Aaargh! I have that book! I had that as a college text! You say it's in a musuem! Aaaargh!
I'm going to go now and see if there's any openings at the retirement home. There at least I can gum my jello and scribble in my Fortran Coloring Book and read all about Grandma's Drawers...
Hah! My first modem was a 300baud coupler. First game I ever bought was Incunabula. First computer that was *mine* as opposed to a roommate's or school's was an 8086. I learned to program in 4.2BSD. I remember the days before spam.
So you can see I'm really not that old... I'm a youngster compared to most geeks.
First, government doesn't compete in the marketplace. The mere presence of a government press outlet is an *artificial* economic burden on all non government press. A radio or television station is a business. You have to sell your product. The price the consumer pays for it is having to watch advertising, subscribe to cable service, or something similar. But a government press outlet is supported through taxation.
Second, the taxation. It may not restrict its non governmental competitors, but it certainly restricts YOU. You ahve to pay for it whether or not you use it.
The existance of government press may not by itself restrict you from using the airwaves, but it still restricts you.
People can't even remember back to the last time they bathed it seems.
Less than a decade ago: Windows was a window manager running on top of a DOS. 4 megs RAM was a lot of RAM. Text mode WordPerfect was the word processor of choice. 4DOS was a popular addon to DOS. And an i286 was still considered useful.
No, I compiled the source for my workstation and my home desktop separately. I used i686 for the PIV, and K7 for the Athlon (K7 usually defaults to K6-2). So I'm getting the optimal code for both systems, unless GNU lies in their documentation.
I'd like to take a moment to point out that you're being untruthful. You had to download it, su to root, unpack it, fire up a command line, and then make install. And all that **after** you had installed all the right headers and libs and etc. That's far too much work, and not at all simple.
Actually, my version wasn't that far off. Remember, I'm using FreeBSD. Here's the exact steps I need:
% cd/usr/ports/x11/kde2
% make install
% exit
Logging in as root is absurdly simple if you're running xdm/kdm/gdm. Firing up a terminal is also absurdly simple.
Note that the above steps will automatically fetch, unpack, and patch the source code, and build, install and register the package, taking care of any dependencies along the way.
Developers on that platform shipped binaries/packages that worked across **5** platforms, including windows.
I'm assuming those packages contained the separate binaries for each platform. That's a workable solution. I will agree that the Unix world needs something like this.
The reason, I believe, is that most *nix platform owners/developers/companies don't understand what it is to ship a USER application, as opposed to a NERD/GEEK app
Until extremely recently, they never needed to understand the user, since they never sold anything to the user. Their customers were the sysadmins, hackers and geeks of the world. They did a damn fine job of marketing to them. Stuff is changing now, and I see lots of signs that Unix is changing as well.
---
The title of this thread is "Source code is useless". I am merely arguing that source code is far from useless, and quite valuable. I have no intention of denying anyone the ability to install from binaries. Just don't take the source code option away from me.
Show me a nation where no one complains about their freedoms being taken away and I'll show you a nation where they don't have the freedom to complain anyway.
I think you need to take off your geek blinders. It seems to me that you're only concerned about a limited set of freedoms as they directly apply to you as a geek. I could be wrong, since I'm judging you by the stereotype of "Generic Slashdot Poster." But when I look around at Slashdot I see hordes of people complaining about their lack of freedom, but ignoring the immense wealth of freedom they already posses but take for granted.
Slashdot is obsessively concerned about that limited set of freedoms that involve intellectual property. All the other freedoms they take for granted. But there's much more to freedom that being able to download warez and hacking your PS2 or DVD player. Yes, those are genuine freedoms, but they are not the only freedoms.
Freedom of Religion: in many european countries your taxes still go to support a state recognized church.
Freedom of Speech and Press: the US is one of the few countries in their world where we don't have government operated newspapers, radio and television stations.
Freedom to Bear Arms: face it, the US stands virtually alone in granting the freedom to defend ones life with deadly force. You may not agree with that freedom, but for many people it is the primary freedom.
