Will Stallman Kill the "Linux Revolution?"

frdmfghtr writes "The October 30 issue of Forbes Magazine has an article speculating that Richard Stallman's efforts to rewrite the GPL could threaten to 'tear it apart.' The article describes how the GPLv3 is expected to be incompatible with the GPLv2, causing trouble for Linux vendors such as Novell and Red Hat. The article wraps it up: 'And a big loser, eventually, could be Stallman himself. If he relents now, he likely would be branded a sellout by his hard-core followers, who might abandon him. If he stands his ground, customers and tech firms may suffer for a few years but ultimately could find a way to work around him. Either way, Stallman risks becoming irrelevant, a strange footnote in the history of computing: a radical hacker who went on a kamikaze mission against his own program and went down in flames, albeit after causing great turmoil for the people around him.'"

Comments

What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Eric Smith]

Linux is going to stick with GPLv2 regardless of what the FSF does with GPLv3. That has little to do with Linus disliking GPLv3, and much do to with not being able to track down all the contributors and get them to agree to a license change. GPLv3 is not going to cause any trouble for Linux vendors. It's certainly not going to "kill the Linux Revolution". There is nothing in GPLv2 or GPLv3 that prevents a Linux distribution from containing various programs under various licenses, just as Linux distributions today contain code under GPLv2, BSD, MIT, and other licenses. And GPLv3 doesn't make Stallman himself any more or less relevant that he's been in the past. The only point of bone-headed sensationalist reporting like this is to try to sell more copies of the magazine. Next month they'll tell us the GPLv3 will contribute to global warming, and the following month that it will promote slavery.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[maxwell demon]

Next month they'll tell us the GPLv3 will contribute to global warming

You mean, because you cannot pirate a GPL3ed work, and we need pirates to prevent global warming?

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[A beautiful mind]

Exactly. Personally I think that Stallman is a visionary and Linus is too pragmatist in a sense, as Stallman clearly wants to avoid the DRM/"Trusted computing" trap with GPLv3 and Linus can't see medium/longterm about this. Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.

I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Ether]

Yes, it is largely fud w/r/t to the kernel; but there is the issue of the rest of the toolchain (gcc, binutils, etc.) that the GNU foundation owns the copyright on, in addition to the large body of code licensed "GPL v2 or Later." Sure, the commercial vendors could fork or use the BSD tools, but then you have two different branches: the commercial branch, and the branch with code that the community chooses to license under GPL3. If the final GPL3 contains terms that would make impossible to provide to enterprise users, then some vendors could not provide that.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Eric Smith]

but there is the issue of the rest of the toolchain (gcc, binutils, etc.)

So what if the next release of GCC or Binutils is under the GPLv3? That won't prevent Red Hat (or anyone else) from including it in a Linux distribution, or from using it to compile the binaries for that distribution.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[tm2b]

Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.

Unfortunately, Stallman only gets a say in the legalese as it's generated - he doesn't get a say in how the legal language of the GPLv3 is interpreted after it's finished. If attorneys say that this is a concern, then Linus has to worry about it - no matter what Stallman says.

Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Eric Smith]

No but it stops you contributing under GPL2. If you have a GPL2 application and someome commits a *single* item of GPL3 code to one of your dependent libraries your choice is to change to GPL3 or stop using that library.

I don't follow. If I'm maintaining or distributing a library that is covered by GPLv2, no one is forcing me to accept a contribution that is under the GPLv3.

I've never included the "or any later version" clause in my GPL notices, but I will probably switch to GPLv3 once it is finalized.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Aladrin]

It's not libraries that you distribute he's talking about, it's libraries that you USE in your code, but someone else maintains.

Example: You make application A. To work, it needs libraries Z, Y, and X. All of these are GPL v2, but library Y is 'or any later version.' Person P makes a contribution to library Y under GPLv3. Y is now GPLv3. If you wish to use the latest version of library Y, you must now license your application A under the GPLv3.

If the libraries were under the LGPL, you wouldn't have to use GPLv3 as your license, but your application still has to follow ALL of the LGPLv3 stipulations for use, because of that library, if you want to use the latest version.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[tomstdenis]

RMS isn't specifically against DRM in so much as he's against the tivovization. That is, using GPL software, but not allowing it to run modified on the hardware.

Sure he's against DRM, but he's more against stoping hackers :-)

Tom

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[TheRaven64]

Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?

I wouldn't be at all surprised. Considering how he's managed the Linux trademark, and the general lack of understanding of the GPL he's publicly displayed, I'd almost be surprised if he even knows any IP lawyers. In contrast, RMS has had Even Moglen on board from day one.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[ShieldW0lf]

This is Forbes magazine.

The consequence of Richards vision is plenty for everyone and no capacity for hoarding, depriving, controlling and trading.

You think global warming holds a candle to something like this? He's a dangerous athiest among the flock.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Blakey Rat]

I think the real point is if GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible with each other, and a whole bunch of open source projects move to GPL3, that's going to cause huge issues for distro makers. So you'll end up with a world where almost every open source project has two different forks, one for GPL2 and one for GPL3, each of which is maintained separately from the other.

I'm not saying that will happen. But to dismiss this article as if there was no relevance isn't helping anything. There is a real potential issue here.

As for Stallman becoming irrelevant, my personal opinion would be "thank God!" The sooner that wacko retires to Argentina or somewhere, the sooner people can start treating the open source community with a little bit of respect and dignity. And maybe they can get a spokesman who doesn't have a hissy-fit every time someone asks him to wear a namebadge at a conference.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[aschoeff]

How can you possibly equate anti-MicroSoft people with anti-GPL people? First of all, anti-GPL people aren't people, they're corporations. Anti-MicroSoft, pro-GPL people are actually real people, who are advocates of freedom for all, not profit for the few and slavery for the rest.

I'm sorry, but you may NOT try and just equate the two and expect to not be corrected. You imply the same moral and ethical depravity inherent to the actions of a company like MicroSoft, to RMS and the movement he helps represent. They have fundamentally different motivations and goals. One is based on pursuing self-interest by any means necessary, the other for cooperatively universal benefit at the expense of none. And by none I mean people, not pseudo-corporal business entities.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Kjella]

Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.

Well, it's hard to say how it will function. If software producer A sign their binaries, and hardware company B produces hardware that only reads binaries signed by A, the GPLv3 is somehow supposed to magically supply me with A's private key so that I might run modified versions of the application. But A isn't doing anything to demand release of the keys, and B isn't bound by the GPLv3 because they don't ship software. If a company can find a way to ship the software and hardware separately (or under the "mere aggregation" clause, or claiming that the software and hardware is not a derivative work according to copyright law), then the GPLv3 is screwed.

Going after the hardware side (B)?
1. They don't ship software
2. They don't even have the key

Going after the software side (A)?
1. They will have to release key/stop signing/stop distributing because of what someone else is doing.

The first case is absurd. The second case, well what do you do if someone starts bullding hardware that only runs software signed by apt-get? Suddenly you have the power to shut down any signing system, clearly it can't work that way either. The only thing they can try for it some very narrow "if you ship both of these together, you have to include the key". Something tells me that one is full of holes a good lawyer could use, probably to the point where you're getting one product but legally they're two, and no keys.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Ether]

Consider the purely hypothetical clause: 'This software cannot be used in the production or use of closed-source software.' (Ignore for the sake of argument that GNU hasn't suggested this clause for V3.) No commercial vendor would distribute code under the GPLvN or contribute under that license. Now that we have established that there is a clause that could cause this problem, it is possible to consider a situation where RMS, given his stated opinions on software freedom, would include a poison-pill clause that would sabotage the overall success of Linux for ideological purposes? (I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing; just that it is a possibility.) Even seemingly innoculous license restrictions can cause problems- look at the difficulties that BSD's advertising clause caused.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[QuantumG]

Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?

See, now that's funny. Linus is the guy who claims that a device driver isn't a derived work of the Linux kernel if it was originally developed for a different operating system and then ported to Linux. This, of course, is not based on any legal principle.. it's just his opinion, but it doesn't stop people from quoting Linus like they're referencing case law.

What's more funny is that when Linus added the "userland exception" to the Linux kernel he was absolutely clear about what he wanted.. he wanted people to be able to write proprietary apps that can run on the Linux kernel. He didn't want people to be able to write proprietary extensions to the Linux kernel. Now he's changed his mind because his "pragmatism" is telling him that graphics card manufacturers will never open source their drivers and he really wants all those pretty 3d games.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Kjella]

That has little to do with Linus disliking GPLv3, and much do to with not being able to track down all the contributors and get them to agree to a license change

Well, if they all saw it as a major advantage, they'd probably check how many were willing to relicense, and how much would have to be rewritten (where they can't be reached or otherwise). They did do a poll in the kernel core though, and all but one (which was netural) of them was negative to the GPLv3, some of them strongly.

There is nothing in GPLv2 or GPLv3 that prevents a Linux distribution from containing various programs under various licenses

No, but the libraries might. Take for example Trolltech, which holds the copyright to all of Qt. If they say "GPLv3 is a disaster - we're going GPLv2 only" then suddenly you could have quite a few problems. Or if projects don't agree on whether to use the "and later" clause, maybe someone starts a GPLv3 fork and others get pissed and create a GPLv2 only fork - which are now incompatible code bases. Suddenly you're rather screwed if you have an application, but want to use one GPLv2 only library and one GPLv3 library. What's nice about the GPL is that there is in practise only one GPL (I don't see the first version anywhere) and it's all compatible.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Thomas the Doubter]

Mr. Bungi, I do not know why you defend this obvious hatchet-job published by Forbes. But the author of the article truely does not know (or care to know) what he is talking about. "Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader" This is not what RMS is about - he really does not give two hoots about corporations as such, much less "crusade" against them. Here is where the author engages in misleading non-truth ("specious lies?) "who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge" Assuming the author knows anything at all about RMS and the Free Software Foundation, he knows that this is not true. Similarly: "He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry" First, Stallman (unfortunately?) does not have acolytes - If there are such unthinking followers, I have not met them. Second, and mentioned above "war on the commercial software industry" is a complete fabrication. RMS, as far as I can tell, has little interest in damaging the commercial software industry. Yes, he is an ideologue, but put the emphasis on ideals. "dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away." Again, utter nonsense. Yes, I wonder why the Forbes piece was written - I am asking - and I wonder why you defend this object of malice.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[AuMatar]

Umm, you're wrong on both counts.

1)Having to spit out your source code

No, thats not in there. What it does say is that if the app already does that, you are not allowed to remove that (and distribute the new version). You don't have to make it do so in the first place though.

2)Can't use encryption

Sure you can. However, if you cryptographically sign your code and make hardware that only works with the signed version, you must provide your keys so that people can alter your code and use the derived version.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[timeOday]

Precisely. Forbes should stick to pork belly futures. It would be humourous to revisit Forbes' predictions about GPL v1 and v2, had they even been aware of such things at the time.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[supremebob]

Well Duh... It's Forbes! Forbes seems to hate everything about the Free Software movement, mostly since they haven't figured out how to profit from it yet. I guess that you can't blame them... When was the last time you saw Debian or MySQL buy full page ads in business magazines like Microsoft and Oracle do every month?

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[SirSlud]

Article:

Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge.

RMS quote:

"I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them "creators", they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them "content") in order to gain income (the term "compensation" falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages)."

The guy is wakko, but you know why he's so successful? Because people make a god or demon out of him; hes neither. The guy has obviously spent some time learning the history of copyright/patent/trademark laws, and thats more than most can say.

He understands that copyright law was enacted to benifit the public, not the author. He understands that patent laws were enacted to encourage publication, and that trademark laws try and enforce a certain level of market transparency for .. gee, the public.

His ideas may come across as complicated and pedantic to people; which is the way it should be. We're talking about the systems that were put in place to encourage the advancement of science, technology, and culture here.

FTFA:

Cisco caved in to Stallman's demands rather than endure months of abuse from his noisy worldwide cult of online jihadists.

