Glibc Is Finally Free Software

WebMink writes "Despite the fervour of some, the dark secret of every GNU/Linux distribution is that, until August 18 this year, it depended on software that was under a non-Free license — incompatible with the Open Source Definition and non-Free according to Debian and the FSF. A long tale of tenacity and software archeology has finally led to that software appearing under the 3-clause BSD license — ironically, at the behest of an Oracle VP. The result is that glibc, portmap and NFS are no longer tainted."

Comments

Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

Im pretty sure this is false

Re:Yea..

[SL Baur]

Grats, but why did that hypocritical Stallman allow Glibc to keep the G in identical circumstances to the XEmacs situation and demonized us?

Re:Yea..

[wiredlogic]

He was too busy fuming over (non-GPL) gnuplot.

Re:Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

stallman's head is so far up his own ass...

Re:Yea..

[Florian Weimer]

The official FSF position was that they could take the code and release it under the LGPL. They thought that the license was structured in such a way that it basically lost its force once the covered software was built into another piece of software. I'm not sure if they have ever stated that analysis publicly.

Sometimes, I wish they would take this pragmatic approach towards the 4-clause BSD license.

Re:Yea..

[pegdhcp]

You are expecting him to waste his precious time on small details!!!!

Re:Yea..

[twistedcubic]

Are you the guy driving around L.A. with the XEMACS license plate?

Re:Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just inspired me to read up again on the Lucid Emacs schism. To me, that looks very different than what I see here.

Going over some stuff on jwz.org, that debate seems to have been about bickering over implementation of features. For example, JWZ seems to have ironed out something around how to restructure the main loop to allow for GUI toolkits, and RMS shook his fist in the air about how GUI toolkits confuse him and disturb his sense of purity. Or, they argued about a particular feature being implemented with binary trees or as a linear search. In any case it was all GPL code, and the issue is probably about petty personality conflicts and working effectively with people rather than a legal problem.

Here, we just have a case of two fairly permissive software licenses which are incompatible. The spirit of the licenses say they ought to get along. And I guess nobody was really prepared to sue over these issues. So, in my mind, not so serious.

Re:Yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind, I caught up in my reading from the early 90s into the late 90s, and yes, now I remember -- RMS *did* bitch about the copyright assignment thing. Much of my comment is invalid, move along. :-)

Re:Yea..

[ray-auch]

If I understand you right, they originally _did_ take "pragmatic" approach to 4-clause BSD, i.e. ignoring the advertising clause on the basis that it couldn't be enforced, and on that basis stating that 4-clase BSD was compatible with (L)GPL.

GLibc was one of the places I recall where 4-clause BSD code was used.

Later, someone (Alan Cox, I think) acutally got legal advice that contradicted the FSF position, and I think there was then some sort of effort to purge the 4-clause BSD code.

Re:Yea..

[SL Baur]

No. I haven't lived in the LA area in a decade and a half.

Re:Yea..

[SL Baur]

I remember -- RMS *did* bitch about the copyright assignment thing.

Correct. It wasn't enough that we were GPL (v2), but we had to get copyright assignments to the FSF from an organization that didn't exist and people who were unwilling to do that.

My only personal contact with Stallman was a phone call just a bit after I took over from Chuck and he promised to "go to war against me" (his words) if I didn't get all the copyright assignments. I couldn't and he did.

In an interesting twist, my successor has managed to get the code base to GPL v3. Sigh.

They released it under the BSD license?

[HornWumpus]

The GPL just isn't free enough for me.

It just sucks up BSD code and never gives anything back.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got an idea! What we really need is some kind of license that's like BSD, but requires people distributing derived works to do so under the same license. I can't believe nobody's thought of this yet!

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Bobakitoo]

Lol. The twit who moded that "insightful" need to lookup irony.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[blair1q]

it's called "putting it in the public domain"

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the BSD license isn't free enough for me. The BSD license does nothing to let me write code that, for example, hacks into people's bank accounts and transfers all their money to mine. A truly FREE license would make that legal.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright laws are less of a liabilty than public domain becuase copyright laws are here to stay.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Psaakyrn]

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[blai]

WTFPL will be perfect for you.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[WebMink]

The best way to put something as close to public domain as possible is the Creative Commons CC-Zero license. Anything less that that leaves too many legal uncertainties.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[paxcoder]

Here's your argumentation in one old XKCD-style doodle of mine: http://arka.foi.hr/~lmarcetic/pic/strip/001_bsdvsgpl.png

BSD works in a world without copyright. There is no such world. Therefore, BSD does not work.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[SoftwareArtist]

What do you mean by, "legally protect them to be in public domain?" When something is in the public domain, absolutely anyone can use it in any way they want. Including using it as part of a non-free, non-public domain product. They can do whatever they want with it, just as everyone else can.

Perhaps you're asking about copyfraud, where someone falsely claims to have exclusive rights to a work in the public domain? For example, publishing a copy of Shakespeare's plays and putting a notice on it that says, "No part of this may be reproduced without permission from the publisher." That's just lying. A license like GPL wouldn't prevent that either. Licenses only apply to people who are honest or who get caught. If someone intentionally lies about what rights they have, the only thing you can do is call them on it (and sue them if you're sufficiently motivated).

Or maybe you're just asking what the mechanism is? In most countries, all you need to do is stick a notice on it saying, "This work is in the public domain."

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question.

It is a very good question, and the answer is to use the GPL. But more to the point, if you put something into the public domain, then you by definition should be expecting that other people will take your work and close it up inside their own products/works. If you don't want that, then you don't want the public domain.

If what you want is "public domain" in the sense that it's open for anyone to look at, use, and modify and you want to keep it that way when others use/modify it, then what you want is the GPL.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

some kind of license that's like BSD, but requires people distributing derived works to do so under the same license

it's called "putting it in the public domain"

Except that it's not. Public domain works come with no restrictions at all, so you can't "require" anything.

Enhancing and transforming public domain work, then putting it under your own copyright is not only perfectly legal - it's the entire fscking point of the public domain. (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.)

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like you're never really free, unless you have the freedom to lock people up.

Amusingly, when people use that extra freedom the BSD-license provides, people like you complain.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Hangin10]

What.. how... huh?

All that shows is someone not understanding their chosen license and getting angry that they didn't get credit for their work.

Restrictions in the name of freedom is not freedom. Perhaps what you mean is that BSD doesn't work quite so well in a world where people hunger for fame and recognition. I'd bet Data would be BSD if Soong lived long enough to perfect things.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't, in this context, confuse "free" with "open", or, not in this context, underestimate the suffering caused by fallacious analogies.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Bobakitoo]

Look like that twit had mods points left....

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Public domain will depend on the country definition, CC zero might do best.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Psaakyrn]

Yes, I mean something along the lines of copyfraud. More notably, how can I defend a work against copyfraud, what sort of evidence do I need?

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Timothy Brownawell]

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question.

It is a very good question, and the answer is to use the GPL.

Um, WTF? GPL is absolutely not similar to public domain; the gpl-violations people repeatedly make this very clear.

A better answer is, "that's not very clear, could you give an example of what you mean?". About the only thing I think it can sanely mean, is how to prevent other people from claiming it as their work (ie, plagiarism) and suing people (kinda like SCO suing people over Novell's copyrighted code). Maybe something like CC-zero is the answer (you keep a copyright, so you can sue them for... I think it was "slander of title" that Novell used), maybe just make sure your copy with the non-copyright notice gets well indexed by the search engines so any potential victims can find it when they need to defend themselves, maybe plagiarism can be a suable offence separately from copyright violation (I don't think that's the case here in the US, but I hear it might be in much of Europe).

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Darinbob]

The GPL has more restrictions than the old Sun RPC license. Glibc had already been free software, the only difference is that now satisfies some misguided notions some people have, that is all.

We really need to get away with this obsessive legality, and just start giving code away. Someone should be able to say "here, take my code and use it" without someone lecturing them on what they're doing wrong while the free software song is sung out of key in the background. Why don't people want to write or even use free software? Because of all the baggage that comes along with it.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that was exactly the GP's point. He took the OP seriously when he sarcastically wrote that BSD code isn't being contributed to, and replied with a comic that showed how silly that chosen mentality is.

Still, some might say the choice of reciprocation is the absolute greatest thing about the BSD. The world can't conform to a single viewpoint, and there are legitimate scenarios in which code cannot be released. It's still recommended however that a person contribute back, but that's totally left up to the licenser's discretion. In other words, the INTENT of the BSD license isn't to foster closed software. The intent is to provide code with the least amount of attached restrictions, and to encourage (not mandate) the custom of open software.

I'll sum up the last paragraph with an example. Is it acceptable for someone to keep their simple modifications to BSDed software, if those changes are considered useful? Yes. Is it morally right to do so? No, and at the same time, yes. There are other factors that can take precedence. But primarily, the interpretation of whether it is right or wrong depends upon the peer interaction ethic on which one was raised.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[bondsbw]

You keep saying "public domain", but you are using it to define nearly the opposite concept.

I like to think of it this way. Least free to most free: GPL, BSD/MIT, Public Domain. GPL is very restrictive as to what the licensee can or cannot do with the work. BSD/MIT both allow nearly any use/modification/extension, but requires the licensee to retain copyright notices. Public Domain requires neither; anyone can use and abuse it without retaining copyright notices.

So is GPL more or less free than a commercial license? Usually less free, but it depends on what you want. The GPL is more restrictive in that source code must be provided, no charge, to anyone who gets a binary copy. Typical mega-corporation commercial licenses prevent modification or extension, and many times even use and reverse-engineering, but I'd say that smaller companies tend to be less restrictive in their licenses than the GPL (barring, of course, redistribution of the original source code).

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

This license doesn't work like a fishing license.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[maxume]

Have you really missed all the people that do just let people take their code and use it?

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I mean something along the lines of copyfraud. More notably, how can I defend a work against copyfraud, what sort of evidence do I need?

Does it ever occur to you fucks to contact an attorney when you have a legal question?

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[nmb3000]

Good suggestion, but keep in mind that CC licenses are not designed to be used with software. As they say on their FAQ:

Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?

We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.

CC is a great set of licenses, but as they say, if you're dealing with software you're probably better off using one of the licenses designed with it in mind.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[fyngyrz]

You need the same thing as you need with any software: A copy of the original, with the terms, in this case a statement that the code is PD. The Internet, bless its digital little heart, probably remembers when it appeared, too. If terms are obeyed, no problem will arise. Its the liars and the cheats you have to watch out for, and that's true no matter what mode of release you choose from commercial to PD.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Local ID10T]

Just like you're never really free, unless you have the freedom to lock people up.

You are thinking of the BDSM license...

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[gstoddart]

"How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question."

It is a very good question, and the answer is to use the GPL. But more to the point, if you put something into the public domain, then you by definition should be expecting that other people will take your work and close it up inside their own products/works. If you don't want that, then you don't want the public domain.

Horseshit.

If your answer to "how do you put something into the public domain, and ensure that it stays in the public domain" boils down to "use the GPL" then one of the following is true:

• You don't know what public domain means
• You don't know what the GPL says
• You don't care that they asked about public domain, you just felt like saying to use the GPL (or, worse, that's all you know)

The poster obviously knows what public domain means as he crafted a question specific to it.

A lot of open source licenses specifically allow reuse in a closed system. It doesn't guarantee that a company will show you how they did something. But, it means that as long as people have access to your code, it exists. If it ceases to exist, well, nobody else cared. If it's available for the rest of time, people must have found it useful.

The GPL is fundamentally not compatible with public domain in that someone else has to provide the source code once something is covered by the GPL. Public domain makes the knowledge public, and the application of it, is up to you.

While everything you say about the GPL is true, you've either intentionally chosen to disregard what the poster asked, or you simply don't know why someone would want to put code into the public domain and ensure it stayed there.

GPL software isn't evil, nor is public domain software, nor is BSD. All of the licenses have their own application. In this case, by putting glibc under a BSD license means that anybody is free to include that in their OS if they feel that will make it better. This includes FreeBSD, Linux, Oracle, and, yes, even Microsoft.

The whole point of public domain (or even BSD software) is that you feel the world is a better place with your software being free than without. If someone you don't like happens to write better software as a result (and not have to GPL their code), then that is life.

There's a whole range of licenses, and reasons why things are under those licenses. Sticking with only "use the GPL" limits you in that landscape.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[tibit]

As for Shakespeare's plays -- even though they were used only as an example here -- be careful. Old texts often undergo serious editing before being published, and the edited version is quite definitely not in public domain. That's the reason why journal article preprints are usually freely distributed by the authors, while the final, edited and published version would be illegal to distribute. Same goes for translations: even though a translation is a work derived from another work in the public domain, it's still by itself subject to copyright law protection.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Best comment ever. +1

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Thinboy00]

The usual reason for this is that most software licenses are designed to distinguish between source code and binary/object code. However, if you intend to put both in the public domain, I see no reason why you couldn't use cc0, hypothetically.

IANAL.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Thinboy00]

cc0 doesn't let you keep a copyright in countries in which the copyright can be dissolved, such as the US. Slander of title may apply even if the code has become PD, as long as the statement is false and harmful. In the case of Novell, it was false (the code was GPL, PD, or (c) Novell) and harmful (SCO was suing Novell's customers, or threatening to sue them). IANAL, this isn't legal advice, etc.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Thinboy00]

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain?

Really, serious question.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[CCW]

Usually less free than a commercial license? I'm curious about your definition of less.

You can copy GPL software to any and all machines you want without restrictions. (commercial software doesn't usually let you do that)
You can give or sell GPL software to anyone, as long as you provide them the source code. (commercial software doesn't usually allow that)
You can modify it and use it anywhere (commercial software doesn't usually allow that)
You can incorporate it into your own code, provided that you license your code as GPL (commercial software doesn't usually allow that)

You can pay for the rights to do all of these things with commercial software, subject to the copyright holders predilection for selling those rights.

The only thing you cannot do is incorporate GPL software into your own NON-GPL code without paying the copyright holder for those additional rights, subject to their willingness to license those rights, but you can't do that with commercial software either.

As I see it you are never more restricted by the GPL than a commercial license. There exist commercial licenses that allow unlimited use and distribution and modification and distribution of the modified code, but they are extremely rare big $$$$ licenses - Sun's license for Unix and Microsofts license for SQL Server are good examples.

If you are a developer and want to sell binary only copies of a modified version of something, then you may be better off starting from something that isn't GPL licensed. But that doesn't make it more free, just better suited to your particular purposes, and describing it as more free is inaccurate. It is simply more convenient to license the particular rights you are interested in. A software USER always has more freedom under the GPL than a commercial license because the only right constrained by the GPL is one that does not impact them, and commercial software nearly always constrains usage rights in some way. Users can even legally use GPL'd software without agreeing to the license!

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Artifakt]

In theory, GPL is less free than PD. In practice though - standing matters in court. It's hard to get a court to hear a case over someone fraudulently claiming to own a Public Domain work. If they actually filed suit against you, you would have clear standing, since they were threatening to damage you by taking your money if they won the suit. But, what if they just sent you a cease and desist, falsely claiming to own the work, but not actually announcing they plan to file charges if you publish or distribute? You haven't been threatened with actual damages yet. So maybe the court won't hear the case yet either. Now suppose your business model was to get a loan to print copies of a public domain book, i.e. Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist or the Big Book of Celtic Knotwork patterns. You probably have to reveal the existence of the fraudulent claim to act in good faith with whomever is giving you a loan, and hope that they agree this doesn't affect your ability to make a profit and repay that loan. If they back out, you might be able to sue for damages over it, but it won't be as easy or straightforward as if the 'bad guys' filed first and you countersued. Public domain can be a pain in the ass if somebody with money is involved.
      For one real example, take Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan. One of the claims over whether a work was derived from Book 4 and earlier of the Tarzan series, then already PD, or a latter book that wasn't PD yet, ended up hinging on whether a ring worn by Tarzan was first described by Burroughs or first illustrated by a cover artist, with Burroughs picking it up from the illustration for one edition of book 4, and adding it to his description of Tarzan in book 6 and on, and whether the cover artist's picture counted as work for hire for either Burroughs or a publisher, or neither. At some point the court was entertaining arguments that the cover artist had meant to depict a Lapis Lazuli and not a Sapphire, as "anyone could clearly see" from the incredibly faded 1922 illustration on cheap pulp paper more than 50 years later. It at least seems possible that if one of these less free liscences had been involved, that case would have ended up a lot simpler and more clear cut. If I was a small publisher, involved in a case where other parties included someone such as Universal Pictures or Disney, and I found that the case might hinge on a point as difficult as that, I'd probably wish someone had used a GPL, a Creative Commons liscence, or something that made a lot of these extranious issues not matter.
      Of course, if I had thought a work was under the GPL and something like this case happened, I might equally be wishing someone had just declared their intent to put it in the public domain.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

tend to be less restrictive in their licenses than the GPL (barring, of course, redistribution of the original source code).

