It's possible that the NSA can crack PGP. But they probably can't do it easily. Right now most of the email you send get streamed all over the place in PLAIN TEXT. That means that the NSA can literally search everyone's email for interesting regular expressions. The sys admin at your ISP can do this with your mail as well (and probably not just the sys admin).
Even elementary encryption methods (like rot-13 or reversing the entire message) will defeat these types of random computerized searches. That means that in order to read your email someone at the NSA (or your ISP) would have to actually want to read your email in particular. Instead of being able to use a computer to sift through your private conversations they have to pay some human to do this.
PGP raises the bar another level. The NSA might be able to read your PGP encrypted email, but they probably can't do it easily or inexpensively. They would have to schedule time on their super computers, and it would probably take a considerable amount of time. In fact, it probably would be easier to simply drive down to your house and put a gun to your head and demand the passphrase.
After all, if the NSA really wants to read your mail, you are screwed.
What's really needed is a small time software company that has admitted to "borrowing" a piece of GPLed software for inclusion in its commercial product, and who is still dumb enough to not cave in to the Free Software Foundations demands.
The/. story about VirtualDub seemed to me like a good case (unfortunately the FSF isn't the copyright holder).
Here's to hoping that the folks who "borrowed" the virtualDub software are dumb enough to actually go to court.
Those are good points, and I wish the article had spent more time pointing them out. Instead it tried to turn it into a freedom issue, and it clearly wasn't. It would have been refreshing to see an article that talked about how well Linux was doing and not how Microsoft is a bunch of loser cry babies.
OK, the guard that kicked the Linuxers out definitely did not know the difference between Free Software (as in free speech) and free software (as in free beer). He almost certainly knew that what the Linuxers were doing was contrary to the rules that the Linuxers agreed to when they signed up for the convention.
I did read the heavily biased NewsForge article. I just didn't assume that this was the entire story. The contract that someone fromt he LUG had to have signed to get them into the show specifically stated that they were not to give out stuff outside of their booth. Here's the excerpt from the contract:
The distribution of samples, souvenirs, publications and the like or sales promotion activities must be conducted by Exhibitor within its booth. The distribution of any article that interferes with the activities or obstructs access to neighboring booths or that impedes aisles is prohibited.
If the LUG didn't think that this was a good deal, then they shouldn't have signed the contract. Blaming Microsoft for their failure to comply with the rules simply makes these Linuxers look childish.
Generally I wouldn't respond to a post like this, but I have some time to kill...
First of all, just because it is a munincipal building does not mean that private citizens can do whatever they want on the property. I suppose you would think it is fair game to drive up to your local Police department and set up a flea market in the parking lot. After all, it's public property! Just because your taxes paid for a (miniscule) portion of the property does not give you the right to do whatever you want there. In this case the show organizers (who probably rented the convention hall from the city, and who therefore were entitled to make the rules) had the following set of guidelines. Here's an excerpt of the relevant bits.
The distribution of samples, souvenirs, publications and the like or sales promotion activities must be conducted by Exhibitor within its booth. The distribution of any article that interferes with the activities or obstructs access to neighboring booths or that impedes aisles is prohibited.
Microsoft was clearly within its rights to ask that the Linuxers be stopped. If Microsoft would have done the same thing, they would have been stopped too.
Your passion for Linux is a good thing, but you really could temper that passion with a bit of understanding. If you want to be an effective Linux advocate you also should stay away from phrases like "wormbrain." They make you seem very juvenile.
I read it as the entranceway TO THE HALL. The fact that MS put a big inflated thingie there hardly grants them ownership of the whole fscking building.
It's all the same difference. It was on private property, and it was expressly against the wishes of the owner of that property. The convention organizers want people to pay for the privilege of passing out free stuff. If this wasn't the case then everyone would simply buy a small booth and then send folks to the entrance to throw swag at the people coming in.
Now if the Linuxers would have been on public property (with the requisite permits) then they could pass out Linux CDs all they want. That's an entirely different story.
Once again, don't misinterpret me. I am a huge fan of Free Software. But an important part of maintaining your own personal freedom is being willing to stick up for the freedom of others. Even unpopular corporations like Microsoft. The Linuxers in question had no right to disrupt the convention. The fact that they were handing out copies of Free Software does not mean that they have the right to ignore other people's rights.
I am sure that nearly all of the companies at the convention are passing out "free" software. They just have to pass it out from the display booth that they paid money to rent. Otherwise all of the groups would simply camp out by the front door and throw CDs at people when they came in.
