Slashdot Mirror

but the LGPL defines source code as: ""Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." That would include comments to make sense of it,

Wrong. Comments are friendly, but not neccessary. Witness the webcore/khtml debacle several months ago.

It says you must make it available. It does not say that you must make it available concurrent with the release

Wrong again. If you'd just read the link I provided earlier you woulnd't continue to be looking like such a dumbass. Here's the pertinent point (about whether something is violating or not):

# Is source code included in the distribution?

The code is released under the LGPL.

Uhhh Really? Can you please link to where I can download the code? You see, it's NOT released under the LGPL without code.

Absolutely incorrect. Noncompliance with the LGPL is a license issue, not a copyright one

Dumbass. If you violate the license (ie by not distributing source code), then you fall back to copyright law. Noncompliance involves both copyleft & copyright.

Thanks for the entertainment. I'm going to write a journal about misconecptions of the (L)GPL, using you and your dumbassed comments as examples.

Damn! I thought you were done with me?

Would you knock off the "don't understand" bullshit already?

I'm sorry, I cant. You clearly don't understand copyright or copyleft. You've said:

* LGPL compliance imposes a code commenting requirement. (wtf?)
* The (L)GPL license doesn't impose a deadline to release code. (huh?)
* You don't need permission to redistribute LGPLd code under a different license. (what a dumbass)

They are NOT REQUIRED BY COPYRIGHT TO DO SO. End of story.

They are. Here's the rub.

1) Wine code is under copyright.
2) You can redistribute if you accept the LGPL license (including modified source with redistribution).
3) If you don't accept the LGPL (they haven't as they didn't included the modified code), then you fall back to copyright.

Copyright is the whip that enforces copyleft. I suggest you read the GPL FAQ before posting here again.

Are you honestly trying to say that you need to ask permission to distribute?

If you're not distributing under the terms of the license, then you fall back to copyright law & have to ask for permission. SWsoft aren't distributing under the terms of the license.

You still don't understand copyleft at all do you?

I'm done with you.

IOW, you know I'm right, but can't admit it - Really, you should be thanking me, with your new found knowledge, you won't look like such a dumbass in future.

Next.

You mean Lesser GPL.

I thought that output could only be required to be under the GPL if the compiler copied a non-trivial portion of its GPL code into the output. In this case, though, it is the standard library that gets included, not part of the compiler. With a tool like bison, where parser code is copied into the output, an exception is necessary.

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

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: . . .

. . . 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,

The GNU C Library actually is distributed under LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node /Copying.html), So your closed-source proprietary code is allowed to link with it without any problem and you don't have to redistribute the Glibc's code as long as it's unmodified. According to http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648& highlight=wine , a guy named Andrew, who is a Parallels' forum administrator, openly admitted they're using modified LGPL code, as quoted: "In current implementation Parallels uses modified Wine code under LGPL license.". What they're missing is the fact that according to the LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html), in it's Section 2, if they distribute modified binaries based on the LGPL code they need to redistribute the source code of the modified LGPL library under LGPL or GPL. Quoting:

"2. Conveying Modified Versions.
If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed when the facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the modified version:
a) under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an Application does not supply the function or data, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful, or
b) under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to that copy."

The GNU C Library actually is distributed under LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node /Copying.html), So your closed-source proprietary code is allowed to link with it without any problem and you don't have to redistribute the Glibc's code as long as it's unmodified. According to http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648& highlight=wine , a guy named Andrew, who is a Parallels' forum administrator, openly admitted they're using modified LGPL code, as quoted: "In current implementation Parallels uses modified Wine code under LGPL license.". What they're missing is the fact that according to the LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html), in it's Section 2, if they distribute modified binaries based on the LGPL code they need to redistribute the source code of the modified LGPL library under LGPL or GPL. Quoting:

"2. Conveying Modified Versions.
If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed when the facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the modified version:
a) under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an Application does not supply the function or data, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful, or
b) under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to that copy."

> Think for a moment and stop going off like an idiot.

