What doesn't help is that it's, "Oh, I'll buy when it has Ogg Vorbis." "Did I say 'Ogg Vorbis'? I meant Ogg Vorbis when it's not a proprietary implementation."
I don't owe them business. They have to come up with something I'll like before I'll buy it. I'm doing them a favor by telling them what I want rather than silently rejecting the product. Furthermore, what I'm asking for can be accomplished without altering the hardware they've already built.
They'll probably complain when they release new models of hardware that do more than the old models, especially if they won't give away the software to do the new stuff on the old models.
I never asked for anyone to give away software, perhaps you should reread what I am asking for. I want software freedom and I'm willing to pay for it. Free software, the kind I'm asking for, has to do with the freedom to share and modify the software, not price. If someone sells me a copy of the device software under a free software license, and/or distributes the specifications for the hardware (so I can make my own controlling software or hire someone to make it for me), I'm satisfied.
As I clearly stated before, the Rio device already has attractive hardware features. It would be more attractive with free software so I can study, change, share, and freely use the unit as I wish. I believe this poses no threat to any portable digital device business because they make their money from selling the units, not the software. To the contrary, I think this information is critical to developing a sustainable diverse userbase and a good relationship between the consumer and the businesses that deliver the goods.
I mean, why would anyone want to go for this market?
First, your critique has shifted off-topic from talking about digital music player hardware to talking about delivering audio tracks. Second, to answer your question directly: Because they have little choice but to go where the market leads. The alternative--using legalized bribery to buy new laws to protect old business models--is possible but doesn't pay off quickly or thoroughly enough for those businesses and commercial artists who don't innovate. People are discovering the weaknesses in the old distribution model; as more people become distributors, we have a decreasing need for the distribution aspect of recording studios. Studios need to change their business model to become less dependent on distribution. Ultimately, no laws will change the technology that lets people share.
And that is why so few companies support Ogg Vorbis. Not because it's hard to do, not because it's expensive, not even because it's for such a small market. They don't support Ogg Vorbis because it's for a group of people who, by and large, will never be happy when they're buying a product.
I doubt it. Do you have any evidence to support this?
Quickly! To the Stores! Or to the Online Merchant of Your Choice!
Since this is exactly what you've been calling for, I expect this thing to outsell the iPod in a week or two.
If it runs on free software, I'll do just that. If not, then it's not what I'm asking for. It's close, and I like the other features it offers, but I'm not interested in paying to become dependant on even the most beneficent proprietor. Viva software freedom.
Neuros is also notable for allowing the user to modify the software controlling the device. As I understand it, the software on the device will be free software so end-users can turn it into a device to do things Digital Innovations didn't predict. It's valuable to be able to inspect, enhance, and fix software, even if it's running in an audio player. Does the Rio device run on free software?
I appreciate the ethernet jack and that it plays Ogg Vorbis and FLAC files, but I want to be able to do other things with it that the designers did not predict. I'm willing to pay for the device, but I want freedom.
Since when does the FSF recommend other software licenses then the GPL? Even the LGPL isn't recommended.
The LGPL is not always recommended, but it can be. I'm not sure if what you're saying is meant to suggest the FSF is blinded to anything but the GNU GPL (version 2 as I write this) or if you appreciate the obstacles involved and understand their goals and strategies.
The FSF has okayed use of non-copylefted free software licenses in some instances (I vaguely recall them saying Xiph's approach with their Ogg Vorbis library was appropriately licensed under a non-copyleft free software license resembling the new BSD license). They take a very fine-grained look at licensing. They consider long-term ramifications others sometimes dismiss (like the software freedom for users of derivative works of non-copylefted free software programs). The thought that went into the copyleft concept is something I haven't seen prior to the GNU project.
A lot of licenses work to benefit the corporation that wrote the license, not a public software commons (including consideration of how software patents can adversely impact the public). The GNU GPL is notable for this and has been for decades now.
By requiring payment (of a small amount, yes, but any amount) to extend copyright, the Eldred Act would basically move the country even further into Rule by the Rich.
I doubt it. Any copyrighted work intended for commercial distribution is likely to make the few dollars it would take to register the work well before the first payment is due.
What we need is a fixed short limit on copyrights, and no extensions at all, period.
When you come up with a bill and get it in front of Congress I'll consider it. Until then, the PD Enhancement Act is reasonable, it's here now, and it has support from organizations with real political power.
As you point out, Mozilla has tons of features, but it competes in a much more future-proof way: software freedom. Competing on features can sometimes hide denying users software freedom. I don't want to lose the opportunity to leverage a free market for getting things changed the way I want them. I've used lots of non-free software before and I'm not ready to put my software freedom on the line like that anymore.
