What's great (from the politicans point of view) is that the "War on Terror" has no realistically defined goals that could be achieved. Since there are no goals, there is no basis to end the war. So the individuals in power can continue to use the war as long as needed.
Should public opinon finally turn against it, they can just declare victory and go home. Nixon essentially did this in Vietnam where "peace with honor" finally meant turning tail and running as soldiers from the North invaded Saigon.
"Any code written under an open-source license is to remain free forever, at least theoretically."
This is just open/free source propaganda. Any code that is placed in the public domain or under a BSD-style license will "remain free forever" without a GPL style license. In other words, no corporation can make it illegal for you to use it or extend it.
A license like the GPL makes it impossible to "lock up" derivative works that are distributed, but that has nothing to do with the "freedom" of the original code.
I didn't say that the executive branch was the only branch that violates the constitution. This is one of several examples where the Supreme Court did the same.
Some of the Court's most flawed decisions have come during the heat of war when they were too timid to challange the executive branch. We're seeing some of that same timidity today due to the so-called "War on Terror".
"Another thing is that the military can subcontract boeing to write code based on the GPL exclusively for themselves, and since the milittary is not distributing (merely using these changes), they are not bound by the GPL to redistribute their source changes."
But the changes the contractor made would have to be made public under the GPL because they distributed it to the military. If the military decided that they didn't want the changes to be revealed, you're back to the same conflict.
"First, there's no requirement to release your modifications to GPL code unless you're charging a fee for binaries of the modified code. If you keep it in-house, it's yours."
I'm not sure if charging a fee has anything to do with it, but I think if this very broad distribution of binary code (embedded systems aren't going to lug around source code) qualifies as "in house" than anything can.
"Stop drinking the goddamn "we are living in a dictatorship" Koolaid and LEARN SOMETHING about how things work (e.g. the US Constitution, the GPL) before you embarrass yourself again."
The US Constitution has been violated by the US government on numerous occasions. I don't think they'd be shaking in their boots over the power of the GPL.
If someone working on a classified project were to provide code to the FSF that proved the goverment was violating the GPL, that person could go to jail for a very long time.
If Linux is modified as part of this program, don't expect any changes to be contributed back to the community. The military can pretty much get away with anything under the guise of national security.
Yes, it could be true for any license, but that's not the point.
If MS was considering a significant change in its licensing then it would also consider how its customers would react to the change (assuming they're competent business people).
Likewise, those who have something to gain or lose from GPL'd software should also consider the impact a change would have on their users and the free software movement in general.
It's popular among free/open source advocates to claim that EULAs are not legal, even though companies have paid a lot of money to avoid prosecution for violating them.
It will be interesting to see if the FSF would be willing to effectively drop this rather unrealistic view of EULAs in order to achieve a practical goal. You'd think RMS would always chose religion over pragmatism, but you never know.
It is every bit as justified to claim that the word "free" in the phrase "free beer" means "free as in speech" as it is in the phrase "free software". That is, not very justified.
The only reason why there's any confusion is because in English the word free when used as an adjective to describe a concrete noun, almost always means "no cost".
On the other hand, in the phrase "free speech", "speech" is an abstract noun. It is in this kind of usage that the word takes on the meaning that the GPL is talking about.
The bottom line is that if your going to use language in an unconventional way, you're going to be misunderstood.
In the US at least, corporations already enjoy most of the rights and privileges that private citizens do and a few that private citizens don't. For example, they can legally loan money at a higher rate then a private citizen can.
I think the bulk of the "gluttony, selfishness, and sloth" in the free/open source world is coming from the free/open source gurus and those companies that redistribute the free/open source software or use it to sell hardware.
The real contributors these days don't make speeches, don't stuff boxes with other people's work, or sell hardware. They program.
The question is, how much longer will they be willing to?
Your comment sounds like the Bush adminstration's complaint about critizing the private accounts before the law is written.
My response is the same for both: Write it down on paper and commit to it before you start lobbying for it. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about when people comment on your half-baked ideas.
"However, how does that benefit the open-source community or the author of the GPL software you are using."
It's funny how these discussions go. If last week I had stated that the current GPL doesn't benefit authors or the open source community because people can use it without giving anything back, I would have been modded down.
Now that RMS suggests it, suddenly it all makes sense.
It doesn't seem to me that it would be technically difficult or too expensive for the likes of Google and Amazon to switch to a proprietary solution if GPL'd software loses its economic advantage (assuming there actually is one).
For those that haven't yet put their toe in the "free software" pool, the water is beginning to look a lot deeper.
But it sounds like RMS is finally going to clear up the ambiguity he created when he coined the term "free software" to describe GPL'd code.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you always go to the dictionary when you hear a joke?
Yes, I do.
What's great (from the politicans point of view) is that the "War on Terror" has no realistically defined goals that could be achieved. Since there are no goals, there is no basis to end the war. So the individuals in power can continue to use the war as long as needed.
Should public opinon finally turn against it, they can just declare victory and go home. Nixon essentially did this in Vietnam where "peace with honor" finally meant turning tail and running as soldiers from the North invaded Saigon.
"When Linux (speaking of the kernel) became the flagship opensource project the GPL became the pinnacle."
So you're saying that Linux was the first galaxy-class open source project, being the flagship and all.
