Slashdot Mirror

while emulators haven't received a lot of legal attention in the past, IP holders

I am an IP holder; my IP is 69.246.213.81, leased from my ISP. If you are referring to copyright, say "copyright". And yes, I am a copyright owner as well.

may also start attacking them as "adjuncts to piracy".

Could Microsoft reasonably attack Bochs, claiming that it "enables" the use of unauthorized copies of MS-DOS? No, because FreeDOS (which recently turned 1.0) works on Bochs. Likewise, when I use VisualBoyAdvance to run my own programs and others', whose copyright am I infringing?

that really hurts when you left the office with your PC password locked and running a ssh session doing something unspeakbly long on a Linux server.

As a side note, the GPL has several official translations.

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html
The reason the FSF does not approve these translations as officially valid is that checking them would be difficult and expensive (needing the help of bilingual lawyers in other countries). Even worse, if an error did slip through, the results could be disastrous for the whole free software community. As long as the translations are unofficial, they can't do any harm, and we hope they help more people understand the GPL.

We give permission to publish translations of the GPL, GFDL, or LGPL into other languages, provided that you (1) label your translations as unofficial (see below for how to do this), to inform people that they do not count legally as substitutes for the authentic version, and (2) you agree to install changes at our request, if we learn from other friends of GNU that changes are necessary to make the translation clearer.

It is the nature of software that "interfaces" exist at all levels and that the formats by which those "interfaces" are exposed can be transformed by a mechanical process.

It seems to me that better wording is required in GPL. After reading your post i did what i should have done in the first place. RTFM

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

Pipes, temp files, sockets, none of these are covered by the GPL. The GPL covers explicitly *linking only*. If a GPL'ed piece of software could not communicate with a closed source piece of software over a socket or pipe, the Apache web server would not exist.

Umm, could you clarify what you mean? Apache is Apache-licensed, not GPL, is it?

I also don't see where the GPL refers specifically to linking. According to my reading of the GPL FAQ entry on mere aggregation, if the two pieces communicate data which is internal and specific to the GPLd piece, the other piece is also covered by the GPL. This means, for example, that you can't wrap a GPLed program in a network API (RMI and such) and extend it while keeping your extensions proprietary.

Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky - the author of Jin.

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License.

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

If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?

It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.

In this case, the "A/V plug-in" is a closed source DLL, which is in violation of the GPL.

GNU about the GPL: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License."

And in the license itself: "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."

IMHO, that means Windows API = ok, Java API = ok, .NET API = ok, own API or library = not okay.

And that makes sense. Otherwise I could just build all of my app in my "MainApp API" and GPL my "StartMainApp()" function call... :)

The interaction of the GPL, MIT, and BSD licenses is well understood and works well.

There's no problem at all linking GPL software with libraries of either. Same goes with the apache license and perl's artistic license.

It almost sounds as if they wanted to dictate to him what the terms should be, and they are unhappy that he is not complying.

The CDDL imposes (what many find quite reasonable) restrictions that the GPL does not. The FSF's discussion is easy to understand: the GPL says you can't distribute GPL'd code under a more-restrictive license. The CDDL is a more-restrictive license. Therefore you can't redistribute integrated GPL/CDDL code.

I doubt the Debian guys want to be in this position. But the GPL is quite clear on the no-additional-restrictions part, and the CDDL is quite clear on the additional-restrictions part, and the Debian guys can either get one of the licenses changed or stop including one or the other parts of their distro. No "should" about it. Them's their choices.

2. Had a copy from a current PC so are in violating the EULA and installing it.

You say people who do this are not honest, but I have to disagree with you on that one. Microsoft doesn't want you to, and they have paid a lot of money over the years to get people to believe that it is disonest (for example, look at the BSA). In reality it is just as easy to say, "It is dishonest and greedy for them to expect me to pay twice for the software." I am the one using the software, and I bought it, so I should be able to decide how it is to be used. For an even more extreme position, look at the Free Software Foundation who argues it is immoral to not allow your friend to copy your software.

The point is, you can say "Most people don't pay Microsoft for the windows they install on the Mac" but you are getting into grey territory when you say all but 10% of those are dishonest.

Is this part of the kernel? Does every package that is part of Debian have to be GPL-compatible?
Apache's license is incompatible with the GPL, yet Apache is a Debian package. The Latex license is incompatible with the GPL, yet Latex is available for Debian without a fork.
(see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLI ncompatibleLicenses)

So what is the problem here?