Visit the site that champions the Public Domain Enhancement Act (HR2601) and write your Congresspeople (House, Senate) to support this bill. If these games are no longer commercially exploitable, the proponents of this bill believe it is unlikely the copyright holders will file the form and pay the low tax to retain copyright on the work. Maybe these games will eventually enter the PD where we can all legally share and modify them so we can play them on MAME.
nobody prefers using non-free software, but those are some pretty harsh words. I value my freedom, doesnt mean i wouldn't use non-free software. The same goes for many other people out there.
Using non-free software means not having software freedom. One can't study non-free programs to tell what they'll do, one can't change them to stop doing bad things or improve them, and sharing copies of them (or improved versions) is probably prohibited too. The more non-free software you run, the more freedom you are denied. So people who value their freedom maximize the amount of free software they run, including switching to a free software operating system and running nothing but free software on top of that.
First of all, this is untrue, others still have full access to my source code. Secondly, how is this accepting the existence of non-copyleft licenses? This is more like attacking them.
I think you're misreading their statement--they are concerned about freedom for all users including users of derivative works. When someone makes a non-free derivative of a non-copylefted free software program, freedom is denied to all the users of the non-free program. All of the above advantages for free software are stripped away in the non-free derivative. That non-free derivative might have improvements over the free program, but the value of the improvements is mitigated (if not entirely nullified) by the program being non-free. It is always advantageous to have the complete source code to the version of the program you are running, which might not be the free version of the program. So what the FSF is describing is true. You can't deny the existence of something you attack. So, what you are reading as an attack is actually something else--a warning about the practical and ethical implications of not defending freedom for all the users of free programs. This includes users of derivatives of free programs.
They want everyone to follow their ways, they do not like the thinking of other non-gnu licenses.
No, they warn about the shortcomings of other licenses that don't ensure the freedoms of free software (in the case of MIT X11 and new BSD license).
Okay, they want what's best for the open-source community, and have obviously contributed quite a lot.
Although what they want is beneficial for both the Open Source and Free Software movements, the movement they are more properly associated with is the Free Software movement, which they began over a decade before the Open Source movement started.
But does anyone think it is unfair that others (X11, BSD license, zlib, etc) accept the existence of GNU, but not the other way around (this is shown by their philosophy documents, and also the nature of the GPL).
This is simply untrue. The FSF has a widely-accepted and very useful license list which includes these licenses and suggested ways of speaking about the licenses to avoid confusion about which license you're referring to:
[I]t is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead.
RMS gives talks where he tells people why he encourages contributions to X licensed under the X11 license (matching the rest of the project) instead of making a GNU GPL fork. See the Q&A section of some of the Free Software speeches--he tells people precisely why there is no GNU GPL fork of X and why such a fork is likely to be a bad idea.
This is hardly the behavior one would expect to see if the FSF did not want to "accept the existence" of these other licenses.
What you have to understand, which the anti-GNU zealots simply can't, is that for open source software to continue and prosper is in GNU's interest. That is their major goal.
No, the GNU project was formed over a decade before the Open Source movement began. The Free Software movement is different from the Open Source movement. The two movements have different goals but mostly get along.
Now, every time someone tells me I can't do this and that, "but it's for your own good", I get very skeptical. Who are they to decide what's for my good?
I don't think anyone is asking you to stop questioning the wisdom of others, but they are asking you to recognize that some freedoms can conflict with others so we need to choose which freedoms are more important. This may mean limiting what licensees are able to do in order to ensure the more desirable freedoms for everyone involved.
I think if you consider the practical ramifications of the non-copylefted free software licenses (including the new BSD license and the MIT X11 license) and if you consider what the Free Software movement set out to do, you'll see the value in distinguishing between licenses that preserve software freedom and those that don't.
What the hell kind of "open source" is this anyway?!
The kind it was designed to be--that movement doesn't consider the freedom to share and modify the program to be as important as the practical development advantages to a business. Sometimes this means approving licenses that are also considered free software licenses, sometimes it will not. The FSF has an informative article on the philosophical differences between the two movements.
How can you easily mount/unmount a pen drive under GNU/Linux (Red Hat 9, to be more specific)? Ideally, I'd like to pop one in, the system would recognize what filesystem I'm using on it, mount it, and make an icon appear on the desktop so I can use it from the GUI. Later, when I want to remove it from the machine, I'd pick "eject" or somesuch. I can mount and unmount the pen drive by issuing commands as root, but I'd like to do this more conveniently and without root privilege or using the CLI. Thanks for your help.
Thanks for participating, there was some genuinely useful information in the response that warranted repetition. Since I've been involved in politics locally (helping to run a local man for Congress, other local men and women for city boards, and trying to create a Citizen Police Review Board), I've become more interested in seeing where the various blogs and webboards are on politically organizing to express their views succinctly to elected officials.
Fortunately or unfortunately, (and I believe fortunately) the US allows all people (over the age of 18), even those who aren't paying attention, to vote.
I can think of a few dozen thousand Floridians who would disagree with you here. And I think given the triple corporate threat to our future voting rights from Sequoia, ES&S, and Diebold (as explained by Bev Harris and her website), I can't help but think that our Democracy is at stake. I see very little awareness of these issues amongst the public I've spoken with.