As soon as you agree with an article that demogogues by using the word "jihad", you might begin to question the source. RMS, that crazy nut, is basically pointing out that the last 500 years of laws based on intellectual property arn't based upon secrecy; they're based on encouraging publication while granting the author (and more importantly, denying the state) a relatively modest amount of control over the invention or creative work. In other words, he realizes that we've all been through this before, and its the public domain that needs protecting, not the author, because in lieu of laws that protect the public right to its own culture and technological innovation, we end up with something that very closely mirrors a feudalist system with a barrier to market that would make Adam Smith rise from the dead to slap us silly. The guy might be a little too over the edge, but anyone with a basic grasp on the history of copyright, patent, and trademark laws should immediately understand where hes coming from. This article does little else than cry wolf for some tech companies. I work for tech companies, as a programmer. They won't live or die based on licenses of available technologies. This is just a bunch of whining.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[grylnsmn]

Well, it's hard to say how it will function. If software producer A sign their binaries, and hardware company B produces hardware that only reads binaries signed by A, the GPLv3 is somehow supposed to magically supply me with A's private key so that I might run modified versions of the application. But A isn't doing anything to demand release of the keys, and B isn't bound by the GPLv3 because they don't ship software. If a company can find a way to ship the software and hardware separately (or under the "mere aggregation" clause, or claiming that the software and hardware is not a derivative work according to copyright law), then the GPLv3 is screwed.
 

Well, the GPL is a distribution license, so it would only affect B if they are distributing the software.

If they don't have the key from A to distribute, they still have the option of getting the source (we are talking about GPL'd software, after all) and signing it themselves with their own key, then distributing that key with it.

In short, your example is pretty bad overall.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[QuantumG]

It really isn't hard. Imagine Evil Inc develops a device that has an embedded signature checking chip that I can't get around. I bought the damn device, I just want to hack it so it doesn't have annoying-feature-X. I asked Evil Inc to fix annoying-feature-X but they just mwa-ha-ha-ed at me. What can I do? Well, it turns out that Evil Inc is running some GPL v3 software on this device. I know this because when I bought it I had to install the software myself. I thought this was kinda strange, after all, this is a consumer product, but I guess they needed to do that to get around the GPL v3 restrictions. If only I could make my own CD, I could insert whatever software I wanted.. hmm, but I'll need their private key so I can sign my binaries and make the device accept it. Right. No point asking Evil Inc nicely, they'll just mwa-ha-ha at me again. Who's the copyright owner for this GPL v3 work? That guy. Ok, I'll just get that guy to sue Evil Inc so they have to give up the key. He says he'll go along, just so long as I'm paying the legal costs (I really hate Evil Inc now, I'm in this to the death, pony up lawyer boy). Ok, so now that guy is telling me that Evil Inc had a cunning plan when they distributed those CDs.. turned out *they* didn't distribute it, Evil-Sub-Company distributed it and that's the only people I can sue. Right-o. Let's sue those bastards. The judge tells me that he can't order Evil-Sub-Company to hand over Evil Inc's private key, because it's not Evil-Sub-Company's private key to hand over. Fair enough. I've asked the judge to pass an injunction against Evil-Sub-Company and prevent them from distributing that guy's software at all. He says he'll do that. I've also asked the judge to award my legal costs and a nice big fat damages cheque. He's agreed to that too. Next time Evil Inc thinks they can subcontract their GPL-violations to a sub company I'll just sue them bastards too. Now we're off to buy a yaught and stock it with hookers. That guy is stoked.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[kz45]

"How can you possibly equate anti-MicroSoft people with anti-GPL people? First of all, anti-GPL people aren't people, they're corporations. Anti-MicroSoft, pro-GPL people are actually real people, who are advocates of freedom for all, not profit for the few and slavery for the rest."

Some the new additions to the GNU license are a little zealous to say the least. The GNU license has always been touted as a "distribution" license. One of the new restrictions is on code is with services. Someone who has a service that uses GPLd code and does not re-distribute their code are still required to give out their source.

Even though many people in favor of the GNU may not like it or admit it, if the GPL starts getting too restrictive such as what I mentioned above, people will just stop using it. Companies will stop supporting it and developers that actually want to make a living with their software will just find code that is licensed under a different license because it will be a liability.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[The_Wilschon]

Well, in your hypothetical situation, I think that the GPL3 has already accomplished its goal. A and B cannot be in each other's beds. B cannot ship their hardware with the GPL3'd software from a particular repository (apt-get is a program, not a repository or a signing system...) on it, or else they are clearly in violation of GPL3. And how large is the market for hardware shipping with no software on it? Or even hardware shipping with software other than the software it was designed for? The aim is to prevent (eg) TiVo from shipping PVRs with Linux on them, but only allowing that one version of Linux to ever run on them. Of course, since Linux is likely staying GPL2, this particular won't be prevented, but you get the point. TiVo is not going to ship PVRs with blank HDDs, and say "Oh, by the way, you can install this particular linux binary which is maintained by this completely unrelated company over here if you want to do anything with what you just bought".

So, in the situation you describe, the hardware sold by B would be essentially useless (you can't run the GNU utilities because they're GPL3, and you can't run any other utilities because they're not signed). But, if you went ahead and installed the signed GNU utility binaries, knowing that this was not permitted, then you the end user would of course be in violation of the GPL3, not A or B.

OTOH, I think it unlikely that Stallman or anyone else will spend a great deal of effort to stop that particular sort of violation. 1) It is unlikely to occur much, because B shipping hardware without software is not going to sell much. 2) It would go against his ideas of freedom, as I understand them. You've bought this hardware, you can do what you like with it. But I could be wrong in this paragraph; it is mere speculation.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[smallpaul]

I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".

People are being extradited to secret camps. Others are being shot for reporting on corrupt regimes. Some live in house arrest for years on end. Others are tortured for crimes that they have nothing to do with. It is VERY GENEROUS to call someone who fights against the right of software developers to control the distribution of their works a "freedom fighter." Considering the state of the world today, I find it amazing that people really see their ability to tweak their software as a humans rights violation. It is a minor licensing issue. MINOR. LICENSING. ISSUE.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[boron boy]

Not for those of us who aren't in on the joke yet. I had never heard of FSM before i clicked on that link.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[mabhatter654]

wrong, history has proven that while Stallman's path is "the road not traveled", his views on corperate control of culture via copyright and patents have almost all come true verbatim. And key members of the industries view our current "freedom" as "consumers" as too much. RMS is about making sure SOMETHING remains truely, legally FREE. In the current corperate culture, that's extremely hard.. 75% of the "free" software on your computer you got legally for free (without money) is not FREE... you can't look at it to see how it works, you can't use it how you wish.. you may not even own the works you create with the program. But somebody let you have such a great thing for "free". That's the issue! Imagine when everything uses software, and everything needs you to give up special permission to the "owners" in order to get your work done... hell in a good part of the country, employeers can make you sign away rights so you can't even GIVE away works you create.

Trust me, without "crazies" like RMS there would be no ruler to meaure how bad the situation truely is. RMS BEGS people to follow him, but he's not the one out there passing crazy laws like the DMCA, or making 100 billion from "borrowed" code, or suing people for a few songs... those are the capitalists that know what's best for us.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[The Bungi]

I do not know why you defend this obvious hatchet-job published by Forbes

I'm not defending anything. I pointed out that among all the obviously inflammatory bullshit there are issues about the GPLv3 that are valid - issues that people like Torvalds and choice kernel hackers have raised repeatedly - and that have been consistently dismissed with the usual "nothing to see here, move along" line.

Assuming the author knows anything at all about RMS and the Free Software Foundation

It's of course disingenious to say that Stallman doesn't want anyone to charge for software; at the same time the confusion about "free-as-in-whatever" (confusion for normal people, not the normal Slashbots) is all the FSF's doing. They are sleeping in the bed they made. And of course Stallman himself has not exactly told the world how it is that you're supposed to make money while giving away software if you're not RedHat or Novell. And no, I don't include PayPal donations there.

RMS, as far as I can tell, has little interest in damaging the commercial software industry

Huh? He has repeatedly attacked them for not following his mantra. Where have you been the last 20 years? To Stallman anyone who writes "non-free software" is immoral, and by definition an enemy of his ideals. Please, I'd love for you to prove me wrong. Where do people like you who like to sing his praises get off telling everyone else that they "dont get it"? It's very convenient to ignore anything that complicates your rationalization of these issues, isn't it?

"dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away." Again, utter nonsense

Utter nonesense? That's *exactly* what Stallman does! I'm not going to argue the relative moral value of what he does, but how can you deny that that is exactly Stallman's modus operandi?

If there are such unthinking followers, I have not met them

Really? You must be new here.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[The Bungi]

Please don't insult my intelligence with the "but we're all good and they're all evil" party line, OK? Richard Stallman has an agenda and he pursues it by pushing a license that restricts what developers can do with the source code while claiming "maximum freedom" and the like. Of course no one forces me to use GPL'ed code, but then no one forces me to buy Microsoft Word either, so a EULA is no different than the GPL since none of them involve coercion.

But this begs a rebuttal:

the other for cooperatively universal benefit at the expense of none

Let's do this. Let's imagine for a second that a popular piece of software in the Windows world was released as free software under the GPL. Let's pick PaintShop Pro or DOOM or WinZip or TextPad or any other one. Now, explain to us how exactly the authors of those products would have made any money if they were licensed under the GPL. Specifically after some kid in Romania with loads of time in his hand decided to put up his own version for download and give it away for free. Please, enlighten me.

While you're doing that, remember that there is no difference whatsoever between Stallman calling nVidia "nVidious" because they dare keep their source code to themselves and someone from Microsoft calling the GPL "viral". Stallman doesn't like what nVidia does, but he can't do squat about it, and Microsoft doesn't like the GPL, and they can't do squat about it. So they must resort to FUD. FUD works both ways.

Oh, and I live how you spell "MicroSoft". Hilarious.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[aschoeff]

Yeah, I was using MicroSoft products back when it still WAS MicroSoft with the capital "S." I guess it's kind of a tribute to the old era, and also kind of a backhand jab at the airs this old switch-flipping dinosaur company has assumed.

"Now, explain to us how exactly the authors of those products would have made any money if they were licensed under the GPL."

This question has been answered ad infinitum, and no answer I can give will satisfy you. Here are a few sure to piss you off that come to mind, but I don't say them with that intention: Work in a different industry? Do embedded or industrial development? Reduce your expectations of how much you should profit? You see, FOSS isn't concerned with replacing the revenue someone might have generated through CS, it's concerned with freedom and mutual benefit for all. That's the dichotomy. CS may be a business model, but it has ethical and moral underpinnings (or lack thereof) that are counter to liberty and freedom.

*steps down from wobbly soapbox*

"... there is no difference whatsoever between Stallman calling nVidia "nVidious" ... and someone from Microsoft calling the GPL "viral"."

I disagree, and already addressed this in the original post. Stallman isn't a corporation acting in self-interest at any cost, he's a guy motivated to be an advocate for freedom. Sure he's a little egotistical, but who the hell isn't in today's me-me-me-rock-star society? His originating thought is selfless.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[killjoe]

Linus does not care about free software. He never had, he never will. He doesn't understand or he does not accept the idea of free code. He has this idea that he is "pragmatic" (whatever that means) but that basically means code works.

I would have thought that the whole bitkeeper thing would have thought him the importance of free software and open source but apparently the lesson has not sunk in.

Personally I predict he will give up on linux and the GPL and either retire or code for BSD (or a company). I don't see him continuing along with a GPLed project when he does not like the GPL, does not like the FSF, does not like the idea of free software and does not like Stallman.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Lars Arvestad]

But this a display of closed-source mentality: "If the provider changes the license, we have to follow suit." In the open-source world, the source is out and available and skilled people would pick up the last GPLv2 release and continue using that. This seems to be an aspect that journalists are often missing, that free software is really free so you cannot control its re-distribution, only demand it.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[shades66]

>This is Forbes magazine.

No it's worse than that.. It's Forbes magazine with an article written by Dan "SCO is going to win, Linux users are terrorists etc.." Lyons.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Pecisk]

[cynical]Yeah, sure, Linus is evil[/cynical]

Wait, but it can't be that way that Linus simply doesn't want only freedom from blobs, commercial software, etc., but also a ACTUAL working hardware and software?

Linus is REALIST, RMS - IDEALIST. It is strange that usually it happens so that idealists are those who will ruin everything what is achieved practically (in this case, that good feeling that you belong to this community, etc.) just for a sake of ideals. Yes, ideals are important, but at what cost? What Tivo done so wrong? It is market, for fucking sake, go after some other such box who has a) Linux underneath and it b) allows hacking. Dreambox, for example.

And if such DRM is required to have unique checking? Like electronic voting? So, that way voting machines could not have GPLv3 licenced software? For what fucking sake? Just because you want to protest you can't play DRMed Windows Media files?

This all waving, calling Linus idiot, and rising RMS to skies is for NOTHING. DRM is NOTHING, it is just copyright protection. Yeah, you don't own music, movie, art work.
Not before DMCA, not after. Not before Mickey copyright extention, not after. Either you own copyrights, or some given rights by copyright holder. Nothing else.