Hey, he's not the evil lord of darkness for his CDDL switch, although the mixing of CDDL and GPL code together and lying about how it's allowed does suggest satanic tendencies.

Jörg is the evil lord of darkness for his DVD fork of cdrecord, called cdrecord.ProDVD, which has the most egregiously fascist licensing restrictions ever. Basically, every few months, you have to go over to Jörgy's site and beg for a license key otherwise your DVD burner just stops working. If he gets hit by a bus, or his site goes down or you lose internet access or he decides to be even more of a control-freak asshole than he is already, then you're out of luck and the software stops working.
Not only that, but the fucker uses cdrecord to brag that the proDVD patch is the bee's knees and that the other DVD burners are buggy unofficial pieces of crap. That way naïve users fall into his trap and actually download and use this fascist trash, thereby depriving themselves of freedom 0 almost as soon as they manage to liberate themselves from Windows. xcdroast compounds the error by recommending it too, fuckers.

cdrecord.ProDVD does a great job of making its users helpless and dependent. Worst.Software. Ever. -10.5/10

The GPL requires that all components of the program are to be Free - you can't legally build a GPL'd frontend to a proprietary or otherwise non-GPL-compatibile backend.

Wrong.

As it turns out, there's no libcdrecord -- cdrecord frontends don't link directly with cdrecord. As far as the front-ends are concerned, cdrecord's license is irrelevant.

Regardless, you can grant exceptions to link GPL software with GPL-incompatible libraries if you are the copyright owner of the code. IIRC, this is what KDE did until Qt was released under the GPL.

The GPL requires that all components of the program are to be Free - you can't legally build a GPL'd frontend to a proprietary or otherwise non-GPL-compatibile backend.

Wrong.

As it turns out, there's no libcdrecord -- cdrecord frontends don't link directly with cdrecord. As far as the front-ends are concerned, cdrecord's license is irrelevant.

Regardless, you can grant exceptions to link GPL software with GPL-incompatible libraries if you are the copyright owner of the code. IIRC, this is what KDE did until Qt was released under the GPL.

and worse off, a GPL software cannot be dependent on non-GPL software. The GPL requires that all components of the program are to be Free - you can't legally build a GPL'd frontend to a proprietary or otherwise non-GPL-compatibile backend.

Yep, MPL==Mozilla Public License. The MPL is incompatible with the GPL because MPL'd code can be combined with proprietary code. FSF says that MPL has "some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL." To get around this potential problem, Mozilla licenses all of their code under the MPL, GPL and LGPL (a so called tri-license).
See MPL for more details.
I wonder why Schilling doesn't just dual-license? (I did RFTA)

Maybe the DNF developers are leaving to join the exciting GNU/Hurd team with its quick and upbeat release record.

Yep, I'm sorry.

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

You can still use the output of a GPL program without GPL-ing yours.

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

As I said, the GPL is overly restrictive for many uses...

Yep, I'm sorry.

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

You can still use the output of a GPL program without GPL-ing yours.

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

As I said, the GPL is overly restrictive for many uses...

Right to Read explains the problem with the associated moral dillemas and pulls at the heartstrings. But it is serving as a sort of Animal Farm for DRM advocates, who seem to point out how much they can gain in the short term by enforcing these schemes to make people more money.

Basically, you have to ask the guy about whether he'd be allowed to own anything. DRM is taking America (and a few other countries) into a dark age where there is really nothing you can buy - you can only rent it or lease it,with the owner living downstairs and always prying into your life. Somewhat like Three's Company Too, but except Mr Roper isn't really one person, but a composite of the company director board.

But let me put my example up - I never bought new textbooks. In my college, it is customary to buy the books off your seniors, with the associated writings on the margin, underlined points and the odd love letter hidden in it. But as Right to Read illustrates, information when it loses its physical form becomes a commodity which can be sold over and over again to the same induvidual - for different uses. Meaning that, if I had an ebook DRM based textbook, all of them would have expired by now - while I still retain some of the CS books which have changed the way I think about computers. OR playing quake1 on my new Radeon box, I don't know if I'll ever be able to play Doom3 legally once the Steam servers go offline.

DRM exploits the transience of information in the digital world to squeeze water from a stone, without adding any extra value to the customer (other than the carrots required for them to bite).

