Slashdot Mirror

How do you count premiere? Features? How about code quality? Compare these two for a trivial example:

FreeBSD cp.c: view
Coreutils cp.c: view

The latter is embarrassing and the person should be ashamed to call himself a programmer. And this is, by far, one of the better-written GNU parts. I have long felt that the FreeBSD tools are better suited to being paired with Linux than the GNU tools are, as they both (FreeBSD & Linux) maintain similar coding standards, and the FreeBSD tools are better documented and undeniably more secure & bug-free.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

You should hire a better lawyer, GCC does NOT restrict develop non-free programs. Check the FAQ for more info.

And if you want the whole thing:
http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/helloworld.html

Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software

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

Abcd1234 wrote:

I'm calling bullshit.

There's no way you use both Vi *and* Emacs.

One word: viper. See http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/viper.html#Top for details.

content creator

I detest this term, which literally means "happy god". Authors are not gods, and works of authorship do not necessarily bring contentment. In discussions about copyright, the terms "author", "publisher", and "copyright owner" are better defined.

The consumer is entitled to choose whether the terms are acceptable to them, or to avoid the content.

And replace the works under unacceptable terms with which works under acceptable terms?

RTTI cannot be implemented properly and fast across shared libraries due to poorly through out instantiation semantics of C++.

Also, most of the time, the need to use runtime type identification indicates bad software design. Grow some API-specific virtual methods that you really miss, so that you have to replace them with dynamic type checks.

Clearly, putting it on multiple computers does constitute propagating, but as it is done by the IT person, only that IT person would retain the right to distribute further copies. Offering it for internal download, again, clearly qualifies. Why? Because without permission to copy something, making additional copies for additional machines would be a copyright violation.

The GPL is actually remarkably clear on this point; making something available to the general public is not required for the license to kick in, and internal distribution does count. The concern over internal distribution is legitimate, at least under GPLv3. Don't like that? Pick software with a better license next time, like GPL version 2.

I'll just pile on and give a more relevant quote from the GPL FAQ than the people who have already debunked you (source):

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”?

No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.

The FSF represents Free Software only, and encourages people to use the GPL.

I think that is more accurate than my comment. I would agree. I'll reevaluate the issue, as I always have something to learn, but I still think my original comment about Android being open, but not free (as in hackable without jailbreaking) is still true. It IS open, but it is not modifiable. Thanks again.

Free vs Open Source

You are confusing FSF with OSI.

No I'm not. Seriously, read the FSF's site. First, read the Free Software Definition. Note how every requirement that it lists is met by the Apache license. Now read the FSF's opinion of the Apache 2 license - in case you are too lazy to click on a link, they say:

This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL.

Please stop misrepresenting the Free Software Foundation's views. Especially stop nonsense like this:

FSF represents Free software and the GPL only.

The FSF represents Free Software only, and encourages people to use the GPL. They also support other licenses. I maintain a GNU (FSF-backed) project that is released under the MIT license, and I regularly contribute to another that is LGPL'd.

I don't blame you for confusing the issue, as it is a common thing.

When everyone except for you appears to be misinterpreting something, it's worth checking if you are the one with the misunderstanding...

You are confusing FSF with OSI.

No I'm not. Seriously, read the FSF's site. First, read the Free Software Definition. Note how every requirement that it lists is met by the Apache license. Now read the FSF's opinion of the Apache 2 license - in case you are too lazy to click on a link, they say:

This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL.

Please stop misrepresenting the Free Software Foundation's views. Especially stop nonsense like this:

FSF represents Free software and the GPL only.

The FSF represents Free Software only, and encourages people to use the GPL. They also support other licenses. I maintain a GNU (FSF-backed) project that is released under the MIT license, and I regularly contribute to another that is LGPL'd.

I don't blame you for confusing the issue, as it is a common thing.

When everyone except for you appears to be misinterpreting something, it's worth checking if you are the one with the misunderstanding...

The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.

It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.

According to the GPL V2 FAQ:

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”?
        No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

        However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.

Your conclusion appears to be at odds with the FAQ on the GNU website Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

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

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

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

The definition of propagate you've quoted is relevant, though does not in itself mean much without looking at the context in which that definition is used e.g.

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary.

Where conveying is defined as

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

So in other words an organization can distribute copies of their own code within the organization without the requirement for that code to be licensed under the terms of the GPL. It's only when the work is conveyed (i.e. propagated to another party) that there are additional conditions, and if that other party is a subcontractor, the conditions don't apply.

The license really needs to be read as a whole rather than as selected quotes though, as there are quite a few dependencies between sections.

