Slashdot Mirror

An implicit assumption in the GPL seems to be that users of a program have access to the binary. That's not the case with CGI programs and similar hosted applications. I'm not sure how access to source can be preserved in these cases without resorting to terms like those in the APSL. Any ideas?

(This is a long-standing issue. It's not related to marca's new company but I brought it up in reference to the field of hosted applications in general.)

This is patently untrue, as anyone who has actually read What is Free Software? knows. The only criticisms the FSF has of the BSD license are:

1. It doesn't keep the software free (i.e., it can be proprietarized at any time, without the consent of the authors).
2. It previously had the "obnoxious advertising clause," which lives on in software licensed under older versions of the BSD license.

One of the major figure responsible for the destruction of the original hackerdom was Bill Gates. When first version of his Basic was freely passed among hackers, Bill wrote an Open Letter, declaring Software should be proprietary, and asking hackers to pay license fees for each copy of his Microsoft Basic. As time went on, Bill Gates became the richest man on earth, building his fortunes on selling and manipulating proprietary software. Business became the way of life, backstabing is common, information fell under NDAs and patents and became the subjects of lawsuits, and The Dark Age was upon the computer world.

One of the last holdouts from the original hackerdom was Richard M. Stallman, or RMS, of the MIT AI Labs, who would stay to the True Way to the end. To keep the original vision alive, and to make Free Software against the tide of privatiziation, he founded the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation in 1983. He declared that he would write a complete Unix-like operating system, composed of only Free Software, so he can share with other people who have the same dream. He began by writing free replacements of basic Unix utilities, and a free C compiler (gcc). Gradually the FSF provided most of the foundation for a Free Software/Open Source OS infrastructure. The GNU tools liberate hackers from dependence on proprietary development tools and provide the foundation which enables other Free Software projects to flourish. And by 1991, these tools enabled Linus Torvalds, a Finnish CS student, to develop the Linux kernal. This kernel filled in the last missing pieces of a totally Free OS, and by 1992 RMS's original aim was practically fulfilled.

While the proprietary software universe continued with rises and falls of companies, Bill Gates of Microsoft went on for world conquest. The Microsoft Empire destroyed or assimilated competitors, and by 1997 virtually no alternatives existed. People became subjects of Bill Gates, whose power reached far and wide. People looked toward the sky for hopes of liberation, but no one seemed answering the call.

However with the spread of the Internet, the Free Software community, composed of GNU, Linux, Apache, Perl, BSDs, etc., quietly continued to develop more Free source code and gathered strength. Finally in 1998, beginning with Netscape looking to Free Software for allies in resisting Microsoft, the New Hope is shown to the world. The vision of the original hackers, a world where the Software is By the People, Of the People and For the People, is coming into being. The Revenge against Bill Gates is in full swing. The war for liberation is intensifying!

I'm not convinced that there are such a thing as a hacker ethics, but once you've gotten past that notion, I found the book a very good read.
I should probably also note that RMS recently published his 1983 biography on his home page. It's somewhat related to the chapter on him in the book since it was written just the year before the book was published, and, I think, just before the idea of GNU came into light.

Isnt it about time that Linux is released under an open source license such as the GPL ???

-Benjamin Shniper

-Benjamin Shniper

Huh? I don't get what you're saying... They look the same to me. Anyway, here's a URL by which you can find out how to more directly help the FSF.

Huh? I don't get what you're saying... They look the same to me. Anyway, here's a URL by which you can find out how to more directly help the FSF.

Agreed, technically Open Source is the same as Free software when it comes to licenses (though I'm not sure about where the APSL fits in), and the DFSG is great for when you don't want to be so restrictive as GPL only.

The freedom aspect is indeed very important, and Open Source downplays it. However, what bothers me most is what I see as (mainly) hypocracy in the Open Source movement. The two main arguments for the adoption of the term Open Source are:

(a) executives, marketroids, etc are all scared off by the term free software, and

(b) the term free software is ambigious (speech vs. beer).

I only have a problem with people trying to attract business when it compromises on morals, such as (a) does.

