Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
No, Vern. They just let him in.
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.
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.
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?
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
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?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
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
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.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
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 !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
I do not have a signature
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."
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
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.
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.
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
One ring to rule them all. The (_O_) in Goatse.cx
> 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.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Yep, I dumped Caldera for Red Hat when they pulled this per seat bullshit.
... I will have to give Debian a try.
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
However if RedHat and Mandrake and Slack, don't avoid this. We will end up with a truly "united" linux.
Everyone will run Debian.
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.
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.
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
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!
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.
> 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.
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.
!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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.)
KMSMA (WWBD?)
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.
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.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Not true. Section 6 of the GPL states:
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:
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.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/