I like how you use a whole paragraph explaining why commercial licenses are more free than the GPL and then gloss over the friggin huge reason for the GPL in the first place parenthetically as if it was an afterthought. The freedom of modification and redistribution is huge, and central to the GPL.

But maybe you're right, that software license I got from Microsoft for Windows was way more free than the one I got with Linux. There's nothing those Linux guys will let me do with their software, I can barely run it without giving up all my rights. Unlike Windows which has really set me free with what I can do with the software and source code.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[retchdog]

It all comes down to what one means by "stays in the public domain."

If they mean that mere duplication stays in the public domain, then the PD satisfies that already so there is no question apart from what is called "copyfraud" elsewhere in thread. I am not sure whether PD blocks copyfraud (claiming authorship of material verbatim); I suspect it depends on whether the country has a concept of moral rights apart from intellectual property rights.

So, the alternative is that if by "stays in the public domain," they mean that derived works stay in the domain declared for the original work. OK, now strictly speaking we've reached a contradiction since the public domain does not allow this. However, we may consider a quasi-public domain in which this property holds. It is obvious that there is no way whatsoever to do this for an open release, without something GPL-like (feel free to prove me wrong). Specifics may differ, but that part of GPL which is called "viral" by its detractors and called "spider plant-like" by rms exactly identifies what is necessary for derived works to stay in the original domain.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[retchdog]

Serious question: can I take a PD work verbatim and claim authorship? Or more precisely, in which countries can I do this?

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

You keep saying "public domain", but you are using it to define nearly the opposite concept.

Did you even read my post? That was my whole point, that you can't create a license to mandate that something stay in the public domain after someone else takes a hold of it because inherent in the definition of public domain is the ability for anyone to do whatever they want with it, including the ability to make their version not public domain. I was suggesting to the OP that if what he meant by "public domain" (notice the ironic quotes there and in my original post) was that the work would stay available for everyone even after someone else takes it and releases it as their own, then "public domain" is not the proper release strategy for him, and that he's probably looking for something like the GPL.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Um, WTF? GPL is absolutely not similar to public domain; the gpl-violations people repeatedly make this very clear.

A better answer is, "that's not very clear, could you give an example of what you mean?". About the only thing I think it can sanely mean, is how to prevent other people from claiming it as their work (ie, plagiarism) and suing people (kinda like SCO suing people over Novell's copyrighted code). Maybe something like CC-zero is the answer (you keep a copyright, so you can sue them for... I think it was "slander of title" that Novell used)

Um, WTF? being able to prevent other people from claiming it as their work is absolutely not similar to public domain; copyright lawyers repeatedly make this very clear.

Seriously, how does my post warrant a "WTF" and not yours? The original question wasn't clear. I was stating that if what if what he meant was that he wanted to be able to keep other people from closing up the work, then "public domain" wasn't the right thing, something like the GPL would be. I don't see how your assumption that he was asking how to keep other people from claiming the work as theirs is any clearer. The whole point is that his question is internally inconsistent. I was giving an answer to one interpretation with lots of "ifs" to be sure that's what he meant, while explaining exactly what public domain meant and why it wouldn't be proper in any interpretation of the original question.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

So, the alternative is that if by "stays in the public domain," they mean that derived works stay in the domain declared for the original work. OK, now strictly speaking we've reached a contradiction since the public domain does not allow this. However, we may consider a quasi-public domain in which this property holds. It is obvious that there is no way whatsoever to do this for an open release, without something GPL-like

Wow, I think I just bumped into the first person who actually read what I wrote. I don't think anyone else has any reading comprehension anymore.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Stupendoussteve]

I don't think anybody releasing code under public domain is operating under the expectation that people who use it will necessarily share that source. You accept that it may be used in any and all circumstances, including evil closed source projects. That's kind of the idea.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[dgatwood]

If they send you a C&D, you should at least have standing to sue for harassment.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Horseshit.

Horseshit... really? Try dedicating some more time to reading what I actually wrote and a little less being an ass.

I know exactly what public domain is, I know exactly what the GPL says, and my response was tailored specifically to the fact that the poster mentioned public domain. What I wrote was this:

IF you put something into the public domain, then you by definition should be expecting that other people will take your work and close it up inside their own products/works. IF you don't want that, then you don't want the public domain.

Highlighting the "ifs" this time so you people can actually see them. His question didn't make any sense so I was clarifying and qualifying my response.

The poster obviously knows what public domain means as he crafted a question specific to it.

The poster obviously does not know what public domain means (no offense original poster, it actually is a good question and we all probably just need a little more clarification on what you meant exactly). Just because one uses a term doesn't mean they actually know what it means. And that's kind of the whole point, he's asking because he's not clear on the subject. If he were an expert, he wouldn't be asking.

A lot of open source licenses specifically allow reuse in a closed system. It doesn't guarantee that a company will show you how they did something. But, it means that as long as people have access to your code, it exists. If it ceases to exist, well, nobody else cared. If it's available for the rest of time, people must have found it useful.

Now it sounds like you're the one who has "intentionally chosen to disregard what the poster asked". He specifically asked, "How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain?" He wasn't asking how you create software that has staying power. Or how do you ensure lots of people have access to your code. Or how do you make people care about your software. He's asking how can you release something in the public domain while retaining the ability to sue people (legally protect) to make sure the thing stays in the public domain. The only way I can see to interpret that question is "I want to publish a piece of work and let other people use it freely, how can I release it such that no one else can legally close it up."

I at least understand that because the original question is unclear as to what is meant by "public domain" (because its use seems inconsistent with the poster's desires) that there very well could have been a different meaning intended. If you actually read my original response without your hate glasses on, I think you'll see that.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that smaller companies tend to be less restrictive in their licenses than the GPL.

Small companies don't need to forbid modification or extension explicitly. Either it is forbidden by law (circumvention of copyright mechanisms) or it is forbidden by law to forbid it (reverse engineering for compatibility purposes), which would make the entire contract between the user and the distributor null and void were it not for the phrase "except where void or prohibited."

So, really, the only difference between small companies and big companies that distribute restricted software is in that small companies don't pay a small army of lawyers to intimidate their customers with legally meaningless texts.

And the GPL is still less restrictive than standard copyright (which applies in any case, no matter the length of the EULA.) Most people don't care about the source code anyway, and if they do, it is usually because the company they bought the software from can no longer provide support due to its no longer existing.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Yes, the first round of people in the BSD software pyramid scheme can benefit fiscally by merely collecting other's work and refusing to publish or release their own for similar open source use. Look very carefully at what is happening with MySQL right now, and look very carefully at what Microsoft did with Kerberos (to make Active Directory incompatible with standard Kerberos), and at what Apple does with its now-closed-source BSD.

If you're lucky enough to be the company that can market the source you close, well, you're in good siscal shape. If you're a developer who wants to debug it for your personal or professional use, too bad. We're seeing this right now with commercial MySQL vendors: the results are fascinating, but one can hardly call them the results of "free" or "open" software: they're the result of taking open software closed.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Karellen]

GPL is very restrictive as to what the licensee can or cannot do with the work. BSD/MIT both allow nearly any use/modification/extension, but requires the licensee to retain copyright notices.

Um, (L)GPL allows for any use/modification/extension. Those are freedoms 0 and 1.

The only restrictions the (L)GPL places on works licensed under it are when it comes to redistribution of the code - you have to give the person you redistribute someone else's GPL'd code to the same freedoms that you got when you received it.

So is GPL more or less free than a commercial license? Usually less free, but it depends on what you want.

Really? Last I checked, the licences for commercial software usually do not allow you to redistribute copies of the code at all, in any form (binary or source, oh, and good luck with getting the source), under any circumstances.

The GPL is more restrictive in that source code must be provided, no charge, to anyone who gets a binary copy.

Yes, but you're allowed to include, in the amount you charge people for the binary version, costs to cover providing them with the source in the future, which you'll then have whether or not they ever ask for the source. Or you could always ship the source alongside the binaries.

I'd say that smaller companies tend to be less restrictive in their licenses than the GPL

Can you give an example?

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[sumdumass]

I don't think he said commercial licenses are more free, he said they can be more free. Look into his statements about typically small companies and see if you can see it too.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sam Hocevar's DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE (Vesrion 2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[sumdumass]

Um, (L)GPL allows for any use/modification/extension. Those are freedoms 0 and 1.

The only restrictions the (L)GPL places on works licensed under it are when it comes to redistribution of the code - you have to give the person you redistribute someone else's GPL'd code to the same freedoms that you got when you received it.

Well, there are more restrictions then that. There are restrictions to what code you can link to or use with the programs/*pl'd code, how it can be used and so on. It's not like Lgpl code can link to GPL code and Mycode licenses software at the same time.

Really? Last I checked, the licences for commercial software usually do not allow you to redistribute copies of the code at all, in any form (binary or source, oh, and good luck with getting the source), under any circumstances.

Im think he is talking about the license to distribute the software and not the EULA you click through without reading just to use the program. It would most likely need to be this way because the GPL or LGPL doesn't even apply to use, only distribution of the covered works. So perhaps this is a contextual thing revolving around semantics or something.

Yes, but you're allowed to include, in the amount you charge people for the binary version, costs to cover providing them with the source in the future, which you'll then have whether or not they ever ask for the source. Or you could always ship the source alongside the binaries.

Well, this is sort of a stickler here as most Linux distributions don't even fully comply with the source code clauses in the GPL. You see, if you offer the binary for download, you need to offer the source on the same server in just as conspicuous of a way. Try finding an ISO with all the source on it on some Distro's download page. Hell, just try to find the source code to the updates the package manager automagically installs when you set it to update. And if you do find them, then find the updates to the 4 year old OS version that they discontinued 2 years ago. The GPL says 3 years after the last offering, most distros move them aside or remove them from public access altogether to make room for the new projects.

Of course that last pet peeve has nothing to do with closed (non-free) verses open (free) licenses, It's just a burden that the GPL's place on the source code distribution that seems like not even some of the major distributions comply with the letter of the GPL.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[TheRaven64]

Or you can add some trivial but easily satisfiable condition to the BSD license, such as 'everyone who distributes this code is required to thank someone at some point in their life.' Because this condition is not in the GPL, and the GPL prevents you from adding any other conditions, no matter how reasonable, to the licenses of anything linked with GPL'd code, this means that you may not use the resulting code with GPL'd code. You may, however, use it with pretty much any other Free Software license, including most of those that are GPL-incompatible (e.g. MPL, CDDL, APSL).

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[gnasher719]

Serious question: can I take a PD work verbatim and claim authorship? Or more precisely, in which countries can I do this?

One country where you can _not_ do it is Germany. They have distinct rights; one is similar to copyright, which allows you to control copying and make money from the works, and one is the right to claim authorship. And only the author can ever, ever have the right to claim authorship. It is a right that cannot be sold, that cannot be lost. If you wrote it, then nobody else can ever gain the legal right to claim they wrote it.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either trolling or clueless and wrong. Going by your nick you're just a stupid troll, but anyway I'll tell you the big secret; The GPL doesn't restrict or place any burden on anything, full stop. That's a blatant misrepresentation or misunderstanding on your part that disqualifies you from the discussion.

If you don't get this post, keep reading it until you do.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[julesh]

Good suggestion, but keep in mind that CC licenses are not designed to be used with software. As they say on their FAQ:

Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?

We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.

CC is a great set of licenses, but as they say, if you're dealing with software you're probably better off using one of the licenses designed with it in mind.

The reason their FAQ says this is that some of the clauses in other CC licenses break software distribution. For instance, the no-derivitives license would prevent distribution of binaries. The attribution requirements would likely have some strange effects with regards to how binaries can be distributed. CC share-alike (their equivalent of copyleft) requires only relicensing under the same terms, but doesn't require distribution of source code, so would be effectively useless. But CC0 has none of these problems. The only potential issue is that it explicitly doesn't include trademark or patent grants, so if you have either of these rights over your program you'll need to deal with those separately.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[TangoCharlie]

> You can incorporate it into your own code, provided that you license your code as GPL (commercial software doesn't usually allow that)

Actually, you only have to license your code as GPL if you distribute it. I know it's a small point (why would you write software and then not distribute it?!), but if you don't distribute your code (binary and/or source) you can use GPL code without restriction.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Karellen]

There are restrictions to what code you can link to or use with the programs/*pl'd code,

No, only if you *redistribute* that code. You can take GPL'd code, and link it with any code you like, no matter what license, for your own use. It's only when you redistribute GPL'd code to another user that you have to give them the same freedoms the GPL gave you.

Im think he is talking about the license to distribute the software and not the EULA

But most commercial software does not even have one of these licenses. Try getting a license for Windows that allows you do distribute copies you've made. Or Photoshop. Or any other commercial app. (Note - not pass on existing copies, which you can also do with GPL'd software, but distribute new copies) Or even if talking about libraries or frameworks (a very small subset of commercial software) try getting a license for a commercial library that allows you to redistribute modified versions at all.

I don't see how, comparing like with like, that for any reasonable definition of "free", the GPL is "less free" than 99.9% of commercial software licenses.

You see, if you offer the binary for download, you need to offer the source on the same server in just as conspicuous of a way. Try finding an ISO with all the source on it on some Distro's download page.

Well, I'm a Debian user, so let's look, shall we?

Go to the Debian homepage, click "CD ISO Images", and then select any "download" option other than the "download a minimal bootable CD image". Hey, look at that. Right there, with the links to the binaries for each architecture, there's a link labelled "source". I wonder what that does. :-)

Hell, just try to find the source code to the updates the package manager automagically installs when you set it to update.

Well, my package manager downloads binaries from:

http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/

Hmmm...right next to the arch specific directory for my downloads, again there's a "source" directory. Wow!

The GPL says 3 years after the last offering,

No, it's a bit more subtle than that.

GPL2 3 states: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

GPL3 6d states: Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

So, if you distribute over the internet, you can fulfil your obligations under the GPL by making the source accessible alongside the binaries, for only as long you distribute the binaries. If a client chooses not to get the source from you at the time they get the binaries, you need not offer them the source at a later date. The "3 year offer" is

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[SpaghettiPattern]

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain?

If you mean to say that the public domain means "no strings attached" then you could do by simply forfeiting all rights to the piece of work. That implies you own the rights to the work.

I like the GPL in that it tries to eliminate parasitic misuse of "public domain" software. Software in absolute public domain could be taken, altered minimally and be resold as one's own, or very near to that anyway.

To me, producing software under a license that allows parasitism causes devaluation to software. The producer is not likely to be compensated for the work. Hell, the free-loader probably won't even appreciate the software he's getting for free as in beer.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[MikeBabcock]

It entirely depends on whose freedom you mean.

If you mean only your own as a developer using the software to make other software with, you may be correct.

If you mean humanity on the whole, well that's what those restrictions in the GPL are for. To make the software as free as possible to as many as possible by sometimes restricting the freedom of an individual for the good of the whole.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[statusbar]

The gpl was originally written because of works made public domain by rms that were taken out of public domain by someone else who tried to restrict rms.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Dwonis]

GPLv2 doesn't. GPLv3 actually has a list of restrictions that you are allowed to add.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[retchdog]

This seems like a sensible distinction to make. There's some analysis of the US situation here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244.

The gist seems to be that although copyright itself gives no protection, it can successfully be argued to be fraud to willfully misrepresent PD status at least if $ is involved.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact *you* are the fuckward that's trolling, clueless and wrong.

If GPL didn't place any restrictions on you then there would never need to be a license text pages and pages long (it would be as long as a bsd license instead). You wouldn't have needed a GPL3 revision to *restrict* tivo-iszation. There wouldn't be any legal cases in court because you can't take someone to court if they didn't break a *restriction* placed on the *conditions* of copying.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing you cannot do is incorporate GPL software into your own NON-GPL code without paying the copyright holder for those additional rights, subject to their willingness to license those rights, but you can't do that with commercial software either.

Your solution to the "only thing you cannot do" sounds a lot like "pay to get it relicensed under a less restrictive license".

That's not likely to be a requirement for that commercial software you're integrating.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[DragonWriter]

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question.

In the US at least, you can't, AFAIK, since there is no provision of law that allows a work that would be eligible for copyright in the first place to be out of copyright and in the public domain other than by expiration of the copyright (which, as a practical matter, is probably never going to happen for any work currently in copyright, until Congress breaks the habit of extending copyright without bound.)

