Slashdot Mirror

It can; you should read gnu.org and fsf.org, e.g. “Various Licenses and Comments about Them”.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html ; http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html and links

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html ; http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html and links

I think they should put a warning up for people, that by downloading and compiling the code you could be in violation of the law,

By analogy, this would be like the artist putting up a track for download and saying it's illegal to listen to.

That's a bad analogy. A better one: The musician puts up a track for download and the opening lyrics are: "Copy Right To Thou Sand Twelve, Buy Thee Music Making Elve." -- Or better yet, have RMS crank out a new GPL-ish license for Music (in the same vein as GNU Free Document License), and the artist sings that at the beginning of the song.

Oh -- oh! No, no... Just have them break into the Free Software Song for one of the Choruses, OR make heavy use of the BSD style "decrescendo" license.

(The analogy here is embedding a copyright notice in the music)

P.S. No, wait! I got it! If you play the song backward at half speed, the Father of Copyright Law speaks the license!

Even RMS admits that (final paragraph) the Android project is a huge step in the right direction. However, the binary blobs are still a big problem. You have no control over what's going on there, cannot use the device to its full potential without them, and have no guarantee that the code is not used against you (if you are of the paranoid kind; which many of us on Slashdot are, after all.. ;-)

In the same paragraph, he recommends the Android derivative Replicant, which just last week announced a new version matching Android 4.0. Depending on your use-case and point of view, you might or might not miss the Google specific applications, which are not under any free or open source license. That includes the GMail reader, the native Google Maps app, the Youtube app, and a few others.

RMS has already written about this subject. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/lest-codeplex-perplex.html

The trust is for the media cartels. They don't trust users not to copy their media, so Microsoft sold them the idea of computing they could trust.

The "End to End Trust" initiative is all about this - removing the computer's trust that it's owner should have control, and handing that trust to the people with the root signing keys - Microsoft will become indispensable to the entire Windows software ecosystem. The ultimate rent-seeking behaviour.

The Computer doesn't trust you.

What ever happened to GNU Mug? And why can't I buy one?

Thanks for the message. Can you cite all that?

Indeed, I have my sources available:

• For the FSF's position on works of opinion: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses
• A more extended talk about the subject of copyright by Stallman himself: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html#opinions
• And several complaints that have been raised because of his seemingly incongruent position: http://questioncopyright.org/remix_stallman and http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10318343-16.html

Thanks for the message. Can you cite all that?

Indeed, I have my sources available:

• For the FSF's position on works of opinion: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses
• A more extended talk about the subject of copyright by Stallman himself: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html#opinions
• And several complaints that have been raised because of his seemingly incongruent position: http://questioncopyright.org/remix_stallman and http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10318343-16.html

Well, that's why you'll always hear him emphasizing "Free software" instead of "Open Source".

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The 4 rules:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
        The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
        The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
        The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

You're confusing free software with copyleft. Liberal licenses like the MIT license or BSD-style licensing, such as the Apache license in Android, are free licenses--even the FSF say so. You are talking about copyleft, which is an orthogonal concept. Some copyleft licenses are free; some free licenses are copyleft.

The nmap security scanner's licence is the GPL version 2, along with an opening comment where they give their interpretation. It seems that this interpretation is draconic, and among other things requires programs that parse the output of nmap to be licensed under the GPL or a compatible licence as well. This seems to stand against the Free Software Definition, which among other things specifies that one has "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose".

If we (or the courts) is going to accept nmap's interpretation of the GPL, then we can expect all hell to break lose, because that will mean that the output of such programs such as GCC (the GNU Compiler Collection), GNU awk, GNU sed, and many other GPLed programs of the GNU project or otherwise, must be under a GPL-compatible licence, while in fact, the GNU project approved of using them to build free software and proprietary software that was not.

Do you approve of the nmap interpretation, or do you think nmap are misusing the GPL as a way to apply the free software figleaf to their work, without complying with the spirit of free software?

Subscribe to the info-gnu mailing list. They still write A LOT of software.

Forgot source (ha!), sorry:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.html

Aha! So this is why rms doesn't want to hear anyone talk about open sores!

See also Mr. Stallman's essay on Android.

A lot of these questions are answered on the philosophy section of his page.

Basically, RMS derives everything from the four freedoms: the freedom (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions. If you accept those freedoms, it makes sense to avoid the BSD licenses, because they allow middle-men to deprive end-users of some of these rights. Of course, not everyone thinks those freedoms are important.

Secondly, monetizing is actually easier under the GPL. If that is your goal, you can follow the example of this guy, or QT, or MySQL, and dual-license your code. Those who are willing to preserve the freedoms can have it for free. Those who aren't, can pay. I can't think of any BSD products that have been able to make money like this (maybe there are some).

A lot of these questions are answered on the philosophy section of his page.

Basically, RMS derives everything from the four freedoms: the freedom (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions. If you accept those freedoms, it makes sense to avoid the BSD licenses, because they allow middle-men to deprive end-users of some of these rights. Of course, not everyone thinks those freedoms are important.

Secondly, monetizing is actually easier under the GPL. If that is your goal, you can follow the example of this guy, or QT, or MySQL, and dual-license your code. Those who are willing to preserve the freedoms can have it for free. Those who aren't, can pay. I can't think of any BSD products that have been able to make money like this (maybe there are some).

This is my first of two questions about free software business models.

Several kinds of software have historically depended on the business model of restricting distribution. One is video games. Video games consist of far more than a computer program; they also consist of so-called "assets", such as textures, meshes, maps, audio, and other kinds of non-program works for which you don't want people using the term "content". In a world where all software is distributed under a free software license, how would the development of new video games be financed? The model of selling support, which Red Hat has successfully applied to business software, might work for massively multiplayer online games but wouldn't work so well for anything else because a single-player game doesn't need much support after the sale once it's running.

When passing this question on to Mr. Stallman, try replacing "open source" with "free software". He prefers the term "free software", despite that the Debian Free Software Guidelines are nearly identical to the OSI Open Source Definition.

So since 2009, when FSF's essay on Microsoft got a major update, is it good that free software communities have begun to work closer with Microsoft than ever before?

There is a collection of the FSF's thoughts on various free and non-free licenses available, including the BSD license:

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.

The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go, though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable. However, it is risky to recommend use of “the BSD license”, even for special cases such as small programs, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the modified revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.

However, the Apache 2.0 license is better for substantial programs, since it prevents patent treachery.

There is also an article I found on this exact subject, where Stallman says the following:

Freedom means having control of your own life; “Freedom of choice” is a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions. Thus, I say I advocate “freedom” — not “freedom of choice”. This always leads to the question of “which freedom?” In the area of software, I want a society in which users are free to run software, free study and change its source code and make their changed versions run, and free to redistribute changed and unchanged versions. In other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn’t exist. Establishing a free society that endures generally requires not allowing people to give up freedom. In other words, it requires inalienable rights. I do not want a society in which people had those freedoms only until they gave them up. I do not say this with the expectation that you will agree with me. It sounds like you are as firmly convinced of your views as I am of mine. I hope, though, that at least you will understand better what my position is.

"I'm fairly certain he was hosting the content himself."

You can be as fairly certain as you want, but you'd still be completely and utterly wrong.

"If someone ripped off Libre Office and started selling copies for cash and violating the GPL, everyone on slashdot would be going apeshit over it."

Except the GPL allows you to do exactly that providing you also offer the source code for binaries, so no, I doubt they would be going apeshit over it, unless, like you, they knew not what the fuck they were on about. See here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

As the rest of your post is based on your false starting assumptions it is all equally wrong.

Yes but, there is more than one philosophy at work. Remember that Open Source came after the Free Software movement. They both have very different aims, even if they look the same in overall direction and strategy.

Free Software (which, as a term and philosophy, predates Open Source by decade), proponents of which drafted the GPL itself, does, indeed espouse that all software should be "Free Software" (which is the same as open source except this philosophical difference) and the GPL is seen as a viral way to hack copyright to use it to support such an environment.

For more, check some of this out: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

<program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate parts of the General Public License.

If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source?

Absolutely. Stallman and the FSF demand source code:

"In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does not count as source code."

Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.

Stallman said so himself:

"So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? [..] Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share."

If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source?

Absolutely. Stallman and the FSF demand source code:

"In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does not count as source code."

Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.

Stallman said so himself:

"So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? [..] Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share."

Nevermind, I looked around myself: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GiveUpKeys

It says:

"I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?

No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance."

