphia.net, el_arturo@att.net, janie@freenetproject.org, 145371217@numenor.net, infinite_8_monkey@yahoo.com, charshman@divus.org, mozparty@shadowlurker.net, john@marinapacific.com, ilanterrell@yahoo.com, aafes@psu.edu, bustamam98@yahoo.com, mozparty@myunixbox.com, yaten@sbcglobal.net, joelinux@pacificnet.net, dgc@penguino.net, poserskater69@yahoo.com, lheartb@hotmail.com, ncmother@zimage.com, daniel@likeicare.com, digital.evil@lycos.com, cjeburke@yahoo.com, jblow@hotmail.com, zachary.anthony@verizon.net, boogah@23.org, mebelost@yahoo.com, nickkricheff@netscape.net, mikemcg@ucla.edu, gogomozilla@denofslack.net, mike@mm1.com, seanmcoleman@attbi.com, jsm@bigfoot.com, hoarycripple@crippl3.net, mozparty@nslu.x.myxomop.com, mozparty@camworld.com, mozpartyNYC@isoga.net, ccarlen@netscape.com, h@rediffmail.com, lefever@rcn.com, tedjackson@accounting.org, darren@ny.com, marlon@nyc.com, plui@hyperreal.org, dzeluff@zeluff.com, joel@natividads.com, ken@bigbadapple.com, treebeard@treebeard.net, florent@nyc.com, chad@macristy.com, spud@montelshow.com, gbman_of_gvill@yahoo.com, eam-mozparty@learningpatterns.com, pkrause@primavera.com, tossoffus@yahoo.com, ryan@pantz.com, nichomof@eecs.tulane.edu, billg@microsoft.com, DevilsRejection@msn.com, petergunn@hotmail.com, bagerj@sullcrom.com, isaac@structuredsystems.net, bobk@panix.com, ngellner@hotmail.com, luke@sigterm.org, vivake@yahoo.com, jon@mediavortex.com, groovefx@yahoo.com, brendan@sighup.net, jds@panix.com, bluerose@bluerose.com, chris@allermann.net, dimkal@yahoo.com, preppyl@yahoo.com, blujoker@blujoker.net, nowell_h@hotmail.com, aragorn@cs.stanford.edu, treed@cpr.com, brt204@nyu.edu, andreas@antonopoulos.com, dj@randomwalks.com, lists@pote.com, mike@mhudack.com, reliable57@yahoo.com, jared@geek-boy.com, ondadl@mac.com, floss@myrealbox.com, xod@thestonecutters.net, mozilla@sectae.net, tywonm@screamingmedia.com, Odin_NT@hotmail.com, crooney@panix.com, bg25222@binghamton.edu, eugenem@brainlink.com, dave@downneck.net, romspace@mac.com, sdaejo@yahoo.com, masseo1@yahoo.com, jim@fearandloathing.net, mike@mjoy.us, miles@openly.com, LuciferSD@hotmail.com, nsdilwor@intertechmedia.com, chrisdowden@yahoo.com, pgs10@columbia.edu, sbrennan@ovid.com, lthomiso@rcn.com, paralox@paralox.ath.cx, Jester_458@yahoo.com, jsadove@beltion.net, stuehmke@yahoo.com, mike@realfx.com, alex@risky-roosky.com, shava@efn.org, kra10@columbia.edu, saihung@ix.netcom.com, gropo@mac.com, scottnym@yahoo.com, shaas@vibe.com, roon_toon@hotmail.com, ajaygautam@yahoo.com, jhdaly@mindspring.com, manuel@sphinx.ms, very_itchy_rash@yahoo.com, emeldrum@drew.edu, jeld@mindless.com, as867@columbia.edu, slams@penguin.rutgers.edu, wassa@columbia.edu, tony@vegan.net, zilla@bibliotrack.com, zeno_lee@hotmail.com, fosh@fishnet.cx, linux@gpl.us, jblow@hotmail.com, dkrook@hotmail.com, ivesti@yahoo.com, arek@arekwyderka.com, bljoechang@yahoo.com, brian@tribrothers.com, sparky@marklife.org, charles@softwareprototypes.com, scottkundla@hotmail.com, ccharabaruk@meldstar.com, ian@pottinger.ca, netdemonz@yahoo.com, diatribe@mailcity.com, nick@tomkinet.com, shawnlin@yahoo.com, sculley@pathcom.com, herd.killing@rogers.com, dave@renouf.com, aliyamin@hotmail.com, aswitzer@ispgn.com, netm0nkey@ispgn.com, hyakugei@hotmail.com, geduggan.mozparty@peri.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, lwhite@darkfires.ca, jorel@the-wire.com, js@tap.net, davew@tap.net, tmh@whitefang.com, vid_mozillaparty@zooid.org, anon@foolswisdom.org, morris_mk@yahoo.ca, colinmc@idirect.com, marcus.brubaker@utoronto.ca, akish@kishcom.com, nconway@klamath.dyndns.org, jason@thegeekcave.com, rampaging_simian@hotmail.com, garret@sirsonic.com, piowie@myrealbox.com, m5m5m@yahoo.com, ivan.brovko@net-sweeper.com, returnofthedorks@hotmail.com, axxackall@yahoo.com, tednye@sympatico.ca, darren.fuller@bell.ca, jbailey@nisa.net, swangeo@yahoo.ca, Hercynium@yahoo.com, cinetron@passport.ca, jotaroh@hotmail.com, aghajani@principle.com, fzv@yahoo.com, rocketmail_com@rocketmail.com, foo@bar.com, wolfe@alt.net, drew@xyzzy.dhs.org, jimmiejaz@nixhelp.net, bofh@swma.net, nilesh_mehta@email.com, mslack@rogers.com, m-cahill@rogers.com, tworkowski@sympatico.ca, george@openlight.com, irina@openlight.com, ilia@lobsanov.com, rjs@tao.ca, paul-mp@it.ca, alvarolists@aycuens.com, xan@dimensis.com, ike@lab.org, miguel@asiinfo.net, marevalo@marevalo.net, iolalla@yahoo.com, peluz0n@justice.com, weeddeveloper@yahoo.com, alfonsobugs@terra.es, sgala@apache.org, z_gringo@hotmail.com, santiz@madritel.es, murphy@litio.net, fox@mozilla.gr.jp, party@mozilla.org.uk, danj@fledgeling.com, fun@thingy.apana.org.au, moz@the-allens.net, onelists@hotmail.com, joel@fysh.org, simon.mozilla-party-if-its-in-central-london@rumbl e.net, bigboyjim@excite.com, andrew.and.friends.iff.central.london@sent.freeser