Slashdot Mirror

But from my perception of this (GPL faq) page, this scenario is highly unlikey to happen. Some pieces of it:

First One:

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?

No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

Second one:

Consider this situation:

X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1.
X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license.

Does X need Y's permission?

Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing that code under another license.

What's this "Write your congressman!", but no, wait, "Don't write to Belgium!" dyspepsia going around on Slashdot? I guess you're only supposed to advocate that people you agree with get involved. I disagree wholeheartedly with your sentiment that this is a "good thing". This would be terrible. I certainly wrote a letter, as follows:

I urge you to please abdicate your decision to pursue having Microsoft provide software in your (noble) effort to conquer the digital divide.

If you would truly like to present the people of Belgium with an opportunity to participate in the global digital revolution, you should promote the use of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Free software empowers people to not only /use/ computers, but also to advance the state of computing. To actively participate in, rather than passively subsidize, the digital revolution. It does so by promoting four essential freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Installing proprietary software, such as that produced by Microsoft, will only serve to shackle the people of Belgium to Microsoft's eternal desire for profit. While profit is a worthy objective, when it becomes the highest objective, as it has for many corporations, other worthy principles often fall to the wayside.

Since you are just beginning this venture, now is the best time to avoid the eternal dominion of Microsoft's licensing entanglements and other schemes to ensnare and entrap new legions of revenue enhancing impotent users. Avoid this path before it is too late.

Ever thought man pages were limited in that you couldn't automatically go to a referenced manpage? Use info, hit tab until you reach the reference, then hit enter. Walla!

Yes, info has become my all-time favorite. Far beyond the limited HTML markup. Not convinced? I would like to bring to your attention a few posts already made concerning info(1) and the document format texinfo: 2818653 and 2819778

I've recently started the chore of changing an existing TeX document into texinfo format. I would have loved to use a converter or a formatter from TeX to texinfo, but alas, such a tool was not available. vim's search and replacement works pretty well. Regardless, since texinfo docs can create TeX, XML, and HTML documents, I believe it's the best of the docformat-to-docformat wars. Additionally, it's a pretty simple markup to use.

Check out info2www by Roar Smith for a simple way to push out your installed info docs.

Here's the GNU Texinfo documentation.

The only other acceptable format, IMHO, would be docbook.

We're using Doxygen to generate HTML and man pages (!) for libstdc++-v3, the standard C++ library that comes with g++ 3.x. Doxygen can also generate LaTeX, RTF/Word, and some other formats which I don't remember. If you have some additional nifty utilities installed, and tell Doxygen where they are, then Doxygen can automatically use them. Take a look at the inheritence and collaboration graphs on the pages I linked to: normally they're much plainer, and not color-coded. But I had dot(1) installed, which can generate pretty graphs.

Incidentally, LaTeX is much better than TeX when doing letters. There's a set of macros specifically for writing letters, and I use them all the time for, say, business letters.

I'm told that it's not that hard to write a module for Doxygen to teach it how to create a new output format, if the half-dozen it knows about don't fit your needs.

• If Apple ever licenses Darwin as free software, Simply GNUstep could switch.

AFAICT, it doesn't matter that the APSL is GPL-incompatible, because a Darwin-based GNUStep wouldn't have to link to the Darwin kernel; Darwin is a microkernel design, so you don't need to link anything to it.

Anyhow, GNUStep sounds like a great project. I'd kinda like to help out with it myself. I like MacOS X, but I figure Apple's going to be out of business within 5 years, and I need an exit strategy. Once GNUStep is running on Linux, it doesn't sound like it should be a big problem to get it running on Darwin (famous last words!) I really don't want to mess with an OS that forces me to recompile the kernel periodically.

Two questions.

When will GNOME be available as the default desktop on Solaris? It didn't appear in the last Solaris 9 beta.

Also, the GPL licensing implications always intrigued me. Without getting too heavily into GPL issues, I was surprised that one could distribute GPL software as a default component in a proprietary system.

This item in the GNU FAQ appears to be particularly pertinent.

How have you dealt with this apparent contradiction?

Two questions.

When will GNOME be available as the default desktop on Solaris? It didn't appear in the last Solaris 9 beta.

