Slashdot Mirror
Why I Love The GPL
Roblimo writes "'There are a lot of good reasons to like the GPL: the GNU Public License. For one thing, it's a David and Goliath kind of thing. It's the little guy standing up to the corporate behemoths that run rough-shod over our daily lives by virtue of their influence, legal and otherwise, on government. For another, it's virtuous.' These are the opening words to a NewsForge article praising the GPL by Joe Barr. Now and then we forget how much of the software we use and love is made possible by the General Public License. Thanks for reminding us, Joe. (NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)"
3 the gpl is why i use linux, and write code.
Definitely an improvement over the old days where you had to buy every little utility.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
http://www.vasoftware.com/gateway/offshoreontrack. php
It's the GNU General Public License, not GNU Public License.
it's alright I guess.
"Thanks for reminding us, Joe. (NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)""
Nope. No corporate behemoths here.
Exhibit B: Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft. The MIT license covering Kerberos provided no protection against that sort of thing.
In both cases, the guy manages to be a communist idiot and fail to notice that a) MS is not "selling" the protocol in question "back to the public" but selling a program that uses this protocol, b) you cannot "sell back" anything you haven't actually taken (it's a common communist misconception that if something is public property then everyone can have a share of it), and c) if MS had not embraced these protocols, he'd be screaming that MS has broken it by making their own version of it. And so on.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
from the when-you-have-nothing-new-to-say-but-like-to-hear- yourself-talk-anyway dept.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The GPL is great for the obvious reasons, but there is also the culture change that came with it. IMHO, the area the GPL influence most was the culture, enabling free software to truly be free.
This sig sucks.
truth
Unfortunately, we might need an final ruling in SCO vs. Reality a little more than we like to admit.
I like it because when Bruce Perens created the GPL back in the late 70s for Sun, he was considering the average home user who may have needed to compile his latest application.
Back then applications were published in computer magazines such as Omni, Compute and of course Scientic American. These were usually in hundreds lines of code in length and principally written in Assembler.
There's not a week that goes by when I think of Mr Perens and his contributions with the GPL and the neural networks which lead to the discovery of the Internet.
Which is nice.
Most of the software I use is under a BSD/MIT/ISC style license, that is more free than the GPL. I think the only GPL thing I would miss is gcc. And contrary to the FUD in this article, none of the BSD style licensed software I use has been magically closed sourced on me. Just because someone can make a closed source "DNS server that's exactly like bind but not" by using the BIND code, doesn't mean everyone loses bind, its still there for everyone to use just like always.
So, this was our daily dose of political indoctrination today? Hmm... let's see who was the Zampolit in charge... oh well, it figures.
The owls are not what they seem
fanboy:
A passionate fan of various elements of geek culture (e.g. sci-fi, comics, Star Wars, video games, anime, hobbits, Magic the Gathering, etc.), but who lets his passion override social graces.
"In both cases, the guy manages to be a communist idiot and fail to notice that a) MS is not "selling" the protocol in question "back to the public" but selling a program that uses this protocol, b) you cannot "sell back" anything you haven't actually taken (it's a common communist misconception that if something is public property then everyone can have a share of it), and c) if MS had not embraced these protocols, he'd be screaming that MS has broken it by making their own version of it. And so on."
Good point. If IP can't be "stolen"?* Then some of the arguments against BSD's methadology fail.
*See any "/." copyright story for details.
Because freedom .
But software in the public domain, and software covered by a BSD-style license, is not afforded any protection whatsoever to ensure those same freedoms exist for the next user, or the next, or the one after her.
Joe's article perpetuates the falsehood that non-GPLed software can, somehow, be taken away from the public and locked away.
Bullshit.
He even goes so far as to cite the cases of the BSD networking stack (used by M$ in current versions of Windows) and Kerberos, despite the fact that absolutely nobody has been harmed and despite the fact that both software suites are still freely available.
If M$ could lock Kerberos away from the rest of us, don't you think they would have? Instead, they're just sticking their own users with gratuoitous incompatibilities, while the rest of us can use the real thing.
This is even more true in the case of the Windows IP stack. All M$ did by "stealing" the BSD networking stack is keep the rest of us from having to work around their bugs. This is a win for everyone.
Any Open Source Definition-compliant license guarantees that the covered code will, always and forever, be freely available for all to use, modify, and redistribute. The GPL is not required to achieve this goal.
The only goal the GPL works toward beyond those of other OSD-compliant licenses is the perpetuation of the FSF utopia, which calls for nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it. It claims to work toward freedom, while it actually works to deny freedom to those who do not share its goals.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
The GPL is pretty nice ... but only for people who understand it ...
There are a lot of people who put their work under GPL but don't want others to use the Software for own projects.
Recently I wanted to use some GPL'ed work offered by someone for my very own projects and he accused me to be a pirate and thief and that he will be sueing me for having used parts of his code for my own work which he put under GPL. This has result into a little flamewar on ANN which you can read here. So using GPL'ed software written by others can indeed be dangerous because when it's offered in a way to the public by someone but not meant to be used like described in the GPL - e.g. misunderstanding.
Another thing with GPL is that it's basicly a thing where others rip off work written by others without returning anything. The operating system MorphOS for example is one of these things. Their developers are using a lot of parts from the open source world such as ixemul or libnix as well as ports of gcc, binutils and other things without offering the sources. When contacting them and asking them to hand out the code they usually reply that the code has been lost or they redirect you to older ports of the software with codesnipplets that doesn't work anymore. Most pirating of GPL'ed work done by others are done within the Amiga community as well as many other communities.
I don't say that GPL is a bad thing but I say that it's a matter of being ripped off and abused for what one has done if someone else takes everything and not caring for the work I've done and not returning anything, not even patches or code when asked.
Now aren't you all just waiting for the porn industries version of the GPL?
I think it would benefit the Open Source developer community if these fine folks had control over the GPL and its derivatives such as Ogg Vorbis, GIMP, and of course Open Office.
...Why I Love The GPL...
...software we use and love...
You love a bunch of legalese? You love a bunch of computer instructions?
How fucking sad is that?
It's simple: If you don't like the license, then don't use code from the program in your software. Most developers (on slashdot) who hate the GPL do so because the source code is available and technically they can do everything with it and yet the license restricts them. It's like bringing a cake near your mouth but not letting you have it. But instead if the GPL had made the software closed source, they wouldn't have complained. Developers are pissed because they can't use code developed by someone else in their own software and yet not give the freedoms to others which were given to them by the original developers. They're pissed because they can't have a free ride. If you say that you're using only one line of code from a GPL'ed software, then don't use it at all, code on your own. But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage.
GPL (and similar licenses) is the only license, which, when it says it protects the right, it actually protects the rights of the user. Really. BSD style licenses don't protect the user/people's right completely.
hi, my love.
i'm really happy that
.my mind is full of those
pretty GNU Heads every day.
i just thought i would return
the favor, just in case you'd
.not yet realized just how i
love you. you are just
so very, very, very
extraordinarily
special and
i adore
you
!
Can I have a copy of your Win32 source?
Thanks!
"The only goal the GPL works toward beyond those of other OSD-compliant licenses is the perpetuation of the FSF utopia, which calls for nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it. It claims to work toward freedom, while it actually works to deny freedom to those who do not share its goals."
AMEN! Now there's one question I do have in the GPL vs BSD license wars. How does either license handle the situation concerning willingness to participate when you know all the other participants may use your contribution against you?
What would the capitalist view of the general public license (GPL) license be?
0 OP
The GPL is by no means a coercive or deceptive license. It clearly states the rights and obligations of any party who accepts its terms. It offers access to the intellectual wealth created by a producer, for a certain consideration.
The consideration is that any derived works that are publicly distributed must also be made available under the same terms. This consideration may seem strange, but stranger contracts have been known to exist, which are legally valid and defensible.
The important thing is, there is nothing in the terms of the GPL that is illegal, coercive or deceptive. If the terms of the GPL are unacceptable to any party, those people are at liberty to walk away. However, once they agree to the license, they are bound by its terms and cannot renege on the deal.
-----------------
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
Ayn Rand believed that there is no such thing as "public property." What is commonly referred to as such is the private property of a government.
She would probably have had no use for "public domain" software, treating it as wealth without an owner. However, Open Source software, including all of GPL-ed software, is copyrighted by its authors, and hence is not "public domain" but clearly privately owned.
Not only that, since the software is owned by none other than its creators, Ayn Rand would have had no argument at all with the property ownership aspect of Open Source.
