Slashdot Mirror

They are not completely missing from GPLv2

from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html, clause 7

"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

Emacs can actually do this by itself with X, with each user getting their own cursor so they can type at the same time too. The command is make-frame-on-display, which simply asks for what display to use in addition to the current one. This will even work with Emacs running on one machine, and being displayed on two other machines which have X forwarded via ssh.

GNU Screen is, of course, always an option if you can use a command line text editor like vim or emacs.

Gobby is pretty decent, although it's a bit more limited as an IDE.

I've always preferred NetBeans for this sort of thing, although nothing yet satisfies all of my peer programming requirements. I need an editor that lets one person follow another, and take turns editing, not something that just lets two people edit the same file at the same time. I'd argue whether the latter is of any use at all.

--- SER

Whenever I've taught or trained remotely I've always used screen to multiplex the session. That takes care of the coding part. For communication I usually use something like skype or google talk. Pick your poison there. http://www.gnu.org/software/screen/

The LGPLv2 is upwards compatible with the GPLv2 (see section 3 so it's no problem to release code under the LGPL v2 to release it into Linux.

The reason they didn't release under the LGPL (or for that matter MIT license, which would also be perfectly fine) because it would give someone else something for free for no reason. Microsoft is not here to help anybody for free. This is perfectly consistent with their attack on you using the GPL and wanting you to use the MIT license. They always want the license which is maximally to their benefit.

Yes? And?

You can download programs from the web too. Copyright licensing on them is clear. If you ask a server for a copy of a program, and the server is authorised by the copyright holder to give out copies in response to such requests, then again you have a legitimate copy of that program on your computer. You are free to use it as you please[0]. You are free to make use of the output of the program[1]. But again you are not allowed to redistribute the program without the permission of the copyright holder.

The licensing is simple and clear, and I see no reason that anyone should think it "a nightmare".

[0] Unless you have already voluntarily agreed to abide by an extra contract (e.g. an EULA) which limits your rights more that copyright itself does.
[1] Except in rare cases where the output of the program includes part of the program (or associated data) itself, in which case those parts will be under copyright. (e.g. Bison, which contains a special exception to allow you to use such parts.)

The GPL FAQ says no.
I would like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation software. Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?
No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.

This reminds me a bit about rms's old short story, The Right To Read.

But gcc does indeed have such a specific test.

http://gcc.gnu.org/news/null.html

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

I have seen several studies indicating that people who pirate IP, also buy more IP.

The abbreviation "IP" can refer to copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, rights of publicity, or Internet Protocol routing contracts. Using "IP" to refer to all six carries a connotation that these exclusive rights are more similar than they actually are and that their respective scopes should be expanded. It's a seductive mirage. If you mean "people who pirate copyrighted works", why not just say "people who pirate copyrighted works"?

No you don't, you only need to meet the license conditions if you distribute code yourself. The GPL "is a distribution license, not a use license." From the same link "Acceptance of the GPL is NOT required to download and use Asterisk". From GNU: "If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me?" "Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity." "The GPL only requires that you make the source available to the same people that you distribute the software to. It only requires public "release" under the GPL if you're distributing the software to the general public."

Falcon

One thing that seems to always be left out of these discussions is that the GPL is incompatible with many sincere open-source licenses ..

Shouldn't that be the other way round ..

Although many open-source licenses have been modified to make them compatible with the GPL, that does not make compatibility with the GPL a requirement for being a good open-source license. In fact, the Open Source Initiative has a much clearer test of whether the intent of a license is truly open source: Open Source Definition.

Note that the NASA OSA meets these requirements with flying colors (which is why it is OSI-approved). The incompatibility with the GPL is not apparent until the two licenses have been very carefully pored over, probably by lawyers -- if NASA wants contributions to be the contributor's original creation, why should we hold up the GPL and tell them that they're in the same camp as closed-source software?

From the FSF ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html ):

The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your "original creation". Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this.

We urge you not to use this license. In addition, if you are a United States citizen, please write to NASA and call for the use of a truly free software license.

If someone is licensing a project under the GPL, he should be more aware that the license is so restrictive that it bars its use with other perfectly-legitimate open-source software. This is the intention of the FSF, but I believe that it is not the intention of most of those in the OSS community that use it -- at least until they get greedy and mistakenly think that an organization like NASA has deep pockets and should pay regardless of its contribution to the open-source community.

