Slashdot Mirror

If the GPL2 license is incompatible with the App Store then why have the developers

Indeed, someone need to please quote the part of the GPLv2.0 that the App Store infringes on. It would have to come from part 3, because that is the only part of the GPLv2.0 that deals with executable code, which is what the App Store deals with.

Why do so many programmers are still unaware of Bash's string-parsing built-in capabilities,
and prefer to use the 'basename' command instead?

For the above renaming one would suffice to type:

mv $f ${f%.*}.jpg

See: http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bashref.html#Shell-Parameter-Expansion

Why would I bother developing something if I wasn't going to distribute it, either myself or someone I work for?

Perhaps because you wanted to run it?
Also, it sounds like you may not be aware that the definition of 'distribution' as used in the GPL does not include using the modified program in-house, even if it's by more people than just the developer.
(See this question in the GPL FAQ).

No, they don't. Because they didn't agree to it [the GNU GPL]. The app submitter agreed to it.

The GPL specifies conditions under which one may distribute/convey the covered work. The alternative to these conditions is the default of copyright law: you may not distribute the work at all. Therefore if one fails to comply with the terms of the (relevant version of the) GPL, one loses permission to distribute/convey the GPLd program. But don't take my word for it, read what Eben Moglen, copyright lawyer, longtime GPL enforcer, and now president/founder of the Software Freedom Law Center said about this back in 2001: (emphasis mine)

Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL can't be enforced because users haven't “accepted” it.

This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license text, so everyone is fully informed.

You claim that

Apple needs to take the app down, but they aren't required to take any positive actions to fulfill the submitter's license obligations, such as make the source code available, or remove DRM from the app.

Apple does not need to take the app down. That's the FSF's point: Apple could change how they behave and easily become compliant with the GPL, even distributing GPL'd programs commercially (charging for distribution; distributing for a fee) and charge as much as they like. So long as Apple doesn't comply with the GPL, they can either choose to stop distributing it or they can choose compliance with the license. Taking the program down is not their only option.

Apple is distributing the VLC port. That VLC port is licensed under the GPL. So yes they do need to comply with the GPL which requires distributing complete corresponding source code to the program (a safe and easy way is to distribute complete corresponding source code right along side the binary distribution), or distribute a written promise for the program's complete corresponding source code with the binary. Either would be compliant with GPLv2 or GPLv3 (which are the two versions that cover the vast majority of GPLd programs).

On the other hand, I don't particularly like the idea that an app I submit to the App Store could be subject to a unilateral veto by someone else spuriously claiming my app violates the GPL and they wrote some code in it.

Do you have reason to believe Denis-Courmont's claim of infringement is wrong? Anyone can claim any program infringes on their copyright regardless of license, that doesn't make their claim legitimate. That doesn't appear to be what's going on here so I'm not sure why you brought this up at

No, they don't. Because they didn't agree to it [the GNU GPL]. The app submitter agreed to it.

The GPL specifies conditions under which one may distribute/convey the covered work. The alternative to these conditions is the default of copyright law: you may not distribute the work at all. Therefore if one fails to comply with the terms of the (relevant version of the) GPL, one loses permission to distribute/convey the GPLd program. But don't take my word for it, read what Eben Moglen, copyright lawyer, longtime GPL enforcer, and now president/founder of the Software Freedom Law Center said about this back in 2001: (emphasis mine)

Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL can't be enforced because users haven't “accepted” it.

This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license text, so everyone is fully informed.

You claim that

Apple needs to take the app down, but they aren't required to take any positive actions to fulfill the submitter's license obligations, such as make the source code available, or remove DRM from the app.

Apple does not need to take the app down. That's the FSF's point: Apple could change how they behave and easily become compliant with the GPL, even distributing GPL'd programs commercially (charging for distribution; distributing for a fee) and charge as much as they like. So long as Apple doesn't comply with the GPL, they can either choose to stop distributing it or they can choose compliance with the license. Taking the program down is not their only option.

