Slashdot Mirror

From ESR, I would add The Jargon File. The Cathedral And the Bazaar is more about Software than the Internet, but if that's there, than RMS's Why Software Should Be Free should also be there.

Another critically important RMS piece (and one more relevant to the internet) is The Right to Read.

Also there's The Declaration of Independence [of the USA], not as a document in its own right, but as the first entry into Project Gutenberg.

Getting more internetty, you've got RFC Number 1, the description of the tentative IMP protocol to be used between the four systems on the brand spanking new ARPA network.

Going to distant history (in computer terms) there is the 1945 paper by Vandemaar Bush, As We May Think, one of the inspirations for the ARPA project.

There's the 1989 whitepaper from CERN's Tim Berners-Lee, Information Management: A Proposal, the paper that started the WWW.

From ESR, I would add The Jargon File. The Cathedral And the Bazaar is more about Software than the Internet, but if that's there, than RMS's Why Software Should Be Free should also be there.

Another critically important RMS piece (and one more relevant to the internet) is The Right to Read.

Also there's The Declaration of Independence [of the USA], not as a document in its own right, but as the first entry into Project Gutenberg.

Getting more internetty, you've got RFC Number 1, the description of the tentative IMP protocol to be used between the four systems on the brand spanking new ARPA network.

Going to distant history (in computer terms) there is the 1945 paper by Vandemaar Bush, As We May Think, one of the inspirations for the ARPA project.

There's the 1989 whitepaper from CERN's Tim Berners-Lee, Information Management: A Proposal, the paper that started the WWW.

If you chop [per-copy royalties], then you aren't being adequately compensated...

1. Documentation of software is a part of the software package itself. Therefore, if the software is free, why shouldn't the documentation be free? If the software is of high quality, why should I skimp on documentation?
2. If I'm just downloading the documentation with free software, then the money lost by any one due to my having the documentation in front of me is close to nil. The difference between the money lost from letting me download software, or letting me download software and documentation, is nil. The cost difference between writing software for free, and writing documentation concurrently with the software, is not generally measurable, so again the difference is nil.

1. Hey! I wrote those docs, I should be compensated! (see Why Software Should Not Have Owners)
2. The difficulty of producing quality hardcopy documentation(i.e., going through a publisher) require a more conventional (non-free) way of doing things.

If you chop [per-copy royalties], then you aren't being adequately compensated...

1. Documentation of software is a part of the software package itself. Therefore, if the software is free, why shouldn't the documentation be free? If the software is of high quality, why should I skimp on documentation?
2. If I'm just downloading the documentation with free software, then the money lost by any one due to my having the documentation in front of me is close to nil. The difference between the money lost from letting me download software, or letting me download software and documentation, is nil. The cost difference between writing software for free, and writing documentation concurrently with the software, is not generally measurable, so again the difference is nil.

1. Hey! I wrote those docs, I should be compensated! (see Why Software Should Not Have Owners)
2. The difficulty of producing quality hardcopy documentation(i.e., going through a publisher) require a more conventional (non-free) way of doing things.

It's barfing on some weird union manipulations in /usr/include/bits/mathinline.h

Look at this URL, which seems to be related.

I don't like the USPS. I don't want to use them. But since they have a govt sanctioned monopoly I'm forced to. Put a stake though this fuckers heart already! Let a freemarket alternative take over! Better and more varied, unsubsidized service. And no more big brother bullshit like this.

You can see the full-size (albeit not full-color) version of the graphic here. It's too bad the small size hides the curve of the tummy; the whole thing does tend to look "too round" at first glance.

Personally, I like it. It's the slickest GNU-related graphics there is, really (compare the other works under /graphics that they try to pass off as art }:-)

Incidentally, to whoever created the /. icon in question-- is there anywhere we could grab the full-size, colored original? It's very nicely done, and it'd be spiffy to make new (GNU?) banners/buttons/logos out of it!

