Slashdot Mirror

From what I've seen of the anti-GPL rhetoric that has come out of MSFT, they are primarily against Richard Stallman's political agenda that comes with the GPL.

They see nothing wrong with altruistically giving away code (which is what the BSD license and its ilk are about) but licenses like the GPL that attempt to devalue the cost of software are anathema to such people. The GPL drives the cost of software to 0 or at worst the cost of distribution media (just take a look at Cheapbytes for a living example of this). This means that any entity that produces GPL software most augment their income in some way be it through moonlighting, consulting, support, selling hardware, etc.

This is not a mere side-effect but was an explicit goal of the GPL which can be garnered by reading Richard Stallman's early writings especially the gunk about software developers should work as waiters so that we can afford to give our software away.

So I looked for another alternative [to writing proprietary software], and there was an obvious one. I could leave the software field, and do something else. Now I had no other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. [Laughter] Not at a fancy restaurant, they wouldn't hire me, [Laughter] but I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, they say to me "the people who hire programmers demand this, this and this -- If I don't do those things, I'll starve." It's literally the word they use. Well, you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. [Laughter] So, really their [sic] in no danger. But -- and this is important, you see -- because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other people by saying "otherwise something worse is going to happen to me." You know, if you were really going to starve, you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. [Laughter] If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say it's forgivable. [Laughter] But, I had found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not available. So, I realized though that being a waiter would be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills. So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good.

Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business,

... it is unsurprising that the world's largest software company would be wary of doing anything that encouraged the spread of this meme. What is surprising is that most observers find it difficult to realize this and instead of applying Occam's Razor, resort to conspiracy theories about how MSFT wants to steal their code.

HTH

No, the original author can't create closed source from other people's GPL'd contributions without asking their permission. This situation is covered in the GPL faq.

My father used to tell me stories of when he was stationed in WWII in the Aleutian Islands, preparing as a SeaBee for the invasion of Japan. One of the stories that continued to amaze him was the deployment of Native Americans to handle communications, now populary referred to as Code Talkers.

Not only did they transmit messages in code, but they added a nice little touch, all transmissions were forwarded in their native dialects. Both my father and I would chortle at the prostpect of some enemy intercept trying to figure out Cherokee.

It makes me wonder, especially when you consider the costs of snooping everone's transmissions ... if it just wouldn't be too expensive if we not only encrypted our transmissions, but perhaps had an IRC in which we could roll our own dialects via tools like Bison in which only you, and your buddy on the other end would possess the necessary grammar file.

Sure, I'm sure the employer and their lawyers could still crack it ... but perhaps the process would become so expensive that they'll just move onto hammering the putz down the hall who continues to spew open text.

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

The GPL and other licenses are legal documents. Which means common sense does not always apply.

Much of what you say is spot-on, but this leaves me wondering what part of common sense says you shouldn't defend your copyright in a case where the license encourages sharing? What part of common sense says Robertson should be allowed to infringe the GNU GPL?

Given the already shaky nature of open source licenses in the dog eat dog world of commercialism, it is a GOOD thing that groups like the FSF are "nitpicking" this issue.

Actually, this is a golden opportunity to learn the difference between the freedom-minded free software movement and the freedom-dismissing open source movement. The GNU GPL is a copylefted free software license. The open source initiative did little more than place it in their list of approved licenses. Calling the GPL an open source license misrepresents the philosophy and authorship of the GPL. Defending software freedom is very much at the heart of this issue.

Fortunately the FSF handles many cases like this every year and the vast majority of them are amicably resolved long before anyone goes to court. The NuSphere MySQL case is the exception, not the rule.

You have to distribute your build scripts, yes. The GPL contains an explicit exemption for the ``major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)'' of the target OS (Linux freaks please note this pre-dates the GNU/Linux issue, so don't flame me). The FSF interprets this as including everything distributed with the compiler.

Besides that, the GPL says nothing about how quickly the source must be given. So it just might be legal as well as moral.

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.)

accompany:
to go with as an associate or companion

I don't know where you got this idea, but it certainly wasn't from section 3 of the GNU General Public License, specificly:

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) (option C only applies to non-commercial distribution, which Lindows certainly is not)

Hmm... lets see what FSF has to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand this as: it's okay to develop under NDA (that is, you have access to source, but you're not allowed to distribute anything) but it's not okay to work under NDA and receive only binary. Of course, if this interpretation isn't correct, GPL could be circumvented by "hiring" all the users as employers for the wage of -99 bucks.