Except the real solution is to get rid of compulsory schooling entirely and get people doing "unschooling",
    http://www.unschooling.com/
and upgrade libraries and turn school buildings into learning centers (or democratically run "free schools"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school
for those children whose parents cannot afford to supervise their children during the day directly).

See for example John Holt's writings:
    http://www.holtgws.com/index.html
or John Taylor Gatto's:
    http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
or any of many other radical school reformers.

All your suggestions sound good on paper but miss the point that people have tried for decades to reform schools incrementally and they are still broken -- or rather, they actually are still performing the mission they were designed for, which is dumbing kids down into compliant workers, obedient soldiers, and gullible consumers so they will fit well into a well ordered industrial economy, a mission now obsolete in a post-industrial and post-scarcity information age.

The future is not to still idealize Prussia and even earlier empire building aspirations back to Plato
    http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20 031028151034651
which developed these techniques of "education" but instead to look into the future, where people start asking questions like "why work?"
    http://www.whywork.org/
and how to structure an economy when "Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator: Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain":
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html

(Sorry to read about your loss, and it sounds like you were doing a lot of great things together, just needed more time to go even further.)

The canvas is actually a nice example of progress on the web.

Do you think RMS even cares enough about the question to even want to "dodge it"?

How does near indifference equate to opposition? If anything he has repeatedly addressed economic acceptance of FS. If you bothered doing the most basic of web searches on the matter, you would have found one of many instances where he discusses how to earn a living with free software, e.g., http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html.

but when it comes to debugging, there is just no comparison...Dev Studio smokes anything Linux has to offer by such a wide margin as to be embarrassing.

Including ddd? Can you give any specific examples? I'm not trolling or being sarcastic, I just want to know what Dev Studio has on the debugging front that ddd hasn't.

The non-free software he refers to is closed versus open. Cost is not relevant to the discussion.

You might want to read the free software definition at the GNU Project's website.

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

"You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies. ``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important."

If it weren't for him, free and open source software wouldn't exist the way it does today.

This is very important to remember. If you are using Linux then you're using his The GNU Operating System - http://www.gnu.org/

Remember, the "Linux" part of GNU/Linux only refers to the kernel, which is made by Linus Torvals... that's just one piece. The rest was pieced together by mr. Stallman.

Most distributions offer some sort of precompiled version from the Emacs development tree. The gdb mode for source code debugging is much advanced when compared to either XEmacs or released Emacs versions.

There are also native precompiled snapshots for MacOSX (http://yaced.sf.net/ and http://aquamacs.sf.net/) and on the AUCTeX download site http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/download.html there is a recent Windows executable.

For Ubuntu and/or Debian, apt-get install emacs-snapshot should do the trick.

It is actually not the people who PRODUCE music who need drm. They are able to make a living off it through various means including concerts, merchandise. Its only the people who MARKET music, who require drm - and the important question to be asked "What do these corporate marketing drones contribute to the CREATIVE process of making music?"

You need to reconsider the PURPOSE of Copyright, and whether it should be taken to such an extreme. This can be a turning point in how you think about the whole subject. You should consider Copyright that it is not a natural right but is an ARTIFICIAL monopoly GRANTED BY SOCIETY (ie you and me) TRADED in exchange for something WE value - which is the creative process. My natural right is to be generous, to help people, and to share the things that I have. As children this is drummed into us because it BENEFITS SOCIETY. Its "natural." What drm and extreme-copyright does is turn NORMAL PEOPLE into criminals.

I read an elightning article once (which I wish I could find again) which compares laws and ethics, and highlights the fact that law is a reflection of eithics, NOT the other way around. Laws are made by the government ON BEHALF OF "the people" to help us to exist in harmony with each other. The ultimate decision on laws "IS" made by the people in the election of governments (theoretically! which is belied by the way the spin machines works today and the suspect nature of recent US elections.) The most interesting point made is that when "the people" WIDELY disregard a law, then it is a BAD law. It is the LAW WHICH IS WRONG, NOT "THE PEOPLE", since the law is not reflecting the ethics of society. This is exactly what is happening with music today. People WIDELY AND WITHOUT COMPUNCTION feel that it is "right" to share music they like with their friends. This indicates that current Copyright laws ARE WRONG for the majority of society. Only a tiny part of society is trying to impose these laws on the rest of us, to make us criminals for doing what is natural, which is sharing.

