Slashdot Mirror
FSF updates Free Software definition
Mark Wielaard writes "The FSF has updated their definition of Free Software.
It now says something about the freedom to actually run the program
for any purpose, the freedom to redistribute copies to anyone, anywhere
(export restrictions) and how those freedoms should be irrevocable
(license termination).
"
Mindless?
:)
You are the one who can't get your hands around a relativly simple distinction.
Let us get away from insults. I made a point that you can't argue against, therefore, you gave me an insult and only an insult. I saw no reasoning against what I said within your message.
I am mostly under the belief that an idea should be free, but a representation does not. I say mostly because there always seems to be exceptions to every rule. That appears to be a fact of life. I say appears because life is not always truthful about what it shows. I say not always truthful...
Sean Farley
http://webx.lists.apple.com/?13@^149@.ee7676a/0
It's Bruce "Crybaby" Perens posting a private email from Eric Raymond to the Apple PublicSource mailing list. Apparently Perens felt threatened and notified the police.
Here is the reply from Raymond:
http://webx.lists.apple.com/?13@^149@.e e7679b
I think these two clowns epitomize what the Open Source movement stands for today. Nobody except the Slashdot crowd has any respect left for them.
if microsoft or lotus or whoever cracks down
on piracy(poeople breaking the license agreement), its "legal" but if the FSF
cracks down on a giant corporation like apple
knowingly violates the law by violating their
license agreement with FSF its 'cracked communist hippies who are angry at everything' ?
maybe if stallman wore a suit and was on CNN you would be more inclined to like him?
You forget, redhat does not have an advantage over anyone else, nobody has to get the software from redhat, or has to pay for the redhat CD.
The GPL is designed so that others cannot exploit the work of code written under it. Thus all people who use that code under that license are equivalent.
And you are right, any type of Intellectual Property has two parts: The cost of the IP, and the cost of the media it is located upon. `Free (money) Software' is never absolutely free, for the media charge, or the cost of the HD space, or the cost of the internet link it is stored or copies over adds to the price.
Scott Crosby
fsf restricts 'selling' why not
restrict 'violence' or 'drug dealing'
have a "no drug dealing" license, thus anyone
who wanted to sue the drug dealers could do
it on the basis that they violated the licensing agreement.
they got al capone on tax evasion right?
While you come up with silly restrictions to enforce morality, standards compliance, and your hatred for doze onto users, we'll be using Free Software. FYI, half of those restrictions have no legal basis and could not hold up in any competent court.
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
P.S. I hate doze too, but I don't come up with whiny judgemental licenses to enforce my views on everyone else. I'd make my code public domain if it weren't for the fact that the stupid law allows it to be turned around and copyrighted by any proprietary lamer who pleases... If only the world's governments would rule that copyright can never be claimed on a work once it's public domain...
Freedom is not a popularity contest.
what will eventually become of the OSS movement if we're constantly worshiping some benevolent dictator
Who's worshiping RMS? If your vision of free software doesn't agree with his, then don't buy a FSF T-shirt. If you want a dictator wannabe, look at ESR and his would-be certification mark. (Don't forget to vote for "Holy War" paintball!)
This document is not a rule book. It is not the Ten Commandments. It is a statement of the FSF's values.
It should be obvious that a free software license cannot have an arbitrary termination clause. The APSL caused many people to debate this, so RMS felt that it was worth saying.
The government cannot restrict me from passing code to others.
Unfortunately, they can and do. PGP was legally only taken out of the country in book form. The source was printed in a book which could be sent out of the country using the right of freedom of speech. This is an exception. Most of the time the government cannot restrict, at least legally.
Sean Farley
1) FSF does not restrict selling. FSF gives you premission to do many things with their software which would otherwise be illegal to do. There are certain conditions on these added freedoms, for the purpose of keeping their software free, but I have no clue what you're talking about when you say the FSF restricts selling.
2) You can never be sued for violating a license. You can be sued for infringing on a copyright, if you do something which the law forbids you to do with the copyrighted work, and you do not have permission from the copyright holder to do whatever you're doing. So if you did have that moronic drug dealing clause in your license, you could theoretically sue drug dealers who copied the work or who prepared derivative works from it, but **NOT** drug dealers who merely used it. Contrary to popular doze newbies' beliefs, you do not need a license to use software, any more than you need a license to read a book you have purchased.
3) Where does this end? OK, so you want to keep drug dealers from using your code... That's ok, right - drug dealers are all evil people, right? Well, OK...how about people who abuse their spouses? How about people involved in genetic research? How about adulterers? Where does your moronic morality enforcement in your software license end?
*sigh*, lamers...
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
I did not write the message you are responding to, but I think I understand the point he/she was trying to make.
If I release software, I would not want others to have the ability to change the license without my approval. The GPL allows any later version of the GPL to be used without scrutiny by the copyright owners of the software.
If I want to change the license, I should do it manually after I get to read it.
Sean Farley
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Well, with that your at the whim of the owner of the GPL's copyright as to what is the same spirit, yet just changing details to address new problems. You could be faced with a new licence which you find absolutly screwed, but they are perfectly within their rights to change it.....and its the spirit they intended, not you.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
That is about confusing and probably misspoken, but which way I don't know.....
This could mean one of 2 things.....
1) The program must say something akin to "Licenced under the GPL version 2 or any later version" to fall into this catagory,....or
2) If the program says "This program licenced under GPL version 2" then it automatically falls under this catagory and future versions of the GPL can be used at the copier's discression.
As far as I am concerned, you a lot better off spelling out your exact and personal terms yourself unless you want arbitrary problems from third parties. Unless you honestly don't give a damn what happens to you code, and then you should be releasing under the BSD or X licence or even PD.
If you don't understand the difference between Linux and GNU, then you definitely should wait until you have a better understanding of Open Source and Free software before releasing anything. There are several different licenses out there. Take the time to learn them. No one can force you to use the GPL.
That's an idea I too have had - a license just like LGPL, but that instead of allowing linking to anything, only allows linking to software that meets the definition of Free Software. I think the Debian Free Software Guidelines (or something based on them) would make a good definition for this purpose, but I don't think it's a big deal as long as the definition is clear and doesn't include non-free software (note that while the ``Open Source'' definition doesn't explicitly include any non-free software, ESR is quick to embrace proprietary commercial software that's remotely free as ``Open Source'' - this is not good).
Anyone else think this is a good idea? I'd certainly be open to making my GPL'd code available for use in non-GPL Free projects, but I don't like how the LGPL allows proprietary software to use it. Of course, I think such a license would have the most positive effects if we could get RMS/the FSF to put it out, rather than some little guy writing yet another no-name license that no one will ever read...and, if RMS were to promote such a thing, I think it would dispell lots of morons' silly hatred for the man and the orginization that are the reason unix didn't die 10 years ago...
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
If RMS's definition of open or free or whatever were the standard, Jikes (IBM) or the Apple nanokernel developments would be closed forever to public view---period! No corporate legal department would EVER allow release of these (and other) developments under a license you cannot terminate. Why? Because of US patent law, and the patent laws of ALL other nations. It is not uncommon for a patent to be pending (i.e., secret) for five or more years, and if you have clever lawyers deep pockets and a motive for doing so you can keep it pending for well over 10 years. How many copies of Linux/FreeBSD/ other freeware are there out there in the big bad world. How would YOU like to pay for 10 bajillion copies of someones software the judge is going to make you buy because you gave away 10 bajillion copies of some key part of that software (covered by a long-time secret patent) totally for free. IBM, Apple, Sun, HP, nobody is going to gamble with the survival of their company for the benefit of free software as defined by the likes of RMS and others who seem to think that property--including intellectual property--is theft, and are driven to put this moronic notion into practice
The FSF is a misguided entity which should properly be an irrelevance, since it can only generate ill will and dissension because the world--the real world--by and large will NEVER conform to its standard of "free software". Linus had to bend the GPL to allow device drivers as modules into the Linux kernel, and everybody winks and says his heart was pure so it is okay, and there is some quibbling you can do over the meaning of words (lawyer work) which gives it a plausible cover--but folks, he broke the GPL as strictly construed. Period! So, for instance, if you are not going to strictly construe the GPL for people whose hearts are pure, you really don't have much of a case against IBM, Apple, Sun, HP, and so on who are doing or planning on doing things which will make the world a better place and the lives of programmers easier, etc., etc., but who cannot and will not conform to some parochial definition of "free" that really serves only extremely narrow interests.
If you don't want to use the tools IBm and Apple have been putting out there for you to use, don't use them. But the preaching by RMS and cult followers serves no useful purpose--naive is too condescending a word, but the notion of ideals unconnected to reality is hard to express in a pithy catchphrase (and pithy catchphrases are probably too simplistic). Bunch of sour old men!
: Actually you can get around the GPL with dynamic linking, provided you can distribute with the
: non-GPL'd software a non-GPL'd dynamic library with the same API (however crappy the
: implementation might be).
Troll Techs widget set Qt is under the QPL not the GPL, but does this still hold true?
So if the Harmony Project (Qt clone) ever gets anywhere, it isn't important that it really works. It only has to partially work? Is that what you are saying? Then Troll Tech can kiss all future commercial revenue away?
Ouch, that has got to hurt.
Anyone can produce non-free (even patented) results by making even small changes to academic work. The system works pretty well this way, with universities providing all the basic research (at slave wages... no multimillion dollar stock bonuses for professors and their students), and companies providing an intense burst of innovation at the end in order to produce drugs they can patent. If research were "GPL'ed" new drugs would never get made, as nobody could afford to pay the huge costs necessary for clinical trials.
If someone writes a book, you cannot take that book, add a few words and then sell it. If a book was not copyrighted but instead gpled, then that would allow somebody to take the book change it in anyway they see fit and then sell it as long as they give the people they sell it to the same rights.
Understood. But with the GPL, I can't write my own book and include a few quotes from a GPL book without giving away my book. Sure the GPL can protects your book just like a copyright (despite what RMS says, it is a copyright). But the GPL can also infect unrelated works. LGPL is better but it's also a little vague. (How about the convoluted talk about a linked worked being technically a derivation of the library?)
Regardless, the problem with the GPL is not that it prohibits selling. It inhibits selling. I pump a million bucks into developing software and then GPL it with the intent of selling it. Why can't my competitors take my work and sell it too? Why does my customers have to buy it? Someone can buy one copy and redistribute it for nothing.
And please don't start on the "service" kick. It's more propaganda. The only way to sell service is to sell software that isn't as intuitive as it should be. I want smarter software where I don't need service. So what does a company do? Improve the software so that customers don't need much hand holding or keep it obtuse so that they have to buy some help. Yep. I nice big step forward for ease of use.
Customization? Now we have something. It's a form of service that provides a customized solution. Only problem is that you'll be fighting with your competitors to provide that service even though you've sank the money into creating the software. You lose again. Take RedHat. What happens when Linux really starts making inroads into the corporations. Red Hat sells service now but when IBM Service or Price Waterhouse starts offering bigger and betters services where will Red Hat be? Stilling selling CD's. That'll last until everyone gets 10Mbs Internet connections. Why buy a CD when I can download it and burn it myself?
GPL is freedom for the user. Not the developer. If you're a developer doing this for money and you think the GPL is your panacea, you're going to be toast. You're only recourse is to code for free and starve.
The spirit the FSF intends has been clear from the beginning, and would be obvious were it to come up in court. In fact, depending on how the FSF is legally set up, it may in fact be in violation of its bylaws or whatever to publish a bogus GPL v3.
:) Well, not unless MS is working on thought *control* as well as thought recognition... ;)
And finally, as long as RMS is alive, you're not going to see a bogus GPL v3.
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
This looks like the same definition of free software that they have been using all along. People forget that RMS's definition of 'free' when taken in the context of the GPL has nothing to do with cost.
symlink - has such good passwords that he can't remember them.
ok so the fsf restricts proprietarizing it.
the point is the same, they put restrictions
on it because of their moral beliefs or whatever.
and the points the same on no.2 you get them for copying it.
the 'crusade' ends when my programs arent
being used to kill people. its a pretty simple idea.
Mindless?
You are the one who can't get your hands around a relativly simple distinction.
...with "GNU/" in their names. Now, if you're referring the the GNU operating system, which is sometimes called GNU/Linux (or even more often, and quite incorrectly, ``Linux'') when Linux is used as its kernel (as opposed to HURD), you certainly have the freedom to call it whatever you want. However, you only succeed in making youself look ridiculous by doing do.
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
I don't see the freedom to leave "GNU/" out of the program name.
;)
Just trolling
Anonymous Kevin
Are you blind or just stupid?
Both apperently.
RMS is constantly complaining that all this software GNU contributed is not being publicised enough when people call it Linux. When the fact is, that most of the "GNU" software HE is talking about seems to be comming from other sources. Some is not even owned by GNU which I personally think would be the MINIMUM requirement for it to be considered a GNU contribution.
