Hmmm... the community will not purchase Abit's products if they violate the GPL.
This isn't about boycotting or anything like that. The GPL is designed to prevent slavery and enforce freedom. Abit is enslaving unsuspecting members of the community by not distributing the source for their modifications. This is serious! Someone could unwittingly purchase an Abit board with the included pseudo-distro, and end up locked into Abit's proprietary and subjugating modifications, with all choices stripped from them.
In person, you will be judged by your appearance, whether you like it or not. In print you will be judged by your grammar and spelling.
I don't see sloppy spelling, I just see sloppy. I see someone that is either too stupid to spell "you", or so adolescent that they still think funny spellings are cool.
I picked up SuSE 6.4 full boxed set Wednesday at MicroCenter in Sunnyvale. I'm kinda surprised that a few days later I can get an ISO image. What?!?
Anyway, here are my impressions. I'm a Slackware guy, so I'm biased. Over all, SuSE 6.4 is an excellent distro.
But it comes with too many packages. It took me two hours to scroll through the list to select the ones I wanted. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have thousands of packages readily available. But it's overwhelming during installation time. My suggestion would be to limit the initial installation to packages just on the first CD. Leave all the rest of later after the installation is over and done with. I was thinking about using the "default" installation, but it would have added packages I didn't need or want anyway, so I would be right back to square one going through all the lists deselecting them.
YaST2 simplified stuff too much. I could select a package, but I couldn't find out what it's dependencies were like you could in YaST1. I selected xmms, my single favorite audio application, only to discover afterwards that it included the gnome applet, which depended on the gnome-panel, which depended on a whole bunch of other gnome packages. In short, I had about 75% of Gnome installed without my awareness. I'm sure there's Gnome fans who got KDE installed without their knowledge as well.
I ended up with about 50 users by default! Huh? If Apparently, these are the user accounts needed for certain packages, such as empress. But I didn't install any of those packages. This is a potential security problem having all those users. Additionally, a lot of applications had their directory structures already set up even though they weren't installed./usr/local/share and/opt were chock full of empty directories that didn't need to be there.
Okay, the pluses. SuSE seems more stable. YaST is not a apt to go and change all your manual settings on a whim. The goofy SuSE icons for KDE have been replaced with more aesthetic versions. YaST2 is a great installer for newbies, but I would recommend YaST1 for intermediates or experts. And SuSE has the best Linux manual in the business, period.
But I'll still stick with Slackware. Small, compact, just the essentials. BSD-style inits. But I still like to play around with other distros, and SuSE is one of the best I've seen.
Before you open source, you got to know why. Especially if you're a commercial firm.
For non-commercial folks, the reasons are very easy to find. You're a hobbyist and open source is like a big hobby meet. You're a researcher and open source fits into your notions of public disemination and peer review.
But commercial interests need to take a good look at it. You will not earn profits off of software sales. You have to think of something else to generate the revenues needed to pay your developers, testers, supportniks and marketroids. Something else is going to have to generate the dividends for your stock holders. If your primary business is hardware, open source is a no-brainer. Ditto if you can use your open source as a loss-leader for other products.
But if you really want to be in the software business and not the support or hardware business, you'll need to come up with a whole new business model. So far, none of the large Linux businesses have earned a profit. The market knows this and their stocks are in the tank. Like it or not, you have to sell something to earn a profit. If you give away your software, you have to sell something else. Maybe 100% open source is not the best solution for you. Maybe a mix is better. Sometimes you might even come to the realization that open source just won't work for you.
Just remember, you no longer competing with Microsoft, Sun and Apple. You're also competing with weekend hobbyists and college students. And your commercial competitors get to distribute your stuff in their shrinkwrap boxes. And SuSE will include it on CD #5 without even a registration card. If you can come up with a business model that will work, you'll be everyone's hero.
If you don't think there's a difference between your right to modify and redistribute software under the GPL or BSD licenses and your rights to do so under MS's EULA, I've got a lovely bridge for you...
Of course there's a difference. The GPL and BSD licenses grant more priviledges and the EULA imposes more conditions and restrictions. But it's still just a matter of degree. The biggest difference is that most open source licenses allow the user to pass the license on to third parties.
Under his definition, any software with a license is "proprietary", so the only non-proprietary software is public-domain software. Thus, any restrictions == proprietary software.
That's not just his definition, it's also the dictionary's! Look it up. If software is owned (copyrighted) it is proprietary.
Just because I refuse to assign myself the appelation of "oppressed" does not infer that I am a rand-bot, randroid or objectivist.
