Slashdot Mirror

If I download a bunch of GPL'd code, and change a single letter in it, am I immediately bound to redistribute it?

OTOH if they are not distributing it but are selling a service based on it (for instance they are using a modified version in the back-end for a web-site) then they should be fine.

Sincerely,
Ben

OTOH if they are not distributing it but are selling a service based on it (for instance they are using a modified version in the back-end for a web-site) then they should be fine.

Sincerely,
Ben

If I may quote from the GPL: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

Since, as others have pointed out, the GPL makes no distinction between internal and external distribution (or between "product" and "program"), there appears to be no allowance for Corel's sublicensing actions. Thus (imho, ianal) the Corel Beta License is nonbinding on any code previously released under GPL.

BUT, hopefully this will be sorted out in a peaceful, businesslike manner. With ESR and others on the task, there's no need to burn Corel in effigy just because they're having growing pains as they transition from a closed-source model to an open one. Two steps forward and one step back is better than no steps at all.

Jon

That'll be news to Richard Stallman:

The Netscape Public License, or NPL, as it was ultimately designed in 1998, is a free software license--but it has three major flaws.

But what would RMS know about free software anyway?

Check this out.

"So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money."
--
"I was a fool to think I could dream as a normal man."
B. B. Buick

The employee case is actually somewhat interesting: suppose you are an employer, you have modified the Linux kernel and now you are hiring somebody to extend your changes. You hand him a copy to work on (you "distribute"), but as part of his contract, he is not allowed to distribute further. Of course, he promptly puts the copy out for FTP and you promptly fire him. He cannot contend the firing since he violated a contract. Fine so far. But now the copyright holders of the Linux kernel will sue you, since you distributed a GPL covered work with additional restrictions (the work contract), and this is explicitly forbidden by paragraph 6 of the GPL. You have just broken copyright law (distributed a copy without permission of the copyright holders), which can result in civil as well as criminal penalties.

Also note that the people who downloaded the modified kernel via FTP now have complete GPL rights to it and may redistribute as they see fit (paragraph 4). You cannot stop them in any way.

--

Maybe the individual packages can't be controlled by Corel, but the compilation may be an independently-copyrightable work. Hence, the distribution itself might be property of Corel, while the individual components are property of others.

<IANAL>

It is my understanding that copyrighting compilations only holds for compilations which do not have their own rights. Otherwise, for instance, Author A, who writes books published by Publisher P1, could have his books "compiled" by Publisher P2, who could then publish it, and neither A nor P1 could do anything about it. The programs assembled in Debian do not relinquish their own copyright -- the GPL allows them to be distributed without explicit agreement with the copyright holders provided the GPL continues to be followed.

The GPL explicitly allows the programs to be distributed -- provided that the programs are distributed under the GPL. It becomes the purview of the copyright holders to make the case that the GPL has been violated, and assert their copyright.

</IANAL>

All of that being said, it would be a good idea for interested parties to gently and politely point out to Corel that their Beta agreement violates the GPL that allows them to distribute the software. However, they should also have some means of making an interim test version of the distribution before the product is finalized -- they just screwed up in making the beta agreement. I believe that another poster has already suggested that an amended agreement forbidding redistribution of Corel's portion (as opposed to Debian's) would be legitimate.

If there is an attempt to license the final distribution in an insane manner (such as not allowing the GPL-covered portions to be re-distributed), then the appropriate people should take appropriate steps.

Instead, what you want to do is to send your award nomination to <award-nominations@gnu.org> with the name of the person you're nominating in the subject and a short explanation as to why you think that person should get the award in the body.

No, you can't make that comparison. NT is still loaded with code that's been around since DOS, and OS's with Linux as the kernel are generally loaded with code from GNU that's been around a similar amount of time.

Unless you want to compare the NT kernel with the Linux kernel... :-) (But who can separate the NT kernel from anything... heck, you can't even pull it away from the GUI!)

This is what Richard Stallman is really working for. Freedom to learn and really use our own computers, and to allow communities to form around those systems.

We are lucky to be living in these times. I think that, in the future, computer science students will learn about the creation of software engineering in the 1970s, the genesis of the personal computer in the 1980s, and the explosion of the Internet and free software in the 1990s. That can only be a good thing.