As for (b), well, as is pointed out in http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html, the term Open Source is worse because the obvious connotation (and let's face it, this is the one that counts, that Joe Public is going to directly or indirectly use) is that you can see the term, which is completely different from the actual meaning, which is the OSD, and quite similar to free software.

Hmmmm, I think I might hop off my soapbox now... :)

FSF says "free as in freedom, not price" and clearly states that they wish to be paid. See:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.ht ml
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml
http://www.gnu.org/help/help.html#helpgnu

FSF says "free as in freedom, not price" and clearly states that they wish to be paid. See:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.ht ml
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml
http://www.gnu.org/help/help.html#helpgnu

FSF says "free as in freedom, not price" and clearly states that they wish to be paid. See:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.ht ml
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml
http://www.gnu.org/help/help.html#helpgnu

I thought that the GPL prohibited people from charging more than press and distrobution costs for a product

• 
  ``Open source software'' describes a category of software licenses, almost but not quite the same as ``free software.''
  

Having 100% people on the internet should never be the goal. Contrary to what you might think, there are many many people who should never use the internet. They don't need it. It is kind of like drivers in metropolises. How many of these people could use public transportation instead of yet another vehicle on the streets. But too many people use somethinng because everyone says they should and they end up using it for no good reason.

Push the internet into homes and get more chatters and porn surfers. Push private transportation and we get accidents.

I say that technology belongs in the hands of those that need it. Everyone else are fine without it.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

I rarely give a "so what/who cares" attitude but this will be an exception.

For some people, getting on the internet means that you are technologically competent and up-to-date. We all know what getting-wired says but most people misinterpret what it means. Getting on the internet has nothing to do with reaching a new level of technological competence. It is, perhaps, a level higher than getting another TV.

I am pretty sure us slashdot people actually use technology to it's most. But most people I know still use the internet for chat and porn. If this is what the internet is for, then how is "getting wired" a good thing.

Chat and porn are two things I stay away from. They are addicting things that doesn't do much more than eat brain cells. Is this what the information age provides?

Come on people. Most of us have access to vast amounts of information, more information than anyone had in our past. Don't waste it.

So don't misinterpet what "getting wired" means. Only for people who exercise self-restraint, getting a connection to the internet would be an improvement. Everyone else is wasting an incredible resource.

(Sorry for ranting)

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

The industry is only losing money from software piracy if the people using 'borrowed' copies would have actually paid for them ,which is unlikely for almost all of these users.

By 'piracy' , i mean people copying and installing software for their friends...copying it and selling it is entirely different.
Anyone who is interested in a well thought out, logical viewpoint on this should go and read the GNU outlook.

I use xhippo and I have it set up to generate a playlist of all my midi and MP3 files and then plays them in random order. This ranges from Classical music, Heavy metal, and even monty python soundtracks!

You can get xhippo from any gnu mirror. Of course I use timidity for the best of midi sound...

Music is the stuff my code is made of. When my librarians (ala Neal Stephenson/Snow Crash Librarians) start to work everyone will be very thankful to xhippo... Mwahahaha!

A programmer who, by the sweat of his or her brow, produces a piece of software, owns that fruits of that labor. It belongs to them. End of story.

You're missing the point here. Does being the author of a program give you a right to restrict other people's right to share it? Conventional copyright law says yes. RMS says no. You need to distance yourself somewhat from the current legal framework to see the strength of RMS' arguments. A read through the GNU website is always worthwhile. Note the emphasis on the rights of the user, not the programmer. This is what Stallman cares about. You may not agree, but you can at least take the time to understand.

..you should read up just a little on the topics at hand before you shoot your mouth off like that? I believe you should bother yourself to check out this page which defines what "free software" is and what freedoms it is meant to bestow upon you (as there is definitely more than one kind of "freedom" in the world), and that page which goes out of its way to explain the difference between "open source" and "free software". It's almost like getting hit by a clue-by-four, one might say..