If the laws as they stand are wrong, they should be relaxed rather than strengthened. The fact that this disadvantages a particular type of business, a tiny subset of society, is beside the point. SOCIETY IS NOT BUSINESS, SOCIETY IS PEOPLE trying to work out the best for all of us to have fulfulling lives. If "WE" were choose not to reward artists (which is not the case, but an extreme hypotethical) then WE may suffer by a reduction in creative works, but that is "OUR" choice. The artist CAN make a living BY PERFORMING. What many instead DO want is that we dont want people who don't contribute to the creative process to not make money exploiting artists. Until recently the wide disemintation of creative works has required significant resources, and so the distribution companies had a purpose. Now with the Interent, the resources required for distribution are so minimal that these corporations are less important, and THIS is the reason they are desperate to have these laws implemented. These drm laws they wish to inflict on use protect THEM, not the artists. To highlight this, please read to story The Road to Tycho (The Right To Read). While this is an extreme example, it is outside the realms of possibility in the future.

Consider that the original purpose of Copyright was to PR

Read this, and use the FAQ next time!

The Gnash project does seem to be making progress, though obviously it still has a way to go. CVS seems to get updated pretty regularly, and at least on my end it seems to be improving.

So, there seems to be at least some hope that us amd64 users won't be stuck using precompiled 32-bit binaries whenever we need/want to look at certain websites.

It would be nice if the FSF actually noticed trends that damage people's understanding of the GPL and did something about them. For example, many programs place the GPL in the role of a click-through license. This makes no sense whatsoever, and leads people to think that the GPL is a EULA and that it applies to *users* of GPL'd sofware. On top of that, it lends credence to the notion that click-through licenses are worth something.

The FSF is not the copyright holder to a lot of GPL-covered software (probably most GPL-covered software). So there is only so much they can do. Their lack of litigiousness is a benefit to society. We would be worse off if they spent their resources suing people to convince them of the righteousness of their argument like the RIAA does. But to say the FSF doesn't "notice trends damage people's understanding of the GPL and [do] something about them" or that the "FSF doesn't do jack" is simply wrong.

• Members of the FSF (including GPL author Richard Stallman, Prof. Eben Moglen, and former FSF Executive Director Brad Kuhn) have gone on speaking tours taking questions from all comers, including during dinner after the talk. The talks are often recorded and available online in formats one can play with free software licensed to share verbatim in any medium, even commercially. I feel privileged to have been at the 2006 recent FSF member meeting in Cambridge where I met Prof. Moglen and heard him speak. I was so impressed with his talk, I later aired it on my radio show and I share copies of it with people on my blog.
• The FSF has published a GNU General Public License FAQ and that FAQ contains an entry which addresses your concern:

  Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?

  Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.

  Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. 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 the software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the software to bypass this.

You said:

They [the FSF] claim that any application utilizing MySQL as its SQL database is combining the two applications into a new program and thus either a) becomes subject to the GPL or b) must purchase a commercial license from MySQL. Gee, what could make them want to interpret it that way? Yet while MySQL is flaunting this definition all over the place, the FSF has done nothing to correct them.

What, exactly, constitutes a derivative work in software hasn't been completely argued and drawn out in court yet. This, taken in combination with the FSF not being a copyright holder on MySQL, makes it unreasonable to expect the FSF to correct any misunderstanding MySQL exhibits in their licensing. But the FSF has made numerous statements about what they think on the issue of linking and derivative works. Prof. Eben Moglen, counsel to the FSF, even filed a friend of the court brief to Judge Saris in the MySQL v. NuSphere/Progress case. John Palfrey reported that Judge Saris referred to Moglen's brief and a counter brief as "classic book-ends" because they had drawn opposite conclusions on the matter of what is a derivative work. Judg

It would be nice if the FSF actually noticed trends that damage people's understanding of the GPL and did something about them. For example, many programs place the GPL in the role of a click-through license. This makes no sense whatsoever, and leads people to think that the GPL is a EULA and that it applies to *users* of GPL'd sofware. On top of that, it lends credence to the notion that click-through licenses are worth something.

The FSF is not the copyright holder to a lot of GPL-covered software (probably most GPL-covered software). So there is only so much they can do. Their lack of litigiousness is a benefit to society. We would be worse off if they spent their resources suing people to convince them of the righteousness of their argument like the RIAA does. But to say the FSF doesn't "notice trends damage people's understanding of the GPL and [do] something about them" or that the "FSF doesn't do jack" is simply wrong.

