Slashdot Mirror

Any GPL software which is found to be in violation of copyright automatically has it's license revoked:

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

and

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

I argue that any company paying Microsoft a patent fee has lost their right to the GPL code because by their actions they "render the program non-free."

Actually, no, Richard Stallman had it right long before Vernor Vinge.

DRM has never been about getting paid, it has always been about keeping control. And for all the shit Microsoft got about Palladium, the Apple zealots sure turned a 180 in 2007.

But the zealots are right about one thing - the iPhone is the future of computing. And that future is a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

Mentioned URL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

He doesn't mention his age. For all we know, he could be 13 years old, but just be smart enough to know the truth of the matter. What he says is right, regardless of age. Furthermore, regular expressions are not at all difficult to do in C. The GNU C library has good support for regexes, and there's always PCRE if you're not using the GNU C library. Both make using regexes from C very trivial.

Isn't there some form of restriction here in the license, are they allowed to make a closed source derivative work, seeing as they're the original authors? What open source license (if any) was Growl formerly using?

I know some licenses require all derivative works to be open source, but I'm definitely not expert on open source licensing.

Strangely, though the previous Growl Source page had a link to a tarball, the current download page only has non-link text "Growl source code." under "Developer Downloads." The Growl Developer Documentation page says:

Growl is distributed under the conditions of the BSD license. The Extras are BSD licensed as well. Example applications are in the public domain.

The Growl license does seem to be a permissive BSD-style license. This means that nobody using the source has any obligation to provide source to anyone and can use it for any reason as long as they include that license with binaries. This is why OSX contains significant amounts of BSD code and Windows a smaller amount but neither Apple nor Microsoft is obligated to release the source for any of their changes.

Licenses that require source to be made available to those who get binaries are called Copyleft licenses. This is why Google must release the source for changes they make to Linux as part of Android, but they are not required to release changes to other parts of Android which are under permissive licenses.

Both permissive and Copyleft licenses can be used for software that is both Free and Open Source. Since Growl seems to have been under a permissive license all along, there's nothing stopping those who control the web site from making it proprietary and never releasing source again. OTOH, there's nothing preventing anyone else from forking the last released source just as Perry Metzger has done. A fork would probably be required to use a different name. Since those who control the Grow website seem to have removed all download links to source (even older versions) and banned Metzger from the mailing list, it may indicate they plan to keep future versions proprietary, though that's not entirely clear at this point.

Isn't there some form of restriction here in the license, are they allowed to make a closed source derivative work, seeing as they're the original authors? What open source license (if any) was Growl formerly using?

I know some licenses require all derivative works to be open source, but I'm definitely not expert on open source licensing.

Strangely, though the previous Growl Source page had a link to a tarball, the current download page only has non-link text "Growl source code." under "Developer Downloads." The Growl Developer Documentation page says:

Growl is distributed under the conditions of the BSD license. The Extras are BSD licensed as well. Example applications are in the public domain.

The Growl license does seem to be a permissive BSD-style license. This means that nobody using the source has any obligation to provide source to anyone and can use it for any reason as long as they include that license with binaries. This is why OSX contains significant amounts of BSD code and Windows a smaller amount but neither Apple nor Microsoft is obligated to release the source for any of their changes.

Licenses that require source to be made available to those who get binaries are called Copyleft licenses. This is why Google must release the source for changes they make to Linux as part of Android, but they are not required to release changes to other parts of Android which are under permissive licenses.

Both permissive and Copyleft licenses can be used for software that is both Free and Open Source. Since Growl seems to have been under a permissive license all along, there's nothing stopping those who control the web site from making it proprietary and never releasing source again. OTOH, there's nothing preventing anyone else from forking the last released source just as Perry Metzger has done. A fork would probably be required to use a different name. Since those who control the Grow website seem to have removed all download links to source (even older versions) and banned Metzger from the mailing list, it may indicate they plan to keep future versions proprietary, though that's not entirely clear at this point.