By the way, does Linux use isolinear circuitry or the newer bio-neural gel packs?
"Any code written under an open-source license is to remain free forever, at least theoretically."
This is just open/free source propaganda. Any code that is placed in the public domain or under a BSD-style license will "remain free forever" without a GPL style license. In other words, no corporation can make it illegal for you to use it or extend it.
A license like the GPL makes it impossible to "lock up" derivative works that are distributed, but that has nothing to do with the "freedom" of the original code.
I didn't say that the executive branch was the only branch that violates the constitution. This is one of several examples where the Supreme Court did the same.
Some of the Court's most flawed decisions have come during the heat of war when they were too timid to challange the executive branch. We're seeing some of that same timidity today due to the so-called "War on Terror".
1. Rockets
2. Fuel
3. Willing Astronaut
The US government violated the constitution long before the ACLU and Slashdot existed.
Look at the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. Are you seriously saying that wasn't a violation of the constitution?
RMFP. I said "If".
"Another thing is that the military can subcontract boeing to write code based on the GPL exclusively for themselves, and since the milittary is not distributing (merely using these changes), they are not bound by the GPL to redistribute their source changes."
But the changes the contractor made would have to be made public under the GPL because they distributed it to the military. If the military decided that they didn't want the changes to be revealed, you're back to the same conflict.
"First, there's no requirement to release your modifications to GPL code unless you're charging a fee for binaries of the modified code. If you keep it in-house, it's yours."
I'm not sure if charging a fee has anything to do with it, but I think if this very broad distribution of binary code (embedded systems aren't going to lug around source code) qualifies as "in house" than anything can.
"Stop drinking the goddamn "we are living in a dictatorship" Koolaid and LEARN SOMETHING about how things work (e.g. the US Constitution, the GPL) before you embarrass yourself again."
The US Constitution has been violated by the US government on numerous occasions. I don't think they'd be shaking in their boots over the power of the GPL.
If someone working on a classified project were to provide code to the FSF that proved the goverment was violating the GPL, that person could go to jail for a very long time.
I'm not sure what you mean by adding the word "publically". Distribution is distribution.
If Linux is modified as part of this program, don't expect any changes to be contributed back to the community. The military can pretty much get away with anything under the guise of national security.
Yes, it could be true for any license, but that's not the point.
If MS was considering a significant change in its licensing then it would also consider how its customers would react to the change (assuming they're competent business people).
Likewise, those who have something to gain or lose from GPL'd software should also consider the impact a change would have on their users and the free software movement in general.
It's not about legality, it's about perception.
It's popular among free/open source advocates to claim that EULAs are not legal, even though companies have paid a lot of money to avoid prosecution for violating them.
It will be interesting to see if the FSF would be willing to effectively drop this rather unrealistic view of EULAs in order to achieve a practical goal. You'd think RMS would always chose religion over pragmatism, but you never know.
It is every bit as justified to claim that the word "free" in the phrase "free beer" means "free as in speech" as it is in the phrase "free software". That is, not very justified.
The only reason why there's any confusion is because in English the word free when used as an adjective to describe a concrete noun, almost always means "no cost".
On the other hand, in the phrase "free speech", "speech" is an abstract noun. It is in this kind of usage that the word takes on the meaning that the GPL is talking about.
The bottom line is that if your going to use language in an unconventional way, you're going to be misunderstood.
In the US at least, corporations already enjoy most of the rights and privileges that private citizens do and a few that private citizens don't. For example, they can legally loan money at a higher rate then a private citizen can.
I think the bulk of the "gluttony, selfishness, and sloth" in the free/open source world is coming from the free/open source gurus and those companies that redistribute the free/open source software or use it to sell hardware.
The real contributors these days don't make speeches, don't stuff boxes with other people's work, or sell hardware. They program.
The question is, how much longer will they be willing to?
Your comment sounds like the Bush adminstration's complaint about critizing the private accounts before the law is written.
My response is the same for both: Write it down on paper and commit to it before you start lobbying for it. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about when people comment on your half-baked ideas.
You left out the third option: stop using the GPL'd software altogether.
Ouch, caught by the RTFA bug. Replace "RMS" with those other guys' names in the article I didn't read.
"It sounds like the GPL v3.0 is trying to make the commercial world a little bit more responsable."
It sounds to me like the GPL v3.0 is trying to make the "free software" world a little more like the commercial world.
"However, how does that benefit the open-source community or the author of the GPL software you are using."
It's funny how these discussions go. If last week I had stated that the current GPL doesn't benefit authors or the open source community because people can use it without giving anything back, I would have been modded down.
Now that RMS suggests it, suddenly it all makes sense.
But is it possible for new versions or upgrades of existing software to be licensed under the new GPL version?
If that is possible, then yes, users could still feel that it's ethically a bait and switch scheme.
It doesn't seem to me that it would be technically difficult or too expensive for the likes of Google and Amazon to switch to a proprietary solution if GPL'd software loses its economic advantage (assuming there actually is one).
For those that haven't yet put their toe in the "free software" pool, the water is beginning to look a lot deeper.
But it sounds like RMS is finally going to clear up the ambiguity he created when he coined the term "free software" to describe GPL'd code.
Hey I know it's always open season on VB guys here on Slashdot, but what do they care about Java performance, JIT'd or not?