Slashdot Mirror

Why does NASA, a government agency, claim copyright on software?

And why does NASA release software under a non-free license?

It's not that hard. Use an existing license. Stop inventing your own licenses that conflict with truly free collaboration.

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too. . . However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

Yes MS can release proprietary Office for Linux; however it cannot bundle it with MS Linux as the parent has suggested. Knowing MS, the linkage between Office and their version of Linux would be so entrenched as to be inseparable.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

"Consume" and "Content" considered harmful. I would have said "view animations and use applications that require Flash Player".

Apple did study Linux operating system and even made own branch with it, called MkLinux what is still available. Apple's idea was to make Linux a Server-Client architecture operating system instead a Monolithic and get Linux to Macintosh. In MkLinux project they sliced Linux functions to servers and used Mach microkernel with them and so on they got MkLinux. http://www.mklinux.org/

MkLinux were Apple's first Open Source project. Today Apple has dozens of Open Source projects http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1072/

Then Apple went, toke a Mach microkernel, Network protocols, Filesystems and few other OS functions from (monolithic) FreeBSD Operating System to as servers and made nice package with I/O Kit and got a XNU operating system what is a Server-Client operating system by architecture instead Monolithic like the Linux is.

It seems it has nothing to do with the license, as XNU operating system is 100% Open Source and Free Software as OSI and FSF have both accepted the license what Apple used to license that XNU operating system http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Apple just wanted to get Server-Client architecture for their operating system instead monolithic.
Everyone knows the famous debate between Linus and Andrew about how Monolithic architecture is obsolete for operating systems and Server-Client architecture is the future.

Linux is great proof how monolithic architecture for operating system can be very powerful and flexible, when just watching list where Linux really is... Super computers, embedded systems (DVD players, DVB-boxes, Digital TV's), Desktop computers, Laptops, Workstations, Rendering farms, Home/Corporation servers and not to forget... Linux is most used operating system on smartphones... As Apple chose to use Linux as operating system in Android. There are other Linux distributions like Tizen, Harmattan, Bada (using RTOS operating system as well) and many others. Even Nokia bought few weeks ago a Norwegian software company "Smarterphones" what developed Linux distribution "Smarterphones" and Nokia might be planning to replace NOS (Nokia Operating System) and S40 (software platform + GUI) with it and that would mean Linux gets even more support.

In other hands.... while XNU can probably be second popular Open Source and Free Software operating system on markets... GNU projects own HURD operating system what is as well following a Server-Client architecture like XNU, Minix, NT... Has not get stable or ready at all.
FreeBSD is as well monolithic operating system and so is OpenBSD and NetBSD (according wikipedia).

GPL license is great for the community (read it like every human and every country and every government and every corporation) but it is not great for those who are greed, biased and very short sighted people who wants to slave others under their control and control when and what innovation is released and control that with patents and hiding knowledge what other humans has helped them to gain.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Some years ago, Richard Stallman would have supported that idea. But now, with the changes in the world lately, he sings a rather different tune. There's that pesky distinction between source and object code to think about and the fact that the copyright licenses for Free Software are also used as a defense against software patents.

Those are news stories. That's what they are.

Again, look at the actual titles of the lawsuits.

People say "RIAA" or "MPAA" because the studios are members of these organizations and it's just easier especially when there are multiple studios as the plaintiffs, which happens pretty often. However, it is not RIAA vs. Lindor, it's UMG vs. Lindor as the actual lawsuit. Every single media lawsuit is this way, because the RIAA and MPAA are trade associations that do not own the actual copyrights. The suits /must/ be filed under the copyright owners themselves.

The distinction is lost on you, because you refuse to consider how things actually work. Instead you go ahead with your assumptions because of what you read in the news instead of looking at the details.

But whatever. I guess you are one of those people who cannot use Google correctly either.

I mean, come the fuck on, there's a reason why third party lawsuits concerning copyright infringement for GPLed programs have no standing. The copyright owner must file himself, that is why the EFF asks you to transfer copyright to them so they have power to sue on your behalf.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

What part of "The copyright holder is the one who is legally authorized to take action to enforce the license." do you not understand?