MS has already (quietly) admitted that the widely-hyped Active Directory is not a directory at all (in the sense of X.500 and LDAP) but rather a flat pseudo-directory.

[would the Hurd's translators be similar, or BSD shadow filesystems? Oh, I don't even have the slightest idea of what AD is, so it probably doesn't matter]

So, like, I figured I should read this license to figure out what's up. I looked around a bit and eventually found it.

The very first thing I noticed is that it's much, much more difficult for a layman to read and understand than the GNU GPL is. Now, everyone reading Slashdot knows how much controversy, confusion and debate the GPL has spawned -- imagine how much worse it would be if the GPL had been written in this incomprehensible style. The SCSL has no preamble which explains the intent of the license; and in order to make any sense of the text of the license, one must continually refer to the license's Glossary to figure out what is meant by all of the Capitalized Words. The SCSL is actually three or more separate licenses all concatenated together, and you have to read a meta-license to determine which of the sublicene(s) apply to you.

So, while I didn't bother reading all of the license, I got the following out of it:

• The software is only free (in the Debian Free Software Guidelines sense) for Research Use. You can't use the software freely if you actually have a job. (The Internal Deployment Use sub-license isn't free, either.)

• For any other use (including commercial use), there are unacceptable limitations. You can't distribute modifications, and you can't disassemble or reverse engineer executables.

The last thing I noticed, after I quit reading the license in disgust, was that there was a "session ID" appended to the URL. It seems that Sun wanted to track me as I browsed their site. Naughty Sun! (The actual URL that I got for the license when I finally got to it was http://www.sun.com/jini/licensing/scsl_jcp_v.1.6c_ web.html;$sessionid$E5HGUBAAAV2LDAMU VFZE3NQ -- but I snipped the "session ID" garbage from the end before adding the license link in the first paragraph.

Does Sun really think that programmers are so bone-headed that we won't see right through all of their little tricks? We (or our predecessors) are the people who built the Internet! We aren't stupid, and we notice details. Your lawyers can't bury us with avalanches of mumbo-jumbo, because we programmers will eventually pick our way through the maze and find the rotten trash you dropped at the exit.

By playing these petty little power games with us, Sun only continues to alienate us. This is why Java has met with such a cold reception among the technologically savvy user and programmer community -- Sun doesn't want to play by the rules.

Well, just remember that the ultimate power is ours, not theirs. We have the power to disregard Sun's offerings until they come up with a way to work with us instead of against us. Sun isn't offering anything we need -- they're trying to grow a market. We've already got the tools and the talent to go our own direction, without Sun's poisoned candy. So while Sun keeps shooting itself in the foot and feeding fluff to the "HTML coders", we can go on with our lives.

But don't take my word for it. Please consider the following article, written by Richard Stallman (last updated Feb 12 1999):

'On the Netscape Public License'
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/net sc ape-npl.html.

First line of the article: "The Netscape Public License, or NPL, as it was ultimately designed in 1998, is a free software license -- but it has three major flaws."

Later on in the text: "NPL-covered software is also free software without being copylefted, and this by itself does not make the NPL worse than other non-copyleft free software license."

You can see that I am not downplaying Stallman's criticism or advice on this issue (the quotes are hardly endorsements). In particular, Stallman says: "Because of these flaws, we urge that you not use the NPL or the MPL for your free software."

However, Richard Stallman has stated, publically and in writing, that the Netscape Public License qualifies as a free software license.

What special knowledge do you have that allows you to argue otherwise?

Let's see.. I have never seen any donations from RedHat; just hiring of people like Havoc Pennington, Rasterman, etcetera for their own gain.

What? They are listed among the FSF Patrons in March 1998 GNU's Bulletin.

Wow, my imagination has been getting the best of me. Apparently the HURD, gnome, enlightenment, and the Berlin project all don't really exist. Of course, if they did, they would be examples of open source innovations. Yeah, that must be it. I've just been deluding myself.

