Slashdot Mirror

Ryan T. Sammartino

Indeed. In fact, that very thing is said right here:

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain. Then people who get it from sharers can share it with others. But this also allows bad citizens to do what they like to do: sell binary-only versions under typical don't-share-with-your-neighbor licenses.

Ryan T. Sammartino

So, why is it okay to build Apache httpd linked to Linux system libraries and release it under the Apache license, but not okay to build a DVD app linked to GPL'd utility code and release it under the app's license?

Because the "Linux system libraries", glibc, is licensed under the LGPL.
----
I'm not stoned, I just chugged a pack of fUN dIP!

Judging from what the Free Software Song sounds like, some might choose the lawsuit if offered a choice.

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

What idiots. Clearly if you write non-derived modules and distribute them individually, such pieces are not under the GPL. Once you package it all up for distribution everything falls under the GPL. What an idiot. Time to get an attorney people or fork over the code!

Specifically when you're dealing with a corporation, the only right and wrong they understand is money. So in order to send a message that abusing the GPL is wrong, I think the FSF should seek huge punitive damages.

It seems that the code in question was released under the GPL, and to me, it seems clear that the GPL has been violated in both the letter and the spirit of the license.

I am tempted to argue that the more appropriate license would have been the LGPL. Yeah, yeah, RMS no longer likes the LGPL, but if I were creating a library, I still would LGPL it. However, I wasn't in charge this time :) and the choice of using GPL for a library has merits too.

Of course, it seems that Vidomi is confused: even though they might want the software to be LGPL'd, it isn't, and they are probably in violation because of the stricter GPL.

It seems that the code in question was released under the GPL, and to me, it seems clear that the GPL has been violated in both the letter and the spirit of the license.

I am tempted to argue that the more appropriate license would have been the LGPL. Yeah, yeah, RMS no longer likes the LGPL, but if I were creating a library, I still would LGPL it. However, I wasn't in charge this time :) and the choice of using GPL for a library has merits too.

Of course, it seems that Vidomi is confused: even though they might want the software to be LGPL'd, it isn't, and they are probably in violation because of the stricter GPL.

It seems that the code in question was released under the GPL, and to me, it seems clear that the GPL has been violated in both the letter and the spirit of the license.

I am tempted to argue that the more appropriate license would have been the LGPL. Yeah, yeah, RMS no longer likes the LGPL, but if I were creating a library, I still would LGPL it. However, I wasn't in charge this time :) and the choice of using GPL for a library has merits too.

Of course, it seems that Vidomi is confused: even though they might want the software to be LGPL'd, it isn't, and they are probably in violation because of the stricter GPL.

Please re-read the GPL. You see, if you use my GPL'ed code in your program, your entire program must then be licensed under the GPL. Kind of a neat bit of legal skullduggery, I think.

Avery claims that Vidomi is derived from the GPLed VirtualDub. If this is true, then Vidomi source must be released.

Vidomi hopes to create a "user does the link" loophole. This is analagous to the Objective C front end situation described in "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism". NeXT gave in. Perhaps Vidomi will, too. Or perhaps, as the headline suggests, this will go to court and set a legal precedent.

Tom Christiansen, a vocal GPL critic, has argued a position similar to Vidomi's. Dynamic linking is an interface. If there is a non-GPLed implementation of the interface, then the program is not necessarily derived from the GPLed library. People have written GPLed replacements for proprietary programs, why not the other way around? However, I suspect that a court would see through the sham replacements in this case. Vidomi advertises functionality that requires GPLed code; therefore, it is a derived work (under copyright law), subject to the license of the original code.

There are all sorts of ways to work around this problem. The easiest being to deliver the correct libraries with your application. A simple shell script wrapper will guarantee that the correct libraries get loaded and linked dynamically.

Not that it matters. GTK+ is licensed under the LGPL, which permits linking (even static linking) with proprietary works. If this wasn't the case then the commercial Unix vendors would be sticking with Motif. They are not interested in a toolkit that would require them to release the source code to their software.

