Slashdot Mirror

The first thing to understand is this: The GPL is a copyright license. It gives permission to copy the code, provided you follow the stipulations in the license. If you don't, then you are in violation of the author's copyright.

Each device contains a object copy of BusyBox, the GPL allow this as long as you convey the source as prescribe in section 6:

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

• a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
• 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.
• c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
• d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
• e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.

This and this idea of copyright cops will not end well.

We are free today because thanks to GNU, Linux and other projects we can run our personal computers and our business machines on free software that we trust.

This was easy because the only thing that keeps you away from freedom when using closed-source software is a few hours work to write down your own code and share it...

But it was all possible because currently most hardware is still open and obeys the user. What will we do if X years from now hardware becomes predominantly filled with DRM? How will free people cope? Hardware is already closed-source and you cannot find technical documents, and this actually does limit our freedom (we want to run hardware on GNU/Linux or *BSD but manufacturers don't give technical documentation, so people rely on reverse engineering etc). Interestingly, in the past hardware was much more open, for example every home micro computer came with nice manuals explaining many technical details about your shiny new hardware baby or even books teaching you programming... Nowadays when people buy a PC or laptop they get a Windows-infected machine, with a manual explaining only how to connect the cables, and instead of compilers and programming languages (Even BASIC qualifies) they get games. To people who got used to computers from a young age, our era seems like a dark age of computing, as if the whole world became stupid within 2-3 decades.

So, to return to what I wanted to say, that's why we need open hardware (or free hardware). if the hardware is closed then it defeats the purpose of free software. We need more people to join efforts to design processors and other hardware under the GPL. At least this will solve the closed-source problem. We will still face the manufacturing problem (now, if someone could design a cheap 3D printer capable of fabbing chips). But hopefully if we design successful hardware using the GPL, more big manufacturers will notice it and start producing it. Otherwise, I suppose that free people will have to rely on homebrew computers or old hardware (by the way you will be surprised how long old computers can last... but the modern computers often break up after a few years, and this happens even with the modern HDDs that seem to break more often than older HDDs as well, as if they are engineered to make people buy new ones every few years).

Sadly when trusting technology development to a few big names (eg Intel etc), users end up being just that, users. They are denied the freedom to play and really own their machines. You can't be a truthful owner of our machine unless you understand every tiny detail about its operation, and this is only possible when you get up to start hacking it, breaking it, fixing it, and finally building your very own machine. This McDonaldisation of computers, both hardware and software, really makes me sick... I mean, where do people see the joy in using machines that do not express their own personality? Everyone runs the same software, the same OS, the same CPUs, the same beige boxes... Nobody feels any curiosity as to what is inside that beige box anymore. Nobody feels any urge to be true owners of their machines, to customise their machines, or to build their own machines. Yes, the free software movement is very good, but we need more than that. We need a more massive homebrew or free hardware movement. If you have kids, please teach them how to play with electronics and how to build stuff, and try to make them express their personality by building their stuff. Otherwise, if all kids learn is how to chat on MSN, then after the last amateur heroes die the whole society will be completely submerged in shit.

Welcome to the world of Treacherous Computing.

Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage.

But the kernel, which is the component that enforces the activation, is under GPLv2 and not subject to the requirements of GPLv3. The mere fact that there is GPLv3 software installed on the machine does not, AFAICT, imply that the kernel must abide by its rules.

I think this is an interesting case, though. I'm generally a fan of the GPLv3 requirements, but in this particular case I'm glad the XO laptop doesn't have to abide by them, because the lockdown, in this case, is for a good cause. Actually, because it's for a good cause it would probably work out okay even if the XO had GPLv3 software that was related to the activation system. Because GPLv3 is so new, it would be easy to track down the software authors and get their permission to ignore that part of the license (effectively, to get a modified license from them that applies only to the XO).

PS you can use the id in div id="muu" too link within a page.

GPL v3 protects your right to tinker, and OLPC is supposed to have , if it is in in the final version I don't know.

PS you can use the id in too link within a page.

Yes, you're correct, but as others pointed out, you already get that via the package system that comes with the CD. You don't need the MPAA to provide you what the CD already does.

