Slashdot Mirror
OSI Modifies Open Source Definition
Russ Nelson writes: "We changed the Open Source Definition today. Some people had the idea that "may not" in Section 1 meant that they had a choice. We changed it to "shall not". Other changes may be in the offing. The OSD says nothing about use licenses or patents, for example.
"A use license is largely unenforcable by itself. How can you tell what people are doing with software if anyone is allowed to redistribute it to anyone they want? Some parties have tried to enforce a use license by requiring the non-removal of certain parts of the code. This is, in itself, already prohibited by the OSD, however it's best not to rely on indirection to keep use licenses off Open Source software.
"Patents are a problem that have been anticipated by some licensors. In part the furor over the APSL 1.0 was produced because they reserved the right to revoke the license if it turned out that they were licensing software patented by someone else. A number of new licenses have specifically included terms that require contributors to license any applicable patents. And yet the OSD does not require this. What is the good of an OSI Certified piece of Open Source unless you can use it? And you certainly shouldn't allow someone to sue any contributor over patent infringement and still have a license to use the software.
"Are there other lapses in the Open Source Definition? Send them to me and I'll summarize for the board. Speaking of the board, Brian Behlendorf (Apache/Collab) and Ian Murdock (he put the ian in Debian/Progeny) have resigned, and Guido van Rossum (creator of Python) and Michael Tiemann (co-founder of Cygnus) have taken their place."
_Deliberately_ obfuscated code. Doesn't matter whether by man or machine, it's just whether there has been a conscious obfuscation stage.
There's more of a description in the document itself. It states that the code must be in a format that the programmer would chose to program it in. Even obfuscators like to have a clear version of the code to work with, and rarely does it change once they've started the obfuscation process. I write obfuscated code using 'Stroustrup ' braces/indenting and with meaningful variable names. The absolute last stage to me is to remove brackets and change variable names to l1 ll l0 lO etc...
FatPhil
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
[Nasty, ad hominem insults ignored]
You're locked into the GPLed GNU implementation once you use its unique features. Just as you're locked into Microsoft Word once your macros and files are in its format. Oh, and you can't just transplant the GPLed code into another implementation unless you want to forfeit all of your work and merely create another GPL-infected product.
RMS's embrace and extend strategy is really quite a lot like Microsoft's.
As for the name Posix: Yes, Stallman happened to be the one who coined it. So? He's also attempted to take credit for Linux by trying to get people to call it "GNU/Linux." His self-serving behavior reminds me of the old saying, "The easiest way to become a leader is to find a parade and jump in front of it."
--Brett Glass
Agreed. As a developer of Free code, I cannot use any proprietary code either. I don't like the idea of the EULA forcing itself down my throat. I do not have the wherewithal to support myself so I can run around and buy proprietary software, nor do I have enough influence (nor want...) to make that decision for the company I work with.
The fact of the matter is that propriatary software is really only for those folks who are willing to subject themselves to this "ideal" of perfect propriatary software that never needs any modifications, while those of us who just want to make a living and can't or don't want to do the software equivalent of going to work in the 19th century coal mines of West Virginia where we become so indebted to the company that we lose all our rights just don't count for anything.
The more I consider propriatary softare, the more I see it as a tool for Bill Gates and Larry Ellison to force their products down everyone's throat. I personally think the BSD licence is reasonable (my understanding is that people can still distribute use the code in commercial products freely). I plan to release code under the BSD licence or possibly another Free license or even pitch it into the public domain. However, in order to maximize my code's usefullness to anyone who might want to use it, I will not deign to tell people who want to use my code that they can't use it in theirs. I think that's none of my business.
-ben.c
It indeed is a small price.
I'm working as an employee of MandrakeSoft. I create Free Software for a living. MandrakeSoft would not exist if there hadn't been any Free Software. At this point, where Operating Systems have become this complex, writing one up from scratch (not only a kernel, but a whole OS including a set of usefull utilities) as a commercial project is just impossible - it would take too much time and money. It wouldn't be competitive (against allready existing OSes).
Thus, we haven't given up anything. Because without Free Software, there wouldn't be any MandrakeSoft not to give something up.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I imagine if the obfuscated code was distributed along with a non-obfuscated version, it could be considered open-source.
the GPL does not discriminate against people who want to deny OSD rights to recipients of their code. Such people are perfectly free to modify and/or redistribute GPL'ed code.
This argument is only true for the originator of the software. The OSD is useless if you apply it only to the originator, since the originator has all the rights available to any author anyway.
Consistently apply the OSD with rights granted to users in mind. Then you will see that there is no way the GPL can fit the OSD.
Of course, you will almost certainly find some way to counter this argument. The GPL is included for political purposes. The OSI knows that it would become a pariah in the Free Software community if it took such a stand. OTOH, the abiding suspicion of business towards OSS would be aleviated if the right to proprietary forking were made an explicit part of the OSD.
In other words, the OSI has all the problems of a 3rd political party. Ultimately, all of these free vs. proprietary arguments are really just all the same old left vs. right arguments, with a geek twist.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Only if it gets that way through lousy coding, rather than malicious obfuscation. The GPL requires that code be in the preferred form for programming, and the Open Source Definition requires that it not be deliberately obfuscated, but code that's simply badly written doesn't seem to fall into either category.
Nice try at starting a completely extraneous Perl-Python flamewar, though.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Actually, the quote you cite supports my statement. The copy (the disc) is commercial, but the code is not. It cannot be, since it cannot be licensed for money.
--Brett Glass
Actually, exactly the reverse is true. Look at the FSF's GNU utilities -- including their make, tar, man, etc. -- and what you'll see is copies of the standard UNIX/Posix utilities, extended with their own proprietary command line switches and minor changes that create incompatibilities.
The aim, as Richard Stallman himself states, is to create copies of utilities and then add extensions which lock users in. Just as Microsoft does. Users are then dependent on, and locked into, the FSF's code. Gotcha!
--Brett Glass
Not entirely true. The code can be licensed for money under the GPL, and there is no limit on the price you may charge.
In response to this I once quipped "sure I'll license my code under the GPL--for $50,000/copy".
