Slashdot Mirror

Except the derived works "loophole" in TFA wasn't just discovered, people have been arguing about this for decades.

In fact people have even been suing about these issues, so there's already case law. However the very fact that people argue about something is bad. If something can be made clearer then that's better.

This seems to be about changing the messaging point in the FOSS community - the new "party line" is apparently to stop handwaving around GPL2 issues and instead accept them and push people to GPL3.

Correct. That's why it's called the GPLv3 rather than having a completely new name. Just as you aren't recommended to install Linux 1.2 any more but rather 2.6.x. If you want you can still use the old version if you want to for some special reason. What's wrong with that? You make it sound like some insidious secret plot rather than a clearly documented upgrade strategy.

One thing that's often confused me is the exact relationship between the GPL and interpreted languages. For example, if I write a perl script which calls perl functionality which is part of the base interpreter, my script need not be distributed under the terms of the GPL. This is akin to using a GPL word processor or other software, where the output of a program is not subject to the GPL.

If, on the other hand, my script calls a perl function which is itself written in perl (licensed under the GPL), the FSF argues that this constitutes a derivative work akin to dynamic linking. Thus, my script (if distributed) must be distributed under a GPL-compatible license.

I can see it both ways. On the one hand, calling a function written in the same interpreted language is very much like calling a function in a library from a compiled binary. On the other, it's strange to think that there's a distinction based on whether the function being called is written as part of the interpreter (in, for example, C) versus the interpreted language itself. In addition, there seems to be disagreement about whether the GPL really binds like the FSF claims. Lots of interpreted code gets released as the GPL when it seems likely that the LGPL is what the authors really intend; that is, they do not want to restrict scripts and functions which call the code.

A good example of this is R This statistical language has fairly small interpreter and a large set of both included and downloadable packages, themselves written in R (and licensed under the GPL). Clearly most of the primary authors do not intend for all R scripts using the most basic of functionality to be released in a GPL compatible way; for one, they make the header files necessary for writing C-based libraries for use in R LGPL to explicitly allow such libraries to be non-free. In addition, they are fine with a large number of downloadable packages which restrict commercial use (obviously not allowed under the GPL). Their interpretation of the GPL seems at odds with the FSF. Even if you want to release all your code in a GPL-compatible way, it may be (IANAL) that you cannot call both code restricted from commercial use and GPL-licensed code (basically unavoidable) in the same project.

The right to read?

FOSS GNUGo to play against a computer.

IGS Pandanet provides a good GUI client for GNUGo as well as a client to pandanet if you want to play real people.

KGS is an alternative to pandanet but is more IRCish and the client can't do computer play.

Adobe has to scramble now because otherwise the gadget makers will invest in GNU gnash.

seems you didn't read the GNU/Linux FAQ

I think you're confusing "important part of an operating system" with an operating system. Linux is definitely not an operating system, it's just a common term to refer to Linux-based operating systems (because the average person doesn't care). Just like the FreeBSD kernel alone isn't an operating system. Debian and FreeBSD are operating systems. GNU appears to be a complete operating system (although not finished). I think you can install it from here: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/gnu.html.

Need a simple proof that Linux isn't an operating system? Download the kernel and boot it (oh wait, you can't because GRUB isn't part of the kernel), do some stuff on the command line (bash is not part of the kernel either), maybe update some programs (apt isn't part of the kernel). Oh wait you say, I don't need apt, I can just download the source and compile it myself... but wget and gcc aren't part of the kernel either.

And don't take this to mean I think we should call it GNU/Linux. People can call their operating system whatever they want. If they wanted every piece of software that uses GNU to be called GNU/Software, it should be in the license. My point is just that kernel != operating system.

This allows for neat features that require cooperation between several system components, which would be more difficult to implement in the Linux world. For instance, in FreeBSD you can press ^T while cp is copying some huge file, and this will send SIGINFO to cp, causing it to print a progress report to STDERR. Handy.

I've looked up SIGINFO (which doesn't exist as such on Linux), and I'm not sure why this would require several components to work together. I imagine it works just like SIGINT does. You know, SIGINT, the signal sent to the running process when you hit ^C?