Microsoft paid good money for their spot, and they don't want anyone else giving out swag on their rented spot.
In other words, this is a story about freedom, but not free software. The freedom to have private property is one of the cornerstones of our society. You wouldn't like it if Microsoft came over to your house and set up a software distribution center on your front lawn, and they didn't like having their competition giving out software in a part of the convention that they had paid good money to rent.
It's the same difference.
Too many people have the idea that freedom means being able to do whatever the heck they want, regardless of what others may think. The convention center is not a public place. If the owners of the building don't like how you are acting, then they are well within their rights to make you stop (or kick you out).
I can't imagine how this was rated as newsworthy. The whole point of conventions is to charge companies obscene amounts of money so that they can give stuff away. The more money you pay, the better location you get, and therefore the better your chances are of giving away insane amounts of stuff. Which, if you are into marketing, is a good thing.
As for the fact that the Linuxers were giving away "Free" software, well, I would bet that Microsoft was also giving away "free" (as in free beer) software as well. So the problem obviously wasn't that these folks were giving out CDs of software. The problem was that they were doing it in the middle of a display that Microsoft had paid huge money to rent. The guard that told the crazy Linuxers to move probably has no idea that there is a difference between Free Software (as in free speech) and free software (as in AOL CDs). He just knew that Microsoft had paid for that spot, and someone else was using it.
I am as big a fan of free software as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that I think that sharing free software justifies trespassing. I am grateful for the time and effort that goes into Free Software, but if a free software developer climbed in the window of my house to give me a CD he would do so at the risk of his life. Passing out CDs in an area of a convention hall that Microsoft had rented is no different (except for the fact slow-witted folk don't see convention floor space as private property).
I think that Balmer has a point when he states that Microsoft is simply making it clear what is and what is not legal. Microsoft's licensing is quite complicated, and I for one will be glad when their software gives me a better idea as to whether or not I am in compliance.
It is Microsoft's prerogative to enforce their license as they see fit. Just because I happen to like Free Software does not mean that I want to steal someone else's copyrighted work.
I even think that this will be good for Linux. Consumers hate being treated like criminals, and they dislike jumping through hoops to use something that the have paid for even more. Linux's lack of licensing fees will look especially attractive once Microsoft starts enforcing their licenses.
Microsoft is not going to try to contest the GPL in court. Microsoft is an intellectual property company. Attacking the GPL would weaken copyright, and copyright is what allows them to make big fat piles of money. However, Microsoft is going to trot out all of their top executives and have them say things like "Linux is un-American" or "Open Source software is a cancer."
The average Joe isn't going to think Office XP is cool because it will be the first version of Office that he has to pay full price for. Most MS Office users "borrow" copies of the software from work. They figure (incorrectly) that since they use the software for "work" that it is all right to do this. Heck, some MIS managers even think that the license actually allows this.
Microsoft is turning the screws up on everyone big businesses and small businesses alike. Microsoft now owns the office suite market, they have driven out Corel and Lotus, and now everyone is going to pay.
Microsoft is in the business of building infrastructure. That's their business... They should be booed?
And if Microsoft's "business" was burning down houses and breaking kneecaps for the mob, I suppose that would be all right too.
Microsoft is trying to make the biggest land grab in history with it's.Net program, with the eventual goal of making sure that all transactions flow through them. This doesn't make them evil, but it does mean that it puts them at odds with nearly the rest of the industry, and with computer users in general. If the Hailstorm platform was open it would be a huge benefit to computer users. They would have all of the same benefits as a Microsoft controlled Hailstorm, but the competition would guarantee that the service would be price competitive, and that customer service was timely. With Microsoft controlling Hailstorm you are stuck with the level of service that Microsoft provides, and you will pay the price that Microsoft feels is appropriate.
That's certainly an interesting view of the history of the web. Maybe it took off because infrastructure companies like Microsoft, Sun, and Netscape did their jobs well.
That's an interesting take. Of course, it doesn't account for the fact that Apache is far and away the leading web server, and that Linux runs on more web servers than anything else. It's hard to blame the infrastructure companies for the success of these critical software components. It also doesn't explain why Microsoft's proprietary service never took off.
The difference between the Internet and the hosts of (sometimes superior) proprietary technologies that it has left in the dust is the open nature of the Internet protocols. Anyone could join in the fun without paying a big fee or signing an NDA, and because of this we have a wide array of interoperable software from which to build solutions and a common set of protocols for getting disparate systems to communicate.
Microsoft and most of the commercial software houses were busy building competing networks chuck full of their own proprietary software. But these proprietary works simply couldn't compete with the Internet. They were more expensive, and were limited to smaller audiences. The Internet lowered the requirements for entry (you needed a web browser), and allowed everyone to communicate. Despite differences in hardware and software and service provider everyone was playing on the same field.
Of course, the difference is that Free Software hackers aren't generally interested in "borrowing" commercial source code. Nobody would whine about the GPL if the only code that was released under it was the Pascal version of "Hello World." To commercial developers GPLed software is like being lost at sea without any fresh water. There is plenty of useful code, but using it would be poisonous.
When push comes to shove its just sour grapes. They want to be able to use other people's code without sharing their own. The GPL won't let them do that.
Everyone knew that RMS was going to be critical of Microsoft, but I personally didn't expect him to lay into Ransom Love.
Here's how eWeek is reporting it. To whet your appetite here's a direct quote from the article:
"Caldera's not a free software company at all. They are just a parasite," Stallman claimed in a press conference following his talk. "Who in the world is Ransom Love to have any ideas about what's good for our community?"
Dynamically linking a library and an executable is not aggregation. Aggregation is having a copy of the book "Les Miserable" next to a your copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" on your book case.
Linking GPLed code into your application (even dynamically) is much more like writing an entire novel except for Chapter 5 (which you borrowed word for word from Stephen King). It is easy for you to think that your work is "entirely original," but if it won't work without someone else's GPLed code, then clearly it is derivative. Argue that this isn't fair, but that is the way that copyright works. What's more there are plenty of examples of commercial libraries that have similar arrangements (you must pay the author if you want to link it into your application).
Remember, Free Software is about the freedom, not about stealing software. If you don't like the terms of the GPL (and it appears that you don't) then I would suggest not using software that has been released under this license. I don't like the license that Microsoft Windows is released under, but that doesn't mean that I can legally (or even ethically) steal it.
You are correct when you point out that the use of the term "Free" in Free Software is marketing (or propaganda if you prefer). But it's not any different from the "Shared" in Shared Source, or the "Open" in Open Group (or any number of similar constructs). The difference is that for most of it's users the Free in Free Software is quite appropriate. After all, if you aren't a programmer than the GPL is both free as in free speech and as in free beer.
Linus who? Don't try to tell me that Transmeta has a Peanuts character working for them, because I won't believe it. My mother told me that cartoons were imaginary.
Oh, Linus Torvalds! Yeah, I suppose he's sort of famous too.
Actually this is precisely the type of review that I needed. I loved the original Myst game, but I haven't had the time or the inclination to game since then (the fact that I no longer have a computer running Windows hasn't helped). However, if the new Myst were as cool as the old Myst I would not only consider buying the game, I would seriously consider paying money for a Microsoft OS.
Vidomi's software is quite obviously a derivative work of VirtualDub, in that without VirtualDub's software Vidomi's doesn't do any of the things that it is advertised as being capable of.
An appropriate metaphor would be if I wrote down my time-honored recipe for toasting bread and then created a cookbook containing this recipe and 400 other recipes straight out of the Betty Crocker cookbook. I could use this cookbook all I wanted to in the confines of my own house (fair use), but if I tried to sell copies of this cookbook it would rightfully be described as a derivative work.
The GPL states that any time that you link (dynamically or statically) a piece of GPLed software you are creating a derivative work. That is why BSD advocates get so excited about GPLed libraries like GNU readline. They know that GNU readline is cool, but linking your software with it forces you to release your software under the GPL because it is a derivative work.
This is also why most GNU system libraries are licensed under the LGPL (a completely different license). Here's a link from the newly created GPL FAQ
The actual text of the GPL is actually fairly short. The entire document is less than 2989 words and the actual legalese in the Terms and Conditions section is a mere 2031 words long.
Unfortunately the GPL is written using legal terms and wording that most developers don't understand, and so it is that over the years a lot of false beliefs about the GPL have cropped up. I, for one, am glad to finally see a comprehensive FAQ that is intelligible for people who aren't legal experts.
Your post is a good example of why this sort of FAQ was necessary. Using GPLed software on a proprietary system has never been a violation of the GPL, nor are you in violation if you distribute GPLed software alongside proprietary software, and the FSF has never stated that the output of GPLed programs was covered by the GPL (except in the case of Bison where large parts of the Bison source are actually what is output by Bison). And yet, over the years many people, either out of ignorance or malice, have made claims like the ones in your post. In the past the only way to refute those claims was with the text of the GPL itself (which, being a legal document, is hard to parse). Now there is a much clearer FAQ. This FAQ, however, is not a legal document. It is simply an explanation of the legal document. These mythical "clauses" that you state that the FSF has added are merely explanations of what the actual legal document states.
However, if you allow your software to be modified freely to take input and give output in any format, distributed freely with proprietary software, and run on proprietary systems, you allow it to be incorporated into proprietary systems. Any attempt to prohibit this can only prohibit certain direct methods, unless you want to either cripple it for end-users or open up the "intent" can of worms and make any case a chess game between lawyers (if it doesn't invalidate the contract altogether).
First of all the GPL does not allow GPLed software to be distributed "freely." In fact, distribution is the one thing that a copyright holder is allowed to control. GPLed software can only be distributed under the terms of the GPL (meaning it must come with source code). You can include proprietary programs on the same CD, and they are not covered by the GPL.
As for the rest of your argument. The GPL doesn't cover "using" the software at all. You are free to "use" it on proprietary systems, or free systems, or to not use it at all. What you aren't allowed to do is "distribute" the software without following the terms of the GPL.
In other words, it isn't the GPL that has problems, it is merely your understanding of what the GPL does and does not allow. As a practical example Vidomi would be perfectly within their rights to "use" VirtualDub however they want, including extending it with their own software. However, the second they try to "distribute" software that links with the GPLed VirtualDub they are violating the GPL.
As for whether or not the GPL will stand in court, remember the FSF gets to pick and choose the case that they use to set a legal precedent on the GPL. In other words they are looking for a stupid, underfunded software company with a clear violation of the GPL (Vidomi fits this perfectly). Also remember that organizations with very well paid lawyers (Apple, Microsoft, IBM) have already caved to FSF demands. Those folks, at least, are acting like the GPL had teeth. And also remember that there are several groups that have vested interest in making sure that the GPL is enforceable. The FSF certainly fits this bill, but many other companies have put large pieces of software under the GPL (Sun's StarOffice for example).
I wouldn't count on the GPL not being enforceable.
Re:possible confusing part in FAQ
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 2
The good news is that you are allowed to charge for sending floppies in the mail. The FSF made money for years selling tapes of GNU software. The fact of the matter is that Anonymous FTP is the only method of transport that should actually lose you money.
The FSF has been waiting patiently for a violation of the GPL by a company small enough that they have a good chance of actually winning the case. Unfortunately they aren't the owners of the copyrighted software, but apparently the author of VirtualDub is willing to let the FSF do most of the heavy lifting. Once they win a case then they have precedent supporting their view of the GPL.
Hopefully this actually goes to court, and hopefully the FSF get the win that they have been waiting for. Otherwise we are in for some interesting times on the Free Software front.
There are all sorts of ways to work around this problem. The easiest being to deliver the correct libraries with your application. A simple shell script wrapper will guarantee that the correct libraries get loaded and linked dynamically.
Not that it matters. GTK+ is licensed under the LGPL, which permits linking (even static linking) with proprietary works. If this wasn't the case then the commercial Unix vendors would be sticking with Motif. They are not interested in a toolkit that would require them to release the source code to their software.
Here is a link to the text of the LGPL. And here is a pertintent quote (emphasis added).
As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
GTK new standard ?
If so why do we even bother to try get rid of Motif.
It is the same old crap !
Ah, but it's not the same old crap. GTK+ is a lot less expensive crap, and it comes with source code so that it is possible to make it less crappy.
You are making the same mistake that Fountain made. You suppose that technical merit has something to do with who eventually wins. Technical merit is somewhat important, but more important is being "good enough" at a lower price. GTK+ is certainly "good enough" (especially if it is being compared with Motif) and the price is right. You can even use it without paying royalties in your proprietary closed source applications. That's an important benefit that has already pushed the commercial Unix vendors towards Gnome, and away from KDE.
Exactly. The difference between Motif and the newer Free Software toolkits like QT or GTK+ is that someone is actively working on making QT and GTK+ better. It's been a while since this article was published, and it would appear that in this short time both GTK+ and QT have resolved the issues that Fountain raised. That leaves Fountain's only defendable reason to use Motif as "there is lots of legacy Motif code."
In other words Motif is dead. People don't hang onto legacy software systems when their only reason to stay is that switching would be expensive. After all, the cost of migrating will only get more expensive with time (you will have created more content in the outdated system). The time to switch is now, while everyone else is still learning the new environment. Be careful though, chances are good that either GTK+ or QT will eventually dominate.
Not to mention the fact that GTK+ (and almost the entire Gnome toolkit) is licensed under the LGPL. Which means that you can even create closed source commercial applications using those libs and never have to release a single solitary line of your own source. That's why GTK+ and Gnome are becoming the new supported desktops for the commercial Unixes and QT is not (it is licensed under the GPL).
Which is basically why Fountain is so cranky. GTK+ and Gnome are taking the place of Motif and CDE, and most new projects are already switching to these toolkits. And since he creates and sells a GUI designer for Motif... Well, you get the picture.
Even worse, newer versions of GTK+ fix most of the problems that he mentions (libglade for the component model, and I believe there is internationalization work as well). In the end technical issues like this aren't decided by whoever has the most elegant, stable, or easy to use solution. The solution that wins is the one that is "good enough" at the lowest price.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible that the NSA can crack PGP. But they probably can't do it easily. Right now most of the email you send get streamed all over the place in PLAIN TEXT. That means that the NSA can literally search everyone's email for interesting regular expressions. The sys admin at your ISP can do this with your mail as well (and probably not just the sys admin).
Even elementary encryption methods (like rot-13 or reversing the entire message) will defeat these types of random computerized searches. That means that in order to read your email someone at the NSA (or your ISP) would have to actually want to read your email in particular. Instead of being able to use a computer to sift through your private conversations they have to pay some human to do this.
PGP raises the bar another level. The NSA might be able to read your PGP encrypted email, but they probably can't do it easily or inexpensively. They would have to schedule time on their super computers, and it would probably take a considerable amount of time. In fact, it probably would be easier to simply drive down to your house and put a gun to your head and demand the passphrase.
After all, if the NSA really wants to read your mail, you are screwed.
What's really needed is a small time software company that has admitted to "borrowing" a piece of GPLed software for inclusion in its commercial product, and who is still dumb enough to not cave in to the Free Software Foundations demands.
The /. story about VirtualDub seemed to me like a good case (unfortunately the FSF isn't the copyright holder).
Here's to hoping that the folks who "borrowed" the virtualDub software are dumb enough to actually go to court.
Those are good points, and I wish the article had spent more time pointing them out. Instead it tried to turn it into a freedom issue, and it clearly wasn't. It would have been refreshing to see an article that talked about how well Linux was doing and not how Microsoft is a bunch of loser cry babies.
OK, the guard that kicked the Linuxers out definitely did not know the difference between Free Software (as in free speech) and free software (as in free beer). He almost certainly knew that what the Linuxers were doing was contrary to the rules that the Linuxers agreed to when they signed up for the convention.
Read about it here:
I did read the heavily biased NewsForge article. I just didn't assume that this was the entire story. The contract that someone fromt he LUG had to have signed to get them into the show specifically stated that they were not to give out stuff outside of their booth. Here's the excerpt from the contract:
If the LUG didn't think that this was a good deal, then they shouldn't have signed the contract. Blaming Microsoft for their failure to comply with the rules simply makes these Linuxers look childish.
Generally I wouldn't respond to a post like this, but I have some time to kill...
First of all, just because it is a munincipal building does not mean that private citizens can do whatever they want on the property. I suppose you would think it is fair game to drive up to your local Police department and set up a flea market in the parking lot. After all, it's public property! Just because your taxes paid for a (miniscule) portion of the property does not give you the right to do whatever you want there. In this case the show organizers (who probably rented the convention hall from the city, and who therefore were entitled to make the rules) had the following set of guidelines. Here's an excerpt of the relevant bits.
Microsoft was clearly within its rights to ask that the Linuxers be stopped. If Microsoft would have done the same thing, they would have been stopped too.
Your passion for Linux is a good thing, but you really could temper that passion with a bit of understanding. If you want to be an effective Linux advocate you also should stay away from phrases like "wormbrain." They make you seem very juvenile.
It's all the same difference. It was on private property, and it was expressly against the wishes of the owner of that property. The convention organizers want people to pay for the privilege of passing out free stuff. If this wasn't the case then everyone would simply buy a small booth and then send folks to the entrance to throw swag at the people coming in.
Now if the Linuxers would have been on public property (with the requisite permits) then they could pass out Linux CDs all they want. That's an entirely different story.
Once again, don't misinterpret me. I am a huge fan of Free Software. But an important part of maintaining your own personal freedom is being willing to stick up for the freedom of others. Even unpopular corporations like Microsoft. The Linuxers in question had no right to disrupt the convention. The fact that they were handing out copies of Free Software does not mean that they have the right to ignore other people's rights.
I am sure that nearly all of the companies at the convention are passing out "free" software. They just have to pass it out from the display booth that they paid money to rent. Otherwise all of the groups would simply camp out by the front door and throw CDs at people when they came in.