• Members of the FSF (including GPL author Richard Stallman, Prof. Eben Moglen, and former FSF Executive Director Brad Kuhn) have gone on speaking tours taking questions from all comers, including during dinner after the talk. The talks are often recorded and available online in formats one can play with free software licensed to share verbatim in any medium, even commercially. I feel privileged to have been at the 2006 recent FSF member meeting in Cambridge where I met Prof. Moglen and heard him speak. I was so impressed with his talk, I later aired it on my radio show and I share copies of it with people on my blog.
• The FSF has published a GNU General Public License FAQ and that FAQ contains an entry which addresses your concern:

  Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?

  Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.

  Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. 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 the software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the software to bypass this.

You said:

They [the FSF] claim that any application utilizing MySQL as its SQL database is combining the two applications into a new program and thus either a) becomes subject to the GPL or b) must purchase a commercial license from MySQL. Gee, what could make them want to interpret it that way? Yet while MySQL is flaunting this definition all over the place, the FSF has done nothing to correct them.

What, exactly, constitutes a derivative work in software hasn't been completely argued and drawn out in court yet. This, taken in combination with the FSF not being a copyright holder on MySQL, makes it unreasonable to expect the FSF to correct any misunderstanding MySQL exhibits in their licensing. But the FSF has made numerous statements about what they think on the issue of linking and derivative works. Prof. Eben Moglen, counsel to the FSF, even filed a friend of the court brief to Judge Saris in the MySQL v. NuSphere/Progress case. John Palfrey reported that Judge Saris referred to Moglen's brief and a counter brief as "classic book-ends" because they had drawn opposite conclusions on the matter of what is a derivative work. Judg

It would be nice if the FSF actually noticed trends that damage people's understanding of the GPL and did something about them. For example, many programs place the GPL in the role of a click-through license. This makes no sense whatsoever, and leads people to think that the GPL is a EULA and that it applies to *users* of GPL'd sofware. On top of that, it lends credence to the notion that click-through licenses are worth something.

The FSF is not the copyright holder to a lot of GPL-covered software (probably most GPL-covered software). So there is only so much they can do. Their lack of litigiousness is a benefit to society. We would be worse off if they spent their resources suing people to convince them of the righteousness of their argument like the RIAA does. But to say the FSF doesn't "notice trends damage people's understanding of the GPL and [do] something about them" or that the "FSF doesn't do jack" is simply wrong.

• Members of the FSF (including GPL author Richard Stallman, Prof. Eben Moglen, and former FSF Executive Director Brad Kuhn) have gone on speaking tours taking questions from all comers, including during dinner after the talk. The talks are often recorded and available online in formats one can play with free software licensed to share verbatim in any medium, even commercially. I feel privileged to have been at the 2006 recent FSF member meeting in Cambridge where I met Prof. Moglen and heard him speak. I was so impressed with his talk, I later aired it on my radio show and I share copies of it with people on my blog.
• The FSF has published a GNU General Public License FAQ and that FAQ contains an entry which addresses your concern:

  Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?

  Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.

  Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. 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 the software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the software to bypass this.

You said:

They [the FSF] claim that any application utilizing MySQL as its SQL database is combining the two applications into a new program and thus either a) becomes subject to the GPL or b) must purchase a commercial license from MySQL. Gee, what could make them want to interpret it that way? Yet while MySQL is flaunting this definition all over the place, the FSF has done nothing to correct them.

What, exactly, constitutes a derivative work in software hasn't been completely argued and drawn out in court yet. This, taken in combination with the FSF not being a copyright holder on MySQL, makes it unreasonable to expect the FSF to correct any misunderstanding MySQL exhibits in their licensing. But the FSF has made numerous statements about what they think on the issue of linking and derivative works. Prof. Eben Moglen, counsel to the FSF, even filed a friend of the court brief to Judge Saris in the MySQL v. NuSphere/Progress case. John Palfrey reported that Judge Saris referred to Moglen's brief and a counter brief as "classic book-ends" because they had drawn opposite conclusions on the matter of what is a derivative work. Judg

This appears to be a quote from the GPL FAQ. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation

Another very curious part is:

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlu gins

The stance appears to be that if your program requires a GPL program to be useful, all the programs must be released under a GPL compatible licence. There are some exceptions for standard operating system dlls, etc.

Other views that seem to be implied are:

Charging money for developing software is evil.