Now get out.
--
BMO

... suddenly cried out Stallman Was Right!

What, in your opinion, makes NTFS a pain in your ass?

For example performance with very large files.

Subject: Re: [Bug-ddrescue] ddrescue. NTFS-3g eating 100%. Solved by switching to ext3

I had a ddrescue imaging to a file on an ntfs partition (mounted with ntfs-3g) on a USB drive on Ubuntu 9.04 LiveCD. It was going slower and slower, although number of errors was not increasing. I tried all the ddrescue options I could find, but nothing helped - it was working for 5 days already and was slowing down so much so it would never end. By the time I stopped it it copied 112Gb out of 223Gb.
Then I noticed that ntfs-3g was eating 100% cpu. So, I created an ext3 partition on the same USB drive, copied my image file and log there and restarted ddrescue.
Boy! it finished in a couple of hours!

FOSS is an initialism including "open source", a term that isn't perfect either. The term "open source" might get confused with a program whose source code is available but under a license forbidding commercial distribution or distribution of derivatives or even distribution at all. In fact, I've seen exactly this confusion happen at my last employer.

RMS saw it coming in 1997, except that his timetable is about 70 years too late: The Right to Read. In fact, the scientific literature is already closed to most people...not unlike the Dark Ages when most books were hidden in monasteries and an education outside of Big Religion would most likely get you executed, either burned or drawn and quartered...

In the long run, intelligence is merely another fatal mutation in the twisted and tortured evolutionary road.

It's an API. Tacking "Open" onto doesn't change the fact that it's just an interface to a black box.

As Stallman's been saying for the last few years, having software freedom is about having control over your computing, and that requires that your computing is done on *your* computer:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html

Huh? Stallman is a fan of selling free software!

why is DRM bad?

I understand the technical limitations it imposes on various groups

Digital restrictions management is bad because of "the technical limitations it imposes on various groups". As each new locked-down device comes out, we inch closer to the dystopia that was considered unthinkable in 1997.

without DRM, content (in general) will be forced to go down in price

"Content" makes works of authorship sound like mere things to fill a box.

And considering that the creation of content is a real investment (i.e. cost) what would be the incentive to create it

What was the incentive to create the short film Sintel?

why is DRM bad?

I understand the technical limitations it imposes on various groups

Digital restrictions management is bad because of "the technical limitations it imposes on various groups". As each new locked-down device comes out, we inch closer to the dystopia that was considered unthinkable in 1997.

without DRM, content (in general) will be forced to go down in price

"Content" makes works of authorship sound like mere things to fill a box.

And considering that the creation of content is a real investment (i.e. cost) what would be the incentive to create it

What was the incentive to create the short film Sintel?

Oh and you don't even have to take my word for it. From GCC's own documentation:

5 Extensions to the C Language Family ...
Mixed Declarations: Mixing declarations and code.

Fail much, bro?

Why is it that so many people pontificate on the GPL without bothering to read it first?

I don't know, why do you?

I did in fact re-read both versions of the text to check my recollection (which was correct) before posting.

Both v2 and v3 of the GPL make it very clear that you must offer the source code to anyone who asks for it.

Wrong.

Err, no. In the context of the point under discussion entirely correct.

You have to do one of two things. Distribute the source with the binaries, OR provide a written offer of sourse to anyone who requests it. From the GPL FAQ (bold mine):

"If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later."

If you bothered to read the thread before posting you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.

The issue under discussion is the obligations which you put yourself under by distributing binaries without source. The earlier (incorrect) assertion was that you only need to offer source to those to whom you have given binaries. Under the GPLv2, you need to make the offer to everyone, and under v3, to anyone who has got the binaries.

Yes, if you distribute them both together in the first place then you don't have either obligation, but that wasn't the issue.

HTH

Why is it that so many people pontificate on the GPL without bothering to read it first?

I don't know, why do you?
 

Both v2 and v3 of the GPL make it very clear that you must offer the source code to anyone who asks for it.