Don't get me wrong, I personally think that DRM is utterly stupid from marketing point of view, but companies usually listen to numbers, not common sense. So far common sense has proven it was right. And there is already voices appear from common crowd that they are against DRM. THAT way we should fight it - informing it, showing differences, why that is just stupid, not pushing such things in licences. Don't ruin something that does work.

Sorry for all flaming (you can mod me down if you like, I don't mind this time), but I have fed up with all this. I just tired of ill informed bashing and without-any-doubt attitude. Yes, ideals must be protected, but in CLEVER, TACTICFUL way. This is just making us all seperated, because we all understand freedom quite differently. Stallman should take his work - which is DEFINETLY IMPORTANT - to POLITICS. Keep politics out from computers and leave such decisions as DRM and Patents to users, very big thank you.

p.s. by the way, I have some disagreement with Linus in other cases, like GNOME vs. KDE, and RSM very frequently have been right on other topics (he is perfectly right about patent stuff and have very big insight in all this), so it is sure not black and white issue.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[DrSkwid]

Postgresql is BSD licensed.

Most of the Licenses that xorg is released under are based on the MIT, X Consortium, or BSD (original and revised) licenses.

bash & grep are rips offs of BSD software

Mysql is multi licensed, including a FLOSS exception for BSD (and other) compatibility

That just leaves you mplayer.

nice try though :)

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Lorkki]

Let's do this. Let's imagine for a second that a popular piece of software in the Windows world was released as free software under the GPL. Let's pick PaintShop Pro or DOOM or WinZip or TextPad or any other one. Now, explain to us how exactly the authors of those products would have made any money if they were licensed under the GPL.

In other words, let's take a few examples of closed-source software, force them into a completely different development paradigm, and then see how they'd do without adjusting their business models accordingly? I'm not exactly the economical mastermind of the century, but otherwise it sounds just like the sort of question that's rigged to have only one answer.

For that matter, I'm continuously baffled by the fact that Windows users still would pay in the tens of dollars for such basic packages as an archival utility or a text editor. Games are luckily a much simpler issue, seeing as you don't have to license the content under the GPL.

Specifically after some kid in Romania with loads of time in his hand decided to put up his own version for download and give it away for free.

You probably wouldn't get the same level of service from the Romanian kid. If it did turn out that the kid was actually more interested and capable in developing the application than the original author, would money paid to the latter be going in the right place?

Oh, and I live how you spell "MicroSoft". Hilarious.

Microsoft used to spell itself that way, as well as a hyphenated Micro-Soft which I'm sure is sending you rolling on the floor just now.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[CDPatten]

Linux users are hobbyists. And that is why it can't be beaten. It can't be beaten by this guy, MS, or anyone else.

Linux grew to its current level of popularity by "techies" who worked with it off hours, on the their time, and without pay. The change in license model doesn't change what it is, and it's really just a large community of techs who wanted something different. Right or wrong, it is what it is. If you were to "kill" linux, then Kinux would popup a month later. Kill that and Jinux would arrive.

It really doesn't matter the name, like it or not, it's a hobbyist OS and its pretty hard to kill someone's hobby...

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[tinkerghost]

Linus does not care about free software. He never had, he never will. He doesn't understand or he does not accept the idea of free code. He has this idea that he is "pragmatic" (whatever that means) but that basically means code works.

I think if you actually read what he writes, you'll find that the only thing he cares about is that the sourcecode be 'free' as in speech. That's why TIVO doesn't bother him. It's a hardware issue. The sourcecode is 'free'.

There was a discussion on Groklaw a few weeks back & for him, the whole issue is tit-for-tat - we give companies code, they give us back the changes, what they do with that code is their issue. As long as the code changes come back, the community has been improved & the process continues. It doesn't matter if the company ships that code in a ROM based brick, an open flash system, or a Locked down flash box - if the code is available, you can make one yourself & impliment any changes you want.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[jeril]

I knew something was wrong with this, besides it being Forbes.

From the article:

Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge. He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry, dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away.

From The GNU Free Software Definition http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer".

...

"Free software" does not mean "non-commercial". A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.

This is pretty much part of the foundation which has built the GPL, and continues to be part of the philosophy created by Stallman.

GNU/Linux will persist, this process is an important part of finding a definition we eventually will find a good fit. Mixing licences has always been a balancing act that Distributions and users have had to deal with since the beginning.

Articles like this are to keep the technology specualators happy that the flow of cash will continue. They get laugh and point at the silly commies bumbling around -- sit-coms for suits.

jer

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

[Austerity Empowers]

Exactly. RMS is the anti-thesis to everything that readers of Forbe's hold dear. They are going to treat him unfairly and ostracize him as the anti-christ.

RMS is the kind of guy that refuses to "be cool" and go with the flow. While I wouldn't have him over for dinner, we all need him. Greed should not be running hte world, and that's precisely what Forbe's is all about: "Justifiable Greed" (sometimes called Fiduciary Responsibility).

No more so than the MPL

[Rix]

It would be nice to have everything under compatible licenses, but it would also be nice to have all DRM proponents sent to PMITA prison.

Re:No, linux will kill itself

[Eric Smith]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

PS eric your calculator emulators are breaching copyright law. I hope HP sues you into the ground.

You are presumably referring to Nonpareil. Please explain to me what copyrights I am infringing. I've researched this fairly carefully and do not believe that I'm infringing any copyrights, at least in the U.S. But if I'm mistaken, I'd like to know the details. Feel free to email me; my email address is not hard to find.

There's always BSD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us have already moved away from Linux to BSD. Besides the many technical advantages of FreeBSD, the portability benefits of NetBSD, the extreme security of OpenBSD, and the massive scalability of DragonFly BSD, we don't have to deal with unreasonable licensing nonsense.

If somebody wants to take BSD code, modify it and not release those changes, then so be it. It doesn't hurt the rest of us, as we still have FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly BSD to use. Beyond that, such use may make somebody else better off. Thus, there's a net benefit overall. We lose nothing, yet others gain.

And I'd be very happy if Microsoft were to use more BSD code in their products. Doing so would result in a vast increase in the quality of their codebase. That, in turn, will result in fewer infected Windows systems that send terabytes of spam to my mail servers. The less spam my servers have to filter, the more money I save in bandwidth and processing costs. I may even be able to reduce the number of mail servers I have.

Re:There's always BSD.

[AdamKG]

But see, that's my definition of Free as well, which is why I will use the GPL if/when I write any non-trivial software.

And yes, in a way I'm imposing it on others. I don't want anyone to use my code to sue someone for copyright infringement, ever, when all they did was tinkering. The BSD license allows this kind of litigation nonsense by allowing restrictive copyrighting of derivative works. The GPL does not, and therefore conforms to my definition of Freedom.

Re:There's always BSD.

[cortana]

It is ironic that you are forcing your personal definition of "free" upon me.

Re:There's always BSD.

[Kjella]

I think the greatest difference lies in the position of "free"

BSD code is free code to be used in software.
GPL code is code to be used in free software.

I don't have a problem seeing that free has two different meanings, and that I don't need to subscribe to one particular definition. Of course, we can still have a holy war about which is "better". In fact, I liked those two lines so much I'll make it my sig.

Re:There's always BSD.

[Anonymous Coward]

A conference of European IT professionals was held recently in Bern. One of the presenters was discussing how the financial firm he worked for switched from a multitude of Sun systems running Solaris to a much smaller number of Opteron servers running FreeBSD.

He did a quick survey of the approximately 500 people who were viewing his presentation. His first question asked how many had already integrated FreeBSD into their network infrastructure. Approximately 20% of the people there raised their hands. His next question asked how many were in the process of integrating FreeBSD systems, with him getting a response of about 50% to 60% of all the attendees. His final question asked how many of those people had moved/were moving from Linux to FreeBSD, with about half answering that they were.

Somebody like yourself, who just isn't involved with the industry in any way, wouldn't understand how prevalent FreeBSD is becoming. People are getting fed up with the low quality of the Linux 2.6 branch. People are getting tired of the licensing uncertainty. IT departments around Europe want stability now and in the future, thus they are going with FreeBSD, because it can offer that.

Re:There's always BSD.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The BSD lets you do what you want, while the GPL license defines Stallman's personal definition of "free" and then imposes it on you, which isn't freedom at all.

You again. You are to GPL articles like Krell is to Islam articles - always making ridiculous, unsupportable claims in cute little sound-bites of vapidity. Just like Krell, no matter how often you are corrected, you can be counted on to spout the same tired old baloney in the next story on the GPL. Sure makes it easy to rebutt you, I can even use the same response I used last time.

The GPL does not impose anything, it is the author of the software who choose what rules to impose on the people he gives his software too. The GPL is just one pre-defined set of rules that an author may choose to use. RMS ain't making the author chose a single one of the rules in the GPL, the author is completely free to choose whatever rules he likes.

Don't like the author's choice? You are FREE to use some other code instead.

Re:There's always BSD.

[bzipitidoo]

Not so simple. Your version of freedom seems to be anarchy. BSD lets bullies bully, and does nothing to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons. That phrase "define freedom for yourself" sounds like a great justification for the strong to indulge in tyranny. GPL tries to give everyone more freedom by restricting the freedom of the slick and sharp to take freedoms away from the less sophisticated. It's hard to cover all the means by which that can be done, especially when the law might change at any time, which is why the GPL needs updates. There was no DMCA when GPLv2 was written. Turning to the ever popular analogy with the automobile, surely you agree that people should not have the freedom to drive anything whatever on the road no matter how dangerous or destructive to others or the roads? It's no fun dodging debris falling off a poorly maintained, slow, overloaded truck in front.

Re:There's always BSD.

[ThePhilips]

Your version of freedom seems to be anarchy.

Absolute freedom - everybody does what he wishes - is anarchy. Nothing surprising.

GPL tries to give everyone more freedom by restricting the freedom of the slick and sharp to take freedoms away from the less sophisticated.

Have you read what you have wrote? Are you from US? Are you listening speeches of George W. Bush often? Because he uses the same pattern: to stop wars, we need to wage a war.

Restricting people for sake of freedom? How more dumber it could be.

What you are trying in fact to say, is that GPL tries to establish system of compromises which leads to sustainable software ecosystem. Rules and discipline are must for any system to be sustainable in long term. But also, both rules and discipline has to be flexible so that system can survive cataclysms.

As sign that Stallman/FSF are not capable of building such system, you can take the fact, that they have never managed to produce usable OS kernel. In other words, they have not compromised enough. End of story.

It's no fun dodging debris falling off a poorly maintained, slow, overloaded truck in front.

So you think GPLv3 does it right? Prohibit trucks? And prohibit debris? That's just dumb. You cannot prohibit everything.

what a difference a decade makes

[acvh]

GPL 1 and 2 were developed far from the public eye. V3 is being debated and written under intense scrutiny. It would be hard to avoid the controversy being generated now.

The Linux kernel may not switch, but that will not doom V3, nor will it doom the FSF or Stallman. There is much that has happened since V2, and the attempts to address things like DRM and patents have and will continue to shed light on the ugly underbelly of modern software licensing. This, I think, is good.

"Free software" means something different now. It's not just being able to tweak a text editing program, or encourage community development and review. It's about who will control the millions of PCs in the world. The more that Microsoft and the RIAA/MPAA continue to try to lock down the PC, turning it into nothing more than a delivery system for DRMed content, the more relevant the FSF becomes.

Re:what a difference a decade makes

[jmv]

The Linux kernel may not switch, but that will not doom V3, nor will it doom the FSF or Stallman.

That's not the issue. The problem is that it's becoming likely that GPLv3 will split FOSS software in two, with half the people going with GPLv2-only and the other half going with GPLv3-or-later. This means no possible exchange of code between the two pools and possibly lots of forks, especially for libraries. I hope the worst case scenario doesn't happen, but GPLv3 has potential for doing much more damage than any gain it can provide (even it you think it's good in itself). As far as I'm concerned all the (L)GPL software I write will be GPLv2-or-later, making GPLv3 useless, but mitigating the incompatibility problem.

Re:what a difference a decade makes

[jmv]

No, worst case is there's a nuclear war and we all die. Shouldn't the GPLv3 address that and say that you are not allowed to use GPLv3 software for launching missiles. That way, we'll be sure never to have a nuclear war, right? Do you really think changing the GPL will prevent DRM and "trusted computing"? I'm actually thinking the GPLv3 is worded in a way that would make it very easy to *exclude* free software from hardware. Say Linux was released under GPLv3, if I made a hack to port Linux to the XBox XYZ, I wouldn't be allowed to distribute it because I don't have the key (and possibly rely on a DRM hole or a mod chip). What this also means is that I can also start manufacturing computers that require a key to run software. I can then give the key to anyone freely under GPLv3-imcompatible terms. Everyone can now write software for my machine, but I'll make sure no GPLv3 code can be run on it legally. Nice!

Gee, I wonder why RMS wouldn't answer this hack

[dondelelcaro]

A cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler, Stallman won't comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer.

Right, because all this writer does is spout vitriol and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt all in an apparent attempt to garner page views. It's no wonder RMS doesn't have time to respond to such a writer. [In fact, I've discovered that I don't have time to finish reading this article either.] One wonders why McVoy even bothered to respond.

Re:Gee, I wonder why RMS wouldn't answer this hack

[dondelelcaro]

dismiss all the points the article raises without addressing any of them

Do actually do that, I'd have to find the points first, which would require wading through way too much irrelevant character assassination and blind assertion to be worth my time. If you say there are real points worth discussing hidden there, I'll take your word for it; but don't expect me to do the writer's job for them.

Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

I don't mean this as flamebait but isn't RMS irrelevant already? Back when it needed a knowledgable geek champion who understood the situation at the time, RMS was great.

Since that time it appears that the real world operates on a different set of rules than RMS's "Free no matter what" and reality be damned.

Forgive me for not being so knowledgable but it does seem like RMS's ego is now driving the train.

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[Mr2001]

No. RMS's philosophy has been the same since before the modern OSS movement began. He was considered irrelevant back then, until the rise of free software success stories like GCC, Linux, Apache, etc. showed that his philosophy can produce great software while still granting end-users all the freedoms he talks about.

Now that we already have those pieces of software, some folks are ready to call him irrelevant again... but he isn't. He's looking out for those of us who value free software for more than just the fact that it costs $0 and anyone can contribute. I don't want to live in a world where companies like TiVo (although I love their DVRs) can use technological loopholes to build on the community's work while denying their end-users the ability to build on and tinker with the products they paid for. The open-source nature of Linux doesn't count for jack if your computer will only allow you to boot the signed copy of Linux that came preinstalled, and/or signed Linux upgrade CDs that you buy in a box at the store, does it?

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[Mr2001]

Providing source code for free projects is hardly exclusively "his philosophy," and Apache doesn't even use the GPL.

His philosophy is more than just providing source code. It extends to the idea that you should be able to make whatever changes you want to the software that you use, without being limited legally (by licenses) or technologically (by measures like TiVo's kernel signature checking), and providing source code is a consequence of that. The GPLv3 uses legal measures to ensure that end-users aren't impaired by technological measures which were unforseen at the time the GPLv2 was written.

Instead, he's defining a personal view of "freedom" and enforcing it on others, when my definition of freedom is more along the lines of the BSD license.

RMS isn't enforcing anything on anyone. If a software developer wants to release his code under the GPLv3, that's the developer's choice, not Stallman's. If you want to release your software under the BSD license, that's your choice too.

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[Registered Coward v2]

I don't want to live in a world where companies like TiVo (although I love their DVRs) can use technological loopholes to build on the community's work while denying their end-users the ability to build on and tinker with the products they paid for. The open-source nature of Linux doesn't count for jack if your computer will only allow you to boot the signed copy of Linux that came preinstalled, and/or signed Linux upgrade CDs that you buy in a box at the store, does it?

Sure it does - you can get the source and modify any way you want. You can build your own TiVO like box if you want - no one is stopping you. Just because you can't use any of your mods on their hardware no way limits your freedom to use the GPL'd software. To quote a common response to complaints about OSS - "if you don't like the way it works, modify yourself. Don't expect anyone else to do it for you."

To expect manufacturers to allow you to run modified software on their hardware is ridiculous - they have every right to limit their hardware to working only with their software configurations. If you don't like that, don't buy their hardware.

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[chromatic]

To expect manufacturers to allow you to run modified software on their hardware is ridiculous - they have every right to limit their hardware to working only with their software configurations. If you don't like that, don't buy their hardware.

If I don't like it and I don't buy their hardware, can I somehow prevent them from using code I've written in a way that prevents modification by people who do buy their hardware?

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[Registered Coward v2]

Wait. Their hardware? No. It's my hardware. I bought it, so I own it. Not them.

Their implementation of the hardware that requires that the binaries be signed by them violates my rights as the owner of the property, because it usurps the control that I as the owner have the right to and gives it to them. I own the hardware. It is my right to say what software the hardware can and cannot run, not theirs.

they haven't stopped you from doing that either - you can modify the hardware to your hearts content. They don't have to make that easy; nor do they have to allow access to their network with modified hardware. Ownership of property does not mean the seller has any obligations to help you modify it to your liking.

As I said before, if you don't like their rules don't buy the product. They have meet their obligations under the GPL; that's all the license requires.

I can't believe you idiot "capitalists" can't see the obvious right in front of your face: the mechanisms that Tivo, Microsoft, and others have put into place have gutted and made a complete mockery of the property rights you claim to so dearly cherish. They have managed to turn your property into their property, and to therefore relegate you to the status of a second-class citizen, one who is not allowed to control his own "property".

Either wise up and start demanding your rights as property owners, or admit that your feigned belief in property rights is nothing more than a sham.

You have a rather odd view of property rights - that somehow buying something means it has to be modifiable by you and that the seller must ensure that is the case. I suppose you expect someone who sells you land to make sure it can be zoned to whatever purpose you decide as well.

Forbes? On Open Source? Ha!

[claykarmel]

After reading Forbes articles on SCO, it's clear that they aren't neutral. They are trying to influence their readers rather than report to them.

They are lobbyists.

We should just ignore them.

Footnote?

[Nijika]

Say what you will about Richard Stallman, footnote he will never be. That's like saying the Wright brothers are a footnote in aviation.

And as far as any possible splinter goes, this will separate the wheat from the chaff in both directions. It may be painful, but good will come of it.

FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

[BeeBeard]

I heard that GPLv3 kills puppies. Just what I heard. Seriously, if you're the FSF and you have a stated agenda that you would like to promote, wouldn't it be in your interest to tailor your fast and furious new license to complement the efforts of developers working on the most significant, most widely-used existing projects? I don't mean to downplay Stallman's or FSF's historical importance, but the future of free software is not with those players. It is with Linux, and Firefox, and so on--the software projects that Stallman and a ton of other people helped make possible.

Adoption of free software by non-nerds does not happen because of a Stallman speech about the software industry's problems, or because of GPLv3. Rather, it's the result of something as unassuming as a web browser that is more resilient to viruses and spyware than IE, and that provides a better browsing experience. That's really all that people care about.

I am not personally a fan of Stallman's--I think he's made his share of missteps that have hindered the free software movement. But overall, the net good that he and FSF have accomplished has already outweighed the bad. We have seen the open source movement burgeon and grow well beyond the ability of any one entity to kill it, hinder it, or even significantly influence it.

Does that mean we should dismiss GPLv3 as moot? No. Even if GPLv3 is 10 or even 20 years away from widespread adoption, or is just dismissed altogether as "aspirational", at least it's still out there. Out there to be used or out there to be used as a model for public licensing agreements yet to be drafted. There is no downside.

Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

[CRCulver]

Adoption of free software by non-nerds does not happen because of a Stallman speech about the software industry's problems, or because of GPLv3. Rather, it's the result of something as unassuming as a web browser that is more resilient to viruses and spyware than IE, and that provides a better browsing experience. That's really all that people care about.

Recent Free Software gains in India were due to Stallman visiting and making a speech. He promised the locals freedom to adapt the code to their needs, and to be free of licensing free imposed by Western companies. Maybe in the United States all people care about is a better browser, but Stallman's globetrotting shows that a lot of people in disadvantaged places see value in the philosophy, not just the features.

Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

[Anonymous Coward]

to adapt the code to their needs,

Those don't sound like ordinary users to me. They sound like people who have the expertise to actually change the software they use. The poster's comment about Mozilla FireFox is still perfectly valid. Stop trying to turn this into an anti-US thing.

Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Those don't sound like ordinary users to me. They sound like people who have the expertise to actually change the software they use.

I have no clue as to how to work on the electric lines in my house. But I can contract out to *any* qualified person to fix them.

Similarly, if I have a problem with Firefox, I may not have the knowledge to fix it myself. But I can contract out to *any* qualified person to fix it.

On the gripping hand, if I have a problem with $CLOSED_SOURCE_SOFTWARE, I'm screwed unless the vendor itself decides to fix it.

Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

[kz45]

"Recent Free Software gains in India were due to Stallman visiting and making a speech. He promised the locals freedom to adapt the code to their needs, and to be free of licensing free imposed by Western companies. Maybe in the United States all people care about is a better browser, but Stallman's globetrotting shows that a lot of people in disadvantaged places see value in the philosophy, not just the features"

Don't you get it?

Those people don't care about the philosophy or the features. When they hear stallman speak, they hear one thing: "getting software at no cost". This is what 99% of the population hears as well.

Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

[dwandy]

I think you're overestimating the value they saw in his free as in speech philosophy and underestimating the value that disadvantaged (poorer) places see in stuff they can download off the Internet for free.

...and that is where it begins.

I switched to Linux first because I wanted free-as-in-beer software, but now that I'm more educated on the subject I've stuck with it because I want to help ensure free-as-in-speach. And that education *only* came about because I started using Linux.
Of the techies that I know, only the Linux users even *know* (doesn't matter if they agree/disagree) about the freedom issues. /. is such a pro-linux site that even the MS-users (and I'm sure there's still lots 'n lots here!) know about the issues, but once you leave /. the number of people (including techies) who know about the issues (let alone agree that it's important) drops off dramatically.

Not the first time: GFDL incompatible with GPL

[Paul Fernhout]

This has happened before. A while back I tried without success to convince Richard Stallman that continuing to promote a license (the GNU Free Documentation License or GFDL)
        http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
which was incompatible with the GPL was a bad thing. :-)
See for example some reasons at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentatio n_License
    http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
My particular interest was to use information from the GFDL-licensed Wikipedia in GPL programs. I'd go further and question the very reasons the GFDL was created in the first place -- just to make dead tree book publishers' lives easier? Where is the emphasis on freedom there?

I think it is easy for any technologist to underestimate community issues and then to see a license as a program for individual behavior instead of a constitution for a community. The GPL works. It has problems, sure, but it works well enough as a constitution for cooperation. More variants of licenses mainly just make more problems IMHO.

And this changes things how?

[bartron]

People are free to use whatever license they want beit it V1,2 or 3 or even BSD or some other closed licence even. The only issue will be where software is written under V3 and someone else would prefer it to be under V2....

guess what....that's te beauty of open source...if you don't like something you get to make your own.

No-one is holding a gun to you head to use this license if you don't like it...and if it is really as bad as people say then it will find little use anyway.

Re:No, linux will kill itself

[Eric Smith]

I am using code from HP in Nonpareil. It is code that was in the public domain. I have copyrighted the derived work.

Is Forbes Credible?

[femto]

I find it hard to take Frobes seriously when they start out by misrepresenting the postion of the person they are talking about (Stallman).

"Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge. He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry, dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away."

• Stallman does not argue that "most software should be free of charge". The GPL, which he wrote, specifically says one is allowed to charge for GPLd software.
• Stallman doesn't argue that "they should be giving it all away." He does argue that they shouldn't have a monopoly, which is very different to "giving it all away".

Re:Is Forbes Credible?

[femto]

It's not splitting hairs. The GPL is quite specific:

"...have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish),..."

and

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

The GPL distinguishes between licensing and distribution. You may not charge for the right to copy the program ("...to be licensed as a whole at no charge..."). You may charge for the act of distributing the program (see above).

The GPL does not dictate that you must give someone a copy of a program. You are free to say no when someone asks for a copy of a program without paying money.

If you choose to sell a copy of a program to someone you may distribute it as a source or binary.

If you distribute it as source take the money, give them the source code and that is the end of the transaction. There is no limit to the money you can legally charge as the GPL does not come into play until the transaction is complete.

If you distribute it as binary take the money, give them the binary. Again there is no limit to the money you can legally charge under the GPL for distributing the copy. In the case of distributing the binary you must also offer to provide the source at a minimum cost of distribution. This is fair as you have already made your profit on the distribution of the binary. It's worth noting that the offer to distribute source for minimal cost only comes into play once you have distributed a binary. Distribute source initially and you can charge what you want for it.

The low cost of GPLd software is a consequence of unfettered competion, not the GPL. Something to warm the heart of every capitalist.

Re:Is Forbes Credible?