Using the term "fundamental software freedoms" is even worse and likely means something different to each person who hears/reads it.

Software freedoms are defined here.

The two licenses serve different purposes and as such, one is not better then the other

Yes, one serves to protect your freedom while the other does not.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

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.

The Free Software Definition

This is the Java trap.

Thanks for the challenging reply. And you indeed have a good point about cells and gravity, although mammals spin around so much, it's not clear how essential that is. More research is needed.

I think you have not yet gotten the mindshift about post-scarcity though, sorry. Even regular economics can take us very far with enough cheap energy, that we almost certainly will have soon from fusion or thorium power if nothing else:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR06.txt

"It's been shown over and over that giving out hand-outs encourages abuse and laziness."

What would you say if someone said you had to start paying $10,000 a month for breathable air supply? You'd say that was not fair, right? You would question the "mythology" behind that enclosure of the atmospheric commons you depend on, right?
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402

So, why should you have to pay for access to the fruits of industrial commons and agricultural commons given the government has said all the land has been privatized (or is government owned and effectively off-limits for personal use)?

A basic income is a right, not a hand-out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit
"Douglas disagreed with classical economists who divided the factors of production into only land, labour and capital. While Douglas did not deny these factors in production, he believed the âoecultural inheritance of societyâ was the primary factor. Cultural inheritance is defined as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization. Consequently, mankind does not have to keep âoereinventing the wheelâ. âoeWe are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.â"

So, sure, some of wealth is work. But most is not. So, one half the GDP could be a basic income, and the other half would motivate those who needed motivating by money. That would be a basic income of US$2000 per month per citizen, leaving a GDP from 1993 or so to motivate those who needed motivation. Weren't people motivated enough to do a lot of stuff in 1993?

Also, when welfare is only for the sick and disabled, you get "jurisgenic disease" from only getting money when you seem sick or disabled, so you have an incentive to think that way. It's very sad.

On motivation in the information age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html

On moving beyond money:
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY

People help children. Does that destroy them? Eventually, they want to contribute to their communities (most of them, eventually, if they are not sick physically or mentally in some way).

Our society is becoming so productive that it only takes a very few to provide for the many, given technology is an amplifier. It may take thousands of people to contribute to Debian GNU/Linux, but it provide software for billions of people. Related by me:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html

On how robots (or AI or better design or voluntary social networks) are going

If you're going to refuse to use a web browser because they won't complicate their code base to satisfy an infinitesimally small number of users, I believe you'll find your solution here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/

Using Debian remnds you of all the little papercuts that Ubuntu takes care of.

Also, setting up any sort of wifi on Debian feels like having a little RMS on your shoulder lecturing you. Complete with smell.

That said, once Debian is set up it stays set up. Ubuntu (specifically parts of GNOME) is flaky as hell in 11.04.

RMS has nothing to do w/ Debian - in fact, in GNU's page of distributions that they call free, Debian ain't even listed. In fact, in another page where they explain why they don't list some of the common distros, such as RedHat, they also mention about Debian

Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database. This does too much to steer users towards proprietary software for us to endorse it.

Previous releases of Debian also included nonfree blobs with the kernel Linux. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in February 2011, these blobs have been moved out of the main distribution to separate packages in the nonfree repository.

So Debian is somewhat distanced from GNU, but you are right that it's not as smooth to install Debian as it is to install Ubuntu. Also, it consists of 4-5 DVDs, and I'm not even sure how many I need, and which ones. But I'd love to use it, if I could get it installed and working w/ both my network and Wi-Fi.

Using Debian remnds you of all the little papercuts that Ubuntu takes care of.

Also, setting up any sort of wifi on Debian feels like having a little RMS on your shoulder lecturing you. Complete with smell.

That said, once Debian is set up it stays set up. Ubuntu (specifically parts of GNOME) is flaky as hell in 11.04.