Why would they not be concerns for GPL?

Because the GPL itself explicitly states that it's non-revocable (unless you violate it).

2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

I've tried NoMachine and found it the most responsive compared to other solutions. Of course the GUI is over rated, as any dyed in the wool techie uses SSH + BASH + MC + PINE ...

Yep, it is listed in GNU's words to avoid or use with care: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Theft

I've had good results with some home-grown scripts that grab the project-specific details from a database and then generate the relevant config files using a templating system like Genshi. Run it periodically against the database, check in changes and email diffs to the admin.

I've always used cpp as my template engine, but then again, I've been doing this since the '80's.

I'm going to write an Emacs clone that uses Brainfuck for its scripting.

Why write a clone when you can have the real thing?

Okay, maybe someday.

Maybe?

I'm going to write an Emacs clone that uses Brainfuck for its scripting.

Why write a clone when you can have the real thing?

Okay, maybe someday.

Maybe?

AMEN! Hopefully we'll all be able to use Gnash after this summer... :)

Google also said it had teamed up with Adobe, which could mean Google is looking to include the Acrobat.com web-based software suite in some way.

First off, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if anyone is teaming up with Adobe to include Adobe web stuff that it's not going to focus on Acrobat but on Adobe Flash, Adobe AIR, and that whole ecosystem.

That out of the way, what the Flippety Friggery, Google?

You're building a new OS based on the Linux kernel + Chrome Browser, which is cool because these are both high-quality Free Software projects. But then you wander off and sidle up to Adobe instead of working with Free Software such as Gnash.

This seems like a repeat of the situation with the ARM folks. Gnash has had ARM support for several years, but instead of the ARM people collaborating with Gnash to get full Flash support on their processors, the ARM people worked with Adobe to make a whole new port to ARM, instead.

Now Google is working on a slick new OS and has an amazing opportunity to have the whole thing be Free Software. Gnash is getting very mature, and with support from a organization like Google it could easily become the best Flash player on Free OSes, if not on all OSes.

C'mon Google: Team up with Gnash and other Free Software projects and make Chrome OS one for the history books.

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

Look into GNU projects! http://www.gnu.org/ for example, kde is always looking for developers :) http://www.kde.org/getinvolved/ I think these are good places to look for projects * ~

In fact, it might be worthwhile to offer this as a feature - software publishers could form a guild to guarantee software authenticity.

How would developers of free software gain access to a publisher in the guild? And who can afford to make multiple international long-distance telephone calls, one to each publisher's headquarters?

Didn't RMS come up with this idea about twelve years ago? It's basically the same thing...

It's too bad this isn't under the AGPL. Maybe it has to be GPL2 because of what it's based on. But with the GPL2 source only has to be shared with people who receive binaries.

That's not true.

jadoon88 writes to share a series of old Atari 7800 games that have been unofficially open sourced.

No, but whomever wrote that headline is making a common mistake. The use of the term "open source" tells us that "open source" is apparently no more clear to people than what that movement tried to supplant—free software. While "free software" has an ambiguity problem, that problem is easily resolved by saying the "free" refers to freedoms to run, share, and modify the software, not a reference to price. "Open source" is also widely misunderstood:

The official definition of "open source software," as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression "open source software" is "You can look at the source code." This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for "open source" is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating.

but not easily cleared up. As that essay points out, "the explanation for "free software" is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of "free speech, not free beer" will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of "open source" and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.".

From what I can tell, there's no permission given to share any of these programs, no permission to modify any of these programs, and no permission to distribute these programs commercially.

The blog poster claims "In an official release, Atari has quoted that the purpose of the release is to give potential developers insight into the Atari's gaming platform so they may possibly build upon the 7800 series." but there is no link to the official release from the copyright holder. Therefore the provenance of this source code is unclear. I would consider these programs to be neither open source nor free software. This looks like an offer to download source code for proprietary software then make the mistake of distributing unauthorized derivative works based on these programs. It might be fun to program new Atari 7800 games, but copyright lasts a very long time and there's too little information to verify what the blogger claims.

http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groff_(software)

in regards to learning assembly, if you run linux, the best book I can recommend is Programming from the ground up it's licensed under the GNU free documentation license, and in my honest opinion is likely the single best book for anyone who has no idea that wants to start, I already had some clue so skipped the first two thirds of the book, but read it for shits and giggles later and found it to be a very easy to grasp book.