Well I was specifically thinking of glibc (being the most essential library for any C program running under linux to link to), and it is definitely licensed under the LGPL.

And no, GNU doesn't think you should only use LGPL if you hate freedom. They do suggest that you strongly consider using the GPL instead since by allowing linking LGPL does Less to protect freedom. They would also say the same about GPL-with-linking-exception, only more so, since LGPL puts more requirements on what kind of things users should be able to do with the linked binary.

Under GPLv2, you would have been correct, as the term "distribute" has specific meaning in copyright law, a definition that would generally exclude moving copies of copyrighted material around within a company (so long as you do not give it to contractors or other companies working with you, IIRC, but my memory of those aspects of copyright law are kind of vague, so take that with a grain of salt).

Which is exactly why they changed the terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyPropagateAndConvey

Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.

That makes sense, but I would argue that that output may not be under GPL, but the output is providing a service to the (presumably) public. Therefore, the GPLed code and theme should be open-sourced as the argument would go.

What do you mean by "providing a service" ?

IANAL, but let's say I have some software "S" running on a web server and allow the public to see the output of S. If S is GPLv2 (just like WordPress -- thanks for pointing that out below), I don't have an obligation to provide the source to "S", unless I'm distributing code from S directly.

The reason the AGPL exists as a license is so that authors of FOSS can ensure that others may not use SaaS to perform an end-run around Freedom #1, "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

I'm not sure if it matters, but WP is under GPLv2.

Ah yes, thanks for clarifying that.

Anyways, I was thinking of the case where I take the GPLed sample config file and customize it (which is where the authentication keys, database login creds and other info are). It seems as though technically, that file (when used for a public web site) would need to be open sourced since it is a derivative work and I don't see an exception in the license for that file.

Note that you're not publishing or making available the code in that modified config file. The GPLv2 talks about distributing copies of Free Software, but as the config file is never available to the public (or at least it isn't as long as WP is set up properly... :-), then no distribution has taken place.

Even with the AGPL, as long as the public only sees the effect of the configuration file and not the code (if any) inside it, then I believe that there's no onus on you to provide the file to the public.

Most system libraries uses the lesser GPL

By this logic, is any software one writes for Linux obligated to be GPL?

No, because of the "system library" exception in the GPL. See here:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

And some commentary by Linus himself:

There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is just doesn't matter.

Thoughtful reply, thank you!

The GPL is a copyright license. As far as WordPress goes, the GPL is covering the code at the heart of WordPress and any derivative works of that code.

I'm not a lawyer and haven't spent much time analyzing this particular case (the WordPress engine + themes), but even if the WP templates are derivative works, I don't see a problem here.

The WP templates aren't directly being distributed when they're used on a website. What's being distributed is the output of running the PHP theme code. Note the following from the GPL FAQ:

In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?

Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.

Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.

That makes sense, but I would argue that that output may not be under GPL, but the output is providing a service to the (presumably) public. Therefore, the GPLed code and theme should be open-sourced as the argument would go.

BTW- I wonder about the config file. To be legit, do I have to release my authentication keys, too?

Even if you were to release code online using the AGPL, you wouldn't have to release your personal keys. Per the GPL FAQ again:

I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?

No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function.

In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.

I'm not sure if it matters, but WP is under GPLv2. Anyways, I was thinking of the case where I take the GPLed sample config file and customize it (which is where the authentication keys, database login creds and other info are). It seems as though technically, that file (when used for a public web site) would need to be open sourced since it is a derivative work and I don't see an exception in the license for that file.

Thoughtful reply, thank you!

The GPL is a copyright license. As far as WordPress goes, the GPL is covering the code at the heart of WordPress and any derivative works of that code.

I'm not a lawyer and haven't spent much time analyzing this particular case (the WordPress engine + themes), but even if the WP templates are derivative works, I don't see a problem here.

The WP templates aren't directly being distributed when they're used on a website. What's being distributed is the output of running the PHP theme code. Note the following from the GPL FAQ:

In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?

Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.

Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.

That makes sense, but I would argue that that output may not be under GPL, but the output is providing a service to the (presumably) public. Therefore, the GPLed code and theme should be open-sourced as the argument would go.

BTW- I wonder about the config file. To be legit, do I have to release my authentication keys, too?

Even if you were to release code online using the AGPL, you wouldn't have to release your personal keys. Per the GPL FAQ again:

I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?

No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function.

In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.

I'm not sure if it matters, but WP is under GPLv2. Anyways, I was thinking of the case where I take the GPLed sample config file and customize it (which is where the authentication keys, database login creds and other info are). It seems as though technically, that file (when used for a public web site) would need to be open sourced since it is a derivative work and I don't see an exception in the license for that file.