But they aren't at least with what is generally considered as "BSD terms", because of the advertisement clause, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. If the advertisement clause was "when you include this in a proprietary (only) you must credit us", this would be ok, but it isn't the case.

Of course in practice BSD code is often used silently in GPL products ; but Stallman says it is wrong.

It says that also (in clause 0 it says you must include a copy of the GPL with any copy of the source code)
What I am talking about is the fact the the text of the GPL is also a piece of intellectual property which is owned by the FSF.
Have a read of the preamble. This describes how you may use the license and it says you may not make any changes to it. You will also notice their copyright notice at the top of the page.

GNU copyleft covers

1) copying/distribution OK but must keep GPL license
2) modification/derivative works iff acknowledged + nondiscriminatory relicensing & redistribution
3) binaries OK iff source provided directly or indirectly
4) even if you screw up, your audience can do what they want so long as they don't screw up
5) above terms accepted if you modify/distribute source
6) can't deny others the same rights
7) if patented, can't distribute
8) if distribution blocked, allow geographical exclusion


Therefore if you generate the output through a web interface, you are not redistributing the original source, just output (although it would be smart to reference the original software). Hmmmm ... does this mean an unencrypted command can be automatically sent to a server outside the US, encrypted code added, then forwarded to a third party without breaking any export laws?

What a wierd world we live in.

LL

The GPL, which the Linux Kernel is distributed under, is viral.

Any code that makes use of the Linux kernel must, therefore, be distributed under the GPL or a license that is compatible with the GPL.

Also, if the GPL'd software makes calls to other software or libraries, those software or libraries must also be distributed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. The only exceptions to this are, basically, operating systems.

Folks, the GPL isn't all that arcane of obscure. Read it for yourselves at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.

1. The Communist reference. Apparently, you're the only one in the Slashdot community who hasn't received the memo (maybe you're new here, which may explain your Anonymousness... or perhaps you are just a Coward): Free Software != Communism... in a big way. If anything, it's the software licenses the QNX people like so much that are communist in nature; see the GNU philosophy documents.
   
2. The "die" portion. This was intended not as a threat, but as a warning. I personally could care less whether QNX lives or dies; it's good software, but so is a lot of stuff that the Free Software community writes (and we're many more than the QNX devel community).
   
3. The "giving it away" misconception. The question here is not whether it's free as in "free beer", but whether it's Free as in "free speech" (which does bring up the point of whether QSSL has the right to severely restrict the use of their software through licenses and to sell those at arbitrarily high prices). Software that's released through a Free license is used and reused healthily, and spawns growth in the community; software that's released proprietarily stagnates, and dies off if it's not able to compete.
   

There have been efforts like the "good software group", or Linux or BeOS's streamlined systems, or even GNU to an extent. I mean to be skeptical. What is "better"? Do we mean our smaller, more manageable systems which have less features and don't crash? I argue that anyone can make a small program which doesn't crash... it's adding features that mucks things up. Microsoft has always pushed the envelope for features, at the expense of backward compatability, robustness, and even good taste (remember the Word Paper clip?) But isn't that what their consumers wanted?

This is how they won. Now they are the biggest company in the world because everyone else just didn't get it... push the envelope on features and market those features . BeOS, Linux, and every other system has to play catch-up on the stupid features, now, if they want the Windows marketshare.

But better designed, streamlined, and fully functional unix stations seem better to us. That's because we aren't Microsoft customers, never really were, and never will be. We want something else, all we really wanted is the *choice* of which features we get. And the coolest new features, not the most. Does this mean Microsoft is wrong and we're right? In a way, no. They have more money. But we have our OS, now.

-Ben

josepha48 wrote:

If windows 2000 doesn't cost $2000 and it were to sell for $50 and has all this and included MS Office, and Dev Studio, and IIS, and a built in scripting language, and all that Linux has and 200 days of uptime it may be worth buying.

I disagree, since Linux (or FreeBSD for that matter) would still have three big benefits over such a Windows system: It's better written, more stable, and Free.


