Slashdot Mirror
RMS & FSF Directors To Meet With FSF Members
Free Software Foundation writes "Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, Bradley Kuhn, and the rest of the FSF leadership are hosting a rare FSF members meeting in Cambridge, MA on March 27, where they will tackle topics including, 'The Dangers of Software Patents', SCO, 'Free Software in a Global Economy', and 'The State of the Foundation'. FSF members will have ample opportunity to gripe, praise, dialog, network, and eat."
Maybe because free-ness isn't the only factor that's important? If you support GPL licensed projects, you can be sure that your support will never directly aid non-free projects.
It depends on what you want. If you only want your code to be free, there are many licenses you can use. If you want your code and its derivative works to be free, there are other license options.
well with apache and the new xfree86 4.4 license, it seems things are starting to 'decentralize' from GPL,
Is that supposed to be a joke? One of the reasons for the changes to the Apache license was specifically to make it compatible with the GPL, which it hadn't previously been (though in the opinion of the FSF the changes didn't accomplish that intended goal).
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
If you mean "ability to ensnare others", other licences are a good deal more free.
If you mean having your source available 'n' generations down the line, together with that of software that is built upon yours, the GPL is probably the most free.
The GPL yields free software , so the Free Software Foundation is eminently the correct name for a GPL-promoting organisation.
Wikileaks, no DNS
It's a members only meeting. XFree86 is not a member of the Free Software Foundation (otherwise known as GNU).
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It's a members only meeting. XFree86 is not a member of the Free Software Foundation (otherwise known as GNU).
It's for Associate Members - anyone that pays their $120 per year membership fee. Developers or counsel for xfree86 may be associate members of FSF. (it's $60/year for students)
(also, (and I thought everyone knew this) FSF was set up to provide organisational and legal infrastructure for the free software community. In doing so, they are the prime sponsors of the GNU project. FSF and GNU were both founded by RMS, and the two projects are synergistic, but they are seperate.)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Actually, when Richard Stallman spoke at my school a couple of years ago, he was saying that generally useful scientific information should be shared freely, and somehow he threw sex techniques into the mix. Don't recall whether he said he'd just appreciate it, or that it would be useful if it were shared all over society. But he mentioned it about the same time he said that cooking recipes can't be copyrighted.
You're talking about two different things. One is the freedom of the software, the other is the freedom of the programmer.
Under BSD-style licenses, the programmer has the freedom to do whatever he wants with the code.
GPL-licenses make the code free, not the programmer, who is limited in what he can do with the code.
Squabbles like this usually boil down to problems of definition. "Freedom" must be the "freedom of" something or someone. You are talking about the "freedom of" one thing and the parent poster is talking about the "freedom of" something else.
If you read the GPL or anything related by the FSF you'd see that they are very specific about what they mean by freedom.
"More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
The goal of the GPL is to promote free software in their sense - not yours. People doing whatever they want with GPL code us not promoting freedom in their sense.It depends what you'd prefer, freedom for individuals, or freedom for everybody.
:wq
Forcing people to open their code is not freedom, it is forcing your values onto others. If you truly believed in freedom you would accept that not everyone wants their software open sourced.
No-one is forcing anyone to use GPLd code in the first place.
The GPL just says "IF you wish to make use of the hard work I have donated to the human race, you must donate your work in the same manner. I gave this work to the community, not to you personally, and I want *all* the benefits (including those gained by future generations standing on our shoulders) to be available for the future".
The ability to interoperate with all Kerberos implementations?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.