Actually, I think the courts have ruled that using software inherently involves copying it, e.g. from disk to memory. Therefore, without the license you can not use it at all. The GPL gives you the right to use software (without conditions attached) as well as the right to distribute it under certain conditions.
Not sure, but I don't think FSF owns the copyright on Linux. Only the copyright owner/holder can sue for violation of the terms of the copyright. Therefore, only the copyright owner can sue for distributing linux with un-free code.
Presumably, anyone who has contributed code to the kernel under the GPL would have that right.
Let's not confuse using the terms of the standard GPL license, with having FSF own the copyright. These are entirely different things.
According to the release notes:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.5R/relnotes-i3 86.html:
2.3.2 Ports/Packages Collection
Due to delays in the certification process, native JDK support for FreeBSD will be released shortly after 4.5-RELEASE. An announcement will be made on the FreeBSD Web site, as well as the FreeBSD announcements mailing list , when the distribution is available.
Software: We took data while running Linux on both computers. Although it should be possible to do this experiment with the new release of ping for Windows, because the authors were unfamiliar with Windows, Linux was chosen.
I think that the future of Free Software ultimately depends on it becoming an economically rewarding activity. Do you agree, and do you have any ideas on how that can/will come about?
a.
Perhaps slightly off point, but, as an Employee of a bank, I can tell yo that "know your customer" far from being dead, is the first line of defense against money laundering, and is very much alive.
Lots of code submitted, by anyone who wants to (sounds like a mutation)
Most promising, useful mutations selected and incorporated into the "successful" line of descent.
Guided implies with a final goal in mind, whereas this process suggests choosing the best of the set of mutations.
Evolution, using exactly this process has produced the best, most successful designs and implementations we know about, far better then individually (or heaven forbid committee) produced designs and plans.
Furthermore, selective breeding has certainly produced major changes , e.g Great Dane to Chihuahua. Certainly some sorts of changes are hard to selectively breed... They are perhaps not described as eveolutionary. However, our history of producing dogs (or kernels) with feathers, just because we want them is not inspiring. Perhaps the point here is that in Linus' view that Linux has been successfull because we haven't attempted to put feathers in the kernel. Rather we have incorporated improvements as they have been available.
I wish I knew what made Windows a success. Points 1), 2), 3) apply to many products far less successful then Windows.
Actually, perhaps this is more useful, (from the Seti Site)
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/totals.html
Total
Users 3383619 1872
Results received 399604453
Total CPU time 799230.603 years
Floating Point
Operations 1.142642e+21 (29.64 TeraFLOPs/sec)
Average CPU time
per work unit 17 hr 31 min 13.7 sec
I find this quite astonishing. I have read this point of view here on Slashdot and elsewhere, and I just can't see where it comes from.
Reading RMS's words, it is clear he has an ideology that he follows, and promotes. It is based on freedom and promoting freedom. He explains, frequently, how that concept of freedom pertains to software. It is a different concept of freedom than many others have, surely. However, I never see him trying to control, forbid, require, insist that others do things his way. Stating an opinion of how you would like to see things work is not the same as asserting authority to control them.
What about the viral nature of GPL? Authors of software have no more and no less control over their output/product then any other author owning a copyright. GPL'd software permits a broader range of rights to a user then most commercial licenses, but it does forbid certain uses of that software which are permitted under other licencing schemes. Why is that a problem for anyone?
The main issue to estimating software projects is that the corporate sociology drives the estimates to be unreasonably low.
The descision makers rarely understand the complications of the development process, and naturally choose the "equally credible" proposal that promises more for less. Teams and individuals that estimate accurately rarely/never are selected.
Linux, or Unix derived operating systems are technically superior,
higher, (or equally) skilled progammers are writing the code
then perhaps what the Free Software world is missing is the other contributors to Software production. Free documentors, Free Marketers (!), etc.
There seems to be sufficient motivation for developers to contribute time to free software production, but not much for other participants in the software production process.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the courts have ruled that using software inherently involves copying it, e.g. from disk to memory. Therefore, without the license you can not use it at all. The GPL gives you the right to use software (without conditions attached) as well as the right to distribute it under certain conditions.