Anything that purports to dedicate a work to the public domain is effectively just a very broad gratuitous copyright license.

OTOH, because of promissory estoppel, there is very little benefit to be gained by revoking such a dedication even though it is almost certainly, in theory, revocable at will, as all gratuitous licenses are.

So, a simple dedication to the public domain by the creator like that used by SQLite is probably effective for most practical purposes, though strictly speaking the work is not, actually, out of the control of the original creator who remains the copyright holder.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[CCW]

Your solution to the "only thing you cannot do" sounds a lot like "pay to get it relicensed under a less restrictive license".

No. You need to pay to license the rights you need. It will be a different license, and may or may not be less restrictive than the GPL.

That's not likely to be a requirement for that commercial software you're integrating.

??? That's precisely a requirement for commercial software. You don't have integration and redistribution rights under copyright law without a license to do it. You must pay to license the rights you need. If you are arguing that most commercial licenses include that right, I disagree and would assert the opposite is in fact the case.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[blair1q]

Putting something in the public domain means you no longer have to defend it. Everyone can use it as they please. If someone else claims they own it, that means nothing unless they try to sue you for using it. So you point to the documentation of the prior art showing that it's in the public domain, and they lose the suit.

All the "free software" licenses don't do that. They actually try to keep the software un-free, and out of the hands of people who could make a small profit from it if it were actually public-domain software and they weren't required to perform actions according to the un-free license terms when demanded.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[blair1q]

CC-0 doesn't go far enough. They need a CC-Null that equates to pure abandonment of all restrictions on use or any intent to enforce any rights that could have been associated with the work. But that exists. It's called not using the CC licenses.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[xiong.chiamiov]

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain?

In some countries, you can't really. That's why we have the WTFPL. The Wikipedia article says there are only 11 uses of it on Freshmeat, but it's rather commonly used on GitHub.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[sumdumass]

No, only if you *redistribute* that code. You can take GPL'd code, and link it with any code you like, no matter what license, for your own use. It's only when you redistribute GPL'd code to another user that you have to give them the same freedoms the GPL gave you.

Well, seeing how the GPL doesn't apply unless you are distributing the code, I assumed it was given that all this talk was about distributing the code.

In case you are wondering what I mean here, the GPL doesn't even start to go into effect for use, it's not a EULA or anything you have to agree to in order to get the code or use it.

But most commercial software does not even have one of these licenses. Try getting a license for Windows that allows you do distribute copies you've made. Or Photoshop. Or any other commercial app. (Note - not pass on existing copies, which you can also do with GPL'd software, but distribute new copies) Or even if talking about libraries or frameworks (a very small subset of commercial software) try getting a license for a commercial library that allows you to redistribute modified versions at all.

I don't see how, comparing like with like, that for any reasonable definition of "free", the GPL is "less free" than 99.9% of commercial software licenses.

Well, the GPL doens't apply to getting copies or using them so I'm not sure how you are equating them to end use license agreements in good faith. If Microsoft will not issue a distribution license for windows or photoshop, then it's pointless to bring it up because their licenses simply do not exist and cannot apply. What does exist is situation where you can get a license to distribute the code/product and the licenses do apply. MS has a few distribution licenses that do not require you to distribute source or offer it to anyone, Other companies do as well. But let's make sure we are in perspective, the EULA you click through without reading isn't a license to distribute the product, it's a license to obtain and use the product, it's certainly not on the same level as the GPL seeing how it doesn't apply to any of that.

Go to the Debian homepage, click "CD ISO Images", and then select any "download" option other than the "download a minimal bootable CD image". Hey, look at that. Right there, with the links to the binaries for each architecture, there's a link labelled "source". I wonder what that does. :-)

Did I mention debian specifically? I don't think so but I do find it interesting that you specifically proved my point. Why was it that you didn't want me to select minimal install? It's because it doesn't follow the GPL in listing the source. The GPLv2 says

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

The GPLv3 says

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

Is the source for the minimal install in the sam

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either trolling or clueless and wrong. Going by your nick you're just a stupid troll, but anyway I'll tell you the big secret; The GPL doesn't restrict or place any burden on anything, full stop. That's a blatant misrepresentation or misunderstanding on your part that disqualifies you from the discussion.

If you don't get this post, keep reading it until you do.

So I have been incorrect all these years when I thought I couldn't build a closed source app that links to a GPL'd library or that it was against the rules for me to take something like the linux kernel and put it in a specific device like a Tivo then lock the device down so only my version would run in it, then sell them to the masses?

My oh my, all the things I can do now that I always thought I couldn't. Here in a couple of weeks, you will hear me yelling "I'm rich- bitch" and it's all thanks to your clarification there.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Karellen]

Well, seeing how the GPL doesn't apply unless you are distributing the code, I assumed it was given that all this talk was about distributing the code.

Sorry, in your post that I replied to, you wrote:

There are restrictions to what code you can link to or use with the programs/*pl'd code, how it can be used and so on. It's not like Lgpl code can link to GPL code and Mycode licenses software at the same time.

I really thought you were talking about "use", not "distribution". Or the actual act of linking (i.e. linking bits of compiled code yourself), not the distribution of linked binaries.

Apologies for misunderstanding you.

Well, the GPL doens't apply to getting copies or using them so I'm not sure how you are equating [the (L)GPL] to end use license agreements in good faith.

I'm trying to get my head around the statement (not yours though) that:

So is GPL more or less free than a commercial license? Usually less free

I was trying to point out that for >99.9% of commercial software that exists, whatever license or permissions you get with it, as far as I can tell, is "less free" than the GPL. This includes commercial redistributable libraries and frameworks, as most of these will not give you the freedom to modify the libraries.

Did I mention debian specifically?

No, you mentioned "some distro". I had to pick one to test, so I picked Debian because I that's the distro I happen to use. *shrug*

Why was it that you didn't want me to select minimal install?

Because the minimal install is specifically for people who want to download as little as possible. That's what "minimal" means. If you want a minimal install, you are almost certainly not interested in the source.

But, still, let's have a look. The minimal install for amd64 points to:

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/5.0.5/amd64/iso-cd/debian-505-amd64-netinst.iso

So, let's look at:

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/5.0.5/

Oh yes, there's a "source" directory. But this brings us to:

Is the source for the minimal install in the same place

This is the real point of contention, isn't it.

Well, there I happen to think you're being a bit picky w.r.t. "the same place". It's on the same server (and therefore doesn't activate the "on a different server" subclause of the GPL), as part of a well-organised directory tree, and trivial to find given the filenames involved.

For a binary file called "[base]/amd64/foo.tgz", is it really substantially different to call the corresponding source file "[base]/source/foo.tgz" instead of "[base]/amd64/foo.source.tgz"?

If you're going to be that strict about how you interpret "in the same place", surely you could interpret it to mean that the source must be present in the same file (iso, tar, deb, etc...) as the binary. After all, by your reasoning, if it's in a different file, is that not "a different place"?

By your interpretation, the source has to be in the same directory as the amd64 isos, and again in the same directory as the x86 isos, and in the same directory as the sparc isos, ad nauseum. Do you really think that's the intent of the GPL? Do you think that's practical? (I know, I know; whether something is practical has no bearing on whether it actually adheres to the license. I just balk at impracticality.)

Hmmm....I think we have a real, legitimate difference of interpretation here. The distros happen to agree with me. That doesn't mean I'm right of course (that would be argumentum ad populum) but I will point out that the distros do have lawyers who have gone over this.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Karellen]

Crap, it looks like I replied to my comment instead of yours. See my other reply below. Sorry.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[sumdumass]

I really thought you were talking about "use", not "distribution". Or the actual act of linking (i.e. linking bits of compiled code yourself), not the distribution of linked binaries.

Apologies for misunderstanding you.

I can see now how the wording is a little confusing. I will try better to avoid that next time.

I was trying to point out that for >99.9% of commercial software that exists, whatever license or permissions you get with it, as far as I can tell, is "less free" than the GPL. This includes commercial redistributable libraries and frameworks, as most of these will not give you the freedom to modify the libraries.

Here is the big issue. If we were to keep comparing apples to apples instead of apples to trucks or something, then we would ignore the End User License Agreements that come with most close source software altogether and only look at the distribution licenses. This is because the GPL is only a distribution license, not an EULA. Even the anti Tivoisation clauses in the GPLv3 do not kick in until the device is being distributed in a way that copyright would preclude without a license. So in theory, until such time that you decide to distribute such device, you are free to make as many tivos as you want.

So when we narrow our field down to apples and apples license comparisons, we find that much of them have different requirements which some of them being less free and other being more free. When you are paying for the right to distribute something, you end up getting a lot more freedoms when you pay a lot more. If we do not narrow the license options or comparisons down, we might as well be comparing the GPL to your drivers license. I think your confusion, if it still exists, is within the overly broad use of licenses and what they actually pertain to. we need to concentrate on the aspects of the license, not the subject they contain.

No, you mentioned "some distro". I had to pick one to test, so I picked Debian because I that's the distro I happen to use. *shrug*Well, that's my poor grammar causing difficulties again. That should have been some distros as in multiple distributions. I have not tested ever distro out there, but I have ran across a few that did do this, at least at one time.

Because the minimal install is specifically for people who want to download as little as possible. That's what "minimal" means. If you want a minimal install, you are almost certainly not interested in the source.

well, the GPL doesn't really say you must include the source in these way if you think your customers want it. It doesn't provide an exception saying that if they don't want it, you do not have to give anything. I know you were able to jump through hoops and find the source, but that lacks the entire same location argument that equates downloads to distributing with the source so the keeping it available for 3 years requirement kicks in.

Hmmm....interesting. Are you saying that if I link to someone else's file server, which hosts GPL'd binary and corresponding source packages, then if I link to just the binary, then someone is in violation of the GPL? Me, because I only linked to the binary, even though I'm not redistributing? Or how about the server owner, even though he's hosting both files as required?

Well, no. The GPL license allows you to pass the offer along that was given to you if you did not change the software. That is essentially what you are doing by linking to someone else' site. You just have to somehow make that obvious to the people you are distributing to. and yes, if they are going through you and clicking your link that takes them directly to the binary, you are technically distributing it. Now if you added a script that changes the make file to link to another library then compiles and installs it, you will need t

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Karellen]

I know you were able to jump through hoops and find the source

You think that's jumping through hoops? Clicking the ".." link twice and looking for the word "source" is "jumping through hoops"? On the same server where they host and distribute the binaries, the source is only a couple of directories away, in a directory called "source", at the same level as the architecture-specific binaries, and finding that is jumping through hoops? Just how clear do the instructions need to be for you?

[If] clicking your link that takes them directly to the binary, you are technically distributing it.

Uh, really? You think that telling someone where something is, e.g. writing a hyperlink, is the same thing as providing them with that thing yourself, e.g. by owning a computer which hosts and actually *distributes* it? By analogy, would you say that telling people the name of the street where the dope dealers hang out is the same thing as selling dope?

It's certainly an ... individual way of looking at things. I can't say I think it's correct.

The clause allowing the downloads to be equated to "distribution with the source code" requires both the binary and source to be linked from the same place.

No, the clause requires that both the binary and source be equivalently accessible from the same place - i.e. from the place where they actually are. Not necessarily from each and any link that happens to point to them, but from where the files really exist.

If it worked your way round, I could actually keep the binary and source files on completely different servers, provided I always maintained links to the binary and source files in pairs.

But your binary server probably doesn't just host GPLd binaries. It might host your media files, or a mailing list archive, or something. So a search spider comes along and indexes your binary server, traversing all the directories on it, finds the GPLd binaries, and provides links to them. Now someone's breaking the law, because the search engine now points to a binary, but someone who finds it has no hope of finding the equivalent source file. Is it the spider? It's just found and indexed publically available content. Is it you? You've maintained your pairs of links scrupulously.

As far as I can tell, that's just absurd.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to either provide the binary and source in the same place, or to provide instructions on how to get the source in the same place as the binary. That's the actual place where the binary is. Not on any and each page that happens to link to the binary, but where the binary is.

Because, once the source, or the instructions to get it, are in the same place as the binary, you don't need to duplicate links any more. Everyone knows the source is in the same place as the binary. It doesn't matter what the page that linked to the binary says, or doesn't say, or if it was auto-generated by a spider, because the source is right there.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[sumdumass]

You think that's jumping through hoops? Clicking the ".." link twice and looking for the word "source" is "jumping through hoops"? On the same server where they host and distribute the binaries, the source is only a couple of directories away, in a directory called "source", at the same level as the architecture-specific binaries, and finding that is jumping through hoops? Just how clear do the instructions need to be for you?

I'm not sure what the dictionary says in your country, but in mine, the word Same is defined as equal in amount or value. When the requirement is to provide the same or equal in amount or value, then yes, having to look for the source, even if you have to click the parent directory, is not the same in the spirit or wording of the GPL. I know it's trivial to some, but we are talking about a legal document that has specific requirements.

Uh, really? You think that telling someone where something is, e.g. writing a hyperlink, is the same thing as providing them with that thing yourself, e.g. by owning a computer which hosts and actually *distributes* it? By analogy, would you say that telling people the name of the street where the dope dealers hang out is the same thing as selling dope?

If you link to their download page and allow the user to select the download, it's the third party distributing it. But if you are linking directly to the binary (as the statement originally implies) and the link from your page starts the download directly, then _yes_you_are_distributing it. And yes, several court cases concerning copyright infringement have backed that statement up. Lime wire and the pirate bay are some of the larger ones.

To keep with the dope dealer scenario you laid out, the differences is that one is telling someone where the dope dealer is might be complicity to the dealing (if it can be proven the intent was to initiate the dealing but that's not what this particular part of the copyright is about) where linking directly to the file and starting the download is the same as saying wait here, I get your smack for you- even though the dealer is holding it. The first is on shaky grounds, but how can you argue the later isn't dealing too? I mean you might just be the middle man, but you are providing the dope.

No, the clause requires that both the binary and source be equivalently accessible from the same place - i.e. from the place where they actually are. Not necessarily from each and any link that happens to point to them, but from where the files really exist.

Let me spell this out a little clearer. IF you have a website and on that site, there is a download page. And if this download page has a link to a GPL'd binary file, for it to count as distributing both source and object code, there must also be a link to the source. Otherwise, you have to provide an offer valid for 3 years to anyone requesting the source or pass along the offer you received if your distribution qualifies. The link doesn't have to initiate both the binary and source downloads, there just has to be a link to both from the same page.

If it worked your way round, I could actually keep the binary and source files on completely different servers, provided I always maintained links to the binary and source files in pairs.

Actually, you can. The FSF has even wrote about doing so saying it's not against the GPL but it can get complicated isn't a good idea.

You also can "not" distribute the binary and source together and simply take the "make the source available for 3 years to anyone" option. The same place is only concerning files on a server when you are attempting to distribute the source and binary together to escape the 3 years requirement.

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Karellen]

If you link to their download page and allow the user to select the download, it's the third party distributing it.

So, Google distributes most of the internet? Because Google links to plenty of HTML pages directly. And people click on links from google, and their browser downloads those web pages directly. Are you really saying that Google distributes other people's HTML? All of those end-point HTML pages are copyright by someone other than Google, and I'm pretty sure that Google does not have a license to redistribute those pages. Google links to some of my web pages, allowing people to download them, and I didn't give Google permission to distribute my copyrighted material. Is Google liable for copyright infringement of my content? Is anyone who links to any content on the web without first getting the copyright holders permission guilty of copyright infringement?

And yes, several court cases concerning copyright infringement have backed that statement up. Lime wire and the pirate bay are some of the larger ones.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that in all of those cases, none of the parties were convicted of copyright infringement themselves, because, TBP in particular, were not distributing content. They were merely linking to content that 3rd parties distribute, much like Google does. They may have been charged for promoting the copyright infringement of others, but I'm aware of no cases where a court decided that linking to copyrighted material was equivalent to distributing it.

I'll happily look over any actual evidence to the contrary.

And if this download page has a link to a GPL'd binary file, for it to count as distributing both source and object code, there must also be a link to the source.

A "download" web page does not distribute anything. The thing a download page links to is distributed from some server or other, yes, (and it might even be the same server), but it's the server the file exists on which is where it's distributed from, and the directory in which the file is actually located which is the place that it's distributed from.

How can you not tell the difference between linking to something which can be distributed, and actually distributing it? The whole World Wide Web is based on the fact that person A can link to files (whether those files are .HTML, .PNG, .ISO, or other) that person B hosts and distributes, without needing to host or distribute those files themselves, and also without person A needing to get permission from the copyright holder to link to that file, because person A is not distributing the content!