ve.co.uk, itwillbecentrallondon@mozilla.org.uk, noahsark2x2@tiscali.co.uk, mmm-central-london@smileyben.com, jonathan-for-central-london@peepo.com, dave-Party-in-Central-London@dgta.co.uk, DJGMOL@netscape.net, srick@europe.yahoo-inc.com, moz-party@zpok.demon.co.uk, moz-party-central-london@trickofthelight.org, marc@brosystems.com, party@budge.net, rillian@telus.net, uphillsurfer@hotmail.com, edward@debian.org, mozilla@robertbrook.com, reagan@technomoose.com, lew@saltbeefsandwich.co.uk, osama@afghanistan.com, barking@insaneworld.org.uk, john@billabong-media.com, leith@cs.bu.edu, mozparty@noseynick.org, jonasj@jonasj.dk, bugzilla@kenneth.dk, chr_damsgaard@hotmail.com, alring@email.com, hp.grondal@get2net.dk, martin@marquentein.dk, Lovechild@foolclan.com, Kim@schulz.dk, kl@vsen.dk, mbendix@dunghill.dk, schnitzer.at@tange.dk, tommy@svindel.net, moz10@pbb.dk, dezral@despammed.com, nick@tioka.com, ask@fujang.dk, gecko@c.dk, spam@deck.dk, bugzilla@gemal.dk, b@bogdan.dk, kenneth@gnu.org, jee@email.dk, daniel@rtfm.dk, umfalvo@yahoo.com, christian@ostenfeld.dk, xor@ivwnet.com, Jason@screaminweb.com, alex@spamcop.net, dustym@riseup.net, rmcgee1@earthlink.net, dr_zeus@hotmail.com, chris.lozano@myrealbox.com, looney_binn@yahoo(dot)com, apendell@attbi.com, dantrevino@wrevolution.org, fireball1244@mac.com, tommyo@hargray.com, natas@redtailboa.net, emmett_in_dallas@yahoo.com, razzbuten@yahoo.com, igdavis@truculent-telephone.org, foobar@null.net, bob@kludgebox.com, cgrimland@yahoo.com, ghamlett@swbell.net, bgood@inceptual.com, slot0k@pogox.org, kwhudson@netin.com, jimjamjoh@softhome.net, jimmys@utdallas.edu, charlesv@mfos.org chris@focus2.com jest6r@hotmail.com steve@ncc.com, usrg@mail.utexas.edu, steve@deltos.com, alex@avengergear.com, mkoenecke@alum.haverford.edu langley@hex.net mordred@inaugust.com swapan@yahoo.com drosoph@hotmail.com, goulash1@mac.com, ean@brainfood.com, vj@vj.com lpret42@hotmail.com bugoff@hotmail.com chad@digitaltriage.net, stewart@digitaltriage.net scottvr01@yahoo.com adam@dfwuptime.com dsaint@gnumatt.org naltrexone42@yahoo.com, webmaster@bast.net, tommyo@hargray.com, ladd@kryp.to, jtaylor5@bayou.uh.edu, jgschmitz@linuxmail.org, enslaver@enslaver.com edfierro@yahoo.com, moz@photonsphere.com, rayw@fuckmicrosoft.com, rfmobile@swbell.net, kevin@unif.com trident5@bigfoot.com Erik_Osterholm@ieee.org, tmunson@houston.rr.com, alessi_brand@hotmail.com, rballa1@lsu.edu, wasted@kewlhair.com, jofficer@martinapparatus.com, idiot@mylinuxisp.com, j0sh01@ev1.net faust@wintermarket.org bouncer@hotmonkeyporn.com tk-mozparty_@perljam.net janisch@students.zcu.cz, aha@pinknet.cz kuzi@atlas.cz scat@reboot.cz, petr@dousa.cz, ruzicka@core.cz, roman@management.cz, hojan@students.zcu.cz, tille@soti.org, cas.tuyn@hetnet.nl, aeon@pandora.be, sensi_millia2000@yahoo.com, crypto@shiftat.com, jan.fabry@vsknet.be, monkeyboy@fruru.com, adulau@foo.be, johan@linux.be, karu@pobox.com, soggie@soti.org nick@tomkinet.com, why_are_you_too_lazy_to_drive_1_hour_to_toronto@yo u_lazy.com try_grammer_class_a_while@get_a_life.com john@interlynx.ca asharp@axo.cc, unionstation@ryder.ca, prade@hotmail.com, 2600@hamilton2600.ca, chris.lozano@myrealbox.com, dantrevino@wrevolution.org, jksteinhauer@netscape.net, i_love_junk_email@yahoo.com, cmiller@surfsouth.com, jan@bestbytes.de, me@phillipoertel.com, sebastian@pixelsalon.de, ccozan@andtek.com, ben@itlib.de, martin.ament@gmx.de, pulsar@highteq.net, muid@gmx.de, cedi@zooomclan.org, soapy@soapy.ch, deep_blue_ocean@gmx.ch, stamp@zooomclan.org, hans@switzerland.com, milamber@zooomclan.org, mtettea@switzerland.com, cylander@zooomclan.org, duke@zooomclan.org, pegirun@gmx.ch, pilif@pilif.ch, mlati@yahoo.com, Mozillzooom@holophrastic.com, erichiseli@yahoo.com, la_burdet@yahoo.com, rkoerber@gmx.de, dotzmasta@hotmail.com, B.Eckstein@cli.de, rtfm@linux.de, info@phosmo.de, gz@disintegrated.de, byronbay@gmx.de, stiwi@mac.com, mage@koeln.netsurf.de, mozilla@portfolio16.de, wrede@fh-aachen.de, ilikemozilla@html.de, cloud@final-fantasy.de, sfricke@sfricke.de, info@flossbau.de, no@dom.de, julian.suschlik@gmx.net, omero@m4d.sm, lapo@lapo.it, alcor78@email.it, info@fuelcat.it, mutato@libero.it, ildella@inwind.it, a.marabini@spinthehumanfactor.com, uomoman@criticalbit.com, thefl74@netscape.net, elbardo@libero.it, clem131@libero.it, t-i-e@bigfoot.com, gng74@libero.it, moz.party.20.gnes@spamgourmet.com, ema.cerqui@libero.it, ubertob@tin.it, mozparty.20.anagoor@spamgourmet.com, gianpaolo@preciso.net, ian@deepsky.com, marco@porciletto.org, planetx2100@hotmail.com, billabong@tiscalinet.it, piofree@libero.it, skunkyboy@tiscalinet.it, vincenzo@mondopiccolo.net, macmatteo@interfree.it, contreras@jce.it, hereandnow@libero.it, pza@students.cs.mu.oz.au, caedwa@students.cs.mu.oz.au, mgi@students.cs.mu.oz.au, bah@humbug.net, mfp@cs.mu.oz.au, nospamplease@indevelopment.org, peter@simplyit.screaming,net, pmj@users.sf.net, xanni@sericyb.com.au, agh@kalcium-is.com, felicityconsult@ozemail.com.au, lucas@lucaschan.com, andrewg@nopninjas.com, andym@abnormal.com, ts@meme.com.au, jasonpell@hotmail.com, syngin@gimp.org, mhammond@skippinet.com.au, szutshi@devraj.org, rmoonen@bigpond.net.au, fawad@fawad.net, ufs@softhome.net, kotrade@yahoo.com, ben@benscorp.com, stevesmith@columbus.rr.com, kkimmelosu@yahoo.com, neal.lindsay@peaofohio.com, pat@linuxcolumbus.com, chrisbaker@iname.com, hiroki2c@yahoo.com, seth@remor.com, jsohn@columbus.rr.com, ross@nanonet.net, mark@cushman.net, swinghammer.2@osu.edu, roberto.12@osu.edu, farhat@hotmail.com, pgunn@dachte.org, jwagner@gcfn.org, bp@osc.edu, joepletch@postmark.net, dsherman@iwaynet.net, glenn@uniqsys.com, bernstein.46@osu.edu, trent_reznor@nothing.com, erikniklas@bobanddoug.com, walters@gnu.org, timo@bolverk.net, annek25@aol.com, jlamb@leader.com, bart@osc.edu, jason@mcvetta.org

