Here's something I've always wanted to ask you, as the author of these two documents.
When the DFSG was being written, I suppose the aim behind it was to use it as a clear and unambiguous guide to deciding what software packages could be included in a free OS distribution. That is, as a guide to evaluate existing software licenses. I am inclined to think that you people never had in mind back then for it to be used as a guide to writing new free software licenses.
However, then the OSI sprang up, and adopted the DFSG as the definition of Open Source Software (TM). Now we have all these companies taking the OSD, each drafting its own license to meet it.
The question is, was there any thought given before the adoption of the DFSG to whether the OSD would end up being used for these ends?
This is a completely different issue. Hey, try reading the philosophy section at www.gnu.org; some of the articles go into the reason we have a copyright system--- because most people in the 19th century didn't own the means to print their own copies. This means that the government offered protection to the publishers, so that society at large could benefit from having novels available.
The confusion comes from the fact that free software is somewhere between proprietary and public domain software.
This is no fact. All public domain software is free software. (But not all free software is public domain.)
Open Source is a much more acurate term in this sense, but still covers software that's not "free".
Excuse me? Which non-free product meets the OSD or the DFSG? (Irregardless of ESR's rushed, unconsulted declarations.)
Anyway, the term Open Source (TM) has been intended from the beginning to be coextensional with Free Software. Read the OSI website, for god's sake.
We need a new term for free software. How about "open license" or just plain "copyleft."
People have suggested "libre software", to avoid the abiguity of the english term "free". But I don't think that will ever stick.
"Copyleft" is (IMHO) the idea of using copyright to defend free software from being absorved into copyrighted proprietary software, that is, fighting copyright with copyright. This is an FSF idea, and is embodied in the GPL.
Bruce Perens said it best right here on/.--- he was suggesting Apple should make some changes in order to make their license DFSG compliant. It is not an attack, as the article puts it, but rather constructive criticism.
RMS has done the same. He has said exactly what he thinks should be changed for the APSL to be truly free.
...if you own the GPL code in question. The GPL doesn't affect authors' right to their own code. It is perfectly possible to sell you GPL code under different terms to people. The disadvantage is that when you incorporate other GPL code that you don't own into your program (like patches), the owner of said code must give you permission to license it under other terms. You could thus in principle license code you otherwise release under GPL to a commercial company, for them to use in a proprietary product, and charge them for that. In fact, this is Qt's model. This won't help Free Software much, though.
---
GNU software != Software written by FSF
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
"GNU software" is software written or collected by the FSF in its goal to build a free clone of Unix. This includes quite a bit of software the FSF didn't write (for example, from X and BSD)
The idea of the copyleft, as embodied in the GPL, is to protect free software from being used in proprietary projects. The only legal means to do this is copyright.
If the legal system didn't allow people to copyright ideas, this would not be an issue.
Ok. Can you show me some _actual quote_ from RMS where he actually claims that _he himself_ has written some code he hasn't? The key words here are _actual quote_. If you just blurt out "Oh, he's saying all the time that blah", without showing me an actual instance of him saying that, you lose.
As a matter of fact, RMS has nowhere claimed the FSF wrote most of the software included in a Linux distribution. There was an article about RMS a few days ago where he was quoted as guessing it was more like 30%. Also, the FSF has willingly adopted non-FSF packages for the GNU system. This includes BSD and X code.
You still have to make the distinction between application programs and system programs. System programs are those that are there not to get any "real" work done, but rather to tend to the system itself. For example, the shell essentially does no other work than launching programs. GNU has written most of the essential system programs in Linux distributions. Stuff like ls, cp, mv, rm, ln, mkdir, rmdir, chmod, chown, touch, df, du, cat, etc. They wrote shells, gawk and a sed. And a C development environment. As a previous poster very accurately remarked, think Unix V7. What the FSF provided is the _essentials_ of a Unix system, save for the kernel. That is, all the system programs needed for the very basic functionality, and the development tools to write applications with. If you have that, then you have a working system that you can write apps on.
Go ahead and take all GNU stuff from your system, without replacing it. You will be left with a system without such inessential things as ls, cat, mv, cp, et. al., and, libc. If you want a useful system with no GNU software, you _have_ to replace all these.
I invite you again to run only with code that is not part of GNU.
Hehehe. AFAIK, all the free unices, for example the BSDs, are at least built with gcc... So you have to find another free compiler if you don't want to depend on proprietary code. (I don't know if there is another free compiler, or if there is one, how good it is.)
Ok. So it all comes down to the meaning of the word 'adopt'. Here is from Webster's:
to take by choice into a relationship; specif: to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child.
to take up and practice or use as one's own
to accept formally and an put into effect
to choose (a textbook) for required study in a course
So you are interpreting adopt in only one of it's senses. Your argument is thus seriously strained.
(GNU could adopt Windows, but I wouldn't start calling it GNU/Windows).
Well, this is not an issue anyway. Have you seen the FSF claim XFree should be called GNU/XFree, or that the Linux kernel (not the distros) should be called GNU/Linux? In fact, RMS has clearly expressed himself to be in no way in favor of that.