For a rather verbose description of his thoughts on the matter, check out this piece on the GNU site. Ugh. That place is so hard to navigate.. I'm sick of having to find that link. The only remark I have to correct myself on is that the NPL is indeed a free software license. I wouldn't use it though. As far as DFSG goes, they also thought it was cool to use BIND and everything in it. See previous discussion for details.

Anyway, if you want to screw yourself over with weird licenses, go right on ahead. And, to be honest, I can say whatever I want, for whatever reason I want. Pretty weird. However, I like to stick to the facts, so yeah, I'm in sort of agreement. I'll be sticking with my guns and the GPL myself, though.

For a rather verbose description of his thoughts on the matter, check out this piece on the GNU site. Ugh. That place is so hard to navigate.. I'm sick of having to find that link. The only remark I have to correct myself on is that the NPL is indeed a free software license. I wouldn't use it though. As far as DFSG goes, they also thought it was cool to use BIND and everything in it. See previous discussion for details.

Anyway, if you want to screw yourself over with weird licenses, go right on ahead. And, to be honest, I can say whatever I want, for whatever reason I want. Pretty weird. However, I like to stick to the facts, so yeah, I'm in sort of agreement. I'll be sticking with my guns and the GPL myself, though.

Anyone seen the title of the GNU Project's Web page lately? What do those first three words say? Let's not confuse the issue.. And as far as "childish whining" goes, I don't see why so many people are so eager to drag Stallman down and kick him a few dozen times or so. Do you honestly believe he hasn't contributed anything to our community?

hmm.. well, I'm not quite sure about that. From my understanding, only the Berkeley code was stripped of the advertisement. On the rest of the BSD code, which is everything else, it either has the clause or doesn't.

Sure, now the BSD networking code is largly free, due to UCB. But, Berkeley didn't write all the code in NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD, did they? Others tacked on their varient of the clause, while others took it off entirely.

On the GNU website where they recomend the GPL over the BSDL (obviously was slightly updated due to the p.3 removal), they like to give their propiganda speeches, etc. I'm already a bit disgusted of the GNU project from just reading that.. but that's just becuase I don't see them as freedom fighters, more of lobbyists.

What they say there, if you go read, is that FreeBSD agreed to change once it was asked of them (I find that shows the maturity of the people on BSD side), etc. That doesn't mean everyone uses the new BSDL, many have their varient.

I also don't want to start a big war (would be fun if others were up to discussing it in a rational, logical way), on whether the clause was better or not. In some ways, I think it was a protection against the GPL'ing of BSD, which snobby zealots like to talk about, saying they'd love to create another fork, etc. GPL'ing for the good of the community I can understand and be behind, but I really can't imagine anyone being that grown up to do it.

And people already are working on it. Some take BSD code and submit it to the GPL groups (this happened in reverse once. I (believe) it was NetBSD that accidentally had GPL code in it and they immediately removed it. Its nice GNU didn't laugh at them and force the rest of the surrounding code GPL'd). Others claim they are working on removing any code with clause 3 in FreeBSD and GPL'ing it (someone from CMU said they were doing this (on slashdot). True or not, some one s bound to try). It just goes on, and on...

But your right, it would be the true test. And I really can't see it as helping BSD. I would suspect that once its GPL'd, the popularity of Linux means it will be imbedded in that system. Insead of BSD getting better, it will be leeched for its treasures. Linux will get better, Linux will get the credit, Linux will get the publicity, Linux will get the developers, and BSD will be hurt. Its legal, but its disrespectful to the groups.

It would be just like going to a user/news group and starting a license flame war. It was done to piss them off, to show that you can, and the thrill (I believe) is your going into their homes and and trying to demean them. Its really quite childish, which I think over the year both sides have basicly admitted to and try to stop it. But GPL'ing BSD code just to do it and put it in Linux is the same. At least that's my opinion, others may disagree.

Come on people. Does anybody out there consider Netscape (now owned by AOL) and/or Mozilla to be an "Evil Thing"? Ever wonder why most of the development of Mozilla is done by Netscape despite their open source invitation? If you really want something "insightful" or "informative", I suggest that you check out this page on the GNU Project Web site. Maybe I'm just a loon, but after reading this, it seems to me that trying to integrate an official part of the GNU Project into such software would be a rather silly notion at best.