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[sumdumass]

So, Google distributes most of the internet? Because Google links to plenty of HTML pages directly. And people click on links from google, and their browser downloads those web pages directly. Are you really saying that Google distributes other people's HTML? All of those end-point HTML pages are copyright by someone other than Google, and I'm pretty sure that Google does not have a license to redistribute those pages. Google links to some of my web pages, allowing people to download them, and I didn't give Google permission to distribute my copyrighted material. Is Google liable for copyright infringement of my content? Is anyone who links to any content on the web without first getting the copyright holders permission guilty of copyright infringement?

Did you just completely ignore what I wrote then make something up in your own mind and attribute it to me? Yes, Google distributed the internet when it links to a copyrighted work without taking you to a the authors page. Yes, Google does distribute your copyrighted works when someone follows a link from them. However, you do not need to give Google or any other search engine permission to link to your works because the law specifically allows that behavior. That was the law I specifically quoted. Further more, copyright law specifically allows for then caching of copyrighted works on computers in order to view them. This would also apply to viewing web pages.

In other words, being linked to from a search engine is not one of the exclusive controls you have as a copyright holder under US law. There is also the implied permission you gave by making it available in a public venue. Further more, it's pointless to argue this as the GPLv3 has made it specific within it's own document.

I'll happily look over any actual evidence to the contrary.

Actually, I got the pirate bay confused with napster while I was attempting to find more recent cases. Anyhow, napster and limewire do back up the statement that links directly to a file is downloading regardless of who is serving the file or made it available.

A "download" web page does not distribute anything. The thing a download page links to is distributed from some server or other, yes, (and it might even be the same server), but it's the server the file exists on which is where it's distributed from, and the directory in which the file is actually located which is the place that it's distributed from.

I'm not going to argue with you. You know damn well what I mean and are attempting to muddle the point in some failed attempt to retain your incorrect position. Whether FTP, HTTP, or .torrent, there is a page somewhere that links to the file and allows the browser to start the transfer. Sitting on the same server without the links being together is completely useless as far as counting the same place or distribution as I can otherwise place the source code on a non-public side of the server or bury it inside a completely unexpected garbage making it near impossible for you to get the source code. When the GPL says you have to make the source code available, it has specific rules on how to make that available. If you do not comply, you are in violation of it and therefore in violation of copyright laws.

How can you not tell the difference between linking to something which can be distributed, and actually distributing it? The whole World Wide Web is based on the fact that person A can link to files (whether those files are .HTML, .PNG, .ISO, or other) that person B hosts and distributes, without needing to host or distribute those files themselves, and also without person A needing to get permission from the copyright holder to link to that file, because person A is not distributing the content!

No, the whole web is not based on that. A

Re:They released it under the BSD license?

[Karellen]

Copyright on the internet does not work the way you think it works.

If comedy central hosts a video of The Daily Show, and I (or Google) links to it, that is fine.

If I copy the video onto my own server, and host it from there, and then I (or Google) link to the video that I am hosting and distributing, then I am committing copyright infringement by distributing the video. I am not committing copyright with my link to my hosted copy of the video, I am committing infringement with the actual copy I am distributing. Google still isn't infringing copyright themselves, but could be thought of as contributing to or aiding copyright infringement, by linking to my infringing copy of TDS. The law you point to is specifically meant to limit Google's (or other search engine's) liability in the case that they link to already-infringing works. They are not infringing by linking.

Seriously.

Read the wikipedia articles on Deep linking and Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing.

Read them. Carefully. Please, while allowing for the faint possibility that you might be mistaken, or have been misled by others in the past.

Yes, people have sued over deep linking. But, in the US and Europe, have not won. After all, you can sue someone for anything, but it's winning a suit that lets you know if you were right. No-one in the US or Europe has ever been convicted of copyright infringement for linking to content.

All cases have either been found in favour of the linker, or been settled out-of-court, or the sued party has been convicted of something else. That something else might be aiding or contributing to copyright infringement, or for actual copyright infringement, such as when hosting and serving cached copies of a document (or derivative works, such as thumbnail images). Note that, in this last case, it is because the defendant is hosting and distributing their own copy of the work that they are committing copyright infringement, not because they are linking to the original.

Looking at the cases you are citing: Napster and Limewire (I have the Limewire case right, right?), you'll note that they are both convicted of "contributory infringement" - i.e. helping others commit infringement by linking to infringing content, or "vicarious infringement" - failing to supervise the infringing conduct or others despite having the ability to do so.

They were not convicted of copyright infringment, as they were not hosting any infringing content, or breaking copyright themselves.

They were convicted of contributory and vicarious infringement, not because they were linking to content provided by their users, but rather because the content they were linking to, hosted and distributed by those users, was in breach of copyright, and on a massive scale. The users were hosting and distributing their own copies of other people's files in breach of copyright. That was the issue.

Linking to content is legal.

I wasn't trying to muddy any points. A link is a link is a link is a link. All links are equal. And links could reside anywhere, and point to any content. Or to no content at all. Or to content that has changed since the link was created. It doesn't matter. It's the content itself which is important. And content is hosted and distributed from a particular place. It may be linked to from many places, or none. But it's the actual storage and distribution that is what copyright law applies to.

*sigh*

Even if, after all that, you still convinced I'm wrong, and you're right, be aware that most of the other people on the internet, and plenty of courts by the looks of things, appear to disagre

Fuck yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yeah, nothing will change!

Linux is too mainstream now

[Anonymous Coward]

I the epSos.de, used Linux because it was tainted by this dark secret.
Now it is not as cool as it was anymore.

The sweetness of doing prohibited mastery against the oppressing doctrine is gone.
I am in helpless in tears now.

Re:Linux is too mainstream now

[Curunir_wolf]

LostLyrics, is that you?

Re:Linux is too mainstream now

[NiceGeek]

Hello fellow Digg refugee

that's great now fix NFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't fucking upload shit to my NAS without my desktop freezing (Ubuntu 10.04) and having to physically shut off my machine. fuck samba

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't fucking upload shit to my NAS without my desktop freezing

A computer is not a toilet.
Try uploading files instead.

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[Anonymous Coward]

He is uploading files...files full of German scat porn.

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[larry bagina]

s/toilet/your mom's mouth/

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[jobst]

shit hits the (cpu) fan ;-)

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[Anonymous Coward]

s/larry bagina/hairy mangina/

PS: suck it down, socksmocker

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[Anonymous Coward]

In his defense, NAS might seem to mean 'Network-Attached Shit' to the uninitiated...

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[Anonymous Coward]

samba != nfs

But linux-nfs could use some changes so it is full compatible with the non-linux world.

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[Ecuador]

I don't get it, are you using NFS or Samba? Which one are you complaining about?
Of course given that both are being used extensively by millions of systems, I would guess you are really complaining about your NAS or your desktop?

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't fucking upload shit

Skip the enema the next time you are fucked...

Re:that's great now fix NFS

[mcgrew]

A computer is not a toilet.

Now ya tell me...

What was the original license? What's the new one?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the article. And I can't find reference to what the original license text is, nor even what the new license text is. It mentions that the code could not be sold on it's own, but only as part of a larger work. Which, I assume, is what made the license incompatible with "freedom". But, I can't see the full license.

Can someone more smart (or more persistent) please post both licenses?

typical lack of comprehension

[reiisi]

Or, should I say, typical lack of reading the friendly article.

The only significant restriction imposed, entirely reasonable to most eyes then, was to say that the module itself could not be sold as-is, only as part of a larger work.

Re:typical lack of comprehension

[HornWumpus]

How the hell would I have gotten second post if I had read the fucking article?

Re:typical lack of comprehension

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, should I say, typical lack of reading the friendly article.

The only significant restriction imposed, entirely reasonable to most eyes then, was to say that the module itself could not be sold as-is, only as part of a larger work.

Not correct. For example, you can not CHANGE the license. Such as in, mmmh, claiming explicitly or implicitly that the code is under GPL or LGPL.

Sleepycat

[tepples]

You're looking for the Sleepycat license used by Oracle's Berkeley DB. It's a new-style BSD license with one additional clause that implements a copyleft.

Re:Sleepycat

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an improvement over the GPL at least. I read and understood it in completion in < 5 minutes. A person can't truly understand the GPL even after spending > 3 months studying it; most /.'ers are aware only of a tiny (in)significant portion. Sleepycat isn't NEARLY as comprehensive, but simplicity is usually well worth that loss.

Re:Sleepycat

[Red Alastor]

You aren't supposed to read the GPL, only its preamble. The rest of meant for lawyers and is as long as it takes to be bulletproof.

Re:Sleepycat

[Anonymous Coward]

Any legal agreement that can't be simplified for the common person to understand is not one that should be enforced or signed by that person. I have read the GPL many times over the years (as well as US copyright law) and while I can grok most of the GPL, parts of it continue to elude me. Its textual representation reminds me of bad software writing, decidedly worse than average federal law standards. State law, on the other hand....

Re:Sleepycat

[Psaakyrn]

That's that the preamble is for.

Re:Sleepycat

[nacturation]

I have read the GPL many times over the years (as well as US copyright law) and while I can grok most of the GPL, parts of it continue to elude me. Its textual representation reminds me of bad software writing, decidedly worse than average federal law standards.

At the very least, it's better than the English translation of the Treaty of Armens.

Re:Sleepycat

[Anonymous Coward]

No. A preamble is an explanation and normally non-binding unless interpretation is up for question (and even then not so much). I don't care about the stated intentions, I care about what the agreement actually does. The preamble may as well contradict everything written below it.

Re:Sleepycat

[Psaakyrn]

Then the preamble failed in it's job. The preamble is (supposedly) the non-lawyer-speak of the rest of the agreement, the rest of the agreement enforces the preamble in it's implied definition, while dealing with legal issues.

Re:Sleepycat

[pinkushun]

Thanks for this! :-)

Re:Sleepycat

[crankyspice]

You aren't supposed to read the GPL, only its preamble. The rest of meant for lawyers and is as long as it takes to be bulletproof.

Wow, bulletproof? I'm a lawyer, I've worked with very smart lawyers, and no one I know of would call the GPL "bulletproof." Or even all that comprehensible. For instance, the lack of a definition of "derived works," which the Apache license at least gets right. The ambiguity created (leading to the LGPL and Linus having to include his interpretation to the Linux copyright: This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
  services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
  of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work" (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING)... It's a massive headache waiting to happen.

Re:Sleepycat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bullshit. It's not up to a software license to define stuff like "derivative works", that's a task for copyright law. Any such "definition" put into a license, is quite possibly moot and unenforceable.

Re:Sleepycat

[Ash-Fox]

A person can't truly understand the GPL even after spending > 3 months studying it

I do believe I understood the GPL correctly under 30 minutes when I first encountered it. I don't get the big deal. If you're talking about average joe who can't understand the GPL license, he likely doesn't understand any other sort of license, privacy polices, terms of service and the like to begin with.

Re:Sleepycat

[delt0r]

So will you pay for the lawyer? No. Then whats the point of that BS legaleses dribble if i am not suppose to be able to understand it without a lawyer. And what the point of the preamble if its not the stuff that the lawyer will use in court anyway?

Re:Sleepycat

[delt0r]

I always thought the GPL reading of derived work sounding more like something that the MPAA come up with. If i reference another text book, and the information in the other textbook is needed to understand my book. Its still not a derivative work as far as any reasonable person would claim. Yet that's what the GPL claims is (as far as I understand).

I have always liked Linus much more pragmatic approach to the whole thing.

Re:Sleepycat

[david_thornley]

A person can't truly understand the GPL even after spending > 3 months studying it;

And it took you how long to learn Visual Basic? How long did it take you to learn C, if you did? Have you ever successfully changed somebody else's program? Seriously, anybody who can't figure either GPL out with a short study session has lousy technical comprehension skills, and therefore shouldn't be allowed near a compiler or interpreter, and therefore should have no need for the GPL.

Much better explanation here...

[Nerull]

http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html

This actually gives details.

Re:Much better explanation here...

[Anonymous Coward]

that's some fine detective work there, lou. excellent for choice for the tl;dr crowd that can't make it to the end of the article where it's linked...

Re:Much better explanation here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially liked the discussion on the Debian bug-tracker linked from that article:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=181493
It gives a nice picture about the legal and philosophical arguments of the "case" and it also nicely illustrates why, due to the nature of Sun RPC it doesn't actually matter all that much, practically speaking. But it's still nice that it's sorted out now.

Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[FunPika]

Seriously, based on the article Oracle probably could have chosen to go all copyright infringement lawsuit-happy on every Linux vendor known to man. But instead they relicensed the old code under a free license...*checks the temperature in Hell*

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check again:

1) Oracle gets extra advertising now that they get their name in the code files

2) They get to extend the copyright in these files since the year in the new license was changed to 2010 from ~1984

Sounds kinda evilish to me.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[Anonymous Coward]

They get to extend the copyright in these files since the year in the new license was changed to 2010 from ~1984

Wait! I get it. Disney's Licence Carousel(r) is just around the corner!

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[forkazoo]

Seriously, based on the article Oracle probably could have chosen to go all copyright infringement lawsuit-happy on every Linux vendor known to man. But instead they relicensed the old code under a free license...*checks the temperature in Hell*

Oracle not being evil? Yeah, I tried to check the temperature down there, too. Unfortunately, all of my equipment loses too much precision in the microkelvin range.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[Alien Being]

Larry Ellison is one of the most contemptuous little pricks I've ever seen at the helm of a major software company. Unlike SCO (new and old) however, Oracle always did actually produce something real.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[the_womble]

Oracle benefits from Linux: they can provide a complete platform for the main product on it.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[ArwynH]

RTFA. The code was used within the permissions granted, so there was no copyright infringement. The problem was that the license, while permissive for 1984 was not up to modern FSF standards and was not GPL compatible (falling foul of the "no other restrictions" clause).

There was no financial or legal reason for Oracle not to release the code and bad PR if the didn't. It is nice that they did release it of course, because, as I understand it, rewriting it would of been a nightmare.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[drsmithy]

Unlike SCO (new and old) however, Oracle always did actually produce something real.

SCO had a couple of very real UNIX products out there in the '90s, especially back when Linux was still an unsupported toy. I was even unlucky enough (from an ease of use perspective they made Solaris look like Ubuntu) to have to look after a bunch of them in a previous job - though by the time I'd left I'd gotten them about 90% migrated to a combination of RHEL and WBL.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here...

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[gnasher719]

Seriously, based on the article Oracle probably could have chosen to go all copyright infringement lawsuit-happy on every Linux vendor known to man. But instead they relicensed the old code under a free license...*checks the temperature in Hell*

No, they couldn't. They could only claim copyright infringement if you distributed their code against their own license, and that license said you are free to distribute their code, except you cannot sell Sun's, now Oracle's code, unmodified on its own. I doubt that anyone did that.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[silentcoder]

>SCO had a couple of very real UNIX products out there in the '90s

No they didn't. You're confusing SCO from Utah with Santa Cruz Operations. SCO is a rename of the old company Caldera after they bought the name and rights from the original SCO - now known as Tarantella.

PLEASE GET THIS CLEAR: The company that sued Linux and the company that made unixware ARE NOT THE SAME COMPANY. They are completely seperate corporations in completely different places started by completely different people and have NOTHING common.
SCO actually did have two fairly decent products back in the Caldera years. Caldera Linux was perhaps the best desktop distro in it's day (though they were also the first distro to ship with a non-free DE by default [they used KDE back when QT was still non-free]), and DR-DOS was probably the best DOS replacement ever developed.

The things - Caldera basically died during the UnitedLinux fiasco and never really had another product, they bought the unix business from SCO along with the name, while the old SCO focussed on their security business and became Tarantella, but never did anything with it - except to make the source code of the very first unix kernel available as a free download for curiosity purposes (this ended up counting severely against them in the case they lost- they had effectively declared the unix they owned to be a valueless thing of purely historic interest- and now they want to sue others for supposedly stealing it - ironically there really wasn't any of that code in Linux at any time because it really WAS just of historic interest. What the hell would Linux want with code written in the 1970's for 8-bit CPU's ?)

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[TheRaven64]

SCO had a couple of very real UNIX products out there in the '90s, especially back when Linux was still an unsupported toy.