To this day if I forget minor details about things I pick that back up and re-read it a bit :)

As far as I can see from the comparison of these FSes, BTRFS is a promising file system for Linux and is under development. Some say that it will be the ZFS of Linux or even better. I think time will say.
Some other say, now that Oracle owns Sun, Oracle can change the license of ZFS from CDDL to GPL2 and port to Linux. But porting ZFS to Linux it's another story...

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

From what I've learned (on Groklaw ;-) ), cleanroom implementations help you indemnify your software against copyright violation allegiations.
Stallmann is here saying that there is a possibility that Mono violates Microsoft software patents, and that in that case, software *depending on* mono (i.e. written in C#) is at risk if mono ever has to be de-installed because of patent violation allegiations.
In fact, there's a famous other article by Stallmann about copyright, patents and trademarks, where he claims the use of the word "Intellectual Property" should be stopped, which directly addresses your confusion: I really, heartily, strongly recommend you to read it, it's mindblowingly easy to read and I found it very enlightening:
Did You Say âoeIntellectual Propertyâ? It's a Seductive Mirage
IANA(P)L and I don't actually know much about .NET or Microsoft software but his arguments make sense. Also bear in mind that the Microsoft-Novell software patent deal of 2006 (here, here, here), where Microsoft promises not to sue Novell's customers for a limited period of time, expires in 2011 or so. So maybe then Ballmer will divulge what he meant with his "235 software patents Linux infringes" (maybe it should have been 205 software patents ;-) but it's very possible that Ballmer is completely truthful here). Then again 2011 is years away and maybe software patents won't exist anymore in the U.S.A because they wanted to harmonize with the rest of the world, which doesn't have them.

Hey did you go through and pick all the non-free bits? Your list certainly isn't a random sampling of software on a Mac. It's possibly a random sampling of GUI software on a Mac. Of course, things like iWork and Aperture are not part of the actual distribution. They're applications that are sold separately.

However, even from your list, XCode is merely a GUI front end for gcc and Safari is just a GUI front end for webkit. Particularly in the case of Safari, you can write a Safari clone with basic functionality on top of webkit in about two minutes.

Happy source browsing!

Actually, if that were to happen -- and it won't:

Says who? MS has done precisely that in the past. Why are you choosing to ignore this fact? Microsoft executives have announced explicit intentions on this matter.

Microsoft sues => Linux distros must stop using the .NET framework => Tomboy gets ported to unmanaged C++ via an automated tool => Tomboy keeps on working.

Wouldn’t such tool have to automatically change all uses of a patented API in a binary program? How will it work?

C# is as open as it gets. It's developed through the ECMA (which is so "open" that it maintains the standards for Javascript), it has a full GPL reference implementation, its relevant standards are fully published in all details and are globally available free of charge.

Your point was: Java is not open. I said it is. I never said C# isn’t.
Anyway, since you mentioned it, where can I download the GPL reference implementation of C#?
And how can I follow the ECMA meetings that are shaping the future of C#? I suppose it’s not that a Microsoft internal team develops it behind closed doors and simply submits the finished product to ECMA for standardization.
Because this would mean that for every new C# revision, all non-Microsoft implementations will lag behind before implementing the new features.
Which is precisely what has been happening with Mono in the past five years.

Microsoft and the free software community have conflicting interests.

Not really, Microsoft and the free software community worked together succesfully a number of times. F/OSS zealots have a thing with Microsoft,

Sorry but in this thread, it is only you who have a thing with someone. You just started calling zealots those who do not agree with you, and expose their argumentation with valid arguments instead of insulting.
Although I am indeed a zealot, sometimes I base my opinion on facts, and I’d like to share some interesting ones with you.
- What Microsoft executives think about free software and patents:

Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches
-- S. Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

We spend a lot of money - the rest of the commercial industry spends a lot of money - on R&D. We spend a lot of money also licenses patents, when people come and say 'Hey this commercial piece of software violates our patent, our intellectual property,' we'll either get a court judgment or pay a big check. I think it is important that the open source products also have an obligation to participate in the same way.
-- S. Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

- Samples of past interactions between MS and free software:
Microsoft vs. tomtom
Halloween documents
Patenting other peoples’ideas

but whatever you can say about Microsoft, you can say about IBM or Sun -- who I am sure they hold countless Java patents.