[femto]

Business people might believe Forbes, but it doesn't follow that the article is credible. The magazine as a whole might be credible, but individual articles can still be incredible. A wise business person would take each article on its own merits (or lack thereof).

"is laughable at best and hippocritical at worse"

Please show me evidence to back this claim. You might think so, but that opinion is probably based on misunderstanding and reading too many Forbes articles.

"...since what individual would pay for something he can get for free?"

Some altruistic individuals might. Most wouldn't. The point you are missing though is that most free software is not zero cost to the majority of people. There is the cost of knowing where to get it from, what is the best of the multitude of options, knowing how to set it up, the cost of making sure it is available when required and so on. These are all things that cost time and money and that people are prepared to pay for. There is a business in selling Free software.

Simple economics dictates that you can make a reasonable profit out of free software. If you can't make a profit either your expectations are not reasonable or someone is undercutting your costs so you need to become more efficient. The model of "write a program, sit on your bum and profit selling copies" is dead. The Internet has made distribution so efficient that you will instantly be undercut. The problem isn't the GPL. It's people flogging a business model that is a dead horse.

There are plenty of people making money off free software. It's just that it tends to be thousands of small companies rather than a few multinationals.

Re:Is Forbes Credible?

[asuffield]

Forbes may not be credible to techies and geeks, however it is VERY reliavant to the business world and those who control the money that funds these projects. Thats a fact.

And because of this fact, the business world and those who control the money have been controlling Forbes for about as long as it has been around. Very few articles are written there which somebody did not pay for. Microsoft has paid for articles there before. Somebody paid for this article. That's another fact.

Forbes is yet another way for slightly-more-intelligent people with money to influence slightly-less-intelligent people with money. Nothing more nor less.

No wonder, it's a Dan Lyons article

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, people! This is a Dan Lyons article. He's been writing anti-Linux FUD for years. Groklaw and /. have eviscerated this guy's credibility on this subject repeatedly (do a search, you'll see). Quoting him on this subject is like asking Bill Gates if he thinks Linux is going to beat Windows in the marketplace: you know the answer before you ask the question.

Problems..

[digitalhermit]

Here's part of the problem:

Stallman doesn't believe in compromising his ideals. His life's work is Free Software.

We can call him a weirdo, mad, an ass, but without his conviction we would all be locked into proprietary products. Unlike some things that happened because the world was ready for it (cell phones, computers), I don't believe that Free Software would exist if not for Stallman. That is, without him, I don't think another person would have dedicated his/her life to the cause.

Corporations don't compromise. Look at Microsoft's business tactics that were either outright illegal or bordering on the illegal. If they had their way we would not be allowed to write our own software, not be allowed to trade software with the original authors, not be allowed to listen to our own music. And this nightmare world is happening.

Sure, there has to be regulations, but not those imposed by corporations. Look at the radio broadcast spectrum, the automobile industry, etc.. for parallels.

So here is Richard Stallman. He's probably closer to the end of his years than to the beginning. His life's work is almost happening but Linux, for good or bad, is not at all what he envisioned. He's trying to fix it while he can. If I were in his position, I'd probably do the same thing (if only to be an ornery bastard).

Stallman is not compromising, but neither is Microsoft.

Remember, Forbes is a business pub, not technical

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbes has had a chequered history at best when it comes to the computer industry,
not to mention Linux. However, there is a small grain of truth in their basic
premise, and in many ways, the Linux community continually shoots itself in the foot.

I've heard from various application writers who say they haven't got a clue when it
comes to "porting" to Linux, because there are so many variations in APIs (from their
standpoint) between the various distributions. I've been running SuSE for years, yet
I can't seem to install gnucash without getting into dependency hell where I seem to
need one more RPM after another ad nauseum/infinitum. I have a copy of gimp from a site
in Germany that's now out of date, but I can't do an 'rpm -e' on it without disrupting
the (circular) dependencies on a bunch of libraries that came with it, so it can't be
removed (or updated) without incredible frustration. I can't get an RPM of the latest
version of gimp because no one (particularly SuSE) can be bothered to package it up
to make it quickly, easily and *RELIABLY* installable *AND* removeable. And, other
distros don't seem to be any better - Debian is a nightmare to get WINE for. I can sort
of understand that they don't want to support a rapidly moving target, but it's not going
to settle down unless folks can install it, test it, report bugs on it, and try to fix it.

The politics around some of the apps are at the very least childish, and at worst, are
preventing me from doing what I'd really like to do. I'm just a hobbyist - i.e., my system
is NOT business-critical in the literal sense, but I really don't want to run Windows, and
haven't for a long time. But, when my dual Athlon 1800+ with 2GB of memory crashes gimp
repeatedly because I want to simply edit a picture, there's a major problem. Debian just
re-did all their CD writer software because of a pissing contest with the developer of the
package that I still use under SuSE 10.0. WHY ARE WE CONTINUING TO HAVE THESE SORTS OF PROBLEMS??

Yeah, I can sort of understand Linus' angst over GPLv3. No, I really don't care for some of
Stallman's antics. But those issues are the tip of the iceberg, and that iceberg is starting
to drift back towards the Pole whence it came, and seems to be freezing up and getting larger
as we speak. If we indeed are going to be serious about being a business solution that users
are willing to bet their business on (never mind how much they're paying for a distro or for
support), then we need to clean up our act NOW.

Forbes was a big supporter of a mouse that would dutifully spy on your system and tell its
boss what web sites you visited. I'm very disappointed that Steve let this happen in the
first place, and it saddens me that they're still very technically naive in many ways. But
it's going to be damned tough to straighten them out when our own Linux story is such a mess.

Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

[rumblin'rabbit]

There were a few inaccuracies right off the bat. For example, Stallman may have issues with the state of copyright law, but he's not against copyright per se. Indeed, the GPL is based on copyright law. Lyon also confuses free as in beer with free as in freedom.

But the main point is essentially correct: Stallman is trying to aggressively expand his "freedom empire" with the GPL 3, and it could just bite him on the ass.

The article also insulting, inflammatory, and funny. Gotta love a good dustup.

Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Actually, yes, Stallman is opposed to copyright, _per se_, at least as far a software is concerned. He's quite open about that; he believes deeply in something he refers to as "the freedom to tinker". Copyright, if it applies to software packages, completely breaks the freedom to tinker.

Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

[Ruie]

But the main point is essentially correct: Stallman is trying to aggressively expand his "freedom empire" with the GPL 3, and it could just bite him on the ass.

I don't think "expand" is the right term here. "Preserve" would be much better.

Keep in mind that when GPL-2 was created there was no such thing as DMCA and software patents were a rather exotic idea. GPL-3 is the answer to new laws and aggressive interpretations of old ones.

"Global" and "Internet" are not just empty words. Combine a potential loophole (as one can use GPL source and lock down binaries with crypto key and DMCA) and millions of people and there *will* be a few unscrupulous ones that will spoil it for everybody (example: e-mail).

So, yes, we do need GPL-3, but the issue of how to deal with existing GPL-2 software is truly a hairy one.

Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

[Rudolf]

Actually, yes, Stallman is opposed to copyright, _per se_, at least as far a software is concerned. He's quite open about that; he believes deeply in something he refers to as "the freedom to tinker". Copyright, if it applies to software packages, completely breaks the freedom to tinker.

Then why does he copyright all his stuff instead of releasing it into the public domain free of copyright?

Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

[Arker]

Then why does he copyright all his stuff instead of releasing it into the public domain free of copyright?

Because, all the fashionable slashdot trolling to the contrary, he's an eminently practical man. If he released it PD he knows someone would just grab it, modify it a little, and close it off. He knows this because he learned the hard way - this was done with much of his early work.

He'd like to change copyright law, but being unable at least for the moment to do that, he came up with a way to hack copyright law to serve his purposes instead.

Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

[Tim C]

Show me where in copyright law, I can before expiration, remove my copyright.

You know how on a lot of things there's a line that says "All rights reserved"? You just do the opposite - you publicly waive all rights and considerations concerning the thing you want to release into the public domain. For example, "I hereby release this comment (the one you are now reading) into the public domain, and renounce all claims to copyright upon it" should work (IANAL, etc).

Copyright law confers rights upon you; if you want to give up those rights, just say so.

The reason Stallman doesn't is the same as the reason why he doesn't use the BSD licence - because then others could build upon his work and not release the source back to the community.

Glad I only GPLv2 my code 8 years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an open-source developer for 8 years building web and desktop apps, I am disgusted with GPLv3.
I am glad I never trusted the GPL to remain the meaning I intended for my creation and remove the upgrade clause making my code GPLv2 only.
The thought kept crossing my mind... what if someone like Microsoft created the official GPLv3 or v4 years from now.
My future open-source apps will probably be a modified FreeBSD or MIT style license.

Maureen O'Gara - Dan Lyons in drag

[Anonymous Coward]

Lyons is just raking for hits and /. delivers. This is such a number on Stallman I'm amazed that Forbes printed this muck. But it is even stranger that it gets on /. without any mention of the personal attack that this represents. It very much reminds me of the attack on PJ at Groklaw by Maureen O'Gara. This falls so far below a standard of journalism you would expect from a business journal. It seems very desperate. It also looks like free software really does scare the sh*t out of someone. The message is clear, sell your shares in IBM, HP, Novell, Redhat NOW and buy M$.

Re:No, linux will kill itself

[Kjella]

The 1990s called, they want their FUD back. Yes, we use apt-get because we want to but graphical installers have been around for ages now.

I don't see anyone that's claimed getting software that isn't packaged for the distro being easy. In fact, I don't think installing the software is all that difficult on either. Doing an upgrade of every application on the other hand... show me Windows do that, no instead I got 50 "auto-update" apps that all want to punch my firewall and make management annoying. And installing Linux is much easier if all the hardware is supported - no, you might not install Windows but more often than not users will need to have it reinstalled. Plus, the average install for the average poweruser goes like this:

Linux:
1. apt-get install [foo] (or click-equivalent, but I can't paste images in a comment)

Windows:
1. Find warez download (time consuming)
2. Download warez (crappy, unreliable P2P)
3. Install warez (pray you're not hosed)
4. Find crack (pray IE doesn't get hosed)
5. Install crack (pray you're not hosed)

There's a lot more of the "little things" that annoy me - for example, I recently installed azeureus on top of whatever dependencies debian gave me - turns out it was running on kaffe VM. The very nice thing about that, was that when checking files kaffe would spike to 100% CPU use and stay there using maybe 100x times as long, while sun's java would do it quite quickly at 5% CPU. Try swapping JVM, that's not very easy. Most people wouldn't have a clue or understand how the app depends on java anyway. That's probably the closest thing I've had to an install issue in ages.

GPLv4 should forbid *.*

[paulpach]

Following the logic from FSF, if you use the software to kill someone, that person will no longer be free to run the software (he is dead ).

Therefore, military use limits the freedom of potential users and is not in the spirit of the GPL.
It should also restrict use in prisons for the same reason.
It should forbid its use in ROM because the user can not replace the software.
It should forbid locking down the software with a phisical lock.
It should forbid farting near the equipment since noone will be able to get close to replace the software.

Re:No, linux will kill itself

[Eric Smith]

No, but the fact that they were published with no copyright notice back when that was a legal requirement in the US does mean that they are now in the public domain.

Re:No, linux will kill itself

[Overly Critical Guy]

No offense, but you just illustrated what the original poster was mocking by padding your list of Windows steps to make it look worse, when in reality, your average install on Windows is:

Windows
1.) Insert CD. Setup automatically begins.

And the fact remains that a lot of Linux packages require more manual configuration than their Windows counterparts.

The public domain ...

[guysmilee]

I find it funny how companies struggle to make money by constantly trying to shift what should be in the unrestricted public domain to be something that is not. Companies deserve to protection when using public domained source and information ... they should be simply focused on quality of service delivery. If they become protectionist because they cannot provide a quality service/product ... then they deserve to collapse ... a new business model will arise from their ashes ...

Business FUD not linux FUD

[JoeCommodore]

The article is from a Daniel Lyons talking about "restricting business"
though the real point of GPL v# seems to be is to keep free software from
restricting users (at the expense of shady business lock-in practices).

Lots of FUD about how this will hurt the (business) economy, etc. A
lot of the gist sounds like a push to privitize the previous work of
the community.

Also a bunch of exploitave tabloid-style character attacks on Stallman.

Seems Daniel uses this simliar muck raking style with other platforms:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/22/vista-microsoft-b allmer_cz_dl_0322mi...

Some people have written about the author:
http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/174 sounds like he
equally pisses off eveyone he reports about.

Re:Are you joking?

