RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License

dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."

Comments

nah, that aint what pisses him off....

[jeffy124]

he's actually pissed it's not called GNU/UnitedLinux

Re:nah, that aint what pisses him off....

[TooTallFourThinking]

And you know this because you are a close personal friend of RMS? ;)

Re:nah, that aint what pisses him off....

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? The guy was proporting that he/she knew exactly what RMS was thinking? And unless you are close personal friends, the poster has no clue. He/she can only infer based off what they have read and whatever emotions are present. Geez.

ego anyone?

[Tetravus]

RMS is now actively trying to kill a derivative work that is being distributed under the GPL? The hubris is almost unbelievable. When you release your code under such an open license, you must assume that it will be used for some things that you don't approve of, and hopefully some things that you do approve of. That's just the way it goes...

Re:ego anyone?

[XaXXon]

no. no. no. RMS is *not* trying to kill a derivative work being distributed under the GPL. You can't put per-seat restrictions on GPL software. The 'problem', in RMS's eyes, is with the non-GPL software that is also being packaged in UnitedLinux. Those pieces CAN be licensed in a per-seat manner. RMS is saying that if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, then distributions wouldn't be able to have restrictive licenses like this.

Re:ego anyone?

[CrosseyedPainless]

Actually, he's just urging developers to use the GPL. He's not trying to kill anything, or even discourage participation in it.

Surprisingly enough, it seems Slashdot screwed up when they said otherwise. Hard to believe.

Re:ego anyone?

[EllF]

RMS is not actively trying to "kill" anything, and he definately isn't tackling something being distributed "under the GPL". He is making a very intelligent point about the non-GPL'd distribution of binaries that UL intends:

"[United Linux] cannot restrict the GPL-covered programs in the system [with per-seat licensing], because that would violate the GNU GPL, but the system also contains non-copylefted programs which are points of vulnerability. Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"

That isn't hubris, it's consistency with the same message that RMS has been putting out for as long as I can remember: "Restrictive licensing doesn't respect the non-side-constrained freedom of individuals to do as they see fit with software and source."

Hurray, it's fun to bash RMS, isn't it?

Re:ego anyone?

[foobar104]

RMS is saying that if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, then distributions wouldn't be able to have restrictive licenses like this.

In other words, if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, nobody could make any money selling that software. The software economy would collapse, and hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone would be out of work.

RMS would, evidently, consider this to be a good thing.

Re:ego anyone?

[ichimunki]

This is obviously nonsense. First of all, most of the software that he's talking about here is already "free" in the sense of "no incremental cost" to the distribution to include it, much of it licensed using approaches like BSD-style licenses or simply released into the public domain. Those licenses do not prevent the software from being used in this way. If the software were GPLed, it would.

Second, what you say is entirely unproven. The software economy would not necessarily collapse. It might even get a lot better. We don't know yet because it hasn't been tried. Most of the people engaged in writing software for a living do not write software that ends up shrink-wrapped in a box on a retail shelf. Most developers write custom code for complex one-off applications that, even if the code were GPL, probably wouldn't be very useful except to the customer it was written for.

In fact, what we might see is a boom of software employment as companies took major packages and hired developers to add bits and pieces that they felt were valuable for their business. Of course, you're right. No one would make money selling software. They would make money writing it.

Re:ego anyone?

[tburkhol]

You can't put per-seat restrictions on GPL software.

Sure you can. The whole FSF business model is based on the idea that you can charge whatever you want for whatever you want, as long as you make the source code available. So, if the UnitedLinux people want to apply per-seat fees for support, download, media, whatever, they are not restricted from that practice. Of course, since the source code has to be available for the GPL'd parts, there's also no reason that a customer actually has to pay those fees (since he can duplicate the software from the source) unless he wants the support &c.

Yes, I know RMS issue is with the non-gpl code, but that doesn't change the fact that companies are perfectly free to ask for per-seat fees for GPL code.

Re:ego anyone?

[defile]

In other words, if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, nobody could make any money selling that software. The software economy would collapse, and hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone would be out of work.

This is a popular misrepresentation of the software industry.

Most programmers are employed developing custom systems that never leave the buyer's premises. In such cases, software licensing is irrelevant. Only a small fraction of programmers are emplyoed making software that gets sold on a store shelf. The ratio may on average is like 19:1 depending on which job sites/pages you look at, but I suspect it's much higher than that.

To these programmers, free software is actually a huge benefit. In fact. a good deal of free software also comes from these developers as a by-product of work they do for hire.

Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive.

RMS's intentions may be more noble than you think.

Re:ego anyone?

[kz45]

Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive

Free software will never gain more popularity than proprietary and or commercial applications, unless

1) there is a law against proprietary applications
2)capitalism is gone forever.

Here is why:

If you have two applications side by side (one free and one commercial). Each application equal in function, which one will be greater in popularity?

The commerical application, because it costs money to promote (money that free software can't afford), and that is really the only way the average joe user will even see it.

Re:ego anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, what you say is entirely unproven. The software economy would not necessarily collapse. It might even get a lot better. We don't know yet because it hasn't been tried. Most of the people engaged in writing software for a living do not write software that ends up shrink-wrapped in a box on a retail shelf. Most developers write custom code for complex one-off applications that, even if the code were GPL, probably wouldn't be very useful except to the customer it was written for.

Personally, being one of those people that writes a hell of a lot of custom code for very small numbers of customers (down to the point that I usually install the application on the end machine myself), I still don't think it would work quite as well as people like to think. Our software generally comes with a rather hefty support contract which requires at the very least limitations on what is and is not supported (meaning we will not support it if the environment into which it was originally installed was corrupted by something they did). In some cases they get the source code as well, but there are restrictions that prevent them from requiring us to support it (under the support contract) if they've made any modifications to the code (or had someone else modify the code), and also restrictions on out-sourcing work on that code to other companies.

If we had to do it any other way, chances are that our code would come back to us every year or so full of bloat from some other company that blew some hot air around saying they could produce lower support costs and failure instances, when they were actually just adding junk code to the project to increase the file size, which typically makes the money managers believe that something was done, even if there's no indication that anything changed in the executable.

In fact, what we might see is a boom of software employment as companies took major packages and hired developers to add bits and pieces that they felt were valuable for their business. Of course, you're right. No one would make money selling software. They would make money writing it.


Of course, those major packages might not come around as often or see any major improvements, either. As it stands, we have a lot of in-house code for packages like Office, most of which is macros and automation programs that handle common forms and conversions, as well as automated testing and logging. Some of the people within the company do a better job on these than others, but in the end I think they're all doing a better job than they would have if they had had open access to the source code. Even Emacs should show most people that a strong scripting system is preferable to hacking something directly into the code. Now if the Windows UI only had a more accessible scripting system...

Re:ego anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive."

What the hell kind of crack are you on ? There are hundreds of software companies that sell billions of dollars of shrink wrapped software which is their primary business model. These companies do NOT need service and support to survive.

Microsoft is certainly NOT the only company that survives off of selling shrink wrapped products.

Re:ego anyone?

[Kishar]

It's not about the money. Per-Seat prevents me from redistributing, which _is_ a violation of the GPL.

Re:ego anyone?

[bolthole]

Most programmers are employed developing custom systems that never leave the buyer's premises. In such cases, software licensing is irrelevant.

Thats very short-sighted of you.

Currently, your own premise implies that there is a lot of duplicate work done, because the software never leaves the place that it was written, which means that either the same people get to make recurring money, or more people get to make a certain amount each .

If that software was GPLd, then it WOULD leave the premises one way or another, and make it out into the wild.

If there is then more free software out there, covering a wider variety of application than your average 'shrink-wrap' stuff, that means less of a demand for programmers-for-hire, too.

Re:ego anyone?

[flatrock]

I just can't buy the 19:1 ratio. Even if you include database designers and people who do some scritping as part of their jobs the 19:1 number doesn't make sense.

But even if it's true, what company wants those custom programs that they paid developers to make given away for free? Those companies pay a lot of money to have that software written. They want to keep it to themselves. They don't want to pay for it to be made flexible enough that other companies with similar needs can use it. If all software is free, who wants to pay software developers? How am I as a programmer justifying my employer paying me to write code, when they can just get it for free?

You don't just destroy the shrink wrap software industry. You destroy every industry that gets a competitive advantage through the software that they pay to have developed. That means that a company that develops products using hardware that our customers have access to, but makes much more fully featured, robust, and expensive through much more complicated driver software disappears. There's no reason to create the better product through software development be cause our competitor that didn't invest in the research and development can undersell us and put us out of business.

What about console gaming systems? Who pays for the software development there? The way it is now, the software costs are what's keeping the hardware costs affordable. How do the companies writing the games get paid? How do you determine what is reasonable compensation? The manufacturer of the console could pay companies to develope games, but then you determine how much to pay the developers? Do you invade the privacy of the players and track how much they play each game? Do you just pay the developers a lump sum for each game, and they don't make more money if it's a good game or less if it's buggy garbage?

How about web page design? Should all the software people write to make their web pages usefull and appealing be freely available? Would you still protect the rights of the graphics artist to sell their artwork or should it be free too. After all is the graphice any more of a work of art than the software displaying it?

You can say that companies will pay people to write software because they have a need to sell products that go along with the software. That works in some markets. If many other markets they may pay some developers to help and increase the quality of the software that's being developed by volunteers. THat works good when the economy it booming, but when the money gets tight, they're going to have to look at how to remain profitable, or at least bleed as little red as possible until things get better. At those times they're going to have to look at those people as a liability that doesn't have a good return on investment. Research and developemnt already gets hit hard in bad times, think about how much worse it would be if there isn't a direct link to profits, and you're better of putting the money in marketing or technical support.

Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive.

Microsoft does supply support. They provide it to OEMs and large customers. They expect the consumers to get support from the OEMs as part of their agreement. People who load the OS on their own are much more on their own, it's a choice the consumer makes.

You can purchase support from Microsoft on a per incident basis for products like Office. Very few people need to do that, becase there are many places to turn to for support because the product is so widely used.

With Microsoft, you're paying for the product you get. With Sun, when you buy the hardware, you're subsidising the cost of the software even if you don't use it. Which of those 2 is a more honest at forthright approach? Don't let your dislike for Microsoft convince you that commercial software is by definition evil.

There are marketing approaches where offering the software for free are a good choice, and the development costs can be shifted to other parts of the package that the company is delivering to the customer, but it just doesn't work in a lot of places.

Re:ego anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I certainly find the per-seat license quite an abomination, there is not much that Free Software authors could do about this. It would appear to me that the "UnitedLinux" approach would indeed make source available for all of the included Free Software components, not just for the GPLed pieces. So in this particular case, the application programmers have no option of salvaging things.

Things are different with the infrastructure programmers: if the installation and configuration stuff from the distributors that is kept proprietary was required to make use of any GPLed components (libraries and the like), they could not pull through this plan.

One rather heavy-handed way to ensure that would be to GPL glibc. The implications of this would be severe; it would be better to think about less brutal ways to try to solicit a more cooperative spirit.

Re:ego anyone?

[God! Awful]

Most of the people engaged in writing software for a living do not write software that ends up shrink-wrapped in a box on a retail shelf. Most developers write custom code for complex one-off applications that, even if the code were GPL, probably wouldn't be very useful except to the customer it was written for.


Yeah, we've all read CatB, but personally I think ESR just made that statistic up. It all depends on who you classify as programmers (sysadmins? web page designers? university students? researchers?) So to be realistic, I think that statistic is just a load of crap.

-a

Re:ego anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the people engaged in writing software for a living do not write software that ends up shrink-wrapped in a box on a retail shelf. Most developers write custom code for complex one-off applications that, even if the code were GPL, probably wouldn't be very useful except to the customer it was written for.

Thank you for succinctly stating the obvious. I often wonder what leads people to make the absurd statement that making all software Free would put a significant number of programmers out of work. Oh wait, I know -- the people offering that opinion aren't programmers and probably have never met one.

I've been writing software since the early 80's and not only have never worked on shrinkwrapped software but until last month I had never even met anyone who had. And yes, my pay is par for the industry, and yes, I've worked for some very large tech companies that do produce shrinkwrapped software, but even there, they were a tiny minority I never actually saw.

Clue for the clueless: there are millions of programmers in the United States alone, but only a few hundred profitable mass-market software packages, most of which are games. Another clue for the clueless: most shrinkwrapped software packages aren't built by development teams in excess of a hundred thousand developers. I'll leave the obvious conclusion and the math as an exercise for the reader.

Re:ego anyone?

[defile]

I just can't buy the 19:1 ratio. Even if you include database designers and people who do some scritping as part of their jobs the 19:1 number doesn't make sense.

Go down hotjobs.com. Or the New York Times classifieds. Get a good sample range. It's 19:1. But I still think that's too low.

Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive.

Microsoft does supply support. They provide it to OEMs and large customers. They expect the consumers to get support from the OEMs as part of their agreement. People who load the OS on their own are much more on their own, it's a choice the consumer makes.

Please read the entire paragraph first. Microsoft is one of the only software companies that can sell you an imaginary license to use a collection of bits, walk away from it, and still make billions of dollars. Some would argue that such a magic feat is not magic at all, but perhaps indicative of a monopoly.

Most other proprietary software vendors don't leverage their software this way at all. They must provide services and support based on top of these products to survive.

Your other comments are better addressed by people with more time than me. ;)

Re:ego anyone?

[defile]

If there is then more free software out there, covering a wider variety of application than your average 'shrink-wrap' stuff, that means less of a demand for programmers-for-hire, too.

Maybe it will mean that we'll stop wasting our damn time (and our client's money) duplicating the efforts of others so that we can actually concentrate on doing something useful for a change. ;)

Business logic is very hard to generalize and redistribute to others in a way that they'll find useful. You will always need programmers to write this for you. Everything else is more or less just a means for executing business logic.

Re:ego anyone?

[caca_phony]

If there is then more free software out there, covering a wider variety of application than your average 'shrink-wrap' stuff, that means less of a demand for programmers-for-hire, too.

This argument is flawed. Sure, I program, so I don't think a-priori that work for programmers to do should be reduced. But, that which increases work to do or maintains the amount of work to be done is usually counter-productive in any field. Sure, rampant pyromania would be great for the construction and fire prevention industries, but I would be sickened by these people campaining against measures preventing arson. Wasted resources are a drain on all of society. If programmers need to be duplicating each other's work to stay employed, maybe some of the less qualified prorammers should be doing something else that society at large would benifit from.

Re:ego anyone?

[ichimunki]

I haven't read CatB-- and if ESR agrees with me, then it's a coincidence. I'm basing this on personal experience. I have several software developers sitting within 25 yards of me right at this moment... none of whose work will be of any use outside this company without major refactoring (of course the code is not GPL, frankly the license is mostly irrelevant). And while I might use a broad definition of "software developer" to include more than just full-time programmers, I would not include sysadmins unless they wrote a lot of maintenance scripts, web designers unless they developed a lot of code, data analysts unless they write custom analytical applications, university students unless they actually produce useful code (remember: Torvalds was a university student), researchers unless they produce applications others can use (good example would be the festival speech engine). I'm not going to include or disinclude people based on a job title. I am going to include people who spend a significant portion of their time at work coding, or those whose code is valuable to others.

I think even if you took a fairly hardline approach to quantifying this number, you'd find no more than half of all programmers working on shrink-wrapped general-use applications. Take a look at the Fortune 500. Yes, a few of those corporations sell software. But at all the others there are enormous systems upon which those businesses are dependent. And while the software may not be entirely unique, large portions of the code base are certainly going to have been customized for that corporation. Look at the Department of Defense and other major governmental organizations. How much of their systems code is shrink-wrapped versus customized? Even certain applications, like Oracle, pretty much require software development type people to operate since off the shelf it doesn't do a whole lot on its own.

Re:ego anyone?

[God! Awful]

Okay, I assumed you were referring to the 90% figure quoted by ESR (since so many slashdotters do). 50% is still a big hit to take, even disregarding the multiplier effects that can throw an economy out of an unstable equilibrium. You are also shedding most of the interesting and high paying jobs that make it fun to work in the computer industry.

I think you also exaggerate how many businesses require custom software. Typically, large customers demand custom features because they have the financial clout to do so. I have written software that is used by the military in their networks. In many cases, they simply use off-the-shelf products. They may demand specific features, but generally they just want what works. In dealings with large customers, they are generally unwilling to pay for R&D. What they do is to dangle a carrot on a string and promise to buy 10,000 widgets if you implement the feature. Of course, they are actually promising the same deal to 3 other software providers.

You say that we don't know what effect free software will have on the economy. That is true, but we can still guess. To me, this is a lot like the people who say that global warming might be a good thing. Then they go on to explain how parts of the artic will be arable and you'll finally be able to get that great tan you've always wanted. The problem is that if global warming has bad effects, as most people think it will, then the effects will be irreversable. I'm not going to claim that open source will irreperably damage the economy, but it certainly has the potential to ruin my career, along with that of many others.

-a

Well that settles it!

[Limburgher]

I guess I'll just have to stick to RedHat, TinyLinux and Lycoris.

Hang on, I was going to do that anyway. . .

Re:Well that settles it!

[Darth Yoshi]

I guess I'll just have to stick to RedHat, TinyLinux and Lycoris.

Is it just me? Or does Lycoris sound like a mouthwash?

Re:Well that settles it!

[JWW]

Yep, I dumped Caldera for Red Hat when they pulled this per seat bullshit.

All Red Hat has to do to blow the doors off so-called "UnitedLinux" is not go to a per seat license.

Scratch them off the list of distros other than Red Hat and Mandrake that I will try. Someday, though ... I will have to give Debian a try.

Re:Well that settles it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lycoris is based on Caldera. I wouldn't put money on that one staying clear.

Re:Well that settles it!

[kenthorvath]

Exactly. If I write software, and release it under the GPL, it says alot about MY character and politics. Mainly, I am writing software for the end-user. If that user CHOOSES to pay ANOTHER company a per seat license agreement, why should I interfere? This is alot like sticking my nose where it doesn't belong. Part of the reason that code is given out is because people are supposed to be free - free to modify to suit one's needs, free to choose software based on the strength of its code, and CERTAINLY they should be free to execute that code on ANY platform they wish. Somehow it seems as though Stallman is leaning less towards the free as in speech and focusing more on the free as in beer....

Re:Well that settles it!

[rc.loco]

Actually, if you need a close integration of *nix/Linux and Netware (remember *that* OS?), Caldera (now United Linux) is pretty dang sweet. I used it in a shop that was mostly Netware at the time and it was quite handy. This was back when the only good free way to authenticate to Novell services was via MARSnwe, which then didn't do anything but bindery authentication service. Caldera could do NDS authentication, which was worth money in our case.

On another topic, is it just me or does anyone else hate the name "United Linux"? Of course, if you collapse the two you get....Unux. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. :-) Gosh I need sleep...

Re:Well that settles it!

[mpe]

Mainly, I am writing software for the end-user. If that user CHOOSES to pay ANOTHER company a per seat license agreement, why should I interfere?

Most often it will be that user's employer who is making the purchase. The administration of per seat licence schemes is very expensive.

Read title carefully

[dmccarty]

Woah, I read "RMS" and "condoms" and didn't want to read any more about that!

Re:Read title carefully

[NitsujTPU]

Open Sores Condoms?

Ouch!

Re:Read title carefully

[questionlp]

No wonder Microsoft calls the GPL a viral thing... ick! But I wouldn't want Shared Sores either.

Re:Read title carefully

[Codifex Maximus]

Get yer mind out of the gutter dmccarty!
There ain't room here for the both of us.

Re:Read title carefully

[Jebediah21]

That makes three of us. I also saw condoms in the title. Course, with all the spelling errors it wouldn't surprise me.

I hope...

[joestar]

Mandrake can stay independant regarding United Linux. I know that they are a really open Linux distribution and I hope they can do another United Linux-like with smaller players, but a free and open one. This would create a major and killer alliance.

RMS objecting to the GPL?

[abh]

IANAL, and I am not a GPL guru either, but how can RMS say that all software should be free, then at the same time, say that what he really means is free unless it is going to be used or distributed by someone he doesn't like?

I find it amusing that RMS and the other GPL zealots want unlimited freedom, unless of course such freedom would result in a choice or course of action that they might disagree with...

Aaron

Re:RMS objecting to the GPL?

[leandrod]

You need to learn both logic and the facts before commenting.

> how can RMS say that all software should be free

Should but isn’t. Only software whose copyright owners released under the GNU GPL or some other free license is free.

> what he really means is free unless it is going to be used or distributed by someone he doesn't like?

It should be obvious from my last paragraph, but here it goes: copyleft does not mean free for all. It means free for those who will respect others’ freedom. Per-seat licensing schemes are a violation of freedom, and besides a violation of GNU GPL licensing. Also, it’s not about not liking someone, but what licensing someone uses to restrict someone else's freedom.

> I find it amusing that RMS and the other GPL zealots

How do you define a zealot? Why is being a zealot bad? What is a GPL zealot? Why is RMS one of them? Remember, a zealot is one who has zeal, and zeal in itself is a good thing.

> want unlimited freedom, unless of course such freedom would result in a choice or course of action that they might disagree with...

That RMS doesn’t want “unlimited freedom” I already proved, and anyway if he wanted that he wouldn’t have created copyleft and the GNU GPL, which are based on copyright, which in itself is a denial of absolute freedom, being an extension of property to the intellectual realm.

Now, denying the freedom to restrict others’ freedom somehow strikes me as completely reasonable.

Re:RMS objecting to the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zealot n.

One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
A fanatically committed person.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Fanatic n.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

adj.
Fanatical.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Sounds pretty damn' negative to me.
Perhaps you should improve your vocabulary...

Re:RMS objecting to the GPL?

[kz45]

It should be obvious from my last paragraph, but here it goes: copyleft [www.gnu.org] does not mean free for all. It means free for those who will respect others' freedom. Per-seat licensing schemes are a violation of freedom, and besides a violation of GNU GPL licensing. Also, it's not about not liking someone, but what licensing someone uses to restrict someone else's freedom.

true freedom is all or nothing, others people like the KKK and the black panthers would be put in prison on the sole bases of their views.

How do you define a zealot? Why is being a zealot bad? What is a GPL zealot? Why is RMS one of them? Remember, a zealot is one who has zeal, and zeal in itself is a good thing.

Blind faith, and no it is not always a good thing.

Now, denying the freedom to restrict others' freedom somehow strikes me as completely reasonable.

If you don't want to make money fine, but why deny someone else the FREEDOM? When it is the other way around (software piracy) people in the slashdot community instantly try to rationalize it.

Re:RMS objecting to the GPL?

[leandrod]

> true freedom is all or nothing

So we can’t agree. You are stating the anarchist’s position. If we were anarchists we would go the BSD route, not the copyleft one.

> people like the KKK and the black panthers would be put in prison on the sole bases of their views.

If their views is that you must kill and restrict other people’s freedom, that would be fine with me. But this would be a form of censorship, and the discussion is over software licensing. Off-topic and ad hominem.

> Blind faith

Wrong definition. Zealot is one who cares too much. Zeal is caring.

> no it is not always a good thing.

I agree zeal is not always a good thing, it depends on its subject. I said it is good in itself, perhaps I should have been more careful and stated that it is neutral. But I still think that, the object being good, zeal is good in itself. Overshooting it is bad, as overshooting by definition is bad.

> If you don't want to make money fine

I never mentioned money.

> why deny someone else the FREEDOM?

That’t the point, why? Because it is wrong denying freedom, copyleft consists in making sure everyone has freedom by denying the right of denying freedom.

> When it is the other way around (software piracy) people in the slashdot community instantly try to rationalize it.

Didn’t got your point. What is the other way round? What piracy has got to do with this? Who’s defending “Slashdot community”? This is about GNU GPL, RMS and UnitedLinux rumoured use of a per-seat license.

Re:RMS objecting to the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't got your point. What is the other way round? What piracy has got to do with this?

Actually, the point is that the guy you're replying to is a lying cretin. Saying that everyone who posts to Slashdot is a hypocrite because some people pirate software and others is one of his favorite bullshit comments. No matter how many times people point out he's full of shit, he'll still be back tomorrow spouting his crap. I enjoy baiting the imbecile, but unless you do he's not really worth your time.

Basically, the guy's either a complete moron or a troll doing an impeccable imitation of one. On the other hand, I guess they're not mutually exclusive.

Re:RMS objecting to the GPL?

[kz45]

That't the point, why? Because it is wrong denying freedom, copyleft consists in making sure everyone has freedom by denying the right of denying freedom.

If I make any additions to GPLd code, I must release my changes. this is denying me my freedom, over my own code.

Re:RMS objecting to the GPL?

[leandrod]

If I make any additions to GPLd code, I must release my changes. this is denying me my freedom, over my own code.

Your changes in these case are a derived work, and the original work was licensed in such as way of keeping it free even in derivations. Either you respect the freedom of others, or you choose another codebase to improve upon. Either way no freedom as denied, except as to preserve others&rsquo.

He's right...

[Pii]

I have never commented on anything related to RMS before, but his point is hard to argue with here.

If Caldera and Company want to license support on a per seat basis, that's fine and dandy.

Licensing the software itself on a per seat basis is absurd. It's not their software to begin with.

Go RMS!

Go Away, Caldera!

Re:He's right...

[motorsabbath]

Yep - I've never jumped in on an RMS thread before either, but I hafta agree with him here. It's odd that they've banded together to increase market share, and are now flirting with the licensing concept that kept Caldera from getting any market share in the first place.

I hope RedHat and Mandrake and Slack and (insert you distro here) avoid this like the black plague. It's unfortunate, SuSE is a really nice distro. I hope they don't shoot themselves in the foot here.

JB

Re:He's right...

[andyr]

All United Linux are saying, like Caldera did, is that the binaries will have per-seat licensing.

The source code would, naturally, be freely downloadable, if you want to roll your own.

Cheers, Andy!

Re:He's right...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never commented on RMS before either, but he needs to go away.

If this model works, in that it 'validates' Linux for some (misguided) corporate-types, then it's a good thing.

Re:He's right...

[mjh]

But they can not restrict someone, who gets the source, from re-releasing binaries of the packages, as long as they also include the source. And if they release the binaries, they can not restrict the person who receives those binaries from re-releasing them. This is what the GPL guarantees. That if you get a copy of the code, either in source or binary form, you can give it away. Which means that per-seat licensing of binary GPL'd code is a violation of the GPL since it prevents the receiver of the code from re-releasing that code.

I don't know, but it seems to me that UL are saying that you can't re-release their own code, not the GPL'd code on the system. And if that's the case they're no problem. But if they're restricting the usage of GPL'd software (in either binary or source code form) then that's a violation of the GPL which provides that once you receive code you can give it away.

But, IANAL, so take my opinion as such.

Re:He's right...

[destiney]

Since when do two wrongs make a right? The fact that Linux is simply better should resolve all validation issues, with misguided individulas or not.

I know three rights equals a left but that's about it...

Re:He's right...

[mark-t]

I think RMS is just ranting..

If someone wants to go ahead and sell GNU software, they can certainly do so, but as derivative works, the source code must be freely available somewhere, and they are legally obligated to provide free access to it if they made any changes, even for those who did not buy the software. How long would something like that last? About as long as people are willing to pay for convenience of a prepackaged software as opposed to compiling it and setting it up themselves. They can even charge a per-seat licensing if they want.... but it'd be impossible to enforce due to the free nature of the software, and anyone who would pay it is well on their way to immitating governments that spend outrageously huge amounts on things like toilet seats. This isn't illegal, it's just really, really dumb.

Further, such commercialism does not give them _ANY_ control whatsoever over the existing GPL'd code. It does give them rights over their name "UnitedLinux", however... but what's the big deal? Is RMS opposed to trademarks now?

</soapbox>

Re:He's right...

[iceT]

Nothing will push people to RedHat faster than a per cpu/seat/connection/whatever license

Re:He's right...

[JWW]

However if RedHat and Mandrake and Slack, don't avoid this. We will end up with a truly "united" linux.

Everyone will run Debian.

Re:He's right...

[_Sprocket_]

All United Linux are saying, like Caldera did, is that the binaries will have per-seat licensing.

Are they? Is this licencing model something that all members of the United Linux front will follow? Or is this Ransom Love stating how Caldera will sell its own version of United Linux?

Re:He's right...

[_Sprocket_]

And if they release the binaries, they can not restrict the person who receives those binaries from re-releasing them. This is what the GPL guarantees. That if you get a copy of the code, either in source or binary form, you can give it away. Which means that per-seat licensing of binary GPL'd code is a violation of the GPL since it prevents the receiver of the code from re-releasing that code.

Can one tell the difference between two binaries compiled at different times / locations if they come from the same source code? In any case, just to be on the up-and-up, someone will take the United Linux provided GPL'd code and compile it. Binaries will be released. Cheapbytes will have an "Untied Linux" offering right next to their "Pink Tie Linux" CD set.

Of course, this is assuming that it all hinges on GPL'd software. Caldera's angle has always been licensing proprietary software with their distribution. THAT can be licensed on a per-seat basis. If that's their angle - will all United Linux players have the same proprietary software?

Notice that Ransom Love's description of United Linux is that of a common code base:

Each distribution will have one common CD that has a common kernel, libraries and installation routine. This base system will be compatible so that independent software vendors can better support Linux with their applications.

It wouldn't be a suprise if, for example, the installer common to all United Linux distros was proprietary. Or if individual distros contained their own software (available for cross-licensing) that were proprietary.

One final thing to ponder:

9. Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?

Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released.

This comes from the United Linux FAQ. Expect proprietary code with source. And expect some debate over its license.

Re:He's right...

[tricorn]

they are legally obligated to provide free access to it if they made any changes, even for those who did not buy the software

That's not right at all. They are legally obligated to either provide the source to anyone they provide binaries to or offer it for at least three years at no more than the cost of physically performing source distribution (i.e. not necessarily for free). If they always provide binaries, they have no further obligation (and making them available at the same location where you can download the binaries is counted as "providing", even if the person doing the downloading isn't forced to download the source when they get the binaries).

Re:He's right...

[Twylite]

Finally RMS shows his true colours. The UnitedLinux companies have guaranteed gratis access to the source code, which means free speech is satisfied. But despite RMS's continual statements that "its okay to sell GNU software", when it comes down to it, he's going to throw a frothy is your are giving it awat, gratis.

So much for free speech. RMS cares more about beer.

Re:He's right...

[Twylite]

Precisely. Some RMS's long diatribes about "free speech and not free beer" being the intention of the GPL are actually bullshit. He has actively prevented (through the GPL) there being the possibility of free speech without free beer.

Re:He's right...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of what's right and what's wrong. It's a matter of what works.

In my experience, roughly 1% of corporate-scale decisions are based upon technical merit, suitability, or anything else that would make sense to a logical observer. More common criteria are blame, responsibility, and plausible deniability.

Specifically, in this case, United Linux forms an organization that, if something goes wrong, the suit can point to the organization and say "It's their fault! They need to fix it!".

I'm not saying it's right -- quite the contrary, it's bass ackwards, but it is a marketplace reality.

Re:He's right...

[joshki]

Or Gentoo....

Re:He's right...

[firewood]

But they can not restrict someone, who gets the source, from re-releasing binaries of the packages...

GPL covers rights to source, not binaries. The original binaries *can* be restricted; *but* recreated binaries from the identical source cannot be restricted. If datestamps or some random seeds are part of the binary (is GCC strictly deterministic even on different systems?), then the recreated binaries may not pass a digital signature test. So they can charge for and restrict distribution of a signed and (at least claimedly) verified set of binaries; but not for work-alike binaries from identical sources. So you don't have to pay for an identical (recompiled) idea ("free speech"), but you do have to pay for a work of compilation (no "free beer" or free labor).

I guess the (absolutely or nearly) identical sets of bits are different under law, depending on who compiles them when.

of course, IANAL.

Re:He's right...

[SN74S181]

I guess what it comes down to is 'what are the suits paying for.'

They are likely not willing to pay for an alternative version of UnitedLinux made by someone who disagrees with the 'per-seat license' who has downloaded the code and recompiled it and is giving it away for free.

All that the UnitedLinux people have to do is spread a load of FUD, saying 'those guys are inherently anti-Business! Do you want to run binaries made out of our source code that they've screwed around with??' The suits will say 'hell no' and only allow official per-seat-licensed binaries in their organisation.

Sure, the people and companies that want to do that end-run around the UL payment will just use the free alternative build. Believe me, though, the suits will buy the sanctioned product. And they'll even hire people whose job it is to bust anybody who brings the unsanctioned version into the shop.

Re:He's right...

[SN74S181]

but as derivative works, the source code must be freely available somewhere, and they are legally obligated to provide free access to it if they made any changes, even for those who did not buy the software.

Is that true? I thought they only had to provide the source code to anybody who they give/sell the binaries to.

Which would mean: if they choose their customers 'properly' they can keep the source 'closed' to all who don't pay. Once a customer has paid for the product, it dilutes his value to let everyone else get it for free- so he is provided with the source code, and he doesn't release it to anybody else.

They can't require customers from redistrubitng the source, but they can certainly make that sort of deal with them.

Re:He's right...

[LordNimon]

Can one tell the difference between two binaries compiled at different times / locations if they come from the same source code?

Often, yes. I challenge you to take the kernel source code for your current distribution (e.g. the kernel source RPM for RedHat 7.3), compile it, and generate a binary that exactly matches, byte for byte, the kernel binary that's installed on your system.

Re:He's right...

[LatJoor]

This is just ridiculous. RMS has always sold copies of GNU Emacs, ever since the very early days of the GNU project (and even before, I think). What he objects to is the use of non-copylefted software to discourage people from sharing free software even when they have a right to do so.

Re:He's right...

[jsnorman]

"GPL covers rights to source, not binaries"

This is a common but incorrect belief.

A binary is (mostly) a translation of source code into object code. All translations in copyright law are derivative works. Section 2(b) of the GPL clearly applies to derivative works.

Re:He's right...

[krmt]

You're right.

Long after all the commercial distros that we use today have faded in to the past like so many of their once popular brethren, Debian will still be there, slowly but steadily improving. It's the very ethos of Free software.

Re:He's right...

[jgerman]

Good. And True. Best part is, they CAN'T license the software on a per seat basis, at least not GPL code (and not to anyone who knows what they're doing), any GPL software they distibute can be copied and can be redistributed.

Re:He's right...

[mjh]

GPL covers rights to source, not binaries.

Not true. Section 6 of the GPL states:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

My ability to redistribute GPL'd code is granted by the original licensor, not the guy who I happened to get it from. They guy who I happened to get it from doesn't have the right to impose any additional restrictions, like per-seat licensing.

Also, section 3 says:

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above

So this means that I have these rights whether I decide to re-release the binary or the source code form of the program. I just have to make sure that if I re-release the binary form, I also make available the source code. But I'm not restricted from re-releasing a binary. Which means, per-seat licensing restrictions are a violation of the GPL.

But, IANAL, so I may have an overly simplistic interpretation. It seems pretty clear to me, though.

Re:He's right...

[Cyno]

I don't see how that matters, RedHat has already shot themselves in the foot. A friend just stopped by my cube and mentioned how he tried installing RedHat on a system with less than 256MB of RAM. It wouldn't let him. It didn't even try. The kernel was originally designed to run on systems with less than 8MB of RAM. Either RedHat must not like customers or they like Microsoft's system requirements. I don't know. These companies are the commercial entities trying to run off with Linux and play big corp businessman. They won't be able to compete with the rest of the industry when real solid stable modular distributions get easier to configure and more standards compliant. Of course by then most of their customers will probably be gone anyway.

Re:He's right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Either your friend is an idiot or something else is going wrong. I have never had a problem installing RedHat on any 386 or 486 processor with 8 or less megs of ram. And I have installed everything from RedHat 5.0 - 7.3 on those old things. Perhaps if you give us more information it would help you and your friend out. Upon installation, if you use the "text" install anaconda will see check to see if you have enough ram, i think last time it gave me trouble it was 16 megs, if it is less than that, it asks you to first setup swap space to run the installer, and I have never had it run into a problem on my system with 4 megs of ram.

Re:He's right...

[Cyno]

Maybe he did the graphical install. I don't know. I use slackware when I don't have twice the ram and processor power I need. But I wouldn't call my friend an idiot. That wouldn't be very nice and he's a Sr. Engineer, just not a RedHat expert.

Re:He's right...

[intermodal]

Suse hasn't had available recent ISOs on their site for a while now...can't say I didn't figure on something like this out of them at some point. Wonder what the German parliament will think of it... Suse, vendor of the "free" linux system, gets the Bundestag to proclaim linux ready for the desktop, and then starts charging for it...go figure.

Re:He's right...

[Cro Magnon]

I'm not sure about RH & Mandrake, but I can't imagine Slackware ever doing this kind of crap.

Re:He's right...

[whereiswaldo]

Saw this coming from SuSE... I'm not surprised at all. They don't let you download the ISOs from the net, and their tech support is downright rude. They want your dollars and don't give a shit about you.

Re:He's right...

[mpe]

All United Linux are saying, like Caldera did, is that the binaries will have per-seat licensing.

If these are GPL derived then they can't distribute them anyway. Since, by even making this claim they have broken the GPL and thus have no right to distribute the code at all.
They can only do this with software they have written themselves. Otherwise they are basically software pirates.

Re:He's right...

[debaere]

Yeah, SuSE is an excellent Distro. Too bad I won't be upgrading to 8.0 now.

Surely a step backwards

[Sunkist]

If United Linux thinks they can "unseat" RedHat by using a per seat license, they are dead wrong, regardless of what RMS thinks.

Good luck at your going-out-of-business sale, United Linux.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[sporty]

You realize, it adds validity to linux if they do try it, no?

Think of it. Major companies, some of them, charge on per seat basis. Here's where a little psychology comes in.

1. Major companies do per-seating purchases.
2. Major companies release good software.
3. Good software is worth looking at.
4. There's a distribution that does a per-seat lisencing.
5. UnitedLinux might be something good, otherwise, why act like it is worth while.

There's a proper term for this scenario, but all in all, it will validate that Linux might be worth-while.

Yes, this argument is flawed, as the number of people using a software much less it's lisence doesn't make software good or bad. "Look at windows!" ;)

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, if you have a per-seat based OS, companies will develop for it, if they know that their software can be rolled out on top of the per-seat model.

This is great, we might actually start seeing things like Photoshop and Cubase on a Linux platform. Some will say they don't want it, but some companies out there that employ people to write software actually do a good job of it, just like open source guys. More software on Linux is a good thing, wherever it comes from...

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Jason Earl]

Per seat licensing certainly hasn't helped Caldera despite the fact that Caldera controls the remnants of SCO's vast VAR channel. For that matter per seat licensing didn't help SCO in the face of a massive Linux onslaught.

RedHat has become the de-facto Linux standard by writing cool software and giving it away. Caldera, SuSE, and TurboLinux have all created distributions that were better than RedHat's, but RedHat's distribution was freely available, and you could build on RedHat's free tools (because you had the source) and so RedHat won.

Ransom Love has got to be the thickest member of the Linux community. RedHat has beaten Caldera time and again by giving away software, and yet he still refuses to learn. The only way that these companies have a chance of unseating RedHat is to out-RedHat them. They need to give away even more cool software so that they can become the standard.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[JordanH]

• There's a proper term for this scenario, but all in all, it will validate that Linux might be worth-while.

  Yes, this argument is flawed, as the number of people using a software much less it's lisence doesn't make software good or bad. "Look at windows!" ;)

As you say, it's a flawed argument.