Thats perfectly true! In fact, before this, RMS has vocally spoken against Java *for the exact same reasons* he is now warning against Mono.
After Java was licensed under the GPL v2, he stopped deprecating Java. That’s because even if Sun held patents about Java, the fact that they released it under the GPL means that they’ve granted perpetual free use of the relative technologies for everyone (don’t take my word - read the GPL).

Besides this, if C# (or the BCL) were really dangerous, then why is th

It is not free software. Free software has a very specific meaning. When it is spoken on, especially in a community such as slashdot it refers to software that you have freedom with. So software under the GPL, BSD, MIT, etc licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

For those of you saying that RMS is being hypocritical with the Portable.Net project, you should read this first:

Don't get caught in .NET

With all the RMS-bashing that slashdot has turned into lately, you'd wonder what the point is in providing arguments for your position.

Richard Stallman over the years has made it his goal to encourage and promote the creation of free software alternatives of commercial products, patented or not.

RMS decided to clone Unix when he started his GNU project. This was at a time when ATT might have hold patents on the technology:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

Microsoft has been vocal about their patent portfolio, but the danger of patents extends beyond anyone that is vocal.

As we saw with SCO, a company that is desperate for revenue will start taping into whatever they have at their disposal. SCO lost market share and tried to capitalize on the Unix IP.

The same can easily happen to any software company today that owns patents and finds itself in financial trouble. They will either try to license their patents or sell the patents for a third party to buy.

SGI was in such situation in 2002/2003 when they sold their OpenGL patent portfolio to Microsoft which now owns the OpenGL patents.

Smaller companies go out of business constantly and sell their patents as a last resort or as part of the bankruptcy proceedings (Chapter 12) that force a company to sell their assets to pay their debt.

Today the FSF is requesting clones for a number of technologies as can be seen here:

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html

As the FSF becomes more irrelevant, their list of tasks becomes more irrelevant as well. Most of the work is now driven by external communities and there has not been a need for RMS to push for free implementations of key pieces of software as he did in the past.

Or they sponsor projects like GNUstep that would violate Apple/Nextstep patents as much as Mono would violate Microsoft patents. The only difference being that Apple is more litigious than Microsoft. It is part of their culture.

Then why is he pimping his own c# implementation in the very same article? Their project sounds exactly like Mono.

Mono is dangerous because it isn't "DotGNU Portable.NET". In otherwords, it is dangerous because it wasn't created by the FSF.

In short:

Microsoft is evil and is "probably" planning to kill every independent implementation of C#. We have no proof of this, but you have to trust us.

Also... use our C# implementation "DotGNU Portable.NET" instead. We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I won't bother you with why.

In otherwords, I'm confused. Does he like C# or not? If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation? What makes theirs so special?

Approval processes and the GPL philosophy do not work well together.

If I'm running GPL code on my Wii, but Nintendo won't let me run a modified version on my Wii, I feel like I am being denied the ability to adapt the code to my needs. This is similar to the "Tivoization" concern that GPL version 3 tries to address.

It's GPL 2 or later as per the
source
code
files.
It is also distributed with the
GPL2.1
and
LGPL2.1
license files, though I could not find any actual files in the source that use the LGPL.

The authoritative source for the version is the headers in the source code files.

Note that the
FAQ on their website
links to the
GPL 3
but this is not authoritative, what is in the source code header files is what counts.

Notice that the GNU website talks about "free" (as in speech) software? If GNU doesn't care about "free" software, then it wouldn't be slammed all over their site.

Again, GNU has a rather specific understanding what "free software" is. It doesn't match with your. So you're simply arguing semantics: that GNU does something wrong according to your definition of the word, therefore it hurts what you think what "free software" is.

On FSF websites, "free software" refers to "GNU Free Software (TM)" to put it in some way. The GPL fits perfectly in that definition. They have plenty explanations for why they like GPL style licensing.

To be fair, GNU has done great things for free software, but the main license still pisses me off sometimes. I'm just being extra harsh in this thread because, of all things, I'm reading an article about someone "stealing" something which should be free (as in speech) under a license which touts advocating free software. In all honesty, LGPL (and, as you mention, BSD) is far closer to what I believe constitutes free software.

You're right there, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.

I personally believe in freedom of information. I don't believe that information can be "owned" or "licensed," especially considering any "program" can be represented as a point on the real number line. Of course, I'm one of those extreme loons when it comes to copyright/etc laws. ;p

Actually that comes quite close to the GNU view of software.