Won't.. Linux.. be pissed? Pardon, but I seem to be a bit confused. Of course, while it is true that it would be a more technically accurate assertation to make if one said that the Free Software Foundation was based in Boston, Massacusetts than the GNU Project (although the two are practically synonymous, there are a few key differences).. or perhaps that the GNU Project was launched to accomplish a number of goals, of which releasing a free operating system was only the first. Of course, anyone who was interested could easily pick up all of this information at the GNU Project's Web site. But then, the media never has been known for doing their research, eh? I once read an article in a local newspaper that talking about Web design and mentioned HTML as being a programming language.

Other than that, the statement remarked upon by the original poster is mostly accurate. After all, the OS that the GNU Project eventually came up with was called GNU/Linux. Many people (mostly the media and the people who believe them) think that when one says "Linux kernel" that what is really meant by that statement is "the kernel for Linux" when the truth of the matter is that Linux is the name of the kernel used in the GNU OS. Therefore, as Richard Stallman states (and the Debian distribution respects), it is more appropriately referred to as GNU/Linux. Richard wants to have another GNU OS using Hurd as the kernel, but there's not too much development in that area from what I know.

I guess what originally drew me to comment on this post was simply.. how can a kernel for an OS get pissed off at anything? I would love to see posts that are a little more specific. Vague comments without a lot of backing tend to be.. well, vague. Not to mention annoying.

By the way, no, I'm not trying to detract from the work of Linus Torvalds. His is just as important as many (well, more than most, actually), although Richard Stallman is rarely given the credit he truly deserves.

/usr/src/linux/COPYING

or, if you for some reason are not running Linux:

here

1. Refers to the orignal program's source code

You may charge a fee for the physical act of tranferring a copy...

2. Refers to a modified program

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

3. regarding binary distibutions...you must

a) Accompany it with the ... source code
b) Accompany it with a written offer .. three year ... source code

All of the above require that what is released be released under the GPL.

So, they only have to distribute to their customers, BUT they CAN'T prevent their customers from redisributing.

The inter-operability problems with Linux are just horrible. You have to be excruciatingly careful because all the different flavours of Linux are all slightly different.

What problems can possibly be so bad? Have they heard of GNU Autoconf? And what's wrong with just concentrating on one distribution? I bet RH would cooperate. And us Debian users would find a way to make it work on our systems too.

Ironic how the biggest growth segment in the software industry is Linux related goods and services.

Go read the the documents here and in particular The GNU Manifesto. There you will see that a new "software industry" is envisioned.

As it stands today, most people in the "Information Technology" industry do not make money by creating or selling proprietary software, but rather by being paid to create software for a specific need or to support software or systems already created.

I, for one, see the beginnings of a vibrant industry where we are paid to adapt, integrate and modify software. I've been in the "software industry" for nearly 20 years and the vast majority of the work I have done has been in the modification, support and integration of software that already existed.

Perhaps you think that Richard Stallman was intent on destroying the software industry and that the documents I mentioned above are deceptions. A lot of things can be said about Richard Stallman, but one thing I think is clear about him is that he is a man without guile (except for that Scheme dialect :-)) or subtletly. If Richard Stallman's intent was to destroy the software industry, he would have said it and he would have said it clearly.

Ironic how the biggest growth segment in the software industry is Linux related goods and services.

Go read the the documents here and in particular The GNU Manifesto. There you will see that a new "software industry" is envisioned.

As it stands today, most people in the "Information Technology" industry do not make money by creating or selling proprietary software, but rather by being paid to create software for a specific need or to support software or systems already created.

I, for one, see the beginnings of a vibrant industry where we are paid to adapt, integrate and modify software. I've been in the "software industry" for nearly 20 years and the vast majority of the work I have done has been in the modification, support and integration of software that already existed.

Perhaps you think that Richard Stallman was intent on destroying the software industry and that the documents I mentioned above are deceptions. A lot of things can be said about Richard Stallman, but one thing I think is clear about him is that he is a man without guile (except for that Scheme dialect :-)) or subtletly. If Richard Stallman's intent was to destroy the software industry, he would have said it and he would have said it clearly.