Microsoft paid good money for their spot, and they don't want anyone else giving out swag on their rented spot.
In other words, this is a story about freedom, but not free software. The freedom to have private property is one of the cornerstones of our society. You wouldn't like it if Microsoft came over to your house and set up a software distribution center on your front lawn, and they didn't like having their competition giving out software in a part of the convention that they had paid good money to rent.
It's the same difference.
Too many people have the idea that freedom means being able to do whatever the heck they want, regardless of what others may think. The convention center is not a public place. If the owners of the building don't like how you are acting, then they are well within their rights to make you stop (or kick you out).
I can't imagine how this was rated as newsworthy. The whole point of conventions is to charge companies obscene amounts of money so that they can give stuff away. The more money you pay, the better location you get, and therefore the better your chances are of giving away insane amounts of stuff. Which, if you are into marketing, is a good thing.
As for the fact that the Linuxers were giving away "Free" software, well, I would bet that Microsoft was also giving away "free" (as in free beer) software as well. So the problem obviously wasn't that these folks were giving out CDs of software. The problem was that they were doing it in the middle of a display that Microsoft had paid huge money to rent. The guard that told the crazy Linuxers to move probably has no idea that there is a difference between Free Software (as in free speech) and free software (as in AOL CDs). He just knew that Microsoft had paid for that spot, and someone else was using it.
I am as big a fan of free software as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that I think that sharing free software justifies trespassing. I am grateful for the time and effort that goes into Free Software, but if a free software developer climbed in the window of my house to give me a CD he would do so at the risk of his life. Passing out CDs in an area of a convention hall that Microsoft had rented is no different (except for the fact slow-witted folk don't see convention floor space as private property).
Move along folks, there's no news here.
I think that Balmer has a point when he states that Microsoft is simply making it clear what is and what is not legal. Microsoft's licensing is quite complicated, and I for one will be glad when their software gives me a better idea as to whether or not I am in compliance.
It is Microsoft's prerogative to enforce their license as they see fit. Just because I happen to like Free Software does not mean that I want to steal someone else's copyrighted work.
I even think that this will be good for Linux. Consumers hate being treated like criminals, and they dislike jumping through hoops to use something that the have paid for even more. Linux's lack of licensing fees will look especially attractive once Microsoft starts enforcing their licenses.
Microsoft is not going to try to contest the GPL in court. Microsoft is an intellectual property company. Attacking the GPL would weaken copyright, and copyright is what allows them to make big fat piles of money. However, Microsoft is going to trot out all of their top executives and have them say things like "Linux is un-American" or "Open Source software is a cancer."
The average Joe isn't going to think Office XP is cool because it will be the first version of Office that he has to pay full price for. Most MS Office users "borrow" copies of the software from work. They figure (incorrectly) that since they use the software for "work" that it is all right to do this. Heck, some MIS managers even think that the license actually allows this.
Microsoft is turning the screws up on everyone big businesses and small businesses alike. Microsoft now owns the office suite market, they have driven out Corel and Lotus, and now everyone is going to pay.
And if Microsoft's "business" was burning down houses and breaking kneecaps for the mob, I suppose that would be all right too.
Microsoft is trying to make the biggest land grab in history with it's .Net program, with the eventual goal of making sure that all transactions flow through them. This doesn't make them evil, but it does mean that it puts them at odds with nearly the rest of the industry, and with computer users in general. If the Hailstorm platform was open it would be a huge benefit to computer users. They would have all of the same benefits as a Microsoft controlled Hailstorm, but the competition would guarantee that the service would be price competitive, and that customer service was timely. With Microsoft controlling Hailstorm you are stuck with the level of service that Microsoft provides, and you will pay the price that Microsoft feels is appropriate.
That's an interesting take. Of course, it doesn't account for the fact that Apache is far and away the leading web server, and that Linux runs on more web servers than anything else. It's hard to blame the infrastructure companies for the success of these critical software components. It also doesn't explain why Microsoft's proprietary service never took off.
The difference between the Internet and the hosts of (sometimes superior) proprietary technologies that it has left in the dust is the open nature of the Internet protocols. Anyone could join in the fun without paying a big fee or signing an NDA, and because of this we have a wide array of interoperable software from which to build solutions and a common set of protocols for getting disparate systems to communicate.
Microsoft and most of the commercial software houses were busy building competing networks chuck full of their own proprietary software. But these proprietary works simply couldn't compete with the Internet. They were more expensive, and were limited to smaller audiences. The Internet lowered the requirements for entry (you needed a web browser), and allowed everyone to communicate. Despite differences in hardware and software and service provider everyone was playing on the same field.