This is only partially true. The software distributed by the MPAA uses specific versions of each package, while the Ubuntu repositories usually carry the latest version, which may be different than the one needed to rebuild the same versions of the packages as provided on the live CD. Many mirrors try to carry as many old versions as possible, but they do not have to.

The GPLv2 requires you to make the source code available "from the same place" as the binaries and it must be the exact same version as the one used to build the binaries. Unless they have made a deal with some Ubuntu mirrors to ensure that the version of the packages they are using will never be removed from the mirrors, then they are in violation of the GPL by not distributing the sources from their site.

For more information, see this section of the old GPL FAQ.

Only because copyright violations are a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Now, if any of the copyright holders of the GPLed packages in Xubuntu were to decide to take the matter to court, then the MPAA would have to pay many red cents in statutory damages should they lose. The only reason why it's never come to this point in the past is that the FSF has always been more interested in compliance than in punishment:

In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.

--from "Enforcing the GPL" by Prof. Eben Moglen, general counsel for the Free Software Foundation. Nothing but this policy prevents the FSF from collecting damages for GPL violations. If they decide to change this policy after encountering an egregious, willful, or stubborn violator, or if a non-FSF copyright holder of GPLed code decides to sue (they could just as easily get their own lawyer), then well, all bets are off.

we have already won on FAXs and on Caller-ID. Next will be eMails and executable codes. NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.

• Digital rights management
• Prevent users from being able to to modify software
• Remove control over or access to data from users
• Strip away anonymity
• Leave backdoors into computer systems
• Remote 'bricking' of computer
• Forced upgrade/downgrade of system

... but I am as confident as I am that the Sun will rise tomorrow that it will be safe from terrorists. After all, we have the children to think about.

July 12, 2005

Copyright © 2005 Michael David Crawford.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

It seems that David Clark, who led the development of the Internet way back in the '70's - did you know there even was a '70's? - wants to create a whole new Internet that will fix many of the problems the current Internet is plagued with. The New Internet's engineers will be much more careful this time around to make sure it works better than the first one did.

I'm afraid, though, that the engineers are not the only ones who will be deciding how our New Internet will work.

If one is able to find any privacy or anonymity in this New Internet, it will be because of some undiscovered security hole, which will be quickly repaired, rather than any kind of conscious design decision. Probably one reason they are accepting proposals before rolling it out is to avoid the sort of accidental security holes that enable pr0n, peer-to-peer filesharing and left-wing political activism.

Microsoft, a leading contributor both to this nation's technology base and to the campaign coffers of its leaders, will embrace this new technology and extend it in such a way that the development and dissemination of Open Source software will be, if not mathematically and physically impossible, at least as intractible as factoring a 2048-bit public key.

Imagine, if you will, Trusted Computing implemented at the router level, in such a way that any packets that go farther than one hop are certified not only to support protocols whose patent licenses are fully paid-up and on file with the legal department in Redmond, but whose content is compliant with the Windows standard. The faintest whisp of a Public License, GNU or otherwise, will result in the dropping not only of the individual packet, not only in the cancellation of the entire file transmission, but, within microseconds, the reporting of the physical location of the offending server to responsible law enforcement personnel. The identities of its rogue administrators will be fetched instantly from the database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. (You will have to submit fingerprints and DNA samples to obtain a Windows server license, as after all, Internet servers can be used to disseminate explosives r

The FOSS system is great - probably the one thing that someone ten years ago would not have predicted.

Free/Open source software is a lot older than ten years old. Even Linux, perhaps one of the most commonly mentioned examples, is sixteen years old, and GNU was around long before that, and free/open source software was certainly around before that, even if people didn't usually call it such. RMS's GNU history page talks about him quitting MIT to writing GNU software in 1984, for example, and he certainly mentions that there was lots of free and open source software before that.

Unless you're referring to some specific FOSS system? Or perhaps referring to how it has really taken off? Sure, Linux (and FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) have become much more popular in the last ten years, but it was just a continuation of a trend that was already in motion (scary -- I've been using Linux for 15 years now, since 0.95something!) And even today, while Linux and friends are popular in servers, they're relatively still rare on the desktop. (I say, as I type this on a Linux box.)