And the reason HURD exists, is because Linux isn't a GNU project.
This may be the case, but at least RMS's enormous ego demands that hurd will be: a) very different from the linux kernel, b) superior in every way, c) more ambitious than any commercial product.

If any of these demands aren't met, all work on the hurd will likely have been in vain... ...competiton between the hurd developers and the linux developers is probably a good thing.

This is only vaporware at the moment, but we're duscussing business software and the needs around it on our mailing list. If you're interested in that topic, please join us.

movement is doing a lot in this direction. Cryptography is on top of the list. Free, easy to use, public domain cryptographic tools are a necessity. And with a few targeted public research grants they could become a reality rather sooner than later. An other

The Gnu Privacy Guard already provides freely available, easy to use public key cryptography. It's extremely simple to integrate it as a filter in eg. Pine or your favourite mailer. Version 1.0 is due out RSN, and 0.9.11 was released today.

- Aidan

The FSF pushes this drivel. Stallman says "Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other people's lives. see The GNU Manifesto for this and other scary statements.

This is why some Free Software advocates (like myself) are scared of the GPL because of the type of thinking that went into writing it.

"Many people think that Unisys has given permission for distributing free software to make GIF format. Unfortunately that is not what Unisys has actually done. Here is what Unisys actually says about the matter:

No license or license fees are required for non-commercial, not-for-profit GIF-based applications or for non-commercial, not-for-profit GIF-freeware, so long as the LZW capability provided is only for GIF. However, a license is required if freeware is incorporated into, or sold or distributed with a commercial or for-profit product, introduced in 1995 [or later], or enhancements of products that were introduced prior to 1995.

In other words, Unisys may allow the community to develop a program like the GIMP, but it can't be included in the Red Hat Boxed Set, or even the Cheapbytes $1.99 Debian CD, without Red Hat and Cheapbytes each paying royalties. This is NOT a good solution. Again, according to the GNU website, this turns Red Hat and Debian into "semi-free" operating systems. "[T]he distribution terms for the operating system as a whole are the conjunction of the distribution terms for all the programs in it. Adding one semi-free program to the system would make the system as a whole just semi-free. [...] Including one semi-free program in an operating system would cut off commercial CD-ROM distribution for it."

This is not a reasonable solution. I encourage everyone to convert their GIFs to JPEGs or PNGs instead. A good PNG overview site can be found at http://www.cdrom.com/pub/png/. Good luck!

The spirit of Free software says that if you want to build a better mousetrap, shut the fuck up and build it.

Sure. Then when the patent holder comes beating upon your door and oh-so-politely informs you that your mousetrap has violated such-and-such patents, you can just hand over your firstborn son.

You've missed the point with patents. The reason everyone is so upset with Unisys and other software patent holders is that we can't build our mousetraps any more.

What a patent does is not very well understood by the average person, even the average technical person. Unlike a copyright (which covers the expression of an idea) a patent gives the holder total and unlimited control over an idea. If you use that idea to write a program, you're violating the patent. Even if you come up with the idea independently you're violating the patent.

Any program that creates an LZW-compressed GIF file is in violation of the Unisys patent. Unless it's licensed. That means that there's no way you can create GIF files with free software without violating the patent, at least if Roblimo's interpretation of this Unisys PR guy is correct. (1: Free software must be free for commercial use. 2: Unisys will not give free licenses for LZW "technology" for commercial use. Ergo 3: Free software cannot use LZW "technology", and 4: Free software cannot produce LZW-compressed GIF images. QED.)

So, while I'm not one of the ones who blasted Unisys in e-mail, I do understand and support the position (albeit not the tactics) of those who did the blasting. There is a reason for it, which you'd do well to research. I suggest The League for Programming Freedom as a starting point.

hmm.... it appears that i'm wrong. GNU just don't use GIF's on their website

Anyone remember .Z files? gunzip can uncompress them, but gzip can't create them. That's because they use Unisys' state-of-the-art patented LZW algorithm. You need to use compress(1) to create them (people used to alias compress to a shorter name). Of course, the gzip algorithm gives (slightly) better results.

In fact, a recent /. poll showed that 0% of all users prefer .Z!

This issue has been known for quite a while. These patents make it impossible to have free software to generate proper GIFs. See www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html for an explanation.

