Slashdot Mirror

the Year of HURD Desktop is near?

Stories like "The Right to Read" and "Printcrime" seem more prophetic all the time. Good on Graf_chokolo for sticking it to the bastards.

GNU GPL:

IllusionMage is proudly part of the Open Source movement. Open Source software gives you more flexibility in regards to how and where you can use the software. Main program is based on Blender and released as an open source GNU license. As a note please be aware that IllusionMage is a trademark and although this code is released under a generous open license the name and logo are not.

Please note the game, some content and images has been released under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 .

Source code of these content and files is available to be downloaded from here.

As per the license agreement, please note that there is no warranty for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties provide the program “as is” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.

Now this isn't to say that it's wrong to sell GPL software - even RMS and the GPL v3 licenses say that you can sell it for whatever you can get for it - but that anyone else is free to do the same with the copy you sell them, so the price quickly drops to zero.

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.

They're doing the "sucker born every minute" thing.

Its called Tivoization and GPL V3 was written specifically to keep guys like you from screwing the GPL by "TiVoing" GPL code. Look it is simple, keep up: GPL was written for protecting four freedoms and you fuck ALL users out of the second freedom by locking your GPL running device with the "TiVo trick".

Nobody gives a shit about your reasons why, there is BSD and proprietary vendors that will happily give or sell you code for your purpose no matter what you want to do with it. But you are fucking the community by taking their work and locking it down which frankly makes what you are doing no better then any software thief. The ONLY WAY that code is given to you free is if you abide by the GPL, otherwise YOU HAVE NO LICENSE to that code. With the TiVo trick you are using legalese bullshit to get around the license without actually having to abide by it and it is just as sorry and no different than any other corp that uses hot software to get ahead.

So the GPL V3 was written to get rid of guys like you once and for all, and frankly the sooner everyone switches over the better. Then you'll have the choice of opening up your device and respecting the license or paying to write or buying a proprietary solution which will cost you more. But all those coders didn't write those thousands of man years worth of code for free just to enrich your company, they did it to enrich the community and encourage sharing, otherwise they would have went BSD. You want to take advantage of the richer ecosystem that GPL has with regards to embedded but you don't want to actually follow the rules and that is bullshit. Sorry if that gets you butthurt but your excuses are just that.

Says who? ;-) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html specifically says that apache2 has some requirements that are not in gpl2: "Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in the older version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions."

Does either one allow GPL applications distributed?

The Apple AppStore most certainly does - see, for example, the wonderful MobileOrg which is GPLv2 (certainly not the only example - just the first one that came to mind)

IANAL and AFAIK, doesn't GPL 2 allow charging for distribution of executable code, as long as the source is available somewhere?

All versions of the GPL allow charging for distribution - see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
In particular the bit that says: "Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can".

Thanks

You're very welcome.

This also excludes licenses published by Microsoft, such as the Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL), which is approved as an Open Source license by OSI and a Free Software license by FSF (although incompatible with the GPL).

-molo

'A Columbia law professor in Manhattan, Eben Moglen, [...]'

For those who don't know (really?), Eben Moglen has a leading role in drafting the GPL licenses and in enforcing them (or had), see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

He's also the head and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center which has the FSF as one of its clients. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen

SFLC had a podcast, the Software Freedom Law Show, hosted by (among other) Bradley M. Kuhn, the former Executive Director of the FSF and currently on the board of directors.

In other words, Moglen is deeply involved with free software community organizations.

You jest, but slashdot can already be read in at least one real news reader.

Ulrich Drepper has an interesting article from 2007 about updating the UNIX crypt() command to support SHA-256 and SHA-512.

This is currently used in several modern Linux systems, such as Fedora and Ubuntu. I haven't a clue if any of the BSD systems use it.

It does not appear to be rolled into GNU crypt, at least not according to its documentation.

Having a different perspective on the best way to achieve freedom is not the same as 'hating' the revised BSD license. Why would Richard Stallman have a problem using software with a revised BSD license? It provides all the freedoms that he espouses. He would obviously believe it is better to distribute under the GPL, but despite trolling to the contrary, he is not forcing that on anyone.