Or did you mean this when cp is running in the background?

'course, on Linux, the standard shell (GNU bash) and the standard cp (part of GNU coreutils) are by the same people, so if they really wanted to, there's nothing stopping them from linking the two.

You won't truly understand what's going on until you examine the system. You cannot explain why big business loves software patents even if they lose a patent lawsuit here and there.

Microsoft and many other large corporations (particularly IBM which holds the most patents) will never "admit that software patents are just plain bad" because software patents are not bad for them. Software patents pay off very well for them in the long run. Software patents don't benefit society for a variety of reasons which Richard Stallman has expertly gone into in his patent talks. Software patents don't benefit you or me specifically: we are liable to lose a patent infringement lawsuit; ask patent holder Paul Heckel how he was able to get money from Apple in 1990 by threatening to sue Apple's users for infringing a couple of his patents which, according to Heckel's lawyer, read on something Apple was doing in Hypercard. But big businesses benefit and one big business can come close to quantifying that benefit.

As bad as you find patent payoffs to be, that's not the half of it. Cross-licensing patents is worth more and is far more revealing about how patents don't (in the propagandist language lawyers use) "protect" anyone. In IBM's magazine "Think", #5 from 1990, IBM told us how much more patent cross-licensing is worth to them: 10X more. Quoting from a talk Richard Stallman gave about the problem with software patents:

IBM said that they have two kinds of benefits form its 9000 active U.S patents. One benefit was collecting royalties from licenses. But the other benefit, the bigger benefit, was access to things patented by others. From mission to not to be attacked by others but with their patents through cross licensing. And the article said that the second benefit was an order of magnitude greater than the first.

In other words, the benefit of IBM is to make it things freely, not being sued, was ten times the benefit of collecting money from all their patents.

This is why IBM recently filed a friend of the court brief which makes no serious dent in the ability to obtain and use software patents. This is why they don't want the patent system to flatly reject ideas expressed as algorithms in computer software as some other areas of endeavor are simply unpatentable. IBM is the king of the hill. And as the US foists its patent regime on other countries through trade agreements (under duress, no doubt), IBM will be there cheering them on.

So if you don't see that it is the system that needs to be corrected, if you want to go on with "Fuck Eolas"; if you believe that the players in that system are somehow going to turn around and see things your way without any compelling reason to do so, you will find it difficult to understand how to properly reign in the power big business and make big businesses the subordinate of citizens as they ought to be. And to think, this is the easy issue to get right: software patents aren't even a life and death issue like other patents are (we have yet to see the full flower of the ramifications of the Chakrabarty decision which made it possible to patent a living organism, for example), like other corporate-driven/anti-citizen policies are.

Portable?

"Portable" means "architecture independent". If you speak of platforms, then, between .NET and Mono, pretty much every desktop platform is covered, and the APIs are exactly the same.

You'll also find that C# doesn't do code generation at all, its the tools around it. Similarly, we've had lexx and yacc for so long I've forgotten how they work, but I know they too are code generation tools.

Since you reference lexx/yacc, it's apparent that you misunderstand what I mean (or perhaps I wasn't clear enough). I was talking about dynamic code generation - the kind that is done at runtime. You're right that C# doesn't do that, .NET framework does, via expression trees, dynamic methods, and System.Reflection.Emit (though there is some language support for expression trees in C# that makes things easier).

The point is that in C#, I can construct an expression tree from nodes describing high-level operations, then call Compile on it, and get what is essentially a function pointer to IL code that will be JIT-compiled to native code upon first invocation, just as any other method. Alternatively, I could use DynamicMethod class to generate IL directly.

It really is fairly powerful technique, and is used often by .NET itself; for example, regular expressions can be compiled to efficient hardcoded state machines that way. It also works for dynamically loaded XPath queries and XSLT transforms.

In C++, you have some options. You can of course just invoke the compiler at runtime, but that is a separate process which will have to be started for every new batch of dynamically compiled code - that's very slow and inefficient. There's Tiny C compiler, which lets you compile C code at runtime, but it supports very few architectures. There's GNU Lightning, but that one is very low-level - it is effectively just an architecture-independent assembly language, but the primitives are pretty close to metal.

