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."
he's actually pissed it's not called GNU/UnitedLinux
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Hang on, I was going to do that anyway. . .
You are not the customer.
Woah, I read "RMS" and "condoms" and didn't want to read any more about that!
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
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.
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!
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
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.
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.
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.
I would refuse to allow my work to be included, but I licensed it under the GPL, so I can't.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
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:
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.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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.
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
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!!
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.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
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.
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.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
I suppose he likes Free Software, right?
D'oh!
Coderz 4 Life
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 !
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.
--
E_NOSIG
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
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.)
.. the crowd gets so loud that in the end, they end up feeding their own fire with their own false portrayals of their target.
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
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
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.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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.
...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.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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.
Nope, no sig
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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
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.
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:
.. to use something somebody else made for free, and then restricting the distribution of that thing for their own benifit.
.. 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.
Hoarding and creating scarcity. (And interoperability, for that matter.)
He's against powerful entities from using that power to _create_ scarcity
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
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
Get your own free personal location tracker
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.
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
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
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
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
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.
"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.
My father is a blogger.
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.
include $sig;
1;
But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.
:)
You must mean "sticking to his gnus"
Pokéthulhu
Gotta catch you all!
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..."
do not read this line twice.
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.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
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.
Only 'flamers' flame!
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.
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.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
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.
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...
free the mallocs!
> 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? :-)
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
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.
This whole situation is so Thirty Years War it's not funny.
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.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
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.
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.
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.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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?
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.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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 !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Personally I think that it is a much better name than mandrake, but the fact is that I use mandrake.
/. my website for me. We really do need more traffic.
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
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
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.
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.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
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.
Is RMS tired of dividing GNU by Linux?
..."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.
-=Maggie Leber=-
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.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
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?)
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.
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.
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"?
Don't forget 'apt-get source united-linux'
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
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.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
...still hope you are.
But you make a damn good point.
If this is implemented globally, it might actually hurt oss a lot.
damn!
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Much ado about nothing.
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.
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 $16 apiece for CDs. If any of your points was the least bit valid, we'd see some kind of market effect. But we don't.
So basically it sounds like you're just whining. You want to download MP3s for free, and you're not getting it, and you can't figure out how to do it yourself, so you're venting your frustrations by indicting the whole music sales business model.
Pretty weak, if you ask me.
The GPL is two pages of restrictions placed on code which rely on the strength of IP law to be enforceable. Try reading it sometime instead of just spouting off the philosophical platitudes justifying its existence.
Now for the strange contradictory part. Arandir says
If RMS is correct in saying that "software should not be owned", then derivative software should be owned even less.
but also says
As a user of the BSD license, I wondered if Ransom could relicense my code under a per-seat license. The obvious answer is "yes". The not so obvious answer is "yes, but so what?"
The answer you seek is, so then Ransom owns the derivative work. You may not mind that, but you should not pretend it is not true.
Some of us DO mind when our work is used to enrich evil companies which seek to deprive others of their rights. I'm loath to do anykind of software work at all right now. My company is a M$ 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.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
sPh
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...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
What's a sig?
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
How to rationalize theft.
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.
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 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.
"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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Due to these being Linux distros with gnu software bundled in, perhaps it would be more reasonable to call it-
.GNU
Linux/GNU
or-
New! Linux with GNU Bundle!
or-
Linux.GNU
or better yet-
Dot GNU -you heard it here first.
hee-haw.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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?
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.
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.
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.
Debian doesn't even support the 2.4 kernel, for crying out loud!
Let's go back to 1999!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
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.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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 !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
> 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.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
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.
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.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
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
How to rationalize theft.