dominik@schnitzer.at, mozparty-at-subscribe@relax.ath.cx, dominik@schnitzer.at, david_markvica@web.de, johannes_richter@gmx.net, kairo@kairo.at, rossi@chello.at, markush@world-direct.com, cbiesinger@web.de, jenskager@gmx.net, jo-at-mt@gmx.net, johann.petrak@gmx.at, dviper01@gmx.net, simon@simonschwaighofer.net, dreckskerl@glump.at, wt-lists@trexler.at, dusty@strike.wu-wien.ac.at, kasparhauserjr@hotmail.com, b.schallar@gmx.net, mutato@libero.it, phil@goli.at, diddalick@gmx.net, studio@paw8.com, croco@utanet.at, petru@paler.net, jlemmerer@node.at, bigkub@time2change.at, patrick@seher-it.at, ronald@hartwig.at, mozilla_party@webterminate.com, stefan@kleinhans.it, horst.jens@gmx.at, jjan@gibts.net, mjahn@agency.at, gpoul@gnu.org, green@eggs.ham, gerhard.hipfinger@openforce.at, mailto:moz@moz.org>, florianweinwurm@yahoo.com, christian@precht-jensen.dk, Bill_Gates@microsoft.com, Tux_the_penguin@linux.rules.microsoft.sux.open.sou rce.is.the.way.to.go.net, domi@schnitzer.at, joe_ringmaster@gmx.at, sifu@isohypse.org, dk@perm.ru, nobandwidth@bigpond.com, nobandwidth@bigpond.com, luke@strangemonkey.com, mrundataker@optushome.com.au, mcgarry@tig.com.au, chris@think.net.au, Mathias.Burbach@Bigfoot.com, acuteparanoia@optushome.com.au, syzh401@cse.unsw.edu.au, maillist@jasonlim.com, ram@digitalmethod.org, jason@sydneypubguide.net, geek@digitalone.com.au, curious@ihug.com.au, bill@maidment.com.au, kristof@staesis.org, bill@microsoft.com, belle@netset.net.au, ksosez@softhome.net, jruderman@hmc.edu, andyed@surfmind.com, down8@yahoo.com, mozparty@sigkill.com, bulbul@ucla.edu, gavin-mozparty@doughtie.com, roger@digitalfountain.com, matt@linuxschooltorrance.com, mozparty@ventura.nu, rombouts@compuserve.com, ian@freenetproject.org, tristanreid@yahoo.com, groovefx@yahoo.com, jj@lacasabonita.com, gmoudry@hotmail.com, eyezero@yahoo.com, ian@primewave.net, jlawson7@adelphia.net, el_arturo@att.net, janie@freenetproject.org, 145371217@numenor.net, infinite_8_monkey@yahoo.com, charshman@divus.org, mozparty@shadowlurker.net, john@marinapacific.com, ilanterrell@yahoo.com, aafes@psu.edu, bustamam98@yahoo.com, mozparty@myunixbox.com, yaten@sbcglobal.net, joelinux@pacificnet.net, dgc@penguino.net, poserskater69@yahoo.com, lheartb@hotmail.com, ncmother@zimage.com, daniel@likeicare.com, digital.evil@lycos.com, cjeburke@yahoo.com, jblow@hotmail.com, zachary.anthony@verizon.net, boogah@23.org, mebelost@yahoo.com, nickkricheff@netscape.net, mikemcg@ucla.edu, gogomozilla@denofslack.net, mike@mm1.com, seanmcoleman@attbi.com, jsm@bigfoot.com, hoarycripple@crippl3.net, mozparty@nslu.x.myxomop.com, mozparty@camworld.com, mozpartyNYC@isoga.net, ccarlen@netscape.com, h@rediffmail.com, lefever@rcn.com, tedjackson@accounting.org, darren@ny.com, marlon@nyc.com, plui@hyperreal.org, dzeluff@zeluff.com, joel@natividads.com, ken@bigbadapple.com, treebeard@treebeard.net, florent@nyc.com, chad@macristy.com, spud@montelshow.com, gbman_of_gvill@yahoo.com, eam-mozparty@learningpatterns.com, pkrause@primavera.com, tossoffus@yahoo.com, ryan@pantz.com, nichomof@eecs.tulane.edu, billg@microsoft.com, DevilsRejection@msn.com, petergunn@hotmail.com, bagerj@sullcrom.com, isaac@structuredsystems.net, bobk@panix.com, ngellner@hotmail.com, luke@sigterm.org, vivake@yahoo.com, jon@mediavortex.com, groovefx@yahoo.com, brendan@sighup.net, jds@panix.com, bluerose@bluerose.com, chris@allermann.net, dimkal@yahoo.com, preppyl@yahoo.com, blujoker@blujoker.net, nowell_h@hotmail.com, aragorn@cs.stanford.edu, treed@cpr.com, brt204@nyu.edu, andreas@antonopoulos.com, dj@randomwalks.com, lists@pote.com, mike@mhudack.com, reliable57@yahoo.com, jared@geek-boy.com, ondadl@mac.com, floss@myrealbox.com, xod@thestonecutters.net, mozilla@sectae.net, tywonm@screamingmedia.com, Odin_NT@hotmail.com, crooney@panix.com, bg25222@binghamton.edu, eugenem@brainlink.com, dave@downneck.net, romspace@mac.com, sdaejo@yahoo.com, masseo1@yahoo.com, jim@fearandloathing.net, mike@mjoy.us, miles@openly.com, LuciferSD@hotmail.com, nsdilwor@intertechmedia.com, chrisdowden@yahoo.com, pgs10@columbia.edu, sbrennan@ovid.com, lthomiso@rcn.com, paralox@paralox.ath.cx, Jester_458@yahoo.com, jsadove@beltion.net, stuehmke@yahoo.com, mike@realfx.com, alex@risky-roosky.com, shava@efn.org, kra10@columbia.edu, saihung@ix.netcom.com, gropo@mac.com, scottnym@yahoo.com, shaas@vibe.com, roon_toon@hotmail.com, ajaygautam@yahoo.com, jhdaly@mindspring.com, manuel@sphinx.ms, very_itchy_rash@yahoo.com, emeldrum@drew.edu, jeld@mindless.com, as867@columbia.edu, slams@penguin.rutgers.edu, wassa@columbia.edu, tony@vegan.net, zilla@bibliotrack.com, zeno_lee@hotmail.com, fosh@fishnet.cx, linux@gpl.us, jblow@hotmail.com, dkrook@hotmail.com, ivesti@yahoo.com, arek@arekwyderka.com, bljoechang@yahoo.com, brian@tribrothers.com, sparky@marklife.org, charles@softwareprototypes.com, scottkundla@hotmail.com, ccharabaruk@meldstar.com, ian@pottinger.ca, netdemonz@yahoo.com, diatribe@mailcity.com, nick@tomkinet.com, shawnlin@yahoo.com, sculley@pathcom.com, herd.killing@rogers.com, dave@renouf.com, aliyamin@hotmail.com, aswitzer@ispgn.com, netm0nkey@ispgn.com, hyakugei@hotmail.com, geduggan.mozparty@peri.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, lwhite@darkfires.ca, jorel@the-wire.com, js@tap.net, davew@tap.net, tmh@whitefang.com, vid_mozillaparty@zooid.org, anon@foolswisdom.org, morris_mk@yahoo.ca, colinmc@idirect.com, marcus.brubaker@utoronto.ca, akish@kishcom.com, nconway@klamath.dyndns.org, jason@thegeekcave.com, rampaging_simian@hotmail.com, garret@sirsonic.com, piowie@myrealbox.com, m5m5m@yahoo.com, ivan.brovko@net-sweeper.com, returnofthedorks@hotmail.com, axxackall@yahoo.com, tednye@sympatico.ca, darren.fuller@bell.ca, jbailey@nisa.net, swangeo@yahoo.ca, Hercynium@yahoo.com, cinetron@passport.ca, jotaroh@hotmail.com, aghajani@principle.com, fzv@yahoo.com, rocketmail_com@rocketmail.com, foo@bar.com, wolfe@alt.net, drew@xyzzy.dhs.org, jimmiejaz@nixhelp.net, bofh@swma.net, nilesh_mehta@email.com, mslack@rogers.com, m-cahill@rogers.com, tworkowski@sympatico.ca, george@openlight.com, irina@openlight.com, ilia@lobsanov.com, rjs@tao.ca, paul-mp@it.ca, alvarolists@aycuens.com, xan@dimensis.com, ike@lab.org, miguel@asiinfo.net, marevalo@marevalo.net, iolalla@yahoo.com, peluz0n@justice.com, weeddeveloper@yahoo.com, alfonsobugs@terra.es, sgala@apache.org, z_gringo@hotmail.com, santiz@madritel.es, murphy@litio.net, fox@mozilla.gr.jp, party@mozilla.org.uk, danj@fledgeling.com, fun@thingy.apana.org.au, moz@the-allens.net, onelists@hotmail.com, joel@fysh.org, simon.mozilla-party-if-its-in-central-london@rumbl