Slashdot Mirror

Anyone stupid enough not to have local copies of their current source tree deserves to lose their project.

I won't argue with that, but what is more important, is that SourceForge is a center for all this information, which make it convenient for users. If SourceForge was to go down, half of todays opensource-projects would temporarily be down, and all links broken.

Most projects don't have alternative download-sites. When SourceForge is down or unreachable from your connection, you will not only be stopped from downloading many opensource-projects, but sometimes even all of the working projects that you are looking for.

It has happened to me before.

This post is licensed with GPL ;)

• gcc 2.96 is actually more standards compliant than any other version of gcc so far, not counting CVS snapshots of 2.97. It may not be "standards compliant" as in "what most others are shipping", but 2.96 is almost fully ISO C99 and ISO C++ 98 compliant, unlike any previous version of gcc.
• gcc 2.96 has more complete support for C++. Older versions of gcc could handle only a very limited subset of C++. Earlier versions of g++ often had problems with templates and other valid C++ constructs.
• gcc 2.96 generates better, more optimized code.
• gcc 2.96 supports all architectures Red Hat is currently supporting, including ia64. No other compiler can do this. Having to maintain different compilers for every different architecture is a development (find a bug, then fix it 4 times), QA and support nightmare.
• The binary incompatibility issues are not as bad as some people and companies make you believe. First of all, they affect dynamically linked C++ code only. If you don't use C++, you aren't affected. If you use C++ and link statically, you aren't affected. If you don't mind depending on a current glibc, you might also want to link statically to c++ libraries while linking dynamically to glibc and other C libraries you're using: g++ -o test test.cc -Wl,-Bstatic -lstdc++ -Wl,-Bdynamic (Thanks to Pavel Roskin for pointing this out) Second, the same issues appear with every major release of gcc so far. gcc 2.7.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.8.x. gcc 2.8.x C++ is not binary compatible with egcs 1.0.x. egcs 1.0.x C++ is not binary compatible with egcs 1.1.x. egcs 1.1.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.95. gcc 2.95 C++ will not be binary compatible with gcc 3.0. Besides, it can easily be circumvented. Either link statically, or simply distribute libstdc++ with your program and install it if necessary. Since it has a different soname, it can coexist with other libstdc++ versions without causing any problems. Red Hat Linux 7 also happens to be the first Linux distributions using the current version of glibc, 2.2.x. This update is not binary compatible with older distributions either (unless you update glibc - there's nothing that prevents you from updating libstdc++ at the same time), so complaining about gcc's new C++ ABI breaking binary compatibility is pointless. If you want to distribute something binary-only, link it statically and it will run everywhere. Someone has to be the first to take a step like this. If nobody dared to make a change because nobody else is doing it, we'd all still be using gcc 1.0, COBOL or ALGOL. No wait, all of those were new at some point...
• Most of gcc 2.96's perceived "bugs" are actually broken code that older gccs accepted because they were not standards compliant - or, using an alternative term to express the same thing, buggy. A C or C++ compiler that doesn't speak the standardized C language is a bug, not a feature. In the initial version of gcc 2.96, there were a couple of other bugs. All known ones have been fixed in the version from updates - and the version that is in the current beta version of Red Hat Linux. The bugs in the initial version don't make the whole compiler broken, though. There has never been a 100% bug free compiler, or any other 100% bug free non-trivial program. The current version can be downloaded here.

I suspect it wouldn't make the pages that Microsoft links to open, although it may make the links themselves open. But links are (or at least shouldn't be) the same as the content that they point to. However, if Microsoft adds slogans and logos for products, I think those could arguably be opened as well.

I do think there are legal questions here-- is microsoft "republishing" your page by changing the layout/display/presentation from the author's intentions? I dunno though if it's really a copyright violation per se.

Microsoft better really be careful about stepping on other people's logos and stuff though, because they could possibly violate trademarks (?).

Dunno. Not a lawyer.
W
-------------------

I'm very surprised that this document was not referenced in the article. It makes a very similar point, but in a powerful and compact narrative format.

Also check out the source for GNU fileutils-4.1. (ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/fileutils/fileutils-4.1.tar .gz). The src dir contains "shred.c" which more or less implements the contnent of the paper.

I was in the search for an IDE, kdevelop was ok. But a cvs repository, wel make make files, a sane ANSI-C compiler like gcc -Wall -Werror -ansi and good old vim with syntax highlighting is a joy to work with.