Indeed, I have heard of one company that licenses gcc mods for $5000/copy. Since the user paid so much, this makes them less likely to give the product away, even though they have the right to do so if they wish.
Unfortunately these are special cases. The demand curve for most software is such that there are zero units produced at such prices. The extreme case would be one unit sold under GPL, and I believe this may have happened with RedHat and something, but I forget what.
So, unless you produce highly specialized custom software geared towards corporate clients willing to spend thousands, GPL software cannot be effectively commercialized.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Note that the GPL also precludes licensing of software under OSD-compliant licenses such as the Mozilla license as well as under closed source licenses.
The purpose of the GPL is to eliminate any chance that a programmer might use the code in a way which would provide him with a financial reward for his hard work. This is, again, blatant discrimination.
The GPL discriminates against a field of endeavor and against a group of people. It therefore is not an Open Source license. Even Richard Stallman, the author of the GPL, says that "Free Software [note the caps; Stallman considers this to mean "GPLed software"] is not Open Source." The GPL is not an open source license and should not be named as one on the OSI Web site.
--Brett Glass
That's revenue, not profit. They're losing money big time. Red Hat has had only one profitable quarter since it was founded, and that was quite long ago.
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
I'm sorry you don't like being forced to release your code if you include any of mine (or any other word released under the GPL). You know, all you have to do is rip my code (any GPL'd code) out of your project and you can release your code under any license you like. I don't charge you a financial fee for using my code in your projcet -- my fee is your code in return. That's right, you can't take my work for nothing. As I wrote before, why do you think you should have the right to MY hard work for nothing, when you won't recipricate? Will Microsoft, Oracle, or any other proprietary software producers give you such a deal? No? Then why the fuck should I?
You've simply taken my quote out of context in order to repeat yourself. Since writing my original post I've gone through and read your many comments, all of which repeat the same mantra. You're like those pundits on TV who just shout their opinions over the moderator and their opponent without any concern for their thread of argumet, only their presentation. You have no ideas to exchange, only a position to state -- again and again.
Am I to understand that if you repeat these ridiculous claims enough you'll change public opinion? Maybe so, but you won't change the facts (content) underlying what the GPL permits and restricts. Here's a hint: the GPL only restricts distribution of content released under the GPL. But, of course, you'll only respond to a statement which you can take out of context, won't you? Your words are without merit because you don't argue content, only position. Do you have a talking points memo on hand to guide how you frame your posts? Sure reads like it.
--Maynard
Without GPLed software, there could still be a MandrakeSoft. The company could, instead, build on BSD-licensed code, which (unlike GPLed code) is licensed ethically. Unaffected by the GPL's poison pill, it would have a much better chance of survival.
But as it is, you have no chance. The GPL is intended to assure that.
Because of the GPL, MandrakeSoft will burn its investment capital and then fold, as have so many other Linux companies. (It's sad, too, because you really deserve to get some reward for your labors from customers who will benefit from your work, rather than from investors who will lose their money.)
There's still time to turn things around if you want to. Alas, I fear that you and/or your management may be so blinded by the misleading rhetoric of Richard Stallman that you won't do that even when you recognize that you cannot make money on GPLed software. This is the tragedy of not using software that's truly open source. As Stallman himself states, GPLed software is not open source. It's sabotaged software.
--Brett Glass
In this case old chap, I suggest you use the Lesser GPL - that's what it's there for.
Question - what should happen if OSI software supports plugins (note patented software is just a special case of this) and external scripting languages which themselves are not OSI? You cannot insist that they follow the same licensing. Take a look at GE Medical which embeds Tcl/TK within their medical instruments. I doubt whether they will kindly open up their IP.
Also if the software goes kaput (or bought out) for any reason, what should the contrib community code licensing do (considering the legal entity holding the original OSI does not exist). If I was a Gate-2.0 I would conceive of an ingeneous bait and switch tactic where the original stuff was OSI but then deliberately strangle the legal holder and change the terms of the now rootless software as individuals with forks won't have the resources to compete.
LL
When you publish code under the GPL, you've already given your code away to all end users, thus reducing its market value (and the market value of its functionality) to zero. Therefore, the correct price for someone to pay to use it -- whether as an end user or as a programmer incorporating it into something else -- is zero. No rational end user will pay any money either for that code or code that works like it, because he or she can get that functionality for free.
For you to withhold it from programmers when you've already given it to everyone else -- and, again, reduced its market value to nothing by doing so -- is simply spiteful. The only possible reason for such an agenda is to attempt to hurt your fellow programmers. Which is what the GPL is for. The purpose of the GPL is to destroy programmers' livelihoods. Stallman himself says so.
--Brett Glass
For example, back when Steve Job's Next was marketing the objective c language as used in nextstep and openstep, he based their objective-c compiler on a modified version of gcc (which is under the GPL). Jobs didn't want to release the source for the objective-c changes, but after much legal wrangling, he decided that he didn't have much of a legal leg to stand on.
There have been no official court decisions or cases, yet (despite many hints by RMS that one is on the horizon). This is itself an implicit suggestion that the legal case against violations would be pretty good.
This is a good summary of our differences.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
In Section 2, Source Code, one thing that isn't mentioned is the language. What good is source code if I use a proprietary language that isn't available to other programmers? The code might be un-obfuscated, but otherwise useless.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. Or a juggernaut.
Nobody ever said that free software was zero cost. Sounds like you can't afford free software. Other people can. Some day soon you might find yourself competing against them. Maybe you'll find a way to afford free software then?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The GPL confiscates your rights to your own code if you include even one line of GPLed code.
You could make a good argument for fair use in this case.
the misuse of copyright for an end not specifically contemplated by the Constitution.
Ha! Most of what the federal government does violates the Constitution. You think anybody is going to worry about "copyright abuse"? The copyright period has been extended and extended, so obviously nobody has read the part about "for a limited time."
the OSI should reject the GPL and state that it simply is not an open source license
We would have to modify the OSD first, for reasons I've stated elsewhere.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"FUD-meister flamebots in the Linux community (and before that, OS/2?), "
I believe you have Brett Glass confused with Nicholas Petreley.
Brett promotes BSD, not Linux.