The GPL actively enforces that view: If information can't be owned or licensed, then there's no such thing as a right to restrict it. The GPL works within current law, and turns copyright on itself to achieve that end.

I think the main disagreement here is what exactly is "freedom". The BSD view seems to be that "freedom" is the "absence of rules". The GPL view is that "freedom" is achieved by having rules in place that stop other people from putting limits on what you can do.

Say, are you more free in a society with absolutely no laws, and so can do (in theory) anything you please, or in one where there are laws such as the ones forbidding stealing and murder?

You're missing the goddamned point; I don't care what your license is "supposed" to do, I care that it hurts the free software movement. It doesn't matter if the GPL is supposed to force devs to stand on their head and sing yotalele, all that matters is that it hurts the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Notice that the GNU website talks about "free" (as in speech) software? If GNU doesn't care about "free" software, then it wouldn't be slammed all over their site.

To be fair, GNU has done great things for free software, but the main license still pisses me off sometimes. I'm just being extra harsh in this thread because, of all things, I'm reading an article about someone "stealing" something which should be free (as in speech) under a license which touts advocating free software. In all honesty, LGPL (and, as you mention, BSD) is far closer to what I believe constitutes free software.

I personally believe in freedom of information. I don't believe that information can be "owned" or "licensed," especially considering any "program" can be represented as a point on the real number line. Of course, I'm one of those extreme loons when it comes to copyright/etc laws. ;p

Anonymous Cowardon bullshits again. The GPL requires that copyright notices not be modified. Proof from the horse's mouth..

You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
        when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
        interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
        announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
        notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
        a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
        these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
        License

The FSF has also made clear that you must preserve copyright notices of previous authors.

GPL requires that you ship code with the delivery,

No it doesn't. It requires that you ship the offer of code with the binary.

Please actually read the thing before making ADAMANT BUT COMPLETELY WRONG CLAIMS IN ALL CAPS.
That goes for moderators too, at least those sucked in by posters relying on authoritative sounding claims.

and that the package is licensed under a GPL acceptable license.

No, that it is licensed under the GPL license. (or if >=, then >=)

That's _it_.

Section 2a. of the GPL2 is 4 lines long. The entire license file is 339 lines long. i.e. that's not just _it_ at all.

It does not require you to perform any advertising,

Sure it does. You must both advertise to the downstream user their rights under the license, and in some circumstances the No Warranty text should be shown. This is Term 1, it's not exactly buried in the text.

nor acknowledge where the code came from.

The original copyright statements must remain intact. (Term 1.)

You want attribution? Use the old BSD license, or the new Apache one, not the GPL.

An interesting commentary on the goals of the licenses and motivations of authors can be taken from this.

I would say that plugin address spaces aren't kept separate (thus avoiding the issue entirely) is a Firefox _bug_ (or perhaps it's designed that way on purpose),

maybe that is a Firefox bug.

rather than any GPL violation.

WTF are you talking about?? Please explain why it can not be both these unrelated things?

So far, nothing in the summary (nor any of the articles) points out the GPL violation.

Once again, WTF are you talking about?? Except the part in the summary which says they incorporated the code of a GPL project without licensing their plugin as GPL nor letting their users know their rights under that license.

Technically a customer has to request the code and be denied it, but probably the failure to advertise that the code is available to end users under the terms of the GPL is enough to get them legally in the poop and get slapped with an injunction.

Additionally, if you're saying that plugins that are GPL'ed can't coexist with plugins that aren't GPL'ed, that's an interesting statement.

Where does this strawman come from? The problem here is not that 2 plugins of differing license sit side by side, it is that GPL code is being mixed with non-GPL code into a non-GPL product and redistributed as non-GPL. The fact that it is a for-profit company doing this doesn't change much beyond kill any innocent-mistake excuses.

If that were true, I would hope that the GPL is _banned_ as an acceptable plugin license in order to prevent all Firefox users from being copyright violators.

All Firefox users are absolutely fine to use a mix of GPL and non GPL plugins at run time. What they can't do is redistribute the things together as a single monolithic program to others without relicensing the entire package as GPL. The GPL has to do with redistribution, not use. (ie the "copy" in "copyright")

Please RTF License! It's really not that hard.

GPL requires that you ship code with the delivery,

No it doesn't. It requires that you ship the offer of code with the binary.