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/200105160122
the preamble from the GPL reads almost like a friendlier marx
(i paraphrase) "the proletariat (those without property who produce, ie open-source programmers) must choose to abolish property (restrictive legal rights on source)!"
i just hope we don't get a lenin on our hands... maybe sun?
bought the tshirt?
http://www.splitreason.com/productdetail.php?id=42
i've worn it out =p
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you don't allow anyone outside of your organization to use the updated product, you do not need to release the source. It's just that you cannot distribute anything without including the source. More useless FUD.
Jesus would have also used it. Only fascists use closed source software - CSS MUST BE EXTERMINATED !
Yours, www.russenhitler.exe
We would do well to remember that Microsoft used to be the 'little guy' standing up to the corporate behemoth of IBM and the like.
I don't see anything that hasn't been said before. Is this anything more than a call for BSD vs. GPL (or corp. vs. free software) flamewar?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Funny metion to "coporate giants", but then plug in OSTG in the same title. I personaly love OSTG and all that they offer, but I find it strange that we so quickly and viciously lable something offtopic, while the fact that OSTG owns other companies is frequently plugged in - regardless of how irrevelant it is to the subject at hand sometimes.
When I developed our free mud client, I had wanted to retain full ownership of the software, but allow the source code to be downloaded. I have used Linux for 7 years and was familiar with GPL software, but never looked much into it. After discussing it with other developer, GPL is the license I ended up going with. It gives the end user the ability to modify the source code to their liking and requires them to make public any upgrades.
The only dislike I had with the GPL was that anyone using my software could do so for a fee. In the end though, I figured if they develop it and create features that charge fee's, I would get a copy of the source and create the same features and not charge a fee =)
My Thoughts, Kyndig
do people who work at non-profit have some claim to superior morality over those who do not because the company they work at are not pursuing profit? i don't think so.
... Richard Stallman is hot?
The GPL is cowardly.
If you want your software to be free - free on both counts, release it without any restrictions into the public domain. It seems that most GPL developers are so scared that someone is going to take their software and make money on it - or worse still, take control over their project. If their intellectual contribution is so valuable, then they will retain de facto control no matter what - and so the why the #$#^ care so much if someone else makes money off of software that includes your work. That's real charity - not the cowardly selfish charity that the GPL embodies.
The GPL is utter shit. I'd take BSD over it any day, and I'd even take EULA over the GPL. Worst thing to happen to the computer industry ever.
And watch this get modded down. Slashdot is biased so bad that anyone who actually says things that are anti open source, or pro microsoft, pro sco, pro riaa (yes, I fall into ALL of these categories, fuckers) gets attacked. Fuck you all.
This'll probably get me flamed, but oh well.
The problem with the GPL mindset is that it looks at the world as if there are two different groups: big companies and "the people". The problem is that this model ignores, and in fact, discourages the small businesses that are already getting crushed by big business. Here's an example: Let's say I'm making a game, and I want to use some standard but rather complicated file format for my models. Now let's assume that there's a premade library that will allow me to easily support the format. Oh joy! Except it uses GPL. Now, I don't want to have to release my code, there's enough theft of ideas in indie gaming as it is. So, I can't really use the library. Neither can a big studio like EA games. Now, who gets hurt more? It's not a problem for EA; they just have one of their coders stay late(er) and the job is done. Or they can pay a third party. But a small developer is probably stretched as it is, and now has to spend even more time reinventing the wheel.
For my money, I like the LGPL. Freedom meets being able to do what you want to do. It doesn't mean being able to do whatever somebody else thinks you should be doing. Maybe someone will abuse the privilege. That's part of what it means to give someone freedom: Allowing them to do things you don't approve of.
[I am re-posting this] Even putting your work in the public domain puts it within the legal but immoral intellectual property system. However, the BSDL grants the rights I wish people could automatically have. The GPL places unnecessaries and restrictions on users/programmers and perpetuates the intellectual property system. I personally don't think the law should have any say in IP, but if I must license my code, I want to point out what rights I wish people had. I personally think business should be allowed to use whatever license they want...they can even use some of my code in their proprietary licensed product. If the license is too restrictive, people should be smart enough not to buy that product or to just break the terms of the EULA...but it should be up to the consumer. The only thing anyone should not be allowed* to do, is cause real harm**. People can express anything they want, even if their expression entails reiterating an idea, c function, poem, etc that they did not author. Copyright, patents, and licenses are all restrictions on free speech. People also have the right to do whatever they want to their own property or body or the property or body of someone else with consent. Ideas, code, etc, are not property because they can be copied infinitely at no cost. When you "steal" a song from the RIAA, the RIAA still has the original! Free market economics (and even most command econ) is based on the idea that there are unlimited demands and wants, but only a finite supply of products. This is only true in an IP economy in that there's an insatiable demand for NEW ideas; the old ones can be copied until everyone has as many as they want. The profit motive that drives the demanded innovation is also totally scewed because people are simply more creative if they aren't directed by a private tyranny (corporation). Good art does not come from a marketing department, a better source might be an eccentric who produces what they find beautiful, not what sells. Good music doesn't come from the RIAA, it comes from some innovator on an indy label who is willing to risk not sounding exactly like every top 40 hit. All intellectual innovation is plagerism and "theft" because there is nothing new in the world. Everyone learns from those around them and imporves or expands on older concepts. Although many exellent programmers (OSS and proprietary) are now well paid by big business, what most /.ers don't realize is that OSS has already won out in terms of influence! You don't have to look at Linux to see the results free software. The internet and TCP/IP is a free open standard implemented by a combination of capitalism (western ISPS, hardware/software developers), socialism (the university system, libraries, other public access, public funded R&D, much of it from the DoD), and anarchy (the actual content on the net itself). MS windows has BSD code in it. Apple's Darwin IS BSD. SUN/Solaris will soon be opening its code (its been illegally available for a while now). There are easily accessible underground source distributions of Cisco IOS too. Moreover, the programmers at places like Microsoft are standing on the shoulders of giants. Even if they weren't able to directly access old code bases, their conceptual training in computer science and software engineering came from a university system where the free exchange of ideas is quite highly valued.
People no longer respect IP law. Downloading/Uploading an MP3 that someone else copyrighted may be illegal, but we all do it. Soon IP law will be a unenforceable anachronism. Its a stupid conservative restriction on civil liberates like the old sodomy laws that were struck down by the USA court system just recently. Hopefully drug laws will go the same way, then laws requiring taxes (when most of that money goes to killing people). The ultimate libertarian dream would be people slowly realizing that government only has power in their minds. Trying to reform IP law with Creative Commons to replace copyright, free access to patents to replace trade secr
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Yeah, I once looked at a Linix CD and was forced to give away my first born.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
I salute you for posting a link to a story on Newsforge. Its not as though there isn't a link on the OSTG navbar on top of our screens. Again I salute you for finding an obscure story from an obscure place that most of us wouldn't have been able to find.
"If you say that you're using only one line of code from a GPL'ed software, then don't use it at all, code on your own. But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage."
It's funny how in these GPL vs BSD license wars, how the author has the right to place restrictions on usage, and others are expected to do without. But when the public good verses IP debate comes up. Somehow the artist no longer has any right to place restrictions on it's usage, and the public can't "do without".
Would anyone care to explain this apparent conflict?
GPL == shit
BSD == the_one_true_OSS_license
Thank you, that is all.
Man, when Grand Prix Legends (by Papyrus/Sierra) came out in 1998, I didn't think that I would have the skill to master it. But after countless laps spinning out, I eventually got it. Once you get the hang of four wheel drift, it's pure racing sim nirvana.
One learns to avoid cars that rolled off the assembly line on Monday morning, or IT editorials that are posted late on Friday night.
Here's where I wish that editors and submitters could be moderated as Trolls.
Does anybody really think that anybody else is going to have something new to say about this, on either side, and generate even a little bit more light than heat?
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
That's plain FUD and not true. You should consider hiring better lawyers.
Because war is awesome!
Because it's time all the black people got off welfare!
Because Jesus is Lord!
Because I never graduated high school!
Plowing for several large companies, I'd always done my work on Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Although we met several fertilization challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a labourer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the GNU Preventive License. Part of this license states that any changes to the seed are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our labourers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its mercurial requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.
I welcome you for your time.
But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage.
On a few occasions at work, I needed some encryption and compression routines that I knew were available in some GPL-licensed libraries. I would have needed to make minor improvements over the existing GPL code for the routines to suite my purposes. However, I could not make use of this opportunity to use and improve the existing code. I think that it is ridiculous that 50 million lines of proprietary code that cost millions of dollars to write should suddenly become available to all just because a 200 line compression routine was used. I would have been more than happy to give back my improvements on the compression routines to the public. Instead, I had to purchase third party software and integrate that into our distribution. It is not the cost of the third party software that's the problem, but that each third party dependency destabilizes our software product and increases maintenance complexity.