Yes, but keep in mind that it gets murkier when you talk about private websites (company intranets for example).

Even using a liberal definition of distribution that includes serving a web page, an internal website is not distributed to either to the public or to customers, which I believe is what the GPL is about. Check out the GNU FAQ.

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

>

I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.

Could you give a reference, please?

I read the OP, and I'm familiar with many (older) articles and essays written by RMS. I've never seen RMS make a *personal* attack. I have seen people react to his strong but very nuanced perspective on morals as if they were personal attacks. I've started to understand that other, reasonable, people can interpret his statements very personally, so if you feel attacked, I don't hold it against you.

I have not read anything written by you, so you are establishing a first impression (for me). You say that RMS has "makes up facts" but you link to what is primarily a retraction. Could you be more clear about which facts RMS has made up? I'd like to think that you can forgive a mistake, if it is admitted.

Lastly, you say that RMS attacks his own community, supporting this claim with a footnote about the distinction between "open source" and "free software" being a non-issue. It seems to me that RMS has been very clear that there is an issue, from his perspective. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Now you may have a different perspective, as is your right. But since RMS has his perspective, and his preference is perfectly clear, I'd really hesitate to say that he attacks his own community on this issue. In my mind, his community is made up of the supporters of free software, and doesn't contain those who prefer open source.

In summary, RMS doesn't make personal attacks on anyone, much less his own community and he doesn't make up facts. If you think differently, I have an open mind, but I need more than your word.

However, he has a clear view that anything capitalistic or corporate is inherently against user freedom, and will fight against EVERYTHING involving commercial use of open source software.

From the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

That doesn't sound very anti-capitalist. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Web client code...isn't something you can hide. Any obfuscation can be de-obfuscated given enough incentive...They HAVE to have the source to run it.

To build on what someone else said, just because a user is given the obfuscated code doesn't mean that the application writer/hosting company has fulfilled all of their GPL obligations.

For example, let's say you take the Ext JS (using a GPLv3-licensed copy), build an application A on top of it and throw it up online. So A is a derivative work and thus must be GPLv3-licensed as well.

If a user U loads one of your web pages and in the process downloads a local copy of A, then not only do you need to provide a way for them to get a copy of the original source code to Ext JS, but you would also need to provide the regular, non-compressed, non-obfuscated source code to whatever parts of A you have served up online to the user.

The reason why the non-obfuscated code must be provided to the user is that the GPLv3 clearly states how the source code for a piece of work should be conveyed:

The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

The right to source code in this "preferred form" is granted the moment that code is downloaded to the user's browser.

they claimed that it never was released under the LGPL. They tried some silly technicality where they said it was only released under the LGPL under some other terms. The LGPL itself clearly says any added terms can be removed, but they insisted it couldn't.

As you point out, the LGPL 2.1 (to pick an older version of the LGPL) states:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Wikipedia's blurb on the licensing problem states:

the authors claimed Ext was available under an LGPL license as long as you "plan to use Ext in a personal, educational or non-profit manner" or "in an open source project that precludes using non-open source software" or "are using Ext in a commercial application that is not a software development library or toolkit".

Obviously, not everyone believes that this stance is legally defensible. As you state,

I strongly believe they are wrong about the "never being under LGPL" thing, but we weren't going to be wasting time dealing with lawyers and fighting them.

Next time, toss the question over to the Software Freedom Law Center. Even if you personally don't want to go forward with the issue, I feel like the SFLC is great at trying to resolve questions like this so that developers can just write code and leave the legal issues for the lawyers. They're really gung-ho about dealing with license violators and are dedicated to helping clear up licensing issues.

So I am just curious, is there something that is missing from Octave that makes it a viable replacement for MATLAB for you? Particularly if you are lagging a few versions behind?

This is the perfect example of "free" in FOSS. You aren't tied to a specific platform or endless* required upgrades.

*This is an approximation for very small values of forever.

Explain to me why Palm should be allowed to piggy back on Apple's work for syncing windows pictures and contacts.