If you wish to wallow in delusion that freedom is derived from software licenses, then go right ahead. Just don't expect me to join you. 'Cause I don't need no special dispensation from St. iGNUtius before I'm free.
I won't mention names, but this guy introduced himself as "a member of GNU", had a.gnu.org address, and was listed at www.gnu.org as a member.
The new BSD license is quite good, it is GPL compatible and has no obnoxious advertising clause. If you don't mind your code being used as part of closed software, and don't want to insist that changes to be contributed back, that's the license I'd suggest.
Actually, it is not GPL compatible. Nothing is except the LGPL. The only way to be GPL compatible is to neither add nor take away nor even change any GPL restrictions. Only licenses that allow relicensing qualify. This is according to RMS and it is a relatively new stance for him.
I disagree, in that I'll let you use my BSD code in your GPL app, no problem. But don't relicense it (change the licensing terms). As a whole, your application will be GPL, but the individual source file you borrowed from me is still under the BSD license.
Having my code being used in closed source software does not bother me, since I do not view closed source as evil or even wrong. There is no way that it can be stolen, as you and I still have the source code. The *only* thing we do not gain is the additional modifications. But that's not my code, and it concerns me not.
I don't give my friends a bushel of apples only on the condition that I get to some of the cider they derive from it. It would be nice, but I don't impose that upon them. Interesting to note that the commercial companies that use BSD code will most often give back.
In your rush to invent unalienable rights out of whole cloth, you fail to understand the essence of freedom.
I am not subjugated when I use a closed source program, such as Windows, StarOffice or Java, because I have full and unconstrained free will to use or not to use them. Subjugation, domination and oppression (Stallman's terms) presuppose a lack of choice. But I have every choice in the world to pick between Windows or Linux, VC++ or g++. I did not have to grab my musket and march off to Bunker Hill in order to use Linux. I did not have to pledge my sacred honor and fortune to use Linux. I simply went and picked it up. I had full free will in the matter. It was not an act of rebellion at all.
Sorry, I was trying to keep my post short. I failed to mention yet another tactic in our schem^H^H^H^H^Hfight against software ownership. We don't directly castigate anyone who releases their software under a non-GNU license. Instead we publish an educational article on Free Software. Therein we list all approved Free Software licenses, but we explain each an every one of them as being substandard and inferior to our own. We use phrases like "obnoxious advertising terms" and "no protection against exploitation" and "not GPL compatible".
Then when only a few people are using those other licenses, we start picking them off one by one. As a case in point, we once declared the Artistic License to be Free (but inferior). Now, however, our tactic tells us to change our minds and declare it unfree, proprietary and enslaving.
p.s. True story: I once received an email from a member of GNU asking me to reconsider my decision to license my own software under the Artistic License. He warned me of possible exploitation, and that perhaps I wasn't aware of the benefits of using the GPL. This was pretty amazing to me as my software is pretty obscure to begin with. I obliged him and changed my license to the new BSD. I hope he's happy.
Why do you guys at GNU keep on with your tactic of Orwellian GNUspeak? We can all see through your charade. Please don't tell us what words we can use. We are not children!
Free Software does not equal only GNU and GNU is not the sum of all Free Software. Yet each and every Free Software project outside of GNU calls themselves BOTH Free Software and Open Source Software. Both the GPL and the LGPL are Open Source licenses. There is a 99.99% overlap between Free Software and Open Source Software. GNU IS OPEN SOURCE! Or did you mistype and really meant to say the "GNU Community".
RMS states that he wishes that English had a better term for "free". Well, it does! That word is "open" and it much better fits what is meant than "libre" (though it is still an imperfect adjective). There are no physical or metaphysical chains or shackles upon me when I use closed source software. To equate Free Software with liberty is ludicrous and an insult to the memory of everyone who ever died to give you the guarantee to the right of free speech.
What are your opinions on patenting and OSS (and possibly the BSD license)
The BSD license IS Open Source and Free Software!!!
Ditto for the MIT, QPL, MPL, and even the Artistic License (despite RMS's objections to the contrary, the AL meets all requirements of the OSD and his own list of free software definitions).
I make this distinction, because if I understand copyright law and your structure, then GPL'd software isn't enough. Unless all the code is copyrighted by the same person (fictional or real), then the license would be difficult to enforce.