It's the General Public License, not GNU Public License.
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
alltogether quite a nice article. nothing most slashdotters didn't know yet, but still rather good.
but for some reason he had to put those nasty exagerations in there, and that's just again an example of partisan and ideological marketing!
the linux kernel is [...] the impossible notion that a bunch of kids on the Internet could create the most successful operating system in history come true.
it wasn't exactly kids and the term "most successful OS" might be swaying a BIT far from the truth!
Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft.
come on, watch your language. don't throw the ridiculous piracy concept back at bill gates and what the hell is "legal theft" supposed to be? this language is no better than the whole "viral license" propaganda!
But Linux is immune to most of the kneecap-busting, air-supply cutting, baby-knifing techniques that Microsoft is so fond of.
i am no fan of microsoft, but i still find this rather harsh. if the article were meant to be journalistic, this would SO not qualify for an objective perspective!
well, all in all i totally agree with the author. but maybe he should cut back on the ideological and radical lingo!
jethr0
This looks so much like a troll because of so many errors, but I'll answer anyway.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
Your lawyers are either idiots or they royally screwed you. You do NOT have to release the source code of programs compiled with GCC. There are absolutely no restrictions on GCC compiled code and even the few (GCC and Libc) libraries your app might be linked to are released under the LGPL. If I'm not seriously mistaken, even the code produced by tools like bison are also restriction free since that is only *usage* of the software and the libraries needed are probably released under the LGPL.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.
Now you're not being clear. You say " a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux." Was the software supposed to be sold/given away to the general public or only to the online investment firm who would only use it inhouse? If it was supposed to be publically distributed, then yes, you have to release the source code to any modification you have done to the kernel. That's the cost of customisability of the Linux kernel. But if it was only supposed to be given to the online investment firm who would only use it inhouse, then you don't have to distribute the source code to the public. You see, most part of the license applies to redistribution, not modification itself. If you distribute modification to a GPL'ed software to the public, then you have to release its source code. But if you only plan to use it inhouse, then you don't have to give the source code to the public. Or if you sell it to a private customer, then you only have to give the source code to the customer, NOT the public.
Instead, I had to purchase third party software and integrate that into our distribution. It is not the cost of the third party software that's the problem, but that each third party dependency destabilizes our software product and increases maintenance complexity.
Tough. Thats the cost of being a multimillion dollar proprietary software developer: paying for proprietary solutions. Don't like it? Find something else to do or some other way to license your product.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
They're always crawling up your ass!
Well I'm not going to flame you, but I do think you've missed some of the useful points of the GPL. For one thing, I believe that you actually can use existingly GPL'd code if you negotiate an alternative license with the copyright holder(s) of the code. Admittedly this may sometimes be difficult if there are lots of authors, but given the relatively low number of developers in many projects, I'm not sure if it would be that common. Depending on specifically what part of the code you're interested in, you may not have to contact everyone in a particular GPL'd project.
People tend to release under the GPL because they want to make their work available for use by others, but don't want others to make lots of money from it without giving back. The alternative is that the code may not be available at all.
When I've released some software under the GPL, I've effectively lifted some (but not all) copyright restrictions for anyone who wishes to use it. In doing so, though, I certainly haven't given up my right to choose to lift even more restrictions on my code for certain people. The GPL licence begins with the traditionally restrictive copyright system, and then lifts some restrictions that specifically allow the software to be distributed openly under certain conditions, still protected by copyright law on behalf of the author(s).
There's nowhere in the GPL, however, where it says that copyright holders can't choose to release their code under a different license to a different party if they so choose. Many authors of many projects do exactly this, and I think you'd find that many other authors would consider making their code available for closed source projects if they realised it could be useful and were paid suitable royalties.
My opinion is that the GPL is good because it encourages many people to release their code in situations where it might not otherwise have been made available at all. I don't see how that's a bad thing -- people who want it under closed source conditions can always ask for it and negotiate an alternative agreement. If the authors agree with your small business cause, they might even choose to give it to you for free.
I have never programmed professionally. I've been playing around with c and some other languages for some years though. And I have been using gnu software for about as long. But it wasn't until this christmas that I really realized it's power. I've always been thinking that "sure, open source is a good thing, because then the others who know things can make changes".
But just before christmas I was playing a bit with the new transparency that xorg har brought us, and I was annoyed about the lack of functions in "transset". So I decided to take a look at its code. It turned out the program was very simple and within some hours, without any previous knowladge of Xlib and X-programming, I managed to change its behavoiur the way I wanted. (http://forchheimer.se/transset-df/)
Then I suddenly understood that you don't have to be a super guru who understands all the systems sourcecode to gain from open source. One day there will be some little thing that is bothering you that you actually CAN do something about.
There wasn't a single suitable library released under the LGPL? The LGPL exists for precisely that reason, so I find that hard to believe.
Excellent troll. I have no idea why so many fall for it. :P
Slow-witted mods be damned, this gave me a good laugh. Besides, everyone here already knows that BSD-style licensing is the best.
(a subset, at least)
- I don't like it when my favorite apps go away. Until I have grey hair and fake kidneys I will miss the ultra-fast, ultra-simple WriteNow word processor, which was my high-school-and-college favorite, and which ran fast even on what are now pitifully slow machines. Open source apps may go away, too, but generally there are better, sleeker replacements which (kicker) open the same file formats, because the Unix philosophy and GNU have the same good things about Unix-type things in mind, including saving to plainish formats. (Often possible, rarely the default, with proprietary software).
- I like frequent upgrades and bug fixes. And while it's not the simplest thing to balance, I mostly prefer some instability (as in, trying new versions of Mozilla, especially the versions of 5 years ago, say) with the attendant improvements in the next versions than sticking with, say, Netscape. [insert your own favorite stable-but-moribund application.]
- It's nice to be able to give to friends [F/f]ree software, and to make (however minor) suggestions to developers. Some open source developers are as rude and unaccomodating as typical proprietary software makers are impersonal and stand-offish (and some proprietary makers are downright friendly!), but I've seen small text improvements made in some cases an hour or so after pointing out a spelling or grammar problem on a project web site. That's responsive in a way that giant software makers don't really have the capability to be.
- Related to that last point: I believe that developers have the right to control their invented software. I don't want to use software *against* the wishes of its creators.(1) If you want to write some software to control Whooznit Manufacturing Units (or process words), with secret source, proprietary storage formats, and a very large pricetag, then Fine. I just don't have to use it. GPL- (and BSD-, and many other licenses) licensed software is explicitly free to use and give away. No developer *has* to use such licenses -- they have a range of moral choices open to them -- but I don't want illegally install one copy of Windows on several machines, even if I find it a moral non-issue if I'm the only one using them, and they're only being used one at a time. Easier and saner to use software that is more flexible; I can have Mepis, Knoppix and Red Hat on any / all of several machines,(2) with the full consent of the makers. It's nicer to visit at a friend's place than evade an angry landowner while sleeping in his guest bedroom, especially when he doesn't have a guest bedroom.
timothy
(1) Are there edge cases, and finer points? Yes. For instance, I own DVDs which some aspect of their "creator" -- the DVDCCA that is -- wants me to be unable to watch on a Linux box. Too bad for them, their case doesn't win my mind, so unlike the case of using (for instance) a non-legit copy of Windows, I feel not bad at all about watching movies with Mplayer or Xine. Also, using software illegally is in some cases about as horrifying to me as taking the occasional shortcut through private property. You can believe in the primacy of private property without denying all shades of grey in the world.
(2) Mac OS X is a near exception here; since it's included with (nearly) all the hardware that will happily run it -- as things stand, at least! -- there is no dilemma of trying to put it on my other machines (besides my iBook, that is) without permission. And I wouldn't feel at all bad about the experimentation of running it in a virtual machine on a Linux box, and I suspect no one at Apple would either.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
There's no need to personify Linux... Yeah it rocks, but it's just a kernel!
That 200 line algorithm was probably just written by one or two persons.
Did you contact them and offer them money for a license to you and promised to release your changes under GPL
The point is I could have benefited and at the same time made a contribution back to the community if my company didn't have to give up the entire farm.
By your list of evil deeds, it would seem that everyone, everywhere is evil.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
"I don't see the FSF lobbying congress to extend the length of copyrights."
Not every holder of IP lobbyed for a change.
"Also, you may not have noticed that many people post to Slashdot, thus the posts reflect many disparate views."
Note I was addressing an attitude, not individuals.
The LGPL was designed to allow you to do exactly what you want to do. A library writer who choose the GPL over the LGPL for his license is simply not interested in non-free software using his library. He is "refusing" to sell it to you.
BTW you could just contact the author and ask for a commercial version (perhaps in exchange for money).