Because it's my data, not Apple's, and I have a right to store it on my Palm if I want. Was there any other way for Palm to achieve this goal? Does the iTunes API or Library XML cover this case?

I sincerely hope that you are not actually Bruce Perens and that someone has hacked your account because if that is not the case, you have become an embarrassment to the OSS movement much like RMS has become.

I disagree with you. And I believe Richard Stallman has never been a proponent of Open Source Software. He is a proponent of Free Software, which is not quite the same thing. Maybe you should read about the difference here: "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software".

• FSF's Amicus Curiae Brief
• FSF's press release
• List of Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs

    The brief can be split roughly in three. There's the "Interest Of
    Amicus Curiae" section, which is a long description of FSF, to inform the Supreme Court why they should be interested in reading the brief. Then there's the Argument, which has the remaining two parts. The first is about the previous rulings which indicate that software has already been explicitly excluded by the Supreme Court. The last part, which starts at "II. For Many Software Developers, The Patent System Is Unjust.", deals with how software patents have proved to hinder, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts - which means they have no valid constitutional basis.

The Apache licenses are listed as Free Software licenses on the Gnu Free License list, although it is correctly noted that they aren't GPLv2-compatible, and the early versions aren't compatible with any GPL version.

Therefore, something written to an Apache license is Free Software, according to the people who created that term.

How quickly people forget that the GPL relies on copyright to function.

No, it's not forgotten at all. Stallman raised this issue a few weeks ago, and since then the Pirate Party UK, at least, has decided to adopt the solution he proposed:

...a special rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free software, so that it can continue to be copylefted. This explicit exception for free software would counterbalance the effective exception for proprietary software. Even ten years ought to be enough, I think.

(Okay, not exactly, because the exception would be for software released with source code, rather than for Free software explicitly).

I disagree. Software vendors should not be accountable for their bugs, unless they agree to be accountable for them.

from WinXP EULA:

Well I was going to put a quote from the EULA here, showing the disclaimer of warranty, but slashdot doesn't like all caps, and wouldn't let me. It says:

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

The GPL also has a disclaimer of warranty, but slashdot wouldn't let me include that either.

An example of what you describe would be almost anything over TCP-IP under "GPLv2 without 'any later version'"?

The GPL FAQ explains that as long as the GPLv2-only program exposes a documented interprocess interface ("the mechanism" in GPL FAQ) with loose coupling ("the semantics"), the programs shouldn't be considered "combined" in a way that triggers the copyleft provision. For example, if I write a web application and publish it under GPLv2 only or GPLv3 only, it can communicate over a socket with a license-incompatible web browser because TCP, HTTP 1.1, and the recent HTML 5 draft are well documented. Interfaces based on CORBA, DCOM, Cocoa Distributed Objects, etc. tend to have higher coupling, and their status is far less clear.

What happens if Cyanogen, or some other person, decided to modify the Talk so that all numbers dialed were reported to third party advertisers?

I am very sure that most would hold cyanogen liable. The others are complete idiots.

... and I don't trust those who don't control distribution.

What, like those guys ?

GNU Calc (runs inside Emacs) is also an RPN calculator, and it's actually damn good:

• Choice of algebraic or RPN (stack-based) entry of calculations.
• Arbitrary precision integers and floating-point numbers.
• Arithmetic on rational numbers, complex numbers (rectangular and
  polar), error forms with standard deviations, open and closed
  intervals, vectors and matrices, dates and times, infinities,
  sets, quantities with units, and algebraic formulas.
• Mathematical operations such as logarithms and trigonometric functions.
• Programmer's features (bitwise operations, non-decimal numbers).
• Financial functions such as future value and internal rate of return.
• Number theoretical features such as prime factorization and
  arithmetic modulo M for any M.
• Algebraic manipulation features, including symbolic calculus.
• Moving data to and from regular editing buffers.
• "Embedded mode" for manipulating Calc formulas and data directly
  inside any editing buffer.
• Graphics using GNUPLOT, a versatile (and free) plotting program.
• Easy programming using keyboard macros, algebraic formulas,
  algebraic rewrite rules, or extended Emacs Lisp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Or just rethink "work" in general:
    http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html

Also:
    "Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator: Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain"
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html

Regarding: "what reason would the guy have to make the music in the first place? Sure, there's the love of music, but some people ... have to put food on the table."