BTW, I could be wrong,...but the way I understand it is the *BSD projects are not a part of the BSD crew at all. They got ahold of some freely released version of BSD, BSD-lite, and created a *new* operating system from it. It is still _based_ on the origional BSD and I think they at least used to follow updates (I think BSD may have stopped releasing BSD-lite or something). Course the origional project fragmented into 3 different groups a long time ago, so you have Open, Net, AND FreeBSD.
I do not consider software to be an idea but a representation of an idea. I see many computer games where the software is owned, but the ideas are free. Art has many examples of this. How many clones of Civilization are there? How many paintings/pictures of a young woman in a field are there? Not counting Playboy! ;)
I also dislike patents especially the simple ones that anyone could think of. I bet I could get a patent on a 'for' loop from the U.S. patent office.
Sean Farley
According to your logic, a country is communist unless it outlaws donating money, outlaws volunteering, outlaws non-profit entities, and so on. It amazes me how many people think the demand that they be free to do certain things with something they own (the copy of the software) has anything to do with the communist concept of giving up things you own. This silly interpretation presupposes the fundamental reality of IP law, which is at best an artificial monopoly.
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
In reply to your diatribe and insults, I have been a Linux user since '92 or thereabouts, and am a wholehearted supporter of the free/open movement. However, I also recognize that not everyone can grant the types of licenses which would make the contents of their software as "free and open" as many of the community would like.
I see the recent redefinition of "free" by RMS as mean spirited and counter productive. Hell, I'd rather have access to Jikes than some geologically slow Java interpreter, etc. Annd I have it--no thanks to RMS who thinks we should insult people for not playing exactly the way college professors would like to see things go so their research would be totally unencumbered by any problems of any kind whatsoever. If you don't want to use Jikes, for instance, don't, but don't insult IBM for making it available (it cost IBM a bundle to develop) on as liberal terms as their corporate legal departments would allow. And please don't insult me for having it on my Linux box either.
There was a recent interview with Linus in one of the on-line Linux mags where he freely admits that, in essence, he made some decisions about what the GPL means which were very generous towards people who might want to write a proprietary device driver as a module, in effect saying they were like applications and not part of the kernel. Linus knows which battles to fight and which to ignore--something you need to learn and something the FSF probably needs to learn as well.
To hell with ethnic purity, you fascist!
You Americans are really taking this "freedom" dogma too far.
;)
Not all of us Americans agree with RMS, but I do agree as a society the United States does get carried away with issues regarding freedom and choice.
Maybe RMS will propose an amendment to our constitution for the freedom of repressed software in the U.S. Call you congressman! Ask for software to have the right to vote!
Sean Farley
In a perverse sort of way, FSF has come about full circle and approaching MS in a belief that software can, and should, be used as an instrument of political force. Perhaps MS's politics is less obvious than RMS's. It is an extream version of Ann Rands unbridled preditory capitalism. And RMS's is an extream version communitarianism. But both seem to be promoting software as a means of inforcing their respective visions on the rest of the world.
That is very bad news.
Confusing Pain int the ASS Licence
what if i want to run free software in order
to firewall my company from gnu.org,
collect data about free software 'commies' and
indite them?
i am wanting to know about what is included in
'any purpose' and what folks think about using free programs for stuff like child pornography,
war, torture, etc?
The views of the FSF about what constitutes "free"
are important, because they are the people who
publish the GPL. Most programs using it say
"This is licensed for use under the terms of the
GPL, version 2 or later, at your discretion".
If (entirely hypothetically) the FSF released
GPLv3, saying, "the PROGRAM or derivatives may
be licensed as binaries without providing source",
then most "GPL" s/w would be instantly decopylefted.
The dictatorial government forces you to hang out under bridges and collect tolls from passers-by.
Troll Bridge: 1 Mile
How is free software like free speech?
;)
It isn't. Free speech gives an individual the right to basically say whatever they want. Logically, free software would be the right for an individual to code whatever they want. Therefore, free software is not and never will be free speech.
I am starting to believe RMS chose to compare software and speech together to win the support of those people who believe in free speech. People fall for many things.
I personally love those "petitions" that ask for the banning of dyhydrogen monoxide due to all the bad things it does. If you state anything carefully enough, you can sway people easily. Hey, dyhydrogen monoxide is the number one cause of drowning in the world.
IMHO, whoever thought of "think free speech, not free beer" is a natural born politician.
Sean Farley
It's always allowed for revisions, with the only restriction that all revisions will be in the same spirit as the original, and that you can keep using the old version if you prefer. What problem is there with this? You're making silly arguments and predictions of doom with no basis. Not everyone is a legalist/doctrinist, as you appear to be; we don't need worthless words to tell us about Freedom.
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
Anybody else notice how RMS makes decisions about freedom more or less on his own? I mean, what will eventually become of the OSS movement if we're constantly worshiping some benevolent dictator?
And I still say Linux, not GNU/Linux. Maybe we can get Lily to open-source Prozac so Stallman can cook some up for himself and get the help he apparently needs...
Yeah.... You complain that you can't use the works of others as if it was your own work, instead of being grateful that they offer their work to be used at all.. Stop being hypocritical!!
I am so sure you would bitch if I were to take your program and include it within one mine and distribute my program.
How about it, you give me the source code to your program and let ME use it however I wish? If you won't do that, then you don't deserve to complain. Agreeable?
Scott Crosby
...as opposed to the current software industry, which writes poorly written software to guarantee upgrade fees.
You Americans are really taking this "freedom" dogma too far. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your constitution, and your culture (well, some parts of it), but "free" software as defined in the article? I mean, freedom of speech I understand. Freedom of movement, sure! Freedom to do what you want to do with someone else's software? Come on...it's a hokey extension to the notion of "freedom" as revered by you guys.
And there are a lot of Apple developers who still remember RMS as the person who wanted to punish them for Apple's misdeeds.
Look at the RSA algorithm, the patent for which is vigorously defended.
Publishing your research means that anyone has access to it at a decent academic library, so copying is not even an issue
Research is usually tightly bound in copyrighted, all rights reserved journals and such. The only way to get a glimpse at the sacred word is to go to several decent academic libraries. Just try to get Kinkos to make a packet for your classroom--copying is an issue.
Publishing your results allows others to improve on your ideas or borrow your ideas for another purpose.
This is only true insofar as your ideas are not subject to copyright or patent.
If you a Wagner power painter (numerous patents) to paint your house, should the patents become public domain property too? Apparently FSF thinks so. What works best for college professors (RMS) may not be the best model for the rest of the world too.
There are perfectly good reasons someone might want to put a termination clause in a license (like a patent lawsuit based on a patent filed ten years ago and kept secret-pending-in the interim at great care and expense). There are also bad reasons. Life is complicated, but we should at least distinguish between these two: if (for example) something in a future version of gcc violated somebody's intellectual property rights, what do you think would happen? It would have to be pulled if the owner got insistant. You can bet it would not be in the next RedHat distro! And life would get complicated for the FSF as they asked everybody to pretty please destroy all workproduct based on gcc version 666.6.66 before we lose our homes and cars.
The debate should be over the conditions for termination, not about the possibliity of termination of a license. The high pitched whining the FSF is engaged in at present detracts from the community harmony which is the foundation of the free/open movement. With a little fine tuning of the license, we could use Jikes or the Apple nanokernel as freely as anything under the GPL. I believe the OSF has the better idea at present, since it at least acknowledges that it is a neat thing to use other people's PROPERTY for free. The FSF has to get used to the idea of PROPERTY, and to keep the community from being flim-flammed into doing development for others perhaps should say PROPERTY=PATENT for instance: then we could say thank you for letting us use your patent for free (e.g., Jikes) and we will let you call it "free" if you let us use it until the sky falls and the lawyers step in (we expect you of course to actively defend your patent).
If all you have is a bunch of code (i.e., Netscape), then you can't call it free unless you release it totally and unconditionally.
I personally don't see any functional difference (that can't be overcome) between the terms of the IBM license of Jikes with its termination clause and the objectives of the FSF--and if there is ever a legal problem, IBM will be in a hell of a lot better shape than Stallman in his respective position. Lets worry about function and not the form of the license.
Let us learn to say "Thank you" graciously like we were taught as children, then take the code and run. What disturbs me more than anything is the lack of good grace I sense in the FSF wording changes (and in many of the comments here on slashdot).
1.Feel around behind your left ear for a hard spot. That's the FSF implant.
EEEEEKKKK!!!!
I have one of those!@!!
Read more than one sentence of the GPL (which was taken out of context, btw), and you'll find that all future versions will be in the same spirit as the original. If such a bogus GPL v3 were to come to exist, and someone tried to ignore the copyleft on your GPL v2 code on that basis, you could sue em the same as always...
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
If you look elsewhere on the FSF web page you will see why the Ghostscript home page is not linked. The "Alladin Ghostscript" version is under a license that prohibits it from being distributed on a CD containing mostly proprietary software. This conflicts with the FSF's guidelines as so it is not listed.
Nevertheless, the package itself will gladly guide you to the home page, and L. Peter Deutsch has pledged to continue releasing GNU Ghostscript versions about 6 months behind Alladin Ghostscript. (so I don't believe GNU Ghostscript is "outdated")
I agree that the testimonials are pretty lousy. They should get some newer, better ones considering the vast number of people that rely upon gcc!
"... certain kinds of rules for use of free software are acceptable ..."
RMS can define "certain", "free" and "acceptable" for his community, but I'll continue to bitch when those from his community tries to force their twisted language into a public forum which contains many other communities. Tell me your software is "free software" but I can't compile it into my program that uses a different (or even no) licence, and I'll tell you that you are trying to fool people. I might even be insulted enough to be nasty about it. People don't like being jerked.
- Feel around behind your left ear for a hard spot. That's the FSF implant.
- Find some strong pliers.
- Grab onto that spot and pull really hard.
Congratulations, you now have free will.Seriously, if you're concerned about the FSF making your decisions for you, don't put the "any later version" clause in the copyright statement of your GPLed code.
My software is free software. It's under GPL, which means you can use it in any software licensed in any way that is not more restrictive than the GPL (IE; You can use GPL code in BSD-without-advertising or public domain applications). Of course, the combined work will be under the terms of the GPL. But that just means that your software too will be protected against those who would exploit it.
This thread (hell, this entire topic) discusses freedom a lot but doesn't say a lot about consequences. One of the things I've tried very hard to teach my children is that, yes, you can choose exactly what you want to do, but remember, you have to live with the consequences of your actions -- and you don't get to choose those.
If I want to call myself God, great. If having YOU call me God is more important to me than having you interview me, well, that's great too, but then no one will hear the story of why I choose to call myself God. (Come to think of it, if I'm calling myself God there probably won't be that many interview requests.)
If RMS wants to call Linux GNU/Linux, fine. If he thinks I'm going to call it anything but Linux, he gets to live with the consequences of that action. Presumably losing a potential audience and being branded a fanatic doesn't bother him as much as being insistent about what to call our current favorite operating system.
Fifty years after he's dead people will remember RMS as a pioneer, perhaps as The Man Who Made It All Possible. Unfortunately we have to live with him in the here and now, warts, annoying idiosyncracies and everything.
I think you had better re-read the FSF site in all its glory. For
example (re-formatted for line-length, but otherwise unmodified):
"Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Library General Public
License, but not all. One GNU library which is covered by the ordinary
GNU GPL is Readline, which implements command-line editing. A month
ago, I found out about a non-free program which was designed to use
Readline, and told the developer this was not allowed. He could have
taken command-line editing out of the program, but what he actually did
was rerelease it under the GPL. Now it is free software."
[http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html]
This is an example of what's meant by the "GNU Virus." It is why
companies like mine are unlikely to pursue a Linux presence for our
products. And even if we eventually decide to do so, I imagine it
will be only after *very* painstaking examination and consideration
by knowledgeable technical staff and lawyers.
Tho of course I don't speak for my employer. (I have a hard-enough
time being responsible for myself!)
The notion of intellectual property is increasingly being used to infringe upon the Freedom of Speech. If you can own an arrangement of words, you can prevent me from legally speaking them. If you can own an arrangement of symbols which represent algorithms and such to humans and to compilers, then you can prevent me from legally publishing that arrangement of symbols. If you can own an arrangement of musical notes, you can prevent me from playing those notes. And so on...
Hmm...it's only a matter of time before some company starts systematically copyrighting every sequence of words that are syntactically correct... Be afraid...
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
NO! RedHat does NOT exploit programmers or whatver your thing is called!
People who write free software are not lossers who hope like in Windoze world to get some attention from some company or sell their ftp client for 100$ to a bunch of fools! They usually have jobs, sometimes great jobs, and the coding thing is just like your average suit golf game!
So they make software, and give it away, create wonderful desktops like GNOME KDE and give it away, and yes RedHat bundles this adds some work of their own and sell it!
Good for them! Nothing stops any of those programmers from making their own distro.