Wrong. You have to do one of two things. Distribute the source with the binaries, OR provide a written offer of sourse to anyone who requests it. From the GPL FAQ (bold mine):

"If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later."

you are right, other guy is wrong http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

He is reading the first line and ignoring the following two paragraphs that clarify that 'anyone' is actually 'anyone who got both a binary and copy of written offer' BUT the GPL allows the non-commercial copying and redistribution of both your written offer and your executable. So if I get a binary from you and provide my friend with a copy for free you have to provide source to him as well.

You keep repeating that you must ship source to 'anyone' that requests it later. That technically isn't true even if it may practically be true.

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

The first line says the same as you but the two paragraphs following that line modify it and clarify that it is only to those who have gotten a copy of the binary (and accompanying written offer) that you must provide the source.

There is no reason you couldn't put a code on the written offer and require the request be accompanied by a copy of the written offer. You'd have to honor it for third parties but it would allow compliance without honoring requests from random anonymous people with no chain of distribution from you. You might do this to just to reduce the volume of source requests you have to process.

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) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

In this case, it's irrelevant. This is a Drupal module (PHP), so it *is* the code.

As a note: that was the GPL3. However, the clause is almost entirely unmodified (as #1) under the GPL2. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Due to the truly amazing amount of information in your post that is inaccurate, I assume that you are either
1) a troll, or
2) 13 years old ...nevertheless, I'll provide some answers. Maybe it will be helpful for the OP.

Did the guy mention that he copyrighted his work? If he put it out there with nothing indicating that, there's an argument that he put it into the public domain,

If you don't trust me, how about the US Copyright Office?

Q: Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
A: No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

You go on...

If someone is violating the GPL license and selling a modified version of his work, I'd recommend he contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who can help defend him, most likely free of charge.

While the EFF are a bunch of hoopy froods who protect our rights in cyberspace, they are certainly not the first people I'd contact about a GPL infringement. They're not even the 4th or 5th on my list.

Here's my list:
1) GPL-Violations.org - Volunteers, knowledgeable folks who will answer your questions pretty quickly
2) The SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) - Volunteer lawyers (much slower to respond due to demand, but they know their stuff)
3) The Software Freedom Conservancy (if you want to align your FOSS project with a "non-profit home and infrastructure for FLOSS projects.")
4) The Free Software Foundation, if you have a specific question about some of their GPLed software
5) Bradley Kuhn, Harald Welte, etc..

Jesus... It's amazing what crap a first poster can say.

Have you even read the text of the GPL(v2) ?

No, you can not sell GPLed software you didn't write, though you may charge a distribution fee, and you must provide a way to access the source code you're distributing. If some a-hole is charging $50-ish bucks for your software, take him down.

Here's an exact quote from the on the FSF's website:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

When you mention a "distribution fee," I believe that you're talking about clause 3(b) of the source requirement of the GPLv2 (relevant section italicized):

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,

Section 3(b) is talking about a requirement to provide source code to people you've already given binaries. You can still charge them a bunch of money up front for initial access to the program.

It's not always easy to understand parts of the GPL, and the GPLv3 made the whole darn thing a bunch

Due to the truly amazing amount of information in your post that is inaccurate, I assume that you are either
1) a troll, or
2) 13 years old ...nevertheless, I'll provide some answers. Maybe it will be helpful for the OP.

Did the guy mention that he copyrighted his work? If he put it out there with nothing indicating that, there's an argument that he put it into the public domain,

If you don't trust me, how about the US Copyright Office?

Q: Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
A: No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

You go on...

If someone is violating the GPL license and selling a modified version of his work, I'd recommend he contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who can help defend him, most likely free of charge.

While the EFF are a bunch of hoopy froods who protect our rights in cyberspace, they are certainly not the first people I'd contact about a GPL infringement. They're not even the 4th or 5th on my list.

Here's my list:
1) GPL-Violations.org - Volunteers, knowledgeable folks who will answer your questions pretty quickly
2) The SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) - Volunteer lawyers (much slower to respond due to demand, but they know their stuff)
3) The Software Freedom Conservancy (if you want to align your FOSS project with a "non-profit home and infrastructure for FLOSS projects.")
4) The Free Software Foundation, if you have a specific question about some of their GPLed software
5) Bradley Kuhn, Harald Welte, etc..