Also, the GPL licensing implications always intrigued me. Without getting too heavily into GPL issues, I was surprised that one could distribute GPL software as a default component in a proprietary system.

This item in the GNU FAQ appears to be particularly pertinent.

How have you dealt with this apparent contradiction?

If I add a module to a GPL-covered module, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.

But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list page gives a partial list of GPL-compatible licenses.

Well, by that reasoning: closed-source programs don't incorporate GPL'd shared libraries (like libc), they just talk to it.

For one thing, libc is Lesser GPL'd. For another, the Linux kernel is under a license similar to that of Guile: GPL with specific exceptions.

Well, by that reasoning: closed-source programs don't incorporate GPL'd shared libraries (like libc), they just talk to it.

For one thing, libc is Lesser GPL'd. For another, the Linux kernel is under a license similar to that of Guile: GPL with specific exceptions.

Some people don't read the GPL; others don't read other FSF web pages. :) As a matter of fact, RMS sells software.....

That would depend of what libraries they are using and what licenses these licenses are released.

And later (if you clicked on the link) you can read:

"I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?

No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.

What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit."

So basically... there are several cases:

1) They do not break the GPL and make a true software without using or modifying libraries (could happen, depending on the licenses);

2) They break the GPL, and don't release the source code to anyone outside Lindows.com, so:

a) Without the sources, might be more difficult to know what library they used/modified;

3) The text that I copied and pasted from gnu.org applies. They can modify GPL and do NOT release the sources. "What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to". Just don't wish :-)

Many more possible cases, but I just pointed a few more likely to happen. Anyway, the usual IANAL surrounds my comment :-)

Maybe you should try Python? There's a lot fewer {}s! With a decent editor you rarely have to hit the key for indentation as well.

Now I've gone and done it. A language flamewar and an editor flamewar all in one message!

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

They could theoretically fork off a copy of linux, but there's still the GPL to contend with, which causes major problems with the integration of patented or licensed technologies.

Not necessarily. Applications that run on the Linux kernel need not be under the GPL, as the kernel headers carry an exception similar to that of the Guile license. Linus has also allowed companies to produce proprietary kernel modules <cough>NVIDIA</cough> under conditions.

What the devil am I talking about, I am talking the the assault on our freedom and in particular the freedom of fair use.

This device is precisely the thing the the media industries (The MPAA and RIAA to mention a few) want, a closed device to deliver content to the end user where they have complete control of what gets done with it. It is just one in a serious of steps, including the DMCA, which the media industries hope will eventually lead to this.

Is it going to happen, NO. But are they going to try, most defiantly. There is a fundamental paradigm shift on our hand due to the Internet. The simple fact is that it is going to be imposable to control the flow of any sort of information. It has already happened with music and it is eventually going to happen with video and other forms of information. And there is nothing the media industries can due about it. Unfortunately the media industry doesn't really see this and those that due refuse to accept and will do everything in there power to make the Internet into what they want. And thus it is going to be hell. What we have seen already is just the begging of the storm. It is going to get a lot worse in the coming years as they media industry continue to try there tricks to control the free flow of information. If you do not see this conflict by now I fell very sorry for you as the signs are everywhere, the DMCA, the SSSCA, and Microsoft's .NET to mention a few.

What can we do about it? Well that is a very good question. We can't avoid this conflict but we can prepare for it. Some of the things we can do are: 1) Support Open Source software (although I think that goes with out saying). 2) Write (snailmail, not email) your congressperson to repeal the DMCA. 3) Refuse to buy hardware you can't develop for. I for one have no interest in TiVO are it competitors for one simple reason, it is a black box that is not designed to be user programmable. And finally 4) spread the word.

For more insight into this issue see the article The Coming Storm by Bruce Bell.

Truthfully, one thing I personally would really like to do is to develop, but really don't have the resources to do so, is a truly open TiVO like device that is *designed* to be user programmable and will store everything completely unencrypted. This device will force the MPAA industry to accept the inevitable. It is completely legal but the MPAA will completely hate it and will do everything in there power to stop it. And with out a lot of will power and a major team of legal exports to back me up they probably will.

I for one am sick of finding files from install packages all over the place

I assume you are talking about packages you compiled and installed by yourself, since what are you talking about is clearly a non-issue with packages handled by a proper package manager.

