I would prefer the peanut butter and chocolate bar fights. At least when you are done, you have something that resembles a Reese's. (which tastes significantly better than a rhesus.)
I like Nano, which is the GNU Pico clone, and doesn't require PINE. Although I like pine (in spite of GPL incompatible status) I am getting used to mutt. I still "ln -s../nano../pico" because I am used to calling PINE instead of NANO.. some habits die hard. But all and all, Nano seems exactly like Pico in every respect, and conforms to truly "Free".
The whole karma game is rather funny here anyway. Wierd how a post gets hammered up or down at posting, then an hour later, gets modded in the exact opposite direction./me thinketh it may be the editors who hammer them at first. If it is, fine, its their site, but a bit more honesty would be nice.
To find that lame source code link, I had to google it and look at the last page. I wouldn't download the actual windows source, but wanted to see if a link for the real source had been spidered yet. I figure if it is on google, MS will be all over them like white on rice. Then again, if someone DID publicly post 640MB of source and it got listed on Google, their server would be to its knees about 3 minutes after it showed up.
That is actually a good point. I would not be shocked if MS DID steal some gpl stuff. The question is, does FSF have the stomach (or $$$) to sue? I mean, either they release all linked sources code (this doesn't count) or recall all versions with the offending code, according the gpl, right?
Actually did post one that I found humorous. Looks like it was modded down by someone who didn't bother actually following the link, lol. In less than 5 seconds, literally (that you Taco?) Thats ok, I got karma to burn;)
On another source code front, I found the Windows Source Code here although I don't think the guy hosting the site is gonna like getting his server hosed by slashdotters....
Then if History repeats itself, in 10-20 years we will be cheering on Microsoft as they lawyer-whip some company trying to screw the open source community? I don't have enough drugs to make THAT sound reasonable.
Unless MS is trying to pull an SCO, I can't imagine a worst scenario.
I posted something to this effect the other day. I am just wondering if MS is poisoning the waters for a potential post 2.6 lawsuit, claiming it used MS code just to slow adoption, while it releases its own BSD. They have talked about a console based server, they used to own a chunk of SCO stock, they did Xenix, have lots of BSD experience, and still use some BSD code. (ftp.exe for example). I also wonder if the money they recently paid SCO wasn't to help SCO as much as it was to get an unlimited Unix license, to prevent getting sued for any potential infringement. And they probably got it cheap, considering SCO needed the $$ badly. Having SCO then slow down Linux might have been just a bonus.
If Apple can port NeXT (BSD) to Mac in a couple years, MS can certainly do the same in much less time, considering they are many times larger. Then they can look at GPL code for inspiration (read: not exact copy), but tweak it just enough to make it incompatible except to run some GPL stuff they don't want to have to support, like Mozilla. They have already said they will not be upgrading IE soon, just patches.
Why do you imply that a corporate user would care if there's a requirement that the distro be 100% GPL? The GPL doesn't affect end-users.
Yes and no. The actual sales rep. sitting behind the desk, no. But to the IT guy that has to listen to him and keep it running, it matters.
From the corporate point of view, I would like a totally GPL based operating system (so I know I can pay, for get support) and a mix of applications. We don't mind proprietary apps if they are good, come with support, etc. If they are GPL, thats fine, too. Its more about support and value, and sometimes Free costs more. To me, it's not about religion, its about the best tool for the job.
The more important security is for an application, the better Free looks.
Sadly, the other AC is correct. You do find some very opening minded people here, but you also find some zealots of every flavor, including Pro Windows (thats my bit to not get modded down;). But there are all kinds here, mainly good.
While a bit brash, I agree with your main point, that the problem exists. Desktop Linux as a whole is sorely lacking in smoothness. Its not a lack of built in stuff, there is more than enough for a basic office or home system. There IS a lack of production applications, of the proprietary flavor, for Linux. At least from a small enterprise point of view. But the lack of smoothness on the Desktop, in general, is what is holding Linux back in the enterprise. This and total support for OS and apps, but maybe IBM will fill that void since RH seems to be dropping out of the low to mid end.