Jesus... It's amazing what crap a first poster can say.

Have you even read the text of the GPL(v2) ?

No, you can not sell GPLed software you didn't write, though you may charge a distribution fee, and you must provide a way to access the source code you're distributing. If some a-hole is charging $50-ish bucks for your software, take him down.

Here's an exact quote from the on the FSF's website:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

When you mention a "distribution fee," I believe that you're talking about clause 3(b) of the source requirement of the GPLv2 (relevant section italicized):

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,

Section 3(b) is talking about a requirement to provide source code to people you've already given binaries. You can still charge them a bunch of money up front for initial access to the program.

It's not always easy to understand parts of the GPL, and the GPLv3 made the whole darn thing a bunch

See what GNU has to say. Note this quote from the second paragraph:

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.

You are right that you can only charge a distribution fee, but that doesn't mean you can't charge as much as you want. The only limitation is that if you distribute the binary separate from the source, then you cannot charge customers extra for the source beyond what it costs to ship/distribute it (see 3b in the GPL v2).

See what GNU has to say. Note this quote from the second paragraph:

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.

You are right that you can only charge a distribution fee, but that doesn't mean you can't charge as much as you want. The only limitation is that if you distribute the binary separate from the source, then you cannot charge customers extra for the source beyond what it costs to ship/distribute it (see 3b in the GPL v2).

4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

link

Troll elsewhere.

To everyone here who writes comments like, "I think the GPL says such-and-such", just read the fucking thing. Seriously, it's not a hard document to understand.

Hi,

I need to run off in two shakes of a lamb's tail, but I took a quick look I don't see the GPLv2 (or any GPL license) mentioned anywhere in your code.

I suggest that you

1) Put a copy of the GPL (v2, v3, etc...) at the top level of your project. I usually make a file LICENSE.txt that explains that the project is using the GPL, and then put a copy of the GPL at the end of that file.

2) Put license headers on ALL of your files, so that even if they get separated there is no confusion about either the license or the author. They should look like this:

UC Authorizenet Multi
        Copyright (C) 2011 Cultiv8 (put your real name here...duh!)

        UC Authorizenet Multi is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        UC Authorizenet Multi is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with UC Authorizenet Multi. If not, see .

Here's a quick link to more information: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

They aren't actually selling his module.. it says:

We are providing complete support, configuration and installation for this module.

Not the same thing at all. Besides the FSF says selling GPL'd software is ok

You would have a case if they were claiming it was their module.. but I wasn't able to find even that on their site.

The standard is known unofficially as C1X

GCC already says:

A fourth version of the C standard, known as C11, was published in 2011 as ISO/IEC 9899:2011. GCC has limited incomplete support for parts of this standard, enabled with -std=c11 or -std=iso9899:2011. (While in development, drafts of this standard version were referred to as C1X.)

Syntax is everything in C.

The source code for the GPLd stuff only needs to be made available to the people who are provided with the OS, ie. people who buy the phone.

That's only true if you actually deliver the source code together with the phone. Otherwise you have to give the source code to whoever asks for it. See GPLv2 section 3, especially points a) and b)

Sorry if that link wasn't clear enough of RMS' intent, maybe this one will be more clear. How about a quote "Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it" RMS.

Hell I can produce a couple dozen more easily if you'd like, it isn't like RMS is exactly shy on the subject. Again NOT FUD if the entire goal as stated by RMS is to block non free software which he has made perfectly clear time after time AFTER time is his goal and he IS the one writing the license you know.

In-case anyone hasn't read the Richard Stallman story: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

From the authors notes:

One of the ideas in the story was not proposed in reality until 2002. This is the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for your personal computers, and not let you have them.

The proponents of this scheme have given it names such as “trusted computing” and “Palladium”. We call it “treacherous computing” ...

The 1997 prediction, proposed in 2002, is reality in 2011. The big surprise is that the implementation isn't a technical DRM/TC scheme, but a fundamental change in corporations retaining ownership and control of items after they've been sold. Who could have predicted that?