And secondly, Debian is not the 'flagship' of GPL. The Debian philosophy is probably closer to the FSF one than many distros, but it is not in their list of free distros (though gNewSense is of course based on Debian). The Debian distro has always included components distributed under a myriad of different licenses, so nothing has changed. If anything, Debian has become more purist, now they have separated out the proprietary firmware blobs from the main distro.

And... The reasons people may choose one of the GPL licenses are explained in the actual text of the licenses which are conveniently available for anyone to read and evaluate here and here.

The question "If FOSS is about freedom why do the use the GPL" seems to imply "but why don't they do what *I* want, instead?", to which the answer is, "you don't get to choose because you didn't do the work."

And... The reasons people may choose one of the GPL licenses are explained in the actual text of the licenses which are conveniently available for anyone to read and evaluate here and here.

The question "If FOSS is about freedom why do the use the GPL" seems to imply "but why don't they do what *I* want, instead?", to which the answer is, "you don't get to choose because you didn't do the work."

Agreed. The computer landscape is a bit different, for now, mostly because of the effort of open-source advocates with the same position as you and I. For what it's worth, I also have no consoles, but I do keep a Windows XP machine around for occasional use. I know exactly how little I can do with it, and I stay within those bounds.

I see no problem whatsoever with suing when terms are found to be unreasonable after the fact. Once again, if you don't like terms, don't agree to them in the first place. Yes, clicking "OK" counts.

Not all licenses say the same thing at all. There are some licenses that are better, some that are worse, and some that are just plain weird. Licenses usually protect the interests and rights of the copyright holder, and it shouldn't be surprising that most companies have similar interests.

Now, IANAL, and this is certainly not legal advice, but if there's some term of a contract that's outright unreasonable, I'd say go ahead and break it. Don't complain when you get sued, but by all means, drag the contract through court and fight it out. Get that unreasonable term invalidated!

The "one part invalidated" clause protects the company against having the whole contract thrown out by a jurisdiction who finds some small part unacceptable. Usually, that protection is provided by legislation anyway, but it's not hard to imagine a jurisdiction's laws containing wording like "Any contract that requires X is invalid".

If I distribute a GPL game engine, and then somebody redistributes that engine with assets to make a game, then those assets are not just data, but instead an integral part of the program that must also be under the GPL.

NOT integral: separate. The Program (to use the GPL term) reads the files at runtime, and there is a bundle that includes them with the program/binary, but they are separate works in a copyright sense. The assets are not a "derived work" of the program. I think you need to read the license again.

Are you saying that a bundle cannot consist of separate works under different licenses? You are making the "viral" argument opponents to GPL like so much...

When both sides produce and both sides consume, the words "producer" and "consumer" aren't exactly as appropriate.

"Call It The Digital Millenium Censorship Act" was the title of Julie E. Cohen's early warning (The New Republic, 2000) how the dreaded DMCA and other "overprotections of the lock" (i.e. Digital Restrictions Management) would turn many aspects even of one's own physical property into "Unfair Use".

Another one was http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html by RMS (Communications of the ACM, 1997).

IceWeasel was renamed to IceCat in 2007. I think your problem is really an ancient version of Firefox.

In other words, if I work at a private biotech company, and someone publishes a new and interesting technique relevant to my current research, am I not allowed to download the paper and apply it to my work?

The process the researcher used may or may not be covered under a patent or other license; however, that has nothing to do with the license of the document itself. To quote the most restrictive CC-NC license:

You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.

To translate the legalese slightly:
"You may not [distribute the work] in any manner that is primarily intended for [you to make money]."

IANALIJPOOS(I am not a lawyer I just play one on slashdot.)

time wholesome and [tuxedo.org], thing for the and easy - only their 4and...she and reports and centralized models Like I should be

Ah, I see you ported Dissociated Press from Emacs to Firefox!

Dude, that is totally useless. ed is the standard editor.

http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html

Please refer to the Free Software Definition; specifically, Freedom 0:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

H.264 implementations do not meet this requirement, therefore they are not free software.

I don't think the FSF is OK with people using any proprietary software, simply because it goes against its goal. But I don't see where the problem is.

The difference between our opinions seems to lay in the fact that you seem to think that, because the FSF defends its goal, it's bad. While I admire the notion of free software as explained by the FSF, I understand the need of an entity like the FSF defending its purism, and at the same time I admit to myself that I am not ready to live today without some proprietary software.

