Slashdot Mirror

See Ken Thompson Reflections on Trusting Trust.

Now that there are multiple independent implementations of a C compiler, such as Clang for LLVM, TCC, and GCC, the trusting trust attack can be defeated with a compile farm.

Publishers are gradually changing to e-books anyway and they've never liked libraries, now they just have to make one of the terms of the license that you can't loan books.

It's funny how people keep on calling Stallman all kinds of nasty things, yet he predicted just that. Maybe he hit a little too close to a nerve?

You know, as much as I hate to agree with FLOSSies on...well pretty much anything, I have to say RMS is looking spot on with his right to read story. The most basic fundamental rights we have enjoyed for centuries are being taken away by a bunch of weasel lawyers and corrupt officials. Sadly there ain't a damned thing we can do about it either, unless someone here has a couple of billion lying around to buy some politicians with?

Really? Doing marches, protesting and that stuff won't work?

You do realize the one thing the government is afraid of is it's people taking to the streets to voice their unapproval?

It's true: governments will respond to gigantic throngs of penniless people angrily protesting nearby. But to recognize that is not to deny the even more abundant truth that governments will respond to miniscule numbers of rich assholes quietly greasing palms. The ratio of rich fucks versus poor saps that it takes to move government is, what, something like 1-to-100,000-. I absolutely believe that 3,000 of the richest and best connected people in the USA could outweigh every single last one of the rest of us on a policy issue such as copyright reform. So, what I'm saying is, good luck getting your protest participation to the 99.999% level, and if you can't, then I'd rely on big money to get the way you want.

``You know, as much as I hate to agree with FLOSSies on...well pretty much anything, I have to say RMS is looking spot on with his right to read story.''

Indeed. The beauty is that you don't have to like someone to agree with them, and you don't have to agree with them for them to have a point.

It's scary that, although The Right to Read seemed like a whacky conspiracy theory when I first read it, things have rapidly changed to make it a reality since.

You know, as much as I hate to agree with FLOSSies on...well pretty much anything, I have to say RMS is looking spot on with his right to read story. The most basic fundamental rights we have enjoyed for centuries are being taken away by a bunch of weasel lawyers and corrupt officials. Sadly there ain't a damned thing we can do about it either, unless someone here has a couple of billion lying around to buy some politicians with?

Really? Doing marches, protesting and that stuff won't work?

You do realize the one thing the government is afraid of is it's people taking to the streets to voice their unapproval?

You know, as much as I hate to agree with FLOSSies on...well pretty much anything, I have to say RMS is looking spot on with his right to read story. The most basic fundamental rights we have enjoyed for centuries are being taken away by a bunch of weasel lawyers and corrupt officials. Sadly there ain't a damned thing we can do about it either, unless someone here has a couple of billion lying around to buy some politicians with?

It's the same thing as a library except you can't steal the book.

One cannot "steal" an downloaded e-book. One can only make unauthorized copies of it.

Copying is not theft.

When I borrow a book from my local wonderful public library, if I don't return it, they can't lend it to someone else. When I "borrow" an e-book from somewhere, if I don't surrender access to it...what happens? Nothing.

So, no, this is nothing at all like a library.

What this is, is an attempt to push us closer to a "pay-per-view" model of content. Read RMS's The Right to Read if you want to see the future that DRM pushers have in mind for us. (In fact, I'll plug RMS's whole book, Free Software, Free Society .)

I'm not sure you've read the developer agreement closely enough. You're allowed to do open source, explicitly. Download the latest version of the agreement right now, and look at section 3.3.20. Right there it says essentially "using FOSS is completely okay, as long as you can follow all the rules in this document and all the rules in the applicable FOSS license at the same time".

The FSF certainly says that the app store is incompatible with the GPL. They also say people should never use GPLv2, just GPLv3. The GPLv3 has an anti-TiVoization clause. Heck, read it in the FSF's own words right here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

Focus on the sixth paragraph. That makes the GPLv3 incompatible with the App Store (or with appliances like the TiVo) in ways that simply do not apply to the GPLv2.