In the US we argue with each other about online pornography and what we should do about it. Most places the government unilaterally makes it a crime without asking your opinion on the matter. Hell, last I checked there were several nations trying to figure out how to put up a nationwide firewall.
We have a lot of freedoms here in the US. As far as I'm concerned, we're still at the top of the list of most free nations. We're not perfect. We're far away from being an utopia of freedom. But I would rather be here than there. If all you care about is your lack of rights under intellectual property law (and I will agree with you that you lack a lot of rights in that area) then move to some country that doesn't recognize the Bern Convention. You won't like it there though.
It's the same strategy that was such a big success for the GPL and Linux.
That's still open for debate. Without a suitable control group, there's no way to know. You can't look to BSD for guidance, since they were under a bogus lawsuit at the time Linux got started. You can't look at GNU as-a-whole, since it never took off until Linux.
But you can look at a several smaller projects. Here we see myriad GPLd projects that bit the dust and myriad MIT/BSD-style projects that took off. In fact, of the top four most successful Open Source projects (Apache, Linux, Perl, XFree86), four are not under a copyleft license.
Call me a heretic, but from my vantage point, the success of a project has a lot more to do with the project management, structure and culture than with its licensing.
No, it could very well be a problem. I can understand GNU wanting to limit the front and back texts, otherwise you could start including stuff that shouldn't be there (like an index). But five words is much too short for the front matter, and 25 words is much to short for the back.
In my opinion, I think GNU is going overboard on their copyleft crusade. It fits works okay for technical documentation associated with copyleft software, but it falls down for a lot of other stuff.
In my never humble opinion, just use the same license for the documentation as for the software. Make it all one package and license it as a whole. If it's good enough for the software it's good enough for its documentation.
Why bother to recompile all of x86 when you could have a simple binary patch that works for your vid card?
Well, I would need a patch for FreeBSD optimized for the PIV. You got one? Yeah? Cool, now I'm running both Slackware and FreeBSD at home on a K7. Got patches for those as well? How many patches do you have? Really! Got any for XFree86-4.2.0 ready yet?
Perhaps you didn't fully understand me. I could have gotten everything to work with just the default i386 packages. But I didn't have to fiddle with anything to get everything built from source. You don't have to be a geek to do it, you only need to read the instructions. Even non-geeks know how to read, don't they? Here's how I installed KDE from scratch fully optimized for my system:
make install
Simple, huh? The only reason I'm building from source (with the exception of a couple of packages I want customized), is to gain a 15% performance improvement. I'm not running a 80386 computer. I'm running a PIV at work and a K7 at home. Unless you're willing to provide me with two separate binaries sets for me to use, the simple act of typing "make install" is well worth the price of a significant performance increase.
In regards to patching X, that's because the video card was newer than the most recent XFree86. It still worked, I just got annoying mouse droppings on occasion. Unless you're running Windows, your video card won't ship with the drivers you need anyway.
I used to be a salesman at a Brick and Mortar building contractor. It was all opt-in. Using opt-out was unthinkable. The first time I heard of opt-out rules being ruled valid I was dumbfounded.
Here's what opt-in worked like at my old place: customer comes to me, gives me their address, and I deliver a product. Six months later I give them a friendly phone call to see how things are working out.
Imagine what it would be like if I could have done opt-out marketing at my old building contractor: I go next door to the bank and pay the manager for a list of names and addresses of folks applying for home loans. I give this list to my phoners. Pretty soon I have compiled a database of everyone in town, including their salaries, credit reports, names of children, time they eat dinner (so I can call), etc. Everything about everyone is available from me. Legally.
What happens when one of them gets pissed? I simply say "I'm sorry sir, you need to opt-out. Here's how. Come down to our store and fill out a form. So now he's off my list. But he's still on the list I sold to every other business in town. He has to opt out of each and every one of them individually.