> Who do you think should make the decision as to what is legally required? Perhaps the legal department? Perhaps they have outside counsel like many small companies, and their lawyers needs to read the LGPL and figure out what it applies do.

Wtf are you talking about ? The thing is as clear cut as it can be. In http://www.parallels.com/en/licensing/ parallels says that you have to send a request to "license@parallels.com" to get the source code. Legalities like the right to distribute software should not be handled AFTER the sale, but BEFORE.

As a paying parallels 3.0 customer, I sent an email, asking for the source code. Either they send me the source code in a reasonable delay, or I will ask for a refund (because they are sending me software they have NO RIGHT to distribute).

> Companies that sold CDs and simply put links on their website to their modified code weren't complying with the GPL.

Wtf? How can you get modded insighful ? Parallels 3.0 is only available via the net, so they only have to provide the link on the net. Here is the corresponding serction of the FAQ:

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

"I want to distribute binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
        You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

        When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.

        If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.

        Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.

        If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via FTP."

Cheers,

--fred

Really, because the page I got it says "This is the BSD license without the obnoxious advertising clause". Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

>So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.

You can imagine my surprise when I realized your "lawyer" doesn't understand the GNU General Public License (GPL). Unless this "top online investment firm" was interested in redistributing the software to others, they are under no obligation to publish anything. As a work-for-hire code monkey, you had no obligation (or even legal right, for that matter) to publish anything.

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

>we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system

You don't say? There is a program called defrag that defragments ext2 filesystems. It is available at better sunsite mirrors, and notably at Sunsite - /pub/linux/system/Filesystems/

http://cbbrowne.com/info/defrag.html

>Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

My condolences. All that Linux software that was available at no cost to you, and you actually had to put your own work into it? And then (gasp! horror!) you were expected to share and share alike? How did you manage? If it were me, I just would have killed myself from the shame of being so deceived and violated.

However, did you consider that all the touch ups by your competitors would also be available at no cost to you? Wow! That's almost as good as getting a whole kernel and operating system for free! Imagine that!

>Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

100% true, except the part that starts with "Furthermore" and ends with "unacceptable."
See the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGP LToolsForNF

>Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution.

You were paid to create something for somebody else, the work belongs to them. Normally this would entail that you would have to 'give away' your hard work, as it didn't belong to you.

>Although it was tough to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

Portability; teach your children that it's not a dirty word.

>I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

I think the biggest thing keeping Microsoft from being competitive with Linux is the GPL. It's simple requirements virtually guarantee that businesses will be required to provide value through innovation and service rather than creating proprietary lock-in and forced upgrades. After your experience with Linux, I think it's best that you avoid it and creating offspring. Bit players like Ubuntu (the African word meaning 'Unable to configure Debian.') will just have to settle for things like shipping on Dell computers. Sure is rough, but we'll manage; somehow.

After everything, you are certainly free to ignore Linux. Microsoft will be happy to sell you an operating system, office software, and a software development kit.

>So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.

You can imagine my surprise when I realized your "lawyer" doesn't understand the GNU General Public License (GPL). Unless this "top online investment firm" was interested in redistributing the software to others, they are under no obligation to publish anything. As a work-for-hire code monkey, you had no obligation (or even legal right, for that matter) to publish anything.

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

>we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system

You don't say? There is a program called defrag that defragments ext2 filesystems. It is available at better sunsite mirrors, and notably at Sunsite - /pub/linux/system/Filesystems/

http://cbbrowne.com/info/defrag.html

>Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

My condolences. All that Linux software that was available at no cost to you, and you actually had to put your own work into it? And then (gasp! horror!) you were expected to share and share alike? How did you manage? If it were me, I just would have killed myself from the shame of being so deceived and violated.

However, did you consider that all the touch ups by your competitors would also be available at no cost to you? Wow! That's almost as good as getting a whole kernel and operating system for free! Imagine that!

>Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

100% true, except the part that starts with "Furthermore" and ends with "unacceptable."
See the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGP LToolsForNF

>Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution.

You were paid to create something for somebody else, the work belongs to them. Normally this would entail that you would have to 'give away' your hard work, as it didn't belong to you.