This what happens with typos.
Remember to read the small prints as well.
Zed: Nothing is ever easy
GPL doesn't make things free as in beer, just free as in freedom.
So, yes, you are correct, grandparent is mistaken in the application of the GPL.
No, it did not really cross my mind at the time. I will consider this option should I come into a similar situation in future.
How does the GPLs stand up to corporations ?
So many companies will never give a crap about ethics, about the philosophy behind Free software, to them its all about getting something for nothing.
Free software is good because developer equality creates strong communities.
Quite often companies wont afford their employees time to integrate their work with the community, this minimises the contributions the company can make to the community.
Free software is a long term benefit, this causes a conflict of interest with buisness as they are usually not capable of looking further than 3 months ahead.
Many individuals who release software under the GPL dont have the resources to defend it, so the license is practically meaningless.
If you are considering using the GPL you should seriously consider assigning copyright to the FSF, they have the resources to defend it.
If you want to stand up to corporations choose a non commercial license.
If you want higher quality software choose a free software licence.
Allot of people like to think that if you create an environment that is conducive to business and commerce, then freedom and prosperity will follow.
I think just the opposite, I think when you create an environmet that is conducive to freedom and liberty (in this case, not coercively limit what people can copy using the force of government) Then that will create prosperity on it's own and lead to new markets and new opportunities that could never be gained before.
All IBM proves is that IBM wanted to become a service provider as opposed to a software vendor in the small to medium server space. They did not embrace Linux because IBM loves teh GPL!!1! If IBM embrace teh GPL and teh free software as teh way of the future!!11!! (death to commercial software lolroromgomglol) then why isnt Websphere, DB2 or AIX GPL'ed? At least Sun is trying to GPL Solaris.
There is a capitalist business case for being a service / solutions provider and not having to code your own OS but where is the tons of GPL'ed software that IBM created in-house just to release under the GPL?
first looked to me like a penis with a cape.
SUPERCAWK!
It's quite possible that Microsoft is still using the exact same code, but simply removed all the copyright notices as allowed by the amended BSD licence.
What kind of bullshit is this?
You CAN'T remove the copyright notices by the code that is under a BSD license.
This has nothing to do with the removal of the "advertising clause".
You CAN'T relicense any code that isn't either written by you or put in the public domain.
If you use any BSD code in your software, you MUST give credit to the author by distributing the BSD license along with your software, because that license is *still* covering the code you imported.
Sorry if I used bold but this misunderstanding is quite widespread, and it's just fostered by the stupidity of those claiming, or implying, that BSD code can be "stolen".
Would you mind learning to promote your favourite license (in this case, GPL) without spreading FUD over other licenses like MIT or BSD?
You know, nobody is forcing people to post comments when they don't know a goddamn thing of what they're talking about.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
"Then I suddenly understood that you don't have to be a super guru who understands all the systems sourcecode to gain from open source. One day there will be some little thing that is bothering you that you actually CAN do something about."
Then you would have loved these systems. You would be using the system as you described, then if you wanted to change something on a running system? Pull up the development tools, change the source code (inherent to the system), while the system is running and then close them, and go back to work.
Something that's rarely been duplicated.
If I had mod points, I would mod you up. Everyone brings up the example of microsoft using BSD tools...but those BSD tools not only still exist in Net, Free, Open, Dragonfly BSD, and Darwin, but they exist in a more modern, usable form than they do in the standard Microsoft commandline tools. As long as people are interested in a project it will be developed, no matter what open source license is slapped on it. The only thing that kills a project is disinterest, and the GPL doesn't protect against that.
There's the quote we all know about capitalism that says "it is not perfect, but it is the least flawed system we know". For open source software, this is exactly what a lot of people (myself included) think of the GPL. [ My apologies for paraphrasing and the lack of proper attribution ]
At the same time, a lot of people dislike or even hate the GPL. In my view, their opinions usually come down to the fact that there really is no general example of how to make a business of open source software development. To people who's primary concern is the business of software development, the wealth of GPL software is a false wealth, it's analogous to teasing a baby with candy that it can not have. This seems especially true for entrepreneurs, for whom the bootstrapping potential of open source systems is always a huge temptation. The reality is that when an software entrepreneur deals with the "money people", the ideals of free software go out the window pretty quick, because they have to justify their existense with some kind of asset, usually of the IP (intellectual property) variety. This pretty much eliminates the possibilty of using GPL software, because it prevents them from claiming the degree of ownership of the code they produce that investers demand. Paradoxicallly, the situation that some of the biggest current backers of open source software (especially GPL) are giants like IBM. They have loads of assets, and lawyers, and all the rest. Where it makes sense to them, and right now it does a lot, they are willing and able to play by the open soure rules.
I consider myself an open source advocate, but I can sympathize with the business issues, especially entrepreneurial ones. After all, the GPL is espcially good a protecting the rights of the little guy, which in the business world are the entrepreneurs. I think the world desparately requires a working, repeatable business model for (open source) software development--one that spans the whole corporate life cycle. I just don't see one today, and I don't see how to make the GPL business friendly without breaking it.
On the other hand, I only have limited sympathy for the software profession, and the defacto standard model for the software business. The truth is that the majority of what we produce is utter crap. In light of this, I think it is paramount that as a profession, we do everything possible to ensure that software gets better, and good software is as unhindered as possible in getting better and making it to end users. I know of no technology that I believe can achieve this better or even close to the open source process. The GPL is the center of mass for that process. So yes, the GPL isn't perfect, but for now, I say, tough. It is the best we have.
> Literally hundreds or thousands of programmers that used
> to charge for their services now work for free. Definitely
> an improvement over the old days where you had to buy every little utility.
Yeah, an improvement for everyone except the programmers... Although, it's not like you could sell "any little utility" in the old days either.
For fuck's sake, it's not your routine! You don't get to say what is ridiculous about it! It's as meaningless as saying that it's ridiculous that your customers should all have to buy Microsoft Windows (or whatever OS your software runs on) to run your 50 million lines of code.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
I spent roughly 80 hours a week for 2 years of the prime of my life developing an application. I rewrote virtually 80% of the 150,000 line C++ codebase. In short, it was forked by very hostile and childish people who continually kry [sic] "Leave us alone" at my program's site, lol.
The hostile fork started when I was personally targeted by the MPAA for my development efforts on 23 August, 2003
The GPL provides *zero* possibilities for overcoming hostile forks. If they want to copy your CVS (and keep their's private) they can effectively publish your own code before you release your program...which technically makes it "their" code. You cannot obfuscate code in order to get an advantage because the GPL forbids this.
How they won the battle was a systemmatic assault of every website comment section (just search for "xmule and comment") on the internet, attacking both myself (Un-Thesis | HopeSeekr) and the program. When this fails my program's site (www.xmule.ws) is routinely DDoS'd, the worst occuring when our original domain (www.xmule.org) was DDoS'd for approximately THREE months and had its DNS hijacked because of it.
Use the OSSAL dual licensed with the Creative Commons License to defeat the GPL! CCL is JUST AS FREE as the GPL (including no commercialization of *straight copies*) yet doesn't have the viral clause. OSSAL License expressly prevents the use of OSSAL code in GPLd products.
For detailed description of the difference between xMule and its hostile fork, see The Coding Philosophies of aMule and xMule . For a summary of some of the most blatant attacks against xMule by this fork, see Part III: On Hostile Forks.
Sincerely,
Ted R. Smith | HopeSeekr
Promote freedom; fight fascism.
but then it came to my mind: O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of my nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. I had won the victory over myself. I loved the GPL.
Um... no. The GPL makes things free as in restrictions. There is no freedom in sight.
I like GPL as much as any other slashdot open-source enthusiast - however I find that this is just very shameless self-advertisement..
If you like the ego bost of having a company like Microsoft take your code, close it off to you and make big money charging you (among other people) for access to your own code under their onerous EULAs, -- and if that ego boost is way more important than having your code free and useful to the entire community that uses it (and able to come back to you), then the BSD license is for you.
This is so wrong and clueless that it's actually funny.
Look: I'm *glad* that Microsoft monopoly is coming to an end. Not because I hate Microsoft or Bill Gates (I happen not to be an envious person..) but simply because *monopoly is bad* for everybody. So, the sooner it ends, the better. And GPL, notwithstanding the communistic principles that are behind it, is surely helping that moment to come a bit sooner: good.
But, I'll list here all the nonsense contained in the ridiculous sentence (it's just one sentence!) I quoted.
1) Microsoft can't "take your code". They can *use* it, if they give you proper credits by distributing your BSD license along with *any* software that contains your code. They *must* do it.