There is an explicit exception to programs that call libraries in that fashion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.

IANAL, but it seems as though all end-users creating custom themes may be breaking the license terms?

The GPL is a copyright license. As far as WordPress goes, the GPL is covering the code at the heart of WordPress and any derivative works of that code.

I'm not a lawyer and haven't spent much time analyzing this particular case (the WordPress engine + themes), but even if the WP templates are derivative works, I don't see a problem here.

The WP templates aren't directly being distributed when they're used on a website. What's being distributed is the output of running the PHP theme code. Note the following from the GPL FAQ:

In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?

Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.

Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.

BTW- I wonder about the config file. To be legit, do I have to release my authentication keys, too?

Even if you were to release code online using the AGPL, you wouldn't have to release your personal keys. Per the GPL FAQ again:

I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?

No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function.

In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.

The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.

IANAL, but it seems as though all end-users creating custom themes may be breaking the license terms?

The GPL is a copyright license. As far as WordPress goes, the GPL is covering the code at the heart of WordPress and any derivative works of that code.

I'm not a lawyer and haven't spent much time analyzing this particular case (the WordPress engine + themes), but even if the WP templates are derivative works, I don't see a problem here.

The WP templates aren't directly being distributed when they're used on a website. What's being distributed is the output of running the PHP theme code. Note the following from the GPL FAQ:

In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?

Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.

Though the themes may contain PHP code that is tightly coupled with the WordPress code, I believe that the simple HTML markup generated by ( WordPress + theme ) is quite separate.

BTW- I wonder about the config file. To be legit, do I have to release my authentication keys, too?

Even if you were to release code online using the AGPL, you wouldn't have to release your personal keys. Per the GPL FAQ again:

I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?

No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function.

In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.

This is like the GPL libraries. If your project uses a GPL product, does it become GPLed too (and you want distribute it)? Yes, it does. Why you should not use the LGPL for your library.

Essentially, you're using Wordpress as a library, which is GPL and not LGPL. It makes sense, it's just your (and my) perceptions of what constitute as data and code is blurred with templates. You'd think they'd be a data structure but they're actually code. It's the same in Joomla too: most templates I have read have to copy and paste lots of code from the default templates to get the same basic behaviour.

So they use Wordpress as a library and they then "become" GPL or they're violating.

The GPL doesn't allow linking with incompatibly licensed software. The LGPL, however, does.

This is another reason why people need software freedom for the firmware in their computers. Apparently we need to be able to inspect, share, and modify this software. Coreboot is a great project along these lines.

Gnash doesn't support ActionScript 3. Lightspark does. There has been talk on the Gnash list for a hybrid solution.

Using a bash-script/CMD batch level thing does not avoid the GPL restrictions. Invoking a GPL program, supplying it input, and parsing its output, means that the program that invokes GPG is not merely aggregated with, but is actually part of a derivative work that includes GPG.

Nope. From the FSF:

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

Given the nature of GPG, I'm sorry, that's not what's happening.

What they're trying to prevent here is someone, say, taking the Gimp, adding some new chrome to it, along with a few dozen new import filters and plugins, basically making a bunch of proprietary modifications... and avoiding the GPL by making each of those modifications into a separate program, which accepts a dump of some internal Gimp data structure on a pipe, and returns it via a pipe -- or worse, communicates it via shared memory.

I can't imagine they were trying to claim that I couldn't, say, write a proprietary shell script that uses GNU grep. That would be absurd.

It doesn't really matter whether you distribute GPG with it or not; including a "GPG downloader" in the installer would be exactly the same as trying to distribute a dynamically linked binary,

In fact, I'm fairly sure nVidia was doing this trick for quite awhile. It goes like this: nVidia provided a binary module and some kernel source, but they didn't actually link the two together -- in theory, anyone could build a binary module that said source could talk to. When the user compiles them and loads the binary blob, they're no longer abiding by the GPL -- but the GPL also doesn't apply to end-users. It only matters if they redistribute nvidia.ko (or, whoops, nvidia-current.ko)...

I doubt this is what's happening anymore, and I'm not sure that was actually the argument. I think the current resolution is that this is not a derivative work, since the nVidia drivers are portable -- 90% of the code is shared between OSes, and presumably consoles as well. And we're talking about a binary blob which is linked into the kernel -- at least from a purely technological standpoint, that's a lot more intimate than commandline arguments and pipes.

In any case, I'm not up on this whole thing -- I have to fall back on that FSF entry which leaves me fairly convinced that if I use a program which was written as a Unix command, and I use it as it was intended -- I pass it semantically-meaningful commandline arguments, and I pipe appropriate data in and out (data, not serialized structures) -- then what I have is not a derived work, but two wholly-distinct programs which happen to communicate.

