Don't forget about OpenBIOS. It is an attempt to implement the Openfirmware standard for x86 and related arcitechures. They are not to the usable stage yet, but hopefully this article will provide great motivation!
But you can't copy between for example OpenOffice and mozilla composer and keep the font and layout settings.
Out of curiosity, does this work in Windows? I.e. can you copy from Word to Mozilla Composer and keep font and layout? Incidentely, I don't miss this feature. Half the time I copy text I'd like it to keep the syle info, the other half I just want the raw text, in which case having all that style info is irritating.
Nor can you (most of the time) copy images or sounds or other multimedia between different programs.
I've found that copying images in windows works pretty piss poor, copying images from the web into word can result in word lowering the resolution of the image or other kookiness. It's much more reliable to first save the image then insert it into your program. I have never had the need to copy sound, nor do I even know how you copy and paste a sound!
For me I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything with Linux's copy and paste abilities, but of course YMMV.
Re:DIY'ers: OCM supports Plain Old Users
on
The Open Code Market
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This is the big problem with current Open Source world, IMO -- the current Open Source world seems oriented toward DIY'ers creating code for other DIY'ers. Its a BOF community of computer and software-loving people. The result is code that only another coder would love. What fraction of Open Source software packages "just works" without configuration, reading a manual, etc.
I'm not sure about the overall fraction of open source, but I think that the majority of the most "popular and common" open source apps "just work." Here's some examples from my personal experience based upon what I use.
Everyday apps:
KDE - just works. Plenty of tweaking can be accomplished by right clicking or through the control center.
one of the number one reasons i don't like debian is that packages in the stable branch are typically full point releases behind! have you seen the version of vi in their stable branch? holy, say hello to the 90's please!
You do know that there are testing and unstable branches, correct? There are even unofficial sources for many packages if necessary, and you can even mix and match from different branches if desired. Stable is for servers, testing/unstable are for desktops. How often does Sun release a new version of Solaris?
personally, i'm going to stay the redhat route and use Fedora on my workstations (using freshRPMS as my apt respository).
Do you really think that the RPMs from freshRPMs are more stable than official Debian packages? Xandros, Knoppix and others produce excellent desktop distros based on Debian, it is clearly doable.
I think there is a difference between watching a show on TV and recording it on a VCR. I think the courts thought there was too, since there was a case deciding whether VCR recording was copyright infringement.
Storing on a hard drive seems closer to recording on a VCR than watching TV. However, the situations aren't identical, so who knows what a court would decide?
You raise a very good point with the viewing TV vs. recording issue. It's also interesting that congress and the FCC is determined to treat digital works differently from analog for some reason, i.e. restricting our right of recording with broadcast flags and such. I guess the whole of copyright law is really pretty confusing stuff, even copyright lawyers disagree on interpretations!
I think you would at least be an accessory to copyright infringement.
Is there even such a thing as "accessory to copyright infringement?" Remember , coyright is usually a civil tort, particularily at the level of downloading a single file for personal use.
Fortunately, the way you don't recognize videotaping in a movie theater as copyright violation will flag you as too clueless to be heeded, and protect anyone else from accidentally listening to your crazy position.
Don't bother actually making an arguement or referencing any facts or laws, the mere fact that you say it means it must be true.
You claimed that distribution isn't illegal
No I didn't, I said that downloading wasn't illegal. However, re-reading my original post I can see how you misinterpreted it. Distribution (which the uploader is doing) is certainly illegal.
Yes, I let you make a copy. I let you make a copy. Who made the copy? You did! I let you, and you made a copy. How could it be any simpler?
In order to make a copy you must have the orignal. Who has the original? The server/uploader! Therefore if a copy is made it must have been made by the server! How could it be any simpler? The fact that the downloader initiates the request for the copy does not change the fact that the copy of the file is made by the server and sent down the wire. If you cannot understand these simple, basic facts about computers then our discussion is over.
Wow. It's amazing that someone can be so condenscending and yet so wrong. I notice you didn't bother to post any actual evidence of your claims, and you referred me to english teachers to answer legal questions. I shouldn't bother replying, but I'm bored so here goes. Besides, I love a good arguement! Just try to keep it civil please.
100% false. Copyright law doesn't actually cover copying. But, it covers both "reproduction" and "distributing copies" of a copyrighted work.
No, the copying and distribution happens at both ends. And position is irrelevant; whose "end" it took place at doesn't matter. The question is, who made the copy?
The copying and distributing happens at both ends? Just how many copies are made? And who the hell is the downloader distributing to? How is the downloader supposed to know how to make a copy when it doesn't have the original? Only the server has the original, and therefore only the server can send this information to the downloader. The server is sending a copy of the information down the wire where it is received, put back together, and stored by the client.
The copy was made by some software, but software can't be blamed. The person who operated that software can. And who instructed the software to make a copy? The person who issued a download request.
Why are you making the point that software can't be blamed? Of course this is true, we don't sue a Xerox machine for copying a book now do we? The person to blame is the one who is distributing copyrighted works. Placing these works on an FTP server is distribution. It's the same thing as someone making hundreds of copies of a CD and handing them out on the street. Just because he won't hand out a CD until someone asks him (initiates the transfer) he is still to blame for copying and distributing. The receiver is guilty of neither copying nor distributing and so is in the clear. Besides, how can I instruct your computer to copy a file for me? Unless I've hacked it, the only way I could do that is if you let me.
Go to the File menu in the upper-left of this window, and go down to Save. Type "slashdot.htm" in the little box, and push OK. Do you see what you just did? You made a copy of a file.
As soon as I go to slashdot.org slashdot sends me a copy of the HTML, which is stored in the browser cache. When you click "save as" you are making a second copy of the file. This second copy would be violating copyright if it were not covered under fair use. However, the first copy sent by slashdot is not.
Here's another experiment for you- see if you can go to ftp.gnu.org and take a copy of welcome.msg. (Right click on it, and push Save...)
I requested a copy of the file, and ftp.gnu.org sent it to me (wasn't that nice). I now have a copy of welcome.msg, which I received from the good people at the gnu ftp server.
Do you see what's going on here? By interacting with remote Web/FTP servers, you are making copies. Other people have set up software which allows you to make copies, but they are not doing the copying themselves.
The only way the information can get from the server to you is if the server sends a copy down the wire! Why is this so hard to grasp? Are you trying to make the point that the server is making the copies, not the server owner? Does this mean that someone who operates a printing press doesn't make copies, the printing press does? If you set up an FTP server or P2P app, you are responsible for the copies it creates.
If distribution is illegal (it is), then uploading and downloading can BOTH be illegal.
No. Copyright law covers making copies. The copying and distribution happen at the uploader's end. The downloader merely receives the copied file and stores it on their hard disk. If you se up an FTP server with copyrighted works you are distributing them (technically not until someone actually downloads something though). Just because the downloader asked for a copy (initiated the transfer) doesn't mean they've broken any law.
Consider videotaping a movie in a theater. That's recieving data from someone showing it to you, so it's equivalent to downloading. But no one would argue that it's illegal.
I'll argue that! Specifically why is it illegal? It is forbidden by the theaters, but that doesn't make it illegal. Distributing those videos is certainly illegal, however.
While you are correct the OP was not referring to sharing 30 second clips, they were refering to full copies of musical works. This is why I chose to ignore " the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" portion of Fair Use.
When you download, you are making a copy on your computer.
No you aren't, the copying and distribution happens at the uploading end. The downloader is merely receiving the copied file and storing it on their hard drive. No copying, no copyright infringement.
I've copied the legal definition of fair use in the U.S. below. I don't think downloading is a fair use by this definition
I never said that downloading was fair use. Fair use lets you violate copyright law in specific circumstances. My point is that since aren't making a copy when you download you are not infringing copyright at all.
This is where the term "fair use" comes into play. As far as the law is concerned, getting music a friend has is legal, but getting it from strangers is not.
Sorry, giving music to a friend has never been legal. Fair use only covers personal use. Of course, giving music to a friend is much too trivial for the RIAA to worry about. However, it is legal to receive music from a friend or strangers (download), since you are neither copying anything or distributing anything.
Possession of ilegally obtained material is illegal.
Please post a link showing that this is true of copyrighted material. Here is a definition for possession of stolen goods, but in copyright infringement nothing is stolen and this law does not apply.
I believe that the GP is correct, downloading is legal. Copyright is just that, the right to make copies. Only the person who owns the copyright (or people they authorize) has the right to make copies of a copyrighted work, everyone else is infringing (with some exceptions like fair use). When you uploading music to other people you are maing copies and distributing them, which is clearly infringing. However, when you download, you have made no copies and thus have not violated copyright law. Of course,
IANAL, but this is my take on it. Can anyone refer to any actual law which makes receiving infringing copies from someone else illegal?
It's funny that you think you own that copy. You've liceowned it. All the bad parts of ownership, combined with all the bad parts of licensing.
What's funny to me is that DRM on digital music is supposed to be so limiting, but in reality, it's no different than the legal quagmire that is the CD you "own".
Wrong. When you buy a CD you own it outright, you aren't licensing a thing. You do not, however, own the copyright and so you are forbidden by law to make unauthorized copies. When you buy DRM crippled music online, you ARE licensing it per the Terms of Service.
Your statement is completely wrong my friend. The free drivers are still available but software locked to 14.4kbps. If you want the full drivers you don't have to pay $40 like you said. The full drivers are $14.95.
No, the OP is not wrong. The original free drivers which offered full performance were removed and replaced with crippled drivers. Also, he never said that the full drivers cost $40, he was just illustrating a point about possibly having to pay for these new wireless driver wrappers in the future (he apparantly just made up the $40 figure), however the $40 was not referring to the price of the modem drivers. Besides, I believe that $14.95 is much too high a price for the modem drivers, considring that this is about the price of a brand new PCI 56K winmodem nowadays.
In my mind, you're just arguing semantics with that statement, although I'm with you on all the rest of it.
Well to be blunt, it doesn't matter what's in your mind, only what's in US law, and US law believes that theft and copyright infringement are two very different things. The alleged downloaders have not been charged with stealing or theft, in fact they have not been charged with any crime at all. Instead they are being sued in civil court for the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.
The problem I had in trying debian early on was that the install kernel was 2.2 only and did not support my hardware.
Yes, stable uses 2.2 by default but you have the option to use 2.4 (I believe the boot command is bf24). Alternatively, you could install with Knoppix and have a great desktop system right off the bat (which is what I did) or you can just apt-get a newer kernel (haven't tried yet).
Another problem with this approach is related in that old versions of software often lack necessary features or just plain won't work under many conditions. In such a case it is actually a better idea to be more up to date. It is also a good plan to be up to date when it comes to plugging security holes in software.
Stable is for servers. Testing or Unstable are for desktops. If you are running stable and absolutely need a later package you can install it from testing or unstable. BTW, all security patches are back ported to stable, if you run apt-get update regularly your stable system should have no known security holes in the software. It's for servers after all, where security and reliability are paramount.
Legally, the physical media is the property of the consumer. The consumer only owns a limited access to the information stored on the media. This law does not affect the consumers access to their own property, but it does affect thier access to other people's property.
Wrong. When you buy a CD or DVD you own it, both the physical item and all the bits on it. It's yours, you agree to no kind of license.
What you don't own is the copyright on the work, which basically means you don't have the right to make copies (with limited exceptions). However, you definetely own the orignal copy.
So far it is only software which attempts to make the claim that "This software is licensed, not sold" although it has all the characteristics of a sale.
In fact, the last versions of both IE and Mozilla run just fine on 10.1. [snip] It's telling that you mention two programs made by Apple.
One of the primary draws to the Mac platform is all of the cool Apple apps. If you can't run the cool Apple apps then that eliminates one of the primary reasons for owning a Mac (not the only reason, but a big one). Mozilla and IE work great on Windows, I don't need a Mac for them.
You have to admit that Apple's compaptability record for OS X has been pretty abysmal. Contrast this with Microsoft. Most of the latest and greatest Microsoft apps (Office XP, Windows Media Player 9, IE 6) work just fine on Windows 98, and probably Windows 95 as well (although that is EOLed). I am not forced to upgrade the entire operating system just for a web browser. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but this is one area they've done rather well in.
if you don't want to upgrade, then keep using whatever you were using
What I was using before was Windows and Linux, I was trying out the Mac because of how great I had heard it to be. But I found out that I had to upgrade to the absolutle latest version of OS X just to try out Apple's web browser!
FYI, because I really wanted to try out OS X in all it's glory I did end up buying 10.2 (used from eBay). Unfortunately, after using it for about a month I decided that OS X wasn't for me, and the iBook now runs Debian.;) To each their own, I suppose.
It really amazes me that people act as if their computing experience has somehow been crippled just because they don't have the very latest thing, even though their own machine hasn't regressed in anyway and is just as useful as it was the day before.
Well the problem lies in that many apps only work on the latest version of OS X, and 10.3 likely will not be much different. My wife bought a used Mac last summer, which came with 10.1. I heard how great Safari was supposed to be. Oops, only runs on 10.2. How about Apple's cool new X server? Requires 10.2 as well. In contrast IE 6 and Mozilla 1.5 both run fine on my old Windows 98SE box. I'm not saying that Apple's upgrades aren't work it, but many people feel that they are forced to upgrade just to run the newer applications, including the friggin' web browser.
But not promised to remain free. Anyone can create a totally proprietary FreeBSD fork. Thats what free software means. Check out fsf.org for more info on free software.
That is NOT what free software means, I suggest YOU check out the FSF definition. The BSD license is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free Software License.
You are correct that anyone can make a proprietary fork of BSD software, but software under the BSD license is most cetainly free, although not copy-lefted.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd guess 3 miles, although it's usually abbreviated mi.
Then contribute to OpenBIOS.
Don't forget about OpenBIOS. It is an attempt to implement the Openfirmware standard for x86 and related arcitechures. They are not to the usable stage yet, but hopefully this article will provide great motivation!
Out of curiosity, does this work in Windows? I.e. can you copy from Word to Mozilla Composer and keep font and layout? Incidentely, I don't miss this feature. Half the time I copy text I'd like it to keep the syle info, the other half I just want the raw text, in which case having all that style info is irritating.
Nor can you (most of the time) copy images or sounds or other multimedia between different programs.
I've found that copying images in windows works pretty piss poor, copying images from the web into word can result in word lowering the resolution of the image or other kookiness. It's much more reliable to first save the image then insert it into your program. I have never had the need to copy sound, nor do I even know how you copy and paste a sound!
For me I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything with Linux's copy and paste abilities, but of course YMMV.
I'm not sure about the overall fraction of open source, but I think that the majority of the most "popular and common" open source apps "just work." Here's some examples from my personal experience based upon what I use.
Everyday apps:
KDE - just works. Plenty of tweaking can be accomplished by right clicking or through the control center.
Mozilla - just works.
Evolution - just works.
OpenOffice.org - just works.
Linus lives in California. It's not really that far to Utah if it comes to that.
You do know that there are testing and unstable branches, correct? There are even unofficial sources for many packages if necessary, and you can even mix and match from different branches if desired. Stable is for servers, testing/unstable are for desktops. How often does Sun release a new version of Solaris?
personally, i'm going to stay the redhat route and use Fedora on my workstations (using freshRPMS as my apt respository).
Do you really think that the RPMs from freshRPMs are more stable than official Debian packages? Xandros, Knoppix and others produce excellent desktop distros based on Debian, it is clearly doable.
BTW, is your shift key broken? ;)
You raise a very good point with the viewing TV vs. recording issue. It's also interesting that congress and the FCC is determined to treat digital works differently from analog for some reason, i.e. restricting our right of recording with broadcast flags and such. I guess the whole of copyright law is really pretty confusing stuff, even copyright lawyers disagree on interpretations!
I think you would at least be an accessory to copyright infringement.
Is there even such a thing as "accessory to copyright infringement?" Remember , coyright is usually a civil tort, particularily at the level of downloading a single file for personal use.
Don't bother actually making an arguement or referencing any facts or laws, the mere fact that you say it means it must be true.
You claimed that distribution isn't illegal
No I didn't, I said that downloading wasn't illegal. However, re-reading my original post I can see how you misinterpreted it. Distribution (which the uploader is doing) is certainly illegal.
Yes, I let you make a copy. I let you make a copy. Who made the copy? You did! I let you, and you made a copy. How could it be any simpler?
In order to make a copy you must have the orignal. Who has the original? The server/uploader! Therefore if a copy is made it must have been made by the server! How could it be any simpler? The fact that the downloader initiates the request for the copy does not change the fact that the copy of the file is made by the server and sent down the wire. If you cannot understand these simple, basic facts about computers then our discussion is over.
100% false. Copyright law doesn't actually cover copying. But, it covers both "reproduction" and "distributing copies" of a copyrighted work.
