No, that's not what I'm talking about. [...] Internet Explorer's plugin feature apparently infringes upon a patent... The company owning the patent did not distribute the code, therefore the GPL doesn't apply to them.
Yes, this is precisely what you are trying to talk about. The only clarification I should have made is that I was talking about IBM distributing software under the GNU GPL that implements ideas in their own patents. Getting back to your description of Eolas' patent covering a part of Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE), the GPL doesn't apply in this case because nothing in MSIE is licensed under the GPL and because a copyright license is not binding on the copyright holder.
If Internet Explorer was GPL'd, you'd have to stop distributing it immediately. If it's BSD-licensed (or MIT licensed, or whatever else) then you aren't forced to stop distribution.
Actually, I can't distribute MSIE because Microsoft doesn't license me to do that. But what you say here is incorrect even in your hypothetical case.
In this hypothetical situation, Eolas (who holds the patent that Microsoft is infringing upon) could compel Microsoft to stop distributing this GPL-covered MSIE because Microsoft never obtained a license for Eolas' patented idea. Microsoft is not licensed to distribute any implementation of Eolas' patented idea. Microsoft has the option to take out the infringing code and continue distributing MSIE. This looks like what Microsoft intends to do. Microsoft could be infringing someone else's patent, and if they learn they are they will have the same options they have with Eolas (namely, attempt to get a license or remove the infringing code).
Consider a different hypothetical situation, one where the patent were Microsoft's instead of Eolas', and where MSIE is distributed under the GPL instead of Microsoft's proprietary license, you and I would be able to distribute MSIE in verbatim or modified forms. If MSIE were licensed under the MIT X11 license you and I would have to get a patent license before we could legally distribute MSIE without fear of losing a patent infringement lawsuit. This is because the MIT X11 license, the old BSD license, and the new BSD license have no language indicating that there is an implicit patent grant for the covered software. So these three licenses do less than the GNU GPL to ensure our software freedoms to share and modify covered software.
The end-users might have to get some sort of patent license to use the program in a commerical setting, but you aren't forced to stop distribution all-together.
I am aware of no automatic license to violate a patent so long as you do so non-commercially. Red Hat distributes their GNU/Linux system non-commercially but they do not include an MP3 decoder. Red Hat knows they can't without the appropriate patent license. Even though there are ostensibly GPL-covered MP3 decoders, none of them are distributed by people who have paid for an unlimited MP3 patent license. Hence, Red Hat suggests the use of Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3. I suspect Red Hat's sponsorship of Fedora Core and Fedora Core's lack of an MP3 patent license is why you won't find an MP3 decoder in Fedora Core either.
So, if it's no longer a trade secret in the US, does that mean that the Jon Johansen can finally quit worrying about the Norwegian government's appealing the second aquittal?
Wikipedia says "Okokrim announced on January 5, 2004 that it would not appeal the case any further" (apparently Slashdot will not let me type the O with the slash through it, but it gives me the proper character in the editor area).
why GPL? wouldn't apache or BSD license be "more free"? Since the user doesn't have to contribute the changes back or provide the source to paying customers.
No, that would allow more restrictively licensed derivative works which would mean the freedoms of free software are not necessarily preserved for those who receive improved versions of the program. The freedoms of free software are for everyone to enjoy, not just those who receive a copy of the program from the copyright holder.
Distributing a program under the new BSD license or the Apache license is certainly free software, and it is a valued contribution to the community. But if the intention is to spread software freedom, not donate charitably to corporations, it's a good idea to make sure the software freedom stays with the program and its derivatives. And that's just what copylefted free software licenses are good at doing.
Contrary to what MBA's think, just because the source is available, it doesn't mean the average programmer can understand it or improve on it. the only thing the open licenses do is it allows your competitors to match exactly what you have.
For the free software movement (as opposed to the open source movement which started over a decade later with a different philosophy and a different message aimed at a different set of people), who possesses the skill to improve the program is not the key to understanding software freedom. Also, "open"ness is not a relevant criteria for determining what constitutes a free software license.
The FSF makes a big point of encouraging software authors to transfer the copyright to the FSF, though. [...] If said copyright transfer occurs, no, the author does not have control any longer.
I believe that assigning copyright to the FSF involves a contract where copyright reverts back to the previous copyright holder if the FSF is somehow unable to license the work under a free software license. So it's not a permanent copyright transfer, although the conditions for copyright reversion are admittedly obscure.
If you hold copyright on a work, then you always have total control over it, and I don't know of any way you could give up that control even if you wanted to [...]
If there is a patent covering your program you can be stifled from distributing the program. Distribution of the program is a power under copyright law, so therefore another's patent can stifle your copyright power. This isn't the same as losing copyright power, but for the duration of all of the patents covering your program, this has almost the same effect.
If you wrote a program and released it under the GPL, at any time you can turn around and say that you are going to release it under a more restrictive license.
Actually, copyright holders can do this without ever licensing their program under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.
The key here, is that the released version will still be available, and anybody can improve upon it. However, that is certainly NOT unique to the GPL... Release a program under the BSD license and you have the same effect, but even less chance that it can get shut-down (with the GPL, if a patent shows-up, you can't distribute the program any longer, the BSD license has no such restriction).
You can't grant permission you don't have, regardless of the copyright license. But this GPL "restriction" you talk about is not a restriction at all and "get[ting] shut-down" (if you mean being compelled to stop distributing the program) is greater under the BSD licenses, not lesser. When IBM modifies a program to include patented ideas and then they distribute that program under the GNU GPL, they license "everyone who uses any code from the [program] to practice [the] patented technology" (according to the FSF's GPL quiz).
Under the BSD licenses (either the old or the new) there is no language covering patents at all. One does not simultaneously receive a license to practice the covered technology with the code from the patent-encumbered program. And under the BSD licenses embrace-and-extend is a constant threat to one's ability to improve the program based on someone else's published improvements. The GNU GPL doesn't have either of these significant problems.
The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that visible and hidden markings on the videocassette copy on the Internet identify it as the one sent to Carmine Caridi, a film and television actor who appeared in the "The Godfather: Part II" and television's "NYPD Blue."
and that
The academy has sent a letter seeking an explanation for how the screener copy wound up on the Internet [...]
And nowhere in the article do they describe Caridi as a "pirate", nor can I find a mention of anyone in Hollywood willing to compare Caridi to the Boston Strangler. This despite their apparent assuredness that Caridi has illicitly distributed copies of this movie without permission. Apparently this kind of language is reserved for would-be customers.
Webbink's article gives the open source movement a lot of undeserved credit (GNU Emacs an "open source" program even though it was written initially by RMS and Guy Steele in the pursuit of software freedom years before the name "open source" was ever coined?) and the logic behind some of Webbink's points is in gross conflict with the FSF's stated logic (outside of a license manager program or encryption, copyright licenses are not what allow you to use a program; of the powers copyright regulates that have relevance for programs, copyright regulates only copying, modification, and distribution).
Of course, I wouldn't expect a bunch of people who routinely credit the GPL and LGPL as "open source" licenses to notice this. Placing a license on a list of approved licenses is nothing compared to writing the license and starting our community. To quote RMS, the open source movement "owes its existence to the idealism that movement rejects".
None of your examples are specific enough or pan out to support your premise that RMS is against choice.
Emacs. Running emacs on X did not help the hurd, so he found a new developer and forked the project away from the existing developer. The mailing list emails of the time look incredibly childish. Plus the whole man vs info idiocy.
I'll have to ask you for a specific thread so I can see exactly what you're referring to. As for man and info, the choice of info is not to everyone's liking (including my own), but this is hardly denying choice. Nowhere in the licenses that cover GNU are you denied the freedom to make derivative works or distribute those derivatives to help other people. This power could be denied because that's how US copyright law works by default. It takes special action to grant these powers.
The long held grudge against Trolltech and KDE long after they moved from their own free licence to his GPL is another example.
Again, a specific post or essay would be helpful here. I remember when Qt was not free and eventually GNOME and Harmony were started. GNOME took off and the Harmony project became unnecessary because Qt was made free. RMS RMS examined and explained the legal issues involved in Qt's GPL-incompatibility including how KDE had been infringing upon the copyrights of some GPL-covered works. This was KDE developer's fault, not RMS or the FSF.
Contrary to the picture you're attempting to paint, RMS granted the forgiveness that KDE developers legally needed in order to continue to distribute their own (previously copyright infringing) code. RMS urged KDE's developers to get forgiveness from the other copyright holders whose code they had infringed upon. This is not the behavior of someone who holds a grudge, this is the behavior of someone who recognizes how valuable KDE is to the free software community and wants to make KDE legally available to all.
I just wish the GNU pages would spend less time putting others down and have more documentation.
Then I hope you'll choose to help them out by writing the documentation you feel is absent or lacking quality. I'm sure many free software projects would welcome your discerning eye. But I don't think this has anything to do with RMS disliking choice or denying others the ability to choose.
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS mmight[sic] be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
Perhaps RMS is looking down the road further than a lot of people. Not everyone appreciates how computers connect us together and give us the most democratic communications medium we have. RMS didn't create this medium, but he sure made it more useful than it would be had we left it to proprietors. We should be thankful someone with such forthrightness got the GNU project and its goal of software freedom started as early as he did.
As long as RMS continues to deny the purpose of software for most people, free software will never meet the needs of the masses.
I think the free software that drives the Internet's most valued features (e-mail service, web service, and Google-based web indexing, to name a few) would, if they could talk, challenge you on that.
Without people like Mr. Stallman, The free software movement would not be where it is today. His "problem" is that he envisions a perfect world where all software is free. This is a noble goal, but the reality is that this will never be. There will always be need (and a market) for non-free software.
When RMS first started the GNU project people were quick to tell him how it was impossible to make a completely free operating system. People pointed out how nobody would work on free software because it's so unlikely they'll be paid for it (thus implying that computer software is chiefly developed because people are being paid to do that). I would guess one could find old e-mail list threads where people challenged RMS for seemingly leaving businesses out of the plan.
History tells a different story, one that is not kind to these naysayers. Today, the GNU General Public License (GPL) is the preeminent free software license. One can find developers who will frown upon licensing software in such a way that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. This decentralized social movement, known as the free software movement, is successfully challenging an incredibly well-funded proprietor while the former corporate computer heavyweight is distributing free software. We might not live to see a day when all published software is free software, but I would be more careful about saying what will "never be".
This goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice.
Your evidence of this is where, exactly? I don't see him telling people they shouldn't write any particular program. I see him telling people that if they intend on distributing the software they are writing, they should distribute it as free software.
Heck, they were founded on the concept of a Free Software distribution of Linux.
Actually the GNU project predates the development of the Linux kernal by many years. So that makes it very hard to found the free software movement on anything to do with the Linux kernal.
However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it. In his somewhat Orwellian stance, RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software.
Actually, RMS is not against commercial software, he's all for it so long as it is distributed with the freedoms of free software. Perhaps you should have read the first paragraph of the article this thread is based on where RMS distinguishes between free as in price and free as in freedom (or as free software advocates like to say, "Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'.").
For RMS and a lot of other people, there are significant moral objections to non-free software, well rooted in their shared desire to build communities of people who have the freedom to share with one another. It's perfectly reasonable, given this stance, to object to any distribution of non-free software. It's also objectionable to see an organization (such as Debian) distribute software that belies their own goals (even Debian has some cognitive dissonance about the non-free software they distribute). Debian appears to be working toward getting rid of their non-free software. When they do, I'm guessing RMS will reevaluate his stance on Debian.
Plus, I don't like how he has only words of criticism and scorn for those who are making moves towards his stance but have not yet fully committed to it. You're just not good enough unless you're pushing for a total abolition of non-Free Software.
"The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.
For example, we felt justified in installing Unix on our computer in the 1980s, because we were using it to write a free replacement for Unix. Nowadays, since free operating systems are available, the excuse is no longer applicable; we have eliminated all our non-free operating systems, and any new computer we install must run a completely free operating system.
We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will decide to follow it too."
The FSF is led by RMS and his essays and talks are those people first look to when figuring out what the FSF and free software are all about. He is firm in his stance that all published software ought to be free software and he won't hesitate to disagree with you (some people find this uncomfortable because they're used to dealing with people who will silently retreat or lie and agree to your face and then harbor a dissenting point of view). If he ever said you were not a "good enough" person "unless you
He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)
You say that like it's both true and a bad thing. It is neither.
It's clearly untrue because some of the largest corporations in the world run free software and work hard to change the licenses to their software to become free software licenses.
It's a good thing that corporations are working with us as equals, rather than masters, because it means we can work with them or compete against them as we choose. This is one of the big differences between the open source movement and the free software movement--the open source movement was formed specifically to speak to businesses whereas the free software movement was formed to give computer users software freedom. As a citizen and computer user, I know which movement is more aimed at my interests and those of society as a whole.
I would not want more situations where corporations dominate over and exploit citizens and small investors (Among US corporations the list of corporate abusers, most of which are apparently insufficiently punished so as to deter future wrongdoing, includes Wal-Mart, MCI/Worldcom, Enron, Global Crossing, and Tyco). But don't take my word for it.
Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?
First, this is not his problem or the responsibility of the Free Software community. It's your problem if you want to make a living doing something people can and will do for themselves. I understand and appreciate your genuine need to put food on the table, but the world is full of jobs and you won't come anywhere close to starving if you can't make money distributing copies of software. Apparently people don't need the financial incentive to justify writing software that so many people assumed was required 20 years ago when people dismissed RMS' idea for a completely free OS.
Second, to answer your question more along the line you had probably hoped: You can sell your expertise. There is always a market for experts, even in fields where findings are public domain (like much of the information courts and lawyers deal with) or readily available (like technical information on cars, houses, plumbing, and electrical work). Many millions of people make a decent living doing jobs based on selling their expertise.
You can write software that is the basis for a service you sell to other people--perhaps the service is mostly automated (like selling inexpensive licenses to tracks of music online). You can write documentation for a fee, you can maintain programs beyond the desire of the community to maintain them (perhaps someone will pay you to work on the free software in their Red Hat 6.x or 7.x GNU/Linux system).
The real question is for you: the free software world is where we are headed. What will you do to adapt to that world?
Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful, why should they give away the design or their work, and isnt a little commerical competition good?
I'm sure RMS would agree--they should charge as much as they can get and they do. And they can continue to do so in a world where all published software is free software. Competition on an even playing field is not just good, it's better than getting involved with a monopoly (a.k.a., all software proprietors).
If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession?
RMS never said that "software developers should work for free" or anything like that. He has said quite the opposite in the essay I just linked to, in fact. He maintains that all published software should be free software. And this use of the word free is as in freedom, not price. Perhaps you should have read the article's first paragraph or read more about what GNU stands for via the link to the GNU website he linked to in his article (not reading either makes me mildly curious which moderators gave your post an undeserved +5 informative).
Sometime in the near future, the GPL is going to be tested in court. This is a Good Thing, though, because I'm not sure that the Open Source movement can continue its momentum [...]
Considering the Open Source movement had nothing to do with writing the GNU GPL or the philosophy behind it (the GPL clearly lists the FSF as author and the GPL predates the Open Source movement by years), it hardly gives proper credit to talk about the "Open Source movement" in this context. The Free Software community is what we're talking about, and I mean that with all the freedom language that usage states. That the Open Source Initiative defined their terms broadly enough to include the GPL as an approved license hardly compares with writing the license and does not justify giving "Open Source" credit for the FSF's work.
2. All formerly GPL software is considered public domain. There is a massive "land grab" as companies snap up the sources out there for use in their closed proprietary products.
Two things that will not happen. Copyright is not rescinded by the government so easily and if by some bizarre twist GPL-covered works forcibly entered the PD, there are enough copies of source code already out there that everyone can easily find copies of what they want so everyone could simultaneously incorporate these works into their programs and place whatever license they wish on the derivative work.
Your glib response failed to address that you can pay someone to maintain Free Software for you too. And you get to pick from a competing array of programmers who can help you. Buying into a monopoly for help (which is what all proprietors are) doesn't serve you in the long run because there's no way you can get help when the proprietor stops helping. As Microsoft shows, no matter how much you pay them, they will terminate support for old versions of their software leaving you with nobody who can fix bugs or add features. I would much rather have the flexibility of a free market for fixing my computer software just as I enjoy a free market for fixing my car or the plumbing in my house.
I would much rather have a system like the one the GNU General Public License (GPL) creates and maintains for us--there is a commons everyone can partake in so long as they are willing to share and share alike. I don't need some clumsy means of figuring out a tax benefit, I'm much better off with code I can use for my own purposes.
Anyone attempting to 'put on chains' should be bounced out of a project, and probably will be in short order.
Not according to the ideals of the movement you champion in the article--the Open Source movement. Anyone is free to build on a work in the public domain, or under the new BSD or MIT X11 licenses and relicense their derivative under a proprietary license. The Open Source movement doesn't help users understand this because they make no distinction between these licenses (or the public domain) and the GNU GPL.
If that is the typical slashdot attitude, then good. The most beneficial thing that government can do for its citizens is to leave them alone to live their lives the way they want to as much as possible.
How ironic it is then that your response is being carried on the Internet, an extension of a network which began as a government program.
If people took your attitude around the Great Depression, people wouldn't have the large government programs that pulled them out of poverty and helped restore some degree of trust in the US government. These programs were looked upon with scorn in the 1980's when the rich were doing so well and they didn't have much of an alternative press to deal with. But today we can see the international problems caused by widescale deregulation and so-called "free-trade" agreements that encourage what many call 'a race to the bottom'.
Now that the US economy is circling the drain again, people will probably look again at big government programs to help them compete with low wage jobs overseas. Someday people will realize what's in store when you leave your economy to corporations that chase the lowest paid worker on Earth but want all the tax breaks the US is willing to give.
While obviously not everything governments do is worthwhile or reasonable, some things governments do are. And in a government where you have the opportunity to participate, as you do in the US by talking with your representatives, participating in the media, and voting, you share the task of making it better.
But so what? What Linux needs more than anything else is to capture more than 20% of the desktop market. Once there's a foothold of that magnitude, we'll start seeing practically everything, from Doom III to Quickbooks, released in Linux.
I would ask the same question of you--so what? We already have that thanks to emulation and there are plenty of other versions of Microsoft Windows where you can be catered to so long as you're willing to give up your freedom. What we need are Free Software programs to do these jobs, not more non-free software.
So, as for those companies who aren't "giving back," -- I say, that merely by virtue of adding to the pool of Linux[sic] users, they are giving the open source movement exactly what it needs most.
You certainly won't gain popularity over proprietors by giving them code under non-copyleft Free Software licenses or by choosing to run their proprietary alternative to a free program. Treating businesses like charities doesn't make you their friend, it sets you up to be taken advantage of. I'm reminded of the FSF's response to Microsoft when Microsoft's CEOs were on the lecture circuit calling the GNU General Public License a "cancer" and "unamerican":
"From time to time, companies have said to us, "We would make an improved version of this program if you allow us to release it without freedom." We say, "No thanks--your improvements might be useful if they were free, but if we can't use them in freedom, they are no good at all." Then they appeal to our egos, saying that our code will have "more users" inside their proprietary programs. We respond that we value our community's freedom more than an irrelevant form of popularity."
"People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".
Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road."
The chase for popularity is misguided and naive. I'm sure you have the best of intentions for GNU/Linux users, but you don't seem to understand that giving up freedom should not be done lightly. Sometimes giving up software freedom is acceptable, but most of the time it is not a good strategy. We are not well served with non-free programs to get jobs done.
The Inquirer has an excellent article that describes how companies take from the Open Source Community and how few are giving back.
I would hardly call that article excellent. Of course businesses do this. The Free Software movement identified a licensing mechanism that allows them to do this long before the Open Source movement existed. The Free Software movement even has a name for this mechanism in licenses--non-copyleft licensing. Businesses love this because it is essentially a donation to their organization. The Open Source movement doesn't distinguish between licenses that have this and licenses that don't because their message is chiefly aimed at businesses.
And it wouldn't be the Open Source movement if it didn't work this way. That movement doesn't say users should have software freedom, that movement throws out ensuring all computer users the freedoms to share and modify computer software in order to pitch a message of practical advantages (which aren't always true). The Open Source movement puts you in the position of pleading for improvements (as Charlie Demerjian's article does) instead of giving you the freedom to either do the work yourself, build a community of like-minded programmers you can rely on, or purchase support from a set of programmers bidding for your business.
Demerjian's article also doesn't demand software freedom, perhaps because the movement he aligns himself with doesn't want you to talk about such things. But he does ask for increased representation which still falls short of real support:
Another benefit is community response. If you have a person on your staff active in the community, contributing code back and forth, fixing bugs, when you ask for something, the odds of it happening are infinitely greater.
With so many people signing up to put on chains (and paying for the privilege), there's no incentive for any proprietor to do this (and as a result few do).
Both you and Demerjian (author of the Inquirer article) should read the FSF's essay on Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' which includes a great description of the practical weaknesses of the Open Source movement:
At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.
He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)
People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?
He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.
The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.
The Open Source movement eschews the one thing that would keep you from choosing non-free software--freedom. Without talking about software freedom, when so-called "Open Source" software fails you, you have no reason to reject a proprietary alternative.
As soon as you get government involved, OS becomes political, and influenced by political forces. This is the last thing we want.
Government is already deeply involved and the decisions you make are already political. This cannot be escaped. Government is what set up and controls copyright and patent regimes, the laws under which computer software are chiefly distributed, copied, and modified.
Government and big businesses are colluding to expand these regimes to include more behavior, making it impossible to do ordinary things without involving at least one of these regimes.
Your post speaks to a typical Slashdot mindset that precludes getting involved in government to affect a beneficial change for citizens. Your post is hardly insightful.
As popular as that formula may be, Sholay doesn't follow it to the letter. Your college roomate should see Sholay. Since it is probably the most popular Indian movie of all time, it is likely he has already seen it. There is singing, but it is not too obtrusive. There are two men main characters (Veeru and Jai) and they are thieves, but they aren't fighting for the same woman (these two men have a good song early on). The cop in the movie has been done wrong and seeks revenge, neither Veeru nor Jai are cops.
Many of the elements your roomate names could be found in American and British movies too.
Let's make doing the ethical thing easier.
on
The Return of S3
·
· Score: 1
Most people are willing to accept binary drivers as an alternative to no drivers.
I think that's why we need to teach more people about the ethics that started our community and keep the Free Software community going strong even in the face of SCO questioning the validity of the GNU General Public License (GPL) and Microsoft's CEOs going on speaking tours talking about how the GPL is a "cancer". I believe that people will choose to take a demonstrably ethical route to doing something when that route is also convenient. Similarly, in another vein, I think that as more people learn about Wal-Mart's employment practices and how they maintain low prices, more people realize that shopping there is sealing one's own fate.
To that end, if we had a hardware database that only listed hardware you could run entirely with Free Software, and if this database were very easy to use (even for novices), we could more easily steer people to companies that work with us. We have the beginnings of such a thing now: lists of video card chipsets that work with XFree86, scanners that work with SANE, printers that work with various Free Software drivers, but some of these are still too hard to use and they're not all found in one place. I'm not sure exactly how this new database would work, but I think one-stop-shopping is one of the highlights. I believe the Free Software Foundation wants to work on something like this, but they don't currently have the funding to do it. Perhaps someone with the hosting and space could work with them to get this going?
I won't subordinate my freedom to their interests.
on
The Return of S3
·
· Score: 1
The reason NVIDIA can _not_ open source their driver is that parts of their hardware (and possibly software) that is driven by it is licenced from other companies, and that licence states that the source code, and even the specifications of that engine may _not_ be released.
Then they should have negotiated better licenses for those parts so they could release specifications and/or source code under a free software license. Or perhaps they could have made their own parts so they wouldn't have to work under another's licensing. Apparently other manufacturers do just this. They prove that it is possible to make a business selling video cards and release specifications or free software drivers. I'd rather buy from and recommend manufacturers like that so I can retain my software freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this is precisely what you are trying to talk about. The only clarification I should have made is that I was talking about IBM distributing software under the GNU GPL that implements ideas in their own patents. Getting back to your description of Eolas' patent covering a part of Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE), the GPL doesn't apply in this case because nothing in MSIE is licensed under the GPL and because a copyright license is not binding on the copyright holder.
Actually, I can't distribute MSIE because Microsoft doesn't license me to do that. But what you say here is incorrect even in your hypothetical case.
In this hypothetical situation, Eolas (who holds the patent that Microsoft is infringing upon) could compel Microsoft to stop distributing this GPL-covered MSIE because Microsoft never obtained a license for Eolas' patented idea. Microsoft is not licensed to distribute any implementation of Eolas' patented idea. Microsoft has the option to take out the infringing code and continue distributing MSIE. This looks like what Microsoft intends to do. Microsoft could be infringing someone else's patent, and if they learn they are they will have the same options they have with Eolas (namely, attempt to get a license or remove the infringing code).
Consider a different hypothetical situation, one where the patent were Microsoft's instead of Eolas', and where MSIE is distributed under the GPL instead of Microsoft's proprietary license, you and I would be able to distribute MSIE in verbatim or modified forms. If MSIE were licensed under the MIT X11 license you and I would have to get a patent license before we could legally distribute MSIE without fear of losing a patent infringement lawsuit. This is because the MIT X11 license, the old BSD license, and the new BSD license have no language indicating that there is an implicit patent grant for the covered software. So these three licenses do less than the GNU GPL to ensure our software freedoms to share and modify covered software.
I am aware of no automatic license to violate a patent so long as you do so non-commercially. Red Hat distributes their GNU/Linux system non-commercially but they do not include an MP3 decoder. Red Hat knows they can't without the appropriate patent license. Even though there are ostensibly GPL-covered MP3 decoders, none of them are distributed by people who have paid for an unlimited MP3 patent license. Hence, Red Hat suggests the use of Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3. I suspect Red Hat's sponsorship of Fedora Core and Fedora Core's lack of an MP3 patent license is why you won't find an MP3 decoder in Fedora Core either.
Wikipedia says "Okokrim announced on January 5, 2004 that it would not appeal the case any further" (apparently Slashdot will not let me type the O with the slash through it, but it gives me the proper character in the editor area).
No, that would allow more restrictively licensed derivative works which would mean the freedoms of free software are not necessarily preserved for those who receive improved versions of the program. The freedoms of free software are for everyone to enjoy, not just those who receive a copy of the program from the copyright holder.
Distributing a program under the new BSD license or the Apache license is certainly free software, and it is a valued contribution to the community. But if the intention is to spread software freedom, not donate charitably to corporations, it's a good idea to make sure the software freedom stays with the program and its derivatives. And that's just what copylefted free software licenses are good at doing.
For the free software movement (as opposed to the open source movement which started over a decade later with a different philosophy and a different message aimed at a different set of people), who possesses the skill to improve the program is not the key to understanding software freedom. Also, "open"ness is not a relevant criteria for determining what constitutes a free software license.
I believe that assigning copyright to the FSF involves a contract where copyright reverts back to the previous copyright holder if the FSF is somehow unable to license the work under a free software license. So it's not a permanent copyright transfer, although the conditions for copyright reversion are admittedly obscure.
If there is a patent covering your program you can be stifled from distributing the program. Distribution of the program is a power under copyright law, so therefore another's patent can stifle your copyright power. This isn't the same as losing copyright power, but for the duration of all of the patents covering your program, this has almost the same effect.
Actually, copyright holders can do this without ever licensing their program under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.
You can't grant permission you don't have, regardless of the copyright license. But this GPL "restriction" you talk about is not a restriction at all and "get[ting] shut-down" (if you mean being compelled to stop distributing the program) is greater under the BSD licenses, not lesser. When IBM modifies a program to include patented ideas and then they distribute that program under the GNU GPL, they license "everyone who uses any code from the [program] to practice [the] patented technology" (according to the FSF's GPL quiz).
Under the BSD licenses (either the old or the new) there is no language covering patents at all. One does not simultaneously receive a license to practice the covered technology with the code from the patent-encumbered program. And under the BSD licenses embrace-and-extend is a constant threat to one's ability to improve the program based on someone else's published improvements. The GNU GPL doesn't have either of these significant problems.
The corporate media tells us:
and that
And nowhere in the article do they describe Caridi as a "pirate", nor can I find a mention of anyone in Hollywood willing to compare Caridi to the Boston Strangler. This despite their apparent assuredness that Caridi has illicitly distributed copies of this movie without permission. Apparently this kind of language is reserved for would-be customers.
Please don't be like Mark Webbink, Red Hat's general counsel, and give the open source movement undeserved credit. Adding a license to a list of approved licenses is trivial compared to writing the license and creating a community. The Lesser General Public License (formerly the Library General Public License) was written by the Free Software Foundation well before the open source movement was formed. The LGPL was written as a compromise in order to spread free software but strategically give up the ability to preserve software freedom in derivative works.
Webbink's article gives the open source movement a lot of undeserved credit (GNU Emacs an "open source" program even though it was written initially by RMS and Guy Steele in the pursuit of software freedom years before the name "open source" was ever coined?) and the logic behind some of Webbink's points is in gross conflict with the FSF's stated logic (outside of a license manager program or encryption, copyright licenses are not what allow you to use a program; of the powers copyright regulates that have relevance for programs, copyright regulates only copying, modification, and distribution).
Of course, I wouldn't expect a bunch of people who routinely credit the GPL and LGPL as "open source" licenses to notice this. Placing a license on a list of approved licenses is nothing compared to writing the license and starting our community. To quote RMS, the open source movement "owes its existence to the idealism that movement rejects".
None of your examples are specific enough or pan out to support your premise that RMS is against choice.
I'll have to ask you for a specific thread so I can see exactly what you're referring to. As for man and info, the choice of info is not to everyone's liking (including my own), but this is hardly denying choice. Nowhere in the licenses that cover GNU are you denied the freedom to make derivative works or distribute those derivatives to help other people. This power could be denied because that's how US copyright law works by default. It takes special action to grant these powers.
Again, a specific post or essay would be helpful here. I remember when Qt was not free and eventually GNOME and Harmony were started. GNOME took off and the Harmony project became unnecessary because Qt was made free. RMS RMS examined and explained the legal issues involved in Qt's GPL-incompatibility including how KDE had been infringing upon the copyrights of some GPL-covered works. This was KDE developer's fault, not RMS or the FSF.
Contrary to the picture you're attempting to paint, RMS granted the forgiveness that KDE developers legally needed in order to continue to distribute their own (previously copyright infringing) code. RMS urged KDE's developers to get forgiveness from the other copyright holders whose code they had infringed upon. This is not the behavior of someone who holds a grudge, this is the behavior of someone who recognizes how valuable KDE is to the free software community and wants to make KDE legally available to all.
To this day, the Q Public License is a non-copyleft free software license that is GPL-incompatible meaning one cannot legally combine QPL-covered works with GPL-covered works without getting special permission. This doesn't affect the KDE project because Qt is also licensed under the GNU GPL.
"The Free Software movement *is* politics" and that is not news to people who understand what software freedom is all about.
Then I hope you'll choose to help them out by writing the documentation you feel is absent or lacking quality. I'm sure many free software projects would welcome your discerning eye. But I don't think this has anything to do with RMS disliking choice or denying others the ability to choose.
Perhaps RMS is looking down the road further than a lot of people. Not everyone appreciates how computers connect us together and give us the most democratic communications medium we have. RMS didn't create this medium, but he sure made it more useful than it would be had we left it to proprietors. We should be thankful someone with such forthrightness got the GNU project and its goal of software freedom started as early as he did.
I think the free software that drives the Internet's most valued features (e-mail service, web service, and Google-based web indexing, to name a few) would, if they could talk, challenge you on that.
When RMS first started the GNU project people were quick to tell him how it was impossible to make a completely free operating system. People pointed out how nobody would work on free software because it's so unlikely they'll be paid for it (thus implying that computer software is chiefly developed because people are being paid to do that). I would guess one could find old e-mail list threads where people challenged RMS for seemingly leaving businesses out of the plan.
History tells a different story, one that is not kind to these naysayers. Today, the GNU General Public License (GPL) is the preeminent free software license. One can find developers who will frown upon licensing software in such a way that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. This decentralized social movement, known as the free software movement, is successfully challenging an incredibly well-funded proprietor while the former corporate computer heavyweight is distributing free software. We might not live to see a day when all published software is free software, but I would be more careful about saying what will "never be".
Your evidence of this is where, exactly? I don't see him telling people they shouldn't write any particular program. I see him telling people that if they intend on distributing the software they are writing, they should distribute it as free software.
Actually the GNU project predates the development of the Linux kernal by many years. So that makes it very hard to found the free software movement on anything to do with the Linux kernal.
Actually, RMS is not against commercial software, he's all for it so long as it is distributed with the freedoms of free software. Perhaps you should have read the first paragraph of the article this thread is based on where RMS distinguishes between free as in price and free as in freedom (or as free software advocates like to say, "Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'.").
For RMS and a lot of other people, there are significant moral objections to non-free software, well rooted in their shared desire to build communities of people who have the freedom to share with one another. It's perfectly reasonable, given this stance, to object to any distribution of non-free software. It's also objectionable to see an organization (such as Debian) distribute software that belies their own goals (even Debian has some cognitive dissonance about the non-free software they distribute). Debian appears to be working toward getting rid of their non-free software. When they do, I'm guessing RMS will reevaluate his stance on Debian.
Again, you are getting this from where, exactly? I see an organization that is only asking you to do as they do and I see an organization that takes a harder line on proprietary software than they ask of you:
The FSF is led by RMS and his essays and talks are those people first look to when figuring out what the FSF and free software are all about. He is firm in his stance that all published software ought to be free software and he won't hesitate to disagree with you (some people find this uncomfortable because they're used to dealing with people who will silently retreat or lie and agree to your face and then harbor a dissenting point of view). If he ever said you were not a "good enough" person "unless you
You say that like it's both true and a bad thing. It is neither.
It's clearly untrue because some of the largest corporations in the world run free software and work hard to change the licenses to their software to become free software licenses.
It's a good thing that corporations are working with us as equals, rather than masters, because it means we can work with them or compete against them as we choose. This is one of the big differences between the open source movement and the free software movement--the open source movement was formed specifically to speak to businesses whereas the free software movement was formed to give computer users software freedom. As a citizen and computer user, I know which movement is more aimed at my interests and those of society as a whole.
I would not want more situations where corporations dominate over and exploit citizens and small investors (Among US corporations the list of corporate abusers, most of which are apparently insufficiently punished so as to deter future wrongdoing, includes Wal-Mart, MCI/Worldcom, Enron, Global Crossing, and Tyco). But don't take my word for it.
First, this is not his problem or the responsibility of the Free Software community. It's your problem if you want to make a living doing something people can and will do for themselves. I understand and appreciate your genuine need to put food on the table, but the world is full of jobs and you won't come anywhere close to starving if you can't make money distributing copies of software. Apparently people don't need the financial incentive to justify writing software that so many people assumed was required 20 years ago when people dismissed RMS' idea for a completely free OS.
Second, to answer your question more along the line you had probably hoped: You can sell your expertise. There is always a market for experts, even in fields where findings are public domain (like much of the information courts and lawyers deal with) or readily available (like technical information on cars, houses, plumbing, and electrical work). Many millions of people make a decent living doing jobs based on selling their expertise.
You can write software that is the basis for a service you sell to other people--perhaps the service is mostly automated (like selling inexpensive licenses to tracks of music online). You can write documentation for a fee, you can maintain programs beyond the desire of the community to maintain them (perhaps someone will pay you to work on the free software in their Red Hat 6.x or 7.x GNU/Linux system).
The real question is for you: the free software world is where we are headed. What will you do to adapt to that world?
I'm sure RMS would agree--they should charge as much as they can get and they do. And they can continue to do so in a world where all published software is free software. Competition on an even playing field is not just good, it's better than getting involved with a monopoly (a.k.a., all software proprietors).
RMS never said that "software developers should work for free" or anything like that. He has said quite the opposite in the essay I just linked to, in fact. He maintains that all published software should be free software. And this use of the word free is as in freedom, not price. Perhaps you should have read the article's first paragraph or read more about what GNU stands for via the link to the GNU website he linked to in his article (not reading either makes me mildly curious which moderators gave your post an undeserved +5 informative).
Considering the Open Source movement had nothing to do with writing the GNU GPL or the philosophy behind it (the GPL clearly lists the FSF as author and the GPL predates the Open Source movement by years), it hardly gives proper credit to talk about the "Open Source movement" in this context. The Free Software community is what we're talking about, and I mean that with all the freedom language that usage states. That the Open Source Initiative defined their terms broadly enough to include the GPL as an approved license hardly compares with writing the license and does not justify giving "Open Source" credit for the FSF's work.
Two things that will not happen. Copyright is not rescinded by the government so easily and if by some bizarre twist GPL-covered works forcibly entered the PD, there are enough copies of source code already out there that everyone can easily find copies of what they want so everyone could simultaneously incorporate these works into their programs and place whatever license they wish on the derivative work.
Your glib response failed to address that you can pay someone to maintain Free Software for you too. And you get to pick from a competing array of programmers who can help you. Buying into a monopoly for help (which is what all proprietors are) doesn't serve you in the long run because there's no way you can get help when the proprietor stops helping. As Microsoft shows, no matter how much you pay them, they will terminate support for old versions of their software leaving you with nobody who can fix bugs or add features. I would much rather have the flexibility of a free market for fixing my computer software just as I enjoy a free market for fixing my car or the plumbing in my house.
I would much rather have a system like the one the GNU General Public License (GPL) creates and maintains for us--there is a commons everyone can partake in so long as they are willing to share and share alike. I don't need some clumsy means of figuring out a tax benefit, I'm much better off with code I can use for my own purposes.
Not according to the ideals of the movement you champion in the article--the Open Source movement. Anyone is free to build on a work in the public domain, or under the new BSD or MIT X11 licenses and relicense their derivative under a proprietary license. The Open Source movement doesn't help users understand this because they make no distinction between these licenses (or the public domain) and the GNU GPL.
How ironic it is then that your response is being carried on the Internet, an extension of a network which began as a government program.
If people took your attitude around the Great Depression, people wouldn't have the large government programs that pulled them out of poverty and helped restore some degree of trust in the US government. These programs were looked upon with scorn in the 1980's when the rich were doing so well and they didn't have much of an alternative press to deal with. But today we can see the international problems caused by widescale deregulation and so-called "free-trade" agreements that encourage what many call 'a race to the bottom'.
Now that the US economy is circling the drain again, people will probably look again at big government programs to help them compete with low wage jobs overseas. Someday people will realize what's in store when you leave your economy to corporations that chase the lowest paid worker on Earth but want all the tax breaks the US is willing to give.
While obviously not everything governments do is worthwhile or reasonable, some things governments do are. And in a government where you have the opportunity to participate, as you do in the US by talking with your representatives, participating in the media, and voting, you share the task of making it better.
I would ask the same question of you--so what? We already have that thanks to emulation and there are plenty of other versions of Microsoft Windows where you can be catered to so long as you're willing to give up your freedom. What we need are Free Software programs to do these jobs, not more non-free software.
Perhaps that movement is satisified, but that movement is also very shortsighted in its mission to please businesses.
You certainly won't gain popularity over proprietors by giving them code under non-copyleft Free Software licenses or by choosing to run their proprietary alternative to a free program. Treating businesses like charities doesn't make you their friend, it sets you up to be taken advantage of. I'm reminded of the FSF's response to Microsoft when Microsoft's CEOs were on the lecture circuit calling the GNU General Public License a "cancer" and "unamerican":
Or why they ask you to give credit to the GNU operating system and not just the Linux kernal:
The chase for popularity is misguided and naive. I'm sure you have the best of intentions for GNU/Linux users, but you don't seem to understand that giving up freedom should not be done lightly. Sometimes giving up software freedom is acceptable, but most of the time it is not a good strategy. We are not well served with non-free programs to get jobs done.
I would hardly call that article excellent. Of course businesses do this. The Free Software movement identified a licensing mechanism that allows them to do this long before the Open Source movement existed. The Free Software movement even has a name for this mechanism in licenses--non-copyleft licensing. Businesses love this because it is essentially a donation to their organization. The Open Source movement doesn't distinguish between licenses that have this and licenses that don't because their message is chiefly aimed at businesses.
And it wouldn't be the Open Source movement if it didn't work this way. That movement doesn't say users should have software freedom, that movement throws out ensuring all computer users the freedoms to share and modify computer software in order to pitch a message of practical advantages (which aren't always true). The Open Source movement puts you in the position of pleading for improvements (as Charlie Demerjian's article does) instead of giving you the freedom to either do the work yourself, build a community of like-minded programmers you can rely on, or purchase support from a set of programmers bidding for your business.
Demerjian's article also doesn't demand software freedom, perhaps because the movement he aligns himself with doesn't want you to talk about such things. But he does ask for increased representation which still falls short of real support:
With so many people signing up to put on chains (and paying for the privilege), there's no incentive for any proprietor to do this (and as a result few do).
Both you and Demerjian (author of the Inquirer article) should read the FSF's essay on Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' which includes a great description of the practical weaknesses of the Open Source movement:
The Open Source movement eschews the one thing that would keep you from choosing non-free software--freedom. Without talking about software freedom, when so-called "Open Source" software fails you, you have no reason to reject a proprietary alternative.
Government is already deeply involved and the decisions you make are already political. This cannot be escaped. Government is what set up and controls copyright and patent regimes, the laws under which computer software are chiefly distributed, copied, and modified.
Government and big businesses are colluding to expand these regimes to include more behavior, making it impossible to do ordinary things without involving at least one of these regimes.
Your post speaks to a typical Slashdot mindset that precludes getting involved in government to affect a beneficial change for citizens. Your post is hardly insightful.
As popular as that formula may be, Sholay doesn't follow it to the letter. Your college roomate should see Sholay. Since it is probably the most popular Indian movie of all time, it is likely he has already seen it. There is singing, but it is not too obtrusive. There are two men main characters (Veeru and Jai) and they are thieves, but they aren't fighting for the same woman (these two men have a good song early on). The cop in the movie has been done wrong and seeks revenge, neither Veeru nor Jai are cops.
Many of the elements your roomate names could be found in American and British movies too.
I think that's why we need to teach more people about the ethics that started our community and keep the Free Software community going strong even in the face of SCO questioning the validity of the GNU General Public License (GPL) and Microsoft's CEOs going on speaking tours talking about how the GPL is a "cancer". I believe that people will choose to take a demonstrably ethical route to doing something when that route is also convenient. Similarly, in another vein, I think that as more people learn about Wal-Mart's employment practices and how they maintain low prices, more people realize that shopping there is sealing one's own fate.
To that end, if we had a hardware database that only listed hardware you could run entirely with Free Software, and if this database were very easy to use (even for novices), we could more easily steer people to companies that work with us. We have the beginnings of such a thing now: lists of video card chipsets that work with XFree86, scanners that work with SANE, printers that work with various Free Software drivers, but some of these are still too hard to use and they're not all found in one place. I'm not sure exactly how this new database would work, but I think one-stop-shopping is one of the highlights. I believe the Free Software Foundation wants to work on something like this, but they don't currently have the funding to do it. Perhaps someone with the hosting and space could work with them to get this going?
Then they should have negotiated better licenses for those parts so they could release specifications and/or source code under a free software license. Or perhaps they could have made their own parts so they wouldn't have to work under another's licensing. Apparently other manufacturers do just this. They prove that it is possible to make a business selling video cards and release specifications or free software drivers. I'd rather buy from and recommend manufacturers like that so I can retain my software freedom.