Slashdot Mirror

Sure there are multiple specifications involved, but there's demonstrably open source work, so it can't be _that_ hard:

VLC is an open source media player and can play FLVs.

The Open source media player XBMC has some support for playing RTMP streams.

Not to mention rtmpdump

And Gnash claims to support most SWF v7 and v8 features.

There is also an open-source Action script compiler called MTASC

If we have open source tools to actually generate the bytecode... is it not a reasonable thought that tools could have been developed to actually run that bytecode?

I think you're missing a key detail, that the books were pulled because the SELLER (that is: not Amazon)

no; I don't think that we're wrong because of that. There are two choices:

1. this is Amazon's buisiness transaction in which case they are responsible for the sale and should make it good
2. this isn't Amazon's buisiness transaction in which case they should not interfere.

If you are right, then Amazon has made a big tactical mistake. They turned on the DRM features too early. They have shown that there is no way no know if you have a Kindle book or not. At any time, Amazon can take it away. Compare that to a normal book, where, if you buy an illegal copy which is identical to the legal one and which you thought was legal, it is the person who copied it who has a problem. Not you.

This is a tactical, not strategic mistake, however. The only thing they did wrong was to delete a book early enough that there is still non-DRM competition. A feature like "remotely delete books" does not get created by accident. You can't risk using it without extensive testing that it will delete exactly the book that you want it to delete and no others. The FSF has been right all along; you can't trust DRM. In some years, Amazon hope to be able do this kind of stuff and you won't complain because all their competition will do it at the same time too.

From an essay I wrote almost three years ago:
"Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools"
http://patapata.sourceforge.net/WhyEducationalTechnologyHasFailedSchools.html
""" ... With all that technological success in other areas, why are schools still considered a problem area, see:
"To fix US schools, [bipartisan] panel says, start over"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1215/p01s01-ussc.html
Or in other words, why has technology failed in compulsory schools? Clearly something is wrong here -- technology is helping make these other places more productive and more flexible -- but in schools, there is not much change, despite a huge expenditure in technology and training.
Ultimately, educational technology's greatest value is in supporting "learning on demand" based on interest or need which is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to "learning just in case" based on someone else's demand. Compulsory schools don't usually traffic in "learning on demand", for the most part leaving that kind of activity to libraries or museums or the home or business or the "real world". In order for compulsory schools to make use of the best of educational technology and what is has to offer, schools themselves must change.
But, history has shown schools extremely resistant to change. Consider for
example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Caldwell_Holt
From there: "After many years of working within the school system, Holt became disillusioned with it. He became convinced that reform of the school system was not possible because it was fundamentally flawed. Thus, he became an advocate of homeschooling. It was not helpful, however, to simply remove children from the school environment if parents simply re-created it at home. Holt believed that children did not need to be coerced into learning; they would do so naturally if given the freedom to follow their own interests and a rich assortment of resources. This line of thought became known as unschooling." ...
And it also turns out, based on psychological studies, that for creative work (as opposed to ditch digging), reward is often not a motivator, and creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if a task is done for gain:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
This finding calls into question the entire notion of a scarcity-based ideology oriented around exchanging ration-units for creative goods, as opposed to a "gift economy", such as drives GNU/Linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
So, if most of what people do is not related to growing food or making things, then a system based around material rewards doesn't make much sense. And it turns out, a lot of difficult work is quite interesting, if you are not forced to do it -- where the work (and success at a challenging task) is its own reward.
But then is compulsory schooling really needed when people live in such a way? In a gift economy, driven by the power of imagination, backed by automation like matter replicators and flexible robotics to do the drudgery, isn't there plenty of time and opportunity to learn everything you need to know? Do people still need to be forced to learn how to sit in one place for hours at a time? When people actually want to learn something like reading or basic arithmetic, it only takes around 50 contact hours or less to give them the basics, and then they can bootstrap themselves as far as they want to go. Why are the other 10000 hours or so of a child's time needed in "school"? Especially when even poorest kids in Ind

Oh, crud. What will this mean at the ACME PHYSICS SUPPLY SHOPPE chain?

Have they got a price for Gnu Hurd?

Uncle Pennybags purchases Acme's Magnet making division to create magnetic monopoly.

Oh, crud. What will this mean at the ACME PHYSICS SUPPLY SHOPPE chain?