What licenses does CodePlex support?

Project coordinators can select from a list of the following OSI licenses: Apache License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), New BSD License, and The MIT License. If your project requires a license that is not on the list, you can request a custom license using the contact us form.

All of these are open source licences (the two Microsoft ones are approved by the OSI here and here; the FSF also acknowledges them here as free licences, though not recommended).

A pity that GPLv3 isn't allowed, but maybe they'll add it if asked.

You wouldn't believe me anyway, which is fine since I'm just a random name on the net. That is why I'm saying go to the textbook definition - LOOK IT UP INSTEAD OF MAKING IT UP.

Instead of being so cryptic, why don't you enlighten the rest of us as to your definition of an OS?

Pretending that glibc is part of it is pointless since there are versions of linux that come with a different libc

You mean like Android? Or would you still call that Linux?

I'm really suprised and disappointed that the newbie gnu fanboys that had never heard of gnu when it was actually doing something are following the Microsoft line that the Judge threw out - INCLUDING SOME GNU TOOLS DOES NOT MAKE IT THE GNU OPERATING SYSTEM.

And yet RMS still disagrees with you.

But, rest assured, Hurd development should proceed very rapidly.

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/faq.html

This is truly fantastic.

Q3. Why bother writing a new OS when we have Linux and 386/BSD?

For one thing, Linux and BSD don't scale well.

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/faq.html

Oh, it's still around. In fact, Debian even maintains a distribution for it. That said, my understanding is that stability and performance are still rather miserable.

Oh, it's still around. In fact, Debian even maintains a distribution for it. That said, my understanding is that stability and performance are still rather miserable.

Still no 1.0 release

It's likely that the opposition is from big media companies who blame the internet for the death spiral of traditional "broadcast media" (Tv, magazines, newspapers).
Those groups may or may not be directly related to the music/movie media companies, but they all want the internet to go away, so we can return to the good old days of sitting on the couch watching the same tv shows, broadcast news, and buy the top 20 music catalog that they spent millions marketing at us.

The economic meltdown has given these groups their opening to push this kind of legislation all over the world, hiding behind "National Security" laws (See ACTA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement), and most definitely not for the benefit of actual voters.

The core issue is how they seem to have incredible leverage with governments world wide. I can understand how it happens in the US where a professional lobbyist can personally make up to 50 million a year manipulating government officials, but it's not clear how this is being done in Canada where we supposedly limit political contributions to under $1000 per person and corporation.

Find this leverage point and publish it on the Internet (ie how has your local politician been corrupted by big media interests) and we may have a chance to stop these obsolete business from turning back the clock.

"While you were looking the other way, they took away the right to own your own ideas" - Inside Job, by Don Henley

I used to think Richard Stallman was an extremist crackpot..
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Roll your files up into a tar or cpio archive, then save that file onto whatever filesystem you like.

Roll your files up into a tar or cpio archive, then save that file onto whatever filesystem you like.

GNU 1984 ->
Linux 1991 ->
KDE 1996 ->
Xorg 2004 ->

GNU started it all. It provides the philosophy, the tools and the license. Linux is just a nice milestone along the way.

An open source person calls it Linux, while a free software person calls it GNU/Linux.

It's relevant because of the attempt to choose GPLv2. If the contribution were under the GPLv2 as the /. submitter wrote, users would not enjoy the same freedom from patent harm as they would under GPLv3. As the FSF points out,

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

Other consequences that should pique user's interests are consequences of a GPLv2-only licensing: users will not enjoy other GPL improvements such as the more lenient attitude toward license violation found in GPLv3. GPLv2 cuts off a violators rights immediately and irrevocably upon violation. The violator has to beg the copyright holder(s) to restore the rights they had under the GPL. This is the case in most other free software licenses as well. Not so under GPLv3:

GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license, you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you, and your rights will be restored afterward.