Hmm... lets see what FSF has to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand this as: it's okay to develop under NDA (that is, you have access to source, but you're not allowed to distribute anything) but it's not okay to work under NDA and receive only binary. Of course, if this interpretation isn't correct, GPL could be circumvented by "hiring" all the users as employers for the wage of -99 bucks.

I agree. The GPL is clear on this matter:

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,

The only benefit to the consumer would be a slightly reduced cost.

And upgradability, the ability to receive multiple channels simultaneously, the ability to see the source code to your encryption...

This proves that microsoft cares about us.

That statement proves that you care about microsoft.

Personally, I like my hardware to be OS specific, because it prevents me from doing foolish things such as installing so called "free" software (which is un-American, btw).

Yeah, so unamerican that a whole 3 people in congress support the bill that 5 people on slashdot decided would hurt linux. This doesn't hurt linux at all. First of all, no one is proposing a ban on hardware radios (if anything they would ban software radios). Some people have decided that they want to make a product for windows. Microsoft isn't required to do the work to port every product it makes to Linux. Even the GPL doesn't require nonsense like that.

Ever try using a winmodem in linux? LOL, or in windows for that matter?

Sure, it's a horrible idea... Unless RMS is doing it.

Do some research. If you want a native app written in Java it can be done. Check out GCC and you will find that it compiles Java just fine.

For most purposes, however, Java in bytecode format runs just fine. Used in companies around the world. In those cases that you need native speed, compile it to native code, enough said.

It seems fairly evident that the phrase "open standards" has nothing to do with money, but with "trade secrets" and proprietary formats that a company can legally prevent others from using.

While the words free software can mean software that can be had for no money, making it "free of cost", the phrase "free software" usually refers to Free Software. Free Software can be a free download, or it can cost money to buy it. The point of Free Software, is that once you have it, you can do just about anything you want with it, even share it with your friends. A Copyleft like the General Public License (GPL) is a kind of Copyright, which ensures that everybody you give the software to has the same freedoms that were given to you. Even if all of Ogg were totally under the GPL, they could still try to sell the software for money, just like you can, one you have a copy.

There is no reason why you can't make money off of Free Software or open standards. For more information on Free software, check out http://www.gnu.org/philosophy

It seems fairly evident that the phrase "open standards" has nothing to do with money, but with "trade secrets" and proprietary formats that a company can legally prevent others from using.

While the words free software can mean software that can be had for no money, making it "free of cost", the phrase "free software" usually refers to Free Software. Free Software can be a free download, or it can cost money to buy it. The point of Free Software, is that once you have it, you can do just about anything you want with it, even share it with your friends. A Copyleft like the General Public License (GPL) is a kind of Copyright, which ensures that everybody you give the software to has the same freedoms that were given to you. Even if all of Ogg were totally under the GPL, they could still try to sell the software for money, just like you can, one you have a copy.

There is no reason why you can't make money off of Free Software or open standards. For more information on Free software, check out http://www.gnu.org/philosophy

One example of the author's cluelessness is that he touts the Halcyon solution - which is implemented in Java. This is supposed to show Java's vulnerability how?

The rest of his "myths" are just as insightful..i.e. a bunch of crap. ;-)

Where was SWT in this discussion for instance? Where was the discussion regarding millions of Java-enabled devices in the marketplace? Where was the discussion of Javas total dominance in application servers right now (perhaps .Net will make a dent, but it remains to be seen).

Then the author gives forth with:

"We have a beautiful language here in Java; it has achieved industry-wide support and is pushing forward with great velocity. What can we do to support it?"

For a start, perhaps NOT writing clueless, FUD-filled articles that completely exaggerate the threat of C# to Java... Many, many Java users are going to be very slow to move to a Microsoft proprietary solution...and make no mistake about it, .Net is Microsoft proprietary. Only the C# language and the CLR runtime have been submitted to ECMA and those make up a tiny subset of .Nyet (sorry, couldn't resist doing that at least once!).

