Slashdot Mirror

yes they do.

GPLv3 gives "making available to the public" as an example of propagation. What does this mean? Is making available a form of conveying?

One example of "making available to the public" is putting the software on a public web or FTP server. After you do this, some time may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from youâ"but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill the GPL's obligations right away as well. Hence, we defined conveying to include this activity.

IP is a bogus phrase and you are too bitter about the demise of your favorite company and the things it stands for.

And if you have to call it GNU/Linux, at least get the punctuation right. It certainly isn't "GNU Linux", which would imply that Linux is a product of the GNU project; it even says so on their web site.

http://www.truecrypt.org/
http://w2.eff.org/patent/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/
http://www.wikileaks.org/
http://www.cryptome.org/
http://www.torproject.org/
http://freenetproject.org/

I think you're thinking of 2.96: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html

I understand your whole argument except the 'free software' implication. I don't see how paying for software, or getting it for free, has anything to do with one's ability to preserve privacy and political security.

What I said here was correct:

In fact, you can use GPL'd software without even agreeing to the license.

What you said here was also correct:

If you want to download, install and run GPL software, you need permission from the copyright owner, just as you need that permission for non-GPL software.

The GPL distinguishes three different levels of things you can do with the software. "Executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy" doesn't require you to agree to the GPL at all. "Propagating" it requires you to agree to the GPL unless you think it falls under one of the exceptions to copyright law. "Conveying" it requires you to agree to the GPL, and imposes the highest requirements on you.

Wrong w.r.t. GPL

GPL doesn't oblige the party that modified the source and and made a modified binary from releasing ANYTHING. But if they do release the binary, they must allow the *recipients* of that binary access to the modified source code under GPL or a license that is compatible with GPL.

GPL v3 adds additional reasurances that the modified GPL code can be modified by the end user and replace their binary with their own! That's THE major difference.

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

The intention of GPLv3 vs. v2 is to prevent people from

    * signed binaries/DRM, so source code access is worthless, or
    * devices that can't be patched with modified software
    * patents prohibiting you to use modified version of software

Finally, copyright is retained by the creator. GPL does not affect that. So,

  1. Bob release software A under GPL
  2. someone else adds stuff and releases A' under GPL
  3. Bob takes changes from A' and incorporates into A

At #1, Bob may dual license or even close source for new versions of software completely as they own all of copyright. At #3, Bob loses ability to close source future versions of A or even prevents him from releasing under BSD or Apache or whatever.

You DO NOT own the project if you incorporate other's modifications into it. Parts of it cease to be yours and so license modifications are not permitted, unless they are stated in the license text.

For software released under GPLv2 only, you CANNOT release that under GPLv3 without contacting ALL people that contributed and them agreeing to it. That is why GPLv3 is preferred as current project maintainers can change the license to GPLv3 and later, or GPLv4 or later, etc..

What part of having the open source software and doing whatever you can with it to benefit your own company is denied? Nothing. It's a matter of distribution. Nothing at all is stopping you from making changes for your own companies use and not giving it to anyone else. If you sell it to someone (thus commercial), then it is an entirely different ballgame.

From the GPLv3 faq: "Do I have "fair use" rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?

        Yes, you do. âoeFair useâ is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about itâ"in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license."

Assuming you're not trolling, it depends.

Amazon is required to post the source code to their GPL'ed components; this would include the Linux kernel and any modifications they made to it.

However, using a GPL'ed kernel with non-GPL'ed userland is totally fine in most cases. (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#PortProgramToGL). Assuming you meant more than just the Kindle's now kinda-rickety-looking 2.6.10 kernel (Source: Wikipedia), which looks like it was uploaded in 2004 when you said "Kindle's code", you're probably SOL. I don't know what Kindle's userland looks like but I'd be surprised if the interesting parts were GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html

Right about then. The same day it started. When did you get clueless and misinformed?

So the obvious question is, where do I get the source code?

AFAIK, the source code hasn't been posted yet. When it does get posted, "Netflix Player" will probably get its own tab here.

Why is parent being modded down? They're totally right.