e.net, bigboyjim@excite.com, andrew.and.friends.iff.central.london@sent.freeser ve.co.uk, itwillbecentrallondon@mozilla.org.uk, noahsark2x2@tiscali.co.uk, mmm-central-london@smileyben.com, jonathan-for-central-london@peepo.com, dave-Party-in-Central-London@dgta.co.uk, DJGMOL@netscape.net, srick@europe.yahoo-inc.com, moz-party@zpok.demon.co.uk, moz-party-central-london@trickofthelight.org, marc@brosystems.com, party@budge.net, rillian@telus.net, uphillsurfer@hotmail.com, edward@debian.org, mozilla@robertbrook.com, reagan@technomoose.com, lew@saltbeefsandwich.co.uk, osama@afghanistan.com, barking@insaneworld.org.uk, john@billabong-media.com, leith@cs.bu.edu, mozparty@noseynick.org, jonasj@jonasj.dk, bugzilla@kenneth.dk, chr_damsgaard@hotmail.com, alring@email.com, hp.grondal@get2net.dk, martin@marquentein.dk, Lovechild@foolclan.com, Kim@schulz.dk, kl@vsen.dk, mbendix@dunghill.dk, schnitzer.at@tange.dk, tommy@svindel.net, moz10@pbb.dk, dezral@despammed.com, nick@tioka.com, ask@fujang.dk, gecko@c.dk, spam@deck.dk, bugzilla@gemal.dk, b@bogdan.dk, kenneth@gnu.org, jee@email.dk, daniel@rtfm.dk, umfalvo@yahoo.com, christian@ostenfeld.dk, xor@ivwnet.com, Jason@screaminweb.com, alex@spamcop.net, dustym@riseup.net, rmcgee1@earthlink.net, dr_zeus@hotmail.com, chris.lozano@myrealbox.com, looney_binn@yahoo(dot)com, apendell@attbi.com, dantrevino@wrevolution.org, fireball1244@mac.com, tommyo@hargray.com, natas@redtailboa.net, emmett_in_dallas@yahoo.com, razzbuten@yahoo.com, igdavis@truculent-telephone.org, foobar@null.net, bob@kludgebox.com, cgrimland@yahoo.com, ghamlett@swbell.net, bgood@inceptual.com, slot0k@pogox.org, kwhudson@netin.com, jimjamjoh@softhome.net, jimmys@utdallas.edu, charlesv@mfos.org chris@focus2.com jest6r@hotmail.com steve@ncc.com, usrg@mail.utexas.edu, steve@deltos.com, alex@avengergear.com, mkoenecke@alum.haverford.edu langley@hex.net mordred@inaugust.com swapan@yahoo.com drosoph@hotmail.com, goulash1@mac.com, ean@brainfood.com, vj@vj.com lpret42@hotmail.com bugoff@hotmail.com chad@digitaltriage.net, stewart@digitaltriage.net scottvr01@yahoo.com adam@dfwuptime.com dsaint@gnumatt.org naltrexone42@yahoo.com, webmaster@bast.net, tommyo@hargray.com, ladd@kryp.to, jtaylor5@bayou.uh.edu, jgschmitz@linuxmail.org, enslaver@enslaver.com edfierro@yahoo.com, moz@photonsphere.com, rayw@fuckmicrosoft.com, rfmobile@swbell.net, kevin@unif.com trident5@bigfoot.com Erik_Osterholm@ieee.org, tmunson@houston.rr.com, alessi_brand@hotmail.com, rballa1@lsu.edu, wasted@kewlhair.com, jofficer@martinapparatus.com, idiot@mylinuxisp.com, j0sh01@ev1.net faust@wintermarket.org bouncer@hotmonkeyporn.com tk-mozparty_@perljam.net janisch@students.zcu.cz, aha@pinknet.cz kuzi@atlas.cz scat@reboot.cz, petr@dousa.cz, ruzicka@core.cz, roman@management.cz, hojan@students.zcu.cz, tille@soti.org, cas.tuyn@hetnet.nl, aeon@pandora.be, sensi_millia2000@yahoo.com, crypto@shiftat.com, jan.fabry@vsknet.be, monkeyboy@fruru.com, adulau@foo.be, johan@linux.be, karu@pobox.com, soggie@soti.org nick@tomkinet.com, why_are_you_too_lazy_to_drive_1_hour_to_toronto@yo u_lazy.com try_grammer_class_a_while@get_a_life.com john@interlynx.ca asharp@axo.cc, unionstation@ryder.ca, prade@hotmail.com, 2600@hamilton2600.ca, chris.lozano@myrealbox.com, dantrevino@wrevolution.org, jksteinhauer@netscape.net, i_love_junk_email@yahoo.com, cmiller@surfsouth.com, jan@bestbytes.de, me@phillipoertel.com, sebastian@pixelsalon.de, ccozan@andtek.com, ben@itlib.de, martin.ament@gmx.de, pulsar@highteq.net, muid@gmx.de, cedi@zooomclan.org, soapy@soapy.ch, deep_blue_ocean@gmx.ch, stamp@zooomclan.org, hans@switzerland.com, milamber@zooomclan.org, mtettea@switzerland.com, cylander@zooomclan.org, duke@zooomclan.org, pegirun@gmx.ch, pilif@pilif.ch, mlati@yahoo.com, Mozillzooom@holophrastic.com, erichiseli@yahoo.com, la_burdet@yahoo.com, rkoerber@gmx.de, dotzmasta@hotmail.com, B.Eckstein@cli.de, rtfm@linux.de, info@phosmo.de, gz@disintegrated.de, byronbay@gmx.de, stiwi@mac.com, mage@koeln.netsurf.de, mozilla@portfolio16.de, wrede@fh-aachen.de, ilikemozilla@html.de, cloud@final-fantasy.de, sfricke@sfricke.de, info@flossbau.de, no@dom.de, julian.suschlik@gmx.net, omero@m4d.sm, lapo@lapo.it, alcor78@email.it, info@fuelcat.it, mutato@libero.it, ildella@inwind.it, a.marabini@spinthehumanfactor.com, uomoman@criticalbit.com, thefl74@netscape.net, elbardo@libero.it, clem131@libero.it, t-i-e@bigfoot.com, gng74@libero.it, moz.party.20.gnes@spamgourmet.com, ema.cerqui@libero.it, ubertob@tin.it, mozparty.20.anagoor@spamgourmet.com, gianpaolo@preciso.net, ian@deepsky.com, marco@porciletto.org, planetx2100@hotmail.com, billabong@tiscalinet.it, piofree@libero.it, skunkyboy@tiscalinet.it, vincenzo@mondopiccolo.net, macmatteo@interfree.it, contreras@jce.it, hereandnow@libero.it, pza@students.cs.mu.oz.au, caedwa@students.cs.mu.oz.au, mgi@students.cs.mu.oz.au, bah@humbug.net, mfp@cs.mu.oz.au, nospamplease@indevelopment.org, peter@simplyit.screaming,net, pmj@users.sf.net, xanni@sericyb.com.au, agh@kalcium-is.com, felicityconsult@ozemail.com.au, lucas@lucaschan.com, andrewg@nopninjas.com, andym@abnormal.com, ts@meme.com.au, jasonpell@hotmail.com, syngin@gimp.org, mhammond@skippinet.com.au, szutshi@devraj.org, rmoonen@bigpond.net.au, fawad@fawad.net, ufs@softhome.net, kotrade@yahoo.com, ben@benscorp.com, stevesmith@columbus.rr.com, kkimmelosu@yahoo.com, neal.lindsay@peaofohio.com, pat@linuxcolumbus.com, chrisbaker@iname.com, hiroki2c@yahoo.com, seth@remor.com, jsohn@columbus.rr.com, ross@nanonet.net, mark@cushman.net, swinghammer.2@osu.edu, roberto.12@osu.edu, farhat@hotmail.com, pgunn@dachte.org, jwagner@gcfn.org, bp@osc.edu, joepletch@postmark.net, dsherman@iwaynet.net, glenn@uniqsys.com, bernstein.46@osu.edu, trent_reznor@nothing.com, erikniklas@bobanddoug.com, walters@gnu.org, timo@bolverk.net, annek25@aol.com, jlamb@leader.com, bart@osc.edu, jason@mcvetta.org