If you're still not clue-aware after that, you can go ahead and read this post. If your attention span is too short for that, I'll sum it up with this basic question: who precisely forces you to license your software under the GPL, use GPL'ed software, or modify GPL'ed software? That said, why must you release your source because RMS "said so"? You can certainly use another license or piece of software, don't you think?

..you should read up just a little on the topics at hand before you shoot your mouth off like that? I believe you should bother yourself to check out this page which defines what "free software" is and what freedoms it is meant to bestow upon you (as there is definitely more than one kind of "freedom" in the world), and that page which goes out of its way to explain the difference between "open source" and "free software". It's almost like getting hit by a clue-by-four, one might say..

If you're still not clue-aware after that, you can go ahead and read this post. If your attention span is too short for that, I'll sum it up with this basic question: who precisely forces you to license your software under the GPL, use GPL'ed software, or modify GPL'ed software? That said, why must you release your source because RMS "said so"? You can certainly use another license or piece of software, don't you think?

Disclaimer: My views, as usual, are strong. I'm very much in the "free software" camp. Enjoy this post at your own leisure if you really care to hear what I have to say.. ;) (I'm also not quite awake.. not enough caffeine..)

The difference between Free Software and Open Source advocates is that they use the same means for different ends.

Precisely.. wrong. As explained by Stallman himself:

Radical groups are known for factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and then hate each other. They agree on the basic principles, and disagree only on practical recommendations; but they consider each other enemies, and fight each other tooth and nail.

For the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement, it is just the opposite on every point. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree on most practical recommendations. We work together on many specific projects.

Now, on to the bulk of this post..

Let me tell you about freedom.

Perhaps I should begin by saying that there are several kinds of "freedom". For absolute fanatics (like the one you are arguing with, apparently, as they remind me of some BSD elitists I had the misfortune of speaking with.. note the difference between BSD user/proponent/advocate and elitist .. this is not a bland generalization on my part, as I am not including all those who like BSD), there is this cute little page which explains what "freedoms" the GPL is intended to impart. No one on the GPL side of the fence kids themselves: this is a restrictive license. However, the astute will notice that even a democracy such as the U.S. is not truly "free" in the strictest of terms. Pure anarchy would be much closer to being "free" in the way certain fanatics would scream out against the GPL. For those of you who think like that: get a life.

Freedom is not being forced to do anything other than what is required to allow others them same freedoms. Not allowing modifications to software is stripping away freedoms that people should have.

Before I begin, I think I should note that my political stance is between that of Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, leaning toward the former. I believe free software is better than proprietary software, and dislike using stuff that isn't under the GPL (except for simple things like PINE or PICO, which really don't need me to tinker with them, anyway). However, I understand the need for choice. BSD elitists will complain about the GPL. GPL elitists will complain about the BSD license. However, neither are as restrictive as most proprietary licenses. I must stress that he/she who produces the software is free to use any license they want. You don't like it? Who gives a fuck? No one forces you to use their license. No one forces you to use their software. It's your decision. If you don't like something, don't subject yourself to it. Complaining about it isn't going to make it go away. Elitists on either side of the fence on this issue usually are making arguements which, if they could make them a reality, would take away freedom from the other group. Freedom is about choice. Exercise that freedom, and let others get on with their lives. Otherwise you might as well be Joe Public complaining about how horrible television is and yet you continue to sit on your fat ass and watch it all day. Real productive.

It is like saying you can't fix a chair if it is broken.

Sort of, but not quite. Source code is what is used to create a given piece of software. If you take this arguement to its logical extreme, you're really complaining that when someone sells you a chair, they should also give you the tools necessary to build it (which would probably be what, an entire factory? heh). Also, you're missing the point that you can't really change a chair. A chair is a chair is a chair. It will always be a chair (or else a pile of useless wood if you get really angry.. or some other material if it's not wooden). Software, however, can evolve. And while some may think its a neat idea to put a third arm on a chair, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Not allowing you to redristibute doesn't have much of a metaphor to real objects other than sharing. But if replicators are ever made, freedom might be an issue that we would all expect.