No they didn't. The Santa Cruz Operation had some decent UNIX products, including the first commercial UNIX to run on x86. This company sold its UNIX line and trademarks to a third-rate Linux vendor called Caldera in 2001. Caldera changed its name to SCO Group in 2002. SCO Group is not the Santa Cruz Operation - that company was renamed Tarantella Inc, which bought in 2005 by Sun, which was bought this year by Oracle. So, the company that produced those great products in the '90s was, in fact, Oracle.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[TheRaven64]

The code was used within the permissions granted, so there was no copyright infringement

Actually, there was, just not in the way that you are thinking. The code contained conditions not present in the LGPL, and this meant that distributing LGPL'd code linked to it is a violation of the LGPL. This means that any downstream distribution of the LGPL'd code (glibc) was a violation of the copyright (owned by the FSF).

Somewhat amusingly, this now means that the FSF has standing to sue anyone who has ever distributed a version of the GNU platform.

There was no financial or legal reason for Oracle not to release the code and bad PR if the didn't

Unless, of course, they wanted to point out the potential liability of using code where the original author has standing to sue you and encourage people to use Solaris instead...

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[Eunuchswear]

What the hell would Linux want with code written in the 1970's for 8-bit CPU's ?)

Exactly which 8 bit cpus did Unix run on in the 1970's?

Unix was first written on the 18 bit pdp-7, the rewritten for the 16 bit pdp-11, then ported to the 32 bit vax.

No 8 bit machines there.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[drinkypoo]

Somewhat amusingly, this now means that the FSF has standing to sue anyone who has ever distributed a version of the GNU platform.

Except that since they themselves distributed the offending code, that would be blackmail.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[Anonymous Coward]

...> bought the name and rights from the original SCO - now known as Tarantella.

Most of Taranella was bought by Sun Microsystems a few years ago.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[jvkjvk]

Yes, it would be blackmail.

Even before that, one may be able to call it inticement to commit the crime, if I understand the issue correctly.

So the follow on distributors would seem to be in the clear.

Trying to blackmail someone who isn't guilty of the crime you are trying to blackmail them for may have unfortunate consequences.

Regards.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[TheRaven64]

They distributed the offending code and you do have a valid license to use it in any way that you want. You are also offered a license to distribute it, but with a set of conditions that it is not possible to fulfil without stripping out the RPC stuff. If you distribute it without stripping out the RPC stuff, then you are violating copyright. There is no blackmail involved, although a judge may take a dim view of the way in which they market glibc, given the conditions, and refuse to award any damages.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[haruchai]

You could play Tetris in the installer while installing Caldera - one way to pass the time on a long install.
Too bad I always did suck at Tetris; at least it meant the install would get done at some point.

And, I've always hated DOS but DrDOS / OpenDOS was almost bearable.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[haruchai]

Not quite - they BECAME part of Oracle; that's not the same thing although corporations like to sell the idea that
just because they acquired a product, they somehow reached traveled back in time and invented it, too.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...?

[gumpish]

rewriting it would of been a nightmare.

Would OF been a nightmare? I'm unfamiliar with this usage of the word "of". Can you explain what it means for something to "of been" a nightmare?

If only...

[lenin]

ZFS could have been included!

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[WebMink]

The original license text was:

/*
* Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for
* unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape
* media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. Users
* may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized
* to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
* program developed by the user.
*
* SUN RPC IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING THE
* WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
* PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.
*
* Sun RPC is provided with no support and without any obligation on the
* part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,
* modification or enhancement.
*
* SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
* INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY SUN RPC
* OR ANY PART THEREOF.
*
* In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue
* or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if
* Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
*
* Sun Microsystems, Inc.
* 2550 Garcia Avenue
* Mountain View, California 94043
*/

The new one is:

/*
* Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle America, Inc.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
* met:
*
*     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
*     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
*       copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
*       disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
*       provided with the distribution.
*     * Neither the name of the "Oracle America, Inc." nor the names of its
*       contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
*       from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
*   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
*   LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
*   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
*   COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,
*   INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
*   DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
*   GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
*   INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
*   WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
*   NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
*   OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*/

Year of the Linux desktop!

[Manip]

Now that Glibc is free we can finally have the year of the Linux desktop we've been waiting for since 2001. I know tons of my friends who would always say "I wanted to use Linux but Glibc isn't free!"

Now with that glaring hole in Linux's offering solved we can move on continuing to ignore the terrible User Experience.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Anonymous Coward]

terrible User Experience

Are you having trouble installing all your favourite malware?

I know you're joking, but your post reminds me of people who say things like "what's the point of helping people in Haiti, people would still be starving in Africa".

I would also like to point out that no coders time was wasted in making Glibc free. The license was just changed.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most users don't care what os it is, they just want a nice big icon on the desktop that looks like a fox with arsonist tendencies.

Yours, Microsoft Evangelist

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[belthize]

Yes, but it'll cost them a beer.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[tuppe666]

I understand being snide about "linux desktop" Lock-in, Pre-installation, Ignorance etc etc...but what terrible user experience are you referring to...I'm confused you state it as though I should understand, but I don't. I can name large problems with pulseaudio(fixed),compiz(fixed..shiny new version),3D support(only Nvidia to get in on the act but nouveau), wireless(fixed), i8xx intel(hopefully fixed), Flash 64 Bit+GPU accelerated(Gnash does both and YouTube...and its importance has been diminished), but weighed against the billions spent on preserving the crappy experiences on windows, Most here are employed in that very industry. The bottom line is the worst thing...the most terrible awful thing I have to experience as a Linux Desktop User is the delay between clicking on Firefox and it appearing. I keep my rage inside by comforting myself with the fact I don't have to use Internet Explorer.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, ha. Finally upgraded from Ubuntu 9.10 to 10.04. The upgrade broke pulseaudio, nvidia support & wireless. (Plus one not one your list: grub.)
Fortunately Firefox startup under Linux doesn't feel as slow as under Windows.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution crashes every other time it connects to Exchange. And the keychain on 10.04 caused the window manager on all of my 3 machines to freeze on startup. With a snide remark that I have the source and can fix it if I want to when I report the problems.

Really, if you're going to rant, at least make it sensical. And put in carriage returns, or whitespace, or punctuation. Otherwise you sound like the unabomber.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[SheeEttin]

The bottom line is the worst thing...the most terrible awful thing I have to experience as a Linux Desktop User is the delay between clicking on Firefox and it appearing.

That's because Firefox is hueg. It takes just as long to start up in Windows (if not longer).
By the problems/software you reference, I take it you're on Ubuntu. If you're using a recent version, it should include ureadahead, which should make frequently-accessed files load faster (through caching or something).
I had Firefox start up automatically when I logged in, so that helped eliminate some delay. You could try it.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I understand being snide about "linux desktop" Lock-in, Pre-installation, Ignorance etc etc

The reasons that you gave, plus the rest of your comment, tell me pretty conclusively that you don't.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[damnbunni]

I used to use Linux a lot, back around Red Hat 5. Eventually something - I forget what, now - irritated me to no end and I switched to Windows 2000.

Recently I decided to give Ubuntu a try. Downloaded the .iso, ran the installer, booted up. Everything seemed to work okay. Then I ran the updater, which said it found lots of updates and wanted to install them. I let it. I rebooted.

And networking no longer worked. So, of course, I couldn't get online to figure out why it didn't work.

I could probably have fixed it with some tinkering, but THAT is the 'user experience' people still have issues with.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Robert Zenz]

Yeah, because Windows never has problems after updates. *sniggers*

But to add something constructive. You could have tried to boot the old kernel, at least that would've ruled out a problem with the driver, or if it works on the old one, then it is a problem with the driver. And please don't say that the "average user should not need to know these things". That's like saying "I've changed the tires on my car but one of them is flat, what do I do now?".

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[clifyt]

I've used unix systems for years and I'd have no clue how to boot into the old kernel either. To me this is like saying vie changed the tires on my car and now the engine won't start. I loth windows and use it maybe once every other week when work demands it, and I could get back and fix a problem like this in 20 minutes...

As for the average user, the average user never have to deal with something like either of these, but I can pretty much guarantee that 9 times out of 10 the user will have a usable windows system sooner than a Linux one...this is something the sniggering asshole patrol will never understand because they are more concerned with showing off their intellectual superiority.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[mikechant]

The bottom line is the worst thing...the most terrible awful thing I have to experience as a Linux Desktop User is the delay between clicking on Firefox and it appearing.

Make sure you've got the 'preload' package installed; it's not installed by default on the distros I've used. It preloads your most used programs, and you should see a noticeable speedup in starting Firefox, OpenOffice etc.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[mikechant]

I've used unix systems for years and I'd have no clue how to boot into the old kernel either.

In most typical setups you just select it from the Grub menu at startup, i.e. press an arrow key once or twice and hit enter. You may need to press Escape to display the Grub menu if it's set as hidden.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Robert Zenz]

this is something the sniggering asshole patrol will never understand...

And for a short moment I really thought this would be a serious, nice and constructive discussion. :(

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Anonymous Coward]

I upgraded to 10.04 too, and the first thing I did was uninstall Pulseaudio, and set up the Nvidia drivers through Synaptic with actual 3D acceleration for the first time without issues. The old method of tty-build-it-yourself-kernal-module is a thing of the past now.

I don't have wireless, so that particular "hell" is reserved for those of you that don't run your own 50ft of CAT-5 wiring through your crawlspace. :)

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? User Experience couldn't be better! Now we have purple themes, windicators, multi-touch is on the way, and we might even have sound working in the next ten years!

Keep using your working, privative, useful, filled with apps and well supported Windows, Micro$oft shill!

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[clifyt]

It wasn't once you got snarky with the other user and pretty much lambasted anyone that didn't know this.

That's the problem with being condescending instead of being helpful, you decided use that as your first line and now getting hurt because others are condescending to you as well.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[apoc.famine]

Believe me, I love Linux. Been running it is my main OS for 7-8 years now. But Compiz and PulseAudio are not fixed. At all. (At least under Kubuntu)

My last upgrade still required me to purge PulseAudio before my audio worked, and I get regular notices that "composting was too slow and has been disabled". The last time that happened, I was sitting with my hands 6" from the keyboard and mouse, reading slashdot, with no other programs running. I hadn't touched the computer for at least a minute. And this is on a dual-core desktop, with a decent video card, and a couple GB of ram.

I've been holding off on an entire system wipe and reinstall, because I need to get around to getting a couple new hard drives anyway. I'm hoping that fixes at least the Compiz problem. But I'm still not impressed with Compiz. If I'd ever seen PulseAudio do anything but destroy all the sound on my computer, I might like it. The philosophy is fucking fantastic, and I've been drooling about it ever since it was announced. It's something that Linux desperately needs. To generically say that everything is fixed, however, is a sweeping overstatement. For you, perhaps. But based on my searches to fix the issues I have, a ton of people are still having a terrible time with those things

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

Believe me, I love Linux. Been running it is my main OS for 7-8 years now. But Compiz and PulseAudio are not fixed. At all. (At least under Kubuntu)

They both work perfectly for me on Ubuntu Karmic. I've been running it since alpha1. Maybe you need to dump Kubuntu.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[Robert Zenz]

Well, at least I wasn't insulting. I also don't see where I lambasted someone...maybe that was just a misunderstanding.

I don't know about Unix, but if you're using Linux for some years you have to stumble upon the fact that kernels don't get automatically uninstalled and that they stay in the boot menu. To me, trying one of the other boot options (or at least asking myself why they are there), is very obvious. Though, it might be that I'm just good at figuring (technical) things out.

I can't guarantee that you have 9 out of 10 times a usable Linux system OOB...and I wonder that you can guarantee that for Windows. I've had driver problems under Windows as I had them under Linux. I had non working Hardware under Windows and under Linux. I had to tinker under Windows as I had to under Linux. The only difference for me is that I have a better chance to figure problems out under Linux then I have under Windows.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop!

[apoc.famine]

That may be the case. It's arguably one of the worst KDE distributions out there. However, I hate Gnome, and I know KDE. I like how much Ubuntu "just works". To be totally happy, I'll probably need to base a desktop on it rather than go to another distro. But it's hard to break the KDE train when I've been using it since I stared compiling it under Gentoo a long, long time ago. But I have used Xcfe on my netbook, and it wasn't bad....

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[reiisi]

google "sun rpc license"

(Interesting that the parameters for firefox brought the one on Apple's site up before the one on Microsoft's.)

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have clicked the link in the article to the actual diffs:

http://sources.redhat.com/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=a7ab6ec83e144dafdc7c46b8943288f450f8e320

landing plane (runway) ignites tires

[Anonymous Coward]

reminds one of i4 near orlando on a hot summer afternoon. heat + added friction =* the 'story' has been retooled to eliminate the heat/asphalt issue.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[erroneus]

Interesting. But how is this "more free"? It's not quite a BSD license if they require the source and binaries contain that notice. Further, what I see is this re-branding of everything from Sun to Oracle all over the place. The latest updates for VirtualBox, OpenOffice and Java did little to patch or improve but most significantly changes everything to containing Oracle branding. I see this as no different.

Calling this more free while also including requirements such as the ones illustrated above it s bit of a mixed message.

Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[tepples]

Is there a mechanism that will ensure that a dedication to the public domain remains effective even if the entity that put something in the public domain is acquired, and the acquiring entity tries to revoke the dedication?

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[SoftwareArtist]

In most countries, yes it's irrevocable. Once you voluntarily place something in the public domain, that's that. I believe there are a few countries (Germany?) where things are more ambiguous and the law doesn't recognize the concept of public domain in the same way it does elsewhere. The Creative Commons folks have been developing a "public domain equivalent" license which is supposed to be somehow more reliable in those countries.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[glebovitz]

Yes, but how do you prove it is the public domain? If code is floating around without any license and I include it in my proprietary software, on what grounds can you sue me? If there is nothing that says I have to attribute the copyright to the original author, then what stops me from absorbing the code into my code base. If I start changing the code, then is the modified code still in the public domain?

On the other hand, if you force a public license on the code with agreements to attribute and disclose its use, and contribute modifications back to the public then the code and its modifications stay public.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[fyngyrz]

Yes, but how do you prove it is the public domain?

You don't need to. That's the whole point. At the top of the code, when it was written, it says, PD, date, author. There's your starting point. That chunk is PD. What you do with it is up to you. You can make a chunk exactly like it and make it proprietary; that's fine. The original is still PD, though, and there's nothing you can do to change that. Nothing at all.

If code is floating around without any license and I include it in my proprietary software, on what grounds can you sue me?

It's PD. You can be sued (you can be sued for anything) but all you need to win is "Here's this thing, it's PD, by so and so, date whatever, and I used it as such. Thank you, I'll be leaving now, and by the way, I'll have court costs, too."

If there is nothing that says I have to attribute the copyright to the original author, then what stops me from absorbing the code into my code base

Nothing stops you in the first place. That's the idea, see, the code is FREE. So there's nothing to worry about. Absorb away. (Though it is traditional to eat pizza while you do so, no one will force you.)

If I start changing the code, then is the modified code still in the public domain?

It's whatever you say it is. Once you change it, it isn't the original code. So you're free (get that, FREE) to do anything you want. Call it proprietary, send it back to the author with a thank you note, charge huge amounts of money for it, etc. Anything you want. The only thing you can't do is take the original chunk out of the public domain. That's a done deal, and anyone can use that original chunk any way they want and there isn't squat you can do about that.

On the other hand, if you force a public license on the code with agreements to attribute and disclose its use, and contribute modifications back to the public then the code and its modifications stay public.

The original PD code stays public and available. But the author doesn't claim that changes you make are owned by him, or that he has a right to tell you what to do with them. He respects your freedom. The GPL does not. The GPL says there IS a cost for this, and it is that you will do as we say, or you are subject to these limitations. PD says, here it is, have a party, bye.

And that, my friend, is why all the FREE software I write is PD. Not GPL.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[Thinboy00]

And that, my friend, is why all the FREE software I write is PD. Not GPL.

BSD may be a better idea since it has a waiver of responsibility if the code breaks, but IANAL.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[`NS]

I seem to recall that Woody Guthrie wrote on at least one of his songbooks, in reference to 'This Land is Your Land', "This song is copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.". Ludlow Music enforces copywrite on this song even today. So sometimes things that seem to be public domain may not be .... unfortunately.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[fyngyrz]

Guthrie presumably sold that right; that's pretty typical for the publishing industry. They don't produce anything, they're just middlemen, and so rights are their handle on the material.

You'll notice that Woody did *not* say that the song was public domain; he said it was copyrighted. That's like the GPL: You see it, you should make sure you understand the terms, because whatever else they may be, they are not grants of freedom. More of a license to employ a lawyer.

I own a literary agency, and we deal in precisely those kinds of contracts. We try - very hard - to protect the author's rights, one as distinct from the next, so that, for instance, having sold a book to print, the author retains the rights to make a movie, an e-book, etc. Publishers, on the other hand, come at it the other way. The typical contract tries to vacuum up every right known, and any that might not be specified.