(I researched this a bunch while kicking around the idea of taking the last version of Emacs that was under GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 and porting that to the iPad. I ultimately decided against it, but not for reasons of license compatibility.)

I'll invest my time writing a complete player implementation when I could contribute to

...Gnash, the GNU SWF player.

...the right to read

I use mbox format files and grep.

IMO, one can't get much more portable than that.

Stallman has approved the Pirate Party's proposal of a 5 year commercial copyright and no copyright restrictions for non-commercial/private use (and no patents what so ever).

Last I heard, he said the Pirate Party's platform would backfire ironically on free software, but perhaps things have changed since then.

If you haven't broke even after 5 years you probably never will.

Maybe. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of things that have taken a lot more than five years to create.

Imagine having a base station where you have to require a partition for the source.

Are you saying that posting the source code on github or posting it on their asterisks server wouldn't qualify??? Are we both even reading the same license, because it doesn't seem like we are. Please tell me which key paragraph/phrase I've missed, assuming I'm the one who's read the license incorrectly.

Or people with broken cell phones saying you're not providing an equal opportunity to download the software source.

Now, I know you're just joking. You really have to work on your humor, a few of the mods actually took your post at face value.

I would be interested to know what licensing decisions went into freetype. Freetype is licensed under two licenses: the GNU GPL and a license that allows proprietary derivatives. I would need to know more about this particular situation before I could say more about freetype's licensing beyond the obvious consequences. But this freetype situation is a good opportunity to look at a more general case, which I'll try to elaborate on below.

Generally, this is part of the reason why people license their work under the GNU GPL—a strongly copylefted free software license—alone. Those who license under the GPL generally don't mind people developing commercial software based on GPL'd work, the free software movement is not at all anti-commercial software. The objection is against building proprietary derivative works: software that doesn't share their work with the community on terms that respect users' software freedom, just like the code that shared with the derivative work developers. The GPL says to share and share alike and this helps create and maintain a commons in which we can all share while still respecting our private right to run, share, and modify.

We can increase the odds that proprietors have to decide between writing their own code and building on a strongly-copylefted code that would have made derivatives free software as well. Just to forestall an anticipated oft-repeated objection: "Force" is not the issue here as there is no forcing developers to develop based on strongly-copylefted free software in the first place. Developers can always write their own code.

As it is, non-copylefted free software licenses typically turn developers into charitable contributors for proprietors. We've known about this issue for a long time but appeals to popularity ("think of all the users you'll have!") instead of improving the free software commons sometimes win out. The FSF has sage advice on this ground:

When a businessman tempts you with "more popularity," he may try to convince you that his use of your program is crucial to its success. Don't believe it! If your program is good, it will find many users anyway; you don't need to feel desperate for any particular users, and you will be stronger if you do not. You can get an indescribable sense of joy and freedom by responding, "Take it or leave it--that's no skin off my back." Often the businessman will turn around and accept the program with copyleft, once you call the bluff.

Friends, free software developers, don't repeat old mistakes! If we do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole community.

Apparently any improvements proprietors make to freetype code are only shared with the free software community if the proprietor so chooses. Assuming they share any changes at all, those changes may be shared under terms that make them unusable to free software projects: perhaps their changes will implement code that is covered by patents making those changes useless even if the changes are licensed to share, or the changed code may be licensed in other ways that is useless to FLOSS (such as binary-only implementations under a proprietary license). In this instance, Microsoft has no obligation to share under terms useful to FLOSS as a fair exchange for distributing work based on freetype code that was so generously shared with Microsoft.

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Statically_linking_libgcj

I hope you realise that this is one of the problems with GPL. It's a dangerous mine-field if I have to hope that the courts would go against the FAQ as published on www.gnu.org.