2) Microsoft can't "close it off". Your code of course remains free (truly free, IMHO, since it's BSD-licensed). The only thing that they can close off is their own modifications (i.e. *their own* code).
3) Microsoft can't "charge you for access to your own code". They can charge you for their modified versions. And of course, the market laws apply: if their modifications aren't *worth* the price they're charging, nobody's gonna buy their crap.
Get a clue. Please.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
And the point of this is....?
First off, companies are about people, it is colsed licenses that seperate companies from people. If I am in a business and I run Linux, I can share it everywhere, at home, at work, with friends, try doing that with a closed sorce product. The GPL unites business and people, and that is one reason why it has been so successfull in the marketplace.
Second off, right now, this very day - I can open a business and roll my own operating system for a few $1000 dollars of work. It can be a ksiok, it can be a platform that runs some special hardware, whatever - the point is that power enables 1000's of small businesses that would likely have had to spend millions otherwise - the GPL is anything but anti-business.
Third, I am allowing you to do things I don't aprove of - TO YOURSELF, but when you take code and information that was given to you freely by all of us, and then fence it off, and then start threatening my friends and neighbors with copyright lawsiuts - and then get angry because we now use a license that won't let you do what you "want to do" - well sorry. Tough shit.
I know how trendy it is for lefties to bash corporations while ignoring things like computers, cars, money to buy food, and other benefits. But with Open Source (which I support and have progrmamed for in the past) the programmer gets nothing. No tangible pay to support a family. Nothing to put food on the table or clothe or house anyone. But working for MicroSoft, I can very well become a millionaire, which happens to thousands of Microsoft employees. The "little guy" working for MS is screwed less than the "little guy" doing it for free in my opinion. So the argument that somehow this is David vs. Goliath isn't really relevant. Or put another way, Golitath is actually a pretty generous guy.
This is a troll but a consulting company giving code to a corporation constitutes distribution. They woud have to give them the code. The corporation that recieved the code could then either keep it or distribute it to anyone they gave the code to....
You've been trolled:
m andrake/browse_thread/thread/51bafe7c724a8395/e90d 0ef6ecb1717f?q=Linux's+lack+of+Token+Ring+support& _done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DLinux's+lack+of+Token+Ring+s upport%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26t ab%3Dwg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#e90d0ef6ec b1717f
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.os.linux.
I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source"
You mean the "Shared Source" that doesn't allow you to recompile it, and only allows source code to go to a select few? I know you're a troll, but what you're talking about is BS, and could be done under a BSD license.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
Your lawyers are either incompetent or are trying to fuck you over.
What are you talking about, I work with companies that make money using Linux all the time. And frankly, they don't want controll over Linux, I've never worked for a company in the opperating system business.
I don't care if you make money from GPL'd code - what I care about is that if I make a piece of code available to you freely - that you won't turn arround, fence off a slightly modified copy of it, and then start to sue my friends and neighbors who use it for "copyright" infringement. Maybe you think I'm a coward for not giving you that "right", well go to hell.
"I write GPLed software for OSX and so do many other people. Just browse VersionTracker. But I don't understand your fundamental objection to ever paying for software - even if you can afford it and it doesn't have any obnoxious DRM."
One can make the long-term argument that just as all businesses eventually gravitate towards a monopoly. All payware eventually gravitates towards DRM.
How so? Simple human nature, both individually and collectively.
Um... no. The GPL makes things free as in restrictions. There is no freedom in sight.
Hey, dumbshit. Is a resctiction on restrictions also a restriction?
No, it isn't.
As a consultant I known a thousand of companies that use free software to do its job but don't contribute to the software maker (that is the guy that develop software based on GPL). I thought that there's must exist a campaign on this larger companies to donate $$ to the software developers.
http://www.michel.eti.br
First, I assume YOU were abiding by the GPL, and your derivative code was either in-house (not distributed) or likewise under the GPL.
... something that license gives you the right to do).
... and a little expensive)
So using GPL'ed software written by others can indeed be dangerous because when it's offered in a way to the public by someone but not meant to be used like described in the GPL - e.g. misunderstanding.
Dangerous? DANGEROUS? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Using the GPL is very, very SAFE. If this person didn't understand the license they released their software in, they have only themselves to blame. The license is there, written in black and white, in plane English (and translated into assorted other languages). The FSF has detailed information on the GPL, how it works, what it implies, what freedoms it insures, etc.
The author was in no more danger using a license he didn't understand (the GPL) than he would have been using another license he didn't understand (a knockoff copy of Microsoft's license, edited for himself, the Artistic License, the FreeBSD license, or any of a dozen others).
You were in absolutely no more danger (other than having to endure an unpleasant social episode) than you would have been had you been using FreeBSD licensed code (if you think that idiot took exception to your using his code in your project, imagine if he'd licensed it under the FreeBSD license and you'd used it in a proprietary program
Can he sue you? In the USA, you bet! You can be sued by anyone, for any reason, and have to go through the trouble of going to court. I was sued by a dog owner who moved into our no-dog building with a pit-bull when the building decided to enforce the rules and started fining the prick. (The building had been a no dog building since the early 1980s, it was clearly stated in the condo docs, and the owner knew this. But, he was an intellectual property attorney and he knows how to bully. Not that it got him very far, but he did get to use his law partner at no cost while I and others in the building ran up legal bills defending ourselves against his frivolous suit. It was satisfying to put the nonsense to rest once and for all, however, even it the process was annoying as hell
The GPL certainly doesn't put you in any danger you aren't already in when you decide to crawl out of your home and face the public each day (or craw up to your computer and do so virtually, via the Internet), and it protects you against a great many things other licenses (mostly prorpietary ones) do not.
This doesn't mean there aren't incompetent jackasses in the world who will bluster, threaten, and maybe even sue, but implying that the license has anything whatsoever to do with their incompetence, or their litigiousness, is simply nonsense.
Oh, and by the way, if he had sued, your victory would have been a slam dunk. The GPL does offer you very potent protection, something many other licenses do not.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You know, the communisim that I renember was about controlling the information that people have access to at all costs. In that sense, the GPL is about freedom, and Microsoft is about commuinisim.
Also, what the hell does a government backed monopoly that coerces what people can or can't copy have to do with property rights? Answer: nothing - property rights derive from the fact that property has physical limits and that not everybody can use it at the same time. Copyrights derive from kings who granted publishers a monopoly in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The copyrights=property argument is propaganda, plain and simple.
I license my code 2 clause BSD because I want anyone who can benefit from it to do so. I don't care who they are, or what they use it for. If I wanted to prevent people from benefitting from my code, I would just not release the source at all.
The GPL is not for you. It is also not for M$.
RTFL (read the fucking license) before you use it.
also, you can write and release proprietary code that runs on GPL'ed OS's. You just need to know how to do it. Try googling. Try not speading FUD and ignorance about the subject.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
seen in other threads ALMOST word for word.
stupid lameness filter. it's a troll. swear. honest.
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Blender is a good example. Peoplesoft is another one. Windows NT is perhaps the best example. With the GPL, all these would still be useful today.
Let me get this straight:
*I can make a piece of code.
*Put it out there for people to use freely.
*Someone can come along and fence it off with their own license
*Then they can sue any of my freinds or neighbors who use that copy of or a derivative of it for copyright infringement.
Well WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO DO THAT!!!!
Thats what the gist of the BSD tools argument is about, having better tools has nothing to do with it.
I'm not thinking that because I know the history of the open source and free software movements better than to credit the GNU General Public License to the open source movement. As RMS pointed out to someone wanting to help trademark GCC to help the "open source community":
Speaking more specifically to what Joe Barr said, it is a relatively trivial thing to create a set of rules and list a license as conforming to those rules, than to write the license and define a movement. By the time the open source movement came into existence, the GPL was in widespread use. The ideas the GPL speaks of (software freedom, chief among them) are the ideas the open source movement was founded, in part, to move away from.
As the FSF explains quite clearly, the open source movement was started by people who wanted to "sell" free software to business and thought that freedom talk would get in the way. So they droppped it and pursued a different philosophy which is essentially a development methodology.
As the essay also indicates, the term "open source" is no more clear to people at first blush than "free software", hence it is not really an improvement on free software at all. I'd argue that open source is actually considerably weaker than free software because open source proponents are sometimes compelled to argue for software that doesn't qualify as open source. Their insistence on technical achievement (borne from their devotion to speaking to business) makes an odd message to send to others. Free software proponents are never put in the position of stumping for proprietary software because proprietary software, by definition, doesn't give users freedom. The goal is not to pursue technological achievements at the expense of software freedom. Technological improvement will happen over time, but freedom may not if we don't work to preserve it.