[Billly Gates]

I used to be a linux user and then a FBSD biggot and now an ubuntu Linux user again starting last year.

Linux was very stable at kernel 2.0 when Allen Cox was Linus's right hand man and the distro's did not include alpha quality bleeding edge products. FreeBSD was also very stable and I loved FFBSD 4.x. It had USB support long before Linux did and a certain quality was there that was absent in most linux distributions. However RedHat 7.x and the awefull mandrake ruined Linux expectation as a stable bug free operating system compared to Windows. I gave up and went to FreeBSD 4.2 and loved it! FreeBSD had the highest uptimes and could handle loads that Linux could not.

However the 1990's are over and FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x are terrible operating systems that are buggy under crazy locking schemes and spagehtti code. Most of hte core developers left and Linux distributions such as Ubuntu came with stable software and the kernel 2.6 is rock solid again like 2.0 was. Linux has caught up and beat FreeBSD.

Also my USB keyboard that worked under FBSD 4.x still does not work with the recent versions and no BSD hacker can figure it out.

FBSD is not the os it once was and neither is Linux.

Re:Jeez - if he'd just finish HURD...

[goofyheadedpunk]

I'd like to agree, but at this point who would use HURD? If it were '90 and the whole GNU system where availiable I could see myself as a HURD user rather than a Linux user, but now it's just irrelevant. Hell, the crazy fuckers can't even stick with their original design goals, they're thinking about switching micro-kernels _again_ without ever having gotten something usable. Stick with the original plan, motherfuckers! Then fix things!

Argh, sorry. It just pisses me off. I'd love to use a complete GNU system, but there's no way that's ever going to happen. It's not even that the HURD is difficult to write because is a micro-kernel. MINIX has been rewritten three times, and has been usable, in one sense or another, in almost the same amount of time it's taken the GNU folks to get _nothing_ done with HURD.

The two biggest jokes in software development are the GNU HURD and Duke Nukem Forever, and that's just sad. If HURD is ever finished (and I'm not holding my breath) there will be so many better GNU/Foo systems around, for various values of Foo, that HURD will never collect enough of a user base to be more than a curious little blip.

I really wish, though, things had turned out differently. Might have been cool, who knows?

I've heard this song before

[Todd Knarr]

When I read stuff like that, I recall a lot of the same things were said about Stallman and the GPL back when it was coming out. The GPL would drive companies away from open-source software, it was said, because the terms were too radical. Well, businesses didn't like the terms, it was true. But the main thing about the GPL businesses didn't like, the fact that it prevented them from taking GPL'd code and exploiting it for their own profit without letting others do the same, attracted developers in droves. And the result was software that was just too attractive for businesses to just ignore.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that GPLv3 will follow the same path that GPLv2 and GPLv1 did. And it won't include dying.

Re:I've heard this song before

[Todd Knarr]

True, which is why the BSD license is still being used. It's the perfect fit if you want that. But the overwhelming majority of software projects said "We work on share and share alike. If you use our code to your benefit, the price is that we get to use your code for our benefit in return.". And IIRC it was things like finding the BSD networking stack in Windows, obviously modified but with no code being returned, that triggered a lot of the moves to the GPL. I see a parallel with Tivo there.

The question is, free for who? The BSD license grants total freedom to the recipient. The GPL grants freedom to the code. Myself, I take the position that I'm licensing anything I write under the GPL or LGPL, and if a company wants to use it without having to give their modifications back they can come talk to me and discuss payment in an alternative coin.

Lyons Again

[mmurphy000]

The author of the piece, Daniel Lyons, has a history of not exactly being friendly to Free Software and open source.

Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear"?

[NotQuiteReal]

I know, traditions and all, but after all, legal rulings are often called "opinions". Why does there need to be "interpretation"? When you make a law (or write a license), would it be so hard to tag a sentence or two in plain vernacular about the "intent"? Why wouldn't that have any weight, legally? I mean, if it is from the original author of the clause in question, why would it not have standing, even if clearly different from the exacting legalese? Seems like we have the author of GPLV3 explaining himself already! Couldn't the intent be part of the license?

To take a really off topic, but simple, example; When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant. Would it have been so hard to add a sentence? Either By this we mean a well regulated militia is one that is under state control or The intention of this is to prevent the state from usurping the rights of individuals, so this to means all citizens of good standing can bear arms.?

Makes a big difference, and not subject to later interpretation.

Re:He's got a funny beard, he must be wrong!

[TheRaven64]

It bothers me that just because Stallman is committed to his ideals, people treat him like a joke, despite the fact that he's done us a hell of a lot of good.

Stallman is treated like a joke because he is not a good debater. He is committed to his ideals, and I tend to agree with most of what he says, but he does not present his arguments well. Take the recent issue with nVidia blobs. I read an interview with Richard M. Stallman and Theo De Raadt. Both RMS and TdR were arguing the same point of view (which is why the FSF gave TdR an award last year), but Theo managed to come across as a rational intelligent individual, while RMS sounded like a crazy person. And if you sound like the crazy one next to Theo, you have serious issues.

licenses on things like ZFS are even more restrictive (plus it's rather new, and probably overkill).

From my reading, it's not more restrictive, but it is differently restrictive. It's not GPL-compatible (so it can't be added to Linux), but FreeBSD has no problem importing the code. From the FSF web site:

[The CDDL] is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents.

The aggressive patent-retaliation clauses combined with the per-file (i.e. non-viral) nature of the license make it more attractive from my perspective.

Ironically...

[rhythmx]

Ironically, TFA displays a blantant lack of respect for intellectual property and copyright. While it is busy smashing RMS for "demanding that the big tech outfits crack open their proprietary code whenever they inserted lines from [GNU/]Linux", it fails to realize that the FSF owns that code. Stallman and the FSF have just as much a right to enforce open source as Microsoft does to enforce closed source. Yet another case of confusing "free" and "freedom".

This author is completely ignorant of the issues surrounding Open Source/Free Software. He just realized all his favorite Fortune 500 companies were investing in a "socialist" operating system and let the FUD fly to make himself feel better.

Mod TFA as Flamebait or Troll

[psykocrime]

I got as far as this part:

M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge.

and realized that the author of TFA has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Stallman and the FSF are fine with people
charging money for software... The author clearly does not grok the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech."

Re:Mod TFA as Flamebait or Troll

[psykocrime]

The thing is, that FOSS doesn't make it's money by "selling software". It makes it's money by selling "non-copyable" services.

It seems true that few - if any - open source companies make money by just "selling bits." But it could be done. If a company creates a GPL'd program (let's say it's a case where it's GPL by virtue of incorporating other GPL'ed works) they are not required to give free binaries to anybody. They can sell the binaries for a bazillion dollars if they want... but must distribute the source, under the GPL, *with* the binaries (or include a written offer to provide the source).

The only real fly in the ointment here is that there customer can take the program and turn around and redistribute it, for any price they wish, including free. So most people look at that as precluding making money from selling GPL'd programs... but if your customer(s) have no real incentive to try and undermine your business by redistributing your program, it's entirely possible that it will never come up. And the more niche / specialized (and therefore less generally useful) your program is, the less likely it seems that your customer would want to bother with doing something like that.

The counter-argument, of course, is that you have no way of knowing whether or not your code will eventually leak into "the wild." And you have no way of guaranteeing that it won't happen. But even if it does, that still doesn't necessarily mean you can't still make money. Red Hat makes money selling RHEL Subscriptions, where part of what you're paying for is an entitlement to download ISOs, even though CentOS binaries are freely available.

Ramen

[ameline]

Ramen brother.

Arrrrrrr. (Just doing my bit to fight global warming :-)

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[mkoenecke]

The framers of the Constitution *did* think the Second Amendment was clear when written. And no one much questioned it for nearly 150 years: that's pretty darned good. 220 years of hindsight and court decisions have added an unbelievable amount of nuance and interpretation to what is simply the most carefully and expertly drafted political document in human history. How many other such documents have stayed around and had to be altered so little for such a long time? (Other than Germany's Rheinheitsgebot, that is.)

Re:Stallman: intellectual lightweight?

[stinerman]

I don't see that at all. He might be a fanatic, but I really don't see that as a problem. Goldwater said that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice", and I have to agree. You say he isn't interested in progress. For what values of "progress"? He has stated time and again that he doesn't define success as how many people use free Software. He isn't interested in getting as many people as possible to use GNU/Linux distros, but simply making sure users have the freedoms laid out in the GNU manifesto. As people use loopholes in the GPL to remove those freedoms, he should attempt to close those loopholes to protect the freedoms.

As far as him "resolving the conflicts between concerned entities", I will assume you mean making the GPL more palatable towards interests who believe the draft GPL v3 is too restrictive. If its too restrictive for your ends, then don't use it. It is not like Stallman is revoking the ability to use GPL v2 in any newer projects. Now, if you're worried about factionalization and adoption issues, that is your problem not RMS's. It is not his job nor his wish to create a license that most people will use without objection. It is his job to make sure the four freedoms are protected at all costs. I will now leave you with the 2nd half of that Goldwater quote: "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I, for one, welcome Stallman's extremism in the defense of my liberty and his unwillingness to compromise his ideals in pursuit of justice.

FUD?

[WalksOnDirt]

I really don't see any FUD here.

Fear?: Fear of what? The GPL software movement is splitting. This may be annoying, but hardly anything to fear.

Uncertainty?: There is little uncertainty, the split is now almost certain.

Doubt?: Doubt of Linux's survival? Anyone paying the slightest attention should have no doubt about that.

The article is filled with what I consider to be libelous comments about RMS: I don't think he is an anarchist, anti-corporate or against the sale of software. That sort of reckless disregard for the truth has no place in such a major publication, and I think Lyons should be fired.

The Reality of the Business Side of Things

[grahamkg]

So how many of you actually read the latest draft of GPLv3?! Here it is:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html

The reality is that businesses run Windows and Unix environments. Linux isn't the cheap panacea once touted to be. Sun isn't completely out of the game yet, and IBM still has AIX. Apple is also very much a player in the computing world. Sure you can download the latest version of Debian, but a corporate compute environment is more likely to use Red Hat or SuSE Enterprise.

Were I Apple or Sun, I'd be pushing my own version of Unix on the corporate world, letting them know they won't have GPLv3 worries to litigate in the future. Were I IBM, I'd make absolutely certain AIX is on every CIOs tongue.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[smittyoneeach]

None of the symbols we use to communicate are immutable.
The opinions of the dudes who wrote the Bill of Rights were not constant, either.
Why is this dark vision so resonant?
Because the increasingly complex legal system, far from being a means to the end of regulating society, is more a means unto itself.
One wonders what a graph against time of the legal costs spent on software by all companies would be. Frightening, I'd expect.
Your wish for an immortal law doesn't fit the legal business model and, ultimately, is just not quite real. ;)

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[NoTheory]

First, language is not immutable, meanings change, grow, shrink. Second, a person's intent never extends to the full consequences of an issue. This is why we have a judicial system in the first place. If things were simple (i.e. there weren't fuzzy or complicated cases that defy easy categorization), we could simply write laws and everything would fall neatly into the buckets we'd carved out. Also, Stallman isn't a lawyer, although his intent is well and good, does he really understand what the consequences of his intent are? Should we have to shoe-horn previously decided case law into the framework of Stallman's intent?

Regardless of whether Stallman or other's think he's leading us into the bright new future, there's all this legacy baggage out in the real world that needs to be squared properly. And that's what judges are supposed to do.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Mr. Slippery]

When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant.

They did indeed. However, word meanings and connotations change with time. Today many people think the "militia" is synonmyous with the National Guard (when in fact, the Guard has been part of the Army since 1933), and "well-regulated" means "operating under a large set of rules"; but at the time, it was clear to the authors that "militia" meant "every able-bodied man young enough to fight", and "well-regulated" meant "prepared and trained in military skills".

The meaning of "arms" has also changed: at the time, it was understood to mean the sort of weapon carried by an infantryman. Heavier weapons would be refered to as "cannon"; so Amendment II doesn't mean you have a right to a howitzer on your front lawn. But people arguing against the Second Amendment today often attempt a reductio ad absurdum which includes WMDs under "arms".

(Some people evidently also seem to think that "shall not be infringed" somehow means "can be limited by the government", but that's a linguisitic drift that's harder to account for.)

Anyway, point being that what is absolutely clear and precise to one audience, can still be interpreted differently by another (especially if the two group have different motivations).

Say what you want about Stallman...

[Infonaut]

but calling him "a strange footnote in the history of computing" is just idiotic.