What should also concern users (and what makes OpenLR unsuitable for any use) is the additional term TomTom tries to add on to their use of the GPLv2:

The assertion by licensee of any intellectual property claim with respect to OpenLR against TomTom International B.V., Tele Atlas or any affiliate or parent company of TomTom and Tele Atlas shall be deemed a breach by licensee of this Agreement and the license shall automatically terminate.

This clause would, for example, prohibit me from enforcing my patents, trademarks, mask rights, copyrights, or any of the other rights subsumed under the horribly unclear term "intellectual property" without losing my rights under the GPLv2 for OpenLR. Perhaps TomTom has a popcorn maker in their lobby for which I hold a patent and TomTom is using that popcorn maker without licensing my patent. Perhaps TomTom is diluting a trademark I own. Perhaps TomTom is playing music in their building copyrighted to me and I haven't granted them permission for playing that copyrighted recording. Defending any of these violations means I automatically lose my license on OpenLR and this could prevent me from using software which depends on that license. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the GPL prohibits it. So as far as I'm concerned, OpenLR isn't licensed to anyone at all under GPL despite TomTom's intentions to the contrary.

As the FSF once said of Apple, I say of TomTom: TomTom's action is an example of the effects of the "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to busine

It's relevant because of the attempt to choose GPLv2. If the contribution were under the GPLv2 as the /. submitter wrote, users would not enjoy the same freedom from patent harm as they would under GPLv3. As the FSF points out,

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

Other consequences that should pique user's interests are consequences of a GPLv2-only licensing: users will not enjoy other GPL improvements such as the more lenient attitude toward license violation found in GPLv3. GPLv2 cuts off a violators rights immediately and irrevocably upon violation. The violator has to beg the copyright holder(s) to restore the rights they had under the GPL. This is the case in most other free software licenses as well. Not so under GPLv3:

GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license, you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you, and your rights will be restored afterward.

What should also concern users (and what makes OpenLR unsuitable for any use) is the additional term TomTom tries to add on to their use of the GPLv2:

The assertion by licensee of any intellectual property claim with respect to OpenLR against TomTom International B.V., Tele Atlas or any affiliate or parent company of TomTom and Tele Atlas shall be deemed a breach by licensee of this Agreement and the license shall automatically terminate.

This clause would, for example, prohibit me from enforcing my patents, trademarks, mask rights, copyrights, or any of the other rights subsumed under the horribly unclear term "intellectual property" without losing my rights under the GPLv2 for OpenLR. Perhaps TomTom has a popcorn maker in their lobby for which I hold a patent and TomTom is using that popcorn maker without licensing my patent. Perhaps TomTom is diluting a trademark I own. Perhaps TomTom is playing music in their building copyrighted to me and I haven't granted them permission for playing that copyrighted recording. Defending any of these violations means I automatically lose my license on OpenLR and this could prevent me from using software which depends on that license. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the GPL prohibits it. So as far as I'm concerned, OpenLR isn't licensed to anyone at all under GPL despite TomTom's intentions to the contrary.

As the FSF once said of Apple, I say of TomTom: TomTom's action is an example of the effects of the "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to busine

It's relevant because of the attempt to choose GPLv2. If the contribution were under the GPLv2 as the /. submitter wrote, users would not enjoy the same freedom from patent harm as they would under GPLv3. As the FSF points out,

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

Other consequences that should pique user's interests are consequences of a GPLv2-only licensing: users will not enjoy other GPL improvements such as the more lenient attitude toward license violation found in GPLv3. GPLv2 cuts off a violators rights immediately and irrevocably upon violation. The violator has to beg the copyright holder(s) to restore the rights they had under the GPL. This is the case in most other free software licenses as well. Not so under GPLv3:

GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license, you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you, and your rights will be restored afterward.

What should also concern users (and what makes OpenLR unsuitable for any use) is the additional term TomTom tries to add on to their use of the GPLv2:

The assertion by licensee of any intellectual property claim with respect to OpenLR against TomTom International B.V., Tele Atlas or any affiliate or parent company of TomTom and Tele Atlas shall be deemed a breach by licensee of this Agreement and the license shall automatically terminate.