So basically I have a piece of software that uses some licence. I check the FAQ for the licence, as published by the people responsible for the licence, and I have to make the decision that their interpretation will not hold in court. Pretty dangerous.

I'd rather find a different implementation, or implement it myself. That means investing more effort in a solved problem (instead of the real problem domain) due to the risky nature of the GPL. I wouldn't call that "freedom".

The FAQ is here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

``Isn't it about time we had the Linux, Windows, and OS X guys sit down and agree on a standard for booting into multiple Operating Systems''

GRUB actually did invent and document a proposed standard: Multiboot.
Alas, last I checked, none of Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD implemented it.

You think that's jumping through hoops? Clicking the ".." link twice and looking for the word "source" is "jumping through hoops"? On the same server where they host and distribute the binaries, the source is only a couple of directories away, in a directory called "source", at the same level as the architecture-specific binaries, and finding that is jumping through hoops? Just how clear do the instructions need to be for you?

I'm not sure what the dictionary says in your country, but in mine, the word Same is defined as equal in amount or value. When the requirement is to provide the same or equal in amount or value, then yes, having to look for the source, even if you have to click the parent directory, is not the same in the spirit or wording of the GPL. I know it's trivial to some, but we are talking about a legal document that has specific requirements.

Uh, really? You think that telling someone where something is, e.g. writing a hyperlink, is the same thing as providing them with that thing yourself, e.g. by owning a computer which hosts and actually *distributes* it? By analogy, would you say that telling people the name of the street where the dope dealers hang out is the same thing as selling dope?

If you link to their download page and allow the user to select the download, it's the third party distributing it. But if you are linking directly to the binary (as the statement originally implies) and the link from your page starts the download directly, then _yes_you_are_distributing it. And yes, several court cases concerning copyright infringement have backed that statement up. Lime wire and the pirate bay are some of the larger ones.

To keep with the dope dealer scenario you laid out, the differences is that one is telling someone where the dope dealer is might be complicity to the dealing (if it can be proven the intent was to initiate the dealing but that's not what this particular part of the copyright is about) where linking directly to the file and starting the download is the same as saying wait here, I get your smack for you- even though the dealer is holding it. The first is on shaky grounds, but how can you argue the later isn't dealing too? I mean you might just be the middle man, but you are providing the dope.

No, the clause requires that both the binary and source be equivalently accessible from the same place - i.e. from the place where they actually are. Not necessarily from each and any link that happens to point to them, but from where the files really exist.

Let me spell this out a little clearer. IF you have a website and on that site, there is a download page. And if this download page has a link to a GPL'd binary file, for it to count as distributing both source and object code, there must also be a link to the source. Otherwise, you have to provide an offer valid for 3 years to anyone requesting the source or pass along the offer you received if your distribution qualifies. The link doesn't have to initiate both the binary and source downloads, there just has to be a link to both from the same page.

If it worked your way round, I could actually keep the binary and source files on completely different servers, provided I always maintained links to the binary and source files in pairs.

Actually, you can. The FSF has even wrote about doing so saying it's not against the GPL but it can get complicated isn't a good idea.

You also can "not" distribute the binary and source together and simply take the "make the source available for 3 years to anyone" option. The same place is only concerning files on a server when you are attempting to distribute the source and binary together to escape the 3 years requirement.

You think that's jumping through hoops? Clicking the ".." link twice and looking for the word "source" is "jumping through hoops"? On the same server where they host and distribute the binaries, the source is only a couple of directories away, in a directory called "source", at the same level as the architecture-specific binaries, and finding that is jumping through hoops? Just how clear do the instructions need to be for you?

I'm not sure what the dictionary says in your country, but in mine, the word Same is defined as equal in amount or value. When the requirement is to provide the same or equal in amount or value, then yes, having to look for the source, even if you have to click the parent directory, is not the same in the spirit or wording of the GPL. I know it's trivial to some, but we are talking about a legal document that has specific requirements.