Looks like I'd better stock up before the prices goes up...I have been eying that perfect ammeter for awhile.

Pity, I had liked that place.

IBM is correct, patent holders find it easier to "open the source" while preventing others from employing the idea. This is exactly what RMS wrote: Open Source and Free Software is not the same.

Read here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

Oh, by the way, one additional point. Richard Stallman hates the term Open Source. He thinks it minimizes the importance of Software Freedom.

Noticing how many posts are from people making references to the DMCA, despite this case being about a trademark, shows to me that the 'intellectual property' campaign to confuse people and treat information like property, and to blur the difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights, is having success and is helping destroy society.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Personally I'm a bit of a gnu zealot and that is why I'm holding on to firefox over chrome/opera, but i do find it interesting that a lot of people claim "open source software is more secure because you can view the source", then go on to run a closed app in one of the most vulnerable position on a system.

Hmm, I believe this has something to do with "open source" values vs. "free software" values. The open source movement tries to convey the message, that open source produces better quality software. Since it's only the quality of the software that matters, "open source fans" are more likely to use what works better for them. People, who really care about freedom, however, are much less likely to use Opera. However, since there are different kinds of freedom, when talking about web browsers, things can get a little confusing, so let me clarify:

- Opera promotes open standards (HTML, CSS) for the web, so it fights for the freedom to be able to use any browser that you choose (including free ones), and still be able to access the web. However, Firefox does the same thing also, and actually has been a lot more successful in achieving that, since it was the first browser to grab a significant marketshare from IE.
- Firefox itself is also free software by the FSF definition, so it also has all the benefits that follow from that: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Personally, I'd never even consider using Opera, unless they release it under a free license. And I don't care if other people use it or not, as it is not a threat to free software, so it doesn't really affect me at all. The real threat for free software on the web right now is IMHO Adobe Flash, which still has no usable free alternative, and which I'm forced to use under Linux, although I hate it.

And actually, Google Chrome is free/open source, at least according to the license. The only problem with it is that it was initially developed in secret internally by Google (which kinda violates the free/open source spirit) and only supports Windows, which is non-free (although a Linux version is being worked on).

Please don't take the following as a direct support of the GP post; it is a refutation of the parent post and not a support fo the practice of copy/pasting quotes into largely unrelated discussions. If the parent hadn't been modded up, I wouldn't have bothered. Something like this really needs a response, though.

GNU (recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX!") is an operating system. The only portion of the system that is called HURD is the kernel, which is certainly not an entire OS. It's quite possibly the most important of one, but does not constitute a complete operating system by any means.

As for "redefining words" you're doing more than a bit of that yourself. A kernel is "the central or most important part" and, in a computing context, "The essential part of Unix or other operating systems, responsible for resource allocation, low-level hardware interfaces, security etc." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kernel) Note the key word "part" that is present in both definitions. A kernel, such as Linux or HURD, is definitely only part of an operating system.

That said, "GNU slash Linux" or "GNU plus Linux" is a pretty silly name. Referring to an OS by its kernel is not a universal practice - OS X is almost never referred to by the name of its kernel (XNU, a derivative of Mach), although of Windows such as Vista or Windows 7 are occasionally referred to as "Windows NT" or even "NT" - but it suffices for the purposes of Linux. That said, it's understandable that Stallman and the GNU project in general would like acknowledgement of how much of the OS that most people call "Linux" was not written by, or in any conjunction with, Linus Torvalds.

Hahaha, you're totally wrong.
You're such in case of epic failure:
- Here is the license for the C++ runtime library (an example).
- Here you can read about the license of gtk+ library, and its purpose.
Again, basic OS libraries should be given under the LGPL or special license as the gcc/g++ exceptions.
You should clarify your mind. gcc/g++ is GPL, bu the GPL part applies to the compiler itself. And indeed, the runtime libraries, needed to run the code compiled with gcc/g++ are under a LGPL like license.
Why should I use gcc/g++ under Linux?
- Best compiler, always up to date
- Best support under this OS
- Sort of reference-like amogst the c/c++ compilers?
Have fun,

Patents protect the steps listed above, not how it's implemented, and therefore stop leeches from profiting from other people's work.

Physicians can use leeches to treat a patient for profit, but leeches themselves cannot profit; they are annelid worms and not sapient.

