Slashdot Mirror

It is unreasonable to expect a person to remember that "grep -quiet" and "grep -silent" are two different things.

In other words, yes, there's a potential for confusion there, but it's not the one you say it is.

http://www.gnu.org/philos ophy/reevaluating-copyright.html

Apparently, you do not understand the value of many groups working on similar projects. For example:

• competition - Like it or not, developers are highly competitive. They want their code to rule.
• niches - Each of the databases has a different niche. The fact is that MySQL and PostgreSQL are not comparable on numerous features. This is a matter of design philosophy, not implementation. (As an example, check out the MySQL documentation about Foreign Key constraints).
• innovation - A corollary to 'competition'. How many times have you used a piece of software that begged for some innovation? Want that missing feature? Then code it. This is why Free software is so innovative - it gives you the freedom to innovate. If this means 'forking a project', then so be it.

Finally, you seem to think that just because software is Free, that means people will cooperate. There are differences in design, implementation, technical leadership. Differences cannot always be overcome 'for the good of the community'. We still are human (thank God), so we differ in our opinions.

--

Apparently, you do not understand the value of many groups working on similar projects. For example:

• competition - Like it or not, developers are highly competitive. They want their code to rule.
• niches - Each of the databases has a different niche. The fact is that MySQL and PostgreSQL are not comparable on numerous features. This is a matter of design philosophy, not implementation. (As an example, check out the MySQL documentation about Foreign Key constraints).
• innovation - A corollary to 'competition'. How many times have you used a piece of software that begged for some innovation? Want that missing feature? Then code it. This is why Free software is so innovative - it gives you the freedom to innovate. If this means 'forking a project', then so be it.

Finally, you seem to think that just because software is Free, that means people will cooperate. There are differences in design, implementation, technical leadership. Differences cannot always be overcome 'for the good of the community'. We still are human (thank God), so we differ in our opinions.

--

from IBM's licence page.:

2. GRANT OF RIGHTS

• a) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and object code form.

Is there anything in the licence that prevents me to simply re-licence the code as GPL

--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?

As far as I can tell, the only substantial differences between the IBM Public License and the GPL are

Any contributions become IBM's property (Copyright IBM, All Rights Reserved)

You can charge $ for the program (although you must provide source) unlike the GPL (cannot charge for the actual code, only related services)

I know the main reason IBM doesn't like the GPL is the 'Viral Effect' where code that uses GPL'd code must be GPL'd itself (unless it dynamically links?), but it kinda (?) looks like the IBM Public License has the same problem...?

GPL libraries may make RMS happy, but they have severe impact on the commercial uptake of those libraries...

Actually RMS' outlook on libraries is a bit more complicated than your statement implies. RMS does *not* advocate GPLing libraries that offer essentially the same capabilities as already existing unfree libraries do. Doing that is shooting yourself in the foot, as it will not affect unfree developers, since they don't really need the libraries in question, having non-GPLd libraries available for the same function. So libraries that do not provide unique functions should use the Lesser GPL.

Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library is a little out of date, but it covers this issue and makes the distinction between libraries that offer unique functionality (which should ideally be under the standard GPL) and those which do not (which should be under the Lesser GPL.)

The only case where RMS encourages using the GPL for a library is where the library offers unique functionality. In this case, it may be arguable that Gecko technically does, but as a practical consideration I don't think it should be looked at that way - unfree developers on the windows platforms at least (which are of course the vast majority) have the option to simply use Explorer components, so releasing Gecko under the GPL only would simply discourage it's use.

Dual-licensing is a decent compromise, achieving essentially the same affect as if they had simply licensed it under the LGPL all along...

Section 10 of the GNU General Public License explicitly allows dual licensing.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

the link in the article wasn't very descriptive, neither was the FAQ. It is instructive to compare the MPL with the GPL directly.

A very useful link is the Annotated MPL which explains some of the jargon in IANAL terms, though Mozilla says that this document is "now somewhat dated, but are still here for historical purposes".

In drafting this license, we attempted to balance the needs of several different constituencies: the free software development community, commercial programmers, and Netscape itself. Our intent with this license is to promote a Communicator development community on the Net and to release the source code under a license that supports this community, yet still allows Netscape to meet its business goals going forward. We believe this license satisfies the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which provide a commonly accepted definition of ''free software,'' much like other free software licenses such as GPL or BSD. We felt that none of the existing licenses balanced the needs of the various developers in a way that is most appropriate for this source code. It is our intention that the Netscape Public License balances these three constituencies in such a way that will maximize development on this code base.

