Slashdot Mirror

What I found more ironic is that they changed the GPL, a license designed for FREEDOM, yet if you READ the last of the first paragraph of it, it clearly states:

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

So they infringed on the copyright of the GPL document itself to make a modified version of the GPL, a license that doesn't allow changes to itself, but is designed to license software that protects your right to change the software...(hold on, feeling an infinite loop coming on)...so they can claim their software is Free (which it isn't) and feel good about themselves.

Saying "I hate war" is about as courageous as saying "I hate child molesters". It really doesn't require any action, but it makes some people feel good to go out on the limb and "make that stand".

Hacktivismo's License: http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php
FSF's Opinion: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html

The FSF claims that a source license can't enfore restrictions like that.

Moodle is a course management system. What a University would want with one of those, I don't know. Half of my lecturers never turned up on time and one simply photocopied the course textbook as notes and read from it during lectures. Even those I had some respect for (one was a Dr. Who fan) were hopelessly disorganized and seemed to prefer it that way.

Now, I am a little surprised they said more about LaTeX (which is in decline because the friggin' developers aren't developing! I've never seen people drag their feet so much) than they did about Open Groupware (an Open Source Exchange replacement that is very respectable), Beowulf/Mosix/OpenMosix/Kerrighn (which turns a barely-used lab into a giant supercomputer wihout stupid license modifications), or ReLaTe (an Open Source videoconferencing + whiteboard suite developed by the University College of London for remote teaching).

There is a LOT of aspects to Open Source I would love to know if/how the Universities are aware of. I happen to think LaTeX is superb and wish Firefox would parse the markup, but I don't think it's an area of Open Source that schools, colleges or Universities need to focus on. What I do want to know is what they ARE focussing on and what they DAMN WELL SHOULD focus on.

WTH are Moodle and Octave?

I use gcc, and I would like to use it even more, but it does not compile to common virtual machines (Perl, Parrot, Java or CIL).

The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...).

GCJ is a portable, optimizing, ahead-of-time compiler for the Java Programming Language. It can compile Java source code to Java bytecode (class files) or directly to native machine code, and Java bytecode to native machine code.

I use gcc, and I would like to use it even more, but it does not compile to common virtual machines (Perl, Parrot, Java or CIL).

The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...).

GCJ is a portable, optimizing, ahead-of-time compiler for the Java Programming Language. It can compile Java source code to Java bytecode (class files) or directly to native machine code, and Java bytecode to native machine code.

There is nothing of the sorts in GPLv2.

This is the line that people say might already forbid tivoization:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

The contention is that if you haven't been given enough information to actually make modifications to a work and use those modifications, then you haven't been given the source code. It's clearly the intent of GPLv2 (in my opinion) but, as many have pointed out, there are other possible interpretations. GPLv3draft2 attempts to clarify the situation.

It is in no way against the spirit or nature of the GPL[v2].

That is your interpretation. My interpretation (which, incidentally, is the same as the FSF's interpretation) is that the GPL is designed to ensure that all users of the software have the four freedoms enumerated by the FSF. However, a judge might agree with your interpretation rather than mine, and that's why the FSF wants to add a clearer definition of Corresponding Source to GPLv3.

There is no reason for a software license to dictate that manufacturers cannot sell specific hardware in specific configurations because all the sudden people think that the manufacturer should let them run any program they want on all the hardware they sell.

There is no legal mechanism for the GPL (or any copyright licence) to simply dictate terms to hardware manufacturers---it simply can't be done, regardless of what the FSF or anybody else writes on paper. It can, however, dictate the terms under which those manufactuers can use the GPL as a legal defence for what would otherwise be considered actions that constitute copyright infringement.

Linksys distributes a router that runs Linux, and also distributes Linux with this router. This would normally be copyright infringement, but if anyone sues Linksys over copyright infringement, Linksys can point to the GPL (which says, "you are allowed to do X if you also do Y"), and say "yes, we did X, which would normally constitute copyright infingement, but we also did Y, so we have permission".

Similarly, TiVo distributes PVR hardware, and also distributes Linux with that hardware. This would again be considered copyright infringement, if not for the GPL. The idea behind the provisions in GPLv3 is to explicitly state that if you want to distribute a work under the GPL, then it needs to be modifiable in a practical sense.

Now what have you gaines if you cannot run the xource code on hardware? You have gained any changes they might have made. More importantly, you have the ability to use those changes on different hardware.