Seriously though, the ability for a patent to be used against an independent inventor opens up an opportunity for a different kind of leech: the patent troll.

If you simply sit by and wait, then copy (steal) something innovative created by your competitor

You're assuming that copying constitutes stealing. Like Mr. Stallman, I dispute this assumption. What law dictionary or statutory definition uses "steal" to mean "copy"? I haven't examined 35 USC (U.S. patent law) closely, but 17 USC sure doesn't.[1] On the contrary, see Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), which excludes unlawfully made copies of a copyrighted work from statutes that refer to "stolen property".

But society, as a general, will suffer more because many good inventions take more time and money, and those won't be created without sufficient protection.

Does it take "sufficient protection" to get something like the Vorbis audio codec created?

[1] There are minor exceptions. One is the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, which expanded the offense of "criminal infringement of a copyright" to cover the trading of works for other works, but titles are not binding. I seem to remember some state copyright statutes at the state level defined "theft" to include infringement of copyright in a sound recording published prior to 1972, but old sound recordings are not at issue presently.

If you're interested on the issue of patents,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html#header

and the communism jibe shows your colours as a true blue american.

Take another look. A quote here
from Leon Trotsky, a reference to Anarchism (if not outright Anarcho-Communism) here, and information about research claiming that
economic reward is not a motivator for work.

The Debian Project and the FSF are both demonstrably Anarcho-Communist; it isn't simply a baseless stereotype. I
can find you more references if you'd like.

You don't like the GPL, but why that is exactly you do not tell.

You could have a look at one of the responses I had to the GP; but to explain it myself, the GPL v2 dictates downstream
use. Other licenses do not. The GPL v3 goes further than merely dictating downstream use of the software, and attempts
to dictate patent issues as well.

The MIT and or BSD licenses you prefer have been a brake on the uptake/development of all the BSD's.

Given the amount of heat and noise which Stallman and his aforementioned cultists have a tendency to generate, it was
predictable that, for a while, the GPL would hold sway. It's never really been used, by business at least, due to
genuine economic viability, but more primarily because of the amount of social pressure which the cult has tried to
exert on people.

However, the GPL was specifically designed and intended to be an anti-commercial license, and as we've seen reported in
a couple of articles here on Slashdot recently, vendors are slowly figuring that out, and gradually beginning to move to
non-copyleft licenses, particularly the Apache license. The GPL v2 fell below 50% usage for the first time, recently;
and indications are that that isn't because of uptake of v3, either.

That is in part thanks to it's license, that prevented leeches from exploiting the work of contributors. It is
those contributors that make Linux what it is, and they like the GPL just fine.

This is standard pro-FSF rhetoric; and I've written about reciprocity paranoia being expressed by such individuals
before. It's fear based and mean spirited, and apart from anything else, it's also scarcity-based thinking, which
illustrates that the speaker is not thinking from the vantage point of a genuine gift culture.

You seem to like your precious opinion very much, but luckily that does not make a difference at all. Or should I
have not fed the troll? ;)

Smug condescension, and an attempt to minimise the percieved credibility of dissenting opinions, are also extremely commonly observed tactics among FSF/GPL advocates.

Your claim is ridiculously easily to disprove, so I'll give just one example: GNU Coreutils. You expect a brand new standard set of units to take over the world in 10 years? How long has it taken the Metric and SI systems to take over? Should we be content to just "live with" pounds and miles in the US and thumb our noses at the rest of the world? Why should the meanings of SI prefixes that have been used for a couple of hundred years be replaced by the much more recent binary definitions that don't even make sense in all areas of computing.

Do you know and remember the old gnu.org site? You know, the one with black text on white and blue links [probably because that was the browser default]? Where the only document structure was h1 and p, with an em or two thrown about for, well, emphasis?

That was actually a good design (for a particular subset of parameters). It was viewable with any browser (almost including netcat :D), it handled just about any window size well [as well as possible, at least], it was friendly for the colorblind, the structure was quite simple with no sidebars, no top-bars... no clutter.

Yup, old design of FSF sites is what I always liked about them. GCC website is actually still sane like that - well okay, it has a sidebar, but it's rather unobtrusive,

Yes, Computerworld fails to understand what they are talking about.