Apps should install into ONE directory only. They can symlink everything they want everywhere else

Well, for packages based on autoconf/automake that you compile by yourself, there is GNU Stow doing exactly what you ask.

No no, it's ok, really...

Other Unices can just use the L-SBE (The Lesser
Linux Standard Base).

:)

Emacs Supported Platforms

Eclipse looks like it's well suited for use on windows, which Emacs really isn't.

argh... hit "submit" instead of "preview" (no caffeine yet today)... to continue:

What you seem to have missed about the GPL is that it is a license, not a law. That is, it is an agreement between the licensor and the licensee. It affects only what the licensee can do with the licensor's code in the future.

There is nothing about the GPL that prevents the company from turning around and licensing the code they wrote to someone else (or themselves) under a different, closed-source license.

What they can not do is take someone else's new, GPL-ed contributions to their now GPL-ed code and re-license them to someone else. Why? Because those independent contributions are not their code. That's one of the beautiful things about the GPL. I am unlikely to spend my own time debugging and fixing a program for a company if that company is going to turn around and try to sell my own code back to me. If they're not GPL'ed they can write their own damn code.

GPL-ing one's code, then, can (if one wishes to think of it this way) represent a sort of code fork, after which point the open- and closed- versions of the code assume lives of their own. However, in practice, since we're talking about supposedly-obsolete code, there would be little reason for any consumer to buy the closed-source version, unless the company later made modifications to it to make it more attractive than the GPL-ed version, like Tripwire has done.

To answer your question more specifically, Microsoft could GPL Win95 and continue to sell WinXP as a closed-source product. They could not take someone else's GPL-ed modified version of the GPL-ed Win95 and apply the changes therein to the closed WinXP (unless they made specific arrangements to re-license the code of the modifications from their author or authors), but if they didn't GPL Win95, there would be no such patch in the first place, so that's not really something to complain about. In fact, Microsoft could GPL WinXP and continue to sell and develop WinXP under a close-source license, though it is questionable whether anyone would buy it.

One reason for a company not to make their software public domain or BSD-licensed is that it might allow a competitor to start selling a modified version of the software and put them out of business (or, in Microsoft's case, force them to acquire the competitor). That's that advantage of the GPL again -- it prevents people from running off with your code and trying to sell it back to you.

Finally, let me direct you to this portion of the GPL FAQ, which also addresses these issues.

Don't believe the FUD.

argh... hit "submit" instead of "preview" (no caffeine yet today)... to continue:

What you seem to have missed about the GPL is that it is a license, not a law. That is, it is an agreement between the licensor and the licensee. It affects only what the licensee can do with the licensor's code in the future.

There is nothing about the GPL that prevents the company from turning around and licensing the code they wrote to someone else (or themselves) under a different, closed-source license.

What they can not do is take someone else's new, GPL-ed contributions to their now GPL-ed code and re-license them to someone else. Why? Because those independent contributions are not their code. That's one of the beautiful things about the GPL. I am unlikely to spend my own time debugging and fixing a program for a company if that company is going to turn around and try to sell my own code back to me. If they're not GPL'ed they can write their own damn code.

GPL-ing one's code, then, can (if one wishes to think of it this way) represent a sort of code fork, after which point the open- and closed- versions of the code assume lives of their own. However, in practice, since we're talking about supposedly-obsolete code, there would be little reason for any consumer to buy the closed-source version, unless the company later made modifications to it to make it more attractive than the GPL-ed version, like Tripwire has done.

To answer your question more specifically, Microsoft could GPL Win95 and continue to sell WinXP as a closed-source product. They could not take someone else's GPL-ed modified version of the GPL-ed Win95 and apply the changes therein to the closed WinXP (unless they made specific arrangements to re-license the code of the modifications from their author or authors), but if they didn't GPL Win95, there would be no such patch in the first place, so that's not really something to complain about. In fact, Microsoft could GPL WinXP and continue to sell and develop WinXP under a close-source license, though it is questionable whether anyone would buy it.

One reason for a company not to make their software public domain or BSD-licensed is that it might allow a competitor to start selling a modified version of the software and put them out of business (or, in Microsoft's case, force them to acquire the competitor). That's that advantage of the GPL again -- it prevents people from running off with your code and trying to sell it back to you.