Check it: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites

Few things in the world are for everybody, but history shows us that freedom is worth some hard work to build and defend. If that means I do without something for a while, or I have to do something another way, that's a small price to pay. As it happens I don't need 3D hardware and my ASUS cardbus wireless card works with gNewSense GNU/Linux because it requires no firmware, hence there's no issue of uploading proprietary firmware to the device to make it useful. Using it couldn't be easier: I plug it in, it lights up and the system finds a wireless access point. If I leave it plugged in I only have to turn on my computer to get online wirelessly. I think that software freedom is worth some sacrifice and I find that I have to sacrifice less and less over time. I find it interesting to note how dependent on proprietary software many GNU/Linux users are. The push to put more proprietary software on a GNU-based system more clearly illuminates to me the difference between "open source" and "free software" right along the lines described in the latter part of "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software":

The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that?

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom. So I have to do without it. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

Developers are developers. Expecting them to deliver anything more than code is a poor idea.

Actually, most FOSS developers are just people who needed their computer to do something. They didn't care about the interface at all as long as the thing they needed got done. Because the implementor was the user, the interface was minimal. This isn't the case for major projects -- just for the millions of little things which are so handy. Everybody that writes code spins this stuff off automatically as they serve their own needs. Take "grep" as an ideal example. It was not always so easy to scan multiple files for ocurrences of a particular string. It was only after a great many people had re-solved this problem over and over that grep was created. A great many other solutions were also put forward and some of them persist to this day but none of them is as popular as the GNU project grep and its derivations.

The author then published the result for everybody else because to do otherwise seemed, well, wasteful. This is the step that allows others to save the effort needed to re-solve the same problem and is very important. Being able to find the tool that others built is also important and this is part of why Sourceforge and Google are so popular.

It's only after several people adapt that simplest solution to add their slightly different requirement to it and re-publish it that the need served becomes a more general need and is adopted as a cause by someone who needs a more flexible tool and puts a more flexible interface on it. This is an evolution and evolution takes time.

Perhaps it seems wasteful that so many people publish so many unsuccessful free applications that aren't developed and fall from use because people who need an answer find a better answer in a similar but different free application. This isn't really wasteful at all. If you publish an app that you made to solve your problem, the publication is practically "free" because you already needed the effort required to produce it in order to solve your own problem. If it helps one other person ever, the effort to publish it was not wasted. Because of the world's diverse and specific needs published code almost never goes unused and so there is very little waste.

I'll agree that many FOSS projects need better interfaces and documentation (as do most commercial applications). Perhaps if we heap upon the more prolific and astute documentors and interface designers more praise, more will volunteer to serve that common need. For every problem that it's possible for a computer to help with there are many people who need a particular utility. By making their code free a programmer helps all the other people with common needs. For each special interest that shares code in this way the more programmers who free their code the faster the general progress of the art, which serves the people who free their code as well as all people with similar needs.

Free software is not the same as open source. Read Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software. The first two paragraphs:

When we call software "free," we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of "free speech," not "free beer."...These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but because they promote social solidarity--that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as more and more of our culture and life activities are digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images and words, free software comes increasingly to equate with freedom in general.

Now, it may be more important to you that your wireless just works. But, for some people, it's more important to promote social solidarity and freedom, and they want a distribution that makes that easy - without then having to figure out all the dependencies and what is "free" and what isn't. This distribution serves that purpose.

Of course, you could go with Debian, but again, Debian suggests non-free software that people like yourself might simply use because they don't understand the differences between open source and free software or that they have free alternatives - like compiling the software themselves as the other reply to your post suggests. Distributions like Debian enable the creep of carelessness, which is why people like RMS (Richard Stallman) want to encourage totally free distributions.

If it's not your thing or if you are in a situation that requires using something non-free, then do what you have to do. But, I would encourage you to at least be aware of the choices you are making and at least try to be free where you can or to present the alternatives to others as I am doing here.

For disclosure, I used Linux (or GNU/Linux, if you'd rather) as my sole system a decade ago, and even then used Applix for office applications. Now, I use Windows exclusively. I need to run software that requires Windows and don't have as much time to spend troubleshooting computer problems. So, you are running more "free" than me. Still, I thought it worth trying my hand at explaining why these efforts are important, and perhaps it is better than someone that isn't a "true believer" present the case.

If you'd said the BSDL, I might have believed you. Most non-lawyers can fully understand BSD and MIT licenses, but something like the GPL is a huge blob of legalese that very few people fully understand.

You said, "The spirit of the GPL is to keep the code open so everybody benefits. [...] GPL was always about the code never about the users or the hardware".

Okay. The opening words of the GPL v2 are "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.".

So, we have a license which states in the first line that it is designed to keep software "free". This license comes from a project called GNU. So, what does the GNU project mean when they say "free software"? Let's see:

"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software" (emphasis added)
- From the GNU Project's Free Software Definition.