Big deal. If that was good enough for me, I wouldn't have released my software exclusively under the GPL.

Under GPLv3, it is questionabley possible that intel's or AMD's practice of locking out overclocking by hardware restrictions would make it against GPLv3 and make it incompatible

Not unless e.g. Intel or AMD distribute GPL-covered software (not copyrighted by them) that is capable of overriding the overclocking restrictions, but if I modify that software, it won't be equally capable of overriding the overclocking restrictions.

Part of the reason I release code under the GPL (and will probably release it under GPLv3, when it comes out) is because that I want to give a competitive advantage to the Linksyses and Red Hats of the world over the TiVos and the Microsofts of the world. If you're a hardware manufacturer, and you are willing to give your customers the four freedoms, then you get to save time and money by distributing my software with your hardware. Otherwise, you don't.

GPLv3 will serve my interests as a software developer. If others don't like the terms, then they are free to develop their own software, or negotiate with me separately (i.e. pay me) for a release under different terms. Don't like it? Tough. Ignore the rules and distribute my work anyway? That's copyright infringement; I'll see you in court.

Maybe. Thats what GPL3 is about. Forbidding to run by DRM is new. If the GPL-authors would have anticipated it, it would be in GPL2 already.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."

I think that says the intention clear enough. You have the right to make the code runnable, the recipients must be able to do that too.

It defines sourcecode as
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."

I think that is clear enough, even in legal speak. You have to supply anything to build a working program. Understanding "modifications" in any other way makes no sense. Except, maybe, if you are a lawyer.
The only problem is they missed "DRM-keys" because they did not exists then. Which gives Tivo a nice gray area.

In which case Tivo must give us a way to modify our copies in-memory, because its ours and
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it" :)

IANAL.

Actually, the GPL'ed output of bison it was considered a feature for some time. Enough time for byacc to gain ground. The exception was inserted because of the existence of byacc ment that the ability to use bison was no longer a incentive to release code as GPL.

The appropriate popularity comparison would be between byacc and bison.

Two issues.

1) Treacherous Computing vs. ROM
You seem to think it is a bug in the GPLv3 that allows code to be used on ROM'ed machines but not treacherous computers. I see this as a feature not a bug. You might want to look at Stallman's description of the problem with treacherous computing so we at least have a common reference point even if you don't agree with everything he says. Personally, I've got no problem with people using my GPL'ed code on ROM'ed devices, but I am very concerned about using my GPL'ed code on treacherous computers. This is why I see the distinction made between the two by the GPLv3 as a feature not a bug.

2)Treacherous Computing via Virtualization
If I understand your second point correctly, you're suggesting that a virtualization layer (like Xen or VMware) could impose DRM restrictions on GPLv3 code. IANAL, so you might want to run this past the good folks at the FSF and see if they thought of it already, but it seems to me that holding DRM keys in a virtualization layer would be no different from holding keys in hardware so I don't see how it could make an end run around the GPLv3.

As I told you before, the GPLv3 says that if one person can modify and run the code then everyone needs to be able to modify and run the code. It doesn't matter what type of thing holds the keys, hardware or software, the GPLv3 is all about who controls the keys. If the manufacturer controls the keys and not the computer owner, then it's not legal to use GPLv3 code.

If these GPLv3 issues are of any interest to you at all, you will save both of us a lot of trouble if you just read it for yourself at the GPLv3 web site and also read their opinion pieces, particular the one about DRM. If you still think they've missed something, you should contact them and let them know. There is a link to their comments page from both the FSF links I gave you above.

Bison (GNU's version of YACC) used to have the restriction that the output of Bison, since it was a large amount of code, was GPL. As a result, nobody used Bison except for GCC, because the liscence was untenible.

I fear that GPLv3, by trying to force RMS's notion of "Liberty" more strongly (anti-DRM provisions, anti-closed-hardware provisions) will be a repeat: GPLv3 based software will only be used by the real FSF zealots. Everyone else will avoid it.

I think it's pretty clear that the spirit of the GPL is to defend the Four Freedoms; and that what Tivo does makes a mockery of Freedom One.

I am not a lawyer but...

Both GNU and OpenBSD take issues with the Apache 2.0 License:

http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/07 /1621254 (Weak!)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GP LIncompatibleLicenses
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=2004060 7133603&mode=expanded

Anyone want to explain the contention better?

My EUR .02: Dual license it perhaps like Pike (GPL/MPL)

MD

Don't get me wrong. I love the Borland of yester-year, but are Borland tools relevant anymore?