Uh, really? You think that telling someone where something is, e.g. writing a hyperlink, is the same thing as providing them with that thing yourself, e.g. by owning a computer which hosts and actually *distributes* it? By analogy, would you say that telling people the name of the street where the dope dealers hang out is the same thing as selling dope?

If you link to their download page and allow the user to select the download, it's the third party distributing it. But if you are linking directly to the binary (as the statement originally implies) and the link from your page starts the download directly, then _yes_you_are_distributing it. And yes, several court cases concerning copyright infringement have backed that statement up. Lime wire and the pirate bay are some of the larger ones.

To keep with the dope dealer scenario you laid out, the differences is that one is telling someone where the dope dealer is might be complicity to the dealing (if it can be proven the intent was to initiate the dealing but that's not what this particular part of the copyright is about) where linking directly to the file and starting the download is the same as saying wait here, I get your smack for you- even though the dealer is holding it. The first is on shaky grounds, but how can you argue the later isn't dealing too? I mean you might just be the middle man, but you are providing the dope.

No, the clause requires that both the binary and source be equivalently accessible from the same place - i.e. from the place where they actually are. Not necessarily from each and any link that happens to point to them, but from where the files really exist.

Let me spell this out a little clearer. IF you have a website and on that site, there is a download page. And if this download page has a link to a GPL'd binary file, for it to count as distributing both source and object code, there must also be a link to the source. Otherwise, you have to provide an offer valid for 3 years to anyone requesting the source or pass along the offer you received if your distribution qualifies. The link doesn't have to initiate both the binary and source downloads, there just has to be a link to both from the same page.

If it worked your way round, I could actually keep the binary and source files on completely different servers, provided I always maintained links to the binary and source files in pairs.

Actually, you can. The FSF has even wrote about doing so saying it's not against the GPL but it can get complicated isn't a good idea.

You also can "not" distribute the binary and source together and simply take the "make the source available for 3 years to anyone" option. The same place is only concerning files on a server when you are attempting to distribute the source and binary together to escape the 3 years requirement.

Wait wait wait, I have to specify the specific blocks to load now?

No you don't. GRUB will compute the blocks and store them in the MBR. It's "unreliable" because if the file to be loaded is physically moved/modified, the loader will be broken.

I've written a toy partition bootloader over a weekend which was able in around 400 bytes to load and execute any file on a FAT filesystem.

I bet you mean that you wrote a program to which you gave the path of a COM file that would in turn write the MBR so it would load and execute that file. And it happened to work with your BIOS and the files you tried it with (did you try with files physically located after 8GiB ? on an old broken BIOS ?)
So what ? That's basically what LILO and GRUB stage 1 are doing.

And another for the MBR gave a menu of primary and extended partitions for keyboard selection.

Basically what the Debian mbr package does. That's chain-loading. (Could you really boot an extended partition ?)

What is the Grub project finding so difficult?

Go read the documention to get what features GRUB1 and GRUB2 have.
GRUB is a shell, understand many filesystems, can boot a variety of OS (many of which are requiring multiple files being loaded at specific addresses), from a variety of devices (including netboot), does switch to protected mode, and much more.
It happens that all these features are not fitting in the at most 446 bytes available in the MBR.

Of course, the whole argument is ridiculous because all a compiler does is rearrange code to a format that can be better understood

Javac never produces object code that can be run on any target cpu. Hence it is not a compiler.

A real compiler replaces source code instructions with assembly language for the host platform. The linker then takes the object files and links them together with your startup library, which is more object code, and patches the result so that the first instruction that is executed after your startup lib initialization is main().

Sure, the class files don't need a JIT, but they do need an interpreter at somepoint after they are loaded in the JVM and before they are run. And to those who try to claim that you can also make a stand-alone executable with gcj, gcj is still not feature-complete - for JDK 1.1 Not even support for the old AWT. And obviously no Swing. So unless you want to relive the glory days of pre-mouse DOS to re-implement obsolete programs, gcj is not going to cut it either.