Most uses of the term "freedom" are highly generalized. I would like to once again assert that there are several different kinds of freedoms, and obviously if you had some Star Trek-esque replicator people are going to have a hard time keeping you from replicating your chair and giving it to a neighbor. However, by the time our technology is that advanced, there won't be much of a market (or need for) chair makers, as we will by then have a strong market for companies who produce gadgets that fuck with molecular structures and what have you.

As for not giving out source code. You can give source if you want. Just don't give me the binaries then either. I want source with my software because that is my right!

Well, that's your right if the software in question is covered under the GPL or a similar licensing scheme. Contrary to popular belief (sort of), people can do with their code whatever they damn well please.

If a program is licensed under the GPL and a distribution with that program on it ships overseas, if a person purchases the distribution but wants the source code to the encryption program, but can't download it because it's hosted in the US

It's quite simple. According to the GPL, if you can't distribute the source according to the GPL, then you can't distribute the program at all

From the GPL (section 7)
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
Program at all

So, in the case you laid out, if you are allowed by export laws to export crypto binarys (and not source) then, if that binary is covered by the GPL, then the GPL forbids any export distribution.

In short, under the GPL, if you can't distribute the source and binary, you can't distribute either.

Anyone case to therorise what would happen if someone ex-USA got a copy of a GPL crypto binary, and asked for the source? If they say yes, they are breaking export laws, if they say no, they are breeching the GPL. Quite a dilemma.
--

The last time I checked NPL gave way too much control over to Netscape/AOL to be a seriously considered as a non-profit, volunteer based effort (and I sure wouldn't contribute to any other kind,) now I see that they have an MPL in response to the criticism they received.

Yes, the NPL is indeed another one of those sneaky bastard "open source" licenses.. However, it was finalized sometime in 1998, and I don't believe AOL bought Netscape until 1999, IIRC (I don't know, do I? =P). I'm not too excited about the MPL either, however, although it is better than the NPL.. Being somewhat of a die-hard GPL'er, I'm annoyed with the MPL's incompatibility with it..

Could anyone more proficient in legalese comment on MPL, and the differences between it and L/GPL?

You may want to read On the Netscape Public License by Richard Stallman. It covers the differences between the NPL, MPL, and GPL. The GNU Project Web site is also an excellent source of information with regards to free software in general, the GNU philosophy, and the history of the movement. ;) Ok, so, enough shameless plugs..

And whatever the answer, could someone just please start a GPL browser project? Or is that being worked on already?

There are a couple well-known ones.. And a few others that I can't think of right now.. The first, and most obvious, would be Lynx, but I rather doubt that is what you are looking for.. On the other hand, there is Emacs/W3, which you may find to be of a little more interest.

The last time I checked NPL gave way too much control over to Netscape/AOL to be a seriously considered as a non-profit, volunteer based effort (and I sure wouldn't contribute to any other kind,) now I see that they have an MPL in response to the criticism they received.

Yes, the NPL is indeed another one of those sneaky bastard "open source" licenses.. However, it was finalized sometime in 1998, and I don't believe AOL bought Netscape until 1999, IIRC (I don't know, do I? =P). I'm not too excited about the MPL either, however, although it is better than the NPL.. Being somewhat of a die-hard GPL'er, I'm annoyed with the MPL's incompatibility with it..

Could anyone more proficient in legalese comment on MPL, and the differences between it and L/GPL?

You may want to read On the Netscape Public License by Richard Stallman. It covers the differences between the NPL, MPL, and GPL. The GNU Project Web site is also an excellent source of information with regards to free software in general, the GNU philosophy, and the history of the movement. ;) Ok, so, enough shameless plugs..

And whatever the answer, could someone just please start a GPL browser project? Or is that being worked on already?

There are a couple well-known ones.. And a few others that I can't think of right now.. The first, and most obvious, would be Lynx, but I rather doubt that is what you are looking for.. On the other hand, there is Emacs/W3, which you may find to be of a little more interest.

See this bug report. No solution yet.

um... what about it? QNX, Linux, NT and, apparently, OS/9 are actual, working OSes.

