Any code that has at one time been protected by the GPL will still always be freely available, but new versions of that code could conceivably be released under different terms, even, potentially, as proprietary, closed-source software. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is considered by most programmers to be highly unlikely to perpetrate any such license changes for the software to which it holds the copyright.
It is simply impossible for the FSF to distribute proprietary code. If you have ever assigned any code to the FSF you would know that the assignment contract you sign obligates the FSF to always distribute the assigned code and any code based on your work as Free Software, although they might not distribute it under (a specific version of) the GPL.
Almost all websites have some of the "standard" guest accounts. Here is a list I try first before creating another (bogus) account. Please try to create one of these guest accounts if they don't exist yet. That will save all of use al lot of time and frustration:
username - password test - test testuser - testuser test_user - test_user (This one works on the NYT) test@user.org - test test@user.org - testuser cypherpunk - cypherpunk cyberpunk - cyberpunk
I am a bit confused about this product. It seems that something that is as important as the installer should be Free Software so I could modify and adapt it to new hardware/software combinations. But I couldn't find any hint of the source.
There seems to be some misunderstanding in your posting about the difference between Free Software and the GPL. Software that is released under the GPL is Free Software (and the GPL makes sure that it stays that way which is very important to some people). But all software that is release under a license (or put in the public domain) that gives the users of that software the freedom to use use, study, adapt, redistribute and improve software is considered Free Software. (Please read What is Free Software? on the GNU web site.)
I don't know where you got the notion that people want them to release the code under the GPL since that might be impossible if they have used Qt which is released under the QPL. The QPL is to restrictive to be combined with the GPL. (Which doen't say that Qt isn't Free Software!). The only thing that people seem to want is that it is released as Free Software and that they don't invent Yet Another Public License, which would only add to the confusion of what Free Software is really about. Nobody says that they must release under the GPL if they cannot legally do so.
> Yeah that's what prevented KDE from being released under GPL. Oh wait. It is. > > Read. Understand. Post. In that order
But that is precisely the issue with KDE. It is released under the GPL and that means that I cannot ditribute it linked with Qt since Qt is not distributed under a license compatible with the GPL. Code released under the QPL is Free Software, but has to much restrictions to be linked against GPL code. (The fact that there are people distributing KDE binaries linked with Qt doesn't mean that it isn't illegal to do so.)
That is why we have the Harmoney project so we have a library that can be linked with KDE as a Qt replacement. And that is why people try to convince the KDE developers to use another license, possibly the GPL with an exception for Qt library, although that wouldn't make it compatible with other code released under the GPL. The best solution would be if Troll Tech released Qt under a license that is compatible with the GPL.
> Maybe we should make a patch to rDist that > automatically includes a complete (tiny) linux > distribution that way it is always free:)
O forget it. I just reread the license and the above suggestion still wouldn't make it Free Software since you cannot distribute modified versions. So you are still stuck if you find a bug or security hole in it since you cannot distribute the patched version:(
But is does provide a nice loophole. Just find the tiniest Linux distribution you can find or make one up yourself. Not very practical, but it would work. Maybe we should make a patch to rDist that automatically includes a complete (tiny) linux distribution that way it is always free:)
The following might explain what the interesting patenting stuff is about:
From: Brian Ristuccia To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Subject: bladeenc
Bladeenc, a mpeg1/2 layer 3 encoder has been recently released under the LGPL. After investigation, the author has found that Thompson's and Franhauffer's patent claims do not apply to him in his home country.
My question is, do we have a server in a country where this package could be hosted? Sweeden is safe. Australia might be. Germany is probably not. Where is non-us currently located?
The interesting thing is that he seems to believe that we should not force freedom onto other people. So one would think that he might be against the GPL. But this paper makes perfectly clear why we should use the GPL to make sure we will always hava free software.
The GPL makes sure that "the grass grows taller when it's grazed on" as shown by the examples given in the paper and explained in the Coping With Success chapter as follows: "Perhaps more importantly in present time, the software licenses that express these community norms in a binding legal form actively forbid Red Hat from monopolizing the sources of the code their product is based on. The only thing they can sell is a brand/service/support relationship with people who are freely willing to pay for that. This is not a context in which the possibility of a predatory monopoly looms very large."
I find it funny that a paper that contains a note about how we don't need the vocal minority which tries to convince people about the moral value of Free Software shows so clearly how that vocal minority keeps the players "good" and cooperative through the use of the GPL.
2. At the technical level, protective measures may best be focused on defeating hostile Comint activity by denying access or, where this is impractical or impossible, preventing processing of message content and associated traffic information by general use of cryptography.
5. At the present time, Internet browsers and other software used in almost every personal computer in Europe is deliberately disabled such that "secure" communications they send can, if collected, be read without difficulty by NSA. US manufacturers are compelled to make these arrangements under US export rules. A level playing field is important. Consideration could be given to a countermeasure whereby, if systems with disabled cryptographic systems are sold outside the United States, they should be required to conform to an "open standard" such that third parties and other nations may provide additional applications which restore the level of security to at least enjoyed by domestic US customers.
I was just looking through the mail archives and look what I found: Re: How Linux Users Do it. Where RMS says: 'The idea of a slogan that we and the "Linux" people could agree on is an interesting idea, and I would be glad to do that.'
It is an interesting discussion. Please read some of the other messages in that thread. RMS says some interesting things such as this: 'But if you have seen some GNU fanatics trying to fight, I guess it must happen. If and when you come across one, could you please show me? I will be glad to explain to him that this kind of fighting isn't a good thing to do. Chances are those people would listen to me and stop.'
Why don't we just call the complete system GNU?
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 2
I have never understood why people want to call it GNU/Linux. If you really believe in the GNU Project why not just call the complete system GNU? It isn't about which programs, libraries and kernel the system runs. It is about having a free operating system. When you have such a free system why not just call it GNU? If GNU can adopt the XFree86 windowing system, why not the Linux kernel?
> Whether you like to have your program possibly being turned closed source is a matter of personal > belief, but do NOT tolerate this obnoxious advertising clause! If you decide to use the BSD > license, do the community a service and remove that clause from your license, or consider another > license.
If you want to read more please read the preamble of the GPL. And other articles on the fsf/gnu site starting with What is Copyleft article.
Another good place is the Social Contract of the Debian project. There is some more info on their What does free mean page where they list some different licenses and the features of those licenses. (And a warning against creating Yet Another Free License).
Yes, Free Software and commercial ventures are compatible. But he is (also) talking about Free Software combined with proprietary products which aren't compatible.
Linux is about real people, not about companies
on
A Bit About Freshmeat
·
· Score: 1
I am glad to see that important Linux sites like Freshmeat and Slashdot are run by real people with real feelings. As soon as we cannot show our feelings anymore because companies expect us to act "professional" we really have something to be disapointed about.
Slashdot Mirror
I found the following piece amusing:
Any code that has at one time been protected by the GPL will still always be freely available, but new versions of that code could conceivably be released under different terms, even, potentially, as proprietary, closed-source software. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is considered by most programmers to be highly unlikely to perpetrate any such license changes for the software to which it holds the copyright.
It is simply impossible for the FSF to distribute proprietary code. If you have ever assigned any code to the FSF you would know that the assignment contract you sign obligates the FSF to always distribute the assigned code and any code based on your work as Free Software, although they might not distribute it under (a specific version of) the GPL.
Almost all websites have some of the "standard" guest accounts. Here is a list I try first before creating another (bogus) account. Please try to create one of these guest accounts if they don't exist yet. That will save all of use al lot of time and frustration:
username - password
test - test
testuser - testuser
test_user - test_user (This one works on the NYT)
test@user.org - test
test@user.org - testuser
cypherpunk - cypherpunk
cyberpunk - cyberpunk
O, I forgot. it would also be cool to adapt it so it can also use Debian deb packages.
I am a bit confused about this product. It seems that something that is as important as the installer should be Free Software so I could modify and adapt it to new hardware/software combinations. But I couldn't find any hint of the source.
There seems to be some misunderstanding in your posting about the difference between Free Software and the GPL. Software that is released under the GPL is Free Software (and the GPL makes sure that it stays that way which is very important to some people). But all software that is release under a license (or put in the public domain) that gives the users of that software the freedom to use use, study, adapt, redistribute and improve software is considered Free Software. (Please read What is Free Software? on the GNU web site.)
I don't know where you got the notion that people want them to release the code under the GPL since that might be impossible if they have used Qt which is released under the QPL. The QPL is to restrictive to be combined with the GPL. (Which doen't say that Qt isn't Free Software!). The only thing that people seem to want is that it is released as Free Software and that they don't invent Yet Another Public License, which would only add to the confusion of what Free Software is really about. Nobody says that they must release under the GPL if they cannot legally do so.
> Yeah that's what prevented KDE from being released under GPL. Oh wait. It is.
>
> Read. Understand. Post. In that order
But that is precisely the issue with KDE. It is released under the GPL and that means that I cannot ditribute it linked with Qt since Qt is not distributed under a license compatible with the GPL. Code released under the QPL is Free Software, but has to much restrictions to be linked against GPL code. (The fact that there are people distributing KDE binaries linked with Qt doesn't mean that it isn't illegal to do so.)
That is why we have the Harmoney project so we have a library that can be linked with KDE as a Qt replacement. And that is why people try to convince the KDE developers to use another license, possibly the GPL with an exception for Qt library, although that wouldn't make it compatible with other code released under the GPL. The best solution would be if Troll Tech released Qt under a license that is compatible with the GPL.