So here's what we do: start a campaign decrying copyrights as imoral. Castigate anyone who retains ownership of source code, even if they release it under a innocuous unrestrictive license like MIT. At the same time, we have to discourage people from following up on this by their releasing stuff into the public domain. So we attack public domain as anarchistic and lacking protection for the author's rights. When everyone gets all confused over this, and can't decide whether they should relinquish ownership rights and take it public domain, or hold on the copyright in face of public disapproval, we step in with tactic number three. We offer ourselves up as arbiters of morality and demand that they transfer ownership and copyrights to us. After all, it is only we that have the moral foundations and rightness of purpose and strength of will not to abuse ownership priviledges. Software ownership is wrong, so let us own your software for you.
Yes, this means that we will be in a position of legal and political authority over you if we hold title to the software you yourselves wrote. But fear not! Our dictatorship of the hacker will wither away in time, leaving all people free.
Hardly absurd questions. The vast majority of people in the community see the "Linux vs LiGnuX vx GNU/Linux" controversy as trivial. This is the small stuff. It is a very valid question to ask why RMS spends a seemingly inordinate amount of time and bile in his insistance that we use his terminology.
You have stated several times that the restrictions and conditions in the GPL serve the purpose of ensuring freedom, to guarantee that the source code will always be available for copying, modifications and redistribution.
You have also stated on several occasions that copyrights for software are wrong, and even have a few articles and links to articles on that line at www.gnu.org. Yet, because copyrights exist, you use them "defensively" to protect software through the GPL and LGPL.
But what if copyright laws were repealed? What then? What would now protect software? What prevents people from statically linking their closed source programs to readline? What prevents people from distributing emacs itself closed source? What prevents people from distributing binary-only encrypted derivations of gcc that require monetary payments to obtain the key?
How is a future without copyrights any better for software than simply releasing software as public domain today?
"...because the MPAA paid them to...the government gives corporations vast amounts of our tax moneyDo you honestly believe that the government is more likely to have you killed than a corporation?
Well of course! What corporation could possibly hold a candle to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?
"em>how voluntary is it when my choice is "buy food from corporations or starve to death"?"
You're absolutely right! We have no choice in the country as to where we buy our food. Gee, let's have the government nationalize all food production and distribution. Yeah, it will get rid of all the private and coop grocers and decimate the five-acre farmer, but that's a small price to pay for the joy of seeing Safeway eliminated.
"When I buy a POS bag of chips from Frito-Lay, on the other hand, I'm being ripped off."
You've really gone over the deep end on this one. The fact of the matter is that you purchased those chips willingly and voluntarily. If you are dissatisfied with their quality, you never have to buy another bag of Frito-Lays ever again. There are dozens of other potato chip choices left open to you.
In your zeal against drug use (this is an analogy, in case you miss it) you advocate harsh and extreme sanctions against the junky, but completely ignore the pusher. If the armies, police and courts are being auctioned off to the highest bidder, why the hell are you excusing the auctioneer from any wrongdoing?
Who gives a rat's ass about behests! You're completely ignoring the point. The government has sold us out to the highest bidder but you still can't find anything wrong with the government?
"It's not the FBI that's collecting information about misfits in high school, it's Pinkertons. It's not the Congress that's censoring web sites, it's Cybersitter. It's not the NSA that's stepping on software development, it's corporations like the MPAA, Microsoft, ad infinitum."
Pinkertons is doing the collecting at the behest of school boards (aka government). Cybersitter is not censoring because I still have 100% access to the information. MPAA ad nauseum are only protecting what the government declares their rights to be.
The only power corporations have, if you insist upon calling it power, is that they have more money than the average dude. And where do they get this money? From taxation? Tariffs? Of course not! They get it from voluntary economic transactions.
Yes, we should care! If it's a meaningful certificate, that is. Spending millions to get a proper Unix(tm) appellation put upon Linux is not very meaningful. But getting a security certification is.
Rephrase your question thusly: "I already know how to drive, so why should I take even one hour out of my day to get a driver's license?"
If you want to drive on the B1 highway, you need a driver's license.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... the community will not purchase Abit's products if they violate the GPL.
This isn't about boycotting or anything like that. The GPL is designed to prevent slavery and enforce freedom. Abit is enslaving unsuspecting members of the community by not distributing the source for their modifications. This is serious! Someone could unwittingly purchase an Abit board with the included pseudo-distro, and end up locked into Abit's proprietary and subjugating modifications, with all choices stripped from them.
In person, you will be judged by your appearance, whether you like it or not. In print you will be judged by your grammar and spelling.
I don't see sloppy spelling, I just see sloppy. I see someone that is either too stupid to spell "you", or so adolescent that they still think funny spellings are cool.
I picked up SuSE 6.4 full boxed set Wednesday at MicroCenter in Sunnyvale. I'm kinda surprised that a few days later I can get an ISO image. What?!?
/usr/local/share and /opt were chock full of empty directories that didn't need to be there.
Anyway, here are my impressions. I'm a Slackware guy, so I'm biased. Over all, SuSE 6.4 is an excellent distro.
But it comes with too many packages. It took me two hours to scroll through the list to select the ones I wanted. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have thousands of packages readily available. But it's overwhelming during installation time. My suggestion would be to limit the initial installation to packages just on the first CD. Leave all the rest of later after the installation is over and done with. I was thinking about using the "default" installation, but it would have added packages I didn't need or want anyway, so I would be right back to square one going through all the lists deselecting them.
YaST2 simplified stuff too much. I could select a package, but I couldn't find out what it's dependencies were like you could in YaST1. I selected xmms, my single favorite audio application, only to discover afterwards that it included the gnome applet, which depended on the gnome-panel, which depended on a whole bunch of other gnome packages. In short, I had about 75% of Gnome installed without my awareness. I'm sure there's Gnome fans who got KDE installed without their knowledge as well.
I ended up with about 50 users by default! Huh? If Apparently, these are the user accounts needed for certain packages, such as empress. But I didn't install any of those packages. This is a potential security problem having all those users. Additionally, a lot of applications had their directory structures already set up even though they weren't installed.
Okay, the pluses. SuSE seems more stable. YaST is not a apt to go and change all your manual settings on a whim. The goofy SuSE icons for KDE have been replaced with more aesthetic versions. YaST2 is a great installer for newbies, but I would recommend YaST1 for intermediates or experts. And SuSE has the best Linux manual in the business, period.
But I'll still stick with Slackware. Small, compact, just the essentials. BSD-style inits. But I still like to play around with other distros, and SuSE is one of the best I've seen.
Before you open source, you got to know why. Especially if you're a commercial firm.
For non-commercial folks, the reasons are very easy to find. You're a hobbyist and open source is like a big hobby meet. You're a researcher and open source fits into your notions of public disemination and peer review.
But commercial interests need to take a good look at it. You will not earn profits off of software sales. You have to think of something else to generate the revenues needed to pay your developers, testers, supportniks and marketroids. Something else is going to have to generate the dividends for your stock holders. If your primary business is hardware, open source is a no-brainer. Ditto if you can use your open source as a loss-leader for other products.
But if you really want to be in the software business and not the support or hardware business, you'll need to come up with a whole new business model. So far, none of the large Linux businesses have earned a profit. The market knows this and their stocks are in the tank. Like it or not, you have to sell something to earn a profit. If you give away your software, you have to sell something else. Maybe 100% open source is not the best solution for you. Maybe a mix is better. Sometimes you might even come to the realization that open source just won't work for you.
Just remember, you no longer competing with Microsoft, Sun and Apple. You're also competing with weekend hobbyists and college students. And your commercial competitors get to distribute your stuff in their shrinkwrap boxes. And SuSE will include it on CD #5 without even a registration card. If you can come up with a business model that will work, you'll be everyone's hero.
You want to watch your free software turn into multiple incompatable branches of proprietary, closed-source software, use the BSD license.
The instances of that happening are extremely few. How many incompatible versions of the BSD TCP/IP stack are there?
Look, nobody forces anyone to use GPL'd code.
And nobody forces anyone to use closed source either.
If you don't think there's a difference between your right to modify and redistribute software under the GPL or BSD licenses and your rights to do so under MS's EULA, I've got a lovely bridge for you ...
Of course there's a difference. The GPL and BSD licenses grant more priviledges and the EULA imposes more conditions and restrictions. But it's still just a matter of degree. The biggest difference is that most open source licenses allow the user to pass the license on to third parties.
Under his definition, any software with a license is "proprietary", so the only non-proprietary software is public-domain software. Thus, any restrictions == proprietary software.
That's not just his definition, it's also the dictionary's! Look it up. If software is owned (copyrighted) it is proprietary.
If this is true, BeOS should be totally GPL-ed as well.
Wrong. Wishes that the entire world be GPL does not make it so. No license is binding upon third parties. Period.
Go back and reread the GPL. Then go read up a bit on copyright law. Then bone up on common law. Then on contract law.
Okay, slow down now. There he is. Up ahead. Roll down the window. Get ready. NOW!