As long as the problem is poor formatting/indention and the like, you can clean this code up very quickly with emacs (GNU or X.) Just set a mark at the beginning of the file, move to the end of the file ("ESC->") and indent region ("ESC CTRL-\" or "META-x indent-region" if you have trouble remembering the shortcut.) This works in any language that emacs has a mode for - which is pretty much every language around.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Not so. The GPL demands that the price charged for a copy (not a license, but the production of a physical copy) be reasonable. The charge is for the copy, not to license the code. The license for the code must be free. And after the first copy is made, the recipient can distribute the code for free. So, whatever is charged for the first copy is likely to be all that the programmer ever makes.
--Brett Glass
Neither the Open Group standard nor the proposed CIFS standard (which was really released as a political ploy to counter Sun's NFS proposal) will actually allow you to make a working server that interoperates with Windows 2000. Microsoft has shifted SMB out from under the Samba developers quite a few times. See their mailing lists.
[Foul language ignored]
Ironically, I don't even have to ask for permission to do that. Microsoft grants it unilaterally and willingly. When I write a program using the Microsoft Foundation Classes or a Microsoft Visual Basic OCX control, I can sell my work and make money from it. Microsoft doesn't use a license that contaminates, or attempts to confiscate, my work if I link to their code. The GPL, by contrast, attempts to deprive me of any reward for my work.
Both the FSF and Microsoft engage in predatory practices, but in this particular case the FSF is far more anti-competitive and anti-business than Microsoft.
--Brett Glass
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
Much better!
This is the first I've heard of something call "The Open Source Software License". My understanding has always been that "Open Source" software can be one of several licenses, including:
Public Domain
BSD
GPL
Public Domain, obviously, has no possibility of violation. I know next to nothing about BSD. The GPL has never been tested in court, but there HAVE been violations corrected through "non-legal" means.
--
324006
Stallman discussed the Next wrangling (among other things) in this email. It's an informative read.
This is utter bullshit. Name one OSI approved license that allows a EULA to be included that is not already an RMS approved Free Software license. You can't do it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
- He pioneered the idea of free software, under the moniker of "free software," and very likely feels upset that those ideals have been usurped by this new movement with a new name (this motivation to have his contributions recognized in name can also be found in his urgings that the OS is called "GNU/Linux," not just "Linux");
- He fears that, by removing the word "free" from the name, we're also removing the concept of freedom from our thoughts about the subject. Freedom of software is important to him and he wants the users of free software to be reminded that they are excercising their freedom by using it. "Open Source," in his mind, dilutes that association in users' minds.
There isn't much difference, beyond the symbolic, between free and open source software. Microsoft's latest overture to allow its biggest customers to view the source code to some of its products does not qualify as open source by any stretch of the imagination - they're forbidding modification, redistribution, even compilation of the revealed code. And open source software cannot be bound by "oppressive EULA's" - see Term 7 of the Open Source Definition, which forbids the execution of additional licenses. Keep in mind that the OSD derives, nearly directly, from the Debian Free Software Guidelines.The difference is a difference of name; a kernel by any other name would smell just as sweet.
Actually, since RMS fully admits that no one should be obligated to release their own unreleased works, his philosophy could be better summed up as "if you share with one person you must share with all persons." Sounds an awful lot like my kindergarten teacher.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Cheapbytes doesn't create anything, they simply take stuff other people have created and redistribute it cheaply.
The same can be said of linuxiso.org.
It is: "I will share my code with you, but you have to share your improvements back to me. That way we all benefit."
And you call that UNETHICAL? You think that playing fair deserves the label "poison pill"? What kind of twisted, messed up ethics do you have? The license you prefer allows people to freeload - to take code, change it, and make it proprietary, refusing to share the improvements with the community that wrote the software in the first place. Is that the kind of ethical behaviour you like?
I sincerely pity you.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
But! If you are contemplating using a peice of software written by someone else, and you don't like the licence that comes with it; then too bad. You will just have to find a substitute with a more acceptable licence (or roll your own - have fun). If nothing is availble with a licence/price that you like, then too bad. Deal with it.
As far as that outrageous part about forcing their morality on me I say once again: Bullshit. If you don't use the GPL'd software, then you don't have to deal with the licence. It's a free market, and for GPLed software, the licence is the price for use of the software. Don't want to pay the price? Then don't buy/use the GPLed software.
Who knows? Maybe if you get enough people to agree with you, you can start a boycott.... or something. (I know Brett Glass is ready to join you - he's been flogging this GPL licence issue for a loooonng time now...)
May the best overall price/performance package win...
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
Well, see, all the spam that I ever get claims not to be spam, so that I figured if I sent out spam that claimed to actually *be* spam, nobody would mind. Read this post over your left shoulder with a mirror, and it will all make sense, trust me.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
They're no more forcing their morality on you than you are forcing your morality on your customers by your licenses. It's their code, they're entitled to place whatever conditions on it's use they want. You then have the choice of whether to abide by those conditions or not use the code. No, the conditions they set aren't compatible with most commercial licenses. That's deliberate. They specifically want to ensure that code they released under non-commercial terms is never co-opted and placed under commercial terms.
And actually, I think the deal for the GPL is more: I'll let you benefit from my work, but only if you in turn let everyone else benefit from your work in the same way. It's the same thing as most commercial software, really, except that you're paying in kind for the right to use someone else's code, instead of paying in dollars. If you can't pay their price, then you'll have to put their code back on the shelf and not use it. You certainly wouldn't argue that you should be able to use any commercial library you wanted even if you couldn't pay for it, would you?
Is there anybody who wants to modify IOCCC code?? It's like a work of art -- leave it well enough alone.
I can't imagine any changes to the OSD which would allow IOCCC code to be certified without also allowing companies to publish obscured source code.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Nonsense. The purpose of the GPL is to keep software licensed under it Free. It's obviously more difficult to make money selling software when that software is Free, but it is far from impossible. See Selling Free Software. In fact, the FSF considers the ability to sell the software for a fee an essential component of Free Software - the Yast license, for one, is classified as non-free because it forbids this.