I don't judge the FSF for trying to be pure because I accept its role in the defense of free software, any free software , even if it's not the copyleft-free-software they prefer.

If they complain that Firefox is not free software because it runs proprietary plugins (if, because you didn't add any citation), I reserve the right to disagree on the basis that FF itself is free, even if it can be run with proprietary software. Much like we can compile and use GNU tools in HP-UX or Windows without the GNU tools themselves stopping being free software.

In fact, this kind of right is clear on the first link I mention.

I don't think the FSF is OK with people using any proprietary software, simply because it goes against its goal. But I don't see where the problem is.

The difference between our opinions seems to lay in the fact that you seem to think that, because the FSF defends its goal, it's bad. While I admire the notion of free software as explained by the FSF, I understand the need of an entity like the FSF defending its purism, and at the same time I admit to myself that I am not ready to live today without some proprietary software.

I don't judge the FSF for trying to be pure because I accept its role in the defense of free software, any free software , even if it's not the copyleft-free-software they prefer.

If they complain that Firefox is not free software because it runs proprietary plugins (if, because you didn't add any citation), I reserve the right to disagree on the basis that FF itself is free, even if it can be run with proprietary software. Much like we can compile and use GNU tools in HP-UX or Windows without the GNU tools themselves stopping being free software.

In fact, this kind of right is clear on the first link I mention.

I guess we could all argue semantics but the definition of Free/Open Source really needs to be expanded to specifically exclude patent-encumbered technologies that do not grant unlimited, royalty-free use in both commercial and non-commercial uses alike.

Allow me to introduce you to GPLv3:

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

Actually, neither Firefox nor Chrome is completely Free Software. However, both are based on a majority of Free code, so you can use a build of Chromium or IceCat if you want to use 100% Free Software. I mostly use Firefox, but I'm not opposed to using Chromium or Chrome. While choice among standards is not always a good thing, choice among implementations of standards is.

I think that's the purpose of Gnash, but I understand that it is woefully inadequate.

It's a copyright infringement case that occurs because someone illegally distributed something they would have had a right to if they had complied with the terms of the license the product was offered under. "GPL violation case" seems like a nice shorthand.

I'd say it is definitely Intel's fault if they load the chip with DRM BS that can only be used by signing NDAs and agreeing not to share your work, which from the looks of the Bridge chips really wouldn't surprise me. You know, I may not be a Linux guy but I actually do feel kinda sorry for them right now, as it looks like they are gonna get a butt raping that made the GMA 500 look Linux friendly.i mean it was bad enough when there are chunks of the video chip they can't get thanks to HDMI, thus giving them the choice of shitty binary blobs or crippled drivers, but now Intel is gonna pile the DRM into the CPU itself so basically their whole CPU will be crippled!

Frankly the future ain't looking good for Linux outside of embedded devices ATM. Both AMD with Bobcat/Bulldozer and Intel with Sandy/Ivy Bridge are moving more of the GPU into the CPU, and since I'm sure DX11 hooks into the HDMI support Linux guys will be looking at shitty locked down drivers or crippled drivers, their choice. All it will take is for Intel to add a couple of levels of "next gen" DRM and AMD to play along for the CPU to run like an old P3 unless you sign an NDA and agree to play ball, which by the very nature of Linux is impossible. You know as much as I hate to agree with RMS on...well pretty much anything at all, all this DRM into general purpose CPUs looks to me like one more step towards Stallman's right to read story becoming a reality.

Not at all. If you got your code legally under the GPL, there's no way someone can revoke that for existing code. The moment you download GPL code, you have a perpetual license to use and distribute that code.

If every contributor agrees to relicensing, they could put future code under a different license, but they couldn't revoke the license you already have to the code already under the GPL. From section 2 of GPL v3.0:

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.

As such, any GPL'd app should be perfectly fine on the app store so long as it is free, and providing that it follows the requirements for offers of source.

For the GPLv3, those requirements appear to require that you can get the source from the App Store:

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

...

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

(the other clauses refer to offering the object code "in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium)" or "using peer-to-peer transmission"). The GPLv3 might also require that you provide "Installation Information" so that you can install versions of the app built from source, which might mean that you'd have to let the user sign the app to make it installable, depending on how you read the bit about "[retaining] the ability to install modified object code on the User Product":

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

The GPLv2 doesn't appear to address those code-signing issues (which might be one of the reasons why the GPLv3 was created).