Now, one point to be clarified is that I do think RedHat should go public, so that anyone interested can make money with them
If you don't like it, create a COMPANY named for instance JEALOUS BASTARD LINUX, download everything from RedHat site, it's all GPL after all and sell it!
My original understanding of the FSF's ideals were that they were more strongly geared towards the latter, rather than the former.
Actually the FSF was always free speech they have had to explain (and explain and explain again) that they mean free speech not free beer. The GNU manifesto written in 1985 and modified in 1993 describes the FSF's beliefs. Among the 1993 additions was a footnote trying to clarify the sense of the word "free" since it has more than one sense.
A.C. and proud of it.
The entire concept of intellectual property is bogus to begin with. While big businees tries to pull political moves by exploiting IP (heh, that sounds like nuking ;), organizations and individuals such as the FSF are utilizing such stupid law to counteract itself, and in many cases to wage an ideological war to restore the freedom that was wrongly taken away over the past few centuries.
I don't see how you can equate ideological and political motivations...unless perhaps the ideological one stands to harm you financially when you can no longer hold monopolies on your proprietary software... *sigh*, we have a lot of lusers like you around anymore...
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
Linux? What is Linux? Anyone see the word Linux?
GNU software
So, if they didn't write it, and they don't own it,...what exactly does make it 'GNU' software?
Also, any time you feel RMS has not gotten the credit he deserves, look at the credit he has gotten, and then look at the credit he gives....
Gotten
http://www.fsf.org/people/rms.html
Gives
http://www.fsf.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html and
(Am I mistaken or did he just list Ghostscript as a GNU program? Lets move on to the
- Ghostscript
link...)http://www.fsf.org/software/ghostscript/ghostsc
Not once in that entire page is the Ghostscript webpage linked. Only passing mention in the whole thing to even suggest it was written and developed by someone else. And NEVER is it stated that there is a *new* version of Ghostscript available for free download by those who choose. The GPLed version is so outdated as to not work with many printers, yet does RMS "help his neighbor" by linking to the site were one may freely get the version that WILL work? No, he furthers his own agenda by trying his hardest to mention the true developers as little as possible....probably making many think this is the only version available (who would know from his site?) or possibly, the only version that works with "GNU" systems.
Then you have his "testimonials" page were it states that some of these people used GNU software to develop proprietery works, so the testimonials have been edited to censor out any refference to their product....supposedly because if he mentions them then we will be so easily manipulated by the mere mention of the product that we will want to go buy it now. I suppose maybe he thinks because FSF mentioned it we will all think it is now "endorsed" by the FSF and we so trust them implicetly that instead of thinking for ourselves we will go buy this thing he was talking about.
...never see the source of that crap that have to worry constantly that it might be taken away, ripped out from under a project of mine which heavily depends on it. What sort of shit are you smoking? The Leaf of Commercialist-Exploitationist America? Is there a reason you're so wrapped up in the wants of these businesses who do not give a damn about anything but themselves, and who are trying to promote their own deceptively pseudo-free software by labelling it ``Open Source''?
No Free Software of ``Open Source'' definition has ever included software for which the only license allowing you to use it can be revoked. Stating this explicitly is nothing new. See, it's kind of simple, dufus: there is no Freedom to copy, no Freedom to prepare derivative works, etc., if such pseudo-freedom depends on the arbitrary choice of the ``owner'' not to revoke.
Do you think you could see about finding the tiniest piece of a clue before posting here or anywhere else again? - or for that matter, before opening your mouth or touching a keyboard again? The FSF has no way of telling the likes of Apple and IBM that they cannot make their fake ``Open Source'' licenses which the traitorous ESR embraces. (It's the responsibility of the governments of the world to do that, by revoking all IP law...) However, the FSF, in promoting Free Software (both its use and the concept of Freedom in general) most certainly can and should clarify what is and what is not Free, and point out that pseudo-free licenses with termination clauses in them really don't give you any freedom at all - at least not in any practical sense.
What problem do you have with this? My guess is that you really despise Free Software, being yourelf dependent on proprietary control of IP, and just use ``Linux'' because you're tired of seeing the BSOD. What can I do about it? Nothing, most likely... But you sure are pittiful...
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
Free beer (level 0) I understand and accept, but the "freedom to redistribute" (level 2) seems to create some deep moral problems.
Why should someone be able to profit by selling something I created? That doesn't sound like freedom to me and it just doesn't feel right. It is neither "free beer" or "free speech", what it is - is "free labour" which in other words is "freedom to be exploited".
Take the leading Linux distro RedHat for example. These guys are making millions of dollars of profit selling CD's of mostly software they did not create. They are profiting from the free labour of thousands of generous programmers. This seems like exploitation, a loop hole in the GPL, and it just doesn't seem right. Yes, RedHat does "re-invest" some of its profit back into the Linux community by funding certain projects, but does this allow them the right to get rich off of other peoples hard work? The GPL says yes.
ESR's Cathedral and the Bizarre, is just that, bizarre. He lays out several business models that will work with "open source". What about the traditional software company model? ERS and RMS want you to think that it is dead. Well it's not. The commercial Linux apps are on the way. I don't care how much of a free software zealot you are and free software is great but there will be some commercial apps you will want.
Here is what I think is going to happen. Freedom is great but freedom to be exploited is not. So software developers are going to create and release free software FSF level 0 only. And the distribution part is going to cost. It is still free to the end user but it is not free to the corporation.
Say no to the GPL and stop being exploited.
Feed me, I will program for food.
e
AIDS research. This is an example of how an international research community got together to do something useful.
The Internet. The whole thing got started as a defense industry research project.
Buy into the MIT Media Lab's research of cool toys: wearable computers, etc.
Here's something I've always wanted to ask you, as the author of these two documents.
When the DFSG was being written, I suppose the aim behind it was to use it as a clear and unambiguous guide to deciding what software packages could be included in a free OS distribution. That is, as a guide to evaluate existing software licenses. I am inclined to think that you people never had in mind back then for it to be used as a guide to writing new free software licenses.
However, then the OSI sprang up, and adopted the DFSG as the definition of Open Source Software (TM). Now we have all these companies taking the OSD, each drafting its own license to meet it.
The question is, was there any thought given before the adoption of the DFSG to whether the OSD would end up being used for these ends?
---
Say GPLv3 comes out, and you don't like it. Fine. You can just exercise your discretion and continue to use your GPLv2-licensed software under the same terms.
However, say the GPLv3 added some new feature you really like. Then you can accept the terms of the GPLv3 and benefit from that feature.
---
This is a completely different issue. Hey, try reading the philosophy section at www.gnu.org; some of the articles go into the reason we have a copyright system--- because most people in the 19th century didn't own the means to print their own copies. This means that the government offered protection to the publishers, so that society at large could benefit from having novels available.
The confusion comes from the fact that free software is somewhere between proprietary and public domain software.
This is no fact. All public domain software is free software. (But not all free software is public domain.)
Open Source is a much more acurate term in this sense, but still covers software that's not "free".
Excuse me? Which non-free product meets the OSD or the DFSG? (Irregardless of ESR's rushed, unconsulted declarations.)
Anyway, the term Open Source (TM) has been intended from the beginning to be coextensional with Free Software. Read the OSI website, for god's sake.
We need a new term for free software. How about "open license" or just plain "copyleft."
People have suggested "libre software", to avoid the abiguity of the english term "free". But I don't think that will ever stick.
"Copyleft" is (IMHO) the idea of using copyright to defend free software from being absorved into copyrighted proprietary software, that is, fighting copyright with copyright. This is an FSF idea, and is embodied in the GPL.
---
Need something the existing software can't do? Hire programmers to write and maintain a program to do it.
---
Cellular2DSource. txt
SiteBotSource.txt
StaccatoSource.txt
Sorry RMS- free software is bigger than you are, and more important than wars over some company's stupidities (serious Mac users love and hate Apple's inimitable little ways- we know they're nuts, but they're _our_ nuts)
There's at least three GPLed programs that run on MacOS- FSF supported in the sense that they are just as GPLed as anything else, the license is serious and doesn't become invalid when used on a platform RMS doesn't like.
He can hold whatever grudges he wants. They do not affect the license he wrote that I use. I don't see that the revisions change it for me. If he does do something that changes it for me, I will fork it and hold it at a previous level which does not ruin the plain and clear GPL concept by playing politics with companies.
Picture RMS scampering over to Gosper's side, sometime after the big LISP machine split-up that wrecked the MIT AI lab. ...I CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT. *turns away*
RMS: Hi! Whatcha doin'?
Gosper:
Why is it so difficult to understand that the whole GPL thing was inspired by the tendency of proprietary software to _close_ lines of communication? How many times have you said, "Damn, I just did the greatest... um, idea, it's an idea I have for a program, but I can't really tell you about it because it's sure to be a trade secret... but it's really great!"
It's 'free speech' because the system devised by Stallman encourages chatter among programmers and a _social_ sharing of ideas that is not directly forbidden by proprietary software, but which just withers and dies due to pragmatic proprietary business reasons...
In a sense it's like saying, "Rather than just share your trade secrets with no protection for the sake of being able to talk freely about them, join this group where you can talk freely with the other members of the group, but still be protected against the loss of your trade secrets to outsiders!"
Doesn't that sound more sane? Only works if you _have_ the group- but he does have the group, now.
Software is not little corporate towel designs creatable by trained monkeys. Software is ideas- and I hope the really good ideas get made under the GNU General Public License. That is the group with which I talk freely.
The fact is, software may not be all that much like 'free speech'... but proprietary software is very much like restricted speech! Is this such a far flung analogy, really? It makes very good sense to me, and I've abided by NDAs quite virtuously in my time (for whom, I still will not say). I like the idea of not having to, and also not having to watch your back for industrial spies listening in on the conversation...
...then free software meets the users' needs wonderfully. Take Apache, where the enduser is the sysadmin, a person comfortable with text-based config files; it's an excellent example of successful free software, performing its job far better than commercial software.
On a side note, free software developed with financial backing from those who would profit from end-user support is filling in many of the holes, too; GNOME, developed with financial support from Red Hat, is an excellent piece of software.
That could, I suppose, be a concern in some situations.
Seeing as my library's going to be in a piece of embedded hardware, though, there's really no risk of that happening here.
Frankly, it would be a very unprofessional-looking stunt for a company to do... I really don't think there's a chance of it happening in much any circumstances.
I'm not speaking this based on some FSF publication, but my experience in contributing to free software projects.
Free software does not belong to "someone else". When I work on a piece of free software, it is as my own; I just happen to be working w/ a bunch of other folks on it.
This phrase, "someone else's software" implies individual ownership. Copyright? Sure! But does a person own their free software? Do you own the words you speak? If someone uses a phrase or quote they heard from you without asking, are you offended? Perhaps legally, but I'm not going to check before using an argument I heard you succesfully debating with; You shouldn't be obligated to check with me either.
A maintainer has responsibilty for their project and recieves a great deal of good will from the community. However, it is not "their own" in the way you speak of.
Working on a large project will help you understand this; I reccomend starting with something like Crossfire (if you like game programming; the source is very readable) or WINE (if you have experience with Windows API coding).
---
Btw, I certainly don't believe use of a free licence should be a requirement. I _do_ believe that commercial software development is likely to result in lower-quality software, and that the assurances provided by free software (eg hardware support -- POVRay will always run on any platform I want it to; If no binaries are available, I can recompile, modifying as needed). But don't think that we want "freedom of software" to be governmentally assured; This would be far more a restriction of freedom than a guarantee thereof. By making free software voluntary, we ensure that we work with not "someone else's software" but OUR OWN.
The competitors would have to abide by the GPL; Only my employer gets a non-GPL licence (and thus the ability to use my code in their commercial product). This means that the competitors would have to put their entire competing product under the GPL to use my source (note it's not LGPL I'm using; dynamic linking won't get them around it), and none of 'em have the balls to do that.
...if you were obligated to release your results freely? (Re the "If my 'restrictive' software simply didn't exist you would be no further along).
I don't know who you work for; There certainly may well be places where it is neccesary that software be commercial. However, there are also plenty of places where it's not so.
I'm doing some work involving one-way hashes. If I write a library with one-way hash algorithms optimised for a small memory space (as is the situation I'm dealing with) to help me in creating the final project I'm being paid for, how is my employer hurt if I release that library under the GPL (granting my employer a licence to do whatever-the-heck he wants w/ it, so they don't have to deal with the GPL restriction)?
In situations like this, it's all gravy. Not only does the product get created, but the library may occasionally be upgraded by other folks using it at no additional cost. Does doing this somehow make the product "developed more slowly"? I'd hope not.
I'm being paid a fixed, pre-agreed for the finished end product. If I happen to use a library which I happened to write on my own time (me being the one who decides what time is my own) in creating that end product, they've nothing to complain about.
Posted by Gordon Matzigkeit:
As I've said before, you may be interested in the FIG License.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
The FSF is trying to strengthen the definition against things like the FIG License.