I run two FreeBSD systems, one at home and one at work. Everything from the kernel to this browser was built from source code. Even the documentation was built from the original DocBook sources. The only things installed as binaries are Acroread and Realplayer.
The source code is VERY useful to me, even though I haven't seen 90% of it. That's because I built my system optimized for the Pentium IV (Athlon at home). You just can't do that with a binary. In addition, I get to build certain packages the way *I* want them built. I love Dia but I don't use Gnome so I get to build Dia without Gnome instead of using the binary package which requires Gnome.
I wouldn't even be running an X server on my workstation if it weren't for the source code, since XFree86 doesn't fully support my video card. But with a simple patch it works great. Yes, this patch could have been posted binary only, but how the hell would the poster know how I compiled my server? How the hell does he even know which OS I am using. Is he going to have a binary patch available for every possible combination of CPU and OS?
I may never look at the source code for gcc, konqueror or XFree86, but I damn well want it available.
Let's keep this in the realm of copyright. The actual display seen on the user's browsers would have his image modified in a way he doesn't like. So he can sue the end user if he wishes. But the author of the linking page has not violated upon his copyright. No copying was made. No derivation was made. Just look at the damn html source if you don't believe me!
All the linking page did was include an reference to a work. A pointing finger in other words. To call this copyright infringement is absurd. I don't even think the hideous DMCA considers pointing to be an enable technology.
Of course, if your html displays in such a way that the viewer is led to believe that the image is yours, then you possibly have crossed the line into fraud. But I don't think that's the case here. Don't equate rudeness with illegality.
I'll tell you the truth. An EULA is not a contract. Some judges may disagree with me, but that's irrelevant, since other judges do.
What is a contract? It is a binding agreement between two or more parties, requiring the consent of both parties and the possibility of negotiation, in which rights, priviledges, goods or services are exchanged.
An EULA does not fit the definition. When you buy WindowsXP (as an example) at Fry's (as an example), the US Commercial Code considers you to be the owner of that box. There are some things you cannot do with your possession, and they are enumerated in copyright law. As long as you don't violate copyright law, you can do anything you want with the software, legally. Including actually using it.
Now the first time you try to use it you get a message of some sort that says you have to agree to some longwinded and bogus EULA. This EULA specifies no consideration. It pretends that your use of the software is consideration, but you already have the right to use the software. It pretends that your payment for it their side of the consideration, but you paid for it before you ever saw the EULA. You do not have to agree to anything in order to use the software! It is already your legal right!
Furthermore, your act of clicking a mouse button while a certain glyph is within a specific region of the display does not constitute acceptance of the EULA. The only way you can use the software is to click that button, and since you already have the right to use the software, clicking the button constitutes nothing other than your act of using the software. If you find a EULA that says something on the order of "by using this software you agree to...", simply laugh at loud and ignore it. They cannot impose legally binding terms upon you unilaterally. Remember, you already have the right to use the software.
So what should Microsoft (and NAI, et al) do if they want to enter into a binding agreement with you? Simple. They need to present you with a valid contract before you obtain the right to use the software through some other means. If they don't want their software to be treated as a commercial product to be sold, then they need to stop distributing it to retailers to sell! They need to start *licensing* their software instead. That means you don't get the software until you first agree to the EULA. That means most of the software on the shelves of Fry's would disappear. That means you have to get the software direct from the manufacturer or one of their duly authorized agents.
-----
I am not a lawyer. If you don't follow that EULA unilaterally and illegally imposed upon you, expect to be sued, arrested, and shot if trying to resist that arrest. This is because your current society is not based on the rule of law, but on the rule of man.
Clicking acceptance of an EULA is not an explicit agreement to a contract. That EULAs say differently is irrelevant. There are many points in the law that demonstrate the EULA's are not contracts. Here's just one:
Consideration. You get the software and the company doesn't get anything, so there's no consideration. Remember, you purchased the software *before* you clicked the "I Agree" button. No exchange has taken place. These companies CANNOT tell you that you can't use the software after you have legally acquired it. If they need some damn contract to keep their lawyers happy, then they damn well had better be there at Fry's with with a contract for me to sign at the time of my purchase.