One main point of putting code under the GPL is to ensure that source is available. If you want no restrictions there is always the public domain.
Making a copy of a copyrighted program for your sister is a violation of copyright laws, like
giving a copy Microsoft Word to someone.
With GPL'd programs you are allowed to make the copy if you fulfill certain obligations, including making the source available.
Not sure, but I don't think FSF owns the copyright on Linux. Only the copyright owner/holder can sue for violation of the terms of the copyright. Therefore, only the copyright owner can sue for distributing linux with un-free code.
Presumably, anyone who has contributed code to the kernel under the GPL would have that right.
Let's not confuse using the terms of the standard GPL license, with having FSF own the copyright. These are entirely different things.
According to the release notes:3 86 .html:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.5R/relnotes-i
2.3.2 Ports/Packages Collection
Due to delays in the certification process, native JDK support for FreeBSD will be released shortly after 4.5-RELEASE. An announcement will be made on the FreeBSD Web site, as well as the FreeBSD announcements mailing list , when the distribution is available.
I think that the future of Free Software ultimately depends on it becoming an economically rewarding activity. Do you agree, and do you have any ideas on how that can/will come about?
a.
Perhaps slightly off point, but, as an Employee of a bank, I can tell yo that "know your customer" far from being dead, is the first line of defense against money laundering, and is very much alive.
Lots of code submitted, by anyone who wants to (sounds like a mutation)
Most promising, useful mutations selected and incorporated into the "successful" line of descent.
Guided implies with a final goal in mind, whereas this process suggests choosing the best of the set of mutations.
Evolution, using exactly this process has produced the best, most successful designs and implementations we know about, far better then individually (or heaven forbid committee) produced designs and plans.
Furthermore, selective breeding has certainly produced major changes , e.g Great Dane to Chihuahua. Certainly some sorts of changes are hard to selectively breed... They are perhaps not described as eveolutionary. However, our history of producing dogs (or kernels) with feathers, just because we want them is not inspiring. Perhaps the point here is that in Linus' view that Linux has been successfull because we haven't attempted to put feathers in the kernel. Rather we have incorporated improvements as they have been available.
I wish I knew what made Windows a success. Points 1), 2), 3) apply to many products far less successful then Windows.
a.
Actually, perhaps this is more useful, (from the Seti Site)
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/totals.html
Total
Users 3383619 1872
Results received 399604453
Total CPU time 799230.603 years
Floating Point
Operations 1.142642e+21 (29.64 TeraFLOPs/sec)
Average CPU time
per work unit 17 hr 31 min 13.7 sec
332,321,524 results (on average, 98.27 results per user)
Chunks of data are perhaps 0.5 MB
I find this quite astonishing. I have read this point of view here on Slashdot and elsewhere, and I just can't see where it comes from.
Reading RMS's words, it is clear he has an ideology that he follows, and promotes. It is based on freedom and promoting freedom. He explains, frequently, how that concept of freedom pertains to software. It is a different concept of freedom than many others have, surely. However, I never see him trying to control, forbid, require, insist that others do things his way. Stating an opinion of how you would like to see things work is not the same as asserting authority to control them.
What about the viral nature of GPL? Authors of software have no more and no less control over their output/product then any other author owning a copyright. GPL'd software permits a broader range of rights to a user then most commercial licenses, but it does forbid certain uses of that software which are permitted under other licencing schemes. Why is that a problem for anyone?
a.
The main issue to estimating software projects is that the corporate sociology drives the estimates to be unreasonably low.
The descision makers rarely understand the complications of the development process, and naturally choose the "equally credible" proposal that promises more for less. Teams and individuals that estimate accurately rarely/never are selected.
a.
then perhaps what the Free Software world is missing is the other contributors to Software production. Free documentors, Free Marketers (!), etc.
There seems to be sufficient motivation for developers to contribute time to free software production, but not much for other participants in the software production process.