(emphasis added)

since IANAL and very few of us are, maybe an actual lawyer here can comment on these documents more thoroughly? Especially the parts about intellectual property in the MPL.

• Here's RMS's take on MPL.
• An alternate view.
• And a nice list of license types from gnu.org

• Here's RMS's take on MPL.
• An alternate view.
• And a nice list of license types from gnu.org

• Here's RMS's take on MPL.
• An alternate view.
• And a nice list of license types from gnu.org

This document walks you through the process of cross-installing from a Linux box. You can also find the debs in /dists/sid/main/binary-hurd-i386/ on your favourite ftp.debian.org mirror. As far as building stuff from source on HURD goes, it's pretty similar to building for BeOS - it provides what it has to, and doesn't provide a lot of what it doesn't (e.g., the MAX_PATH definition). According to the standards, it's perfectly within it's rights to do this and still be POSIX compliant - so you have to do a bit of filling-in-the-blanks when you're building stuff that expects these things to be there. Most packages that're autoconf'd tend to build fine, and there's a fair selection of binary packages in the Debian distribution.

Maybe Debian GNU/Linux won't be relevant in two years, but now that people are actually working on it Debian GNU/Hurd might be usuable in two years time.

If Sun has their way, now that they're releasing Solaris for 'free', in two years no Linux distros will matter.

You might do better with the GNU Free Documentation License:

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

That's what I'd go for. Obviously, the GPL is probably fine too.

Michael


...another insightless comment from Michael Tandy.

Check out this short science fiction story by RMS called 'The Right to Read'.

An interesting take on where things are headed, it's over three years old and remarkably prescient...

--

What the heck is the FSF's PR engine? RMS?

I don't know what you mean by proprietary development. I doubt any version of the GPL will prohibit keeping private changes private. I quote from the FSF web site:

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

With the current popularity of ed, does anyone hink that vi can really take over? Even if vi is better, ed is the standard!

Hate to say it, but some people enjoy using Hungarian notation in C++ programs to. There's no accounting for taste I guess.

I'm not a fan of Hungarian notation, personally, although I can see some value in it. For me, the impact on readability makes it not worth using. This is one of those classic debates, like vi vs. emacs, which will probably never be resolved.

If anyone is looking for a free software project to write, it just occurred to me that a missing tool that could be useful would be a program like indent that would add or remove Hungarian-notation prefixes instead of adjusting whitespace. I'd probably write this myself, if I were a fan of Hungarian notation. Since I'm not, I'm tossing the idea out there; maybe someone else out there wants to run with it?

Preprocessors like these should be available for all languages so that a project team can enforce an indenting style across the project. Of course there are many other reasons why debugging others source code can be difficult, but I find it easier to read my own code from 7 years ago (when my ability and technique were different) tha anyone elses code because I was indenting in the same way.

Ever heard of indent? It can be used to enforce a consistent indenting style. Much better than making whitespace significant in the language.

Domain names have several rules that must be followed.
And so I must wonder if this concern only projects under the GPL? What I fear most is a rise of partisanship in the handling of the assignment of domain names like theses ones, as well as some of the newly proposed extensions like .net, .jobs and the like.
My biggest interest is the handling of projects under GPL-Compatible lisences such as the MPL and the QPL.

I therefore propose not to allow the handling of new domain names, .cx or otherwise, be controlled by a single entity which might be subjected to pressure from interest groups like GNU, with all due respect that I hold for that organization.


--
Kiro

GNU Lesser GPL was designed to allow code sharing between copylefted software (e.g. the Free IM clients) and proprietary software (e.g. AIM).
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

Since I work for a commercial developer, it's unlikely that management will be willing to distribute source code for the application. After all, we'd be giving away some very valuable secrets to our competitors, to say the least. And we can't ignore the Linux market any more. (I'll make the disclaimer here that I'm a developer, not a manager. I don't know if we've already covered these issues as a company.)

I'm hoping someone will have some thoughts or insights into this matter, so we don't end up violating the GPL and getting into legal hot water.

Since I work for a commercial developer, it's unlikely that management will be willing to distribute source code for the application. After all, we'd be giving away some very valuable secrets to our competitors, to say the least. And we can't ignore the Linux market any more. (I'll make the disclaimer here that I'm a developer, not a manager. I don't know if we've already covered these issues as a company.)

I'm hoping someone will have some thoughts or insights into this matter, so we don't end up violating the GPL and getting into legal hot water.