As such, any GPL'd app should be perfectly fine on the app store so long as it is free, and providing that it follows the requirements for offers of source.

For the GPLv3, those requirements appear to require that you can get the source from the App Store:

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

...

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

(the other clauses refer to offering the object code "in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium)" or "using peer-to-peer transmission"). The GPLv3 might also require that you provide "Installation Information" so that you can install versions of the app built from source, which might mean that you'd have to let the user sign the app to make it installable, depending on how you read the bit about "[retaining] the ability to install modified object code on the User Product":

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

The GPLv2 doesn't appear to address those code-signing issues (which might be one of the reasons why the GPLv3 was created).

No, he's not trying to impose additional conditions. The GPL doesn't allow distribution under terms that are more restrictive than the GPL is. The app store terms of use are more restrictive, so apps affected by the GPL can not be distributed through it.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
See section 6. The GPL applies to the developer, not any distributor. The store selling a CD with GPL'ed programs is not bound by any more than the end user. It is not an EULA. Remi is trying to impose additional restrictions upon VLC which are not present in GPLV2. His actions are preventing end users from accessing the program. The developers who wrote the port are in no way violating the GPLV2 as long as they provide a written offer for the source code to any interested third party. Stop trying to read in languages which does not exist in V2 of the license.

We should note that his employer is Nokia which is a direct competitor to Apple in the mobile space and that Nokia has an app store as well called OVI. I would consider that a conflict of interest for Remi. Perhaps he should leave the project to avoid a conflict of interest.

(2) A partial but simple solution: Do comparisons on volatile variables only.

Hope this has been enlightening!

Sandy Bridge implements treacherous computing.

This article reads like a commercial without any scientific background w.r.t. the algorithms used. They even state it does not perform as well as other available programs.

Still, interested giving the game a try? It is really simple.

Start here to learn the rules: http://playgo.to/iwtg/

Like the problem solving, this is a good site for problems: http://goproblems.com/ Note, 30kyu problems are the easiest, then 25kyu etc. Hardest are the dan problems. (Believe me, they are really difficult)

Want to play against the computer? GnuGo is your friend> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnugo/gnugo.html

Playing against real oponents on the web, there are 2 options: Turn-based (the slow progress variant) or real-time. I can recommend for the turn-based variant Dragon Go Server and Online Go Server: http://www.dragongoserver.net/ http://www.online-go.com/

Personally, I'm not into real-time, but KGS is an alternative: http://www.gokgs.com/ Note, people might not always be in the mood for chatting here.

Getting hooked, try to find a local club or check for players in your neighbourhood: http://igolocal.net/

Have fun.

I think the GPL v3 6b says you only have to provide the source to someone who possesses the device containing the GPL'd code.

That's not what "a written offer [...] to give any third party [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" means. If you choose the written offer route then it has to be good for everybody.

The section you link to only says you have to license *everyone*, it then explicitly say you have to do nothing else.

"Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version."

I think the GPL v3 6b says you only have to provide the source to someone who possesses the device containing the GPL'd code.

That's not what "a written offer [...] to give any third party [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" means. If you choose the written offer route then it has to be good for everybody.

There is no requirement to ship the source.

Well, the Free Software Foundation, a group of people who happen to know a thing or two about the GPL, seems to disagree with you about that.

Actually, my company sells software. If we use a 3rd party software component, it has to have the right licence. In fact, our customers insist that we don't use GPL, because they don't want to find themselves in trouble.

FUD or not, if your customer says "make sure you don't use GPL'ed modules and libraries" then you make sure or you find yourself out of business.

Also, using a GPL'ed library to build an application and not releasing the code (of the application) goes against the licence. Check out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL and find out for yourself. If you write software for a rocket launcher and link it against busybox, you have to release the rocket launching code. You may not like the word "viral", but it's a fairly accurate description.

It's a bit of both: you only need to provide source to someone who gets the binary but the binary may be distributed to a third party by a customer - see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

Ask Eben Moglen, chief legal counsel for the Free Software Foundation, how the GPL has been enforced all these years.

In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.