Whoah, slow down there troll-boy. Free Software is most definately NOT the same thing as GPL'd software. See this list of licenses on the GNU site - particularly the ones listed under headings "GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses" and "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses."
15 licenses are listed as GPL compatible, and an additional 21 are listed as not GPL compatible but still Free Software!
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
RMS usually is very careful with his language. I can't imagine that he said "force" in this context. Instead, what he expects will happen is that anyone who wants to sell a better mousetrap will have to start with the existing one, and sell its creation as a service, not a product.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I didn't mean to be harsh, but you got the additional frustration for all the people who've spammed me to whom I'd never be able to make my complaint known. If you were trying to help me, okay, but I'm sure a lot (not a large percentage, just a lot) of the other people who send me offers think that they're helping me, too. Since you mailed me based on me posting on a certain topic, just put a post in that topic and I'm sure the interested people will come across it or the word-of-mouth will reach 'em. Anyway, I'm still floating from a concert and rambling, so I hope that you know what I'm trying to say. Thanks for answering, though, and with a sense of humor.
Cheers,
Actually, just because Python is an easier to learn language doesn't mean that it isn't powerful, as evidenced by this article. A comment like this just smacks of elitism, I.E. a language should be hard to learn, and just because someone uses a language that is easier to use, they are automatically inferior, even though there are no inherent flaws in Python (unlike VB).
Bugger off Python Troll.
This is just a demonstration of your inability to handle the concept of people having differing opinions. Your cowardice is exacerbated by the fact that you are too scared to log in and express yourself, and therefore lend legitimacy to your post.
Is your company running tools written by ma
Heck, I just say "libre" and "gratis" in the context of free software. People who don't already understand can figure it out from context pretty quickly.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Not true. The GPL, like any license, is a proferred contract. And not everything one can write into a contract is legal or enforceable. The terms of a contract can be nullified if they are unconscionable/ The GPL confiscates your rights to your own code if you include even one line of GPLed code. It hence creates a Faustian bargain which is not legal.
The GPL also constitutes copyright abuse -- the misuse of copyright for an end not specifically contemplated by the Constitution.
For all of these reasons -- and many others -- the OSI should reject the GPL and state that it simply is not an open source license. In fact, it's open source's greatest enemy. Its "poison pill" provisions are the key reason why open source has not been wholeheartedly embraced by business.
--Brett Glass
Proprietary software is software which is incompatible with other offerings (regardless of whether these offerings are open source or not). Microsoft's incompatible extension of Kerberos is a good example.
Likewise, a proprietary protocol or file format is one which is in control of a single vendor -- and generally undocumented to preclude others from producing products that are compatible with it. SMB is an example of a proprietary protocol, and the Microsoft Word file format is a proprietary file format.
Whether or not something is proprietary has nothing to do with whether the source is open or not or whether money is charged for it. Stallman likes to use the word to refer to all non-GPLed software because it sounds nasty -- and because he can take advantage of the negative connotations which had long been associated with the original definition.
In my message, I was using the word "commercial" in exactly the way I intended and in the way in which it's defined in the dictionary. The GPL discriminates against producers of commercial software -- software which is the object of commerce. GPLed software cannot be licensed for money and hence cannot be commercial. The disk it's on can be sold for money, and so can support, but the code itself cannot according to the terms of the GPL. It therefore is not commercial.
The GPL is, by the way, a key element in the recent woes of Red Hat and other "Linux companies." It prevents them from adding unique value to their products while at the same time undercutting their sales and destroying their markets. The people at these companies are doing good work and deserve to be rewarded for it! Unfortunately, the GPL, which is designed to keep such companies from being successful, is preventing this. I think that's a shame.
People who do good creative work that benefits many people ought to be rewarded for it. I think that if the GPL were removed from the Open Source Definition's list of approved licenses we'd see this happen.
--Brett
Freely-distributed source code, on the other hand, was not invented by Stallman. The BSD code was freely usable by anyone with a UNIX licence (since it was integrated with UNIX code, it required a UNIX licence to run, but the BSD portion of the code was freely usable/changeable) before Stallman started the Free Software Foundation. The BSD Networking Releases, which did not require an AT&T licence (but were later deemed to be `encumbered during the AT&T lawsuit, and were replaced by 4.4BSD Lite/Lite2) made the Internet as we know it possible, by allowing everyone to look at the BSD TCP/IP implementation and build compatible ones.
Richard Stallman is directly responsible for the `Free Software movement, and indirectly for the `Open Source movement, but certainly not for open-source software (meaning software distributed in source form, with the right to use/change it granted to all users).
In fact, they rule so much, I find myself going out of my way to make sure that my source looks nice in Emacs. (In some languages, like PL/SQL, this can be an extra bit of work.) And I am beginning to find monochrome source text looks a little strange.
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
MeowMeow Jones is retarded
Then Eric Blair (George Orwell for the unwashed proles) is retarded as well. Mr. Jones was making an allusion to his 1948 work, 1984.
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
There is no difference between Open Source Software and Free Software. There may be a huge gulf between the advocates and movements of those terms, but the software itself is identical. Every OSI approved license is also a Free Software license, and every Free Software license sanctified by RMS' imprimatur is also an OSI approved license.
There is only one small bone of contentions. That is the Artistic License. RMS does not approve it as Free Software. But if you look at his explanation, you'll see that it's because he thinks the license is vague, and not because he thinks it violates some tenant of Free Software licenses. Just about everyone outside of the FSF agree that the Artistic License is Free Software.
Why is RMS against Open Source? Two reasons, in my opinion. A) "not invented here", and B) it doesn't use the word 'free'. He has long said that he wished for a better term than "free" so people don't confuse "free software" with "freeware". Well, there is a better and more accurate word, and that word is "open".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
No, it's not better.
A good example is the differences between the Free Software Foundation and the Open Software Foundation.
There's no need to modify the OSD to exclude the GPL; it already does not conform. By intentionally discriminating against, and attempting to destroy, a particular class of users -- commercial developers -- it violates points #5 and #6. It closes off source code by making it unavailable to these people. As Stallman himself says, the GPL is not an Open Source license. The OSI should acknowledge this.
In no way does the GPL "play fair." As Stallman himself says, the GPL is "not Mr. Nice Guy." It's a Faustian bargain designed to destroy programmers' livelihoods.
The fact is, again, that the GPL does preclude authors from reaping any financial reward from their work. No company whose business strategy has been based on the sale of GPLed software has ever been profitable. (Cygnus -- now part of Red Hat -- only made money when it sold shrinkwrapped software, much of it under other licenses.) The GPL intentionally prevents companies from providing unique value and from making money.
As for Stallman's talk of "compatibility" -- it's primarily there because Stallman hopes to co-opt other software, inasmuch as he can, into GPLed software so as to further his agenda. When RMS says a license is "GPL-compatible," it means that he thinks he can get away with incorporating the code into GPLed software, thus increasing the size of his arsenal of GPLed code. Which he'll then use to attack programmers' livelihoods.
--Brett Glass
I've already explained to you that and why the GPL does not violate sections 5 and 6. If you refuse to address my reasoning, but instead keep on repeating your incorrect assertions, I have nothing more to say to you.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Translation, because I agree with RMS I must be mentally deficient or "uncritical." Right?
The fact is that you can repeat that like a mantra all you want, but repetition won't make it true.
First, such companies are very new on the scene - and most tech companies take a while to become profitable (and many never do) whether their software is Free or not. Redhat for instance is making millions off software sales every month - they're just spending it faster than they make it, currently, operating at a loss to maximise their future returns, just as any other software company in their position would - GPL or no. Second, you started off by talking about authors reaping financial rewards from their work, now you are talking about companies reaping financial rewards from the authors work. These are totally different issues, which you are (deliberately?) confusing. The companies are not the copyright holders, they must make money within the terms of the license - the authors do not.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
By the way, the URL you posted above is either not correct or not viewable by anyone who isn't running IE. I don't run IE, because I don't like security holes and don't want to encourage the development of Web pages that require Microsoft's proprietary browser extensions to view.
--Brett Glass
Apparently, you lack the guts to stand up against the unethical nature of the GPL, and therefore refuse to recognize that its terms are blatantly discriminatory. It's quite sad to see this.
No. If they use an existing OSI-approved license, we have to certify the software as open source. That would be the easy version. The hard version would be if they wanted us to approve the Microsoft Open Source License. If it complied with the OSD, we'd have a hard time disapproving it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Agreed. As a developer of proprietary commercial code, I cannot use any GPL code either. I don't like the idea of the GPL forcing itse;f down my throat. I do not have the wherewithal to support myself so I can sit around and write free software, nor do I have enough influence (nor want...) to make that decision for the company I work with.
The fact of the matter is GPL is really only for those folks who are willing to subject themselves to this "ideal" of perfect free software as codified by the GPL, while those of us who just want to make a living and can't or don't want to do the software equivalent of chucking it all and living on a commune just don't count for anything.
The more I consider the GPL, the more I see it as a tool for RMS and the FSF to force their religion down everyone's throat. I personally think the LGPL is reasonable (my understanding is the "linking" clause is not there). I plan to release code under the LGPL or possibly another license or even pitch it into the public domain. However, in order to maximize my code's usefullness to anyone who might want to use it, I will not deign to tell people who want to use my code how they should license theirs. I think that's none of my business.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I can see that you desire that I never try to help you again. Consider it done. Or rather, not done. You know what I mean.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Actually that isn't correct. Under copyright law, if you haven't seen the original you can't be guilty of copying it even if what you produced is identical to the original. Any published author or their agent or an editor can give you chapter and verse on it. Witness the policy of never reading unsolicited manuscripts or manuscripts that don't have the appropriate releases and contracts signed, specifically to provide a defense against charges of copying a work someone sent in to them.
This isn't quite right. The GPL says something more like:
There's nothing in the GPL that says I have to give the program to anyone who wants it. The FSF even quite specifically supports the idea of charging people as much as the market will bear for GPLed software, and refusing to share it with somebody who won't pay what you want to charge. They just say that once you've sold it to person A, you can't keep A from reselling it to B for what he wants to charge.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Part of the liscense may be held invalid while the other parts are upheld (including language disclaiming such a possibility). If the violator can get the restrictive parts invalidated while retaining the part about free use, then he's doing pretty well for himself.
War is peace
igonrance is strength
free software is slavery
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
AFAIK, an example of "deliberately obfuscated code" would be code that was preprocessed somehow to make it hard to understand, i.e. running the code through the C preprocessor.
If I had any mod points at the moment I'd mode you up....Here I am trying to be a smart aleck about grammer nazi's and I typo a word in the middle of it....groan :>
"...your future, make it a reality, all you have to do is fight for me"
----
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."
grep -ri 'should work'
How the hell is this informative?
S.t.e.v.e.
So you are blaming Stallman for your lack of programming and/or business savvy?
Stallman didn't like it when the commercial software houses changed the way they did business. You know, in the old days, nearly everything was open source (not Free Software or even Open Source, but still something.) The programmers were paid by hardware companies, who wrote it off as a cost of selling the hardware. Then some real smart suits came up with a new business model. Enter the world of binary-only distributions and EULAs and NDAs that MicroSoft is so good at making money off of.
Stallman set out to destroy that business model, not business in general. You seem quite convinced he'll succeed. I quite hope you are right on that at least.
That business model is neither the first under which programmers have been paid, nor will it be the last. It's just the one most destructive to the user community. Good programmers are a scarce and necessary commodity, and they will continue to make money, one way or another. The ones that embrace the future and take advantage of changes as they occur will make more than the ones that whine and complain and hold onto the past kicking and screaming at first, of course. But that's life.
Your lament is like that of the record companies suing napster. You want to punish someone for making your life uncomfortable, for destroying the business model that feeds you - rather than showing some entrepenurial spirit and figuring out a new business model, or even rediscovering an old one. Keep misplacing your energies so and it will be no ones fault but your own if your career does go downhill.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
You choose to use Microsoft because you can link to the libraries for free, you don't have to release your source and you can make a decent profit.
Good for you.
I hope you continue to make a profit.