This clause would, for example, prohibit me from enforcing my patents, trademarks, mask rights, copyrights, or any of the other rights subsumed under the horribly unclear term "intellectual property" without losing my rights under the GPLv2 for OpenLR. Perhaps TomTom has a popcorn maker in their lobby for which I hold a patent and TomTom is using that popcorn maker without licensing my patent. Perhaps TomTom is diluting a trademark I own. Perhaps TomTom is playing music in their building copyrighted to me and I haven't granted them permission for playing that copyrighted recording. Defending any of these violations means I automatically lose my license on OpenLR and this could prevent me from using software which depends on that license. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the GPL prohibits it. So as far as I'm concerned, OpenLR isn't licensed to anyone at all under GPL despite TomTom's intentions to the contrary.

As the FSF once said of Apple, I say of TomTom: TomTom's action is an example of the effects of the "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to busine

It's relevant because of the attempt to choose GPLv2. If the contribution were under the GPLv2 as the /. submitter wrote, users would not enjoy the same freedom from patent harm as they would under GPLv3. As the FSF points out,

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

Other consequences that should pique user's interests are consequences of a GPLv2-only licensing: users will not enjoy other GPL improvements such as the more lenient attitude toward license violation found in GPLv3. GPLv2 cuts off a violators rights immediately and irrevocably upon violation. The violator has to beg the copyright holder(s) to restore the rights they had under the GPL. This is the case in most other free software licenses as well. Not so under GPLv3:

GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license, you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you, and your rights will be restored afterward.

What should also concern users (and what makes OpenLR unsuitable for any use) is the additional term TomTom tries to add on to their use of the GPLv2:

The assertion by licensee of any intellectual property claim with respect to OpenLR against TomTom International B.V., Tele Atlas or any affiliate or parent company of TomTom and Tele Atlas shall be deemed a breach by licensee of this Agreement and the license shall automatically terminate.

This clause would, for example, prohibit me from enforcing my patents, trademarks, mask rights, copyrights, or any of the other rights subsumed under the horribly unclear term "intellectual property" without losing my rights under the GPLv2 for OpenLR. Perhaps TomTom has a popcorn maker in their lobby for which I hold a patent and TomTom is using that popcorn maker without licensing my patent. Perhaps TomTom is diluting a trademark I own. Perhaps TomTom is playing music in their building copyrighted to me and I haven't granted them permission for playing that copyrighted recording. Defending any of these violations means I automatically lose my license on OpenLR and this could prevent me from using software which depends on that license. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the GPL prohibits it. So as far as I'm concerned, OpenLR isn't licensed to anyone at all under GPL despite TomTom's intentions to the contrary.

As the FSF once said of Apple, I say of TomTom: TomTom's action is an example of the effects of the "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to busine

It's relevant because of the attempt to choose GPLv2. If the contribution were under the GPLv2 as the /. submitter wrote, users would not enjoy the same freedom from patent harm as they would under GPLv3. As the FSF points out,

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

Other consequences that should pique user's interests are consequences of a GPLv2-only licensing: users will not enjoy other GPL improvements such as the more lenient attitude toward license violation found in GPLv3. GPLv2 cuts off a violators rights immediately and irrevocably upon violation. The violator has to beg the copyright holder(s) to restore the rights they had under the GPL. This is the case in most other free software licenses as well. Not so under GPLv3:

GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license, you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you, and your rights will be restored afterward.

What should also concern users (and what makes OpenLR unsuitable for any use) is the additional term TomTom tries to add on to their use of the GPLv2:

The assertion by licensee of any intellectual property claim with respect to OpenLR against TomTom International B.V., Tele Atlas or any affiliate or parent company of TomTom and Tele Atlas shall be deemed a breach by licensee of this Agreement and the license shall automatically terminate.