I too am from New Zealand and attended a speech RMS gave at Auckland University. I have also read almost all of his essays. 99% of the people (geeks included) that speak of Free Software and RMS fail to grasp important concepts of the Free Software movement.

Popular myth that he perpetuates in his speeches that is too often repeated here. From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

A copy of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program. snip.. However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free is a qualitative change. A centrally-imposed fee for software distribution becomes a powerful disincentive. snip... Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling services related to the software. I have been hired to port the GNU C compiler to new hardware, and to make user-interface extensions to GNU Emacs. (I offer these improvements to the public once they are done.) I also teach classes for which I am paid. snip... This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one will want to program.

He does believe that Software should be able to be distributed free of cost though he always avers that Free means libre and not zero price. The major flaw is his reasoning is that he thinks that since the marginal cost of producing an extra copy of software is zero, the price should be zero. But what about the sunk cost? If it costs $200 million for Adobe to make Photoshop, the first copy would cost $250 million and the rest would be free. Adobe folds after that and a magical group of hackers appear and work on it's code to produce the next version for free like they do for Gimp and OpenOffice now? Give me a break.There's some aspects of software development(like extensive testing, making it user friendly etc.) which is NOT fun and shouldn't be outlawed in the name of Freedom.

Don't they get points at least for putting in the effort for posting in every BSD related thread their AC "BSD Is Dying" trolls?

And what about the GNU Logo:

http://www.gnu.org/

No open source project ever has to worry about having the Worst Project Logo Ever Created. GNU has it covered.

Safe, standard "coroutines" in C. The code given in the article can be further optimized by using gcc's computed goto, but the effect is the same.

Labels as Values (i.e., "Computed Goto"). The OP's example is still illegal because he's jumping down the stack frame, but the syntax is fine for gcc.

Every control structure in C++ is equivalent to either a goto or jnz plus some syntactic sugar.

This is almost true, but I see one important exception: the exception machinery in C++ (that is the compilation of throw and catch C++ statements) is not exactly a goto (and neither is longjmp in C). And of course, any (method or function) call and return is not exactly a goto neither. Exceptions,calls and returns also change the stack pointer.

I would also notice that computed goto (i.e. the goto *p; GNU extension of C) is compiled as an indirect jump.

A more interesting concept is continuation Regards

I snapped to difference between Free Software and GPL/Copyleft after posting. They are not the same.

You are right that this is very simular to Microsoft's Shared Source license, and absolutely wrong that either qualify as Open Source according to OSI or any reasonable definition I have ever heard.

The fact is that OSI's definition of Open Source software and FSF's definition of Free Software (as well as the common use of both) are very similar in terms of what is allowed by the licenses. The difference is the motivation - whether it is done for practical advantage or philosophical. Both require the ability to redistribute derivative works.

I strongly encourage you to read the FSF's explanation of the differences between open source software and free software . Or at least not spread misinformation while using your FSF membership address.

You don't say what libraries you're using but perhaps the following link might shed some light on your predicament?

Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library

In a nutshell:

Is the library fairly common stuff for which a replacement is easily available?
May as well LGPL it since someone can just as easily use a different library.

Is the library something uncommon for which a replacement is not available?
Use GPL for it because someone who wants to use it will have to GPL their project
to use it or they'll have to write their own code if they're not willing to share.

Not a lawyer. IMO.

Problem being that without a license, nobody else is permitted to distribute your software. Depending on your and their local laws, they might not be allowed to copy or run it. And if the software causes any damages, you're quite likely liable for them. So, to protect both yourself and the recipient, always specify an explicit license.

The other part is that licenses need not be complicated. The Simplified BSD and MIT licenses are about as trivial as it gets: keep this label, and don't sue me bro. The GNU GPL is much longer, because it's approaching a harder problem: making sure that people who extend your software don't limit their users.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution is more appropriate. However, the answer seems US-centric, leaving open the question of whether other legal systems may treat employees as "individuals". The FAQ does suggest that if the work is not a "work for hire" (eg. if the employee is a contractor) then distributing to the employee is actual distribution and the GPL applies. This advice is also US-centric and it may be that in other legal systems, particularly ones where employees can't legally sign over copyright to their works (as I believe is the case in Germany), this would not apply.

