Yes, because Jobs was ver sad when he realized that to use GCC for NextStep he actually had to comply with the licence. The FSF - and RMS in particulary - wasn't interested in "special deals", exceptions and the like. So, since they needed a compiler, they had to release the changes that made Objective-C support possible for general use. I suppose Jobs wasn't very happy with that.
As for LLVM and their wish to replace GCC, doesn't surprise me and all the best to them. I'm sure it will be good news for the BSD's, since I have no doubt that Apple will share its work with them out of the goodness of its heart under a BSD licence. As for GCC itself, nothing changes, except support for Objective-C which could impact GNUstep.
Ehehe. It's in the context of international copyright law, I'm assuming they made it in a way the is less directly attached to the US copyright system and its legal framework and more applicable and easily interpreted worldwide, e.g. "FSF board member Moglen has stressed the need for GPL 3 to become more legally cosmopolitan so the license becomes more accessible to lawyers outside of the U.S."
Re:Time for Sun to Shine
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)
Re:Holiness Unto the Prophet
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Pfff. That GNU prefix is for the non-initiated. The ones that are in the Inner College know, from the grade of Adeptus Exemptus onward, that they don't need to use it, it's implied in everything per secula seculorum.
Well, ironic, but perhaps not just a coincidence...
BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA -- Thursday, June 28, 2007 -- On Friday, June
29, not everyone in the continental U.S. will be waiting in line to
purchase a $500 (370) iPhone. In fact, hundreds of thousands of digital
aficionados around the globe won't be standing in line at all, for June
29 marks the release of version 3 of the GNU General Public License
(GPL). Version 2 of the GPL governs the world's largest body of free
software -- software that is radically reshaping the industry and
threatening the proprietary technology model represented by the iPhone.
(...)
The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed
software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for
devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated?
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs
and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and
digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the
control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know
that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser
Safari, using GPL-covered work -- it will be interesting to see to what
extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
The GNU GPL version 3 will be released at 12:00pm (EDT) -- six hours
before the release of the iPhone -- bringing to a close eighteen months
of public outreach and comment, in revision of the world's most popular
free software license.
Re:Holiness Unto the Prophet
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Sainthood in the Church of Emacs requires living a life of purity--but in the Church of Emacs, this does not require celibacy (a sigh of relief is heard). Being holy in our church means installing a wholly free operating system--GNU/Linux is a good choice--and not putting any non-free software on your computer. Join the Church of Emacs, and you too can be a saint!
Re:Apache Licence
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Yes,it's compatible. I don't see it explicitly in the final documentation, but it was mentioned in a previous comment (GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft Rationale:
We are pleased to report that the Final Draft makes the Apache License,
version 2.0, fully compatible with GPLv3. We are grateful to the Apache
Software Foundation for working with us to achieve this long-sought goal.
The concerns we stated in the Draft 3 Rationale were based on varying
literal readings of section 9 of the Apache license that diered from the
interpretation of section 9 held by the ASF itself. During the course of
productive discussions with the ASF following the release of Draft 3, we
ascertained that, to the ASF, the words \by reason of" in the section 9
upstream indemnication clause meant nothing broader or vaguer than \directly
as a result of." Read in this light, section 9 seems to us a reasonable
and fair approach to protecting upstream developers, even though we do not
wish to adopt such a provision in our own license.
The Final Draft makes the Apache indemnication clause compatible
with GPLv3 by adding a new category of additional conditions in section 7
that may be applied, with appropriate copyright authorization, to material
added to a covered work. Subsection 7f allows terms that require indemni-
cation of upstream licensors and authors of the material by a downstream
distributor who conveys with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient,
for any liability that such assumptions directly impose on those
upstream parties.
Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license. (For full information, see gplv3.fsf.org.) All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade.
See my comment above... I think that for the GPL to work you must actually have *received* the software in the first place. If you don't, the GPL doesn't apply. Once you do though, they can't force you to any restriction regarding redistribution.
My take on it is that you can't deny redistribution, but you can chose to not distribute it to whomever you want. I.e. as a US company you can deny selling/download the software yourself by some criteria: in this situation country, but you can also *sell* GPL software, meaning that you will deny giving it to anyone who requests it for free. *However* you can't enforce this choices on third parties *at all*. If I buy a GPL software I can copy it and give copies to my friends, or even put in online for everyone to download. In the same vein, everything that a company doesn't ship to Cuba by its own wishes can end up there in any event since I, living in Europe, can perfectly copy it and put is accessible to anyone else.