Fortunately, Windows XP took away the faster GUI in 2K when they added all the useless, ugly eye candy in XP. Of course 2K was kinda clunky in some ways, but pretty smooth. Linux could be smoother, but it appears the programming necessary isn't very sexy, hense the credit grab. I don't care to have MS go out of business, but we would all have better choices if Linux had, say, 20-30% of the desktop market because of the obvious competitive pressures.
As to forking the code, I have no idea the impact. I'm not smart enough to just know that, I'm not a programmer, I'm a heavy user. I'm dying to move to totally GPL OS with mixed applications, if this moves that possibility along, then I would consider the fork a good thing. For now, I use it where I can, and wait.
If you read their EULA at www.skype.com/eula.html , this ain't exactly open source and the code is not available. I would need more evidence before I assumed their was no spywear or the capability for future unreasonable access (steam, anyone?), FAQ or no FAQ.
While I agree with your logic, my only question is: What is in it for the proprietary software companies? Why would they produce hashes that protect open source projects, when open source projects could put them out of business?
I would not be expecting them to cooperate with this. This sets up Microsoft to sue, just like SCO, for any kernel after 2.6. The difference is they have the money to sway the opinions of average persons who are not nerds. And they outnumber us 10-1. They may not looking for a knockout punch, they may be looking for a long, dirty slog.
What if they were trying to do this:
Instigate a problem with SCO and Linux, offer a large chunk of change to license some unlimited unix rights, but all they wanted was the unlimited rights, so they couldn't ever be sued. What if they are working on a BSD project that is closed source at the OS level, but runs all the free stuff they won't have to support. They put a XP like desktop on it using their own proprietary APIs, and make updates about as easy as their current windowsupdate program. And you can update in a console as well. What if.
Now, I'm not ready for a tinfoil hat, but I can't help but to wonder. They have more experience with SCO Unix than anyone other than SCO (Xenix anyone?). They have used BSD code before, and still do (ftp.exe). They are the largest software company in the world, extremely profitable and have access to resources we can only dream of. And they are still hungry.
This is why I have my doubts about companies providing hashes to help open source authors.
Why not come up with your own "5 reasons to choose Linux over Unix and Microsoft" ad campaign. Hell, go for 10.
1. Linux is not owned by one individual or company. While the actual kernel is copywrited by Linus Torvald, who also owns the name "Linux", the code is under the GPL, so no one could ever take it away. Even if Linus quit tomorrow, Linux would live on. The vast majority of programs in a typical Linux distribution are owned by different persons, and also under the GPL.
2. Linux is not proprietary. This means you can take code from any flavor of BSD, any flavor of Linux, and any other code you own, is public domain, or you have a license for, and combine it into a custom operating system unlike any other available. The only caveat is you must share source code changes to GPL software if you distribute the binaries.
3. Linux is backed by an entire community rather than an individual company. This means software you develop today grow and still be serving you 20 years from now, because Linux will never be "unavailable". This also allows you better support, either for free from the community, or from a number of vendors for a fee, or your own modifications. The loss of any one company or individual will never cause Linux to "go out of business".
4. Linux is based upon open standards. This means that software designed to run on other open standard systems will likely run on Linux with a minimum of modification. It means that all your software can work together because there is no central authority attempting to "corner the market" by keeping other software from running on the system. Development is much faster in an open enviroment where all APIs are known.
5. Linux is Legally Unencumbered. This was settled in the recent lawsuits, Novell vs. SCO, where it was demonstrated that Linux is Free of any Unix code or intellectual property and the owner of the Unix Copyrights, Novell, Inc., has demonstrated no interest in persuing any IP claims. In the SCO vs. IBM case, it was demonstrated that original programs designed on a Unix system are not considered derivative works, and the GPL is a constitutionally valid license that protects the rights of the Copyright holders.