As I write this, there is no official new version of the GFDL. It would have to be announced by the FSF, and it isn't. The FSF website says nothing about this, and the Gnu Project website lists the 2002 version as the latest.

This seems fishy in other ways. I could say the FSF was diligent in soliciting comments for GPLv3, but "diligent" seems like too soft a word. It would seem odd to change the GFDL with no advance notice whatsoever.

Not to mention, it seems unlikely that this is the third best moment of Lessig's life (after two things involving his wife, which I don't think we need details on). (Yes, I did RTFA, what there was of it. Wanna cancel my /. license?)

This smells like a hoax or prank to me. However, I'm going to look at www.fsf.org and www.gnu.org next week and see if there is anything to this.

I'm sorry, RMS says "The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted." It is true that he doesn't think it is the best way, but there is no question that the result is free software.

Since it's GPL software, any employee who gets their hands on it can then redistribute it for free.

There's some disagreement on that.

One of the arguments anti-GPL people have is that if you incorporate GPL software in to your internal code base, then that would allow any employee to distribute the code outside the company, thus allowing a contractor or employee to "poison" the internal code base with GPL'd code. Many GPL advocates have responded that merely being an employee does not give one distribution rights, since the company is the organization that distributes the code to itself.

This is especially important given RMS's encouragement that GPL defenders use the GPL to "help get permission" to distribute code, which some people view as RMS advocating back-dooring GPL'd code into internal code bases to force companies to release it. The response has been that "internal code" isn't distributed, even if you give it to employees or consultants.

However, in terms of Free Software, Free doesn't mean "a free exchange of ideas and code that let you do what ever you wanted with it", but rather a limit on distribution rights for the purpose of ensuring that user rights always remain free.

You can define things as you like, as Humpty Dumpty did, but the idea of "Free Software" was invented by Richard Stallman and is mainly used by his Free Software Foundation, and most people would accept their view. (Search that page for "public domain"; the BSD and MIT licences also come close to "letting you do whatever you wanted.") And most of those who don't accept that view would go with "free as in beer." You would find hardly any takers for your view.

The problem is that in some jurisdictions, the Public Domain isn't forever. What that means is that you can take a work in the Public Domain, make a tiny change (which might be as subtle as changing the author's name to yours) and copyright the derivative work. But there's more: you can then go after anyone using the original PD work, claiming they violated your copyright.

The BSD licence is worded in such a way that it looks as though you can remain in compliance even while withholding the Source Code (though I have used a modified form of the BSD licence -- only permitting distribution in Source Code form -- for some scripts I wrote; seeing as they were written in an interpreted language, there was no binary anyway, but I wanted to make quite sure that nobody was going to rewrite them in a compiled language and withhold the Source Code).

The GPL does not limit freedom: it limits power (explanation). Withholding Source Code from users is an exercise of power; I would even go so far as to say it is a form of violence.

You can't sell Drupal, or any modification you made to Drupal. You can charge money for having to make these changes but you can't make these changes available under a commercial license. Why not? Because Drupal's license, the General Public License 2 (GPL 2), mandates that all modifications also be distributed under the GPL.

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

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

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

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

No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.

In case anyone missed that reference, it is exactly what the FSF claims in the GPL FAQ.

Ok, as an Engineer using it now, let me throw a recommendation for GNU Octave. It's basically an open source equivalent to Matlab. (scripts are ~95% compatible between the two, well documented where they aren't) Gotta start getting away from closed source math, especially where science and technology needing peer review are concerned. Windows version is a Cygwin implementation, but they have a standalone installer that makes it transparent to the user. http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/

I have used Matlab at work for years, recently switched to Octave, and haven't had any problems. That, and there's the free, open source thing. Save the taxpayers a few grand on another Matlab license.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. 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.

You don't mean "commercial" because GPL-covered code is distributed for a fee and is thus already commercial code. You mean proprietary code.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Wow. I have mod points, but there is no "-1 where the hell did that come from" option. I do not disagree with your first sentence, but the remainder of your post is completely and utterly wrong, at least in how it pertains to Asus and this discussion.