I think that the HURD is an actual, working OS - not vapourware. At least, that's what the GNU people claim:

The Hurd is real software that works Right Now. It is not a research project or a proposal. You don't have to wait at all before you can start using and developing it.

But despite this, they have it in 'projects' rather than 'software'. So maybe you are right that it isn't finished yet - or at least, not fully tested and debugged yet. But clearly, QNX is not the 'only' fully modular OS.

QNX is the only totally modular OS that I know of. It's truly a microkernel OS -- all the kernel does is message passing, process creation, memory management, and timer control... drivers, filesystems, even the scheduler runs as separate processes.

What about the HURD?

uhh no , if that were true you wouldn't see products like RedHat, Suse or any other distribution. You are free to charge for GPL'd software, you merely have to abide by the terms of the GPL. Try reading the license. If Sun or some other company wants to publish their source , more power to them. If they want to gain the advantages of open source and join the community of open source as defined by GNU/Linux advocates thats even better. -Cheers

I agree. I do not think breaking up Microsoft is the best solution, or even a viable one.

Breaking up MSFT along product lines (i.e., an OS company, an applications company, etc.) would likely just result in a lot of little monopolies. True, it might force the OS company to be more open about their APIs, but even that could be circumvented.

Breakup MSFT up into three identical but smaller MSFTs would likely cause no end of grief while not solving the actual problems anti-trust law was created to prevent -- in this case, high prices, low quality, unfair competition.

Forcing them to port their applications to other OSes would require choosing those OSes, and likely result in poor-quality ports. No, that is not what a free market is about.

Requiring them to open up their file formats and APIs might work. It would level the playing field quite a bit, I suppose. The problem is, even MSFT doesn't understand their APIs. Read their Windows documentation sometime; it is full of errors and ommisions. MSFT might also still be able to leverage their OS monopoly effectively with PC OEMs.

I think the best bet might be to force MSFT to GPL anything and everything that comes with the Windows disc (or the OEM kit, for OEMs).

It has a certain appeal to it. It prevents them from doing anything with their OS monopoly, as any attempt at product bundling would have to be open source. It cripples a keystone of their monopoly. It also lets them keep their Office cash cow, so they can continue to "innovate" in a less critical market segment.

The obvious answers--to restrict contracts between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, or to break up the company--will not make a crucial difference. The former might encourage the availability of computers with the GNU/Linux system preinstalled, but that is happening anyway. The latter would mainly help others proprietary application developers compete, which would only offer users alternative ways to let go of their freedom.

1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.

Anaconda kicks much tail.

Does anyone else notice a pattern here?

• Anaconda
• Asp and Asp 2
• Boa
• Bushmaster
• Caiman
• Cobra (Mk I and Mk III)
• Copperhead
• Coriolis
• Gecko
• Krait
• Mamba
• Python
• Sidewinder
• Viper 1 and 2
• Worm 1 and 2

Nominating companies or applications to match Hognose, Dodo, and Thargoid is left as an exercise to the reader.

K: Why isn't there an entry for "free software" in the Jargon Dictionary?

ESR: Zounds! You know, until this moment, I didn't realize that entry was missing.
I don't think you want me to write it, though. I would find it hard to avoid using phrases like "rhetorical millstone around our necks" and "held us back for fifteen years". Care to submit one yourself?

How about letting RMS write it?

It's a good thing he's not writing the entry for "Open Source", he might find it hard to avoid using phrases like "commercial pandering", "misleading" and "fear of freedom"...

http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

It's not smelling funny: there's a Debian GNU/Hurd port in progress; see Kernel Cousin debian-hurd for progress info.

The Hurd still has some very neat ideas that appeal to kernel hackers. I really don't know if it will be successful, it's still in early development. If it picks up enough steam, it may well make it, as it can run just about everything Linux runs.

Having proprietary software like these for Linux doesn't hurt us.

Yeah, it does. It hurts in the same way that non-free documentation does, like ORA's books do. To divert to that topic, free software needs free manuals. ORA's books make people think "Why bother writing a manual; ORA already have a good book for this software." In the same way, non-free software available makes people think "Why bother writing stuff; just get it from real.com". This is the whole fundamental point behind gnu and the fsf.