Since I work for a commercial developer, it's unlikely that management will be willing to distribute source code for the application. After all, we'd be giving away some very valuable secrets to our competitors, to say the least. And we can't ignore the Linux market any more. (I'll make the disclaimer here that I'm a developer, not a manager. I don't know if we've already covered these issues as a company.)

I'm hoping someone will have some thoughts or insights into this matter, so we don't end up violating the GPL and getting into legal hot water.

"Well, they have *a* shell under Windows 2000, with an add on product that they actually purchased from another company. The company was Interix, so now the product is Microsoft Interix 2.2. ...[snip]... While I'll admit it feels kind of dirty to use this product"

Any reason you can't use Cygwin, now owned and maintained by Redhat. From the intro page:

Using Cygwin, developers can manage heterogeneous environments in a consistent, efficient way. Cygwin brings a standard UNIX/Linux shell environment, including many of its most useful commands, to the Windows platform so IT managers can effectively deploy trained staff, and leverage existing investments in UNIX/Linux source code and shell scripts.

The tools only take up about 100 megs of space and provide you with bash, ksh, and tcsh as shells, and most of the tools you're familiar with in a GNU *NIX environment, including the compilers. They support Win 95/95/NT4.0-sp3 natively, which would lead me to believe you could get it to run on M$ Millenium without too much difficulty. But wait! We're not finished! Would you like a free Xserver for your Windoze boxen? Check this out!

A more informative site on Cygwin, it's current status, new bulletins, FAQs, etc (it's project center site) is as follows:

http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin

Enjoy your unholy marriage of M$ and *NIX. ;-) Oh, yeah. Did I mention, it's FREE ! Isn't GPL Licensed software wonderful?!

"Well, they have *a* shell under Windows 2000, with an add on product that they actually purchased from another company. The company was Interix, so now the product is Microsoft Interix 2.2. ...[snip]... While I'll admit it feels kind of dirty to use this product"

Any reason you can't use Cygwin, now owned and maintained by Redhat. From the intro page:

Using Cygwin, developers can manage heterogeneous environments in a consistent, efficient way. Cygwin brings a standard UNIX/Linux shell environment, including many of its most useful commands, to the Windows platform so IT managers can effectively deploy trained staff, and leverage existing investments in UNIX/Linux source code and shell scripts.

The tools only take up about 100 megs of space and provide you with bash, ksh, and tcsh as shells, and most of the tools you're familiar with in a GNU *NIX environment, including the compilers. They support Win 95/95/NT4.0-sp3 natively, which would lead me to believe you could get it to run on M$ Millenium without too much difficulty. But wait! We're not finished! Would you like a free Xserver for your Windoze boxen? Check this out!

A more informative site on Cygwin, it's current status, new bulletins, FAQs, etc (it's project center site) is as follows:

http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin

Enjoy your unholy marriage of M$ and *NIX. ;-) Oh, yeah. Did I mention, it's FREE ! Isn't GPL Licensed software wonderful?!

TCP is the culprit alright. Remember, the internet's explosion was an accident.

What Al Gore and friends were aiming for was the "National Information Infrastructure." The NII was in many ways the exact opposite of the internet - EVERYTHING is pay per page, everything was a trusted client . No rights ever devolved to the consumer.

Richard Stallman's The right read is based on the legal framework contemplated for NII.

Now the NII died a pathetic death based on it's technological stupidity and the internet bloomed based on sharing resources being an inherently more efficient approach.

But this really hasn't altered the agenda of those who contemplated the NII. The goal of creating a pay-per-view, trusted-client system stayed in the back of many minds during the whole internet boom.

Today, the internet is no longer the goose that is laying laid the golden egg. It is the golden egg itself. So it makes every bit of sense that wolf will now want to come and cook the goose. The DMCA is a signal for this game to begin.

Liability is a tricky subject. It is based on intents - did you make that booby trap so that someone would die or not? But there are two sides to that. One is "did you have the specific intention for X to happen," the other is "did you have the intention to prevent X from happening." The latter is what just about anyone can tripped up on. It's easy to see how liability could be manipulated so that building something that was absolutely general purpose could be considered a crime.

All you really to bring this about is a large enough scare story to bring the heat down on everyone. (guess where do all the stories of "child molesters" come from anyway?). It seems logical that this kind tactic would indeed lump napster, hackers, and crackers into a single boogey man to be feared by the hapless citizen. Could it reach the "inventers of TCP/IP" for creating a insecure network - possibly.