-- Ok, maybe 5 is a bit premature, but I wrote it that way in case someone reads this in a couple of weeks;)
If that was the case, they could have just made a hostile bid for the stock back when it was a buck or two per share. Besides, they used to own a big chuck of sco and sold it.
Actually, I think it would be funny to see the open source community release a security patch for win2k before Windows does, proving that open source is more secure since it can be patched faster with more eyes looking at it.
Of course, MS would flip out, call it an exploit, and have the next patch uninstall it, since any patch for MS products that do not come from MS "can't be trusted". Another reason I like Linux more and more every day, not having to rely on a single company for patches.
probably the same person that modded yours informative. You are incorrect regarding fluorescents. I can't speak to diodes, but I have known them to be quite hot (such as in a rectifier) so I have doubts about that as well.
Fluorescents DO get hot, as do the ballasts (see post below). I just got done in the lab measuring different ballast systems that use high frequency to energize high output fluorescent lamps. Current generation systems are twice as efficient as older systems by using HF but they still are hot as hell. The ambient temperature of a 100 watt fluorescent lamp, powered by only 65 watts of power (typical cpu power) at high frequency has an ambient temperature of over 100F at 6cm away. The surface temperature is over 212F (100C).
So yes, fluorescents DO get hot. They just produce alot more light per BTU of waste heat, but still hot.
Another problem: fluorescents are plasma devices, similar to neon signs. This means they operate in a semi vacuum (1% of atmosphere), with the electrical fields generated causing an outer electron of the mercury atom to fly off toward the positive end of the lamp, and strike the phosphor coating of the lamp. This reduces the energy in the electron, which then is captured by any mercury atom with an electron missing, thus with a positive charge. This is not a practical solution inside a integrated circuit. This isn't even including the other problems I mentioned in the other post, such as ballasting.
Perhaps your lights aren't cool, but you're probably using a highly wasteful incandescent bulb. Fluorescent bulbs run at lower wattages, and produce significantly less heat.
They also require ballasting that operates at anywhere from 60hz (very old type ballasts) to 25k hertz (semi modern) to 100k hertz (modern) which might cause some problems with chips. So I rather doubt they will use fluorescent lamp technology for chip;) I would assume they would diode, but virtually any light produces waste heat, or the mechanism to produce the light does anyway.
It's a form letter. According to the Groklaw-ites, several people who wrote to complain got the identical letter.
I don't doubt that, ironic that they would assume Slashdot for every letter and send the reference to everyone. And be defensive to everyone.
As a side note, I tend to NOT make slashdot the http_referrer when I know I'm going to write someone, so I don't think they grepped it from the logs;) Its kinda like taking the porno tape out of the VCR BEFORE you take it to the shop...
IANAL, but that would seem to violate any reading of the GPL I can imagine.
Totally correct. The GPL is misquoted on Slashdot all the time, usually by well meaning but uninformed people.
Everyone who hasn't done it yet, please go to GNU's License Page and just bookmark it now. Read it later, fine, but go and read it. The GPL is actually interesting reading (for a legal document, that is). But the GPL is not a license to do what you want. It is actually quite restrictive. For the rest of you, this is my impressions of the licenses, which will no doubt be picked to pieces by people who claim to be more of an expert. Your milage may vary.
PD=Public Domain, Do anything you want, call it your own, sell it, change it, secret it away, whatever. There are NO copyrights on the code. PDing code means giving up all ownership.
BSD =2 kinds, basically do almost anything you want, but give proper credit. Code is copyrighted but distribution is not restricted.
GPL= Do what you want, but you MUST share the code if you distribute the binaries. If you don't distribute the binaries, you can die with all your secret code and its legal. If you accidently distribute binaries, but don't want to distrubute source, you have to recall all the binaries. Code is copyrighted, and much is donated to the FSF, consolidating enforcement.
If you write code, you can release it under two or more different licenses (but not PD and any other). Mysql does this, releases main code GPL and also issues private licenses so companies willing to pay can modify it without releasing their changes if they distribute it. This is a legitimate way an open source company can make money and we all benefit from the Free code.