In the Hurd kernel, you basically have a microkernel and lots and lots of server programs, which implement (in this case) a Unix system. Everything is very tweakable, and you can run servers as an ordinary user, so that to programs you run against them, they are part of the kernel. And this happens independent from the other users.

Also, you have these servers that you can attach to inodes, so that you can have virtual filesystems in the kernel, at user level. So all the things that KDE and so on do, like ftp:// and gzip://, can be just a server attached to an inode.

Well, that is the theory at least :). I never tried it, although I'm sure I will in the near future. Check it out at the Hurd homepage

It is also the reason why the OSI keeps a list of approved licenses.

Far more apropos in the context of this thread is the FSF's license list and explanation of copyleft. Debian's concerns map far closer to Free Software movement's concerns than the Open Source movement's concerns because Debian cares about software freedom. The Open Source movement dismisses software freedom and advocates licenses that constitute gifts to proprietors (including the X11 license and the new BSD license) because businesses are the main target of the Open Source message. The Free Software movement, on the other hand, is concerned with software freedom and insuring these freedoms for all computer users. This insurance is one of the reasons why the GNU project (or perhaps it was the FSF) invented the concept of copyleft.

If you didn't take time to understand the license before contributing to the project, you can't complain that you don't like the result.

Just because you contribute something to a project doesn't mean you relinquish your copyright power. This is why the Mozilla project is currently looking for some authors who contributed copyrighted work to that project. The Mozilla project can't change the license on these contributions without the copyright holder's permission.

It is also the reason why the OSI keeps a list of approved licenses.

Far more apropos in the context of this thread is the FSF's license list and explanation of copyleft. Debian's concerns map far closer to Free Software movement's concerns than the Open Source movement's concerns because Debian cares about software freedom. The Open Source movement dismisses software freedom and advocates licenses that constitute gifts to proprietors (including the X11 license and the new BSD license) because businesses are the main target of the Open Source message. The Free Software movement, on the other hand, is concerned with software freedom and insuring these freedoms for all computer users. This insurance is one of the reasons why the GNU project (or perhaps it was the FSF) invented the concept of copyleft.

If you didn't take time to understand the license before contributing to the project, you can't complain that you don't like the result.

Just because you contribute something to a project doesn't mean you relinquish your copyright power. This is why the Mozilla project is currently looking for some authors who contributed copyrighted work to that project. The Mozilla project can't change the license on these contributions without the copyright holder's permission.

I believe there's a crucial difference between making software which runs on some platform and linking with someone else's code.

For example, making programs which run on Linux (the kernel is under GPL) is not considered making a derivative work. I think this is quite logical since the kernel just sits there, one image, providing services to the program through a narrow, specific and well published API.

When you link some executable with a dynamic library, in this case one distributed under the GPL, you're making a derivative work - at least the resulting image in memory is definitely a derivative work, combined of the codes of the two different products. Making a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

The GPL is obviously written to and considered to prohibit even linking non-free code with GPL code (where LGPL allows this), and even a lot of companies originally in violation have had to submit and either remove the portions licensed under the GPL from their producs or release their products under the GPL. Somehow I assume that the founding principles of the GPL would already have been challenged if they weren't legally quite watertight - instead the lawyer who (I think) wrote GPL has stated he has found it easy to enforce without the need to take the issue into courtroom.

I believe you can find better legal interpretations from some relevant mailing list, after all I'm not at all that well versed in US copyright law (simply because I'm Finnish, though I've had to deal a fair bit with US copyright law anyway :-).

On the contrary, I think the FSF explains the different types of free software very clearly. The common response to a question such as yours is: would you buy a car with the hood welded shut? You're not a mechanic, so what do you care?

Take, for example, Intel Solaris. It was distributed free of charge from its web site, ISOs and all. I download it, install it on my web server, happy as a clam that I have a free, enterprise O/S behind MyPuppySam.org. Oops, the web server crashed, and I have to reinstall. Hmm, the Solaris CD-R is scratched. "Hey, buddy, can I borrow your Solaris disk?" I ask my friend. "Sorry, dude, didn't you read the license agreement? I'm not allowed to lend you my copy. You'll have to go download it again," he replies. Oops, it's not available for download any more, because it's been "deferred," whatever that means. Guess I'll have to pay $50 and wait for the mail man. I guess I should count myself lucky that I can buy the media kit, at all.

McVoy is hardly anti-free-software. The very fact that he gives away *anything* for free symbolizes that.

I'm not saying that Larry is anti-free-software, but the software that he gives away is definitely not free software.

But RMS bristles at even the association with a software product that is ever sold for money.

RMS has the right to his opinion, but not to insult the intelligence of all of us by tring to tell us that we're all compromising our values by allowing this.

In a similar vein, am I the only one who is sick of RMS whining about the naming of Linux?

RMS is not against BitKeeper because it is sold for money. The FSF has repeatedly said that they fully support people selling "free software" to support more free software. They even say right here: we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.

What RMS is against, and what also makes me a little uneasy, is that I have no access to the source code to BitKeeper. The for-no-money version of BitKeeper is crippleware that only works under certain conditions; those conditions can later change. I feel uneasy about putting my entire change history into a format that, in the future, may no longer be accessible by any tool that I have.

Don't you think this is a reasonable thing to be concerned about? This is the issue. Not "Oh no, someone is charging money for free software!".

I think BitKeeper sounds like a very useful tool, and is leaps and bounds better than CVS. But I am afraid to use it for this reason.

I am fully versed in the FSF's philosophies. I just disagree with them. I do not find the GPL in the interests of "all computer users" because it has serious (negative) implications for creativity, standardization, and the sharing process.

RMS's rampant anti-Copyright arguments are fatally flawed in their assumption that software can exist in a form beneficial for all, without an economic model. RMS has also brainwashed people into accepting his explanation of "free speech" versus "free beer". The GPL enforces (not merely permits) "free speech", but also "free beer".

What this means for the man in the street is Bad News. Seeing a need, an industry can produce software to fulfil that need. In doing so it engages in economic activity, providing jobs to people like (surprise surprise) us. But if it must use the GPL, it can only be guaranteed a single sale. The first purchaser is permitted the rights to modify and redistribute the software, and resell it. No, not just it - but infinite copies, at any price (s)he choses. So it comes down to the fact that business cannot survive under an "only GPL" model.

On the flip side of the coin, let's assume that business is NOT involved. Free Software developers have got together and made a product. The end user STILL loses. Why? Because free software is notoriously shit compared to commercial alternatives when it comes to usability. It is typically made by geeks, for geeks. More specifically, the free software movement today is characterised by following. All of the features present in "productivity apps" (those which are of interest to normal home users) have debuted in commercial software, and the ideas simply copied.

All of this goes to say that the GPL stifles creativity. When there is no economic incentive, creativity declines.

Very few people benefit from the "freedom" offered by GPL software, unless we're talking "free beer". The vast majority of end users do not have the means to use the source code, and are confused and intimidated by the GPL. This reduces the sharing process. I am bound by severe legal constraints if I choose to give a copy of a GPL application to someone. I must include the source code (inconvenient, since I may not have chosen to obtain it), or provide an offer to provide the person with the source code. The GPL says it is NOT sufficient that I merely direct the recipient to the web site of the original source code (even if I haven't made any modifications), because as the distributor the onus is on ME to provide the source.

So much for easy sharing.

Which brings me to standardization, the central topic of my original post. Contrary to your belief, I don't want businesses to be treated as charities. I want meaningful contribution in both directions. And given the history of the situation, I don't believe this can be achieved using the GPL.

The FSF can treat itself as a sole light in the darkness of Copyright, fighting to bring a new age of Enlightenment to desktops near and far. And it can fail, because its efforts are continually divided by the (perceived) requirement to provide compatibility.

Or it can make reasonable efforts to reconcile its philosophy with that of the rest of the world, and work together nicely for a better future. And that means a give-and-take relationship with industry. "You can't have this unless you give us the commercial product its going to be a tiny part of" is not a give-and-take relationship.

The BSD license allows a business to benefit from free software. And it allows the business to contribute back in a manner it sees fit. A business almost certainly doesn't want to spend millions developing a commercial product, and then give it away for free (speech and/or beer), but it is likely to be willing to contribute extensions, fixes, and code that doesn't threaten its commercial model back into the free software space.

Or, to put it another way: if you don't give them anything, why the hell should they give something to you?

There are very few companies that can, or do, practice "embrace and extend". It only works effectively if you are a monopoly.

I'm not aware of the part of the GNU GPL that requires "electronic" distribution.

But the GPL FAQ states that if the binaries are distributed electronically, the source code must also be distributed electronically. The sheer size of the source code may prohibit me from distributing the software electronically at all.

Also, if the work is not a derivative of anything GPL'd, the GNU GPL would not apply to you (assuming you are the copyright holder on this work)

I am not. Read what I had written: "I can't re-license the software because it uses the LZO compression library, which is licensed under the GNU GPL." The LZO library was written by Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer, who does not have a plain e-mail address.