With all the free goodies available, development on most platforms can be done without spending a dime.
Just off the top of my head, things like GCC, Xcode, and Eclipse come to mind.

too proprietary

Check out osflash.org

I'm pretty sure Adobe is actively working on a Linux-compatible plugin for Flash 8 or 9, but they were going with some new technologies to do so (e.g. V4L2, ALSA). Also, GNU is actively working on a Flash player known as Gnash (or Klash for KDE), and since that's one of GNU's top priorities at the moment, we can expect a decent cross-platform Flash player which supports several different backends for renderring and playing Flash (e.g. Cairo, OpenGL, SDL, gstreamer).

Here's a thought ... what is the GPLv4 going to contain, if this goes through? Perhaps a restriction that GPL'd software can only be run on GPL'd operating systems? Or that all modifications have to be pushed back into the public pool, even if they're totally irrelevant to anyone else's needs, or even if there's no "distribution"?

"What if..." games are fun. "What if GPLv5 requires that I scarifice my firstborn son and change my name to GNU/Nicholas?" I'd love to see the first test of the licence in court.

Imagine having to take your copy of wordpress or drupal or postnuke that you've customized, and having to guarantee that you'll make all mods available for 3 years, even though you haven't distributed any of it to anyone else; you've just fixed it up so it works the way YOU want. Most people would be saying "screw that."

• If...
• If a GPL version implemented this feature.
• If the licence text made no distinction between source and config data
• If the copyright holders didn't just re-release under GPLv2 only
• If the copyright holders were stupid enough to try and enforce that clause

If all of the above, then you'd have a point, certainly. But I need a few less "ifs" before I start losing sleep over something.

As long as the source is made available if the product is being distributed, I don't see what the problem is.

I suppose that depends on what you think the GPL is for. I don't know that, but the FSF define four freedoms that the GPL is intended to protect. Making the source available satisfies freedom 1, but neglects freedoms 0, 2 and 3.

With a locked down platform that needs signed binaries, a manufacturer can prevent a user from modifing the program to better suit their needs (freedom 2) or at least prevent them from running the modified program (freedom 0). And if it won't run, there's no point in distributing the modified version (freedom 3)

So that's the big deal. You might not agree with the criteria they chose, but it's unquestionably their choice to make, and based upon them, there's no denying the consistency of their position.

Because there is a very effective work-around to the GPL, and you can bet that it will be used if this goes through: devices will not be sold, just "lent" to the customer; you sign up for a tivo-like service and you're lent a receiver at no extra charge. Since the receiver never becomes the property of the customer, there is no "distribution". With hardwaqre getting cheaper and cheaper, this becomes a viable alternative.

That battle's already on the horizon, IMHO. That was pretty much the argument used to get XBox mod chips ruled illegal over here. A lot of companies want hardware released under the same terms as proprietory software - you don't own it, you just buy the right to feed it electricity. I don't think the terms of the GPL will affect developments in that direction one iota.

To argue otherwise (that distribution DOES occur even though n property changes ownership) would cause a HUGE problem for a lot of businesses right now.

Maybe. But you're still arguing based on your "what if ..." scenario, right? This isn't in the currently proposed text for GPLv3, so it's no more an issue than my having to change my name by deed poll to "GNU/Nicholas".

In fact, I'd go so far as to predict that the GPLv3, and more restrictive definitions of "redistribution" could ultimately result in the resurgence of bsd at the expense of linux.

Well, assuming that the GPLv3 turns out as flawed as you fear, then I suppose that's a plausible outcome. I can't say I'd be overjoyed, since the BSD boys don't get much back in return for all their ha

The part I don't agree upon is that these IP payments (for the patents)

IP? What does Internet Protocol have to do with patents?

cost more than maintaining a wireline network.

Did you take into account the FCC spectrum lease payments? I was talking about those more than the patent royalties.

GPLv3 prohibits users from using signed binaries on hardware that the FSF deems "bad". Specifically, the user cannot create software with signed binaries for use on Trusted Computing hardware. Apparently the FSF doesn't think users are capable of deciding for themselves what hardware is best for some applications, so it wants to stop them from making a "bad" decision.

Really? Where?

The GPLv3 drafts tell distributors that if they distribute my code, they need to distribute everything necessary to ensure that the recipients have the ability to exercise the four freedoms that the FSF associates with free software, and to ensure that the recipients know that they can do these things. Otherwise, I can sue those distributors for copyright infringement.