However, as I wrote in a submission to Slashdot, I don't believe there is a conflict between the FSF's and FIG's idea of free software.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
I'm not exactly leaping to the defense of the FSF, because I don't think they're particularly right, nor do I think you're particularly wrong.
I'm replying so that you can start to understand the mental processes that go on in RMS's head, and the reasons why I don't find him offensive.
Linux is not considered part of the complete GNU system because the complete GNU system uses the Hurd running on Mach instead. That's the same reason why the NetBSD kernel is not considered part of the complete GNU system, even though it's free software too.
GNU/Linux means the complete GNU system, but instead of the Hurd and Mach, it uses Linux.
What makes something GNU software? The same thing that makes it Linux software. Linux software is called Linux software because it interoperates with the Linux kernel. GNU software is called GNU software because it interoperates with the GNU C Library, GNU Emacs, GNU Wget, GNU cc, etc.
Note that GNU software and Linux software are not mutually-exclusive terms. Think postmodernist: is Perl GNU software or Linux software? The answer is both, plus even more. Perl is Win32 software, Perl is Solaris software, Perl is Artistic software, Perl is GPLed software, etc.
Before you leap to using Ghostscript as an example of RMS stealing credit from Aladdin, write to L. Peter Deutsch, and ask him what he thinks of the matter.
Also, before you claim that RMS is censoring the commercial testimonials, you'd have to talk with those people to find out what they think about the issue. I'd be surprised if they were as angry as you are about it.
RMS tends to respect peoples' wishes for privacy if they don't grant him permission to
use them as examples.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
Posted by Gordon Matzigkeit:
``No, nooooooo! Not Emacs! AAAAAAAAHHH!!!!''
Committed to freedom and diversity.
Posted by Gordon Matzigkeit:
You may be interested in helping me work on the FIG License.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
What you say is true. I would never claim that it is immoral for people to benefit from another's voluntary contribution.
All I claim is that it is not always in the best interests of the Creator to do things that maximize other peoples' benefit at their own expense. Here is the situation I imagine:
You are somebody who loves to paint houses, but nobody knows about you, and you don't have enough money to buy new houses so you can paint them.
And so, you make your own house a masterpiece, hoping that it will attract a buyer, so that you can move out of it and use the profits to buy another house (which you will then paint).
Sensing there is money to be made, a large corporation moves to your neighbourhood, and buys everybody else's house (but not yours). Then they use their extensive wealth to advertise your house on the front page of every paper.
The neighbourhood is in huge demand. People visit and move there in droves so that they can look at your beautiful house all day. The corporation makes a lot of money from selling the other, unadorned houses (especially the ones that have a clear view of your house).
However, you see none of that money. No matter how beautiful you make your house, nobody ever offers to buy it. No matter how many people you talk to, all you meet are people who want to look at your house, not live in it.
In fact, the corporation and your neighbours get extremely hostile when you talk about moving to another neighbourhood. In all senses of the word, they own you and your house, but they have not paid you for it.
The only payment they offer is advice and offers to improve the house. At first you accept them with great pleasure, but later you realize that many of them only care about the house, not you.
And so, shaking your head in disgust, you leave the neighbourhood. Some people miss you, others are angry at you, but you have already been replaced by teams of people who continue to paint your house, and make it into a greater masterpiece than even you could do.
Next time you begin painting a house, you think twice: ``Why will this be different than the last time?''
That is the question I had to ask myself after I quit working on GNU Libtool, and moved on to Debian GNU/Hurd.
The FIG License is an attempt to answer that question. I do not care about Free Software as much as I care about Creativity. I firmly believe that it is possible to be both moral and profitable, and I'm looking to make this dream a reality.
I want to eliminate SAS (Starving Artist Syndrome) from our world. Come and help me, if you believe in the cause. The only thing we Creators have to lose are our self-imposed chains.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
It's more like "Oh.. Apple put some things in their license that a) we didn't think of in the beginning but that b) we disagree with."
So they drafted a new definition to cover the ideas in the APSL they didn't agree with.
Doesn't have anything to do with a personal grudge as far as I can see.
Are you suggesting that he should have called for a vote on what his opinion should be?
RMS stated his opinion on the subject. The fact that you posted what you did indicates that he did not dictate anything.
You remain free to release your software under any terms you like.
Due to the freedom to redistribute software without restriction, economic forces will tend to drive the monetary price of free software dramatically downward. Therefore, free speech will eventually lead to free beer, but forced free beer will tend to stifle the free speech part by limiting distribution only to those who can distribute without fee.
The problem is, a large proportion of those who don't understand the model (at least, the noisier ones here) are fond of referring to research as "academic welfare", which makes it unsurprising that they also don't grok free software. Do you have any suggestion on explaining to them why this is important, or is it hopeless? :-)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I'm kinda befuddled by this comment -- the previous poster has a concern about the GPL, and all you can do is claim that they're too stupid to understand Linux?
The concern is specifically that someone is trying to force him to use the GPL, and that someone is the FSF. They don't merely recommend that people use the GPL (which is praiseworthy); they also include legal language in the GPL which says that anything linked to a GPLed program must itself be GPLed. Why couldn't they have said "must be level $n$ free or better"?
However, as long as we've got the LGPL I'm happy. I wish there were a few clear choices, though. We could use:
- full GPL (total protection, only GPL)
- half-GPL (freedom to link to free software)
- demi-GPL (freedom to link to open source)
- LGPL (freedom to link anywhere, including icky anti-free)
- open source
and I suppose:
- icky closed-source
- even ickier anti-free software
The reason why open source became and remains so popular is that it offers a wide range of options for licensing. The reason why it garners so much oposition is that it is almost capable of replacing free software, while allowing latitude in licensing above what free software can allow.
If the free software camp would officially offer a definition and license more restrictive than LGPL but less so than GPL, this problem would be moot. In addition, we could generally place any foreign license somewhere on that scale.
-Billy
That makes absolutly no sense. The GPL has already been revised once, and I assume it will be again. It is a liscence...a legal document. As such, it needs to be updated to match the legal landscape of the times. Hell, even the US Constitution has needed a few tweaks. Granted, no such changes should be taken litely. Regardless of how I might feel about rms's views and expression of those views, I have faith that he takes the issue of Free Software very seriously.
As for the "Freedom to do what you want to do with someone else's software", that applies if they chose to release under a free liscence. In addition, rms is stating his (and FSF's) view that it is morally wrong to "hoard" software. You're free to ignore his view.
That's the whole point of freedom. You have the responsibility for your own actions and the freedom to excercise that responsibility. Just because rms states his view doesn't mean you need to follow it.
Finally, I have a suspision that it isn't just us crazy Americans' that have a 'notion of "freedom"'. Freedom is for everyone that chooses it. Because you have free will you can also choose not to be free. Or you can even choose not to choose...to accept the level of freedom "society" presents you.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
why is it hypocritical? Surely you're be giving up liberties if you were forced to contribute. The GPL is more reasonable; if you distribute the software the source code must also be available, but if you never distribute it, you aren't forced to do anything.
Then we'd better start collecting and posting the versions of the GPL/LGPL as such, and referring to them by their revision levels. If business, government, non-profit orgs, schools, etc., -- all the suits that came to the party -- can't point at a specific immovable document and say "that's the document our cooperation is founded upon" without fear of someone changing it on them, most of our momentum will die in confusion and permanent distrust. FSF will have devalued its most powerful product.
Hmm. As I'm sure you've grokked from others here, this is aimed almost directly at the OSI's approval of the APSL. There is almost certainly no rapport being established between the two, particularly now that it has become such a personal battle between Perens, ESR, and RMS.
-luge
IAAL,BIANLY
To clarify: it is the FSF that has always been the primary pusher of free as free speech, not free beer. the free beer advocates are ESR and the OSI, most definitely not the FSF.
IAAL,BIANLY
_They_ (the FSF) updated _their_ definition of free software. I don't know if it was RMS making the decision unilaterily, or after a great deal of discussion about the GNU people. The document is unsigned.
As for worrying a benevolent dictator, you're entirely right. But RMS isn't and can't be that dictator, because he won't make the compromises nesseccary to lead the community. ESR has and appears much closed to "benevolent dictatordom". For some of the dangers of this, cf. the recent debian-devel archives for a thread called "email threat".
I think they are just clarifing things they didn't feel needed clarified before. I've read other documents before the APSL thing where mentioned the ability to modify the program and keep it to themselves as an important feature.
I don't think it's hypocritical. If you make changes, it's still your right not to share with the world - perhaps because it has personal details, because you're embaressed of your coding, or maybe because it would be too much work IYO. RMS has usually been discussing if you give it out - but you don't have to give it out.
I disagree. The idea is that free software should not place restrictions on those who use it. If you modify a program, and keep the changes, who is using the software?
You are. You are now the user. According to the spirit of free software, you can now do anything with that software that does not restrict the freedom of others.
For better or worse, that freedom includes not giving it away. However, if you were to distribute that modification in any way, there would be other users, whose freedom you would (according to the fsf) not have the right to restrict.
My $.02
-- "Machines have no conscience" - Queensryche
Communism is not just a few pithy statements you can regurgitate in hastily formed arguments. It's an entire cosmology, not just an economic proposition. Christ says we should share as well, does that make RMS christian?
His political ideas really don't have a great deal to do with the FSF, which has one very simple goal.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Hmm...
I really don't like the idea to see one person define what freedom means to all of us...
--- GnorpH
It's only about a year or two before prozac's patent becomes public-domain or whatever it is that lets other companies make generic prozac, which is basicly as close as drugs can get to open-source
Somebody get our flag back!
That little exchange deserves its own
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
They did this because they believe in something.
From a philosophical stand point, I agree with all of it. As free software grows as a movement, there are going to be redefinitiions and some of them are going to come as responses to newcomers introducing new ideas and licences. Why is it bad that the FSF is responding to Apple's terms? They'd be failing as an organization if they didn't.
You kid, of course. Anyone who calls RMS a dictator can hardly know the man.
Mr Stallman is, simply, far more ethical and conscientious than current social norms tolerate. Whatever sense of obligation or compulsion you feel is either because of the force of his persuasion or because the software industry and its fiercely creative "free" netherworld are mediaocracies rather than democracies and these folks are being led by the nose to either uncritically embrace or oppose RMS's opinions. Get a brain.
I don't agree with all that Richard says, but he has brought and kept issues critical to the essence of software and freedom on the front page, as well as seasoning them with proper and just notions of ethics and values. I cannot stand by and see him maligned unjustly.
Jan Theodore Galkowski, (Oo) http://www.smalltalkidiom.net/ MySQL,PHP,ETL,SQL,MinGW C, and plucking the Web
Am I a slave because I read a copyrighted novel? No! Is a shareware programmer a slave-owner? Again, No!
The analogy is a little more fitting if you personify your software. :) In the case of proprietary software your software itself is a slave of the writer, since s/he is the one who ones it, and you have only payed to use its services.
Whereas with free software, your software it your own slave... Hmmm. I guess maybe the metaphor breaks down. :) Oh well.
--Artemisia
free software has as much to do with free speech as it does with free beer, that is, nothing. Those two phrases are simply used to illustrate two different meanings of the word "free" in English in order to emphasize the FSF doesn't mean "no cost" as in free beer.
The only connection to free speech is that they use the same sense of the word "free". Software is not the same as speech so no need to drag in all the emotional baggage of the rest of that phrase.
In fact RMS (and others) made just this objection to pre-release versions of the Netscape Public License that effectively required ALL changes be made available to Netscape.
Based on this feedback the final version of the NPL was changed to a "source follows distribution" model like other free licenses.
INAL but according to my understanding of the copyright code if you work for a company producing code you don't own it, the company does. For instance if you were to leave company A and go to work for company B you couldn't just take the code with you and sell it to them because company A owns it. This would be considered theft just the same as if you cracked their server and took the source. For this reason some employees when they go to another company have to work in a different department (ie. Wallmart and Amonzon.com agreement). It has even been cloudy for the Judical system with cases of workers getting arrested for trying to sell a program the work on the side at their job. Even though the Program was not for work it still was developed at the job and was therefor owned by the company.
Those posts are really sad. I'm hoping somebody was emulating Bruce/Eric and that these are not their actual comments, very embarassing. Sometimes I'm turned off on reading some of their philosophies because of the egos, but I (or we) shouldn't judge a whole movement based on the personalities of a few.
Anyways, this post is *** waaaaaaay *** of topic, if not depressing.
- sigs are for wimps.
>I might add one thing, they state that a user should be able to modify the program and >keep it to themselves, without even mentioning their existence to anyone else. Is this >not, however, completely contrary to the idea of free software, where everyone >contributes? I smell hypocrisy.
There is no hypocrisy involved here. Free software is about freedom. There is no reason whatsoever to require a user to report trivial changes which are completely localised. How would you like it if you had to report something like changing the spelling of a printf from (for example) the US spelling to the UK spelling?
And there is no requirement of contribution inherent in free software. Contribution is merely a good idea - for example it stops upgrade patches from failing due to your own non-contributed patches.