Anyone who polarizes people to such a large degree, has generated so much passion, and has served as the point man of the free software movement deserves to be regarded as a towering figure in the history of computing. Whether GPL 3 succeeds or fails, Stallman has already left his mark. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with him; he's no footnote.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Telvin_3d]

I think you are missing the point to some extent. Almost all of the 'legal language' that gets argued over was, when it was originally written, "present-day common usage". In 50 or 100 years, what you are suggesting would only lead to lawyers fighting over the interpretation of our "common day language" interpretation of laws that are another 100 years old. Just from your own example, I could see the meanings and usage of a word like 'duplicating' shift significantly in 50 years time.

I am not a lawyer, but I know enough to think twice about complaining about the specialized language of another profession. No one goes to work wanting to use obscure and hard to understand terms. Every odd usage and non intuitive phrase has a reason for existing and most of the time I would be willing to bet that it is a good reason.

Balderdash...

[borgheron]

The GPL v3 doesn't need to be used by anyone who doesn't want to use it. The FSF could come out with GPL v3 and everyone could simply go about thier business and continue to use v2, if they want to.

The fact is, however, that v3 clarifies many things that have been concerns in v2, since v2 is somewhat old and doesn't adequately address such issues as patents and DRM.

Also, Linus and crew are making a huge deal about making lots and lots of noise when Eben Moglen has asked them to PLEASE be a part of the process instead of simply complaining.

GJC

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Millenniumman]

Why would allowing a government controlled militia be in the Bill of Rights? First of all, the Bill of Rights is there to ensure the people's rights, not the governments functions. Second of all, why would a government deny itself an army? As far as I'm aware, the founders hadn't had problems with Britain being extremely pacifistic.

Original author's consent is not required

[karl.auerbach]

GPLv2 contains the following language in paragraph 9:

If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

This provision gives the option of deciding whether to follow V2 or V3 to the person making a copy of V2 code, not to the author.

There is a serious ambiguity - if that person adds or changes some of the code, can that person convert the entire module to V3 or is the module now fragmented? And if the latter, how is anyone supposed to keep track of what statement of code is under what license?

Personally I have abandoned publishing code under the GPL - I now use the less restrictive, non-viral MIT/BSD style licenses.

There is another situation that few have discussed - The rules of copyright in the US are defined by statutes enacted by, and changable by, Congress.

There is a chance that Congress could amend the US copyright law to deny the right of enforcement to anyone who has made only a partial or small contribution to the totality of the work or if that contribution has been subject to several intervening layers of further contributions. (It would be a bear to define these things, but the Congress critters would be getting a lot of help from the IP and non GPL software industry.)

Forbes/Daniel Lyons have no credibility wrt Linux.

[leoxx]

Early on in the lawsuit, Daniel Lyons writing for Forbes heavily backed SCO against IBM, however like SCO they cited no evidence to back up the claim that Linux developers stole code from Unix and put it into Linux. They simply assumed that since the people behind the SCO suit were successful with lawsuits in the past they would be successful again.

And of course like many of us called it back in 2003, SCO's stock first skyrocketed on the hype from articles like Forbes' and then plummeted as it has become public knowledge that their case is completely without merit. Naturally those people in on the action early cashed out early and big, leaving the pointy hairs' who listened to Forbes holding the bag. So they may well have had some level of credibility in 2003, but the zealots wearing the blinders at Forbes called it wrong, and they didn't miss by a hair, they missed by a mile.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[node 3]

Because it allows the *STATES* to have their own armies, just in case they need to defend themselves from external threats, including those from other states or the federal government itself.

It essence, it means the states all have the right to have their national guards and state militias, and that Congress can't revoke that right, in the hopes of avoiding the sort of situation the colonies found themselves in relative to Great Britain.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever the FF's intended it to mean that every American has an inalienable right to own any weapon they want whatsoever without limit.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[bursch-X]

Let's see:

Ten commandments?

I'm not religious, but...

"Thou shalt not murder"

Is pretty clear to me. Although apparently it wasn't to Christianity. Then again this wasn't an issue of not being clear rather than the people this is and was addressed to, putting their fingers in their ears and singing "LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you LA LA LA!!"...

You should've used emacs...

[ClayJar]

"...my chainsaw is incompatible with my text editor."

You should've used emacs.

Linux Revolution?

[_iris]

There is a Linux revolution? Last I checked, Linus is still in control, as much as ever anyway, and Alan Cox stepped down peacefully, without any coercion :]

Joking aside, let's all keep in mind who is publishing this garbage. Do you think the readers of Forbes are, just maybe, on the capitalist, monetize everything, even if you can't possibly hold an exclusive license side of the debate?

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[BootNinja]

Ok, Fine. What counts as arms? a .22 pistol? A tank? A basement full of C-4? An F16? and what counts as a citizen of good standing? Someone who hasn't been convicted of a felony? Someone who has no criminal record? Does this include traffic violations? Even your clarifications must be further clarified. It's a never ending cycle that can never be fully codified.

Re:More for the flames

[BootNinja]

You do realize that a large portion of the system utilities in linux come from FSF, right?

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Anonymous Coward]

To take a really off topic, but simple, example; When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant. Would it have been so hard to add a sentence? [etc., etc.]

If you are familiar with the history, it's obvious that, at the time, it very clearly referred to an individual right to bear arms.

That's what instigated the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and hence sparked the American Revolution. The British soldiers based in Boston went to collect caches of weapons from known or suspected agitators in the countryside. The British-American colonists felt their rights were violated, and it led to open combat, a fighting retreat, and the colonists successfully besieged Boston. All because the government wanted to collect weapons from citizens.

The problem is that, when man-portable automatic weapons were developed, the Constitution was not changed. Practically everyone recognizes that, if private individuals are allowed to own fully-automatic AK47s, there will be serious problems enforcing civil order. They were made illegal some time around 1900, but no one could be bothered with amending the Constitution to make such a law possible. So ever since that time, we have been subjected to the bizarre construction of 'oh yeah, it refers to ownership by militas, not to private ownership'. This only led to still more bizarre things like the creation of the 'Michigan Militia'.

Anyway, the problem is not that the second amendment is unclear. It's that it was outdated by late 19th-century technology, and we have been suffering under legal kludges ever since. All that we need is to pass a new amendment to say "people generally have a right to own handguns and rifles, but deadlier things can be prohibited".

But considering the trouble Congress has with even considering any modification at all (liberal or conservative) to Social Security, my hopes are not high.

Re:My point, exactly.

[Xtravar]

So you have a law phrased in several different ways so that everyone understands... what do you do if there is ambiguity between phrasings?

Nothing's ever going to be perfect and eternal. Things and language are changing all the time, and there's always going to be something that somebody never thought of. You can keep adding words and sentences and specifics until your face turns blue, but the law will still have uncharted territory - maybe not today, but eventually.

The nature of this conversation reminds me of The Law of Leaky Abstractions ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstra ctions.html ), since language is just an abstract way of communicating our thoughts.

Think of it this way: Was the Windows API perfect when Windows 3.1 hit the shelves? No. They've added functions and parameters, which most likely were not needed at the time of its original creation.

"IP" indeed made the Wrights a footnote in aviatio

[Latent Heat]

The Wright Brothers were first in flight excepting some spurious claims. They were for a long time number one in controlled flight -- when a left turn would send competitors augering in, they were not only flying but doing figure-eights and impressive maneuvers up in the air. But they were also wedded to a control-surfaces-in-front and other features that perhaps they could fly maneuvers but could they train anyone else? All I know is that after flight training in low-wing Pipers with asymmetric ailerons that you don't even have to know what the rudders are for, the thought of getting checked out in a Wright Flyer is something I don't want to contemplate -- probably something beyond helicopter training in developing a new set of reflexes and balances.

Given their lead, they had visions that they owned aviation through patents. They had the idea that flight was going to be bigger than anyone could imagine, but their idea was of themselves being a Microsoft rather than the aviation industry being Open Source. They made some money from it, but they didn't realize their dream of becoming personally rich beyond imagining. An engine maker called Curtis-Wright had their swan song in the form of the TurboCompound radial engine that powered the DC-7, Lockheed Constellation, P-2 Neptune (did they have one in the Skyraider?). But in the age of Boeing and Airbus, they are a historical footnote.

This got an entire article?

[deblau]

This is a rhetorical question! It should have gotten a poll at best:

Will Stallman Kill the "Linux Revolution?"

• Yes
• No
• Maybe
• Linux isn't a revolution, it's a kernel, dammit
• CowboyNeal will kill the Linux Revolution
• Stallman will kill CowboyNeal -- live, this Sunday on Pay Per View!

Re:Rights signed over?

[viscous]

Sure, you can sign over your copyright to the FSF, and people even have. You could also sign your copyright over to your employer or your mother. But nothing about the GPL requires you to reassign it to anyone. The original poster sounded like he might not realize that.

Unreasonable?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

"A reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

Stallman and Open Source

[leed_25]

My personal opinion is that Richard Stallman's relevance began to decrease
as soon as he stopped programming. I think that he is a first class programmer
but that he is an abject failure as a policy maker.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[sydneyfong]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

> I mean, if it is from the original author of the clause in question, why
> would it not have standing, even if clearly different from the exacting
> legalese

Because of the requirement of legal certainty.

Say you have a license agreement (or contract). Both parties read the terms and agree to it. All is happy. Now one day the drafter of the agreement (who isn't one of the parties) comes up and says "nevermind what I wrote, I actually meant *this*!". If this was accepted, then the parties are now bound by terms that they didn't agree to.

Note that (AFAIK) in common law, the court will put some weight on the intention of the parties of the agreement or contract. But this is different from the case where the contract or agreement or license (eg. GPL) was drafted by a third party (eg. RMS). RMS's intentions are not relevant (unless, of course, the parties had RMS's personal interpretations in mind when agreeing to the terms, then maybe that would be relevant)

Anyway, the bottom line is: the law expects you to read and (argh) understand the legalese, and it doesn't expect you to find out what the drafters of the document have to say about their intentions. What you agree to is the terms expressed on the document, not the drafter's intentions. In fact, the drafter's intentions are probably even more irrelevant than the parties not involved in the drafting: (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_preferendum )

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Another disclaimer: the above is a very rough approximation of the law. It is not accurate by any means.
Another disclaimer: I live in a common law jurisdiction, but the law in the US and my jurisdiction can vary.

A little knowledge...

[Charles W Griswold]

An interesting article, but it shows a remarkable lack of knowledge, both on the part of the author and on the part of some of the people that he quoted. He seems to think that if you distribute software under the GPL, that it gives Stallman control of said software, or that it gives Stallman a right to sue people who (mis)use the software. That simply isn't true. The copyright owner (i.e. the person(s) or company that actually wrote the software) controlls it, and is responsible for suing those who infringe on the GPL.

"In recent years Stallman and the FSF have been cracking down on big Linux users, enforcing terms of the existing license (GPLv2, for version 2) and demanding that the big tech outfits crack open their proprietary code whenever they inserted lines from Linux."

If said companies broke the terms of the GPL, then they're in the wrong, aren't they? I mean, hey, if I broke the terms of the license for, say, MS Windows and Microsoft found out about it, they'd be all over me like stink on you-know-what. But when the big corporations are called on *their* (alleged) copyright violations, suddenly it's Stallman that's in the wrong.

And then there's the fact that it goes on paragraph-after-paragraph describing Stallman in the most unflattering terms. I mean, hey, Stallman is no saint, and he is a bit bizarre, but what does that have to do with the GPL? What does hair in soup have to do with copyright law? What does bad singing have to do with finance? Forbes *is* a finance magazine and not a celebrity trash rag, right?

"A cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler, Stallman won't comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer."

Ah, I see. Daniel Lyons said bad things about Richard Stallman, so Stallman snubbed Lyons, so Lyons is in a snit. Grow up, guys.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Pfhorrest]

I know, traditions and all, but after all, legal rulings are often called "opinions". Why does there need to be "interpretation"? When you make a law (or write a license), would it be so hard to tag a sentence or two in plain vernacular about the "intent"? Why wouldn't that have any weight, legally? I mean, if it is from the original author of the clause in question, why would it not have standing, even if clearly different from the exacting legalese? Seems like we have the author of GPLV3 explaining himself already! Couldn't the intent be part of the license?

To take a really off topic, but simple, example; When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant. Would it have been so hard to add a sentence? Either By this we mean a well regulated militia is one that is under state control or The intention of this is to prevent the state from usurping the rights of individuals, so this to means all citizens of good standing can bear arms.?

Makes a big difference, and not subject to later interpretation.