Legally, the box is enough. If you don't have the box then it is possible that you have a pirated copy of the software. But if you do have the box then the probability that you have a legal copy of the software is extraordinarily high.
Copyright violation is a felony. The onus is on the BSA to demonstrate to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt I have an illegal copy of the software. The lack of a receipt is not proof of that.
I have great respect for the law. I have no respect for lawyers who selectively ignore points in the law that they don't like, and no respect for the corporations that hire them as their bullies.
Well maybe. But you got to remember that these malicious companies are not stupid and they do have lawyers. The parts in the Wine license that are "vague" have equally vague corrolaries in the Apache license. Where Apache is most clear and unambiguous is in the protection of the name "Apache". A similar type clause would be appropriate for Wine, due to the nature of its development, but a massive shift to the LGPL is overkill (and still wouldn't protect the name "Wine").
You can do the above scenario, and RMS couldn't get mad at you over legal issues. If there are two identical APIs, one of which is not under the GPL, then you can legally link to the GPL version without creating a derivative work.
This is because you can't copyright an API, and the GPL does not restrict usage. GPLv3, if based on the DMCA instead of classic copyright law, could restrict usage. But it would then cease to be free.
Tom Christiansen has already done what you proposed. He has rewritten readline, and called it "freedline". It's not a true rewrite, but a clever hack. Nonetheless, it should be sufficient to allow you to dynamically link to the real readline without contaminating your own code.
p.s. Which numbnut judge declared that dynamic linkage contituted derivation? Or is RMS just making this stuff up?
Slashdot Mirror
So send me your resume
Aaargh! I have that book! I had that as a college text! You say it's in a musuem! Aaaargh!
I'm going to go now and see if there's any openings at the retirement home. There at least I can gum my jello and scribble in my Fortran Coloring Book and read all about Grandma's Drawers...
History degree w/a CS minor?
Why the hell not! You have something against a proper liberal arts education?
Hah! My first modem was a 300baud coupler. First game I ever bought was Incunabula. First computer that was *mine* as opposed to a roommate's or school's was an 8086. I learned to program in 4.2BSD. I remember the days before spam.
So you can see I'm really not that old... I'm a youngster compared to most geeks.
First, government doesn't compete in the marketplace. The mere presence of a government press outlet is an *artificial* economic burden on all non government press. A radio or television station is a business. You have to sell your product. The price the consumer pays for it is having to watch advertising, subscribe to cable service, or something similar. But a government press outlet is supported through taxation.
Second, the taxation. It may not restrict its non governmental competitors, but it certainly restricts YOU. You ahve to pay for it whether or not you use it.
The existance of government press may not by itself restrict you from using the airwaves, but it still restricts you.
People can't even remember back to the last time they bathed it seems.
Less than a decade ago: Windows was a window manager running on top of a DOS. 4 megs RAM was a lot of RAM. Text mode WordPerfect was the word processor of choice. 4DOS was a popular addon to DOS. And an i286 was still considered useful.
You should thank your luck! I was told to use ones and zeros, but the one key was broken so I had to use I's!
No, I compiled the source for my workstation and my home desktop separately. I used i686 for the PIV, and K7 for the Athlon (K7 usually defaults to K6-2). So I'm getting the optimal code for both systems, unless GNU lies in their documentation.
I'd like to take a moment to point out that you're being untruthful. You had to download it, su to root, unpack it, fire up a command line, and then make install. And all that **after** you had installed all the right headers and libs and etc. That's far too much work, and not at all simple.
/usr/ports/x11/kde2
Actually, my version wasn't that far off. Remember, I'm using FreeBSD. Here's the exact steps I need:
% cd
% make install
% exit
Logging in as root is absurdly simple if you're running xdm/kdm/gdm. Firing up a terminal is also absurdly simple.