I ate something that disagreed with me. Maybe I should have cooked him first.
The FSF is trying to draw the distinction between a free (no cost) product or commodity, and free (intangible but distributable) information.
The right to freedom of speech allows you to speak your mind without fear of reprisal as long as you don't use your freedom to harm others (slander, libel, shouting "Fire!", etc.) Due to your right to freedom of speech, you can't be prohibited from passing information to others. Likewise, free software gives you the right to inspect, modify, and redistribute it as long as you don't infringe other's rights (for example, by adding code which you don't have the rights to use). Thus, free software also allows you to pass information to others without restriction.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. The FSF didn't "crack down" on anybody. They simply offered their comments on a publicly-announced issue, the APSL. Apple hasn't violated the law or any FSF licensing agreements. Apple doesn't have any licensing agreements with the FSF that I know of. It is entirely their right to license their code and product in any manner they see fit. The free software community may believe that such a license isn't in the best interest of the community and/or Apple, but that doesn't make the APSL illegal or a licensing violation.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I'm not really surprised by the modifications to the definition of Free Software. They are essentially just the codification of the objections that the FSF has to the tenets of the Open Source(tm)(s)(r) movement, and in that sense are essentially not anything new. What I didn't know, before I had browsed around fsf.org site a bit, was exactly how overboard these people had gone. O fun! O joy! Check out the words-to-avoid page and learn about the new, improved GNUSpek! Helps you avoid "incorrect thinking"! Read about the pitfalls of the Open Source movement (it allows bourgeois companies to take advantage of the "fuzzy thinking" of the proletariat). Come to the FSF web site and correct your wrong thinking! RMS complains rather vehemently about the injustice of copyright law and the penchant of the SPA of trying to get the government to enforce it. This, it just recently occured to me, ignores one simple fact: copyright law does nothing but create a default bargain between the author/publisher and the user. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't want your work to be covered by US copyright law, release it to people under your own agreement, as the FSF does with the GPL. [Technically, it's still covered by US copyright law, but you render that a moot point with the correct agreement terms]. The upshot of all this is that the pigs and the SPA are essentially doing nothing more than making sure that people keep their word, that they abide by the agreement they made in order to get access to the works. Keeping your word is a good thing, no? And if the software you wanted to use wasn't worth the price you paid for it and the restrictions that came with it, then why did you buy it? There can be no reason. The simple answer is that in some way, for some reason, it WAS worth it. [ASIDE: Now, that *reason* isn't necessarily just. Refer to the terms "network effect" and "lock-in"] More importantly, RMS knows this. And yet, rather that merely exhorting people to release their works under an alternative agreement, he rails on and on and on about the evils of copyright, as if changing the default bargain will keep companies from using the most profitable (i.e., generally one of the more restrictive) bargain they can come up with. But, RMS continues to rail on about how copyright violates the Right Of The People(tm) to share software with their neighbors. Let me get this straight: I've got something in my head. You don't have any damned right to anything with it. Now, if I write it down and don't share it with you, you still don't have any damned right to it (and thus far, couldn't do anything about it if you did). But, if you and I come to an agreement about the conditions under which I will show it to you (and only you), then you somehow magically gain the right to blab it out to everybody once I turn my back? Is this true even when you promised me you wouldn't? " Cooperation is more important than copyright," true, but keeping your word is often more important than cooperation. Personally, I think RMS is so concerned that the argument be viewed in his light because he'd like to see a lack of protection for creators and publishers enshrined in the consitution he refers to so much. Don't get me wrong: I pirate [hah!] my fair share of shit. I sometimes even pirate stuff that I could afford to buy. However, I view this as something akin to petty theft (when I can afford it), and something a bit less than that when I can't. I certainly don't delude myself into thinking it's my right. And I don't worry about the SPA showing up on my doorstep either: it isn't the least bit interested in stopping piracy that doesn't result in a loss of income; it's just interested in making sure that those who can pay are scared enough to. As far as the SPA showing up and auditing businesses, more power to 'em! If a company is using software to make money, then it oughtta by golly be prepared to share the wealth with the people who gave them the software thant helped them make the money. And that's just all I've got to say about that. RMS also complains at length about the fact that publishers profit more than artists from copyright non-infringement, although I'm not sure exactly how relevant this is given his contention that artists don't have any more right to a work than users do. This ignores yet another blatantly true statement: if authors didn't make more money by going through a publisher than by not, then they would not. Now, I agree with all the Utopians out there on this point: that era's probably gonna come to a close pretty soon. Just ask the RIAA. And to that, I say "good riddance!" But to imply that, in the present day, a publisher's income from things that don't get pirated is somehow ill-gotten gains, despite the money that the publisher put into it (manufacturing, marketing, etc.) is ludicrous. Percentage-wise, publishing a book or a program is probably a bigger gamble for the publisher than it is for the author. As ye sew, so shall ye reap, or something like that. Also, don't get me wrong on two other counts: a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in. b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software. cheers ya'll, -k. ^-^ a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in. b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software.
-k. ^-^ ^D
I'm not really surprised by the modifications to the definition of Free Software. They are essentially just the codification of the objections that the FSF has to the tenets of the Open Source(tm)(s)(r) movement, and in that sense are essentially not anything new.
What I didn't know, before I had browsed around fsf.org site a bit, was exactly how overboard these people had gone. O fun! O joy! Check out the words-to-avoid page and learn about the new, improved GNUSpek! Helps you avoid "incorrect thinking"! Read about the pitfalls of the Open Source movement (it allows bourgeois companies to take advantage of the "fuzzy thinking" of the proletariat). Come to the FSF web site and correct your wrong thinking!
RMS complains rather vehemently about the injustice of copyright law and the penchant of the SPA of trying to get the government to enforce it. This, it just recently occured to me, ignores one simple fact: copyright law does nothing but create a default bargain between the author/publisher and the user. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you don't want your work to be covered by US copyright law, release it to people under your own agreement, as the FSF does with the GPL. [Technically, it's still covered by US copyright law, but you render that a moot point with the correct agreement terms].
The upshot of all this is that the pigs and the SPA are essentially doing nothing more than making sure that people keep their word, that they abide by the agreement they made in order to get access to the works.
Keeping your word is a good thing, no? And if the software you wanted to use wasn't worth the price you paid for it and the restrictions that came with it, then why did you buy it? There can be no reason. The simple answer is that in some way, for some reason, it WAS worth it.
[ASIDE: Now, that *reason* isn't necessarily just. Refer to the terms "network effect" and "lock-in"]
More importantly, RMS knows this. And yet, rather that merely exhorting people to release their works under an alternative agreement, he rails on and on and on about the evils of copyright, as if changing the default bargain will keep companies from using the most profitable (i.e., generally one of the more restrictive) bargain they can come up with.
But, RMS continues to rail on about how copyright violates the Right Of The People(tm) to share software with their neighbors.
Let me get this straight: I've got something in my head. You don't have any damned right to anything with it. Now, if I write it down and don't share it with you, you still don't have any damned right to it (and thus far, couldn't do anything about it if you did).
But, if you and I come to an agreement about the conditions under which I will show it to you (and only you), then you somehow magically gain the right to blab it out to everybody once I turn my back? Is this true even when you promised me you wouldn't? " Cooperation is more important than copyright," true, but keeping your word is often more important than cooperation. Personally, I think RMS is so concerned that the argument be viewed in his light because he'd like to see a lack of protection for creators and publishers enshrined in the consitution he refers to so much.
Don't get me wrong: I pirate [hah!] my fair share of shit. I sometimes even pirate stuff that I could afford to buy. However, I view this as something akin to petty theft (when I can afford it), and something a bit less than that when I can't. I certainly don't delude myself into thinking it's my right. And I don't worry about the SPA showing up on my doorstep either: it isn't the least bit interested in stopping piracy that doesn't result in a loss of income; it's just interested in making sure that those who can pay are scared enough to. As far as the SPA showing up and auditing businesses, more power to 'em! If a company is using software to make money, then it oughtta by golly be prepared to share the wealth with the people who gave them the software thant helped them make the money. And that's just all I've got to say about that.
RMS also complains at length about the fact that publishers profit more than artists from copyright non-infringement, although I'm not sure exactly how relevant this is given his contention that artists don't have any more right to a work than users do.
This ignores yet another blatantly true statement: if authors didn't make more money by
going through a publisher than by not, then they would not.
Now, I agree with all the Utopians out there on this point: that era's probably gonna come to a close pretty soon. Just ask the RIAA. And to that, I say "good riddance!" But to imply that, in the present day, a publisher's income from things that don't get
pirated is somehow ill-gotten gains, despite the money that the publisher put into it (manufacturing, marketing, etc.) is ludicrous. Percentage-wise, publishing a book or a program is probably a bigger gamble for the publisher than it is for the author. As ye sew, so shall ye reap, or something like that.
Also, don't get me wrong on two other counts:
a) I hate big software business and big publishing business, and nobody's ever accused me of being an unfettered free-market guy. I just don't have an objection in principle to the line of work they're in.
b) The pathetic results of my programming endeavors are available under the GPL. It's a :P. However, I don't think that all software must be free, nor that it's everyone's responsibility to support only free software.
good license, and I used it because I wanted to contribute back to the community. So I did. I think I'll list it on Freshmeat in a couple of weeks. Watch out soon for subScript, the wonderfully inept text-to-PS convoita! I love free software, and I'm not opposed to it, either
cheers ya'll,
-k. ^-^
-k. ^-^ ^D
Frankly, I'm completely tired of this. Perens and Stallman and Raymond and other self-appointed Spokesmodels for User Software That Doesn't Suck And Is Not Owned By Greedheads have a lot of good things to say when they're not biting each others' ankles.
--------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
Due to your right to freedom of speech, you can't be prohibited from passing information to others.
Okay, I'm with you so far. Nothing the FSF has done or does today contributes to this. The government cannot restrict me from passing code to others. On the other hand, private enterprise can limit me from passing code. But private enterprise can limit me from passing information as well.
free software gives you the right to inspect, modify, and redistribute it as long as you don't infringe other's rights
But now I feel you have ventured far afield from the definition of "freedom of speech". Despite my freedom of speech I can sell my words, I can limit your ability to modify my words (e.g. quoting me out of context or trying to pass them off as your own). Even your ability to "inspect" my words has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I have a freedom of speech -- you don't have a freedom to hear my speech, otherwise you would be infringing on my privacy.
If I write a book, I don't have to sell it to you. I don't have to have a conversation with you. You don't have a right to "inspect" my speech. You certainly don't have a right to modify and redistribute my speech.
So I guess I'm still confused how "free" software is even remotely comparable to free speech.
[Imagine a GPL on speech. Anytime I refer to a statistic I have created a derivative work which I cannot sell. So long non-fiction. Anytime I quote someone I have a work I can't sell. So long anthologies of quotes. Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to write a single thing. I think a GPL on speech would pretty much mean the end of human civilization.]
Hmmm...that's kinda what I'm starting to think. I've been wondering what the hell free beer and free speech have to do with "free" software. Apparently it is just a stupid marketdroid slogan being chanted repeatedly by mindless drones of the Opensource Liberation Front.
Here's something I've never understood (and couldn't find anything on the FSF's site to explain to me):
How is free software like free speech?
You are the one who can't get your hands around a relativly simple distinction
If the distinction is so simple why don't you share it with us unenlightened, unwashed masses rather than insult us?
I don't see how you can compare freedom of speech (which stops the government from limiting your ability to create speech) with freedom of software (which stops companies from limiting your ability to mess with their software).
One deals with governments, the other doesn't. One deals with your ability to create, the other doesn't. I see nothing in commercial software that limits your ability to create software.
the academic community is based on an unwritten ethic which does closely resemble the hacker ethic, for obvious reasons.
but notice that computer science is not the only discipline to have this academic ethic / business ethic friction. biotech research suffers big time, as do any areas that can scam a profit.
Interesting point out of this...
All the GPL licences say 'the GPL or any later version'. So if someone gets to RMS or the FSF
somehow they could change the licences overnight
and take the code into hiding in their proprietary
systems - ie steal it from 'us'.
Who can say it couldn't happen?
This is exactly the clauses that I think Bruce should put in the Open Source Definition. Instead they end up in the FSF's definition (explanation?) of Free Software.
On the one hand, this is good, because they're finally putting down in writing what was all but obvious in the definition of Free Software, so that now no one can exploit those loopholes.
The problem with this is that no major company claims that their software is Free Software! They all claim that it is Open Source, implying that the license follows the Open Source Definition. That, folks, has not changed one bit.
This seems to me only to deepen the split between the Free Software and Open Source camps. Although in theory they are supposed to mean the same thing, in practice Free Software is much more idealistic and restrictive, while Open Source seems much more attractive to software companies because you can, relatively speaking, get away with licensing murder and still call your software Open Source, as IBM and Apple have proved. Never mind what the community says, those two companies are (ab)using the term, and that's about the end of it.