Then perhaps you'd be willing to consider giving GNU a share of the credit, since the GNU GPL came from the need to ensure software freedom for covered works and their derivatives. The Linux kernel is a fine and useful program, but it is not the entirety of the OS, and Linus Torvalds' political views on software matters--pragmatism, basically--are not that of the GNU project, the free software movement, or those who appreciate software freedom. It is ahistorical to give his views sole credit (essentially, crediting him for work he did not do) and to lead people to look to his philosophy when explaining the importance of the entire operating system of which the Linux kernel is a part.
Digital Citizen
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Congrats, you have just explained exactly why the GPL has caused a shift in public RnD away from the government sector and back to the private sector where it has always belonged. At a time where most private RnD efforts are being cut back, ventures like OSDL are taking off. IMHO, this is just the beginning.
the "communism" you're likely talking about is better described as fascism, which is very, very bad. and never works. thats why fascist states always collapse.
to marx, it is the people who must elect to move toward communism. not just any people, but a well-educated, value-producing people with a representational government. atleast, marx suggests representational government, i believe either he or lenin disregarded it as unfeasable, though.
from a neo-marxist standpoint, both microsoft and the opensource community are clearly communist constructions. (privitization, etc)
therein lies your statement regarding microsoft and communism: microsoft is a hierarchial fascism (a natural state of bussinesses, really, not just "evil bad thing" fascism), but internally a communist organization (also a natural state of bussinesses).
whereas the opensource community, as it conglomerates around different projects, builds small, representational organizations both administered and populated entirely by what is essentially a modern proletariat - computer programmers. the internet, and the attempt to release programs freely therein, allows people to produce value whilst simultaneously having no "property". the quality of infinite multiplicity, as you suggest, plays a significant role in the feasability of property-less value.
what i mean is, when a programmer creates a gpl'd program, he creates something of value while retaining only (essentially) honorary property rights on it. and that makes a programmer a member of the proletariat (proletariat literally means "those without property"), to the extent of that program's sphere.
thus, the opensource community is really communism, as it is the self-organization of a proletariat. and it's a self-representational communism (the first of its kind?), well juxtaposed against the fascist communism of most modern bussiness models.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
While I like GPL and I have benefitted from it (lots of freeware I use), I have just one complaint. The way GPL is, the first guy who ever writes the code, controls its destiny. Even if the first coder's contribution is very limited, and he kind of does nothing later, the code will still have to remain under GPL. A guy who comes after him and say does a substantially improves the code and does lots of things will not have a say in deciding or changing the terms.
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
I will admit I like the GPL for some things. Example: My girlfriend and I were searching high and low for a copy of the book The Science of Getting Rich online the other day. The book of course is 90 odd years old, and we knew it was in the public domain. However, the only place where we were able to find it was on Wikisource where it was licensed under the GFDL. This sort of application is where copyleft really shines...in that it allows people to make derivative works, but simply serves to prevent the original work from being removed from the public domain. In the case of The Science of Getting Rich you might be wondering what I mean...A particular woman has set up a website and is making money selling a number of products based around Wattles' philosophy as espoused in that book. Great, you say. Where's the problem there? The problem is that Wikisource was the only place I could find the book...and it wasn't through lack of searching, either...we scoured both Google and eMule. I strongly suspect that a number of people who were making money from derivative works of the book had taken pains to make sure the original wasn't available online, in order to prevent others from also making money from derivative works in the same way they had. It is highly lamentable that keeping such public domain works available in practice requires legal enforcement...but apparently it does.
Something on the other hand that bothers me about the GPL in particular is the confusion that has arisen apparently in a lot of people's minds about software being free as in speech as opposed to free as in beer. I wouldn't know how many times I've seen someone suggesting the idea of selling GPL licensed software, while being perfectly happy about also making source available, only to have some misinformed fanatic materialise out of the woodwork and begin screeching about how it is supposedly a violation of the license to DARE to try and make money with it, as well as being demonically evil in the process.
If there are any such fanatics reading this comment, immediately go and read this, and educate yourselves. <heavy sarcasm> It flowed from the immaculate keyboard of your spiritual leader himself as well, so you can be comforted that it is authoritative on the subject. It so happens, incidentally, that the Prophet was actually selling copies of Emacs on tape for a few hundred bucks each at some point in the 80s, so I'm assuming he himself obviously isn't opposed to using GPL licensed software to make money, even if you are.</heavy sarcasm>
XFree86 came about because of that, if it were possible to take the original MIT X away and make it proprietary, XFree86 could never have happened. And when XFree86 decided to not accept contributions from the community and change their license, oh look, x.org appeared. Nice job proving yourself wrong though.
BSD licenses protect the users rights completely. More than the GPL does. It simply doesn't "protect" the original authors "right" to force everyone who ever uses his code to license their code the same way. That's not protection, that's enforcing your ideals on others.
When I get a piece of BSD code, I get more rights than with a GPL piece of code. This is an undisputable fact. Now, knowing that, how can you claim that the extra restrictions that the GPL places on me are in fact protecting my rights? Its not, its protecting the ideals of the original author, users be damned.
Having to get a different license agreement with the author is not a feature of the GPL. Its a problem. I can also get a special license agreement for proprietary, closed-source software, that's not a feature of closed-source licenses though. The fact that the code is licensed in a way designed to prevent people from using it is a problem. Just because there's ways to work around that problem, doesn't make the problem good.
If anyone wants a long analysis of the GPL vs BSD debate: Social aspects of the BSD vs. GPL debate (the notes) and Labyrinth of Software Freedom (the paper).
Yeah, but without a license obligating you to give you back that code, do you think your company would have allowed you to give it back? Or do you think you would have taken the risk to give back the code without telling your company about it?
Hook, line, sinker.
One can make the long-term argument that just as all businesses eventually gravitate towards a monopoly. All payware eventually gravitates towards DRM.
:-)
Yes, there was a time when grocery stores routinely sold out of date products and misrepresented the contents on the label. Then we passed some food safety laws, and now they don't. There will be always companies scumming customers or having unwanted social effects. We just have to push back through laws and consumer education. But it's not inherently wrong for me to make something and sell it to other people
I don't know what Locke said about property, but I do know that just because people label somthing a "property right" - doesn't mean that it is. For years people screamed about slave ownership as a property right, and that it was "free market", and so on ... it was all crap and had nothing to do with property and everything to do with controll.
Also about communisim, perhaps I should have called it Marxisim, because the whole idea was never voluntary community based at all. The bottom line is though, that no matter how "enlightened" the origanal approach was, it involved coercive power over just behavior....
Maybe I had the will to create a shoe factory, maybe I had the resources and knowhow too, but if that "enlightened planner" decided otherwise then it was DOA.
... when you have that kind of power, bad things happen, and they did. When it comes to restricting what people coppy, Microsoft clearly has the power to make bad things happen, and they will. As for that kind of potential to abuse power in the GPL community .... there is none.
* freedom matters *
The FSF favors the GPL for libraries over the LGPL.
Fact of the matter is that that's really the way that capitalism was meant to work under Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (considered by many to be the godfather of modern capitalism. Under his view, big multinational corporations were (are) no different than big government -- both result in centralized decision making which warps local economies.
What the GPL does is it forces decision-making back down to the local levels and prevents a big company from controlling the entire market by force. This is actually far closer to real capitalism than either Microsoft's market-warping monopoly. And also far closer to closer to capitalism than it it is to Stalin's market-warping communism.
It's also far more intrinsically democratic than either.
So, the next time Gates & company starts screaming 'communist', respond
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Yeah, but without a license obligating you to give you back that code, do you think your company would have allowed you to give it back?
It happens much more often than you think. IBM gives a lot to Apache, for example, without any such obligation.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
/. :-)
:-)
That is somewhat undecided by the courts.
My hunch is that if you write software, then compile, etc. it using the GPL'ed tools then you do not have to release the code.
However, if you are using static (rather than dynamically linked) libraries then you may have to. But personally, I would argue whatever is in your interests [i.e. keep the code secret and make a profit or help greater mankind].
It is still disputed.
It's a matter of interpretation.
It is a matter that should be clarified in the GPL license.
Finally, I think you should hire a better firm of lawyers. Or... just get advice from all the techno nerdy lawyers on
BTW, I haven't sat down and read the GPL license fully. So, please feel welcome to politely correct me if I am wrong
this is still the same guy as before, im just posting anonymous cuz this is a worthless statement (and kinda flamebait), and thats bad karma =p
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/29/1 814242
I thought that Microsoft had violated the RFC, but the version of Kerberos they use was written entirely in-house. I am having trouble confirming or denying the latter. Does anyone have knowledge about it?
I see no reason for Linux fans to be jizzing in one another's faces. It can be assumed that a person knows of if not likes the GPL based on the fact that they are reading Slashdot, there is no need for the mutual masterbation.