Copyright law doesn't cover copying, it covers reproduction? reproduce - To produce a counterpart, image, or copy of. Where's that english teacher when you need them?
No, the copying and distribution happens at both ends. And position is irrelevant; whose "end" it took place at doesn't matter. The question is, who made the copy?
The copying and distributing happens at both ends? Just how many copies are made? And who the hell is the downloader distributing to? How is the downloader supposed to know how to make a copy when it doesn't have the original? Only the server has the original, and therefore only the server can send this information to the downloader. The server is sending a copy of the information down the wire where it is received, put back together, and stored by the client.
The copy was made by some software, but software can't be blamed. The person who operated that software can. And who instructed the software to make a copy? The person who issued a download request.
Why are you making the point that software can't be blamed? Of course this is true, we don't sue a Xerox machine for copying a book now do we? The person to blame is the one who is distributing copyrighted works. Placing these works on an FTP server is distribution. It's the same thing as someone making hundreds of copies of a CD and handing them out on the street. Just because he won't hand out a CD until someone asks him (initiates the transfer) he is still to blame for copying and distributing. The receiver is guilty of neither copying nor distributing and so is in the clear. Besides, how can I instruct your computer to copy a file for me? Unless I've hacked it, the only way I could do that is if you let me.
Go to the File menu in the upper-left of this window, and go down to Save. Type "slashdot.htm" in the little box, and push OK. Do you see what you just did? You made a copy of a file.
As soon as I go to slashdot.org slashdot sends me a copy of the HTML, which is stored in the browser cache. When you click "save as" you are making a second copy of the file. This second copy would be violating copyright if it were not covered under fair use. However, the first copy sent by slashdot is not.
Here's another experiment for you- see if you can go to ftp.gnu.org and take a copy of welcome.msg. (Right click on it, and push Save...)
I requested a copy of the file, and ftp.gnu.org sent it to me (wasn't that nice). I now have a copy of welcome.msg, which I received from the good people at the gnu ftp server.
Do you see what's going on here? By interacting with remote Web/FTP servers, you are making copies. Other people have set up software which allows you to make copies, but they are not doing the copying themselves.
The only way the information can get from the server to you is if the server sends a copy down the wire! Why is this so hard to grasp? Are you trying to make the point that the server is making the copies, not the server owner? Does this mean that someone who operates a printing press doesn't make copies, the printing press does? If you set up an FTP server or P2P app, you are responsible for the copies it creates.
No. Copyright law covers making copies. The copying and distribution happen at the uploader's end. The downloader merely receives the copied file and stores it on their hard disk. If you se up an FTP server with copyrighted works you are distributing them (technically not until someone actually downloads something though). Just because the downloader asked for a copy (initiated the transfer) doesn't mean they've broken any law.
Consider videotaping a movie in a theater. That's recieving data from someone showing it to you, so it's equivalent to downloading. But no one would argue that it's illegal.
I'll argue that! Specifically why is it illegal? It is forbidden by the theaters, but that doesn't make it illegal. Distributing those videos is certainly illegal, however.
While you are correct the OP was not referring to sharing 30 second clips, they were refering to full copies of musical works. This is why I chose to ignore " the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" portion of Fair Use.
No you aren't, the copying and distribution happens at the uploading end. The downloader is merely receiving the copied file and storing it on their hard drive. No copying, no copyright infringement.
I've copied the legal definition of fair use in the U.S. below. I don't think downloading is a fair use by this definition
I never said that downloading was fair use. Fair use lets you violate copyright law in specific circumstances. My point is that since aren't making a copy when you download you are not infringing copyright at all.
No you are not. (I can use bold too;). The copying and distribution occurs at the uploaders end. The downloader is merely receiving the copied work.
Sorry, giving music to a friend has never been legal. Fair use only covers personal use. Of course, giving music to a friend is much too trivial for the RIAA to worry about. However, it is legal to receive music from a friend or strangers (download), since you are neither copying anything or distributing anything.
Please post a link showing that this is true of copyrighted material. Here is a definition for possession of stolen goods, but in copyright infringement nothing is stolen and this law does not apply.