It sends entirely the wrong message. Better to educate corporate types now that there is an alternative to seat-licensed software.

Corporate types will be disappointed if they try to apply their present software purchasing and licensing mindset to OSS and GPL'd software. This disappointment might translate to a backlash against Linux/OSS and GPL'd software in the future.

They need to start thinking in terms of very low cost to deploy many seats with some fixed support cost for deployment + some fixed cost for development/enhancement/customization + some support cost per seat.

In their present application deployment models, they cost out per-seat licenses + large initial application development costs + typically very small ongoing enhancement/customization costs and + some support cost per seat.

Some are starting to see the no-seat-licensing model as attractive for POS and the like. Best they truly understand what OSS costs are rather than give in to the natural inclination to not rethink.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Ooblek]

Moderating the parent of this message as flamebait was pure abuse of moderation privileges. The poster was right....there is a mind-set in business, however flawed it may be, that free or too cheap is bad.

Think about it....hire the cheapest bidder to paint your house. What generally happens? If the job gets done without them skipping out on you with the job half done, it looks like crap. Pay some real money for it, and you will generally (yes, not always) get a good and complete job.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[truesaer]

Are you sure? A lot of companys are more familiar with per seat licensing. Having to pay for every copy makes it seem like it must be useful and productive software. In a bizarre, twisted sort of way this could be the way to get people to switch away from MS!

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Twylite]

Some friendly advise from the Been There Done That department:

You clearly don't have a fucking clue about business, or business users, or business purchasers, or business administrators. Cost makes up a 10% sway on the final choice. Period.

Were this not the fact, Microsoft would not get away with fleecing 90% of the world's business users of $800 every two years for an operating system, office suite, and server licenses.

Even when there is a clearly better and cheaper alternative from a technical viewpoint, it will often not be chosen. Business attaches a high value to a high price, and is prepared to pay the price.

The support model doesn't work either. Business expects to BUY, not to license. Hence the exodus from MS at the moment. Buying makes them confident that they're getting a decent product (even when they're not) - paying for support means they KNOW they're getting shit.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

"RedHat has become the de-facto Linux standard by writing cool software and giving it away."
Nah... Every Linux distro has its custom killer feature.
Mandrake has DrakConf configuration.
Debian has it's package database.
Gentoo has portage.
SuSE has YAST.
The list goes on and on...
Myself, I don't see that RedHat possesses any such tool that makes it unique. Am I missing something obvious?

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

> Myself, I don't see that RedHat possesses any such tool that makes it unique. Am I missing something obvious?

up2date, Red Carpet and the Red Hat Support Network?..

Re:Surely a step backwards

[ImaLamer]

Good luck at your going-out-of-business sale, United Linux.

Finally home hobby (wanna be-)hackers like me can get a copy to try out....

*hacker==good, not bad

Re:Surely a step backwards

[JordanH]

• You clearly don't have a fucking clue about business, or business users, or business purchasers, or business administrators. Cost makes up a 10% sway on the final choice. Period.

Go back and read what I wrote. I never said anything about one model being more attractive than another based just on seat-licensed costs, certainly not for all buyers. In fact, I tried to point out that the costs were different, not less.

I did point out where some customers realized that the different costs involved with Linux/OSS, like POS systems, were beneficial to their application.

• The support model doesn't work either. Business expects to BUY, not to license. Hence the exodus from MS at the moment. Buying makes them confident that they're getting a decent product (even when they're not) - paying for support means they KNOW they're getting shit.

Now you're all over the place. First, cost doesn't matter, but now, they won't purchase licenses. You yourself point out that they shell out $800 every few years to MS per seat. Guess what? That's not to buy anything other than a license.

You accuse me of not understanding business, but you're demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of business software purchasing decisions. They pay for support all the time. Why do you think big business shells out so much yearly to Oracle and IBM for Database software? For yearly support contracts on Mainframe software?

Businesses clearly do factor in support costs in their decisions. They've been told by MS that they won't have to pay for support if they just purchase the latest commodity OS and productivity applications, but that's not really true and they know it now. They know that the legions of MSCEs that keep their email and servers going aren't free and that these are support costs.

• Even when there is a clearly better and cheaper alternative from a technical viewpoint, it will often not be chosen. Business attaches a high value to a high price, and is prepared to pay the price.

This is clearly a gross oversimplification. Why is iPlanet so marginalized vs. Apache? Apache is clearly better and cheaper and it wins.

I agree that people purchasing software often don't understand the issues and will assume that more money is necessarily better. That's exactly why I appealed to not just insert a per-seat license cost for Linux in the hopes that it would help. It's best to educate people on the real costs. Sometimes, like in the case of Sherwin-Williams and Burlington Coat Factory, they weigh the options and see that they can deploy Linux cheaply exactly because there are no per seat license costs and they have many tens of thousands of seats. If we insert a phony per seat license cost, then Linux loses this advantage in the equation.

If it were a simple matter of raising cost to increase sales, then the proprietary vendors would just continue to raise their costs vs. Linux and always win. Why don't you see these reverse price wars? Because businessmen do, in fact factor in costs.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

sheesh! I thought reading at a level of +2 would get rid of ALL posts that have the word 'moderation' in them.

Oh well... it gets rid of MOST of the carping and whining.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[HamNRye]

From the press release: "Perhaps as important as the distribution itself is the apparent pooling of marketing muscle and a division of the world into areas where each distribution has relative strength: TurboLinux in Asia, SuSE in Europe, Conectiva in Latin America and the rest of the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking world, and Caldera in North America."

Caldera is popular in America?? They are the only company to consistantly send me 20+ copies of their distro. I throw out the CD's and keep the cases.

Caldera Irritation #1: Caldera Preview Release - Get real, y'all ain't Windows or Apple, your preview release is all software I can download... Never the less, they sent two "Preview Editions" before 2.0, and 3 before 3.0. (4 before 4.0??)

Caldera Irritation #2: Lizard and Clint - Caldera has the absolute worst configuration utility on the planet. I am used to YAST, and Yast was not that bad in beta. I also hated that stupid desktop manager, I think it was Clint or Glint, yuck.

I must say, when I saw the per-seat license, I stopped considering Caldera a possibility.

Jason
Get QNX! http://www.qnx.com

Re:Surely a step backwards

[sporty]

Corporate types will be disappointed if they try to apply their present software purchasing and licensing mindset to OSS and GPL'd software. This disappointment might translate to a backlash against Linux/OSS and GPL'd software in the future.

This is what UntiedLinux is about though, providing support and licensing as if it were a Microsft OS. The Problem with trying to educate some, is that some won't listen. "It's just a hobby OS."

Their original mindset is more along the lines of Linux being a hobbyist OS. RedHat has eliminated that a bit by making it more of a desktop OS. It's no longer a freaky thing to be running Linux, much less MacOS.

Mac OSX falls into this category for a different rason. Now that MacOSX is a unix and can be bought as rackmounts from apple itself, it can now be more seen as a real server choice. Yes, "we can always run G4 towers and outperform blah-blah-blah", but it lacked the qualities of what a server is now, a rackmountable, true multi user system.

UniedLinux might add that quality that makes it a true office workstation OS, support AND per seating pricing, even if it is lower than MS's. Not too much lower. We have to make it look.. believable.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[sporty]

A defacto home-desktop-linux os. But this isn't all about caldera. This is about a bunch of small companies, teaming up to look like a big company and act like one.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[danro]

If linux succeds with a license similar to MS Windows or Solaris, then why would I see this as a good thing?

There are already excellent commersial unices out there. The thing that makes Linux stand out as a better choice is the freedom granted by the GPL.
Without that freedom, give me one good reason why I would want linux anymore?
(And don't say that the development method is better, because the cathedral doesn't work without the free source.)
How is winning more users by destroying the thing that makes linux great a good thing?
Let's say a per seat Linux achived market dominance. The situation would be no different then today, one proprietory monopoly replaces another. Another "windows", only *nix based.

No thanks!
IMHO we're better off with a free niche OS, than just another Windows...

Re:Surely a step backwards

[danro]

The only way that these companies have a chance of unseating RedHat is to out-RedHat them.

Like Mandrake is trying to do?

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Paul Komarek]

And what is next? BSA Audits? You are right that companies are familiar with per seat licensing. I don't think they *like* it, though.

-Paul Komarek

Re:Surely a step backwards

[God! Awful]

Ransom Love has got to be the thickest member of the Linux community. RedHat has beaten Caldera time and again by giving away software, and yet he still refuses to learn. The only way that these companies have a chance of unseating RedHat is to out-RedHat them. They need to give away even more cool software so that they can become the standard.

Yeah, I love it. RedHat 'won' the Linux market, despite the fact that they lost $139M last year (that's 71 cents a share on a $4.81 stock!!!). Meanwhile, Microsoft made $2.4B last quarter alone. RedHat have got to be the thickest members of the software community. Microsoft has beaten RedHat time and time again by charging for software, and yet they still refuse to learn.

-a

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

> They need to give away even more cool software
> so that they can become the standard.

And become just as sucessfull as Eazel!

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Jason Earl]

You are quite right, RedHat has gone through quite a bit of money. However, it can't be said that they aren't having a profound effect on the computer industry. Linux has especially changed the face of the server industry.

The fact of the matter is that there is no way that you can create an software company in this day and age and expect it to survive unless you are willing to radically change the economics of software. If you play by the rules that Microsoft has set then you will lose. If RedHat is successful then they will change the industry from one that is worth tens of billions of dollars a quarter to one that is worth an order of magnitude less. That may seem like a poor deal, but if RedHat can grab a substantial portion of this new pie it is far more than they could make otherwise.

Caldera, on the other hand, has not only burnt through millions of dollars of investor's money, but they are also losing marketshare (which would seem nearly impossible in a market where Linux continues to make impressive gains). Of all of the Linux companies RedHat is far and away the most likely to survive long term, and their survival is directly attributable to the fact that they give away the source code to the software they create.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[whereiswaldo]

Anyone who sincerely believes that is a total idiot. Plain and simple!

Re:Surely a step backwards

[mpe]

A lot of companys are more familiar with per seat licensing.

Being familiar with something does not mean that they would choose this, if they were given a choice.

Having to pay for every copy makes it seem like it must be useful and productive software.

It also means needing to factor it the cost of administering the licences. Which could be considerable...

In a bizarre, twisted sort of way this could be the way to get people to switch away from MS!

More likely getting people to stick with Microsoft. Since either way they would still have the TCO of a per seat licence to copy with. Even if the price per seat is lower this may well not put much of a dent in the total outlay needed. But ditch the per seat licencing model and you save a lot of money.

Re:Surely a step backwards

[God! Awful]

If RedHat is successful then they will change the industry from one that is worth tens of billions of dollars a quarter to one that is worth an order of magnitude less. That may seem like a poor deal, but if RedHat can grab a substantial portion of this new pie it is far more than they could make otherwise.

It does seem like a very poor deal. It is only natural, that as an R&D-based industry ages, its products become cheaper, but this rate is not natural. What you may be failing to account for is the fact that in order for an business to be considered successful, the reward has to outweigh the risk. All the software companies in the world are competing for the same pool of money. Software is already a high-risk business. If you shrink the pool of available money by 90%, then 95% of software companies are going to fail.

Investors expect low risk businesses to have low rewards and high risk businesses to have high rewards. Since no one can predict perfectly which company will emerge as the market leader, the one company that succeeds has to make up for the 19 that fail. If you shrink the size of the money pool, this can't possibly happen. RedHat may succeed for a time, but investors have already been bitten once by open source, and they will be wary of throwing good money after bad.

-a

He's just taking the wrong angle

[kwerle]

I think they should go for it. More power to them!

'Course they'll go down in flames...

United Gentoo

[jeffphil]

From the (now /.'d) Linux and Main article: the companies will allow source to be downloaded, but not binaries.

Isn't that what the `emerge united-linux` command will be for?

I guess Gentoo Linux becomes more and more important everyday.

Re:United Gentoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it would have to be called something else than 'united-linux', as it is trademarked. emerge gnutide-linux maybe ?

Re:United Gentoo

[bpfinn]

Isn't that what the `emerge united-linux` command will be for?

I think that's what the 'make' command is for.

Re:United Gentoo

[jeffphil]

I think that's what the 'make' command is for.

Good point, but make won't go to the united linux website, grab the source, resolve all dependencies, and then run ./configure; make; make install. ;)

Re:United Gentoo

[Daemonik]

Yes, your absolutely right. So many mom and pop small businesses want to spend hour upon hour compiling sourcecode and puzzling over sketchy documentation. That is when the GPL developer gets around to actually writing any documenation.

Gentoo and other source only distro's will continue to be a marginal hobby for hackers and the l33t.

Re:United Gentoo

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when glibc or something changes? You compile everything again?

Re:United Gentoo

[quigonn]

On my OpenBSD system, it does. ;-)

Re:United Gentoo

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, your absolutely right. So many mom and pop small businesses want to spend hour upon hour compiling sourcecode and puzzling over sketchy documentation. That is when the GPL developer gets around to actually writing any documenation.

Puzzling over sketchy documentation remains an issue regardless of source or binary. Yes, building a distro from just sources will be a time-consuming operation.

> Gentoo and other source only distro's will continue to be a marginal hobby for hackers and the l33t.

..unless Gentoo etc refine the dependency management of those sources to the point that the only issue is the time needed to do the builds.

Re:United Gentoo

[Anonymous Coward]

It will on my NetBSD systems, too.

Jeez...

[Indras]

Even Apple's xServer has unlimited user license. I think UnitedLinux is going in the wrong direction to be competative.

Re:Jeez...

[egghat]

Wrong. You buy one MacOS with one Mac. You're not allowed to install one copy of MacOS on many machines.

Bye egghat.

Gee, what a suprise...

[dpaton.net]

RMS bashing a liscence that isn't GNU/Linux.

yawn

I don't think he's totally wrong, but I'm suprised that the fact that he's against it was newsworthy.

I'll leave the discussion of the politics to the regulars. Meanwhile I'll go back to my OSX box and get some real work done.

-dave

Re:Gee, what a suprise...

[Rashkae]

In case it escaped your notice, Slashdot is more a discussion site than a news site. The question is, is it interesting / important enough to the Slashdot crowd to be discussion worthy. I think the number of comments posted by the end of the day will answer that question decisively. RMS is almost always disucussion worthy. :)

developer refusal.

[larry bagina]

"...He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."

I would refuse to allow my work to be included, but I licensed it under the GPL, so I can't.

Re:developer refusal.

[huberj]

Insightful, huh?

RMS says:
"[...] Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"

The point RMS is making is that this use is NOT permitted under the GPL, so by using the GPL for your own software you are refusing!

Did you read the article? His statement is only 3 sentences, after all.

Re:developer refusal.

[Shelled]

Reading the article impedes Karma.

Re:developer refusal.

[mph]

so by using the GPL for your own software you are refusing!

Right, you're refusing to let them license your software per-seat, which is what RMS is talking about. But as usual, the slashdot article made a mis-statement that authors should "refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution." That's a completely, if subtly, different idea.

Re:developer refusal.

[Erasmus Darwin]

"Insightful, huh?"

Yes, insightful. Regardless of the perpetuation of the RMS misquote from the article summary, the actual content of the message is still somewhat relevant. There seem to be a number of people who understand the situation (RMS is pushing the GPL, as typical; UL is presumably only doing the per-seat license on the parts of the distribution they develop from scratch) who are still upset because they feel it's exploiting a loophole in the GPL to build a semi-proprietary gestalt off of free components.

The comment you responded to essentially points out that this is one of the few cases where the GPL could be seen as having a similar degree of commercial exploitability as the BSD license. The BSD camp is used to accepting this issue in their quest for freedom of the end user, but it's just odd seeing it with the GPL camp and their quest for freedom of the code.

Re:developer refusal.

[danro]

Of course he didn't read the bloody article.
As soon as someone mentions RMS half the /.-ers rush in to tell the world how wrong he is, regardless of what he actually said.
A big fat knee-jerk reaction.
If they took the time to read it in RMS own words they would probably admit that he sometimes makes a lot of sense. (btw. this is a time like that.)

Not even Bill Gates provoke a similar reaction, only Jon Katz.

Re:developer refusal.

[drinkypoo]

Using the GPL does not disallow them from licensing your program per seat. It does require that they give you the source, though, which will let you un-per-seat-license it.

Remember, you can sell GPL software, but you must make the source code available. You can sell it under any terms you like; YOU produced the binaries. However, you can do as you like with the source.

Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[knewman_1971]

Nothing burns my ass more than hypocrisy (ok, maybe a flame about 4 feet high, but I digress...)

"Software should be free". Unless, of course, you employ that free software, and make your own choices about how it generates revenue.

As a disclaimer, I won't be using UnitedLinux. I'm quite happy with my little purple dragon distro. And in point of fact, I happen to think that per-seat licensing is a bad idea for a distro.

But hey, I'm not the one putting it together, so, it's not my call...

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[SirSlud]

You'd do well to read some of the posts above. The whole point is that he's denouncing the software that _isnt_ licenced under the GPL (and thus allowed to be licenced per-seat.)

It's nothing new, but all you RMS-triggerfinger-flamers ought to conceed defeat. People have always been trepedacious about ideals, but its approaching the levels where the noise the RMS-haters make would drown out any legitamite claims he makes. It's always the same stories with the visionaries .. the crowd gets so loud that in the end, they end up feeding their own fire with their own false portrayals of their target.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[raddan]

You seem to be missing the point.

When the GNU Project states that "software should be free", they mean "software should be free like speech". Not proprietary.

It just so happens that the GNU Public Licence, which applies to software in the GNU system, expressly provides that the software should also be free of charge.

RMS and the GNU project, as far as I understand it, do not advocate against making money from software. What they *do* advocate for is that software be patent-free, and that the community have access to the source code.

The idea is that the whole concept of 'intellectual property' can only serve against the 'public good'. It stifles creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, and communication.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[Dehumanizer]

It just so happens that the GNU Public Licence, which applies to software in the GNU system, expressly provides that the software should also be free of charge.

No, it doesn't.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[Nugget]

The concept of "intellectual property" is nothing more than the idea that a person who creates should have some degree of control over what happens to that which they have created.

This is, quite interestingly, something that you must agree with in order to support the GPL. If a person doesn't have this right, then they have no right to place restrictions on their code which is exactly what the GPL does.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[danro]

No, the GPL doesn't take anything away or place any restrictions not already placed by default by copyright. It just grants the user a degree of freedom they wouldn't otherwise have.

Without it every GPL'ed piece of software would be proprietary by default. Which means that noone could do anything without it without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
The GPL is just a way to make your work an exempt from IP-law, and make sure it stays that way.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[Nugget]

The GPL is two pages of restrictions placed on code which rely on the strength of IP law to be enforceable. Try reading it sometime instead of just spouting off the philosophical platitudes justifying its existence.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[danro]

Sure, there are restrictions, but since they are less severe than the default restrictions, they really don't restrict anything at all.
And, yes, I've read it.

It's existence requires no justification, quit your whining.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[Nugget]

I am not whining I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies of the claim that the GPL doesn't rely on and depend on IP law to exist and function.

In a world where we had no strong IP law the GPL could not exist and there would be no way to accomplish the goals of the GPL. To make the claim that the GPL is somehow attempting to subvert or thwart IP law demonstrates a sever lack of understanding of one or the other or both.

The GPL has a manifesto which justifies its existence and clearly RMS and the FSF felt that such a manifesto was necessary. If its existence offends you, I suggest you take the issue up with them.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[jav1231]

Shaddup Dumbass! (I can say that cuz he sits next to me). Seriously, though, I think RMS has a bit of a point in this per-seat license. (But I find much of Stallman's speeches to be too utopiatic. But it's dreamers that give us goals, I suppose.) I think there are implications regarding the GPL for sure. I think SUSE being a part of this is very disheartening. Caldera screwed themselves with this approach and basically turned their back on end users. I cannot speak of Turbolinux or Connectiva as I've never used them. UL has a decidedly Caldera-centric look, from what the press releases have said. Unfortunately, with economic times as they are, many developers may find themselves needed to eat and therefore assisting in this approach. While I don't like RH's new pricing and their Gnome-centric approach (though my laptop currently uses Gnome), I think they may in the end be the better choice along with Mandrake. United Linux is a huge win for Caldera, but for the rest of us? Probably not. Does Caldera really care? Probably not. I'd like to think SUSE cares/cared. Basically, Caldera has gained more developers,more programmers, and more support personel; they've grown by default. >

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[danro]

I just don't see the problem.
You can use the system to fight the system, so? It's their right. It just happened that a shitload of people decided it was a good idea and joined in.
The current system says we can put any conditions on the use of our copyrighted material, the FSF did just that.
They in effect created their own system inside the system(due to the "viral" nature of the GNU GPL), like you said, using those same laws they despise.

In my opinion a clever hack, and a means to an end.

Remember, in a world without strong IP laws, the GPL might not be possible, but the need for it would also be greatly reduced.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[Nugget]

I'm with you right up until the last part. You don't have to look too far back in history to see exactly what the world looks like without strong IP protection on software. This is effectively the exact situation we lived in up until the early 80's when IP law caught up software. Prior to then it was very unclear what, if any, protections were afforded software by IP law.

We did not, contrary to the utopian view, have a world of sharing where programers lived off nuts and berries and gave their work to the world gratis. Rather we had a motley assortment of miserable copy protection mechanisms, dongles, and constraining usage agreement contracts. The lack of IP protection doesn't add any more generosity to the world it merely forces the people who wish to earn a living by producing valuable software to find other mechanisms (like contract law and hardware protection) with which they can protect the value they've created.

Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

an excellent article points out one of the errors of your position. An excerpt:

"Although Stallman believes that copyright as a mechanism lends itself to evil purposes much more readily than to good, it's important to stress that the GNU project's fundamental argument is not about copyrighted software, but proprietary software. The GNU position is that we should not only be allowed to copy software freely, but that we should also have free access to the source code, so that it is possible for us to "read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate" the software. The GPL's requirement that all source code be made available is a legal embodiment of Stallman's moral stance: that software authors should be required to make their source code available to the same extent that they make the object code available. This is an issue of secrecy which is entirely outside the scope of copyright in its current form: source code to proprietary software is generally unavailable because it is undisclosed, not because it is copyrighted. From the GNU perspective, eliminating copyright on software would reduce but not eliminate or even minimise the inherent evil of proprietary software, whereas it would render the GPL effectively toothless."

i have to say that he's got a point...

[mattbland]

I mean who are they to licence this software. It's not as if they wrote the majority of it anyway. If they want to provide a seperate add on package/ cd/ etc. that they licence fine, but attempting to control a linux distribution in this way is asking for trouble.

Sounds like they're taking business lessons from Monty Burns.

For my next trick they'll licence use of the Sun's ("Sol") radiation under a new "Pay lots of Money" licence. If anyone or anything wishes to use Solar radiation for any purpose they must pay for it :-p

Re:i have to say that he's got a point...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, okay. But first you have to begin distributing the Sun's radiation. Right now, all that's available from you is hot air.

Re:i have to say that he's got a point...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I mean who are they to licence this software.

Whoever writes the software decides the license.

So they can freely choose a license for the software that they write themselves. The license of software written by others can't be changed of course.

UnitedLinux

[Anonymous Coward]

A "UnitedUnix" already exists, it isn't plagued by distributions and it works better than linux... And it's really free, not bound to whatever license or constriction... BSDs...

What the?

[rdewalt]

This looks almost as if the United Linux quorum is looking for a way to get businesses to pay for each copy of Linux installed, in a way that PHB's already understand. "Per Seat License" is not just a term used by windows.

My take on the article is that RMS is seeing this as Restricting Freedom. Perhaps he's right. Perhaps not. I personally feel he's a loony extremist, who sees the world as Pure Freedom or Total Slavery.

However, without more information, I can't tell if the "Per Seat" license covers the 'United Linux' material only, or which. United Linux -needs- to make money. And if a "$50 per seat" license is how they get it, who am I to say its a bad idea. This does not affect me, I don't run any derivative of Linux. (I'm one of those naughty BSD people. boo. hiss.)

I'm starting to percieve RMS as a nutjob right up there with Katz. I've no intention of using the GPL in any of my own works. There are plenty more Licenses out there. Well, that and my work is crap.

Re:What the?

[Ngwenya]

My take on the article is that RMS is seeing this as Restricting Freedom. Perhaps he's right. Perhaps not. I personally feel he's a loony extremist, who sees the world as Pure Freedom or Total Slavery.

Well, having met him a couple of times, I'd say that he's an idealist and difficult to see eye to eye with. But a loony extremist? No - he's way too sussed for that. He's just someone who's been in the business for so long, he's seen way too many people got screwed over on this altar of intellectual property.

However, without more information, I can't tell if the "Per Seat" license covers the 'United Linux' material only, or which. United Linux -needs- to make money. And if a "$50 per seat" license is how they get it, who am I to say its a bad idea. This does not affect me, I don't run any derivative of Linux. (I'm one of those naughty BSD people. boo. hiss.)

Not naughty at all - there's room for everyone. From what I read about United Linux, there won't be a UL "distribution" - it's more like a compliance statement. That is, write an app and it gets certified for any UL compliant distro. So the per-seat stuff will continue to apply to Caldera, but not necessarily to SuSE, or TurboLinux, or whatever.

I've got to say that I too think the per-seat crap is doomed to die. It's exactly what so many IT departments buy into M$'s pool-based licensing system to avoid! They have to employ more expensive people just to chase down the licenses. Screw that.

Personally, I think the whole UL thing is a good idea - but I still see Red Hat dominant a year or two from now (if they can stay in business :-) )

--Ng

Re:What the?

[ynohoo]

hey! JonKatz ain't a looney - a plagarist maybe, but not a looney. Plus he's alot less easy to troll than RMS - a sure sign of a looney ;)

i don't think unitedlinux will see much success

[jms258]

from what i've read so far, it's going to be a source-only distribution. this makes it considerably more difficult for people to pick up this distribution and see if they like it. RMS is probably right in his assessment of this new licensing policy they have adopted. to me, it seems like suse, connectiva, caldera, and turbolinux are shooting themselves in their collective foot.

Re:i don't think unitedlinux will see much success

[Daemonik]

It isn't intended to be something that you compile at home per se. More like a common development pool for the member distro's to build on to guarantee compatability and to give 3rd party developers a base target to work with.

Re:i don't think unitedlinux will see much success

[Anonymous Coward]

> from what i've read so far, it's going to be a
> source-only distribution.

It is a binary distribution that you have to pay for but everyone can get the source code for free.

Note that the GPL only requires that the recipients of the binaries either get the source code with the binaries or are offered a way to obtain the source code at a later time.

How dare they try to make money!

[reachinmark]

I mean really.. just because they are a commercial entity.

And for everyone saying that it will fail just because they introduce per-seat licensing.. isn't it really going to depend on what else they offer to go with it? If per seat licensing gives them enough revenue to offer businesses features and services that no competitor can match.. surely *that* will dictate if they succeed or not.

RMS off base?

[toupsie]

RMS is griping about a per seat license being charged by the UnitedLinux group. Ok, RMS griping is nothing new, but according to the GPL (as best as I can understand it) as long as the original source code is released with the binaries, UnitedLinux is free to charge a price for their distribution. I have never heard gripes about RedHat or Mandrake selling CDs from RMS. Why should selling binaries with access to the source code be a violation of the GPL? UnitedLinux is not limiting freedom as Microsoft does contrary to the (outrageous) claims of RMS.

What am I missing? Is UnitedLinux truly as evil as Microsoft for selling a standardized binary set with source code on the side? Or is RMS just tired of capitalism?

Re:RMS off base?

[GigsVT]

The GPL does not allow per-seat licensing, you have to give the person you sell it to the same rights you had, if you told them they could not copy it to every workstation in their company, you have restricted their rights with regard to distribution, and therefore have no rights to use the software under the GPL. They can only do this with the non-GPL parts of the OS, i.e. BSD type so-called free software.

Re:RMS off base?

[bogado]

Not true, GPL states that you cannot take away the right to copy/use/alter from the user. So if I buy one seat from them GPL allows me to install in any number of machines I want. The problem is that this distributions have some part of them, probably an indispensable one, that was created in-house, this part is lisensed so you can only legaly be used in one seat, without it the distro won't work. :-/

It seems that someone has finaly found a loop hole in GPL.

Re:RMS off base?

[afidel]

No, they can charge a reasonable packaging fee, which is very different from a per seat liscensing fee. Assuming all the code is GLP'd then I could according to the GPL pay them for one physical copy of the cd and then redistribute the contents to every user on my network. The way they get around this is that they have closed source installers or other 3rd party utilities that do not follow the GPL and you therefore cannot distribute without obtaining some kind of a liscense, in this case a per seat one. The way RMS sees it though (I think) is that the packaging effectivly puts a constraint on the GPL'd code that is not allowed by the GPL (namely further restrictions of the users freedom to redistribute the code). I believe that the point is moot as the market will decide that this is not a tenable model for the same reasons that it rejected it when Caldera used it and why redhat used to get so much flack about their non open components in older distributions of RHL.

Re:RMS off base?

[jdavidb]

This is nothing new; Caldera has been doing this since day one. They've also been failing since day one. Most software developers know that if you keep using the same methods you'll keep getting the same results, but Caldera hopes it will be different with a new name.

Believe it or not, RedHat seems to have a great commitment to freedom. With RedHat and Debian available, I don't see a whole lot of room for other distributions; especially not for non-free ones.

Re:RMS off base?

[toupsie]

But this only deals with the binaries not the source code which UnitedLinux provides. So they are not selling the source but their effort in compilation and configuration. This seems to be more of a support issue than a selling software issue.

Re:RMS off base?

[Pierre]

He's not saying that it is a violation of the GPL.

I think that he is more concerned about software that is included on the distro that is not covered by the GPL. For example if they include software that is under BSD - they are under no obligation to release the source.

"...but the system also contains non-copylefted programs which are points of vulnerability. Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"

Re:RMS off base?

[toupsie]

Thanks for your insight. However, I don't see a constraint on the GPLed code as it is freely availble from UnitedLinux. It sounds as if UnitedLinux is adding "service" value to their distro by utilizing a non-GPL installer -- a support issue more than a software issue. Am I right in thinking that the per seat license is for technical support or is it only for software? I think that is what governing my opinion in this matter.

Re:RMS off base?

[toupsie]

He's not saying that it is a violation of the GPL.

I was left with the impression that RMS was attacking UnitedLinux for violations of GPL because he urged software developers to "Use the GNU GPL". To me, that sounded like a threat of legal action.

I think that he is more concerned about software that is included on the distro that is not covered by the GPL. For example if they include software that is under BSD - they are under no obligation to release the source.

Fire up a web browser and you are about 99.99% likely to find the BSD source code online in 2 to 3 minutes. RMS shouldn't look at the rest of us as a bunch of drooling idiots. His advocacy of GPL hits the absurd when he starts to bitch about the BSD license. Who is he to determine what I release my code under?

Re:RMS off base?

[Pierre]

I know what you mean. I think he doesn't mean to come across as strong as he does.

He might be more effective if he would say something like 'your source code is profitting company X. they are using it to enforce a per seat license on users. if this upsets you, you should release it under GPL.'

or something...

Re:RMS off base?

[zerocool^]

... They can only do this with the non-GPL parts of the OS, i.e. BSD type so-called free software.


I can't agree more, but what i also want to point out is that you can go to far either direction. The BSD licence is somewhat restrictive (and I don't have to like it, but that's their right, and that's cool), but what people also have to remember is: The GPL is viral. The arguement can also be made too far in the other direction.

The other side of the arguement is "I built this really nifty [insert software app], and I'd like to sell it, because I spent a fifth of my life writing it. But I can't, because I linked it against GPL'd libraries when I built it, and therefore would have to release my source code as well. Oh, I suppose I could still sell it and charge for the labor and the CD media, but who would buy it when I have to distribute my source code for free?"

As far as I understand it, the LGPL seems the best way to go. You can link against LGPL'd code, but you don't have to open your source, as long as you don't actually include LGPL'd code. I.e. I wrote this entire program, from begin to end, and I linked to LGPL'd libraries when i built it, but i didn't include any LGPL'd code, so I can still release a binary w/ no source.

~Will

Re:RMS off base?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just a case of selling binaries...
It's a case of selling binaries that are NON-GPL. As far as I know, Mandrake and RedHat are purely GPL.
"Why should selling binaries with access to the source code be a violation of the GPL?"
It's not, because the binaries are non-GPL. Go read what RMS actually said before you post... he wants developers to rally behind the GPL.

Re:RMS off base?

[McChump]

What am I missing?

A brain. Go back to doing BOTW!

Re:RMS off base?

[toupsie]

A brain. Go back to doing BOTW!

Oh, please, that is so 1995. Quit showing your age!

Re:RMS off base?

[austus]

Yes, they have found a loophole, but it doesn't matter. Why would one choose a more restrictive license over a less restrictive one? If they're going to do that, they might as well buy MS Windows.

Re:RMS off base?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your signature is offensive. I think you're bloody cunt.

Re:RMS off base?

[bovinewasteproduct]

Ok you've lost me here...

The BSD licence is somewhat restrictive...

How is the BSD license restrictive? MAYBE the original license was, but not the new one. I've got code in FreeBSD (developer from 1993-2000) and you very welcome to take my code, modify it and sale it. Or not even modify it. Just mention my copyright somewhere in the docs and don't blame me if it breaks your machine!

I'm trying not to flamebait here, but the only way that one can take the BSDL as being too restrictive is to say that it does not go far enough in being Free Software instead of just being Open Source Software. It just one step up from being public domain and my primary purpose in using it is to disclaim any warranties. It says ,in essence, here take this software and do ANYTHING you want with it, just don't blame us if it breaks your machine.

BWP

Re:RMS off base?

[Anonymous Coward]

>RMS shouldn't look at the rest of us as a bunch of drooling idiots.

right, maybe he should look at you as someone with poor hygiene that doesn't bathe due to your use of Non-Free Software!

Is that a zit?

Binaries not distributable freely?

[Bas_Wijnen]

From the GPL: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. In the article UnitedLinux is quoted saying the binaries are not freely distributable. Sounds like a license violation to me... By the way, both links are dead by now.

Re:Binaries not distributable freely?

[Anonymous Coward]

UnitedLinux said that _THEY_ don't provide freely available binaries. You are free to provide them as long as you don't call it UnitedLinux.

Uh, no...

[Otter]

He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution.

No he doesn't. He calls on developers to use the GPL, so as not to offer distributors a target to make proprietary. Hell, it's only three sentences long -- I'll just quote it:

"'Licensing per seat' perverts the GNU+Linux system into something that respects your freedom as much as Windows," Stallman said. "They cannot restrict the GPL-covered programs in the system that way, because that would violate the GNU GPL, but the system also contains non-copylefted programs which are points of vulnerability. Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"

Whether or not you agree with this (he seems to suffer from the Slashbot notion that developers who use a BSD license, for instance, are too stupid to realize they're allowing their code to be relicensed instead of grasping that the point is to offer code for use to whoever wants it), it's not as obviously unreasonable as what the writeup suggests.

Re:Uh, no...

[Per Wigren]

> Hell, it's only three sentences long

Aw, come on! That's four sentences!

Re:Uh, no...

[davmct]

I think a better strategy is that deverlopers claim their "royalties" on a per-seat basis from UnitedLinux.
Maybe when they realize it'll cost them $x per seat and they were only going to charge $x, they'll realize its stupid.

Re:Uh, no...

[Arandir]

he seems to suffer from the Slashbot notion that developers who use a BSD license, for instance, are too stupid to realize they're allowing their code to be relicensed

As a user of the BSD license, I wondered if Ransom could relicense my code under a per-seat license. The obvious answer is "yes". The not so obvious answer is "yes, but so what?"

No matter what Ransom does to my code, my copy and my users' copies will still be free. Nothing he can do can alter my cvs repository. Furthermore, the users of Ransom's per-seat version are still going to know that there's a free version out there. That's because Ransom can't remove my copyright or permission notices.

But what if Ransom makes a derivative of my code and licenses that per-seat? The answer is where RMS and the BSD advocates part ways: code that I didn't write does not belong to me. His derivative bits are not mine and I have no ethical claim over them. His version is not my version. If RMS is correct in saying that "software should not be owned", then derivative software should be owned even less.

Re:Uh, no...

[KjetilK]

(he seems to suffer from the Slashbot notion that developers who use a BSD license, for instance, are too stupid to realize they're allowing their code to be relicensed instead of grasping that the point is to offer code for use to whoever wants it),

Well, then why did he endorse the Ogg transition to BSD-style? I think he understands the issues perfectly well.

Re:Uh, no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets say your code writes/reads files and/or write/reads from/to a network.

Ransom could simply take your code and rewrite only the bits relevant to how the file/network code is made up, ensuring it creates the files differently (but can still read the old files). This way they spend virtually no effort, but will kill your version the moment they add one feature your software dosen't add.

By doing this they can basically "own" your software (since your version isn't compatible and is therefore deprecated) and there's nothing you can do about it. All they have to do is XOR the output with their company name and it would be illegal for you (under the DMCA) to even attempt to make a compatible version.

>That's because Ransom can't remove my copyright or permission notices.

Yeah, just like every windows user knows they're running BSD code when they run FTP.EXE, right?

Common, nobody greps binary files for that kind of stuff, yet the BSD license allows you to abuse the only protection (the advertising clause) by hiding it.

Blech...

Re:Uh, no...

[JordanH]

• His derivative bits are not mine and I have no ethical claim over them.

If you received the original bits under the GPL, then the other contributors to the code have an ethical claim over the derivative bits.

The GPL is a contract. Accept it or not, but you can't use the code if you can't accept it.

What's unethical about entering into a contract and following it?

Re:Uh, no...

[Anonymous Coward]

If RMS is correct in saying that "software should not be owned", then derivative software should be owned even less.

Yep, I agree.

As a user of the BSD license, I wondered if Ransom could relicense my code under a per-seat license. The obvious answer is "yes". [big snip]
But what if Ransom makes a derivative of my code and licenses that per-seat?

So, if you release under BSD license, and Ransom makes a derivative work, that is owned even more than was the original, in the sense that we all have less freedom to use it.

The whole point of the GPL is to eschew monopoly. Licenses which give the copier more freedom to restrict others (BSD, public domain, u.s.w.) allow an enterprising scumball to establish a monopoly, and perhaps screw the original creator (and the rest of the world) out of the fruits of his labor. It's that parenthetical ``and the rest of the world'' part that bugs me (and probably RMS) about folks who say: ``I don't care if someone makes a proprietary package out of my work, even if he does get rich, and I die in poverty.'' What may sound like noble self-sacrifice is actually sacrificing my interests, too. That's not noble.

Re:Uh, no...

[Arandir]

What's unethical about entering into a contract and following it?

Nothing's wrong with it. I just don't require my users to accept a legally binding contract before they get can get the "Free" in "Free Software".

Re:Uh, no...

[mpe]

The GPL is a contract. Accept it or not, but you can't use the code if you can't accept it.

Not quite, the GPL only covers distribution, it explicitally states that use is outside its scope.

Re:Uh, no...

[JordanH]

• • The GPL is a contract. Accept it or not, but you can't use the code if you can't accept it.
  Not quite, the GPL only covers distribution, it explicitally states that use is outside its scope.

You're right, I should have said "Accept it or don't modify and distribute the code, or binaries resulting from the code."