I give away my source code to anyone who wants it. The only condition is they must give it away too. I get paid to modify it and to customize it. If you wish to use my code in your application you have two choices
1: Abide by my restrictions, you must give your code away for free.
2: Pay for a copy with a different license.
If you don't want to pay me, you can use a different vendor.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
The more I consider the GPL, the more I see it as a tool for RMS and the FSF to force their religion down everyone's throat.
Like it or not (and I don't), that's EXACTLY what it is, by Stallman's own admission. He sees the GPL as a useful tool to force people to develop free software, the idea being that once a 'critical mass' of GPL software exists it will be hard to develop significant new programs without them also falling under the licence.
arnald
I just love this. This is the same logical fallacy that all anti-GPL zealots commit. By vehemently attacking the GPL in a public forum like this you are implicitly forcing your anti-GPL morality on those that prefer to use the GPL.
Your argument is not consistent, thus not logical. I name you for what you are: a Troll
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Of course this code is not freely modifiable by reason of its obscurity, and so would at least be counter to the intention (perhaps as well as the letter" of most open source licenses.
I am not sure whether such a formal provision is necessary.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
We have teh choice to do that now, too. BSD is out there. However, we have _shoosen_ to use GPLed code.
Are you, a non-employee of MandrakeSoft actually trying to tell _me_ how unprofitable and unexistent the buisinessmodel of the company I work for, and the work I do is???
OK, this is not a nice replay, but such a blatant flame doesn't deserve anything less:
Shut up you bastard and get yourself a real work at some company that creates real software, provides something to real customers and makes real money!
Unfourtunately, the numbers for MandrakeSoft aren't public, so I can not give you them, but I can assure you we won't eat our investors up an leave!
We use software with quite some different, all free, licenses. We do make changes to said software, and releases them under those licenses. All software we create ourselves is GPLed.
Do you really want us to create BSD-licensed software??? _That_ would be to give up our livelyhood, as then SUN or whoever would just steal our code!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Pardon me, but this sounds an awful lot like: I want to benefit from somebody else's code without worrying about minor details like whether they've authorized my use of it or licensed me to use it. The technical term for this is 'theft'. Frankly if I release software under the GPL, I specifically want it to do exactly what it does to you: make it impossible for you to use my code under anything other than the GPL. The licenses of the code you produce for your employer do exactly the same thing.
Surely providing an employee with source code constitutes distribution of that code?
It's open to interpretation to a degree but I think it depends on what you mean by "providing an employee with source code".
If a company has, say, 100 employees all sitting in front of company owned computers and arranges for some software to be installed on those computers then I don't think allowing those employees to use that software on those computers for the purpose of their employment constitutes distributing anything to them. If the company installs, say, Microsoft Office on its computer system then I don't think you'd say that it had "distributed" Office to its employees. Similarly I don't think you could really argue that it "distributes" GCC by insalling it on its own computers for its employees to use.
If the company were to send copies of software to consultants ot even employees to install on their own computers at home then I think it would be much easier to argue that it was "distributing" the software, but I don't think that's as typical a scenario.
What is unfair about it? The reason it is not "Mr Nice Guy" is that it disallows freeloading. That is, it PROTECTS the original programmer or programming community from being exploited. It has some teeth in it, backed up by copyright law, to prevent this exploitation.
Please explain why you think this is unfair. What's the Faustian bargin? If you don't like it, don't use it... no one puts a gun to a programmer's head, saying "We will make you use this GPLed code. And then all your code are belong to us, bwa ha ha ha!"
It's not like there aren't other options... if you don't want to deal with the GPL, there are hundreds of companies willing to sell you programming tools, software toolkits, and anything else you want. Or you can write it yourself.
But if you want to use the output of the free software community, you have to join the community. That sounds perfectly fair to me. I'm a software programmer, and the GPL isn't destroying my livelihood. In fact, I get paid very well to work on GPL'ed software, adapting it, fixing it, and configuring it to suit my company's needs. I love every minute of it. No more fighting with undocumented APIs, no more reverse-engineering buggy code to try to work around problems I can't fix...
Let me tell you: Working on GPL'ed code is what every programmer should dream for. I'm never going back to a closed source platform, now that I've had a taste of freedom.
Finally, just because I work on GPL'ed code and use a GPL'ed platform doesn't mean I, or anyone else, is forced to GPL all the code I write. I don't. My company has proprietary code where that makes sense. So... I really can't see why you think the GPL is so unethical. You still haven't explained why you think so.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
You are out to destroy my livelihood.
Suppose I release the code to my new still image format. This format is 1/10th the size of bitmaps, and you figure you can add it to your program to reduce the size of your video file format.
My program is released under the GPL. I release my program under the GPL because I use a lot of Free software, and I want to contribute something back.
Your program is *not* released under the GPL. You dont release your program because you want to make money off it and you dont feel you can do this by using the GPL.
Both of our reasons are sound.
You want to take my code. I want something in return. I want to use your program, for Free. But I want to guarantee Freedom to use your program.
Why should I give you my code if you refuse to contribute back? Its not a trade, and its not fair. If everyone took this stance then I wouldnt have an operating system to run Freely. There would be no GNU, there would (probably) be no linux as we know it today.
Dont expect to have programmers react kindly to your stand point. I can see how you would like to use code for free, and not have to open up dirivative works, but nothing is free. Only Free. And if you get soemthing for Free, then you have to make yours Free too. That's just the way it works. Freedom does negate some freedom (the ability to just use code and not open yours), but there's a price to pay for everything.
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
If this discussion were about religion and morals everyone would be screaming about the fact that people who are using the GPL are forcing their morality on me.
Hardly.
You seem to envisage this sort of conversation:
"Okay, I can see you could use my help so what I'll do is I'll help you out if in return you'll agree that you'll help others in future"
"HOW DARE YOU FORCE YOUR MORALITY ON ME?"
That makes no sense to me at all.