My less than $0.02

Linux is for those who value the freedom to see the source -- that's it.

I think I should clear this up with you. The freedom to see the source is only one of many Freedoms that Free Software users value. I've included a link to the GPL FAQ for your personal edification.

GNU GPL FAQ

Specific Freedoms advocated by the FSF and implemented in the GPL

Linux is for those who value the freedom to see the source -- that's it.

I think I should clear this up with you. The freedom to see the source is only one of many Freedoms that Free Software users value. I've included a link to the GPL FAQ for your personal edification.

GNU GPL FAQ

Specific Freedoms advocated by the FSF and implemented in the GPL

Both Linux, and GNU bash are licensed under the GPL as "free software." Stallman has stated that free software stems from "Freedom Zero", namely "the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any way you like. "

To my knowledge, use restrictions would violate both the GPL and Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition.

Both Linux, and GNU bash are licensed under the GPL as "free software." Stallman has stated that free software stems from "Freedom Zero", namely "the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any way you like. "

To my knowledge, use restrictions would violate both the GPL and Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition.

The basic thought trend here is that there is no one universal 'tool'.

Except Emacs, of course ...

Of course Mac OS X kicks Win2k's butt. With a fat core of pure UNIX (ask the Open Group)at its base, GNU/Mac OS X (as RMS would call it) has rock solid stability, great multitasking and all the GNU goodies Linux users have grown to love. On top of that is an interface that is so sexy members of the Mormon Faith have to get a waiver to use.

Want to talk about serving? Sure you do! Check out the $999 Server version of Mac OS X. Unlike Windows 2000, for $999 you get the whole shooting match -- no need for the those pesky client licenses that Microsoft lawyers love to sue over.

Worried that Mac OS X has no software available? Don't let your heart be troubled. Like X Windows with Enlightenment and Gnome? Mac OS X has got that. Need a good web server? How about Apache and Zeus. Want a browser that doesn't suck? We got those in spades, IE 5.1.1 (well it does suck a little), OmniWeb, Fizilla, iCab and Lynx. Need a word processor? We have Nisus Writer, BBEdit, Microsoft Office and every Macintosh users favorite, Appleworks. Need a rapid application development platform? Got those two, the free Project Builder from Apple and RealBasic. Need graphic apps? How about GIMP and Photoshop. I could go on and on, but I use Macs to make a livin' and not wastin' time on Slashdot.

Sure Mac OS X 1.0 is not the perfect OS. It has some bugs and some features are a little slow. But it is an amazing first step in the journey of putting UNIX on the consumer desktop. Linux developers can learn about an consumer OS by taking a long gander at this amazing first shot.

Instead, you should just use GRUB, which probably already does what you need, and is free-as-in-speech to match.

This is blatant copy of the post #43 , which made me laugh and was not moderated funny.

On the serious part: I don't like the idea because, without context, a word can mean very different things. Look at censoring software: I used the words "sexy gal" on my personal webpage somewhere and, at a bank where I worked, the censoring software blocked it because it was "pr0n"...The page blocked was showing old pictures of my family.
This feature will have the same effects: I use "sexy gal" and it could link to http://www.lolitagirls.com or so....Not my idea, when the context doesn't indicate porgnography at all.
But then, probably I'm wrong?

Virtually every license I've ever read has stated "Subject to change without notice".

Including the GNU General Public License, but not including the BSD license, the X license, or the zlib license.

What bothers me most about the Open Directory license is that the requirement to keep checking back home makes the license to use a specific version of the data non-perpetual and makes the license not a free documentation license.

Virtually every license I've ever read has stated "Subject to change without notice".

Including the GNU General Public License, but not including the BSD license, the X license, or the zlib license.

What bothers me most about the Open Directory license is that the requirement to keep checking back home makes the license to use a specific version of the data non-perpetual and makes the license not a free documentation license.

the gpl does apply between the copyright holder and the end user, because the end user is guaranteed a right to the source code...

Note that's an agreement between the copyright holder and another coder or distributor. It benefits the end-user, of course, but nowhere in that arrangement did the end-user ever enter into any kind of contract. That's why end-users can't sue companies in violation of the GPL; only the copyright holder can.