Please actually read the thing before making ADAMANT BUT COMPLETELY WRONG CLAIMS IN ALL CAPS.
That goes for moderators too, at least those sucked in by posters relying on authoritative sounding claims.

and that the package is licensed under a GPL acceptable license.

No, that it is licensed under the GPL license. (or if >=, then >=)

That's _it_.

Section 2a. of the GPL2 is 4 lines long. The entire license file is 339 lines long. i.e. that's not just _it_ at all.

It does not require you to perform any advertising,

Sure it does. You must both advertise to the downstream user their rights under the license, and in some circumstances the No Warranty text should be shown. This is Term 1, it's not exactly buried in the text.

nor acknowledge where the code came from.

The original copyright statements must remain intact. (Term 1.)

You want attribution? Use the old BSD license, or the new Apache one, not the GPL.

An interesting commentary on the goals of the licenses and motivations of authors can be taken from this.

I would say that plugin address spaces aren't kept separate (thus avoiding the issue entirely) is a Firefox _bug_ (or perhaps it's designed that way on purpose),

maybe that is a Firefox bug.

rather than any GPL violation.

WTF are you talking about?? Please explain why it can not be both these unrelated things?

So far, nothing in the summary (nor any of the articles) points out the GPL violation.

Once again, WTF are you talking about?? Except the part in the summary which says they incorporated the code of a GPL project without licensing their plugin as GPL nor letting their users know their rights under that license.

Technically a customer has to request the code and be denied it, but probably the failure to advertise that the code is available to end users under the terms of the GPL is enough to get them legally in the poop and get slapped with an injunction.

Additionally, if you're saying that plugins that are GPL'ed can't coexist with plugins that aren't GPL'ed, that's an interesting statement.

Where does this strawman come from? The problem here is not that 2 plugins of differing license sit side by side, it is that GPL code is being mixed with non-GPL code into a non-GPL product and redistributed as non-GPL. The fact that it is a for-profit company doing this doesn't change much beyond kill any innocent-mistake excuses.

If that were true, I would hope that the GPL is _banned_ as an acceptable plugin license in order to prevent all Firefox users from being copyright violators.

All Firefox users are absolutely fine to use a mix of GPL and non GPL plugins at run time. What they can't do is redistribute the things together as a single monolithic program to others without relicensing the entire package as GPL. The GPL has to do with redistribution, not use. (ie the "copy" in "copyright")

Please RTF License! It's really not that hard.

You should stop thinking, and start reading:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

Just as Microsoft very carefully assigns rights and responsibilities with their "EULA", so does the GPL. As does the LGPL, the BSD license, and all other licenses we may ever hear of.

And, "Free, as in free speech" doesn't mean "Free, as in plegiarize me, please"

Yes, they stole , hours or perhaps days/months of work. Also others work as they reported issues, donated etc.

It is stealing. They stole a digital artifact, they stole "information", "knowledge". They took something without doing something required or giving something required (credit). It is 2009 already and you people have issues with understanding the difference between "virtual" and "real" things. Virtual things can cost money, time and even health and they don't really differ from real things you can hold with your hand.

In fact, Flashgot people could even sell their completely open source extension and could also have right to blame users who doesn't "buy" it. Just as explained there: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

It is not a movie, don't go into "but it is not stealing" mode immediately. Oh yes, pirating a Hollywood movie is stealing too... Like I explained above. I don't really care if producer is Satan himself.

VI customers could just switch to emacs.

HERETIC!!

Because ed is the standard text editor.

Yes you can sell GPL software. Well not sell it but charge to distribute it. Close enough since Microsoft doesn't sell Windows but a license to use it.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Right from GNU.
And no alternatives don't exists for every proprietary package. GIMP is great it is a good alternative to Photoshop Elements. It doesn't have many features that proffesionals need so it isn't a replacement for Photoshop. GNU-Cash doesn't replace QuickBooks for sure but it isn't bad compared to Quicken. k3b and vlc are very good. I tend to use Gnome myself so I am not a big k3b user.
You just keep going off on tangents and just don't get it that you where wrong when you said that my orginal statment was bullshit. It isn't up for debate since I have proven as sure as 1+1 is 2. And please before you go off saying what you can and can not do with the GPL at least read it. FOSS doesn't always mean Free as in Beer. Another example of a company that charges to distrubute GPL software is RedHat. You may not have heard about them. They are this little Linux company in North Carolina.