Now, before someone goes calling this flamebait, think about it. Was this article informative? Was it insightful? Was it news? Was it even interesting? I say no, this was a GNUist saying that they agree with themselves.
I infact disagree with the idea that the GPL protects some magical freedom to edit code, I don't think that such a freedom exists. I believe that the right is given to people under the terms of a license and that the license ensures that the right remains for anyone else.
The article says the public domain does not protect this magical freedom, yet the original code will always remain in the public domain as it was released. The code is not going anywhere, if someone takes it and improves it that does not suddenly remove the original from the public domain.
Anyways, to end my rant, I feel that this article was completely needless and uninspired.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
There is an old joke, with many variations around the 'net, that goes something like this:
One day, Mega Corp.'s mainframe stops working. As it's an old system that's been running for years, their own support staff are at a loss about how to fix it, so they call a consultant who used to work for them when the system was first set up.
The consultant comes in and looks around the system for a minute. Then he takes out a piece of chalk and draws a big X on one of the boards. "That's your problem, right there," he tells them. "Replace that board and everything will be fixed. That'll be $100,000, please."
Stunned that anyone could ask so much money for a minute's work, the senior support guy asks for an invoice. "Sure," says the consultant, and he writes down the following:
Sometimes the last step really is worth more than everything that went before it, and being able to take it is a valuable thing.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
He'll stop spreading FUD when Slashdot stops posting FUD (I know, way too much to ask from Slashdot).
If there wasn't GCC, there'd be another compiler. The idea that GNU was centric to open source is down right dumb.
This is absolutely contrary to the GPL philosophy, but is basically how computer software has worked for the past 50 years or so. Since the introduction of the "Independent Software Vendor". What the GPL proposes is that these people cannot exist and the common user cannot benefit from their labors. Instead, the common user is supposed to support someone paying for "support" that in a properly-written application wouldn't be needed. And, they also have the benefit of obtaining the source code which they will never understand, perhaps so they can pay (yet again) some contractor to modify something that should have been capable of doing the job properly in the first place.
Lastly, what the GPL does allow and encourage is for someone to take the publicly distributed source code and create something from all that research. OK, so they don't exactly copy the code - just use the knowledge contained in it. Just extract the value (or the IP) that is there and use it to create their own product which isn't GPL'ed. Not happening? If it isn't it is just because nobody really believes there is anything worth taking away from the currently GPL'ed codebase that is there.
There are a lot of good reasons to like the EULA: the End User's License Agreement. For one thing, it's a Goliath OR Goliath kind of thing. It's the not too little guy standing up on the corporate behemoths that run rough-shod over our daily lives and by virtue of your own influence be one of them. For another, it's virtuous to have all this money in my pocket.
We have no idea if someone else would have written another compiler, but we do know that GCC is still the chief (if not the only) free software compiler. GCC was developed for the purpose of furthering software freedom, initially written by RMS.
GNU was not "centric to open source" because GNU predates the open source movement by over a decade. But the open source movement got its start by building on what the free software movement had built in those years.
Finally, the namecalling seals the deal: I think your post deserves a flamebait or troll moderation.
Digital Citizen
The BSD license is pretty nice ... but only for people who understand it ...
There are a lot of people who put their work under BSD license but don't want others to use the Software for own projects.
Recently I wanted to use some BSD-licensed work offered by someone for my very own projects and he accused me to be a pirate and thief and that he will be sueing me for having used parts of his code for my own work which he put under the BSD license. This has result into a little flamewar on ANN which you can read here. So using BSD-licensed software written by others can indeed be dangerous because when it's offered in a way to the public by someone but not meant to be used like described in the BSD license - e.g. misunderstanding.
Another thing with BSD license is that it's basicly a thing where others rip off work written by others without returning anything. The operating system MorphOS for example is one of these things. Their developers are using a lot of parts from the open source without giving the due attribution. When contacting them and asking them to give the credit they usually reply that the code has been lost or they redirect you to older ports of the software with codesnipplets that doesn't work anymore. Most pirating of BSD-licensed work done by others are done within the Amiga community as well as many other communities.
I don't say that BSD license is a bad thing but I say that it's a matter of being ripped off and abused for what one has done if someone else takes everything and not caring for the work I've done and not giving me proper credit even when when asked.
The bottom line is: people violate copyright law, no matter what is the license under which the software is released. The copyright holder can either sue them or stop bitching. Do I also get Score:4, Interesting?
Yes, and the first axiom of "plane English" is this:
i) World is on a plane with four edges guarded by dragons.
That's not what I was implying. I was asking about *his* company. Most big companies I know don't give back code unless it's their CEO or their PR department's doing.
IBM, Xerox PARC, google, those are the exceptions -- not the rule.
So I should be able to put Linux into my own proprietary OS if I fix something in their scheduler? Everyone benefits. That's basically your argument.
I have been using linux for the past 2 years. Before that, even on windows, I was using GPL softwares like Vim and MikTeX.
What I find the most interesting is that supporting and believing in GPL movement inculcates in us the noble values of sharing , openness, large heartedness which are becoming more and more rare in this fast paced and materialistic world.
For example, In these times of software patents and widespread consumerism, encouraging school children to embrace the use of GPLed softwares can teach them that sharing what they have with others is really cool. And I am sure they will eventually extend this principle to all walks of life which will make our society better place to live in.
ravee
--
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
I think that it's stupid for most product to be GPL when LGPL would do a better job.
I mean as a company, if you need to add one commercial driver or any other adjustment
and you are NOT allowed to link it to the original product that is insane and counterproductive.
Especially, for those GPL projects were 90% of the codebase could be LGPL and be reused properly in other projects.
Mainly, put the business logic in LGPL
and put the GUI layer GPL if you want so.
In fact, while i run virtually entirely on open source software on my desktop, the only major piece of software I use regularly that jumps to mind which is GPL is KDE. (Though no doubt quite a few of its dependencies which I don't pay much attention to are GPL... but like many have pointed out, it seems GPL is the 'default' open source licence for a lot of people just because they aren't lawyers and don't want to think about it.)
The same bsd license that the netbsd (?) network stack was licensed under?
I meant modifying BSD code.
four legs good, two legs bad!
Here's something to ask the GPL zealots.
How many times have GPL projects fed from the BSD trough?
Did any of them in the spirit of their license "give back"?
What about all the other non-copyleft licenses?
"GPL ensures that they never have to make the choice since all versions. Surely you believe in the author having a similar right not to allow others exploit his work in proprietary products."
Or products of war. I'm certain that must burn the peace-loving GPL'ers.
Who the hell cares what someone else does with the code, the original is still there, and you are free to do with it as you please. Get it through your thick fucking skulls, you can't make my BSD code unfree, you can only make your own code changes unfree.
Stephen Samuel wrote the following bullshit:
The only place that Microsoft has to include your copyright and the BSD license is in the source code, and nobody outside of Microsoft (and people who sign an NDA) are likely to see that source code.
Again, that's ridiculously false.
Microsoft has to include "your copyright and the BSD license" in every *binary* distribution as well. It's clearly written in the BSD license: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
I asked you to get a clue. Now I must think that you actually enjoy making an ass of yourself.
--
Requiem for the FUD
Under stalinism what the workers saw is that they worked their asses off, and the party bigwigs lived on the high hog of the the workers' efforts -- Not much different than some 'capitalistic' corporations.
Communism is 'give according to capability, take according to need'. Stalinism is 'Give according to the party plan, take according to rank in the party.'
Since rank in the party mattered far more than what one contributed to the commons workers had no real incentive to work hard.
Communism is also supposed to be controled by the workers -- a democracy by another name. Stalinism would have none of that. -- thus the workers were working on the plans of distant bigwigs, with no input to the plan, and no real profit for their work (it all went to the same bigwigs). That pretty much sucks.
This is part of the reason why sweat shops work so well in impoverished 3rd and 4th world countries -- It's pretty much the same situation as stalinist russia, except for the fact that the workers are literally discardable. If the worker doesn't do exactly what you tell them to when you tell them to and how you tell them to, you can simply toss them out like a rag, and find somebody even more desperate than them to work under slave-like conditions. If they hold a strike, you can just call in the police (or a private security force) to shoot them.
Pretty much the same as the worst of the stalinist era -- or the US Circa the 1930s.
Sweden is an example of a socialist state -- with democracy, socialized health care and pretty much cradle-to-grave support from the government. The standard of living and productivity are both relatively high.