This certainly seems bad for the whole movement. I just hope it's the Slashdot goggles that are making it seem 100 times as bad as it really is. Anxiously awaiting replies from ESR and bruce....
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
If we look beyond the GNU Project, freedom is never really secured and if people don't think about their freedom and value it, they won't try to hold on to it. So in the long term, unless we care about freedom, we won't have it.
Surely, restriction of use along political lines is as insidious as export restriction?
Fnord.
Stallman is trying to explain what free software is. Raymond is trying to define what open source software is
/.ers simply tend to see things more like RMS than like ESR, and so it's easier to view Stallman's work as "explaining".
Surely RMS is as much in the business of defining free software as ESR is. Who, other than a handful of academics, had discussed freedom and software issues before RMS began his campaigning?
You could call RMS' work "explaining his view of how it should be," but that label fits ESR just as well. The two men do have a lot in common: both are highly motivated by personal feelings of what is right, and neither seems willing to change the approach he advocates based on what he hears from members of the community. I think that
[Imagine a GPL on speech. Anytime I refer to a statistic I have created a derivative work which I cannot sell. So long non-fiction. Anytime I quote someone I have a work I can't sell. So long anthologies of quotes. Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to write a single thing. I think a GPL on speech would pretty much mean the end of human civilization.] I do not understand how you came to this conclusion. The analogy does not fit. It is simply FUD. It is wrong on so many levels, I feel compelled to reply. Software can be provided in a form in which you can't modify it ie in binary. To modify it you need the source code that was used to create the binary. The gpl does not prohibit you from selling anything that has been gpled. You can modify something that has been gpled and then sell it as long as you give the people you sell it to the right to do the same. Speech on the other hand doesn't suffer from this problem. If some one says something, you can say it too. It doesn't fit written works either. Written works already come under copyright, which is much more restrictive than the gpl. If someone writes a book, you cannot take that book, add a few words and then sell it. If a book was not copyrighted but instead gpled, then that would allow somebody to take the book change it in anyway they see fit and then sell it as long as they give the people they sell it to the same rights.
I've heard that RMS has plans to update the GNU GPL in some minor ways. When the second version of the GNU GPL was written, the Internet wasn't being used nearly as widely; the GPL supposedly will be modified in ways that reflect that, eg explicitly stating that making your source available over FTP is OK.
I can't even imagine RMS changing the GPL in its intent, though.
You're a suburbanite.
the GPL was tailored a long time ago. Time for it to include all the new stuff to protect software from being non-free. I'm in! :)
I was just thinking of situations like this... interesting that there is such significant example.
So what happens if some disgruntled employee releases that code to the public (or someone steals it off there servers like what happened to the Quake source a few years ago)? All the code is covered by the GPL, but HP owns copyright to their modifications. HP and Intel would probably claim trade secret status on information in that code as well. But they can't do squat about it because the GPL prevents them from restricting further distribution of the code.
What a can of worms that would be.
I like "free beer", too, but it's not a very good ecomonic model. Somebody has to pay for it in some sense, whether it is in money or time or something else. "Free software" implies that the software developer pays for the software, not the user, unless the users donate out of the goodness of their hearts (like paying $50 for a distribution instead of paying $2 to Cheap Bytes).
Maybe respect or entertainment value is enough for software developers who have some other means of support, but I bet a lot of software developers
would like to make money, too. I don't see where this fits into the free software view of the world.
Can someone explain how this is not "free beer"?
I like free software/open source except for the fact that making software has costs (requires time and other resources), but the definition intentionally makes it difficult to recover those costs or maybe even profit a little bit. To ensure this, the author has to have exclusive rights on something connected with the software that can be sold. And don't tell me about making money on service or books or whatever. Once the software is free, anybody can provide service or write a book. There's nothing exclusive there.
I don't pretend to have a good answer, but at least the FSF ought to take their blinders off and admit that "free beer" is a part of free software. Then we could have a rational discussion of what, if anything, needs to be done.
But now I feel you have ventured far afield from the definition of "freedom of speech". Despite my freedom of speech I can sell my words, I can limit your ability to modify my words (e.g. quoting me out of context or trying to pass them off as your own). Even your ability to "inspect" my words has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I have a freedom of speech -- you don't have a freedom to hear my speech, otherwise you would be infringing on my privacy.
So ? Despite my freedom (as given by GPL) I can sell the software (where did you get an idea that you can't sell GPLed software?!) I can limit your ability to modify my code and give to anybody else (and GPL does it). You can modify my code and keep it to yourself, though, as I upon hearing your words can think of them and interpret them any way any way I want (as long as I don't "distribute" them to others).
BTW, FSF never said "free software" == "free speech", they only draw the analogy.
And I can see much of analogy there.
I think most of your complaints are about not being able to sell GPLed software - that is, misunderstunding GPL.
Possibly.... though I must admit I rather suspected that it was an attempt to reassimilate the Open Source mob by killing the obfuscation between "free as in free will" and "free as in free beer". My original understanding of the FSF's ideals were that they were more strongly geared towards the latter, rather than the former. It _appears_ that the FSF is disassociating itself from the "free beer" stance (held, if not by the FSF itself, then by a number of its advocates) in favour of "free will". If so, this is a welcome development.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
--
"This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along."
I'm writing my own license, but I don't know what to call it. I have not come very far.
It's not going to be a free license. Personally, there's lots of persons and purposes I am not willing to submit source code to.
I'm going to have restrictions, something like the following:
-segfault
A disgruntled or exiting employee from HP grabs a copy of some source code that was *never* GPL'ed. It was always proprietary. (Or maybe it's an HP customer or developer which got the code through an NDA or similar deal.)
A month or two later, the code turns up in someone's GPL'ed project. Not necessarily a Merced port of Linux. Maybe it's some proprietary driver code for some HP hardware.
In a case like this, the code was GPL'ed by someone who had no right to do so.
What recourse does HP (or any such company) have?
As far as I can see, they have none. They might be able to sue the ex-employee, but their technology is released to the wild, without their permission, and they get screwed.
This, I think, is exactly the kind of situation for which the APSL termination clause is intended.
The ambitions are: wake up, breathe, keep breathing.
The Stampede distribution is a total rip-off of
Red Hat. Red Hat does all the work to make a
nice easy distribution, and then Stampede just
takes it.
Check out www.cheapbytes.com sometime. They also
rip off Red Hat, selling the distribution for
only $1.99. Ouch! That must hurt.
Red Hat does us a service. Without it, Linus
himself would be stuck screwing around with
init, gcc, libc, and all the other basic junk.
We have better things to do than screw with init.
Exhibit A: Stop whining
1. No one is pushing any license or politics down your throat!
2. Read #1 again.
3. If you can't get out of an endless loop see #2.
Sorry, had to do that. The lamers who don't read made me do it.
But seriously, (with revisions)
1. (restated) No one is pushing any license or politics down your throat.
2. (revised) The purpose of licenses whether free, or proprietary is to have some sort of control.
3. (revised) Given #2, the GPL and other free licenses are no more "restrictive" or "unfair" than proprietary EULA's. See #4 on why I am comparing them.
Exhibit B: Oobjectivity, insight, and a little introspection.
4. One cannot discuss licenses in a vacuum. Even if only one actual license had existed. To believe that is to say a license is an entity isolated from all other entities such as economy, profit, monopolies, white slavery, personal gain, community gain, interest in non-monetary SELFISH non-greedy achievements, etc. (Please excuse the newspeak and ridiculous word-choice, ie. non-greedy, I'm making a point).
5. Licenses do not make the rules. Mathematics, the cost of living, attitudes, the laws of nature such as energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed only interchanged, and hence the fact that money doesn't grow on trees, dictate reality.
6. Licenses are ways to create a desired outcome based on this reality.
Exhibit C: Some Reasons to license
7. If I wanted to simply provide a niche service
SOLELY to make some money. Proprietary likely.
8. If I wanted to prevent my product from being misrepresented. Practically any license.
9. If I wanted to prevent others from having to reinvent the wheel. GPL.
Exhibit D: Why I would choose the GPL-Practical reasons.
10. The GPL allows you to make extensions, but not restrictions to the GPL itself, in your license. The GPL specifically says that whatever freedoms you draw from the license must be passed on to others. The extensions you make may not reflect on or pervert the GPL. Want to pervert the GPL, write your own license, heathen. (Just kidding, I'm not biased against other licenses but I'm not encouraged by some of the one's I've read.) Ihe ones that I like somewhat should be classified as extensions
of the GPL license. Note: for obvious reasons concerning the integrity and stability of the license, the GPL itself is semi-propritetary. You may extend it but you may not change what is already there. And folks, please, if you don't like the extensions in the new version don't use it. Be mature. (read Exhibit A for more info.)
11. As I mentioned before, from a practical standpoint, critical support software such as the GNU tools or the kernel should be GPLed (not gratis but libre). People depend on these for practical stability and functionality not quality.
People depend on Red Hat or Debian or Slackware or Yellow Dog, etc. for quality. Just as there's a difference between hotel accomodations(quality) and the shelter of housing projects(functionality, as if) in terms of purpose, there's the same difference between tools you use.
12. Reinventing the wheel in cases where tools are critical in functionality is wasteful and redundant (pun). When a business fails because its management and employees are idiots, tough. When a business fails because the cost of starting and maintaining is ludicrously high because some bastard is hoarding, that is an ugly situation. There's a difference between wearing a plastic bag around your head and thus suffocating for no reason, and someone choking you to death.
13. The computer industry, software and hardware, is still in the dark ages. It's just as hard for a newbie to learn how to use menus and the mouse today as it was to learn to copy files in DOS in the last decade. This has nothing to do with technological complexity. I call it first contact syndrome and it's the biggest drain on the industry followed closely behind by attempts to make computers "easier" which only lengthens and complicates the road to recovering from the syndrome.
14. Economically this is good and bad. In fact it's both in a superficial sense but very bad in a long-term situation. The main result of first contact syndrome is the portal skirmishes. A lot of hot air surrounds them. You hear all kinds of miracles made by Internet E-Commerce. That's not to say the Internet isn't powerful. Of course, it is powerful but the software, hardware, and let's face it users AND developers aren't always the best at what they do or more often don't put the required effort into their work. I won't mention scammers. They're a bit of a drain but not as much as hyped. In the short-term hot air is both good and bad. You might make a lot on the virgin stocks that come out with lots of promise but no record of success or failure. But the "hangover" can also be brutal when deals fall through. In the long-term it is a very big problem because the
length and severity of the swing from black to red increases and everyone can get hurt.
15. The GPL allows the evolution of a product to accelarate 'til it matures. You then have stability, functionality, and quality. That's the same idea behind beta-testing, but we all know how slow that is. If a product sucks but is a good idea, someone else will add to it. Let's face it we wouldn't have Unreal in 4 years if this weren't true.
Exhibit E: Personal reasons
16. I'm a gamer. I love playing and dreaming about developing a game some day. The game market is a higher risk market to be in than most markets but it's a market I like. If your game sucks, you lose. If it kicks ass, well, more power to you. Games don't compete against each other in the way database software does. If a database package is slow, poorly featured, or doesn't work, tough. If a game is slow, has some incompatibilities here and there, or doesn't display on your hardware, you keep the game and chuck the dollar-store video card.
17. GPLing the libraries used to build your game, has a minimal effect on your profit. Since people don't have to reinvent anything, they might have time to work on a better story. Most often it's not better but different. And GPLing your game engine has no effect on your ability to control what you do with the content. I would advise you, though, fan sites are a huge boost to your reputation. As long as no one tries to claim your brainchild as theirs, there's no conflict nor any loss of revenue.
18. Last but not least, GPLing the effort to build a solid product simplifies(read: lowers) the cost of development. People who work on GPL projects, usually already have jobs. They do it because of the challenge. The obvious exception is college students who need to grow a shark-bone(or cartilege) in order to make some decisions about their future. A little creativity helps. The less obvious exception is guys like Alan Cox who get paid to work on their pet project, Linux.
Exhibit F: Very Personal reasons
19. Big business is fine in theory. Monopolies suck in all contexts.
20. We need more people witr curiosity, integrity, and drive out there turning the world around. Thanks to the fact our overpopulation of the planet is bringing us closer and closer making us suffer the fate of our neighbors sooner than we can manage, there's got to be more solid projects and hard work. We won't last if we're dominated by whiners, scared ignoramusae(is there such a word), and plain lazy couch potatoes. This isn't to say we're all to carry the world on our backs, and like it like some fundamentalists would suggest. But we are all contributing to what happens.
21. This is out to myopic individuals who cite they have the freedom to choose any license they wish: Barring some patent and commerce laws, this is true. Precisely, the most important reason I choose the GPL license. BECAUSE I CAN.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
What's the fig?
Why not take a little responsibility yourself?
Why give rights to the gov't?
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Heck anyone could "glean" it. Then build a proprietary war module against it.
We're forgetting there's no law that requires you to license under anyone else's license.