BSD licenses are not Free Software because they do not "preserve freedom" (sic) in the way GPL does.

Wrong. They're not "copyleft" licenses, but they are free software. RTFW.

the FSF has fought hard to promote a given definition of "Free Software", and as a trademark-like name, it's got different meaning from "free software", using the common english definitions of those words.

Wrong again. Go look at the FSF's website. None of their core philosophy documents capitalize "Free Software" the way you do, except when the it's followed by "Foundation".

besides, if you use the broader definition (which i'm certainly not going to try to talk you out of, since i think it's the better one), the point in the grandparent post is even less defensible. i was trying to be charitable.

Your opinion is overrated. Read the fscking document:/p>

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.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.

It's not really that difficult to understand.

"BSD licenses are not Free Software because they do not "preserve freedom" (sic) in the way GPL does. i think i agree that it's a stupid distinction, but the FSF has fought hard to promote a given definition of "Free Software""

Who told you this???

Here is the FSF's definition of "free software". There's no such "preserve freedom" clause.

They also have a list of free software licenses free software licenses. Note that BSD is included. (It is non-copyleft, but free.)

They certainly *do* prefer the GPL, in general (though not necessarily everywhere), but they definitely do not do that by claiming that non-GPL'd software is not free software.

There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers to support treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don't Try Programming Act) is one of them. But even if they don't legally force you to switch to treacherous computing, the pressure to accept it may be enormous. Today people often use Word format for communication, although this causes several sorts of problems (see "We Can Put an End to Word Attachments"). If only a treacherous computing machine can read the latest Word documents, many people will switch to it, if they view the situation only in terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To oppose treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the situation as a collective choice.

Actually, the FSF explicitly considers the BSD License to be a free software license.

I believe the distinction is that a free software license is merely one which does not infringe on the freedoms they list here. Actively ensuring the freedoms of the end-user is the GPL's niche to be sure, (through tricks like copyleft) but they do not consider that stuff to be neccesary in order for software to be free.

Actually, the FSF explicitly considers the BSD License to be a free software license.

I believe the distinction is that a free software license is merely one which does not infringe on the freedoms they list here. Actively ensuring the freedoms of the end-user is the GPL's niche to be sure, (through tricks like copyleft) but they do not consider that stuff to be neccesary in order for software to be free.

You've got the gist of it, but I just want to clarify for other readers.

The way it works, from a copyright holder's perspective, goes something like the following. By releasing your work under the GPL, you have irrevocably given the permissions listed therein to anyone who receives a copy. As the copyright holder, you can go back and relicense it (whether more or less restrictive), but people will always be able to keep distributing the GPLed copies, since the GPL cannot be revoked.

(Something like this happened with Secure Shell, except the old SSH license was BSD-like. Any free software license will, ipso facto, be irrevocable due to the distribution model, and the GPL is not in any way unique in that regard. That's why Sun doesn't let you redistribute Java after you download it.)

Beyond that, a catch is that the exact wording of the GPL is itself copyrighted by the FSF, and the terms on redistributing the GPL itself read: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." This means that, if you want a license that works like the GPL but isn't the actual FSF GPL, you (a) have to write it from scratch yourself (or pay your lawyer to do it) to avoid creating a derivative work that violates the license on the GPL, and (b) you can't call it "GPL", since it would be fraud to misrepresent your own custom license as the genuine FSF GPL (although, technically, the FSF doesn't explicitly own a trademark on the name "GNU General Public License").

If you need to, you can get around this by using a disjunction of licenses ("You may distribute this software under ANY of these licenses"). If you really, really need to, some programs have been distributed under a conjunction of licenses ("You may distribute this software only if you meet the terms of ALL of these licenses"), which ended up the case with the OpenSSL license (which is a bit of a trainwreck due to hysterical raisins). And, in very rare cases, you can ask the FSF for permission to modify the GPL (see the Affero license).

Richard Stallman and team built the guts of the os's know as linux over a period of 22 YEARS. Linus built a kernel, like every Computer Science major must. Linus puts it out on the net - others combine it with Stallman's project (Stallman was working on a more difficult memory manager architecture) and then comes a working GNU - Unix like OS - (now known as Linux) that Stallman and his teams had been working on for years. Let's face it. Linus received the credit instead of Richard Stallman for a gargantuan effort. Not to debase linus efforts, but that guy is taking credit for a lot of other peoples work. Richard Stallman - Free Software foundation - http://www.gnu.org/ Linus Torvalds - A Kernel - needs $$$

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.