GPL does NOT, I repeat, does NOT require PUBLIC release of derivative works. It only requires disclosure to the actual users of the software.

It is perfectly legal to create a derivative work of a GPL work and release the source code to the product users under NDA, forbidding public disclosure.

Let's look at the FAQ for the GPL...

Does The GPL Allow NDA?

Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org. If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.

Not correct, at least not for the version of the GPL in question. Read the GPL v2 and look at section 3 which covers distribution. Your options:

• 3a: Distribute the source code along with the binaries. Using this option you only have to provide source to your customers.
• 3b: Distribute the source code separate from the binaries. This option explicitly requires you to make the offer of source available to any third party, regardless of whether they received binaries from you or not.
• 3c: Pass on the offer you received. This is only available for non-commercial distribution, so a company selling phones or software wouldn't qualify to use it.

You'd be correct for GPL v3, but the Linux kernel license lacks the "or any later version" language so v3's off the table as far as the kernel as a whole is concerned.

It depends on how they distribute the sources. If they accompany the binaries with the source code, then you're right. However, if they offer the sources for download or by any method not accompanying the binaries, they have to offer the source to any third party regardless of whether they're a customer or not. That's because the Linux kernel is under the GPL v2 with no option to use a later version, and section 3b of the GPL v2 specifically says the offer has to be good for any third party. 3a covers distribution only when the source accompanies the binaries, and 3c isn't available because it's only allowed for non-commercial distribution which this isn't.

Here you go

Drepper's crap is why I don't use Linux.

We had the exact same discussion a week ago, so I'll repost what I quoted from RMS. As usual, he cuts right to the point, and clarifies where others gets confused:

"Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think "Linux" refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as "Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux". If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different."

It's taken from his September 2011 essay "Android and Users' Freedom", written while the Android 3.x source was still withheld by Google.

Well, there was that antitrust case which went exactly nowhere. However, 12 years later we got a the browser ballot. So, around 2024 we can expect a similar ballot for the content delivery system / market place / FOSS repository for Windows.

Add to that the UK questionnaire about adult content filtering, and by 2050 I expect the post unboxing experience of a new PC (or the equivalent of that time) to be a two hour session with all kinds choices, cross examination, iris scanning and automatic lie detection, authentication, identification, cross government DB lookups, and to keep it all in place, a completely looked down system. Pretty much what Richard Stallman warned us of in 'The Right to Read' fifteen years ago.

That would be correct if and only if the vendor is providing the source code along with the device. If they aren't, then GPL v2 section 3b applies:

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,

Emphasis mine. It doesn't say just customers. It doesn't say just people who have the binaries. It says "any third party". That means any third party, no further restrictions or conditions. The GPL v3 would let you limit your obligation to provide source to only those who have the binaries, but the Linux kernel is under GPL v2 without the clause allowing use of later versions.

Furthermore, non of those three laws mention or create a legal basis for the fluffy term "Intellectual Property". It is a misnomer, tacked on in later years, to attempt to frame the debate in a direction we would be better off without.

Again, by RMS: (this seems to be my refrain this week)

"It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely. "

The complete essay:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Well, the GPL gives you the right to modify anything as long as you license it under the GPL and include the license, and that would include the copyright notices.

The GPL gives nobody such rights to remove/move copyright notices. You only have the right to append your name and year to such a notice when you contribute changes to the work. Original copyright notices must be left alone as Kjella mentioned for United States in USC 17506(d), and it is required in the GPL as mentioned on the FAQ: I want to get credit for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the GPL?.

Otherwise we'd have a problem with something like the BSD advertising clause.

The classic BSD license is incompatible with the GPL as only the so called revised or new BSD licenses that removed the advertising clause are compatible with the GPL as stated in the FAQ: Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL?. So now would you please stop making assumptions and actually read the license you so carelessly claim it allows people to do things it clearly does not.

Well, the GPL gives you the right to modify anything as long as you license it under the GPL and include the license, and that would include the copyright notices.

The GPL gives nobody such rights to remove/move copyright notices. You only have the right to append your name and year to such a notice when you contribute changes to the work. Original copyright notices must be left alone as Kjella mentioned for United States in USC 17506(d), and it is required in the GPL as mentioned on the FAQ: I want to get credit for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the GPL?.