Simply put the whiners want to make sure people still buy their software.
The fact of the matter is they believe FSF is their enemy.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Damn, it man. Why is it people freak out about this? Anyway just thanks for pointing out the absurddity in most of these threads.
Repitan por favor, Ustedes tienes la direcha del "license"
Ok so shoot me I haven't studied spanish since high school but I think the only way to increase the population percentage that realizes this fact is to translate it into other languages.
I think we're straining the likelyhood of getting anymore people to realize this in the English Language.
Any takers?
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
I'm tempted to also do my own license just to get out of GNU. My license would be called NGNU as-in Not GNU. It would have about the same restrictions as GNU but would not be under Stallman. I have a lot of respect for what RMS has done, but I think he pushes things a bit too far. GNU/Linux is a good example. He (and the FSF) are always trying to take all the credit, rather than the developer(s) of the software. Linux for me will always be Linux. The license may be GPL, but that shouldn't force me to call my software GNU XYZ.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
But there is the distinction between the knowledge that is published and the process which is patented. I like RMS's model even better for research (if you publish, you can't patent).
No, I don't believe copying is an issue because copying software means giving someone access to it. There is no access problem for published research because there are lots of decent academic libraries (and these days IEEE will even let you order reprints of articles on-line for a small fee). The fact that they are tightly bound in copyrighted journals prohibits no-one from making copies for FAIR USE, i.e., education or more research. Making a packet for your classroom is just a matter of convenience for the students (they could march up in droves to the library and make their own copies) but doesn't impact upon the freedom of access.
It is certainly permissable to link GPL'd code with code under a different license. Otherwise how would GPL'd and LGPL'd code exist? The other code simply cannot add additional restrictions. I hope you don't claim that free software has to allow linking with code under any license. In that case only public domain software would qualify.
Using free software is not, of course, going to legalize things that are currently illegal. "Yeah, I posted kiddie porn on the 'net, but I processed the pictures with the GIMP, and its license says I can do whatever I want," isn't going to cut it with the FBI, obviously...
On the flip side, though, things that are legal should not become illegal because of the software you used to do it. For example, if you're normally allowed to create an image or document and sell it, it should not become illegal because the graphics editor or word processor you used doesn't allow commercial use...
Posted by Mike@ABC:
OK, first impressions suck. Glad everyone chipped in to clarify. I'm glad I asked.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this definition dovetail a little better with what the Open Source Initiative is pushing? If so, then this is a good thing. If Stallman, Raymond and everybody else can agree on this definition (or another) and run with it, that can only be good.
I like it, but it's not like I write software. I write about software. What does everybody else think?
Linux today linked an article about 6 weeks ago where RMS was in asia, and was asked about pirated commercial software. I can't rembember the exact qoute, but it was something to the effect that what they (the software "pirates") were doing wasn't exactly in the spirit of free software, but it was still a good thing bringing software to people at a price that they could afford.
It seemed odd to me that RMS would even give a nod to anyone distributing software without source code.
Anyone have the link to this story?
TedC
While it's likely that all the hoopla over the APSL triggered this rewrite, it was a long time coming, and provides a useful framework for discussion of any particular licensing terms. Nothing I saw in it indicated an attempt to rule out the APSL per se; it all fit logically into the free software framework. The issue of restrictive laws (e. g. export controls) was handled sensibly; there is no good reason for any free software license to specifically incorporate these laws, since all contracts are implicitly governed by law.
The issue of forbidding a user from modifying a program for strictly private use (with no distribution) isn't quite what it looks. While it sounds like it should be in the spirit of free software to require even private modifications to be made publicly available, it would contravene the spirit of personal privacy that's necessary in any free society. Furthermore, it would be impossible to implement in practice.
At what point would the modifications have to be made public? As soon as the user has made any change at all? Taken to extremes, that would require that the user use a text editor that immediately modified the backing copy, and that the user always keep the source in a publicly available location (e. g. an anonymous ftp server). So one might then take a different tack, and say that it's as soon as the modified code "works". What's the definition of "work" here (remember, this is a license that binds as strictly as any other kind of license, and terms must be precisely defined)? That's not too hard for someone to get around; simply break something else and don't attempt to fix it.
This pedantry aside, the importance of a zone of privacy (which includes one's computing) is essential to a free society. The only issue is when software is distributed.
There is no concrete line between free and non-free, there are only degrees of freedom.
Yes, public domain code IS more free than GPL code. I know that the restrictions in the GPL are designed to safeguard the freedom of the users (especially users of derived works) but they are still restrictions.
IMHO it is up the author to decide what level of freedom to provide in his license. What I object to is the FSFs total conviction that they occupy some sort of moral high ground. Software released under a license which grants less freedom is judged "immoral" while software which grants more freedom is "misguided" or worse "fails to safeguard freedom".
LGPL has fewer restrictions that GPL, hence it is more free. Public domain is more free still. As an example of how these extra freedoms can benefit users, commercial companies take public domain code, add some extra functionality to make it useful and sell it to people. RMS calls this "freedom subtracted" software as opposed to "value added" (fair comment), but to non-programmers, an executable that does what you want is better than source code that doesn't.
I agree with FSF hierarchy of freedom, and I think more freedom is generally a good thing. I just wanted to point out that there were other levels besides the one's they defined. My take is that it is purely up to the author to decide what license to release code under. I almost never pay attention to arguments based on somebody else's interpretation of morailty.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
4. The freedom to link the software with code that is under a different license.
ie LGPL passes 1-4, GPL passes 1-3.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Free is free.
When you free a program, yes, you're absolving yourself of the right to prevent anyone using it for whatever purpose they so desire.
If someone uses Mutt to distribute kiddie porn, that's none of the Mutt team's business. It's the police's business, of course...
Now, consider if the mutt team decided to forbid mutt's use for child pornography. By omitting to forbid its use in drug dealing, couldn't they be accused of supporting drug dealing?
Best to remain neutral, and leave those issues to the people it concerns.
--
The reason they did this should be painfully obvious. They did it specifically so the APSL (and several other licenses) would violate the rules. I'd say RMS and the FSF still have whatever twisted grudge they once had against Apple.
I might add one thing, they state that a user should be able to modify the program and keep it to themselves, without even mentioning their existence to anyone else. Is this not, however, completely contrary to the idea of free software, where everyone contributes? I smell hypocrisy.
The FSF is basically his, or at least he's the figure head for it. He's got the right to make statements, you've got the right to ignore them or choose some license that fits your needs. That's freedom.
> without even mentioning their existence to anyone else
No, this makes a lot of sense. Say I fix a small annoyance for me, or even change the Makefile so that "make" installs as "gmake." I've just modified the software, should I be forced to publicize the fact and make this "modification" available to everybody? You could say you only have to give away "signifigant" changes, but how do you define signifigant? Also, if I'm in the middle of modifying some code which I plan to release back at some indeterminate point in the future, should I be required to make my changes available at every step of the way? In short, I think that as a "headache preventer" this is a good clause. There are also some good side effects of this(although "good" in this case is obviously a matter of opinion). HP has said that they have internal Linux and GCC ports running on Merced which they won't release until Merced is released. Chances are if they were required to release their internal work, they would never have started it until the chip was released.
I'm fine with RMS's clarifying his terminology, tho at this point I can't decide whether it sounds more like later Ayn Rand (in ONL etc.) or early L. Ron Hubbard.
He must not touch the words or language of the GPL or LGPL, though. This entire movement -- freely shared creative programming as anything but strictly a hobbyist category -- will sink into quicksand immediately if he does.
I do agree that the OSD should have an addition that the license must be irrevocable. When we wrote it, that situation simply had not come up.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I think this is a good indication that Free Software works. You just said somebody is making millions off it, even though others can "steal" it for free. So where is the complaint?
This is the kind of thing the FSF excells at and is one of the reasons why I'm grateful for their existance. The note was reasonable, well argued, and provides room for some diversity of opinion on which is the best liscense while providing a fairly clear benchmark about what is and isn't Free Software. ;-)).
I appreciated the levels of Freedom too, because they offer hooks to get non-programers commited to Free Software. I think the strictly Open Source POV misses out on this argument because it is primarily aimed at Programers and Bussinessmen (IMHO, of course
It's too bad so much acrimony gets stirred up when we really want the same things and we can all benefit from the diversity of opinion (or even just focus) that exists in the world. We won't all agree about every detail but I think we can live side by side if we are more careful of each other's feelings.
So it would be ok for me to decide that my name is "God", and insist that people address me as such when asking me questions?
Everybody has a freedom of opinion, but not the freedom that others comply with your opionion.
In your example, a questioner has the right to use the N-word, but since that word is widely held as a pejorative, the questioner would no doubt outrage most of the audience, not just the person he is addressing.
"Linux" is not held as a perjorative, except by an extreme element of the Free software community.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Your employer is paying you to write this. I don't know what you're being paid, but I think it would probably be fair to say several grand total.
Now, if you GPL it, your competitors can get the library for nothing, and use it in a similar product. This gives them a lower barrier to entry, which can hurt your employer in the long run.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
If demanding that people who ask questions at the GNOME release use GNU/Linux rather than Linux is not imposing his beliefs on people is not imposing, then I don't know what is.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
It's communist. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -Marx, "Software must be freely distributable so you can help your neighbor." -Stallman
Pure Communism is supposed to happen automatically (of course, it doesn't), not with a central authority enforcing it, like under Socialism. When asked "Isn't the government just a logical extension of the community?" in an interview, RMS replied, "Um, no, I don't think of the US government that way.". So I don't think Socialist is a good label for him.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
What? you don't want to start a consulting service for that game you've just written? :)
Seriously though, the only way to guarantee ROI is to charge thousands of dollars for the first few copies.
Also a service-based software industry will lead to poorly written software to guarantee service contracts.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I doubt that most self-respecting interviewers would though.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I may be wrong, but here's my understanding of how that would be viewed.
If a derivative of a GPL'd work was coded in that fashion, and only used internally, then the derivative is not GPL. Because it hasn't been released yet. When the author(s) decide to release their work, they have to do it under GPL, but not until then.
I don't think having your code stolen and made public could be considered a release. Regardless of the license involved. Even if it's a GPL derivative, the stolen code is not, because it hasn't been released by its author(s). It's been stolen.
It's stolen code, not a published/distributed work, and should probably be considered such. It should be the author(s) decision if and when to do that, and that fact shouldn't be negated if stolen and published by someone else, even if they are an employee.
I'm sure this view is full of technical errors, and I apologize if so. (I'm not a lawyer.) But I think I understand the basic priciples/intent behind the GPL, and I think you can at least see what I'm trying to point out.
Now, if the disgruntled employee IS the author, that's a completely different scenario. They can do what they want with it, but things might get a little uncomfortable at the workplace if they did.
What about if he/she is one of many authors?: That would be an ugly mess to figure out. I guess it be the same as if they were the sole author, only it would be akin to forking the code.
Interesting things to think about, though.
Marx may have popularized socialism, but he was by no means the definitive author of it. While RMS may lean into the communist camp, his basic philosophy has a great deal in common with socialist philosophy. It is socialist to the extent that he believes that their should be no private intellectual property. He also believes such a system can work. Either that, or he'd rather have a mediocre 'free' system, than a thriving restrictive one.
Weather or not Stallman advocates governmental enforcement of his philosophy is irrelevant to me. What I will say, is that for a man who believes in 'freedom', he says alot of stuff to the contrary. If he could have it his way, people would not be able to enter into contractual relations(licenses). I do not regard this as freedom. Neither do I see the ability of an individual to protect his source code as a detriment to society. The alternative, no protection, is much worse.
I think a pure 'free' software system would fail miserably. I think the system is fine just the way it is now. Both 'free' and commercial software can operate side by side uninhibited by one another, for the most part.
Free software simply doesn't exist for the same reasons that commercial software does. Free software exists for coders, by coders. It exists to 'scratch an itch', the developers itch. Commercial software exists to make money, the only way to do that is by filling customers needs. Where customers have needs, there is money, more often than not. Where there is money, there will be software.
The same can not be said for free software. Free software exists only at the pleasure of the coder. While there may on occassion be some intersection, between what the rest of the world wants and what the coder codes, it is slim by its very nature.
Can you name one piece of free software that meets the end users needs and wants, and does a better job of it than commercial software? While Linux is a great system, it is a system that appeals to a very small segment of the population, a segment which has a great deal in common with the coders. It is most certainly not intended to be easy to use or setup. Technical merits come before ease of use issues in linux. The whole recent wave of 'end userness' (user friendliness) in Linux is essentially a fad. The free software community desperately wants to prove itself, to slay the beast that is Microsoft. It is not a natural component. Nor is the flood of recently announced free end user applications. eg: Office suites, etc. How many free developers are really interested in weather or not Joe Executive can do his work under free software.
Anyhow, I dont have enough time to finish this thread....good bye
RMS doesn't represent America. No one does, but particularly not RMS. His very beliefs conflict with the entreprenuerial spirit which is heavily ingrained into american culture. If anything, France and other countries lean closer towards RMS' beliefs. It is essentially a socialist philosophy.