The FSF says GCC's output doesn't have to be GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

glibc is *L*GPL, but that's different. It requires modifications to glibc itself to be published, but allows the program using glibc to be closed source.

(I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)

Um, there is no body that has oversight for the Linux kernel. As a public service announcement for you, most of what people call "Linux" is actually the Linux kernel plus the GNU Free Unix base and a windowing layer. There is no maintaner because the because the various licences that cover these code bases (including the gpl v2) are permissive. You are allowed to use the code as long as you list in your own documentation where the code came from and who it is copyrighted to. Usually, there are conditions in a particular license where derivative code must be released under the same license. Some licences such as the gpl require you to publish your source code while others such as the bsd license doesn't require this and also allows commercial use without any payment.

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" - taken from the first line at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
thank you very much

ed is the standard text editor!

You could look into Octave, which is an OS version of MATLAB released under GPL. You could either use it directly or look into the source for some helpful ideas.

Linux is free, and ad-free.

It's also free, an important distinction. :) It doesn't matter if it's free as in zero-cost, as long as it's free as in the-freedom-to-copy-it-to-your-friends.

A cheap web cam: http://insidecomputer.stores.yahoo.net/usbwebcamwe p.html $7
This book: http://www.nerdbooks.com/item.php?id=1852336668 $45
GCC compiler: http://gcc.gnu.org/ $0
A lot of time: http://www.time.org/ $0
----------------------
$52 + tax, shipping, etc.

And there you go.

Or just go here: http://www.it4tomorrow.de/shop/index.php?lang=ENG& list=KAT14
Or read this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/06040 4091149.htm
Which will lead you here: http://www.cogain.org/
Which will lead you here: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/developm ent/

Now, from there, I'm stuck. I can't find any more information on the OWL. But it was invented in 1987 and could be mass produced for around $10 (according to the link), so I see potential there.

Layne

Anything that is derived from GPL code must be redistributed under the GPL, that is how the license works. ATI and nVidia are distributing only the source, which is not linked to the kernel so it doesn't technically have any kernel code in it. As soon as you link the module to the kernel, it contains part of the kernel code, so if it is distributed, it must be distributed under the GPL.

Ubuntu, Debian, SuSE and Fedora distribute precompiled binaries, but make the source for the binaries available, that is how you stay compliant with the GPL. You should read it sometime, its actually quite readable the way licenses go. At least have a look at the GPL FAQ it explains this in more detail.

...."Word is protected only by market forces, while iTunes enjoys the protection of a corrupt law that gives Apple the right to exclude competitors from the market" and "For example, in the software industry, it's legal to reverse-engineering a file-format in order to make a competing product."

The article seems to be a generic troll by a recording industry lobbyist and his arguments are allover the place.

My Gripe no 1: ITunes does not need DMCA to hide behind and "market forces" does not make microsoft's products superior. What if ITunes patented the DRM file format and licensed it for 1000$ per track ? It would effectively kill competition. (can you patent a file format ? well yes and yes).

My Gripe no 2: Apple may be interested in ripping you off when you buy an Ipod, they certainly arent interested in ripping you off when you buy a music track. The article's title should be "Apple's DRM is bad for Ipod consumers", taking it a step further, if apple didnt have DRM it is bad for music consumers, because if apple didnt keep the recording industry in check, they will rip you off. Remeber the whining about variable pricing ?

I'm waiting for Firefox 2.0 before I start spell-checking all my /. posts.

Mosex + Emacs + Flyspell.

Not that I always use it, obviously, especially for quickie posts; but when I want to be careful, it's a great combo.

Well, I knew I was going to take flak for saying that. :)

I'm aware of the difference between the GNU toolset/userland and the kernel. However, the GNU utilities are, collectively, a clone of a sort of generic UNIX userspace. That's the joke behind the name "GNU's Not UNIX," because just by looking at it, it looks a whole lot like UNIX. (This is freely admitted by the FSF: "We decided to make the operating system compatible with Unix because the overall design was already proven and portable, and because compatibility makes it easy for Unix users to switch from Unix to GNU.")