Otherwise we'd have a problem with something like the BSD advertising clause.

The classic BSD license is incompatible with the GPL as only the so called revised or new BSD licenses that removed the advertising clause are compatible with the GPL as stated in the FAQ: Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL?. So now would you please stop making assumptions and actually read the license you so carelessly claim it allows people to do things it clearly does not.

First off, copying is not theft. You're making an appeal to authority without considering what that authority says. As the FSF points out, "Unauthorized copying is forbidden by copyright law in many circumstances (not all!), but being forbidden doesn't make it wrong. In general, laws don't define right and wrong. Laws, at their best, attempt to implement justice. If the laws (the implementation) don't fit our ideas of right and wrong (the spec), the laws are what should change.".

Second, the key to understanding how GPL copyright infringement lawsuits are so different from proprietor's copyright infringement lawsuits or threats of copyright infringement lawsuits is to examine the effect on the user. The GPL says you're free to do things regulated by copyright law including copying so long as you don't deny recipients the same freedoms to do the same. Proprietors, on the other hand, deny recipients those freedoms; Toshiba is flatly disallowing anyone who's not an authorized dealer from sharing copies of their manuals. Again, just because a law says copying is forbidden by default doesn't make copying wrong. Thus despite using the same underlying copyright system, the outcome for the user is radically different and the public's support for that underlying system should reflect what we need that system to say. The conditions the GPL grants licensees are far more amenable to the public than the antisocial deal proprietors offer.

Bah! Ed is the standard text editor!

As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright.

I never claimed he said anything about selling the hardware and giving the software away - someone else did. What he advocates is that if you write software, you do not own it, and if you sell it to somebody, that somebody has the right to give it away even if you forbid him not to. In short, he denies you any of the privileges you'd assume to have despite having created the software. Note that the GPL itself ain't that daft - even they recognize the right of creators, but RMS doesn't. He thinks that you should violate the terms of the license agreement under which it was sold, under his utopian dreams of a perfect society.

I don't see anybody addressing this question adequately. Here goes for a start.

1) g++ has simply awful error messages for template code. clang++ has MUCH more helpful error messages. Of not quite so much importance, all clang/clang++ error messages are significantly better than those of gcc/g++. Looks like clang++ has spurred g++ to improve error messages in 4.8 though. They NEEDED to be improved.

2) clang++ 3.1 has significantly better C++11 support than g++ 4.7:
      Rvalue refs for *this
      Alignment support
      Strong compare-exchange
      Bidirectional fences
      Atomics in signal handlers
      Also borrows from C99 one very significant enhancement: C99 designated initializers

References:
clang: Expressive Diagnostics
C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC
C++98 and C++11 Support in Clang

As humans take back ownership of their content consumption and creation environments enabled by these fully mobile devices

Creation? Good luck entering large amounts of text or drawing things with pixel precision using only a capacitive multitouch screen. Even what some people call "consumption" (which makes me think of TB) is crippled on a completely flat sheet of glass; it's hard to control a character in a platform game without being able to feel where the on-screen buttons are. I'm working on an essay about the implications of using a touch screen as a device's only input device.

until eventually I wean him off the crippled system his mother insisted we get for him.

Until companies start selling devices that are crippled in another way: they use cryptography to block execution of software that the device's manufacturer doesn't approve. This is already the case with phones and tablets by Apple and Microsoft, and if they wanted, they could wipe Android off the map of this country with patent lawsuits.

nano implements some features that Pico lacks, including colored text, regular expression search and replace, smooth scrolling, multiple buffers, rebindable key support, and (experimental) undoing and redoing of edit changes.

I poked around nano's website and it seems pretty capable.
It sounds like nano does everything you need, so there is no reason to learn about other editors.
I have fond memories of pine and pico; maybe I will look at nano one of these days.