Fact is the only reason anyone is tied to Microsoft is becuase we almost all use Office and Word.

Speak for yourself. The fact is that many of us don't use Word except for those times when we have to deal with some bozo who insists on sending everything in one of the many Microsoft .doc file formats. If you're lucky, you can sometimes even avoid Word then.

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

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

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

• c) [Section C omitted, since it does not apply]

By my reading of section 3 of the GPL, TiVo has already stated their willingness to comply with section 3a) -- they will distribute the source code with their product if anyone asks for it. This might be a violation of the letter of the GPL -- my reading of the above says that to fully comply with 3a) they must distribute a copy of the source code with each and every product sold -- but it certainly seems in keeping with the spirit. After all, most home users of this product won't care about the source code, and the CD they got would be used as a coaster or something (what do you do with all your AOL "100 Free Hours!" CD's? New poll question!). So TiVo doesn't want to ship thousands of CD's that nobody will ever use, so they just ship them to the people that would use them. Seems fair to me.

Disclaimer: I am not involved with TiVo in any way; I don't even own one of their units. So my information may be inaccurate, but it's unbiased.
-----

I've been reading all sorts of things trying to make up my mind about the nature of intellectual property. One site about IP and computing is BitLaw; it has a lot articles, links, etc. offering different arguements pro and con.

One article that is similar is here. It may have been the same, I need to re-read.

Another article I'm reading is "Patents and Copyrights" by Ayn Rand, originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter (May 1964). She wrote some of the same points I've read from RMS. If you can, then find a copy of the original in the library; there have been problems with the accuracy of some reprints of her work, though not necessarily with this one.

Of course, everyone here knows where GNU is; I'm reading their arguments too.



--

There _IS_ the difference. Free Software _DOES_ work, there are _many_ examples (tests, if You wish) of this. Mozilla is _NOT_ Free Software.

So, what's the point ? If Open Source fails, so be it... Those who do not see the difference will fail as well, like Netscape "decision makers" ;).

Debates about the terms of the Netscape Public License are worthwhile. However, the premise of your "point" is simply not correct. Mozilla is Free Software . But don't take my word for it. Please consider the following article, written by Richard Stallman (last updated Feb 12 1999):

'On the Netscape Public License'
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netsc ape-npl.html.

First line of the article: "The Netscape Public License, or NPL, as it was ultimately designed in 1998, is a free software license -- but it has three major flaws."

Later on in the text: "NPL-covered software is also free software without being copylefted, and this by itself does not make the NPL worse than other non-copyleft free software license."

You can see that I am not downplaying Stallman's criticism or advice on this issue (the quotes are hardly endorsements). In particular, Stallman says: "Because of these flaws, we urge that you not use the NPL or the MPL for your free software."

However, Richard Stallman has stated, publically and in writing, that the Netscape Public License qualifies as a free software license. What special knowledge do you have that allows you to argue otherwise?

Please, next time you wish to criticize Mozilla or Netscape or whomever, try to do so on substantive grounds. And check your facts before SHOUTING.

Here's a very incomplete list of GNU contributors:

http://www.gnu.org/people/people.html

If you've contributed to the project, contact webmasters@gnu.org.

-joyspring (forgot my password!)

Here's a very incomplete list of GNU contributors:

http://www.gnu.org/people/people.html

If you've contributed to the project, contact webmasters@gnu.org.

-joyspring (forgot my password!)

... and I mean this in the best possible way. Hasn't anyone else read ESR's interview at linux.com where he talks about calibrating for media interest? The media are pathetically poor at reporting subtle (or even not-so-subtle) philosophical nuances. The media are great at reporting conflict and personality clashes -- it's their bread and butter. So, if RMS and ESR let their subtle (though not necessarily unimportant) clash over strategy and tactics into the media, they sustain interest in both "free" and "open source" software, and more folks end up actually reading the GNU Manifesto and the Open Source Definition.