This is a non-problem if and only if reversibly concatenating an executable with asset files counts as either "mere aggregation" and/or "just data" under the GPL.

I'm not aware of the part of the GNU GPL that requires "electronic" distribution.

But the GPL FAQ states that if the binaries are distributed electronically, the source code must also be distributed electronically. The sheer size of the source code may prohibit me from distributing the software electronically at all.

Also, if the work is not a derivative of anything GPL'd, the GNU GPL would not apply to you (assuming you are the copyright holder on this work)

I am not. Read what I had written: "I can't re-license the software because it uses the LZO compression library, which is licensed under the GNU GPL." The LZO library was written by Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer, who does not have a plain e-mail address.

This is a non-problem if and only if reversibly concatenating an executable with asset files counts as either "mere aggregation" and/or "just data" under the GPL.

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The It was then that Eric S. Raymond suggested something he had read in a book by Tom Clancy. Crashing two planes into the World Trade Center Plaza would guarantee the destruction of the SEC offices, killing the operatives and possibly a number of SEC investigators at the same time. The plan seemed flawless, and would cost little more than the price of a few plane tickets. In a secret session, the board voted unanimously in favour of Eric's suggestion, and began to put it into action.

VA Software/Linux, at the time of planning the attacks, had no shortage of H1-B visa workers, who they employed for the purpose of writing and improving hacking, encryption, and other terrorist tools for the Linux operating system. It had been decided that a hand-picked few of these foreign H1-B workers would be used as the "patsies" in the operation. A contest was held, and the most zealotous Linux advocates were chosen for this secret assignment, direct from the board of directors. They accepted their mission after being told that, if successful, it would guarantee the adoption of Linux in the desktop market.

Alan Cox was brought into the fold to provide some planning and logistics for the mission. It was he who determined that since there was no adequate flight simulator software for Linux, the patsies would need to train at a flight school in order to pull off the plan successfully. It was also his idea to hijack a third and fourth plane for the purpose of crashing them into Washington D.C., to express his extreme rage over the DMCA, or Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The board of directors agreed with this addition to the plan in the hopes that it would help divert attention from the purpose of the WTC attack.

The H1-B workers were given false identities by using Linux hacking tools. Once they had attended the necessary flight training, they stayed at the Massachusetts home of Richard M. Stallman for a brief "faith building" retreat. During this time spent at the house of Stallman, between the nauseating stench of patchouli, Stallman's incessant, pitiful recorder playing, and Stallman's droning seminars on the grammatical and syntactical accuracy of various statements by Microsoft representatives, the H1-B workers were effectively hypnotized to the point that they were ready to lay down their lives for Free Software. It was then that they departed for Boston's Logan International Airport to board the planes.

(The preceding inside information has been obtained from a credible source close to the VA Linux/Software Board of Directors. He/she is in hiding for obvious reasons in light of this damning evidence, but has presented hard, physical evidence of VA Software/Linux's complicity in the events of 9/11 to federal investigators.)

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The It was then that Eric S. Raymond suggested something he had read in a book by Tom Clancy. Crashing two planes into the World Trade Center Plaza would guarantee the destruction of the SEC offices, killing the operatives and possibly a number of SEC investigators at the same time. The plan seemed flawless, and would cost little more than the price of a few plane tickets. In a secret session, the board voted unanimously in favour of Eric's suggestion, and began to put it into action.

VA Software/Linux, at the time of planning the attacks, had no shortage of H1-B visa workers, who they employed for the purpose of writing and improving hacking, encryption, and other terrorist tools for the Linux operating system. It had been decided that a hand-picked few of these foreign H1-B workers would be used as the "patsies" in the operation. A contest was held, and the most zealotous Linux advocates were chosen for this secret assignment, direct from the board of directors. They accepted their mission after being told that, if successful, it would guarantee the adoption of Linux in the desktop market.

Alan Cox was brought into the fold to provide some planning and logistics for the mission. It was he who determined that since there was no adequate flight simulator software for Linux, the patsies would need to train at a flight school in order to pull off the plan successfully. It was also his idea to hijack a third and fourth plane for the purpose of crashing them into Washington D.C., to express his extreme rage over the DMCA, or Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The board of directors agreed with this addition to the plan in the hopes that it would help divert attention from the purpose of the WTC attack.

The H1-B workers were given false identities by using Linux hacking tools. Once they had attended the necessary flight training, they stayed at the Massachusetts home of Richard M. Stallman for a brief "faith building" retreat. During this time spent at the house of Stallman, between the nauseating stench of patchouli, Stallman's incessant, pitiful recorder playing, and Stallman's droning seminars on the grammatical and syntactical accuracy of various statements by Microsoft representatives, the H1-B workers were effectively hypnotized to the point that they were ready to lay down their lives for Free Software. It was then that they departed for Boston's Logan International Airport to board the planes.

(The preceding inside information has been obtained from a credible source close to the VA Linux/Software Board of Directors. He/she is in hiding for obvious reasons in light of this damning evidence, but has presented hard, physical evidence of VA Software/Linux's complicity in the events of 9/11 to federal investigators.)

You can put just what you need online and provide the complete "source" via CD in the mail if requested.

I've considered that, but the GPL FAQ states: "The GPL insists that redistributors of binaries without sources provide an offer in writing to send the sources, because that's the only way we can make sure that users can get the sources. So if you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you have to distribute sources along with them."

In other words, if I distribute binaries electronically, I have to either distribute source code electronically or restrict binary distribution to those who own a printer.

From the GPL FAQ: "This should not be hard. If you can find a site to distribute your program, you can surely find one that has room for the sources." I'm not sure that the authors of the GPL had situations in mind where the source code is several orders of magnitude larger than the binary.

If it doesn't turn out to be that popular a game or folks just don't care about the source (it happens a lot), then it's a moot point anyway.

If I do not comply with the letter of the GPL from the outset, I am infringing the copyright on the LZO library, and Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer can sue me for up to $150,000 in statutory damages under U.S. copyright law.

The only way I can truly make this a moot point is if I can make a case that the way I store asset files (essentially a file system within the ROM) counts as "mere aggregation" under the GPL.

I had thought that this issue was precisely what the Lesser GPL was supposed to solve though, all this seemed to do for me was raise the point that maybe Microsoft has a valid arguement.

No, the LGPL was never meant to be a gift to business. That concept is the motivation of another movement, not the Free Software movement. Read the FSF's essay on the LGPL to learn what the LGPL is meant to do.

Also, Microsoft has no valid point regarding the GNU GPL and Microsoft doesn't act in accordance with their lies. Nobody owes them the ability to make derivative works. It is not the Free Software developer's responsibility to make sure software proprietors have code to extend. This is one of the points that separate the Open Source movement (who strongly advocates the X11 and new BSD licenses, both of which allow for proprietary derivatives) and the Free Software movement (which chiefly advocates the GNU GPL, a license that does not allow proprietary derivatives).

Under those circumstances there is no way I am going to be able to offer my application under Linux without an awful lot of reinventing the wheel.

You could release your software under the GNU GPL and write derivative code from any GPL-compatible licensed work you wish. You could sell the software and support for the software, even sell warranties for your work. Your competitors will not be able to distribute derivatives of your software without using the GPL for their releases, thus allowing you to share their distributed improvements.

I had thought that this issue was precisely what the Lesser GPL was supposed to solve though, all this seemed to do for me was raise the point that maybe Microsoft has a valid arguement.

No, the LGPL was never meant to be a gift to business. That concept is the motivation of another movement, not the Free Software movement. Read the FSF's essay on the LGPL to learn what the LGPL is meant to do.

Also, Microsoft has no valid point regarding the GNU GPL and Microsoft doesn't act in accordance with their lies. Nobody owes them the ability to make derivative works. It is not the Free Software developer's responsibility to make sure software proprietors have code to extend. This is one of the points that separate the Open Source movement (who strongly advocates the X11 and new BSD licenses, both of which allow for proprietary derivatives) and the Free Software movement (which chiefly advocates the GNU GPL, a license that does not allow proprietary derivatives).

Under those circumstances there is no way I am going to be able to offer my application under Linux without an awful lot of reinventing the wheel.