Apple is distributing the VLC port. That VLC port is licensed under the GPL. So yes they do need to comply with the GPL which requires distributing complete corresponding source code to the program (a safe and easy way is to distribute complete corresponding source code right along side the binary distribution), or distribute a written promise for the program's complete corresponding source code with the binary. Either would be compliant with GPLv2 or GPLv3 (which are the two versions that cover the vast majority of GPLd programs).

On the other hand, I don't particularly like the idea that an app I submit to the App Store could be subject to a unilateral veto by someone else spuriously claiming my app violates the GPL and they wrote some code in it.

Do you have reason to believe Denis-Courmont's claim of infringement is wrong? Anyone can claim any program infringes on their copyright regardless of license, that doesn't make their claim legitimate. That doesn't appear to be what's going on here so I'm not sure why you brought this up at

"You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the “Licensor”), in which case the Licensor’s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product."

That language does not say "the Licensor’s end user license agreement" applies exclusively rendering the Apple Terms and Conditions inapplicable. I read that language to say Apple acknowledges what they can't avoid: some programs come with terms that must also be complied with in addition to Apple's terms for distributing via the Apple App Store. If Apple is trying to specify exclusivity they should be more clear. It won't help them dodge license requirements of the GPL (Apple doesn't have the power to supersede copyright law), but submitters should understand what they're getting into when they deal with Apple.

Also, the poster at the top of the discussion link you pointed to should understand that the no-additional-restrictions clause of the GPL, which is what the FSF is talking about, appears in all versions of the GPL: sections 6 of both GPLv1 and GPLv2, and section 7 of GPLv3, so with regard to this issue it doesn't matter which version of the GNU GPL is involved. And all licensing is "a political statement"; the context in which the poster says that comes off as if being political is somehow a bad thing when, in fact, being political lead to the GPL and the movement that works for software freedom.

Not being an Apple App Store user, I have no idea if Apple is also distributing the complete corresponding source code for that port of the VLC. Does Apple do this?

If Denis-Courmont takes this to court and sees it through we'll all get to learn a little more about this case. Settling issues like this is what courts are for.

"You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the “Licensor”), in which case the Licensor’s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product."

That language does not say "the Licensor’s end user license agreement" applies exclusively rendering the Apple Terms and Conditions inapplicable. I read that language to say Apple acknowledges what they can't avoid: some programs come with terms that must also be complied with in addition to Apple's terms for distributing via the Apple App Store. If Apple is trying to specify exclusivity they should be more clear. It won't help them dodge license requirements of the GPL (Apple doesn't have the power to supersede copyright law), but submitters should understand what they're getting into when they deal with Apple.

Also, the poster at the top of the discussion link you pointed to should understand that the no-additional-restrictions clause of the GPL, which is what the FSF is talking about, appears in all versions of the GPL: sections 6 of both GPLv1 and GPLv2, and section 7 of GPLv3, so with regard to this issue it doesn't matter which version of the GNU GPL is involved. And all licensing is "a political statement"; the context in which the poster says that comes off as if being political is somehow a bad thing when, in fact, being political lead to the GPL and the movement that works for software freedom.

Not being an Apple App Store user, I have no idea if Apple is also distributing the complete corresponding source code for that port of the VLC. Does Apple do this?

If Denis-Courmont takes this to court and sees it through we'll all get to learn a little more about this case. Settling issues like this is what courts are for.

"You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the “Licensor”), in which case the Licensor’s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product."

That language does not say "the Licensor’s end user license agreement" applies exclusively rendering the Apple Terms and Conditions inapplicable. I read that language to say Apple acknowledges what they can't avoid: some programs come with terms that must also be complied with in addition to Apple's terms for distributing via the Apple App Store. If Apple is trying to specify exclusivity they should be more clear. It won't help them dodge license requirements of the GPL (Apple doesn't have the power to supersede copyright law), but submitters should understand what they're getting into when they deal with Apple.