I did misremember, and think that those words were in the actual GPL and not just in the Free Software Definition document, but when the name of the license is the GNU GPL, and it claims to be about protecting software freedom, and the GNU project clearly has states what they mean by that (freedom for users of the software), then there's no way you can claim that "RMS has gone off in a new (IMHO worse) direction". Because this is the direction he's been on all along. Listen to anything he ever said: He has always stated that he was fighting for freedom for users primarily.

The GSL is mostly C. It's useful for students to take a numerical methods class and recreate the basics and to understand the limitations. Once they know, they can use libraries like GSL to get real work done.

Excel is not only a joke for real problems, it's a real problem to grade.

Someone who's been blinded by the IP propaganda term might confuse "fake" handbags with ripped music. The confusion is intentional and it's designed to take rights away.

Even given that, the demand for ISP logs and invasion of Canadian and EU citizen privacy is ballsy.

IMO Intellectual Property is a term which should be avoided, as it is used for way to many very diffent things!

As I generally tend to differ with RMS I think he is right in this case. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for a very detailed article on this Topic.

See

The authors present economic arguments without evidence, "markets function best in the presence of clearly defined property rights" (p11). You can substitute any other nonsense word for "intellectual property" throughout and the book doesn't read any worse for it. They should have read Stallman instead of fabricating yet another nonsense term; "intellectual monopoly".

They appear to make a point when they introduce their new term; distribution rights should not extend to usage rights. I'd agree with that but only as it applies to copyright/first sale. I'd not agree with what they're saying because deliberately ambiguous, confusing terms have no place in serious material on patents and copyright.

GNU

donate (time || money || expertise) here:

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

I cannot help you with the others, but for MatLab, look into GNU Octave, which is "mostly compatible with Matlab."

I'm not sure how it was considered good when gcc itself says:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html

IIRC, the reason for going to 2.96 was an edge case of bash not working on some fringe (big iron?) platform and one other thing.

Not a reason to move to 2.96.

On glibc2 - they moved before it was ready for production. yes, some people say this helps them find more bugs and helps push it production ready - if this is the case, why do you guys bitch about Microsoft pushing out beta stuff as production ready? That's a bit hypocritical, yes?

There's also valgrind, for Linux users, and mudflap, for gcc users. I haven't tried mudflap yet, but valgrind is a very good runtime memory checker, and mudflap claims to do similar things.

This feature is really important for GRUB 2, because GRUB Legacy has been patched by third parties frequently, as the official version never support a graphical interface, but such an interface attracts more casual users. Support for a fancy menu - even better than an unofficial patch for GRUB Legacy - would attract more people to GRUB 2, thus this is critical in a long term to accelerate the development.

Another point of argument they are going to make is that they aren't messing with your copyrighted web pages because they aren't distributing it without permission. When a user makes a request for your page, and your server fulfills that request, you have distributed the materials yourself. They are merely making a "derivative work" from that material.

Worse, if an ISP would be allowed to do this kind of rape to my data, what could possibly stop them from using the data in any other way and taking things out of context? Imagine that I have an article written in one way, where the ISP-side modifications would pull the article in another way? Subtle changes, even an advertisement, can change the meaning of an entire page.

Apart from the copyright issues, there are numerous other problems with such a system. Next time you visit http://www.gnu.org/ you will get a nice frame of Microsoft ads about "Get The Facts"?... Or what about the abusive tracking possibility of such a system? Imagine that ads are inserted based on content. That basically means that any mean bastard can track you. The government then indirectly can attach an ad on any content containing the word "xyz"... Nice to know that you are seeking that carbomb info and other details.

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

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses

Software Freedom is not complicated. There are only four freedoms that matter and it's easy enough to apply them to any software license. The only thing that's complicated is Microsoft's licensing terms because they don't want anyone to have software freedom. If your PHB is interested in software freedom, it would be easier to go GPL like everyone else than try to reinvent it or waste time talking to Microsoft about something they hate.

RMS's intent regarding what constitutes a derivative work doesn't really mean all that much in the event that a court disagrees. That's still an if as far as I know.

And really, how else are we supposed to interpret 2.b?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

I won't argue about whether that is restrictive or not, as that is largely a point of view thing, but it certainly has implications for someone who reads some GPL code and gets an idea from it.

http://savannah.gnu.org/

Emphasis mine... take note of the emphasis.