Go and read section 5 of the GPL, and it should be obvious that you're not bound by the GPL unless you're looking to modify or distribute GPLed code.
--

one thing got me:

interviewer: So it's licenced under the "General Public Licence"?

Linus: Yes, the "General Public Licence"

WTF?

What does "GPL" stand for?
"GPL" stands for "General Public License". The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. This can be further shortened to "GPL", when it is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.

Don't worry about the government making GPLd software illegal. It would only affect you if you lived in a stupid country that made encryption illegal. People who live in free countries would still be able to write and use free software.

Anyone distributing the binary is required to make the source available themselves, not to rely on a third party. They are required to make a written offer for the source, and to make the source available to third parties.

Furthermore, do you really think that they used a vanilla kernel? They must also distribute their modifications.

How about all the other components they used to make up the distribution? Any of those which are covered by the GPL must also be provided in source form.

If you don't comprehend this, you're cordially invited to use Redmond products until you expire.

If they don't comprehend this, they'll have fun in court -- and be left with only buggy Windows and a reputation in tatters.

Or we can just point them to this: http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript. txt

If you haven't read or heard RMS' explanation of the FSF philosophy, you should read it...

Utopian predictions are the optimistic ramblings of a programmer: hand waving, "sure, we can do that." We have lasers and spy satellites, so SDI is just a Small Matter of Programming (a billion lines of fault-tolerant, real-time code). On a smaller scale, people have been predicting great things for home automation. It's technologically possible, but the market cooperation isn't there. My Sony TV and VCR don't talk to each other very well, let alone with the Onkyo receiver. Do you really think GE, Maytag, and Sub-Zero will cooperate any better? In the present marketplace, there's no incentive to cooperate, to adopt standards.

As a cynical tester, I give slightly more credence to anti-utopian predictions. The Disney copyright act, the DMCA, UCITA, etc., are all taking us in the direction of Richard Stallman's The Right to Read.

It's not a matter of what you can do. For every good idea you have about what you can do with conceivable technology, there are probably three conflicting patents in the U.S., alone. We are largely at the mercy of billion-dollar companies, each of which is motivated by profit. The companies don't care about customers, only about customers' money. Take, for example, Microsoft Office, which is in the interesting position of competing with itself. The trade rags are reporting that many business customers see no reason to upgrade Office 95. Microsoft identifies that problem and responds with a subscription model. Eventually, they'll obsolete Office 95 (as they are obsoleting Windows 95); problem solved.

Utopian view: companies will develop bug-free software that anticipates my every need. Anti-utopian view: I will be hauled off to jail if I attempt to install my copy of Office 2010 on more than one computer. Reality: software still basically sucks and costs too much, but we deal.