Use the LGPL, that's what it's there for.

btw, keep in mind what happened when KDE did this. A free program (especially a good one) which requires non-free libraries is likely to cause a lot of problems with users. You may want to try and find a free library which fills a similar function to the non-free one you are currently using.

Dysprosium

As Richard Stallman says, patent reform is not enough.

Also take a look at the League for Programming Freedom and freepatents.org.

Reading his story about breaking into BMP et al reminded me of a talk show I saw a few years ago. The topic was credit card scams, or some such thing. The guests has on the silly disguises like hats, sun glasses, and fake mustaches. At the end of the show a number of police officers made an "unexpected" appearance and arrested the guests.

If this self proclaimed hacker is guilty of all his claims, I don't think he would have his own personal editors. He would have his lawyers.

I imagine BMP doesn't care about his cracking because it is actually just hype. They wanted a computer geek for the show. He knew a little bit about computers and had a look they liked. So they enhanced his resume to make him more interesting. The kid probably doesn't know the GPL from the GH-EULA

It's called the Free Software Foundation. Go to www.gnu.org/help/donate.html. It explains how you can donate to the FSF --- even via the United Way.

"I want to use software that doesn't suck." - ESR
"All software that isn't free sucks." - RMS

well, some of you :).

"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium..." -- GNU General Public License

Most of the programs in Linux distributions are under the GPL or similar licenses. Where in these licenses does it say, ".. except if someone else has already distributed the program?" I write program ABC, I release it under the GPL. Everyone in the world is free to copy it, mirror it on ftps all around the globe, modify it, even put it on a distribution CD. Are these programs only to be distributed by one vendor?

Yet, there is a ton of people that come out for EVERY Mandrake Linux story here, bitching and moaning about how they just "stole" everything from RedHat, and they do not even deserve the right to exist. With Corel's upcoming distribution based on Debian, will this same situation arise? I sure hope not.

We release programs under the GPL so that they are able to be used/copied/etc for everyone. So where on Earth does this hostility for a small group following the copy clause of the GPL have ANY legitimacy?? If you do not want your program to be copied freely, give it a license that states something like, "This program can only be used on Debian systems, and not any stupid copy-cat distributions either, just the genuine Debian one." As author of a program, that's your right. But you have no right to say, "These people should not copy programs, because well, RedHat already did it."

If you come up with conspiracy theories like stockholders demanding RedHat not allow this sort of behavior, then the stockholders should have read RH's IPO statement, should learn about a company and how it gets the programs on its CDs, etc, before investing any money in it. If this homework is done (primarily reading the GPL a few times), you will see the copy clauses and either believe in them and invest your money, or get scared by them and not invest. If RedHat did anything so close as to make a distribution unable to be copied (they couldn't use any GPLed code, so that would require totally reengineering EVERYTHING), they would get hounded so horribly they would have to go out of business as I doubt anyone in this community would ever trust them again. That is a much larger risk for them than shooting down everyone who wants to copy the distribution.

The official people involved, both RedHat and Mandrake, have said they do not mind either side. Bob Young is always asked this, when I saw him at Comdex this Spring and again at LinuxWorld just a few days ago.

What's this mean for the Linux community at large? Yes, you can copy a Mandrake CD and slap a label on it that says, "Slappy Joe's Spiffy Linux," and sell it for $20, $50, even $199.99. But, to win the hearts of anyone, and make a name for yourself you will have to put in work and make it something that is noticable. Copying alone doesn't win you Product of the Year awards

So, shut your pieholes and do something useful with your time.

This wonderful pseudo-FAQ explains why and how better than I can.

The downside to systems like this is specifically addressed starting around #48 in the above, but it's worth reading the whole page (and possibly rms's illustrative sci-fi piece) if you have time.

This comment should be archived (if that is the right word) and sent to http://www.gnu.org for posting there -- they like this sort of thing.
John

I always thought that the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE was a beautiful document, worthy of being labeled art, and now perhaps helping define a new age of, art?

why limit it's potential by calling it art,
the new soul humanity has been searching for.

perhaps we'll find god there.
am I getting carried away?
I can see it, some don't even try.