Far fetched, perhaps. But once you finish reading The right read - please notice that every hypothesis is backed by actually planned laws of that time. Unix will outlawed. Windows CE will be the only OS allowed to consumers.

TCP is the culprit alright. Remember, the internet's explosion was an accident.

What Al Gore and friends were aiming for was the "National Information Infrastructure." The NII was in many ways the exact opposite of the internet - EVERYTHING is pay per page, everything was a trusted client . No rights ever devolved to the consumer.

Richard Stallman's The right read is based on the legal framework contemplated for NII.

Now the NII died a pathetic death based on it's technological stupidity and the internet bloomed based on sharing resources being an inherently more efficient approach.

But this really hasn't altered the agenda of those who contemplated the NII. The goal of creating a pay-per-view, trusted-client system stayed in the back of many minds during the whole internet boom.

Today, the internet is no longer the goose that is laying laid the golden egg. It is the golden egg itself. So it makes every bit of sense that wolf will now want to come and cook the goose. The DMCA is a signal for this game to begin.

Liability is a tricky subject. It is based on intents - did you make that booby trap so that someone would die or not? But there are two sides to that. One is "did you have the specific intention for X to happen," the other is "did you have the intention to prevent X from happening." The latter is what just about anyone can tripped up on. It's easy to see how liability could be manipulated so that building something that was absolutely general purpose could be considered a crime.

All you really to bring this about is a large enough scare story to bring the heat down on everyone. (guess where do all the stories of "child molesters" come from anyway?). It seems logical that this kind tactic would indeed lump napster, hackers, and crackers into a single boogey man to be feared by the hapless citizen. Could it reach the "inventers of TCP/IP" for creating a insecure network - possibly.

Far fetched, perhaps. But once you finish reading The right read - please notice that every hypothesis is backed by actually planned laws of that time. Unix will outlawed. Windows CE will be the only OS allowed to consumers.

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish ...

That still leaves the problem of what 'distribution' is, especially within companies. If Bob writes a mode for Emacs to ease coding of scalable vector graphics at his company, and it becomes really popular in the company, is it being distributed? Many people are using it, but in their capacity as employees of XML Graphics, Inc. Legally, a company is considered a single entity, a fictional person. So it could be that only one person uses the new code, that person being XML Graphics, Inc. But many humans are using the code: Bob, Sarah, John, etc. The definition of 'distribution' is not very clear here.

So the in-house developer has to worry about the definition of 'distribute'. I think that in-house code need'nt be released under the GPL, but I Am Not RMS (IANRMS), etc.

Louis Wu

"Where do you want to go ...

You are thinking of GNU Stow which does exactally this. While I wouldn't recommend this type of file layout for /usr, /usr/local and /opt are annother matter entirely and I would recommend Stow type packaging there.

I only wish that RPM was as sane....

- Richie

See: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lgpl.html

Are you trying to tell me it costs 25$ to make a CD? Umm, CD-R's are about 1$US; it takes 5 minutes (if that) to burn one; and USPS Priority Mail is about 3$ to anywhere in the TiVo serviced area. CD mastering houses make CDs for pennies -- I know because I've ordered custom pressed CDs.

So, please justify the 25$ "media cost"? Just how much is that intern being paid to burn CDs?

Last time I checked, the FSF was charging a small fortune for media packs. It's one of the ways they make the money they need to stay afloat. Remember, "free software" only implies free as in "free speech," not necessarily "free beer" (though the free-beer part is handled by dozens of FTP sites and websites).

If you don't want to fork over $25 for the TiVo CD, the same stuff is available on their website.

_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/

First of all, I don't have kids. Don't make assumtions about people you have not meet.

Secondly, while I am perfectly willing to help pay for your kids to get at educationally valid sites, I am not interested in paying for your kids' gay porn. If you want them to see that, go to an adult bookstore and buy it for them yourself.

Thirdly, if you read my post more carefully you would have seen that I oppose federal mandates for filterware. My only point was that it is not a First Amendment issue.

You can't use your ghost image and expect the license that came with your computer to cover that image. I'm not saying it is right, or I even agree with it, but it does make sense. If you are one of those companies who buys software from Microsoft, then just return what came with your computer. All you need is the receipt of your computer and the unopened package. Then buy your new copy of Windows. Of course, there are better solutions

• Built-In Firewall
  
• Great Documentation for the Responsible Administrator, (as contrasted by The Micro$oft Knowledgebase
  
• Timely Security Updates from our Vendors and our Enemies to help us patch things quickly
  
• Source Code; ...that's 2 different links, people...
  

Maybe you should take a look at this article?