• Operating System: Although OpenBSD is generally regarded as the best Freenix in terms of security, GNU/Linux is under more active development, faster, more user friendly and supports far more software packages and types of hardware than OpenBSD (sorry Theo, much respect...). I, along with most of the other admins and users are more familiar with a GNU environment. The distribution we use is Debian. I chose Debian for several reasons: free (libre and gratis), strong package system and reliability. It hasn't let me down. I do prefer Slackware on my personal box, since the -current tree is more stable than Debian's unstable. However, Debian's package system is nicer and provides many things that Slackware lacks (I may abandon Slackware as soon as Debian supports XF4 and kernel 2.4 by default in stable). Debian also keeps up to date on security issues.
• Kernel: We now run a Linux 2.4 kernel. Although most security tools/patches are 2.2 only, the mature (READ: usable) ones have been ported to kernel 2.4. I'm confident that more will follow. 2.2 is dead. We have disabled modules entirely in our kernel to prevent hax0ring and to avoid using modules (does anyone else hate them?). We only have a few drivers enabled. Besides helping performance, this protects against hostile code injection into the kernel. It is possible for a clever coder to inject code into a non-modular kernel, but most rootkits use kernel modules. Not allowing kernel modules and using 2.4, prevents us from using some really cool security tools like LOMAC. However, I found that LOMAC did not play nicely with OpenWall's Secure Linux patch (or cron, or init or getty ...). When Lomac behaves nicer, it will be added (I'd also like to see it as a patch rather than a module). Currently, we are using the GetRewted.net patch which provides lots of security enhancements. We may be adding more secure kernel additions such as the NSA's Security Enhanced Linux. However, at this time, we feel that the current kernel security model is both secure and usable. If you have any neat kernel goodies we might like, tell us.
• Firewall: Note that we are NOT running any sort of real firewall. We feel that the extra kernel overhead of the firewall hurts performance and adds needless complexity to the server. Since we are NOT trusting local (ie: users with shell access) anyway, we feel that a firewall is basically useless since Linux's TCP/IP stack is already fault-tolerant, mature and robust. We augmented the TCP/IP stack with this shell script to limit our vulnerability to DoS attacks. Firewalling services should not be needed if your services are secure (run with minimal priviliges and SECURE by design and condiguration). Eventually we may drop an OpenBSD or Linux 2.4 firewall in front of the server as a measure for restricting local users ability to portscan, DoS and exploit remote hosts.
• Authentication / Login: Remote interactive sessions are only supported over ssh (and we run OpenSSH). Telnet is not allowed. Rhosts authentication is not allowed. I've looked at forcing people to use S/Keys, but it is a real pain in the ass on both ends. We are currently allowing FTP in. When I'm confident that all the users can get a good graphical scp/sftp client for their platform, I'll kill FTP. Since I'm not relying on trusting local users anyway, this is more a security concern for individual users. I'm considering locking some users who don't use their shells out of real shell access.
• Users: I only make accounts for people I know personally. I also monitor user login s and their activity using whowatch and process accounting. I'm suspicious of logins from weird hosts. I also use PAM to set resource limits.
• Monitoring: We watch out for network nastiness with Snort which is an AWESOME IDS. We monitor its logs and other system activity with Psionic's LogCheck. Occasionally, I'll audit the machines for weird ports using nmap and Nessus, both of which are REALLY nice. I'll also routinely verify system integrity using a combination of Tripwire and chkrootkit, on a system booted from a known CLEAN floppy containing the tools.

RMS paints a grim picture in The Right to Read. How sure can we be that he's wrong?

We have a responsibility. We must educate others. We must take some of the profits we make in a market which values our skills and contribute to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

-Dan

Developing open source software with a license that doesnt give the freedoms like the BSD and GNU GPL license will only hurt the community. Simply because not many will want to use it. So instead of another developer wasting time doing the SAME THING over again under a license with freedom, he could be doing something truly innovative.
When will they learn!

How did we get from "I can't run the program" to "I can't link the library"?

Anyway, static linking most defintely makes your code derivative - you're including the object file in your program! If I write a book that include verbatim the text of another book, even if the footnotes in my work only refer to a fraction of the included book you can bet that that will count as derivative.

Linking is only an issue if it falls under "copying, distributing, or modifying" the code in question; static linking would imply copying and distributing, dynamic linking would not.

Dynaminc linking would be ok since you are not creating a derivative work, only making references. Note that the GPL does not say anything about linking in its conditions, and its "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section mentions only "incorporating".

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

How did we get from "I can't run the program" to "I can't link the library"?

Anyway, static linking most defintely makes your code derivative - you're including the object file in your program! If I write a book that include verbatim the text of another book, even if the footnotes in my work only refer to a fraction of the included book you can bet that that will count as derivative.

Linking is only an issue if it falls under "copying, distributing, or modifying" the code in question; static linking would imply copying and distributing, dynamic linking would not.

Dynaminc linking would be ok since you are not creating a derivative work, only making references. Note that the GPL does not say anything about linking in its conditions, and its "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section mentions only "incorporating".

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

This is in contradiction to the GPL which says that I can't run the program as a subroutine...

Nonsense. You can have a subroutine that executes (via fork()/exec(), or system()) a GPLed program. You just can't create a subroutine that is a derivative of a GPLed program without GPLing that subroutine.

Say it with me now: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

As far as I can tell, that's not enough to buy the bacon for the existing base of computer scientists/software engineers

Maybe. For the sake of argument, assume so. So what?

Is our goal quality software, or is our goal make-work jobs?

Sometimes I think that a large percentage of the existing base of computer scientists/software engineers probably shouldn't be in this field anyway...they'd be happier and more productive doing something else, but fell into this for the money.

but I think we blur the [free beer / free speech] distinction way too much.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

Maybe someone needs to explain to RMS that not all recipes are available to public inspection. See: Coca-Cola formula, KFC seven herbs and spices formula.