To summarise that, what else should I use to play my realmedia in Linux? "Use what you want" doesn't work when the standards are closed or obfuscated like real. pdf is much better in this respect and staroffice/msoffice are slightly better. The only real solution, though, is free software, plain and simple. While there is non-free software there will be these kinds of problems. (Sorry if I sound like a free software nazi, but this is just how I feel - I know that a world of only free software is pretty utopian.)

StarOffice does have a small place, though, where you mention converting stuff (and I understand the rock and hard place you're stuck between). However, I think mswordview, and/or microsoft's own free (beer) office viewers would be a better solution here (assuming you don't need to make msword docs).

Minivend is licensed under the GPL.

--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page

"Right, the GPL restricts your rights to guarantee the rights of others."

I'm not sure I follow. Even if this were true (the usual arguement is that the designer is then bereft of their rights, which are then dispersed into the community as a whole), the GPL only restricts what the designer of the software allows it to restrict. GPL'ed software is just as useless to proprietary people as proprietary software is to the rest of us, with regards to a certain point of view.

"But I think that "Open Source" is more discriptive of the idea of the GPL then "free" does."

Not really. Open source is an easily corruptible term. In fact, most businesses have already corrupted it (no thanks to people such as ESR and his followers). All open source means is that you get to look at the code. Thus, the NPL and SCSL are both "open source", but come nowhere close to doing what the GPL aims to achieve. Non-believers really should read the Philosophy section of the GNU Project's Web site.

For a more eclectic point of view, think about the Alamo. The defenders of the Alamo said they were free. Not free today, yesterday, or even tomorrow, but forever. They would not later be stripped of their freedom, and made into slaves due to someone else's whim. They would fight anyone who sought to take away their freedom. This is the kind of ideal that the GPL and the philosophy behind it represents. Sure, the defenders of the Alamo couldn't make the Mexican Army happy that way, but is that something they really wanted to do..? In order to stay free you have to stand up for yourself. BSD licensing.. does not do this.

To quote Stallman himself: "Non-copyleft licenses such as the XFree86 and BSD licenses are based on the idea of never saying no to anyone--not even to someone who seeks to use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Non-copyleft licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to actively protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For that, we need copyleft." So, before you say that the GPL isn't "free", think again about what kind of "freedom" we are really talking about.

"The GPL ensures that the code will always be open source. "Free" implies the ability to do anything you want with it. The BSD allows this."

As I said, a usual BSD fanatic point of view. This isn't the kind of "freedom" Richard Stallman is advocating, however. Again, refer to the aforementioned section of the FSF site. And the BSD license does /not/ allow me to do whatever I want with it. The two licenses aren't precisely compatible, so I can't integrate GPL'ed and BSD'ed software freely (that is, mix the code in the same program). That's not entirely "free" based on the way you seem to define the term, now is it?

"There are benefits to each. Don't forget that. We need them both. But they *do* serve different purposes."

Yup. Of course not. Nope. Yup.

I much prefer the LGPL to the BSD flavor of licensing. Much much prefer. Of course, I'd rather the GPL, but sometimes you just /have/ to set a standard by using the LGPL because you need to succeed (and not because you just want to be popular).

In closing, I shall quote Stallman one last time: "Friends, free software developers, don't repeat a mistake. If we do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for ourw hole community."

I shall also cite an example: "The spirit of both licenses is to allow users access to the source code of the programs they are running, so that they can make modifications to suit their needs, and that they can share this code with others. However, while the BSD license only encourages people to share the improvements they make, the GPL requires people to do so if they want to distribute their modifications. Since Tim felt that people were exploiting Kaffe without contributing their improvements back to the main code base, he decided to use the more restrictive GPL for versions of Kaffe that are more recent than 0.9.2." That's from the Kaffe home page.. The licensing FAQ, to be specific.