We can argue as to whether or not Linux (the kernel) was a clone of a Unix kernel or not; I suppose it's probably a stretch to call it a 'clone,' but it's definitely reinventive, if a few generations removed from any actual Unix. Torvalds had studied Minix, and Minix is certainly "Unix-like," at least on the surface. That none of them (Linux, Minix, UNIX) shared any code (initially--they may now) underscores my point about the re-inventiveness of each effort.

Note that I'm not alleging any sort of plagarism or intellectual dishonesty here; on the contrary I was trying to use Linux as an example of how sometimes reinvention can be a good thing. I'm quite sure (because I heard it first-hand) that a lot of UNIX users thought that GNU/Linux was unnecessary and redundant when it first was developed, but in retrospect they were wrong. That's the point I was getting at: sometimes it can seem like people are reinventing the wheel, but in doing so may be doing something rather terribly important. (Although it may not be evident until later.)

That said, they might just be reinventing the wheel. It's tough to say until later, which is why I said projects that seem to do the same thing ought to be carefully considered before a lot of duplicate effort is expended.

On the whole Linux/GNU/"GNU-Linux" thing: I think it's pretty well accepted by now that "Linux" is not just the name of a kernel, but the name of an entire family of operating systems, which have in common a particular kernel. I certainly don't mean any disrespect to RMS and the rest of the GNU people, but GNU/Linux doesn't exactly roll off either the tongue or the keyboard. The only time I write out "GNU/Linux" is when I think there's a chance that the whole OS and the kernel by itself are going to be confused, or where the userspace and kernel are being discussed independently. (Actually I think it's most common today to use "Linux" to refer to the OS or OS family collectively, GNU to refer to the toolset, and "Linux kernel" to refer to the kernel.) In my original post I was referring to Linux collectively, both the GNU userland and Torvalds' kernel, as a Unix-like OS (which it is, or at least was; in many ways it's surpassed Unix now) which is reinventive in nature. But you're right, I should have been more clear.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
No, you can fork the GPL, you just can't call it the GNU GPL and can't include the preamble without permission. That seems pretty reasonable. You wouldn't want a bunch of incompatible licenses all called the GNU GPL.

Actually, no they don't. The FSF uses copyright law to prevent people from forking the GPL. Ironic, huh?

From the text of TFL: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

The Open Source movement makes the case that source code leads to many eyes reducing bugs, stronger communities, and do other things that might be appealing to a business. Free Software on the other hand, according to Stallman and his GPL and FSF, has always been about ensuring the four freedoms for the software end user. If you or Linus are not interested in these four freedoms, political or philosophical as they may be, then you should not license your software under the GPL "version 2 or any later version". Read up on it; make your choice. But don't complain when the FSF attempts to modify their license to maintain these freedoms, for the FSF has never claimed to do otherwise.

...almost certainly going to be nigh on...

Holy excessive qualifying statements, Batman! (Aside from that, well said!)

It's a fundamental shift in the idea of how computers work that will probably end in anarchy and chaos.

Those of you who don't understand what the parent post means, read this.

Copyright law doesn't require distribution of source code. It does give the copyright holder the right to give or withhold permission to make derivative works (modification). From the GPL:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

So if software is licensed under GPL3, only by agreeing to all the terms do you have the legal right to modify the code. It's no more onerous than proprietry code. Proprietry code, you pay enough money, you will be able to get permission to modify code in some cases. The cost is money. With Free software, the cost is releasing your modifications as source under the same license. In either case, if you don't like it, can't afford it or it doesn't fit your business model, write your own code. Simple as that.

...you're interested I read a rather interesting article about trusted computing the other day ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html ). He makes some good points.

2. What does TC do, in ordinary English?

TC provides a computing platform on which you can't tamper with the application software, and where these applications can communicate securely with their authors and with each other. The original motivation was digital rights management (DRM): Disney will be able to sell you DVDs that will decrypt and run on a TC platform, but which you won't be able to copy. The music industry will be able to sell you music downloads that you won't be able to swap. They will be able to sell you CDs that you'll only be able to play three times, or only on your birthday. All sorts of new marketing possibilities will open up.