Here is a link to the text of the LGPL. And here is a pertintent quote (emphasis added).

As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

The GNU foundation has an excellent and very calm little document explaining exactly what to do when you think you see a GPL violation. I suggest you read it now, and i really wish that the Slashdot admins would link to this little document in their "other links" box every time they run a story on an apparent GPL violation.

Actually, it's an extremely clear-cut license violation. First, from the article:

While the inside of the Tech Pad was mildly interesting, most striking was what we didn't find. For software allegedly released by its manufacturer under the GPL, curiously missing were most of the things required by the license.

No notices of copyright holders. No disclaimer of warranty. No source code and no directions on where and how to get the source code. No copy of the GPL, or at least none accessible or viewable from the interface provided by Gateway or America Online. No notice in the interface or help files about what is and isn't covered under the license.

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

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

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

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

I don't see how there's any way you could claim this is anything but an egregious violation of the license. If you'd like to review the license yourself, it's at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. AOL is likely assuming no one will have the money to properly sue them, or perhaps they think they'd be able to have the license found invalid, or possibly they think they're in the clear by putting it all in a box that's not supposed to be open.

Barnes & Noble allows you to ship a book to an address of your choosing, gift-wrapped. Probably Amazon does that too. I don't know for sure because I don't do business with them.

Unfortunately, Law is one of the very few areas of human knowledge that is geographically dependent and must be dealt with by local experts; all the rest you can find on ./! (With the appropriate disclaimers, of course!)

No. The GPL expressly forbids building non-Free software using GPL libraries. This is exactly why the GNU C libraries are not GPL, but LGPL. You can read about it at the FSF page about LGPL. If the versions of QT are basically the same, except for licensing, then if you use QT Free you should be willing to grant the same freedom to your users that you yourself have gotten from Trolltech. If their paid licensing options are too expensive for proprietary developers, then the market should correct that-- they have the choice to change their price or lose customers and go out of business.

I will agree that some of their behavior is disconcerting (although perfectly understandable-- software as product rather than service has huge mental real estate in our culture, due in no small part to Mr. Gates of MS and his famous "stealing" letter). TT is making progress, and our only major concern is that Qt3 would not be GPL. But given the shared future Qt and KDE seem to have, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Surely you can appreciate that a LGPL-equivalent license is more reasonable for licenses than the GPL (and its close kin)?

Yes. It's more reasonable if you are a commercial entity with proprietary code but, IMHO, if that's the case then you should pay for the licensing. I would prefer to see Trolltech get monetary compensation to support R&D on a GPL'd package than to see company XYZ profit off the fruits of labor of many open source hackers without giving _one_line_ of code back to the community. This is a bad thing and goes against why _free_ software was written in the first place.

Many years ago, a friend of mine was asked to rerelease a copylefted program under non-copyleft terms, and he responded more or less like this:

Sometimes I work on free software, and sometimes I work on proprietary software--but when I work on proprietary software, I expect to get paid.

He was willing to share his work with a community that shares software, but saw no reason to give a handout to a business making products that would be off-limits to our community. His goal was different from mine, but he decided that the GNU GPL was useful for his goal too.

Okay, first of all ... To quote Microsoft, "There is no question that the GPL is a complicated liscense that has led to a great deal of confusion." My first reaction was, "well, Uncertainty and Doubt do tend to lead to confusion". Then I went and read a copy of the GPL for memory refresher. It's not that confusing, as we all know, of course. The terms are basically distribute, modify, use freely with a few conditions that are also simple to understand. The liscense isn't the easiest reading, but that's just because it's (necessarily) in legalese. I find Microsoft's EULAs to be much worse reading. So, this part of the "Shared Source FAQ" is either terribly misinformed, lazy, or simply FUD. Take your pick, none of them are good.