I would also like to note that part of the "clash" between RMS and ESR probably relates to the fact that RMS is an ethicist and a philosopher, and ESR is an aikidoka. RMS is concerned that the ethical imperitive and philosophical underpinnings of free software are not lost in the new emphasis on "open source" as a marketing strategy. ESR is a student of Aikido. In Aikido, you don't confront your opponent with force-vs-force, but you redirect your opponent's engergy in a less destructive way. Also, it is believed that simply doing Aikido is the primary way to absorb and begin to practice the philosophy of peaceableness, rather than beginning by studying the writings of O-Sensei.

So, RMS is trying intellectual and moral persuasion in order to promote free software. ESR is trying to get more corporations to do free software, and trusting that the philosophy will follow. Both approaches are complementary, not contradictory. I'm glad we have both RMS and ESR.

Although several of my non-hacker friends tend to get really scared of RMS' phrasing (see the essay entitled Why Software Should Not Have Owners for an example of something that made at least three people uneasy), I find it somewhat ironic that they respond better to the idea of a "free software" movement rather than an "open source" movement. Next on the agenda: dig up some of ESR's stuff to show them.

Naturally, the immediate utility of open source is to hackers who want to tinker with the functionality of a program. (Which would indirectly benefit ordinary consumers who would get products with fewer "features" and more features.) As for the ordinary person? The price matters more than a few tens of thousands of lines of C++.

At least the corporations respond better to the idea of "open source."

Disclaimer: Yes, I have an email address at gnu.org. This doesn't mean that I follow RMS in lock-step; this means that I have contributed to free software and needed an email alias and shell account.

Disclaimer: I have a lot of respect for ESR, for his code contributions, the Jargon File, and his work as an Open Source advocate.

I really don't understand how ESR could have written this response, if he really read what RMS wrote (and followed this link, where RMS lays out some of the differences between Free Software and Open Source). I would suggest that everyone here read this link, if you haven't yet.

ESR can claim all he wants that our community has only taken off in the last year or so with the advent of the term Open Source. This all depends on what you mean by taken off! If you mean, as a platform we've managed to attract the interest of developers who want to make money and push non-free software, than yes, I guess we have. But I think we were doing fine when we were writing software that we love, that works well, and that is *free*.

RMS may be a zealot, if that's a term you like. But I think RMS is lucky. He's lucky to be one of those people that really believes something, and can live by his beliefs. I would urge everyone to remember, while you're celebrating the newfound popularity of Linux and the GNU system, to remember what got us here. We wouldn't have such a solid, fully featured operating system without free software. The interests of big companies and investors with tons of money didn't get us here; we got ourselves here, by insisting on free software.

--
Ian Peters

Now if he would just raise his arm a little he would be Adolf Hitler too !

hi Tom,

Ever had a close look at the GNU Website lately?

Notice how they they define software freedom, then explain the purpose of copyleft? Notice how they explain how you can be free without copyleft (like X), but they defend why copyleft is so much better? (and it is).

This seems pretty plain language to me. Please don't slander GNU by saying they use tricks and don't say what they mean. If you go to their website it's very plain. As someone else has said, when you take cheap shots only you look cheap.

ta,
wayne

hi Tom,

Ever had a close look at the GNU Website lately?

Notice how they they define software freedom, then explain the purpose of copyleft? Notice how they explain how you can be free without copyleft (like X), but they defend why copyleft is so much better? (and it is).

This seems pretty plain language to me. Please don't slander GNU by saying they use tricks and don't say what they mean. If you go to their website it's very plain. As someone else has said, when you take cheap shots only you look cheap.

ta,
wayne

The sheer number of clauses goes to your objection to the complexity of the definition of `freedom'. Other than clause 2, I don't find a lot of objectionable language. I can see the need for clauses to cover complications like interaction with other IP law (clause 7) or laws in other countries (clause 8). A few clauses are closer to informational than legal, like clause 9 about GPL version numbers. Generally, I share your concern (or what I take to be your concern) about the large number of clauses, but it's hard to fault specifics aside from volume, and the confusing language in clause 2.