The now obligatory cheap shot: In short, there's a big difference between being liberal and being "someone's bitch" just because you want to be popular. ;)

GPL'd source may essentially never be used in a commercial project again, as all projects it is used within are forced to become non-commercial and subject to GPL.

You don't mean commercial, you mean proprietary. The FSF has a page describing the difference.

In short, commercial software is software developed for money. Proprietary software is software which is closely-held by its owners. The two concepts are orthogonal.

Bear in mind that you (or your company), as the author of a piece of software, have the right to release it under any license you like. This means that even after you release it under the GPL, you may re-release under a different license, so long as you do not include any modifications which are copyrighted by someone else. The FSF insists that "official" GNU software must have copyright assigned to the FSF for this reason, and to give them a stronger position if the GPL must ever be defended in court.

Releasing free software is a gesture of good will to users and to potential co-developers. Releasing free software under the GPL is a *promise* -- you won't take other people's free contributions and close them again without their permission. To release under the GPL is also foreclosing the ability of *other* developers re-releasing your software under a more restrictive license -- something that happens to BSD licensed software all the time -- without your co-operation. With your co-operation, anything is still possible.

Have you noticed that Cygnus releases software under the GPL which it doesn't give away for free? Customers have the *right* to copy and disseminate such programs to one another, but they choose to pay for it. Surely such software is worth quite a bit to those customers.

The FSF itself also makes a point of *selling* its software for a good price -- people can get it for free by download, but many continue to shell out hundreds for the official GNU distributions.

the terms of use are more invasive than the most predatory license agreements...

This is patently false. The GPL places NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER on use. It restricts *only* distribution of copies and of modified versions. Read it!

Jonathan

"The accusations of communism really are not justified, even hard core free software people like RMS are NOT communists."

I believe he once described himself as a combination of a leftist anarchist and a (?) libertarian (sp?). ;)

"It is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The "Free Software" "OSS" movement comes directly from the modern scientific method of peer review."

Actually, the free software movement is a direct result of Richard Stallman's ethical views. Yes, it's also a matter of practical concerns, but RMS would rather have free software even if it was technically inferior. See: Why Software Should Be Free (a shorter version can be found here).

The open source movement stems from those like ESR who are.. well, I won't go into detail on my thoughts. The original advocates thought that the term free software scared big business. And it did. However, now the term is corrupted beyond recognition (by.. guess who!? big business..), and also appears to have become the norm these days. How sad. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''.

Perhaps "slave" is a rather strong term in this case, and I can't recall if Stallman ever described it that way or not, but it's closer to the truth than most. The free software movement, however, was /not begun due to practical concerns, but rather ethical ones!!/. See: The GNU Project.

"The accusations of communism really are not justified, even hard core free software people like RMS are NOT communists."

I believe he once described himself as a combination of a leftist anarchist and a (?) libertarian (sp?). ;)

"It is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The "Free Software" "OSS" movement comes directly from the modern scientific method of peer review."

Actually, the free software movement is a direct result of Richard Stallman's ethical views. Yes, it's also a matter of practical concerns, but RMS would rather have free software even if it was technically inferior. See: Why Software Should Be Free (a shorter version can be found here).

The open source movement stems from those like ESR who are.. well, I won't go into detail on my thoughts. The original advocates thought that the term free software scared big business. And it did. However, now the term is corrupted beyond recognition (by.. guess who!? big business..), and also appears to have become the norm these days. How sad. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''.

Perhaps "slave" is a rather strong term in this case, and I can't recall if Stallman ever described it that way or not, but it's closer to the truth than most. The free software movement, however, was /not begun due to practical concerns, but rather ethical ones!!/. See: The GNU Project.

"The accusations of communism really are not justified, even hard core free software people like RMS are NOT communists."

I believe he once described himself as a combination of a leftist anarchist and a (?) libertarian (sp?). ;)

"It is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The "Free Software" "OSS" movement comes directly from the modern scientific method of peer review."

Actually, the free software movement is a direct result of Richard Stallman's ethical views. Yes, it's also a matter of practical concerns, but RMS would rather have free software even if it was technically inferior. See: Why Software Should Be Free (a shorter version can be found here).