I guess you're too uninformed to know that one of the big reasons gcj hasn't taken off, is because the HotSpot type VMs outperform it a lot of the time?

No - the reason GCJ hasn't taken off is because, to date, they're still trying to get a complete implementation of JDK 1.1.

And no AWT, no Swing, etc.

So let's see - liggcj was released in 1999, and here we are more than 10 years later, and they still haven't caught up to JDK 1.1 (1997).

At that rate, you might get to a half-decent release (1.5) sometime around 2150.

Did you bother looking at their FAQ? Obviously not. GCJ DOESN'T WORK.

Their "mostly-completed" target is JDK 1.1 - you know, released February 1997.

No AWT.

No Swing.

Good luck with anyone taking that seriously.

No AWT, no Swing, other stuff missing, and the stuff that is there, a lot is considered untested and experimental. Their current target is JDK 1.1 - remember that? February, 1997. Some things have changed a bit since then.

2.4 What is the state of AWT support?

Work is in progress to implement AWT and Java2D.

DOS days are back!!! Get your console apps ready to change the world! Reimplement Telix, Midnight Commander, PCTools, and DosShell in Java! You too can throw your mouse away by using gcj to ship "compiled Java apps".

But wait - there's MORE!

2.5 How about support for Swing?

Once AWT support is working then Swing support can be considered. There is at least one free-software partial implementations of Swing that may be usable.

Call me back when you get it working ... let's see ... JDK 1.1 ( the current level *mostly* supported ) was released in 1997, so gcj is only 13 years behind ... oh, how does 2023 sound? You doing anything then?

Of course, if Oracle ever updates the JDK, you may want to postpone it ...

See what I mean now? It would have probably been better to extend the pascal system than to invent Java. At least with pascal, you had the choice of interpreted or binary. This way, programmers who are happy managing memory can use c, and those who aren't can use pascal. It's not like Sun didn't borrow a sh*tload of concepts from Borland Delphi design team.

GCJ is a portable, optimizing, ahead-of-time compiler for the Java Programming Language. It can compile Java source code to Java bytecode (class files) or directly to native machine code, and Java bytecode to native machine code.

And why do people get so emotional about programming languages?

Not quite ... from the description>:

Compiled applications are linked with the GCJ runtime, libgcj, which provides the core class libraries, a garbage collector, and a bytecode interpreter

In other words, it's still interpreted at runtime. Your class files weren't magically compiled at "compile time" to native code. It's the same as old dBase apps that you could make into executables via a compile step - it didn't compile the .dbo file, but rather bundled a copy of the dbase runtime with your code, then set the runtime's start point to the first line of your code.

when it comes to license compatibility issues in general, it is the GPL which is decidedly incompatible with every other license.

That's FUD if I've ever seen FUD. Check out the FSF's list of free software licenses; there's many licenses that ARE GPL-compatible. Excluding the GNU licenses themselves, there's at least Apache 2.0, Artistic 2.0, Berkeley DB, Boost, Modified BSD, CeCILL, Clear BSD, Cryptix, eCos 2.0, Educational Community 2.0, Eiffel Forum 2, EU Datagrid, Expat, FreeBSD (!), FreeType, iMatix, Independent JPEG Group, imlib2, Intel Open Source, ISC, NCSA, Netscape Javascript, OpenLDAP, Perl 5, PD, Python 2, Python up to 1.6, Ruby, SGI B 2.0, SML/NJ, Unicode, VIM 6.1+, w3c, webm, WFTPL 2, X11, XFree86 1.1, zlib and Zope 2.