RMS has nothing to do w/ Debian - in fact, in GNU's page of distributions that they call free, Debian ain't even listed. In fact, in another page where they explain why they don't list some of the common distros, such as RedHat, they also mention about Debian

Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database. This does too much to steer users towards proprietary software for us to endorse it.

Previous releases of Debian also included nonfree blobs with the kernel Linux. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in February 2011, these blobs have been moved out of the main distribution to separate packages in the nonfree repository.

So Debian is somewhat distanced from GNU, but you are right that it's not as smooth to install Debian as it is to install Ubuntu. Also, it consists of 4-5 DVDs, and I'm not even sure how many I need, and which ones. But I'd love to use it, if I could get it installed and working w/ both my network and Wi-Fi.

I'm not going to get into an argument about software licensing, but Stallman is free to promote his new license.

That doesn't excuse him using the FSF to promote lies about Linux and Android being a risk because they are not GPLv3. It also doesn't excuse his lies about there being a back door in OSX.

Stallman's initial stated goal was to create a free unix

Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix), and give it away free(1) to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.

To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to write and run C programs

That sure worked out well, didn't it? HURD anyone using it?

And you are still being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the actual complete text of the quote, and how it originated.

'As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone."

Daley had just kicked the bucket. The obvious interpretation, in both cases is, "if him dying is what it took, it's worth it."

As far as Stallman is concerned, Jobs was evil. As far as most observers are concerned, zealotry is the greater evil.

But since Stallman likes to dish it out, let's see how much he and his zealots can take it when the shoe's on the other foot ...

He's the self-appointed publicity figure for open source movement

If Stallman caught you saying that, he would rip your eyes out just by glaring at you very hard.

(See Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software by Richard Stallman.)

"What planet are you from?"

Earth, the only planet possible as far as I know.

"Stallman didn't make Linux possible, BSD did. Are you suggesting no other compilers or debuggers existed?"

Two things. BSD is not a compiler or a debugger. BSD is a license or an OS.

Compare http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php with http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

"Safari doesn't use any of Stallman's code, and if LGPL didn't exist (a license Stallman wasn't a fan of), another would have been used."

http://dot.kde.org/2003/01/07/apple-announces-new-safari-browser

In kicking off the Macworld Expo keynote, Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled a new Macintosh web browser named Safari. Jobs said the browser was "based on standards", "works with any Web site", has much-improved performance over IE (page-loading speed is "three times faster", JavaScript performs twice as fast and it launches "40% faster" - comparisons to Netscape 7.0 shows similar performance gains on the Macintosh platform). The KDE connection: "[f]or its Web page
rendering engine, Safari draws on software from the Konqueror open source project. Weighing in at less than one tenth the size of another open source renderer, Konqueror helps Safari stay lean and responsive." The good news for Konqueror: Apple, which said that it will be "a good open source citizen [and] share[] its enhancements with the Konqueror open source community", has today sent all changes, along with a detailed changelog, to the KHTML developers.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit to see how Apple developed into a non-helpful open source citizen.

"Steve Jobs wanted to make a computer for everyone, Stallman couldn't give a damn how difficult they are to use so long they use his license."

Steve Jobs wanted to make money from everyone, Stallman couldn't give a damn how much they charge as long they use the GPL license.

"HURD:0 Apple:Billions" :)

Agreed, on many levels!

"Apple doesn't even use gcc anymore and its days may be numbered."

Don't worry, breath deeply and slowly. Apple will probably survive Jobs demise.

Wow. I had no idea I was so close to touching a nerve there. Based on your response I think we may be talking past each other. There's a lot of rhetorical chaff in there, though, so let me see if I can pick out the correct thread of reasoning you're trying to express:

The problem is that software is not in the same league as human rights and freedoms. . . There is nothing stopping you form developing your own software. No government raids or corporate security officers are going to be raiding your house because you are writing you own word processor. . . And unlike software rights my 2nd amendment rights are actually defined quite clearly in the Bill of Rights with little room for misunderstanding.