And can you get Coke, or "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anywhere other than from the companies that own the recipies? Can you make them yourself? Can you improve on them if you don't find them satisfactory? No?

You've actually made RMS's point quite succinctly. Closed software is like buying prepared food made to a secret recipie. Free software is like cooking for yourself -- it's a bit more work, but it's a whole hell of a lot cheaper, and generally tastes better and is better for you.

He went on to describe three additional freedoms which distinguish Free from proprietary software: the right to change software to suit user needs; to redistribute the software; and to publish improved versions.

This is just false. There is no language in the GNU GPL requiring you to distrubute modifications to GPLed software. It only imposes conditions that must be met were you to distribute it. You don't want to share your changes? Don't! It's that simple.

Did he also happen to cite the fact that so many of these companies are going tits up lately?

What, like IBM?

Doofus.

Does anyone know where the portion of the GPL that reads that if you modify the source code, that you must release the source code to the public after you've sold it for a while is?

Quoth the GPL:

2 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Note that this doesn't mean you _do_ anything for them, just that you give them permissions to it under the terms of the GPL.

The only people you need to actively provide source to are the ones you've given binaries to. You may want to have a look at the GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html

I'm still a student, so my word processing needs are limited to papers I write, but I'm sure this would scale easily:

Emacs maximized to fill the screen, with white enlarged text on a black background. One sentence per line, a blank line in between paragraphs. Nothing beats the navigation capabilities - without moving my hands from the rest position, C-f moves forward a character, C-b moves back, M-f moves forward a word, M-b moves back one. C-d to delete a character, M-d to delete a word. C-k to delete the rest of a line. C-p to go to the previous sentence, C-n to go to the next. C-v to move down a screen, M-v to move up. That's only the beginning of what Emacs lets you do. Once your fingers learn the movements, you'll never want to return to Word. There couldn't be anything faster than Emacs' navigation and editing capabilities.

When I want to see what it really looks like, I bring up my xterm, run the file through LaTeX and look at it in Xdvi. To send documents to other people, or print on printers other than mine I convert to pdf.

All formatting is done through LaTex, a simple but extremely powerful formatting language. Take a look at http://www.tug.org/ to find out more about it. You should be able to get this system running under windows, too, if you want to experiment.

"aspirin" used to be a registered trademark?

According to this Flash map, ASPIRIN® is still a trademark in many jurisdictions; Bayer had to give it up in the U.S. after WWI.

trademarks slopping over into public domain even before the 75-year trademark expiration date.

Bullshit. Trademark registrations can be renewed every 10 years. This renewal is legitimate, unlike the 20-year across-the-board renewals that Disney keeps buying for copyrights that severely erode the public's end of the bargain under which the Constitution authorizes certain government-granted monopolies.

And yes, I do like the taste of SPAM luncheon meat and SPAMBURGER sandwiches.

For this very reason the FSF started their own server using the SourceForge software. The FSF plans to use it to manage their projects but, like SourceForge, it is open to the public. All the amenities of SourceForge without having a single point of failure.

I imagine RMS standing before thousands of marketing gurus and telling them how paying for software is evil. The look on their face will be just priceless.

Why should he do that? RMS has never said that charging for software is evil or even wrong. In fact, he himself for a time got his income by selling tape copies of EMACS. What RMS and the GPL says it that you should be allowed to (from the Free Software Definition):

• 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.

Now, where in this does it say that you are not allowed to charge money for software, even GPL:ed software? AFAIK Red Hat is selling quite some GPL:ed stuff and they are not being sued by the FSF.

/Dervak

Does this mean that any code that I contribute needs to be contributed with a license? Is it not fair for me to assume that any code contributions that I make to an open source/free software project are licensed under the same terms that the original author offered me?

What this brings up, is whether or not the author of an opensource or free software project is really allowed to relicense the code. Especially if that code is GPL'd. Say for example Linus decided to make something proprietary with Linux. As the original author, he's got the right to relicense the code, right? Well if he does, then what about all the code that was contributed by someone else?

If you're saying that he doesn't have the right to relicense the code, doesn't this go against what RMS says? Or is this only allowed for the initial release of the software. Does the original author have any rights to change the terms of the software license after someone else has contributed code?

It's voluntary. Just like it's voluntary to use and write free software, so should it be voluntary to donate.