Oh yeah, it comes right out and says that "Linux is one of our many competitors". Nice :)

This is kind of reiterating ESR's comments on the Halloween documents ... but it's kind of scary to see that Microsoft realizes the stakes are much larger than itself. The talk about not being able to patent the ideas underlying implementations seems silly. Sure, you may not be able to patent the theory of time travel, but if you're the only one that's made a time machine and it's patented, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from blocking the flow of information about time travel.

Also, they seem to be taking this tack that "Oh, we have a SHARED model, not a closed one, so we're not evil, don't hate us!" They mention their research source liscensing, but also say in big letters at the bottom of that page that "Microsoft retains the right to refuse requests for any reason ". Again, nice. ("Hey, no way I'm giving YOU a liscense, you black-haired freak!") Their use of sample code as an example of Shared Source is just a joke, and as for the .NET standards, I hope anybody creating a new service or protocol would release it. The fact that Microsoft follows basically standard (right? I hope so ... ) practice says absolutely nothing about them.

No comment on the Mundie speeches, this has done enough by pesons that could probably do it better than me, but anyone interested in totally ripping apart that "Linux in Retail and Hospitality" paper? ^^

I didn't say Mac-only; I said "proprietary".

What Mundie and most others don't understand is that open source is going to win no matter what anyone says or does,

Wrong, very, very, wrong. OSS will win under the current rules. But wait, M$FT, the MPAA, and the RIAA, each own many times more congress men, judges, and presidents, than OSS, thus they will change the rules. What do you thing the DMCA, UCTIA, and Hague convention are for?

Check out Stalmen's write to read. Who's OS do you think is used there? Hint is a shitty one from a coastal North-west US.

So Microsoft views GPL as an 800lb gorilla squatting between them and global domination...?
They are right about one thing: Open source is an "intellectual-property destroyer". (They neglect to point out that intellectual-property is an innovation destroyer).

If Eazel hoped to make money by selling services, then their focus should of been on the Windows platform. With around 90% of the desktop market, it is the logical target.

One useful service would be packaging, installing and updating GPL'd and other Free

Let's face it, Linux does not have the desktop user base yet to support something like Eazel's services. And by getting millions of Windows users to try Free software we would be getting exposure, increasing name recognition, and gaining trust. Instead of taking Microsoft's word (FUD really) on what Free software is, users would be capable of forming their own opinion based on experience.

I believe that for Linux to win over the desktop market, Free software must first gain the trust and loyalty of the Windows users. How can this happen? I see two possible paths (or a combination of both).

One way is through the success of OpenOffice. Once it is a truly viable alternative to Microsoft Office, the tides will turn. No longer dependent on MS Office, its draconian licenses and everchanging formats, OpenOffice will be the bridge between Windows and Linux.

A second way is through WINE and other emulators. I don't believe in the argument that emulators will stop software companies from writing native code for Linux. What is the mantra of Microsoft? Embrace and extend. The same way that Microsoft was able to destroy Netware by first being compatible with it, Linux should be compatible with Windows. It lowers the bar for current Windows users, and it also gets us a lot of new software quickly. Compatibility is a good thing.

The only version of the BSD license that's not officially sanctioned by RMS as being 'non-free' are the ones that include advertising clauses.

Actually, even licenses that include an advertising clause are Free Software. They just aren't GPL compatible. Note that the old-style BSD license is listed on this page.

Jeremy
--

The original clause is:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

The rational behind not using licenses that include this clause is quite sound, you can see some arguments for omiting that clause at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html (don't worry, it doesn't say the BSD license sucks and everyone should use GPL). You could imagine how such a clause could cause problems if, perhaps, you had a product that included 40-50 of programs with those kinds of licenses -- the required statements could outnumber actual ad-space.