The phenomenon you're after is "embrace and extend." The GPL is designed to prevent it. It prevents people from using communtity generated source code to create proprietary (closed-source) products that leech off the open source community. Or, put another way:
"Adding unique value" is why proprietary software is evil, a good example is Microsoft's extension to Kerberos:) . People who do good work are rewarded by other people hiring them to solve their problems.The problem is that there is something of a philosophical difference between the two camps. It is actually fairly big. Open Source derives its reasoning for open source code from Utility - open source code will make better products faster, and is a better development model. Free Software bases its thinking on a Rights-based system. It doesn't matter if the resulting software is better or worse, what matters is the preservation of Rights. Good software is just a side benefit. Your argument is like claiming that both John Stuart Mill (who pretty much defined Eudaimonist Utilitarianism) and John Locke (who basically started modern Western Liberal political thought) say the same thing. They really don't. Mill defended Liberty with Utilitarianism, which is an easier argument to win, but as soon as the benefits of Liberty are no longer apparent, you lose your Liberty. Locke made the harder argument that preserves Liberty no matter what. I see RMS trying to do the same with Free Software. It is a harder sell, but it is the right way to go in the long run.
The fact is that GPLed software isn't free at all. GPLed software is encumbered by a complex, multi-page license, rife with legalese. The reason why that license is so long -- instead of being short, sweet, and simple, like the BSD license -- is that it is designed to impose onerous restrictions on the use of the code. These restrictions are desgined to hurt programmers. They are intended to make it impossible for programmers to make a living by using, and building upon, the code in their own work. At the same time, the GPL encourages the distribution of the code, so as to undermine programmers' chances of ever making money from their hard work.
Ironically, the message above says,
Dont expect to have programmers react kindly to your stand point. [sic]
The fact is that programmers, of all people, should be the ones most opposed to the GPL. The GPL is anti-programmer and anti-business, and (as I've mentioned in previous postings) is not a legitimate open source license. Its blatant discrimination against programmers is sufficient to disqualify it.
In your example there are three groups of people :
So, three programmers decide to create a 'viral license'. They Believe In It. They Think All Software Should Be Free. They are talented, and write a bunch of really cool stuff.
First group. They like the idea of Free Software. They give something, the software they create, in exchange for furthering their goals. Presumably they're happy.
Next, a thousand programmers who don't really care one way or the other how their software is used use a little bit of that really cool stuff in their software. Now all of it is released as GPL, because it is required, and anyway, those thousand programmers don't really care much. They just want to write cool software.
Second group. They want to be able to make use of the code provided by the first group. They give something, agreeing to licence their software under a specific set of conditions (which don't bother them one way or the other, small price) in exchange for access to the code they want. Presumably they're happy.
Now, if the GPL were more open, those of us who write software in a corporate setting could have used their stuff, and they wouldn't have found it particularly offensive.
Third group. They want access to the code written by the previous two groups, but don't like the terms it's available on.
The people who have actually contributed, the first two groups, are happy. Your problem seems to be that you fall into the third group and you want people to give you stuff and they won't. Your problem, sorry.
GPL is a great way to harness a bunch of people who DON'T CARE about a given cause into the cause. I don't like that very much.
But whether or not you like it is besides the point, the people who are actually involved, actually giving and receiving in this bargain are happy. They either like the terms or don't mind them.
Similarly, my employers pay me to further their "cause" (which I don't care about in itself). They find that paying people is a great way to harness a bunch of people who DON'T CARE about a given cause. Maybe you don't like that very much either. But I'm happy with the pay, they're happy with the work and well... neither they nor I care about you, sorry.
Very insightful.... And very true. It appears that Linus Torvalds, when he started on Linux, fell into this category. He was looking for a license, and the GPL -- which was on the C compiler he was using -- was handy. He didn't know the ramifications of the GPL nor the agenda behind it.
--Brett Glass
Very rarely will you see GPLed software that's innovative or novel; 99.99% of it merely copies commercial software. And once it guts a market, there's no reward to be had for advancing the state of the art.
This is what has happened in, for example, the area of compiler design. GCC has destroyed the market for C compilers, and compilers that are better, more efficient, or highly optimizing are now unavailable. Innovation in compilers is, alas, dead due to the GPL. Which is a shame, because all of us suffer due to the suboptimal code that GCC produces.
I'm a compiler writer; it was my first love and the field I always wanted to go into. But due to GCC and the GPL, I'd be foolhardy to attempt to publish a compiler or start a company that sold one. The GPL has killed that field of endeavor.
--Brett
So imagine for a moment some sort of open source training suite. It contains purposely obfuscated code intend as educational exercises for whomever is being trained. Now can this be open sourced?
It seems to me that the answer is clear. This obfuscated code isn't really obfuscated since it carries out its function (education) in a clear manner.
But, can we still call it open source?
Does anyone recall any cases where a company or individual was violating the Open Source Software License, and was legally forced to correct the violation. I'm looking for legal precedent of the enforceablity of such a license.
"...your future, make it a reality, all you have to do is fight for me"
No. What the GPL means is I'm going to give you something, but only if you give me back anything you might use with it.
You completely missed my point. I'm saying that I cannot use GPL code because I cannot make the rest of the software I working on GPL. If this discussion were about religion and morals everyone would be screaming about the fact that people who are using the GPL are forcing their morality on me. I'm perfectly happy to honor the GPL with respect to anything I use or any modifications or additions to it. What I find intolerable is the fact that simply by linking that code to something else suddenly the whole program must be GPL'ed. That's ludicrous for anyone working in the commercial world. We can't all be idealist and practice the communal life-style of GPL while hoping somehow we can finagle a way to get paid enough to eat. I honestly don't see how anyone could could have a sucessful business because here comes the GPL saying "All your code are belong to us."
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Your right. But there is no software license in existence in the commercial world that tries to dictate what you do with other code completely unrelated except for the fact that it's being linked together. The GPL may make sense for applications, but it's absolutely ludicrous for libraries. That's why the LGPL exists in the first place, but even the description of the LGPL on gnu.org thumbs their nose by saying, what we really want is all your code, but if you're too much of a puss you can use the LGPL and force anyone who wants to use a piece of your code to spill their guts to the world for free. The GPL is a wonderful idea, but the more I consider it vis-a-vis the Real World (and not academia, where most of /. users are living in a happy little magical dream world, the more I see it as being quite untenable. I guess it all boils down to the fact that the Free Software movement in general considers me morally inferior because I use Microsoft. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think they should pretend it's more profound than that.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Why did you just post my email address at the end of your AC post? That isn't cool man.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
please read the line above as:
you can use the LGPL and not force anyone who wants to use a piece of your code.