I think I see where you're coming from there. I agree that the rights afforded in the U.S. Constitution are indeed important, and I'm impressed by your enthusiasm for your right to defend yourself. I'd like to remind you, however, that the philosophical basis of the U.S. revolution was the notion of "natural rights"; notably life, liberty, and property (referring to Locke, not Jefferson here).

Based on your devotion to the 2nd amendment I see you value your natural right to life. Is it too much of a stretch to say that if a software company's products cause 30,000 days worth of wasted time that they have taken a life (in a distributed fashion)? Steve Jobs reportedly thought this way. It's hard to read whether your tone was serious or mocking when you suggested that everyone dissatisfied with MS Office should re-implement it themselves; I hope you'll agree, however, that having everyone who wants to write build their own word processor first would be a waste of everyone's time and many people's talents. Even if you don't agree that it's an effective loss of life, it's clearly a loss of quality of life for everyone involved.

As far as liberty goes (software slavery in our discussion here), I see clear parallels in today's software market to the company stores of yesteryear's mining towns. They didn't send Feds/corporate goons to force the mine workers to buy from the company, they were just cheaper than driving out to the next store; they charged what the market would bear, and knowingly bled their customers dry. What they did was legal (consumer protection laws had not yet been implemented), but morally wrong. Software companies take advantage of the high barrier of entry to the market and leverage their market position to prevent competitors for emerging, Free or otherwise.
Unfortunately, there are corporate goons ready to take on those who step away from the Microsoft Office. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Word vs WordPerfect wars, but in those days it was common for Microsoft to "audit" businesses and schools, threatening to enforce extortionate fines if the auditors found even one instance of Word that the organization couldn't produce a license for. Of course, purchasing a site license for the full office suite covering every employee (at a cost conveniently lower than the fines) would stop the inquisition. Since these tactics were all legal they carried the implied threat of government enforcement (time to make fun of myself for a moment: "Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!") You may not be shackled with these chains, or perhaps you find the software yoke's burden to be light, but RMS and many others find it intolerable.

Finally, the clearest fundamental right that RMS is trying to defend here is property. He truly believes that your software should be your property, not licensed or rented from a company hostile to your interests. All of the rights detailed in the free software definition are essential property rights: (0) run it for any purpose, (1) change it to suit your needs, (2) give it away unchanged, and (3) give awa

It's already here.

Steve may not have liked your taste in ripped music, your torrented TV series, or your third party apps, but he would defend to the death your right to run them, as long as that means you will pay an Apple tax to do so.

I think you're missing the point. RMS is about free software and has defined the fundamental software liberties already. Software made by Apple and that kept in its walled garden does not match those liberties. The values pushed by Apple don't even come close.

Let's not delude ourselves. As far as software is concerned, with some notable exceptions, Apple always took the hard proprietary line in order to protect and add value to their hardware. It's natural for RMS to point it out. Especially at this moment in time, in a controversial manner, because well, that's what he does.

And hell, if anybody is to talk dirt about Jobs, let it be RMS, a man every bit as influential, who has fundamentally changed things and who has his place reserved in history books as well.

That seems vaguely familiar.

Problem is Oracle will only be dual-licensing some Kernel hooks under the GPL and CDDL. The majority of DTrace (kernel modules, tools, etc.) will be licensed under the CDDL which is not really compatible with the GPL:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License

Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0 (#CDDL)

This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

So basically only Oracle will ship Dtrace on Linux, no other vendor in their right mind will ship it due to the issues around the toxic CDDL license =(.

Longer terms of copyright is no solution but short copyright terms means FLOSS programmers end up contributing to proprietors as if they were public-minded charities while giving the public nothing in exchange. Considering a 5-year term of copyright, Richard Stallman correctly points out:

[W]hat would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a “time bomb” in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the “public domain” copies would not run at all.

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.