IBM stands alone in the world of patents because IBM holds the most patents. This fact places IBM in a unique position: IBM can leverage the power of cross-licensing more than any other patent holder. This is a formidable power. For IBM the trouble of licensing patents is mostly hypothetical. In "Think" magazine, #5, 1990, IBM estimated the value of this cost. As the link above says:

The value IBM gets from cross-licensing measures the trouble that the patent system would cause IBM if IBM could not avoid it. IBM's estimate is that the trouble could easily be ten times the good one can expect from one's own patents--even for a company with 9,000 of them.

IBM doesn't pursue patent lawsuits because IBM can pressure virtually any patent holder into cross-licensing. IBM isn't failing to sue because they're choosing to take a defensive position (whether reluctantly or not). IBM's power here puts the lie to the 'lone inventor' myth the patent system sometime engenders just as it puts the lie to any "protection" a small software developer would gain should they discover IBM believes they're competing with IBM.

A transcript of Richard Stallman's talk on this problem (including mention of the above article) is online (1, 2), as are audio and video recordings of him giving this talk. I highly suggest reading and/or watching the entire talk because the talk is highly informative, and he is clear to separate his work on free software from the trouble with software patents. The danger of software patents "relates to the question of whether the programs are free or not, the dangers of the same for all software developers".

IBM stands alone in the world of patents because IBM holds the most patents. This fact places IBM in a unique position: IBM can leverage the power of cross-licensing more than any other patent holder. This is a formidable power. For IBM the trouble of licensing patents is mostly hypothetical. In "Think" magazine, #5, 1990, IBM estimated the value of this cost. As the link above says:

The value IBM gets from cross-licensing measures the trouble that the patent system would cause IBM if IBM could not avoid it. IBM's estimate is that the trouble could easily be ten times the good one can expect from one's own patents--even for a company with 9,000 of them.

IBM doesn't pursue patent lawsuits because IBM can pressure virtually any patent holder into cross-licensing. IBM isn't failing to sue because they're choosing to take a defensive position (whether reluctantly or not). IBM's power here puts the lie to the 'lone inventor' myth the patent system sometime engenders just as it puts the lie to any "protection" a small software developer would gain should they discover IBM believes they're competing with IBM.

A transcript of Richard Stallman's talk on this problem (including mention of the above article) is online (1, 2), as are audio and video recordings of him giving this talk. I highly suggest reading and/or watching the entire talk because the talk is highly informative, and he is clear to separate his work on free software from the trouble with software patents. The danger of software patents "relates to the question of whether the programs are free or not, the dangers of the same for all software developers".

IBM stands alone in the world of patents because IBM holds the most patents. This fact places IBM in a unique position: IBM can leverage the power of cross-licensing more than any other patent holder. This is a formidable power. For IBM the trouble of licensing patents is mostly hypothetical. In "Think" magazine, #5, 1990, IBM estimated the value of this cost. As the link above says:

The value IBM gets from cross-licensing measures the trouble that the patent system would cause IBM if IBM could not avoid it. IBM's estimate is that the trouble could easily be ten times the good one can expect from one's own patents--even for a company with 9,000 of them.

IBM doesn't pursue patent lawsuits because IBM can pressure virtually any patent holder into cross-licensing. IBM isn't failing to sue because they're choosing to take a defensive position (whether reluctantly or not). IBM's power here puts the lie to the 'lone inventor' myth the patent system sometime engenders just as it puts the lie to any "protection" a small software developer would gain should they discover IBM believes they're competing with IBM.

A transcript of Richard Stallman's talk on this problem (including mention of the above article) is online (1, 2), as are audio and video recordings of him giving this talk. I highly suggest reading and/or watching the entire talk because the talk is highly informative, and he is clear to separate his work on free software from the trouble with software patents. The danger of software patents "relates to the question of whether the programs are free or not, the dangers of the same for all software developers".

You are way too worked up, and are not really considering what I am saying

I am considering it. I'm just considering it to be incorrect; please do not get trapped by the fallacy that, once people understand what you have to say, they'll necessarily agree with what you say.