I was just looking back over the GNU Manifesto. I think it must have been revised since the last time I saw it. I recall something to the effect that `programmers shouldn't make too much money'. That bothered me, why should RMS get to decide my salary? But I don't find that bit in the current version. Maybe it alienated enough people that it was removed.

The sheer number of clauses goes to your objection to the complexity of the definition of `freedom'. Other than clause 2, I don't find a lot of objectionable language. I can see the need for clauses to cover complications like interaction with other IP law (clause 7) or laws in other countries (clause 8). A few clauses are closer to informational than legal, like clause 9 about GPL version numbers. Generally, I share your concern (or what I take to be your concern) about the large number of clauses, but it's hard to fault specifics aside from volume, and the confusing language in clause 2.

I was just looking back over the GNU Manifesto. I think it must have been revised since the last time I saw it. I recall something to the effect that `programmers shouldn't make too much money'. That bothered me, why should RMS get to decide my salary? But I don't find that bit in the current version. Maybe it alienated enough people that it was removed.

Collectivism means to me just the philosophy that a bunch of people working together is better than people working apart. It's a philosophy that most modern businesses seem to follow, and far from a bad thing.

I'll use your term Statism, since your definition of that agrees with mine. I agree that Statism is a bad thing. I disagree that RMS is a Statist. He rarely addresses the Government in his writings, much less the Will of the Government. Where he does address the Government, he is critical of them, particularly how they handle the topic of Intellectual Property. Would a Statist be so critical?

The examples you give are not very illuminating of your ideas. You bring up the conscription of soldiers, in what way can anything RMS is doing be tied into the draft?!?! You say that a common policy is to penalize the productive so the non-productive may benifit. I can see how the non-productive benefit from what RMS is doing, but that is a costless side effect. How is anything he is doing penalizing the productive?

You write:
My problem with RMS is that not only does he wish to give his property away (which, of course, is his right), he wishes to establish a system where everyone is obligated to give away their property. Without property, there can be no other rights.

Here's the rub, here's the only point where i've seen your views differ with RMS's. RMS feels that intellectual property law as it now stands is a crutch to support the non-productive publishing giants. You think that it actually helps productive people. Why bring all this name calling and false representation into it?

Stallman's EMACS was brilliant in the 1970s, but today we demand more, specifically Microsoft Word, which can't be written over a weekend, no matter how much Coke you drink.
- Bob Metcalfe

• Emacs runs on pretty much any hardware that can run [Free|Net|Open]BSD, Solaris, SunOS, Ultrix, or Linux.
• Emacs has a free (of course) API called Emacs LISP (or elisp, for short) enabling you to write pretty much any extension you want. Even, as the homepage notes, a web browser that runs inside emacs.
• Emacs has interactive/context sensitive modes for editing a wide variety of documents, including HTML, Lisp, C++, Prolog...

Put on your glasses and watch http://www.gnu.org/people/saintignucius .jpg for a picture of RMS as an evangelist :)

This sort of tension has always existed: Henry David Thoreau

But!

We have the technology! We have the talent! We are connected!

What still needs doing: GNU Encryption

:-)

Overall I'm still happy about the way stuff is going.

--MolochHorridus, juvenile rockthrower.

I said it before, and I'll say it again... UNIX style OS at the core is something I have a great deal of respect for, and a wealth of GNU applications are supported BOTH in open source UNIX and commercial UNIX. When you add to that the huge number of GNU applications that can be easily compiled on a UNIX system using a standard X11R6 structure, there is just SOO MUCH code already out there that I think it's hard for me to say "oh, let's ditch it all, and go to something totally new, and, oh, BTW, it's commercial, and oh, BTW, did we mention that we want all those people who have contributed to GNU to drop everything and port to our OS and windowing system?"