Finally, let me direct you to this portion of the GPL FAQ, which also addresses these issues.

Don't believe the FUD.

My personal opinion is the that government should be Free Software's biggest friend. I feel that public monies should be used to benefit as many people as possible (not frivously though), and that by supporting Free Software development, more people will benefit than buy investing in proprietary applications.

So, how does one get the government to buy into this plan? Perhaps it's time that the Free Software Foundation or Software in the Public Interest hires a professional lobbyist to make some inroads into the US and other governments. Free Software is reaching the point where it is a highly viable alternative to propietary solutions. With the proper lobbying and data showing positive cost/benefit analysis, perhaps we can get more momentum behind Free Software.

> Most modern compilers are written in their own language, e.g. the c compiler is written in c, the c++ compiler is written in c++.

The author's point is that C++ was first written in C, ala "cfront"
(One of the Modula-3 compilers I used also produced native C code as well.)

Using another language as your IL (Intermediate Language) is not new. Heck even gcc does this ;-)

Cheers

emacs

autoconf

make

emacs

autoconf

make

emacs

autoconf

make

emacs

autoconf

make

Of course, if you had done a little bit of research, you would've found out that GCC 3.0x is not production quality and that 2.95.2 or 2.95.3 are considered the stable versions.

I'm actually a bit surprised that you got everything to compile cleanly under gcc 3 - but I'm not surprised that you got random crashes after doing so.

Why not learn Scheme? It is weel suited for implementing recursive algorithms in a straight-forward way. Also, may I suggest learning some logic-based language, like prolog, with a finite domain solver included (as the one in gprolog)? I don't know, since I'm no engineer, but I can imagine a finite domain solver being usefull for engineering tasks (it can be used for e.g. scheduling several tasks to reduce resource usage and the like).

Relative to GNU ?

Clearly it's a politica aware and not a politically correct one at that.

The GNU Scientific Library is a relatively recent addition to the catalog of GNU software. It looks to be very impressive.

Excuse me, but you are incorrect. Please visit GNU's website for a fuller explanation and rationale behind the GNU licenses.

I think you are confusing using the product of such tools with using such tools. It is basically like the difference between the GPL and the LGPL, only you seem to think the GPL is even more restrictive!

GNU was never really finished -- if the HURD kernel is ever final, it will be the last piece. But when you clone a highly modular system like Unix, you end up with a lot of bits and pieces that are useful as separate products. So GNU's libraries, utilities, and (most of all) compilers developed a life all their own. Personally, I've never been impressed with the quality of GNU software, but it does have functionality that closed-source venders always seem to overlook. So GNU products are almost ubiquitous in the Unix world, and have a fair following on other platforms.

So time passes. It's 1991. People are still waiting for an alternative to paying fees to whoever owns Unix. (It changed hands several times.) One cheap alternative is minix a sort of toy Unix that sells for $100. But a certain Finnish grad student can't even afford even that much. He decides to write his own Unix kernel. He gives away copies to a few friends. Who give it to a few friends... All of a suddent, lots of people are using this kernel to run all the GNU software. Which means there's now a free alternative to Unix! Project GNU has succeeded! It's just not complete.

And since the final piece of the puzzle is a non-GNU program, that program ends up being the name for the whole conglomeration! Much to the disgust of Stallman. Maybe he's just testy because Torvalds doesn't like EMACS.

GNU was never really finished -- if the HURD kernel is ever final, it will be the last piece. But when you clone a highly modular system like Unix, you end up with a lot of bits and pieces that are useful as separate products. So GNU's libraries, utilities, and (most of all) compilers developed a life all their own. Personally, I've never been impressed with the quality of GNU software, but it does have functionality that closed-source venders always seem to overlook. So GNU products are almost ubiquitous in the Unix world, and have a fair following on other platforms.

So time passes. It's 1991. People are still waiting for an alternative to paying fees to whoever owns Unix. (It changed hands several times.) One cheap alternative is minix a sort of toy Unix that sells for $100. But a certain Finnish grad student can't even afford even that much. He decides to write his own Unix kernel. He gives away copies to a few friends. Who give it to a few friends... All of a suddent, lots of people are using this kernel to run all the GNU software. Which means there's now a free alternative to Unix! Project GNU has succeeded! It's just not complete.