This is one of the reasons that I *really* welcome e-books; the main reason publishers were able to maintain their position is because it was expensive, very, to print a book. An e-book... no longer true. A good literary agency can provide the editing an author needs, or the author and a few beta readers can get it handled my themselves, and that's a *much* better model for both authors and readers.

The author removes a middle entity, and that raises compensation; that encourages the author; that's good for everyone. Borrowing is reduced, and pass-along is as well. This tends to mean that you'll actually get your income on a per-reader basis. Shops are never "out" of your book; books never have to be out of print. A book can become a hit years after it is released. Advances are not required and earnings are no longer encumbered. Release times are vastly reduced. Whole libraries can be carried in your palm. You can read anywhere. It's not perfect, but man, is it ever better.

Bit of a digression there, sorry. :) The subject is very much on my mind right now.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there is now a market for personal-use print/binders. The use case would be something along the lines of 'download book, print then bind, read offline with classic book-smell and without eyestrain'. After all, there's something still to be said for physical books, but there's not much at all going for the present mega-publishers. I imagine it's a tiny niche, but if the profits of the purchase go towards only the authors and editors, I think I at least would be willing to absorb the ink/paper/glue costs...

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[fyngyrz]

I think the problem here is that the industry is moving away from media that can be passed around. And that's what printed matter is. Passing has always been a losing proposition, and that is where the whole thrust for DRM has arisen from.

The benefits of passing around are debatable, and that's part of the problem - there are pros and cons - but since there are cons, the people selling don't really want much part of them.

One of the big draws for authors here is that when you buy a book, it is difficult for you to lend it out or resell it. They're counting on this to bring income in line with the actual number of readers. I don't know if it will actually work out that way (I'm kind of with the group that says if A develops a lock, B..Z will work out a way to pick it) but I do know that's the thinking.

Still, there's nothing stopping you from approaching Amazon and asking, eh?

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[zoidran]

And that, my friend, is why all the FREE software I write is PD. Not GPL.

I think Stallman insisted several times that freedom for the software (as in free software) did not mean freedom for the developer. A "truly free" piece of software is free because it cannot be made into a proprietary piece of software, according to the GPL.

I'm not saying the GPL is better than BSD/Public Domain, nor the opposite. Their aim is different.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's significant legal questions about whether or not, in the US, you can place your work in the public domain. PD is a state a work enters when it meets certain requirements (years after the death of the author, primarily). This is defined legally. That is the path to public domain. No where in that does it state that you can voluntarily dedicate work to the public domain. Even CC hedged on their bets here, their PD Declaration includes a rider at the end of the declaration 'In case this is not possible the author releases all rights to the work, including [insert long list of rights being released]'

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[headLITE]

It's not that it's not irrecovable in Germany (many other European countries are similar actually). You just can't, ever, re-assign copyright. So you can't technically put something in the public domain. Copyright always remains with you (the exception is that an employment agreement or contract can have the effect of assigning copyright to your employer, but that's not a transfer because in those cases it never lay with you in the first place).

What you can do is grant a perpetual unlimited license. A license can't be revoked once granted unless you put specific language in it that allows you to revoke it. CC-0 is so complicated in part because it covers several different cases that may occur in regional legislation, including this one - it has a fallback for when copyright can't be assigned away that grants everybody an automatic license.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[gorzek]

Don't you pretty much disavow your responsibility by putting something into the public domain? If no one owns it, no one can be responsible for it, I would think.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[fyngyrz]

Well, I'm not going to claim to be a philosopher onb the level of Stallman, but I do have somewhat coherent aims for the code I give away, and those aims are:

• Share my code without compromising developer freedom
• Cut lawyers out of the process
• Avoid creating legal roadblocks for developers
• Reduce development load
• Learn for myself
• Encourage sharing w/o classism
• Enable the student
• Enable the freeware folks
• Enable the dev lab workers
• Enable scientists
• Enable technologists
• Create a shared sense of community

Basically, Stallman considers commercial developers to be the enemy, but is more than willing to support lawyers. I consider lawyers to be the enemy, but am more than willing to support commercial developers.

This difference has led us in two very different directions.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[mcgrew]

I own a literary agency

What's your URL? You might come in handy... I have a book ready to publish.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have a point. However...

How many centuries is the copyright valid?

How many millions of dollars has to pay someone if they infringe copyright on 10$ book?

How many years does one go to jail if they let their kids read the book they purchased?

Until all these are settled to reasonable values (explicitly by law), I will stick with dead tree books.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication?

[GasparGMSwordsman]

If code is floating around without any license and I include it in my proprietary software, on what grounds can you sue me?

It's PD. You can be sued (you can be sued for anything) but all you need to win is "Here's this thing, it's PD, by so and so, date whatever, and I used it as such. Thank you, I'll be leaving now, and by the way, I'll have court costs, too."

Assuming US jurisdiction (and most western countries actually). If his work is floating around WITHOUT a license, then it is most certainly NOT public domain. To be in the public domain, the copyright holder must EXPLICITLY grant such a right.

If you find some random bit of source code with no license and you include it in your commercial application, you have just committed willful copyright infringement. The second you distribute, you are liable for ungodly penalties which would most likely be many times the gross sales of XYZ program (see RIAA cases for damage examples).

FREE!!!

[oldhack]

Free at last, free at last, thank... eh fuck it.

Re:FREE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Diffs here

[tepples]

From the article:

So, at long last, the licence is changed, glibc is Free software

This text links to a git commit. Click any of the diffs to read the old and new licenses, as long as you aren't red-green color-blind.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[WebMink]

It's not quite a BSD license if they require the source and binaries contain that notice.

That's a pretty vanilla 3-clause BSD licence just like you'd see anywhere else, I don't see a problem with it.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[ratboy666]

The original license said:

"Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user."

which breaks most definitions of "free software". You can't give it to someone else without having used it in something, or wrapped it up with something. The new license is a 3-part BSD standard.

I wonder why did it take so long

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why did it take so long after the acquisition for the relicensing to finally be done.
--yuhong

Re:I wonder why did it take so long

[MichaelSmith]

The article goes into some detail. To change a license you need the agreement of the authors. Over time the authors become hard to track down.

Re:I wonder why did it take so long

[dlgeek]

Not true. In this case, it'd be a work for hire, and the copyright would rest with the company that paid the authors, not the authors itself. (As a side note, you can also assign the copyrights to another party, the FSF requires people working on stuff like gcc and other GNU software to assign their copyrights to the FSF). Thus, the entity, in this case Sun/Oracle could change the license at will.

The tricky part was determining if the work was derived from something else, under a restrictive copyright. The copyright still belongs to Sun but they could be bound by contractual terms to other parties because of the way the works originated. Incidentally, this is the reason NVidia always gives for not open sourcing their 3D drivers for Linux.

Re:I wonder why did it take so long

[crankyspice]

Not true. In this case, it'd be a work for hire, and the copyright would rest with the company that paid the authors, not the authors itself.

Not necessarily. It's only a "work [made] for hire" if the coders were employed by the company (not independent contractors), or the work falls into a narrowly defined category of things that *can* be explicitly made works for hire.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Re:I wonder why did it take so long

[dlgeek]

The copyright notice was explicitly in the name of Sun Microsystems, as someone else pasted from the header file in another comment.

Re:I wonder why did it take so long

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not convinced about you giving Nvidia that much credit. They've repeatedly said they want to keep their code secret as they don't want their competitors gaining their edge. Which is daft, as ATI could easily disassemble NV code. The main reasons are: they don't care about openness, they don't want a bad opensource driver screwing NV performance, and they don't want their sneaky performance test cheats coming to light.

If NV wanted to aid open drivers, all they would have to do is give Xorg the spec docs, no code is involved. It would be a horrendous task to write the drivers, and there may not be enough motivation to do it, but without the data sheets, it's never going to happen. Which is exactly what NV desire.

Re:I wonder why did it take so long

[Anonymous Coward]

Did sun not distribute this code under the GPL in their own products? If so they already re-licensed it.....

Baldrick, do you know what irony is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's like goldy or bronzey, only it's made of iron.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, it's like it says oracle now - so it must be a bad thing...

Oh no!

[rajafarian]

I've been living a lie all these years??? Fuk!

Not ironic; more like intentional

[PCM2]

The submitter seems to think it's "ironic" that the license was changed at the behest of an Oracle VP. But looking at the code above, it seems the non-free portion in question was owned by Sun Microsystems. Sun Microsystems is now Oracle America. When you see the phrase "Oracle America" (as opposed to just plain Oracle), you know they're talking about the former Sun Microsystems.

So this is not "ironic" at all. Oracle America had the power to adjust the license, and Oracle America chose to do so. It makes one wonder why it was so hard to do while the code was still under the independent Sun Microsystems. Patents, maybe?

Re:Not ironic; more like intentional

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the article? They began work on the issue while Sun was still Sun, but it was interrupted by the acquisition by Oracle.

"But then there was some sort of foul-up after it was all agreed and Red Hat (who were making the change) never received documentation of the decision that was sufficient to give them confidence it was all over. They tried contacting people at Sun, but by then acquisition of Sun by Oracle was in full swing and no-one was allowed to make any changes affecting copyrights any more."

Re:Not ironic; more like intentional

[whoever57]

It's ironic when you look at what happened in the wider context of Oracle's actions regarding open source software, for example OpenSolaris.

Re:Not ironic; more like intentional

[dave562]

It makes one wonder why it was so hard to do while the code was still under the independent Sun Microsystems. Patents, maybe?

They might have been holding onto it in hopes of one day monetizing it.

Re:Not ironic; more like intentional

[X0563511]

I'm going to point your attention here

Did you even read the article? They began work on the issue while Sun was still Sun, but it was interrupted by the acquisition by Oracle.

"But then there was some sort of foul-up after it was all agreed and Red Hat (who were making the change) never received documentation of the decision that was sufficient to give them confidence it was all over. They tried contacting people at Sun, but by then acquisition of Sun by Oracle was in full swing and no-one was allowed to make any changes affecting copyrights any more."

Re:Not ironic; more like intentional

[PCM2]

Did you even read the article?

No.

They began work on the issue while Sun was still Sun, but it was interrupted by the acquisition by Oracle.

So not only is it not ironic, it's actually not even interesting, let alone news.

Glibc wasn't free?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a hopelessly misleading title! RPC part of the code's license is what is different and the Author of the linked article conflates it to the level of freeing Glibc it self, for what reason, I wonder! RPC has fallen out of use for quite a while, making this change not that significant.

That pisses me off

[Just Some Guy]

Seriously, that's aggravating as hell. I just kind of assumed that GNU would have released all of their flagship software under the L?GPL and had no idea that they were distributing non-Free software. They were the one distributor I figured I'd never have to audit the licenses from. Are there any other hidden gems? Is there some shareware in Emacs? Maybe a bit of Shared Source in binutils?

People have laughed at the BSDs for replacing a lot of common software with locally-developed, BSD-licensed equivalents. That's starting to seem like a much saner alternative.

Re:That pisses me off

[Anonymous Coward]

and to boot, even though this was championed by Fedora, Fedora will probably stay on fsf's list of non-free software distros.

fsf non-free distro list

Re:That pisses me off

[wrightrocket]

I was wondering too, what else is hiding? When will these other time bombs explode?

Re:That pisses me off

[bill_mcgonigle]

FSF's non-blob criteria is incompatible with being able to boot modern PC's on modern CPU's. Good job, guys. Fedora, on the other hand, remains as free as possible a distro for modern PC's. I'll be interested to see how hurd deals with this problem.

If this was really a concern they'd work hard on advancing the PC architecture to the point that it didn't need such reliance on firmware uploaders. I've never seen FSF do anything like that. Perhaps I missed it, but it seems like it's just ego-inflating to always have something bad to say about everybody.

Re:That pisses me off

[Anonymous Coward]

There are, in fact, some files commonly distributed with Emacs (such as RMS's early essays and the Zippyism database) that are not freely licensed, and some distributors (e.g. Debian) have removed them from the package. Those files aren't software, however, and they're not particularly important.

Re:That pisses me off

[jrumney]

The zippy quotes weren't just removed from Debian, they were removed from Emacs, after it emerged that they weren't public domain after all as had been assumed. The GFDL license on the other hand, may not be Free enough for Debian, but that is about statements of opinion needing to be kept without modification, as allowing modification has lead in the past to misquoting.

Re:That pisses me off

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, that's aggravating as hell. I just kind of assumed that GNU would have released all of their flagship software under the L?GPL and had no idea that they were distributing non-Free software. They were the one distributor I figured I'd never have to audit the licenses from. Are there any other hidden gems? Is there some shareware in Emacs? Maybe a bit of Shared Source in binutils?

People have laughed at the BSDs for replacing a lot of common software with locally-developed, BSD-licensed equivalents. That's starting to seem like a much saner alternative.

It's aggravating? Calm down. There are so many more things that are all so much more serious.

Re:That pisses me off

[melikamp]

I just kind of assumed that GNU would have released all of their flagship software under the L?GPL and had no idea that they were distributing non-Free software.

If monopoly on ideas (and, let's face it, on ill-defined classes of integers) is enshrined in the law, then anyone can claim that they own any piece of software. I did not read TFA, but they would have a legitimate claim if glibc was copying verbatim something like a few "i=i+j" kind of statements in a row. This is the heart of the problem. We need to get rid of the notion that mathematical ideas, and by extension the software, can be copyrighted or patented. Patenting math really helps no one but very few people with enough cash to hire a lot of lawyers. One thing every professional mathematician knows is this: the entry barrier to the most mind-boggling math is pen and paper, and for the computer science, it's something like OLPC. Nothing at all can be gained by giving world-wide monopolies on a bunch of formulas or integers, except for more useless litigation.

Re:That pisses me off

[Trogre]

I see pretty much every other popular distro made that list too.

Re:That pisses me off

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. This is outrageous.
I fully expect to see rms cutting his belly open on Youtube(Using webm of course) in the next few days.
I will stop using Linux altogether. We learned this, who knows how many dead bodies they have in their closets.
For those wo don't know, this is the guy trashing OpenBSD(which is a very strict project with regards to open source licenses) for being "non-free" because one can install proprietary software on it!
And he didn't audit his own GNU libc?
Shame on you, Stallman, shame on you.

Re:That pisses me off

[wzzzzrd]

Yea, I agree with you. All this high-and-mighty attitude, especially from RMS, and now this. I'm glad debian (and thus ubuntu) switched to eglibc, looks like Mr. Drepper did the open source world a huge favor, although this maybe wasn't intended ;)

Re:That pisses me off

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read the F..ine article correctly, glibc was free and open-source in everything but name. You could use it, read the source, change it, give it to your neighbor etc. You could not sell it; however you could sell it if it was a part of a bigger thing (for example *bsd).

OK, let us say it was 99.999999% free.

Re:That pisses me off

[Raenex]

FSF's non-blob criteria is incompatible with being able to boot modern PC's on modern CPU's.

A binary blob is a binary blob. If there's source code behind that blob, then how could they follow their principles and say it's ok? Debian has finally stopped shipping binary blobs too, by the way.

If this was really a concern they'd work hard on advancing the PC architecture to the point that it didn't need such reliance on firmware uploaders.

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

I don't know just how much you expect out of the FSF. I don't think they have the resources to do much else.

Re:That pisses me off

[bill_mcgonigle]

If there's source code behind that blob, then how could they follow their principles and say it's ok?

There's source code behind every piece of hardware that uses an IC. An IC is just software reduced to silicon for speedy execution. Even memory has logic on it these days. Nobody hand-designs logic gates these days outside an EE101 class.

Does FSF buy hardware from companies who distribute hardware without source? How can they do that if they're following their principles?

I suspect the answer is they take the highest-minded approach possible that doesn't prevent them from fulfilling their mission and they mean to work towards their ultimate goal. Which is the same thing Fedora does. The difference is Fedora doesn't give FSF hell for buying proprietary hardware.

If PC's adopted an OpenFirmware-like model the distros could push the job of firmware updates off to the end-user/manufacturer relationship with an appropriate toolkit. FSF would be a natural entity to lobby for such change.

Re:That pisses me off

[Raenex]

Does FSF buy hardware from companies who distribute hardware without source? How can they do that if they're following their principles?

They are the Free Software Foundation. The difference between software and hardware is that software can be changed by the end user. It's a reasonable place to draw a line, even if they probably would prefer to have the hardware opened too.

If PC's adopted an OpenFirmware-like model the distros could push the job of firmware updates off to the end-user/manufacturer relationship with an appropriate toolkit. FSF would be a natural entity to lobby for such change.