Don't get me wrong, I am not just BeOS bashing. I see what they are trying to do, and I respect that. I just am not excited about it. If you want to know what WOULD excite me, it's replacing standard X with something like Berlin, and replacing the standard macrokernels with something like Hurd, because that keeps it all GPL, will make it possable for software to be more "portable" to Both commercial and free UNIX's, and will allow people to build "optimized" OS's for multimedia, gaming, office apps, servers, cad, etc... AND, the specialized OS's will still be able to probably grab a GNU app that was intended to run on a system optimized for something else, and still run it. Microkernel, making it easier to ditch un-needed overhead, and new windowing system based in GPL code. That's exciting.

I think BeOS is neat, but I think QNX is neat too, and so is MacOS X, and ... but, I am not doing cart-wheels over them, because 1) I can't afford the time to mess with them, 2) I can't afford to buy them all to find out I might not like them, 3) It's taking me away from my "roots." I like the fact that thier are more choices, because competition breeds ideas and motive. But I really think it's about time that SlashDot give some press to something other than just Linux vs. every commercial OS in the world. There are TONS of really cool GNU projects out there. The commercial UNIX's are occasionaly mentioned (and I bet there is a higher ratio of IRIX or Solaris users out there reading that BeOS users, but more BeOS stories), the *BSD's are bearly mentioned, and I can't remember the last time I saw a Hurd or Berlin story on SlashDot at all!

K, flame away ;-)

luge wrote:

Not quite... while you are correct about the download issue, source must be available to anyone for whom binaries are available, in the same medium. I.E., if [GPL] binaries are *publicly* available on CDs, [GPL] source must also be *publicly* available on CDs- not just to those who pay for binaries, but also to others in the general public. If binaries are only available to your co-workers or people within your corporation, then you need only make source available within your corporation.

The GPL says no such thing. To summarize section 3, you can distribute binaries, provided you either:
* include source in the distribution
* include a written offer to send any third party the source in machine readable format for no more than the costs incurred in supplying the source
* pass on the above written offer from the person whom you got the GPL code from
It says later in the section that if you get the source by copying it from somewhere, you can "distribute" the source by giving them the same information and access to copy it that you have.

You do not need to make GPL source publically available, you can limit your distribution to just the people you do business with by shipping the source on the same CD as the binaries. If you do offer to ship source, you have to accept requests from anyone, but you don't need to tell everyone about it, merely the people you ship binaries to. Clearly the easiest way to comply is to make it publically available from a Web or FTP site, but it is by no means a requirement of the GPL.

Another reason a lot of people using the original BSD license don't like people using the GPL is because the do not want to be reminded of the
serious problems the advertising clause causes.
And people advocating the GPL mostly take their freedom very serious and see this as an added restricting on the flow of free software.

Read the article The BSD License Problem for a good explanation.

Although most modern BSD licenses don't use the advertising clause (Xfree, FreeBSD, W3C, etc.) there is still software out their that does use it.

It has some restrictions too. Maybe you should read this:

http://www.es.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

The Linux hardware vendors are some of the best corporate citizens I've seen in any industry. They wholeheartedly support the Linux community, because they realise that without it they wouldn't exist in the first place. I like the fact that Penguin Computing is providing servers for sites such as Linux Online, 32 Bits Online, and LinuxToday. Then you've got VA Linux Systems taking the time to ensure Linux.com doesn't get run over by corporate interests, but instead makes it a community interest site. Not to mention hosting Debian, GNU, and Themes.org. You've got to hand it to the Linux Store for pushing the envelope for low-cost systems.

The Linux hardware vendors have shown a dedication to the community and customers that is rarely seen in this generally cruel marketplace. I sincerely hope they keep it up.

In spite of Sun's attempt to keep Java in a corporate stranglehold, the free software community has produced several virtual machines (check out Kaffe and Japhar), a classpath implementation ( GNU Classpath), and a conformance test (see Mauve).