In the context of the discussion, I did mean "use" as "modify" because that's what the original poster was referring to, his right to use the code to make it fit his purposes.

cannot restrict the GPL-covered programs

[DarkVein]

RMS does not write anything about discouraging developers from allowing UnitedLinux to use their software. He can't. The GPL does not allow that sort of restriction.

UnitedLinux can license seating as they like as a means of revenue. RMS is vocal about his experiences with this sort of licensing and is discouraging users from supporting this endevour under its current licensing.

RMS is a bleeding heart but he fails to be hypocritic.

RMS' philosophy

[swagr]

You're free to use it any way you want, so long as you're using it in a way I want.

Re:RMS' philosophy

[Rupert]

I don't think RMS cares much about uses of software. A more accurate statement of the philosophy would be:

You're free to distribute it any way you want, so long as the people you distribute it to can redistribute it.

Re:RMS' philosophy

[Frater 219]

You're free to use it any way you want, so long as you're using it in a way I want.

Not at all. If you're looking for a short, pithy expression of what RMS is after, try this: I'll let you copy and fiddle with my code -- but only if you'll let your users copy and fiddle with it, too. What RMS has done with GNU is to create a commons -- a body of code which everyone may use and modify, but nobody may restrict others from using and modifying.

It's a fallacy, by the way, to say that the GPL expresses restrictions on what you may do with covered code. In fact, what restrictions there are exist by default under copyright law. The default condition of any work is "all rights reserved" -- unless I give you my permission, you are breaking the law when you copy and redistribute my work. The GPL is a grant of permission -- not an unconditional grant, but a grant nonetheless.

By the way, it sounds like you have some serious confusion goin' on between use and copying. The GPL does not discuss the use of programs -- that is, whether or not you may run them and benefit from their usefulness. It only deals with copying, modification, and redistribution. Copyright doesn't give the copyright holder any rights to restrict your use of his work -- only your copying of it. The GPL assumes that you have come by the software legitimately, and thus already have the right to use the copy in your possession.

Re:RMS' philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? RTFA (A=article): RMS is not contradicting the GPL. In fact he's promoting it.

Linux and Seat Licenses Don't Mix

[SirChive]

The basic concept of Linux does not mix well with the concept of per seat licenses. Businesses often turn to Linux partly because they don't have to mess with licenses and license counts.

Hasn't Caldera been losing buckets of money since they switched to a per seat licensing scheme?

This whole concept of United Linux reeks of desperation. These four companies are going to collaborate on United Linux while continuing to put out their own distros? What a muddle.

Reading about United Linux has done nothing except make me decide to go check out Red Hat again.

Re:Linux and Seat Licenses Don't Mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, nothing will ever come of United-Linux, I guarentee you that. It will be quietly killed and shoved under the carpet while everyone else will continue to just run Red Hat or Debian or Mandrake.

Suse/Caldera/Conectiva/Turbolinux are dead products and they're just trying to seem like they're still relevent. They're not.

UnitedLinux = A Threat To Stallman's Ego

[Bowie J. Poag]

I think it's pretty obvious, the whole reason why RMS is throwing a pissy fit is because UnitedLinux represents a significant loss of control for Stallman. It puts even more distance between GNU and Linux, something he has been trying desparately to glue together in the past couple years. The whole bucket of "lets call Linux GNU/Linux from now on" crap is evidence of this. He thinks the train is leaving the station, so he's going to do everything within his power to get onboard it or slow it down -- That includesd running out infront of the train and laying down on the tracks.

Theres more than one way to "get on a train", unfortunately.

...*splat*...

Cheers,

huh?

[dirk]

Okay, so this "per-seat licensing" consists of them not offering the binaries for free download. The source will still be "freely available". You will have to pay to get the binaries, and I would assume once you have the binaries, you can freely get the source. Where exactly is the problem here. this is all abiding by the GPL exactly. Nowhere does it say you cannot sell your software, nor does it say you must give your binaries away for free. It says if someone gets the binaries, the source must be available to them (which in this case it will be). Where exactly is the problem here? Oh wait, it's RMS, so the problem must be someone might make money off of software, so he has to object.

Re:huh?

[RedHat Rocky]

This is incredibly stupid on "United Linux"'s part. The First Person has to buy the binaries, they then get the source and have the right to redistribute the binaries AND code to whomever. Do they really want just one paying customer? Ooookay!

One wonders if the use of the Trademark Linux by this conglomerate will come under fire. :)

Re:huh?

[grahammm]

Is that what it means? Normally I would expect per-seat licencing to mean that you have to purchase a separate licence or "boxed set" for every system you install onto. Currently you if you buy a "distribution" you can use the CDs/DVD to install onto as many systems as you like. Is this going to change?

Re:huh?

[leandrod]

> Okay, so this "per-seat licensing" consists of them not offering the binaries for free download.

If it was, it wouldn’t be per-seat. Per-seat means each potential user has to pay to have the right to use. Even if it’s binaries, GNU GPL software can’t have its use restricted in this way. Distributing GNU GPL’d software under such a condition automatically revokes your rights to use and distribute GNU GPL’d software, thus making such lincensing illegal.

> The source will still be "freely available".

Unless it’s available in a manner compliant with the GNU GPL, that is not enough.

> it's RMS, so the problem must be someone might make money off of software

Don’t put words in anyone’s mouth. RMS doesn’t object to people making money, he (and I) does object to restricting other people’s freedom.

Re:huh?

[Jobe_br]

Currently you if you buy a "distribution"

Or download the ISOs ...

Re:huh?

[duffbeer703]

The GPL states:

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

The loophole which makes "UnitedLinux" viable legally is the option of offering a warranty.

warranty does not necessarily mean "if it breaks, we fix it". In fact, no software that I have ever seen is warranted against defects.

One of the definitions of warranty is:
"Official authorization, sanction, or warrant"

So purchasing a per-seat licence for UnitedLinux is akin to getting a certificate of authenticity on a US State Quarter or some coin or stamp. It is perfectly legal to do as long as you distribute the source for free or for a nominal fee.

Re:huh?

[leandrod]

> The loophole which makes "UnitedLinux" viable legally is the option of offering a warranty.

Your point is quite good, but not enough. That would be selling warranty – in effect, seeling support. It wouldn’t be a per-seat licensing, but per-seat support.

If they change their mind and sell per-seat support instead of licensing, I’m all for it.

Re:huh?

[obsidian head]

Offtopic -- you're working on implementing Tutorial D? Best of luck, the world really needs a real DB language! I really hope you do well.

Re:huh?

[hackerhue]

Don't put words in anyone's mouth. RMS doesn't object to people making money, ...

Yup. And here's a link to prove it: http://order.fsf.org/ Granted, it's not-for-profit, but a sale is a sale.

Re:huh?

[mjstrom]

If it was, it wouldn't be per-seat. Per-seat means each potential user has to pay to have the right to use. Even if it's binaries, GNU GPL software can't have its use restricted in this way. Distributing GNU GPL'd software under such a condition automatically revokes your rights to use and distribute GNU GPL'd software, thus making such lincensing illegal

You are assuming that the "UnitedLinux" product (installation CD, name, installer, etc) and all parts thereof are covered by the GPL. I would be surprised if this was the case. Parts of it may by LGPL, BSD, or (insert other license here).

Besides which, I believe that the GPL states basically that you must publish changes to the code and provide the source to those that you distribute the product to. I don't remember any part that forces you to distribute the code to anyone and everyone - you just have to make the code available to those that you distribute to.

Don't put words in anyone's mouth. RMS doesn't object to people making money, he (and I) does object to restricting other people's freedom.

How is this restricting your freedom? I am assuming that like most other distributions out there that the majority of the software in the distribution is available out there. And they are providing the source - if you want your freedom then download the source, and compile it yourself.

Most of these companies give back to the community it a big way - but they are companies that have to stay in business. So if you want the benefit to your "freedom" then don't complain when they want to turn around and make some money from what they are contributing to.

Re:huh?

[leandrod]

> You are assuming that the "UnitedLinux" product (installation CD, name, installer, etc) and all parts thereof are covered by the GPL.

I am not.

> the GPL states basically that you must publish changes to the code and provide the source to those that you distribute the product to. I don't remember any part that forces you to distribute the code to anyone and everyone

Correct.

> How is this restricting your freedom?

By limiting the number of people that can use the software. In a per-seat licensing arrangement, even if you buy a license to use the software, only you can use it – you can’t allow other people to use it. Mind you, it’s not about distribution, but use.

> Most of these companies give back to the community it a big way

So what? If they give code with one hand but subtract freedom with the other, the net balance is negative.

The real issue here is if UnitedLinux really is planning per-seat licensing or not. If yes, it is bad. If not, good luck for them.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn’t

Curious - to me (using Netscape 4.7 under FreeBSD) this looks like "&rsquo;." Did you actually type in all those escape codes or does your browser do it automatically?

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is incredibly stupid on "United Linux"'s part. The First Person has to buy the binaries, they then get the source and have the right to redistribute the binaries AND code to whomever. Do they really want just one paying customer? Ooookay!

Customers can't do this with the proprietary stuff, only the GPL'ed stuff. Yes, this restriction will only be for 0.1% of the codebase.

Re:huh?

[mjstrom]

By limiting the number of people that can use the software. In a per-seat licensing arrangement, even if you buy a license to use the software, only you can use it - you can't allow other people to use it. Mind you, it's not about distribution, but use.

Since they are distributing the source, doesn't that make that point moot? They can't place restrictions on you using the source, nor can they prevent you have redistributing it - or in other words they can't prevent it from being used (the GPL parts).

What they can say is "If you want our help or support, then you need to pay per user" which is what I believe that they are saying.

As for the non-GPL stuff, they can do whatever they want. Commerial software does have a place in the world.

So what? If they give code with one hand but subtract freedom with the other, the net balance is negative

So, (just to be obnoxious), if they don't give you what you want on the terms that you want they might as well not give anything because you won't give them credit for it anyways?

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Okay, so this "per-seat licensing" consists of them not offering the binaries for free download. The source will still be "freely available".You will have to pay to get the binaries, and I would assume once you have the binaries, you can freely get the source. this is all abiding by the GPL exactly.

Well suppose that you pay for one seat or license, download the binary, and then copy it to and fro all your seats. Does their per-seat licensing forbid this? If so, that seems to violate the GPL? And if not, then "per-seat licensing", I mean per-seat licensing, is not aptly so-called.

Someone else asked about enforcement and scoffed at their joining BSA. Maybe they will have a unique serial number for each seat and require some sort of authentication like Windows XP product activation. They can enforce that with DMCA lawsuits.

Re:huh?

[rtaylor]

Fact: The per seat licensing is for United Linux. That is, everything included on the CDs -- which is more than strictly GPLd software.

Fact: You can (according to the GPL) copy and distribute all GPLd software on the CDs. Possibly, depending on per case basis, not the other stuff.

Fact: You MAY NOT call your collection of GPLd stuff which you collected from the United Linux distribution United Linux. You may call it something else and continue on. Just as legally you cannot copy Debian CDs and continue to call it Debian without their approval, which Debian has granted.

So, given the above you may create something very close to United Linux and freely distribute this BUT you may not call it United Linux. United Linux has per seat licensing. Nothing else may be called United Linux.

Re:huh?

[leandrod]

> What they can say is "If you want our help or support, then you need to pay per user" which is what I believe that they are saying.

That’s the point, they are saying nothing. Everything I’ve seen up to now is only speculation. It may not be idle, since these discussions can preempt any stupid move from UnitedLinux.

> if they don't give you what you want on the terms that you want they might as well not give anything because you won't give them credit for it anyways?

I’m not sure I understood, but I think that if they don’t give me freedom I want nothing from them. BTW, they are not giving, they are selling, so you have to redefine your question. I’m not buying proprietary software, if it comes to that.

Re:huh?

[leandrod]

> Fact: The per seat licensing is for United Linux.

Do anyone has any real pointer here? I think this is only rumours up to know.

> That is, everything included on the CDs -- which is more than strictly GPLd software.

That is the point. No one can restrict one’s freedom to run GNU GPL software. Will they substitute a proprietary kernel or init so that one can’t run the GNU GPL programs contained in UnitedLinux above one’s specific per-seat license arrangement? Or will their licensing specify which pieces are under a non-copyleft license or are actually owned by him, and thus can have their usage restricted on a per-seat basis?

Remember, this is about usage, not copying. So your other points are true, but moot.

Is there anything that RMS likes?

[Tribbles]

Practically every story I've seen on /. has been "RMS doesn't like X", or "RMS condems Y", or "RMS speaks against Z".

Is there anything that he likes?

Re:Is there anything that RMS likes?

[Vodak]

Yes he does. He likes Slashdot's own John Katz who is also a chronic bitcher.

Re:Is there anything that RMS likes?

[RoadWarriorX]

I suppose he likes Free Software, right?
D'oh!

Re:Is there anything that RMS likes?

[rabbits77]

Here are some other things RMS doesn't like.
All the truth!!
He was afraid of water for a long time and would stink up MITs AI lab. He eventually allowed this phobia to decrease to the point where he would take sponge baths in the office men's room. Disgusted by this bad smelling anti-social whack job his colleagues would capiltilize on another object of RMSs hatred, spider plants. To keep this weirdo away from them they would hang spider plants in their office and that would ward him off like garlic would word off a vampire.

Re:Is there anything that RMS likes?

[TheCaptain]

His drugs...

Umm...I'm not kidding either. Seriously...

Re:Is there anything that RMS likes?

[Anonymous Coward]

yea ... guns and one of those karates

Re:Is there anything that RMS likes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hurd. Which, by the way, rhymes with "turd" and works like one too!

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody likes the title GNU/Linux, nor uses it, but RMS remains so unneccessarily fanatical about wanting people to call it "GNU/Linux" that it warrants mocking him and making fun of him. Sure he's good for the overall cause, but prepending "GNU/" to everything is just plain silly.

Not the standard definition of RMS....

[purpledinoz]

I thought this story was about Root Mean Squared mathematical function.

what they're doing

[Karma Star]

is the right thing. pay for binaries, get source for free. isn't this what all the major linux vendors do anyhow?

this isn't a big deal. less affluent people will go to cheapbytes.com and purchase a 5 buck cd w/ linux on it, or download the binary from linuxiso.org...

Re:what they're doing

[TooTallFourThinking]

but if you can get the source, what keeps people from reading a FAQ or HowToGuide on compiling the code? Or would it just be, pay us for no huss, no fuss?

Re:what they're doing

[Anonymous Coward]

> but if you can get the source, what keeps people from reading a FAQ or HowToGuide on compiling the code? Or would it just be, pay us for no huss, no fuss?

That's it exactly. Think of the source-only UnitedLinux as a UnitedLinuxFromScratch and you have the right idea. You won't get the vendor-proprietary sources, but you'll get everything else, you then build it locally like any other from-source distro.

Can you people actually read??

[MullerMn]

It's amazing how many people can't be bothered to read 3 paragraph article before spouting off a complete load of shit about it.

If you had read the article you would realise that Stallman, contrary to some of the fights he picks, is actually being quite reasonable here.

What he's saying is that he doesn't approve of the licence, and that authors should beware of licences other than the GPL because they may not protect their work from being kidnapped like this.

Also, it's worth pointing out that in this case Linux and Main went to Stallman for his opinion, he didn't get on a soap box and force it down anyone's throat.

--
Andy

Re:Can you people actually read??

[davmct]

It's amazing how many people can't be bothered to read 3 paragraph article before spouting off a complete load of shit about it.

Did you not READ the number of posts on here? It seems that most people are AGREEING with Stallman. It's even more amazing how people can't be bothered to read the posts before spouting off a flame war.

Re:Can you people actually read??

[nvrrobx]

You're right, Stallman is actually being reasonable. *gasp* But, given his track record, are you surprised that people automatically assume he's not being reasonable? :)

Re:Can you people actually read??

[danro]

Actually, it is not the first time the man makes sense.

You may or may not agree with his conclusions.
But if you read what he actually says, he often makes a good point.

Re:Can you people actually read??

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the GPL itself does nothing to keep your software from being "kidnapped" depending on how you define that word. Even if RH does give away the source for free, the fact that they are making money on MY software is a royal pissoff! I don't know why anyone would release under the GPL. Your still giving it all away.

It's just as well

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, over the past year, I've given every distribution of linux a try. I used to be a hardcore Slackware user and I still like slack, but I also will use redhat and mandrake depending on the situation. The 4 companies involved in this...let's just say I found multiple problems with their distribution. Caldera has already had problems and angered many of it's users, Suse...I had to get rid of it on my box as well as an attempt to put it on my girlfriend's mom's computer due to speed and errors, not to mention crashes and various other things I don't get from other distros.

What I'm saying is that the companies involved in this united linux are probably doing this as a "last ditch" effort. I say this because I've used each one of them and each one of them didn't work all that well which means if I have problems being a slackware user, I'm sure the less knowledgeable people do. No users = no income and thus drastic measures must be taken.

When this fails we might be a few distros less than we are now bringing us closer to a TRUE standard. What I don't understand though is why can't we actually HAVE a standard? What's so hard about it? As a linux user I'm annoyed at the fact that all of these distributions seem to think they are right. I hate to say this but 90% of the software each of them use they didn't write, so why does it matter what the directory structure is? PICK A @#$% STANDARD!!

Re:It's just as well

[reflective recursion]

It's not really in the distribution companies' favor to adhere to standards. I am 100% positive that Red Hat will do everything in their power (when push comes to shove) to push standards in their favor. They will (subtle or not) try to become a dependency. RPM is one such dependency many people know about today. People get confused easily because it is all GPL software. They forget that copyrights are still held and software _is_ still owned, GPL or not. They assume that RPM can just be easily forked if Red Hat does something the "community" does not agree with. This is absurd and the reality is Red Hat will always define what that aspect of Red Hat Linux (RPM) is. And many distros and developers will continue to agree to this de facto standard simply for convenience. We forget that convenience is the sole reason people choose proprietary software (Windows, MacOS, etc.). They (the people who choose proprietary.. or Red Hat, etc. Linux) have no reason to uphold a community standard. It sounds so nice and sweet that we could have a community standard that people agree on, but that will never happen. LSB is a dead cause when business has a bottom line.

It is not a coincidence that RPM is widely used and that the easiest distribution (most friendly, anyhow) to use RPMs with is Red Hat Linux. Software architecture business is all about dependencies. Give away the razor, make money on the blades (or in this case, make money on ease-of-use and coherence of the entire system).

Standards are a pipe-dream. Today distributions might adhere to LSB and proudly state so. But they turn around and add many proprietary (i.e. non-LSB) features. These features in turn become depended on by developers simply because of convenience. These features then become de facto standards and then LSB becomes irrelavant. Today you might as well simply say Red Hat is the Linux standard. They have more momentum than the other distributions (especially in corporate America where it really counts). I use Slackware myself and it is very sad to see all the Red Hat-isms introduced. I used Slack 3.2 and then switched to 7. It was quite a shock to see RPM integrated into Slack. Think of it as Israel and Palestine calling a truce.

Re:It's just as well

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with that to an extent and it's the ONLY reason I've started using redhat even though I don't agree with some of the business practices that have been put into practice lately. Specifically the $10 rebate for users switching from other flavors of linux. I just see their actions as being a bit to Microsoft-ish for my liking.

The thing that I'm really griping about in the long run is this UnitedLinux doing it to set standards, but where are the standards? know what I mean? I don't even care if it goes to a redhat standard, I just would really like to see a standard it would make "windows" software manufacturers feel a little more comfortable about porting their projects to Linux. I'm a gamer and I'm SICK of having to keep around a windows machine and pouring large amounts of money into it to keep it game worthy and that's the ONLY thing I use that machine for. WineX is a good idea, but it's counter productive, and natively written games for linux out perform anything on the windows machine. I know this because my linux desktop and windows desktop have exactly the same hardware specs.

All I'm saying in the long run is I really think that joining together COULD be a good thing, but if linux continues to argue over the server market (where yes is does it's best) then Microsoft will continue to use it's widely known name and desktop monopoly to power linux out of even the server area. I build and maintain networks for many customers and most of them like the IDEA of linux, but they won't convert or build in that direction because they are using windows desktops and they want the server to be 100% compatible and use all the "features" that is available for their desktops. Forget the fact they don't even use 20% of the features, they want to be ABLE to.

I just honestly think that there needs to be a serious push by EVERYONE for standardization as well as from the community to take extra special pains to show and help users get away from the dark side of computing :)

Re:It's just as well

[gimpboy]

Standards are a pipe-dream. Today distributions might adhere to LSB and proudly state so. But they turn around and add many proprietary (i.e. non-LSB) features. These features in turn become depended on by developers simply because of convenience. These features then become de facto standards and then LSB becomes irrelavant. Today you might as well simply say Red Hat is the Linux standard.


then the lsb would adopt this standard. standards evolve, that's quite natural. the lsb will be a nice place for someone who wants to implement something for linux to go


They have more momentum than the other distributions (especially in corporate America where it really counts). I use Slackware myself and it is very sad to see all the Red Hat-isms introduced. I used Slack 3.2 and then switched to 7. It was quite a shock to see RPM
integrated into Slack. Think of it as Israel and Palestine calling a truce.


i think peace between israel and palestine would be a nice thing. just like i think standards in linux would be nice. i've used quite a few dist's and i would much rather them be coherant. it's a pain in the ass to figure out how to configure the network in debian, redhat, slack, etc. i think that standards are the only way to bring piece to linux.

In the news article

[OS24Ever]

First, the Rant link is broken.

Second, in the news article link, I found this semi-amsuing:

"The focus of this is obviously on the business customer, because we feel that for Linux to be successful over all, we have to solve the business server issue first,"

Anyone aware of a business server issue? Last I knew we just put the distribution CD of choice in and it installs, not much of an issue on it. If we need stuff, download, compile, install and you're done.

Re:In the news article

[Andrewkov]

Anyone aware of a business server issue? Last I knew we just put the distribution CD of choice in and it installs, not much of an issue on it. If we need stuff, download, compile, install and you're done

That's not the issue...The issue is convincing the PHB's of the world to let you format their Win NT servers and install Linux.

Re:In the news article

[Anonymous Coward]

The business server issue:

"Is this SAP/Oracle/etc. software certified to run on this hardware and operating system?"

I can read

[eTanstaafl]

Licensing derivatives of the GPL that don't express and require the freedoms of the GPL are nothing more than schemes to harness and steal the creative fruits of the community by those who are only interested in personal profit. Selling support, books, training, consulting are all better ways to go than this. I have to agree with RMS.

Re:I can read

[MagusX]

"require the freedoms"? Is forced freedom still really freedom?

Re:I can read

[eTanstaafl]

Its a License, thats the intent. Every other forces a restriction and directs ownership.

Re:I can read

[RocketJeff]

Obviously you can't read... They aren't 'licensing derivatives of the GPL that don't express and require the freedoms of the GPL'. They can't do that.

What they are doing is licensing the software they wrote under a per-seat license.

You can redistribute/use all of the GPL'd software in United Linux use want without paying a per-seat license, just not the 'propritary' pieces.

Re:I can read

[eTanstaafl]

At least I can spell. ;-) What I meant by 'derivative of the GPL' is licensing that purports to be free (you can see the source but pay me) and really isn't. United Linux HAS every right to require a per-seat license for their 'PROPRIETARY' pieces. If their proprietary pieces add significant value above the bundled GPL software I'm sure they will be very successful...

Re:I can read

[Znork]

Forced freedom is the only freedom you'll ever have.

It's not forced freedom versus complete freedom. It's forced freedom versus working the saltmines for the first guy to exercise his 'complete freedom' to hire a few thugs who'll come over and enslave you.

The same, of course, pretty much goes for software.

RMS = Socialism?

[capitilistpig]

I'm not well versed in the RMS saga, but it seems to me that the man is Socialist to the core. All software is to be owned by the people? I'm hearing echos of Lenin ( who was Communist, but one begats the other).

Re:RMS = Socialism?

[delcielo]

Why moderate this down as a troll? He wasn't trolling; but offering an observation that doesn't hit too far from the mark.

"To each his needs. From each his abilities." isn't too far from the philosophy of open source. The difference is that RMS has no real power, as opposed to Lenin, who obviously did.

RMS can't send your family to the gulag for offending him, no matter how much he might wish he could.

Re:RMS = Socialism?

[SirSlud]

I wouldn't say he's communist (after all, hes not against the concept of selling software for money.) All he's against is one simple thing, that, I think we should all be against:

Hoarding and creating scarcity. (And interoperability, for that matter.)

He's against powerful entities from using that power to _create_ scarcity .. to use something somebody else made for free, and then restricting the distribution of that thing for their own benifit.

I mean, Adam Smith said capitalism allowed us to leverage our abilities to gain wealth and bring everybody up. What he didn't forsee is 'horizontal positioning', where an already-successful entity would use their size and success to leverage their market reach and visibility to profit of somebody else's work.

If I make something amazing, there is a 0.5% chance in hell that I could sell it for a living, being one guy with 0 business sense. But thats alright .. I dont mind giving my work away for free as long as some other asshole doesn't try to get wealthier off of my work. Its amazing how many stupid old white men get richer every day because ideals like RMSs are dismissed as crackpotism by the general public. In reality, if the GPL didn't exist, we'd be paying Bill Gates' for other peoples' work! I dont know about you, but I'm not sure he deserves that.

I can't believe what I'm seeing here..

[XaXXon]

I've posted a few replies, hoping that some people would catch on to what the article was actually saying, but these comments I'm reading are VERY disheartening.

We all know that RMS doesn't like non-Free software, where Free means you can modify it, you can use it for any purpose, and you can give original or modified copies to anyone else.

This new UnitedLinux distribution has a per-seat license. This license can only apply to non-GPL (or similar licenses) components. The people who buy UnitedLinux for their commercial needs can still take the GPL components and do whatever they want with them. The non-GPL components, however, cannot be redistributed. This is what RMS doesn't like.

What he's saying is that if everyone would distribute their software under the GPL, this type of (partially) non-free distribution wouldn't be possible.

He is in no way saying that he doesn't like the way his GPL software is being used. He is also not trying to stop other people from distributing GPL software. He's just saying what he's always said: that software should be Free and that non-Free software is bad. Since all the parts of UnitedLinux aren't Free, UnitedLinux is bad.

This isn't necessarily my opinion, I'm just trying to help get across what RMS is trying to say.

Re:I can't believe what I'm seeing here..

[psgalbraith]

What he's saying is that if everyone would distribute their software under the GPL, this type of (partially) non-free distribution wouldn't be possible.

Well, all they need to do is make a proprietary installer (or any other required bit of software). Everything else could be GPLed and they would still be okay with their per-seat licensing.

That doesn't mean we should make it easier for 'em and not GPL our code.

RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[zangdesign]

If you read the article, they will be in complete compliance with the GPL - they won't make BINARIES available, but SOURCE CODE will be.

As for the proprietary software, something has to be done to ensure that they survive. Otherwise, there will be only two Linux companies, and eventually there will only be IBM.

Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a bad episode of Highlander when I observe the Linux crowd.

Re:RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[smcavoy]

Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a bad episode of Highlander when I observe the Linux crowd.

Wow, now that's a flame. I didn't think anyone actually watched that shite.

Re:RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[ozric2k1]

Are you saying there is a good episode of highlander?

Re:RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a bad episode of Highlander when I observe the Linux crowd.

Really? I was thinking "Gilligan's Island" myself.

Re:RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[Simon Brooke]

As for the proprietary software, something has to be done to ensure that they survive. Otherwise, there will be only two Linux companies, and eventually there will only be IBM.

And there will still be Debian. Don't get me wrong: I run a company, and my company makes it's living from writing software. All the software we write is released under open license (in fact BSD, but recent events are pushing us more towards GPL). We make our money because the people who need the software in the first place pay us to develop it. That seems fine to me. Charging a second customer for software you've already developed seems to me simply dishonest, so we don't do it.

It doesn't seem to me to matter whether there are commercial Linux distributions or not. It certainly doesn't seem to me to be worth selling the principles of free software in order to allow these businesses to survive. There will continue to be high-quality volunteer maintained Debian distributions, and frankly that's all we need.

Re:RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[SN74S181]

Not to sound all gloomy and doomy, but Debian and similar efforts can only survive in a flat-fee bandwidth environment. On a net where it costs lots of money to subscribe to mailing lists, where people pay per megabyte for APT-GET, such cooperative efforts will wither.

And there are suits all over the net figuring out ways to meter and charge for this stuff. Once they've got their hooks in things Debian and similar efforts will balkanize bigtime.

Re:RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[zangdesign]

Fine, Debian will survive. But Debian is not a company - it's an organization (or something like it).

You must understand that perception is as important as reality in the business world, sometimes more. A free Star Office goes over great with the gomers, but Sun had to put a price on to get it to move with businesses.

>> There will continue to be high-quality ...

Well, sure there will be - but unless you've given up on getting rid of the Windows stranglehold, you're going to need a commercial company or two around to provide some perceived legitimacy.

Sorry to be such a cynic, but the real value of Redhat, SuSE and others is that they put a veneer of respectability on Linux. It's pretty obvious that it won't move in quantity on technical merit alone, and so those companies are necessary. Remember, big business is more interested in the bottom-line than in community (it may not be right, but like a lump of poop on the sidewalk, there it is).

It's going to take a long time to overcome the stigma of FREE=LOW QUALITY. My apologies to any big businesses that aren't like lumps of poop on the sidewalk.

Re:RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[glenstar]

Charging a second customer for software you've already developed seems to me simply dishonest, so we don't do it.

????!

Unless you are charging the initial customer a shitload of money, I don't see how you can stay in business. On top of that, I can't imagine any customer being happy with the fact that the software they just paid you good money to write is now freely available to everyone else. And, to me, that is the true shortcoming of the GPL.

Re:RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[zangdesign]

I used to think that, but now I'm not so sure. The customer knows (or should be informed) going into the deal, so there's not much argument there. Plus, if it's custom software, it has a very limited customer-base anyway. The competitors are going to be hiring some other company because of the possibility of mixing IP.

So it's probably a pretty safe bet all things considered. Certain routines are pretty universal, and there's probably only a small percentage that actually specific to the customer's application and it's extremely specific - requiring customization on a per-installation basis.

We're not talking email clients here, I'm guessing.

As for commercial software, it's necessary. Like it or not, commercial software does serve a useful purpose - it's high-visibility tends to make it more adoptable by the general public and corporations for utilitarian purposes (email, word-processing, etc.) because it seems to come from a stable source.

That's a downfall of Open Source and Free Software - the lack of apparent stability of the relationship between customer and programmer. You can say that the programmer will always be there, but unless he is paid money to always be there (as a commercial company is), there is less of a guarantee.

An Open Source programmer can move onto another project and one has only his/her/it's word that they'll support the product. Remember that people are resistant to change, so it's not always convenient to shop around for a programmer because, good, bad, or indifferent, you establish a relationship with someone, they become a known quantity.

Then again, I could be wrong. Worse things have happened.

People may dislike Redhat

[Anonymous Coward]

People may dislike Redhat, all the fanboy reaction to this has been go UnitedLinux, RedHat's in damage control mode.

RedHat however, has really played EXTREMLY fairly in this space. They DO license their stuff, even stuff they create under the GPL. They contribute enourmous amounts back to Linux. They don't play too many games with availability of ISO's of their distributions.

Bravo to Redhat for playing it clean, they've got my money for the forseeable future.

Couldn't see this one a mile away?

[essdodson]

Common, I saw this a mile away. This is the same guy who says that freeware isn't good enough, and that the GNU project won't associate with those who publish freeware, etc... His philosophy is getting old.

Why do I get the feeling...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that RMS has a little timer program on his desktop that pops up every few days to remind him to start yet another pointless pissing match? Honestly, there are times when I read his latest rantings and am reminded of what Robin Williams' character said of a first-rate jerk in GOOD MORNING, VIET NAM, "That man's in more need of a blow job than any white man in history."

Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Taco Cowboy]

You said:

"nobody likes the title GNU/Linux, nor uses it"

Wait a minute here.

Do you ever use Linux before, or are you just one of those "parrots" that utter whatever others have said ?

Ever heard of Debian ?

Do you know that the Debian distribution calls their Linux "GNU/Linux" ?

It only goes to show how pathetic some of you can really be. None of you have done as much as RMS, and still you pick on that guy just because of the "GNU/Linux" thing.

Tell you something, sonny, nobody is perfect. Not RMS, nor Ghandi or George Washington.

Remember the famous quote :

"Judge not, lest thou be judged"

The way you ( and others like you ) judge RMS is EXACTLY the way others are judging you. The majority of the OSS people may disagree with RMS's stand on "GNU/Linux", but we DO respect what he has done, and we WILL NOT pick on that guy just for the fun of it.

If you are really somebody, show us your stuffs, and let the rest of us judge your worth.

Please stop picking on RMS.

Thank you !

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Judge not, lest thou be judged"

Something rms does constantly...

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of Debian ?

Sure. That's the distribution I used before they prepended "GNU" and practically threatened to not include documentation unless it was under the exact license they specify. Gentoo Linux allowed me to evolve past all that BS.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

are RMS by any chance, trying to politely ask the school yard bullies in a semi-high pitched voice "please stop picking on me guys!" "stooop!"

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[tsa]

George Bush is also not perfect.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Jucius Maximus]

"Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."

Likening the practice to Microsoft Software, Slashdot reader 'Jucius Maximus' has issued a brief statement condemning the proprietary software that appears to have been recomended for distribution by Richard M. Stallman. RMS called upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by UnitedLinux distributions, similar to Microsoft's practices of not allowing their software to run on Free Operating Systems.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Daemonik]

Who cares what RMS or Debian want their OS to be called, it's what the majority of it's users actually call it that matters. For those that actually use the distro's name in conversation, it's Debian, not GNU/Debian/Linux or GNU/Debian/HURD.

If you doubt it, you mentioned Debian 3 times and the only time you said it was GNU/Debian is when you declared that it's what Debian calls it.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[toupsie]

"Judge not, lest thou be judged"

How dare you judge him for judging RMS! What gives you the right to judge other people's ability to judge the public activities of RMS? This is an incredibly childish argument commonly heard on daytime trash talk TV shows. I am now waiting for the classic, "I know you are but what am I?", comeback.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the quote:
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

So just judge well if you do judge.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU/good GNU/golly GNU/all GNU/this "GNU/" GNU/crap GNU/is GNU/making GNU/me GNU/sick. GNU/we GNU/should GNU/just GNU/put GNU/it GNU/in GNU/front GNU/of GNU/everything GNU/just GNU/to GNU/keep GNU/it GNU/all GNU/simple.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[BluBrick]

Any unconventional viewpoint with which one agrees is termed visionary. Any unconventional viewpoint with which one disagrees is termed eccentric.

Many great visionaries have been considered eccentric because of a few of their views. Many eccentrics have been considered great visionaries because of a few of their views.

These two statements cannot be denied.

RMS is considered a great visionary. RMS is considered an eccentric.

These two statements cannot be denied.

RMS is considered an eccentric. RMS is considered a visionary

These two statements cannot be denied.

Let's face it, RMS is an eccentric visionary (or perhaps a visionary eccentric). Only RMS, or a mindless idiot, could possibly agree with ALL of RMS' views.

In the minds of many, the idea of Free Software paints him as a visionary genius, while the GNU/Linux thing paints him as a mouth-foaming, moon-howling loonie. Unfortunately, the whole GNU/Linux thing gets more press than than the Free Software thing.

Personally, I think that RMS is a nutter, but a nutter that we need.

I also think that Freedom in Software is more important than recognition for the GNU Project.

If RMS disagrees with me on that last point, I'd like to see him admit it publicly!

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Judge not, lest thou be judged"

How dare you judge him for judging RMS! [...] Pot. Kettle. Black.

Wow! While he DOES "judge" the first guy in other parts of his post, the "Judge not" quote is not proof of that. What do you think of that, jerkoff?

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[carlos_benj]

Only RMS, or a mindless idiot, could possibly agree with ALL of RMS' views.

Somtimes I'm not sure that RMS agrees with all of RMS' views....

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[thetbone]

If you ask me the quote implicitly implied that he was judging the person, and should stop doing it because it is wrong......which is a judgement in itself.

What do you think of that, jerkoff?

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it's hard to understand what you're saying with RMS's cock in your mouth. Secondly, I am sick and fucking tired of hearing that little bitch whine about what is good and bad for Linux for _everyone_. He doesn't own Linux and he doesn't control Linux, all he ever seems to do is crawl out of the fucking woodworks when he hears something to whine about. I am at the point where it almost doesn't matter what is "right" or "wrong", I'll just do whatever is *AGAINST* RMS's bitchy little wishes.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[SN74S181]

I thought that sort of 'exclusionary licensing' with special requirements was strongly discouraged by the GNU movement.

Has the COPYING file been discreetly modified while I wasn't watching?

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to quote the Holy Word of God, atleast get it right lest He smite yer arse. Matthew 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Abreu]

But the question is, how do Debian users call it?

My bet is that they just call it Debian

---------------------
Disclaimer: I certainly believe that RMS has made enormous contributions to Free/Opensource/name-of-the-month software, and that without him and the rest of the guys at the FSF, we wouldnt be able to enjoy the liberties we have now, however I strongly think the guy needs to take a couple of steps back in order to have some sense of proportion.

It doesnt matter what the masses call it.
If/When Free software changes the world, Stallmans name will certainly be in the history books

(he is already mentioned profusely in all Introducing *nix type books, in the first chapters).

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[BlueWonder]

Only RMS, or a mindless idiot, could possibly agree with ALL of RMS' views.

Since I am not RMS, I guess this makes me a mindless idiot. ;-)

I also think that Freedom in Software is more important than recognition for the GNU Project. If RMS disagrees with me on that last point, I'd like to see him admit it publicly!

Of course, I cannot speak for RMS, but I assume that he'd agree wholeheartedly. In his article What's in a name?, he explains the reasoning behind his request to call GNU/Linux "GNU/Linux".

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a terrorist would say something like that.
Get 'im boys!

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Eccles]

None of you have done as much as RMS, and still you pick on that guy just because of the "GNU/Linux" thing.

I don't pick on RMS, I pick on him doing the "GNU/Linux" thing. The reason being is that I want his general message to succeed more. When he uses his position to criticize the decision to use BitKeeper or for things like this topic, his message comes across better.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[jgerman]

Uh no. Missing the point. It's GNU/Linux not GNU/Debian. You're comparing the name of a distibution to the name of an operating system. The correct name for the operating system is GNU/Linux, however if you want to shorten it to Linux go ahead, I call Coca-Cola Coke (to name just one of thousands of short versions of proper names), I'm guilty myself of calling GNU/Linux Linux. It's shorter easier and get's the point across. Hell I don't usually make distinctions between distributions either.

I've got news for you, the majority of users (people) are average or below average intelligence, what they call something doesn't matter, and doesn't change what it is.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[MisterBlister]

I think it was actually RMS's mom who posted that message.

Hello RMS's mom.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[linuxislandsucks]

We will stop picking on RMS when acknowledges that respect of others and sharing of knwoledge is what free software development is all about..

HURd took ten years becasue RMS did not want to share, a very simple fact.

If he wanted naming rights to all OS systems that use gnu he shoudl have put that in the license..

You do not rule a coding community by overbearing dictatorship..

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. Thanks to new FBI wiretapping guidelines, he's already been nabbed.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[zaphod110676]

This is my favorite post of all time.

GNU/Good GNU/Work!

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people say either "Debian" or "Debian GNU/Linux". The only people I've ever heard say "Debian Linux" are people that don't use Debian.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[krmt]

I also think that Freedom in Software is more important than recognition for the GNU Project.

If RMS disagrees with me on that last point, I'd like to see him admit it publicly!

To be fair, I don't think he would disagree with you at all. RMS has always been far more concerned with promoting Free Software than his own project. A good example of this is his approval of the ogg project licensing under a BSD-style license in order to promote adoption over MP3.

While I don't agree with the need to call Linux GNU/Linux, if you read what he says about it, his choice of name is to remind people of the philosophy behind Free software. The statement towards United Linux is actually a perfect example, because they are calling it Linux, but using non-Free software in it. Using the term GNU/Linux is meant to imply complete freedom. You could just as easily call it FreeLinux or something similar, but I feel his intention is in the right place. Free software is far more important to him than recognition, but because recognition is associated with Free software, his motives are not quite as apparent.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU/Your GNU/comment GNU/violated GNU/the "GNU/postercomment" GNU/compression GNU/filter. GNU/Try GNU/less GNU/whitespace GNU/and/GNU/or GNU/less GNU/repetition. GNU/Comment GNU/aborted.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[v77]

You said:
Do you know that the Debian distribution calls their Linux "GNU/Linux" ?

Hey, step off your high horse. Why DO they call it GNU/Linux? Why not GNU/BSD/MIT/FREEWARE/Restricted/Linux ???

Why don't you go in and count the number of packages in your beloved Debian that aren't GPL at all. Why should one license be assosiated with an OS that has MANY MANY different packages under MANY different licenses.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[martyn s]

You know, an equal majority of people are average or *above* average intelligence, what's you point?

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the full quote goes more like:

judge not, lest thou be judged --
for by what standard you judge others shall you also be judged.

Basically, if RMS gets caught using non-free software, he's screwed. Otherwise, he is without "licensing sin", so he is the one man who can cast that first stone. Do unto others, and all that...

But nice to have you out insulting people anyway.

Reverend Zoober
Holy Man Extraordinaire

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"i would fucking kill your children and eat their faces. then i'll break your legs and beat the crap out of you while sodomizing you with my 10" strap-on dick in front of your woman until you cry like a little bitch. then i'll violate every orifice in your woman's body while you watch helplessly and then I'll bust my nut all up on your face and in your eyes. then i'll shit in your woman's mouth and force her to eat it while i ream her asshole until its ripped wide open and bleeding."

--Richard M. Stallman (when asked what he would do to get users to use the term 'GNU/Linux' instead of just 'Linux')

Still like him now?

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[jgerman]

Unlikely, there are fewer above average people than below. The average deviation from the mean for below average is much smaller than above, hence more people fit into that category than above average to balance those above. Obviously you're in the below category, since you don't understand the possesive form of pronouns.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Codifex Maximus]

My son Jucius Maximus... how did you get out of the basement?

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[EverDense]

...and people say Germans don't have a sense of humour!

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nein! Deutsche haben keinen Humor! Davon abgesehen ist das alles ein echter Kindergarten hier!

Just another germans statement.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[EvilAlien]

Sorry Dad...

So... can I borrow the GNU/Car keys?

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[extrasolar]

Do you not think that recognition for the GNU project is important?

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Jester99]

Alright, I got karma to burn.
Flamesuit: engaged.

Do you know that the Debian distribution calls their Linux "GNU/Linux"?

Yes, they do, but they also release a distribution which uses the HURD kernel, e.g., "GNU/HURD".

Furthermore, since Debian is the official GNU distribution, it'd be fitting for them to call it GNU/Linux. But that would mean it'd be equally fitting to refer to, say, Red Hat Linux, or Caldera Linux, or -- oh. Wait. Like we already do.

From the basic feeling I get from most people, "GNU/Linux" as a sticking point on the name of the system is essentially limitted to RMS and a few others. The VAST OVERWHELMING majority just refer to "Linux."

And its not picking on RMS "just for the fun of it." Frankly, it's BAD P.R. for him to go around telling LUGs to change their names to "GNU/Linux User Groups", insulting CEOs to their faces by correcting them midsentence when they're asking him questions, etc.

If he wants to be the self-appointed "champion spokesman" for Linux, he should realllly take a lesson in courtesy. Which sometimes means holding your damn opinion about what you call something, to yourself.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[martyn s]

Yeah, obviously I don't understand the possesive form of pronouns. Or maybe it was a typo, like I accidentall left off the last letter of the word.

Your argument that I was in the below average catergory, while wrong, wouldn't have been fallacious if you said I don't properly understand statistics. But saying that I don't understand the possesive form of pronouns is very weak.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[hwilker]

> Remember the famous quote :
>
> "Judge not, lest thou be judged"

That is basically the problem. Why should one refrain from the act of judging something, or even someone, based on the knowledge one possesses at the moment of judgement? Not to judge at all would only play into the hands of the pathetically, uh, politically correct.

What is important is that one remains open to new knowledge, and to the possibility of being wrong in one's judgement. Not judging at all doesn't solve problems, it only perpetuates them.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

The stature of the GNU Project has become synonymous
to Free Software. It is hard to talk about
the one without automatically talking abot the other.
What on earth are you talking about!

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true (parent should be modded up as +2 Informative, +3 Ending-the-stupid-argument). When I say Debian, I mean the whole thing, when I say Debian GNU/Linux, I mean the subset of Debian, like when saying Debian GNU/Hurd or even Debian GNU/Win32. It's sad that the only reasonable comment in this flamebait has Score:0.

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[The Turd Report]

Obviously you're in the below category, since you don't understand the possesive form of pronouns.

Nice typo-flame, fag.

Errr....

[00_NOP]

So my plans for "United Hurd" had better gon the back burner...

Re:Errr....

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... actually, it's a colony of penguins....

:o)

now if it was UnitedBSD...

[mattbland]

they'd have a chance. But linux is under the GPL I can't see how they'd have a chance of restricting it.

I can picture the courtroom in my mind already. All it would take is a single coder of a single piece of software included in the distribution to say that he doesn't agree and the case against whoever they were taking to court would be thrown out.

What the? A windows clone?

[WildBeast]

I've seen Linux people laugh at MS per-seat licensing, yet now that some stupid Linux distributions do the same. Ah it's not such a big deal, RMS is whining for nothing.

What's wrong with you people? If we wanted a Windows clone we would be using Windows, wouldn't we?

Where have the good old days of free Linux, freedom of expression and powerfull shells gone? Nowadays all we hear about is KDE/GNOME, Redhat/Caldera, etc. and their right to charge for Linux.

Enough is enough and its time for a change.

For once, I stand by RMS and by the GPL.

Re:What the? A windows clone?

[fire-eyes]

What's wrong with you people? If we wanted a Windows clone we would be using Windows, wouldn't we?

Nice to see someone else out there thinks as I do. Very nice.

Nowadays all we hear about is KDE/GNOME, Redhat/Caldera, etc. and their right to charge for Linux.

Damn right. I talk to linux users all day who don't know how to do jack shit, because they never learned the command line.

I've been disheartened by the linux world since commercial interests started stepping in. Avoiding such crap was my #1 reason for dropping windows in the first place.

Preach on.

Re:What the? A windows clone?

[ryanvm]

For once, I stand by RMS and by the GPL.

Wow - endorsing the GPL on Slashdot. Way to show some balls. ;-)

Re:What the? A windows clone?

[r00tdenied]

I've been disheartened by the linux world since commercial interests started stepping in. Avoiding such crap was my #1 reason for dropping windows in the first place.

That is the most ridiculous statement ever! First of RedHat has done numerous things to help the kernel developers, as a result they benefit from it as well as the users. The same could stand for United Linux. Besides if you are so digusted with the commercialization of software, shouldn't you feel the same way about the hardware? Maybe you should stop using computers then if it disgusts you so much.

I obviously don't get some of you people. We live in a democratic society in which commercialism is the sole driving force of the economy. If you don't like it then deal with it and don't whine

r00tdenied

Re:What the? A windows clone?

[WildBeast]

Well, RMS stands by the GPL and uses it for software he writes.
MS stands by there proprietary license and use it to develop there softwares. I have no problem with that.
Redhat/Caldera/SuSe/etc. stand by the GPL only to get a share of its popularity; then they turn around and do whatever they feel is best to maximize there profit. For me, they're hypocrites. One day they criticize the per-seat licensing and the other day they're copying it.

Re:What the? A windows clone?

[fsmunoz]

What's wrong with you people? If we wanted a Windows clone we would be using Windows, wouldn't we? Where have the good old days of free Linux, freedom of expression and powerfull shells gone? Nowadays all we hear about is KDE/GNOME, Redhat/Caldera, etc. and their right to charge for Linux.

Those days are gone. Nowadays the Linux croud are mainly totally unisterested in subjects like freedom. Windows? Well, most of them uses it anyway, they only have a GNU/Linux partition to be oh-so-l33t.

Let's face it, it the future of free software was to lay in the hands of the ppl that have posted all the moronic, ignorant and utterly misinformed posts in 1 year we would be searching for Linux activation codes in warez sites. Ahhh, but at least they could do 'emerge crack', how fucking cool!!!

fsmunoz

Re:What the? A windows clone?

[fire-eyes]

Besides if you are so digusted with the commercialization of software, shouldn't you feel the same way about the hardware? Maybe you should stop using computers then if it disgusts you so much.

Computers didn't start out free.

If you don't like it then deal with it and don't whine

Who's whining? That's right, you are.

Re:What the? A windows clone?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Computers didn't start out free."

And neither did software.

Re:What the? A windows clone?

[mpe]

Computers didn't start out free.

They did start out being used to defend freedom, however.

Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[gnugnugnu]

And if the MPAA and RIAA were not so overbearing and restrictive in their exploitation of the entertainemnt industry they would be forced to find a new source of revenue. A job is not for life, invalid business models (unlike social services) have no right to protection. You have to keep learning, training and adapting. Some businesses fail (Enron) it is harsh but that's life.

If it is the entertainment industry it is not something most slashdotters would seem to have a problem with but when applied to the Technology industry suddenly people can relate.

RMS cares about propping up what he sees as the invalid software as property business model as much as most slashdotters care about propping up the entertainment industry.

Re:Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[foobar104]

Um... are you saying that the entertainment industry is an invalid business model? Making movies or records, and selling them to the public, is an invalid business model? And, likewise, writing and selling software in an invalid business model?

Please back this up with some kind of reasoning. Any kind will do.

Readers of Slashdot already know my opinion, so I won't bother restating it here. But I would like to know on what basis you formed yours.

Re:Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[gnugnugnu]

Im reffering to misguided attempts to maximise profits and gouge the public by inflicting copy prevention technology.
Im talking about attempts to use and abuse legislation to enforce riduculously long copyright terms.
Im talking about the over inflated price of CDs, the abject failure of the mainstream music industry to adapt to MP3s and the internet.

The entertainment industry needs to overhaul its business model, i dont believe the middle men of the entertainment industry deserve to take the lions share of the profit rather than the artists/creators. Expecting to continue to make the kind of profit margins for distributing music is what im saying is unrealistic and invalid.

Re:Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[foobar104]

Im reffering to misguided attempts to maximise profits and gouge the public by inflicting copy prevention technology.

Pirated CDs and DVDs are a huge problem. Have you ever been to southeast Asia? You can buy pirated media on street corners in K-L for, literally, pennies. This isn't one guy copying a CD for his mate. This is large-scale mass production. Is it not appropriate and understandable for the music and movie industries to try to put a stop to this practice?

What we've established here is that the music and movie industries are in the right to try to prevent the sort of widespread piracy we see in Asia. Their method for doing so is distasteful to you, and to me, and probably to lots of other people. But there's a difference between doing the wrong thing and doing the right thing in the wrong way.

The music and movie industries's attempts to curb large-scale piracy do not amount to an invalid business model. Sorry.

So why aren't you looking at this as an opportunity? Get off your butt and figure out how to implement fair copy protection in music CDs and DVDs. Maybe a system like SCMS that lets you make a copy, but not a copy-of-a-copy. You're smart, figure it out! Then sell it to the record companies and retire to a life of leisure.

Unless, of course, you're a GNU/Communist. In that case, you'll give it to the record companies for nothing and go back to your workaday job, right? Right.

Im talking about attempts to use and abuse legislation to enforce riduculously long copyright terms.

First of all, the purpose of copyright legislation is to protect the rights of copyright holders. If I'm a copyright holder-- which I am, as are you-- then it's fair and appropriate for me to lobby to get those protections extended.

Nobody's acting immorally or illegally here, either. They're just acting in a way that's different from what you think they should do. That doesn't mean their business model is invalid, either.

Besides, I'd like to know who died and left you in charge of deciding what's "riduculous" and what's reasonable.

Im talking about the over inflated price of CDs, the abject failure of the mainstream music industry to adapt to MP3s and the internet.

The price of CDs, like any other economic entity, is governed by market forces. They charge $16 for a CD because people will pay it. It is not morally wrong or illegal to charge whatever price the market will bear. In fact, some believe that it's morally wrong not to do so.

And as for what you so dramatically called "the abject failure of the mainstream music industry," you're making it sound like MP3 technology and the Internet are some kind of divine force that must be reckoned with. Seriously, does it really matter whether you can download music over the Internet? Do you think the fact that you can't represents some kind of failure of the music industry?

You do? Well, then, get off your lazy ass and start a record company. Sign up some artists, or buy the rights to some music, and start delivering content over the Internet. It's your opportunity to lose.

Of course, if you want to do that, then you're going to need some cash. Maybe lots of it. You could-- and, if fact, will-- gamble your life savings, but unless you're incredibly rich, that won't be nearly enough. (If you were incredibly rich, you wouldn't be complaining about the price of CDs. So that's probably not the case.)

So what do you do? You get yourself a business partner or two, and get them to gamble their life savings too. That won't be enough, either, so you'll have to find some investors. Before they give you any money, you'll have to convince them that they can make it back, so you'll need a business plan. Make it a good one, too, 'cause what you're talking about has been tried before, and investors have already lost their shirts on it once. They're definitely in wardrobe-protection mode these days.

If you do all of that just right, you'll have solved the problem you're bitching about.

What's that? You can't do all of that? You don't have a business plan? The investors turned you down?

Maybe that's because it's a terrible idea.

Your argument is, in a word, absurd.

Expecting to continue to make the kind of profit margins for distributing music is what im saying is unrealistic and invalid.

If that were true, then the big record companies would be experiencing a decline in profits. They aren't. They're seeing record numbers. Why? Because people are continuing to pay $16 apiece for CDs. If any of your points was the least bit valid, we'd see some kind of market effect. But we don't.

So basically it sounds like you're just whining. You want to download MP3s for free, and you're not getting it, and you can't figure out how to do it yourself, so you're venting your frustrations by indicting the whole music sales business model.

Pretty weak, if you ask me.

Re:Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[gnugnugnu]

Bit for bit copying.
Most "copy protection" systems particularly DeCSS have no effect on bit for bit copying. These systems are not about preventing large scale piracy, they are about making it too inconvenient for the casual user to make a copy for his friends and in the process it prevents me from making backup copies or a spare copy for the car.

Copyright law, and actually getting local government and law enforcement to enforce it are
what is needed to prevent industrial scale copying.

Region locking of DVDs is just shameless price gouging, it is an artificial restriction of supply to maximise profits, plain and simple.

I dont have a problem with creator making use of Copyright, what i have a problem with is that 70 years after the creator is dead and buried Disney that has borrowed so much from the public domain refuses to let anything out.

You seem to think market forces are all that keeps up the price of CDs, but market forces are restricted. Buy CDs at the price the record industry Cartel has set or not at all. The record industry prefers to make a big profit on its sales than take the chance that selling cheaper will give them greater sails and a bigger overall profit.

Music is given away for free on the radio! it actually serves as advertising for concerts and album sales.
If i like a few songs from a band i will often buy the album and rip it to mp3 to listen to from my computer.

Progress. the world changes, businesses need to change with it and find new ways to earn money. no one cares about the buggy whip manufacturers who were put out of business by the automobile.

To bring this back on topic. programmers could paid to write the code and release it freely under the GPL then they have to go off and try and find new problems to solve, more code to write, or improve existing code.
Similarly the entertainment industry should the opportunity to get paid for their work for a limited time and then have to go off and come up with something new.

ive made my points, im not going to argue every last minute detail.
:wq

Re:Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[electroniceric]

You have some very good points about widespread piracy. They point to a need for balancing the privacy and rights of a consumer with those of producers and distributors. In other words, work together (yeah, cooperate, one of those dirty GNU/Commie words) to make a system that works for everyone.

I was gonna leave this "the market takes care of everything rant" alone, but it always seems to get coopted into a "we should kowtow to every whim of big business" rant

The price of CDs, like any other economic entity, is governed by market forces. They charge $16 for a CD because people will pay it. It is not morally wrong or illegal to charge whatever price the market will bear

CD's like any other entity are traded in an economic climate where decisions are shaped by the laws and norms of the country, as well as the power realities: Dell cannot say no to Microsoft when they demand that Dell not install alternate OSes - that's not "free" market economics at all, that's a power dynamic. Hence the constant debate over intellectual property law here - this law shapes the economy of information.
Here's another look at the question of cost of CDs: because recording companies have achieved massive control of the distribution channels for music, CDs cost $16, notwithstanding the low costs of production. The record companies' control over production relies on a series of laws regarding contracts and intellectual property which they helped shape by lobbying.

The "free" market is an abstraction, even to economists. The practical question is how to shape the elements that govern a market to avoid gratuitious restricting individuals' actions but still hold true to society's morality and goals.

In fact, some believe that it's morally wrong not to do so.

Whoa,whoa,whoa, let's slow down here a minute. It's morally wrong not to charge people as much as you possibly can for something? I'm not religious, but as I recall, that practice has been frowned upon since at least biblical times, being referred to in the bible as usury. Humanity has come a long way from the days when those who could took all they could from anyone they could take it from. To say that it's morally wrong not to charge someone as much as you can for something is pretty cynical.

Re:Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[foobar104]

To bring this back on topic. programmers could paid to write the code and release it freely under the GPL then they have to go off and try and find new problems to solve, more code to write, or improve existing code.

Who, exactly, would pay them? If somebody pays, then somebody has to get paid. The GPL say, essentially, that the product of my labor (my source code) is of zero economic value. Who's going to pay me to generate thousands of kilobytes of zero-economic-value?

Re:Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[foobar104]

Your post is well said, and I don't want to take anything out of context by trying to quote you.

But I still don't agree. You seem to be saying that CDs cost $16 apiece because the record companies (which you call "cartels" for reasons that are not entirely clear) fix prices. I guarantee you-- I make a personal promise to you-- that if the record companies collectively sold half the CDs next year that they sold last year, prices would drop suddenly.

Let us not point the finger exclusively at record companies. They sell CDs for $16 each because untold millions of people buy them at that price. No other reason.

On the subject of usury, the word actually means the practice of charging interest on a loan. Depending on your interpretation, it may mean the charging of excessive interest, or the charging of interest period. And yes, there's a story in the Bible about usury. But banks still do it every day.

The "humanity has come a long way" argument is essentially meaningless, sorry to say. All you're basically saying there is that you think everybody ought to behave according to your preferences, but in more high-minded terms.

Re:Some perspective [Re:ego anyone?]

[electroniceric]

Wow - somebody disagreed with me civilly! I love it. And on /. to boot!

On the subject of usury, the word actually means the practice of charging interest on a loan. Depending on your interpretation, it may mean the charging of excessive interest, or the charging of interest period. And yes, there's a story in the Bible about usury.
You are right that I was reading it metaphorically as a mandate against exploitation. Good point to clarify. I do think exploitation is inhumane, and frankly it's a disgrace that humanity lets that kind of thing go on on the scales that we do.

The "humanity has come a long way" argument is essentially meaningless, sorry to say. All you're basically saying there is that you think everybody ought to behave according to your preferences, but in more high-minded terms.
If you're saying that my metaphor is overstated for a debate over the price of CDs, I can buy that criticism. I'm also open to the criticism that I phrase ideas about how I think humanity could live better as moral imperatives, and that is a patronizing way of approaching people. If this what you're saying, fairly said.
As for me wanting people to live according to my preferences - the answer is an unabashed yes (in the general sense, not in the absolute sense). High-minded or low-minded, sooner or later, everyone advocates for a way of doing things - if they're looking out for themselves, they at least advocate about the way to do the things that affect them. Take building roads - building them or not building them are both choices that affect my life. I'm interested in problems people have to cooperate to solve, so I advocate for myself and others at once. I'm about people looking out for each other - and making that a priority over other things. Corral my language if it's obnoxious, but that's what I'm fer.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[TooTallFourThinking]

He doesn't want to prepend it to everything. He understands the difference between the Linux kernel and the entire system, which he wants to be called GNU/Linux. And I don't mind the name GNU/Linux nor do some other people.

He's got his cause and he's fighting for it. Not that it in itself doesn't warrant mocking. But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.

UnitedLinux licensing ok

[Idylwyld]

Hold on- UnitedLinux can, or at least should be able to, put any license they want on their own code. While my understanding may be flawed only the GPL'd code used (and derivatives thereof) must be released freely, source and binary. To be completely honest, I don't think there'd be any problem with UnitedLinux putting a link on their webpage pointing to Debian.org with a message that in order to take advantage of the GPL requirements for freely available source that it can be found there. They could still restrict their own code to a seat-license then.

RMS Again

[RWarrior(fobw)]

He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution.

But he wants people to licence software under the GPL, which allows what Caldera et al are proposing. As long as they supply the source code ...

It really offends me when people like RMS seem to work to defeat companies like Caldera and SuSE, who have done a great deal for the Linux community, by taking away their revenue stream. By providing me with a Linux distribution, they provide me a valuable service. Yes, I can roll my own if I want to, but the time and effort that a packaged distribution saves me is worth some money to me!

As long as UnitedLinux complies with the licences of its component parts, neither I nor RMS have any right to bitch about how much the distribution costs.

The comparison to Microsoft is invalid because there are competing distributions of various prices, from Slackware and Debian on the $0 end to RedHat and Mandrake on the pay end, whereas there is no competition to Windows. If the distribution is done right and works well, market competition will take care of "fair pricing."

Re:RMS Again

[huberj]

But he wants people to licence software under the GPL, which allows what Caldera et al are proposing. As long as they supply the source code ...

Umm, no it doesn't. Did you read the article? Buying UnitedLinux (binaries) will not allow you to re-distribute said binaries. This is against the GPL. You would need to buy individual copies for each machine to be installed on.

There seems to be a pretty significant misunderstanding in most of these comments. (even more than usual, which is pretty incredible! ;)

Re:RMS Again

[Bouncings]

The comparison to Microsoft is invalid because there are competing distributions of various prices, from Slackware and Debian on the $0 end to RedHat and Mandrake on the pay end, whereas there is no competition to Windows. If the distribution is done right and works well, market competition will take care of "fair pricing."

The comparison isn't about price. RMS and the FSF have said time and again that price isn't an issue. You can charge $65,000,000,000 for your Linux distribution and that's fine by RMS and the FSF. The problem is, "per-seat" licensing (which is a very valid comparison to Microsoft, because Microsoft was one of the first companies to introduce such an absurd concept). Per-seat licensing IS in direct violation of the GPL, and a patently Microsoft act -- Microsoft might have even patented that kind of license. :)

I concur with RMS: Boycott all companies at all involved with per-seating licensing of GPL software.

Re:RMS Again

[ryanvm]

But he wants people to licence software under the GPL, which allows what Caldera et al are proposing. As long as they supply the source code ...

Wrong. If everything in UnitedLinux was GPL'd then they couldn't put restrictive licensing terms on it. That's the point of the GPL.

I'm not saying it's wrong, they have to make money too. But the reason they can license it per-seat is because of the components that aren't under the GPL.

Re:RMS Again

[mobydobius]

It really offends me when people like RMS seem to work to defeat companies like Caldera and SuSE, who have done a great deal for the Linux community, by taking away their revenue stream. By providing me with a Linux distribution, they provide me a valuable service. Yes, I can roll my own if I want to, but the time and effort that a packaged distribution saves me is worth some money to me!

No one is arguing that with you. You can have the convenience of a packaged distribution, with CDs and manuals and everything, without per-seat licensing. Hello, Mandrake, RedHat. You don't see RMS trying to defeat them, do you?

As long as UnitedLinux complies with the licences of its component parts, neither I nor RMS have any right to bitch about how much the distribution costs.

No one is bitching about the cost. Hell, RedHat charges $200 for its professional edition, and $800 for advanced server (one-year of automatic upgrades included, I think). Its the license. Read before you post.

Re:RMS Again

[sheldon]

"because Microsoft was one of the first companies to introduce such an absurd concept"

Well actually no, this per-seat concept has been around for centuries now.

As an experiment go find someone in a public place reading a newspaper. Look over their shoulder and start reading, when they turn the page say "excuse me I wasn't done reading yet."

If you don't get:

a) punched in the nose

or

b) told to go buy your own damn newspaper

I will buy you a coke.

Anyway, software was licensed in this manner long before Microsoft became a company.

Re:RMS Again

[Bouncings]

As an experiment I suggest you go look over someone's monitor while they read slashdot on their Debian/GNU box. You'll probably get punched in the nose. I suggest you rethink your argument.

Re:RMS Again

[jstott]

But he wants people to licence software under the GPL, which allows what Caldera et al are proposing. As long as they supply the source code ...

Supplying the source code is not sufficient to meet the GPL. There must also be no restriction on redistribution of binaries. To wit,

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

...

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 ...

Per-seat licensing is a restriction on the recpient's right (under the GPL) to redistribute the program and is thus fundamentally incompatible with the GPL.

-JS

Re:RMS Again

[sheldon]

Copyrighted material has always had essentially per-seat licenses. Two people can't read a book or newspaper at the same time. While multiple people can view a movie or listen to music at the same time, they are explicitly forbidden from using the material as part of a public performance. i.e. you turn a CD player on in your bar, you have to be licensed with ASCAP.

There's no real need for me to rethink my argument, but perhaps you could admit to yourself that I am right.

Re:RMS Again

[mandolin]

Two people can't read a book or newspaper at the same time.

Untrue. A book is essentially a sequential-access device, but a newspaper supports multiple viewers, you just have to lock the pages. "Hey bubba gimme section A" "OK"

Re:RMS Again

[Bouncings]

They key thing here, Sheldon, is that this is copyLEFTED software.

Re:RMS Again

[TheAwfulTruth]

Well that and traditionally UNIX itself has always been a per-seat liscensed OS. Long before DOS or windows ever existed and even today!

Re:RMS Again

[steve_l]

MS licensing is funnier. They have that 'no more than 10 network connections' limit in NT worksta, that they enforce in IIS, and they have that 'per-CPU' licensing in NT server. And the boot code in Win2K is dumb enough to mistake the second execution unit in a hyperthreaded P4 as a second CPU, so you need to double your licensing fees if you want to use the second set of registers inside the P4. They will fix that in .NET server, but are cutting in half the #of CPUs licensed in every version of the server code, so it makes no difference whatsoever.

Re:RMS Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's not. Sheldon was responding to the claim that MS invented per seat licensing.

Re:RMS Again

[RebelWithoutAClue]

>a) punched in the nose or b) told to go buy your own damn newspaper

Exception to the above:

If you are a cute girl.

c) take your own time, honey.

>I will buy you a coke.

Think she would accept ? dont think so. 'Go away, you luser.'

Re:RMS Again

[Anonymous Coward]

He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution.

But he wants people to licence software under the GPL, which allows what Caldera et al are proposing.

Did you even glance at what he'd actually said before posting your indignant response? Didn't think so.

Re:RMS Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Two people can't read a book or newspaper at the same time.

Nonsense. You may have never shared a newpaper with someone but I can assure you it's quite a normal practice. I think any newspaper publisher would be surprised that you haven't come across it rather than indignant that it happens.

Re:RMS Again

[rtaylor]

No, the key thing here is that it's NOT copyLEFTED software.

United Linux includes many things which are of other. Any collection of software not distrbuted by the company United Linux MAY NOT be called United Linux. Just as you can goto Redhats ftp server and download everything on their CDs but may not sell or distribute it as Redhat without permission.

Really quite simple. Take Firewire. There are a ton of ISO 1394 devices which were the exact same as a Firewire device but could not use the name as they did not pay for that right.

United Linux is asking people to pay for the right to say they're using United Linux (they have other stuff too, but anyway). It'll be interesting to see if their company is profitable using this method, but it's certainly not wrong of them to try.

Re:RMS Again

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not trolling.

But per-seat licensing usually means:
A) I bought a newspaper from store WM. Someone asked me whether s\he could have it after i finished. I said sure. But someone from WM came out and shouted: You could not do that, Commie! Come to me and buy another one.

B) Fifty years later, I buy a e-book. My grandson want to read it. 'Of course you may, dear Ricky' Well, our finger-prints are different. So he could not read it without my presence.

It's arguable whether I could photocopy the newspaper. But not allow to give away the newspaper? Or sell it?

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

then why doesnt he advocate the use of the term "GNU/FreeBSD" or the generalized "GNU/*BSD"

Selling CDs != per seat licensing

[jdavidb]

What you are missing is that the GPL allows (and encourages) selling free software, but it forbids taking away the rights of the recipient to further modify or redistribute the software. Caldera (UnitedLinux, by this philosophy, shows that they are just Caldera; Caldera has always done this) can't get around the GPL so I presume what they are doing is distributing source to all the GPL'd parts of the system and noting your rights in fine print somewhere while adding a few proprietary parts such that the whole integrated product cannot be redistributed and you have to pay a per-seat license. This means you're really just paying the license for a tiny amount of the product and not the whole OS.

That's rich

[drew_kime]

He calls on developers to use the GPL, so as not to offer distributors a target to make proprietary.

What if the developers are the distributors? What if a developer takes an LSB-compliant distribution, writes some code that runs on it (or installs it, or provides package-management services for it) and chooses to keep that code proprietary? What if the developer is called Caldera?

Hmm, maybe in this case the developer wants the distributor (themselves) to have a "target to make proprietary."

Re:That's rich

[Otter]

What if the developers are the distributors? What if a developer takes an LSB-compliant distribution, writes some code that runs on it (or installs it, or provides package-management services for it) and chooses to keep that code proprietary? What if the developer is called Caldera?

Sure, you're absolutely right. I didn't mention that becuase a) I just wanted to clarify what Stallman said without getting into how relevant it was to this situation and b) it's not clear to me whether the Calera installer is being used here.

Suse does the same thing with YaST, IIRC.

Re:I am REALLY sick of the same old rant...

[leandrod]

> When we sell a system, we give em a cd of software and one of the kernel source (and a few other gnu utils we use) but basically we don't give them ANY source to our software...

So you are complying with other people’s software lincenses. That’s good. And some of these licenses are copyleft. That’s good too. RMS has nothing against that.

> So now since that company has basically put much more of their software under the gpl compared to what we did, why is RMS going nuts on them compared to going nuts on the hundreds of houses like ours???

Now if you imposed a per-seat licensing scheme on the GNU software you happen to distribute, that would be a violation of the GNU GPL, and it would cease your rights to distribute it. That’s what UnitedLinux has said it will do, and that answers your question.

a bad precedent

[eyegor]

It seems that we can't force them NOT to use the per-seat license if they include their own, non-GPLed software.

BUT...

We can also vote with our pocketbooks and do our best to ensure this product does not suceed. Even though RH isn't the "best" distro out there, adopting it (or the distro of your choice) as a corporate standard would let the Uber^H^H^H^HUnitedLinux people know we're not going to accept this crap.

If we allow this to survive as a viable distribution model, we can expect more of the same from other Linux distributers.

Re:a bad precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

> We can also vote with our pocketbooks and do our
> best to ensure this product does not suceed.

Ok people, let's boycott, everyone who bought SuSE Linux Enterprise Server for $600,- please raise your hand?

Who cares?

[supabeast!]

Is it just me, or does United Linux just seem like one more annoying headache for people still hanging on to the Linux distros that have lost favor as Redhat and Mandrake continue to gain market share? Why would I bother working with one convoluted mess tossed together by several market losers, when I could just go with a company that is obviously doing something right?

To me this whole thing seems about as smart as HP and Compaq deciding that instead of revamping their product lines and just giving customers what they want, like Sun and Dell did, they decided to merge two unpopular firms into one big one.

On the upside, this may be a good trend in the industry, as conglomerations of crap may be easier to get rid of then a bunch of small piles.

What you're missing is...

[Svartalf]

...that for that amount you bought a UnitedLinux image for, you can't give it to someone else or install it on multiple machines- because they're not licensing the distribution to you in that manner. One seat, one copy.

The GPL places no restrictions on use of the binaries, etc. and prohibits distribution with systems that do unless you add exception clauses at the end of the license to allow the same- UnitedLinux states flatly that this is the case, that you can't use the distribution on more than one system.

It boils down to the fact that anyone trying this is really violating the GPL license grant on several levels and the group should be told that they can't distribute the same.

Re:What you're missing is...

[duffbeer703]

If they are violating the license, the owners of said license can sue them for damages.

And that won't happen, but Linus Tordvalds doesn't seem to care about anything and the Linux user community is too fragmented to get money together for a lawsuit.

Re:What you're missing is...

[ninewands]

Well, I am reasonably sure that a Linux distribution will be based on glibc, and that it will include bash, even if it does NOT include gcc, autoconf, automake, etc., etc.

The FSF HAS sued companies in the past that tried to take GPL'd code in violation of the license (NeXT tried to base Objective C on gcc and make it a proprietary product).

If RMS is hot enough about this situation and there really IS a GPL violation, I would expect litigation to follow.

None of it?

[drew_kime]

Licensing the software itself on a per seat basis is absurd. It's not their software to begin with.

The GPL code isn't theirs, but is that all that's in their distribution? I thought they included a bunch of other software with it. No wait, I know they include a bunch of other stuff with it.

If you buy Caldera Linux, powered by UnitedLinux, you are free to copy, modify and distribute any of the GPL code that comes with it. If you only purchase the binaries and choose not to accquire the source, it may be difficult to separate the two classes of software (or even identify the difference). But as long as source is provided for all GPL parts I don't see the problem.

Re:None of it?

[leandrod]

> If you buy Caldera Linux, powered by UnitedLinux, you are free to copy, modify and distribute any of the GPL code that comes with it.

You are also free to run it as you like, including let several people access it. That makes a per-seat restriction in GNU GPL a breach of contract.

Re:None of it?

[Lacutis]

Unless they add something vital to the workings of the system that make it LSB compatible and keep that closed source requiring you to use per-seat licensing for THEIR PROGRAMS.

I'm sure after being in the Linux bis for so long they aren't going to try to stop people from re-releasing GPL'd software, however they can and probably will stop them from releasing parts of their own software that is not GPL'd that sets them apart from the pack so to speak.

Re:None of it?

[rgmoore]

If you only purchase the binaries and choose not to accquire the source, it may be difficult to separate the two classes of software (or even identify the difference).

It had better not be. One of the requirements of the GPL (section 3, b and c) is that distribution in binary only form must contain a notice informing the recipient of how to get the source code. It should be easy enough to grep for those notices and thus figure out which programs are covered by the GPL.

Re:None of it?

[SN74S181]

But, say (and this is reaching) the init program used by this OS is proprietary, not the GPL'd version. The whole OS falls apart, and/or has reduced value, if the proprietary init binary isn't run. The publisher is certainly within their rights to require per-seat licensing of said proprietary init binary.

To say otherwise, to claim that the GNU software can ONLY be run on all-GNU platforms, would require the removal of all GNU software from any 'un-pure' OS, and that's just NOT gonna happen anytime soon.

Re:None of it?

[leandrod]

> Unless they add something vital to the workings of the system that make it LSB compatible and keep that closed source requiring you to use per-seat licensing

You have a point here. But LSB compliance is mostly a point of configuration, not code.

Re:None of it?

[leandrod]

> But, say (and this is reaching) the init program used by this OS is proprietary, not the GPL'd version.

You have a point here! This poses other questions: for instance, would such OS be still GNU/Linux?

> The publisher is certainly within their rights to require per-seat licensing of said proprietary init binary.

Correct. And of incurring the ire of everyone but Bill Gates.

> To say otherwise, to claim that the GNU software can ONLY be run on all-GNU platforms, would require the removal of all GNU software from any 'un-pure' OS, and that's just NOT gonna happen anytime soon.

That’s what 3, item (c) is for: ”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 can imagine GNU GPL 4 yanking that off, since by then GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux may have already driven all proprietary OSs to legacy status

Irony...?

[dark_panda]

Remember the famous quote:

"Judge not, lest thou be judged"

<snip>

If you are really somebody, show us your stuffs, and let the rest of us judge your worth.

J

Re:Irony...?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not irony, it's the logic. He judges, therefore now we should judge him. It's perfectly logical, I don't know what you don't understand.

Advocacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok everyone here is the facts...

For years I have been advocating linux, and I personally love the OS. But companies look at me like I am nuts when I try to get them into it, untuil I tell them that they can install this one $50 copy of on every workstation at their company. For the company I currently work for, that is about ten thousand desktops. A very large chunk of change goes to Microsoft every time they do a company wide upgrade. So of course Open Source looks incredible to them!

But I will never be able to sell them the idea of using linux if UnitedLinux:

1. Succeedes in creating a "standard base" besides an Open Standard Base... and

2. Becomes a Per-Seat license. This is what they were getting away from in the first place.

I love my linux desktop and my linux laptop, but I cant get them into the buisiness model unless the prices remain at the level they are currently at. Oh by the way, we run SCO here too, and have had a great time getting licenses from Caldera who is now price gouging them as well (took us nearly three months to get a 10 user license on an Enterprise server).

Caldeara... please go away.

Re:Typical great idea from RMS

[TooTallFourThinking]

That man is an idiot sometimes

Wow. I was thinking that about you. The initiative as you so herald, seems to go against the GPL, which RMS is complianing about. Since the software they are using is GPL'ed, this presents a small problem.

This is a good way to subvert the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll freely give you the source code to everything I do - that completely satisfies the requirement of the GPL no question, that is CD #1, I will always include that CD in the package that I sell. In fact, I'll even post this on my web site so you can download the binary.

CD #2 is the precompiled binaries, I will not post the ISO image and will restrict you from distributing it. And I will charge you a fee (per seat) for each copy of it you want to use. I supply you a service - That service is the precompiled, pre-configure, and pre-installed programs. So you don't have to use the Source code.

You can always use the source code - that's fine go for it. I'm not stopping you.

CD #2 is my work - not your work. The GPL does not effect the entire CD and all of the other programs on it. Or are you claiming it does?

Think of it this way: Say SUN includes "GCC" pre-installed on the hard disk. Does the GPL in GCC now force Sun to effect all of the other programs on the disk? Including the operating system?

I don't think so - if it does - then anybody who includes any GPL program -pre-installed- on any computer places the entire computer under the GPL.

The GPL does not work like that, if it does then there are big problems with every linux distribution.

Remember - the GPL lets you charge a reasonable fee to supply copies of the source code. The GPL says nothing about supplying pre-compiled binaries. All it says is if you do supply binaries - you must make avaialbe the source code. It says nothing about me charging for the binaries.

His way or the Hiway

[nurb432]

They are just abiding by the letter of his GPL, he cant bitch about that.

Oh wait. he can.. and will :)

Seriously though, he cant have it both ways..

wow noone actually read what RMS said?

[Lumpy]

Cripes I just cant get over the number of conclusions that slashdotters jump to today without having a fricking clue... (Ok, I'll get laughed at for that one!) RMS's point is very valid and what he actually said is nothing like the sentaionalism lies on the story headline here.. (Slashdot=Weekly world news or enquirer now) RMS's point is rock solid and points out a hidden danger in the United linux idea..

Yes, per seat is evil... pure evil... espically connected with linux. but we expected such debauchery eventually.. Many of us expected it out of RedHat first, but it seems that the greediest of the distros are the ones who are implimenting it. it's sad.. the ENTIRE platform that linux stands on is the fact that deployment and cost of ownership is significantly lower due to the removal of the draconian and asenine restrictions in place on existing software platforms... Adding this to the Linux mix will do one of two things, the companies trying it will fail a horrible miserable torturous death (deserved in fact) or they will utterly destroy linux.

Basically... if WE as linux users, programmers, developers, advocates allow this viral licensing into linux it will destroy what we love. and that is RMS's response...

it's a "HEY, look at this!" nothing more people.

Microsoft tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

A Linux distribution is open and free (gpl).

They're putting out a distribution which is de-factoly unfree.

They are, judging by the wording on their website, trying hard to turn their distribution into the _standard_ Linux - giving them control over Linux.

I believe they want to control Linux and properterialise it - although they can't properterialise the parts under the GPL etc, they can add enough unfree bits to do this IF they get the marketshare - which they are after.

"Embrace and extend" comes to mind.

Please Linus, be prepared to make them remove the "Linux" from their UnitedLinux name if they get any serious marketshare with this farse.

I strongely suggest that this UnitedLinux distribution needs to be boycotted and comdemmed by Linux users everywhere. Or else the big iron hardware companies will control Linux.

From the United Linux Site Faq

[gregm]

Which slashdpot doesn't see fit to link to.

#9
"Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?

Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released. "

FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
I doubt very seriously that question was EVER asked. It's a leading question which are generally bad.

I'm not thinking that the words non-commercial and the GPL go together. It's one thing for them to have a per seat license (which could be ignored as soon as a legitimate buyer re-released all the gpl'ed source), but entirely another thing for them to limit the use of the source to non-commercial use. Suse has done this with Yast since time started but Yast certainly isn't the whole distribution. If this is allowed to happen, Bill G could bundle all the GNU tools with his version of Linux windows as long as he forks over the source to the GNU parts.

There's a fine line here.... I think United Linux is crossing the line by tying up gpl'ed software in their non-free distro. Yet I see nothing wrong with a distro including non-free software as long as the distro itself remains free. Mandrake seems to be going down this same road to a limited extent.

Even if United Linux removes the "commercial use" business on the source it'd be trivial to obfuscate the configure parts of the makefiles to make it nearly impossible to figure out how to compile their distro into a useable system.

I figured the world would find and exploit holes in the GPL, I didn't figure that generally good Linux companies like Suse would. I've used Suse since 5.0 and will now have to think seriously about switching.

G

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to add that they're putting out an alpha version 5 months or so before 1.0 . No source for 6 months after release, eh??

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[Te1waz]

Caldera have been going with 'per-seat licensing' for a while now. I never investigated further as I don't use Caldera.

However I do use Suse.
I'd guess the per-seat licensing is more to do with Service Contracts. Downloaded ISO's generally come with no support, this has been true for RH and Mandrake. Bought distros (like the Suse 8.0 Proffessional version I just recently acquired) come with limited installation support and after that - you're on your own.

Since the United Linux consortium are aiming squarely at Enterprise and commercial custom, they're talking about that sector of the market as it is more likely to be profitable. They are not really interested in the home user.
I'd guess more Corporations might take an interest in GNU/Linux if 'per-seat licensing' were in place as they'd have a support lifeline.
Businesses need to have a support agreement (even huge corporations with inhouse knowledge) no support contract or service agreement would leave them vulnerable to problems which might jeopardise continuity.

I'd seriously doubt they'd strangle the non-enterprise user, they'd have only small change to gain by forcing non-enterprise customers to pay non-seat and too much to loose as a lot of non-enterprise customers are the people who write most of their product.

I doubt very much GNU/LInux is the core product that brings their revenue. I'd guess their principle resource is the knowledge of their staff.
But then, that's true for any company.

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[gregm]

Caldera have been going with 'per-seat licensing' for a while now. I never investigated further as I don't use Caldera.

Me either... I never really thought of Caldera as a player and felt they were fairly irrelevant. Suse on the other hand was my distro of choice. I've bought about a dozen of each major version since 5.0. I've, for the most part, felt that if I'm going to setup a samba server for one of my clients that I should buy a copy. I should add, I've never used their support.

I agree with your idea, that they may be trying to charge for support on a per seat basis, however, if that's the case they're certainly not spelling that out clearly.

I'd seriously doubt they'd strangle the non-enterprise user, they'd have only small change to gain by forcing non-enterprise customers to pay non-seat and too much to loose as a lot of non-enterprise customers are the people who write most of their product

You're probably right, but to give them the freedom to do so in the future is a bad thing. I never really thought Microsoft would try to enforce the non-transferable part of their license either but they seem to be doing just that these days.

G

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[sdowney]

If this is allowed to happen, Bill G could bundle all the GNU tools with his version of Linux windows as long as he forks over the source to the GNU parts.

Well, he doesn't bundle them with his version of Linux, but he does bundle them with his version of Unix for Windows.
Take a look at Windows Services for Unix. This was originally the Interix product. It's a really nice set of tools for integrating Unix and Windows environments. As I recall, at one point Interix was POSIX certified.

The GPL utility source code for Services for UNIX 3.0 contains the base utilities diff, sdiff, bc, dc, cpio, gzip, gunzip, gawk, patch, csplit, nl, strings, rpm, and SDK utilities/libraries ld.so, gcc, gdb, g++, g77, gasp, objcopy, ld, as, ar, nm, size, strip, ci, co, diff3 rcs, rlog, and ident.

Now, in case you're about to start screaming about evil GPL violations: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/Interix/sfu30/

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[gregm]

And your point is what exactly? You think I'm a GPL zealot? I'm not, but by god if you decide to play the game you need to follow the rules even if they're stupid. The only time you should be allowed to change the rules is when you've been deceived before signing on the dotted line.

UnitedLinux is in effect just re-arranging free software and they expect to be able to change the terms of the various licenses just because they've re-aranged a few bits and put together some sort of installer. I expect regular non-Linux companies not to get this but I never expected companies that are/were respected members the Linux communtiy to exploit this type of loophole.

There isn't an installer/system configurator in the world that could compare to gcc, emacs or samba in complexity or value.

Now here's some food for thought... I write an installer/configurator that downloads all the various gnufree software from the net. I burn my software onto a cd all by itself. Now can I dictate what you can and cannot do with my installer? I'm pretty sure I can. But I'm also pretty sure that the second I do that others will do it better and gnufree their work. Once that happens who would buy my expensive closed version? The corps who want that support contract that's who.

At the point where the letter of the GPL fails is the point where the community must enforce the intent.

G

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[mbanck]

I've, for the most part, felt that if I'm going to setup a samba server for one of my clients that I should buy a copy.

Wow, because SuSE invented Samba or is its current upstream or what? Sorry, I don't get this.

Michael

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[toast0]

As far as I understand, the per-seat licensing is for the system as a whole, not for each individual pieces of software.

I believe one of the main goals of the system is having a lot of priopriatary software that is considered useful, that due to licensing needs would be otherwise unable to include in a distribution.

Its like the RedHat Secure Server package back when the RSA patent was still enforce. If you wanted to legitimately run an SSL server, you needed a license per computer for the patent. To get this you bought redhat's secure server (because its an inexpensive solution if you're running redhat...). You were not permitted to copy and use the secure server software on another machine at the same time. However the cd came with several pieces of gpl'ed software as well, and the GPL terms applied to those.

This is the same thing. The distro has a lot of per-seat licensed software. Additionally there is some gpl'ed software. Thus to use the distro you need to agree to the per-seat license, but for the gpl'ed portions you can give or sell those to your friends, buddies.

For Caldera et all to claim otherwise is absurd. And for us to get in a huff about them mixing and matching licenses of software in their distribution is silly.

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[gregm]

Yeah I hear you..... I felt someone deserved some cash and Suse made it easy. Easy != correct.

Re:From the United Linux Site Faq

[Lisias]

I'm not thinking that the words non-commercial and the GPL go together. It's one thing for them to have a per seat license [...], but entirely another thing for them to limit the use of the source to non-commercial use.

Sorry, pal... But you are wrong. The item 9 from the FAQ says that non-commercial folks can download and use the Free Sources of United Linux. It doesn't says "only non-commercial people can download and use", neither "the download is forbidden for commercial use".

I don't like capcious meaning as anyone, and so I don't like this FAQ's question. But there is no GPL violation here.

RMS *is* right!

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS is right - UnitedLinux is dying. You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the future of UnitedLinux. The hand writing is on the wall: UnitedLinux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for it because UnitedLinux is dying. Things are looking very bad for UnitedLinux. As many of us are already aware, UnitedLinux has lousy licensing. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

Forget Redhat

[Anonymous Coward]

unless they adopt the Debian packaging system

This isn't going anywhere.

[rmstar]

It is funny. They want to charge per seat for a product you can legaly copy from the media it is delivered on, and that doesn't even belong to them.

Sorry, but I don't get it.

Then they hope to make money with this when you can get an equivalent product without these "restrictions" for free.

huh??

These people are simply nuts.

rmstar

compile and distribute

[serano]

I can see downloading source for a specific program I'm intersted in and compiling it. Configuring and compiling an entire Linux distro is a pain though. For some users, this might be prohibitive.

Per the GPL, could someone download the source, compile it, and distribute the binaries for free of that same distribution?

Where is the so-called boycott quote?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have read Richard's comments, as posted on the site in question, which read as follows:

"'Licensing per seat' perverts the GNU+Linux system into something that respects your freedom as much as Windows," Stallman said. "They cannot restrict the GPL-covered programs in the system that way, because that would violate the GNU GPL, but the system also contains non-copylefted programs which are points of vulnerability. Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"

I see NOTHING here that says people should or could refuse to let "UnitedLinux" re-distribute their software. I instead see that Richard, quite correctly, points out that if they do distribute it with one's packages, to make sure that those packages are FULLY distributed under the terms of the GPL :).

It suggests that in fact if they try to distribute your software in a way that is restricted to a per-seat license, they are violating the GPL license of those packages included, which is very likely true even if they also make the source available. They could claim a per-seat license for the work as a whole, but in reality, it would not be applicable in any fashion to the GPL or LGPL packages included, which, likely, would make up 90% or more of so called "UnitedLinux".

Incidently, if one violates the GPL, the death penalty clause could also come into force denying them the use of further GPL software, but this is not mentioned by Richard. I think, as a legal technicallity, they can get away with this, since one can redistribute the individual component parts of the distribution unhindered under the GPL, and because the GPL says nothing about making or providing binary works availabe specifically other than making sure they are distributed with the source being available.

The real solution would be for someone to create a "United compliant GNU/Linux" and do so using the 90+% packages freely available and with community developed replacements for whatever parts they have included that are proprietary and useful. This and the marketplace would then solve this problem.

Legal challenge to the GPL

[caluml]

So, it looks like it might not be Microsoft that fights the GPL, but some other Linux related companies doing it for them, and saving MS money.

Ironic, really.

So

[inerte]

Seems like people are complaining RMS is fighting for our freedom to fix bugs and add new features to software, in a way so full, so complete, so it's a goal I am pursuing that making enemies doesn't matter, as long I can edit your source.

C'mon folks, RMS ideals are great. It's a personal crusade against things that remove your software freedom. I wish more people were more vocal and had the influence that he has over the Linux community. When you think what he is really trying to accomplish, he's trying to dismantle every instance that may take this freedom that we should have.

In a Microsoft way of saying things: "What freedom do you want to use today?"

Amazing Business Plan

[Erwos]

I cannot even fathom what the UnitedLinux group is thinking (or smoking, as the case may be). They want to compete with RedHat, so they decide to band together into some sort of great coalition that will give RH a run for their money. They forget that if people are given the choice of downloading something for free and paying support if they want, or paying for something and get support that they might not care for, they're going to choose the former. There isn't really all that much money (note: there is _some_, just not that much) you can make selling stuff which is freely downloadable from the web. There _is_ a lot of money in supporting all that stuff. UL apparently doesn't realize this, even though the four of them have been losing money on that same plan of "sell the software, not just the support". My prediction: RH and/or Debian will trash them (the UL consortium) in their own markets within 5 years. All it'll take is a single serious push to internationalize their (Deb, RH) distros and people everywhere will suddenly be confronted with paying or not paying - and we all know what the choice will be. -Erwos

Re:Amazing Business Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems you didn't even read that announcement.

The regular distributions for the mass market like SuSE Linux x.y won't change at all. UBL is a *BUSINESS* linux thing, like SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, and RedHat copies that SuSE concept in their (not yet released) Advanced Server. Try finding download locations for RH AS once it's out! It's gonna be just like SuSE is today: The "regular" distribution is available for free download but the "Enterprise" version is not.

This is about "enterprise", not just "commercial". The shop around the corner is not the target group of either SuSE Linux ES, RH AS or UBL, they are better off using the "regular" (cheap, free) Linux products, this is for the Fortune 500 customers.

All this excitement for nothing in this forum!

/me giggles like a schoolgirl

[br0ken by design]

Tell you something, sonny, nobody is perfect. Not RMS, nor Ghandi or George Washington.

There's just something funny about comparing RMS to Ghandi or Washington.

:wq

Re:/me giggles like a schoolgirl

[zootread]

Dude that song was funny as well. How can anyone not pick on RMS after hearing that?

Technically, no problem. But, go RMS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Per seat licensing. Tell me, would you pay for that crap? Would a buisness?

I think RMS is launching a preemptive strike against what could be the stupidest move any distribution could make.

What happens if someone at RedHat suddenly thinks this is a 'good' idea? Or Mandrake? They're having money problems, after all, and this sounds like a great way to make revenue!

What's left? Debian? Slackware and Gentoo, which aren't exactly the greatest things a newbie could use?

Sure, RMS might like it if everyone used Debian. But I don't think he's rabid enough to believe everyone *will* use Debian.
Those of us who've come to depend on Linux would most likely shrug and switch to a different distribution. What of newcomers? Right now, there's a flavor of Linux that suits damned near anybody's needs, right out of the box.

If distributions start signing up for suicidal ideas like this one, they can look forward to certain demise. Which, in turn, will lead to the demise of incoming Linux newbies.

(And you can't beat those darned proprietary software people by simply destroying them, because the users will just keep whatever OS they have.)

You go for "Pay per seat", I switch to Debian/Mand

[Vajsvarana]

Simple. Plain. Easy.

3 Words

[Snodgrass]

Boo freaking hoo

If this really is the great evil and threat to the world that he thinks it is, then people just won't use it.

Honestly, I think he's only making a stink because it's big Linux news and he wants to make sure that everyone remembers his name.

There's a fine line between being an advocate and being a fanatical loon, and he sure dances around that line a lot. It would have been much more effective IMHO to calmly state that a per-seat license is a mistake and after "United Linux" is dead to point to RedHat/Debian/Mandrake/Gentoo (what have you) and say that the only way to use free software is to keep it free. Instead he takes to the pulpit and attempts to call them to repentance.

Really, pick your battles. Personally, I think this is one that has an inevitable end that will illustrate your point better than any amount of yelling and screaming.

If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about?

[sterno]

I guess my thinking here is that the GPL should protect the GPL'd software just fine. If you get a copy of United Linux and want the GPL'd parts of it, you can just pull out those parts. You can get the source code if you like and do what you want with it. If they want to release proprietary parts of the system, that's their business decision to make.

If it is true that open source software is a better way of doing things, that it is more compelling, then this is a perfect test case for it. What will companies think about paying per-seat licensing and having to manage all the licensing nightmares associated with it when most of what they are buying is under the GPL? Will they look to a more open alternative? Will they even care?

RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.

Re:If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about?

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.

You don't seem to understand his position at all.

The open source advocates, e.g. Eric Raymond, do indeed claim all sorts of wonderful business benefits from using open source code.

Richard Stallman is not an open source advocate he is a free software advocate. He doesn't claim that free software is better due to any advantages it gives to businesses, he says it's better because the user has more freedom and that freedom is good in itself.

His only "claims about open source software" are that the open source movement by emphasising business benefits is potentially undermining the free software movement.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with him, if you do, but you should understand that business benefits are totally irrelevant to his case.

Re:If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about?

[LinuxGeek]

You skillfully sidestepped the issue that RMS is really complaining about. You are correct in asserting that the "...GPL should protect the GPL'd software just fine." That isn't the issue. The issue is the per-seat licensing and the server only (no desktop) configuration they are moving towards. The GPL'd software does indeed restrict this type of behaviour and RMS is encouraging open source authors to adopt the GPL if they can. I assume that the LGPL allows the per-seat licensing that they are moving to, but I haven't found out for sure since IANAL.

Re:If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about?

[gotr00t]

This system that UnitedLinux is proposing is mainly about binaries. They will release the souce and give it out free of charge, however, it is the precomiled binaries that are going to cost money to buy in a package. This has always been a sketchy area in the fight for free software.

TransGaming and WineX, for example, is based on LGPL code (Wine), and therefore must release a free version, and its source. So, they release only their souce, and they make the binaries, which are neatly packaged, only to their subscribers. I really don't know that much about the GPL, and I haven't read through it all, and I must say that yes, doing this is untraditional and wrong.

Moreover, The term UnitedLinux is a term that they prohibit users who compile from source to call their OS, as the article written by RMS stated. Linux is a trademarked expression, owned by Torvalds himself! I don't understand how they can legally do this!

Re:If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about?

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.

You seem to have RMS and ESR confused. RMS says that free software is good because it is free, not because it is high quality and cost-efficient. He's said that that part is just a side effect.

Re:If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about?

[Erotomek]

What will companies think about paying per-seat licensing and having to manage all the licensing nightmares associated with it when most of what they are buying is under the GPL?

Well, actually it's not the case. GPL is not an EULA so as the end users they can do whatever they want, without even the need to accept the license:

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program [...]

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."

Those companies would have to accept the GPL only if they wanted to redistribute the software, and even then, they would have much more licensing nightmares with the proprietary parts of the system, since they are not allowed to redistribute them under any condition at all, unlike the copylefted software.

RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.

You seem to confuse the FSF's stanpoint about free software represented by Richard Stallman with the OSI's open source point of view.

how long until....

[rhazes]

...the BSA and various other attack lawyers start going after Linux pirates? Wouldn't that just be ironic?

note to RMS:

[geektweaked.com]

"fuck you."

seriously. this is not a troll. i'm sick and fucking tired of hearing RMS turn every little issue into a war. so there's a linux distro that's going to charge a per-seat license. let the consumers vote with their wallets on this one. if some company ends up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this distro then they deserve to lose that money for not researching the market.

what i'm willing to bet however, is that with UL being marketed towards business use, they are going to have support out the wazoo. tech support isn't free, richard.

and its not like all of the free software distributed with the distro will magically stop being free as soon as you pay for it. you will still be able to freely distribute all of the [GPL/public domain/free license of your choice] software however you feel. that's just the way it works.

next we're going to learn about corporate america, richard. having one business sell its product to another busines and expecting money is not evil. its not like the one company hijacked the other and demanded money or anything. you don't have to buy United Linux. if you can't afford it, if you don't want to buy it, if you know there's a cheaper or better alternative on the market, you don't have to spend dime one on united linux. that takes me back to my last point, let the consumers vote with their wallets. we don't need to start a fight over something as petty as linux. sure, linux is great and all, but there's really no need to get upset over it.

i'm kinda sad i don't have any programs on the UL distro, if for no other reason that to spite RMS, who really needs to drop his "rebel without a cause" act.

-c

why?

[kz45]

dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."

I have seen in countless arguments stallman claiming that OpenSource can and should make money. Could that free in free software now mean beer?

Who Cares?

[psykocrime]

UnitedLinux is never going to catch on anyway. This is probably going to turn out to be a GREAT deal... for Red Hat and Mandrake. The competition are basically taking themselves out of the game with this move.

GPL, licensing and self-service

[Sean Clifford]

Look, all RMS is saying is that you should GPL the software you write so it can't be Shanghied. That's it. Nothing in the GPL prevents me from creating and installer and some other utilities, creating a distro, and selling that distro for $1 million per-seat.

I prefer the way RedHat does it. You can buy just about everything you need for US$199, (a lot) more if you want Tux or their release of PostGRESQL. But Tux and 'RedHat database' are worth it. RedHat lets you download the ISOs (nice of them + makes sense to get easy distribution) for base installs, everything's online. What they make their money on is RedHat Network.

Now, I think RHN is pretty goddamned expensive for the US$240-per-year-per-box corporate version, but the handy-dandy cheapo version is quite reasonable. And the US$240 ain't much to pay considering how much of a hassle it saves you to keep your boxen patched.

IMHO, from a business standpoint, Linux (and other software) as a service makes the best sense. You pays your $ and you gets your ongoing service. If you don't want the service, don't pay. You can self-serve for free.

RMS is just going to far

[pstreck]

Don't get me wrong RMS has contributed more to the hacker movement then probably any other single individual but his overly liberal views will just not work in a society that frowns upon socialism. I support the GNU Foundation in everything they do, but RMS just needs to sit back and shutup everynow again and start working with the vendors and stop working against them. RMS will become infamous, and be known as the Hitler of Open Source. So RMS, just chill out.

No Collapse...

[Big Sean O]

"Hundreds of thousands of people in the US would be out of work."

Untrue. You would just have to get job using your skills in real problem domains.

The shrinkwrapped office productivity software market is done. Excel and Word haven't gotten significantly better since 1997.

The only interesting shrinkwrapped software nowadays are multimedia (audio, digital video), and web-authoring software. Frankly, these are going to reach a 'good enough' dead-end RSN.

Games are probably the only category of software which still has a long long path of improvement. IMHO, games have been driving much of the increase in desire for computer power (For example, Black & White won't run on my 2.5 year old iMac, but I can still run all the software I need.)

The dirty little secret is that once all you hundreds of thousands of people are out of work of all the GPLd software, there will be jobs waiting for you in Government and Industry. These groups will have a little extra money (because they're not paying the Microsoft Tax) and they'll be willing to hire programmers who can solve problems in their own domain. Imagine the brains that have honed Amazon's transformation of bookselling turned on health care record management, or Pre-fire planning, or Building-department workflow.

And there's also XML. Serious SGML people know the benefit of properly-constructed document. The current wealth of free XML tools will mean that small businesses will be able to apply XML to their knowledge. You think MaryJo in accounting is doing to design an XML invoice schema?

In other words, the job won't be "writing software to sell", it will be "other stuff with software". You see that in the Microsoft Ads already: "1 degree of separation" isn't about how groovy Word is or how easy WindowsXP is, it's all about how custom-made software will solve your business's problems.

Re:No Collapse...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true that the majority of programmers do in-house customization and maintence work, or work for consulting firms which provide the same.

However, the need for good "shrink wrap" software is greater than ever. Actually the term "shrink wrap" was coined out of spite by failed software developers who were unsuccessful in developing such products and found shelter doing maintence coding and or system admistration in corporations. What you call shrink wrap includes not only office suites and games but many kinds of packages for artists, musicians, churches or almost any kind of interest group or profession, which can be purchased and installed by consumers without much need to additional "consulting fees".

Take office suites and general productivity software. I don't think MS Office and Lotus are so great, and I don't think that development in these areas is at a dead end. Boy will you be in for a surprise when the MS monopoly is broken and Linux is better established on the desktop, which will give many such developers the opportunity to have more end users try out their products. At least they will have choice. Today consumers have little choice, not only in operating systems and general productivity software, but in specialized professional shrink wrap software for groups like architects, lawyers and scientists. In most of these areas one company's line of products has established a monopoly in the same way MS has established a monopoly in more general software.

The real action is not in maintenance and implementation of existing tools and systems but in designing new tools and systems or improving them, whether in the area of academic research and demonstration, applications and systems designed for end users, or the same kind of thing in house for an organization or company. (Although few companies can afford to pay developers to try out new things). In other words, creative software development. What is possible with the current technology most certainly hasn't been realized, not to mention what is possible with new technologies.

Sure, using an existing tool to produce customized apps or to do maintenance or production work for a company in house or as a consultant is less stressful, and it pays better than what most of the people who are actually creating those tools and operating systems they run on get paid. I'm not knocking that - one must earn a living, but it is possible to do creative or new things in software development and even get paid for it sometimes. There's certainly a need for it among consumers, who understand that the apps they use today aren't much better than what was available 20 years ago, except that they require more hardware to run on. The problem is getting the products to the consumers in a manner in which the developers can get paid something. While the free software movement makes working on such projects more fun and can lead to better apps and systems through the sharing of ideas, it provides very little incentive for financial reward needed to pay the bills so one can work on such projects.

Those who are doing the creative work deserve to be paid *more* than those who play the roles of corporate lackeys and promote their careers that way, mostly by covering their asses and having someone to point the finger at, and more often than not taking credit for work done by a low paid employee and then pointing the finger at him when things go wrong. Generally there's an inverse relationship between skill and carrer advancement in the industry and such thinking as you express is on reason for that.

Re:No Collapse...

[foobar104]

The shrinkwrapped office productivity software market is done. Excel and Word haven't gotten significantly better since 1997.

If you used them, you might have a different opinion. I use Office 2000 on Windows and Office v. X on Mac regularly, and I can tell you that they're clearly superior to their circa-1997 counterparts. Your point is demonstrably untrue.

The only interesting shrinkwrapped software nowadays are multimedia (audio, digital video), and web-authoring software.

You are clearly uninformed. Let's pick on teeny-tiny market segment that I happen to be thinking about today: television station automation. There are a dozen vendors-- maybe more-- producing shrink-wrapped, licensed software for controlling television station equipment. Louth, Crispin, Seachange, and others are making a mint developing and selling shrink-wrapped software, and they're innovating like crazy to keep ahead.

Oh, you mean traditional PC applications? Like those you'd buy at CompUSA or something? Well, consider Adobe. I just got my copy of Photoshop 7 yesterday; I'd say they've been doing some work on it. It's changed a lot in the past couple of years. For that matter, what about personal accounting software, like Quicken and its competitors? That software is still undergoing active development.

And that's not even talking about enterprise software that businesses use, like Oracle and Sybase and SAP. Hell, even QuickBooks is shrinkwrapped and licensed.

Basically, I think you're way off here. There's a lot more happening in the commercial software market than you seem to realize.

Re:No Collapse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget a few more slightly-specialized applications:
AutoCAD (not to mention probably literally hundreds of other applications that are more specialized in the same industry, and the sub-industry in developing compatibility and conversion utilities for these programs)

some of the lesser-known Office applications like MapPoint, Publisher, and Visio, as well as their various competetors

3D Studio, Maya, and similar programs

music software is booming, though traditional leaders are still doing well, such as MotU and Cakewalk

Not to mention that while the game business does well, every piece of off-the-shelf software that is used in support of that industry (previously mentioned 3d and music packages) also does well. The gaming industry also develops a hell of a lot of in-house specialized tools for their work, but when it comes down to it, some percentage of those is for compatibility and conversion of music and models generated in those other programs (even if only for public release so that people developing 3rd party models can use off-the-shelf programs rather than learning custom tools for every game).

Let's also not forget development tools, which is where Microsoft got their start and is still pretty much leading the industry. There're plenty of specialized and general-purpose packages, including packages for generating documentation in specialized formats (especially back when MS had that odd help file format), project planning, editors, compilers, assemblers/disassemblers, debuggers, IDEs, revision management, and so on.

On one software sales site under the heading 'Business Applications' alone there were 56 seperate categories of applications available, including Office Suites. Everything from Accounting to Voice Mail and Word Processing.

Re:No Collapse...

[Big Sean O]

Word and Excel 2000 on Windows (which I use at work every day) is not significantly different than Word and Excel 97 on Mac (which I use at home). I've used both since the Reagan administration, so perhaps I have more perspective to compare against.

My point (which I guess I failed to make), is GPL'd code doesn't put programmers out of work. You've demonstated it yourself based on all the other software you talked about. The work will either shift around to other niches or become more service/maintenance/consulting oriented.

Saying RMS is costing programmer jobs is crying wolf. My original post was a reaction to that.

Regards,
BSO

Re:No Collapse...

[foobar104]

I guess you have a different definition of "not significantly different" than I-- or most people, I suppose-- have.

As to original arguments, it was said, "If everyone licensed their software under the GPL..." then so-and-so would occur. My statement was to say that if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, then the software industry as we know it would collapse.

The corollary, of course, is that if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, then the rapid development of software and software engineering techniques that we've experienced over the past fifteen years would come to a grinding halt. Which would be a Bad Thing.

Sure, GPL'd products can coexist with non-GPL'd products. But if you currently make money selling software, then applying the GPL to that software will put you out of that business permanently. You simply cannot stay in business selling software that's covered by the GPL. And since the GPL covers derivative works, then you also can't stay in business if you use GPL'd software-- including software libraries-- in your commercial product.

If that happened to my company, I'd be out of work. If that happened to all software companies (i.e., "if everyone licensed their software under the GPL"), then I'd really be in trouble. And so would a lot of other people.

So your statement that "GPL'd code doesn't put programmers out of work" is true only to the extent that the programmers you're referring to aren't trying to do business by selling software.

Re:No Collapse...

[kz45]

Saying RMS is costing programmer jobs is crying wolf. My original post was a reaction to that.

you're right it doesn't. But GPL will probably never be the industry standard. There is no motivation to give something out for free that you paid to have developed.

Nothing to see here, move along

[Linux_ho]

RMS has proven yet again that he doesn't understand capitalism. That's fine, we wouldn't have all the wonderful software we have today if not for his strange ideas.

I have to say "SO WHAT?!?" to UnitedLinux per-seat licensing. As long as they are still forced to release any changes they make to the source code of any GPL'd application, which they are, then any contributions they make can still be picked up by Debian, RedHat, and other distributions. What does it matter, as long as the source is available?

And if they really CAN sell per-seat licensing to more than three people, which I doubt, more power to them. But if they don't at least offer a free binary distro in addition to the for-pay distro, nobody will be willing to try their distro out anyway. I would consider it near-untested if only their per-seat-paying customers were using it.

RMS needs to relax a little, and have faith in the GPL he wrote. No need to get all up in arms. Stupid people will go out of business. Software written by smart people will dominate the world. It's the Linux way.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along

[Kishar]

The problem here is that, because of GPL, my right to redistribute is guaranteed.
If I buy a copy of Red Hat Linux, I am perfectly within my rights to place it up for download, and burn a million copies and hand them out at parties. The only restriction is that Red Hat won't support those copies (which is reasonable). GPL has guaranteed me the right to redistribute that code.
However, because of per-seat licensing, if I were to have some kind of brain tumor which caused me to actually purchase a copy of UL, I would NOT be allowed to hand out copies at parties. This restricts my right to redistribute GPL'd code, which is a violation of the GPL license (they're obviously getting around the violation part by only per-seat-licensing some small part, like the installer, as has been speculated in other posts).

RMS is trying to encourage developers to use GPL for the purpose of preventing abuses like UL's.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELLING OR NOT SELLING
IT HAS ONLY TO DO WITH (RE)DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS

Now, I agree that this is destined to fail, but it is very disheartening that 4 major distributons have come together under this lunacy.

Color me a very happy Red Hat customer, and this is only one of the reasons why.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wrote software that was in the kernel or tools that UnitedLinux was re-distributing, and I released it under the GPL, I would not have given UnitedLinux a license to redistribute my code. They would be distributing my code without copyright permission, i.e., software piracy.

My license (the GPL) allows you to re-distribute the code only if the recipient has no more restrictions placed on him that I placed on you directly. I didn't say that UL could only install the code on one machine, so if they tell a recipient that (regardless of whether the recipient paid or downloaded for free or whatever) they are subject to litagation.

There enough hard core free software advocates that do have code in the kernel or other stuff that UL is guaranteed to end up in court (unless this all ends up being some marketing/management guy's stupid mistake, which I think is likely -- UL will issue a clarification in a day or two). If gcc or GNU emacs is on there, or any code whose copyright ahs been assigned to the FSF or written by FSF programmers, then legal action is assured.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along

[josh crawley]

"RMS needs to relax a little, and have faith in the GPL he wrote. No need to get all up in arms. Stupid people will go out of business. Software written by smart people will dominate the world. It's the Linux way. "

What he needs to do is ENFORCE what he says. All he's doing now is pissing on the wrong poles. Wanting GNU/ is just plain moronic. I could easily see more understandable is: at the bottom of kernel.org's website, a little blurp saying Thanks to Stallman and GNU crew.

However, forget the idiotic naming issue... How about enforcing current GNU software? Does anybody remember what Avery Lee had to go through against Vidomi? A little background.. Lee writes all his math intensive stuff by assembler. I cannot remember what algorythims Vidomi filched, but they stole a substantial part (I'm thinking it's the resizing plugins). Avery proved it was filched code by observing exact hex (in the resizing equasions) in his and thier programs. All he wanted to do is have them put thier source open, under GNU contract, or remove it from public.

Lest to say, the threw a big fit.. Then they finally opened source.

Perhaps Stallman needs to be a bit more adamant on these cases, instead of whining about names.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along

[Linux_ho]

They're not licensing the whole CD per-seat, just the proprietary parts. If you want to chop those out and burn your own UL CDs minus the proprietary stuff (which may not work, but c'est la vie) you have the right to do so. They are not restricting your right to redistribute GPL'd code, but you can't redistribute the whole CD because the CD includes non-GPL'd code.

THEY ARE ONLY LIMITING YOUR RIGHT TO REDISTRIBUTE THE PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE that happens to get distributed on the same CD. That's the only limitation they have the right to enforce.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along

[Linux_ho]

If I wrote software that was in the kernel or tools that UnitedLinux was re-distributing, and I released it under the GPL, I would not have given UnitedLinux a license to redistribute my code. They would be distributing my code without copyright permission, i.e., software piracy.

If you wrote that software, you would be more familiar with the GPL than you obviously are. There is no single licence that applies to the entire distribution. There are parts of UnitedLinux that are licensed under the GPL, parts that are licensed under a BSD license, and parts that have this stupid per-seat proprietary license. They are not limiting your right to redistribute the parts that are GPL'd. You have every right to take a UL CD, chop out the proprietary parts, and redistribute the rest. However, because all this different software is available on one CD, you do not have the right to redistribute the whole CD because you don't have the right to redistribute the proprietary stuff.

If you licensed software under the GPL, you did indeed license UnitedLinux to redistribute your software, as long as they make the source code to your software publicly available, along with any modifications they make to your software.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE GPL WHICH LIMITS YOUR RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE GPL'D BINARIES ON THE SAME CD AS PROPRIETARY BINARIES AS LONG AS YOU MAKE ALL THE SOURCE FREELY AVAILABLE FOR THE GPL'D SOFTWARE ONLY.

Guess I won't get Any of those Distro's

[Gyorg_Lavode]

I'm getting a new computer soon and as only a basic linux user I was looking at Redhat 7.3, Suse 8.0, and Mandrake 8.2 as my primary choises for the OS. But I think I and my money will stear clear of all those distrobutions now. I will definately pay for whichever distrobution I go with but this is definately one more reason for me to support Mandrake or possibly Redhat rather than Suse or any of the other United Linux partners.

Compete with Redhat

[OSSTwitSpotter]

The per seat licence and the refusal to release binaries for free download will mean that United Linux will not be in a position to compete with RedHat. They might as well curl up and die now, although it would be a shame to see SuSE go down, the other Linux distros involved (Caledra, Turbo Linux and Conectiva) can die already.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[Ayon Rantz]

But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.

You must mean "sticking to his gnus" :)

wait, wait, wait...

[liquidsin]

You mean to tell me that RMS is urging developers to use GNU's license? Yeah, sure...I suppose next you'll try to convince me that Redhat is urging people to use RPM, or TimeWarner is urging me to use AOL. Why is RMS urging us to use a license he created / helped create news worthy? Or is it only because he's RMS, and it's ok to bash him? Fucking slashbots..."MS is evil, they want everything proprietary...RMS is evil, he wants everything free..."

Story removed from Linux and Main

[sombragris]

The site is apparently slashdotted and when I tried to read the story, I only got a page with ads and little else, and no story in sight. Can anyone post a copy or point to a Google cache please?

GO TAKE A BATH, SUCK-O

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS CAN SUCK MY DINGALING.

RMS can continue to suck my dingalonglinglong.

Getting suspicious...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your standing on the Right to Bear Arms, Taco Cowboy?

Re:Getting suspicious...

[Anonymous Coward]

People should only need to wear the two arms they were born with ;-)

Thanks

[OSSTwitSpotter]

No one would make money selling software. They would make money writing it.

Now I need to compress thaat into a sig.

Re:Thanks

[austus]

No one should make money selling software;they should make money writing it.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

That assumes everyone who wants to write software for a living is willing to work at a ~job~ for ~someone else~

some people prefer to have their OWN businesses!

Re:Thanks

[slashhot]

some people prefer to have their OWN businesses!

And what does this have to do with the fact that most programmers wouldn't be negatively affected by all software being free? How would this disallow you to start your OWN business writing custom software?

For example, take a look at what the ReiserFS guys are doing: they charge for implementing new features on demand or porting to other OSs, but distribute the code freely.

Article isn't there

[fire-eyes]

When I go to try, i get:

Sorry, this Module isn't active!

Moderators: do me a favor and don't mod me down for reduntant in case this has been said already, just leave it at 1.

Is my browser fucked,

[Anonymous Coward]

or are your lines about 2 miles long?

Re:Is my browser fucked,

[Otter]

Is my browser fucked, or are your lines about 2 miles long?

As much as I'd love to be able to claim the first ever +5 page widening troll, I think your browser is fucked.

On second thought --- F1r5t +5 p4g3 w1d3n1ng p05t! Ph34r m3!!!

Hey, knewman_1971...WTMA!!!!!!!!

[FooBarWidget]

In case you don't know what WTMA means: Watch This Meaningless Acronym.

Yes, it's meaningless, but I just had to say something back that looks as offensive as "STFU".

the farm

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a great farm growing some stuff and RMS holds the pipe! heheheh RMS is the man! Now if I could only browse the web from emacs!

OS X Server, not OS X, has unlimited licenses

[Spencerian]

Don't reply to what you don't understand.

The XServe (not "XServer") comes with an operating system, like any other Mac. In this case, it's Mac OS X Server.

This OS provides an unlimited number of clients to access the operating system for file sharing and the like. In comparison, Microsoft and a few other server OS makers not only charge for the purchase of the OS, but add a per-user charge for each user account that will access the operating system.

Mac OS X Server is not Mac OS X, and your comment does not apply to this situation.

Re:OS X Server, not OS X, has unlimited licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mac OS X Server is not Mac OS X, and your comment does not apply to this situation."

Actually it does. The Mac OS X Server license only lets you run that copy legally on one server. If you add another server, you need another license. So it is a per box license just not per concurrent seated user .... yet. Remeber MS did this too until NT got a foothold then it went per seat. Totally related too is the licensing on QuickTime streams.

So ya he forgot or was clueless about the server aspect but his words still have merit, much like the stopped clock being right twice a day.

pingmeep

Re:OS X Server, not OS X, has unlimited licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can install it on five servers with one license. Then all five of those servers can have an unlimited number of clients.

ANL V1.0

[josepha48]

Maybe RMS should createa new version or addition of the GPL to put in language that prevents work that is open source and licensed under 'a new license' (ANL) that would allow developers to license their work under that would not only require source distribution but prevent big coprorations from making to much money from other peoples work.

Personally, I really think what would more likely happen is that companys would turn to RH and say I can get this stuff for $50 and install it on all the computers I want or I can get it for $xxx per seat and have MS type licensing? hmm maybe I'll use MS or RH instead.

Lets face it Win2k vs linux is about a 50/50 split. There are plusses and minuses in each. (As well as BSD, OS X and Solaris). So what do you choose an OS on after that? COST $$$. In the case of my company they are penny pincing everything and will not even shell out $3to $10 to upgrade to exchange from msmail. We are in a budget crunch, and as companies try and try to save money they will ultimately pick the cheapest solution. That is why I use RH at home. I can get cdroms from a friend or from linuxcentral.com for a few bucks and install it. My system is kept fairly up to date and it it is super cheap. If I were to do this with Windows I would have spent about $1000 dollars by now. The RH upgrader is a no brainer at this point. Choose upgrade and come back in an hour. I'm looking for a way to migrate our office away from Windows, but it means rewriting our monster app in Java or something that is cross platfom.

Re:ANL V1.0

[RGRistroph]

You should read the GPL.

The GPL prevents someone who receives the code under the GPL from re-distributing it with more restrictions than the GPL.

On the other hand, the GPL is not designed specificall to "prevent big corporations from making money"; I think RMS and the GNU supporters want people to make money writing Free Software, because then those people will write more. However, the GPL is a license focused on freedom, it is not a business plan.

The Letter But Not Spirit

[EXTomar]

I am getting the feeling the issue here goes something like this:

As the creator/author/maintainer of WidgetApp which is licensed under the GPL, I want everyone to not only use the software freely but contribute to it.

However because United Linux has this per-seat cost scheme it appears that you pay for the pre-built binaries. While the source code is freely available for you to download and compile yourself even under the United Linux, it makes WidgetApp appear as if the creator/author/mainters of are getting paid for their development. A person buys the seat of United Linux and will automatically believe that a "piece of the pie" is going to all of the contributors. This is a bad thing and not what was intended with the GPL.

So while they are honoring the letter of the GPL(the source code must be available and is available) it seems to deny the spirit of making useful programs freely available to everyone.

This whole thing shows a loophole in the GPL which may never be closed. As long as United Linux offers source code for free they can charge per seat for binaries. People who don't want the appearance of being paid are now stuck because of the GPL(ie you can't deny United Linux access to the source any more than you can to you or me or Microsoft).

Beyond that as another poster pointed, good luck making this buisness model work. This seems to offer more headache and cost more money and will be hard to compete with Red Hat's service structure or Debian's pure free-ness.

Big Deal

[Compulawyer]

I'll probably get flamed to death for this, but from where I sit it seems that all Stallman ever does is condemn and complain. I can't remember the last time I ever heard of him praising or complimenting. Wait -- never mind the last time -- I have NEVER heard of it.

I get the distinct feeling that even if every piece of software in the world was called GNU/something_or_other he still wouldn't be happy. All he is doing is marginalizing himself by looking like a chronic crybaby.

Re:Big Deal

[tempest303]

from where I sit it seems that all Stallman ever does is condemn and complain

But he doesn't *just* bitch. He puts his code where his mouth is.

All he is doing is marginalizing himself by looking like a chronic crybaby.

I'll give you this one. I wish there was an easier way to give the GNU project credit, because calling it GNU/Linux is stupid, and discounts the other MAJOR packages and projects that also are considered essential to Linux distributions. To be fair, by RMS's standard, it should be GNU/Apache/Samba/XFree/OpenOffice/Mozilla/GNOME/KD E/Linux. I have a LOT of respect for RMS, but I definitely think he could pick his battles a little more carefully.

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, talk about myopia.

I'll probably get flamed to death for this, but from where I sit it seems that all Stallman ever does is condemn and complain. I can't remember the last time I ever heard of him praising or complimenting. Wait -- never mind the last time -- I have NEVER heard of it.

Think about it for a minute--if you were dropped in the middle of a minefield, would you have many positive things to say?

The state of IP laws and software in general isn't all that rosy at the moment, and hasn't been for the past 25 years or so (whenever it was that billg and his ilk showed up). There is very little (other than perhaps the free software movement) that is positive or worthy of praise right now.

Get a clue!

It *IS* there now...

[fire-eyes]

Guess things changed. my bad.

Hmmm... let me ask a question...

[juliao]

Quoting from the GPL:

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

What exactly does this mean? That the GPL sets specific rules on copying and distributing and modyfing, but makes no claim as to limitations on RUNNING the program?
So in effect, I can impose an additional license on you stating that you must pay me a per seat licensing fee if you want to run the program?

Comments, please...

Re:Hmmm... let me ask a question...

[RGRistroph]

If you read the whole GPL, you will find that it says that you cannot distribute it with additional restrictions on the recipient. Which is what one would be doing if they took a copy of GPL'd code, and passed it on with the restriction that the user could only install it on one machine.

So the GPL does make no claims as to running the program, but it also says that you can't redistribute it with additional restrictions.

OT: Tutorial D (Was: huh?)

[leandrod]

> you're working on implementing Tutorial D?

Unfortunately, it’s stalled. No one else took the lead while I sort out residence issues as an immigrant in Switzerland. Someday.

> Best of luck, the world really needs a real DB language! I really hope you do well.

Thanks! Would you like to take the lead? :-)

Making assumptions

[pix]

I think that there are some assumptions being made here. The only reference to per-seat licencing being made here are by Caldera (who already do this). The other participants have not made any statement to this effect (ie. SuSE). Ultimately the licencing decisions will be made by the individual distributions. If you don't like per seat, buy the SuSE version. My guess is that SuSE will price this in the same way as they already price SLES (which is exactly the same as Red Hat Advanced Server) - a large-ish fixed sum.

Stallman STFU!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude just fucking stfu already. You've done nothing but bitch and whine like a fat little porker about not getting your way. No one cares. No one likes you. You did some great stuff in your day, but now the big boys are here and they are taking over. Linux is going to become commercially viable and successful. Your little communist mafia of HURD butt munchers can't stop it. Your gay ass lawyers and their GPL bible can't stop it.

This is a revolution, we're packing rifles. We're on a mission. You are an aging relic of a once great idea whose time has come and gone. Linux will be successful and no one will even remember you.

fucking munch.

Absurd

[d3xt3r]

RMS' statement basically contradicts itself. If you release software under the GPL you cannot restrict your work from being distributed in a pay-per-seat distribution - I just isn't feasable.

All the GPL says is that if you distribute binaries containing GPL'd code, you must make the source code for those GPL'd binaries available under the GPL I am still free to distribute any binaries I created for a fee, as long as I give you the source under the GPL!

Additionally, a Linux distribution such as SuSE and others, may contain code that is licensed under proprietary licenses. These other applications such as installers, management software, config tools, and other value-added features may be licensed under whatever schema its creator sees fit. Such tools can be licensed on a per-seat basis if chosen.

If I buy a license for United Linux, I can take any GPL'd software distributed with United Linux and reuse the on 100,000 different machines without paying anyone for that useage.

I really don't see the problem here. I write GPL'd software. If my software were to be distributed with commercial software that was charged for under a different license I would not have a problem with this! Hell, it's part of the reason I chose to use GPL in the first place!

Free to use, free to modify, free to redistribute, and free to chage a fee for redistribution!!! RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!

Re:Absurd

[RGRistroph]

Of course, someone like cheapbytes can by any UnitedLinux CD and sell other UnitedLinux CDs (as long as all the software they are redistributing is GNU/BSD/Other Free Software), right ?

So how is United Linux going to enforce this "per seat" license ?

If I buy a one-seat license and install it on every computer in my house, my company, and my mom's house, and they take me to court, I'll point to the provision in the GPL which says that the works may not be re-distributed with "further" restrictions.

You say that you write GPL'd software and that you have no problem with the software being charged for "under a different license." The "charged for" doesn't matter here, it's the "under a different license." If that different license is more restrictive than the GPL, then it is in direct conflict with the GPL.

So it is not true that "All the GPL says is that if you distribute binaries containing GPL'd code, you must make the source code for those GPL'd binaries available under the GPL I am still free to distribute any binaries I created for a fee, as long as I give you the source under the GPL." The GPL has the additional restrictions of not allowing re-distribution under a more restrictive license, it guarantees the software will stay free as long as it is still a derived work of yours.

If such is your wish, you can directly license the software under a license which allows the re-distribution under restrictive terms; the BSDL is such a license. Or you could force the company in question to buy a separate license from you (presuming you are the sole author, or all author's aggree to re-license); this would make you more money.

Re:Absurd

[Ektanoor]

If I buy a license for United Linux, I can take any GPL'd software distributed with United Linux and reuse the on 100,000 different machines without paying anyone for that useage.

Until the moment you use an xterm/ssh/Xnest where some "per-seat" piece of software gets "out of the seat" or you turn things into a cluster of machines like Mosix... If you show me how to trace a good border between such possible situations and "per-seat" licensed software then I could agree to see such distros...

Some years ago I solved an horrible situation with computer class support by sticking admins to their seats and allowing them to access tens of workstations/servers through different tools. I wonder if anyone would like to run everytime four floors+100meters up/downhill+two floors just because some piece of soft could only work "per-seat". Specially the control/setup/admin tools that probably UnitedLinux mostly intends to restrict...

Re:Absurd

[BlueWonder]

RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!

Huh? RMS is actively encouraging people who redistribute GPL'd software to charge as much as possible.

Re:Absurd

[peddrenth]

The problem is, Linux becoming non-GPL. Witness the binaries in this distribution. See RealPlayer and StarOffice in the distribution. A typical linux distro today is not free software, hence why people don't call it GNU/Linux: it's not free to copy.

Read it again and despair. Those who pretend to support free software are prepared to sign EULA's and destroy the free software vision. 10 years time? Pay for everything you touch, linux or microsoft, it won't matter.

Of course, you can say "fuck you" to binary distributions, and actually install GNU/Linux, and we'll continue to have free software.

"Beware the dark side"

Re:Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS' statement basically contradicts itself. If you release software under the GPL you cannot restrict your work from being distributed in a pay-per-seat distribution - I just isn't feasable.

If you release under the GPL, you have effectively precluded per-seat licensing. No one can have a monopoly; anyone you distribute to can redistribute, and charge according to some other scheme. The only fly we might find in the ointment is that if the entire distribution has enough nifty, proprietary extensions, the underlying GPL framework won't have any value without them.

All the GPL says is that if you distribute binaries containing GPL'd code, you must make the source code for those GPL'd binaries available under the GPL I am still free to distribute any binaries I created for a fee, as long as I give you the source under the GPL!

That's not quite all it says. It also says that you cannot restrict the freedom of the folks you distribute to. They can redistribute, and charge however they like. Again, all is well as long as the proprietary extensions are not the primary value.

I really don't see the problem here. I write GPL'd software. If my software were to be distributed with commercial software that was charged for under a different license I would not have a problem with this! Hell, it's part of the reason I chose to use GPL in the first place!

Me too. I believe that RMS's point was that if folks would quit writing that ugly non-libre software (i.e., use the GPL, or equivalent), irritating issues like this couldn't arise.

Free to use, free to modify, free to redistribute, and free to chage a fee for redistribution!!! RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!

I suspect that he doesn't want to see his work used as a sales tool for that proprietary stuff. His license allows this sort of bundling, because it is free to redistribute. Again, I believe his point was that if more folks used the GPL (or equivalents), that leaches like caldera couldn't put together enough proprietary stuff to matter.

That's the problem with the proprietary-extensions-to-Libre-software model that's being discussed here. If some setup like that were to take over from Windows as the desktop monopoly, we wouldn't be any better off than we are now. The whole point of the GPL is to eschew monopoly. Licenses which give the copier more freedom to restrict others (BSD, public domain, u.s.w.) allow an enterprising scumball to establish a monopoly, and perhaps screw the original creator (and the rest of the world) out of the fruits of his labor. It's that parenthetical ``and the rest of the world'' part that bugs me (and probably RMS) about folks who say: ``I don't care if someone makes a proprietary package out of my work, even if he does get rich, and I die in poverty.'' What may sound like noble self-sacrifice is actually sacrificing my interests, too. That's not noble.

I firmly believe that we all have the duty to share the fruits of our intellectual labors with our fellow man. That's part of the definition of humanity: we learn from the experiences of others. Trying to keep knowledge from others is equivalent to trying to reduce their humanity, ultimately to render them inhuman. Most of the current Intellectual ``Property'' nonsense is a sick extension of medieval censorship schemes, with no other purpose than to withhold knowledge or the ability to use it from others. Profit should come from helping others, not from hurting them. That's why Adam Smith had such harsh things to say about monopolists.

Re:Absurd

[Jboy_24]

"If I buy a one-seat license and install it on every computer in my house, my company, and my mom's house, and they take me to court, I'll point to the provision in the GPL which says that the works may not be re-distributed with "further" restrictions."

And you'll lose, and you'll lose sooo bad.

A) because not every piece of software on the disk is covered by the GPL and probably it is possible to get to that software without 'installing' the whole cd

B) Becasue you 'agreed' to the shrink wrap license by purchasing/opening the package.

And unlike windows....

C) You have alternatives that give you nearly identitcal functionality and software, that do not require a per-seat licence, but perhaps are more of a burden to you, and you still choose to use the software with the perseat license and violate the license.

The GPL only covers the software specifically licensed by the GPL. It doesn't streach across the pits on the CD to 'infect' other software distributed with it.

Re:Absurd

[mpe]

You say that you write GPL'd software and that you have no problem with the software being charged for "under a different license."

The creator of a distribution would need to get all the copyright holders to agree. Probably possible for an application with few authors, but probably also just as easy for someone to produce a non per-seat drop in replacement. This would be virtually impossible for something like the Linux kernel.

GNU & RMS are irrelavent

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the software which counts. People didn't
start using emacs and gcc because the license kept them from making proprietary derivatives. They use these programs because the license allows them to use the software for free. People use X11 all over the place, and (surprise!) it doesn't have a strictly GNU license.

The GNU license is ubiquitous, not because it is on high moral ground, but because it is easy boilerplate to slap on to software projects which noone expects to make money. Back in the day, the equivalent would be to just put some random disclaimer with a statement releasing the code to the public domain. Putting a GNU license on
something is equivalent to genuflecting at an altar. It's doesn't really require a lot of thought.

If linux had a BSDish license, RMS and GNU would be a footnote in free (as in beer) software history. It is not GNU which distinguishes Linux, it is Linux. Its own unique mix of features and hype marks it.

Re:GNU & RMS are irrelavent

[RGRistroph]

I think that had Linux been under a BSD style license, it would have been less successful. You can search out the opinions of Linus on the matter on groups.google.

The GPL made writing code a social action -- you could guarantee that your code would always be free, and no one else would ever be confronted with the a myterious black box they couldn't screw with, that contained your stuff. It is about making technology open and transparent.

On the other hand, if it truly is "the software that counts", why didn't BSD win out over Linux ? Isn't BSD generally conceeded to have many benefits and higher qualities than Linux ?

Re:GNU & RMS are irrelavent

[Arandir]

If Linux had been under the BSD license, there would certainly be a few developers who would refuse to contribute to it. But I doubt that number would significant. If the GPL was the reason, then why aren't there more developers working on Hurd than there are?

Why didn't BSD win out over Linux? Because BSD got briefly derailed by the AT&T lawsuit at the very instance that 32 bit computers for the masses became available. In short, because of AT&T, Linux got to market first.

BSD is generally considered to have higher quality than Linux.

Re:GNU & RMS are irrelavent

[david.johns]

Hoom hom. Well, I think you miss part of the point, actually. If there's one thing RMS did that makes him a saint and a genius, it's the GPL. Why? Because it both builds a community and keeps the community's work from being sold off like every other commons. BSD raises the bottom line - every unix-like operating system MUST provide the same functionality as a BSD with source available. And they CAN! Because the source is available, and they can take it and run with it. The GPL (or some variant thereof) is the only way to produce a high-quality free operating system with software that can't just be co-opted and resold by Microsoft (or Sun, or IBM, or...) The GPL forces those who would use the code to play nicely, or at least more nicely than BSD. My hypothesis (to match yours) is that if the GPL style license hadn't come along, we unix-users might just be using BSD - but it wouldn't be free, as in speech OR beer.

Re:GNU & RMS are irrelavent

[Arandir]

Your rebuttal doesn't explain why Hurd (GPL) or AtheOS (GPL) attracts as many developers as BSD (BSDL). There is a reason why Linux is more popular with developers than BSD, but the licensing is not it.

The economy would expand if software were free

[qweqwe]

> The software economy would collapse, and
> hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone
> would be out of work.

Imagine a world where air, water, and sunlight were free. Imagine the economic nightmare. If water were free then all the bottled water producers, utility companies, canteen makers would go out of business. If air were free, all the air purification systems, air conditioners, perfume manufacturers would go out of business. If sunlight were free, all the lamp makers, light bulb makers, flashlight makers, and candle makers would go out of business.

Of course, this isn't what's happened, at least in my part of the world.

Why?

Because even free things need packaging, customization, integration, bugetting, and quality assurance and because it's free, the demand for things increase dramatically. Take water, for instance. If producing water were expensive, people would not need garden hoses because they would not be watering their lawns. They would certainly not use it in water engines and fire hydrants, water cooling jackets, water guns, fountains, and bath products because these things would be too expensive to be useful.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

Hmm. I guess I'm not getting your argument. You seem to be comparing software to air, water, and sunlight. That's bogus.

Software isn't a natural resource. It's the result of human effort, just like a meal cooked in a restaurant, or a pair of shoes.

It's this whole "software should be free" thing that gets me down. My software is not free, because I thought of it, and you didn't. You're more than welcome to ask me to give it to you out of some sense of charity or altruism or I-don't-know-what, but I will continue to say "no."

I do not release any of my code under the GPL, and I will never do so, and no company that I work for will ever do so, because I have serious moral objections to the "Free" Software Foundation in particular, and RMS's political leanings in general. I will therefore continue to try to persuade people not to participate in the "free" software movement.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[jgerman]

That's your right to feel that way. Personally I feel that you have no right to try and hoard an idea, so I will reverse-engineer your software if I want it, and I will redistribute it, because I believe in free software.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

Personally I feel that you have no right to try and hoard an idea, so I will reverse-engineer your software if I want it, and I will redistribute it, because I believe in free software.

Do you use that "Preview" button when you post? Did you even read your words? Are you aware that you're advocating theft here?

I believe ideas are property. My justification for this is simple: if I have it and you don't, then it's property, and subject to the laws of economics. Five centuries of judicial tradition and codified law supports this opinion.

So what you're saying is that you think I have no right to be secure in my personal property. If we were talking about my couch, you'd be advocating theft. If we were talking about the contents of my fridge, you'd be advocating theft. If we were talking about a screenplay, you'd be advocating theft. You think just because you're talking about source code, it means you're no longer advocating theft??

Well, you know what I believe? I believe idiots should be safely behind bars. So if you'd be so kind as to post your address, I'll be right over to lock you in my basement.

What's that you say? I can't do that? Well, why not?

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[jgerman]

I don't believe ideas are property, so I'm not advocating theft. I don't care what you believe, and five centuries of tradition and law DOES NOT support the idea that IDEAS are property, and regardless, neither time nor the majority view makes an opinion right.

Judging from your method of argument (here's a hint, name calling doesn't win an argument, it makes you look foolish), I don't think it's likely that any ideas of yours are in danger.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[dbrutus]

Actually, ideas are at best a funny sort of property. If they weren't why would there be fair use rights, public domain, limited terms for copyright and patents, and the rest of the unique IP features that distinguish ideas from, let's say, ball bearings or land.

In most countries, including the US, in order to advance the arts and sciences, inventors and other IP creators get exclusivity for awhile but then the idea eventually goes into the public domain. If centuries of western legal tradition really held that IP was the same as real property Disney would have never gotten away with making Snow White or Cinderella without paying hefty royalties to the estate of the Grimm brothers et al.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[qweqwe]

The difference between a natural resource and something that requires human effort to create is only a matter of scarcity.

If you had to create your own water from oxygen and hydrogen, or create your own air by converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon you wouldn't think about customizing the available water and air with scents or flavours or integrating them into different utilities. You'd think about producing it (through human effort) and hoarding it.

Conversely, if free software were abundant, you won't think about the cost of producing it, you'd think about customization, bug fixing, and system integration.

The word abundant is the key. *If* free software dominated the economy, it would be abundant, wouldn't it? That's why the whole "If all software were free, programmers would lose their jobs" argument is bogus. Programmers would still find programming jobs, just in different programming jobs (see above). Of course, if free software doesn't have the power to dominate the economy, this argument would disappear, but then so would the fears about it dominating.

Now if you think of an idea and you don't want to share, that's fine. It's your loss as much as mine. You'd be losing all the valuable input we could provide you and you'd be losing the opportunity to increase your reputation and thus employability and the good will of customers.

Keep in mind that perhaps your idea isn't as big a contribution as you believe. Newton said, "If I had seen so far, it is because I stood on the shoulders of gaints." Newton's contributions are by no means insignificant, but he recognized that his contributions builded on a large body of other contributed work that was far larger than his own ideas. *Because* those other ideas were abundant and freely available, he was able to do great things himself. Never mind that it cost effort to produce those ideas.

I don't see how this could be morally objectionable.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

I don't believe ideas are property, so I'm not advocating theft.

That's absurd. Your opinion means piss-all if it's contrary to the law of the land. And the law of the land says that my ideas are my property-- my intellectual property. Before you convince me that another way is better, you're going to have to do a lot better than "nuh-uh."

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

First of all, you are clearly mistaken if you consider natural resources and crafted things to be morally and economically equivalent. I'd recommend a basic textbook on transactional ethics. Start with "Henny Penny" and work your way up.

Finally, I refuse to get into another argument that hinges on the assumption that software is equivalent to abstract knowledge. There is a huge difference between sharing the knowledge of how to write a database and actually sharing the database itself. You're trying to say that source code is abstract knowledge, and should be shared so that others may learn from it. That's bullshit. Source code is a crafted, constructed thing. You are no more entitled to it-- morally or economically-- than you are to another person's furniture.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[qweqwe]

> First of all, you are clearly mistaken if you
> consider natural resources and crafted things
> to be morally and economically equivalent.

Huh? You brought morality into this, not me. Take a look at both my reply and the post you replied to. It's clear you didn't read my post.

> You're trying to say that source code is
> abstract knowledge, and should be shared so
> that others may learn from it. . That's
> bullshit. Source code is a crafted, constructed
> thing.

Nope. Read what I said. I said that *you* lose the advantages of input and feedback, so it's a good idea for you to share.

But as a side note, do you really think that abstract knowledge isn't crafted? Newton's works didn't just appear out of thin air. It took time, patience, ingenuity, and craftmanship. Yes craftmanship. Mathemeticians pride themselves on esthetics as least as much as computer scientists, if not moreso. It's not enough to solve a problem, the solution must be beautiful. The 4 colour problem was proved correct by brute force enumeration of all the posibilities. Mathemeticians still don't consider it to be solved because it doesn't have a proof crafted for it.

And if you think that a mathematical proof can't be as complicated as a program, I suggest you look at the proof of Fermat's last theorem.

And do you really think that crafted things are 100% independent and don't owe their inspiration to other crafted things? Most novelists an song writers will tell you that their work is inspired by and includes parts of the styles of other writers and musicians.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

Talking of not reading things.

But as a side note, do you really think that abstract knowledge isn't crafted?

Yup. "Craft" is a verb, meaning "to make by hand and with much skill." The constituents of the sciences and of mathematics aren't crafted things; they're discoveries of principles, relations, or facts. You may take pride in how well you choose to express them, but in all aspects these things are basically nothing more than statements of fact.

Computer programs are constructs. They are built from raw materials (bits, at the lowest level; instructions for the more abstractly minded) and perform a function. They are more like machines than they are like something from math or the sciences.

The argument, which you advocated, that software should be shared like scientific knowledge just doesn't hold any water.

Sorry. Try again another time.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[qweqwe]

> Computer programs are constructs. They are
> built from raw materials (bits, at the lowest
> level; instructions for the more abstractly
> minded) and perform a function. They are more
> like machines than they are like something from
> math or the sciences.

Just because something can be modelled by a machine, doesn't mean that it is a machine. As I've said, the mathematical proof of the 4 colour problem can be modelled by a machine (I could give you the schematics within a few months). Give me a decade and I can model Fermat's last theorem too (yes it is possible, but it's really complicated).

You should also know that any computer program can be modelled with mathematics.

> The constituents of the sciences and of
> mathematics aren't crafted things; they're
> discoveries of principles, relations, or facts.

The creation of a mathematical proof is very similar to the creation of a computer program. Neither are discoveries. Robinson's Non-standard Analysis is a proof in point. It involves extending regular mathematics in a way that cannot be discovered, because neither the statement "Robinson's Non-standard Analysis is false" nor "Robinson's Non-standard Analysis is true" contradict mathematics. It's something outside math, yet there is a useful bridge between regular math and Robinson's invention that allows you to do things and discover things in regular math much easier than you would have otherwise.

> The argument, which you advocated, that
> software should be shared like scientific
> knowledge just doesn't hold any water.

There you go again with the "should". I say it gains value through sharing. There is no moral imperative to share. Read again.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

Just because something can be modelled by a machine, doesn't mean that it is a machine.

What does that have to do with anything? Computer programs are not mathematical proofs, nor vice versa. Computer programs are functional constructs, built by programmers, that perform operations. They do things, like fly the space shuttle or control a tape deck or download pornography. Statements of mathematics do not do things. No set of mathematical statements, however complex, can tell a videotape deck to go into record.

The creation of a mathematical proof is very similar to the creation of a computer program.

If this were true-- it isn't, as anyone who has worked in commercial software development would know intuitively-- then so what?. As I've said over and over, a mathematical proof or statement does not do anything. It is either correct or incorrect, but it performs no function. It can be evaluated, either manually or by automation, but the process of evaluating the proof or statement is separate from the proof or statement itself.

Computer programs do things. That makes them different from math, or music, or literature. Why aren't you seeing that?

Let us not lose sight of the point, here. You keep insisting that source code is equivalent to mathematical or scientific knowledge, and should therefore be shared for the same reasons that those things should be shared. You are the one who invoked Newton, after all. Repeating "that's not what I said" or "there you go with should again" isn't really going to get us anywhere.

If you want to retract your statement about Newton, then that's just fine.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[jgerman]

nd before you can convince me, you're going to have to do better than yuh-huh. Laws have nothing to do with the value of opinion. There are laws I feel are just and I will choose to follow, and there are those that aren't and I won't. The DMCA is a great example, UCITA is another one. Hiding behind the argument "but it's illegal" means absolutely nothing to me. Simply because it is illegal, does not make it immoral or wrong, it makes it only that, illegal. I'll not feel guilty breaking a law, when my personal code of ethics doesn't forbid the activity.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[qweqwe]

It's clear that you don't understand I don't have the skill to make you understand, so I'll stop here.

But for the record:
* programs don't do anything either. They are an expression of an idea. Machines that evaluate these ideas actually do things.
* mathematical proofs are computer programs that evaluate to true of false (many can be directly translated to Prolog)
* but the above is beside the point. The creation of mathematical proofs is every much a craft as the creation of computer programs and the impact of the resulting work is often more profound than any computer program (which will be obsolete in 10 years anyway). But mathemeticians share techics and results because there is value to the sharing.
* Newton said nothing about morality. He simply said, in a round about way, that there is value in sharing the expression of ideas because they tend to build on each other. There's nothing to retract and you must believe it's true because otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time reading posts and you certainly wouldn't be trying to share your ideas with me.

That's pretty much all I have to say. If you wish to have the last word, you may. I won't reply back, no matter what you say.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

I'll not feel guilty breaking a law, when my personal code of ethics doesn't forbid the activity.

Then you've got a problem.

The Law is a powerful force in a free society. In a culture like ours-- for wherever you happen to live, we share the same culture-- no man is beholden to any other. Men give up their liberty only to the Law. We do this in the name of equity, and justice, and security. Our social structures are all founded on a respect for the Law.

No man can choose which laws he'll obey and which ones he'll ignore. To do that is to place yourself above the Law, which destroys the delicate balance under which we all live.

To say, "Simply because it is illegal does not make it immoral or wrong" is to deny the very nature of Law. It is against the Law, and therefore it is wrong. Period.

There are sometimes bad laws. These laws should be changed. We have a system for doing so. But until those laws are changed, they must be obeyed.

In situations where the system completely breaks down, men are justified in engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. In the worst of all circumstances, armed revolution to overthrow the government is justified. If you seriously believe you're in a situation that warrants either of those responses, I'd request that you check yourself into the nearest psych ward and stay there until you're all better.

Obey the Law, or break it, or work to change it. But you must not simply ignore it.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[jgerman]

No man can choose which laws he'll obey and which ones he'll ignore. To do that is to place yourself above the Law, which destroys the delicate balance under which we all live.

To say, "Simply because it is illegal does not make it immoral or wrong" is to deny the very nature of Law. It is against the Law, and therefore it is wrong. Period.

There are sometimes bad laws. These laws should be changed. We have a system for doing so. But until those laws are changed, they must be obeyed.

In situations where the system completely breaks down, men are justified in engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. In the worst of all circumstances, armed revolution to overthrow the government is justified. If you seriously believe you're in a situation that warrants either of those responses, I'd request that you check yourself into the nearest psych ward and stay there until you're all better.

Sorry, don't buy it. Catch me, try to stop me, or anyone else for that matter. I don't have to try to work within the system if I don't believe IN the system, or even just the methods or time it takes to try and get a bad law removed. For example, oral sex is against the law in many states, including MD, is it wrong to have oral sex, no. Is it against the law, yes. Am I going to abstain until when and if the law is ever revoked when I'm in Maryland, no. It's a bad law, and I will ignore it. The law does not define morality, it does not define right and wrong, it only defines legal and illegal. Right and wrong are part of personal beliefs. You believe that it right and wrong always exactly match legal and illegal, I do not. Period.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

Please put down your mouse and move to a country where respect for the law is not a core value.

No one here will miss you.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[Anonymous Coward]

The "very nature of Law" is nothing more than consensus on sponsoring the use of deadly force. Many laws self-evidently have nothing to do with equity or justice or security, but limit purely consentual arrangements in the name of upholding ancient mythologically-inspired commandments that aren't upheld even by consensus, much less a genuine self-preservation interest of society at large.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[jgerman]

Fortunately, I don't have to do that. The laws of this country were created in such a way as to protect people who aren't sheeplike in beliefs from people like you. I can live in this country and holwd, and speak about ANY belief I want.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

The laws of this country were created in such a way as to protect people who aren't sheeplike in beliefs from people like you.

You think people need to be protected from me? I'm not the one advocating lawlessness and mob rule. You are.

I'm just going to reiterate my point from a previous post, as you seem to be ignoring it.

Our culture is based on the twin principles of individual liberty and universal equality. No single person has the authority to tell any other person what to do. But left by itself, that state of affairs would inevitably lead to anarchy and chaos and rule by force, and no man would be able to exercise the liberty that we hold so dear. So we all, collectively and willingly, subject our selves to the rule of an abstract entity, the Law. We have established, thanks to our founding fathers, a system for creating, testing, and revising the individual laws that make up the Law, and we put our trust in it.

This system will only work if we all respect and obey the Law, even when we disagree with it. Casually ignoring the Law will, without fail, lead to the ultimate collapse of our system from within.

I'll ask you again. Please leave this country immediately, and move someplace where the stability and continued health of society doesn't depend on a respect for the Law.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[jgerman]

This system will only work if we all respect and obey the Law, even when we disagree with it. Casually ignoring the Law will, without fail, lead to the ultimate collapse of our system from within.

I'll ask you again. Please leave this country immediately, and move someplace where the stability and continued health of society doesn't depend on a respect for the Law.

You apparently do not get the point. The freedom to hold any idea I wish, and be outspoken about it without being asked to leave the country is the reason this government is so flexible. So yes, protection from people like you, who feel that anyone that doesn't hold their views should leave the country have no power over those who are able to think on their own.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

You apparently do not get the point. The freedom to hold any idea I wish, and be outspoken about it without being asked to leave the country is the reason this government is so flexible.

The freedom of ideas and expression is a valuable thing. But it carries with it an obligation to exercise wisdom before speaking. The old analogy about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater applies.

I believe it's you that doesn't get the point. See, you are indeed free to hold the opinion that the Law doesn't apply to you. But the fact that you can hold, and express, that opinion doesn't mean that you're right. You're just as free to insist that the sky is red.

In other words, our social and governmental system guarantees you the freedom to be an idiot. It does not, however, make it mandatory.

Historical patterns repeat themselves

[texchanchan]

This whole situation is so Thirty Years War it's not funny.

Charge per Download ISN'T Per-Seat Licensing

[JohnDenver]

I'm sorry, but you must be really obtuse if you can't tell the difference between charging someone per download and Per-Seat licensing.

As far as charging per download, RMS doesn't have a problem with that as it's a distribution cost just like CD's and boxes. RMS knows bandwidth isn't free and he allows this.

The GPL provides me a way to share my ideas and tools witht the world and allows me to decide how it's distributed. It gives *me* control over *my* hard work, so that if someone wants to improve on my work, I can require they give it back to the community like I did.

The GPL aims to prevent blatent exploitation of people's charitable hard work, ESPECIALLY when it RESTRICTS the distribution of that work, which PER-SEAT LICENSING does...

Don't get me wrong, they can PER-SEAT license THIER code all they want, just don't try it with OUR code.

Don't like the viral nature of the GPL, then write you own damn code.

Re:Charge per Download ISN'T Per-Seat Licensing

[mpe]

Don't get me wrong, they can PER-SEAT license THIER code all they want, just don't try it with OUR code.

They also had better make it clear which code is which.

Don't like the viral nature of the GPL, then write you own damn code.

Except that it's more the per-seat bit which is "viral" here.

United Linux is not ONE distribution

[jaaron]

Maybe someone's already pointed this out and I missed it, but it's important to remember that according to the United Linux page, United Linux is not one single distribution. It's a 'standard' that several distributions will adhere to. Caldera, SuSE, Conectiva, and TurboLinux will all still have their own respective products. Consequently, AFAIK someone could put together a distribution that is compliant with United Linux and not have a per seat license. Of course to be able to put the United Linux compliant 'mark' on their distro they could need to fork out the cash and join the project, but they don't have to just to follow the standards.

IMHO the idea behind United Linux, that is distributions actually following the LSB and being compliant is a good thing. As Ransom Love pointed out "The nice thing about this is that we stop competing in areas where we have no differentiator anyway." There will always be and should always be choice and variety in the Linux community. However, a lack of standards, or I should say I lack of compliance with standards is what is holding Linux back in many markets.

That said, per-seat licenses are not a good thing and as someone pointed out, if Caldera thinks it can take on Red Hat with per seat licensing then they've got quite a lesson still to learn.

And finally, as for RMS, he's not saying anything new here and he's not trying to kill United Linux. For those who value freedom, the GPL is really the only choice, especially if the goal is creating a completely free system.

However, one thing to think about is that even if every bit of software were GPLed, Caldera could still put together a distribution that would also use some of their own non-free software. Consequently, the distro as a whole could be licensed under any scheme Caldera dreamed up despite all the other bundled GPL applications.

On with Stallman on This One

[Slicker]

Though I do not always agree with RMS methods,
he's absolutely right about this.

And this is one of the dangers I, myself, was
concerned about with these vendors.

A business model is possible without per-seat licensing.

That is a sad mistake--it's what turned me off of ELX
Linux, too. ELX would otherwise have been a significant
step forward for desktop Linux.

--Matthew

Any distribution with Ransom Love's support...

[jocknerd]

is reason enough for me not to try it.

Splitting hairs: Gnu/Linux vs. Gnu+Linux

[millia]

I tend to stay out of RMS flamewars, but this (apparent change) intrigues me. On the Gnu site, they refer to it as Gnu/Linux. In this article, RMS' quote refers to it as Gnu+Linux.
Leaving aside the propriety of calling it Gnu/Linux in the first place, this seems to me to be a better nomenclature, since it is indeed Gnu software plus the Linux kernel.
Does this signify a change, or is it just a slipup? I find it hard to believe that RMS would slipup in such a fashion.

and that's the bottom line

[NFW]

I would refuse to allow my work to be included, but I licensed it under the GPL, so I can't.

That should be scored 'insightful,' not just 'funny.'

GPL and per-seat-licensing (PSL?) are mutually exclusive concepts. If code is released under the GPL, it cannot be PSLed except by violating the GPL. If code is released under the GPL, you cannot stop anyone from doing whatever the hell they want with that code, as long as they provide the source which makes PSLing a joke. "OK, here's the software, please pay us $X per seat. Oh, and here's the source and a copy of the license for the source, which clearly states that you can make as many copies as you wish, for free. But please pay us anyway. Thanks."

The United Linux people are free to choose the terms under which they write the software that they create. Since they're using PSL, it's clear that United Linux includes proprietary code.

The bottom line here is that RMS wishes UL didn't include proprietary code. This is not news. His message is directed at the UnitedLinux people, particularly the UL employees who write that proprietary code, and he is asking them to use the GPL. This is not news.

Where's the news?

Re:and that's the bottom line

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, here's the software, please pay us $X per seat. Oh, and here's the source and a copy of the license for the source, which clearly states that you can make as many copies as you wish, for free. But please pay us anyway

Exactly. That's the way software companies make money with GPL software. If I may quote from gnu.org:

you may have paid money to get copies of GNU software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

Likewise, you're free to buy "per seat licenses" of GPL software from UnitedLinux partners, but you're also free to redistribute the GPL software from the very first license you buy to all your other seats. You just have to decide whether you prefer to make perfectly legitimate copies of that software, or pay again for exactly the same thing. It's your choice.

Dreaming on sticking the penguin to the seat

[Ektanoor]

Well RMS has been always a strange figure that I frequently couldn't agree with... But this remark of him is just on the spot.

Sticking into a per seat basis a Linux (or GNU/Linux to appease RMS wishes) system does not prevert the GPL. It breaks everything behind and beyond the GPL license. It voids it completely.

Let us note that GPL is not in exact terms the right to use a program. GPL is more a license on the right you have to develop. To have a potential in the future, even if you are not ready or wishing to add a few lines to some piece of code. However, potentially, you have given the right to do that when you may need to. And that's the FUNDAMENT of GPL: you have always the door open to Summer.

Now consider what happens when someone sticks you into a per-seat based license. Yes, this license may be cool for users who just care for the use of software. It may be quite cool for resellers and certain developers as it allows to get some grip on how you sell the product. However it is an axioma that most OSS software evolutes, besides some of it evolutes in explosive manner. In this case you have the doors closed. You may well risk to have some legal trouble if in a per-seat Linux world you try to implement or develop something that goes behind the first intentions of the developper/reseller.

On such a world we get either two results. Either software development stumps into a new butch of feudal developers a-la Microsoft or we get the same old good legal confusion weither such or such product can be or cannot be used and where piracy will be uncontrollable from a technical point of view. We have already passed this in Microsoft's early days.