It creates a positive economic feedback loop for each project. However much money is donated to the SAMBA project (for example) is by definition a statement of their "value" to the community as a whole. However much money they receive is what can be spent on developers, administrative costs, and conferences. As long as financial community support persists, the project has a functional business model for hiring staff.

It evens out the success of certain low profile projects that are still critical, for example the DRI project over at sourceforge. There's no economic model supporting DRI whatsoever, other than developer interest. The best they get is maybe some money from the distributions which are relying on 3D support to succeed. Thus donations become a mechanism whereby USERS can target economic incentives toward specific projects they consider necessary for their future use and needs.

Frankly, all those who deride Mandrake for sticking their hat out begging miss the point. I've never given money to Mandrake, but then again I don't use Mandrake. I have given money to the OpenBSD project, the FSF, the EFF, the ACLU, and I've bought numerous Redhat distributions; because I agree with and want to support these projects. Those individuals who donate to Mandrake might have very good economic and personal reasons for doing so. They have an OS investment in Mandrake, a desired feature set they wish implemented in the next release, and are part of a community they wish to see succeed. If those community members decide that offering donations (among box sales) will support Mandrake well enough to meet its budgetary needs for hiring developers and staff, why not pursue that revenue stream? It's no different from NPR or PBS holding their hat out to their listeners/viewers, and over the last twenty years NPR and PBS have shown that their pledge drives do succeed at paying a significant portion of their budget.

I encourage all free software projects to request donations; and most of all I encourage the creation of some charity as described above which could be used to funnel money toward any and every free project around. Maybe this is where sourceforge should go if/when VA Linux goes down the tubes?

J. Maynard Gelinas
"By oneself evil is done; by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is undone; by oneself one is purified." --Gautama Sakyamuni

To them, freedom *requires* restriction, which is the whole point of the GPL.

Your concept of freedom is a rather empty one. Freedom in a societal sense means the restriction of individuals' ability to restrict others.

A free society restricts individuals' ability to hold slaves, for instance. In fact, one step further -- we restricts anyone from even voluntarily making themselves the slave of another! And that is not trivial -- voluntary slavery is historically rather common. So why won't we let people do it? It's their life to give away, isn't it?

Well, you can figure that out for yourself. But don't mistake your naive notion of freedom with a real freedom for a society. And RMS believes too strongly to create a fragile and disempowered freedom -- let BSDers do that.

This post will probably just get lost in all the noise, but here we go anyway.

To me, this clash of the titans represents the modern day equivelant of Washington and friends telling the British to go stick an egg up their nose. Those original Americans (no offence meant to Native Americans) left an opressive government to start their own that made more sense for the common man. A direct analogy can be made between Microsoft in it's current form and the sovereignty in 18th century England. [ you will use our sotware vs. you will worship our god ]

This monopoly will be tackled someday. I believe with all my heart that if anyone can lead such a rebellion, it is Richard Stallman. Such a battle will inevitably crush some peoples fortunes, and create new fortunes. The GNU GPL ensures that no one entity in the Free Software future possess all power. This scares the bejesus out of Microsoft, and with good reason.

Sorry for the rant, but this is the reason I volunteer my time to work with the Free Software Foundation, and watch Free Developers with interest.

This post will probably just get lost in all the noise, but here we go anyway.

To me, this clash of the titans represents the modern day equivelant of Washington and friends telling the British to go stick an egg up their nose. Those original Americans (no offence meant to Native Americans) left an opressive government to start their own that made more sense for the common man. A direct analogy can be made between Microsoft in it's current form and the sovereignty in 18th century England. [ you will use our sotware vs. you will worship our god ]

This monopoly will be tackled someday. I believe with all my heart that if anyone can lead such a rebellion, it is Richard Stallman. Such a battle will inevitably crush some peoples fortunes, and create new fortunes. The GNU GPL ensures that no one entity in the Free Software future possess all power. This scares the bejesus out of Microsoft, and with good reason.

Sorry for the rant, but this is the reason I volunteer my time to work with the Free Software Foundation, and watch Free Developers with interest.

This post will probably just get lost in all the noise, but here we go anyway.