I think the Pirate Party should take Stallman's warnings more seriously than I've heard Falkvinge take them in the past (I believe it was a Google talk in which Falkvinge merely dismissed Stallman's concerns without ever responding to them seriously and the questioner, perhaps not recognizing the dismissal, didn't follow-up to get a serious answer). Like Stallman says, "I'd rather not be an advocate for a stronger copyright" and I would rather not have to forgo FLOSS development because copyright law is written to favor proprietors in the form of gifting FLOSS contributions to proprietors.

The form of time bomb Stallman speaks of could be done in a way that would not qualify as DRM in most people's minds, so any discussion of disallowing DRM would not necessarily save anyone: a program that is designed and built to require a server to run and provide any functionality coupled with server-side accounts that are built to expire after 5 years. The program runs but becomes useless to most people running the program in the ordinary fashion. Couple this with no source code under a free license and the user is not only left out after some planned obsolescence but possibly facing a community of apologists who claim that the user should expect no better.

Most computer users today are taught to think of personal convenience and price first, not ever taught to think of the consequences of their choices. Thus most users are left vulnerable to arrangements they won't discover until years after they've paid for service (buying Major League Baseball recording viewing privileges online, or doing business with most media services like iTunes or Wal-Mart, are a few examples).

You don't know much about the GPL, do you? You were almost right about one thing: "nobody can take the code private." Only the copyright holder has the right to change the license. Anyone else, however, can make changes to the software, not provide those changes back to the copyright holder AND make money by selling GPL software. Any modifications you make to the software are also licensed under the GPL and you are not required to share the source code with anyone except the people that use your modifications. If you sell object code (binaries) of the software to customers, you are required to provide the source code to your customers upon request. The price you charge for the software is only limited by what your customers are willing to pay and you can't charge anything more for the source code.

It's not difficult. Reading the GNU project's philosophy on selling GPL software might help you better understand how it works. Looking up "selling GPL software" on Google is also an option.

Funny enough, while there are loads of alternative pdf readers out there, all of the alternative flash players I know of seem to be Linux only, or the windows versions are way behind. http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/lightspark http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/wiki/ Perhaps this will get these projects some attention...

I recently had need to run some analyses on a survey taken for my college reunion and discovered PSPP. Before that I discovered gretl. For someone who hadn't run a regression or crosstab for some years now, and who wasn't about to buy an SPSS license just to run a few tables, I was delighted to find FOSS statistical packages.

Sourceforge alternative for the GNU-minded:

GNU Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/

It's "copyright", not "copywrite". Also, copyright does not preclude being under a free license. For example, see the GNU guidelines which specifically instruct all authors publishing under the GPL to include a copyright notice.

http://www.gnu.org/s/emacs/

The current stable release is 23.3. To obtain it, visit the obtaining section.

It's already out.

The Right To Read from 1997:

Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Not so sensationalist or paranoid now, is it?

I develop web applications every day with PostgreSQL and Python, both very popular projects which originated in universities. I also depend on the ubiquitous Apache HTTP server which was originally a derivative of a university project. Both my development and production environments are GNU/Linux. GNU and Linux were not projects at universities, but they were non-commercial and inspired by experiences in universities.

Though Unix originated at AT&T, the additions from BSD have profound and lasting effects on all modern operating systems, especially Unix-like ones. The Internet was developed at universities and TCP/IP was originally implemented on BSD Unix.

NT Emacs (now GNU Emacs for Windows) - University of Washington Computer Science and Engineering

Torvalds was always more pragmatic than Stallman. And Stallman is getting more out of touch with reality, not having programmed the last 20 years.

If you're trying to say Stallman is a weirdo, I agree, but there's no need to insult the good man.

Besides that, you don't know what you're talking about. His last commit (at the time of writing) to the emacs source repository was less than a month ago:

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/log/?qt=committer&q=stallman

|| Patent pools are incompatible with free/open source.

|I'm sorry, thats flat out false is most ways.

Actually its very true.