Peace
Dolio

ps- could someone clean up this code for me ? ;)
#!/bin/sh
# You Get the idea.
#
comet="0"
earth="1"
Current_Definition="Open-Source Linux Science God Mind Soul Reality yadda_yadda"
#
until [ $comet = $earth ] ; do
for Attempt in $Current_Definition ; do
echo $Attempt, Such a Grand Tool, will we learn to use it ?
done
done
echo you lose, try again.
#
##

See the free-software-song page at gnu.org;)

http://www.gnu.org/music/free-soft ware-song.html

There seems to be some misunderstanding in your posting about the difference between Free Software and the GPL. Software that is released under the GPL is Free Software (and the GPL makes sure that it stays that way which is very important to some people). But all software that is release under a license (or put in the public domain) that gives the users of that software the freedom to use use, study, adapt, redistribute and improve software is considered Free Software. (Please read What is Free Software? on the GNU web site.)

I don't know where you got the notion that people want them to release the code under the GPL since that might be impossible if they have used Qt which is released under the QPL. The QPL is to restrictive to be combined with the GPL. (Which doen't say that Qt isn't Free Software!). The only thing that people seem to want is that it is released as Free Software and that they don't invent Yet Another Public License, which would only add to the confusion of what Free Software is really about. Nobody says that they must release under the GPL if they cannot legally do so.

Check out UCB logo at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/ucblogo/ Trust me, there's a lot more educational value in it than you think (ask all the current 20 year olds what they used in grade school) and, in my opinion, has more educational value than dummy down software like Encarta. But if you don't believe me, ask someone who has done extensive research in education (also the writer of this software). Mail Brian and tell him that you're interested in using logo for educational purposes and he'll gladly give you some advice.

rms describes Oracle's ``Open Source'' strategy in
http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html:

At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.

He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)

People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?

He did not miss the usual point associated with the term ``open source.'' That point says nothing about freedom, it says only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it will make for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling for other reasons to carry out this approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. The GNU project will stick to the term ``free software'', and I hope that you will too.

Just because X doesn't do networked sound doesn't mean that it precludes you from doing so.
There's nothing to stop you running an audio server on a different port which clients can connect to.

Definitely. EsounD seems to work well, for one, and I've seen some X applications that rely on talking to an EsounD server to output sounds.

I don't see the problem with not having network sound built into the X server (does X even do local sound? Does audible X software typically just write to the audio device?). The `let's build everything into the X server' mindset seems somewhat silly--it just gives support to the `it's bloated' mindset.

I wanted TrueType font-support in X, so I installed XFSTT (an external font-server), and now I seem to be able to make fairly good use of TrueType fonts, without bloating the X server more. You can do the same thing with sound, and, I'd imagine, with a good-sized portion of whatever X add-on capabilities you want.

X is modular for a reason--reuse, reuse, reuse;)

Oh, yes--anyone familiar with the ideas behind HURD?

Using dynamic runtime invocation on a micro kernel object based OS would give you A LOT of what you want.Besides buzzw3rd compliance 2.0

Now go make some kick ass code

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml:

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.

Modifying a GPL'd program and keeping the changes to yourself is thus explicitly included in the spirit of the GPL.

Having the source code available pretty much ensures that anyone can do anything they want to the system. Some people will want to slow everything down because they can't keep up with the rate of change to the system. However, they will be unable to remain competitive with the fast moving systems over time. Some others will try to add in non-libre components to the free systems in order to control them, but most of us know better and will route around that kind of damage.

By far the worst threats are software patents and other forms of legal monopoly that artificially prevent free systems from competing. However, even those can be routed around given enough time and effort (and hacking of the legal system). bladeenc and the MP3 patents are a good example of how we might go around such measures.

It's also important to keep in mind that we have the source code. For the same reasons that the linux apocalypse could happen, we could one day find ourselves all switching to the HURD, or one of the BSD deviates, or some competitive new kernel that runs well on hardware that doesn't even exist yet. The only pieces of the free systems that won't survive the transition are the ones without source code and the hardware-dependent pieces.

Hi Mom!

Of course you'd have to say that Linus is the greatest man of the century - you're already a follower of and a believer in The Church of Linus Almighty.
But the issue is kind of moot - we already know who the greatest man is - Saint IGNUcius of the Church of Emacs.
It's not too late yet to salvage your unworthy souls! Repent!

The Free Film Project can be found off the GNU website. The Internet Movie Project is over here.