Either you are capitalist, socialist, anarchist or Jedi, whatever your tastes are, you will stuck into a swamp if such kind of licensing will be allowed. Of course you may agree/disagree at first. The problem is that the embroglia will start only when a critical volume of needs on development will stuck with a penguin on a seatbelt...

free software

[Anonymous Coward]

comercial -> sco unix
free -> linux

which one has gotten lots of free advertising, and which crustly POS is dying?

Free ones win all the time.

who cares anyway time to add slashdot.org 127.0.0.1 back again

Re:free software

[foobar104]

comercial -> sco unix
free -> linux

which one has gotten lots of free advertising, and which crustly POS is dying?

Bad analogy, and you know it. Try this one:

commercial -> irix
free -> linux

- or -

commercial -> solaris
free -> linux

- or -

commercial -> vxworks
free -> linux

- or -

commercial -> windows
free -> linux

- or -

commercial -> mac os x
free -> linux

Market research is, of course, full of lies and errors. But all market research studies seem to agree that Linux, *BSD, and the other free operating systems are mere niche players, in terms of pure number of users.

The grandparent of this post is correct. "Free" software cannot compete with commercial software when it comes to market penetration. There are simply no resources for it.

Re:free software

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad analogy, and you know it. Try this one:

commercial -> irix
free -> linux

Ummmm right, I've made that comparison. Now you try and tell me what conclusions you draw from it.

Secondly, you need to work on actually understanding posts as a conversation. Somone said that if you had a proprietary package and a free package side by side then the proprietary one would win. Someone said no, look at SCO Unix compared to Linux. You then objected because he hadn't picked the "right" packages. That makes zero sense. Either it's true that a comparison of a proprietary package and a free package will inevitably leave the proprietary package winning or it isn't. If you have to pick the right two packages then you've lost.

UnitedLinux minus propietary code is free

[Anonymous Coward]

So we'll just make an UnitedLinux Light, won't we ?

RMS seems to say a lot of 'Cant' and 'Dont'

[kfsone]

Especially recently, he does seem to have become somewhat embittered, and maybe I just don't read enough Stallman but gone seem to be the older, more glamorous days of Stallman fighting wrongs and injustices and come are the days of Stallman looking for a fight with anyone who isn't on his wagon yet. Macro-focus has been replaced with Micro-focus.

I don't think its fair to accuse him of empire building, I honestly think Mr Stallman thinks he is on a just campaign.

But seeing Richard attack something like this makes you wonder who else is on this campaign with him.

In $ world terms, Mr Stallman is so entrenched in negative energies that it is difficult to see how he can still be a positive motivator...

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it doesn't take a Kreskin to see that GNU/*BSD is dying.

Article text

[datastew]

The founder of the Free Software movement is encouraging developers to rebel against the per-seat licensing that the "UnitedLinux" business software initiative apparently will employ in its new distribution.

In response to an inquiry from Linux and Main, Richard M. Stallman issued a statement and call to arms to Free Software developers.

"'Licensing per seat' perverts the GNU+Linux system into something that respects your freedom as much as Windows," Stallman said. "They cannot restrict the GPL-covered programs in the system that way, because that would violate the GNU GPL, but the system also contains non-copylefted programs which are points of vulnerability. Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"

The "UnitedLinux" consortium, comprising Caldera, SuSE, TurboLinux, and Conectiva, announced its cooperative effort to produce a core Linux for enterprise use Thursday. The announcement closely paralleled a similar plan from Caldera alone with its 2000 release of its server and workstation 3.0 products, which offered per-seat licensing of a Linux distribution for the first time. The company later backpedaled, saying that it would offer free, non-commercial use of the product and ISO images for download. By then, however, community anger had driven many Caldera users elsewhere.

In its announcement and a corresponding teleconference with reporters, "UnitedLinux" said that source code for the core distribution would be made "freely available," but did not specify the circumstances. Binaries, the consortium said, would not be available for free download. Additionally, users and even the four distributions themselves are prohibited from labeling any desktop distribution resulting from compilation of the source, or any derivatives, "UnitedLinux."

It could not be immediately determined if Stallman or the Free Software Foundation intended to take any further action in connection with the plan "UnitedLinux" has announced.

Re:Article text

[r0ckflite]

I guess I just have one fear WRT this thing they're doing. Somebody else mentioned it but was ignored. What is to stop the UnitedLinux folks from using the approach of making every piece of code that they write for LINUX non-GPL, things like a new RPM, desk top software, and such. Couldn't they then basically give the source away to the GPL'd versions but make their distribution unusable to anyone with just GPL source because of all the non-GPL'd pieces they wrote?

And you say you'll never buy it, but what if they write good software that people like, couldn't they in effect kill other distros with this technique? Please don't say people won't go for this stupid idea. You might not go for it, but not everyone is as smart (especially PHBs) as you are.

If they have the ability (and I'm no GPL expert) to do this, then I say off with Ransom's head! That guy just strikes me as a slimy POS.

RMS + Flames + Grown-Up Time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to hold some respect for RMS, but more and more it seems he's making himself into a joke. Are we supposed to take him seriously as a community leader when he gives every impression that he's more a role model for flame-happy pimply-faced h4x0rz than he is for the adults around here?

Did he even approach the United Linux folks with his concerns before flaming them in public? Does he have any understanding of the concept of "discussion" or "communication" as interactive technology, or is it a strictly unidirectional thing for him - he speaks (or flames) and we listen (and obey) ?

Has he done anything at all constructive lately? Anything? All I ever hear about anymore is him whining that the folks working hard to promote Linux and make viable business plans around it aren't doing it his way.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[TooTallFourThinking]

Oh that was bad. That was very bad. But damn, I laughed. I feel so dirty. ;)

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[TooTallFourThinking]

That's a good question. However I don't know the differences between GNU/Linux and FreeBSD to be able to answer that. Maybe someone else can answer that. I know the Linux kernel was build with GNU tools which is why RMS is pushing it be called GNU/Linux.

Does FreeBSD depend on GNU tools to be built? Or did they have there own set of tools and utilities? Quite frankly, I know very little about BSD. And I wouldn't be opposed to learn.

I'm a NRA and ACLU card carrying member

[Taco Cowboy]

You said:

"What's your standing on the Right to Bear Arms

Not only I'm a NRA card carrying member, I'm also an ACLU card carrying member.

Hope that'll clear your suspicion.

Re:I'm a NRA and ACLU card carrying member

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have to carry a lot more than just two cards if you want to impress us.

Re:I'm a NRA and ACLU card carrying member

[jdavidb]

What did he think arms rights had to do with it? Was it some veiled attempt to call you a Communist or something?

Re:I'm a NRA and ACLU card carrying member

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. It takes a solid three or four.

Re:I'm a NRA and ACLU card carrying member

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Are you also a NAMBLA card carrying member?

Re:I'm a NRA and ACLU card carrying member

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well I'm an NRA *GUN* carrying member. I got tired of trying to fight off thugs with just the card.

Hi, My Name is idonotexist. I Support UnitedLinux

[idonotexist]

In other news, "Likening the practice to distributing peace, Slashdot user idonotexist has issued a brief statement supporting the deployment of the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."

In other words, wtf cares what his opinion is?

Distribution a derivative work?

[nuggz]

A collection itself can be copyritten (ie Official OpenBSD CD's), but the underlying applications as pieces fully retain their individual licenses.

Yes someone would be able to copyright a collection of GPL code as a collection. However upon distributing they could also enforce their copyright on that collection.

But wouldn't a collection be considered a derivative work? and likewise force the collection to be licensed as GPL?

Re:Distribution a derivative work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol!
No...
"Derivative works" just mean any program where GPLed code has been statically compiled in.

Re:Distribution a derivative work?

[nuggz]

If I take 2 GPL programs, and put them together in a "collection", is that collection a derivative work bound by the GPL, or is it not a derivative work, and can be licensed however I choose.

AFAIK collection of other works can have an independant copyright.

Re:Distribution a derivative work?

[SN74S181]

But wouldn't a collection be considered a derivative work? and likewise force the collection to be licensed as GPL?


Don't shout that TOO loud.

Ask someone at Red Hat if you can image their boxed-set CDs and share the ISOs over the net on your FTP site.

I did, in about 1997, in person at a presentation. They said 'no.'

The 'glue and packaging' that holds a Red Hat distro together is NOT GPL'd.

Re:Distribution a derivative work?

[nuggz]

The glue and packaging is NOT GPL'd.
However would the whole CD be considered a derivative work of the GPL and nonGPL code?

Just a thought.

Re:Distribution a derivative work?

[jsnorman]

Yes and no.

The "author" of a collection DOES own the copyright in the collection, but DOES NOT own the copyright in the underlying works!!!! Same thing with a derivative work. If I take a kernel module and modify it (creating a derivative work), I OWN the copyright to my modification ONLY, but I still need a license from the owner of the copyright in the underlying work to distribute the derivative work as a whole.

This is why music rights are so complicated. The composer, the performers, the editors, etc. EACH have a copyright for the work they added to the collective whole, and no one can do anything with the finished work until you get all of the rights together.

Applying this to the RedHat CD question originally posed: yes, RH "owns" a copyright in the collection -- BUT, under Section 2(b) of the GPL the CD image is a derivative work (at least as it applies to the GPL'd stuff in the RH distro) that MUST to be licensed without cost to the world (RH may charge for the CD, but they cannot require others to charge for the CD when redistributed); nor can RH impose restrictions on distribution as that would violate Section 6 of the GPL.

They only justification that might permit RH to prohibit copying the the CD image is is there is significant RH owned, proprietary programs on the CD image that are not licensed under the GPL. In that case, you could image the CD but would have to exclude those proprietary RH programs. I don't use RH, so I don't know if this is true or not.

per-seat licencing??? on Linux???!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

that will never fly, especially on Linux...

Crabs - true story!

[Anonymous Coward]

Many moons ago - before I went to my undergrad institution - the College of William and Mary (www.wm.edu), RMS visited the CS dept there to give a talk (the department there is almost all UNIX/Linux). Before his talk, the faculty took him out to a seafood place that had fresh crabs. Apparently he was quite messy, and during his talk, he was picking bits of crab out of his beard and EATING them, as well as "milking" any crab juice out of his beard - much to the disgust of many of the faculty (who were NOT unsympathetic to Free Software).

Thus RMS's visit to the dept has become kind of a story/legend - though they still use Linux despite his visit.... :) So there is one OTHER thing RMS likes!

Sincerely,
Kevin Christie
Neuroscience Program
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
crispiewm@hotmail.com

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[Cyno]

I like GNU/Linux or even the GNU Linux or GNULinux. I just like GNU. Its the choice of the GNU generation. And I don't think you should be part of this GNU generation if you don't like GNU/Linux. I would love to see both Linux and GNU promoted since they are both the same thing. The last time I looked Linux was GNU software, published under the GPL. But I didn't write it and Linus has his own opinions about the parts he wrote and would like you to call them just Linux. I agree with him. But the rest of the kernel you can call GNU/Linux unless other kernel developers feel otherwise. ;) GNU is the glue that makes all my hardware stable and useful in a homogenous UNIX environment. And GNU's not UNIX! Get it?

What Per-Seat License?

[MrResistor]

Where is this per-seat license laid out? I've read a lot of the articles, etc. surrounding this UnitedLinux thing, but nowhere have I seen a per-seat license mentioned by anyone actually involved in the project. What I have seen is a /. post mentioning a somewhat ambiguous phrasing in the UnitedLinux FAQ which could theoretically allow for the possibility that maybe they will use an End User License that is not quite typical of the Free Software Ideal. Nowhere is any specific licensing scheme, per-seat or otherwise, ever laid out, except by the Chicken Littles that have latched onto this ambiguous phrase and determined that the sky is falling. RMS heard the screaming and, without bothering to look up and see if the sky was actually coming down, joined the corus.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, quite the opposite. I know that I would go out of my way to not support a Linux vendor using per-seat licensing, and I think we've already seen that most of the Linux community feels the same. Frankly, after the beating Caldera took for bringing up the idea of a per-seat license, I'd be extremely surprised if anyone even considered such a scheme again, especially Ransom Love (he does give the impression sometimes that he just doesn't get it, though, so who knows).

This per-seat licensing thing is just a totally unsubstantiated rumor! Get over it, people!

There are plenty of other reasons to complain about the project, though. The fact that it's server only seems to me to be monumentally stupid. Linux seems to be doing just fine in the server market, and I don't see how this standardization effort will make much difference in that arena. Linux on the desktop, however, would derive incredible benefit from an innitiative like this. In fact, the lack of an innitiative like this is really the only thing standing in the way of Linux becoming viable on the desktop. If there were a serious effort to standardize for desktop distros, I bet we'd quickly see some of those missing apps being ported to that standard.

As I said, nobody is perfect.

[Taco Cowboy]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

Personally, I do think that the "GNU/Linux" thing is silly, but I still recognize RMS's right on pursuing his GNU/Linux thingy.

And one more point ...

You said:
"I also think that Freedom in Software is more
important than recognition for the GNU Project"

While on the whole, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but please pardon me for pointing out that WITHOUT the GNU Project, that wouldn't be "Freedom in Software".

I am not saying that the whole "Freedom in Software" thing rest on GNU, no. But the fact is STILL that the GNU Project got the "FREEDOM" notion in software going in the first place.

Perhaps, if RMS did not start that GNU Project, somebody else would have done similar thing. But however we want to conjure the possibilities, this particular universe that we live in, RMS is STILL the guy who started the GNU Project, which got the concept of "Freedom of Software" rolling.

Thank you for your attention !

Re:As I said, nobody is perfect.

[10Ghz]

!While on the whole, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but please pardon me for pointing out that WITHOUT the GNU Project, that wouldn't be "Freedom in Software".!

Which is more important:

a) to have free software and free Operating System.

b) to give GNU-project free publicity and recognition

I believe that point a) is more important. ALOT more important. RMS should be grateful that with Linux, we have free Operating System. Instead of really caring for free software, all he seems to care about is the fame and glory of the GNU-project (which has gotten alot more publicity, thanks to Linux).

Yes, GNU-software is important part of a Linux-distro. So what? The fact still is that we now have a free OS. Why does it matter to RMS if it's not called GNU/Linux, if it fulfills the goal of FSF and RMS? Because RMS is so fanatic when it comes to the naming-thingy, it seems that it never was about free software, it was about glory and fame for the GNU-project, and he just used free software as a tool to get that fame. We have now free software and OS, RMS should be happy. He's not. He's annoyed because his project didn't get all the fame and glory.

If it really were about free software, RMS should be extatic that we now have a complete free OS. He's not.

Re:As I said, nobody is perfect.

[caca_phony]

Which is more important:

a) to have free software and free Operating System.

b) to give GNU-project free publicity and recognition

The Linux project is more a kernel that happens to be free, than a free kernel. And there never has been and probably never will be a Linux operating system. Linux was and is a kernel, the one big thing the Gnu project couldn't get working yet. I was introduced to GNU/Linux through RedHat, which my roommates installed on our shared computers. Eventually we got hacked, so we had to reinstall, and I'd heard rumors that Debian was pretty good, so we tried it out. It wasn't till I installed Debian that I learned what the GNU project was, not to mention it's significance in the world of Free software. If we left things to everyone else, I don't think any organization would have the same proncipled and unqualified support for Free software that GNU has had under the leadership of RMS.

two things:

[sad_]

1. What is the added value compared to the competition (redhad, mandrake, debian,...)?
Those 'extra' tools and the available support will have to be pretty damn good to have people willing to pay for this.
I acknowledge RH is the leader in linux distro's, and it is about the nr.1 distro everybody else in the world knows about. when evaluating different distro's and comparing the pricing of RH and UnitedLinux, what will drive people to choose UL?
Google is using RH too, but they only paid for 5 cd's or so; out of respect! they don't even pay for RH support.
This is a real strength for RH: download cd's, play with it/evaluate it, buy support if needed. you won't be able to do that with UL.

2. so, if GPL software cannot be seat-licensed, and UL is only asking you to pay licenses for those closed source tools they have included themself, i can remove these packages/binaries/etc? and then as a result i won't have to pay a license fee since i'm not using any licensed software, would that work?

GNU/Linux

[SHEENmaster]

Personally I think that it is a much better name than mandrake, but the fact is that I use mandrake.

The reason is not that debian's installer crashes on my laptop and mandrake's runs perfectly. It is not that debian still uses the 2.2 kernel. It is not the ease of hardware detection and software installation in mandrake.

It is the culmination of all these things. If debian would simply shape up and work on their installer, upgrade their kernel, and their hardware detection method I would switch. A completely GPL distrobution is extremely appealing, but ease of use it what it boils down to.

I use linux on all of my systems because it is the easiest form of unix, the easiest operating system on earth. VMS has funky commands, and we all know the problems with windos. Linux is the most logical system, and roadblocks like licensing fees may kill it.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that distro companies need to turn a profit, but most distros offer a more complete edition with proprietary software thrown in. I buy that software to support the company.

Proprietary licensing can and will kill gnu software.

Please /. my website for me. We really do need more traffic.

Re:GNU/Linux

[Abreu]

The reason is not that debian's installer crashes on my laptop and mandrake's runs perfectly. It is not that debian still uses the 2.2 kernel. It is not the ease of hardware detection and software installation in mandrake....If debian would simply shape up and work on their installer, upgrade their kernel, and their hardware detection method I would switch. A completely GPL distrobution is extremely appealing, but ease of use it what it boils down to.

er... Excuse me, but Mandrakes installer is GPLd, and you can use Mandrake without using any non-Free software... I know I do!

Re:GNU/Linux

[Zeinfeld]

I use linux on all of my systems because it is the easiest form of unix, the easiest operating system on earth. VMS has funky commands, and we all know the problems with windos. Linux is the most logical system, and roadblocks like licensing fees may kill it.

The author does not appear to be making a joke here but it sure is funny as heck. Letsee:

VMS command to get help is HELP, UNIX command, man, or if you want to get useful information try man -k

VMS command to print a file to the console TYPE, UNIX command cat. If you want paged output TYPE /PAGE, UNIX command cat | more

VMS command to list a directory DIRECTORY, UNIX command ls. If you want to get particular info returned in the directory the flags change according to the UNIX variant.

When I first used UNIX the command to get a useful list of current processes was ps -aux. If the UNIX commands were so good why did they change?

Of course if the only system you have ever used is X you may well think that X is the easiest system in the world to use.

Re:GNU/Linux

[joto]

Well, if you really interpret "logical" as "has familiar-sounding and easy to guess names for basic commands", then I would agree with you.

But in this context it would be more appropriate to interpret "logical" as "coherent, fitting together, making sense as a whole", and in that respect, unix seems to be way ahead of VMS.

But really, is "TYPE /PAGE" more logical than "cat | more"? In unix, all you need to know about is that there exists a program called "cat" and one called "more", and that plumbing can put them together. And you can use this knowledge for other programs than "cat", such as "ls". In VMS you will have to consult the manual for "TYPE" to find out that it has the option "/PAGE". Now, it might be a common convention, but are you really sure every program has a "/PAGE" option? The same can be said about many unix features, such as the shell parsing wild-cards, backticks, xargs, etc...

Small tools fitting well together strikes me as something more fitting for the label of "logical", than something that is user-friendly only for beginners, and becomes a mess for more advanced users.

But then again, I've never really used VMS (although I did read a manual once), so I might be totally wrong after all :-)

Re:GNU/Linux

[Zeinfeld]

In VMS you will have to consult the manual for "TYPE" to find out that it has the option "/PAGE". Now, it might be a common convention, but are you really sure every program has a "/PAGE" option?

I can't think of any that does not. But if you really want to you can always run BASH as your VMS shell. On the other hand you can't run the VMS shell on a UNIX box for reasons explained below.

VMS does have equivalent mechanisms to pipes. However I must say that I have never found pipes to be especially usefull. Sure it is cute to be able to do ls * | grep foo. However at least 95% of the times I need to use a pipe in UNIX it is to construct a command feature that VMS provides for free.

Small tools fitting well together strikes me as something more fitting for the label of "logical", than something that is user-friendly only for beginners, and becomes a mess for more advanced users.

The difference between VMS and UNIX is how the tools are structured. In UNIX the command line handling is built into each program separately, so each command has code to extract flags and deal with them. If you want to change the flag assignments you have to recompile the program.

In VMS each command has a CLD definition that specifies the command, the arguments, program file to run etc. This has a lot of useful side effects, if you want to find out the arguments for any VMS command you can enter the command VERB [Command] to dump out the CLD definition.

This structure has a lot of advantages, not least being that if you want to produce a french language version of VMS you can. You can also generate GUI interfaces that will work with any VMS shell command, they simply query the CLD interface to find out all the commands supported and the arguments supported. The GUI will then work with new commands written after it, or user defined commands.

VMS was certainly not a beginner system, the expertise level of you average VMS user is likely to be much higher than that of your average UNIX user. Just because UNIX is dreadful for beginners does not mean it is good for experts. JCL is also dreadful for beginners but only JCL jocks think it is a powerful and elegant system, most impartial observers think that CP/M and MSDOS were a marked improvement over JCL.

Re:GNU/Linux

[BionicElf]

Mandrake's download edition is intended to be 100% OpenSource. BSD and/or GPL. If you find something on it that isn't, contact them - it was an oversight.

My Dream Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

This is my vision of the ultimate Linux distro, yours may vary greatly:

• A package *interface* to source code, not a package management system like rpm. In other words, a tool that would read through config files, identify available compile options, present them to the user via an interactive (ncurses? gui?) interface, then allow the user to make selections and compile the crap from source.
  
• An xml interface to all the files in /etc and at least a standard *base* of config layout elements.
  
• Something similar to FBSD's ports system to handle dependancy issues.
  
• An update and management interface similar to RH's up2date or Ximian's RedCarpet is a must for keeping the system current and reasonably secure.
  

So how long do I have to wait for all of this to come together? Should I start rolling my own distro via LFS or will this ever happen?

Through RMS's eyes

[Anonymous Coward]

Through RMS's eyes, this is a difficult situation. This guy is developing/promoting free software with the fundamental idea of "share with your neighbor - this will benefit everybody". And now the system GNU/Linux (since UL are "licensing" both in a way) is already in a situation where the philosophy can be lost. This is the life's project of RMS, and here it is, still in its youth, already threatened. Personally, I think most of us will stick to a real free (as in freedom -- and beer ;)) distribution, but I am a little bit concerned in the long run. J.

Hear Hear

[OSSTwitSpotter]

The man has proven time and again that he is a tit.

Caldera

[Anonymous Coward]

Caldera is dead to me.

Stop them?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you stop them from using it? It's GNU. Stopping them would be illegal. Eat your fucking cookies.

I will never buy SuSE again.

[Delphix]

I just bought SuSE 8.0 Professional. I have to say it's one of the best Linux packages I've ever owned. Until reading this article, I would have bought SuSE again and again..8.1...8.2...9.0..etc.

But I will not buy from a company that supports anything, including a business model, that goes against the ideals I believe in. Especially one that tries to capitalize off of something that was designed to be free. I'm sorry SuSE, but you just shot yourself in the foot as far as I'm concerned. I'll stick with Red Hat (assuming AOL doesn't buy them) or Debian from now on.

That, and anyone who's in bed with Caldera...screw them. Caldera OpenLinux my ass... The only thing it will open is your wallet and try to extract as much money as it can while offering inferior commercial replacements for free staple software. No thank you.

Why I didn't use Caldera or Suse...

[Raleel]

and won't use UnitedLinux either.

It's not that I have not bought Linux. I have. I've bought a couple of copies of Mandrake for my mother, and a number (read, more than 20) of systems with redhat (does that count? I think so, I get the support along with it). It's that I don't _have_ to. I experiement a lot. Buying a distribution for the sake of my experimentation is not worth it. However, when I experiment, I do contribute bug reports, help other users, and do my best to promote linux as a whole.

So, I will not buy UnitedLinux because I have to buy to experiment. I didn't buy Caldera for the same reason, and I didn't buy suse for the same reason.

It's sounds silly, I know. and I imagine I'll get flamed to hell and back, but eh, I got karma out the ass.

Land of Confusion

[oldstrat]

I think RS is a great person for the passion of his convictions. I also agree with many of his principals and goals.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what UnitedLinux is, and suspect that RS may have been sucker questioned for a hot button response.

I checked both links mentioned in the slashdot article, and found no per-seat license mentioned as a part of UL.
What I found was that UL is not a distro in the normal manner, it also is not a desktop Linux, in any form.
It is not going to be released to the public as a distro, and will not be available to the public in binary form.
From what I dig out of GNU and copyleft, a binary is not required for GNU, only sources.
Investigating Caldera's OpenLinux, I cannot find per-seat licensing except for support, a perfectly valid issue under GNU/GPL support can be charged for.
On the other hand I am having a disturbingly hard time finding the OpenLinux 3.1 License at all.

The confusion may come from some of Caldera's other Proprietary products. I seem to remember a per-seat license for commercial use some time back, but cannot find it at Caldera now.

So what's the deal?
United Linux is not a product or software package, it is a 'model'. I don't know of a GNU Model License. And even so, UL appears to be sharing that model without restriction.

Re:Land of Confusion

[oldstrat]

Correction Binary is _required_!

However it appears that there will be NO BINARY UnitedLinux, for ANYONE. The individual vendors will distribute BINARY and SOURCE under thier own names, with thier own changes/additions/perversions.

I have to repeat, check the FAQ's. United Linux says there will be no product called United Linux sold, folks UL is a Model Shop, not a Product Shop.

I seriously doubt that you can cover a non-product with GPL.

We can however scream that the Suse/Caldera/Connectiva/TurboLinux etc. products based on this model comply.

Read the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true that the GPL says nothing about charging for the work. However, it does say:

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

This means that you cannot give out source code or binaries (that distinction you are making doesn't exist, as the binaries are a derived work of the source code) and demand that the recipient only put the binaries on one machine.

You cannot impose additional restrictions on the license that go beyond GPL. Think of it as a golden rule "do unto others" type thing -- if UnitedLinux received the code under terms which allowed them to put it on any machine they wanted, they can't give it to others under terms which prohibit that.

GNU+Linux

[GodWasAnAlien]

Is RMS tired of dividing GNU by Linux?

I still think you're wong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or else your just an RMS shrill.

Re:I am REALLY sick of the same old rant...

[MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM]

Why don't you quote one single clause from the GPL preventing us from charging per-seat licensing. Nowhere in the GPL does it says that we can't charge per-seat licensing. You are just talking out of your ass, really.

what the major linux vendors do.

[gimpboy]

is the right thing. pay for binaries, get source for free. isn't this what all the major linux vendors do anyhow?


i cannot speak for all of them but redhat, mandrake, sackware, and debian all allow you to download iso's of binaries (at least mandrake and slack used to). redhat also allows you to download the sources if you so desire. so not that's not how all the linux vendors do it. if you want you can check out for your self. my mirror of fresh rpm's mirror can be found here:
rpm's and source rpms
You can also find the iso's here which i sucked down from red hat:
iso's

i'm not saying this is how all vendors should do it, but it's the one i prefer.

Gee...now that we know where RMS stands on...

[MaggieL]

..."United Linux", it will be interesting to hear from Linus on the subject. After all, he holds trademark rights in the name "Linux", as I recall.

RMS's real philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if we are on the topic of short, pithy expressions, how about Do as I say, for I know best (at least within the context of the LGPL and glibc).

Remember, it was RMS's change to the LGPL that describes Linux as a variant of "GNU operating system!" A lot of people take issue with the concept of a "whole GNU operating system" when it in fact didn't have a kernel (which most people outside of RMS and his disciples would consider as the operating system; the rest are just tools that make using the OS more convenient) that couldn't be considered anything but vaporware in the early 1990's.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[Z4rd0Z]

I don't think it's because Linux is built with GNU tools that he wants it called GNU/Linux. After all, FreeBSD is also built with some of the GNU tools. But Linux relies on the GNU C library, as well as GNU fileutils, findutils, shellutils, bash, GNU sed, GNU awk, and so forth. Almost all of the Linux userland in a console environment is from GNU. FreeBSD has its own userland. Using GCC to compile your project does not make it GNU in any way.

Define "per-seat licencing"...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're anything like me, than you're likely to have a nice comfy chair on castors that you use between your various machines by simply wheeling around the room.

Would this mean than that you only pay for the one licence, seeing as you only use one seat? :)

Who cares ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

who the fuck cares what RMS condemns anything, hes a big player in the linux industry, but seriously, who cares what one man thinks...

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[karmawarrior]

then why doesnt he advocate the use of the term "GNU/FreeBSD" or the generalized "GNU/*BSD"

Because the BSDs use the BSD user-land. Most have a few tools from the GNU project, but essentially the userland is the BSD core and BSD will work without any of the GNU tools being installed at all.

It's that simple. Take the GNU operating system. Add the Linux kernel (because the GNU kernel, HURD, wasn't ready when Linux was written). What do you have?

If you're a Slashdot AC troll, GNU + Linux = Linux. If you're RMS, Deborah or Ian, me, or half a dozen other people who feel that credit should be given where credit is due, it's GNU/Linux. BSD is BSD, it isn't GNU + anything, therefore it doesn't have GNU in the title.

It would be perfectly possible, incidentally, to create a BSD/Linux, which uses the BSD Init (no, Slackware's is not the same thing), uses the BSD Login and getty routines, logins boot into ASH or KSH, etc. I wish someone would, the Linux kernel has so much support, and the BSD userland is just so logical and pleasant to use.

(Incidentally, how long before this gets modded down? Every time I post anything remotely of the "RMS is not an eye-swivelling loony" variety I get modded down. It's very disheartening, and a somewhat ludicrious position when agreeing with the person who has done more for the free software community than any other living person (not to mention, though he'd hate it being said, the open source community too), is opening yourself up to accusations of trolling and flamebaiting.)

UnitedMorons would be a better name.

[Quixadhal]

Ok, so let's all get out our magtape reels and go back in time a few decades. Obviously, this is what "UnitedLinux" wants to do... bring us back to the good old days when your OS was vendor-controlled and pretty much useless without expensive licenses and support.

What RMS says is that if your work is NOT protected by the GPL, then the UL folks can restrict it by the per-seat license garbage. Which means anyone who installed the UL distro and then decides to stop paying their license fees will need to find a replacement for the bits that get shutoff. This could be anything from your cutesy animated-mouse-pointer gizmo to their proprietary version of kswapd.

I think this is the stupidest idea I've heard of in the Linux community to date. Learn from history! Caldara tried this and paid the price, do you really want to suffer too? This is like picking up dozens of free pamphlets and tying them together with a cute pink ribbon and charging the customer $50 for the "bundle". Pfah!

Let's not over react here...

[Eric Damron]

They can issue a per-seat license for their own code. However, any code that is GPL'd wouldn't be bound by the per-seat license.

Companies need to be able to earn money and selling one copy of their code to a multi-billion dollar company just isn't going to cut it. Hopefully they will provide an easy way to discern which parts of the distro are GPL'd and which parts are not.

Also nothing would prevent other distros like Redhat and Mandrake from following the standards without "per-seat" licensing.

Is the BSA going to audit Linux Distros?

[virtigex]

Per-seat licensing of UnitedLinux obiterates an important business aspect of using Linux, which is the peace of mind that your business won't be disrupted by a BSA audit (or at least the audit will be very quick). Let's not forget that a major reason to switch to Linux is the need not to keep track of which license goes with which machine, which gives the sys admins the added task of accountancy (e.g. Oregon and Washington school districts).

This will be great for Red Hat, if they don't follow suit, since UnitedLinux have taken themselves out of the game. If Red Hat does follow suit, new distro's will spring to the forefront. If you're not worried about per-seat licensing, just go with Windows.

Missing the Point/Analysis of UnitedLinux Plans

[jsnorman]

I think that many people are missing the point both as to what UnitedLinux is and is not doing, as well as RMS's position. RMS did not appear to be saying that UL is going to violate the GPL. Instead, he was saying that UL is able to get away with per seat licensing because many programmers choose non-GPL, XFree86-style licenses, which do not contain copyleft provisions. He was, I think, advocating the use of GPL over open source licenses without copyleft provisions.

Interestingly, there IS a clear violation of the GPL however that RMS does not mention -- the restruction by UL to non-commercial use.

As I understand it, UL is intending to (a) provide a common Linux+GNU distribution that will be bundled with several proprietary business applications developed and presumably owned by members of UL; and (b) make the source code (and object code?) of at least the Linux+GNU portion (e.g., the GPL'd stuff and the open source stuff, but not the proprietary stuff) of the distro available without cost BUT only (i) for non-commercial use, and (ii) the UnitedLinux trademark cannot be used in connection with redistribution of the resulting distro that may be freely downloaded.

If that is what they are doing (and assuming they provide both source and object code of GPL'd stuff for free download), I don't see that they are violating the GPL EXCEPT for the non-commercial use restriction (if in fact that is what they try to impose as is SUGGESTED by the FAQ on UL's web site).

Section 2(b) of the GPL says that you have to license the Program and any derivative thereof without cost. It appears that UL will be providing at least the source code for the GPL'd core Linux+GNU distro. They should also have to provide the object code, since object code is merely a derivative work from the source code (and hence, covered by 2(b).

It is also not a problem that UL wants to prevent others from using its trademark. Nothing in the GPL speaks to trademark rights. And it is a GOOD thing. Having the ability to trademark a particular distribution means that UL can (and should) be able to certify that any distro called UNITEDLINUX will have certain attributes. Companies can rely on that trademark as a quality assurance. This doesn't mean you can't use UL's GPL'd parts, and modify the sources, and redistribute it. BUT, you have to use your own name for the distro.

But UL runs into trouble with the non-commercial use restriction. Section 6 of the GPL clearly prohibits adding a new restriction to use of GPL'd code and derivatives thereof. I do not see how they get around this, except if they only apply the non-commercial use restriction to non-GPL'd programs like XFree86.

condems........oops

[PsychoElf]

Guess thats a sign that i need glasses, I thought it said "RMS Condems "UnitedLinux" per-seat License." I thought someone had made a linux based condem.

I'd worry more about RH becoming MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

Go and see how Red Hat has quietly adjusted their "fair use" guidelines with respect to their trademark, and how they are now enforcing a restriction on redistributing GPL code which has the "Red Hat" name embedded in it.

This is an excerpt from
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/ gu idelines.html. I encourage you to go and read the document, and think about it's implications.

"...Although Red Hat "owns" the collective work, in licensing it under the GPL, Red Hat grants broad rights in the collective work to others. Neither the GPL nor Red Hat's End User License Agreement grant any right to use Red Hat's trademarks in the redistribution of the collective work...." (emphasis added)

It used to be that you could redistribute the RH distribution under "fair use" guidelines provided you did not call it RH (and were not out to mislead or confuse consumers; you could call your derived distro "Penguin Linux, based upon Red Hat Linux 7.0"), but now, with the new changes, redistribution of any packages and/or the collective work which uses the RH brand is strictly prohibited.

Perhaps the UnitedLinux consolidation is the first step down the road to a singular Linux. However, I would hope it is not a road in which the OS and its install base is dominated by a single company.... (that is, if Red Hat thoroughly trounces the competition) I would think we learned from our past....

Re:I'd worry more about RH becoming MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. That's quite different that trying to turn Redhat Linux into a non-free distribution.

Re:I'd worry more about RH becoming MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

But the $179 Red Hat Linux Pro packages are a good start!

Boycott all United Linux products!

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

United Linux is only going to put nail up Suse's
coffin. I will not promote any such product. This
time I agree with Richard Stallman.

Well of course. It's IE.

[fizbin]

It's your browser. It is erroneously interpretting spaces inside tags as though they were   characters, or as though the text inside were wrapped inside a

.  Assuming that you have permission to change your browsing environment, why not get a browser that doesn't suffer from that defect?

Isn't the name under the GPL?

[mangu]

Where is it stated in the GPL that the name "GNU" must be prepended to derivative works? As long as the GNU suite is under the GPL one is free to do anything with the name, under the condition that source code is included.

How about this: can I change one comma somewhere in the documentation and release this new version of the GNU suite under the name "SHIT", and then demand that Linux be called "SHIT/Linux"?

Re:Isn't the name under the GPL?

[Ian Wolf]

I've decided that I've been denying the FSF its due credit with my C Programming homework, as I do all my compliling with gcc.

As a result, I have decided to change the name of my first two projects to GNU/helloworld and GNU/whatisyourname.

Re:Isn't the name under the GPL?

[mbanck]

As a result, I have decided to change the name of my first two projects to GNU/helloworld and GNU/whatisyourname.

You know that you have to adhere to the GNU Coding Standard (GCS) if you want to become an official GNU-project, do you? ;)

Michael

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[TooTallFourThinking]

Thank you for your response.

In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few. --Suzuki-roshi

Now, I have a question about your .sig! I would have figured an expert's mind would be fluid, open to many possibilities, but according to your .sig and the quote on my Silk SoyMilk, it is not. That is a beginners mind. If you are interested in waxing a little philosophy, I would love to hear your take on it. =) Thanks!

I guess I'm still a beginner...

RMS wants people to use GPL

[linuxislandsucks]

Sorry RMS but the price of renaming everything to GNU something for the pirevelage to GNU GPL is not a good sell..

If you want us not to develop for UnitedLinux than this is the suggested terms:

Stick to calling HURd, GNU HURD and no more renaming linux trantrums.

Start at home in using gpl on all parts of HURD...

How does Debian fit into the picture?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always shied away from Red Hat, Mandrake,
etc. because of their bent toward corporate
users. Not that this a bad thing per se,
because any attempt to extend the deployment
of open-source software is something I applaud.
And I do hope they can become profitable off of a
support-based business model.

But herein also lies the rub. The temptation is
great (especially in difficult economic times)
to create a product that *requires* the distributor's
support to run it effectively. This is why
big linux projects like Debian interest me more
than UnitedLinux.

What proprietary?

[phriedom]

What proprietary software is recommended by RMS? I think he is just saying "Keep your software free, and don't allow ULX to close the license." Enlighten me.

Re:What proprietary?

[Jucius Maximus]

"What proprietary software is recommended by RMS? I think he is just saying "Keep your software free, and don't allow ULX to close the license." Enlighten me."

I was just joking around ... it was not a serious comment :-P ... I'm surprised that someone modded it insightful.

Re:What proprietary?

[Charm]

"I'm surprised that someone modded it insightful."

It's insightful because by turning the statement around you made it easier to see what is going on. Yes you were joking but it was an enlightening joke.

sounds ok to me

[jasonu]

Based on the article, UL will be charging per seat for binaries while leaving the source available to the public and free of charge. I don't see anything wrong with that.

If I want someone to compile something and package it up to save me some headaches, I ought to be willing to pay them to do it for me. If someone else compiles it and packages up the binaries, and since they had to do it for themselves anyway, makes the packaged binaries available to the public with or without charge, isn't that their perrogative? And if the person I paid to package up the binaries for me found this package and just passed it on to me, why should I care? I got what I asked for: packaged binaries.

Now, suppose I paid for packaged binaries and my provider grabbed what someone else packaged and passed it on to me without the due diligence of making sure the packaging was done well and would not break my system. If my system breaks due to installing the (faulty) package, I would expect my provider to eat the cost of fixing my system and redoing the packaging.

Again, the whole time, the source has been available, and I could have done all of this myself at "no cost". (My time is worth money, so if I do it myself, it is not at "no cost".)