None of these are complete, but all are impressive and because of the GPL/ LGPL they will always be free software. Sure, Sun and other vendors offer the latest and greatest bells and whistles. Free software is inexorable -- it will catch up. I can wait, and those who can't are welcome to use proprietary products until then.

In spite of Sun's attempt to keep Java in a corporate stranglehold, the free software community has produced several virtual machines (check out Kaffe and Japhar), a classpath implementation ( GNU Classpath), and a conformance test (see Mauve).

None of these are complete, but all are impressive and because of the GPL/ LGPL they will always be free software. Sure, Sun and other vendors offer the latest and greatest bells and whistles. Free software is inexorable -- it will catch up. I can wait, and those who can't are welcome to use proprietary products until then.

In spite of Sun's attempt to keep Java in a corporate stranglehold, the free software community has produced several virtual machines (check out Kaffe and Japhar), a classpath implementation ( GNU Classpath), and a conformance test (see Mauve).

None of these are complete, but all are impressive and because of the GPL/ LGPL they will always be free software. Sure, Sun and other vendors offer the latest and greatest bells and whistles. Free software is inexorable -- it will catch up. I can wait, and those who can't are welcome to use proprietary products until then.

I bless your computer, my child!

Please, people, check your facts before characterizing other people's positions (especially rms's--many people seem to criticize him based on little more than hearsay).

Please, people, check your facts before characterizing other people's positions (especially rms's--many people seem to criticize him based on little more than hearsay).

Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.

So, if I make a few changes to the above, how is this any different?

Windows is a closed-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a corporation that controls all of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Windows is released.

I was under the impression this was one of the primary reasons behind the Micro$oft vs. Everyone trials.?.

[deletia]
Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.

Of course not! I can't think of anything that automatically generates more people for any task; can you? However, I owe most of what I know about computer systems (configuration, hardware, etc), networks, and programming ( GNU!) to my play-time on Linux. Last time I had reason to buy coding tools was back in '92; one of my first-year Uni' courses required Borland's TurboPascal, running on Win3.1.

I couldn't have afforded it otherwise.

I am keeping my hopes up, hoping that something like the Hurd and the Berlin Project may make an Operating System that is as good with a graphical user interface as Unix is good with the console.

The architecture page on the Berlin Consortium Web site says:

The server is designed to run on any POSIX system with support for threads and TCP/IP; do[sic] date we have built it on Linux and FreeBSD but should be able to use most other major OSs.

so it appears to be a window system for, err, umm, UNIX-flavored OSes, so it doesn't appear as if it'll contribute to the death of UNIX.

As for the Hurd, the page on the Hurd on the GNU Project Web site says:

The Hurd provides a familiar programming and user environment. For all intents and purposes, the Hurd is a modern Unix-like kernel. The Hurd uses the GNU C Library, whose development closely tracks standards such as ANSI/ISO, BSD, POSIX, Single Unix, SVID, and X/Open.

so it looks as if it's intended to, among other things, provide a UNIX-like API. ("UNIX NT"?)

Perhaps you should replace your subject line with "UNIX must evolve." - both Berlin and the Hurd appear to be trying to contribute to UNIX's evolution, not its death.

(What sort of "baggage" do you see being the problem? What do you see as the consequences of UNIX "[having] been a console-based operating system for a very long time"?)

Your allegiance to the Powers that Be -- in the form of protecting current business models and companies -- is not shared by all. I do not consider the current economic system a just one -- the suffering it is creating worldwide is barbaric and to attempt to maintain it would be an extremely immoral thing for me to do. IMHO. Obviously yours is different, but I don't think maintaining the status quo is a tenable moral position.

To address your desire to make metaphors between physical property and intellectual property I'll quote from Why Software Should Not Have Owners:

Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else---or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)

To those who propose this as an ethical axiom---the author is more important than you---I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk.

But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the natural rights claims for two reasons.

One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.

But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.