Be aware that much of what you read on the editorial page of the newspaper, or what you hear on talk radio, is spin.
I would amend that to read all, not much, of anyone's analysis of anything is spin. From my experience with a community radio station where I host an electronic/political public affairs show ("Digital Citizen"), I'd say objectivity is a myth. This is how it has always been. My show, Slashdot, your post, and everyone's followups (including mine) are no exception. We can't help but see things from our own perspective, as Molly Ivins put it so well on her recent book tour appearance/debate with Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly.
So here is an example of murky money: You want to help the EFF? Write a big check. It will allow them to do better research, hire more people to lobby, fly to more conferences, print more flyers, etc. Hmmmm, sounds a lot like "providing funds to political campaigns in exchange for laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization", doesn't it?
To me, the amount of influence and money from a single donor seems vastly different in corporate America than with most individuals. Hilary Rosen, former head of the RIAA, was recently tapped to help form a new copyright regime for Iraq. Is anyone from the EFF in a similar position? I doubt it. Which/. reader can afford to give roughly a million dollars to EFF like Enron gave to each of the two major political parties (giving a little more to the Republicans, but both roughly the same)? I know I can't. I couldn't afford $10,000, which I think most people would consider a "big check".
When the public gets together and speaks with a single voice on an issue of national importance, we still can't wield the same power as the corporations. Corporate media didn't report on the recent FCC decision prior to June 2, 2003 when it would have been most informative to US citizens (with one minor exception I'm aware of: ABC overnight news had a brief mention of what the FCC was considering which aired at around 3AM). In 1996, the same thing happened--the mass media was covering Monica Lewinsky, not the Telecom Act. This time the public was organized and when the House bill came around, it did not stop the entire FCC decision and give the public (as FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says) a chance to "tee up" all the relevant questions. I don't know what the right FCC policy should be here, but I know making decisions on that policy before we can study it in depth is a mistake. As NOW with Bill Moyers has reported, the corporate media is in bed with the FCC who is supposed to be regulating them. Which Congressmembers are on this and what are they doing?
I'm concerned about the recent increase in GPL stories lately where companies that are embracing Linux are being carefully scrutinized. Maybe it's counterproductive to constantly play the hardline approach when Linux is finally starting to get decent drivers...
No, it's not bad at all. Anyone who distributes should be held liable for honoring the terms of the license under which they are given the permission to distribute. As Eben Moglen said, don't give up because we're a litle closer to the front of the bus (by settling for infringements and proprietary software). The goal is software freedom--the FSF wrote the GNU GPL to create a body of software that we could all share and modify freely so we can help make a better world. You don't need to worry about "chasing away companies" because it is their responsibility to comply with copyright law, just as it is the responsibility for those who distribute copies of songs to comply with copyright law. It is not your responsibility to look after Linksys' bottom line.
You should consider contributing to the FSF who handles a lot of GNU GPL infringement cases preventing them from going to court. I suspect that the terms of the GPL are simply unfamiliar to a lot of organizations who deal in GPL-covered works. This doesn't mean they're exempt from obeying the terms of the license, it just means they might need assistance in being compliant.
When Richard Stallman received the $25,000 IDG/Linus Torvalds award, he said, "This is like Luke Skywalker winning the Han Solo award." The Apache Group, EFF, and other parties have contributed more towards the "Open Source" movement than the FSF. I view the FSF as an outspoken critic of other peoples success bitter at a lack of their own.
I mentioned Eben Moglen, not RMS. I don't know why you are railing against RMS here. But since you're now trying to change the subject and talk about RMS winning that award, I'll offer that he was right. Linus Torvalds contributed a piece of the puzzle--a good piece, a needed piece, but not the framework by which the rest of the pieces had been collected for years before Torvalds arrived on the scene.
If either organization (FSF or OSI) is bitter about the other's success, it is probably OSI being bitter about the FSF's success. After all, the GNU General Public License is the most widely-used license in both movements. The GPL sets the terms of the debate in many cases. The OSI had no part in writing the GNU GPL. The FSF and RMS identified what is important to continue to make and distribute software freely (and with insights that continue to be valuable today--the ongoing Bitkeeper thread, for example). It is the FSF who, in the GPL, skillfully used copyright law to defend our interests instead of letting us continue to be unequal players in someone else's license (like the APSL which the OSI puts their stamp of approval on and the FSF considers non-free). The FSF is grateful that the Open Source movement has brought so many people to using the GNU GPL and other Free Software licenses, but the FSF warns against licenses that don't defend all of the community's interests. Meanwhile some notable members in the Open Source movement offer vicious words (and I'm not the first person to notice this).
I don't see how this is at all relevant except that it suggests you are forming opinions out of some prejudice against the FSF. I don't remember asking what you thought of the FSF but I find it telling that you would begin a response this way.
The only thing the FSF is saying is that they don't call it a contract because they don't want to.
Well, neither of us speaks for the FSF so we can't say for certain why they don't call the GNU GPL a contract. But I'm guessing they're probably not calling it a contract because (as you noted) they don't need to in order to defend its terms and because most of the time no positive assent is given, no meeting of the minds happens. Most people simply make GNU GPL-covered software available for the taking at no charge. Therefore one of the criteria for being in a contractual relationship hasn't been met.
You seem to miss what I am saying. I am saying that License enforcement can fall under copyright law, as well as contract law. Due to the nature of the GPL, it is easier to enforce copyright law than contract law. Shrink-wrap licensing (Which is still largely the closest example of using the GPL) is still very touchy. Copyright law, however, is very solid and sound and has a vast number of precedents to aid your case.
I don't miss your point at all, my reading of the material I linked to is different. I'm saying that two lawyers (one of whom--Eben Moglen--is far more familiar with relevant case law, copyright law, and the GNU GPL than either of us is likely to ever be) appear to be saying that leveraging contract law is not an option for most GPL licensors because there has been no contractual relationship established with the licensee. I don't see anything in their writings that says we're dealing with one defense being easier than the other. It appears to have to do with leveraging the only case that is available (copyright infringement) and avoiding the case that is out of reach (breach of contract).
I look forward to seeing you raise your views with Prof. Moglen sometime and reading what he makes of it. Perhaps he'll do another ask Slashdot interview. But I won't be surprised to learn that he has better ways to spend his time than to talk to anyone who opens by declaring that they "very little respect for the FSF" then later saying that the FSF has "weird ideological goals" without saying what you understand their goals to be or how you think those goals are weird.
Yes, they are in breach of contract. Licenses are contracts.
The FSF, and Eben Moglen (chief counsel of the FSF), who wrote the GNU GPL and deal with GPL cases all the time disagree with you.
And "IP infringment (copyright)" is wrong--the phrase "intellectual property" doesn't just refer to copyright. It's a mish-mash of copyright, patent, trademark, and a host of other areas of law that aren't always compatible. Again, the FSF disagrees with you here.
You see the common thread there, "contract" -- in the terms of "Licensing Contract".
The GNU GPL does not use the word "contract". There is another lawyer's analysis of this which illustrates the logic the FSF uses to show why they don't need a contract (and often don't have one anyhow) to accomplish what the GPL sets out to accomplish. The paper has some problems, but it is quite interesting as well. It also suggests a reason why it is valuable to purchase Free Software rather than getting it at no charge.
How I miss the days when the worst thing you could say about the President was that he was getting sexual favors from the wrong person.
Clinton signed into law the 1996 Telecommunications Act which was a significant step in the homogenization of the U.S. media. I think this is considerably more important to the U.S. than his affair with Monica Lewinsky. But this event went unanalyzed in the mass media of the time and the signing of the bill into law happened at about the same time as an invasion and the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was getting major press. If I recall correctly, the affair got more coverage than the invasion.
If I understand this correctly, the owner of the source code has fully released it to the community, thereby making this 100% freeware, no conditions.
Then the copyright holder should have said this software is in the public domain. That would have meaning (as would licensing under the remarkably liberal new BSD and MIT X11 licenses). The term "freeware" has no legal meaning and is not a license, therefore it cannot be considered free software or open source. The FSF warns against using the word freeware to mean "free software". As things are, it is unclear exactly what the copyright holder(s) were trying to convey which means the software should be regarded as non-free and therefore it would be wise to avoid the software. Here's hoping the copyright holder(s) pick a free software license.
I don't think Greymatter is Open Source
on
Using MovableType?
·
· Score: 1
[Greymatter...]
is open source as well.
Their website makes this claim, but I do not believe it is true. They apparently changed the license for the software from something else to a Creative Commons license. The Open Source Initiative does not list the CC licenses on their approved license list (hence, Greymatter is not "open source") and CC licenses are not intended for software.
Until Greymatter chooses a Free Software license, I recommend steering clear of Greymatter. The Free Software movement stresses treating all users as equals. The Open Source Initiative has approved some licenses, including the Apple Public Source License, which do not treat all users equally.
Choose (or make) Free Software instead.
on
Using MovableType?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Movable Type is non-free software and I suggest you avoid it entirely. Both of Movable Type's licenses (their personal non-commercial license and their commercial license prohibit distributing the software without written consent. There is also language that tries to restrict what you can do with the software (even though U.S. copyright law doesn't allow placing terms on merely executing the software) and claims agreement to its terms under a click-through agreement (which are not valid everywhere) or by merely installing or using the software.
Bev Harris' Black Box Voting: Ballot-tampering in the 21st Century has much to offer on this, most notably a chance to preorder Harris' book on the topic. I don't have any connection to her or the book, and I make no money from saying this. My awareness of her comes from reading the website and listening to her radio interviews describing her findings and research. She offers compelling evidence on what has gone wrong with Diebold's machines, Sen. Hagel's connection to Diebold, and how votes get lost. She writes in a manner that is accessible to technical and non-technical people alike. I think this book will be another must-read investigative journalism highlight just like Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" on the 2000 presidential election in 2000.
How do you reconclie this theory in light of how Microsoft drove Stacker out of business?
I don't let one instance make a case to stand against a system that historically was not needed. If software patents did not exist both Stacker and Microsoft could have had similar compression schemes on the market (perhaps with others as well, maybe a free software competitor too) allowing users the chance to choose amongst them. Perhaps Microsoft's would have been the most commonly used scheme simply because of their dominance (which was largely achieved through unsavory means), but others could have come about without being squashed before they were born.
Fast moving/imaginative developers get to protect their code for a while at least.
First, I would need to see why this is necessary at all. I understand businesses and some individuals desire it and are now getting used to having software patents, but history shows most of the history of computer software development went along without these patents (or without them being exploited, depending on the timeframe). To me that says we don't really need them. Also, there are instances of organizations not being able to provide computer users with a lively competitive arena for computer software (including through cross-licensing which kills the competition-exclusion nature of patents). To me this says they are not victimless.
I want to encourage a lot of individuals, organizations, and small businesses to make and distribute software. And I want them to be able to compete with larger firms like IBM, HP, and Microsoft (each holds a lot of patents and licenses to deal in other patents). So I favor completely ceasing issuing or renewing any more software patents and letting all current ones expire (I'm not aware of any being renewed, but I wouldn't want to let any organization think they can continue to keep old software patents in force). Thus businesses will be minimally disrupted for the software patents they've acquired, and the field of software development can return to the time where there was fierce competition on features.
Furthermore, I think it's fine to depend on copyright law (with a reasonable term of copyright, but that's a different discussion).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't owe them business. They have to come up with something I'll like before I'll buy it. I'm doing them a favor by telling them what I want rather than silently rejecting the product. Furthermore, what I'm asking for can be accomplished without altering the hardware they've already built.
I never asked for anyone to give away software, perhaps you should reread what I am asking for. I want software freedom and I'm willing to pay for it. Free software, the kind I'm asking for, has to do with the freedom to share and modify the software, not price. If someone sells me a copy of the device software under a free software license, and/or distributes the specifications for the hardware (so I can make my own controlling software or hire someone to make it for me), I'm satisfied.
As I clearly stated before, the Rio device already has attractive hardware features. It would be more attractive with free software so I can study, change, share, and freely use the unit as I wish. I believe this poses no threat to any portable digital device business because they make their money from selling the units, not the software. To the contrary, I think this information is critical to developing a sustainable diverse userbase and a good relationship between the consumer and the businesses that deliver the goods.
First, your critique has shifted off-topic from talking about digital music player hardware to talking about delivering audio tracks. Second, to answer your question directly: Because they have little choice but to go where the market leads. The alternative--using legalized bribery to buy new laws to protect old business models--is possible but doesn't pay off quickly or thoroughly enough for those businesses and commercial artists who don't innovate. People are discovering the weaknesses in the old distribution model; as more people become distributors, we have a decreasing need for the distribution aspect of recording studios. Studios need to change their business model to become less dependent on distribution. Ultimately, no laws will change the technology that lets people share.
I doubt it. Do you have any evidence to support this?
If it runs on free software, I'll do just that. If not, then it's not what I'm asking for. It's close, and I like the other features it offers, but I'm not interested in paying to become dependant on even the most beneficent proprietor. Viva software freedom.
Neuros is also notable for allowing the user to modify the software controlling the device. As I understand it, the software on the device will be free software so end-users can turn it into a device to do things Digital Innovations didn't predict. It's valuable to be able to inspect, enhance, and fix software, even if it's running in an audio player. Does the Rio device run on free software?
I appreciate the ethernet jack and that it plays Ogg Vorbis and FLAC files, but I want to be able to do other things with it that the designers did not predict. I'm willing to pay for the device, but I want freedom.
The LGPL is not always recommended, but it can be. I'm not sure if what you're saying is meant to suggest the FSF is blinded to anything but the GNU GPL (version 2 as I write this) or if you appreciate the obstacles involved and understand their goals and strategies.
The FSF has okayed use of non-copylefted free software licenses in some instances (I vaguely recall them saying Xiph's approach with their Ogg Vorbis library was appropriately licensed under a non-copyleft free software license resembling the new BSD license). They take a very fine-grained look at licensing. They consider long-term ramifications others sometimes dismiss (like the software freedom for users of derivative works of non-copylefted free software programs). The thought that went into the copyleft concept is something I haven't seen prior to the GNU project.
A lot of licenses work to benefit the corporation that wrote the license, not a public software commons (including consideration of how software patents can adversely impact the public). The GNU GPL is notable for this and has been for decades now.
I doubt it. Any copyrighted work intended for commercial distribution is likely to make the few dollars it would take to register the work well before the first payment is due.
When you come up with a bill and get it in front of Congress I'll consider it. Until then, the PD Enhancement Act is reasonable, it's here now, and it has support from organizations with real political power.
As you point out, Mozilla has tons of features, but it competes in a much more future-proof way: software freedom. Competing on features can sometimes hide denying users software freedom. I don't want to lose the opportunity to leverage a free market for getting things changed the way I want them. I've used lots of non-free software before and I'm not ready to put my software freedom on the line like that anymore.
Visit the site that champions the Public Domain Enhancement Act (HR2601) and write your Congresspeople (House, Senate) to support this bill. If these games are no longer commercially exploitable, the proponents of this bill believe it is unlikely the copyright holders will file the form and pay the low tax to retain copyright on the work. Maybe these games will eventually enter the PD where we can all legally share and modify them so we can play them on MAME.
Here's a FAQ, previous /. discussion, and another /. discussion.
Using non-free software means not having software freedom. One can't study non-free programs to tell what they'll do, one can't change them to stop doing bad things or improve them, and sharing copies of them (or improved versions) is probably prohibited too. The more non-free software you run, the more freedom you are denied. So people who value their freedom maximize the amount of free software they run, including switching to a free software operating system and running nothing but free software on top of that.
I think you're misreading their statement--they are concerned about freedom for all users including users of derivative works. When someone makes a non-free derivative of a non-copylefted free software program, freedom is denied to all the users of the non-free program. All of the above advantages for free software are stripped away in the non-free derivative. That non-free derivative might have improvements over the free program, but the value of the improvements is mitigated (if not entirely nullified) by the program being non-free. It is always advantageous to have the complete source code to the version of the program you are running, which might not be the free version of the program. So what the FSF is describing is true. You can't deny the existence of something you attack. So, what you are reading as an attack is actually something else--a warning about the practical and ethical implications of not defending freedom for all the users of free programs. This includes users of derivatives of free programs.
No, they warn about the shortcomings of other licenses that don't ensure the freedoms of free software (in the case of MIT X11 and new BSD license).
Although what they want is beneficial for both the Open Source and Free Software movements, the movement they are more properly associated with is the Free Software movement, which they began over a decade before the Open Source movement started.
This is simply untrue. The FSF has a widely-accepted and very useful license list which includes these licenses and suggested ways of speaking about the licenses to avoid confusion about which license you're referring to:
RMS gives talks where he tells people why he encourages contributions to X licensed under the X11 license (matching the rest of the project) instead of making a GNU GPL fork. See the Q&A section of some of the Free Software speeches--he tells people precisely why there is no GNU GPL fork of X and why such a fork is likely to be a bad idea.
This is hardly the behavior one would expect to see if the FSF did not want to "accept the existence" of these other licenses.
No, the GNU project was formed over a decade before the Open Source movement began. The Free Software movement is different from the Open Source movement. The two movements have different goals but mostly get along.
I don't think anyone is asking you to stop questioning the wisdom of others, but they are asking you to recognize that some freedoms can conflict with others so we need to choose which freedoms are more important. This may mean limiting what licensees are able to do in order to ensure the more desirable freedoms for everyone involved.
I think if you consider the practical ramifications of the non-copylefted free software licenses (including the new BSD license and the MIT X11 license) and if you consider what the Free Software movement set out to do, you'll see the value in distinguishing between licenses that preserve software freedom and those that don't.
The kind it was designed to be--that movement doesn't consider the freedom to share and modify the program to be as important as the practical development advantages to a business. Sometimes this means approving licenses that are also considered free software licenses, sometimes it will not. The FSF has an informative article on the philosophical differences between the two movements.
How can you easily mount/unmount a pen drive under GNU/Linux (Red Hat 9, to be more specific)? Ideally, I'd like to pop one in, the system would recognize what filesystem I'm using on it, mount it, and make an icon appear on the desktop so I can use it from the GUI. Later, when I want to remove it from the machine, I'd pick "eject" or somesuch. I can mount and unmount the pen drive by issuing commands as root, but I'd like to do this more conveniently and without root privilege or using the CLI. Thanks for your help.
Thanks for participating, there was some genuinely useful information in the response that warranted repetition. Since I've been involved in politics locally (helping to run a local man for Congress, other local men and women for city boards, and trying to create a Citizen Police Review Board), I've become more interested in seeing where the various blogs and webboards are on politically organizing to express their views succinctly to elected officials.
I can think of a few dozen thousand Floridians who would disagree with you here. And I think given the triple corporate threat to our future voting rights from Sequoia, ES&S, and Diebold (as explained by Bev Harris and her website), I can't help but think that our Democracy is at stake. I see very little awareness of these issues amongst the public I've spoken with.
I would amend that to read all, not much, of anyone's analysis of anything is spin. From my experience with a community radio station where I host an electronic/political public affairs show ("Digital Citizen"), I'd say objectivity is a myth. This is how it has always been. My show, Slashdot, your post, and everyone's followups (including mine) are no exception. We can't help but see things from our own perspective, as Molly Ivins put it so well on her recent book tour appearance/debate with Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly.
To me, the amount of influence and money from a single donor seems vastly different in corporate America than with most individuals. Hilary Rosen, former head of the RIAA, was recently tapped to help form a new copyright regime for Iraq. Is anyone from the EFF in a similar position? I doubt it. Which /. reader can afford to give roughly a million dollars to EFF like Enron gave to each of the two major political parties (giving a little more to the Republicans, but both roughly the same)? I know I can't. I couldn't afford $10,000, which I think most people would consider a "big check".
When the public gets together and speaks with a single voice on an issue of national importance, we still can't wield the same power as the corporations. Corporate media didn't report on the recent FCC decision prior to June 2, 2003 when it would have been most informative to US citizens (with one minor exception I'm aware of: ABC overnight news had a brief mention of what the FCC was considering which aired at around 3AM). In 1996, the same thing happened--the mass media was covering Monica Lewinsky, not the Telecom Act. This time the public was organized and when the House bill came around, it did not stop the entire FCC decision and give the public (as FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says) a chance to "tee up" all the relevant questions. I don't know what the right FCC policy should be here, but I know making decisions on that policy before we can study it in depth is a mistake. As NOW with Bill Moyers has reported, the corporate media is in bed with the FCC who is supposed to be regulating them. Which Congressmembers are on this and what are they doing?
No, it's not bad at all. Anyone who distributes should be held liable for honoring the terms of the license under which they are given the permission to distribute. As Eben Moglen said, don't give up because we're a litle closer to the front of the bus (by settling for infringements and proprietary software). The goal is software freedom--the FSF wrote the GNU GPL to create a body of software that we could all share and modify freely so we can help make a better world. You don't need to worry about "chasing away companies" because it is their responsibility to comply with copyright law, just as it is the responsibility for those who distribute copies of songs to comply with copyright law. It is not your responsibility to look after Linksys' bottom line.
You should consider contributing to the FSF who handles a lot of GNU GPL infringement cases preventing them from going to court. I suspect that the terms of the GPL are simply unfamiliar to a lot of organizations who deal in GPL-covered works. This doesn't mean they're exempt from obeying the terms of the license, it just means they might need assistance in being compliant.
I mentioned Eben Moglen, not RMS. I don't know why you are railing against RMS here. But since you're now trying to change the subject and talk about RMS winning that award, I'll offer that he was right. Linus Torvalds contributed a piece of the puzzle--a good piece, a needed piece, but not the framework by which the rest of the pieces had been collected for years before Torvalds arrived on the scene.
The FSF was never a part of the Open Source movement, they began the Free Software movement over a decade before the Open Source movement came along.
If either organization (FSF or OSI) is bitter about the other's success, it is probably OSI being bitter about the FSF's success. After all, the GNU General Public License is the most widely-used license in both movements. The GPL sets the terms of the debate in many cases. The OSI had no part in writing the GNU GPL. The FSF and RMS identified what is important to continue to make and distribute software freely (and with insights that continue to be valuable today--the ongoing Bitkeeper thread, for example). It is the FSF who, in the GPL, skillfully used copyright law to defend our interests instead of letting us continue to be unequal players in someone else's license (like the APSL which the OSI puts their stamp of approval on and the FSF considers non-free). The FSF is grateful that the Open Source movement has brought so many people to using the GNU GPL and other Free Software licenses, but the FSF warns against licenses that don't defend all of the community's interests. Meanwhile some notable members in the Open Source movement offer vicious words (and I'm not the first person to notice this).
I don't see how this is at all relevant except that it suggests you are forming opinions out of some prejudice against the FSF. I don't remember asking what you thought of the FSF but I find it telling that you would begin a response this way.
Well, neither of us speaks for the FSF so we can't say for certain why they don't call the GNU GPL a contract. But I'm guessing they're probably not calling it a contract because (as you noted) they don't need to in order to defend its terms and because most of the time no positive assent is given, no meeting of the minds happens. Most people simply make GNU GPL-covered software available for the taking at no charge. Therefore one of the criteria for being in a contractual relationship hasn't been met.
I don't miss your point at all, my reading of the material I linked to is different. I'm saying that two lawyers (one of whom--Eben Moglen--is far more familiar with relevant case law, copyright law, and the GNU GPL than either of us is likely to ever be) appear to be saying that leveraging contract law is not an option for most GPL licensors because there has been no contractual relationship established with the licensee. I don't see anything in their writings that says we're dealing with one defense being easier than the other. It appears to have to do with leveraging the only case that is available (copyright infringement) and avoiding the case that is out of reach (breach of contract).
I look forward to seeing you raise your views with Prof. Moglen sometime and reading what he makes of it. Perhaps he'll do another ask Slashdot interview. But I won't be surprised to learn that he has better ways to spend his time than to talk to anyone who opens by declaring that they "very little respect for the FSF" then later saying that the FSF has "weird ideological goals" without saying what you understand their goals to be or how you think those goals are weird.
The FSF, and Eben Moglen (chief counsel of the FSF), who wrote the GNU GPL and deal with GPL cases all the time disagree with you.
And "IP infringment (copyright)" is wrong--the phrase "intellectual property" doesn't just refer to copyright. It's a mish-mash of copyright, patent, trademark, and a host of other areas of law that aren't always compatible. Again, the FSF disagrees with you here.
The GNU GPL does not use the word "contract". There is another lawyer's analysis of this which illustrates the logic the FSF uses to show why they don't need a contract (and often don't have one anyhow) to accomplish what the GPL sets out to accomplish. The paper has some problems, but it is quite interesting as well. It also suggests a reason why it is valuable to purchase Free Software rather than getting it at no charge.
Clinton signed into law the 1996 Telecommunications Act which was a significant step in the homogenization of the U.S. media. I think this is considerably more important to the U.S. than his affair with Monica Lewinsky. But this event went unanalyzed in the mass media of the time and the signing of the bill into law happened at about the same time as an invasion and the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was getting major press. If I recall correctly, the affair got more coverage than the invasion.
Then the copyright holder should have said this software is in the public domain. That would have meaning (as would licensing under the remarkably liberal new BSD and MIT X11 licenses). The term "freeware" has no legal meaning and is not a license, therefore it cannot be considered free software or open source. The FSF warns against using the word freeware to mean "free software". As things are, it is unclear exactly what the copyright holder(s) were trying to convey which means the software should be regarded as non-free and therefore it would be wise to avoid the software. Here's hoping the copyright holder(s) pick a free software license.
Their website makes this claim, but I do not believe it is true. They apparently changed the license for the software from something else to a Creative Commons license. The Open Source Initiative does not list the CC licenses on their approved license list (hence, Greymatter is not "open source") and CC licenses are not intended for software.
Until Greymatter chooses a Free Software license, I recommend steering clear of Greymatter. The Free Software movement stresses treating all users as equals. The Open Source Initiative has approved some licenses, including the Apple Public Source License, which do not treat all users equally.
Movable Type is non-free software and I suggest you avoid it entirely. Both of Movable Type's licenses (their personal non-commercial license and their commercial license prohibit distributing the software without written consent. There is also language that tries to restrict what you can do with the software (even though U.S. copyright law doesn't allow placing terms on merely executing the software) and claims agreement to its terms under a click-through agreement (which are not valid everywhere) or by merely installing or using the software.
I suggest one use or make Free Software instead. The FSF and the GNU Project publish information on which licenses are free. I suggest staying away from software licensed under the Creative Commons licenses. They are doing great work but their licenses are not intended for use with software.
Bev Harris' Black Box Voting: Ballot-tampering in the 21st Century has much to offer on this, most notably a chance to preorder Harris' book on the topic. I don't have any connection to her or the book, and I make no money from saying this. My awareness of her comes from reading the website and listening to her radio interviews describing her findings and research. She offers compelling evidence on what has gone wrong with Diebold's machines, Sen. Hagel's connection to Diebold, and how votes get lost. She writes in a manner that is accessible to technical and non-technical people alike. I think this book will be another must-read investigative journalism highlight just like Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" on the 2000 presidential election in 2000.
I don't let one instance make a case to stand against a system that historically was not needed. If software patents did not exist both Stacker and Microsoft could have had similar compression schemes on the market (perhaps with others as well, maybe a free software competitor too) allowing users the chance to choose amongst them. Perhaps Microsoft's would have been the most commonly used scheme simply because of their dominance (which was largely achieved through unsavory means), but others could have come about without being squashed before they were born.
First, I would need to see why this is necessary at all. I understand businesses and some individuals desire it and are now getting used to having software patents, but history shows most of the history of computer software development went along without these patents (or without them being exploited, depending on the timeframe). To me that says we don't really need them. Also, there are instances of organizations not being able to provide computer users with a lively competitive arena for computer software (including through cross-licensing which kills the competition-exclusion nature of patents). To me this says they are not victimless.
I want to encourage a lot of individuals, organizations, and small businesses to make and distribute software. And I want them to be able to compete with larger firms like IBM, HP, and Microsoft (each holds a lot of patents and licenses to deal in other patents). So I favor completely ceasing issuing or renewing any more software patents and letting all current ones expire (I'm not aware of any being renewed, but I wouldn't want to let any organization think they can continue to keep old software patents in force). Thus businesses will be minimally disrupted for the software patents they've acquired, and the field of software development can return to the time where there was fierce competition on features.
Furthermore, I think it's fine to depend on copyright law (with a reasonable term of copyright, but that's a different discussion).