The word "chaordic" is used as defined by Dee Hock (the person behind VISA) at http://www.chaordic.org and in his book "Birth of the Chaordic Age", which is essentially processes at the boundary between CHAos and ORDer and the social implications for how to design effective and responsive organizations for a dynamic society. The focus will be specially on computer simulations to support part of the goal defined here http://www.chaordic.org/who_hist.html#FourCond of: "Development of visual and physical models of chaordic organizations so that people have something to examine, experiment with, and compare to existing organizations. The models must contain the ethical and spiritual dimensions generally lacking in current models. In addition, computer simulations will need to be created to allow people to quickly see how clarity of purpose and principles allow institutions to self-organize, evolve over decades, and link in new patterns for an enduring constructive society."

People are invited to join the mailing list if they want at this page http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/ simulchaord-discuss if you want to contribute to project related discussions or submit snippets of code (with the understanding contributions will be archived and can be incorporated into the project under the GPL license). I have been posting some artificial life links there related to modelling social systems to get things started -- one of the first was a link to the Atlantic Monthly article discussed in this Slashdot thread. For now, I am using use the list to record my own musings on related simulation issues including design, architecture, and use cases. I will also be posting my experiences as I try to create such simulations. Feel free to lurk for a while or chime in.

Here is a page leading to the entire mailing list archives (aroudn twenty messages so far): http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/pipermail/simulch aord-discuss/

The main project page is here: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/simulchaord/ Cooperative development of releases of code is hosted on Savannah using CVS although I haven't yet put up any content (files or homepage) besides what's archived in the mailing list.

At the moment I am looking at using Swarm http://www.swarm.org as the base -- although I may just use Python instead -- or even use both for different aspects.

Luckily for the consumer, libraries and the concept of buying used books have been around for centuries. Imagine that if back in the day when Gutenburg invited the printing press coorporations were what they are today and EULA's and such existed. We are already nearing an age where our right to read is attempting to be limited by greedy people. Lucky for us, books have been around a lot longer than cd's or dvd's or none of us would be able to afford to educate ourselfs or gain enjoyment from one of the simpler pleasures in life.

If you (still) have not read this, do it *now*: The Right to Read by RMS

This reminds me far too much of MPAA/RIAA tactics . . . what will we see next, ranting against libraries because they allow people to share books?

And here I thought all Evil Organizations had acronyms ending in AA . . .

While you're at it, here's one RMS would like: "The right of freedom of speech and press includes . . . the right to read . . ." (footnote 11)

Stallman wrote something about this a while back if I remember.


The Right To Read

Note that anyone can peruse the signatures and comments (a good idea to help sign the petition with an intelligent comment), but it appears that only U.S. citizens can sign. Of course, it's also a good idea to read the petition fully rather than blindly signing.

I expect greater returns in terms of usable software than the money I put in.

There are two big flaws in your argument. First, what happens when Redhat finally puts out usable software? Do you stop "investing" because your goal has been reached? Eventually any business is going to have to leave childhood (the investment stage) and enter adulthood (the making money all on your own stage). Investment as a long term business plan is known in most circles as a "ponzi scheme".

The second problem is what distinguishes charities from investments: The Free Rider Problem. The classic example is the lighthouse. All the ship captains want a lighthouse. But if one individual captain finances the lighthouse, all the other captains get the use of it for free. This leads to much resentment. Some captains will reason that even though they can afford to build the lighthouse, it is financially worthwhile to wait a little bit to see if someone else steps up to the plate first. The common solution to the problem, unfortunately, is some form of coercion, usually taxation.

In terms of Redhat, you can "invest" all you want, but you end up subsidizing all those who don't invest. This may be okay for you and many others. But for most people it is not. So they download it for free or buy the $2 Cheapbytes version and let you finance the improvements.

There are two solutions to this problem. One is coercion, and it is the method that RMS advocates. He wants a software tax to finance free software development. But there is a much friendly solution. Realize that free software is indeed free beer along with being free "speech", and stop trying to sell it. Find something else to sell instead. It might be services, support, proprietary addons, or even plush Tux dolls, but you'll go broke selling free software.

Nobody is.
I think these people are, and these too though they won't answer my emails..

Have a look at the Free Software Services Directory for more people/companies who appear to be cashing in on Free Software.

GPL is an enabling license. It allows people to do things with code that they usually are not allowed to do. It's not as enabling as the BSD license, but very deliberately so.