Also, if the software is copied on to a PC, laptop, or memory stick that is the property of an employee rather than the company, then that would probably count as "distribution". What if the software is burnt to a CD and handed to an employee - it could now be fairly said that the employee owns the CD (since there is no rental contract or otherwise that would keep ownership with the company), is that distribution? Also, the FAQ question appears to predate the GPLv3 - do the wording changes to "propagation" and "convey" (see terms) make a difference here? While we can argue about whether "distribution" applies internally or not, the definition of "convey" is more clear ("any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies").

The only way to answer these questions for difference legal jurisdictions is to actually have court cases in different jurisdictions.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution is more appropriate. However, the answer seems US-centric, leaving open the question of whether other legal systems may treat employees as "individuals". The FAQ does suggest that if the work is not a "work for hire" (eg. if the employee is a contractor) then distributing to the employee is actual distribution and the GPL applies. This advice is also US-centric and it may be that in other legal systems, particularly ones where employees can't legally sign over copyright to their works (as I believe is the case in Germany), this would not apply.

Also, if the software is copied on to a PC, laptop, or memory stick that is the property of an employee rather than the company, then that would probably count as "distribution". What if the software is burnt to a CD and handed to an employee - it could now be fairly said that the employee owns the CD (since there is no rental contract or otherwise that would keep ownership with the company), is that distribution? Also, the FAQ question appears to predate the GPLv3 - do the wording changes to "propagation" and "convey" (see terms) make a difference here? While we can argue about whether "distribution" applies internally or not, the definition of "convey" is more clear ("any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies").

The only way to answer these questions for difference legal jurisdictions is to actually have court cases in different jurisdictions.

We have a transparent caching proxy to speed up HTTP video delivery. caching system. You mentioned that you watch thousands of videos on video sharing sites every day; we cache the most popular videos so that we can feed them to you faster.

Good so long as I can watch Like a boss for the 50th time today with no lag I'm good.

How about sharing homemade pictures

Protocols other than HTTP don't have a well-defined takedown statute. So to save our behinds from being sued by the sculptors' union when you share photos of copyrighted sculptures without permission, we throttle other protocols.

Homemade as in I took it with my own camera, or is a freinds picture, or I made it myself, I said nothing about copyrighted.

movies

Using major label background music and/or characters without permission.

Again I said homemade, as in I made it, I own it, I'm not talking about hollywood here...

music

Subconsciously lifted from a major label song. Just ask George Harrison's widow. (Or what technique would you recommend to determine whether or not a given series of notes is copyrighted to someone else before you publish it?)

Homemade you know what that means right?

free games

Video game consoles don't have free games. In fact, they use cryptographic mechanisms to lock out the use of copylefted software.

When was I talking about consoles? But since you want to, consoles do have demos which are free, but back to what I was talking about, are in fact games that are free not stolen, the idea does exist, now you've heard of it.

software

Which violates patents on algorithms.

Um there's free software around, trials, demos, donations, completely free, again nothing said about stolen.

not to mention playing games

Most games need latency guarantees more than bandwidth guarantees. Limiting bandwidth allows our routers to respond more quickly to your packets.

So what happens when I get sent so many packets that I either can't send and/or recieve them fast enough therefore causing me to lag, what then?

uploading other types of files not via http, how about ftp, ssh

If you are using for purposes other than home entertainment, try upgrading to our business-class service designed for teleworkers.

That is home entertainment, ftp so I can upload files to sites, ssh so I can login to other servers, like say for a website for both, just cause you do find that fun doesn't mean other people don't.

Some of the several games I play the maps can be 50 megs or bigger

Then download them the night before you play.

What the hell? Ok let me further explain, said servers also server the maps at random and can't always be downloaded independently, and if you idle on the server you get kicked/banned, how do you imagine I get them then, also in other said games, the games are at random times and can be any sort of map, what do I do then, these rules they are trying to enforce are completely arbitrary not to mention that their (or yours whatever the case may be) solutions to said problems are completely worthless.

several full games are easily greater than 2 gigs, most being around

How about sharing homemade pictures

Protocols other than HTTP don't have a well-defined takedown statute. So to save our behinds from being sued by the sculptors' union when you share photos of copyrighted sculptures without permission, we throttle other protocols.

movies

Using major label background music and/or characters without permission.

music

Subconsciously lifted from a major label song. Just ask George Harrison's widow. (Or what technique would you recommend to determine whether or not a given series of notes is copyrighted to someone else before you publish it?)

free games

Video game consoles don't have free games. In fact, they use cryptographic mechanisms to lock out the use of copylefted software.

software

Which violates patents on algorithms.

not to mention playing games

Most games need latency guarantees more than bandwidth guarantees. Limiting bandwidth allows our routers to respond more quickly to your packets.

uploading other types of files not via http, how about ftp, ssh

If you are using for purposes other than home entertainment, try upgrading to our business-class service designed for teleworkers.