It does show some examples of what the difference between the term "Open Source" and the term "Free Software" is...


--

We all know how many bugs that Linux products have. But what I noticed was did Freddy Boy even bother to mention where Linux gets it's software, or who makes it? Or even how the GPL works? NOOOOoooooo!

Also of note would be to compare the time it takes for a Linux related bug to get fixed and the time it takes for Microsoft to come out with a new service pack.

Please read: http://www.gnu.org/philos ophy/reevaluating-copyright.html

here i whore
google.com:"burn all gifs" | gnu.org:"Why no GIFs" | programming-freedom.org:"GIF Controversy" | google:"league no gifs" | libPNG.org:"PNG Home Site"
here i bird
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

The only digital-media distribution systems that make sense are RMS's tax-based proposal, the Street Performer Protocol, and the electronic tip jar. All of these schemes share two traits:

1. they don't prevent people from copying a digital work and not paying
2. over 90% of the money that the customer pays or gives in these schemes goes directly to the artist

1. includes some form of copy protection or watermarking
2. maximizes the baksheesh that record companies can get from the blockbusters they push

You should be shocked. Those folks at the RIAA actually have a reason for what they are doing! They are right - using Napster harms the artist.

Actually, I disagree, there are some major flaws in their reasoning. Particularly when they essentially argue that fair use cannot apply to music. Read it carefully. Remember that copyright a special privilege instituted to encourage the development of the arts and sciences. Fair Use is the body of exceptions to copyright law necessary to prevent it from violating basic human rights. The RIAA would like to eliminate these exceptions. I believe their concern is not harm to artists but harm to their own business model, which is arguably worse for the artists than Napsters. Regardless of whether or not you agree, the fact remains that this harm is in depriving them of a privilege, not a basic right. If this harm cannot be avoided without weakening the protection of basic rights, that is too high a price to pay.

Using cigarettes harms your health. Both industries (the pirated music industry and the tobacco industry) will attempt to deny it; or claim that their users are at fault. In many ways, the parrellel between the industries is perfect.

I agree the analogy is a good one, but the claim that the user is at fault is correct. Do the tobacco companies hire goon squads to force people to smoke at gunpoint? Of course not. Hell, I should know, I was a smoker for over 16 years. I have no sympathy whatsoever with smokers that claim that tobacco companies are responsible for their smoking. The tobacco companies sell the stuff, whether you use it or not is your choice. And Napster doesn't force anyone to use their service at all, let alone use it for illegal purposes.

On the other side, both the tobacco companies and Napster are clearly not without blame either. The tobacco companies almost certainly have knowingly lied about the safety of their product, and should bear liability for that. That is a much more limited liability than the ridiculous rash of recent suits against them have claimed, however. And Napster, obviously, is guilty of encouraging their users to break the law. That, also is a much different matter in terms of responsibility from what their attacker wants to pin on them. Whatever moral condemnation Napster deserves for encouraging copyright infringement, there is something called Free Speech to be considered here. It is illegal for instance to grow certain plants in this country, but it is still legal to write and distribute books/web pages/etc encouraging and enabling people that want to grow those plants. However wrong I think Napsters actions are, better to have that wrong than to lose Free Speech.

While the RIAA may not be the best model, it certainly stands for one thing - copyright protection. Even that Linux kernel which you find dear is protected under the same copyright. "My enemy's enemy..." and all that: the RIAA stands in defense of basic copyright. Not even software licensing or anything legally questionable, but simply the copy protection part of copyright that's been at the heart of copyright law for many many years.

Again, I must disagree. The GNU license relies on copyright, yes, but it is a defensive application of copyright. Without copyright law, it would have no force, but it would also be unneeded. Visit gnu.org and read up on the philosoph behind the GPL.

What the RIAA is arguing in this case is NOT simply "the heart of copyright law for many many years" - their arguments, if accepted, essentially eliminate the fair use exceptions to copyright law that have been established for years as necessary to prevent copyright law from violating basic pre-existing rights, as well as the complete destruction of the important distinction between guilt by act and guilt by association.

That's more accurate and is less likely to be the basis of an emotional, rather than logical, argument.

No one ever said IP laws are bad/wrong.

Actually, quite a few people have said that. Among them are Eben Moglen and Brian Martin. If you look at just a subset of the IP laws then there are a whole lot of people who've said they're bad... including the Free Software Foundation and The League for Programming Freedom.