What is this possible danger you speak of?

A world with a lot of GPL software does not preclude commercial (non-GPL) development. It does make it harder for companies to sell crap. To me this seems like a good thing for all parties, save for those in the business of marketting sows' ears as silk purses. And good riddance to them.

• there is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do - A rather strong statement considering that the usual argument in defense of the viral nature of the GPL is that one can pretend it doesn't exist and do without it. One could equally pretend proprietary software doesn't exist, yet there is "no limit" to the harm it can do?
• since the owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large - Maybe, or maybe it's expensive because custom programming is difficult work that takes a lot of skilled labor, of which there is a limited supply? (Did Stallman make a living charging nominal fees for custom work? Or did he charge $300/hour?)
• society shouldn't have owners for programs - This is a pretty unambiguous statement of his viewpoint and goals.
• programmers often work for the Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere - So programmers should have to sacrifice their income for the good of all? Stallman says $35,000/year should be sufficient incentive to program for a living; did he ever do custom programming work for $17.50/hour?
• [a moral obligation to support developers] does not apply to proprietary software developers, since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward - Now he's not just saying to prefer free software over proprietary software, but that those proprietary software developers deserved to be punished for their "obstructionism"? That sure sounds like "fighting words" to me...
• the users will learn to support developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public radio and television stations - If the public is so willing to support public radio and television "without coercion", why must they inevitably resort to pledge drives?
• withholding information that could help everyone advance is a form of combat - The GPL does exactly such withholding from proprietary developers, hence the GPL is a form of combat. Again, there's no doubt that proprietary software is an enemy here, not just something to coexist with.
• if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists - This is a bizarre accusation, and hypocritical, considering the diatribe elsewhere about "name calling".
• most of what I have to say is addressed only to those who share the premises I use - Nobody is allowed to question the premises used; let's just preach to the choir.
• the owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner - True, but most people won't pay if they don't have to. When free software is the norm and the vast majority won't pay, how will development be funded?
• society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens - Great sentiment, and a wonderful ideal. Unfortunately, nobody has found a way to implement such a utopia. It seems that individuals are too self-interested to do what's best for everyone, most of the time.
• if your friend asks to make a copy [of proprietary software], it would be wrong to refuse - So now it's immoral not to break the law? If the law is wrong (not a given), then civil disobediance should be a choice, not a moral obligation...

The benefits are a much better educated programming community. Even if one is developing commercial software, one can learn from the wide availability of source in a GPL-rich world. Sure you can't copy that source, but it's not like you can now, anyway.

GPL is an enabling license. It allows people to do things with code that they usually are not allowed to do. It's not as enabling as the BSD license, but very deliberately so.

What is this possible danger you speak of?

A world with a lot of GPL software does not preclude commercial (non-GPL) development. It does make it harder for companies to sell crap. To me this seems like a good thing for all parties, save for those in the business of marketting sows' ears as silk purses. And good riddance to them.

• there is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do - A rather strong statement considering that the usual argument in defense of the viral nature of the GPL is that one can pretend it doesn't exist and do without it. One could equally pretend proprietary software doesn't exist, yet there is "no limit" to the harm it can do?
• since the owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large - Maybe, or maybe it's expensive because custom programming is difficult work that takes a lot of skilled labor, of which there is a limited supply? (Did Stallman make a living charging nominal fees for custom work? Or did he charge $300/hour?)
• society shouldn't have owners for programs - This is a pretty unambiguous statement of his viewpoint and goals.
• programmers often work for the Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere - So programmers should have to sacrifice their income for the good of all? Stallman says $35,000/year should be sufficient incentive to program for a living; did he ever do custom programming work for $17.50/hour?
• [a moral obligation to support developers] does not apply to proprietary software developers, since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward - Now he's not just saying to prefer free software over proprietary software, but that those proprietary software developers deserved to be punished for their "obstructionism"? That sure sounds like "fighting words" to me...
• the users will learn to support developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public radio and television stations - If the public is so willing to support public radio and television "without coercion", why must they inevitably resort to pledge drives?
• withholding information that could help everyone advance is a form of combat - The GPL does exactly such withholding from proprietary developers, hence the GPL is a form of combat. Again, there's no doubt that proprietary software is an enemy here, not just something to coexist with.
• if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists - This is a bizarre accusation, and hypocritical, considering the diatribe elsewhere about "name calling".
• most of what I have to say is addressed only to those who share the premises I use - Nobody is allowed to question the premises used; let's just preach to the choir.
• the owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner - True, but most people won't pay if they don't have to. When free software is the norm and the vast majority won't pay, how will development be funded?
• society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens - Great sentiment, and a wonderful ideal. Unfortunately, nobody has found a way to implement such a utopia. It seems that individuals are too self-interested to do what's best for everyone, most of the time.
• if your friend asks to make a copy [of proprietary software], it would be wrong to refuse - So now it's immoral not to break the law? If the law is wrong (not a given), then civil disobediance should be a choice, not a moral obligation...