Some of the several games I play the maps can be 50 megs or bigger

Then download them the night before you play.

several full games are easily greater than 2 gigs, most being around 4 gigs or so

Our service provides more than enough bandwidth to order the retail version and then activate it online once you have received it in the mail. If that's too slow, you can still download the game overnight.

Boycott Novell has some interesting insight about this deal. The big picture here is that people at M$, with big egos and even bigger bank accounts, want to "Fucking kill Google." Yahoo is also advocating IE instead of Firefox and getting up to other obnoxious stuff.

The best way to create a good public library is to eliminate copyright and let people share. Napster proved the principle by creating the world's best music library and expanding music sales to their all time high. GNU/Linux has proved the way with software that's first class in every category. Journals, books and other information should be created and shared the same way. Do not expect Amazon, Yahoo and M$ to deliver anything but an Orwellian future of paranoid greed.

"Free software" clearly means "software without cost"

Clearly? It's not clear at all. Please refer to GNU's definiton of free. From what I've observed, all the big name "FOSS" licences treat open source as having access to the code and free as having freedom to do what you wish with that source. I don't think any of them require being without cost.

In practice, open-source and free software are interchangeable terms, since albeit their definition is slightly different, there is no software license that fulfills one but not the other.

The Apple Public Source License version 1 is an example of an OSI-approved license which is not a free software license. In fact, the APSL 1.x licenses remain a good example of the difference between "open source" and "free software". The differences between the movements put the lie to the use of the term "FOSS" when that term is used to smooth over these differences as if they didn't matter (like the /. headline does on this story). As the FSF said when APSL 1.x was current:

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

APSL v2.0 is a free software license with two major practical problems; so it's not recommended to release new software under APSLv2.0. There are other licenses that are OSI-approved and non-free. Such licenses exist even if there aren't many of them.

In practice, open-source and free software are interchangeable terms, since albeit their definition is slightly different, there is no software license that fulfills one but not the other.

The Apple Public Source License version 1 is an example of an OSI-approved license which is not a free software license. In fact, the APSL 1.x licenses remain a good example of the difference between "open source" and "free software". The differences between the movements put the lie to the use of the term "FOSS" when that term is used to smooth over these differences as if they didn't matter (like the /. headline does on this story). As the FSF said when APSL 1.x was current:

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

APSL v2.0 is a free software license with two major practical problems; so it's not recommended to release new software under APSLv2.0. There are other licenses that are OSI-approved and non-free. Such licenses exist even if there aren't many of them.

In practice, open-source and free software are interchangeable terms, since albeit their definition is slightly different, there is no software license that fulfills one but not the other.

The Apple Public Source License version 1 is an example of an OSI-approved license which is not a free software license. In fact, the APSL 1.x licenses remain a good example of the difference between "open source" and "free software". The differences between the movements put the lie to the use of the term "FOSS" when that term is used to smooth over these differences as if they didn't matter (like the /. headline does on this story). As the FSF said when APSL 1.x was current:

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

APSL v2.0 is a free software license with two major practical problems; so it's not recommended to release new software under APSLv2.0. There are other licenses that are OSI-approved and non-free. Such licenses exist even if there aren't many of them.

For their next attention-getting trick, they are going to open source Hello World.

No need.

Except RSM has been saying so repeatedly since 1985 so it's public knowledge, you dim wit troll.

Go read about his philosophy and educate yourself please.

If anti-copyright proponents would be unhypocritical, they would demand that software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends.

Yes, if only someone would demand software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends. Damn those hypocrites!

If we had the transcript, maybe we could see:

• Did the judge understand the patent?
• How did the judge interpret each concept?
• What misconduct did the judge see?
• Is the exclusion of future products that remove meta data there because the patent doesn't cover that or because the judge wants to give MS a path to avoid future infringement?
• Any hints at what MS's possible grounds for further appeal are?