fwiw, I find some powertools worth learning to use well even if they have a non-easy learning curve (sed comes to mind). This also applies to text editors; they're just tools.
As for "1975 wants vi back", I actually get a lot of mileage from vim which is a bit closer to nano's era.
nano: born 1999 as TIP, inspired by pico.
(btw, the last item on the nano news page is from 2009: "Now on Twitter and Facebook and Happy 10th Birthday nano". Is nano under active development these days?)
vim:born 1988, released 1991 (initially for amiga, much more widespread now), inspired by vi (note I do feel sorry for anyone stuck using "classic vi" in the same way I'd feel sorry for anyone stuck with edlin).
(side note: vi-style learning curve sucks. My first two weeks were Painful, but now that I have some skill (muscle memory) with the keys I find it very effective. Kind of like how touch-typing is harder to learn than "hunt & peck" but it is still well worthwhile to learn how to touch-type; it pays dividends. Most of vi-style power (for me) comes from the fast navigation+editing commands that are tied to a rather terse (and admittedly cryptic) "shorthand" language of key combinations... I remember actually being surprised at how clunky arrow key + mouse navigation felt when I first used conventional editors after driving vi-style for a while.)
One of the things I like about having learned Vim is it will be available pretty much wherever I might need to work: here are some of the targets from from wikipedia's vim page (* indicates ports I have used):

AmigaOS (the initial target platform), DOS, Microsoft Windows 95/*98/Me/*NT/*2000/*XP/*Server 2003/*Vista/*Server 2008/*7, IBM OS/2 and OS/390, OpenVMS, QNX, *Unix, *Linux, BSD, and Mac OS. Also, Vim is shipped with every copy of Apple Mac OS X. Independent ports of Vim are available both for Android and iOS.

(I've also found vim for aix; useful if one needs to spend time there.) Note that vim seems pretty consistently fully featured on the various platforms I've used it on (*'s above).
By comparison, nano seems pretty content to excel in linux distributions (redhat & debian).
And maybe, possibly, kind of sort of windows: from the nano faq, 3.9 How about in Win32

We're still working on documentation for enabling synax highlighting on Win32; please bear with us. Note that the nano.rc file must remain Unix formatted in order for nano to understand it. In other words, you should use probably only use nano to edit its config file. Other programs like Wordpad and Notepad will either convert the file to DOS format when saving, and the latter does not even properly read Unix-formatted files to begin with.

*shrug* I'm glad nano is working for you in the land of the modern linux desktop.

As for emacs: I sincerely believe that emacs users enjoy the capabilities they find; I may find a need for something emacs does well these days. I've never heard anyone say "Yeah,

Even rms is excited about Steam for Linux:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.html

"However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows."

There was a project sponsored by GNU to develop software that would permit online voting securely. Obviously this would be hugely useful if it were secure and freely available. http://www.gnu.org/software/free/

Production stopped in 2002.

Here's what they had to say, "From my experience of designing and developing GNU.FREE over the past three years it has become clear that creating an Internet Voting system sufficiently secure, reliable and anonymous is extremely difficult, if not impossible. As Bruce Schneier points out "a secure Internet voting system is theoretically possible, but it would be the first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers.""

Of course, it's possible the Swiss know something about secure software development that Schneier doesn't. Or perhaps they're just happy to accept the risks.

The intent of the GPL is to ensure software freedom to the users. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. Having no restrictions would be better if nobody harmed others by distributing proprietary software. Unfortunately, people do take free software, fork it and distribute the fork as proprietary software. The GPL prevents this practise by granting permission to distribute the software as long as the distributor also promises to grant all the essential freedoms to their users.

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

I don't see where this "passing on the offer" part came from.

If I demand the source code and the vendor tells me "we're passing on the offer to you, but too bad so sad it's expired already" then that's fraud, plain and simple.

It's no different than if I brought something on eBay and the seller tells me "the item is no longer being manufactured and thus I can't fulfill your order, thanks for the free money sucker".

Well, you could start with "Why Software Should Not Have Owners".

Then you could RTFA, and realize that he's basically saying, "The GPL should be given the weight and force of law."

That enough evidence that he wants to "force you to license your software in some specific fashion"?

Mod parent up, very true.

The era of mobile phones presents a new set of hardware, most running proprietary firmware and controlled by proprietary drivers. A GNU hacker describes difficulties in producing free replacements for these:

one device - the HTC Universal - took four of us three years of part-time work to finally understand all of the hardware. the best i ever managed on one device was 8 weeks (!) - the Compaq ipaq hw6915 - and i had to stop because the last 3 of those 8 weeks were spent _not_ managing to get the device to come out of suspend.

...

by the time you have source code, it's too late: the device is out the door. it's obsolete already, anyway.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with some optimism, but people who care about software freedom shouldn't overlook these major blocking issues.