I can't see them lobbying for such a change if the end result is more devices without source code for the software. One of the early motivations behind the FSF was Stallman not being able to get the source code for a printer driver.

Re:That pisses me off

[bored]

Nice, I missed that one. I've had a couple run-ins with Drepper myself. Last time, I had a bug fix for glibc I went through one of the distributions maintainers to get it dropped.

It got rejected because only "broken apps" would need the fix. Except, that in my case the "broken" application was impossible to fix as it required a very large vendor to basically rewrite a big chunk of a large multi-platform application and change a public API. That application strangely enough didn't have a problem on any one of a half dozen other platforms.

So, for two lines of code that increased the robustness of glibc, I considered trying to get the very large vendor to crawl up the RH management chain. In the end I didn't think it would do any wonders for anyone involved, so instead we install a custom glibc provided by our distribution. I'm sure there are other applications out there that hit the same bug, but because its fairly low frequency and basically impossible to reproduce its rarely pointed out.

Frankly, Drepper is high on a lot of peoples shit list.

Re:That pisses me off

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, no, no, no. Each time you were copying glibc you were violating the LGPL. GNU can't violate it because they own the copyright, but third parties are violating it by including GPL-incompatible code in their LGPL software which means anyone who ever distributed Linux is guilty of copyright infringement. How fun is that?

Now it seems only the FSF can sue you, but who knows what laws will be passed in order to protect Mickey Mouse, there could be a really fun party in a few years involving all the people using their real names to distribute Linux until now and charges of Intellectual Child Abuse or whatever they call copyrigh infringment by then.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, that *is* the BSD license.

Second of all, the previous license was not even FOSS:

* Users
* may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized
* to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
* program developed by the user.

That could be interpreted to greatly limit the redistributability of the code.

So, this is great news.

Shut The Fuck Up

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking piece of garbage.

No wonder the computing world despises GNU and GNUfreaks like you.

Fucking viral piece of shit license.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[C_L_Lk]

Is that you Steve Ballmer?

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this just a troll or are there people who seriously get this upset over a software license?
If so can I get a link to a description of the controversy please?

Serious question.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[causality]

Is this just a troll or are there people who seriously get this upset over a software license? If so can I get a link to a description of the controversy please?

Serious question.

That's probably a troll but yes there are people who seriously get this upset over a software license. Well, they don't precisely get upset over the license itself. They get upset that anyone else would use a license that they would not use. The fact that your choice to use whatever license you like for what you create does not prevent them from using any license they like for what they create won't give them a moment's pause.

It's like the people who will get upset that you might drink alcohol, because they don't drink. Prohibition never could have gotten off the ground without folks like them. Or the people who think it's a good idea to arrest you if you smoke marijuana, because they wouldn't smoke marijuana. Or the people who think you should go to hell, or at least that they certainly shouldn't associate with you and treat you with respect, because their religion is not your religion. Or the people who think that all adults should have porn banned/censored for them because they themselves do not wish to see pornography. Or the people who think that anything which offends them is inherently evil and must be stopped at all costs, rather than viewing that as the way they have chosen to react to something that is otherwise harmless.

I like the term Bill Hicks used, which was "fevered egos". Just be glad that when people like this make new laws, they have largely overlooked the realm of software development.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you Steve Ballmer?

No, just a person who doesn't follow the FSF party line, Comrade.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Heil Hitler! Oh wait, I got my nationality mixed up. For Mother Russia! Communist Comrades prefer Creative Commons!

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I don't get upset with people using any license they want.
What I do get upset with is people who call GPL a free software license. This has very little to do with the actual license and more to do with the definition of free.
I'd rather keep my freedom intact and retaining the meaning of the word is a very important part of that.
I don't want my government to say "You are free to go wherever you want as long as you always report where you are to us." or use some other new meaning of the word free.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[FuckingNickName]

One problem with all freedom-vs-authoritarianism arguments is that each side takes such a long time to acknowledge that the other has a different view of the notion of "harmless".

One of the consequential mistakes made by those campaigning for the freedom[tm] side is the assumption that the authoritarians just have a huge ego: "How dare you impose your opinion on me!!!"

But the authoritarian is sometimes (N.B.) the one with the lesser ego. He doesn't want alcohol or drugs or gambling or driving or whatever regulated for his own sake, but because he wants to create a more cohesive / safe society - one where prevention is chosen over cure as a solution to problems developed by individuals which others must then solve.

The entirely freedom-oriented argument might sound enticing at first: "He's harmless - leave him be!" But a junkie, for example, tends not to be harmless, as he's got to get his fix somewhere. Even if he is a junkie with a small retirement account, however, he may get to the point where he needs medical attention. Then who is supposed to pick up the cost? "Leave him to die! He abused his freedom!" some cry. Suddenly, the freedom guy seems less cuddly and kind.

The offer of security can be abused by tyrants, just as the offer of a cheap meal to any prepared to sit quietly at a table can be abused with a vial of poison. The freedom guy argues from the view that man is so egotistic that an offer for comfort will inevitably be accompanied by an abuse. In the extreme, he is taking the hilariously two-faced Thatcher's rhetoric seriously: "there is no such thing as society" except as an oppressive system which must be crushed.

To return to alcohol: we have seen that an outright ban does no good, whatever your aim. But its manufacture and sale is still heavily regulated. Is this an imposition of ego? Should it be treated as cocaine at the end of C19? Should cocaine be so treated? What about all other prescription drugs? If I can make them and sell them, why should anyone stop me?

Well, a lot of people that causality Inc. sell these batches of unregulated drugs to are going to get addicted or overdose. A brain is just another part of the body - to say that it is perfectly rational or perfectly informed is a philosophical fantasy. It will be tempted. It will be weak. It will be ill. And society judges that it's immoral to take (too much) advantage of that - especially when society will have to pick up the pieces.

Where we have deregulated the extent to which advantage can be taken of the weak, we end up harming everyone: the subprime mortgage hiccough is an obvious contemporary example. Particular individuals got very rich from associated dealings, at the cost of everyone else involved.

But the authoritarian would stop the salesman selling the mortgage to the unemployed black in in Alabama.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just link to debian

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the people who will get upset that you might drink alcohol, because they don't drink.

If we exclude your GP, can we try and give "them" a little more credit? Sure, some people think "everybody must think like me just because!". But I think some other people were pro-prohibition because they saw alcohol as causing a lot of societal problems. And it does---alcoholism can tear relationships and families apart, and drunk driving can be even worse. Not to mention, drunk people can be really annoying when you're sober. Similarly for drugs. As for the rest, I'm starting to stretch. And there's a lot of merit to the "personal freedom" counterargument.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[mrchaotica]

Suddenly, the freedom guy seems less cuddly and kind.

Freedom isn't supposed to be cuddly or kind.

But [alcohol's] manufacture and sale is still heavily regulated. Is this an imposition of ego?

Regulation is reasonable to the extent that free markets depend on everyone being well-informed. For example, it's reasonable to require brewers to (accurately) disclose the proof of their product. In contrast, it's not reasonable to restrict sales of it on a particular day of the week because some religion objects to it.

Where we have deregulated the extent to which advantage can be taken of the weak, we end up harming everyone: the subprime mortgage hiccough is an obvious contemporary example.

Some people argue that the subprime mortgage fiasco was caused by overregulation, not deregulation: government programs forced lenders to approve mortgages for people they would have considered too risky otherwise.

But the authoritarian would stop the salesman selling the mortgage to the unemployed black in in Alabama.

The libertarian wouldn't have bailed the salesman out when he went broke due to stupidity.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[DarkTygur]

That's probably a troll but yes there are people who seriously get this upset over a software license. Well, they don't precisely get upset over the license itself. They get upset that anyone else would use a license that they would not use. The fact that your choice to use whatever license you like for what you create does not prevent them from using any license they like for what they create won't give them a moment's pause.

Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. The GPL seeks to restrict the license you may use for any software you make that depends on the covered software. If someone else chooses GPL, and you want your software to use their software, suddenly you have a lot less licenses to choose for your own software.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[hazah]

I have a serious problem with this mentality. Alcohol cannot tear anything apart. It's an inanimate object. People's actions are what tearing relationships apart.

It's like saying good ol' Melly (Gibson) isn't responsible for the shit that spews from his various orifices. Why should he be excused for behaving rudely while drunk? Did someone force feed him the alcohol or something?

The key to this problem is the one we keep avoiding at all costs. Make people responsible for their actions.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[Surt]

There's really a range in there, it's not all black and white the same. There's plenty of factual evidence that your choice to drink poses a significant statistical risk of killing me.

For marijuana, there's a similar, but much smaller risk.

For porn, not so much.

Where our society chooses to draw the line in terms of protecting one person from statistical risks taken by another person is .. well ... a choice to be made by our society. After experimenting with prohibition, we decided that the risks to all of us from that strict law were greater than the benefits, and we pulled back.

People who decide to make decisions for other people aren't inherently evil or stupid, that's just the reality of society ... every law is a decision of some kind you've decided to make for someone else, and NOT every law is wrong, just the ones that demonstrably involve themselves in other people's business FOR NO BENEFIT.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with 90% of what you are saying, but you miss one factor: That the 'Grand Inquisitor' style Authoritarian, who intentionally limits freedom because he honestly believes it is best for all, can sometimes be wrong. Case in point: Some aspects of the subprime mortgage crisis.

We don't just have to worry about evil, but also misguided incompetence.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[causality]

That's probably a troll but yes there are people who seriously get this upset over a software license. Well, they don't precisely get upset over the license itself. They get upset that anyone else would use a license that they would not use. The fact that your choice to use whatever license you like for what you create does not prevent them from using any license they like for what they create won't give them a moment's pause.

Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. The GPL seeks to restrict the license you may use for any software you make that depends on the covered software. If someone else chooses GPL, and you want your software to use their software, suddenly you have a lot less licenses to choose for your own software.

If I want to write software, no one else has any obligation to help me out by providing components that enhance the functionality of my software. Their labor and their skills belong to them to use as they see fit. If they choose to assist me, it is appreciated. If they do not choose to assist me, they have that right.

If they choose to assist me under certain conditions, then I have a choice to make. I either accept their aid under their conditions, or, I decline their offer and either do it myself or seek aid from someone else with conditions more to my liking. As the author of their work, they have the right to set the conditions under which it will be used just like I have the right to use the GPL or some other license or public domain.

What you want is to have a claim on someone else's labor. You are complaining that someone might create a useful tool, make it available to you at no monetary cost, but then do so in a way that doesn't suit your desires or purposes. They have no obligation to do anything for you in the first place, let alone to do anything for you according to your precise instructions at your convenience. If you want a programmer to do that, hire him as a contractor or an employee but don't complain when random strangers don't suit your wishes for free.

Please get over this entitlement mentality. It damages a lot more than discussions about software. It's quite literally killing free society.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up

[causality]

It's really very simple. Consenting adults should have the right to do anything and everything they want, until and unless they harm another person (or another person's property) against their will. We do something like this with alcohol today. Want to stay at home and have a drink? Go ahead, you're being responsible. Want to get drunk and then drive? Now we have the right and the duty to arrest you because now you're being irresponsible and posing a threat to others. It's that simple, except that there's nothing special about alcohol other than its legal status.

Also, the very first myth about the War on (some) Drugs is that it is preventing anyone who wants drugs from obtaining them. Anybody who wants to do drugs is already buying them and already doing them. They cannot even keep drugs out of prisons (look it up yourself). The idea that legalizing them is going to suddenly result in more addiction is silly.

About overdosing, if an adult person wants to ingest a substance without fully understanding what it can do or how to safely use it, they are knowingly taking a risk. If that risk doesn't work out so well for them, that's too bad but it isn't the government's business. Adults have the right to take risks with their own body, their own property, and their own money.

I also think the prescription drug system should be eliminated. The reason you'd still go to a doctor to get a recommendation about which drug you should take is because it's a really, really good idea. You'd do it because taking a substance you know little or nothing about to try curing a disease you also know little or nothing about would be stupid. You'd recognize the bleedin' obvious, which is that there's a reason people have to study for years and years before they can claim expertise in this subject. Or you'd knowingly take a risk and be willing to face the consequences.

Others have already pointed out that the subprime mortgage fiasco involved government forcing banks to make loans to people that the banks would have deemed unworthy of credit if left to their own devices.

Here's the real issue. I will unmask it. This is what's behind all the back-and-forth: freedom is not for the faint of heart. Stupid people might hurt themselves in a truly free society. You might have to be responsible for your mistakes in a truly free society. People might say and do things that you really don't like in a truly free society, though they would not have the right to force you to participate.

We have a nation of mostly cowards who cannot stand all of the above. Of course they don't say "I'm a coward and that's why I don't like freedom unless it's the freedom to do what I would approve of". They don't see it that way. If they knew that they were cowards they'd be much more humble. Instead they are in denial about their cowardice, so they call it something different (often quite sincerely). They call it a concern for their fellow man, for society, or a worry about what might go wrong. In the process they ignore the tremendous social costs of things like the War on (some) Drugs, the nanny state we have today and are increasingly empowering, and the nation of cowards we are creating who have no self-control and no personal responsibility and therefore need some politician to guide every choice they could make lest something bad happen.

Two words: fuck that. The rest of the world is already that way. I want this to be the one free nation. Let those who don't like it vote with their feet. I for one am tired of them instituting their childishness and cowardice here.

Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[harlows_monkeys]

I still don't understand why someone didn't just rewrite the code from scratch, using the original as a spec. The original code was released 25 years ago, and is not that huge an amount of code.

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[fatp]

If It Works, Don't Fix It!

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[evilviper]

I still don't understand why someone didn't just rewrite the code from scratch, using the original as a spec.

There are a handful of unix libc implementations out there, so someone, in fact, did.

Additionally, have you ever heard of a derivative work?

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't understand why someone didn't just rewrite the code from scratch, using the original as a spec. The original code was released 25 years ago, and is not that huge an amount of code.

sharp vl-pd3a charger

I also donot understand the why

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it was used as the de facto implementation everywhere, rewriting it would break a lot of setups, in multiple different environments and tweaks.

I've personally been involved in a e-mail setup which relies heavily on NFS for storage, they sure wouldn't be happy if an update accidentally created inconsistencies between the NAS and the servers.

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[jez9999]

I still don't understand why someone didn't just rewrite the code from scratch, using the original as a spec. The original code was released 25 years ago, and is not that huge an amount of code.

This just goes to show how silly it is to be able to copyright and 'own' code. There's a perfectly good implementation of something, but copyright says that in order not to infringe you need to sort of rewrite it and sort of use different variable names and.... ultimately, the code has exactly the same behaviour. At what point does it stop being a copy and start being an original work?

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[Geeky]

>

There are a handful of unix libc implementations out there, so someone, in fact, did.

Additionally, have you ever heard of a derivative work?

So I wonder why noone ever reimplemented it in glibc?

I'm not sure you'd even have to look at the original code - it formed the basis of an RFC, and there can only be so many ways to code the implementation of that RFC - two, to be precise: with or without bugs ;-)

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[harlows_monkeys]

Yes, I've heard of derivative works. That's why I said to just use the original as a spec. If you don't copy any copyrightable elements from the original, you have not produced a derivative work.

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reimplementing a commonly used protocol using the original as a reference is not derivative work, at least according to US wall.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

If I were to rewrite a library from scratch, it's not a derivative work, provided that no part of my code is a distinctive copy of the original work. An API is not copyrightable.

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[evilviper]

If you don't copy any copyrightable elements from the original, you have not produced a derivative work.

Not true. You can rewrite every line of code in a program, and yet you've still got a derivitive work.

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about BSD? It was initially based on AT&T Unix:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution#Net.2F2_and_legal_troubles

Re:Why no rewrite in 25 years?

[harlows_monkeys]

If you did a line by line rewrite, you would likely include copyrightable elements from the original. However, if you just use the original to find out what services the code provides and what computations it is required to perform, and then you implement from that spec, you will likely not have produced a derivative work.

Taint

[PopeRatzo]

glibc, portmap and NFS are no longer tainted.

Heh, he said "taint".

Why do they call it that, anyway? (he asks, delivering the straight line).

Re:Taint

[PPH]

'T aint neither one nor the other.

Re:Taint

[Anonymous Coward]

huhuhu.. it was a 'taint of greatness' huhuhuhuh..

Re:Taint

[Ash-Fox]

Why do they call it that, anyway?

You are called to submit yourself to the taint for the greater good.