Not sure if I'm being clear enough... to sum it up, one can chose to limit the scope of the initial distribution, but can't enforce these limits on third parties. I'm not sure how this works out if someone says "whites only" or "only for woman" though, but I supposed these are covered more by other laws than copyright law.
You don't need to agree with the GPL to use the software. For an end-user that just uses the software the GPLv3 doesn't change anything, and most of it doesn't apply anyway, since its focus is on redistribution, code availability and code change. The GPL is however important for people that develop the software and that is why the GPLv3 is important.
Bruce (sorry for the first-name basis, but I've been hearing about you for so many years now that it's hard to avoid it), it was an attempt at a joke (remember, the CmdrTaco comment about the iPod? "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."). You're really preaching to the choir, look at my email. I would sign the GPLv3 in blood if I had to. Actually, *that* would be something worth streaming.
Right, so I've been searching and the FSF Europe has been using live streams more than the FSF. They reference "...the Free Software activists of the Politecnic University of Torino, though, who volunteered to use their Free Software video streaming software to stream the entire sessions live, and who will be offering recordings of the sessions online..." in all the places streaming is referenced.
This seems to be a reference to Feng, a "... multimedia streaming server compliant with the IETF's standards for real-time streaming of multimedia contents over Internet. Feng implements RTSP - Real-Time Streaming Protocol (rfc2326) and RTP/RTCP - Real-Time Transport Protocol/RTP Control Protocol (rfc3550) supporting the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (rfc3551)." Maybe the FSF will use the same.
Then again, maybe they'll stream it in RealPlayer:)
You're right. I didn't actually miss the point, just assumed that they were archived but that they were - some of them - streamed live (got that impression from "...You can listen to and watch online the proceedings of the 2nd International GPLv3 Conference, part of the Seventh International Free Software Forum..."). I'm curious now though, will investigate further.
Print it out and frame it? Throw copies into the crowd? A reading by Stallman himself (followed by a license signing)?
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. I can see them all happening. Seriously. There is already a GPL for framming available at the FSF shop, several tunes with RMS reading from "Free Software, Free Society". Throwing copies I haven't seen, but an ordered line of people receiving a first copy (think "soup nazi") would be something I wouldn't be surprised.
Yes, they use video streaming sometimes. "Often" is to strong a word, but they have been doing it more as of late due to the GPLv3 process. To sum it up, it's Vorbis and Theora.
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in thedocumentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
So, you must retain and must reproduce. Since you MUST do something, it isn't free, following the same logic.
I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.
Great, use the BSD licence, it will be perfect as a non-copyleft free software licence, which is what you're aiming for.
The GPL is sorta irrelevant in a way
For you, maybe. But you're assuming that everyone also "doesn't worry" in the way you do, and you are discounting the fact that other - apparently a large number - people have other reasons to use a copyleft licence such as the GPL. This is not a new discussion: people that dislike copyleft have their way of seeing things, ans use a BSD/MIT type of licence. Those that want to use the GPL have their specific reasons for doing so.
I just don't see the need for this license at all.
Again, the rational for the licence is an established thing; you can read here the reasoning of the FSF. Other people have other reasons, but they generally gravitate around the fact that its usage guarantees that any improvement is made available to those that created the software. One might dislike this, in which case there are a plethora of non-copyleft licences to chose from. As is, I think it's a safe bet to say that the GPL seems to not be irrelevant to a large number of developers, considering it's widespread use. The rest of the this is a GPL vs BSD debate that doesn't bring anything new, all the arguments being already known to every part.
The negative reaction is very simple to understand. Most people here do not want to see the OSI being relevant or authoritative in any way, but simply wish for the FSF to be the sole arbiter of the definition of FOSS, and/or the ability to enforce said definition.
All the comments focus on the fact that OSI != "open source". Please provide any supporting evidence that concerns the FSF in this (especially funny since the FSF dislikes the term "open source" and never uses it).
Personally, I think that sucks.
Well, then don't worry any longer since the reason for your sulking only exists - as usual, unfortunately - in your head. Let it go and be happy.
The OSI allow for a far more inclusive definition, with a broad plurality of licenses.
Any specifics? All the generally used licences are considered free software by both. Others aren't simply present in the FSF site. Curiously the Apache Licence 2.0 is in both sites as free software, but OpenBSD doesn't think so. Perfectly within their right, but I'm hoping that you'll take this opportunity to warn all slashdoters about the "zealotry" of the OpenBSD "fanboys", that lack your beloved "inclusive definition" of "open source".
Of course, in the minds of FSF fanboys,
Oh my, wasn't expecting that one.
that's exactly the problem; they think the GPL is the only license with the right to exist.