However, I agree with you. The whole freedom of software argument doesn't hold any water. Nothing I code on my own actually detracts from anyone's life. While my license or usage restrictions might be somewhat restrictive, you still have a choice. You can buy it, or you can find an alternative. If my 'restrictive' software simply didn't exist you would be no further along. In fact, I'd say free software would be no where if it weren't able to latch on to advances made by the commercial software industry. The free software alternatives come along slower. To RMS this may be preferable, having absolute freedom over the software he uses, even if that means that he doesn't get software as soon, if at all. This is simply not acceptable to me.
While it may a sys-admin may technically be called the end user, this is not the definition I intended. However, there are plenty of people who administrate systems who do not find text based interfaces an acceptable solution. This is why NT is winning over small offices. While I agree that Linux is vastly superior to NT, it is the software companies' ultimate duty to satiate the person who makes the purchasing decision.
Gnome is quite nice, but they're still behind the eight ball. RedHat is paying for this. They are technically a for profit company. While Gnome may be under GPL, continued work depends on the success of RedHat. Since Red Hat can not profit directly from the creation of Gnome, they are going to have to depend on their support and 'convience' operation growing. I have my doubts about both of these. If Linux matures, and Red Hat code becomes the standard, I assure you companies will come in and 'borrow' all of RedHat's GPLd code. All they'd have to do is stick it on CD, and write their own manual. The support thing is shaky.
Red Hat also does not have a great deal a capital. Given the fact that Gnome is driven 99% by RedHat's capital, how do you expect projects like these to compete with larger firms that have far larger profit margins.
"We have been accumulating components for this system since 1984"
GNU has never claimed to have "written" every part of the "GNU System". The GNU Project has always been about gathering together (and writing) free software into a complete, comprehensive free OS--an OS called the GNU system.
Linus Torvalds arrived in shining armor and contributed a free kernel. There is now a complete GNU system called GNU/Linux. There are also a bunch of other mostly free operating systems based on the Linux kernel (i.e. Redhat, Caldera, SuSe, etc), as well as others based on the BSD foundation.
Some of us remember when having a Unix system at home was either expensive (SCO) or useless (Coherent). We tend to appreciate the work the GNU project has done--both writing *and* gathering together--a system which is free in every sense of the word, not to mention their continued proclamation of the "freedom" ideology. It is also my opinion that the success of GNU/Linux, as well as the other Linux distributions, helped create the push within the BSD community to create a no-cost version of their OS. Before FreeBSD, I know of no BSD distribution that didn't cost money (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).
P.S.
To those on the BSD side of the fence, I intend no slight because I don't consider your license "free", but I agree with RMS's view that freedom of the user is more important than freedom of the developer. Thus, I want the stuff I use to be protected from usurpation, and the BSD license doesn't do that. I respect those who hold the BSD position, however.
I like to make the comparison between making money on free software and making money selling air.
Everybody has free access to air (obvious special cases aside). Yet there are plenty of companies that make some or all of their money selling it. None of them have a monopoly, anyone is free to go into the selling air business. None of it denies anybody free access to air. Some people have air filters or purifiers to make the air (eg in their homes) cleaner. That obviously improves the quality of air overall, but does it matter that that gives some air-selling company a slightly better product?
(Examples of companies that make money selling air: Air Liquide, a multinational company that sells liquid air and liquified gases extracted from air; dive stores etc, that charge for refilling SCUBA tanks; gas stations with the coin-operated tire inflators, etc.)
Of course, if you've got your own special air purifier that makes a high grade air that you don't want anyone bottling up without paying you, you're free to seal up your house and not let any of it out.
-- Alastair
Unless you're writing the code under some contract which states otherwise, the library you're developing for your employer on you employer's time is what's known in copyright law as a "work for hire", in which case your employer, not you, is legally considered the author and copyright holder. In which case, releasing it under the GPL can only be done by your employer.
If the library is useful, you've deprived your employer of potential revenue he might have gained (which would have paid your salary) by selling/licensing the code.
Consider what Disney's reaction would be if one of their animators released the cels that he drew.
(Of course, if you developed the lib on your own time, with your own resources, that's a different issue.)
-- Alastair
Actually you can get around the GPL with dynamic linking, provided you can distribute with the non-GPL'd software a non-GPL'd dynamic library with the same API (however crappy the implementation might be).
That way, you're distributing a set of non GPL'd code that happens to run better if the user swaps out the crappy library for the GPL'd good one.
Probably not worth the trouble in most cases, but it doesn't violate the letter of the GPL.
-- Alastair
It is free beer. RMS is just trying to get you to think beyond the narrow "freeware" scope when you think of free software.
But I think your problem is coming from the word "free" itself. It implies that software that's not "free" is "anti-free", and this is totally wrong. I really diskliked one of RMS recent statements that using proprietary software is like submitting yourself to slavery.
Am I a slave because I read a copyrighted novel? No! Is a shareware programmer a slave-owner? Again, No!
The confusion comes from the fact that free software is somewhere between proprietary and public domain software. Open Source is a much more acurate term in this sense, but still covers software that's not "free". We need a new term for free software. How about "open license" or just plain "copyleft."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You definition of left-wing is different than mine, and assumes a one-dimensional political spectrum. But I digress...
Of course the military should be able to fully benefit from free software. It wouldn't be free otherwise! Would you deny soldiers the rights of free speech, worship and association? Look at that last one a moment. Because I have the right to associate or not with the military I cannot deny them the same right to associate or not with anyone else.
Think "free association, not free beer."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"They are profiting from the free labour of thousands of generous programmers. This seems like exploitation, a loop hole in the GPL, and it just doesn't seem right."
This is not exploitation. Read your dictionary. Nobody was forced to give their software to Redhat, the FSF or anywhere else. Besides which, Redhat is not making money on other people's software, they're making it by selling manuals and support and hoodwinking big corporations. If you don't want your software being sold for money by others, then don't make it free software.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's a case of hypocrisy. Say, for example, you have a program that you use, and you customize it by adding some hard coded values into the source code. (You might do this to speed some things up, or to workaround some problems with your setup, or whatever.) These values would be specific to you, but probably useless for virtually everyone else. Why should you make that public? Why would anyone want you to?
On the other hand, if you make some in-house changes that other people might find useful, it's probably in your own best interests to release them. Other people might pick up on them and take them further; everyone would benefit from this.
You're a suburbanite.
I think RMS is (quite rightly) trying to elevate the status of software to that of academic research, in which the different levels of freedom that he outlines are taken for granted, to the benefit of the entire research community.
1) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (level 0).
Academic research does not come with any prohibitions on its use. If its published, it's usable by anyone for anything.
2) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (level 1).
This is the entire point of publishing research, so that others may see how it works and possibly modify it.
3) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (level 2).
Publishing your research means that anyone has access to it at a decent academic library, so copying is not even an issue.
4) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (level 3).
Again, this is inherent in academic research. Publishing your results allows others to improve on your ideas or borrow your ideas for another purpose.
Removing any one of the above freedoms from academic research would be a ghastly proposition for all those involved. It would also harm basic research.
I think that developing software should be considered a form of academic research. By realizing that what RMS is trying to do is not so far fetched (i.e., "free research" is already taken for granted), free software can be better appreciated by those who don't understand the model.
The GNU project has never gone into extreme detail on all the criteria software needs to meet in order to be free. Much like the famous Then the Open Source people took the Debian Free Software Guidelines and tried to turn them into a more legalistic framework. Companies now view the Open Source Definition as the "law" they have to comply with, and as with any laws, seek loopholes that will allow them to comply with the letter but not the spirit of the document in a way that gives them an advantage.
Unfortunately, finding loopholes in the OSD doesn't really make the resulting code free. (For example, those with termination clauses). Thus, the explanation of what free software is needs to be tightened. Richard Stallman did not just unilaterally change the definition of free software. Instead, he made explicit something that was true all along, but was never actually stated.
I hate to see these definitions become more legalistic. This is probably somewhat necessary though. Corporations who have no background in the free software community need more detailed information than those of us who have been immersed in it for some time. We just need to make clear that these documents aren't laws to be worked around and that finding a loophole in one of them doesn't mean your software will be considered free.
You could insist that they call you God if they want to interview you or talk to you.
What I'm trying to say is that the "What is Free Software?" essay on the GNU web site is not meant to be a legal style definition of free software. You could (perhaps) devise a license that met the criteria there, but it would still be considered non-free. For example, the termination clause licenses fell into this category until the FSF updated the web site to address that particular problem. The Open Source Definition is presented as "meet these requirements, get our trademark".
So you think that it is "imposing" on someone to insist that they not use a term you find offensive when addressing you. It a black man imposing if he objects to someone saying "Hey, nigger, I've got a question for you?" Stallman probably doesn't feel as strongly about GNU/Linux as that, but the same principle applies. People are asking Stallman questions they want the answer to. If they expect him to answer them, then they have to comply with his wishes in addressing him or he will exercise his free speech right not to answer. If the people asking questions do not wish to use GNU/Linux, that is certainly their right, just as it is Stallman's right to suggest that they use a different term and to refuse to answer if they do not.
You are certainly free to choose another definition and select software based on that or any other criteria. Stallman speaks only for himself and the GNU project that he is the head of. If other people choose to accept his opinions, that is there choice. But he is not forcing his definition on anyone else. If many people choose to agree with him, then that is a tribute to his persuasiveness.
Given the way society has become increasingly dependant on computers and the internet to function, I argue that free software (as defined by FSF) is becoming essential to the stability of our economy and perhaps our society.
If proprietary and IMHO monopoly software is allowed to become essential to our infrastructure, the licensing terms on that software will go from being a simple cost to being more like a tax, or at least a cover charge. We have enough of those from natural monopolies as it is.
By specifying that acts of civil disobediance cannot disallow membership in society and commerce (by terminating the license to use these essential services), the FSF takes an important stance for civil liberty in general.
I guess the factions are finally getting down to cases. The level structure (may be new, but this is the first time I've seen it) is interesting. The highest is improve software and the lowest (ie, most important requirement) is usage.
This ordering, more than any other showcases the difference between FSF/RMS and ESR/OSS. The former sees an egalitarian ability to use software as the key to the Free Software Movement. Source code is the key to using however you want (without source you can't use EMACS on your old Timex/Sinclair) because it gives you platform and site freedom. ESR and his fellow travellers on the other hand, see software as a mertocracy of craftsman. "Let me have the source so I can improve it and we all have better products," is their mantra.
Like most ideology issues, I think the majority of the community is somewhere in the middle. Yeah, we want source to improve and fix, but we also want it to port and steal (oops., borrow). For the the times RMS has been called a hippie/socialist/commie/loser/whatever we still don't like the Apple license.
If their is any single thing from the FSF I'd like to see OSS adopted is the permenance of the license. This to me, even more than source, is key. If I know what the rules will always be I can make a much more imformed and productive choices. I don't so much object to more restrictive source licenses (one time fees and such) as I do to licenses that can be pulled out from under me at any time, after months of work on my part.
One final question for the FSF guys. Given the generally left leaning politics of your staff, have you considered the free to use cause and military usage? What if copylefted imaging aided in missle design or crypto added in war radio traffic? Is the principle of free usage important enough to override other principles. I ask because I've seen a lot of source availible (and source not availible) with free licenses except for the US Military/any military/US Government/any government/the Pentagon/etc. Would such a line violate free software principles in your POV (this is not to be insiteful, but a question of opinion...can we restrict people we don't like...the army, fundies, Green Peace, Discordian, whoever, from usage and still have freeware?).
Herb Nowell
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
Saying that Red Hat derives a benefit from someone else's voluntary labor is to state that they are benefitting from a positive externality. There are many instances of these. For example, if I paint my house, the value of all my neighbors' houses increases in value. Does that mean they are exploiting my unpaid labor? In general, America does not try to eliminate positive externalities. I do not get paid for everything I do that benefits someone else.
I'd like to draw a distinction between what I think Stallman is trying to do and what Raymond is trying to do. Stallman is trying to explain what free software is. Raymond is trying to define what open source software is in a more rigid sense for his branding campaign. I do not see them as two conflicting defitions.
Restricting software to non-military use would, technically, make the software non-free. The underlying prinicple of free software is that the user is more important than the author. Proprietary software claims the author is more important than the user, and thus gives to the author the right to decide who can use the software and what they can do with it. Putting restrictions on the use of software based on the author's own private morality might seem reasonable (if you agree with the author's moral sense, that is), but is a form of controlling the users and dividing them nevertheless. It is basically saying "I will give you this software, but only if you promise not to share it with some other people I don't like". This is the classic proprietary divide and conquer the users strategy.
Don't forget, one person's no military use is another person's no use on the Sabbath. Or no use by homosexuals. Or no use by the KKK. Or no use by breweries. Once unleashed, where does such a thing stop?