LGPL and BSD are inferior because they aid evil, for profit companies.

This isn't meant as a troll. I didn't want to have to dislike GPL, but it does not seem like it could be used with a closed source buisness without the possibility of getting sued, especially given the attitude displayed. In contrast, an LGPL program can be used by a company without worry, so hiring programmers to develop and debug the LGPL program is a worthwhile investment.

This appears to be a quote from the GPL FAQ. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation

Another very curious part is:

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlu gins

The stance appears to be that if your program requires a GPL program to be useful, all the programs must be released under a GPL compatible licence. There are some exceptions for standard operating system dlls, etc.

Other views that seem to be implied are:

Charging money for developing software is evil.

LGPL and BSD are inferior because they aid evil, for profit companies.

This isn't meant as a troll. I didn't want to have to dislike GPL, but it does not seem like it could be used with a closed source buisness without the possibility of getting sued, especially given the attitude displayed. In contrast, an LGPL program can be used by a company without worry, so hiring programmers to develop and debug the LGPL program is a worthwhile investment.

Neither it is straight from the GNU...

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

  Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
        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. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

The first misconception; the money issue

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

(From the GPL version 2 - Emphasis mine)

What the above means is that no money must be charged for *licensing* a derivative work. In other words, not only must the entire derivative work be placed under the GPL, you can't charge more for the GPL licensed work than you would if you were using another license. Note that the word "distribute" is not mentioned in the above section at all. People *really* need to read this, as I've often said, because it specifically refutes the idea that making money from software using the GPL is prohibited by the license. As that article says, your only obligations are to ensure that a) whichever distribution medium (CD-ROM, ftp site, whatever) that contains binaries must also contain the source code of said binaries, and that b) you don't try and charge for downstream use of the license.

I'll say it again...PLEASE go and read the above link about paid distribution of GPL licensed software.

The second misconception; the linking issue

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

(Excerpt from the Lesser GPL - emphasis mine)

For combined derivative works including an LGPL licensed library, it could definitely be argued that this is not a hard application of copyleft, and that those who want it are being given weasel room. The other allowance that the LGPL makes is that an LGPL library can be combined with either a library or an application not under the GPL, and that while the LGPL library itself stays under the LGPL, the resulting combined application does not have to be.

I personally consider the LGPL deeply hypocritical in light of Stallman's previous thorough attempts to discourage use of the BSD license. He also, however, states here that the LGPL is only intended for use with libraries which imitate functions already present in commercial software. Hence, he implicitly concedes here that he is attempting to build a code monopoly in order to enforce increased use of the GPL. He cites appeals to popularity as one reason why people might try and coerce a software author into using the LGPL, when to my mind his own fears of a lack of popularity must surely have been the reasoning behind the LGPL's creation.

Although it is true, as stated above, that there is no prohibition against making money from the distribution of GPL licensed software, the GPL is likely to force those who wish to sell software (and who are accustomed to capitalist economics) to reconsider their strategy. The reason why I say that is because in order to be ultimately successful, a vendor following the capitalist process must usually rely on the creation of exclusivity, or a monopoly. This has also been called the "unique selling position," and what it means is that if you are one of ten different vendors selling a given product, you need to create a unique reason or incentive for a potential customer to buy from you, as opposed to one of the nine other vendors. It was that exact principle which led to the fragmentation of commercial UNIX, as incompatibility was born out of each vendor's desire to create a *unique* product, hence giving a customer incentive to buy from that vendor rather than the others. This principle is also why the recipe of Coca Cola, as another example, has been kept secret. If other companies knew the exac

The first misconception; the money issue

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

(From the GPL version 2 - Emphasis mine)

What the above means is that no money must be charged for *licensing* a derivative work. In other words, not only must the entire derivative work be placed under the GPL, you can't charge more for the GPL licensed work than you would if you were using another license. Note that the word "distribute" is not mentioned in the above section at all. People *really* need to read this, as I've often said, because it specifically refutes the idea that making money from software using the GPL is prohibited by the license. As that article says, your only obligations are to ensure that a) whichever distribution medium (CD-ROM, ftp site, whatever) that contains binaries must also contain the source code of said binaries, and that b) you don't try and charge for downstream use of the license.

I'll say it again...PLEASE go and read the above link about paid distribution of GPL licensed software.