You can never "unGPL" code. If version 1.0 was ever GPL, it will always be GPL. If you want to make 1.1 proprietary, you can, but I can take 1.0 and fork the code into a new project and you can never take that away once it is granted. If I make changes to GPL code and rerelease it, it has to be released as GPL licensed.
You can not restrict anyone's use of GPL programs. If I want to use it to run a nuclear plant, guide chemical filled missles, run a day care center, or run the seti@home client, no one, including the copyright holder, can limit me. This would include for profit and non profit uses.
If I use GPL code to make my program, I can never take away your right to have the source if I give/sell you the binaries. If you want to take my 1.1 code, and fork it and call it something else and release it as version 2.0, or 1.0, I can't stop you.
If I make a GPL program or derivitive, and the only person I ever distributed it to is Taco, then I am only obligated to distribute the source code or make it available to Taco. I don't have to put the source on the CD, I just have to make the source reasonably accessible to anyone I distribute the binaries to. (email, ftp site, web site, buy the cd for $5 media charge).
If I want to sell your GPL software as a package with or without support, I may. I may charge any fee I wish without paying any royalies. If I sell Taco a copy of "GNU/FooTastiC 2.0" for $1 million dollars, he can give it away to anyone for free, including the source, and I can't restrict his ability to do so. Nor can the copyright holder.
The GPL (and LGPL for libraries) are good licenses for most projects. It protects individual users more than the author/copyright holder in many ways, but guarantees that the author can not take away your right to use the software for any reason. I also think there is a place for proprietary software, including proprietary applicationss on top of a GPL operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
I would prefer the peanut butter and chocolate bar fights. At least when you are done, you have something that resembles a Reese's. (which tastes significantly better than a rhesus.)
$ ls -l `which ed` /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 44380 Jun 17 2003
on Fedora.
Ironic how they would all be such radically differences sizes.
I like Pico.
../nano ../pico" because I am used to calling PINE instead of NANO.. some habits die hard. But all and all, Nano seems exactly like Pico in every respect, and conforms to truly "Free".
I like Nano, which is the GNU Pico clone, and doesn't require PINE. Although I like pine (in spite of GPL incompatible status) I am getting used to mutt. I still "ln -s
veeery funny :p
/me thinketh it may be the editors who hammer them at first. If it is, fine, its their site, but a bit more honesty would be nice.
The whole karma game is rather funny here anyway. Wierd how a post gets hammered up or down at posting, then an hour later, gets modded in the exact opposite direction.
To find that lame source code link, I had to google it and look at the last page. I wouldn't download the actual windows source, but wanted to see if a link for the real source had been spidered yet. I figure if it is on google, MS will be all over them like white on rice. Then again, if someone DID publicly post 640MB of source and it got listed on Google, their server would be to its knees about 3 minutes after it showed up.
That is actually a good point. I would not be shocked if MS DID steal some gpl stuff. The question is, does FSF have the stomach (or $$$) to sue? I mean, either they release all linked sources code (this doesn't count) or recall all versions with the offending code, according the gpl, right?
Actually did post one that I found humorous. Looks like it was modded down by someone who didn't bother actually following the link, lol. In less than 5 seconds, literally (that you Taco?) Thats ok, I got karma to burn ;)
On another source code front, I found the Windows Source Code here although I don't think the guy hosting the site is gonna like getting his server hosed by slashdotters....
(yea, a repeat from the OTHER SCO story...)
And I wasted all my karma whoring, funny, anti-SCO lines on the OTHER SCO story today!
Then if History repeats itself, in 10-20 years we will be cheering on Microsoft as they lawyer-whip some company trying to screw the open source community? I don't have enough drugs to make THAT sound reasonable.
You can download the Windows source code here but it appears to be nothing close to a CD's worth of code..... ;)
Unless MS is trying to pull an SCO, I can't imagine a worst scenario.
I posted something to this effect the other day. I am just wondering if MS is poisoning the waters for a potential post 2.6 lawsuit, claiming it used MS code just to slow adoption, while it releases its own BSD. They have talked about a console based server, they used to own a chunk of SCO stock, they did Xenix, have lots of BSD experience, and still use some BSD code. (ftp.exe for example). I also wonder if the money they recently paid SCO wasn't to help SCO as much as it was to get an unlimited Unix license, to prevent getting sued for any potential infringement. And they probably got it cheap, considering SCO needed the $$ badly. Having SCO then slow down Linux might have been just a bonus.
If Apple can port NeXT (BSD) to Mac in a couple years, MS can certainly do the same in much less time, considering they are many times larger. Then they can look at GPL code for inspiration (read: not exact copy), but tweak it just enough to make it incompatible except to run some GPL stuff they don't want to have to support, like Mozilla. They have already said they will not be upgrading IE soon, just patches.
Why do you imply that a corporate user would care if there's a requirement that the distro be 100% GPL? The GPL doesn't affect end-users.
Yes and no. The actual sales rep. sitting behind the desk, no. But to the IT guy that has to listen to him and keep it running, it matters.
From the corporate point of view, I would like a totally GPL based operating system (so I know I can pay, for get support) and a mix of applications. We don't mind proprietary apps if they are good, come with support, etc. If they are GPL, thats fine, too. Its more about support and value, and sometimes Free costs more. To me, it's not about religion, its about the best tool for the job.
The more important security is for an application, the better Free looks.
Sadly, the other AC is correct. You do find some very opening minded people here, but you also find some zealots of every flavor, including Pro Windows (thats my bit to not get modded down;). But there are all kinds here, mainly good.
While a bit brash, I agree with your main point, that the problem exists. Desktop Linux as a whole is sorely lacking in smoothness. Its not a lack of built in stuff, there is more than enough for a basic office or home system. There IS a lack of production applications, of the proprietary flavor, for Linux. At least from a small enterprise point of view. But the lack of smoothness on the Desktop, in general, is what is holding Linux back in the enterprise. This and total support for OS and apps, but maybe IBM will fill that void since RH seems to be dropping out of the low to mid end.
Fortunately, Windows XP took away the faster GUI in 2K when they added all the useless, ugly eye candy in XP. Of course 2K was kinda clunky in some ways, but pretty smooth. Linux could be smoother, but it appears the programming necessary isn't very sexy, hense the credit grab. I don't care to have MS go out of business, but we would all have better choices if Linux had, say, 20-30% of the desktop market because of the obvious competitive pressures.
As to forking the code, I have no idea the impact. I'm not smart enough to just know that, I'm not a programmer, I'm a heavy user. I'm dying to move to totally GPL OS with mixed applications, if this moves that possibility along, then I would consider the fork a good thing. For now, I use it where I can, and wait.
If you read their EULA at www.skype.com/eula.html , this ain't exactly open source and the code is not available. I would need more evidence before I assumed their was no spywear or the capability for future unreasonable access (steam, anyone?), FAQ or no FAQ.
While I agree with your logic, my only question is: What is in it for the proprietary software companies? Why would they produce hashes that protect open source projects, when open source projects could put them out of business?
I would not be expecting them to cooperate with this. This sets up Microsoft to sue, just like SCO, for any kernel after 2.6. The difference is they have the money to sway the opinions of average persons who are not nerds. And they outnumber us 10-1. They may not looking for a knockout punch, they may be looking for a long, dirty slog.
What if they were trying to do this:
Instigate a problem with SCO and Linux, offer a large chunk of change to license some unlimited unix rights, but all they wanted was the unlimited rights, so they couldn't ever be sued. What if they are working on a BSD project that is closed source at the OS level, but runs all the free stuff they won't have to support. They put a XP like desktop on it using their own proprietary APIs, and make updates about as easy as their current windowsupdate program. And you can update in a console as well. What if.
Now, I'm not ready for a tinfoil hat, but I can't help but to wonder. They have more experience with SCO Unix than anyone other than SCO (Xenix anyone?). They have used BSD code before, and still do (ftp.exe). They are the largest software company in the world, extremely profitable and have access to resources we can only dream of. And they are still hungry.
This is why I have my doubts about companies providing hashes to help open source authors.
featherlinux is this, and can fit onto a 64mb usb memory stick.
Why not come up with your own "5 reasons to choose Linux over Unix and Microsoft" ad campaign. Hell, go for 10.
;)
1. Linux is not owned by one individual or company. While the actual kernel is copywrited by Linus Torvald, who also owns the name "Linux", the code is under the GPL, so no one could ever take it away. Even if Linus quit tomorrow, Linux would live on. The vast majority of programs in a typical Linux distribution are owned by different persons, and also under the GPL.
2. Linux is not proprietary. This means you can take code from any flavor of BSD, any flavor of Linux, and any other code you own, is public domain, or you have a license for, and combine it into a custom operating system unlike any other available. The only caveat is you must share source code changes to GPL software if you distribute the binaries.
3. Linux is backed by an entire community rather than an individual company. This means software you develop today grow and still be serving you 20 years from now, because Linux will never be "unavailable". This also allows you better support, either for free from the community, or from a number of vendors for a fee, or your own modifications. The loss of any one company or individual will never cause Linux to "go out of business".
4. Linux is based upon open standards. This means that software designed to run on other open standard systems will likely run on Linux with a minimum of modification. It means that all your software can work together because there is no central authority attempting to "corner the market" by keeping other software from running on the system. Development is much faster in an open enviroment where all APIs are known.
5. Linux is Legally Unencumbered. This was settled in the recent lawsuits, Novell vs. SCO, where it was demonstrated that Linux is Free of any Unix code or intellectual property and the owner of the Unix Copyrights, Novell, Inc., has demonstrated no interest in persuing any IP claims. In the SCO vs. IBM case, it was demonstrated that original programs designed on a Unix system are not considered derivative works, and the GPL is a constitutionally valid license that protects the rights of the Copyright holders.
--
Ok, maybe 5 is a bit premature, but I wrote it that way in case someone reads this in a couple of weeks
If that was the case, they could have just made a hostile bid for the stock back when it was a buck or two per share. Besides, they used to own a big chuck of sco and sold it.
Actually, I think it would be funny to see the open source community release a security patch for win2k before Windows does, proving that open source is more secure since it can be patched faster with more eyes looking at it.
Of course, MS would flip out, call it an exploit, and have the next patch uninstall it, since any patch for MS products that do not come from MS "can't be trusted". Another reason I like Linux more and more every day, not having to rely on a single company for patches.
probably the same person that modded yours informative. You are incorrect regarding fluorescents. I can't speak to diodes, but I have known them to be quite hot (such as in a rectifier) so I have doubts about that as well.
Fluorescents DO get hot, as do the ballasts (see post below). I just got done in the lab measuring different ballast systems that use high frequency to energize high output fluorescent lamps. Current generation systems are twice as efficient as older systems by using HF but they still are hot as hell. The ambient temperature of a 100 watt fluorescent lamp, powered by only 65 watts of power (typical cpu power) at high frequency has an ambient temperature of over 100F at 6cm away. The surface temperature is over 212F (100C).
So yes, fluorescents DO get hot. They just produce alot more light per BTU of waste heat, but still hot.
Another problem: fluorescents are plasma devices, similar to neon signs. This means they operate in a semi vacuum (1% of atmosphere), with the electrical fields generated causing an outer electron of the mercury atom to fly off toward the positive end of the lamp, and strike the phosphor coating of the lamp. This reduces the energy in the electron, which then is captured by any mercury atom with an electron missing, thus with a positive charge. This is not a practical solution inside a integrated circuit. This isn't even including the other problems I mentioned in the other post, such as ballasting.
but would 12 states be a twit? ;)
Perhaps your lights aren't cool, but you're probably using a highly wasteful incandescent bulb. Fluorescent bulbs run at lower wattages, and produce significantly less heat.
;) I would assume they would diode, but virtually any light produces waste heat, or the mechanism to produce the light does anyway.
They also require ballasting that operates at anywhere from 60hz (very old type ballasts) to 25k hertz (semi modern) to 100k hertz (modern) which might cause some problems with chips. So I rather doubt they will use fluorescent lamp technology for chip
It's a form letter. According to the Groklaw-ites, several people who wrote to complain got the identical letter.
;) Its kinda like taking the porno tape out of the VCR BEFORE you take it to the shop...
I don't doubt that, ironic that they would assume Slashdot for every letter and send the reference to everyone. And be defensive to everyone.
As a side note, I tend to NOT make slashdot the http_referrer when I know I'm going to write someone, so I don't think they grepped it from the logs
SCO have no comment
Who writes this stuff? Yoda?
No, that would be:
SCO, comment have they not.
IANAL, but that would seem to violate any reading of the GPL I can imagine.
;)
Totally correct. The GPL is misquoted on Slashdot all the time, usually by well meaning but uninformed people.
Everyone who hasn't done it yet, please go to GNU's License Page and just bookmark it now. Read it later, fine, but go and read it. The GPL is actually interesting reading (for a legal document, that is). But the GPL is not a license to do what you want. It is actually quite restrictive. For the rest of you, this is my impressions of the licenses, which will no doubt be picked to pieces by people who claim to be more of an expert. Your milage may vary.
PD=Public Domain, Do anything you want, call it your own, sell it, change it, secret it away, whatever. There are NO copyrights on the code. PDing code means giving up all ownership.
BSD =2 kinds, basically do almost anything you want, but give proper credit. Code is copyrighted but distribution is not restricted.
GPL= Do what you want, but you MUST share the code if you distribute the binaries. If you don't distribute the binaries, you can die with all your secret code and its legal. If you accidently distribute binaries, but don't want to distrubute source, you have to recall all the binaries. Code is copyrighted, and much is donated to the FSF, consolidating enforcement.
If you write code, you can release it under two or more different licenses (but not PD and any other). Mysql does this, releases main code GPL and also issues private licenses so companies willing to pay can modify it without releasing their changes if they distribute it. This is a legitimate way an open source company can make money and we all benefit from the Free code.
You can never "unGPL" code. If version 1.0 was ever GPL, it will always be GPL. If you want to make 1.1 proprietary, you can, but I can take 1.0 and fork the code into a new project and you can never take that away once it is granted. If I make changes to GPL code and rerelease it, it has to be released as GPL licensed.
You can not restrict anyone's use of GPL programs. If I want to use it to run a nuclear plant, guide chemical filled missles, run a day care center, or run the seti@home client, no one, including the copyright holder, can limit me. This would include for profit and non profit uses.
If I use GPL code to make my program, I can never take away your right to have the source if I give/sell you the binaries. If you want to take my 1.1 code, and fork it and call it something else and release it as version 2.0, or 1.0, I can't stop you.
If I make a GPL program or derivitive, and the only person I ever distributed it to is Taco, then I am only obligated to distribute the source code or make it available to Taco. I don't have to put the source on the CD, I just have to make the source reasonably accessible to anyone I distribute the binaries to. (email, ftp site, web site, buy the cd for $5 media charge).
If I want to sell your GPL software as a package with or without support, I may. I may charge any fee I wish without paying any royalies. If I sell Taco a copy of "GNU/FooTastiC 2.0" for $1 million dollars, he can give it away to anyone for free, including the source, and I can't restrict his ability to do so. Nor can the copyright holder.
The GPL (and LGPL for libraries) are good licenses for most projects. It protects individual users more than the author/copyright holder in many ways, but guarantees that the author can not take away your right to use the software for any reason. I also think there is a place for proprietary software, including proprietary applicationss on top of a GPL operating system.
This concludes our GPL primer