GNU, according to RMS is what you get when you put together all the components the GNU project has written/collected since its start (and that includes X and much BSD code). GNU/Linux is when you combine those components with the Linux kernel. It's not a matter of who wrote how much and which code; it's a matter of who had the vision of making such a system, and set out to make it come by with the means available at the moment.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Do you use any program compiled by gcc (or egcs, which come from the gcc codebase)? Was the configuration managed by autoconf? Was the build done by GNU Make?
Are any of your programs compiled against libc?
Does your GNU/Linux system ever run a shell script? For example, at bootup?
Do you type commands at the command prompt? Is it Bash or Tcsh?
Do you use any of the following commands? `ls', `cp', `mv', `tar', `gzip', `diff', `chgrp', `chmod', `chown', `mkdir', `rm', `rmdir', `touch', `find', `awk', `sed', `[ef]?grep', `less', and many more...
Do you think your system would work as well if you removed all of these programs? (Many could in fact be replaced. But that is not the point. The point is that many are essential infrastructure for a Unix system as we know it.)
And yes, the BSD/XFree contribution is also very important. But that is the reason FSF hasn't written many, say, ftp daemons--- they just took the one from BSD. The idea of GNU is not to write a whole Unix system from scratch, it is to build a free Unix. For this goal, taking existing free software is alright.
I meant GNU as a pioneer philosophically and free-software-wise, not in technical stuff as in design. RMS explicitly set out to create a free clone of Unix, not a completely new design.
Free software means people can use it anyway they like.
Hmmm. I've given some thougt (not too much, don't worry;-) to this statement, and I couldn't help but think: "is this a definition of Free Software or of Libertine Software?"
Think of it. When we talk about people being free, we don't mean they can do anything they like. We mean that no one is restricts them, that they participate as equals with others in society.
So what the FSF is after is not that you be able to do absolutely anything you like with your software, but rather, than you can do as possibly much with software as you can without anyone else's possibilities being diminished.
In order to use GPL code my application has to be GPL. but if my applciation is GPL then I can't use a non GPL piece of code (library or what not) from someone else. My hands are then tied.
This is false. If you are the author of your own code, you can release it under the GPL and give additional permission to link to other code. Though this is a problem when there's a program with contributions from many people, not all of which give permission to link to other code.
This is the reason some people claim distribution of KDE under GPL is illegal, BTW.
The GPL is trying to allow the end user to be able to rebuild the program they are using. That is all fine whent he end user is a progremmer, but not when they are a non techy.
Not quite. Even if you are not techy, you can hire someone to customize free software...
The GPL's disadvantages, as I see it, come directly from the conflict between its goal (keeping the whole of the GNU system free for all of it's users) and the realities of our social system (IP, patent and copyright law). In order to protect your software from being hoarded by proprietary software makers, you must make some sacrifices, which entail you will have a tougher time linking to other free, non-GPL code.
My point is that, the way I see the GPL, it is not an end, but rather a means for free software to stay free in a non-free world. Were the social changes the FSF advocates to come by, all these issues would disappear.
If RMS decided to call his stull "free", why does he still bitching about people not giving hime enough credit?
Nowhere in the GPL it says "Thou shalt prefix every derived work of this code with 'GNU/'." I think you are confusing issues. It is one thing if you are being forced to call the OS GNU/Linux; it is another if you are asked to do so, because of some purported application of an ethical principle.
RMS calls GNU software "free" not because people can do anything they like with it, but rather because you can do anything you like that doesn't make the software any less free for other people. Thus, the GPL removes your "freedom" to take away the freedom from the code and its derived works.
Slashdot Mirror
Need something the existing software can't do? Hire programmers to write and maintain a program to do it.
---
Here's something I've always wanted to ask you, as the author of these two documents.
When the DFSG was being written, I suppose the aim behind it was to use it as a clear and unambiguous guide to deciding what software packages could be included in a free OS distribution. That is, as a guide to evaluate existing software licenses. I am inclined to think that you people never had in mind back then for it to be used as a guide to writing new free software licenses.
However, then the OSI sprang up, and adopted the DFSG as the definition of Open Source Software (TM). Now we have all these companies taking the OSD, each drafting its own license to meet it.
The question is, was there any thought given before the adoption of the DFSG to whether the OSD would end up being used for these ends?
---
This is a completely different issue. Hey, try reading the philosophy section at www.gnu.org; some of the articles go into the reason we have a copyright system--- because most people in the 19th century didn't own the means to print their own copies. This means that the government offered protection to the publishers, so that society at large could benefit from having novels available.
The confusion comes from the fact that free software is somewhere between proprietary and public domain software.
This is no fact. All public domain software is free software. (But not all free software is public domain.)
Open Source is a much more acurate term in this sense, but still covers software that's not "free".
Excuse me? Which non-free product meets the OSD or the DFSG? (Irregardless of ESR's rushed, unconsulted declarations.)