>Although it was tough to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

Portability; teach your children that it's not a dirty word.

>I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

I think the biggest thing keeping Microsoft from being competitive with Linux is the GPL. It's simple requirements virtually guarantee that businesses will be required to provide value through innovation and service rather than creating proprietary lock-in and forced upgrades. After your experience with Linux, I think it's best that you avoid it and creating offspring. Bit players like Ubuntu (the African word meaning 'Unable to configure Debian.') will just have to settle for things like shipping on Dell computers. Sure is rough, but we'll manage; somehow.

After everything, you are certainly free to ignore Linux. Microsoft will be happy to sell you an operating system, office software, and a software development kit.

Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)

Oh, the silence...

In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.

The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.

It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents

Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.

FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe

Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development

GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.

FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.

FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing

Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change

Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.

Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers

Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)

Oh, the silence...

In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.

The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.

It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents

Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.

FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe

Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development

GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.

FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.

FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing

Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change

Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.

Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers

Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)

Oh, the silence...

In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.

The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.

It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents

Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.

FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe

Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development

GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.

FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.

FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing

Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change

Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.

Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers

Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)

Oh, the silence...

In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.

The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.

It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents

Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.

FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe

Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development

GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.

FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.

FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing

Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change

Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.

Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers

Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)

Oh, the silence...

In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.

The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.

It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents

Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.

FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe

Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development

GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.

FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.

FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing

Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change

Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.

Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers

Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)

Oh, the silence...

In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.

The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.

It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents

Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.

FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe

Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development

GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.

FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.

FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing

Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change

Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.

Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers

The GNU GPL is used by developers with various views, but it was written to serve the ethical goals of the free software movement. Says Stallman, "The GNU GPL makes sense in terms of its purpose: freedom and social solidarity. Trying to understand it in terms of the goals and values of open source is like trying understand a CD drive's retractable drawer as a cupholder. You can use it for that, but that is not what it was designed for."

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

What if the work is not much longer than the license itself?

If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.

Hey, that's not nice! Some pretty remarkable software has been written on T-Shirts that are much shorted than the GPL.

...no but version 3 of the GPL will save us from the iPhone.

iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

That you can run GCC, GDB, and GNU EMACS on other systems is not the issue at all. The issue at hand has to do with giving credit where credit is due for the work people did and also accurately identifying the political stance of those people. It is right and proper to insist on such credit and note it when it is absent. There is also a technical advantage in properly identifying the major components of an operating system and distinguishing amongst them. There are times when I'm talking about the Linux kernel alone, so it makes sense to talk about "Linux". There are times when I'm talking about GNU regardless of kernel, so I don't need to mention the HURD, the BSD kernel, or the Linux kernel.

It isn't as if linux wouldn't have ever happened without them.

Nobody knows what would have happened had things gone differently than they did nor is that a reason to deny giving credit for the work that was actually done. That is a specious argument. What we know is that Linus Torvalds gets exclusive credit for a project he no longer writes exclusively while RMS' work (and the work of the others writing GNU) get no credit at all for writing their programs. Initial authorship is treated hypocritically between RMS and Torvalds. We also know that people tend to associate Torvalds' politics with anything to do involving any OS running atop the Linux kernel, most likely because the name "Linux" brings to mind Torvalds. The GNU portion is left out of many GNU/Linux distributions names (with the notable exception of Debian, one of the more popular distributions on which others are based, and gNewSense).

A major reason to say and write "GNU/Linux" is to remind people that a different philosophy helped make the system we have now; a philosophy that promotes software freedom and social solidarity for all computer users. In terms of history it is also intellectually dishonest to leave out GNU as GNU predates the Linux kernel and the open source movement. There are plenty of good reasons for giving GNU a share of the credit. I doubt you'll be able to posit an argument against giving GNU a share of credit that isn't already covered by that FAQ.