The modified BSD license is considered a free license by GNU standards too. Just because it doesn't mimic the GPL exactly doesn't mean it's not free. Next time you post a link to somewhere, be sure you've read what it's talking about.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

QT is not the best way to go for some people. QT is GPL on Linux doesn't make it the preferable platform. Poor people want to develop commercial products and sell them. They can't do it with QT, and not everybody is willing to spend their liife writing GPL programs.

They can't do it with Gnome, because Gnome is GPL and only GPL, and stuff you develop using GPL licensed libraries has to be GPL. They can do it with QT, because the nice people at Trolltech will happily sell them a commercial license.

Or are you one of the people who think you should be able to take the Trolltech people's work and make money out of it, without giving any of the money back?

GTK is LGPL. ie it can be linked into proprietary programs. This is a bit friendlier for developers of commercial software.

The IBM Public Licence 1.0 is filed under "GPL Incompatable Free Software Licences". In short, RMS has no objection to it, though would find more it convenient if it could be updated to be compatable with the GPL.
--

There are 34 licences listed as being free, although the FSF encourages you not to use a handful of them because of perceived flaws (such as the original BSD licence which had the "advertising clause") The licences specifically discouraged are the NPL, IPL, NOSL, LPPL, OpenLDAP, original BSD licence and derivitives like the Apache 1.0 and 1.1 licences.

That still leaves more than 23 Free licences to choose from!
--

The development library was Crystal Space and that was a lot longer ago than "a few months back". My mother wouldn't know what a "console" is either and even my brother (who actually does play games) would look at me strangely if I used the word "console". If you want to understand RMS's opinion on libraries you should read the warning on the LGPL.

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).Yep, there are no restrictions in this license.
  
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).Yep, specifically stated in section 2.1.
  
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).Would appear so, especially as related to section 2.2.
  
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Section 4 specifically says you can do this.
  

Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term was that it would be more easily accepted by the business world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free software).

The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference between these two terms are:

• "free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake: free software should simply mean software which is free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF (BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself. I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.

• "free software" == good software for RMS, "open source" == good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers (go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.

Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)

You're missing the point. RedHat ships binaries to users. They also ship source, but that's not really their focus. They may modify the source and ship modified binaries if they feel it improves their distribution. With Bernstein's license, they can't do this.

In addition, you're quoting the GNU project out of context when you say Bernstein's license matches freedom 2 "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor." the same page that lists the freedoms also clearly says, "The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code." Clearly Bernstein's license doesn't allow binary forms of modified code.

Fortunately, as you point out, Bernstein's code "NEVER" has holes in it, so we don't need to worry about it. Of course, I'm more impressed with your ability to travel into the future and confirm this. Unfortunately Red Hat is not able to visit to future to check this, so errs on the side or caution.

In addition, while Bernstein's software has never had any holes under Bernstein's narrow definition, Linux itself might have problems which require modifying qmail as a workaround. This is quite common, and while Bernstein can complain all he wants that it's the operating system's fault, the rest of us need to deal with the reality of the hole and find a workaround. This has happened before, and under Bernstein's license, Red Hat can't ship patched binary to fix it.

[...]it lacks essential freedoms such as publication of modified versions[...]

For the record, I feel that:

• Dan is a brillant programmer who has not had to make any changes to Qmail in the last three years--since Qmail has not had one security problem of note ever. The only reason Dan has to make changes to DjbDNS is because of the way the BIND developers makes changes to how they interpret the vaguely-worded DNS RFCs.
• Dan does give away his software, and he does allow people to freely use it and freely separately distribute patches for it.
• While I do not completely agree with Dan w.r.t. the license he chose, I feel Dan has valid concerns about Linux fragmenting the way Unix fragmented. His license stops Qmail or DjbDNS from fragmenting.

According to the License List at gnu.org, the modified BSD license is "a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem. It is compatible with the GNU GPL." The original BSD license is listed as "a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL."

People always ask me why I write open source. They want to know why I will give my source code away for free when others can just steal my hard work and claim it as their own. These people, and apparently Mr. Love, are not familiar with the terms of the GPL.

Because of the GPL my open source code is protected. I can give, sell, or rent my code out to someone, but if they change the code and want to distribute it, they have to play by the exact same rules. They can give, sell or rent their changed code, but they have to provide the source and the same licensing mechanism along with it.

IMHO, the GPL is Open Source's STRONGEST point. It ensures that open source programmers won't be taken advantage of by unscrupulous companies who would simply steal their hard work and claim it as their own (which they could under the BSD license). Remember the Halloween Documents? The ones where Microsoft claimed that the biggest threat they faced from Linux (and by logical extension Open Source) was that by sharing the code, open source could harness the peer review and programming power of millions of programmers all over the world. Wouldn't it just play into Microsoft's hand perfectly if they could absorb all this open source power without having to respect the freedom guaranteed by the GPL?

I don't know what Mr. Love's angle is, but I do know that he is gravely mistaken about what the GPL is and what it represents to the Open Source community. It is one of our cornerstones, it is our Bill of Rights, it guarantees software's freedom and provides a safe environment for intellectual exchange, peer review and software maturation.

My own feeling is that there's a lot of software out there yet to be written. If Caldera can't or won't make shipping a Linux distro work for them, they should shift entirely, rather than attempt to create some Frankenstein out of tons of different licensing schemes.

So, when's rms going to demand that Caldera specify they're distributing BSD/Linux?

(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.

For some people software quality matters more than than having the freedom to modify and copy that software. For some other people, it doesn't. It seems you belong to the former, while I belong to the latter sort of people. That does not mean that I'm anti-business (I am not). It just means that I am against proprietary software. It does follow, though, that I am against proprietary software business.

Most businesses, however, do not sell software licences. Some sell support, others hardware, some businesses even sell things like cars or vegetables. I do not believe that the FSF has any problems with those.

The FSF dissapproving of closed an Open source software interoperting sucks and is not realistic. Most businesses will continue to use what's best, whether that be Apache or MS Word, because it (in their minds) is the bets for the job they are doing. Open Source interoperating with closed is an important part of this. Haven't you ever used Samba?

Since I do not use Windows, I have little need for Samba, but that is beside the point. You may be surprised, however, that Samba is explictly listed in the GNU free software directory. If you still want to argue that the FSF is against Free/Non-Free software interoperability, please come up with evidence (i.e. a link to an FSF page stating just that).

If this is sad, then refute me. You haven't yet.

Actually, I believe the burden of proof is on you. You keep stating that the FSF's position is this or that. Where do you get that from? Can you provide us with some links to official FSF pages that support your claims?

Nevertheless, I will provide you with another link to an FSF page, namely on the subject of selling Free Software. The FSF actually encourages selling Free Software. How anti-business is that?

PS: I am fully aware that this is a troll. Nevertheless, if I can get just one person (by which I do not mean the original poster, of course) to actually read up on what the FSF stands for before believing some groundless claims, these postings will have done their deed.

bye
schani

For some people software quality matters more than than having the freedom to modify and copy that software. For some other people, it doesn't. It seems you belong to the former, while I belong to the latter sort of people. That does not mean that I'm anti-business (I am not). It just means that I am against proprietary software. It does follow, though, that I am against proprietary software business.

Most businesses, however, do not sell software licences. Some sell support, others hardware, some businesses even sell things like cars or vegetables. I do not believe that the FSF has any problems with those.

The FSF dissapproving of closed an Open source software interoperting sucks and is not realistic. Most businesses will continue to use what's best, whether that be Apache or MS Word, because it (in their minds) is the bets for the job they are doing. Open Source interoperating with closed is an important part of this. Haven't you ever used Samba?

Since I do not use Windows, I have little need for Samba, but that is beside the point. You may be surprised, however, that Samba is explictly listed in the GNU free software directory. If you still want to argue that the FSF is against Free/Non-Free software interoperability, please come up with evidence (i.e. a link to an FSF page stating just that).