And keep in mind that these are *licenses*; in reality, most projects won't even bother making up their own licenses. "Decidedly incompatible with every other license". Sheesh!

some GPL advocates tend to view those who choose a non-GPL license as trying to thwart GNU and/or Linux so they don't have to admit that maybe other licenses have terms and conditions that have their own merit.

Who are those mysterious "GPL advocates" you mention, then? Also, what does this have to do with a situation where Sun really WAS trying to "thwart GNU and/or Linux", by its own admission?

Look, the CDDL isn't a bad license per se, and the FSF page linked above lists it as a free software license, too, if a GPL-incompatible one (it does urge you not to use it for that reason, but hey, this *is* the FSF). But the original point was that Sun wanted to make sure that ZFS etc. would not be available on Linux, and they chose/engineered a GPL-incompatible license specifically to ensure that. You're not even contesting that anymore, so why are you still arguing about the whole thing?

It's a fact. Sun didn't want Linux to get ZFS. Get over it.

Not quite. As far as I know, nobody distributed the Sun/Oracle code on its own, and therefore there was no violation of that license.

The violation was of the LGPL, which applied to software the FSF held the copyright for. This situation, where there is a component that may not be distributed by itself, is specifically addressed in the Gnu License FAQ, and the answer specifically states that such software cannot be distributed under the GPL. I don't see a distinction between the LGPL and GPL here.

Therefore, everybody distributing glibc was in violation of the LGPL, and could have been sued by anybody with standing to sue, which was the FSF. If the FSF didn't have the copyright-assignment policy, then any individual contributor could have sued. If somebody found code with a license like this in the Linux kernel, and had a copyright on any code in the kernel, that person could sue anybody who had copied or distributed the kernel.

To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms...In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for most software are contained in the GNU General Public License...

So my question would be, if the copyright is still in force, why does the work have to treated differently than any other copyrighted work?

There are restrictions to what code you can link to or use with the programs/*pl'd code,

No, only if you *redistribute* that code. You can take GPL'd code, and link it with any code you like, no matter what license, for your own use. It's only when you redistribute GPL'd code to another user that you have to give them the same freedoms the GPL gave you.

Im think he is talking about the license to distribute the software and not the EULA

But most commercial software does not even have one of these licenses. Try getting a license for Windows that allows you do distribute copies you've made. Or Photoshop. Or any other commercial app. (Note - not pass on existing copies, which you can also do with GPL'd software, but distribute new copies) Or even if talking about libraries or frameworks (a very small subset of commercial software) try getting a license for a commercial library that allows you to redistribute modified versions at all.

I don't see how, comparing like with like, that for any reasonable definition of "free", the GPL is "less free" than 99.9% of commercial software licenses.

You see, if you offer the binary for download, you need to offer the source on the same server in just as conspicuous of a way. Try finding an ISO with all the source on it on some Distro's download page.

Well, I'm a Debian user, so let's look, shall we?

Go to the Debian homepage, click "CD ISO Images", and then select any "download" option other than the "download a minimal bootable CD image". Hey, look at that. Right there, with the links to the binaries for each architecture, there's a link labelled "source". I wonder what that does. :-)

Hell, just try to find the source code to the updates the package manager automagically installs when you set it to update.

Well, my package manager downloads binaries from:

http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/

Hmmm...right next to the arch specific directory for my downloads, again there's a "source" directory. Wow!

The GPL says 3 years after the last offering,

No, it's a bit more subtle than that.

GPL2 3 states: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

GPL3 6d states: 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.

So, if you distribute over the internet, you can fulfil your obligations under the GPL by making the source accessible alongside the binaries, for only as long you distribute the binaries. If a client chooses not to get the source from you at the time they get the binaries, you need not offer them the source at a later date. The "3 year offer" is

There are restrictions to what code you can link to or use with the programs/*pl'd code,

No, only if you *redistribute* that code. You can take GPL'd code, and link it with any code you like, no matter what license, for your own use. It's only when you redistribute GPL'd code to another user that you have to give them the same freedoms the GPL gave you.