I really don't see much difference between that and, say, a GPL'd web service, which you'll note is not covered with most versions of the GPL.

But that's enough legal BS for one day -- this is why I release my own code under the MIT license. If nothing else, it's unambiguous.

I have used two programs for Statistical Analysis that have one advantage of R: both are free, nad part of the GNU project. Of course, both have disadvantages.

1) PSPP - a free alternative to SPSS. It does not have every option as SPSS, but in my opinion is fairly complete and has a lot of power. It is just like "click click. There is the average, the median, the standard deviaton, my null hypothesis cannot be rejected, let`s go back to work".

2) Gretl - Gnu Regression, Econometrics and Time-series Library - a great tool for econometric analysis. If you are interested only in econometrics, I find it much more powerful than PSPP. If you are an R guru, you can use Gretl (which can be operated from a GUI or a CLI) for most calculations and, whenever you find a dead end, send the data to R.

For me, R is an incredible beast that I would like to tame. But programs like PSPP or Gretl (and SPSS, eViews, etc) can help me in so many situations that I don`t find myself needing R that much.

That's only because you hate freedom.

I decided to use the GPL instead of a dog license, now my dog has run away.

That's only because you hate freedom.

google or wikipedia can help you with the concept of a general-purpose computer.

With regard to your personal attack and argument from adverse consequences, resorting to this sort of thing shows you have no real basis for your position.

My Dad can exercise his rights under copyright law with his VCR. Not with his comcast DVR (CGMS). Certainly not with his HD recorder (HDCP). If he wants to hack around these restrictions, he must develop everything himself. Nobody can sell him equipment to circumvent an access-control technology (DMCA)--even for the purpose of exercising his rights under the law.

Will you have the right to connect your general-purpose computer to the internet next year? Almost certainly.
Will your ISP permit only connection of "trusted" or locked-down "appliance" type devices in the near future? Why would they do such a thing? Bandwidth costs money. Defending lawsuits costs money. So the answer is maybe. Depends on what you do about it.
Consumer rejection killed DivX. TCPA has so far been a flop due to both political and technical reasons. Lack of interest made V-Chip largely irrelevant. Sony got egg on its face for their rootkit. BUT...
DMCA, CGMS, HDCP and any number of draconian to the point of bizarre restrictions on games are right here in front of you today.

RMS may successfully appeal to the crackpot geeks (one of which I am proud to call myself) on /. with The Right to Read, but this is preaching to the choir.

So, again--
It is important that the general public be aware of these sorts of shenanigans.
And that they make their outrage known by walking away from the culprit vendors and speaking simply, directly, and clearly to other potential customers.

Saying:
That "app" you just paid $9.99 for in your iPhone--do you know that in any other environment--including your own laptop computer, you can have this and an almost infinite number of others like it for free? ...
This accomplishes a whole lot more than saying "Well, as long as I can build a computer from parts there is no problem!"

>So, differences do exist in practice.

This is, however, an incredibly rare situation. In fact my choice of words was a direct quote from Richard Stallman's article on the subject: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

I would further say that the rarity of these cases are why they even persist. Those licenses are used only in a few rare cases and I don't think they represent a major issue. In most cases you WOULD send your changes to the original project anyway unless you had a very important reason to create a fork (perhaps the original project shut down, or were changing license - I once forked a program of my own after the company I worked for insisted on making the next version non-free. I quit my job and used the last free version to base a new free project on, as it happened my project still exists while nobody has even heard of the old one in several years - this is usually what happens).
But these licenses DO interfere with one of the core freedoms the FSF demand. The right to distribute changes yourself- and there ARE times when you need to. More-over those licenses would prevent you from using parts of this code to write something else from.

Frankly - I am surprised they were approved as I'm not sure they actually meet the OSD requirements, but that's not my call to make.

Ultimately though these cases are quite sufficiently rare that I can understand why Stallman says "The difference between the movements are philosophical and not practical". Nearly all the time that's right, the rare exceptions are quite insufficient to make it a good idea to refuse to cooperate on projects, or for somebody who believes in free software to refuse to use a program because it's author prefers open-source.

The use of open source software in a consumer device does not require the handset running such software to be open for re-flashing

So they can sell hardware that can't be re-flashed because it isn't forbidden by the open source software license? This seems to violate Freedom #1 of the GNU Philosophy which is "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

I understand that Tivo-ization (distributing software on a proprietary box without making the source code of that software available) that was implemented within GPLv3 wouldn't cover this, but distributing locked-down hardware that relies on running open source software seems like an obvious violation of the spirit of open source.