Provide any reference to support this. Do visit the FSF Licences site, where they say, amongst other things, that "...If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice...". Also, for extra points, provide a similar statement from any BSD site, just to see their "inclusive definition" of licences (again, doesn't bother me and completely within their right).
They're going to seek the outright destruction of any organisation which tries to promote an idea contrary to that.
Now your delusions assume an epic scale, with total destruction. I would repeat the "provide supporting evidence" mantra, but when one reaches this point all bets are off.
What does my opinion matter, though? I'm just a troll;
Can't disagree with you there.
someone else opposed to the FSF juggernaut who therefore, in the minds of its' cultists, also needs to be erradicated, or at least silenced.
Ahh... now I see. By "silenced" you mean "made to actually support the completely ridiculous statements he makes". In your bubble world you shouldn't be called up on you complete BS, because it's an attempt to "silence" you, made by the "cultists" of the "FSF juggernaut". Well, just to make you wake up screaming at night I've updated my/. email to the FSF member one. I just hope you don't start seeing me stalking you or something.
Hooray for freedom.
Indeed. Freedom to say your, er, opinions, and freedom to actually give them any supporting substance. You seem to love the first, but fall short on the latter.
Just a clarification: this doesn't mean that Open Source software isn't Free Software, or vice versa. Just that the FSF main focus is on the usage of the latter, not the former.
Your comment would bee funnier if this had anything to do with GNU or the FSF. RMS himself, and the FSF, has nothing to do with the term "open source" and actively distances itself from it, its usage and OSI. The counterpart in the GNU world of this "debate" is the confusion between "free software" and "freeware", and I don't recall the FSF calling for enforcement on the usage of the latter. It's about the licence, what one calls it is of little importance.
I tought the same thing the moment I read it. This is a nitpick, since I understood that they meant "people from the EU". It's similar to the usage that brits make of "Europe", depending on the mood and context they talk about it as if it's only the Continent.
Russia has for centuries had this "debate", between the most "european" leaning faction and the one that prefers some form of isolations. For me all the Russians I have met were European, and Russia is an European country. Geography plays its part, but there is also an ethno-cultural angle to it: people don't stop being European just because they're on the other side of the Urales.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because Jobs was ver sad when he realized that to use GCC for NextStep he actually had to comply with the licence. The FSF - and RMS in particulary - wasn't interested in "special deals", exceptions and the like. So, since they needed a compiler, they had to release the changes that made Objective-C support possible for general use. I suppose Jobs wasn't very happy with that.
As for LLVM and their wish to replace GCC, doesn't surprise me and all the best to them. I'm sure it will be good news for the BSD's, since I have no doubt that Apple will share its work with them out of the goodness of its heart under a BSD licence. As for GCC itself, nothing changes, except support for Objective-C which could impact GNUstep.
Ehehe. It's in the context of international copyright law, I'm assuming they made it in a way the is less directly attached to the US copyright system and its legal framework and more applicable and easily interpreted worldwide, e.g. "FSF board member Moglen has stressed the need for GPL 3 to become more legally cosmopolitan so the license becomes more accessible to lawyers outside of the U.S."
Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)
Oh, the silence...
In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.
The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.
It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents
Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.
FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe
Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development
GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.
FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.
FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing
Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change
Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.
Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers
Pfff. That GNU prefix is for the non-initiated. The ones that are in the Inner College know, from the grade of Adeptus Exemptus onward, that they don't need to use it, it's implied in everything per secula seculorum.
BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA -- Thursday, June 28, 2007 -- On Friday, June 29, not everyone in the continental U.S. will be waiting in line to purchase a $500 (370) iPhone. In fact, hundreds of thousands of digital aficionados around the globe won't be standing in line at all, for June 29 marks the release of version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Version 2 of the GPL governs the world's largest body of free software -- software that is radically reshaping the industry and threatening the proprietary technology model represented by the iPhone. (...) The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated? Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work -- it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software." The GNU GPL version 3 will be released at 12:00pm (EDT) -- six hours before the release of the iPhone -- bringing to a close eighteen months of public outreach and comment, in revision of the world's most popular free software license.
Heathen!
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
Sainthood in the Church of Emacs requires living a life of purity--but in the Church of Emacs, this does not require celibacy (a sigh of relief is heard). Being holy in our church means installing a wholly free operating system--GNU/Linux is a good choice--and not putting any non-free software on your computer. Join the Church of Emacs, and you too can be a saint!