The second misconception; the linking issue

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

(Excerpt from the Lesser GPL - emphasis mine)

For combined derivative works including an LGPL licensed library, it could definitely be argued that this is not a hard application of copyleft, and that those who want it are being given weasel room. The other allowance that the LGPL makes is that an LGPL library can be combined with either a library or an application not under the GPL, and that while the LGPL library itself stays under the LGPL, the resulting combined application does not have to be.

I personally consider the LGPL deeply hypocritical in light of Stallman's previous thorough attempts to discourage use of the BSD license. He also, however, states here that the LGPL is only intended for use with libraries which imitate functions already present in commercial software. Hence, he implicitly concedes here that he is attempting to build a code monopoly in order to enforce increased use of the GPL. He cites appeals to popularity as one reason why people might try and coerce a software author into using the LGPL, when to my mind his own fears of a lack of popularity must surely have been the reasoning behind the LGPL's creation.

Although it is true, as stated above, that there is no prohibition against making money from the distribution of GPL licensed software, the GPL is likely to force those who wish to sell software (and who are accustomed to capitalist economics) to reconsider their strategy. The reason why I say that is because in order to be ultimately successful, a vendor following the capitalist process must usually rely on the creation of exclusivity, or a monopoly. This has also been called the "unique selling position," and what it means is that if you are one of ten different vendors selling a given product, you need to create a unique reason or incentive for a potential customer to buy from you, as opposed to one of the nine other vendors. It was that exact principle which led to the fragmentation of commercial UNIX, as incompatibility was born out of each vendor's desire to create a *unique* product, hence giving a customer incentive to buy from that vendor rather than the others. This principle is also why the recipe of Coca Cola, as another example, has been kept secret. If other companies knew the exac

I was just reading this again yesterday...

For example, dynamically linking to a GPLed library does not taint your code

If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.

Dude, apparently you can read. The GPL is available online: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. Why do you rely on second hand information? (And just in case you really don't want to read the actual license: If you don't distribute the source code with the binaries, then you have to distribute offers with the binary. Therein you must offer your source code to anyone who asks for it, not just to the people to whom you distributed the binary. You are not allowed to distribute just the binaries of GPL licensed software, unless you wrote all of it yourself.)

That's just to name a few, there are others. There is plenty of code out there to generate and modify content, the official specification isn't needed for a player.

"I am giving up my freedoms as a developer"

Consider the case that you are creating a tool and your goal is to ensure its always available as a service to the community. The way I understand it, the GPL can ensure that works based on your source will still always meet your goal. So look at it more as continuing to be true to your intent, if your intent is openness.

Here's the text of the actual license.

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

Is this GNUFlash the same as Gnash?

I, for one, will not forget why I'm using a free (Open Source) platform. It sure
as hell aint for viewing snazzier adverts. Let's also not forget alternatives like
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/
This is not an indictment of Mike, I'm sure he's a nice guy.
I'm not a zealot --I use closed video drivers, but these kinds of needless (IMO) upgrades
just smell like trouble to me. And for the record, Flash 7 has performed flawlessly for me
on Debian Testing...

... that we institute a tax on every computer to pay for software. And establish a gigantic governmental organization to distribute the tax out to various programmers. But you can get a tax credit for donating to a software project of your choice.

Basically, he's totally out of his gourd. This would get us overpriced computers, squash Moore's law flat (since every computer upgrade would make you pay a non-productive tax again you'd be hesitant to upgrade), put the IRS or its successor agency in charge of software development (I'm sure I'd LOVE to see all paid development paid for by a group in Washington -- oh wait, I sell software and can't afford a lobbyist, this doesn't look like a winner for me), and provide nothing of value to anyone. Except neo-Marxists who get a frisson off of taking potshots at capitalism. (See GNU Manifesto, search for "Software Tax": http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html )

The GNU project is creating a Free flash player. You can read about it here.

You could try GNU Robots, if you're willing to accept Scheme. It's still a work in progress, but the concept is you write a program (in Scheme) for a little robot, then set him loose to explore a maze. The maze is populated with prizes, food, and baddies (you can shoot them, or choose to avoid them.)

The nice thing about this is that kids can learn programming with an immediate payoff - they get to watch their robot in action on the screen. GNU Robots is the same concept as ChipWits, which has been "coming soon" for PC since 1999 (it originally was available on Apple and Mac).

Disclaimer: I am the originator of GNU Robots, but I left the project in 2000 after handing it over to another maintainer.