You could release your software under the GNU GPL and write derivative code from any GPL-compatible licensed work you wish. You could sell the software and support for the software, even sell warranties for your work. Your competitors will not be able to distribute derivatives of your software without using the GPL for their releases, thus allowing you to share their distributed improvements.

Looking at the overall gist of your post, it's clear you don't understand a good deal about Free Software or why the GNU GPL says what it says. You should read the essays at the GNU project's philosophy page and learn about the Free Software movement.

Ensuring freedom for who, exactly?

All computer users. The Free Software movement's message of software freedom is aimed at all computer users.

When I develop software "for free", I want people to use it.

The Free Software movement is not just interested in popularity. The primary motivation of the GNU project is to give users freedom. Also, talking about developing software "for free" suggests you are talking about software in terms of price. The Free Software movement focuses on freedom, not price.

But most importantly, the GPL fails in its efforts to encourage code sharing, because it locks out the largest potential resource of high-quality, useful code: business.

The GNU GPL is a very (if not the most) widely used Free Software license. Lots of people find it works for code sharing very well. However, it is not the job of the Free Software movement to look out for business interests in the way you want them to (treating businesses as charities is the work of another movement). If businesses want software developed, they can work hard and develop it themselves or hire someone to write it for them. If they want to share and share alike, they are welcome to get a head start and develop a derivative of a GNU GPL-covered work. Many businesses have chosen the latter route; the GNU GPL does not "lock out" business users, unless you define "business" to exclude IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and a host of commercial GNU/Linux distributors (just to name a few) all of whom make and/or distribute GNU GPL-covered software.

BSD licenses OTOH allow everyone to share. Sure, some people abuse the situation. But the community loses nothing in real terms.

The second sentence of that quote denies the validity of what you said in the first and third sentences of that same quote. Anytime someone distributes new BSD-covered code they are distributing Free Software, and that's great. Unfortunately they've chosen a license that allows for proprietary derivatives (even incompatible proprietary derivatives—a practice commonly referred to as "embrace and extend"). The community cannot freely use the changes made to these derivatives and the developers of the new BSD-licensed work have essentially treated some organization as a charity, not insisted on developing software as equals.

What really worries me is that gcc (and glibc) may be too restrictive, licence wise, to develop closed software at all - in which case I kind of wonder why FSF have not gone after those who do so.

Copyright law doesn't allow the FSF to stop you from using gcc to compile non-free software. For years, NeXT (now Apple) used gcc to compile NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP (which, contrary to whatever you may read into the name, is a proprietary operating system). It was a completely seperate issue that NeXT tried to extend gcc without abiding by the GNU GPL by proposing to distribute their Objective C front end as .o files.

What, exactly _is_ the point of LGPL if you can't link an LGPL lib with proprietary code without opening that code?

The FSF has an essay directly answering your question: Why you should not use the Library GPL for your next library?. The GNU LGPL was renamed after this essay was written to stand for the Lesser General Public License to reflect that it does less to ensure software freedom.

Seems there is room to define a license like "This is GPL, with the exception that you may freely dynamically (ie. at runtime) link this software with software bearing any license without any obligations of the GPL having any effect on that software".

Such a license would go against the whole point in using the GNU GPL. Free Software developers have to make advantages for one another and produce software that is Free Software. Linking with non-free software is antithetical to the Free Software movement because this movement maintains everyone should have the four fundamental freedoms of Free Software for all of their software. Distributing software linked with non-free software prevents people from having complete software freedom (more specifically, studying, modifying, and distributing source code).

If I share software with you I can't simply tell you where the source is, I have to give it to you or make a written offer?

Say my sister doesn't have access to the Internet. Given only a URL, how is she supposed to fetch the source code? (Read More...)

What about question 2, why can't he do number I?

Nobody said Fred couldn't do (I), the question is what fulfills his obligation to distribute source to the modified browser.

To whittle down the answers on that particular question, keep in mind what constitutes distributing complete source code to Fred's binary. Obviously Joan's source code doesn't have Fred's modifications, so I is out. II, III, and IV might look good until you notice that III only distributes patches to Joan's original source. That's not good enough in the event that you want complete source code to Fred's derivative and the source code Fred generated his patches against is inaccessible, so III is out. That leaves II and IV, which are equivalent and good (putting aside the difference betwen "alongside" and "along with"). [I know the real standard here is what the GPL says, not what parallel scenario I can dream up to justify the GPL's clauses, but I'm trying to write something accessible to those who aren't so familiar with the GPL.]

So once you modify a GPLed program, you're required to only distribute the modified version and never the original??????

No, that's not what it says at all. Whether you distribute the original source code is up to you. The GPL only requires you distribute the source code to the binaries you're distributing (if you're distributing binaries). Recipients of the binary should be able to modify it, and that requires the source code that corresponds to their binary (not some other version, no matter how improved it may be).

#3 seems hypocritical--RMS can create all the restrictions he wants, but any code that links with his license cannot have any?

Question #3 is aimed at making sure people don't try and sneak around the GPL by linking in code that is not available under the same permissions as the GPL. It's important to make sure people can share and modify the whole GPL'd program, not just part of it. The GPL allows Fred to charge for distributing Joan's browser or any derivative of Joan's browser. So linking in code that can't be distributed for a fee is linking in GPL-incompatible code.

Therefore the acceptable answers are quickly narrowed to the "Yes" answers (1 and 2): the sample license violates the GPL. Of those two, answer 2 is correct because the section 6 of the GNU GPL states that Fred cannot apply additional restrictions to any part of the code. Answer 1 is incorrect because the GPL only requires distributing binaries linked against GPL-compatible code and the GPL is not the only GPL-compatible license.

Maybe I'll have to come up with my own, however I hear that it comes with legal tanglings and etc.

You heard correctly, writing your own license is very difficult. It is not to be taken lightly. The GNU GPL has seen real court time and been confirmed as an enforceable and binding license. I think most people would be hard pressed to create a license that can survive court examination for the entire license.

Although I was thinking of coming up with one that disallows a bunch of people and companies that've pissed me off from using my program. Maybe I should include RMS on the list!

Before you rush off in a huff to write a license you'll most likely regret, consider that your aggravation stems from your misunderstanding of what the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL say. Since you got 3 questions wrong, you shouldn't be so quick to judge RMS, the GNU GPL & LGPL licenses, or the FSF harshly. I suggest jotting down your objections, learning what the Free Software movement is after, how the movement RMS started goes about achieving their wishes, learning what obstacles stand in the way, and then see if your objections have merit.

What about question 2, why can't he do number I?

Nobody said Fred couldn't do (I), the question is what fulfills his obligation to distribute source to the modified browser.

To whittle down the answers on that particular question, keep in mind what constitutes distributing complete source code to Fred's binary. Obviously Joan's source code doesn't have Fred's modifications, so I is out. II, III, and IV might look good until you notice that III only distributes patches to Joan's original source. That's not good enough in the event that you want complete source code to Fred's derivative and the source code Fred generated his patches against is inaccessible, so III is out. That leaves II and IV, which are equivalent and good (putting aside the difference betwen "alongside" and "along with"). [I know the real standard here is what the GPL says, not what parallel scenario I can dream up to justify the GPL's clauses, but I'm trying to write something accessible to those who aren't so familiar with the GPL.]

So once you modify a GPLed program, you're required to only distribute the modified version and never the original??????

No, that's not what it says at all. Whether you distribute the original source code is up to you. The GPL only requires you distribute the source code to the binaries you're distributing (if you're distributing binaries). Recipients of the binary should be able to modify it, and that requires the source code that corresponds to their binary (not some other version, no matter how improved it may be).

#3 seems hypocritical--RMS can create all the restrictions he wants, but any code that links with his license cannot have any?

Question #3 is aimed at making sure people don't try and sneak around the GPL by linking in code that is not available under the same permissions as the GPL. It's important to make sure people can share and modify the whole GPL'd program, not just part of it. The GPL allows Fred to charge for distributing Joan's browser or any derivative of Joan's browser. So linking in code that can't be distributed for a fee is linking in GPL-incompatible code.

Therefore the acceptable answers are quickly narrowed to the "Yes" answers (1 and 2): the sample license violates the GPL. Of those two, answer 2 is correct because the section 6 of the GNU GPL states that Fred cannot apply additional restrictions to any part of the code. Answer 1 is incorrect because the GPL only requires distributing binaries linked against GPL-compatible code and the GPL is not the only GPL-compatible license.