Also, the poster at the top of the discussion link you pointed to should understand that the no-additional-restrictions clause of the GPL, which is what the FSF is talking about, appears in all versions of the GPL: sections 6 of both GPLv1 and GPLv2, and section 7 of GPLv3, so with regard to this issue it doesn't matter which version of the GNU GPL is involved. And all licensing is "a political statement"; the context in which the poster says that comes off as if being political is somehow a bad thing when, in fact, being political lead to the GPL and the movement that works for software freedom.

Not being an Apple App Store user, I have no idea if Apple is also distributing the complete corresponding source code for that port of the VLC. Does Apple do this?

If Denis-Courmont takes this to court and sees it through we'll all get to learn a little more about this case. Settling issues like this is what courts are for.

And you think that matters to consumers?

"Consumer" is a loaded and confusing word. Did you mean it in the economic sense or in the sense of home users? I will grant that the ability to hire third-party support doesn't matter much to home users, who consume software solely as a means to home entertainment. But it matters to business users, who consume software as a means to producing something else using said software.

Having read a good bit more since I first posted, I'm even more convinced now that your point of view is completely wrong. See for example this VLC developer: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340 (as cited elsewhere in this article discussion)

Why your points are wrong:

1) APPLE is the distributor; THEY have to offer the source

So by this standard, if Best Buy sells any GPLed software, they are the ones responsible for providing the source code? Don't forget that the GPL explicitly says that source and binary do not have to be packaged, distributed, or sold together! I think this is clearly wrong, not in the spirit of the GPL, and further, demonstrably wrong.

Check out GPLv2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html The preamble explicitly states:

Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software ... [and] that you receive source code or can get it if you want it...

For exactly why you're wrong, check out section 3 (you could even CHARGE for mailing someone the source code, and that would be ok!). That's why Apple and Best Buy don't have the obligation you thought they did.
Additionally, from a purely practical standpoint, think how impossible it would be for Apple and all other distributors to comply with every random license in such a way...

2) And impose no further restrictions.

With regards to the GPLv2 (the license that applies to vlc) what are you talking about specifically? I'm not sure, but I'm willing to concede this might be an issue if you can tell me what clause is the problem?

GPLv2 (the version VLC is under) doesn't forbid DRM. GPLv3 (which GNU Go is under) does that.

It forbids DRM on the application (or TiVo-ization) - measures that prevent modified versions of the code from running. These measures remove the freedom to modify the software to suit your needs, which is what the GPL intends to preserve.

It does NOT prevent you from implementing DRM systems using the code.

As the FAQ points out, DRM systems in GPL code are a little silly, because you must give the sources to application recipients, which means that cracked versions will emerge pretty quickly (and legally), but you can still do it, just like you can use GPL code to create baby-killing robot monsters or benevolent AIs that rule the planet with a fair and even hand.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

Maybe it's the tinker part there, or something, what do I know, haven't read it.

You will not find any Visual Studio screenshots in this book.

Nor will you find any in this book either.

C# is a *language*, not a platform.. yes, the most common platform is a windows platform, but there are projects that, for example, will compile C# to native code that runs on Linux.

Now, granted, most of those projects are experimental, but look at dotgnu (an official FSF project) or LLVM#

From the source: "Gnash... supports most SWF v7 features and some SWF v8 and v9. SWF v10 is not supported by GNU Gnash."

Yeah. Sounds really useful. They support MOST of a SEVEN YEAR OLD VERSION. Woo hoo, sign me up!

And by the way, who's to say that Gnash is free of bugs and/or exploitable holes? One problem with re-implementing something is that you're likely to (and sometimes need to) reproduces the original, bug for bug and flaw for flaw. Just ask the WINE guys.

people willing to separate from the herd and try something new.

Oh really fucking funny, asshole. It will be released one day and you will see the stupidity of your words.
It's GNU H u rd BTW, retard.

<libertarian> If you want a university education, you can enter into contract with the one that best meets your goals. If the terms change, you are free to contract with a school whose terms you can abide by. The schools/faculty contract with the publishers, not you, and therefore it is not your concern. If the publishers and school collude to require temporary etexts, to the exclusion of paper, they are exercising their freedom to contract and associate. You are not required to obtain a college education, and no one is required to hire you if you elect not to obtain one. </libertarian>

Whoa, did I write that out loud? What I MEANT was, what Stallman said.

I thought it was a little overly fearful when I first read it. But it seems he may not be far off the mark...

The Right to Read, by Richard Stallman:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Wget for crawling tens of millions of web pages using a 10 line script? He doesn't understand crawling at scale.

There's a lot more to it than just following links. For example, lots of servers will block you if you start ripping them in full, so you need to have a system in place to crawl sites over many days/weeks a few pages at a time. You also want to distribute the load over several IP addresses, and you need logic to handle things like auto generated/tar pits/temporarily down sites, etc. And of course you want to coordinate all that while simultaneously extracting the list of URLs that you'll hand over to the crawlers next.

Guess what wget can do?

http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/manual/wget.html

Its a little more advanced than "cat" with a http interface, in the same way that a 777 is a little more advanced than the Wright Flyer.

(In all fairness, the point that you need a little iptables magic to fake your multiple ip addresses in addition to wget, if anything, proves his point further that multiple little tools work best)

The GNU cp doesn't either:

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/copy.c

Could be an interesting test.

1. connect to gmail with FF4
2. FF4 crashes
3. Decide speed is more important than stability
4. connect to gmail with FF4
5. FF4 crashes
6. connect to gmail with FF4
7. FF4 crashes
8. connect to gmail with FF4
9. FF4 crashes
10. connect to gmail with FF4
11. FF4 crashes
12. connect to gmail with FF4
13. FF4 crashes
14. ????
15. give up and go back to post-it-notes and yellow pages

For those who are checking their leg length...

http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/

http://dir.filewatcher.com/d/SuSE/9.2/src/Development/Tools/Other/hello-2.1.1-311.src.rpm.397493.html

and numerous other references...

You can release the code for a game but still sell the media.

Which would require distribution of parts of the work under two licenses with contradictory goals. It's not entirely clear to me what "are not by their nature extensions of the covered work" in the definition of "aggregate" in the GPL means, nor could I dig up any guidance from the FSF on video game licensing on Google.

How exactly would they prevent a user from literally running an EXE someone randomly mails them?

I predict now that the iOS AppStore model will become the new PC norm, much to our dismay. The ability to run random binaries without a curator overseeing will be gone for most folks in about 5 years. There will of course, be jailbreaking, open builds (pro OS) and such, but instead of virus-scanning taking the bulk of your computer's idle processor, it will be iTunes/Steam or the equivalent ensuring that your Apps are licensed, compliant and behaving.

RMS was a visionary, and it will be proven out in about 5 years or so (before 2020 for sure).

In addition to BOOST, you might want to consider looking at other projects. Some that might be a good fit, and might need developers are :

- GSL : The GNU Scientific Library is a scientific toolset for C and C++. These tools are quite modular, and you might be able to find your own module to code.

- Plotting software : Help to any of the plotting programs would be a real boon for all scientists. This could involve developing non-linear fitting algorithms, GUI, or statistical analysis. Look at SciDAVis and possibly GRACE.

- non-linear fitting : C++ Minuit, or a CERNlib project may be a good match--I'm not sure whether these are only developed internally.

good luck!

I hope the new OS will be a microkernel one, like L4Ka (or L4 in general) or Minix.

<punAlert>
Well, at least then they could join the Hurd.
</punAlert>

You forgot the most famous one.

Then you should try writing it with a text editor that supports color coding, like Emacs with AUC-TeX for examle (s/Emacs/$EDITOR/g).

Ed, man!

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

"When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi and Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like, ‘C-h for help’ and ‘“foo” File is read only’. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

Ed, man! !man ed"

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

According to this there are 5 files that start with "ls".

Except for ls.c, all those files have only one entry on their history. The "initial revision" on 1993-06-16.

On the other hand, you can check the history of ls by yourself. Ignoring a "build" commit done on 2010-09-18 (and by the same guy who did the "initial revision" ones), the last commit is from 2010-07-01 with the message header of "ls: use the POSIX date style when the locale does not specify one".

While not extremely important, it does show that ls keeps receiving updates to this day.

According to this there are 5 files that start with "ls".

Except for ls.c, all those files have only one entry on their history. The "initial revision" on 1993-06-16.

On the other hand, you can check the history of ls by yourself. Ignoring a "build" commit done on 2010-09-18 (and by the same guy who did the "initial revision" ones), the last commit is from 2010-07-01 with the message header of "ls: use the POSIX date style when the locale does not specify one".

While not extremely important, it does show that ls keeps receiving updates to this day.

You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following:

Emphasis mine. Effectively, you can create a combined work as long as you allow reverse engineering for debugging purposes. This is sufficient to make LGPL dead in the water for many US based companies.

.NET is not even a C/C++ framework, so why it's listed alongside gcc is beyond my comprehension. It's like complaining that you can't write Rails apps with gcc.

From gcc's website:

GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection

GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...). GCC was originally written as the compiler for the GNU operating system. The GNU system was developed to be 100% free software, free in the sense that it respects the user's freedom.

Many years ago there was a GNU project to create an online secure voting software. It's a great idea.

In 2002, they finally stopped development. They explain why here: http://www.gnu.org/software/free/

Quoting from that page:

"As Bruce Schneier points out "a secure Internet voting system is theoretically possible, but it would be the first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers."

and...

"Mr.Schneier points out, 'building a secure Internet-based voting system is a very hard problem, harder than all the other computer security problems we've attempted and failed at. I believe that the risks to democacy are too great to attempt it.'"

I think anyone wanting to build a secure online voting system should give those quotes some really serious thought before starting. Then before they write any code, they should be to explain why they believe they are right and one of the field's most respected experts is wrong.

And what a hell this should do with "Linux" at all ?

Granted, it runs Linux Kernel but everything else have nothing... _nothing_ to do with what people (and looks like you are not an exception) refer to when they say "Linux". Everything else Google made from scratch. And on Java. That Java: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
And even its in-Kernel bits were ditched from mainstream Kernel for failing in quality and lack of support.
"Linux's chaos and complexity"... riiight. Someone, prescribe anti-inflammatory to that man, stat !

And Nokia. Nokia has bought and support Qt, most awesome multiplatform pure C/C++-and-more toolkit, and is cooperating with Intel so tight that they actually have discontinued their "Maemo" product in favor of merged project "MeeGo". Both if which, by the way, have real repositories and not this cut-down malware-infested crap. And you don't need to search for cryptic instructions and have telepathic powers to put your hands in its guts.

It is, however, indeed disturbing how Google don't apparently give a damn about "Android" name and not hauling its ass for the rescue :\
Vendor slovenliness, ugly behavior, one vulnerability after another and shitload of advertisement and dangerous, from the looks of it now - WTF ? Even i have got into situation when F/OSS-fanatic like me dissuades friends and alike from buying Android-based things.

Thanks you, there is n900 for me... with some real "Linux" in it.

And what a hell this should do with "Linux" at all ?

Granted, it runs Linux Kernel but everything else have nothing... _nothing_ to do with what people (and looks like you are not an exception) refer to when they say "Linux". Everything else Google made from scratch. And on Java. That Java: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
And even its in-Kernel bits were ditched from mainstream Kernel for failing in quality and lack of support.
"Linux's chaos and complexity"... riiight. Someone, prescribe anti-inflammatory to that man, stat !

And Nokia. Nokia has bought and support Qt, most awesome multiplatform pure C/C++-and-more toolkit, and is cooperating with Intel so tight that they actually have discontinued their "Maemo" product in favor of merged project "MeeGo". Both if which, by the way, have real repositories and not this cut-down malware-infested crap. And you don't need to search for cryptic instructions and have telepathic powers to put your hands in its guts.

It is, however, indeed disturbing how Google don't apparently give a damn about "Android" name and not hauling its ass for the rescue :\
Vendor slovenliness, ugly behavior, one vulnerability after another and shitload of advertisement and dangerous, from the looks of it now - WTF ? Even i have got into situation when F/OSS-fanatic like me dissuades friends and alike from buying Android-based things.

Thanks you, there is n900 for me... with some real "Linux" in it.

You must install into some temporary directory

I'm sure he knows this since he is already using Stow. Stow works pretty well for having multiple versions of different software packages built from source and installed simultaneously, and having a proper package management system for it all. Though these days I use Checkinstall - having the final package as a .deb or .rpm make it a bit easier to distribute the built packages.

In 1971, when Richard Stallman started his career at MIT, he worked in a group which used free software exclusively. Even computer companies often distributed free software. Programmers were free to cooperate with each other, and often did.

Before micro-soft, software was the source code. But it is too easy to patch source code then compiled binarys, so it is more profitable to have customer unable to apply patchs and have them buy the same thing over and over every year. This "normal" state of closness didnt happen until the 80s. Thanks to Bill Gate. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

There are two kinds of video codecs, those that are installed at the OS level and those that are overwritten by an application.

If Apple refuses to install a free codec into iOS, then how do you recommend that the end user install a free codec into iOS?

If FF4 wants to provide its own codecs, fine. But why not defer to the OS otherwise?

Because Mozilla doesn't want to be held responsible for A. security compromises resulting from defects in codecs that it does not control, or B. inconsistent web page behavior due to codecs present on some platforms but not others. Windows 6.x and Mac OS X have H.264, but Windows XP and Linux don't, and the answer to "how do I get the site to work?" philosophically shouldn't be "switch to Windows."

The scarier posibility is that it might half work and other governments will go the same way.
I can imagine that malware being written and [not forced but if you want to not get sued you have to install it for liability reasons.... and once most people are using it the remainder can be forced on the basis of "if you have nothing to hide"] pushed onto machines.

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

That software sounds like pretty much what he described.

Real men run Lynx^H^H^H^H wget!

That is not the definition that the OSI uses to define Open Source, nor is it the FSF's definition of Free Software. It may be how you personally define 'open source', but you should be aware that you are not using the established definitions. Sources:

Open source definition from the OSI.

Free Software definition from the FSF.

You are free to define 'open source' however you want, but if you define it differently from everyone else then you might end up with some difficulties communicating.

Worse yet, even when it's complete it'll be a non-standard standard as you'll be able to hack about with it XML well-formed or not.

HTML5 defines two content-types: text/html and application/xhtml+xml. The text/html form is a variant of SGML (though not a strict application of SGML as HTML 4 was), and the HTML5 spec specifies exactly how a parser should turn ill-formed tag soup into a well-formed DOM. This error handling is identical in any conforming parser. If you want well-formed XML, use application/xhtml+xml.

http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

From this site: "The only reliable, modern cross-platform application solution that runs reliably in every browser from IE6 to Safari 5- and now many Android phones- is Flash." Safari for iOS doesn't support it, and iOS is far more popular than Android on handheld devices that aren't cell phones (namely iPod touch and iPad, compared to Archos tablets). Moreover, the free web browsers (Fx and Cr) are far more complete than free alternatives to Adobe Flash Player such as Gnash.

Worse yet, even when it's complete it'll be a non-standard standard as you'll be able to hack about with it XML well-formed or not.

HTML5 defines two content-types: text/html and application/xhtml+xml. The text/html form is a variant of SGML (though not a strict application of SGML as HTML 4 was), and the HTML5 spec specifies exactly how a parser should turn ill-formed tag soup into a well-formed DOM. This error handling is identical in any conforming parser. If you want well-formed XML, use application/xhtml+xml.

http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

From this site: "The only reliable, modern cross-platform application solution that runs reliably in every browser from IE6 to Safari 5- and now many Android phones- is Flash." Safari for iOS doesn't support it, and iOS is far more popular than Android on handheld devices that aren't cell phones (namely iPod touch and iPad, compared to Archos tablets). Moreover, the free web browsers (Fx and Cr) are far more complete than free alternatives to Adobe Flash Player such as Gnash.

One of my favorite things about Flash is that it's easy to block and control.

To coin a phrase, "that is not entirely accurate". It is well documented (2009 Study) that "Private Browsing" does not actually protect you, (blog post) that the Flash cookies + Javascript code simply store the Flash cookies in a location that is not monitored and/or controlled.

Linux using Symlinks to redirect the Flash stuff to a (/tmp) directory that gets automatically erased every time you reboot your PC is a great option. See (Banish flash cookies forever under linux. Since Mac OS X is based on BSD Linux, you should be able to do the same thing with that operating system. With Windows, you could always count on DOS to allow you to erase junk also, however with Windows 7 I honestly have no idea if it is even possible. As many of the articles pointed out, vendors will tell you that you are safe and browsing privately, but the reality is often something else. At best they only do a partial job with Flash. At worst they do nothing. Adobe blames the browsers API, which is interesting. I am not buying that at all. As for browsers, Internet Explorer and Google Chrome do not allow you to control Flash junk 100%, allowing for only a false sense of security. Since Google has partnered with Adobe, this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. See the comparison link below to see how those browsers stacked up based on Privacy.

With Firefox + NoScript + Linux you can at least control the Flash stuff after a reboot of your PC. However between reboots, Flash can track your activity on the web. Since there are over a 100 web browsers to choose from, surely a few of them will allow you to successfully control your Privacy and not just pay lip service to it.

Don't settle for security by obscurity or as this blog post (with examples) showed privacy settings that do not work 100%. A quote from that post, "Still, the private browsing features in Chrome and Firefox are a complete false sense of privacy and security". Why settle....

Another options might be MPlayer or gnash, the point is you do NOT have to use Flash if you do not want too. HTML5 should be another positive development to diminish Flash.

I was annoyed that Google Chrome would let me only block the website cookie, not all the related tracking cookies from 3rd parties that are not named the same as the website. Even if you are not concerned about your privacy, you have to hate your Internet browsing experience slowing to a crawl because a website you are spending a second at wants to set 20 to 30 Flash cookies on your PC. This quote from the comments of the Linux article to banish flash cookies mentioned above, sums it up nicely...

(The real danger in all this is cross-site tracking via third-party web beacons, whether that is stored by browser cookies, Flash Local Storage, browser Local Storage, or IP-address tracking. This article at The Inquirer, for instance, wants to notify DoubleClick, Scorecard Research, Quantserve,

Of course there are open source social networks. I cannot believe you don't know GNU Social!

I think Ubuntu is a good player, if it comes to contributions to the community.
What we refer to as Linux, is made up of many tools around the Linux kernel. Here are just the informations I found on programs running on nearly every distribution
The biggest player in contributing to Linux kernel is still RedHat. Here are the top contributers:
Within that field, Red Hat topped that chart with 12%, followed by Intel with 8%, IBM and Novell with 6% each, and Oracle 3%.

Whereas the GNU (ls, pwd, sort, head, gcc, bash etc.) is done by the FSF (Free Software Foundation). Here is a list of contributors: GNU

If I put those programs together and make my own startscripts with e.g. init, systemd or whatever, I get a distribution. How close is Ubuntu to the actual version of the program in their distributions, which is necessary to contribute at all?

Here is an interesting statistic, how close distributions are with the upstream version: oswatershed.org
I believe the top distributions here are also the ones with the most upstream patches to get the used programs working.

I think the license is clear enough that that is not actually a loophole. The rule is that the product must come with a "written offer" specifying how to get the source (allowing for a charge of the cost of the physical medium and shipping if not delivered via the internet). See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. (The text was clarified in version 3, but the text in version 2 is similar.)

Steve Jobs already lost to Richard Stallman once, back in the NeXT days. That's why GCC has an Objective-C front-end, and why Apple still distributes a patched version of GCC in full compliance with the GPL. Maybe he wants a rematch. :)

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