Note that the above steps will automatically fetch, unpack, and patch the source code, and build, install and register the package, taking care of any dependencies along the way.
Developers on that platform shipped binaries/packages that worked across **5** platforms, including windows.
I'm assuming those packages contained the separate binaries for each platform. That's a workable solution. I will agree that the Unix world needs something like this.
The reason, I believe, is that most *nix platform owners/developers/companies don't understand what it is to ship a USER application, as opposed to a NERD/GEEK app
Until extremely recently, they never needed to understand the user, since they never sold anything to the user. Their customers were the sysadmins, hackers and geeks of the world. They did a damn fine job of marketing to them. Stuff is changing now, and I see lots of signs that Unix is changing as well.
---
The title of this thread is "Source code is useless". I am merely arguing that source code is far from useless, and quite valuable. I have no intention of denying anyone the ability to install from binaries. Just don't take the source code option away from me.
Show me a nation where no one complains about their freedoms being taken away and I'll show you a nation where they don't have the freedom to complain anyway.
I think you need to take off your geek blinders. It seems to me that you're only concerned about a limited set of freedoms as they directly apply to you as a geek. I could be wrong, since I'm judging you by the stereotype of "Generic Slashdot Poster." But when I look around at Slashdot I see hordes of people complaining about their lack of freedom, but ignoring the immense wealth of freedom they already posses but take for granted.
Slashdot is obsessively concerned about that limited set of freedoms that involve intellectual property. All the other freedoms they take for granted. But there's much more to freedom that being able to download warez and hacking your PS2 or DVD player. Yes, those are genuine freedoms, but they are not the only freedoms.
Freedom of Religion: in many european countries your taxes still go to support a state recognized church.
Freedom of Speech and Press: the US is one of the few countries in their world where we don't have government operated newspapers, radio and television stations.
Freedom to Bear Arms: face it, the US stands virtually alone in granting the freedom to defend ones life with deadly force. You may not agree with that freedom, but for many people it is the primary freedom.
In the US we argue with each other about online pornography and what we should do about it. Most places the government unilaterally makes it a crime without asking your opinion on the matter. Hell, last I checked there were several nations trying to figure out how to put up a nationwide firewall.
We have a lot of freedoms here in the US. As far as I'm concerned, we're still at the top of the list of most free nations. We're not perfect. We're far away from being an utopia of freedom. But I would rather be here than there. If all you care about is your lack of rights under intellectual property law (and I will agree with you that you lack a lot of rights in that area) then move to some country that doesn't recognize the Bern Convention. You won't like it there though.
It's the same strategy that was such a big success for the GPL and Linux.
That's still open for debate. Without a suitable control group, there's no way to know. You can't look to BSD for guidance, since they were under a bogus lawsuit at the time Linux got started. You can't look at GNU as-a-whole, since it never took off until Linux.
But you can look at a several smaller projects. Here we see myriad GPLd projects that bit the dust and myriad MIT/BSD-style projects that took off. In fact, of the top four most successful Open Source projects (Apache, Linux, Perl, XFree86), four are not under a copyleft license.
Call me a heretic, but from my vantage point, the success of a project has a lot more to do with the project management, structure and culture than with its licensing.
No, it could very well be a problem. I can understand GNU wanting to limit the front and back texts, otherwise you could start including stuff that shouldn't be there (like an index). But five words is much too short for the front matter, and 25 words is much to short for the back.
In my opinion, I think GNU is going overboard on their copyleft crusade. It fits works okay for technical documentation associated with copyleft software, but it falls down for a lot of other stuff.
In my never humble opinion, just use the same license for the documentation as for the software. Make it all one package and license it as a whole. If it's good enough for the software it's good enough for its documentation.
Why bother to recompile all of x86 when you could have a simple binary patch that works for your vid card?