I'm here to tell you, it ain't that easy - packaging is the least of the issues. Have you tried to build a binary that "just works" on a system other than the one you're sitting at? No console apps, please. Let's talk about X11. Hell, let's talk about GTK or Qt! Have you investigated symbol versioning? Hope you've got a nice five-year-old glibc to compile against... Or you could use the LSB SDK and try and do it that way. Have fun - it's still very much under development. The people behind it are great and very helpful... but (especially if you're using C++ instead of just straight C) I almost guarantee you'll run into problems. I love Linux, don't get me wrong. But the rule everyone seems to keep forgetting here is: "All hardware sucks, all software sucks". I've spent quite a lot of time recently trying to accomplish a "distro-agnostic" binary... and I wish you luck, sir. :)

>Would everybody please read ESR's essay on "Goodbye, 'free software,' 'hello open source'"? Excerpt:

"We suggest that everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source". Open-source software. The open-source model. The open source culture. The Debian Open Source Guidelines. (In pitching this to the corporate world I'm also going to be invoking the idea of "peer review" a lot.)"

And here what Alan Cox has to say (to ESR and OpenSource):

That would be because we believe in Free Software and doing the right thing (a practice you appear to have given up on). Maybe it is time the term "open source" also did the decent thing and died out with you.

Source: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/ 2007-February/msg01021.html

And of course everyone should read this http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-t he-point.html (already mentioned from someone else)

The GPL only comes into effect when you decide to distribute the software. Until that time, you have not agreed to the GPL. You can receive, examine and modify for your own use GPL'ed software without worrying about what the GPL says. Only once you decide to distribute have you implicitly agreed to the GPL. (if you don't implicitly agree then you are infringing copyright by distributing)

Anyway, the great thing about the GPL is that most end users don't need to know what it says. It stays out of the way of end users and yet ensures they have software freedom.

As an end user, you have no responsibilities under the GPL, but because your software is distributed under the GPL you are guaranteed 4 basic rights. You may use the software however you like, you may distribute the software (as long as you offer the source code along with it), you may study how the software works, and you can modify the software to suit your needs.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Linus Torvalds didn't write today's entire Linux kernel either, he has long aggregated portions of the kernel from plenty of contributors. Credit for creation of software isn't going to get you anywhere in this debate. RMS initially wrote GNU EMACS, GDB, and GCC, three incredibly influential and useful programs among many others. RMS wrote GCC for freedom; it's not much of a stretch to infer he wrote other GNU programs for freedom as well. Yet under the specious creation argument all of RMS' work deserves no credit for GNU and we're supposed to call the entire operating system consisting of GNU running with the Linux kernel "Linux" thus granting exclusive credit to a project egotistically named after its initial author, Linus Torvalds (and thus bringing to mind Torvalds' politics). I think the GNU/Linux naming FAQ adequately addresses every argument which ultimately results in denying GNU even a fair share of credit.

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

Yes, I realize that RMS differs on the topic, but really we're all about doing the same thing: making great software available for everyone to share, copy and modify to their heart's content. Can't we all just get along?

But you don't seem to realize why RMS differs. So do compare that ESR essay to "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software" which, among other things, asks you to consider what is being proposed by the two movements and to give each movement their due. The free software movement isn't just about making software (in fact a lot of people in the free software community aren't programmers at all). The way you frame the issue, it seems that everyone getting along is fine so long as we all choose to call everything "open source" and toss aside the pursuit of freedom and social solidarity that are at the heart of the free software movement (and which the open source movement was built not to talk about).

try "man 1 shar"
http://www.gnu.org/software/sharutils/

I'd feel more safe if the thing was running on linux. That being said...

Even the GPL allows linking to C libraries. The runtime does not need to be covered by the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRu ntimeAndGPL
The reasoning behind this exception would be the same reasoning for why microsoft should be able to keep their code private.
Basically you have to trust the runtime, which is used by dozens of applications and has already been tested. They do realtively simple functions and don't in general govern what the program actually does. I don't think microsoft could successfully commit voting fraud simply by supplying the OS and the C libraries.

If the government can't trust microsoft then I demand that they uninstall every single microsoft product from every system(probably not a bad idea anyway).