You simply are got grasping that my primary goal is the same as the GPL has

I think you are not grasping what the primary goals of the GPL are (if you want to know what the goals are, try reading, for example, A Quick Guide to GPLv3, in particular the "The Foundations of the GPL" section; if giving users the freedoms listed there aren't your goals, your goals aren't the same as the goals of the GPL, whether you think they are or not).

I seriously think that the end goals of the GPL if still desirable must be looked at carefully as to which approaches actually have the effect the GPL seeks (something you insist on off and on but no-one seems to have done any research on either way).

"The effect the GPL seeks" is keeping the software it covers and all derived works of it as free software; it's not just "maximize giveback of changes". Here's Richard Stallman's explanation of why the GPL is the way it is.

On a side note I find it odd you bring up the Linux kernel in defending the GPL as they will not even shift to GPL3!

News flash: not all defenders of the general goals of the GPL agree with all of the means the FSF have taken in GPLv3. Hell, the GPLed free software project on which I'm a core developer is under the GPLv2, not v3.

You are way too worked up, and are not really considering what I am saying

I am considering it. I'm just considering it to be incorrect; please do not get trapped by the fallacy that, once people understand what you have to say, they'll necessarily agree with what you say.

You simply are got grasping that my primary goal is the same as the GPL has

I think you are not grasping what the primary goals of the GPL are (if you want to know what the goals are, try reading, for example, A Quick Guide to GPLv3, in particular the "The Foundations of the GPL" section; if giving users the freedoms listed there aren't your goals, your goals aren't the same as the goals of the GPL, whether you think they are or not).

I seriously think that the end goals of the GPL if still desirable must be looked at carefully as to which approaches actually have the effect the GPL seeks (something you insist on off and on but no-one seems to have done any research on either way).

"The effect the GPL seeks" is keeping the software it covers and all derived works of it as free software; it's not just "maximize giveback of changes". Here's Richard Stallman's explanation of why the GPL is the way it is.

On a side note I find it odd you bring up the Linux kernel in defending the GPL as they will not even shift to GPL3!

News flash: not all defenders of the general goals of the GPL agree with all of the means the FSF have taken in GPLv3. Hell, the GPLed free software project on which I'm a core developer is under the GPLv2, not v3.

You are way too worked up, and are not really considering what I am saying

I am considering it. I'm just considering it to be incorrect; please do not get trapped by the fallacy that, once people understand what you have to say, they'll necessarily agree with what you say.

You simply are got grasping that my primary goal is the same as the GPL has

I think you are not grasping what the primary goals of the GPL are (if you want to know what the goals are, try reading, for example, A Quick Guide to GPLv3, in particular the "The Foundations of the GPL" section; if giving users the freedoms listed there aren't your goals, your goals aren't the same as the goals of the GPL, whether you think they are or not).

I seriously think that the end goals of the GPL if still desirable must be looked at carefully as to which approaches actually have the effect the GPL seeks (something you insist on off and on but no-one seems to have done any research on either way).

"The effect the GPL seeks" is keeping the software it covers and all derived works of it as free software; it's not just "maximize giveback of changes". Here's Richard Stallman's explanation of why the GPL is the way it is.

On a side note I find it odd you bring up the Linux kernel in defending the GPL as they will not even shift to GPL3!

News flash: not all defenders of the general goals of the GPL agree with all of the means the FSF have taken in GPLv3. Hell, the GPLed free software project on which I'm a core developer is under the GPLv2, not v3.

Sorry but I'm not understanding why you guys separate programmers from everyone else. If you write a GPLed word processor, why don't you require everyone to GPL every document they create with it? If you write a photo editing program, why don't you require every photo edited with it to be GPLed?

Person A uses your work to create thing B and you're fine with them not GPLing it. Person C uses your work to creating thing D and you're not fine with it.

Why do you single out programmers but not anyone else?

The analogy to a GPLed word processor or photo editing program would be a GPLed compiler or a GPLed code editor or a tool such as that. The result of compiling code with GCC is not forced to be under the GPL - not even if the assembler-language output of GCC is turned into object code by the GNU assembler and linked into an executable or shared library by the GNU linker. Code that you've edited with GNU Emacs is not forced to be under the GPL. Heck, even code generated by Bison is not, by default, forced to be under the GPL, even though it includes the GPLed parser skeleton, "so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton", as of Bison 2.2.