Well, I would need a patch for FreeBSD optimized for the PIV. You got one? Yeah? Cool, now I'm running both Slackware and FreeBSD at home on a K7. Got patches for those as well? How many patches do you have? Really! Got any for XFree86-4.2.0 ready yet?
Perhaps you didn't fully understand me. I could have gotten everything to work with just the default i386 packages. But I didn't have to fiddle with anything to get everything built from source. You don't have to be a geek to do it, you only need to read the instructions. Even non-geeks know how to read, don't they? Here's how I installed KDE from scratch fully optimized for my system:
make install
Simple, huh? The only reason I'm building from source (with the exception of a couple of packages I want customized), is to gain a 15% performance improvement. I'm not running a 80386 computer. I'm running a PIV at work and a K7 at home. Unless you're willing to provide me with two separate binaries sets for me to use, the simple act of typing "make install" is well worth the price of a significant performance increase.
In regards to patching X, that's because the video card was newer than the most recent XFree86. It still worked, I just got annoying mouse droppings on occasion. Unless you're running Windows, your video card won't ship with the drivers you need anyway.
I used to be a salesman at a Brick and Mortar building contractor. It was all opt-in. Using opt-out was unthinkable. The first time I heard of opt-out rules being ruled valid I was dumbfounded.
Here's what opt-in worked like at my old place: customer comes to me, gives me their address, and I deliver a product. Six months later I give them a friendly phone call to see how things are working out.
Imagine what it would be like if I could have done opt-out marketing at my old building contractor: I go next door to the bank and pay the manager for a list of names and addresses of folks applying for home loans. I give this list to my phoners. Pretty soon I have compiled a database of everyone in town, including their salaries, credit reports, names of children, time they eat dinner (so I can call), etc. Everything about everyone is available from me. Legally.
What happens when one of them gets pissed? I simply say "I'm sorry sir, you need to opt-out. Here's how. Come down to our store and fill out a form. So now he's off my list. But he's still on the list I sold to every other business in town. He has to opt out of each and every one of them individually.
I run two FreeBSD systems, one at home and one at work. Everything from the kernel to this browser was built from source code. Even the documentation was built from the original DocBook sources. The only things installed as binaries are Acroread and Realplayer.
The source code is VERY useful to me, even though I haven't seen 90% of it. That's because I built my system optimized for the Pentium IV (Athlon at home). You just can't do that with a binary. In addition, I get to build certain packages the way *I* want them built. I love Dia but I don't use Gnome so I get to build Dia without Gnome instead of using the binary package which requires Gnome.
I wouldn't even be running an X server on my workstation if it weren't for the source code, since XFree86 doesn't fully support my video card. But with a simple patch it works great. Yes, this patch could have been posted binary only, but how the hell would the poster know how I compiled my server? How the hell does he even know which OS I am using. Is he going to have a binary patch available for every possible combination of CPU and OS?
I may never look at the source code for gcc, konqueror or XFree86, but I damn well want it available.
The main point being that Kelly had his copyrighted work on public display. All Arriba did was set up a vantage point.
Let's keep this in the realm of copyright. The actual display seen on the user's browsers would have his image modified in a way he doesn't like. So he can sue the end user if he wishes. But the author of the linking page has not violated upon his copyright. No copying was made. No derivation was made. Just look at the damn html source if you don't believe me!
All the linking page did was include an reference to a work. A pointing finger in other words. To call this copyright infringement is absurd. I don't even think the hideous DMCA considers pointing to be an enable technology.
Of course, if your html displays in such a way that the viewer is led to believe that the image is yours, then you possibly have crossed the line into fraud. But I don't think that's the case here. Don't equate rudeness with illegality.
I'll tell you the truth. An EULA is not a contract. Some judges may disagree with me, but that's irrelevant, since other judges do.
What is a contract? It is a binding agreement between two or more parties, requiring the consent of both parties and the possibility of negotiation, in which rights, priviledges, goods or services are exchanged.