The benefits are a much better educated programming community. Even if one is developing commercial software, one can learn from the wide availability of source in a GPL-rich world. Sure you can't copy that source, but it's not like you can now, anyway.

> and I can tell you this won't help you listen to cellular.

Look, we're sucking down 6+ MHz of IF bandwidth, so that's no issue. Take a look at this screenshot for lots of narrow band signals, or this for spread spectrum.

If one were inclined to listen to cellular, the GNU Radio platform has plenty of umph to decode all the 2nd and 2.5G cellular standards.

Note that when doing most of the work in software, you organize the system differently than using the intersil digital down converters.

To give you a couple of ideas about how we do it, we use a highly decimating FIR filter merged with the software frequency translation for the channel selection. Once you're down to something like 2x or 4x the symbol rate, the cellular standards are no big deal computationally. Yes, there are a lot of layers, but so what? The data rate is really low.

If you download the code, the relevant class for the narrow band channel selection is ~/gnuradio/src/gnu/lib/gr/GrFreqXlatingFIRfilter.h

> and I can tell you this won't help you listen to cellular.

Look, we're sucking down 6+ MHz of IF bandwidth, so that's no issue. Take a look at this screenshot for lots of narrow band signals, or this for spread spectrum.

If one were inclined to listen to cellular, the GNU Radio platform has plenty of umph to decode all the 2nd and 2.5G cellular standards.

Note that when doing most of the work in software, you organize the system differently than using the intersil digital down converters.

To give you a couple of ideas about how we do it, we use a highly decimating FIR filter merged with the software frequency translation for the channel selection. Once you're down to something like 2x or 4x the symbol rate, the cellular standards are no big deal computationally. Yes, there are a lot of layers, but so what? The data rate is really low.

If you download the code, the relevant class for the narrow band channel selection is ~/gnuradio/src/gnu/lib/gr/GrFreqXlatingFIRfilter.h

> and I can tell you this won't help you listen to cellular.

Look, we're sucking down 6+ MHz of IF bandwidth, so that's no issue. Take a look at this screenshot for lots of narrow band signals, or this for spread spectrum.

If one were inclined to listen to cellular, the GNU Radio platform has plenty of umph to decode all the 2nd and 2.5G cellular standards.

Note that when doing most of the work in software, you organize the system differently than using the intersil digital down converters.

To give you a couple of ideas about how we do it, we use a highly decimating FIR filter merged with the software frequency translation for the channel selection. Once you're down to something like 2x or 4x the symbol rate, the cellular standards are no big deal computationally. Yes, there are a lot of layers, but so what? The data rate is really low.

If you download the code, the relevant class for the narrow band channel selection is ~/gnuradio/src/gnu/lib/gr/GrFreqXlatingFIRfilter.h

David and Goliath. To anyone following along, who supports the FSF, please consider lending a hand. Any help you can provide is, well, helpful. And the satisfaction of watching evil giants fall...

This would be great.I'm nowhere near the skills to implement SAMBA in Windoze, but if you have the expertise, why not set up a poroject in sourceforge to port SAMBA to Win32???

Do I smell hypocrisy?

Maybe I am not understanding the finer details of this discussion, and please help clarify the issue for me, but if someone takes some code that is GPL'ed and doesn't agree with the license, can that person than disregard the license and use the software anyone they seem fit?

Yes, in a sense that most of people think while they say about using the software. That person can only use the software, which doesn't include copying, distribution and modification. But still you can use the software in the same way as a legally purchased copy of Microsoft Windows, in fact, even more freely, since you don't have to accept Windows EULA. So in practice the GPL doesn't mean anything to the end user (GPL in not EULA - End User License Agreement), you don't have to accept it.