Enforcing the GPL, for the Free Software Foundation anyway, has never been about punishing the violators, as it tends to be with other copyright-related litigation, but more about getting people to comply with the license. In another speech, Moglen explains why there has never been a court test of the GPL, which is what you seem to be looking for:

...In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this: "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but you are going to have to do it the right way."

At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him. We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."

One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."

But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond. This, quite simply, is the reason...that there has never been a court test of the GPL.

Given this kind of legal bind, most defendants when pressed by competent GPL plaintiffs would rather comply with the license like they are supposed to than fight it out in court under those terms.

Ask Eben Moglen, chief legal counsel for the Free Software Foundation, how the GPL has been enforced all these years.

In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.

Enforcing the GPL, for the Free Software Foundation anyway, has never been about punishing the violators, as it tends to be with other copyright-related litigation, but more about getting people to comply with the license. In another speech, Moglen explains why there has never been a court test of the GPL, which is what you seem to be looking for:

...In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this: "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but you are going to have to do it the right way."

At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him. We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."

One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."

But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond. This, quite simply, is the reason...that there has never been a court test of the GPL.

Given this kind of legal bind, most defendants when pressed by competent GPL plaintiffs would rather comply with the license like they are supposed to than fight it out in court under those terms.

Come on, the GPL isn't the new kid on the block that nobody knows.

From the GNU GPLv2:

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

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

"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."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

That's true for the product+source, but not for the source alone:

    6.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.

Simply being willing to ship the sources to their customers for a nominal fee would meet the GPL requirement.

"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." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

> See, prior to OSS, "Free Software" meant the GPL. That's it, that's all.
> As such, anything under that banner was, quite understandably, considered
> dangerous by commercial companies building closed-source applications (cue
> flamewar about the viral nature of the GPL).

Certainly the FSF's GNU project didn't see it that way, they list a big whopping list of non-copyleft licenses as being free software.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

(This isn't revisionism either, they endorsed the non-copyleft X as being a future part of the GNU system way back in the 1980s for example)

Copyleft is a tool to promote freedom, but not a necessity, non-copyleft licensed software that meets the four freedoms criteria remains free software as long it it is passed around under such terms -- its only when someone co-opts such software, disregards the golden rule, and doesn't pass on the same freedoms to subsequent users that non-copyleft programs become non-free.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html
"""In the GNU Project we usually recommend people use copyleft licenses like GNU GPL, rather than permissive non-copyleft free software licenses. We don't argue harshly against the non-copyleft licenses--in fact, we occasionally recommend them in special circumstances"""

Perhaps what you mean is that there was a widespread misconception where free software and copyleft were conflated and that the term open source eliminated this.

But as a matter of technicality, there have been very few licenses interpreted to not meet the FSF's free software guidelines (as evidenced by the big horking list) that have met OSI's open source criteria, and I'm not even aware any on the reverse...

Thanks,
A proud, self-identified, *free software* user of a system running mixed copyleft and non-copyleft *free software*

> See, prior to OSS, "Free Software" meant the GPL. That's it, that's all.
> As such, anything under that banner was, quite understandably, considered
> dangerous by commercial companies building closed-source applications (cue
> flamewar about the viral nature of the GPL).

Certainly the FSF's GNU project didn't see it that way, they list a big whopping list of non-copyleft licenses as being free software.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

(This isn't revisionism either, they endorsed the non-copyleft X as being a future part of the GNU system way back in the 1980s for example)

Copyleft is a tool to promote freedom, but not a necessity, non-copyleft licensed software that meets the four freedoms criteria remains free software as long it it is passed around under such terms -- its only when someone co-opts such software, disregards the golden rule, and doesn't pass on the same freedoms to subsequent users that non-copyleft programs become non-free.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html
"""In the GNU Project we usually recommend people use copyleft licenses like GNU GPL, rather than permissive non-copyleft free software licenses. We don't argue harshly against the non-copyleft licenses--in fact, we occasionally recommend them in special circumstances"""

Perhaps what you mean is that there was a widespread misconception where free software and copyleft were conflated and that the term open source eliminated this.

But as a matter of technicality, there have been very few licenses interpreted to not meet the FSF's free software guidelines (as evidenced by the big horking list) that have met OSI's open source criteria, and I'm not even aware any on the reverse...

Thanks,
A proud, self-identified, *free software* user of a system running mixed copyleft and non-copyleft *free software*