BSD RULEZ GPL SUX WE R 3L33T D00DZ
Just because I refuse to assign myself the appelation of "oppressed" does not infer that I am a rand-bot, randroid or objectivist.
If you wish to wallow in delusion that freedom is derived from software licenses, then go right ahead. Just don't expect me to join you. 'Cause I don't need no special dispensation from St. iGNUtius before I'm free.
How do you become "a memeber of GNU"?
.gnu.org address, and was listed at www.gnu.org as a member.
I won't mention names, but this guy introduced himself as "a member of GNU", had a
The new BSD license is quite good, it is GPL compatible and has no obnoxious advertising clause. If you don't mind your code being used as part of closed software, and don't want to insist that changes to be contributed back, that's the license I'd suggest.
Actually, it is not GPL compatible. Nothing is except the LGPL. The only way to be GPL compatible is to neither add nor take away nor even change any GPL restrictions. Only licenses that allow relicensing qualify. This is according to RMS and it is a relatively new stance for him.
I disagree, in that I'll let you use my BSD code in your GPL app, no problem. But don't relicense it (change the licensing terms). As a whole, your application will be GPL, but the individual source file you borrowed from me is still under the BSD license.
Having my code being used in closed source software does not bother me, since I do not view closed source as evil or even wrong. There is no way that it can be stolen, as you and I still have the source code. The *only* thing we do not gain is the additional modifications. But that's not my code, and it concerns me not.
I don't give my friends a bushel of apples only on the condition that I get to some of the cider they derive from it. It would be nice, but I don't impose that upon them. Interesting to note that the commercial companies that use BSD code will most often give back.
In your rush to invent unalienable rights out of whole cloth, you fail to understand the essence of freedom.
I am not subjugated when I use a closed source program, such as Windows, StarOffice or Java, because I have full and unconstrained free will to use or not to use them. Subjugation, domination and oppression (Stallman's terms) presuppose a lack of choice. But I have every choice in the world to pick between Windows or Linux, VC++ or g++. I did not have to grab my musket and march off to Bunker Hill in order to use Linux. I did not have to pledge my sacred honor and fortune to use Linux. I simply went and picked it up. I had full free will in the matter. It was not an act of rebellion at all.
I would be more than willing to give up the right to free speach if it meant silencing retarded morons like you.
Ah yes, so this is how the Stallmanistas really view free speech. An impediment to their sensibilities.
Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Anonymous Coward" "Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up."
Thank you for stating the GNU position so succinctly.
Sorry, I was trying to keep my post short. I failed to mention yet another tactic in our schem^H^H^H^H^Hfight against software ownership. We don't directly castigate anyone who releases their software under a non-GNU license. Instead we publish an educational article on Free Software. Therein we list all approved Free Software licenses, but we explain each an every one of them as being substandard and inferior to our own. We use phrases like "obnoxious advertising terms" and "no protection against exploitation" and "not GPL compatible".
Then when only a few people are using those other licenses, we start picking them off one by one. As a case in point, we once declared the Artistic License to be Free (but inferior). Now, however, our tactic tells us to change our minds and declare it unfree, proprietary and enslaving.
p.s. True story: I once received an email from a member of GNU asking me to reconsider my decision to license my own software under the Artistic License. He warned me of possible exploitation, and that perhaps I wasn't aware of the benefits of using the GPL. This was pretty amazing to me as my software is pretty obscure to begin with. I obliged him and changed my license to the new BSD. I hope he's happy.
Why do you guys at GNU keep on with your tactic of Orwellian GNUspeak? We can all see through your charade. Please don't tell us what words we can use. We are not children!
Free Software does not equal only GNU and GNU is not the sum of all Free Software. Yet each and every Free Software project outside of GNU calls themselves BOTH Free Software and Open Source Software. Both the GPL and the LGPL are Open Source licenses. There is a 99.99% overlap between Free Software and Open Source Software. GNU IS OPEN SOURCE! Or did you mistype and really meant to say the "GNU Community".
RMS states that he wishes that English had a better term for "free". Well, it does! That word is "open" and it much better fits what is meant than "libre" (though it is still an imperfect adjective). There are no physical or metaphysical chains or shackles upon me when I use closed source software. To equate Free Software with liberty is ludicrous and an insult to the memory of everyone who ever died to give you the guarantee to the right of free speech.
What are your opinions on patenting and OSS (and possibly the BSD license)
The BSD license IS Open Source and Free Software!!!
Ditto for the MIT, QPL, MPL, and even the Artistic License (despite RMS's objections to the contrary, the AL meets all requirements of the OSD and his own list of free software definitions).