Anyway, the term Open Source (TM) has been intended from the beginning to be coextensional with Free Software. Read the OSI website, for god's sake.
We need a new term for free software. How about "open license" or just plain "copyleft."
People have suggested "libre software", to avoid the abiguity of the english term "free". But I don't think that will ever stick.
"Copyleft" is (IMHO) the idea of using copyright to defend free software from being absorved into copyrighted proprietary software, that is, fighting copyright with copyright. This is an FSF idea, and is embodied in the GPL.
---
RMS has done the same. He has said exactly what he thinks should be changed for the APSL to be truly free.
---
SPI exists to support Debiaan and other free projects. As such, opposing IP is not one of its ends (as I see it).
The FSF is the anti-IP group here. And they have no interest in the Open Source (TM) trademark.
---
---
Read before you post. Unless you're such a deep thinker that you have a priori knowledge of what other people have posted.
---
It is perfectly possible to sell you GPL code under different terms to people.
The disadvantage is that when you incorporate other GPL code that you don't own into your program (like patches), the owner of said code must give you permission to license it under other terms.
You could thus in principle license code you otherwise release under GPL to a commercial company, for them to use in a proprietary product, and charge them for that.
In fact, this is Qt's model.
This won't help Free Software much, though.
---
---
If the legal system didn't allow people to copyright ideas, this would not be an issue.
---
---
Also, the FSF has willingly adopted non-FSF packages for the GNU system. This includes BSD and X code.
---
---
If you want a useful system with no GNU software, you _have_ to replace all these.
---
Hehehe. AFAIK, all the free unices, for example the BSDs, are at least built with gcc... So you have to find another free compiler if you don't want to depend on proprietary code. (I don't know if there is another free compiler, or if there is one, how good it is.)
---
- to take by choice into a relationship; specif: to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child.
- to take up and practice or use as one's own
- to accept formally and an put into effect
- to choose (a textbook) for required study in a course
So you are interpreting adopt in only one of it's senses. Your argument is thus seriously strained.(GNU could adopt Windows, but I wouldn't start calling it GNU/Windows).
Well, this is not an issue anyway. Have you seen the FSF claim XFree should be called GNU/XFree, or that the Linux kernel (not the distros) should be called GNU/Linux? In fact, RMS has clearly expressed himself to be in no way in favor of that.
GNU, according to RMS is what you get when you put together all the components the GNU project has written/collected since its start (and that includes X and much BSD code). GNU/Linux is when you combine those components with the Linux kernel. It's not a matter of who wrote how much and which code; it's a matter of who had the vision of making such a system, and set out to make it come by with the means available at the moment.
---
(And would this be pronounced /gn'uruco/, /gnur'uco/, or /gnuruc'o/?)
---
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
---
---
And yes, the BSD/XFree contribution is also very important. But that is the reason FSF hasn't written many, say, ftp daemons--- they just took the one from BSD. The idea of GNU is not to write a whole Unix system from scratch, it is to build a free Unix. For this goal, taking existing free software is alright.
---
Check the software page on the FSF site. They list the programs which are officially part of GNU, and a bunch of others.
---
---
Hmmm. I've given some thougt (not too much, don't worry ;-) to this statement, and I couldn't help but think: "is this a definition of Free Software or of Libertine Software?"
Think of it. When we talk about people being free, we don't mean they can do anything they like. We mean that no one is restricts them, that they participate as equals with others in society.
So what the FSF is after is not that you be able to do absolutely anything you like with your software, but rather, than you can do as possibly much with software as you can without anyone else's possibilities being diminished.
---
This is false. If you are the author of your own code, you can release it under the GPL and give additional permission to link to other code. Though this is a problem when there's a program with contributions from many people, not all of which give permission to link to other code.
This is the reason some people claim distribution of KDE under GPL is illegal, BTW.
The GPL is trying to allow the end user to be able to rebuild the program they are using. That is all fine whent he end user is a progremmer, but not when they are a non techy.
Not quite. Even if you are not techy, you can hire someone to customize free software...
The GPL's disadvantages, as I see it, come directly from the conflict between its goal (keeping the whole of the GNU system free for all of it's users) and the realities of our social system (IP, patent and copyright law). In order to protect your software from being hoarded by proprietary software makers, you must make some sacrifices, which entail you will have a tougher time linking to other free, non-GPL code.
My point is that, the way I see the GPL, it is not an end, but rather a means for free software to stay free in a non-free world. Were the social changes the FSF advocates to come by, all these issues would disappear.
---
Nowhere in the GPL it says "Thou shalt prefix every derived work of this code with 'GNU/'." I think you are confusing issues. It is one thing if you are being forced to call the OS GNU/Linux; it is another if you are asked to do so, because of some purported application of an ethical principle.
RMS calls GNU software "free" not because people can do anything they like with it, but rather because you can do anything you like that doesn't make the software any less free for other people. Thus, the GPL removes your "freedom" to take away the freedom from the code and its derived works.
---