We are pleased to report that the Final Draft makes the Apache License, version 2.0, fully compatible with GPLv3. We are grateful to the Apache Software Foundation for working with us to achieve this long-sought goal. The concerns we stated in the Draft 3 Rationale were based on varying literal readings of section 9 of the Apache license that diered from the interpretation of section 9 held by the ASF itself. During the course of productive discussions with the ASF following the release of Draft 3, we ascertained that, to the ASF, the words \by reason of" in the section 9 upstream indemnication clause meant nothing broader or vaguer than \directly as a result of." Read in this light, section 9 seems to us a reasonable and fair approach to protecting upstream developers, even though we do not wish to adopt such a provision in our own license. The Final Draft makes the Apache indemnication clause compatible with GPLv3 by adding a new category of additional conditions in section 7 that may be applied, with appropriate copyright authorization, to material added to a covered work. Subsection 7f allows terms that require indemni- cation of upstream licensors and authors of the material by a downstream distributor who conveys with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that such assumptions directly impose on those upstream parties.
Also, from the Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3 document:
Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license. (For full information, see gplv3.fsf.org.) All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade.
See my comment above... I think that for the GPL to work you must actually have *received* the software in the first place. If you don't, the GPL doesn't apply. Once you do though, they can't force you to any restriction regarding redistribution.
My take on it is that you can't deny redistribution, but you can chose to not distribute it to whomever you want. I.e. as a US company you can deny selling/download the software yourself by some criteria: in this situation country, but you can also *sell* GPL software, meaning that you will deny giving it to anyone who requests it for free. *However* you can't enforce this choices on third parties *at all*. If I buy a GPL software I can copy it and give copies to my friends, or even put in online for everyone to download. In the same vein, everything that a company doesn't ship to Cuba by its own wishes can end up there in any event since I, living in Europe, can perfectly copy it and put is accessible to anyone else.
Not sure if I'm being clear enough... to sum it up, one can chose to limit the scope of the initial distribution, but can't enforce these limits on third parties. I'm not sure how this works out if someone says "whites only" or "only for woman" though, but I supposed these are covered more by other laws than copyright law.
Hey, do I actually have to care about the FSF to get one of those c00l fsf.org email addresses?
n _fsf? or https://www.fsfe.org/en/fsfeuser/register/(set)/1 if you're at all interested).
No, not at all. Just to pay them monthly, you can otherwise loathe them.
I need a new permanent email provider
Well, they are just redirects, 5 in total IIRC.
and fsf.org would be teh shizznikegnite. Think of all the geek cred.
I don't need to think, I expererience it everyday. I just flash it and the kids just go, like, awesome ma nizzle. Fo' shizzle. (more seriously though, see https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/joi
You don't need to agree with the GPL to use the software. For an end-user that just uses the software the GPLv3 doesn't change anything, and most of it doesn't apply anyway, since its focus is on redistribution, code availability and code change. The GPL is however important for people that develop the software and that is why the GPLv3 is important.
Bruce (sorry for the first-name basis, but I've been hearing about you for so many years now that it's hard to avoid it), it was an attempt at a joke (remember, the CmdrTaco comment about the iPod? "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."). You're really preaching to the choir, look at my email. I would sign the GPLv3 in blood if I had to. Actually, *that* would be something worth streaming.
Right, so I've been searching and the FSF Europe has been using live streams more than the FSF. They reference "...the Free Software activists of the Politecnic University of Torino, though, who volunteered to use their Free Software video streaming software to stream the entire sessions live, and who will be offering recordings of the sessions online..." in all the places streaming is referenced.
:)
This seems to be a reference to Feng, a "... multimedia streaming server compliant with the IETF's standards for real-time streaming of multimedia contents over Internet. Feng implements RTSP - Real-Time Streaming Protocol (rfc2326) and RTP/RTCP - Real-Time Transport Protocol/RTP Control Protocol (rfc3550) supporting the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (rfc3551)." Maybe the FSF will use the same.
Then again, maybe they'll stream it in RealPlayer
You're right. I didn't actually miss the point, just assumed that they were archived but that they were - some of them - streamed live (got that impression from "...You can listen to and watch online the proceedings of the 2nd International GPLv3 Conference, part of the Seventh International Free Software Forum..."). I'm curious now though, will investigate further.
Damn, you had to spoil it for me. It's the only "No" thing I remembered.
More seriously, I agree with your view, it will be interesting, and tactically it was well played.
"No retroactive effects on the MS deal. More lines than GPLv2. Lame."
Print it out and frame it? Throw copies into the crowd? A reading by Stallman himself (followed by a license signing)?
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. I can see them all happening. Seriously. There is already a GPL for framming available at the FSF shop, several tunes with RMS reading from "Free Software, Free Society". Throwing copies I haven't seen, but an ordered line of people receiving a first copy (think "soup nazi") would be something I wouldn't be surprised.