Maybe I'll have to come up with my own, however I hear that it comes with legal tanglings and etc.

You heard correctly, writing your own license is very difficult. It is not to be taken lightly. The GNU GPL has seen real court time and been confirmed as an enforceable and binding license. I think most people would be hard pressed to create a license that can survive court examination for the entire license.

Although I was thinking of coming up with one that disallows a bunch of people and companies that've pissed me off from using my program. Maybe I should include RMS on the list!

Before you rush off in a huff to write a license you'll most likely regret, consider that your aggravation stems from your misunderstanding of what the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL say. Since you got 3 questions wrong, you shouldn't be so quick to judge RMS, the GNU GPL & LGPL licenses, or the FSF harshly. I suggest jotting down your objections, learning what the Free Software movement is after, how the movement RMS started goes about achieving their wishes, learning what obstacles stand in the way, and then see if your objections have merit.

No. The FAQ explicitly states that you must offer the source through mail for a small fee if you do not ship source with the binaries. It doesn't matter how you distribute the thing.

Actually, when it comes to distributing binaries without source code and you want to go with the written offer option, section 3b of the GNU GPL says the applicable cost is "no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution". So you don't have to charge anything if you don't want to.

But on a larger issue, your rejection is simultaneously unclear and doesn't invalidate anything you quoted from me. I'm fully aware of the requirement of offering source code through the mail when someone orders it (I never contested this requirement). You read something into my words that was not there. I was not trying to present a complete list of alternatives (the GNU GPL itself is fine for that).

Now, a lot of people would think that if you distribute the binary via FTP, having a source package right next to it would be 'distributing source with the binary', just with the option for the user of actually taking it or refraining as they see fit. I strongly suspect that FSF:s interpretation rather is that the source must accompany the binary in the same, single, package.

Consider your suspicions allayed. One question speaks to your suspicions. Distributing two archives as you describe is fine. Distributing source code in the same archive as the binaries is also fine. Network distribution makes it possible for the binary archive to be accessible where the source archive is not (this can happen via FTP, not just via web sites). This presents a problem and is easily solved by distributing source code and binaries together in the same archive.

The argument for mail is that people may not have access to a network (which they evidently had thirty seconds earlier, when downloading the binary).

When the GNU GPL was written not everyone had network access that allowed them to download all the source code they want to GPL'd programs. People still don't have that level of access. Networks do go down, some people pay per byte and have to ration their usage, and a variety of other limitations. The GPL has to account for people passing copies of GPL-covered software via other means too. I don't know about you but I have manually passed out copies of GPL-covered software to people (I always put the complete machine-readable source code on the same medium as the binaries if I'm distributing binaries). These people deserve source code too.

At the same time, there seems to be no specification as to what physical medium to use; I could mail a QIC40 tape with the source and not having to worry if you can dredge up a tape unit able to read it. Yes, this is stupid.

If you're only distributing source code, you would want to distribute it in a medium people could use otherwise people would not want your source code. If you're distributing binaries, section 3a specifies "a medium customarily used for software interchange", section 3b specifies a written offer (valid for at least 3 years) that offers source distribution on "a medium customarily used for software interchange", and section 3c talks about passing on a copy of the information you received in accordance with section 3b.

Oh, BTW, if question #8 is about static linking, please make this clear; as it stands, you can answer either way, depending on how you interpret the question.

It appears you are trying to send a message to the editors of the quiz. You should know that I did not write the quiz.

Question 4 sets the scene here, "FooCorp distributes a modified version LibIdo library linked to their proprietary program Frobber.". The GNU LGPL notes in the preamble, "When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library." and thus subject to the terms of the license of the work being linked in (in that quiz scenario, the LGPL).

Section 6 of the GNU LGPL requires the license under which you distribute a "work that uses the Library" to allow for "modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications". So it would not matter whether Frobber links in the modified LibIdo statically or dynamically, either way Frobber is a derivative of the modified LibIdo and that LibIdo is a derivative of Peter's library. Therefore, in the end, the proper answer to the question #8 is "yes".

Since when did legal studies become the main concern for computer afficianados[sic]?

I was thinking just the opposite: When was it reasonable to be ignorant of the laws that control what you can do with a computer? When was it a good idea to not know about the terms of widely-used Free Software licenses? Maybe the computer afficionados you know would be better off knowing what copyright law says and what penalties lie in wait for them if they violate someone's copyright. Being ignorant of the DMCA is particularly unwise in the USA, just ask Dmitry Sklyarov about the pleasures of being held in jail away from home.

I think Microsoft hacked into FSF's servers to scare people away from open-source.

Funny. I think the FSF put that up with the mindset of helping people to better understand the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL, and to increase the number of volunteers helping them with license issues (as they ask for if you answer all the questions correctly). Also, the FSF doesn't do "open-source" they do Free Software. There's a big difference.

These legalisms are paralyzing to a fertile, inquisitive mind.

These legalisms are just another part of life to learn about, organize protests around, and work within. A mind will not stay "fertile" if it is ignorant of the rules of society. It is shameful, not helpful, to remain ignorant of the law.

While the FSF is technically right here, the example is silly. Are any software authors, even the FSF, really going to sue someone for giving binaries as a birthday present to a friend without source?

The example is not silly at all. People do distribute CDs of binaries without source code. The FSF won't sue someone who uses the GNU GPL to license their software in cases where the FSF is not the copyright holder (which is the vast majority of GNU GPL-covered software). Even in cases where the FSF holds the copyright, usually these cases are not settled by lawsuit. Usually infringements are settled by someone pointing out the GPL's terms and asking for compliance (sometimes with the assistance of Eben Moglen, general counsel for the FSF, who said, "[a] quiet initial contact is usually sufficient to resolve the problem.").

Also, the problem doesn't come up merely by not distributing source code with binaries, but by not making it available at all. One can comply with the GPL in ways other than distributing source code with binaries. Distributing both source code and binaries simultaneously from the same location is probably the most convenient way to comply.

For that matter, what cheapskate would give free software as a gift? This makes no sense even keeping the gratis vs. libre issues in mind.

It makes sense when you consider that not everyone gives gifts to demonstrate how rich they are. Some people give gifts to show that they care about their friend's wishes. Sometimes this involves buying something, sometimes it involves spending time making something that has no price attached to it. Giving someone a copy of Debian GNU/Linux who can not get it on their own is one way to help them have software freedom.

I dare say that this example may highlight a situation where the GPL needs to be updated. Binary-only distribution to personal aquaintances of unmodified versions should be perfectly fine.

No, the GPL does not need amending here. People need to be able to excercise all of their software freedoms including the ones that require source code: studying how the program works, adapting it to their needs, improving the program, and releasing their improvements to the community (known as freedoms #1 and #3 in the definition of Free Software). In order to come as close as one can to guaranteeing source code availability and offer reasonable practical alternatives, the GNU GPL includes the terms discussed in the first quiz question.

For those who don't remember why GNU didn't support KDE way back in the day, the story happened thusly:

KDE (most of which was licensed under the GPL) links against Qt, which, at the time (pre Qt 1.44, IIRC), was licensed under a non-Free license which was (obviously) not compatible with the GPL, which means that it was not possible to run KDE without breaching someones license. All the KDE guys had to do was add a specific exception to the KDE license that specifically allowed people to use KDE with the non-Free Qt and everyone would be (fairly) happy. For one reason or another, they did not, meaning it was impossible to use KDE without breaching it's license (the GPL). This is the reason that Debian and Red Hat, among others, did not distribute KDE before version 2.0, whence KDE was linked against Qt 2.2, licensed under a dual QPL/GPL license.
This was a serious issue at the time, since it made the whole KDE project rather legally dubious; GNU tried to convince Trolltech to Free up Qt, then when that failed, they tried to start up a Free clone (Harmony). Harmony stalled, so GNU threw their support behind GNOME, based on the LGPL'd Gtk+. The outcry from a whole lot of people (including GNU, Debian, Red Hat and especially RMS) eventually convinced Trolltech to release Qt under the QPL, a slightly more Free license than before (modifcations could only be released as patches), then later, under a dual QPL/GPL license.