Any fee in any fee structure may be applied to the packaging and distribution of binaries, providing the source is freely available to the public for viewing and / or modification, without violating the principle, intent or spirit of the open source movement.

In my mind, the only "violation" would be that those who want everyone to do everything for them without being willing to tangibly recognize the effort afforded would have to take a turn at being a member of the "everyone to do everything" crowd or wait however long until a member of that crowd did it for them.

Is anyone reading what UnitedLinux IS?

[Anonymous Coward]

The product is designed to be a core Linux for enterprise use That means that there is an expectation of technical support. Probably lots of it. 24x7. The only fair way to charge for that kind of support is per-seat. The more installations you have the more you pay. This isn't meant to be sold to someone throwing it on a couple of boxes or at home. I'd expect for your licensing cost you'd get at least one year of unlimited support for all your seats.

Debian GNU/Linux -- The Universal Operating System

[krmt]

Don't forget 'apt-get source united-linux'

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[zaphod110676]

While I know that the BSDs use gcc as their compiler I am fairly certain that the most of the rest of the utilities are not actually written by GNU. The greatest evidence of this is the fact that the man pages don't suck like the ones that come with most anything GNU.

CmdrTaco, Message received

[Anonymous Coward]

United Linux is Here
Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday May 30, @08:56AM

RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License
Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday May 31, @10:19AM

You like Red Hat as RMS likes GNU.
When is going to make a CmdrTaco distro?
Slashinx?
Tacux?
CmdrLinux?

Prob thought it may be RMS himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Very pro-gun.

or is that ESR? I get them mixed up.

ah SUN has a per seat lciense on their new Linux

[linuxislandsucks]

So let me get this straight if open source companies band together to do a seat per license

RMS GETS ALL UPSET..

Well now lets jog RMS's memory shall we..

IBM, HP, SUN , and etc have theri won Linux/unix per seat license versions that use GPL code..

Where is RMS views on this? Does he atcullay think with the brain he has..or is he getting senile?

Whish I could say you were wrong...

[danro]

...still hope you are.
But you make a damn good point.
If this is implemented globally, it might actually hurt oss a lot.
damn!

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you all jumping to conclusions prematurely?

I honestly don't believe they are that foolish to shoot themselves in the foot with per seat licensing ...
The reason you aren't supposed to download binarys of UL is that it - from what i can gather from the marketing fluff on their website- isn't a standalone product. It seems to be a barebones linux os without installation procedure, management tools or the mountain of apps of a normal distro. Unless you're a hacker you probably don't want to mess around with it in the first place. The fact that that the UL name is trademarketed is only normal, it doesnt make much sense establishing a standard such as if you can't enforce it. In the end this probably will not make much difference for the average end-user. You will still able to copy and distribute your Suse or Connectiva cd's and the distros themselves will hardly change (since they will still differentiate with config tools and software). It will however mean a lot for corporate users since they wont have to worry if their distribution of choice is just as compatible with their expensive Oracle or IBM apps as say Red Hat Advanced Server.

I could be wrong ofcourse but shouldn't we at least wait for some clarifications from Suse and Co befor e we unleash 'the Terrible Wrath Of The Open Source Gods' upon them?

Excuse me for my bad english BTW, first post and all that you know ;-).

Re:The Spirit But Not Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

You (and RMS) are missing the point: in short, people
who get the binaries only are not interested in doing
any contributions. So if they get these binaries for
free, they are free riders. Isn't RMS one of those
who condemn the free riders ? So making them pay is
a perfectly good and fair thing. Then these money can
be used by the Linux companies to finance actual
development and contribution of the code back to the
projects whose software they package. On the other
hand, people who are actually interested in doing
development and contributions can always get the source
code for free and happily hack on it. Basically, the
ability to build the code from source is the barrier that
differentiates the (potential) contributors from
definite free riders.

That does not mean that UnitedLinux is good. The very
bad part about it is that it's not an open standard.
Even if you go and implement a distribution that
matches the UnitedLinux perfectly, you can't call it
UnitedLinux (not UnitedLinux-compatible) unless you get
a (paid) membership of the UnitedLinux organisation. I'm
very surprized that RMS has missed all this part because
it's the truly evil one.

UnitedRMS

[linuxislandsucks]

In a stunning move today,

RMS has gpled a mountain goat mascot icon as the true representation of UnitedLinux with the follwoing press release:

"Everyone should be calling UnitedLinux, GNU's not LInux United becasue without GNU therre wodu lbe no UnitedLinux. As symbol of this new naming strategy please use the mountain goat icon as you way fo tellign the world that your UnitedlInux is GNUs not Linux United"

Shakespeare had a good quote for this

[theolein]

Much ado about nothing.

I would have expected better from RMS

[erat]

What disappoints me most about RMS is that he promotes the GPL but will then turn around and tell developers they should be selective about the freedoms they allow in their GPL'd software.

Has RMS read the license he helped create? This guy is supposed to be all for people using/patching/distributing GPL'd software. His latest tirade makes me believe he's becoming a hypocrite to his own political/philosophical movement.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stick to my guns here. RMS had done good things, but as with most of our so called spokespeople (on the Free Software side as well as the Open Source side) he'd probably help out free software more by just sitting back and being quiet. When it gets to the point where he's so emotional about a certain group's usage of GPL'd software that he encourages people to make their sources free only for developers he approves of, it's time to put him to bed. He is contradicting himself and the license he's trying to get developers to use.

I'm embarassed for the guy. I would have expected much more intelligence and integrity from someone of his stature.

xor?

[phriedom]

But doesn't B promote A? I think the goal isn't just to HAVE free software and a free operating system. It is also to preserve, promote, and improve said system. That is what GNU and the FSF are all about. Doing B also does A.

Re:xor?

[10Ghz]

"But doesn't B promote A? I think the goal isn't just to HAVE free software and a free operating system. It is also to preserve, promote, and improve said system. That is what GNU and the FSF are all about. Doing B also does A."

How would giving GNU-project free advertising benefit the free OS that we have today (Linux)? It wouldn't, it would just satisfy the gloryhounds of the GNU-project.

Yes, their project is important. It's goal is to create free OS, not to gain fame and fortune for the project. Their goal has been reached. Why are they then insisting on getting the credit? Like I said, their mission is to create free OS, not to gain fame (at least I haven't seen "fame" or "fortune" mentioned in their mission-statement). Their mission has been accomplished, they should be happy.

Not having the word "GNU" in the name of the OS really doesn't limit their possibilites to improve their software. Linux has already boosted the mindshare of the GNU-project immensly. And if they can't or wont improve their software, someone else will (just look at GCC vs. EGCS)

And not all free projects are part of GNU-project. How would advertising GNU benefit KDE for example? KDE is free software, but it's not GNU-software.

have a look at RedHat Advanced Server

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject and be quiet about RedHat. They do exactly the same!

Lets not quibble.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no good end to any contest about which english translation/version is "correct." Jesus spoke in ancient Hebrew, and Matthew wrote it down in ancient Greek. It must all be studied in context as a body of work to be understood.

SuSE is #2, not Mandrake

[Anonymous Coward]

the last time I looked SuSE was A LOT bigger than mandrake, as a company anyway but also in terms of sales - be it Europe or the US, SuSE beats Mandrake, and I have access to the retail statistics compiled by PC Data. Just check the sale srankings on Amazon as an (publically available, PC Data stats cost monay) indicator.

Python quote:

[phriedom]

It's people like you what's cause unrest!

Hmm, sounds like --- commercial software

[cwikla]

Alot of people here have been complaining that adding per-seat binaries to the distribution is some sort of abhorrent idea, and how can it be enforced?

Sure sounds like what commercial software for linux tends to be.

The LGPL made it possible for commercial companies to actually develop on linux and not have to give away their software code, as most companies are not want to do.

This seems to me to be a way to do the same with binaries -- leveraging what they do and not being forced to the constraints of the same license for their own separate software. As long as the GPL, copyright and src are distributed, how can their be a problem? I know of commercial software that use GPL binaries, piping them or whatever (gzip comes to mind) as part of their functionality.

UnitedLinux is just taking this a step farther. Assuming that they provide all code under the GPL guidelines that they need to, they can and should be able to do with their own code, whatever the hell they want. If they aren't following the GPL for some derivative code, then yes, they should be nailed for that.

This sure sounds like the more ranting that will just discourage more commercial software from coming to linux. Oh, but that's ok, because there is always a GPL alternative.

.. one more comment about Debian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian cannot "trash" anyone, since UBL is BUSINESS linux, and target group is big business, not the shop around the corner. And Debian already has next to zero market share (or even equal zero) in the target group UBL and RH want to go. This is not about a few print servers at some big company, this is about a deliberate company startegy to "go linux". When CSFB decided they never even considered. Debian, they decided to go RH and SuSE (of course, only RH made a big announcement, about it). Others like Deutsche Bank have just SuSE, or just RedHat (most select both to have two suppliers). No Debian in sight anywhere. And that's not a bad thing, it's just that different people have different needs, and Debian never targeted the Fortune 500.

Please extend your views, guys, just a little bit beyond your horizon! There's more out there than just your world, and other people have different needs. There won't be any changes for ANY of the people posting on slashdot, the "licensing" for the linuxes you use won't change at all. Only if your the CTO of some Fortune 500 company should you care.

And again, Redhat does exactly the same with "Advanced Server", which they modelled after looking at what SuSE did with the "Enterprise Server" (of cause they looked at SuSE, if you have a real-life example why try to find out about the market from zero?).

Re:.. one more comment about Debian...

[Erwos]

You do realize that Debian is/was used by eBay for quite a while, right? I agree - Debian's market share isn't very high, but there's no real difference between "business linux" and "consumer linux" (as you seem to want to ascribe Debian as being). That lack of market share could change in a New York minute if there's compelling reason to change.

-Erwos

Trademark attack easier than copyright attack

[Hugonz]

There is an easier way to bargain with these guys. Linus Torvalds has a trademark on the name Linux, so he could certainly put these guys to sweat. Just imagine I make my own cola drink and call it BetterCocaCola....

I believe such a hypothetical situation is why Linus decided not to work for a Linux company in the first place. Hugo

trolls on parade.

[Erris]

There they go again, folks, trying to start up a GPL/BSD flame war with bogus claims. The parent claims RMS thinks the author is "stupid". The next article makes contradictory claims about ownership of derivative works. The AC post below makes the false claim that BSD license still requires adversising. You can go here for a well thought out and non insulting view of all of it.

Now for the strange contradictory part. Arandir says

If RMS is correct in saying that "software should not be owned", then derivative software should be owned even less.

but also says

As a user of the BSD license, I wondered if Ransom could relicense my code under a per-seat license. The obvious answer is "yes". The not so obvious answer is "yes, but so what?"

The answer you seek is, so then Ransom owns the derivative work. You may not mind that, but you should not pretend it is not true.

Some of us DO mind when our work is used to enrich evil companies which seek to deprive others of their rights. I'm loath to do anykind of software work at all right now. My company is a M$ slave shop, and they own all of my work and ideas by contract. Anything I do is theirs. Anything that works makes the slave world of M$ that much more bearable for them and so perpetuates things that are evil regardless of my intentions and choice of license.

Re:trolls on parade.

[Arandir]

The answer you seek is, so then Ransom owns the derivative work. You may not mind that, but you should not pretend it is not true.

I didn't say that software should not be owned, RMS said that. I find it odd that those that argue that software should not be owned are the first ones to claim ownership when someone distributes a derivative against their wishes.

Personally, I don't consider Ransom's derivative work to be mine, so it doesn't bother me what he does with it, because it does not affect either myself or my users. What happens between Ransom and his users is a private affair voluntarily agreed to by both parties, so it's none of my business.

Re:trolls on parade.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it odd that those that argue that software should not be owned are the first ones to claim ownership when someone distributes a derivative against their wishes.

Except you know that isn't true. What they object to is not the distributing of a derivative, but the attempt to control what others can do with that derivative.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand what's going on here. Some people don't believe that people should be able to restrict what others do with software. The law says they can. They say, "okay, well what I'm doing with that legal right, which I'd rather didn't exist, is to guarantee that nobody can restrict derivatives of my software". This is not in any way contradictory to thinking that that the legal right should not exist. It's recognising that it does, and doing the most they can to try to correct that. I appreciate that you don't agree with these people, but their actions based on their beliefs are not so hard to understand.

Re:trolls on parade.

[Arandir]

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand what's going on here. Some people don't believe that people should be able to restrict what others do with software.

When you get right down to the foundations of reality, nobody is being restricted by anyone else. At the most, the users are restricting themselves by choosing UnitedLinux to begin with. It may be stupid, foolish, and detrimental to their peace of mind, but it's their decision and not mine.

3rd Party Binary Distro -- "UntiedLinux" ?

[SailFly]

What if a third party was to obtain and compile the sources to create their own binary distribution, and make this freely available under a name other than "UnitedLinux" ?

Maybe somthing called "UntiedLinux" ?

Of course the "UntiedLinux" distro. would need to be released with Source also ;)

Unite behind who and why?

[Benjaman McFree]

"UnitedLinux" will pool some resources of SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux, and Conectiva to produce "a global partnership" creating an LSB-based standard Linux for business.

Because they claim to be for buisness, I am supposed to run their code? It's all a bunch of hype! Who really cares about standards anyway when all you run is free speech software which has been ported to your particluar architecture. It would be like saying I won't dine out until they standardize all the menu items, LOL..

Yet another "dedication" from Caldera Systems

[Anonymous Coward]

Caldera Systems has a history of being "dedicated" to different projects that the GNU/Linux community "needs."

1) Caldera Dedication One--they declaired at 1998 Linux Kongress that there need to be a unified administration utility that works on all distributions. They stated their "dedication" to using a web site to promote community developement of their solution. What they eventually made available was poorly documented spagetti code. Rather than update the website to provide acceptable documentation of their code, they just let the web site die over two years ago.

2) Caldera Dedication two -- they next show their "dedication" to a project called Linux Standard Base. They donate the time of Johannes Peohlmann of Caldera Systems to maintain an actual minimal runtime implimentation of LSB. It never got past being pre-alpha and has not been maintained in almost a year.

3) Caldera Dedication trilogy comes to an end. Now that Caldera has shown their lack of dedication to getting a minimal runtime of LSB into an alpha level, they now take on building a full LSB with a "value add" prioritary license installer. Based on Caldera's history with "dedicating" themselves to a project, the UnitedLinux website will recieve it final update in June and the website will be unavailable for access by April 2003. I doubt the other three distributors will remain dumb enough to continue to carry the weight of Caldera empty promises when Caldera fails to follow through.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[sphealey]

But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.

Aren't you thinking of ESR? I think he is the Free/Open software guy who is big on guns! ;-)

sPh

Does not matter, Re:ego anyone?

[einhverfr]

RMS is now actively trying to kill a derivative work that is being distributed under the GPL? The hubris is almost unbelievable. When you release your code under such an open license, you must assume that it will be used for some things that you don't approve of, and hopefully some things that you do approve of. That's just the way it goes...

I was just as pissed off at RMS on the last article than anyone else. But this time, I am more or less under agreement with him if for different reasons.

Per seat licensing on software bundled with the GPL is stupid-- it is legally questionable (though probably would stand up in court, though IANAL).

The real thing though, is that per seat licensing simply does not work with the GPL. This is apparently Caldera's influence here, and it will probably drag SuSE and TurboLinux down, creating even stronger market dominance for Red Hat. I really hope that they see the business light and don't do this...

Re:Does not matter, Re:ego anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

United Linux will not be compared to the normal red hat linux. It will be compared to the "Red Hat Linux Advanced Server". Which by the way is also per seat licensed.

Basically it comes down to this. If you want a high quality product with excellent 24/7 phone support, and all the fixins, you are going to have to pay for it. United Linux is aimed at the enterprise, as is Red Hat's advanced server, therefore if you aren't in an enterprise, it really doesn't apply to you.

You should examine all the facts before posting.

Do RH Patents make more sense now?

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Perhaps Red Hat taking out patents makes more sense after this announcement. Red Hat may need to protect itself from United Linux.

UnitedLinux Lies to Public

[INAN]

UnitedLinux appears to be misleading readers by posing this question in their FAQ:

Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?

"Free for non-commercial" is not similar to the "Absolutely free for anyone" availability of GNU/Linux

Take a deep breath.....

[platos_beard]

Caldera took tremendous heat from the community when it announced per-seat commercial licensing for its 3.0 release, and at least some of the others involved in "UnitedLinux" have been reported to be considering similar plans.

As far as I can tell, this is what everybody is getting there knickers in a twist about. Caldera's licensing isn't news. The "others... have been reported to be considering..." bit is unsubstantiated flamebait. The only thing going on here is RMS taking the bait, which isn't news either.

Stallman has already lost all credibility

[Anonymous Coward]

so there needs to be another spokesman that will not hurt the cause more than it already has been recently

Evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to show them why "experimenting with new business models" of this horrible kind will fail, stop supporting these companies, or we may see others follow in their footsteps.
If this turns out to be even remotely succesful, this might turn into a trend with new companies surfacing trying to take away the freedom from free software, and by then it might be difficult to stop.
Look elsewhere, look at Debian or Slackware.

Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all a bunch of Commies. This is what was bound to happen. The Linux "big boys" are finally starting to evolve. There is going to be a long, long power struggle. Eventually, only two or three will still be alive. Then one will buy another one. It will be a giant versus a lesser company. The giant will come out on top and the lesser will be run out of business. Similar to how Microsoft came to power. Sort of. Regardless of your personal beliefes and vendettas, this is the way business works. Of course, there will still be quite a few homebrewn Linux projects and companies will offer a distribution on the side, but one will dominate. Microsoft, of course, will always be the big dog. They, apparently, are the only ones who know how to successfully run a business.

TROLL!

No he is wrong !

[Khalid]

And I am tired of RMS having an opinion about everything ! and being so bigot !

You may consider this as a flame bait ! but I don't care, I just want to express a different opinion, as everybody seems to think the same way here in Slashdot. Sociologist tell us that this is always the case with "self support groups" they tend to slowly close themselves to external and different opinions, evolve to a monoculture and vehemently oppose every divergent thinking.

I wonder if people have read all Love interview. What he is saying is that UnitedLinux will be open source, the only restriction is that binary will not be furnished ! bid deal ! if you are a geek, nothing prevents you from downloading the sources and compiling them, you can even distribute the binary if you want ! the only thing you can't do is to use the UnitedLinux brand, this is I believe what Redhat is already doing anyway.

You may consider binary as a commodity, for people who don't want to go through the hassle of compiling the sources, so what's the problem if they charge for that ? the GPL only says that you need to give the sources if you are selling the binaries, and that you can't prevent people from doing the same with these binaries and sources, and from all the derived work, and they are not preventing you from this see below.

RMS can say that making money of per seat basis is bad as he wants, he leaves comfortably with to grants he has received, so ha can give lessons to others (although I respect what he has done for free software). I ran a business and I know how much making money is hard, it's a struggle of every time, every hour. Contrary to what the Slashdot monoculture seems to think, it costs a lot of money to develop real software, and relaying on hackers who work in their spare time is hardly a solution. Also, selling something everybody can have by just downloading it, when broadband is becoming more and more pervasive won't take you very far. These business have to support themselves, I think it's a fair business model. I don't see a problem if people who don't want to compile the distro themselves, or who want support pay on per seat basis, if you don't to that, it's ok, the download the sources, compile them, and install them on as much computer as you want !

Redhat became the "standard" by good marketing

[flatrock]

Redhat simply marketed their distribution better. They made agreements with important partners like Dell. Theyadvertised in the right places. They created training classes with a certification. They marketed their product better. They also put together a good distribution. There are other good distributions, but it's the good marketing that got Redhat to where they are.

Re:Redhat became the "standard" by good marketing

[Corrado]

s/Redhat/Microsoft/g

Linux/GNU

[schmaltz]

Due to these being Linux distros with gnu software bundled in, perhaps it would be more reasonable to call it-

Linux/GNU

or-

New! Linux with GNU Bundle!

or-

Linux.GNU

or better yet-

.GNU

Dot GNU -you heard it here first.

hee-haw.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[chavo valdez]

Speaking for all experts. We've got it all figured out. Nothing is possible, nothing is real.

There are a number of reasons

[TheLinuxWarrior]

There are a number of reasons that I won't be using this distribution. This is #1 out of many. The fact that Redhat and Debian are not involved with this distro are another big reason. The way this UnitedLinux is moving, I'm not even convinced at this point that they're going to get it off the ground.

With these kind of announcements, it's beginning to look as though Caldera is making the decisions. What a shame. They got a shiny new toy for Christmas and they just can't wait to break it.

Can't they just be happy with taking their own company down the crapper?

GPL is okay with this...

[sterno]

The thing is, the license is effectively for the software that's proprietary. With each piece of propreitary per-seat licensed software you are getting a bunch of GPL software that it happens to work with. You could rip out all that GPL stuff and do whatever you wanted with it, but you'd still have to pay per-seat for the rest of the software.

Re:GPL is okay with this...

[LinuxGeek]

Quote from the article:

"It could not be immediately determined if Stallman or the Free Software Foundation intended to take any further action in connection with the plan "UnitedLinux" has announced."

It seems that you are much more confident than RMS and the FSF on how the GPL will be viewed on this matter. Especially considering this:

"The FSF has been watching developments in "UnitedLinux" and is "very concerned with how they are proceeding."

I hope this is settled quickly and without causing a rift in the Linux community

I hope it works out!

[johnnnyboy]

I hope it works out. We need a standard commercial linux distro.

The advantage to this is that they can share resources and release packages that will work between them.

I don't know about you but I'm really glad they didn't choose to base on Redhat's RPM.

Linux companies have it wrong: free==value==good

[Monkius]

Seems to me that, licensing aside, just becuase the rise of Linux isn't
due _solely_ to Linux being free as in beer, free as in beer is one of
the most important benefits of Linux, all the same.

If "Linux companies" have to redefine Linux as the same kind of
single-giant-vendor software product that traditional OSes are, then
there's no really good long-term reason for customers to adopt
Linux.

I genuinely believe that Linux companies can learn to build business
models that allow them to make a healthy profit, providing employment to
the kinds of folks who have collaborated to create Linux in the first
place, without turning Linux into the 21st Century equivalent of SCO
Unix, complete with per-seat licensing.

How can they do this?

By slowly building the infrastructure for providing services that are
good enough, and affordable enough, for businesses to WANT to buy them.

Every company that tries to figure out how to make a killing selling
free software--by making it non-free--is first and foremost proposing
nothing less than to rob free software of the very value it presents to
users. But the proposal is a false grail and a phoney, in any case:
consumers and the free software communities will avoid these
commercialization attempts, I predict.

Lost in the Idio Sea.

[mzungu]

Notwithstanding all this bickering over RMS, I simply do not understand why anyone would think that charging _per seat_ licenses for linux is actually a good idea.

It's a poor strategy, and here's why I think so:

1) I'm not as much concerned about the cost of the licenses as I am by the cost of having to track the licenses. Why build in additional costs and undercut a major Gnu/Linux competitive advantage.

2) How will the vendors ensure compliance? After all, if you are going to go through the expense of instituting per-seat licenses, can an occasional AUDIT really be that far behind? Again, this undercuts the Gnu/Linux advantage.

3) What actually counts as a seat? If I have 1 server and 20 users running X, is this 1 seat or 20?

4)How will this be tracked? Will there be license management software on the systems?("Sorry, you are not licensed to use this workstation")

5)Will the systems require some kind of "Product Activation" or other asinine scheme where changing your NIC, IP address, or Hostname will require a new activation.

Actually, it would be the height of irony if the only non-GPL'd software on these distros is the license management component.

==
I went to Redmond and all I got was this lousy OS

Because...

[joto]

It isn't about license, it is about the origins of the code. GPL is a license, GNU is a project to make an operating system (GNU's not Unix - remember?)

Mainly, linux is built and made possible with GNU tools, and it achieves it's usefullness with GNU tools. It seems pretty obvious that tools such as gcc, libc, binutils, fileutils, and bash was more important to linux initial success than XFree86, *BSD, Gnome, KDE, Perl, Python, Apache, Mozilla or OpenOffice.

In fact, it can be argued that the GNU toolchain is an even more important part of the linux system then the kernel itself (which could be replaced with Hurd, *BSD, or one of the other millions of OS kernels in existence).

On the other hand, to believe that people are going to say "GNU/Linux" instead of the much simpler "linux" just for political reasons, even if they agree with the politics is pretty stupid.

Had he instead tried to get people to pronounce it as "gnulix", "gnulux", "gnilix" or "gnilux" he might have been more successfull. But of course, a better idea would be to simply let people call it whatever they already are.

What is UnitedLinux exactly?

[tader]

"UnitedLinux is a standards-based, worldwide Linux solution targeted at the business user and developed by Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux." What the fsck are they gonna make? - Kernel? - Distribution? - Apps? If they are going to make a distro, why in 4 different tastes? (Caldera, Suse, ... ) The solution? What is the problem? Or is it a solution of Linux in water?

well, well...

[Anonymous Coward]

how many wonderful posts fail to get past the junk filter. you think your white US ass is so hot? you're a puking fool. no censorship on /., if you don't dig the job, then quit.

Who knows ?

[Taco Cowboy]

I ain't a mind reader. I just dunno what the heck is in his or her mind.

The question is posted, and I answered.

If they still want to label others with "pinko" or "commie", let them. Aren't we, those who chose to support the OSS movement, being called "commies" by M$ Corp already ?

Re:Who knows ?

[jdavidb]

For that matter, we, theose who chose to support the OSS movement, are being called commies by the OSS movement. :)

Of course, as a laissez-faire capitalist, I kind of resent the commie label. :)

Developer support (was Re:GNU & RMS are irrela

[magicianeer]

Most "Linux developers" and "BSD developers
" do not know enough to build the hardware-level guts of an OS. Hurd is not (last i checked) developed far enough for the common software developer to work on. AtheOS chose to defy compatibility, I suspect it would require a month of relearning to develop on. In both cases, a developer who already has a UNIX system has little reason to switch.

I personally find AtheOS more interesting than Hurd (Xwindows is Evil!), but I could not begin to do anything useful on it or for it, even ignoring the hardware incompatibilities.

More interesting question: "do Hurd or AtheOS have developer support comparable to what Linux had in 1993?"

That's why RMS doesn't like it

[cyberformer]

He's against proprietary software. It's that simple. The per-seat licensing has nothing to do with it.

RMS and the FSF want all software to be Free (as in speech and beer), and they would prefer that GPL'd software not be distributed or run with non-Free software. Note, however, that this is only their preference, and the user or vendor is free to do whatever they like provided that they comply with the GPL.

It looks like some companies are exercising their right to do this. In turn, RMS and the FSF are exercising their right to criticize the practice. That's freedom.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[joekool]

If you are new to driving cars, and have never had experience in one(never seen it before, or some such), how would you start it, if asked?
A beginner might look for a button, turn knobs, turn the wheel, step on the petals, lean the seat back, shift the gears, get out and try to and push it, etc.
An expert car driver would turn the key.
Note that of course this is not always the correct response, and that at times a begginer will find a new way to do something.
Thus the term "beginer's luck". On the other hand that does not counter the expert view, that a limited number of correct ways exist to perform each act. This is why I at least begin to feel like everyone around me is a moron when I work with computers. As it happens, it's just that they are beginners, and haven't discovered the wrong ways yet. I most often learn the most new things from their mistakes.

Enterprise Acceptance

[TommyAquinas]

RMS condemns it? Hey, that means enterprise CIO's are gonna buy it in droves!

Seriously, this does pervert the hell out of the 'free as in liberated' concept; it would have been much, much more clever for them to call it Microsoft Linux. Sales would have gone through the roof once the lemmings saw that!

TA

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[TooTallFourThinking]

That was a very good way of putting it. Thanks! Now I am beginning to understand.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[extrasolar]

The answer is a very real fear that GNU will be forgotten. And that even though a GNU-based system exists it wouldn't be known as such. That because the system is called Linux, people would think that it started in 1992 (or whenever Linux began) by a Finnish college student set out to amuse himself. It should be well known that it is the winners who rewrite history and by his own political apathy, Linus could rewrite the GNU Project as a group that contributed the GNU tools--just a couple of common shell utilities.

But by continuing this debate, we are already raising awareness of the GNU Project and its goals. I have a question. Of all of you, if RMS submitted in the beginning and said "You know, we'll just call it Linux," who would know anything more about the GNU Project than it being a bunch of shell utilities? But because of your own awareness of GNU, ideas explore your mind that you would never have fathomed otherwise. The idea that software *should* be free. And now in your mind are a number of challenges to intellectual property, copyright, and closed unhackable systems. Agree or disagree, the GNU Project has opened your mind to a different way of thinking of software.

This is why I call it GNU/Linux. Because Linux isn't whole without it.

We can fix this.

[sbaker]

Since we get the sources (this is guaranteed by
GPL), we can reconstruct the base CD-ROM...exactly
if need be.

Hence, all this 'per-seat' licensing is getting
you is the *name* 'UnitedLinux'.

So, we make this reconstructed CD be called something catchy (how about 'StandardLinux') - and
bye-bye per-seat licensing.

Or we can just call it "Debian" and not bother.

This Time he's right!!!

[Grizzlysmit]

We'll I've read his article, and he's right, I don't know if United linux is doing what he say's, but I assume so (sure sounds like it), and yes the GPL and the LGPL are superior, I long ago decided that when I finally get around to releasing some of my code to the free/open source software world that, I'd GPL it. none of the others cut for me, if I'm going to give my work away free, I'm sure as hell not going to let someone else put out derivative's which are not free; that doesn't serve the free/open cause. On Ya RMS your spot on on this ---- Francis G. J. Smit

Debian is old and "woody"

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Debian is always WOEFULLY out of date.

Just because it is free doesn't mean it is good.

Just look at BSD!

(just kidding about that last one!)

Re:Debian is old and "woody"

[GroovBird]

Define "good", will you?

In my definition, Debian is the best.

Dave

Debian, too obsolete for Linux 2.4

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Debian doesn't even support the 2.4 kernel, for crying out loud!

Let's go back to 1999!

Re:Debian, too obsolete for Linux 2.4

[mrroach]

Wow. Moderators, at least take a moment to verify the accuracy of trolls before modding them up please.

from http://packages.debian.org/

kernel-image-2.4.18-386 2.4.18-5 (8585.4k)
Linux kernel image for version 2.4.18 on 386.

kernel-image-2.4.18-586tsc 2.4.18-5 (8497.2k)
Linux kernel image for version 2.4.18 on Pentium-Classic.

kernel-image-2.4.18-686 2.4.18-5 (8492k)
Linux kernel image 2.4.18 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV.

kernel-image-2.4.18-686-smp 2.4.18-5 (8743.8k)
Linux kernel image 2.4.18 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV SMP.

kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4 2.4.18-5 (6269.6k)
Linux kernel image for version 2.4.18 (bf variant) on 386.

kernel-image-2.4.18-k6 2.4.18-5 (8450k)
Linux kernel image for version 2.4.18 on AMD K6/K6-II/K6-III

kernel-image-2.4.18-k7 2.4.18-5 (8649.3k)
Linux kernel image for version 2.4.18 on AMD K7

Per seat?

[toolz]

They didn't specify what *kind* of seat, did they?

Is this in any way related to the Pentagon's $64K/toilet seat?

Trademarked? Hmm.. Wonder what Linus says..

[Firehawke]

Here's my question...

Does Linus have a trademark on the term "Linux" itself? If so, derivitive trademarks like "UnitedLinux" may be violating his own trademark. Something to ponder.

For that matter, what does Linus make of this whole mess anyway? It'd be interesting to hear his view on the subject as well.

Beautiful timing

[Nice2Cats]

I'm not sure if those of you in the U.S. realize how viciously perfect RMS' timing is on this one. Since Friday noon (GMT), everybody on this planet (with the exception of the U.S., Canada, and Afghanistan) only have one thing on their mind: The Soccer World Cup in South Korea and Japan. It will interesting to see if the United Linux people manage to tear themselves away from their TV screens long enough to formulate a esponse.Germany plays Saudi Arabia on Saturday (11:30h GMT), so that knocks out SuSE right away. If RMS is lucky, it will take United Linux until Monday to formulate a response, and by then, their reputation in the Linux community will have been severely damaged.

A truely beautiful frag.

And this is bad?

[luisdom]

>This means you're really just paying the license for a tiny amount of the product and not the whole OS.

I don't see what is bad with this... they want to sell non-free software they made. So what? It is not good for OSS because it doesn't contribute to the community, but it's not bad.
If RMS (or you) did not want GPL soft to be used this way... they should have not made software under GPL. They should have made it under a more restrictive license. And BSD-style software programmers are well aware of what its license implies, they agree with this kind of use because it is the difference between GPL and BSD.
Maybe i don't understand licensing at all...

Missing the point?

[abreauj]

I finished reading the comments here, and I didn't see any mention of what I think the main point is.

As I understood it, UnitedLinux is being billed as a "standard" platform for commercial software vendors to port their software to, so they don't have to worry about file location and library verion number compatibility.

It would appear to me that Caldera and the others want to ensure that commercial applications will explicitly depend on the "naughty bits" that can't be redistributed, with the goal that these applications won't work properly (or at all, perhaps) on any distribution that doesn't adopt the UL brand with its per-seat licenses and all.

It's not about more choices, it's actually about less choices. UnitedLinix looks to me like a blatant attempt to establish vendor lock-in for the whole commercial application market.

What else is a job?

[OSSTwitSpotter]

Maybe you would prefer a job where you write software that no-one else wants.

The whole idea of a job is that you spend some of your time and someone else pays you for that time. Even if you have your own business then you will still have clients that you have to work for.

Companies who write shrinkwrapped software without having any clients to sell it to will in most cases fail.

I'm guessing that you haven't left high school yet and you don't yet understand how the real world works.

Re:Developer support (was Re:GNU & RMS are irr

[Lisias]

"do Hurd or AtheOS have developer support comparable to what Linux had in 1993?"

Of course, not!!! Hurd have a lot more developer support today than Linux in '93, as Hurd is fed with Linux code!!!

All forms of conservatism leads to corruption

[RQ]

All forms of conservatism leads to corruption.

Take a look at how a company becomes corrupt for example. A company's licence
to trade is given to them on the basis that they will be of service to the
public. The money they receive is compensation or reward for that service.
But when the company's motives change from service provision to survival
it inevitably becomes corrupt. It is no longer interested in progress but
conservatism, because this insures survival. It will not take risk. It will
not venture out into new pastures. It is no longer interested in anticipating
the needs of the public, but shaping it. It is only interested in stealing
other markets, other ideas, which others have pioneered. It is only interested
in fighting in an increasing limited space with other conservative companies.
It does all these things because they ensure its survival. And, in the end,
because it really has no interest in the future, they become a victim to it.
They fall very badly, which is the inevitable result of all corruption.

This is what happened and is happening to Microsoft. This is what happened
and is happening to sites like Linux Today, Slashdot and The Register. They
are all conservative. Their focus is no longer on service, but on survival.
They will say or do anything so long as it does not threaten their survival.
They think it is prudent fall over backwards not to say anything against
popular companies. But not to think twice about misrepresenting,
sensationalising, or coming up with damn right lies about unpopular figures.
Is there not more to Richard Stallman's comment than these headlines would
have you believe? Whenever a public figure talks they have a view which they
want to convince people about. Which is fairer: a headline which attempts to
achieve this? Or a headline which at best only focuses on a small part of it,
and at worst completely confuses people?

It is doubtful that these web-sites can see a distinction. A corrupt company
cannot view things fairly, because its outlook is no longer on its services,
but its survival. This is conservatism.

Rod.

Re:I am REALLY sick of the same old rant...

[Lisias]

To tell the true, the GPL says explicit that you cannot submit further restrictions to anyone beyond the ones the GPL enforces.

Doing a per seat licensing you are restricting a user to share his software to someone (as the software was licensed to ONE seat), but the GPL don't forbid anyone to share : it stimulates you to do so!!!

So per seat software licensing it is an infraction under the GPL.

services services services

[asciiRider]

I thought we were all supposed to be jumping through the hoops to buy support for linux from these companies? Maybe we don't do that?

so now they are going to charge a per seat fee. So we have some linux companies acting like MS and RMS doesn't like it. Big deal. I don't like a lot of things.

I suppose it's sad for the industry, but in my opinion this is just part of "survival of the fittest." Let these companies die out - new ones, who can find a way to make money with Linux, will take their place and everybody will be better off.

This is -exactly- the way it is supposed to work. Evolution baby - can't stop it. Mass extinction is common. But new, better designs always follow (hopefully a design that will produce better distro's and revenue for the companies that develop them)

peace!

Judge, and being judged

[Taco Cowboy]

Hello.

I can see that my use of "Judge not, lest thou be judged" has brought up unwanted confusion.

For this, I apologize.

I never meant to convey the meaning that judging is bad. Rather, I was saying to the folks who picked on RMS is that the more they judge RMS, the more other people employing the same judging process of them.

I thank you for your very thoughtful post.

The PR game

[Taco Cowboy]

You said:
"Frankly, it's BAD P.R. for him to go around telling LUGs to change their names to "GNU/Linux User Groups", insulting CEOs to their faces by correcting them midsentence when they're asking him questions, etc."

I got your point, but I gotta point out that ...

A. RMS is RMS, and he has his right to do whatever he wants, good PR or not.

B. Picking on RMS just because of his "bad PR" thingy is just too much. Live and let live, man. Why don't people just leave that guy alone ?

C. RMS had been fighting the fight, walking the walk, and talking the talk about FREEDOM OF SOFTWARE for DECADES. Not days, not weeks, not months, not years, DECADES.

D. I and many others owe RMS our gratitude because without RMS's staunch devotion towards the OSS path, there won't be any OSS community to speak of.

E. Although RMS is just another human being, with warts and all, the guy is also a visionary. Many of us are NOT, and can never hope to enjoy even a quarter of RMS's "visions". The guy is not only a visionary, he is also one who take charge.

F. Without people like RMS taking charge, where will the OSS community be ?

G. Perhaps his taking charge of, what you call "bad PR" thing, disturb many people, we ought to know that this recent "bad PR" thing is just the latest episode of his LONG, LONG FIGHT for the Software Community.

H. Again, I am not saying that RMS is right all the time. He's just another human being, just like you and me. He can make mistakes, just like you and me, but lest we forget, without RMS, many of us would not be here, and there wouldn't even be a "HERE" ( aka slashdot ), in the first place.

That is all I want to say. Good day !

Re:The PR game

[Anonymous Coward]

"D. I and many others owe RMS our gratitude because without RMS's staunch devotion towards the OSS path, there won't be any OSS community to speak of."

Spacious reasoning.

Lisa: I could say that rock over there keeps tigers away.

Homer: How do you know that?

Lisa: I don't see any tigers around, do you?

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

oracle sybase SAP ?

sybase is dying oracle is going downhill slowly and SAP may eventually succumb to the new microsoft(bought from great plains)
CRM and ERP products. microsoft has pretty much killed any significant shrink wrap software competition other those shitty little $10 packages. quicken,photoshop,act and peachtree remain and have resisted so far, but for how long?
ACT and peachtree could die for the same reason as SAP.if your point is that open source is bad because nobody can make money for software then should we ban microsoft?

btw I know alot of people make money on using php,mysql,postgres,tomcat and jboss.

Conclusion:
Either you work for microsoft or you dont know how to fucking program and dont know what you are talking about.