You, mine friend, need to learn how patent pools work and how it stops anyone from freely distribute the code using GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html

Given that GPL is the most used license for open source software - patent pools are very bad.

That wasn't patent law. The GEM lawsuits were over copyright before it was established in court (in cases such as Lotus v. Borland) that user interface has a thin copyright. Much of it is a method of operation more than it is a pictorial or graphic work, apart from specific graphical elements such as the Aqua buttons. I guess the confusion between copyright and patent is one reason why Richard Stallman of Free Software Foundation rails against the term "intellectual property".

As usual, it depends on your definition of "free". The term "Red Hat" is indeed a trademark, and other people are not permitted to use it. Hence you can't reproduce packages that use that term without removing the term. Does that violate any definition of "open source"? Probably not: OSI's Open Source Definition says nothing about trademarks. I can't think of a single open source definition that excludes trademarks; in fact, the FSF have even explicitly declared that the use of trademarks is compatible with the GPL:

"However, some licenses had requirements that weren't really restrictive, because they were so easy to comply with. For example, some licenses say that they don't give you permission to use certain trademarks. That's not really an additional restriction: if that clause wasn't there, you still wouldn't have permission to use the trademark. We always said those licenses were compatible with GPLv2, too. Now, GPLv3 explicitly gives everyone permission to use code that has requirements like this. These new terms should help clear up misunderstandings about which licenses are GPL-compatible, why that is, and what you can do with GPL-compatible code."

Since it is blatantly obvious that most people accept the GPL is an "open source" license, the use of trademarks obviously does not make source code "not open source".

Seriously, every time he opens his mouth he sounds like a conspiracy nut but he is so fucking on the ball that almost everything he says eventually comes true. His 1997 article The Right to Read may have seemed ridiculous fourteen years ago, but reading it now it seems masterfully prophetic:

Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

The GPL does not prohibit you charging to distribute software, it explicitly permits you to do so. What it prohibits is preventing you from distributing further copies, and distribution of binaries without source (or the offer of source).

I like to use ddrescue, not to be confused with dd_rescue - which is not as powerful. Note that if you use Debian, they have the names alllllllllll sorts of screwed up - search for gddrescue. Same with Ubuntu.

My point was that the GPL does not meet the standard of freedom laid down on the FSF web site's front page

That would be this, then?

The FSF advocates for free software ideals as outlined in the Free Software Definition

Following that link, we get:

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

• 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.

So we can see that the software is intended to be free from the users perspective primarily, rather than that of the distributor, and the specific freedoms vouchsafed are clearly defined.

I'm afraid I'm still not seeing any hypocrisy here. You can say a lot of things about Stallman, but one thing is he is, is consistent.

Dude, that's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, it's the core tenet of the GPL.

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Emphasis mine. Android's Apache-licensed sections are not being distributed as separate works.

It's not semantics. It's a fundamentally different approach. Open Source is about the model of development, Free Software is about the users (regardless of the model). There's no reason to think RMS would be grouchy about the lack of success of the OS development model, since his concerns were always related to the users' rights, not the developers.

RMS himself has written a whole article about the issue: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Of course it's not. Not only is it not free in the RMS sense of the world, withholding source is not the openness Google always claimed it was promoting.

However it is still the most open out there, or like Stallman said the less bad. In fact the last time I checked gnu.org had an article about Android Development on its first page. Perhaps Android is not free as the GNU project would like, perhaps Google is not good as someone likes to think, but the remaining is far worse: MS and Apple are a nightmare, Novell, Oracle and all the other big players are pretty bad.

The only reason it got so much support from techies is because it runs on Linux, and Google's PR department convinced them that it represented the usual unrealistic OSS fantasies about free ecosystems.

No, it got so much support because everyone can write and release an application for it. Not only that, everyone can write and release an application for Android using free software and free software libraries.