The analogy to the GPL for documents would be something such as the GNU Free Documentation License, which requires that if you "copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document" it must be released under that license. I.e., it's not the tools you use to produce the item in question that affect the license for the item, it's the licensed content you incorporate into the item that affects the license of the item.

So the GPL "singles out programmers" only to the extent that it covers the stuff programmers produce, i.e. code, just as the GFDL "singles out writers" in that it covers the stuff writers produce, i.e. text. Somebody could create a "GNU Free Images License" that covers images, so that if you took an image under such a "GFIL" and edited it, you couldn't prevent others from taking the image and editing it and putting it in a book or on a Web site or... (and they, in turn, couldn't do so with their edited version of the image).

I think the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that those that profit from your work also give back. Everyone needs to be paid, some of us just want to be paid in code. For that reason I use GPL, but BSD, MIT, Apache are all good, free, licenses, so I really don't see an issue here.

No, that's the purpose of OSI and Eric Raymond's group (used to be his, but he no longer runs it - has moved on to other things, unlike RMS). Those people are about the things you describe. People who are interested in open source due to practical agreements about the best development models ought to support the OSI. Those people are the ones working w/ companies to make the case of how open source can work for them.

But the FSF and the GPL is all purely about Stallman's ego, as Hairyfeet pointed out above. This is someone who discusses software freedom like it was food - software under non-GPL compatible licenses being the moral equivalent of e-coli in vegetables. The most damning example of his fanaticism can be found in his explanations of why all the common distros don't qualify as free, in his book. Their crime? Daring to either bundle 'non-free' software, or even point to where non-free software would be available. E.g. Debian providing a repository of non-free software, and then hosting them on its servers make it impure in the eyes of Stallman/FSF, even if it claims that that non-free software is not a part of the Debian system. After applying similar non-endorsements to every major Linux distro, they then turn around and try to insist that GNU be prefixed to Linux whenever it is used. Why, if you're not going to accept that they are free, when they are all under the GPLv2 license?

Given all that, it's indeed no surprise that GPL & copyleft are declining. I do hope that open source itself flourishes, regardless of whether the FSF does or not. RMS does not associate himself w/ open source, and that idea does not deserve to go down w/ him. I don't mind losing the concept of Free Software however, since not only is the term misleading to begin w/, but freedom 2 of the GNU - freedom to freely distribute copies to help your neighbor - essentially forces down the price of all software, even though it's theoretically correct that GPLed software can be sold for a price just like any other software.

All software licenses, Free and proprietary alike, disclaim liability. If you're not sure which license to choose for Free or Open Source software, the GNU guide can be helpful. Even if you don't agree with their philosophical reasons for Copyleft, you can use the Apache License 2.0, which is the permissive license they recommend. If the Apache License 2.0 is good enough for the FSF, OSI, ASF, Google and so many others, it's probably good enough for you.

I think the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that those that profit from your work also give back.

Its purpose is economic warfare against all non-copyleft software, with the ultimate goal of world domination (eliminating non-free software).

No you do not have to give back to the community. If you use a GPL library in your application you owe nothing!

Presumably you mean "if you use an LGPL library in your application"; if you use a GPL library in your application, your application must be under the GPL. Now, if you only use your GPL-licensed application internally, you don't have to make the source available outside your organization.

No you do not have to give back to the community. If you use a GPL library in your application you owe nothing!

Presumably you mean "if you use an LGPL library in your application"; if you use a GPL library in your application, your application must be under the GPL. Now, if you only use your GPL-licensed application internally, you don't have to make the source available outside your organization.

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

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

ed is the STANDARD!

Microsoft doesn't offer a 64-bit compiler that cross-compiles to 32-bit. Fine, I can accept that. But there are other compilers one could use:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-compilers/ is still reputed to produce the tightest, fastest WinXX executables available.

http://www.embarcadero.com/products/cbuilder (formerly Borland C++)

The venerable http://gcc.gnu.org/

http://www.ghs.com/products/optimizingC++EC++Compilers.html (though it looks like GHC might no longer target Windows at all)