Mexico is another example of the extremes of capitalism. -- A very steep pyramid, with a few extremely rich and lots of extremely poor. There are few social services, lots of very desparate people and some really nasty problems with things like pollution from companies with very little public oversight.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
TenDRA is a C compiler. It can do C++ code but lacks C++ libraries.
http://www.tendra.org/
The GPL is like running a charity except when the poor come to get some food they have to sign a contract that says "In exchange for this food you promise to give all your food back to this food kitchen for the rest of your life".
Give me a break. Virtuous is giving it away with no restrictions and letting each individual choose for themselves whether or not to be equally generous and also who they want to do it.
this is NOT the GPL.
The BSD community does not get pissed off at the GPL because they can't use GPL code. This is why they created their own BSD systems.
Moreover, your term "protect" actually means restrict. Ever heard of a free lunch? Obviously you have: "They're pissed because they can't have a free ride." Nevertheless, it's you who want to get free lunches with your GPL.
For instance, suppose you wrote a 5000 lines GPL program, and someone comes along and writes 100000 lines on top of your program. It's clear now isn't it that you'd want this 100000 lines for free, since you didn't write any of the 100000.
Another example, suppose someone wrote 1000000 lines of code, but would like to add your 10 lines GPL patch without giving you his kitchen sink.
It's you who want free rides and free lunches. If your code is intended to be Free, you wouldn't attach "give me your lunch and your kitchen sink" clauses. Nobody is angry at the GPL. We see the GPL for what it truly is and prevent using your precious and generous GPL code. Personally, I wouldn't touch GPL code with a 10m shit pole.
What is freedom for you? Is more freedom always good? Cerainly not: people should not be "free" to hurt other people right?
m l
Maybe true legitimate freedom is freedom that doesn't affect others. There is a better word to descibe freedom that affects other people: power.
The GPL gives you absolutely all the (personal) freedom you have with BSD licenses: zero restriction on use, you can do absolutely what you want with the program on your computer. However when it comes to other people the GPL does restrics you: contrary to BSD licenses it doesn't grant you power on other people (ie. no freedom to affect, diminish other people's freedom)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.ht
So the "BSD more free than GPL" debate all comes to whether you consider power as a legitimate freedom...
Parent is right. Internally here at IBM, Linux is pretty much just another feature point for the zSeries platform. Other than that it's mostly just lip service. We're spending millions to advertise our support for linux, not on R&D.
All payware eventually gravitates towards DRM.
Nope. Counter example here. Just because your imagination is as limited as the monopolies you speak out against, don't assume that everyone is so hindered.
GPL say,"We do not have money to support lawyers. Take this but be fair about it. If you are not fair about it we will have an easy case finding a lawyer to beat you down."
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
To be a bit helful the proper term we should be discussing is "Fascism" but not in reference to the GPL but in reference to the "Bill and Steve Show" at Microsoft.
To be quite precise these people built an empire largely out of government control of the property of others and developments of others. Then they built their business using Tax Exempt Bonds and Industrial Development Authorities. This is quite precisely a case of a business built out of State Investments. In the strictest of definitions this is "Fascism."
Now to be really fair wouldn't you love to be able to build a business where other people's work made you money and you didn't have to pay them and you could even tax them for building your property plant and equipment? Wouldn't you just love it where the US Army would define that no other bidders need apply for contracts to supply similar services? Wouldn't you love it if you could get all of this and then have the money all to yourself not even until recently having to pay the suckers (Investors) who supplied additional capital to your company? I could go into this a bit deeper but it is clearly and plainly fascism.
Don't you love the defenders of the Steve and Bill Show who argue about "Free Enterprise" and "Free Markets" and stuff like that. They talk a nice story but that is all it is, a story. It bears no relationship to any facts. This not troll it is just the facts so mods if you disagree get a life!
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
The opposite of the Democracy is the Dictatorship and not the Communism. Communism differs from Capitalism in the way the private property on the production capacities is (not) recognized and guarded by law. It just happens so that every Communistic party tend to suppress any political opposition and their leaders become authoritarian style politics (for known reasons). As the parent post correctly pointed, the only complete and pure dictatorship in russian communistic party was Stalinism time.
So there are actually two axes
Democracy - Dictatorship
Capitalism - Communism.
This model does not say, though, that there can not be a country with Dictatorial Communism, neither that there may not exist Democratical Communism. The reasons why Democratical Communism is not possible lays outside this model.
And you all have certainly seen Dictatorial Capitalism, haven't you?
I) why didn't you just read through those 200 lines to figure out the algorithms involved? It's not like there would be patents involved.
Or, IIa) assuming those 200 lines were as simple as you claim, ask the author(s) for an alternative licence for due compensation?
Or, IIb) if there were too many authors, are you neglecting to mention other components also using the GPL? If so, do you think you rightfully have any business complaining about what a whole community of programmers have done with their time and resources?
All I'm hearing is "whine! whine! whiiiine", and not a hint of resourcefulness or even justification for one's own existence (and salary).
So using GPL'ed software written by others can indeed be dangerous because when it's offered in a way to the public by someone but not meant to be used like described in the GPL - e.g. misunderstanding.
a tegory=files (with comments the grandparent was refering to) and you'll see why it's dangerous. You seem to have a much better understanding of this issue than anyone there, so you might want to post a brief explanation there. Thank you very much in advance. Ciao. Alfonso.
Dangerous? DANGEROUS? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Lol. Read this thread http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1098707485&c
And win!
I'm not sure why one side should be able to function so differently from the other. "Hey you can't license your product or stuff so we can't use it but we can"
Besides those 200 lines form part of many millions of lines that are available for your use. You just happen to only want to use those few, but you are welcome to the other millions too. But in order to use them you just have to play fair, meaning on equal terms of share and share alike.
Next thing you'll say GNU's not Unix.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
"The BSD license is basically a Public Domain license with credits included.
It's not a problem by itself, if everyone else worked this way. -- But they don't, so you develop a software and make it available for free under the BSD license, but the ones who make money with your software are free to close the source?!"
And how's that any different than say a company taking the GPL'ed source, and indirectly making money from it?* Note they don't have to release either the source, or their improvemenmts, unless they directly release it. e.g. incorperated in a saleable product.
*Maybe it makes their company more efficient? Maybe they use GCC in their development? Use your imagination.
"If GIMP was public domain, there's a good chance that it would be a shitty freeware utility with no developer base like all the other shitty freeware utilities out there, and would have contributed next to nothing to the community. Or do you mean they should develop their software under the GPL for a while until it turns out good, THEN public domain it? Perhaps you should ask the same of Adobe."
I find this highly amusing. You all can't decide if the public domain is a good thing, or a bad thing. When the MPAA/RIAA and public domain come up. You all complain about how it's starving and needs to be fed. While here we have a post saying how bad the public domain is because regardless of what's in it. Nothing good will come from it.
Secretly you all recognize that the force of law is required to achieve your aims, and not some philosophy based upon the alturistic nature of humanity.
boo fucking hoo! that's just TOUGH FUCKING LUCK CUNT.
For the original poster, it sounded like his company could have handled the Artistic license (or the Perl version of it) much better than the GPL.
I have worked for three companies since I have left college. Two of them were small and one large. All of them have given source to non-GPL code projects. They even have allowed me to provide code outside of work as long as it did not conflict with the non-compete clause.
Alfonso,
I'm sorry you used a license you didn't understand, and I find the flames you endured unfortunate.
But, had you used a different license you didn't understand, analogous results (i.e. unintended consiquences you object to and have given up the right to prevent would have occurred).
I'm going to bold this because it is important.
Releasing your hard work under any license you don't understand is "dangerous" in the sense that you will probably experience consiquences you didn't intend and may not like. THIS IS TRUE OF ANY LICENSE. You MUST understand the license you release your work under if you wish to avoid disappointments like this.
I am not familiar with the Amiga OS architecture, or how linking from libraries works on that platform. I would suggest you ask the folks at the FSF for clarification on how the GPL applies in your case. Depending on how "tightly" the code in your GPLed libraries link to a 3rd party app, the GPL may or may not apply to that third party app. This is one area of the GPL I am personally a little fuzzy on, so I would encourage you to get a clear answer from an authoritative source, such as the Free Software Foundation (fsf.org).
Generally, the GPL requires derivative products to also be GPLed. The question is, is the commercial version of this app using your code within its binary or is it only "loosely" linked to an external library (if your code is in the compiled binary, then they MUST provide access to source upon request, and the CANNOT restrict your rights to modify said source, use it in your projects, or share it with others so long as it remains under the GPL). This means, if the commercial version has your code in the binary, you can request the sources, modify them to not require a key, and distribute the modified version under the GPL for all to see and use. But, if it is only loosely linked to a library you wrote, we are back in the fuzzy area where this may not apply, and you'll need a more expert opinion than mine on the subject.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy