People were freely sharing source code long before that, because no significant commercial/proprietary value was generally recognized for software source.
Sure, in fact RMS talks about this in his talk on the beginning of the free software community. But it wasn't anything to do with "open source" that recognized that this community of hackers who shared code was dying. During the time when hackers freely shared code (often not putting copyright notices on it at all), sharing was the norm. There was no need for a free software community (or the open source movement within that community) because everyone shared what code they had (including businesses which sold mainframe computers--the OS source code came with the machines and it was understood that their customers would share and modify the code to suit their needs).
Once "intellectual property" became the name of the technology game, the open source world needed tools like the GPL.
It's interesting that you would use the GPL to try and make your point because the writing and design of the GNU General Public License has nothing to do with the open source movement.
The Open Source Initiative merely defined their terms broadly enough to accept the GPLv2. There were already a number of programs licensed under the GPL by the time the OSI was founded and declared the GPL to be acceptable. The GPL was written by RMS and Eben Moglen who are both FSF people. The GPL was written for the free software movement (that's why there are so many references to software freedom in the GPL). The open source movement doesn't even talk about software freedom (their FAQ appears to consider it "ideological tub-thumping", hardly an astute analysis of the issues at hand) because the open source movement's goals aim to grease the wheels for business to take advantage of the unpaid programming labor in the world. By contrast, the free software movement's message of software freedom targets all computer users. The essay I pointed to on the differences between the two movements has an interesting story highlighting how the open source message doesn't necessarily include users. Lots of people who are trying to spread the news about a movement where people can share code don't understand this aspect of the open source movement.
Nothing has changed, except the lawyers got involved.
More lawyers, perhaps, but some of the ones who are doing the most interesting work have been involved for a while now. Eben Moglen, for example, was ahead of the curve (and, from what he discussed in his Harvard talk, he still is). He's a lawyer and he co-wrote the GPL well before the OSI existed or the term "open source" had been coined.
In the end it looks like OSS got a huge boost by having the protection and facilities offered by GPL.
They did--they benefitted greatly from a license the founders of that movement had nothing to do with writing or conceiving. It's a shame that the authorship and intention of the GPL are lost to so many by pairing that license with a movement that didn't exist when the license was written and a movement that doesn't speak to the value of software freedom which is the heart of the GPL.
The article is a historical overview of the open source revolution, starting in the 80s with the GNU Project [...]
There is no reasonable interpretation of history that can make this claim about GNU true: GNU was started to pursue software freedom. The open source movement did not yet exist. When GNU began, the open source movement would not exist for over another decade.
I do not say this to flamebait or to raise suspicions of malevolence but to clarify and prevent people from being deceived into thinking the free software and open source movements are the same thing. The people at the Free Software Foundation, in particular the most prominent members (Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, and Brad Kuhn) have all spoken and written on this issue clarifying how these movements are not the same and asking not to be lumped in with the open source movement.
But this is not the first time proponents of the open source movement have tried to take credit for work that is not theirs. Countless articles and posts on discussion websites (including/.) call the GNU GPL an "open source" license merely because the Open Source Initiative has set their license acceptance terms to include the GPL and listed this license in their list of approved licenses. Eric Raymond, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, has included the Emacs editor as an example of an "open-source project" without acknowledging that this program was initially written by RMS; RMS did not write Emacs to benefit "open-source" nor would he consider Emacs an "open-source project". RMS wrote Emacs to benefit the free software movement and the GNU project, which he founded.
Mark Webbink, chief counsel for Red Hat and proponent of open source, recently wrote an essay describing different "open source" licenses and apparently found the concept of copyleft so useful he employed it in his essay. He spent quite some words explaining the concept, but he never called the concept by its name nor did he explain that he didn't come up with it (the FSF did years ago). People reading that essay might think otherwise because of (what amount to) his intellectual dishonesty. Ironically, the Open Source Initiative does not use copyleft in its license list. The reasons why one might want to use one of the OSI-approved licenses over another are not clearly delineated on the OSI site (unlike the FSF's site which provides brief commentary on free software licenses).
So let's give credit where credit is due. The open source movement should be happy that they have acheived so much popularity and helped bring so many people to use and develop excellent software. There's no need to try and take credit for the works of others.
I don't see how this is a problem or any different from anyone else building services around free software. I don't see how it is the free software community's problem that some businesspeople choose to pay for certification. Furthermore, packaging my free software program doesn't prevent others from packaging it as well (perhaps incorrectly or poorly; possibly their bad packages will be more popular than yours and you will just have to live with it hoping more people will install your improved packages instead). The way I figure it, by distributing free software at all you are contributing to any collection of free software anywhere and possibly helping someone or some organization build a certification program around it.
Your organization isn't likely to be sued for patent infringement by IBM, particularly if your organization holds any patents. Your organization is more likely to be pressured into cross-licensing. Don't take my word for this, read it from IBM's own Assistant General Counsel, Roger Smith. In IBM's "Think" magazine Smith said that IBM gets "perhaps an order of magnitude" more value from their patents by cross-licensing than from lawsuits.
I take them seriously on this matter because they hold more patents than anyone or any other organization. I would not expect that IBM will refrain from suing Linux kernel developers if need be. There's no point in owning the patents if they pose no threat to compel the behavior of others.
Which makes me wonder what's really going on here. The poster who started this/. thread said "The Helix Player is 100% open source, (now including the GPL!)...". One wonders if the player can be redistributed by anyone or if the player is improperly licensed.
If I can't supply "complete corresponding source code" (to quote the GPL) to the program, or if I can't make good on a written promise to supply said source code, then I can't distribute it under the GNU GPL. I wonder this because of RMS' interpretation of plugins. Considering the case where plugins (such as codecs might be) are a derivative work of the master program, I have to wonder if the program is improperly licensed and, despite the licensing attempt, is not actually copyleft free software as the license intends.
When you read something in the Encyclopedia Britannica, you can be pretty confident that it's accurate and complete, because the editors of that encyclopedia have demonstrated themselves to be trustworthy. This is not presently the case with respect to Wikipedia.
How long must Wikipedia's editors "[demonstrate] themselves to be trustworthy" to get this kind of review?
In other words, no, Wikipedia will not "crush" traditional repositories of knowledge "out of existence." That was an unbelievably arrogant and short-sighted statement.
I read that differently--I read that as meaning EB (for instance) will go away because they are not able to meet self-imposed expectations of commercial success. This struck me as neither arrogant nor short-sighted. I saw it as another point adding to a theme where free software and free documentation become competitive to the point where businesses can't all stay around. And that's okay because competition is healthy and welcome, and because the viability of a business should depend on their ability to innovate and deliver what the public actually wants. I read his statement a prediction we can look at in the future to measure how true it is.
I fail to understand how the parent post is "interesting" (funny, perhaps). I understand the point being made -- the word "bootstrapping" was misspelled -- but that happens. It seems to me that is why the licensing on this book is significant: At least with this book this error can be corrected and reprinted by anyone so readers don't have to live with the error for long. As I read the web page, it looks like there is no error in the table of contents.
It's got to be tough to write a book and not make a minor spelling error. I've never written a book like this so I wouldn't know, but I have read many books (including technical books) with such errors. I read the error, mark it in my notes if I have paper handy, and move on. After reading the book, I often remember to submit my notes to the publisher for future corrections. It seems to me that the remarkably thorough editing and more restrictive licensing terms on these other books I've read do not prevent the errors from occurring. So my notes never result in fixing the book for subsequent readers unless the publisher decides to reprint.
Yes, this philosophy [the free software movement's philosophy], if carried to its practical conclusion, means no more shrinkwrapped commercial software.
I think you meant to say no more proprietary software. Nothing about software freedom precludes using a thin plastic layer around a physical copy of software or distributing that copy of software for a fee.
You should also disagree with section 3 ("All software should be free") because the author purposefully uses the wrong definition of free (the one pertaining to cost, not freedom) to conflate the differences between the two movements. Furthermore, the author apparently has no idea what RMS stands for:
3. "All software should be free" One of the central tenets of the Open Source philosophy (as it seems to be understood by the average person, at any rate) is that all software should be free.
This is wholly untrue. The open source movement has never pitched its message based on software freedom, it was founded to reject software freedom and pitch instead a practical software methodology message--programs are better when they are less buggy, cheaper to develop, and run faster--because it is believed that this movement's audience (chiefly businesses) are scared with freedom talk. There's nothing wrong with these practical values, but they are not the values of the older free software movement, they don't give you software freedom, and they don't speak to the same audience as the free software movement. Continuing with the article:
[T]his all started because some people (RMS et al, for whom I have nothing but respect) wanted to share code with fellow developers, which also has its basis in the longstanding scientific traditions of sharing knowledge.
RMS has never said he was a member of the open source movement nor did he start the Open Source Initiative which defines that movement's goals and terms for license acceptance. RMS has asked explicitly not to be lumped in with the open source movement. RMS started the free software movement about 20 years ago, well before the open source movement started, and co-wrote the GNU GPL with Prof. Eben Moglen, and RMS started the GNU project in order to spread software freedom (the freedoms to inspect, copy, run, distribute, and modify computer software at any time for any reason).
This author is making (and getting lost in) his own economic-justification message. Meanwhile the Free Software Foundation tells us that distributing free software for a fee can be okay, and that we should make as much money as we can from distributing free software for a fee and building paid services atop the software. I would add that it is not the FSF's or the free software community's job to define how businesses can make money with free software (however the FSF does have some suggestions which they give us in their talks). It is a businesses responsibility to define how they will make money. The FSF is not a business plan nor was it ever intended to be. If the open source movement wants to be seen as such, they are choosing to take on that job.
Also, in section 6 ("More choice is always better") the author falls into the trap of thinking choice is a key value: Freedom of choice is deceptively attractive because people who focus on choice can easily be undermined. If we only had 3 web browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape) choice would be satisfied. We would not have software freedom, however, because none of those browsers are free software. They are all proprietary programs. Choice is not bad to have but it is not the heart of either the free software or open source philosophies and choice alone will not bring you the ability to share and modify software.
I'm left thinking this report is little more than his view of what's right and wrong with software today, not an informed essay on busting "open source myths" by examining what the open source movement stands for and how it goes about pursuing its goals.
Are any composers and authors actually in favour of this, or just the publishers?
My experience in talking to musicians for my radio show is that this is largely the publishers -- the large corporate publishers, at that. Smaller publishers and the musicians I've spoken with are overwhelmingly interested in increasing exposure and driving up sales through increased exposure.
This tends to jibe with the push for extending the term of copyright in the US and the advocacy for the status quo during the Eldred v. Ashcroft US Supreme Court case. It was publishers (most notably Disney) and organizations of publishers (such as the MPAA) who want longer and longer terms of copyright so they don't have to publish as much new work but can continue to capitalize on commercially successful works from the past.
One key area that Richard Stallman, GNU project founder, hopes to develop is an OSS-based BIOS.
I can guarantee you that interpretation is incorrect. RMS doesn't advocate for "OSS" (open source software) or anything else to do with the open source movement. He is the founder of the free software movement and the GNU Project which aims to spread software freedom, something the open source movement does not discuss.
Given the following passage from the interview:
You clearly point out in many interviews and articles you write that you don't associate free software with the open source movement. Why is that?
A: The Free Software Movement holds that software users morally deserve the freedom to run, study, change, and redistribute the software they use. The term "open source" was coined, in 1998, to encourage free and not-quite-free software while leading attention away from the ethical foundations of free software. The rhetoric of "open source" presents the issue solely as a matter of practical convenience, not as a matter of freedom and cooperation. It does not say software *should* be open source, it just recommends a certain "development model" saying it usually leads to "better" software.
Open source proponents and the BSA disagree about how to produce "better" software, but they agree about what "better" means: powerful, reliable, convenient, and cheap. In the Free Software Movement, we have different basic values: we want to live in freedom in a community. Better software is software that we are free to share and change.
If a person persuaded of open source ideas comes across a powerful, reliable, non-free program, she may think it admirable. "I'm surprised they were able to do this without open source," she might say, "But I can't deny that it works well." When a free software advocate looks at the same thing, she will see a nasty, unethical license. "I don't care how 'powerful' it is, if it takes away my freedom," she will say. "Let's start writing the free replacement now!"
I'm guessing that the submitter failed to read the interview. But that wouldn't be the first time.
I'm sorry but it seems like you completely missed my point blinded by your hatred of Microsoft and your religious like belief in the GPL.
No, but your namecalling isn't convincing. I think it's perfectly reasonable to recognize that commercial organizations should not be the foremost in our minds. You, on the other hand, seem to consistently argue from the perspective that the public should work for them because it is what business wants; this entire sub-thread concerns strictly commercial development as if it were somehow vastly more important than building communities of equal participants who cannot take advantage of one another.
There are plenty of projects that companies use AND contribute too that are BSD style.
Of course "[t]here are plenty of projects that [sic] companies use" (emphasis mine) new BSD-licensed code. That was never in dispute; they are receiving that code as a gift and they like that because they don't have to share their improvements. The question is which commercial organizations share their code under this generous license. Please feel free to provide specific examples and compare them to the number of projects and/or commercial organizations publishing code under the GNU GPL instead. I'll get you started with counterexamples: two of the biggest corporations in the world (IBM and Microsoft) both distribute GPL covered programs and have for some time. IBM even distributes improvements which are also licensed under the GPL. Smaller corporations include Novell, Red Hat, and (before they were bought by Red Hat) Cygnus. Brad Kuhn, executive director of the FSF, tells me that there are some GCC consultants with so many clients they have waiting lists. All of their distributed GCC derivatives are licensed under the GPL. But what's more important than any of that is how all that code, the free software community, and the GNU General Public License got started--by focusing on endeavors which were community-oriented, not commercially-oriented.
If 5 different parties are working on various image processing apps none of them, companies or otherwise might want to make their apps open source OR GPL but they may have no problem sharing a library or other small piece of code among each other.
Then they can negotiate that arrangement with each other or they can get so-called software patents (patents covering algorithms which computer software developers use to make programs; patents which the new BSD license does nothing to license) and license one another for those "inventions". This doesn't at all address the underlying issue of why the public should be encouraged to do work for them at no cost to them and possibly never see the improvements, or be able to leverage what is built on top of these programs.
BSD style allows businesses to safely be charitable.
There is no lack of "safe[ty]" in a strong copyleft and the history of non-copyleft free software licenses has been remarkably one way. Furthermore, it is not the job of society to make life "safe" for business. If a business wants to participate with the free software community, there is nothing wrong with getting them to do so as equals or rejecting their software entirely.
The warnings I spoke of apply to businesses as they do to individuals (which is why you see so few businesses licensing their own software under non-copyleft free software licenses). So even along the business-first logic you use, your explanation doesn't work. If what you are saying were true, you would see businesses being charitable by licensing their software under non-copylefted free software licenses. Instead we see some of the world's largest businesses licensing their software under the GPL because they want to make sure that their competitors don't take advantage of their code by distributing proprietary derivatives. If they don't GPL their code, they often make their own licenses which aren't anywhere near the charitable contribution that the new BSD license is.
Not long ago, Bill Gates visited the university near where I live and spoke to the Engineering students there including taking questions from the audience. He said that the GNU GPL was an inappropriate choice of license for an educational institution to release software under. Later, in the same response, he said that he thought "the BSD license" (there are more than one, but it was understood that he was talking about the new BSD license without the advertising clause) was appropriate. What he wasn't telling the audience was why he disliked the GPL so much. He dislikes it because, unlike the new BSD license, the GNU GPL does not allow Microsoft to build on the software and distribute proprietary derivatives. Microsoft would love to be able to do this so they can take advantage of the GPL commons without having to contribute their changes.
The distinction you draw between libraries and applications is sophistry ultimately aimed at arranging free labor for business; rearranging social priorities so the public thinks of business desires first. This is very much in line with the open source movement and points to one of the biggest philosophical differences between the open source and free software movements; I'll address this in a moment.
There are times when it is strategically wise to use a weak copylefted license (like the LGPL) or a non-copyleft license (like the new BSD license). But if one wants to avoid the practical problems I described in an earlier post in this thread, one learns that those times are rare. Suffice it to say that if anyone or any organization doesn't like the terms of the GNU GPL (most likely because they don't want to share their published changes and help build the community they receive so much value from), they can write their own code or license code from those willing to contribute it to them as a gift. Nobody owes you or any organization code.
Personally I think all libs should be BSD (not GPL, not LGPL). That would allow everyone, both open source advocates and commercial software people to contribute to them. I think in that case every one would win.
Everyone is already able to contribute to GPL'd software and they are doing so as we speak.
Finally, I am not an "open source advocate" and neither are the authors of the GNU GPL (which, ironically, is still mistakenly cited as an "open source license" even though it was written years before that movement existed and, accordingly, doesn't discuss open source goals at all). The free software movement is not anti-business, it is anti-proprietary software. Some licenses allow proprietary derivatives and others don't. Fortunately, the FSF identifies them and writes about them in their license list. The FSF's concept of "copyleft" is invaluable in assisting that effort.
Others have already addressed much of what you write, so I'll spend time on some other parts.
RMS is a zelot in the worst sense of the word. He feels that any none GPL'd software is immoral.
Please cite a source which shows RMS saying that non-GPL'd software is immoral. RMS says that non-free software is immoral (and he makes a case for this, he does not let the statement hang without justification; the entire story of free software speech he's given on numerous occassions lay out his argument). There are many free software licenses besides the GNU General Public License.
Lets not go into his OCD about Linux being called GNU Linux.
Why not? Because we might discover that it is not obsessive compulsive disorder at all but actually a request aimed at giving credit where credit is due? Or debunking the idea that it is a self-promotional ego trip (nobody is asking you to call the system "Stallmanix" or somesuch)? Or requesting but not requiring that GNU get a share of the credit being given to Linus Torvalds (who is apparently unwilling to correct people who give him credit for work he did not do)?
Or the fact that he wastes interviews where he could be a spokesperson for OpenSource with the Linux is not an OS... GNULinux is...
By their reasoning, isn't FSF using a power to take away my freedom to choose a different license?
No, for two reasons (both made in the essay I linked to):
The copyright holder chooses the license(s) under which their work is distributed to others. This applies to computer programs as well as other copyrightable works. The FSF is not determining the license by which your work is distributed to others. In the event that you are distributing a derivative work, you are choosing to base your work on another's copyrighted work. You could have also chosen not to distribute the derivative at all or you could have chosen to write your own code.
Licenses are a way to tell others what rights they have with a copyrighted work. Copyright holders are not bound by the license(s) under which their own work is distributed. Taken together, this perfectly fits the definition the FSF provides in their essay -- licensing a copyrighted work means making choices that affect others more than you.
The FSF defines what freedom is and says any other viewpoint that differs from their view is wrong.
Please provide a source to back up this statement.
What? How does "as in speech" make your point here? I don't even see how it's related.
There are restrictions on both -- in the US, freedom of speech is not an absolute. Under the GNU GPL, your freedom to share and modify comes with a proviso that you cannot deny recipients of distributed derivatives or verbatim copies the freedoms to share and modify the program.
[...] it's a bit disingenuous to try to convince someone that a more restrictive license is somehow more "free".
Not at all. The FSF uses driving a car to help understand why restricting some freedoms are necessary to preserve others; I'll attempt to paraphrase it briefly: we cannot have all possible freedoms because some conflict. So we make choices and give up some freedoms to keep other freedoms. For instance, we are not allowed to drive anywhere we want at any speed we want. We are not allowed to drive on the sidewalks and we are not allowed to disobey the speed limit. Our freedom to do these things is curtailed because other freedoms are deemed more valuable -- the freedom to walk down the street in safety. The GNU project is about spreading software freedom to more people, so this requires a copyright license which doesn't allow anyone to strip away the freedoms of free software. Hence the GNU GPL (the license under which a lot of the GNU project's programs are distributed) has a strong copyleft.
The FSF argues, quite convincingly, that the ability to restrict what others can do with computer programs is a power not a freedom because "Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.".
I don't think any free software advocate would object to the use of the new BSD license. Such programs are a gift to everyone, and therein lies the rub. Free software advocates warn against using non-copyleft free software licenses (such as the new BSD license) under most circumstances because doing so has some noteworthy practical problems (like competing against a derivative of one's own code) and because it means treating businesses like charities.
Fandom is not required, but understanding helps.
on
PHP Not Moving To The GPL
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why should I really care what ESR or RMS thinks about the software I choose to use?
Because they are saying very different things about software and, as a result, they reach different conclusions on some of the most interesting debates about software and how people should be treated.
I mean all this talk about freedom shouldn't I have the right to choose what software I use?
Freedom of choice is deceptively attractive because people who focus on choice can easily be undermined. Consider web browsers, for instance: if we only had 3 browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape) choice would be satisfied. We would not have software freedom, however, because none of those browsers are free software. They are all proprietary programs. Choice is not bad to have but it is not the heart of either the free software or open source philosophies and choice alone will not bring you the ability to share and modify software.
Shouldn't I also have the right to choose how I want to release any software I write? If I want to GPL it great, If I want to BSD it that is good also. If I want to charge ONE BILLION DOLLARS for it well then it is my work and if you do not like it write it yourself.
Nobody is challenging these powers (certainly not any free software or open source advocate). But there are significant differences between the two licenses you mention, so it is important to help people make informed decisions.
If you want freedom, and you think that Mac can't give you freedom, why buy it in the first place?
Please cite the part of my post which indicates that I "think that Mac can't give [one] freedom". The fact that one can run a free software OS (such as the ones I cited) on Mac hardware would indicate just the opposite -- Mac hardware is viable for those seeking software freedom because you can run a completely free OS on it and nothing but free software on top of that.
As to why buy a Macintosh, I don't recommend buying one and I will not buy one because I think they're overpriced for the features they provide and because I can find more competitively priced and more easily worked on PCs that meet my needs. I would also not consider buying one new until Apple sells them without an OS (another option I have buying a PC). But it's good to know that for those with Mac hardware (or if I come across inexpensive used Mac hardware) one doesn't have to give up software freedom to make use of the hardware.
Because some people want software freedom. MacOS X is non-free software -- one does not have the freedom to share or modify some parts of the system. For people interested in software freedom, a system with proprietary chunks will not do. GNU/Linux or the BSDs can be the basis of an entirely free OS. MacOS X (which, I believe, is FreeBSD plus some proprietary software) cannot.
First, thanks for responding. There was one part I take issue with:
If you're worried about competition, like you say, then you're a dingbat for making it free in the first place.
Whether we are talking free as in software freedom or free as in price I don't think competition is (and should be) unavoidable. Only software patents (patents on algorithms used to make computer software) which are enforced against everyone will come close to preventing competition (and this doesn't even work against the dedicated patent infringers or in countries where such patents don't apply).
Consider web browsers -- Microsoft's Internet Explorer is popular but there are many competitive web browsers (which more people are discovering are more competitive than they knew). MSIE costs no additional money (over the cost of the Microsoft Windows OS) and MSIE offers the user only one of the software freedoms identified by the FSF (namely, that you can run the program any time you want). Mozilla is one of MSIE's most popular competitors but Mozilla faces the same competitive pressure even though it is free software (anyone may run, inspect, share, and modify Mozilla any time for any purpose).
Seems like it'll take some work to find an OSS-supporting group that can't accept tax deductable donations.
The FSF asks that you not lump their work in with "open source". Considering that their work predates the open source movement by many years and is philosophically distinct, I think it would be reasonable to honor that request. Perhaps this list is better left as "a few of our other favorite groups".
No, because they have never needed to. In a move sure to please those who think the US is too litigious, the FSF has chosen to work with infringers so they are no longer infringing upon the FSF's copyright license. I would cite a document stating this, but this comes from Brad Kuhn, executive director of the FSF, who came to a college near where I live and spoke about the history of free software including how the FSF reacts to copyright infringement.
One of the GNU GPL's biggest strengths is that people and organizations of all sizes have been using the GPL for the better part of two decades and only recently has anyone been willing to pursue anything close to a GPL infringement case. Lawyers have studied the license and apparently concluded that it is solid. Eben Moglen has spoken on this at his Harvard talk and his twoarticles on the topic of enforcing the GPL.
The author of PocketNES appears to be aware of some GPL infringement (perhaps infringement of MiniLZO), but it casts an entirely different light on the story (and thus makes so much of this Slashdot story obsolete). The author writes:
Yes, PocketNES is public domain (at least, that was my intent. Kuwanger has brought it to my attention that I may be in violation of the GPL, but let's not worry about that for now).
As you can see, the author dismisses this far too quickly; this infringement may change the entire means by which PocketNES is licensed. But this whole story shows the underlying reality of copyright law: licenses are only as strong as the copyright holder. If the copyright holder(s) to MiniLZO do not defend their copyright, their work can and will be included in non-GPL derivatives.
Take another look at this quote from the PocketNES author:
I wanted it to be public domain. This "Jaleco incident", in fact, is the very reason I wanted to make it FREE (as in public domain) rather than "GPL free" (strings attached). I'm not a fan of the GPL, I think it's selfish. Let someone take an idea, do something cool with it, and not have to hesitate because of legal nitpickings. If a company can take something that I made, and turn it into a product that other people enjoy, I'm all the happier for it. Why should I care if someone else profits off of something I made? It's already free. Demanding that someone pay homage to my work is just ego-stroking, and I'm not into that. Sure, as a courtesy it would have been nice for Jaleco to tell me "hey, thanks for the source", and they didn't, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it, because I didn't write PocketNES so people would pat me on the back. I wrote it so people could have fun playing old games. And that's exactly what's happening here. Mission accomplished.
There are profound misunderstandings here, but I think I can distill the major points of rebuttal to two objections:
If this was supposed to be in the PD, the author should have written all the code for the program or based the work on other PD programs. The author should not have based the program on something else they didn't hold the copyright to under a license which doesn't allow PD derivatives.
The so-called "selfish[ness]" of the GNU GPL will become clear to anyone who has released their program under a non-copyleft free software license or in the PD and then watched as they had to compete against a derivative of their own program. This is not a pleasant experience and yet by the time it happens, one has already chosen to forgo all copyright power to stop it from occurring. This is why everyone "should [...] care if someone else profits off of something" they hold the copyright to.
I have no problem with someone choosing to place their work into the PD or license their work under a generous non-copyleft license (like the new BSD license or the MIT X11 license). I use those works, I build upon those works, I distribute those works, and I thank them for their effort. I also have no problem with works regularly entering the PD by expiring copyright in a timely manner (far shorter than the current term of copyright). But that's not what appears to be going on here; neither of these sentiments are being made real here. This author's words appear to be an attempt at a gift of code with a colossal misunderstanding of why the GPL exists and what it attempts to do.
I usually find that people who don't mind treating businesses like charities are naive and have little real-world experience with businesses. They are rudely awakened to the reality that one's misunderstanding of how copyright law works will not absolve them of copyright responsibilities.
[...] if i went up to the magority of people i know and said 'hey man, there's this kick ass confrence streaming on the internet, and guess what: it's OGG' i'd receive a whoel lot of WTF.
The same could be said of when RealVideo was new or when MP3 began. Novelty is no reason to reject something but being proprietary is. Conversely, as you indicated, being free is a great reason to support this work. My experience is that if you're willing to spend a few seconds explaining the problem with proprietary software you will be taken seriously. But if you signal that the issue of software freedom doesn't matter, you're telling people that they can safely dismiss it too.
The most common version of the history of free software begins with Richard Stallman's ethically-motivated 1984 revolt against proprietary software. It is an appealing story centered on a charismatic figure, and leads straight into a narrative in which the license he wrote -- the GPL -- is the centerpiece. But like most open source advocates, who tell a broader story about building better software through transparency and code sharing, I prefer to start the history with the style of software development that was normal in the early computer industry and academia. Because software was not seen as the primary source of value, source code was freely shared throughout the early computer industry.
RMS' retelling of the history of the movement he started does not begin as O'Reilly describes above (or, reading O'Reilly differently, RMS is being called an "open-source advocate"). Either way, O'Reilly is wrong. RMS has made it very clear that he does not wish to be lumped in with the open source movement. As for the story of how the free software movement came to be, RMS describes how fortunate he was "in
the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software" which "could trace its ancestry essentially back to the
beginning of computing"; as you can see in the brief quote I include below, RMS made it clear that back then source code sharing was the norm and there was no need to define a movement to underscore the importance of treating others in the ethical way these hackers treated one another back then. It is this description of RMS' experience as a member of the MIT AI lab that sets the stage for the jarring experience he had when trying to get the source code for software which controlled the early laser printer Xerox had donated to the AI lab. RMS wanted this printer program's source code so the program could be modified to include the end-to-end feedback improvements the MIT AI lab had hacked into their previous printer control software. Read or hear the speech for yourself (links go to the 2001 NYU retelling of this story -- two years before O'Reilly first gave his speech). Read a relevant portion of RMS' speech:
So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black
boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change
them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you
a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create
tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes.
But that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A
world in which common decency towards other people is prohibited or
prevented.
Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in
the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software.
Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the
beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there
to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was
sort of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire
operating system was software developed by the people in our community,
and we'd share any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and
take a look, and take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There
were no copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of
life. And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it.
We didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
software, but there was no free software movement.
Furthermore, when O'Reilly tells a story of "building better software through transparency and code sharing", he is not in any way speaking t
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, in fact RMS talks about this in his talk on the beginning of the free software community. But it wasn't anything to do with "open source" that recognized that this community of hackers who shared code was dying. During the time when hackers freely shared code (often not putting copyright notices on it at all), sharing was the norm. There was no need for a free software community (or the open source movement within that community) because everyone shared what code they had (including businesses which sold mainframe computers--the OS source code came with the machines and it was understood that their customers would share and modify the code to suit their needs).
It's interesting that you would use the GPL to try and make your point because the writing and design of the GNU General Public License has nothing to do with the open source movement.
The Open Source Initiative merely defined their terms broadly enough to accept the GPLv2. There were already a number of programs licensed under the GPL by the time the OSI was founded and declared the GPL to be acceptable. The GPL was written by RMS and Eben Moglen who are both FSF people. The GPL was written for the free software movement (that's why there are so many references to software freedom in the GPL). The open source movement doesn't even talk about software freedom (their FAQ appears to consider it "ideological tub-thumping", hardly an astute analysis of the issues at hand) because the open source movement's goals aim to grease the wheels for business to take advantage of the unpaid programming labor in the world. By contrast, the free software movement's message of software freedom targets all computer users. The essay I pointed to on the differences between the two movements has an interesting story highlighting how the open source message doesn't necessarily include users. Lots of people who are trying to spread the news about a movement where people can share code don't understand this aspect of the open source movement.
More lawyers, perhaps, but some of the ones who are doing the most interesting work have been involved for a while now. Eben Moglen, for example, was ahead of the curve (and, from what he discussed in his Harvard talk, he still is). He's a lawyer and he co-wrote the GPL well before the OSI existed or the term "open source" had been coined.
They did--they benefitted greatly from a license the founders of that movement had nothing to do with writing or conceiving. It's a shame that the authorship and intention of the GPL are lost to so many by pairing that license with a movement that didn't exist when the license was written and a movement that doesn't speak to the value of software freedom which is the heart of the GPL.
From the summary:
There is no reasonable interpretation of history that can make this claim about GNU true: GNU was started to pursue software freedom. The open source movement did not yet exist. When GNU began, the open source movement would not exist for over another decade.
I do not say this to flamebait or to raise suspicions of malevolence but to clarify and prevent people from being deceived into thinking the free software and open source movements are the same thing. The people at the Free Software Foundation, in particular the most prominent members (Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, and Brad Kuhn) have all spoken and written on this issue clarifying how these movements are not the same and asking not to be lumped in with the open source movement.
But this is not the first time proponents of the open source movement have tried to take credit for work that is not theirs. Countless articles and posts on discussion websites (including /.) call the GNU GPL an "open source" license merely because the Open Source Initiative has set their license acceptance terms to include the GPL and listed this license in their list of approved licenses. Eric Raymond, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, has included the Emacs editor as an example of an "open-source project" without acknowledging that this program was initially written by RMS; RMS did not write Emacs to benefit "open-source" nor would he consider Emacs an "open-source project". RMS wrote Emacs to benefit the free software movement and the GNU project, which he founded.
Mark Webbink, chief counsel for Red Hat and proponent of open source, recently wrote an essay describing different "open source" licenses and apparently found the concept of copyleft so useful he employed it in his essay. He spent quite some words explaining the concept, but he never called the concept by its name nor did he explain that he didn't come up with it (the FSF did years ago). People reading that essay might think otherwise because of (what amount to) his intellectual dishonesty. Ironically, the Open Source Initiative does not use copyleft in its license list. The reasons why one might want to use one of the OSI-approved licenses over another are not clearly delineated on the OSI site (unlike the FSF's site which provides brief commentary on free software licenses).
So let's give credit where credit is due. The open source movement should be happy that they have acheived so much popularity and helped bring so many people to use and develop excellent software. There's no need to try and take credit for the works of others.
I don't see how this is a problem or any different from anyone else building services around free software. I don't see how it is the free software community's problem that some businesspeople choose to pay for certification. Furthermore, packaging my free software program doesn't prevent others from packaging it as well (perhaps incorrectly or poorly; possibly their bad packages will be more popular than yours and you will just have to live with it hoping more people will install your improved packages instead). The way I figure it, by distributing free software at all you are contributing to any collection of free software anywhere and possibly helping someone or some organization build a certification program around it.
Perhaps this entire article arises from an "open source" mindset where business users' perceived problems are of chief importance? I'll remind readers of an informative essay on the differences between the two movements.
Your organization isn't likely to be sued for patent infringement by IBM, particularly if your organization holds any patents. Your organization is more likely to be pressured into cross-licensing. Don't take my word for this, read it from IBM's own Assistant General Counsel, Roger Smith. In IBM's "Think" magazine Smith said that IBM gets "perhaps an order of magnitude" more value from their patents by cross-licensing than from lawsuits.
I take them seriously on this matter because they hold more patents than anyone or any other organization. I would not expect that IBM will refrain from suing Linux kernel developers if need be. There's no point in owning the patents if they pose no threat to compel the behavior of others.
Cross-licensing is also one of the key reasons why software patents fail to promote the innovation a limited monopoly ostensibly exists to provoke.
Which makes me wonder what's really going on here. The poster who started this /. thread said "The Helix Player is 100% open source, (now including the GPL!)...". One wonders if the player can be redistributed by anyone or if the player is improperly licensed.
If I can't supply "complete corresponding source code" (to quote the GPL) to the program, or if I can't make good on a written promise to supply said source code, then I can't distribute it under the GNU GPL. I wonder this because of RMS' interpretation of plugins. Considering the case where plugins (such as codecs might be) are a derivative work of the master program, I have to wonder if the program is improperly licensed and, despite the licensing attempt, is not actually copyleft free software as the license intends.
How long must Wikipedia's editors "[demonstrate] themselves to be trustworthy" to get this kind of review?
I read that differently--I read that as meaning EB (for instance) will go away because they are not able to meet self-imposed expectations of commercial success. This struck me as neither arrogant nor short-sighted. I saw it as another point adding to a theme where free software and free documentation become competitive to the point where businesses can't all stay around. And that's okay because competition is healthy and welcome, and because the viability of a business should depend on their ability to innovate and deliver what the public actually wants. I read his statement a prediction we can look at in the future to measure how true it is.
I fail to understand how the parent post is "interesting" (funny, perhaps). I understand the point being made -- the word "bootstrapping" was misspelled -- but that happens. It seems to me that is why the licensing on this book is significant: At least with this book this error can be corrected and reprinted by anyone so readers don't have to live with the error for long. As I read the web page, it looks like there is no error in the table of contents.
It's got to be tough to write a book and not make a minor spelling error. I've never written a book like this so I wouldn't know, but I have read many books (including technical books) with such errors. I read the error, mark it in my notes if I have paper handy, and move on. After reading the book, I often remember to submit my notes to the publisher for future corrections. It seems to me that the remarkably thorough editing and more restrictive licensing terms on these other books I've read do not prevent the errors from occurring. So my notes never result in fixing the book for subsequent readers unless the publisher decides to reprint.
I think you meant to say no more proprietary software. Nothing about software freedom precludes using a thin plastic layer around a physical copy of software or distributing that copy of software for a fee.
You should also disagree with section 3 ("All software should be free") because the author purposefully uses the wrong definition of free (the one pertaining to cost, not freedom) to conflate the differences between the two movements. Furthermore, the author apparently has no idea what RMS stands for:
This is wholly untrue. The open source movement has never pitched its message based on software freedom, it was founded to reject software freedom and pitch instead a practical software methodology message--programs are better when they are less buggy, cheaper to develop, and run faster--because it is believed that this movement's audience (chiefly businesses) are scared with freedom talk. There's nothing wrong with these practical values, but they are not the values of the older free software movement, they don't give you software freedom, and they don't speak to the same audience as the free software movement. Continuing with the article:
RMS has never said he was a member of the open source movement nor did he start the Open Source Initiative which defines that movement's goals and terms for license acceptance. RMS has asked explicitly not to be lumped in with the open source movement. RMS started the free software movement about 20 years ago, well before the open source movement started, and co-wrote the GNU GPL with Prof. Eben Moglen, and RMS started the GNU project in order to spread software freedom (the freedoms to inspect, copy, run, distribute, and modify computer software at any time for any reason).
This author is making (and getting lost in) his own economic-justification message. Meanwhile the Free Software Foundation tells us that distributing free software for a fee can be okay, and that we should make as much money as we can from distributing free software for a fee and building paid services atop the software. I would add that it is not the FSF's or the free software community's job to define how businesses can make money with free software (however the FSF does have some suggestions which they give us in their talks). It is a businesses responsibility to define how they will make money. The FSF is not a business plan nor was it ever intended to be. If the open source movement wants to be seen as such, they are choosing to take on that job.
Also, in section 6 ("More choice is always better") the author falls into the trap of thinking choice is a key value: Freedom of choice is deceptively attractive because people who focus on choice can easily be undermined. If we only had 3 web browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape) choice would be satisfied. We would not have software freedom, however, because none of those browsers are free software. They are all proprietary programs. Choice is not bad to have but it is not the heart of either the free software or open source philosophies and choice alone will not bring you the ability to share and modify software.
I'm left thinking this report is little more than his view of what's right and wrong with software today, not an informed essay on busting "open source myths" by examining what the open source movement stands for and how it goes about pursuing its goals.
The poster asks:
My experience in talking to musicians for my radio show is that this is largely the publishers -- the large corporate publishers, at that. Smaller publishers and the musicians I've spoken with are overwhelmingly interested in increasing exposure and driving up sales through increased exposure.
This tends to jibe with the push for extending the term of copyright in the US and the advocacy for the status quo during the Eldred v. Ashcroft US Supreme Court case. It was publishers (most notably Disney) and organizations of publishers (such as the MPAA) who want longer and longer terms of copyright so they don't have to publish as much new work but can continue to capitalize on commercially successful works from the past.
The story submitter wrote:
I can guarantee you that interpretation is incorrect. RMS doesn't advocate for "OSS" (open source software) or anything else to do with the open source movement. He is the founder of the free software movement and the GNU Project which aims to spread software freedom, something the open source movement does not discuss.
Given the following passage from the interview:
I'm guessing that the submitter failed to read the interview. But that wouldn't be the first time.
No, but your namecalling isn't convincing. I think it's perfectly reasonable to recognize that commercial organizations should not be the foremost in our minds. You, on the other hand, seem to consistently argue from the perspective that the public should work for them because it is what business wants; this entire sub-thread concerns strictly commercial development as if it were somehow vastly more important than building communities of equal participants who cannot take advantage of one another.
Of course "[t]here are plenty of projects that [sic] companies use" (emphasis mine) new BSD-licensed code. That was never in dispute; they are receiving that code as a gift and they like that because they don't have to share their improvements. The question is which commercial organizations share their code under this generous license. Please feel free to provide specific examples and compare them to the number of projects and/or commercial organizations publishing code under the GNU GPL instead. I'll get you started with counterexamples: two of the biggest corporations in the world (IBM and Microsoft) both distribute GPL covered programs and have for some time. IBM even distributes improvements which are also licensed under the GPL. Smaller corporations include Novell, Red Hat, and (before they were bought by Red Hat) Cygnus. Brad Kuhn, executive director of the FSF, tells me that there are some GCC consultants with so many clients they have waiting lists. All of their distributed GCC derivatives are licensed under the GPL. But what's more important than any of that is how all that code, the free software community, and the GNU General Public License got started--by focusing on endeavors which were community-oriented, not commercially-oriented.
Then they can negotiate that arrangement with each other or they can get so-called software patents (patents covering algorithms which computer software developers use to make programs; patents which the new BSD license does nothing to license) and license one another for those "inventions". This doesn't at all address the underlying issue of why the public should be encouraged to do work for them at no cost to them and possibly never see the improvements, or be able to leverage what is built on top of these programs.
There is no lack of "safe[ty]" in a strong copyleft and the history of non-copyleft free software licenses has been remarkably one way. Furthermore, it is not the job of society to make life "safe" for business. If a business wants to participate with the free software community, there is nothing wrong with getting them to do so as equals or rejecting their software entirely.
The warnings I spoke of apply to businesses as they do to individuals (which is why you see so few businesses licensing their own software under non-copyleft free software licenses). So even along the business-first logic you use, your explanation doesn't work. If what you are saying were true, you would see businesses being charitable by licensing their software under non-copylefted free software licenses. Instead we see some of the world's largest businesses licensing their software under the GPL because they want to make sure that their competitors don't take advantage of their code by distributing proprietary derivatives. If they don't GPL their code, they often make their own licenses which aren't anywhere near the charitable contribution that the new BSD license is.
Not long ago, Bill Gates visited the university near where I live and spoke to the Engineering students there including taking questions from the audience. He said that the GNU GPL was an inappropriate choice of license for an educational institution to release software under. Later, in the same response, he said that he thought "the BSD license" (there are more than one, but it was understood that he was talking about the new BSD license without the advertising clause) was appropriate. What he wasn't telling the audience was why he disliked the GPL so much. He dislikes it because, unlike the new BSD license, the GNU GPL does not allow Microsoft to build on the software and distribute proprietary derivatives. Microsoft would love to be able to do this so they can take advantage of the GPL commons without having to contribute their changes.
The distinction you draw between libraries and applications is sophistry ultimately aimed at arranging free labor for business; rearranging social priorities so the public thinks of business desires first. This is very much in line with the open source movement and points to one of the biggest philosophical differences between the open source and free software movements; I'll address this in a moment.
There are times when it is strategically wise to use a weak copylefted license (like the LGPL) or a non-copyleft license (like the new BSD license). But if one wants to avoid the practical problems I described in an earlier post in this thread, one learns that those times are rare. Suffice it to say that if anyone or any organization doesn't like the terms of the GNU GPL (most likely because they don't want to share their published changes and help build the community they receive so much value from), they can write their own code or license code from those willing to contribute it to them as a gift. Nobody owes you or any organization code.
Everyone is already able to contribute to GPL'd software and they are doing so as we speak.
Finally, I am not an "open source advocate" and neither are the authors of the GNU GPL (which, ironically, is still mistakenly cited as an "open source license" even though it was written years before that movement existed and, accordingly, doesn't discuss open source goals at all). The free software movement is not anti-business, it is anti-proprietary software. Some licenses allow proprietary derivatives and others don't. Fortunately, the FSF identifies them and writes about them in their license list. The FSF's concept of "copyleft" is invaluable in assisting that effort.
Others have already addressed much of what you write, so I'll spend time on some other parts.
Please cite a source which shows RMS saying that non-GPL'd software is immoral. RMS says that non-free software is immoral (and he makes a case for this, he does not let the statement hang without justification; the entire story of free software speech he's given on numerous occassions lay out his argument). There are many free software licenses besides the GNU General Public License.
Why not? Because we might discover that it is not obsessive compulsive disorder at all but actually a request aimed at giving credit where credit is due? Or debunking the idea that it is a self-promotional ego trip (nobody is asking you to call the system "Stallmanix" or somesuch)? Or requesting but not requiring that GNU get a share of the credit being given to Linus Torvalds (who is apparently unwilling to correct people who give him credit for work he did not do)?
He has taken many opportunities to tell people in no uncertain terms that he is not a member of the open source movement and he does not represent that movement. One of them appears in the essay where he lays out the differences between the two movements. He has also written to Dr. Dobb's magazine and spoken on this issue at the moment the misunderstanding occurred.
No, for two reasons (both made in the essay I linked to):
Please provide a source to back up this statement.
There are restrictions on both -- in the US, freedom of speech is not an absolute. Under the GNU GPL, your freedom to share and modify comes with a proviso that you cannot deny recipients of distributed derivatives or verbatim copies the freedoms to share and modify the program.
Not at all. The FSF uses driving a car to help understand why restricting some freedoms are necessary to preserve others; I'll attempt to paraphrase it briefly: we cannot have all possible freedoms because some conflict. So we make choices and give up some freedoms to keep other freedoms. For instance, we are not allowed to drive anywhere we want at any speed we want. We are not allowed to drive on the sidewalks and we are not allowed to disobey the speed limit. Our freedom to do these things is curtailed because other freedoms are deemed more valuable -- the freedom to walk down the street in safety. The GNU project is about spreading software freedom to more people, so this requires a copyright license which doesn't allow anyone to strip away the freedoms of free software. Hence the GNU GPL (the license under which a lot of the GNU project's programs are distributed) has a strong copyleft.
The FSF argues, quite convincingly, that the ability to restrict what others can do with computer programs is a power not a freedom because "Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.".
I don't think any free software advocate would object to the use of the new BSD license. Such programs are a gift to everyone, and therein lies the rub. Free software advocates warn against using non-copyleft free software licenses (such as the new BSD license) under most circumstances because doing so has some noteworthy practical problems (like competing against a derivative of one's own code) and because it means treating businesses like charities.
Because they are saying very different things about software and, as a result, they reach different conclusions on some of the most interesting debates about software and how people should be treated.
Freedom of choice is deceptively attractive because people who focus on choice can easily be undermined. Consider web browsers, for instance: if we only had 3 browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape) choice would be satisfied. We would not have software freedom, however, because none of those browsers are free software. They are all proprietary programs. Choice is not bad to have but it is not the heart of either the free software or open source philosophies and choice alone will not bring you the ability to share and modify software.
Nobody is challenging these powers (certainly not any free software or open source advocate). But there are significant differences between the two licenses you mention, so it is important to help people make informed decisions.
Please cite the part of my post which indicates that I "think that Mac can't give [one] freedom". The fact that one can run a free software OS (such as the ones I cited) on Mac hardware would indicate just the opposite -- Mac hardware is viable for those seeking software freedom because you can run a completely free OS on it and nothing but free software on top of that.
As to why buy a Macintosh, I don't recommend buying one and I will not buy one because I think they're overpriced for the features they provide and because I can find more competitively priced and more easily worked on PCs that meet my needs. I would also not consider buying one new until Apple sells them without an OS (another option I have buying a PC). But it's good to know that for those with Mac hardware (or if I come across inexpensive used Mac hardware) one doesn't have to give up software freedom to make use of the hardware.
Because some people want software freedom. MacOS X is non-free software -- one does not have the freedom to share or modify some parts of the system. For people interested in software freedom, a system with proprietary chunks will not do. GNU/Linux or the BSDs can be the basis of an entirely free OS. MacOS X (which, I believe, is FreeBSD plus some proprietary software) cannot.
First, thanks for responding. There was one part I take issue with:
Whether we are talking free as in software freedom or free as in price I don't think competition is (and should be) unavoidable. Only software patents (patents on algorithms used to make computer software) which are enforced against everyone will come close to preventing competition (and this doesn't even work against the dedicated patent infringers or in countries where such patents don't apply).
Consider web browsers -- Microsoft's Internet Explorer is popular but there are many competitive web browsers (which more people are discovering are more competitive than they knew). MSIE costs no additional money (over the cost of the Microsoft Windows OS) and MSIE offers the user only one of the software freedoms identified by the FSF (namely, that you can run the program any time you want). Mozilla is one of MSIE's most popular competitors but Mozilla faces the same competitive pressure even though it is free software (anyone may run, inspect, share, and modify Mozilla any time for any purpose).
The FSF asks that you not lump their work in with "open source". Considering that their work predates the open source movement by many years and is philosophically distinct, I think it would be reasonable to honor that request. Perhaps this list is better left as "a few of our other favorite groups".
No, because they have never needed to. In a move sure to please those who think the US is too litigious, the FSF has chosen to work with infringers so they are no longer infringing upon the FSF's copyright license. I would cite a document stating this, but this comes from Brad Kuhn, executive director of the FSF, who came to a college near where I live and spoke about the history of free software including how the FSF reacts to copyright infringement.
One of the GNU GPL's biggest strengths is that people and organizations of all sizes have been using the GPL for the better part of two decades and only recently has anyone been willing to pursue anything close to a GPL infringement case. Lawyers have studied the license and apparently concluded that it is solid. Eben Moglen has spoken on this at his Harvard talk and his two articles on the topic of enforcing the GPL.
The author of PocketNES appears to be aware of some GPL infringement (perhaps infringement of MiniLZO), but it casts an entirely different light on the story (and thus makes so much of this Slashdot story obsolete). The author writes:
As you can see, the author dismisses this far too quickly; this infringement may change the entire means by which PocketNES is licensed. But this whole story shows the underlying reality of copyright law: licenses are only as strong as the copyright holder. If the copyright holder(s) to MiniLZO do not defend their copyright, their work can and will be included in non-GPL derivatives.
Take another look at this quote from the PocketNES author:
There are profound misunderstandings here, but I think I can distill the major points of rebuttal to two objections:
I have no problem with someone choosing to place their work into the PD or license their work under a generous non-copyleft license (like the new BSD license or the MIT X11 license). I use those works, I build upon those works, I distribute those works, and I thank them for their effort. I also have no problem with works regularly entering the PD by expiring copyright in a timely manner (far shorter than the current term of copyright). But that's not what appears to be going on here; neither of these sentiments are being made real here. This author's words appear to be an attempt at a gift of code with a colossal misunderstanding of why the GPL exists and what it attempts to do.
I usually find that people who don't mind treating businesses like charities are naive and have little real-world experience with businesses. They are rudely awakened to the reality that one's misunderstanding of how copyright law works will not absolve them of copyright responsibilities.
The same could be said of when RealVideo was new or when MP3 began. Novelty is no reason to reject something but being proprietary is. Conversely, as you indicated, being free is a great reason to support this work. My experience is that if you're willing to spend a few seconds explaining the problem with proprietary software you will be taken seriously. But if you signal that the issue of software freedom doesn't matter, you're telling people that they can safely dismiss it too.
Quoting Tim O'Reilly's speech:
RMS' retelling of the history of the movement he started does not begin as O'Reilly describes above (or, reading O'Reilly differently, RMS is being called an "open-source advocate"). Either way, O'Reilly is wrong. RMS has made it very clear that he does not wish to be lumped in with the open source movement. As for the story of how the free software movement came to be, RMS describes how fortunate he was "in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software" which "could trace its ancestry essentially back to the beginning of computing"; as you can see in the brief quote I include below, RMS made it clear that back then source code sharing was the norm and there was no need to define a movement to underscore the importance of treating others in the ethical way these hackers treated one another back then. It is this description of RMS' experience as a member of the MIT AI lab that sets the stage for the jarring experience he had when trying to get the source code for software which controlled the early laser printer Xerox had donated to the AI lab. RMS wanted this printer program's source code so the program could be modified to include the end-to-end feedback improvements the MIT AI lab had hacked into their previous printer control software. Read or hear the speech for yourself (links go to the 2001 NYU retelling of this story -- two years before O'Reilly first gave his speech). Read a relevant portion of RMS' speech:
Furthermore, when O'Reilly tells a story of "building better software through transparency and code sharing", he is not in any way speaking t