If this is sad, then refute me. You haven't yet.

Actually, I believe the burden of proof is on you. You keep stating that the FSF's position is this or that. Where do you get that from? Can you provide us with some links to official FSF pages that support your claims?

Nevertheless, I will provide you with another link to an FSF page, namely on the subject of selling Free Software. The FSF actually encourages selling Free Software. How anti-business is that?

PS: I am fully aware that this is a troll. Nevertheless, if I can get just one person (by which I do not mean the original poster, of course) to actually read up on what the FSF stands for before believing some groundless claims, these postings will have done their deed.

bye
schani

Quite easy actually. I've been doing a lot of ncurses programming lately. You can do some amazinly elaborate things with it if your a good programmer. A good technique really pays. If you start running into situations where you're brute-forcing it, I advise that you back off and do a little work on a good "framework" for your app(that's one minus about ncurses, there's very little "flamework").

Some key points about ncurses:

o It's very fast - Text mode applications are great for productivity. Their GUI counterparts always turn out to be slower for some reason.
o Menus and Forms - The menu and form libraries are standard on UNIXes. You can fairly easily create fields for data entry that have built in validation routines ...etc.
o Tables - Well, not exactly, but a clever way to make a very snappy table is to just use a menu. In text mode you can't tell the differnce. Ncurses menu-tables are more than what the Java 1.1 AWT library provides
o Well established - Curses programming has been around for a long time. The characteristics of many terminal types has been worked out(by ESR) and abstracted into the terminfo database. Its quite portable.
o Works Anywhere - You can run it over telnet, ssh, or just dump bulky X alltogether and run on the Linux console.

Here's some links:

Ncurses Intro by Eric S. Raymond and Zeyd M. Ben-Halim
Linux Journal Artical by ESR
Fujitsu ETI Programmers Guide
SCO ETI Programming

I really wish people would concentrate more ncurses programs. They're just damn efficient. Anyone who uses mutt and slrn and such knows what I'm talking about. If you're really clever, you'll librarify whatever it is that your working on so you can hook on a GUI version later after you've tweeked the behavior of the app without wasting a lot of clock-cycles on graphics programming.

the Free Encyclopedia Project: http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia

...because those maintainers in a position of authority (mostly the Steering Committee) have been too busy getting 3.0 ready for release. Herb Sutter had contacted the GCC list but apparently got no reply.

As you can see, as far as compliance goes, Gnu C++ is pretty good for a compiler, but is lacking in the library department. I find it interesting, and I'm sure the GNU C++ team is looking at the numbers, considering how important the library is to the standard (it really does make C++ more powerful).

The last releases, 2.95.x, as well as RH's snapshot-based spinoff of 2.96, all shipped with the old, nonstandard, noncompliant v2 C++ library, which has been mostly unmaintained for years.

Everybody's been working on the rewritten-from-scratch v3 C++ library, which has ISO compliance as its primary goal and criteria. If you get one of the nightly 3.0 build snapshot RPMS, you'll find that the new C++ library is the default.

When will 3.0 be released? Sooner, if you help.

Bryguy

I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.

Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term was that it would be more easily accepted by the business world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free software).

The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference between these two terms are:

• "free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake: free software should simply mean software which is free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF (BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself.
• "free software" == good software for RMS, "open source" == good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers (go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.

Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)

djbdns is not bad. Neither is qmail. However they are both under a horrific license. And both qmail and djbdns are *NOT* free software. If it was under the GNU GPL it might even be the best. But many dont realize this, and therefore promote it like it's sliced bread. So bind it shall be until something like djbdns under the GPL or a BSD license comes along.

Is the Qt Public License (better known as the QPL really GPL-incompatible?

If you read the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), you would have noticed the line in the beginning which states that "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."

The FSF's Why We Must Fight UCITA article seems to say that UCITA invalidates free-software disclaimers. Is this true? Why or why not?