The court transcript, even though it's a public domain document, is only provided to people by the court if they make an account and pay 8c per page. Once you have the page, since it's public domain, you can post it anywhere. RECAP is a Firefox or IceCat plugin that can automatically post those public domain transcripts to archive.org so that we can all read them and link to them, and that would help with documenting case law in the USA on swpat.org, among other things.

You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.

Just because such a comment will get you modded up on slashdot, does not make it true.

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

If I write a driver for Linux, and it is GPLed, all that is required of me is to release the source code for that driver.
I do NOT, i repeat NOT, have to provide an entire mirror of ftp.kernel.org, nor a mirror of the FSF code base, nor am I expected to provide the source code to your pet GPL project, if I do not distribute any of that stuff as a binary!

It is not possible to expect the developers (or in this case, distributers) to have the source for *ALL* gpl software. That is just ridiculous.

If my driver is made from scratch, I must provide its complete source, and any glue code needed to compile and use it.
If it is a modification to an existing driver, then I must provide sources of the entire end-result. aka diff files are not enough, it must be the entire code for THE DRIVER, including my changes. But that is it. Not the source to all kernels, not the source to every possible distro that driver would work on. Just my changes.

Providing a distribution is different of course. You do need a source 'snapshot' of the entire distribution. But that is it!
If I distribute a version of Ubuntu with my driver, then I must provide the source to that Ubuntu release, as well as my driver.

Again, not *ALL* GPLed source code, as you claim. Just source of what you are distributing binaries of.

I want to distribute binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP?

Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details. Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most users will get it from there. However, if any of them would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.

Distributing the source online is only acceptable if you also (only) distribute the binary online. If you distribute the binary on a physical medium, such as a disk, tape, or set-top box, then you must provide a written offer good for three years of the source code.

You have it absolutely wrong. Your version of the source has to be available to your customers, so if you haven't modified the source in any way then you CAN provide them with the source from canonical.

Okay lets read the license.

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
        written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
        long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
        model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
        copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
        product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
        medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
        more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
        conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
        Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge

.
The problem is that canonical may not provide that version on line for three years. They might be out of business then. So I have to host the source or pay canonical to do it for me.

``This is going to be great for the uptake of Linux, and will really encourage people to use open-source tools instead of rolling their own proprietary black box. Keep up the good work!''

Rather than ... take the hard work of many hands, without compensating them or abiding by their terms, and using that to make your proprietary black box? Because that's what these companies have done.

The fact that the black box runs open source software means nothing when you don't get your Four Freedoms.

I'm a manager at a startup, and decided recently to outsource to an outside IT firm to set up a network domain and file server.

You used the past tense. Therefore I see that you've already made the decision to do this and have executed on that decision. The agreements are signed and the admins are working on managing your systems as I write this. A lot follows from this having already gone down. In other words, this detail important to clear up before proceeding because there is a large difference between something you have not yet done and something you have already done and now have to live with.

Trouble is, they (and all other IT companies we could find) insist on administering it all remotely.

Of course they all do. Look at this from their perspective: many organizations hire them to do what you hired them to do. None of these IT admin firms have the staff to do things in-person (as you later contemplate threatening upon the firm you hired) where people expect explanations and instruction while they do what you hired them to do (which, by the way, makes everything take at least twice as long). If you wanted teachers to train your staff, you should have hired said teachers. If you wanted something different, you should have considered this before you contracted with them. Be here now. Best to focus on where you are now and proceed from that point realistically.

They now obviously have full access to all our data and PC's, and I'm concerned they could steal all our intellectual property, source code and customers. Am I being overly paranoid and resistant to change? Should we just trust our administrator because they have a reputation to uphold? Or should we lock them out and make them administer the network in person so we can stand behind and watch them?

Your so-called intellectual property isn't the issue here, you've crossed that bridge. Your issue is you have post-commitment jitters about something you apparently didn't think through. Since you've already inked the deal, it's time to trust your new partners and understand that you don't have the power to "lock them out" in any way that wouldn't constitute a breach of contract or at least erecting circumstances that make them want to get rid of you as clients. You don't have the power to "make them administer the network in person so we can stand behind and watch them" nor would they likely want you to do that. You need to think ahead this time and consider the ramifications of being watched; I'm almost sure you wouldn't want to work that way because hardly anyone wants to work that way. Why would you think they'd want to work that way? You've described nothing unprofessional or bad on their part, so you have no cause to treat them as you describe.