Great site. I get Javascript errors. The page doesn't render correctly in Netscape. And you cannot sign the guestbook to tell them about it. Duh!
> Maybe we should make a patch to rDist that :)
:(
> automatically includes a complete (tiny) linux
> distribution that way it is always free
O forget it. I just reread the license and the above suggestion still wouldn't make it Free Software since you cannot distribute modified versions.
So you are still stuck if you find a bug or security hole in it since you cannot distribute the patched version
or Debian GNU/Hurd or NetBSD or OpenBSD or ...
:)
But is does provide a nice loophole. Just find the tiniest Linux distribution you can find or make one up yourself. Not very practical, but it would work. Maybe we should make a patch to rDist that automatically includes a complete (tiny) linux distribution that way it is always free
The following might explain what the interesting patenting stuff is about:
From: Brian Ristuccia
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: bladeenc
Bladeenc, a mpeg1/2 layer 3 encoder has been recently released under the
LGPL. After investigation, the author has found that Thompson's and
Franhauffer's patent claims do not apply to him in his home country.
My question is, do we have a server in a country where this package could be
hosted? Sweeden is safe. Australia might be. Germany is probably not. Where
is non-us currently located?
The interesting thing is that he seems to believe that we should not force freedom onto other people. So one would think that he might be against the GPL. But this paper makes perfectly clear why we should use the GPL to make sure we will always hava free software.
The GPL makes sure that "the grass grows taller when it's grazed on" as shown by the examples given in the paper and explained in the Coping With Success chapter as follows: "Perhaps more importantly in present time, the software licenses that express these community norms in a binding legal form actively forbid Red Hat from monopolizing the sources of the code their product is based on. The only thing they can sell is a brand/service/support relationship with people who are freely willing to pay for that. This is not a context in which the possibility of a predatory monopoly looms very large."
I find it funny that a paper that contains a note about how we don't need the vocal minority which tries to convince people about the moral value of Free Software shows so clearly how that vocal minority keeps the players "good" and cooperative through the use of the GPL.
The complete report has some nice recommendations. Such as:
:)
2. At the technical level, protective measures may best be focused on defeating hostile Comint activity by denying access or, where this is impractical or impossible, preventing processing of message content and associated traffic information by general use of cryptography.
5. At the present time, Internet browsers and other software used in almost every personal computer in Europe is deliberately disabled such that "secure" communications they send can, if collected, be read without difficulty by NSA. US manufacturers are compelled to make these arrangements under US export rules. A level playing field is important. Consideration could be given to a countermeasure whereby, if systems with disabled cryptographic systems are sold outside the United States, they should be required to conform to an "open standard" such that third parties and other nations may provide additional
applications which restore the level of security to at least enjoyed by domestic US customers.
We could tell them that is already possible
I was just looking through the mail archives and look what I found: Re: How Linux Users Do it. Where RMS says: 'The idea of a slogan that we and the "Linux" people could agree on is an interesting idea, and I would be glad to do that.'
It is an interesting discussion. Please read some of the other messages in that thread. RMS says some interesting things such as this: 'But if you have seen some GNU fanatics trying to fight, I guess it must happen. If and when you come across one, could you please show me? I will be glad to explain to him that this kind of fighting isn't a good thing to do. Chances are those people would listen to me and stop.'
I have never understood why people want to call it GNU/Linux. If you really believe in the GNU Project why not just call the complete system GNU? It isn't about which programs, libraries and kernel the system runs. It is about having a free operating system. When you have such a free system why not just call it GNU? If GNU can adopt the XFree86 windowing system, why not the Linux kernel?
> Whether you like to have your program possibly being turned closed source is a matter of personal
> belief, but do NOT tolerate this obnoxious advertising clause! If you decide to use the BSD
> license, do the community a service and remove that clause from your license, or consider another
> license.
Examples are the XFree86-style license or the Modified BSD license.
See for more information about this topic the BSD License Problem article.
For graphics or text you might want to look at the OpenContent License (OPL).
For free software licenses see the Debian GNU/Linux Waht does free mean? page which lists all the commen licenses.
Nice summary.
If you want to read more please read the preamble of the GPL. And other articles on the fsf/gnu site starting with What is Copyleft article.
Another good place is the Social Contract of the Debian project. There is some more info on their What does free mean page where they list some different licenses and the features of those licenses. (And a warning against creating Yet Another Free License).
Cheers Carl
P.S. You might also like the diagram showing relationship between different categories of software.
Yes, Free Software and commercial ventures are compatible. But he is (also) talking about Free Software combined with proprietary products which aren't compatible.
Look at that homepage! http://www.linux.net/
I am glad to see that important Linux sites like Freshmeat and Slashdot are run by real people with real feelings. As soon as we cannot show our feelings anymore because companies expect us to act "professional" we really have something to be disapointed about.
Grow up Anonymous Coward!