And since the final piece of the puzzle is a non-GNU program, that program ends up being the name for the whole conglomeration! Much to the disgust of Stallman. Maybe he's just testy because Torvalds doesn't like EMACS.

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html

Not from my reading of the GPL. It requires that if/when you distribute binary/object code, you must make source available. That's why it's called "Open Source". I don't see anywhere that requires making binaries available when you distribute source. Also, the Mplayer team aren't threatening that they will sue you, but that other people might. Plus they say that the Deb file is buggy, and they're sick and tired of taking the flak for somebody else's buggy implementation.

I think the remedies proposed by the FSF would be much more effective. Maybe people should suggest measures based on that...

Something about 2.96 (while 2.4.x was still in -pre) not compiling the kernel correctly, in particular screwing up the filesystem code ...

... and that GCC 2.96 does not even officially exist, according to GNU?

I don't agree with RMS on many things but he makes a very strong point on this issue. Consider this excerpt:

One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.

But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.

To use another of RMS's analogies, the key reason theft is wrong is that, if I steal a sandwich from you, you no longer have the sandwich. However, information is a kind of "infinite sandwich" which can be magically copied, eaten by several people at once, and as many times as they like. If someone invented such a sandwich, wouldn't you object if the inventor refused to let starving third-world countries benefit from it, and instead tried to cash in on it by restricting its distribution? Clearly, information is completely different from physical property.

There is a reason why many highly ethical and educated people continue to pirate, though they would never dream of stealing. The reason is that the difference between physical property and information is intuitively felt by most people.

Now, you are entitled to continue to believe that making a copy of an infinite sandwich is wrong, if those are your ethical intuitions. But don't confuse it with theft.

what if everyone rot13'd their messages? keyword search that, buddy!

And, Emacs has a "spook" command (M-x spook) which adds a line of "subversive" text to your email. It was originally to distract the NSA, which would have to work so much harder to throw away your email from the important ones. It's rather dated though: words like "nuclear" "bomb" "kill" and maybe "Reagan". Lots of fun!

This was also one of my concerns. Though I haven't yet successfully downloaded the source from this rather slow site, I do note that it also supports a command line interface.

I'm currently wrestling with dejagnu. Although the documentation of this tool seems to assume a familiarity with autoconf that I do not yet have, it is simple enough to use once you have set up the project test suite. I'd say it's probably pretty hard to beat. Expect is a pretty good tool upon which to base a test suite.

For the love of Dijkstra please don't use Hungarian style. There's a lovely common style in linux/Documentation/CodingStyle Which references (and bashes) the GNU Coding Standards. Either one of those could be a good starting point, once you resolve the fights you'll get into over style.

I use...Netscape 4.77 to browse the web. I do not depend on non-free software for anything.

Netscape 4.x is non-free software. Consider using Mozilla, links, Konqueror (to name just a few) if you want to live completely in the free software world.

Now to your point about what DrinkOrDie was thinking: I don't know. I'm not saying I can defend their actions (I use only free software as much as possiblemy PC's BIOSes are not yet free software, for instance) but I don't know why they did what they did. I don't think what they did is stealing and I'm not convinced the genuine loss in income for the copyright holders of the duplicated software is in the billions because I'm not convinced all the people who have unauthorized copies would have paid for them anyhow. However, I'm still not privvy to why DrinkOrDie did what they did.

I use REAL poo for what you others use your substandard Sham-poo. I eat is as well. My supply is unfortunately always very low, thanks to my ever-increasing appreciation for my wonderful turds.

And that's where YOU come in! If you have any spare turds for me to eat, bathe in or have intercourse with, please, please contact me.

Remember that crappy software that M$ wanted to foist on us to relieve us from "under-linked" sites? Slashdot seems to be using the open source version thereof.

How is this informative? It's blatantly incorrect.

Linus does INDEED own a piece of the copyright to Linux. As does every contributor who hasn't signed away their ownership of the code they contribute. Just because the GPL is a "free" license, it does not grant you ownership. Read it for yourself.

People: think before moderating.

Solutions to the problem are in the works:

objprelink
ELF prelinking by Jakub Jelinek
See a discussion on why Gnome is having similar problems

Use truly free software

Of course, I know about Stallman and the GPL. My notion of the quality of free software is probably similar to this.