TC will also make it much harder for you to run unlicensed software. In the first version of TC, pirate software could be detected and deleted remotely. Since then, Microsoft has sometimes denied that it intended TC to do this, but at WEIS 2003 a senior Microsoft manager refused to deny that fighting piracy was a goal: `Helping people to run stolen software just isn't our aim in life', he said. The mechanisms now proposed are more subtle, though. TC will protect application software registration mechanisms, so that unlicensed software will be locked out of the new ecology. Furthermore, TC apps will work better with other TC apps, so people will get less value from old non-TC apps (including pirate apps). Also, some TC apps may reject data from old apps whose serial numbers have been blacklisted. If Microsoft believes that your copy of Office is a pirate copy, and your local government moves to TC, then the documents you file with them may be unreadable. TC will also make it easier for people to rent software rather than buy it; and if you stop paying the rent, then not only does the software stop working but so may the files it created. So if you stop paying for upgrades to Media Player, you may lose access to all the songs you bought using it.

For years, Bill Gates has dreamed of finding a way to make the Chinese pay for software: TC looks like being the answer to his prayer.

There are many other possibilities. Governments will be able to arrange things so that all Word documents created on civil servants' PCs are `born classified' and can't be leaked electronically to journalists. Auction sites might insist that you use trusted proxy software for bidding, so that you can't bid tactically at the auction. Cheating at computer games could be made more difficult.

There are some gotchas too. For example, TC can support remote censorship. In its simplest form, applications may be designed to delete pirated music under remote control. For example, if a protected song is extracted from a hacked TC platform and made available on the web as an MP3 file, then TC-compliant media player software may detect it using a watermark, report it, and be instructed remotely to delete it (as well as all other material that came through that platform). This business model, called traitor tracing, has been researched extensively by Microsoft (and others). In general, digital objects created using TC systems remain under the control of their creators, rather than under the control of the person who owns the machine on which they happen to be stored (as at present). So someone who wri

I have been thinking about this for a long time, but I really like the way Jamie has focused the question here. I will write an essay in answer to the question --- "What's the equivalent of free software for web services?" --- and post it to kragen-tol as soon as I can.

Yeah, but then he wouldn't have got the +5 mod for mentioning GNU Units.

It would seem that the primary function of a womb is to incubate children. There is no organ in the body that has organ donation as it's primary function, therefore, it is reasonable for people to be able to use their organs for their primary function, and not reasonable to require them to donate them. As organ donation is not legally required even after death (at least in Australia, I assume this is the case in the US) this is in line with current law. I think that trying to compare using a body organ for it's usual function for 9 months to having an organ permanently removed is not helpful.

So I'm saying the normal and expected use of body parts is not to donate them but to have them function in your body. If the use of the womb for the incubation of the child was required (normal use), it would not imply a requirement to donate body parts (contrary to normal use). It is not a comment dependent on creationism or any other religious belief. In any case, I just did "grep -c purpose otoos610.txt" on Charles Darwins "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, 6th Edition" from Project Gutenburg. The word purpose is in there 75 times. I haven't checked context, but I suspect that it's still ok to use the word purpose even if you're not a creationist. Your "Therefore" needs new thinking.

And abortion is currently legal, so that's in line with current law.

I don't dispute this. I just think it shouldn't be for the mojority of cases. It doesn't change my point that there is legal precedent to say that organ donation is not compulsory.

Certainly it has been suggested - it's a well known thought experiment to get people to think about the ethics of abortion.

I meant suggested as in suggesting that somebody in particular should do this, or that it should become common practise or the like. Not suggested as in making a philosophical point about it with no intention of bringing it to pass. No matter.

Yes, it's hypothetical, obviously, and no it isn't necessary for thought experiments to be possible - that's the whole point of them. So, I'm still curious, would you say that a mother is obliged to give treatment? If not, why does her legal responsibility no longer apply?

OK then, to satisfy your curiosity: If a child (i.e., not a fetus, but after birth) developed a condition which required the mother to be hooked up to some life support for 9 months, I don't think everyone would agree that as part of her legal responsibility, she is bound by the law to do so. ... no I don't think she should be held legally responsible to do this. There are at least two reasons. First is same as the organ donation case, it is not part of normal function, unlike pregnancy. The second is that it's not currently possible, and people should not be legally required to do the impossible. It is worth noting that unlike the case of a child falling sick, by far the majority of pregnancies are a result of consensual sex. The woman is usually pregnant as a result of actions she chose to take (even if she did not intend to get pregnant, and yes, I think the father ought to be taking responsibility also, although he cannot bear the child, b

...1 bushel is about 9 US gallons...

It would have been friendly of the editors to provide a metric equivalent for the large percentage of their readership outside of the United States. Running GNU units on 1 bushel tells me that it is just over 35 liters.

The Free Software community decided a long time back that Amazon is not threatening anyone with its patents. GNU ended its boycott four years ago.