Maybe we ought to take notice of this Moto-ization of open source licenses for next time a revision is needed to the core licenses.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
See freedoms 2 and 3 = e.g. it cannot be free software.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
See article 1 of the open source definition. Therefore it cannot be open-source either.

Conclusion: do you think your words would be tastier if you add some ketchup before you eat them ?

I never made any claim about "free software", (evidenced by my use of the term "open source license") and would have been quite open in agreement that a "free license" would guarantee a right to indiscriminate redistribution.

However, section 1 requires indiscriminate redistribution only for aggregate works. Thus, it is not indiscriminate redistribution itself (as it has a limiting factor).

I've been eating nice tasty chunks of words that I didn't ever say or imply, however I most certainly wouldn't enjoy them more with ketchup... I've prepared them too well to desecrate them with the accursed ketchup.

The main difference between Free Software and Open Source is that Free Software requires you to use a free license on the derived work, and Open Source only gives you the right to do so.

You're wrong. That's the difference between copyleft and non-copyleft free/open source software. The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of licenses it considers free software, many of which do not require you to release derivative work as free software, including the BSD licenses.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
See freedoms 2 and 3 = e.g. it cannot be free software.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
See article 1 of the open source definition. Therefore it cannot be open-source either.

Conclusion: do you think your words would be tastier if you add some ketchup before you eat them ?

While that's what the purely semantic meaning of the phrase would imply, it's not what the OSI means by "Open Source". Their definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd is far more narrow. So is the FSF's definition of "Free Software" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and these are the definitions most people use...

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

Please don't post when you're drunk. Micro$oft and other FUD spinmeisters are doing enough harm already.

He probably is talking about the closing down of the BSD kernel (even though it's permitted in its license agreement).

They don't use the BSD kernel, they use their own custom kernel called XNU which is based on Mach. Some elements of the BSD kernel are included in this kernel but it was never closed down. It's released under the Apple Public Source License (APSL) which qualifies as open source and the source code can be found here: XNU source

I'd like to add that TFA reads like Michael, the writer, also confuses the meaning of free software.

“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.”; Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

[ref]

I fear many people who are locked into proprietary OS's misinterprets this ideology, not being exposed to the other side. If this is the case in TFA, then the whole premise for TFA is a fallacy.

According to the documentation, App Inventor is based on Open Blocks, which is in turn modeled after Scratch, and uses Kawa (a Scheme implementation) to produce Java.

As for the Blackberry Storm ... it's best not to speak of these things.

Instead of this piece of fluff (which should have been titled "The End of Freedom"), it's better to re-read The Right to Read by RMS: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html. He saw this coming back in 1997.

One might argue that Steve Jobs is no more a threat to "free software" than Richard Stallman. Stallman believes that the GPL is superior to, say, the BSD or MIT licenses; a stance that is primarily idealogical. The GPL is not as free as the BSD license, but that's OK. Some people like it better that way. You have the choice. If you look at it from a certain, limited point of view, the GPL can be seen as the "iPhone" of the open source licenses in that it restricts what you can, and cannot do, with the software.

If you take everything coming from Apple as coming from Steve Jobs himself, then we could just as easily point to liberally-licensed projects like WebKit (LGPL), LLVM (NCSA License) and CLANG (BSD), libdispatch (Apache) or launchd (Apache) as arguments against your assertion that Jobs is against free software. Even the Apple Public Source License is certified by the FSF as a true Open Source license.

To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

Also...

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

This is the first time I skimmed over AGPL, and overall, it seems to me that AGPL is a somewhat more vague license than GPL and LGPL. Text of GNU Affero General Public License

A little browsing on Sourceforge and Savannah should have led you to http://sourceforge.net/people/ and http://savannah.gnu.org/people/

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.)

For the Nexus One, HTC waited around 6 months after releasing the phone to release the kernel source. The HTC Hero still doesn't have the most current source released.

It's sad to see that the manufacturer of flagship phones for every major US mobile phone carrier (other than AT&T) has no respect for the GPL and has reduced developers to reverse engineering Linux kernel sources, asking clueless customer service reps for a source release, and generally trying everything they can think of without getting any positive results at all.

Not according to the FSF.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#osvskernel

The operating system manages the hardware, and provides an interface between the hardware and applications. Everything else is an application (including most libraries, since they're just reusable parts of applications).

The FSF disagrees with you. For example, they consider the shell, glibc, and a raft of other utilities to be part of the "OS".

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#osvskernel

In particular, they consider the "os" to be the userland portion, and those things that "ship with" the OS. They consider the kernel to be that which you describe.