I want to know how much coding Barbara Lifton has actually done. When will they stop making legislation about things they know nothing about?!?!?!

You realy don't get it, do you ?

Aritstle gave us A and not B, but Budhhda gave us A and B. Western science is based on Aristotle not Buddha. Catholism, or even better Judahism, give those so-called 10 commandments, whereas Buddha says don't increase suffering.

Look at Bart Kosko's Fuzzy Thinking to see the dicotomy. Hell, consider Scheme as to why contemporary programming is not the final answer.

The Gnash (Gnu-Flash) team will take another 5 years to get their shit together, despite having declared a Flash 7 compliant Gnash player top priority. Whatever that means. Maybe they'll finish their website this year.

If only our OSS Microsoft Fanboy Midguel would galvanize his team to implement an entire pipeline of Flash tools, generators and Players. If MS doesn't kill this one off and a viable Kit of OSS tools & players for Silverlight comes to life I might even drop Flash RIA for it.
But no way, for as long as I live, will I support an non-open RIA standard that MS has total control over. I'd rather mess with Adobes crappy Flash IDE for another 10 years.

I know you're just trolling, but I'm nevertheless going to point out that the GPL doesn't make any requirements of the user at all.

How dare you accuse me of trolling;

Well... I guess it was the mix of belligerence and hyperbole coupled with factual inaccuracies and what seemed at the time to be deliberate reliance on logical fallacies to make you point. I do apologies if I misjudged your intentions, but you certainly sounded like you were trolling.

that's just an ad hominem attack by you since you can't come up with better arguments.

And you know, if the single line you quoted had been the entirety of my post, I'd have to concede you had a point. Still, let's talk about the GPL.

Even reading the software binds you.

No. No it does not. Look, the GPL lives here. Go have a read of it.

Among other things, you'll notice that the licence states outright that it only applies to copying, distribution and modification. In particular, it disclaims all restrictions on running the program. Reading is mentioned nowhere in the licence, but since reading is neither modification nor distribution we can safely conclude that reading is outside the scope of the licence also. Here's the text in question:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted

The BSD way of doing things is just as successful

By what criteria? The GPL is, I believe, the most widely used Free Software licence. It attracts more developers, and has more software. I'm not knocking BSD, but if you want me to accept it as being equally successful, I think you're going to need to say how you define success.

The GPLs draconian restrictions also come along with a cult similar to communism.

Speaking of ad hominem attacks, that sounds rather like one to me. Maybe you need some better arguments :)

I don't know about "analogue value". How about you define that term.

Analogue as opposed to binary. Not a metaphor, it's a term from engineering with a precise value. A binary value is either true or false; on or off; an analogue one can be have man values in between. It's a sliding scale; a continuum. It's about third from the top if you ask Google for definitions

Now if you insist on Freedom being a binary value, then a single restriction is enough to demonstrate the non-freeness of the licence. This is, correct me if I'm wrong, your argument from your earlier post.

Of course, by the same logic a single permission would be enough to demonstrate the unrestricted nature of the licence. Since the GPL both grants permission and imposes restrictions that would be a contradticon. From this we can infer that your logic here is incorrect.

Incidentally, since we're quoting logical fallacies at one another, I think you'll find that one is called denying the antecedent

If the 100,000 workers are genuine employees, and Ford is considered a single organisation, then that isn't distribution. If some of them are contractors, or Ford want to be seen as a number of distinct legal entities (for some reason), then it probably counts as distributing it.

I don't know, but I do know that Richard Stallman predicted such an eventuality 10 years ago, long before Treacherous Computing existed. Perhaps more people should listen to him.

Just how is it inaccurate? The General Public License exists to protect the four freedoms of the software it covers. It can't shield a person from all legal liability, of course, but I don't see any major inaccuracy. Are people reading that to say that the GPL shields one from all liability? That would be a horrible misreading of the article, not an inaccuracy. The GPL most certainly does shield people from legal liability for copyright infringement when modifying the software. You know, that whole clause in the GPL that says "You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute" and the fact that the GPL works because modification and distribution would be copyright infringement without the permission granted by the GPL?