It's very late and I've been on the phone with the doctor about a sick daughter. I'm a little distracted. Good night.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I have one suggestion.
There are quite a few who think that it's quite unethical and unfair that other people and especially big companies can sell software that someone have written without contributing to the development financially.
My suggestion is that _if_ a company sell an open source product they have to pay a certain percent to the developers. How much are up to the developers, they can of cause charge nothing in royalty if they want to. If a distributor thinks someone wants too much for it to be financially viable they always have the option to not include the software or choose a competitor. With this you get a totally open market for buyers and sellers. Notice that you can still distribute it for nothing and therefore no royalty to the developer(s).
For instance, if the gnome people want 1% of the price for any CD that includes gnome they get 1% for each CD bought. When people download an iso or source they get nothing.
Doesn't this sound fair for all parties?
This whole thing about open source software should also mean gratis for the developer(s) seems to be a holy cow.
Feel free to leave some feedback.
And because you fell so easy, we, the Karma Cops are docking yoru account karma -2. Please don't feed the trolls.
Please post "Factually correct" and non inflammatory posts.
Thank you,
How about the word !dom (as the other half of freedom). The word free by itself does not convey the right semantic meaning. As ESR points out, there is a difference between libre and gratis. Essentially RMS says you can charge for it but it must not be controlled to the long-term detriment of the group as a whole. !dom can thus be seen mirror concept to free-!dom (or dual). For hackers who consider their work to be a form of art, this !dom concept also somewhat excludes their capture by corporations interested in fencing off the intellecual commons. Note that prime and dual has special meaning in mathematics but if you can prove certain transformations, they converge to the same value (or set of hyperplanes).
Just a thought,
LL
What you say is true, but totally meaningless. Yes, I can refuse to "share" my GPLd program unless people pony up to my outrageous fees. But so what? Once *one* person has a copy, no one ever has to pay me anything since I've just created my own competition for distribution. *I* might not be the one sharing the program with the rest of the world, but it will happen nonetheless.
In essence, the GPL forbids private distributions. I'm not necessarily arguing that this is a bad thing, but it does mean that for all practical matters, once I share with one person I am sharing with everyone.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Which is why the term is "open source" as opposed to just "open". If only RMS had picked the term "free source" way back when, a whole bunch of confusion could have been avoided.
Using the word "free" in reference to source code means the same thing as "open". Only human beings can be free in the sense of "free speech". What's the difference between "free speech" and "open speech" anyway? After all, it's not the software nor the speech that are free, but the coder and the speaker. "free speech" places the emphasis on the speaker and "open speech" places it on the speech itself, but it's still the same thing.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
(I'm sure you'll now try to mod me down with this Karma Cop silliness. Go ahead.)
Incidentally, your message above highlights the deception inherent in Stallman's writings. What he calls "Free Software" is not actually free at all. This "Doublespeak" is designed to deceive. GPLed software is not "free" in any sense of the word. In fact, it is extremely costly not only to programmers but to society because of the damage it does to innovation.
Thanks!!
Basically, the difference is that Open Source is only required to be open. It can still be commercial, they can still include oppressive EULA's, they can still do anything as long as they make the source available. Free software, by contrast, is actually free.
As for RMS, why don't we do the next slashdot interview with him to ask things like that?
This is an insightful post: insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight insight
If I publish my source code and protect it "only" with standard copyright - you have the same problem that you might have with the GPL - you can't read it for fear of incorporating it in your own work unconsiously and later having me sue your pants off. Only if I liscence you to re-use it in your code can you do so. The GPL specifically is not what is causing the "problem", but rather copyright laws in general.
Personally, while I agree that "unconsious" plagarism of this nature is a potential problem, I do not see any way of avoiding the problem while still giving reasonable protection under copyrights.
Hey Russ Nelson, is there any way you can change the definition so that you won't collect Slashdot user email addresses to send out more spam email about the Yupi or Yopy or whatever the Hell else you were trying to sell me?
Cheers,
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Ok, Sorry for being clueless and stupid, but what is the "all your base are belong to us" thing? Anyone post a link or an explanation? Thanks!
Erik
You can modify it all you want, and you can charge anything you want for it and if people don't want to pay it, you don't have to give it to them. But if one person decides to pay for it, they can distribute it all they want, at any price they want; or they can keep it for themselves.
The GPL says that the source travels freely with the binaries.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
That's 100% correct. You may make modifications and keep them to yourself, or only distribute them to people who pay. However anyone you give your modified version to has the right to demand the source code to your modified version and you must provide it for no more than the cost of doing so (i.e. cost of media, copying, and shipping).
The Objective C modifications were an example of a company trying to make extensions to GCC and then only distributing the binaries; they weren't allowed to do so and had to give purchasers a copy of the source. The practical result was that the FSF was able to get a copy- since it only took one person who had paid NeXT for the code to give it to them for them to have it to distribute- but NeXT was under no obligation to give it to them for the asking.
Before you claim to know what Mr. Stallman has to say about selling GPLed software, perhaps you should read his comments about it. Just in case you're too lazy to follow the link, the crucial comments are [emphasis is theirs]:
Sounds pretty much as though the FSF says that you're free to distribute GPLed software only to those people who are willing to pay what you want to charge.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Exactly how does one judge what has been deliberatly obfuscated
Exactly the same way you tell the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter in a trial. If it ever ends up in court, both sides will offer evidence to support the argument that the accused either did or didn't deliberately obfuscate the code. IANAL.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
--Brett Glass
Hi, Bob.
Hi, Lenny. Say, did you get the new gcc?
Yeah, it's cost me $500. Can you believe that?
Hey! I paid $500 also. What a ripoff!
Tell you what, next version I'll buy it then sell you a copy of $250...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
That's not a "small price." That's giving up your livelihood. Perhaps if you're an amateur programmer you can afford to give away everything you write -- but not if you do it for a living.
--Brett Glass