An EULA does not fit the definition. When you buy WindowsXP (as an example) at Fry's (as an example), the US Commercial Code considers you to be the owner of that box. There are some things you cannot do with your possession, and they are enumerated in copyright law. As long as you don't violate copyright law, you can do anything you want with the software, legally. Including actually using it.
Now the first time you try to use it you get a message of some sort that says you have to agree to some longwinded and bogus EULA. This EULA specifies no consideration. It pretends that your use of the software is consideration, but you already have the right to use the software. It pretends that your payment for it their side of the consideration, but you paid for it before you ever saw the EULA. You do not have to agree to anything in order to use the software! It is already your legal right!
Furthermore, your act of clicking a mouse button while a certain glyph is within a specific region of the display does not constitute acceptance of the EULA. The only way you can use the software is to click that button, and since you already have the right to use the software, clicking the button constitutes nothing other than your act of using the software. If you find a EULA that says something on the order of "by using this software you agree to...", simply laugh at loud and ignore it. They cannot impose legally binding terms upon you unilaterally. Remember, you already have the right to use the software.
So what should Microsoft (and NAI, et al) do if they want to enter into a binding agreement with you? Simple. They need to present you with a valid contract before you obtain the right to use the software through some other means. If they don't want their software to be treated as a commercial product to be sold, then they need to stop distributing it to retailers to sell! They need to start *licensing* their software instead. That means you don't get the software until you first agree to the EULA. That means most of the software on the shelves of Fry's would disappear. That means you have to get the software direct from the manufacturer or one of their duly authorized agents.
-----
I am not a lawyer. If you don't follow that EULA unilaterally and illegally imposed upon you, expect to be sued, arrested, and shot if trying to resist that arrest. This is because your current society is not based on the rule of law, but on the rule of man.
Clicking acceptance of an EULA is not an explicit agreement to a contract. That EULAs say differently is irrelevant. There are many points in the law that demonstrate the EULA's are not contracts. Here's just one:
Consideration. You get the software and the company doesn't get anything, so there's no consideration. Remember, you purchased the software *before* you clicked the "I Agree" button. No exchange has taken place. These companies CANNOT tell you that you can't use the software after you have legally acquired it. If they need some damn contract to keep their lawyers happy, then they damn well had better be there at Fry's with with a contract for me to sign at the time of my purchase.
Legally, the box is enough. If you don't have the box then it is possible that you have a pirated copy of the software. But if you do have the box then the probability that you have a legal copy of the software is extraordinarily high.
Copyright violation is a felony. The onus is on the BSA to demonstrate to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt I have an illegal copy of the software. The lack of a receipt is not proof of that.
I have great respect for the law. I have no respect for lawyers who selectively ignore points in the law that they don't like, and no respect for the corporations that hire them as their bullies.
Well maybe. But you got to remember that these malicious companies are not stupid and they do have lawyers. The parts in the Wine license that are "vague" have equally vague corrolaries in the Apache license. Where Apache is most clear and unambiguous is in the protection of the name "Apache". A similar type clause would be appropriate for Wine, due to the nature of its development, but a massive shift to the LGPL is overkill (and still wouldn't protect the name "Wine").
It's an MIT/X11 type license. It's almost identical, but not quite, to the X11 license.
Rebuttal in One Word: Apache
You can do the above scenario, and RMS couldn't get mad at you over legal issues. If there are two identical APIs, one of which is not under the GPL, then you can legally link to the GPL version without creating a derivative work.
This is because you can't copyright an API, and the GPL does not restrict usage. GPLv3, if based on the DMCA instead of classic copyright law, could restrict usage. But it would then cease to be free.
Tom Christiansen has already done what you proposed. He has rewritten readline, and called it "freedline". It's not a true rewrite, but a clever hack. Nonetheless, it should be sufficient to allow you to dynamically link to the real readline without contaminating your own code.
p.s. Which numbnut judge declared that dynamic linkage contituted derivation? Or is RMS just making this stuff up?