To me, this clash of the titans represents the modern day equivelant of Washington and friends telling the British to go stick an egg up their nose. Those original Americans (no offence meant to Native Americans) left an opressive government to start their own that made more sense for the common man. A direct analogy can be made between Microsoft in it's current form and the sovereignty in 18th century England. [ you will use our sotware vs. you will worship our god ]

This monopoly will be tackled someday. I believe with all my heart that if anyone can lead such a rebellion, it is Richard Stallman. Such a battle will inevitably crush some peoples fortunes, and create new fortunes. The GNU GPL ensures that no one entity in the Free Software future possess all power. This scares the bejesus out of Microsoft, and with good reason.

Sorry for the rant, but this is the reason I volunteer my time to work with the Free Software Foundation, and watch Free Developers with interest.

Agreed. "Free Software" is better than "Open Source".

Anyway, shouldn't that have read gpl==oss? We're all geeks here, you meant to say "gpl is equivelant to oss" and not "assign oss to the gpl".

Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;

Since RMS most likely won't get up there and emphasize that there are alternatives to the GPL that may be attractive, I wonder how widely his ideas will be accepted by the people who have the money.

I doubt, that you've ever actually heard a speech by RMS. When he talked at the TU-Berlin, about a year ago, he most certainly said that there are other free software licenses in the world. That being said, it's not surprisingly that he prefers GPL and pushes it. This license was drafted with his specific goals in mind. Now, you might object to these goals and GPL, but not allowing him to argue his case is being a hypocrit.

I see in RMS passionate beliefs, and also unwillingness to compromise. Could it hurt the open source movement in the long run?

Unwilling to compromise? Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html, where the FSF prominently says, that it's ok to use other Free Software licenses. (Although they obviously prefer GPL-compatible licenses and the GPL above all.)

Secondly, all this trash talking about RMS hurting the Open Source Movement in the long run is plain bullshit. Look at the free software world 15 years ago and look at it now. See?

GPL is a subset of open source; it is not equivalent to open source. It looks to me as though RMS will argue that GPL = Open Source.

I doubt, that RMS will argue that GPL equals Open Source. First of all, RMS doesn't even like the term "Open Source", he rather uses "Free Software". Secondly, even RMS acknowledges that there are more Free Software licenses in the world. Take a look at the GNU pages (http://www.gnu.org/). Heck, they even acknoledge, that some licenses (eg BSD) are freer than GPL.

There was an article today on Slashdot about the FAQ :-)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/24/025621 0&mode=nested

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html

Dinivin

RMS wants you to use the GPL for your libraries, not the LGPL, for this very reason. If you GPL your libraries, then it means no proprietary software can use your library, period. That's exactly what his point was. :) See his comments here.

Vidomi's software is quite obviously a derivative work of VirtualDub, in that without VirtualDub's software Vidomi's doesn't do any of the things that it is advertised as being capable of.

An appropriate metaphor would be if I wrote down my time-honored recipe for toasting bread and then created a cookbook containing this recipe and 400 other recipes straight out of the Betty Crocker cookbook. I could use this cookbook all I wanted to in the confines of my own house (fair use), but if I tried to sell copies of this cookbook it would rightfully be described as a derivative work.

The GPL states that any time that you link (dynamically or statically) a piece of GPLed software you are creating a derivative work. That is why BSD advocates get so excited about GPLed libraries like GNU readline. They know that GNU readline is cool, but linking your software with it forces you to release your software under the GPL because it is a derivative work.

This is also why most GNU system libraries are licensed under the LGPL (a completely different license). Here's a link from the newly created GPL FAQ

So tell me this: what does LGPL stand for? The FAQ says

"... there are a few programs [...] that use looser licenses, such as the Lesser GPL."

But it links to a discussion by Richard Stallman, where it's "Library GPL".

Does this matter? Perhaps not; geekspeak, with its morass of TLAs, is a language unto itself. All we need is an emergency vowel drop, and it'll be ready for verbal use ...

So tell me this: what does LGPL stand for? The FAQ says

"... there are a few programs [...] that use looser licenses, such as the Lesser GPL."

But it links to a discussion by Richard Stallman, where it's "Library GPL".

Does this matter? Perhaps not; geekspeak, with its morass of TLAs, is a language unto itself. All we need is an emergency vowel drop, and it'll be ready for verbal use ...

I have a question. If I am the copyright holder of a program I created, and I accept bug fixes to this program from other people, can I release this program under a dual license later? Do I still own the whole copyright after accepting bug fixes?

Short answer: no.

The long answer is given in the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#Consider.

(I take it that you released the first version under the GPL.)