"A company may not be even in a position to release the source code as it may be owned by a third party." Fair enough, but this article is about a company distributing a GNU/Linux system with a modified kernel module that is GPL'd. There is no third party involved and even if there were, there is no way that Asus could both legally distribute their version of GNU/Linux in binary format (installed on the device) and simultaneously *not* release the modified source code; regardless of said third party's standing on distribution of the code. This is GPL 101 type stuff. Check it out.

"Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." That is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How about you come up with some citations for that asinine bit of trash? I feel dumber for having read that.

So when I use GlibC to compile my C program I always have to release the source?
No, because the glibc is under the LGPL, not GPL.
Or if my Linux program makes use of a Library available in Linux I have to release full source?
Depending on the library, yes. Most basic infrastructure libraries however are LGPL, or GPL with a linking exception (like libc++ or classpath)
I has a doubt, there is a limit you know.
Depends on the libraries you use. LGPL have the limit, GPL don't. And thats on purpose, not by oversight or chance, see for a (gnu biased) reasoning behind the two

8. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.

Now, the FSF, often acting on behalf of the copyright holders, have often allowed infringers to comply by releasing the source under the GPL. But I recall reading here at Slashdot recently that they are starting to play hardball with violators, and not allowing them to comply simply by shipping source. The copyright holder would be fully within his rights to get a permanent injunction against the sale of the game.

Since OS X, Apple has been a big supporter of Open Source software - but NOT Free (GPL'd) software.

Ah, but this is here, and that is there. Heck, even a radical like Richard Stallman doesn't believe that copyright should be completely abolished, but must be reformed. Copyright can do a lot of good, but with the way it exists right now, the potential for abuse is extremely high, and we're seeing it being abused more and more often.

The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".

Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.

Hmmm, I wonder if we will be able to read the Road to Tycho series on the Kindle?

It certainly isn't the case that a program's output is always bound by the same licence as the program, it's just that it makes sense for web services to be licensed this way

You're missing the point. GCC's output isn't bound by the same license as the program, not because it doesn't make sense for the license to do that, but because the license can't do that, because the output of a tool isn't a derivative work (except in corner-cases like Bison). The FSF say this themselves in the GPL FAQ:

Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free?

In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program.

The GPL spirit has always been against that and is more I share so you share.

The GPL has always supported private modifications without requiring providing the source. In fact the FSF criticized the inital version of Apple's open source license because it required publishing private changes.

The AGPL does concern itself with this particular type of use though.

Which is why I and many others have a problem with it. Usage restrictions are an abuse of copyright and violate freedom zero, and it's disappointing to see the FSF supporting them.

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost. Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. ...

Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee [emphasis mine] and make some money [emphasis theirs]. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. For a distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit to the Free Software Foundation or some other free software development project. By funding development, you can advance the world of free software.

Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it! [emphasis theirs, but I agree. :-) ]

Okay, imagine the following scenario: you code some software that allows people to do some horrendously complicated and hard mathematical problems. You release it under the GPL and give it to the Gnu Scientific Library. Some commercial company, like Maple or Mathematica, takes it and installs it on their computers. Then they start charging people large amounts of money to go to a web site, enter in their math problem and have the website spit out the answer after their in-house computers have crunched out the solution using your code. At first it's fine, because anybody could have got the answer from GSL tools as well.

But then the company makes some changes that allow it to solve an even greater range of problems. Now people have to go to them for this extra functionality, that they built off of your code. Even you have to pay them money to use this extension of your code. That's ok with you? It's a violation of the GPL in every sense except the technical one.