I make this distinction, because if I understand copyright law and your structure, then GPL'd software isn't enough. Unless all the code is copyrighted by the same person (fictional or real), then the license would be difficult to enforce.
So here's what we do: start a campaign decrying copyrights as imoral. Castigate anyone who retains ownership of source code, even if they release it under a innocuous unrestrictive license like MIT. At the same time, we have to discourage people from following up on this by their releasing stuff into the public domain. So we attack public domain as anarchistic and lacking protection for the author's rights. When everyone gets all confused over this, and can't decide whether they should relinquish ownership rights and take it public domain, or hold on the copyright in face of public disapproval, we step in with tactic number three. We offer ourselves up as arbiters of morality and demand that they transfer ownership and copyrights to us. After all, it is only we that have the moral foundations and rightness of purpose and strength of will not to abuse ownership priviledges. Software ownership is wrong, so let us own your software for you.
Yes, this means that we will be in a position of legal and political authority over you if we hold title to the software you yourselves wrote. But fear not! Our dictatorship of the hacker will wither away in time, leaving all people free.
Hardly absurd questions. The vast majority of people in the community see the "Linux vs LiGnuX vx GNU/Linux" controversy as trivial. This is the small stuff. It is a very valid question to ask why RMS spends a seemingly inordinate amount of time and bile in his insistance that we use his terminology.
You have stated several times that the restrictions and conditions in the GPL serve the purpose of ensuring freedom, to guarantee that the source code will always be available for copying, modifications and redistribution.
You have also stated on several occasions that copyrights for software are wrong, and even have a few articles and links to articles on that line at www.gnu.org. Yet, because copyrights exist, you use them "defensively" to protect software through the GPL and LGPL.
But what if copyright laws were repealed? What then? What would now protect software? What prevents people from statically linking their closed source programs to readline? What prevents people from distributing emacs itself closed source? What prevents people from distributing binary-only encrypted derivations of gcc that require monetary payments to obtain the key?
How is a future without copyrights any better for software than simply releasing software as public domain today?
"...because the MPAA paid them to...the government gives corporations vast amounts of our tax moneyDo you honestly believe that the government is more likely to have you killed than a corporation?
Well of course! What corporation could possibly hold a candle to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?
"em>how voluntary is it when my choice is "buy food from corporations or starve to death"?"
You're absolutely right! We have no choice in the country as to where we buy our food. Gee, let's have the government nationalize all food production and distribution. Yeah, it will get rid of all the private and coop grocers and decimate the five-acre farmer, but that's a small price to pay for the joy of seeing Safeway eliminated.
"When I buy a POS bag of chips from Frito-Lay, on the other hand, I'm being ripped off."
You've really gone over the deep end on this one. The fact of the matter is that you purchased those chips willingly and voluntarily. If you are dissatisfied with their quality, you never have to buy another bag of Frito-Lays ever again. There are dozens of other potato chip choices left open to you.
In your zeal against drug use (this is an analogy, in case you miss it) you advocate harsh and extreme sanctions against the junky, but completely ignore the pusher. If the armies, police and courts are being auctioned off to the highest bidder, why the hell are you excusing the auctioneer from any wrongdoing?
At whose behest did the government do this?
Who gives a rat's ass about behests! You're completely ignoring the point. The government has sold us out to the highest bidder but you still can't find anything wrong with the government?
"It's not the FBI that's collecting information about misfits in high school, it's Pinkertons. It's not the Congress that's censoring web sites, it's Cybersitter. It's not the NSA that's stepping on software development, it's corporations like the MPAA, Microsoft, ad infinitum."
Pinkertons is doing the collecting at the behest of school boards (aka government). Cybersitter is not censoring because I still have 100% access to the information. MPAA ad nauseum are only protecting what the government declares their rights to be.
The only power corporations have, if you insist upon calling it power, is that they have more money than the average dude. And where do they get this money? From taxation? Tariffs? Of course not! They get it from voluntary economic transactions.
Yes, we should care! If it's a meaningful certificate, that is. Spending millions to get a proper Unix(tm) appellation put upon Linux is not very meaningful. But getting a security certification is.
Rephrase your question thusly: "I already know how to drive, so why should I take even one hour out of my day to get a driver's license?"
If you want to drive on the B1 highway, you need a driver's license.
yes theoretically the several dozen authors for any given gpl project could release under another license.
The typical free software project has only one copyright holder. There are very few exceptions. Simply being a contributor does not make one an owner.