But if you want to distribute or modify the software, you don't have anything which would give you any right to do it unless you accept GPL. If you don't accept the GPL, all you have is the standard copyright law, which doesn't give you those rights. So you can't copy or change the software and say that you haven't accepted the GPL, because the law prohibits copying and making modifications in the first place.

Read the section Terms And Conditions For Copying, Distribution And Modification of the GNU General Public License, paragraphs 0 and 5, my emphasis:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. [...] Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). [...]

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Many people don't know that, I hope it's clear now.

Maybe I am not understanding the finer details of this discussion, and please help clarify the issue for me, but if someone takes some code that is GPL'ed and doesn't agree with the license, can that person than disregard the license and use the software anyone they seem fit?

Yes, in a sense that most of people think while they say about using the software. That person can only use the software, which doesn't include copying, distribution and modification. But still you can use the software in the same way as a legally purchased copy of Microsoft Windows, in fact, even more freely, since you don't have to accept Windows EULA. So in practice the GPL doesn't mean anything to the end user (GPL in not EULA - End User License Agreement), you don't have to accept it.

But if you want to distribute or modify the software, you don't have anything which would give you any right to do it unless you accept GPL. If you don't accept the GPL, all you have is the standard copyright law, which doesn't give you those rights. So you can't copy or change the software and say that you haven't accepted the GPL, because the law prohibits copying and making modifications in the first place.

Read the section Terms And Conditions For Copying, Distribution And Modification of the GNU General Public License, paragraphs 0 and 5, my emphasis:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. [...] Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). [...]

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Many people don't know that, I hope it's clear now.

Quite frankly, don't OSS teams produce comercial closed source software, or am I wrong.

Quite frankly, don't OSS teams produce comercial closed source software, or am I wrong.

Of course books will all be regulated digital devices too, with equal pay-per-read pricing.

Sorry to be so insistent, but when talking about the opperating system as a hole could you PLEASE referr to it as GNU/Linux. Although the colonel of the GNU/Linux system is called 'Linux' the colonel is just a small part of the whole thing!! Most of the work was done by Richard Stallman as part of his GNUopperating system. Linus Torvalds took advantage of Richard Stallmans genorosity to give his opperating system away for free.

Richard Stallman is not angry that GNU/Linux uses the software he wrote, because he is one of the hero's of free (as in beer AND speech) software. But he does get upset that he is not creddited for his work that is been used and most people would of been upset as well. Read his side of the argument here. I didnt used to know about this untill I read that and now I know why he is upset and am trying to explain to people. Im sure you didnt know about this because no one writes GNU/Linux on ./ so PLEASE people read Richard Stallmans side of the story. This isnt directed at you on you're own but at everyone on ./ sorry if it sounds like Im having a go at you.

Sorry to be so insistent, but when talking about the opperating system as a hole could you PLEASE referr to it as GNU/Linux. Although the colonel of the GNU/Linux system is called 'Linux' the colonel is just a small part of the whole thing!! Most of the work was done by Richard Stallman as part of his GNUopperating system. Linus Torvalds took advantage of Richard Stallmans genorosity to give his opperating system away for free.

Richard Stallman is not angry that GNU/Linux uses the software he wrote, because he is one of the hero's of free (as in beer AND speech) software. But he does get upset that he is not creddited for his work that is been used and most people would of been upset as well. Read his side of the argument here. I didnt used to know about this untill I read that and now I know why he is upset and am trying to explain to people. Im sure you didnt know about this because no one writes GNU/Linux on ./ so PLEASE people read Richard Stallmans side of the story. This isnt directed at you on you're own but at everyone on ./ sorry if it sounds like Im having a go at you.

Sorry to be so insistent, but when talking about the opperating system as a hole could you PLEASE referr to it as GNU/Linux. Although the colonel of the GNU/Linux system is called 'Linux' the colonel is just a small part of the whole thing!! Most of the work was done by Richard Stallman as part of his GNUopperating system. Linus Torvalds took advantage of Richard Stallmans genorosity to give his opperating system away for free.