I am a Contributing Member of FSF, donating them $500 a year, listed in their ThankGNUs 2007, and I fully support their focus on RIAA. And I'm saying this while I am not into filesharing and I don't even listen to much music at all (except for some Mozart, Wagner, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky etc which I have paid for, and rarely a few freely licensed music shared by independent musicians online in Ogg Vorbis format rather than MP3), and in fact I don't sympathise much with those using p2p for swapping copyrighted songs/movies illegally (not that what they do is inherently bad, but I think that their behaviour does not constitute proper citizenship, I mean if they dislike copyrighted music they should create their own free music or vote in the elections for parties that support copyright reform). I, however, know that the criminalisation and marginalisation of p2p can have negative consequences for all computer users (what would you say if your ISP slowed down or cut off BitTorrent traffic - which is of prime importance to every GNU/Linux user downloading new releases of their favourite OS - just because a bunch of kids use it for swapping mp3z?), and it's also a free speech issue. So, I say, full support to everyone being against RIAA et al, at least as long as RIAA continues its questionable practices. If you feel that a free software organisation should focus exclusively on software and not look into the wider free culture issues that affect our digitised society, you are free to found your own organisation.

I've always been a fan of Windowmaker which plays nicely on OpenBSD. It's quite lightweight, customizable and doesn't interfere with what I want to do.

From the few code samples I've seen (this being the best example), he seems to do a pretty good job with the comments and readability.

Are you sure you haven't been looking at Satan's code? He wrote a lot of user-space code after God finished his work on the kernel.

Most everyone writing online recommended using S/MIME instead of GPG,

S/MIME is quite a bit worse, simply because an identity can only have one certifier. At least with OpenPGP, you can get multiple certs, thus requiring a conspiracy in order to do a MitM.

Whoever recommended you use S/MIME instead of GPG, probably considered security to be a very, very distant second priority, compared to some other value (probably Mail.app compatibility; I have that program here at work, and I don't see any OpenPGP support in it).

The question I could not answer is how trustworthy is this Thawte-issued "certificate"?

That's indeed a problem. You don't know. You probably don't know the name of a single person in that company, and you don't know their policies for protecting their signing key. Of course, at least you're asking (which is extremely cool and wise), but you're not going to get an answer.

For all you know, they might be vulnerable as Verisign. And with S/MIME, that means there is a single point of failure which can allow MitM.

Of works, inventions, marks, and ideas, which are you referring to? And are you referring to the works, inventions, marks, and ideas themselves, or to the exclusive rights therein? If you have trouble answering this question, you see how confusing the term "intellectual property" can be.

>nslookup mario.nintendo.com
192.195.204.102

Property is the right to exclude. Something subject to property is called "proprietary".

A copyright is a property right in a work of authorship. A patent is a property right in an invention or industrial design. A trademark is a property right in an identifying mark.

Now some organizations think they can make money by lobbying governments to increase the scope of copyrights, patents, and trademarks. They have coined the term "intellectual property" in this aim. First off, treating copyrights, patents, and trademarks under the blanket term "intellectual" covers up the fact that copyrights, patents, and trademarks have different purposes and different scopes. For another, the organizations often call refer to works, inventions, and marks themselves as "property" even when discussing aspects other than their status as property, subtly coercing people to believe that works, inventions, and marks should be property.

> According to law, they are doing nothing illegal and are even protecting their own legal rights.

You mean US law, right? In the US, I believe they could try using a `fair use` defence. It might make for a good test case of the GNU Free Documentation License:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html

"derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense".

Does fair use allow you to use whole pages? How many pages? 1? 2? 100? 10,000?

How can an operating system be considered "secure" if the inclusion of a third-party component makes it insecure?

This has to do with the software being proprietary, not coming from a third party.

How can an operating system be considered "secure" if it has proprietary software installed? It can't. Proprietary software security is unverifiable by anyone you can trust and therefore unworthy of being considered secure. Apparently bugs will go unfixed for years because only the proprietor is allowed to fix the bugs. However, the proprietor is unmotivated to fix bugs until the proprietor is pushed (through publicly announced exploits, better competition, and so on). All the while you, the user, are denied complete control over your computer.

The cure is simple: install nothing but free software on your computer. Give yourself the freedom to inspect, change, and share the software, hire someone else to do it for you, or leverage the talent of a community of hackers improving free software all the time. This is not about making everyone a programmer, it's about giving people the freedom to control their computers while building a society of cooperation and social solidarity. Proprietary software denies you your software freedom, so deny proprietary software a place on your computer.