Of course, the difference is that Free Software hackers aren't generally interested in "borrowing" commercial source code. Nobody would whine about the GPL if the only code that was released under it was the Pascal version of "Hello World." To commercial developers GPLed software is like being lost at sea without any fresh water. There is plenty of useful code, but using it would be poisonous.
When push comes to shove its just sour grapes. They want to be able to use other people's code without sharing their own. The GPL won't let them do that.
Everyone knew that RMS was going to be critical of Microsoft, but I personally didn't expect him to lay into Ransom Love.
Here's how eWeek is reporting it. To whet your appetite here's a direct quote from the article:
Dynamically linking a library and an executable is not aggregation. Aggregation is having a copy of the book "Les Miserable" next to a your copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" on your book case.
Linking GPLed code into your application (even dynamically) is much more like writing an entire novel except for Chapter 5 (which you borrowed word for word from Stephen King). It is easy for you to think that your work is "entirely original," but if it won't work without someone else's GPLed code, then clearly it is derivative. Argue that this isn't fair, but that is the way that copyright works. What's more there are plenty of examples of commercial libraries that have similar arrangements (you must pay the author if you want to link it into your application).
Remember, Free Software is about the freedom, not about stealing software. If you don't like the terms of the GPL (and it appears that you don't) then I would suggest not using software that has been released under this license. I don't like the license that Microsoft Windows is released under, but that doesn't mean that I can legally (or even ethically) steal it.
You are correct when you point out that the use of the term "Free" in Free Software is marketing (or propaganda if you prefer). But it's not any different from the "Shared" in Shared Source, or the "Open" in Open Group (or any number of similar constructs). The difference is that for most of it's users the Free in Free Software is quite appropriate. After all, if you aren't a programmer than the GPL is both free as in free speech and as in free beer.
Linus who? Don't try to tell me that Transmeta has a Peanuts character working for them, because I won't believe it. My mother told me that cartoons were imaginary.
Oh, Linus Torvalds! Yeah, I suppose he's sort of famous too.
Actually this is precisely the type of review that I needed. I loved the original Myst game, but I haven't had the time or the inclination to game since then (the fact that I no longer have a computer running Windows hasn't helped). However, if the new Myst were as cool as the old Myst I would not only consider buying the game, I would seriously consider paying money for a Microsoft OS.
It would appear that I don't need to bother...
Vidomi's software is quite obviously a derivative work of VirtualDub, in that without VirtualDub's software Vidomi's doesn't do any of the things that it is advertised as being capable of.
An appropriate metaphor would be if I wrote down my time-honored recipe for toasting bread and then created a cookbook containing this recipe and 400 other recipes straight out of the Betty Crocker cookbook. I could use this cookbook all I wanted to in the confines of my own house (fair use), but if I tried to sell copies of this cookbook it would rightfully be described as a derivative work.
The GPL states that any time that you link (dynamically or statically) a piece of GPLed software you are creating a derivative work. That is why BSD advocates get so excited about GPLed libraries like GNU readline. They know that GNU readline is cool, but linking your software with it forces you to release your software under the GPL because it is a derivative work.
This is also why most GNU system libraries are licensed under the LGPL (a completely different license). Here's a link from the newly created GPL FAQ
The actual text of the GPL is actually fairly short. The entire document is less than 2989 words and the actual legalese in the Terms and Conditions section is a mere 2031 words long.
Unfortunately the GPL is written using legal terms and wording that most developers don't understand, and so it is that over the years a lot of false beliefs about the GPL have cropped up. I, for one, am glad to finally see a comprehensive FAQ that is intelligible for people who aren't legal experts.
Your post is a good example of why this sort of FAQ was necessary. Using GPLed software on a proprietary system has never been a violation of the GPL, nor are you in violation if you distribute GPLed software alongside proprietary software, and the FSF has never stated that the output of GPLed programs was covered by the GPL (except in the case of Bison where large parts of the Bison source are actually what is output by Bison). And yet, over the years many people, either out of ignorance or malice, have made claims like the ones in your post. In the past the only way to refute those claims was with the text of the GPL itself (which, being a legal document, is hard to parse). Now there is a much clearer FAQ. This FAQ, however, is not a legal document. It is simply an explanation of the legal document. These mythical "clauses" that you state that the FSF has added are merely explanations of what the actual legal document states.