That's right. The GPL shields you against copyright infringement claims by the GPL'd software's authors so long as you follow the rules of the GPL. It's the very source of the GPL's power; without it the GPL could not be enforced. Anyone who doesn't understand that that is how the GPL works doesn't know a damn thing about the GPL or copyright law. Which is probably why we're seeing this article here on Slashdot, huh?

Actually, the only nit I could pick in calling it the "general public license" is the capitalization. If you go read the GNU page on the GPL, you'll find they call it the GNU General Public License.

Ian

See: the GPL homepage.

Until about 2096, at least according to Richard Stallman. Eerily similar to what you just suggested.

'Free Software' is about adding restrictions on distribution, to support a particular ideology; it's got nothing to do with freedom at all.

I favor mentioning a browser that respects my software freedom over those that don't (Opera, MSIE). This is the chief reason why I'll continue to run Firefox and Konqueror even if Opera flawlessly implements all CSS3 selectors.

I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.

Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k characters) (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay--such as a billion dollars--and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.

Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line of what the GNU GPL permits plead for permission, saying that they "won't charge money for the GNU software" or such like. They don't get anywhere this way. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.

I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.

Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k characters) (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay--such as a billion dollars--and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.

Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line of what the GNU GPL permits plead for permission, saying that they "won't charge money for the GNU software" or such like. They don't get anywhere this way. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.

I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.

Great, use the BSD licence, it will be perfect as a non-copyleft free software licence, which is what you're aiming for.

The GPL is sorta irrelevant in a way

For you, maybe. But you're assuming that everyone also "doesn't worry" in the way you do, and you are discounting the fact that other - apparently a large number - people have other reasons to use a copyleft licence such as the GPL. This is not a new discussion: people that dislike copyleft have their way of seeing things, ans use a BSD/MIT type of licence. Those that want to use the GPL have their specific reasons for doing so.

I just don't see the need for this license at all.

Again, the rational for the licence is an established thing; you can read here the reasoning of the FSF. Other people have other reasons, but they generally gravitate around the fact that its usage guarantees that any improvement is made available to those that created the software. One might dislike this, in which case there are a plethora of non-copyleft licences to chose from. As is, I think it's a safe bet to say that the GPL seems to not be irrelevant to a large number of developers, considering it's widespread use. The rest of the this is a GPL vs BSD debate that doesn't bring anything new, all the arguments being already known to every part.

They really ought to pull http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-t he-point.html then, would you not agree?

not be possible ... unless they had the right to modify and redistribute the software

If a developer is concerned about their rights to modify and redistribute, then shouldn't they license it under a specific license with a defined meaning and recognised meaning such as GPL or BSD?

I do recognise that you're a big cheese in the linux world, but your post sounds a lot like when people get upset about commercial software getting written on linux, or BSD code being used in commercial operating systems. You choose your license, you live with the consequences. Some of us license our software with the intention of it being abused, 'stolen', changed, redistributed for profit, etc.

Years ago, I wrote down what was necessary for software to be Open Source

Well, so what if you did? That means nothing. Something that has a clear, non ambiguous name such as "The GNU General Public License" or "The FreeBSD Copyright" has meaning. I can write software, and explicitly say that it is licensed under one of these. Saying "Hi, my name's Bruce Perens and this is my opinion on what the term 'Open Source' means" does not carry any authority at all.

Hey Bruce,
Firstly, thanks for your work. We all benefit greatly in the community from it. As for the "open source" definition, I think RMS would say something about your use of "freedom", not once in the OSI definition does it say "freedom". ( http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php ) That's what makes it such a crappy definition imho. He can probably explain it better than I can, but I imagine him saying something like "they've taken from open source what always could be taken". And they can't take that from free software. Ask him...I'm not good at explaining things. But I imagine he would explain it well. reply to this if you do ask him.

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:

        * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
        * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
        * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
        * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
(Sources: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html )

Regards,
Anonymous Coward

The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs.

GPLv2 allows you to do what you want with the code as long as you allow access to the source.