Join us brothers and sisters. Join us in the shadows, where we stand vigilant. Join us as we carry the duty that cannot be forsworn, and should you perish, know that your sacrifice shall not be forgotten, and that one day we shall join you.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Haeleth]

How exactly is this code "copyright 2010", if it was written in the 1980s?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't re-distribute under the original license, the particular code as is. You have to re-package it inside another program or product.

Different Audiences

[Roger W Moore]

Sleepycat isn't NEARLY as comprehensive, but simplicity is usually well worth that loss.

When dealing with normal, reasonable people I agree because your audience is trying their best to understand the information you are trying to impart. When dealing with the law your audience is deliberately trying to misinterpret everything you have said to their advantage so you need everything specified absolutely precisely so that there is no possible way they can do that.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL
but I interpreted it as them giving us the ability to modify the code and redistribute it, provided modified versions don't infringe on their trademarks.
simply, it needs to be distributed with something that isn't glibc/SUN-RPC; which to my understanding means a name change is enough to be allowed to distribute modifications (aka, a fork).

SCO

[NuShrike]

What? All this time and SCO never found this?

Re:SCO

[TubeSteak]

What? All this time and SCO never found this?

A. I'm pretty sure we've established that SCO never really audited the code like they claimed
B. Even if they had found this, it isn't their copyright and they have no standing to sue.

Re:SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

And... (C). I'm pretty sure SCO established that facts about copyright didn't really factor in their decision to sue, so why look?

Re:SCO

[belmolis]

SCO actually did hire a consultant to audit the code. Then they ignored his report that there was no infringement.

Re:SCO

[TheRaven64]

It wouldn't matter. It's not original UNIX code (not to mention the fact that it's not in Linux), so they wouldn't ever have owned it. Microsoft could have made a lot of noise with it though. Distributing glibc containing this code is a violation of the LGPL, so it does give the FSF standing to sue you. They chose not to, but it means that anyone distributing GNU/Linux is reliant on the good will of the FSF to shield them from a potentially large copyright infringement lawsuit. Imagine the FUD possibilities!

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention GPL incompatible.

woohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

o good i can finally upgrade my bsd libc to glibc. uh yeah.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Spugglefink]

That's a pretty vanilla 3-clause BSD licence just like you'd see anywhere else, I don't see a problem with it.

Yup. The only thing different about it is that somebody actually bothered to change "The Regents of the University of California" to something else, and put in a date and so on.

That's actually fairly rare to see. Most people who license code under BSD do so very poorly, just copying the boilerplate and never filling in the blanks.

Sigh

[philj]

Why the dig at Oracle? Are they the new target for the slashdot crowd?

Re:Sigh

[tywjohn]

Oracle killed my baby OpenSolaris :'( *sniff*

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you not read any news in the last months -- or is that not required before "digs" at the "slashdot crowd"?

Re:Sigh

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I, for one, am offended! As a slashdotter, I have the ability to unfairly target many companies and individuals, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that!

Re:Sigh

[jimicus]

Why the dig at Oracle?

Are they the new target for the slashdot crowd?

I'm not sure about that, but historically they've not been well-known as a Free Software company. Indeed, as a vendor of an expensive proprietary DBMS they've got a lot to lose were Postgres or MySQL to reach the point where they'd be taken seriously by the PHBs of this world.

Having said that, I believe that Oracle is taking Free software seriously. What with the acquisition of Berkely DB, MySQL, their own Linux distribution (even if it is essentially rebranded RHEL), their own virtualisation solution based around Xen and the acquisition of Sun, I don't think they're trying to eliminate Free software at all. I think they're trying to put together a business model based around Free software with proprietary bits here and there, or Free software which is either an older version or an unstable development version of the same thing that's being sold as a proprietary product. Aladdin did something similar with Ghostscript, RedHat do that with Fedora and Sun did it with OpenSolaris.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenSolaris is dead -- that didn't take long at all after Oracle got in control...

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Original code was written by Sun.

Sun was recently bought by Oracle.

1 + 1 = 2.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the dig at Oracle?

Are they the new target for the slashdot crowd?

Oracle should have seen it coming.

BA-DMP *TSHHHH*

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[X0563511]

(Interesting that the parameters for firefox brought the one on Apple's site up before the one on Microsoft's.)

What? Can you elaborate on that some? AFAIK your browser doesn't change Google's search results display order...

There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[Khyber]

Call it the Zero-One Distribution License.

The license simply states "You may expand upon the works of these two programs as long as you distribute your derivative works freely, full source included, upon completion of a stable build of the program."

Then have the two programs simply be a binary 1 and binary 0.

Just get about ten million geeks to sign the thing to make it a solid license, and then start contacting lawyers.

Collectively sue the absolute shit out of everybody. Force change in software licensing/EULA law is guaranteed.

Re:There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[Psychotria]

Call it the Zero-One Distribution License.

The license simply states "You may expand upon the works of these two programs as long as you distribute your derivative works freely, full source included, upon completion of a stable build of the program."

Then have the two programs simply be a binary 1 and binary 0.

Just get about ten million geeks to sign the thing to make it a solid license, and then start contacting lawyers.

Collectively sue the absolute shit out of everybody. Force change in software licensing/EULA law is guaranteed.

Bold mine. Just never call the build stable. I guess you're not a lawyer.

Re:There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[crankyspice]

Then have the two programs simply be a binary 1 and binary 0.

You've never read Altai, have you? It, or a variant, have been adopted by every court that's had to analyze computer copyright issues since its deciding. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html The 1 / 0 would be clearly excluded from a copyright analysis under the 'scenes-a-faire' doctrine.

Re:There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get about ten million geeks to sign the thing to make it a solid license

I'm sure that's exactly how it works.

Re:There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually, your idea wouldn't work at all because of today's copyright law. A program consisting of a single number would be as copyrightable as the sentence "Go." This is precisely as it should be.

Re:There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is if you build it with my compiler, which builds any code into a 'hello world' program. :-D

Re:There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Craig Jenness I believe I possess the vision and the technical and operational management qualities that can help to elevate your organisation to the next level.

Re:There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, and I find it humorous that they would vigorously apply that doctrine for our "1/0" scenario, and will just as vigorously ignore it every time they uphold another software patent.

*le sigh*

Re:There's a super-easy way to handle this.

[Khyber]

If the license shows widespread adoption and agreement, it's generally considered valid by courts.

With that validation, (must have a minor test case to get it validated,) we can then proceed to use prior legal affirmation of the license to force changes in the law. It becomes a massive legal battle which would certainly get some massive media exposure.

Things would change, no matter what. It's all in how you play the game and lay out the traps.

Debian, too?

[SuperBanana]

Seriously, that's aggravating as hell. I just kind of assumed that GNU would have released all of their flagship software under the L?GPL and had no idea that they were distributing non-Free software

Seriously. Same for the Debian folk. For years I had to compile netatalk by hand because the debian folk threw a shitstorm over compiling it against OpenSSL because of licensing problems, so it had no encrypted auth support.

People on debian-legal are famous for being the most righteous, die-hard, by-the-book types you can possible find. And now we find out glibc wasn't legal?

Re:Debian, too?

[IRWolfie-]

People on debian-legal are famous for being the most righteous, die-hard, by-the-book types you can possible find. And now we find out glibc wasn't legal?

You want lawyers to not be by the book?! Read the license terms, it was legal.

Re:Debian, too?

[julesh]

You want lawyers to not be by the book?! Read the license terms, it was legal.

Except that they (and consequently we) didn't have the rights to distribute it under the terms of that license. All distribution of glibc until now (and since the NFS-related portions were added) has been illegal. Sun/Oracle could have sued anyone distributing it if they chose to.

Re:Debian, too?

[david_thornley]

Not quite. As far as I know, nobody distributed the Sun/Oracle code on its own, and therefore there was no violation of that license.

The violation was of the LGPL, which applied to software the FSF held the copyright for. This situation, where there is a component that may not be distributed by itself, is specifically addressed in the Gnu License FAQ, and the answer specifically states that such software cannot be distributed under the GPL. I don't see a distinction between the LGPL and GPL here.

Therefore, everybody distributing glibc was in violation of the LGPL, and could have been sued by anybody with standing to sue, which was the FSF. If the FSF didn't have the copyright-assignment policy, then any individual contributor could have sued. If somebody found code with a license like this in the Linux kernel, and had a copyright on any code in the kernel, that person could sue anybody who had copied or distributed the kernel.

I'm sure they did.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

But they didn't sue Sun, now did they? What was sun doing during the SCO craziness that might have caused SCO to overlook this? Well the massive payment to SCO to allow Sun to release and distribute Open Solaris couldn't have hurt.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user.

That could be interpreted to greatly limit the redistributability of the code.

Really? Who might that affect? All those people redistributing bare Sun RPC code?

Yeah, great

[Mathinker]

> As for Shakespeare's plays ... Old texts often undergo serious
> editing before being published, ... and the edited version is
> quite definitely not in public domain.

And this idiocy, AFAICS, is why you can't download from Google Books the 1911 edition of Bloxam's Chemistry, a text which was mainly written by a someone who died in 1887.

Copyright law is definitely messed up. I can understand that added commentary which has definitive authorship deserves copyright, but editing, which essentially is trying to change the work into the form that the editor believes that original author wanted it in? That's more like touching up the colors of a photo of a painting --- something which isn't covered by copyright.

And if the added stuff is an insignificant portion of the whole (say, 10%?), it shouldn't matter how creative the added stuff was. Otherwise it just becomes too easy to game away the public domain, without even paying lobbyists!

Re:Yeah, great

[tibit]

I know it's kind-of idiotic, especially for academic journals. In a typical journal where they publish any sort of equations, they usually want a press-ready version to be submitted -- say in latex, using their own style file. Whatever the editor usually does is pretty insignificant. It's common that the editor finds nothing wrong and the article gets printed as-is.

ugh, lawyers...

[hitmark]

seems the time taken was mostly because laywers had to dig into corporate history to reassure shareholders or similar that there would be no corporate liability of they said "sure, go ahead" only to have someone show up and said "stop everything. that is my code. i sue you all!".

copyright lawyers, the nuclear submarine of the information age.

the word you are looking for is bigot

[Colin Smith]

lots of them around . They typically aim for positions of power .

Re:the word you are looking for is bigot

[causality]

lots of them around . They typically aim for positions of power .

Actually when speaking of positions of power they are like useful idiots. They elect people who are only too happy to grow government to where it can stamp out whatever practice of consenting adults they deem offensive. If a strict view of the Constitution would make the resulting laws unenforcable then they find clever ways to interpret phrases like "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" or in the case of the 4th Amendment "shall not be violated".

The people they elect likely don't really care what the excuse is, so long as one is provided, so long as it gets enough of the voters stirred up about something, so long as enough of them demand that some action be taken.

Linux not GNU/Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

So theres is nothing wrong in calling Linux as Linux instead of GNU/Linux

There is no GNU/Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no GNU/Linux distributions. There is Linux operating system and GNU development tools and libraries (and other software as well like GNOME) what builds a Linux/GNU development platform (you can switch it as GNU/Linux if you are so big GNU fan!). All Linux distributions use Linux OS. There are few HURD distributions what use HURD OS.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Ecuador]

I might be missing something here, but isn't this code always distributed as part of something (seems like glibc in particular)? What's the big deal?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[TheTurtlesMoves]

WTF? BSD is 100% GPL compatible. Thats why lots of BSD (under a BSD license) stuff gets taken over to the Linux kernel but not the other way round.

Its trivial to see how its GPL compatible. GPL add *restrictions* to BSD for redistribution. More rules if you like.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Trogre]

It looks like they're trying to pull a Lucas and reset the copyright clock.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a completley new, updated version of the code. The copyright is obviously for the freshly minted disclaimer itself.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they would argue that since they have edited the code file (to replace the license, but edited regardless) in 2010, the end result is a derivative work of both the original source code and the new license text, and should have copyright protection from the present for 95 years or for 75 years after the death of the last author.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[TheRaven64]

It means that people who received glibc were not allowed to remove the parts that were not this code and distribute the result. This means that there was an additional constraint placed on the code, which meant that anyone downstream distributing glibc was violating the LGPL and therefore had no valid distribution license. Fortunately, copyright assignment means that the FSF is the only organisation that has standing to sue, and they decided to be reasonable, but they did not have to be - anyone who distributed glibc before now is liable for statutory fines of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the USA, if the FSF did choose to sue. The FSF is also in violation of the license itself, but has the right to distribute the code anyway because it is the copyright owner.

This is important for several reasons:

• It highlights the fact that even the relatively permissive LGPL is so difficult to comply with that even the organisation that wrote it doesn't seem to be able to manage it.
• It provides ammunition for people writing FUD. The FSF has been reasonable in this case, but what if it had been Linux? Would all of the few thousand individual copyright holders been reasonable, or would one of them have decided to make a decent amount of money suing instead.
• Glibc contains RPC code? WTF? Are they trying to define bloatware? No wonder the C standard library is about as big as the kernel on a typical GNU/Linux system...

new target for M$ shills

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They are the new target for Bill's Shills. The astroturfers paid to hang out and attack FOSS have Oracle on their list these days.

To make the most of the first consultation

[tepples]

Does it ever occur to you fucks to contact an attorney when you have a legal question?

Did it ever occur to you that asking for legal information on Slashdot carries the connotations "What did your lawyer tell you?" and "What should I know before walking into the lawyer's office to make the most of the first consultation?"

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they pay lawyers and politicians lots of money?

Glibc stability and RPC?

[Skjellifetti]

From TFA: Both projects had decided to take a hard line and removing the code from glibc and portmap was going to be a real headache, especially for the stability of glibc.

The code is question is the RPC code. Why is glibc's stability dependent on RPC code?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Hatta]

BSD is 100% GPL compatible

Tell that to Theo.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, someone kill the last author!

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Dwonis]

What are you talking about?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Hatta]

This.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Lord Kestrel]

How can you have a 5 digit UID and not know about Theo de Raadt?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[TheTurtlesMoves]

It was an odd interpretation at any rate. A derivative work can have a new copyright notice. Its not changing a legal document etc. Anyway, I think these days its pretty clear, yes?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[DragonWriter]

WTF? BSD is 100% GPL compatible. Thats why lots of BSD (under a BSD license) stuff gets taken over to the Linux kernel but not the other way round.

BSD contains requirements (retention of the original copyright notice, conditions, and disclaimer) that are not in the GPL (either v2, nor v3) and are not permitted as additional terms in the GPL v2 (v2 doesn't allow any additional terms, one of the changes in the GPL v3 was to allow specific terms of specifically this sort.)

So, no, strictly speaking BSD-style licenses are not GPLv2 compatible.

If that's the case ...

[TheABomb]

Then Debian and Ubuntu have been completely hypocritical in dropping cdrtools over wodim, and will now admit the error of their ways and go back to including software that actually works, right?"

Re:If that's the case ...

[forgot_my_nick]

Don't be daft! But if they can nag Jörg Schilling until he changes the licence to make them shut up, Debian might include cdrtools again. But that happening is less likely than Oracle changing it's mind about supporting OpenSolaris.

I think I see your problem...

[rsilvergun]

and I get regular notices that "composting was too slow and has been disabled".

You need to upgrade you're chipper-shreder to a quad core.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Anonymous Coward]

$touch copyright.txt
copyrights can be renewed.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[TheTurtlesMoves]

good to know.

Well all my code i have released as BSD (my preference), I have assumed that folks can change it with a derivative work to GPL providing that my name still show up somewhere. Since many still need to use GPLv2, I guess I will make dual licensing explicit.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[reiisi]

The link I posted had all the unnecessary paramters stripped. The parameter(s) that stood out the most was (were) (a) parameter(s) for FireFox. (I don't remember how many parameters were FireFox related.)

There was at least one parameter that specified the encoding as Unicode, and I removed that one too. Removing that might have induced more or less sensitivity to my posting the query from Japan.

Come to think of it, the URL tends to automatically re-write to google.co.jp when posting from here, and I changed that to google.com . That could have been what moved things?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[X0563511]

Well, the google.co.jp thing is done by google doing (basically) a GeoIP lookup on you as you connect, and sending you a 302 Moved.

The other stuff tends to be added either by the in-browser search bar, or perhaps from reading stuff out of the browser when you search? I've only ever noticed it when I use the browser search bar. ... which is why I didn't understand what you meant. It makes more sense now though :)

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Dwonis]

I remember that. It wasn't that the BSD code was GPL-incompatible, it's that some developers stripped off the copyright notices altogether and replaced them with their own.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o

[Dwonis]

I know who Theo de Raadt is, but that's no reason to think Theo says the BSDL isn't GPL-compatible. I'm pretty sure he doesn't, because he actually understands licensing.