Apple is still the #1 smartphone vendor

No. There's a "still" too much. Apple became the number 1 just in the last quarter when it took over Nokia, thanks Microsoft for this. However it's a head to head with Samsung, which is growing much faster (thanks to Android by the way), so it could be a very short lived lead.

and iOS the #1 mobile operating system counting iPads, iPhones, and iPods.

[citation needed], in the smartphone market Android is selling 2.5 times iOS. I smell bullshit here:
Q3 2011 (millions)
iPad 9.25
iPhone 20.34
iPod 7.54
---------iOs total 37.13
Android smartphones ~50
But probably you have got some secret figures that show heavy negative sales for android tablets...

> Android for mobile phones is still completedly free and open sourced.

You might want to read a bit more about what RMS has written about those terms. Then you will more fully understand that "free" and "open" is not the same. And furthermore, that RMS does not care about "open", or "getting the source". He cares about your and mine freedom.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

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

> Android for mobile phones is still completedly free and open sourced.

You might want to read a bit more about what RMS has written about those terms. Then you will more fully understand that "free" and "open" is not the same. And furthermore, that RMS does not care about "open", or "getting the source". He cares about your and mine freedom.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

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

> Android for mobile phones is still completedly free and open sourced.

You might want to read a bit more about what RMS has written about those terms. Then you will more fully understand that "free" and "open" is not the same. And furthermore, that RMS does not care about "open", or "getting the source". He cares about your and mine freedom.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

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

WHY are they less bad? For whom?

Because Android respects at least freedom 0 with respect to user applications: "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose."

What does this mean? Phones running Android are less bad than phones running iOS or Windows Phone 7 for people who use applications distributed as free software because Android has the "Unknown sources" checkbox.* This lets the user obtain free applications from anywhere and hire anybody to improve them without having to seek the OS maker's permission to run them.

*Yes, even AT&T lately; citation available.

Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html.

After looking up the 17th Amendment, I have to say, Why? Are you advocating the Parliamentary system e.g. in the UK where the upper house is elected by the lower? Seeing as it removes power from the voting public, I'd be interested to know why...

And your second link has nothing to do with the first. Oookay...

Except for the licensing of the software. They're holding its potential back by reserving all rights. If they really were interested in advancing science, they would set the software free. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

I agree.

Nokia has reduced itself to being nothing more than a smartphone hardware manufacturer for Microsoft, but they still want to control, even if indirectly, Qt's development and contributions, even from volunteers. It doesn't matter where the code is hosted, it only matters WHO owns and controls the code. In other words, which license is used. That's why they've chosen the LGPL v2.1 By coding significant features or enhancements as proprietary binaries, it forces Qt to be LGPL in order to utilize those features or enhancements, thus Nokia can control the direction of development of Qt while still claiming it is "open". When explaining why LGPL should not be used the GNU project states:

If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this way.

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising “more users for this library” if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

This might be a time to say "Thanks, but no thanks". A time to take the last GPL version of the code and fork it away from Nokia's (and Microsoft's) control. Perhaps kde.org is a nice place to host the code because the most significant software created with Qt is the KDE desktop.

... that copyright laws are fucked up and piracy is the necessary response. The fact that he's trying to submit and "be moral" to a bankrupt system of laws is the first problem. There is no ethical quandary here. Software licensing for unlimited time due to copyright has has always been a scam it prevents old software from being modified/studied/updated as well as preserving older applications. Companies would like to just sit on/throw away or control works for eternity.

The fact is you already live in a tyranny when you need "permission" to do things with things you already own or that should have legitimately become public domain after all these years. I'm not a believer in eternal rights for corporations and 'business people' that's our fundamental problem of this age - everyones sucking corporate capitalist dick and needs to get their heads read.

Did we not learn anything from DRM and stallman's prescient "Right to read"?

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

The next time you are thinking of "doing the right thing" by submitting to laws made by lobbyists and corporations and their supporters just remember this video about the secret (at the time) trillion dollar give-aways by the fed reserve to the banks and other corporations who had huge investments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ

These people don't give a shit about anyone but themselves they are greedy bastards.