15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND , EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

Also from the same source:

4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

You may convey 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; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

Here is my suggestion for you. Issue a letter to the university that has adopted your project and lay out a plan for supporting your software that flows a little bit like a business plan.

Dear University,

I have recently noted that you have adopted the use of a F/OSS software program that I am the primary developer for. I would like to thank you for your choice to promote Free and Open Sourced Software and say that I am honored by your selection of my project in particular to serve your needs.

At this time, I feel that it would be appropriate to inform you that this F/OSS project, while it may accomplish all of your needs, is not considered feature complete or mature at the present time. There are a number of features which I feel would benefit your University that I have planned for the next release, but scarce time and a lack of a budget causes progress on this release to move along at a slower than desirable pace. Additionally, due to the unwarrented nature of F/OSS it is appropriate for me to caution you that your use of the software that I have developed is at your own risk (I have done my best to make this software as bulletproof as possible, but undiscovered bugs are known to exist in the most heavily tested software products).

Having said all that, I am greatly interested the opportunity that University use of my F/OSS project presents, and I would like to present a set of possibilities for consideration that would greatly improve my ability to guarantee that you have the most mature, feature-complete software possible in the months ahead.

1. *** A support agreement between the University and myself (though affiliating yourself with a proper business entity to protect your personal assets would be VERY prudent) so that I can guarantee support on any issues with the F/OSS project encountered by the University. By enlisting the services of the author before issues occur, I hope it would give you assurance that I am committed to the F/OSS program and peace of mind that things will just as intended.
2. *** A development agreement between the University and myself to produce and release features that would benefit the University.
3. *** A partnership agreement between the University and myself so that we can build a working relationship that will be mutually beneficial. Depending on the needs of the University, I could offer to mentor as many as a dozen students whose assistance could greatly accelerate the development of the maturity of the F/OSS project.

I hope you will consid

I don't believe that many in the open source community dogmatically accept the shallow-bugs arguement as a universally applicable rule of software development. It seems to me that any reasonable person would agree that

• Not all eyeballs are equal. Theo and Linus are vastly better at code reviews than the average Slashdot reader, for example. So, there is a wide range of eyeball quality.
• Bugs have a wide distribution of subtlety. The bug in this article seems to be high on the subtlety scale.
• The 'with enough eyes all bugs are shallow' statement is universally recoginized as simplification. For example, ESR states that a better statement is:

  What is true is that (1) with many eyes, shallow bugs get caught very quickly, and (2) that the more eyes there are, the more likely it is that some member of the group has sufficiently penetrating vision to catch the deeper-swimming bugs.

I like to call it GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv . FreeCiv is clearly at the core of it all.

Shouldn't that be "don't fuck with the GNU"? I mean, I know people are hesitant to refer to the Free Software Foundation and use the term "open source" more often than "free software", but not referencing the GNU Project when talking about the GNU General Public License is pretty ridiculous. The penguin may have helped spread free software and all, but this isn't his fight.

There is a substantial difference between "the market won't support your price or business model" and "the license doesn't allow it". People can, and do, sell GPL'd software.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

Why do people insist on commenting about what is and isn't allowed by the GPL without even taking the trouble to read it? It is hardly ambiguous.

If I had been the FSF, I would probably have added a clause saying 'if any conditions in this license are found to be invalid in your jurisdiction then you may not distribute this code.'

Virtual desktops, multiple split tabs, ala Konqueror, and a nice database like Kbibtex blow paper research away. While a physical desk can hold five or six references, a virtual one can hold dozens. They can easily be moved around and compared side by side, even on a tiny laptop screen. Finally, you can text search and then cut and paste an electronic file. I now absolutely hate paper journals and texts because they are clumsy to store, hard to find and even harder to use.

I used to think like you until my last major paper. I was taught to do research papers with index cards and a typewriter. Databases have replaced the index cards and the things mentioned above make it easier to fill the database up with knowledge. Having the original source at such easy reach makes it possible to check your previous interpretations and make sure you don't get carried away. The sum of all these improvements is speedier, more relevant research and a better quality paper. Electronic publishing combined with good research tools are a vast improvement over dead trees.

Kindle and other ebook readers are expensive toys because they are so relatively limited. I envy the low powered display, that's about all. The device itself might be good for people with very long commutes but the restrictions placed on them are right out of the right to read dystopia. They can not be used for serious research are second rate as a textbook and should not be relied on for news. That leaves you with entertainment/faux news use and even those are not things most people want restricted by third parties.