Richard Stallman is not angry that GNU/Linux uses the software he wrote, because he is one of the hero's of free (as in beer AND speech) software. But he does get upset that he is not creddited for his work that is been used and most people would of been upset as well. Read his side of the argument here. I didnt used to know about this untill I read that and now I know why he is upset and am trying to explain to people. Im sure you didnt know about this because no one writes GNU/Linux on ./ so PLEASE people read Richard Stallmans side of the story. This isnt directed at you on you're own but at everyone on ./ sorry if it sounds like Im having a go at you.

Now you're complaining that FSF is not OSI.

I'm expressing reservations about picking one word as a slogan and wielding it as a weapon until you lose sight of the fact that the word isn't as important as the rich plethora of ideas behind it.

Freedom was always the most important priority for the free software folks, from 1983 when Richard Stallman announced the GNU Project, to now. In 1998 the OSI launch was announced by Eric S. Raymond, because he "realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with free software in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape."

My point is that if you don't like FSF because they're "picking one word [freedom] as a slogan and wielding it as a weapon", than just join the OSI and be happy, instead of complaining about FSF having different attitude than OSI (which is quite obvious, otherwise the OSI would have not been founded). You're not going to convince GNU people to stop talking about freedom after 20 years (ESR knew that 4 years ago).

If I have a complaint, it's that people draw a distinction between FSF and OSI based on nitpicking over why "free" is different to "open", when the basic concepts are pretty much interchangeable.

How can people not draw a distinction between FSF and OSI based on free/open difference, if that distinction is the very reason why OSI has been started?

Those definitions (and the motivations behind using them) are the main difference between FSF and OSI. That is why free software and open source software can cooperate so well. I use, write and promote free software, not only because I like high quality software, but because I like freedom in the first place. For me the high quality is a very nice side effect, but not the whole purpose. People who use, write and promote open source software, put the quality and practical advantages over the ideological and ethical aspects. We all can work together, because it's usually the same software released under the same licenses.

Read the free software definition and the open source definition. Compare the list of free software licenses with the list of open source licenses. People behind OSI are doing pretty much the same as people behind FSF, the only important difference is in the motivations. And that is why I said that "you're complaining that FSF is not OSI", commenting your:

Uh, I count 31 instances of "free" or "freedom" in that interview. [...] Perhaps the FSF could consider coming up with a new angle. [...] There are other words, and other concepts that represent the FSF's ideals. Open. Shared. Community. Perhaps we could embroider some of those words onto our flag for a while, just until the Freedom Fad blows over.

I hope it's clear now.

Now you're complaining that FSF is not OSI.

I'm expressing reservations about picking one word as a slogan and wielding it as a weapon until you lose sight of the fact that the word isn't as important as the rich plethora of ideas behind it.

Freedom was always the most important priority for the free software folks, from 1983 when Richard Stallman announced the GNU Project, to now. In 1998 the OSI launch was announced by Eric S. Raymond, because he "realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with free software in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape."

My point is that if you don't like FSF because they're "picking one word [freedom] as a slogan and wielding it as a weapon", than just join the OSI and be happy, instead of complaining about FSF having different attitude than OSI (which is quite obvious, otherwise the OSI would have not been founded). You're not going to convince GNU people to stop talking about freedom after 20 years (ESR knew that 4 years ago).

If I have a complaint, it's that people draw a distinction between FSF and OSI based on nitpicking over why "free" is different to "open", when the basic concepts are pretty much interchangeable.

How can people not draw a distinction between FSF and OSI based on free/open difference, if that distinction is the very reason why OSI has been started?

Those definitions (and the motivations behind using them) are the main difference between FSF and OSI. That is why free software and open source software can cooperate so well. I use, write and promote free software, not only because I like high quality software, but because I like freedom in the first place. For me the high quality is a very nice side effect, but not the whole purpose. People who use, write and promote open source software, put the quality and practical advantages over the ideological and ethical aspects. We all can work together, because it's usually the same software released under the same licenses.

Read the free software definition and the open source definition. Compare the list of free software licenses with the list of open source licenses. People behind OSI are doing pretty much the same as people behind FSF, the only important difference is in the motivations. And that is why I said that "you're complaining that FSF is not OSI", commenting your:

Uh, I count 31 instances of "free" or "freedom" in that interview. [...] Perhaps the FSF could consider coming up with a new angle. [...] There are other words, and other concepts that represent the FSF's ideals. Open. Shared. Community. Perhaps we could embroider some of those words onto our flag for a while, just until the Freedom Fad blows over.