This clause would, for example, prohibit me from enforcing my patents, trademarks, mask rights, copyrights, or any of the other rights subsumed under the horribly unclear term "intellectual property" without losing my rights under the GPLv2 for OpenLR. Perhaps TomTom has a popcorn maker in their lobby for which I hold a patent and TomTom is using that popcorn maker without licensing my patent. Perhaps TomTom is diluting a trademark I own. Perhaps TomTom is playing music in their building copyrighted to me and I haven't granted them permission for playing that copyrighted recording. Defending any of these violations means I automatically lose my license on OpenLR and this could prevent me from using software which depends on that license. This is an additional requirement on top of the GPL, and the GPL prohibits it. So as far as I'm concerned, OpenLR isn't licensed to anyone at all under GPL despite TomTom's intentions to the contrary.

As the FSF once said of Apple, I say of TomTom: TomTom's action is an example of the effects of the "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to busine

It's crap like that, that led me to jailbreaking my ipodtouch within days of getting it. Yes I do want to be able to use my little wifi enabled computer as a computer AND have access to all the apps on Apples ap store, an ipod touch IS a universal Turing machine and I shall use it as such, and further no one will stop me unless they make interpreters just plain illegal in which case we have far bigger problems boys and girls: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

They banned it because it's an interpreter, meaning it gives people a little too much control over the software and potentially the hardware on the phone. You may not like it, but if you bought it, you signed the contract, you have no excuses. I think the only folks who get all worked up about this are the Linux crowd wanting everything to be 'free' and 'open' without understanding that it is designed to be a closed system and it's vastly successful. Apple has no reason to open source their phone.

I'm very much not from the Linux crowd (a brief glance at my /. comment history will testify to that), and yet I think it's brain-dead.

First of all, this has nothing to do with "open sourcing" the phone. No-one is asking for that (well, RMS does, I guess, but he does that for everything). What we want is open platform. You know, kinda like pretty much every other desktop and mobile OS on the market. Heck, Windows Mobile is open in that sense! Surely if Microsoft can do that...

Now as to your reason. Being able to write one's own applications is "giving people a little too much control" - WTF? Did you just read "The Right to Read", and thought it's a brilliant idea? And how can I possibly have "too much control" over the device that I own?

Hardware argument is pure bullshit; unless the interpreter is specifically written to control it, there's no magic dust in it that would give the user this ability. Furthermore, any user who'd want it can just get iPhone SDK, and write an Objective-C program doing the same - and no interpreter (written in that very same Objective-C) will be able to do more. Yet somehow we don't see cell towers blowing up, or anything like that. Kinda comes as a surprise - what with Symbian and WinMo being out there for ages, with full development toolchains available to everyone for download, and no restrictions on software installation, who'd imagine it would work out like that, huh?

Exactly:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty

Excerpt from Stallman's The Right to Read:
 
And there wasn't much chance that the SPA - the Software Protection Authority - would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishmentâ"for not taking pains to prevent the crime.

I quess it depends on your machine and your grub version.

http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html#Serial-terminal

Here's an interesting tidbit on the subject: http://www.advogato.org/person/pedro/diary/64.html

However, grub does not understand USB *anyway*, so unless you are lucky enough to have a BIOS which supports USB serial ports as native devices (like it does for keyboards and mice), your USB dongle will not allow you to control your bootloader. Period. This is because making a USB serial port work requires a functional USB subsystem, which is more than a bootloader is supposed to handle. As of now, it's not clear if or when grub will support USB. So laptops are screwed.

But a desktop machine can us a PCI card, right? You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, grub only knows the standard IO ports (memory addresses and IRQs) for COM 1-4 (units 0-3 in grub parlance) -- which means if your PCI serial card appears at a different address, grub will not be able to use it. There is code in the pipe for PCI expansion serial ports in grub, but I'm not sure of its status. It doesn't work in my Hardy Heron Ubuntu, although I'm hopeful that this will work reliably in the future. (If so, then PCI cards could be a good solution for "desktop" PCs.)

P.S.

I like the story you have linked in your sig: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org] - "Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory."

"There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger."

That's exactly where we're headed.

If they really wanted maintainability they would have changed to microkernel architecture years ago.

Obviously.. That's why Hurd is so successful.

I like the story you have linked in your sig: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html - "Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory."

"There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger."

That's exactly where we're headed.