First of all the GPL does not allow GPLed software to be distributed "freely." In fact, distribution is the one thing that a copyright holder is allowed to control. GPLed software can only be distributed under the terms of the GPL (meaning it must come with source code). You can include proprietary programs on the same CD, and they are not covered by the GPL.
As for the rest of your argument. The GPL doesn't cover "using" the software at all. You are free to "use" it on proprietary systems, or free systems, or to not use it at all. What you aren't allowed to do is "distribute" the software without following the terms of the GPL.
In other words, it isn't the GPL that has problems, it is merely your understanding of what the GPL does and does not allow. As a practical example Vidomi would be perfectly within their rights to "use" VirtualDub however they want, including extending it with their own software. However, the second they try to "distribute" software that links with the GPLed VirtualDub they are violating the GPL.
As for whether or not the GPL will stand in court, remember the FSF gets to pick and choose the case that they use to set a legal precedent on the GPL. In other words they are looking for a stupid, underfunded software company with a clear violation of the GPL (Vidomi fits this perfectly). Also remember that organizations with very well paid lawyers (Apple, Microsoft, IBM) have already caved to FSF demands. Those folks, at least, are acting like the GPL had teeth. And also remember that there are several groups that have vested interest in making sure that the GPL is enforceable. The FSF certainly fits this bill, but many other companies have put large pieces of software under the GPL (Sun's StarOffice for example).
I wouldn't count on the GPL not being enforceable.
The good news is that you are allowed to charge for sending floppies in the mail. The FSF made money for years selling tapes of GNU software. The fact of the matter is that Anonymous FTP is the only method of transport that should actually lose you money.
The FSF has been waiting patiently for a violation of the GPL by a company small enough that they have a good chance of actually winning the case. Unfortunately they aren't the owners of the copyrighted software, but apparently the author of VirtualDub is willing to let the FSF do most of the heavy lifting. Once they win a case then they have precedent supporting their view of the GPL.
Hopefully this actually goes to court, and hopefully the FSF get the win that they have been waiting for. Otherwise we are in for some interesting times on the Free Software front.
There are all sorts of ways to work around this problem. The easiest being to deliver the correct libraries with your application. A simple shell script wrapper will guarantee that the correct libraries get loaded and linked dynamically.
Not that it matters. GTK+ is licensed under the LGPL, which permits linking (even static linking) with proprietary works. If this wasn't the case then the commercial Unix vendors would be sticking with Motif. They are not interested in a toolkit that would require them to release the source code to their software.
Here is a link to the text of the LGPL. And here is a pertintent quote (emphasis added).
Ah, but it's not the same old crap. GTK+ is a lot less expensive crap, and it comes with source code so that it is possible to make it less crappy.
You are making the same mistake that Fountain made. You suppose that technical merit has something to do with who eventually wins. Technical merit is somewhat important, but more important is being "good enough" at a lower price. GTK+ is certainly "good enough" (especially if it is being compared with Motif) and the price is right. You can even use it without paying royalties in your proprietary closed source applications. That's an important benefit that has already pushed the commercial Unix vendors towards Gnome, and away from KDE.
Exactly. The difference between Motif and the newer Free Software toolkits like QT or GTK+ is that someone is actively working on making QT and GTK+ better. It's been a while since this article was published, and it would appear that in this short time both GTK+ and QT have resolved the issues that Fountain raised. That leaves Fountain's only defendable reason to use Motif as "there is lots of legacy Motif code."
In other words Motif is dead. People don't hang onto legacy software systems when their only reason to stay is that switching would be expensive. After all, the cost of migrating will only get more expensive with time (you will have created more content in the outdated system). The time to switch is now, while everyone else is still learning the new environment. Be careful though, chances are good that either GTK+ or QT will eventually dominate.
Not to mention the fact that GTK+ (and almost the entire Gnome toolkit) is licensed under the LGPL. Which means that you can even create closed source commercial applications using those libs and never have to release a single solitary line of your own source. That's why GTK+ and Gnome are becoming the new supported desktops for the commercial Unixes and QT is not (it is licensed under the GPL).
Which is basically why Fountain is so cranky. GTK+ and Gnome are taking the place of Motif and CDE, and most new projects are already switching to these toolkits. And since he creates and sells a GUI designer for Motif... Well, you get the picture.
Even worse, newer versions of GTK+ fix most of the problems that he mentions (libglade for the component model, and I believe there is internationalization work as well). In the end technical issues like this aren't decided by whoever has the most elegant, stable, or easy to use solution. The solution that wins is the one that is "good enough" at the lowest price.
It's game over for Motif.