Im think he is talking about the license to distribute the software and not the EULA

But most commercial software does not even have one of these licenses. Try getting a license for Windows that allows you do distribute copies you've made. Or Photoshop. Or any other commercial app. (Note - not pass on existing copies, which you can also do with GPL'd software, but distribute new copies) Or even if talking about libraries or frameworks (a very small subset of commercial software) try getting a license for a commercial library that allows you to redistribute modified versions at all.

I don't see how, comparing like with like, that for any reasonable definition of "free", the GPL is "less free" than 99.9% of commercial software licenses.

You see, if you offer the binary for download, you need to offer the source on the same server in just as conspicuous of a way. Try finding an ISO with all the source on it on some Distro's download page.

Well, I'm a Debian user, so let's look, shall we?

Go to the Debian homepage, click "CD ISO Images", and then select any "download" option other than the "download a minimal bootable CD image". Hey, look at that. Right there, with the links to the binaries for each architecture, there's a link labelled "source". I wonder what that does. :-)

Hell, just try to find the source code to the updates the package manager automagically installs when you set it to update.

Well, my package manager downloads binaries from:

http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/

Hmmm...right next to the arch specific directory for my downloads, again there's a "source" directory. Wow!

The GPL says 3 years after the last offering,

No, it's a bit more subtle than that.

GPL2 3 states: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

GPL3 6d states: 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.

So, if you distribute over the internet, you can fulfil your obligations under the GPL by making the source accessible alongside the binaries, for only as long you distribute the binaries. If a client chooses not to get the source from you at the time they get the binaries, you need not offer them the source at a later date. The "3 year offer" is

GPL is very restrictive as to what the licensee can or cannot do with the work. BSD/MIT both allow nearly any use/modification/extension, but requires the licensee to retain copyright notices.

Um, (L)GPL allows for any use/modification/extension. Those are freedoms 0 and 1.

The only restrictions the (L)GPL places on works licensed under it are when it comes to redistribution of the code - you have to give the person you redistribute someone else's GPL'd code to the same freedoms that you got when you received it.

So is GPL more or less free than a commercial license? Usually less free, but it depends on what you want.

Really? Last I checked, the licences for commercial software usually do not allow you to redistribute copies of the code at all, in any form (binary or source, oh, and good luck with getting the source), under any circumstances.

The GPL is more restrictive in that source code must be provided, no charge, to anyone who gets a binary copy.

Yes, but you're allowed to include, in the amount you charge people for the binary version, costs to cover providing them with the source in the future, which you'll then have whether or not they ever ask for the source. Or you could always ship the source alongside the binaries.

I'd say that smaller companies tend to be less restrictive in their licenses than the GPL

Can you give an example?

and to boot, even though this was championed by Fedora, Fedora will probably stay on fsf's list of non-free software distros.

fsf non-free distro list

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Is to use GCJ and go at the speed of machine code.
Or maybe to LLVM!

Actually, it's been done dozens of times before.

By people who had proprietary knowledge enabling them to use the hardware properly, and hardware to do it on.

The software is not that special, and the system isn't either.

It's constructing the electronics that are capable of doing all the things needed to get the job done that slows you down.

Big companies have $billions to invest in making complex micro-gadgets that they can sell for a $thousand each other big companies who can find millions of little people to rent them for a $hundred a month to send sexts and tweets. You expect things to get done in that business model.

People with the word "free" in their corporate charter, not so much.

Besides, there were other things we wanted to get done.

The GPL only protects derivatives of the GPL'd code from patent liability. It does not protect any other code.

That is incorrect. Please refer to GPLv2 (in this case):

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Emphasis mine.

unfortunately, the splash on this page: http://www.gnu.org/ still shows openoffice as the main way of being productive on a GnuOS computer.

Isn't this exactly what Stallman warned when he suggested that Open Office should be forked because it used Java?

One does not violate "intellectual property". One infringes a copyright, infringes a patent, or infringes a trademark. Which of the three would apply?

One migt think that pleasuring oneself to computer porn was a violation of intellectual property.

You seem to be under the impression that having the law on your side means that you won't be harassed by lawyers.

This is the sort of thing that EFF jumps all over.

I'd like to see how such a cease-and-desist notice might be worded.

The cease-and-desist will claim some intellectual property violation

One does not violate "intellectual property". One infringes a copyright, infringes a patent, or infringes a trademark. Which of the three would apply?

If Larry Ellison backs Hurd then he must be his kind of scum

Then so must Richard Stallman.

If only Larry would get RMS a razor.

If Larry Ellison backs Hurd then he must be his kind of scum

Then so must Richard Stallman.

You might want to read The Free Software Definition, morals and legality aside, piracy gives you 0), 1) and 3), the GPL just gives you 2) in addition. Also the GPL is not Copyright, it is Copyleft.

You might want to read The Free Software Definition, morals and legality aside, piracy gives you 0), 1) and 3), the GPL just gives you 2) in addition. Also the GPL is not Copyright, it is Copyleft.

They should have known that Hurd is unstable

You used the term one of most unfair and it is not even close. Not even in the top one hundred or probably top one thousand.

It is in the top 50 unfair laws the US ever passed.

Copyright does not imped freedom of speech. There are fair use exemptions for criticism and satire.

The so called "fair use" exemptions are not exemptions at all, and have eroded to the point where nobody can legally use them, thanks to DRM.

1. Anti FOSS as set out by RMS and the FSF.

As I said RMS would tell you that game engine should be FOSS but it is perfectly fine to charge and copyright the graphics and maps of any game.

RMS beliefs are anti-copyright, as he has written: All Software Should be Free:

I have shown how ownership of a program—the power to restrict changing or copying it—is obstructive. Its negative effects are widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have owners for programs.

The definition of the FOSS movement is set out by the Free Software Manifesto. It is inherently anti-copyright.

The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually

So no still clueless and trying justify getting what you want for free. AKA being a jerk and actually hurting the cause of FOSS.

No... but I think you are clueless in regards to the motives, objectives, and reasons for the FOSS movement existing.

Your need to resort to Ad Hominem argument proves your ceaselessness in this matter.

You used the term one of most unfair and it is not even close. Not even in the top one hundred or probably top one thousand.

It is in the top 50 unfair laws the US ever passed.

Copyright does not imped freedom of speech. There are fair use exemptions for criticism and satire.

The so called "fair use" exemptions are not exemptions at all, and have eroded to the point where nobody can legally use them, thanks to DRM.

1. Anti FOSS as set out by RMS and the FSF.

As I said RMS would tell you that game engine should be FOSS but it is perfectly fine to charge and copyright the graphics and maps of any game.

RMS beliefs are anti-copyright, as he has written: All Software Should be Free:

I have shown how ownership of a program—the power to restrict changing or copying it—is obstructive. Its negative effects are widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have owners for programs.

The definition of the FOSS movement is set out by the Free Software Manifesto. It is inherently anti-copyright.

The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually

So no still clueless and trying justify getting what you want for free. AKA being a jerk and actually hurting the cause of FOSS.

No... but I think you are clueless in regards to the motives, objectives, and reasons for the FOSS movement existing.

Your need to resort to Ad Hominem argument proves your ceaselessness in this matter.

Trademark and copyright are completely separate systems. Arguments from one do not copy over to the other.

But the publishers of mass-market works of authorship set in fictional universes, who license the trademarks and copyrights related to a fictional universe as a unit, want end users to forget how separate these systems of exclusive rights are. So they use phrases such as "intellectual property" that confuse the two.

It's a well-known fact that God uses 3-space tabs. I don't want to go to hell, so that's what I use, but your eternal soul is your own call, buddy.