The open source movement stems from those like ESR who are.. well, I won't go into detail on my thoughts. The original advocates thought that the term free software scared big business. And it did. However, now the term is corrupted beyond recognition (by.. guess who!? big business..), and also appears to have become the norm these days. How sad. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''.

Perhaps "slave" is a rather strong term in this case, and I can't recall if Stallman ever described it that way or not, but it's closer to the truth than most. The free software movement, however, was /not begun due to practical concerns, but rather ethical ones!!/. See: The GNU Project.

"The accusations of communism really are not justified, even hard core free software people like RMS are NOT communists."

I believe he once described himself as a combination of a leftist anarchist and a (?) libertarian (sp?). ;)

"It is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The "Free Software" "OSS" movement comes directly from the modern scientific method of peer review."

Actually, the free software movement is a direct result of Richard Stallman's ethical views. Yes, it's also a matter of practical concerns, but RMS would rather have free software even if it was technically inferior. See: Why Software Should Be Free (a shorter version can be found here).

The open source movement stems from those like ESR who are.. well, I won't go into detail on my thoughts. The original advocates thought that the term free software scared big business. And it did. However, now the term is corrupted beyond recognition (by.. guess who!? big business..), and also appears to have become the norm these days. How sad. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''.

Perhaps "slave" is a rather strong term in this case, and I can't recall if Stallman ever described it that way or not, but it's closer to the truth than most. The free software movement, however, was /not begun due to practical concerns, but rather ethical ones!!/. See: The GNU Project.

Actually, with that statement, they hit the nail right on the head. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' for more information.

I think it amusing that they made such a point to mention Stallman, then completely neglected to talk about the deeper relationship between Linux and GNU. That's clueless. ;)

As mentioned before, they mean free as in freedom, or free speech, not free beer. It seems as if fewer and fewer people realize what the term "free software" means these days.. See: What is Free Software?.

Actually, with that statement, they hit the nail right on the head. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' for more information.

I think it amusing that they made such a point to mention Stallman, then completely neglected to talk about the deeper relationship between Linux and GNU. That's clueless. ;)

As mentioned before, they mean free as in freedom, or free speech, not free beer. It seems as if fewer and fewer people realize what the term "free software" means these days.. See: What is Free Software?.

Many people are commenting that "clean" or "standards-compliant" HTML is already portable across sundry platforms, and therefore this product is only a crutch for sloppy content providers. This is absolutely not true! Having made many webpages myself, and two or three that actually see a lot of use, I know from experience that standard HTML is one of the least standardized lingos in computing.

The reason is quite simple: people don't upgrade their browsers. Look at www.gnu.org for pete's sake! That page is specifically designed to be Lynx 2.0 compatible because use of "novelty tags" like (included in the HTML 3.2 spec) will break those clients. As a result, the page is fairly ugly.

Choose an involved combination of "standard" tags and it's a fairly safe bet that Netscape 3.0 will display it differently than Opera, which will display it differently than IE4, which will display it differently than Netscape 4.5, etc, etc.

The human is the bottleneck. People don't see a powerful incentive to upgrade their browsers, so they don't. Hence webdesigners like Rob Malda spend weeks of headache time on making their pages BassAckwards 2.7 compliant.

This transcoder, if it works, will really be a boon.

-konstant

C.

The goals outlined in the GNU Manifesto are being reached. It takes time to change the world, but it would be done and is being done.

If you distribute a binary version to someone, that someone and nobody else has the right to ask you for the source code, and you must comply.

In my opinion the betatesting of Corel's linux distribution is internal.

I don't see anything in the GPL to allow special privileges to people doing ``internal distribution'' (whatever that might be), or beta testing.

Regardless of that, as one of the copyright holders for some of the software that they are distributing, it was bizarre (to say the least) to find that I was being asked to revoke my right to distribute my own software.

Especially since if I had acceeded to the request, they would have lost their right to distribute my code (GPL clause 4) as soon as they tried it.

Woo, paradox (sort of ;)