Yes, they use video streaming sometimes. "Often" is to strong a word, but they have been doing it more as of late due to the GPLv3 process. To sum it up, it's Vorbis and Theora.
I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.
Great, use the BSD licence, it will be perfect as a non-copyleft free software licence, which is what you're aiming for.
The GPL is sorta irrelevant in a way
For you, maybe. But you're assuming that everyone also "doesn't worry" in the way you do, and you are discounting the fact that other - apparently a large number - people have other reasons to use a copyleft licence such as the GPL. This is not a new discussion: people that dislike copyleft have their way of seeing things, ans use a BSD/MIT type of licence. Those that want to use the GPL have their specific reasons for doing so.
I just don't see the need for this license at all.
Again, the rational for the licence is an established thing; you can read here the reasoning of the FSF. Other people have other reasons, but they generally gravitate around the fact that its usage guarantees that any improvement is made available to those that created the software. One might dislike this, in which case there are a plethora of non-copyleft licences to chose from. As is, I think it's a safe bet to say that the GPL seems to not be irrelevant to a large number of developers, considering it's widespread use. The rest of the this is a GPL vs BSD debate that doesn't bring anything new, all the arguments being already known to every part.
The negative reaction is very simple to understand. Most people here do not want to see the OSI being relevant or authoritative in any way, but simply wish for the FSF to be the sole arbiter of the definition of FOSS, and/or the ability to enforce said definition.
/. email to the FSF member one. I just hope you don't start seeing me stalking you or something.
All the comments focus on the fact that OSI != "open source". Please provide any supporting evidence that concerns the FSF in this (especially funny since the FSF dislikes the term "open source" and never uses it).
Personally, I think that sucks.
Well, then don't worry any longer since the reason for your sulking only exists - as usual, unfortunately - in your head. Let it go and be happy.
The OSI allow for a far more inclusive definition, with a broad plurality of licenses.
Any specifics? All the generally used licences are considered free software by both. Others aren't simply present in the FSF site. Curiously the Apache Licence 2.0 is in both sites as free software, but OpenBSD doesn't think so. Perfectly within their right, but I'm hoping that you'll take this opportunity to warn all slashdoters about the "zealotry" of the OpenBSD "fanboys", that lack your beloved "inclusive definition" of "open source".
Of course, in the minds of FSF fanboys,
Oh my, wasn't expecting that one.
that's exactly the problem; they think the GPL is the only license with the right to exist.
Provide any reference to support this. Do visit the FSF Licences site, where they say, amongst other things, that "...If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice...". Also, for extra points, provide a similar statement from any BSD site, just to see their "inclusive definition" of licences (again, doesn't bother me and completely within their right).
They're going to seek the outright destruction of any organisation which tries to promote an idea contrary to that.
Now your delusions assume an epic scale, with total destruction. I would repeat the "provide supporting evidence" mantra, but when one reaches this point all bets are off.
What does my opinion matter, though? I'm just a troll;
Can't disagree with you there.
someone else opposed to the FSF juggernaut who therefore, in the minds of its' cultists, also needs to be erradicated, or at least silenced.
Ahh... now I see. By "silenced" you mean "made to actually support the completely ridiculous statements he makes". In your bubble world you shouldn't be called up on you complete BS, because it's an attempt to "silence" you, made by the "cultists" of the "FSF juggernaut". Well, just to make you wake up screaming at night I've updated my
Hooray for freedom.
Indeed. Freedom to say your, er, opinions, and freedom to actually give them any supporting substance. You seem to love the first, but fall short on the latter.
And I was almost sure it would be the hat.
Just a clarification: this doesn't mean that Open Source software isn't Free Software, or vice versa. Just that the FSF main focus is on the usage of the latter, not the former.
Your comment would bee funnier if this had anything to do with GNU or the FSF. RMS himself, and the FSF, has nothing to do with the term "open source" and actively distances itself from it, its usage and OSI. The counterpart in the GNU world of this "debate" is the confusion between "free software" and "freeware", and I don't recall the FSF calling for enforcement on the usage of the latter. It's about the licence, what one calls it is of little importance.
I tought the same thing the moment I read it. This is a nitpick, since I understood that they meant "people from the EU". It's similar to the usage that brits make of "Europe", depending on the mood and context they talk about it as if it's only the Continent.
Russia has for centuries had this "debate", between the most "european" leaning faction and the one that prefers some form of isolations. For me all the Russians I have met were European, and Russia is an European country. Geography plays its part, but there is also an ethno-cultural angle to it: people don't stop being European just because they're on the other side of the Urales.