Without them, the global economy would collapse

That's speculation. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps not. Even if you're right, is this really so terrible an outcome? Will there be riots in the streets of Paris if they can't get American movies? Will American college students invade Washington DC with firearms if they can't get Japanese anime?

The purpose of the GPL is to protect property and limit it's [sic] use

Others have already responded to this part, but it's important enough to warrant reiteration. The purpose of the GPL is to promote free software which is, at its core, the freedom to share with your friends and with the whole of society. The only denial of freedom in the GPL is the part that denies you the right to deny other people the right to share. A lot of people don't seem to grasp this, which is why we see this debate over and over (ad infinitum) on slashdot.

[...] reflect the new and drastically lower price of duplication and distribution and LET US LISTEN TO THE MUSIC WE'D GLADLY PAY FOR

Here, I think you're absolutely correct.

No one ever said IP laws are bad/wrong.

Actually, quite a few people have said that. Among them are Eben Moglen and Brian Martin. If you look at just a subset of the IP laws then there are a whole lot of people who've said they're bad... including the Free Software Foundation and The League for Programming Freedom.

Without them, the global economy would collapse

That's speculation. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps not. Even if you're right, is this really so terrible an outcome? Will there be riots in the streets of Paris if they can't get American movies? Will American college students invade Washington DC with firearms if they can't get Japanese anime?

The purpose of the GPL is to protect property and limit it's [sic] use

Others have already responded to this part, but it's important enough to warrant reiteration. The purpose of the GPL is to promote free software which is, at its core, the freedom to share with your friends and with the whole of society. The only denial of freedom in the GPL is the part that denies you the right to deny other people the right to share. A lot of people don't seem to grasp this, which is why we see this debate over and over (ad infinitum) on slashdot.

[...] reflect the new and drastically lower price of duplication and distribution and LET US LISTEN TO THE MUSIC WE'D GLADLY PAY FOR

Here, I think you're absolutely correct.

The FSF has a task to perform--freedom. The GPL is the tool, not the task.

The rub is the definition of "freedom". Many would define freedom as "The ability to do anything I want with the this piece of code", as you implied in your original post. This is incompatible with the goals of the FSF. Excerpts from the What is freedom document:

"In order for the freedom to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software."

In other words, I am required to supply source code.

"For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them."

In other words, I am not allowed to do what I want with the code, even if I make my own changes to it. People are NOT allowed to "use their data however they want", as you asserted.

--

No. The philosophy behind the GPL is that people should be allowed to use their data however they want (including sharing with others).

Good God! Maybe you actually read what Gnu is about, instead of making unbelievably wrong assumptions about it.

The philosophy of GPL is NOT "that people should be allowed to use their data however they want". There are very specific restrictions on what people are allowed to do with GPL code, including 1) Source code must be distributed, 2) Source code which isn't GPL'd becomes GPL'd when GPL code is used within it (the "viral" aspect of the GPL).

If there were no IP laws, the GPL would be impossible.

If anything, you're thinking of BSD-style licenses, which are almost unrestricted.

--

Bait swollen.

Actually there have been a few minor version bumps in the release history of the True One, namely because of jealousy of the even Truer One (M-x all-hail-emacs!). The current incarnation of It reached version 15 around 1984 (if my Info files tell the Truth, which of course they do). Apocryphal history has it that versions prior to 15 belonged to the ITS incarnation of the True One and are long forgotten in the hallowed halls of MIT.

My favourite version number scheme is that used by Prof. Don Knuth for TeX releases, but you'll have to do some research to know what I'm talking about...
--

But you overlook one little thing:

That Other System is run by about 95% of the rest of the world.

I don't much like Windows either, guys -- I agree that there are much better desktop operating systems. But the sheer size of Windows is a card it can play against all others. If someone managed to come up with a decent clone of it, and one that was reasonably stable and fast, then as an aside -- with no work on their part -- they'd also get a universe of applications to run on it, and hundreds of millions of users that already know how to use it.

Would it be sub-optimal? Sure. Would hardcore geeks like us prefer it to Linux? Doubtful -- maybe as a games platform or as something to make the Gnu/Linux weenies happy ;) -- but it's something those hundreds of millions of others might appreciate way more than Linux.

Further, I thought one of the better possible outcomes of the anti-trust trial would be an open API and possible clones. Hey presto, looks like people have gotten started already. Why do you have a problem with that? Even if it can't make a perfect & enhanced & stabilized version of Windows -- which, I admit, is a long shot -- it would have a possibly much greater side effect: it would be competition for Microsoft . Isn't that supposed to be a good thing? What are you all complaining about, anyway?