I hope it's clear now.

How about, say, theft of income?

Although I disagree with the use of the propaganda term "piracy", this summary from a footnote in the landmark Diamond Rio case, the case that opened the door for portable MP3 players, is otherwise agreeable:

"Whether or not piracy causes such financial harm is a subject of dispute. Critics of the industry's piracy loss figures have noted that a willingness to download illicit files for free does not necessarily correlate to lost sales, for the simple reason that persons willing to accept an item for free often will not purchase the same item, even if no longer freely available. See Lewis Kurlantzick & Jacqueline E. Pennino, The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 and the Formation of Copyright Policy, 45 J. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A. 497, 506 (1998). Critics further note that the price of commercially available recordings already reflects the existence of copying and the benefits and harms such copying causes; thus, they contend, the current price of recordings offsets, at least in part, the losses incurred by the industry from home taping and piracy."

To which I'd also add that even if one were to pay for the music CD, it's not clear that one would pay the publisher for it. There are venues to legally obtain the music CD without paying the publisher (public libraries and any second-hand sale) in which case multiple people can listen to the music as the music licensee but only result in one sale for the publisher. Your burger example doesn't help eludicate understanding of copyright at all. A burger cook working for someone else doesn't hold a copyright on the burgers.

The simple fact is, the result of my thinking is MY property, and I have a right to control what happens to it, be it placing it into the public domain, or selling copies of it to make money.

Too simple; simplistic, really. I'm not sure what you mean by the "result" of your thoughts, but your thoughts are not copyrightable, copyright law in the US only protects certain expression of ideas. How much control you have over that expression is not anywhere near as simple as you have made it out to be (your burger scenario, for example, would not allow me to do as I wished with the burger; sometimes there are patents that can interfere with your ability to legally distribute a work copyrighted to you). You should find the book I recommended earlier (ISBN: 0-8147-8806-8). It will painlessly get you up to speed in understanding copyright. I found it a worthwhile read and I hope you do too.

I don't really keep track of RMS, so I don't have the articles where I've seen him say it that baldly. But read his own writings, and you'll see that it's not hard to see him believing it.

RMS encourages distributors of GPL software to

charge what the market will bear

I understand it like this. Imagine that in the
future colonists around Alpha Centurii want some GPL
software. Hiring a big radio telescope and a powerful
transmitter for long enough to send the software might cost
$30000. If the radio telescopes available are booked solid,
charge $100000 and get rich. Of course, if others notice
your wealth and discover how you came by it, they might go
into the business themselves. They could build their own
transmitting station and charge $70000 for sending the next
release. Which still leaves fat enough profits to encourage
other to get into the business of distributing GPL software.

Economics is full of unhappy entailments. If you say that
GPL software should be distributed for a low fee, it is
inherent in this that GPL software will not reach places
that are difficult and dangerous to get to. The inhabitants
of such places will have to buy non-GPL software. This is
not what RMS wants, so he wisely refrains from seeking to
limit distribution fees. Is RMS a moralist after the style
of Adam Smith, happy enough when greed guides persons, as
though by an invisible hand, to serve the common good? It
seems so to me.

Konsole? why?

As Ed Avis mentioned, you can think of it as a replacement for GNU Screen.

The Hurd and L 4 are some of the promising new technologies under development.

At the same time, don't go getting the idea Linux is going away any time soon. It can take over 20 years for a codebase to really mature, and a mature codebase may still be useful for many years after it is no longer cutting edge.

the slanderers on slashdot are the "whiner/user" half of the linux community. We yell and gripe and whine about everything. If you don't beleive me, just check out a "new app/distro/kernel" release thread. We whine and complain and MS gets its (definately) fair share.

However, the linux community is not a company. it does not have a CEO, a schedule, a plan, deadlines, or a mission statement. It might have some common views, but not everyone is pro-GPL even. It also has a million mini-PR guys, geeks with minds who like what they see. It has a million coders. It's kinda like the blob.

Yes, there are whiners...but then you have the kernel hackers who don't care too much about what Microsoft is doing. People that just put their time into making the best kernel they possibly can. And I think that their work is marvelous, IMO.