In writing a philosophical essay, students are often advised to use as plain and simple English as possible to explain the claim that they are making, and to restate it several times in different ways, and include examples, to make sure that no reader is going to misunderstand them. I heard a good guideline the other week summarizing this: assume that your reader is "stupid, lazy, and mean". "Stupid" in that that they're not going to get your point very easily and need everything spelled out for them, "lazy" in that they're not going to to go to the effort of trying to understand what you mean and need everything spelled out for them, and "mean" in that they'll probably interpret what you say in the most negative way possible, so they need the actual intention of your point clearly spelled out for them.

It seems to me that, like you're saying, this would be a very good principle to apply to laws. Say what you're going to say - "P". Then say it, in a different way, "By P, we mean Q". Then say what you just said - "That is to say, R; or in other words, S." Give examples: "For example, this law prohibits X, Y, and Z; this law does not prohibit A, B, and C." And of course be clear that those are only examples and not the full extent of the law.

Someone else who responded to you already said that the symbols we use now to convey meaning (our language) do not retain the same meaning across generations. But it seems to me that you've got a good point: that by stating something in as many ways as possible, you're sort of giving several points of reference, to make sure that future generations understand that "P" meant the same thing as "Q" when we wrote this, so if what "P" means to you kids in the future isn't the same as what "Q" means to you, you're misunderstanding us somehow.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[1u3hr]

I know, traditions and all, but after all, legal rulings are often called "opinions". Why does there need to be "interpretation"? When you make a law (or write a license), would it be so hard to tag a sentence or two in plain vernacular about the "intent"? Why wouldn't that have any weight, legally?

Because your "plain language" is plain to you but not to everyone else, and especailly not to an determined lawyer.

I live in Hong Kong, where your "intent" idea has sadly been put into effect. When Hong Kong was handed back by Britain to China in 1997 the laws of Hong Kong were determined by the "Basic Law", in effect a constitution, as enacted by the PRC after negotiation with the UK. However, some years later when the governement wanted to enact laws that went against the "obvious" interpretation of the Basic Law (relating to elections mostly), the rulings of Hong Kong's High Court were overridden by the government by appealing to the "intent" of the laws, by asking members of the committee that had drafted them what they had been thinking about. Thus the government is able to retrospectively change the effect of laws without even having to pass legislation.

So as much as we all hate lawyers, having judicial oversight that follows the strict letter of the law, and not its "intent", is a much more democratic system. If governments want to change laws, they can make new ones and let the legislators openly argue and vote on them.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Procyon101]

Well, this gem is included:

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I'm pretty sure they didn't mean $20 the way you and I mean $20.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Procyon101]

We need to draft laws in a logic language. I propose a LISP dialect.

Do I now get to say...

[petrus4]

...I told you so? ;-) Maybe I should leave that for when Stallman actually *does* become irrelevant, rather than for stories like this which merely speculate about it.

Yes, the man did do some good things...it isn't that I'm not acknowledging that. I can't prove or disprove that nobody else would have come up with the idea of a FOSS license without him.

The bottom line now however is that as this article says, Stallman's radicalism is now threatening to destroy all of the good that he has created in the past...People also say he never changes, but personally I believe he *has* changed. He's already sold out, but not in the way this article's author thinks.

He's sold out in the sense that it's purely about power for him now...it's about being a cult leader. It's about having followers who worship him and follow his every decree.

If I thought he was still doing things for the right reasons, I'd venerate him myself. I believe that there was a time when he genuinely did care about the wellbeing of people other than himself...but that that time has long since passed.

For the sake of FOSS in general, he now must, as the article says, be routed around.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[cyber-vandal]

Huh? When did that change? It's always said "Thou shalt not kill" in my bible.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[ignavus]

Let me see ... how many Ecumenical Councils were there? So the Nicene Council around 325 - oh, wait, the Nicene Creed was amended a little at the later Constinopolitan Council ... so it has only been unchanged in the last 1500 years. Besides the creed itself, they passed a whole lot of provisions of canon law. Then there were the provisions of the other councils, and the later Orthodox and Catholic Councils that still have force as canon law. The laws of England include provisions going back to the reign of Edward III (1300s) that are still in force (or were until recently). Hmmm Magna Carta - now there is a document to make your Constitution look like a juvenile.

History wasn't invented in America. Some places have been around longer, and have a longer tradition of unchanged principles. Jewish law goes back, in some matters, over 3,000 years. America is just a Johnny-come-lately in the world of legal history.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[DrSkwid]

It doesn't specify humans. Some of us consider killing all animals to be murder. But where to I draw my line ? Bacteria, a wild dog attacking me, a mosquito ?

Specificity for such things is always hard to pin down.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_1994003 3_en_6.htm#mdiv63

Here the state tries to define rave music in order to outlaw it

63.--(1) This section applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers) at which amplified music is played during the night (with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality; and for this purpose--

              (a) such a gathering continues during intermissions in the music and, where the gathering extends over several days, throughout the period during which amplified music is played at night (with or without intermissions); and

              (b) "music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Threni]

> "Thou shalt not murder"
> Is pretty clear to me.

It's "thou shalt not kill", though.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[LinuxIsRetarded]

It has never changed. The translations from the original Hebrew are slightly different. Exodus 20:13 in various translations:

NIV: "You shall not murder.
KJV: Thou shalt not kill.
The Message: No murder.
NKJV: "You shall not murder.

It seems as though the most widely agreed upon translation from the original Hebrew is "murder." Despite the various translations, I don't think anyone has ever misunderstood this or any of the other Commandments.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[kraada]

It was always that way. Killing is perfectly justified for a large variety of reasons in the Torah. Capital punishment is common, there are fairly complex rules for retribution, and plenty of times G-d Himself says "go out and win a glorious victory" if you read the assorted Prophets and Writings. If all killing were outlawed, there'd be a heck of a lot of contradiction here.

Murder, though, is unjustified killing. It breaks one of the Ten Commandments to pick a child at random and bash his head in. It does not break one of the Ten Commandments to kill your enemy in battle.

I prefer to reading which doesn't cause G-d to be commanding His people to break the Ten Commandments, personally.

For the nitpickers:
The Hebrew word in question is 'ratzach' (which is conjugated to tirtzach in the text; Exodus XX, 13). Modern usage (according to my dictionary) clearly indicates murder as the first definition, and 'kill' as secondary. There is another verb 'harag' which can also mean 'kill', unfortunately I'm not as up on my Hebrew, so I can't say for sure whether this word is: a) used for more general killing, b) used more for killing of animals, or c) a modern invention.

Completely wrong I'm afraid.

[anti-NAT]

Here's just some of what Linus says about binary modules.

"I'm a complete non-believer in binary modules"

"Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules."

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[coaxial]

Never read Misquoting Jesus huh? Here's the highlights:

• There's no definitive interpretation of the Bible. Never was. You can go all the way back to the earliest copies, and they're different, sometimes in substantive ways.
• The combination of scribes and lack of widespread literacy, and copies, people -- sometimes accidently, sometimes willfully -- changed the Bible. Case in point, one of the most popular Jesus quotes in the Bible, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Not just the quote, but the entire story of the stoning of the woman doesn't even exist in the earliest copies. Good story. Consistent with Jesus's teachings, but it wasn't part of the Bible.

Oh, and what got Author Bart D. Ehrman interested in this topic? He was raised a Biblical literalist and wanted to read THE definitive earliest copy of the Bible. While the historical truth of the Bible hasn't shaken he's belief in Christianity, he's no longer a literalist.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[dwandy]

Also, Stallman isn't a lawyer, although his intent is well and good, does he really understand what the consequences of his intent are?

Stallman might not be a lawyer, but he has one, and I think it's pretty safe to say that (as far as is possible) the legal consequences have been studied.
Of course, tivoisation is an unexpected consequence of the v.2 wording ... so nothing is perfect, and depending on how the v.3 transition goes there may be a v.4 in another dozen years.

imho, Stallman's intent has never changed and he's never hidden his intent ... anyone who believes that GPLv.3 is different than v.2 in intent has obviously never read Stallman.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[WillerZ]

According to the westegg inflation calculator:

What cost $20 in 1800 would cost $216.86 in 2005.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2005 and 1800,
they would cost you $20 and $1.84 respectively.

It's different, but not all that different really.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[ajs318]

And G W Bush has added the following to the US constitution: "6 rolls 2-ply luxury bathroom tissue. 100% recycled paper. Average 240 sheets per roll. Sheet size 110 x 125mm. Total area 13.2m2."

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[cerberusss]

I'm not religious, but... "Thou shalt not murder" Is pretty clear to me.

Reminds me of this piece from the Onion: God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule

Well, actually...

[Poromenos1]

... in Exodus 34, there's a completely different set of commandments.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[senatorpjt]

Practically everyone recognizes that, if private individuals are allowed to own fully-automatic AK47s, there will be serious problems enforcing civil order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switz erland

" it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types."
I never hear about any serious problems enforcing civil order in Switzerland.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[sjames]

the rulings of Hong Kong's High Court were overridden by the government by appealing to the "intent" of the laws, by asking members of the committee that had drafted them what they had been thinking about. Thus the government is able to retrospectively change the effect of laws without even having to pass legislation.

The problem there wasn't with following intent, the problem was several parts of the government deliberatly and knowingly conspiring to revise history to fit their current agenda. Had the High Court truly cared to get at original intent, it would not simply take the drafting committee's word for their original intent, it would evaluate transcripts of deliberations at that time.

In the U.S. we have the advantage that the framers of the Constitution are now dead and so cannot revise their thinking or intent. We have the problem that there is nobody to stand up and shout "You know very well that's not what we said!".

The problem, as usual, is not that we don't know what was meant by the words in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We know very well what they meant. We have linguists and historians who, if sent back in time to 1776, could fit perfectly into that society with nobody the wiser. Should there be any questions of meaning, they can answer them.

The problem is judges, legislators, and lawyers who are more than happy to argue that black is white and up is down in order to do things that they know very well are forbidden and against the principles of a free society. They do exactly the same thing many of us tried as children "but DAD, you didn't say don't eat cookies before dinner, you said don't let you catch me! MOM caught me, not you!".

As adults, the Supreme Court, President, and Congress are a bit old for spankings, but a good old fashioned tarring and feathering is probably in order. The problem is, due to another bit of legal Sophistry, should I actually try to organize it I would be a "terrorist" and end up in Cuba deprived of many of my Constitutional rights.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[UnknownSoldier]

> Ten commandments?

The Egyptians had them first, in the "Egyptian Book of the Dead", Spell 125
1. BotD
2. BotD

> Is pretty clear to me. Although apparently it wasn't to Christianity.

The exact Hebrew in Ex 20:13 for "murder" is "lo tirtzach" (It is derived from H#7523 ratzach / ratsach.) Dr. Reuben Alcalay's (modern Hebrew Scholar) Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary says that the word tirtzach, especially in classical Hebrew usage, refers to "any kind of killing," and not necessarily the murder of a human being.

Aside: If God is a God of Love, why isn't he contradictory and a hypocrite for commanding to kill every man, woman, and child in Ex 32:27 or 1. Sam 15:2?

--
What did Paul hear, that he was not allowed to tell others when he had his OBE in 2 Cor 12:4

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Dread_ed]

Your comment seems rather obtuse to me as I have never seen a murderer with earmuffs singing "LALALALALA" while stabbing someone to death or shooting them in the face. Not even metaphorically.

Howerver I can only assume you are referring to those hot button categories of action (like wartime killing and capitol murder) that so many people point to and scream "hipocrisy!" about.

Fortunately the Bible is one of the most precise documents ever written and it makes clear the distinction between murder and other types of justifiable and necessary homocide. Anyone who reads the 10 commandments in context will understand this, as the scriptural discussion of what constitutes murder is voluminous and pretty hard to miss, even if you are trying.

The Bible dictates that self defense, wartime, and the excercise of the law are not only permissible reasons for homocide but in some cases they are required. So unless you are referring to Christians who routinely kill humans outside those boundaries I think you may be doing a little singing yourself.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

[Mr. Slippery]

Some landowners did own cannon.

That doesn't mean their right to do so was protected by Amendment II.

the last thing they wanted was a government with enough of an advantage over private citizens that it could suppress another revolution!

Of course that's what they wanted. One of the first significant things the new federal government organized under the Constitution did was go suppress a rebellion.

if one is a CEO or a CIO. . .

[alizard]

Forbes Magazine subscriptions are great Xmas gifts. For the competitors' CEOs and CIOs. Getting technology right is the difference between corporate profit and corporate disaster, and Forbes usually gets it wrong