Chalk it up to a lesson about thinking through the details before commitment.

I don't like to break it to you, but you are writing Free Software according to the FSF definition. You are giving your customer (i.e. the person who pays you, your employer) all of the four freedoms that the FSF require. If they don't distribute the software then it is always Free Software. If they do distribute it but don't give their customers these freedoms, then the copy they receive is not Free. Money has nothing to do with it.

syntax-highlighting editor that can edit files over SFTP is all that's really needed (ok, svn support is nice)

GNU Emacs and (warning: plug) espresso-mode. Emacs supports sftp out of the box using tramp, and of course it interacts with subversion (among other version control systems) elegantly.

syntax-highlighting editor that can edit files over SFTP is all that's really needed (ok, svn support is nice)

GNU Emacs and (warning: plug) espresso-mode. Emacs supports sftp out of the box using tramp, and of course it interacts with subversion (among other version control systems) elegantly.

I judge the free software movement by the rantings of its founder. I think it's safe to assume that his views are more representative than yours.

My definition of a schoolyard radical is somebody who loves elaborate social theories, but has no ability to apply them outside academia. RMS is a classic case: his GNU OS (the original "free" software project) has been under development for 27 years, with no end in sight. Yes, big chunks of it are incorporated in Linux, but the fact remains that RMS doesn't know how to see a big software project to completion. Like all schoolyard radicals, he never has to acknowledge his failure because he lives in the academic world, away from economic reality.

RMS's theories appeal to the same mindset that bought into the "fuck you I'll do what I want" brand of libertarianism that became alll the rage during the 80s. That mindset has just recently shown its intellectual and moral bankruptcy. RMS had one good idea: that voluntary cooperation was a better model for shared projects than the traditional committee approach. Others have taken this idea and done great things with it. RMS deserves some credit for that, but from his point of view it's almost an accidental outcome.

It's a bit disingenuous to say that the FSF doesn't care what license you use, when clearly, they care very much.

Your link isn't a page of recommended licenses, by the way, it's a list of licenses with comments on their compatibility with the GPL.

The FSF has an agenda, and are willing to use threat of legal force to advance it. You may like their goals and there's nothing illegal about what they do, but any attempt to frame them as something different is not quite accurate.

The GPL is obviously preferable to closed-source software in this case, but I'm not sure how it's preferable to the BSD/MIT ilk of licences.

This depends on circumstances. In most cases the majority of the entities working on the software are not competitors, however competitors also can use the software.

When you release BSD software, you get equal support to all the other people who cooperate with you. However, your competitors have a possibility to get a specific advantage. They can take your software, use it as you do, but add their own proprietary changes which they do not share.

This means that companies should not contribute to BSD projects without considerable care. E.g. if a feature is basic and your competitor already has it in their products you can contribute it because your competitor won't benefit. If a feature is advanced and product differentiating then you should never release it to a BSD project.

With a GPL project, there is another option. You contribute to the project. Any competitors which take that feature change their relationship with you. You and your former competitor cooperate in an open and legal way in one particular area (this is legal because it is directly to the benefit of the consumers / public etc.) whilst competing on others (service ; hardware ; other software bundled etc.).

In theory, this means that BSD software is better for short throw away projects where you will never work with anyone else whilst GPL is better for long term stable projects where cooperation will be most valuable. In practice, things which are planned short term very often become long term. This means it's normally better to use and release GPL software

There is one exception to this. If you are releasing a feature that you want everybody to use, including proprietary vendors, then you might find that the GNU All Permissive License is a good option. At least noticing its existence is quite ironic given the summary on this story.

Sounds like your view on GPL and libraries is the exact opposite of the GNU Project.

Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library

Part of the problem is that he insists on taking "ownership" of the GPL, and frequently acts as though he's a spokesperson for the entire open source community.

Stallman distances himself from the open source community as much as possible. Both the free software and the open source communities (according to RMS' definition) have entirely different philosophies, with similar technical goals which allows them to work together most of the time.

He can't turn GNU from an open-source software collective into a pseudo political advocacy group because GNU has always been just that, a movement dealing with a social problem, while "open source" in general only refers to the technical standpoint.