I believe that the GP is correct, downloading is legal. Copyright is just that, the right to make copies. Only the person who owns the copyright (or people they authorize) has the right to make copies of a copyrighted work, everyone else is infringing (with some exceptions like fair use). When you uploading music to other people you are maing copies and distributing them, which is clearly infringing. However, when you download, you have made no copies and thus have not violated copyright law. Of course, IANAL, but this is my take on it. Can anyone refer to any actual law which makes receiving infringing copies from someone else illegal?
Wrong. When you buy a CD you own it outright, you aren't licensing a thing. You do not, however, own the copyright and so you are forbidden by law to make unauthorized copies. When you buy DRM crippled music online, you ARE licensing it per the Terms of Service.
No, the OP is not wrong. The original free drivers which offered full performance were removed and replaced with crippled drivers. Also, he never said that the full drivers cost $40, he was just illustrating a point about possibly having to pay for these new wireless driver wrappers in the future (he apparantly just made up the $40 figure), however the $40 was not referring to the price of the modem drivers. Besides, I believe that $14.95 is much too high a price for the modem drivers, considring that this is about the price of a brand new PCI 56K winmodem nowadays.
Well to be blunt, it doesn't matter what's in your mind, only what's in US law, and US law believes that theft and copyright infringement are two very different things. The alleged downloaders have not been charged with stealing or theft, in fact they have not been charged with any crime at all. Instead they are being sued in civil court for the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.
Yes, stable uses 2.2 by default but you have the option to use 2.4 (I believe the boot command is bf24). Alternatively, you could install with Knoppix and have a great desktop system right off the bat (which is what I did) or you can just apt-get a newer kernel (haven't tried yet).
Another problem with this approach is related in that old versions of software often lack necessary features or just plain won't work under many conditions. In such a case it is actually a better idea to be more up to date. It is also a good plan to be up to date when it comes to plugging security holes in software.
Stable is for servers. Testing or Unstable are for desktops. If you are running stable and absolutely need a later package you can install it from testing or unstable. BTW, all security patches are back ported to stable, if you run apt-get update regularly your stable system should have no known security holes in the software. It's for servers after all, where security and reliability are paramount.
Wrong. When you buy a CD or DVD you own it, both the physical item and all the bits on it. It's yours, you agree to no kind of license.
What you don't own is the copyright on the work, which basically means you don't have the right to make copies (with limited exceptions). However, you definetely own the orignal copy.
So far it is only software which attempts to make the claim that "This software is licensed, not sold" although it has all the characteristics of a sale.
In fact, the last versions of both IE and Mozilla run just fine on 10.1. [snip] It's telling that you mention two programs made by Apple.
One of the primary draws to the Mac platform is all of the cool Apple apps. If you can't run the cool Apple apps then that eliminates one of the primary reasons for owning a Mac (not the only reason, but a big one). Mozilla and IE work great on Windows, I don't need a Mac for them.
You have to admit that Apple's compaptability record for OS X has been pretty abysmal. Contrast this with Microsoft. Most of the latest and greatest Microsoft apps (Office XP, Windows Media Player 9, IE 6) work just fine on Windows 98, and probably Windows 95 as well (although that is EOLed). I am not forced to upgrade the entire operating system just for a web browser. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but this is one area they've done rather well in.
if you don't want to upgrade, then keep using whatever you were using
What I was using before was Windows and Linux, I was trying out the Mac because of how great I had heard it to be. But I found out that I had to upgrade to the absolutle latest version of OS X just to try out Apple's web browser!
FYI, because I really wanted to try out OS X in all it's glory I did end up buying 10.2 (used from eBay). Unfortunately, after using it for about a month I decided that OS X wasn't for me, and the iBook now runs Debian. ;) To each their own, I suppose.
Well the problem lies in that many apps only work on the latest version of OS X, and 10.3 likely will not be much different. My wife bought a used Mac last summer, which came with 10.1. I heard how great Safari was supposed to be. Oops, only runs on 10.2. How about Apple's cool new X server? Requires 10.2 as well. In contrast IE 6 and Mozilla 1.5 both run fine on my old Windows 98SE box. I'm not saying that Apple's upgrades aren't work it, but many people feel that they are forced to upgrade just to run the newer applications, including the friggin' web browser.
That is NOT what free software means, I suggest YOU check out the FSF definition. The BSD license is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free Software License.
You are correct that anyone can make a proprietary fork of BSD software, but software under the BSD license is most cetainly free, although not copy-lefted.