You silly American bastards, the great is not to create, whacko whacky whacker. I am going off to massage my monkey. That is my final word, and this is the last vodka i'm drinking. (Not really)
MS argues that it blocks browsers because they can't handle XHTML. I tried to validate their start-page with http://validator.w3.org, but MS seems to think W3C can't handle their XHTML either and blocks it. At least the error page doesn't seem to be valid XHTML. So much for "embracing standards".
One issue that is creating a lot of confusion and disagreement and for which RMS or FSF have not officially (at least i have not seen) taken a clear position on is distributing GPLd programs with a proprietary OS. If a GPLd program links to for example libc on a proprietary UNIX, my reading of GPL says that it is legal at least as long as they are distributed separately. But what is the situation when they are distributed with the OS (for example GNOME with Solaris or bash with MacOSX)? From what I've read, Apple's lawyers seem to think it is illegal and it was used as one of the arguments to why Qt being counted as an operating system library would not make distributing KDE with Linux legal. Even RMS has been claimed to agree on this. However, many seem to think distributing GPLd works, that link to the proprietary OS libs, with the OS is perfectly legal and for example the possible distribution of GNOME with Solaris in the future make it IMHO an important question that needs to be clearly answered.
Well I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the rms-account as well, but Stallman does have rms@stallman.org as an email account too. For example check out the bottom of the www.stallman.org (www.stallman.org is The Real Thing, as it is referenced from www.gnu.org). But it's probable that both accounts are fakes:)
Okay, let's see whether there is any substance in this disagreement.
1. As I have understood there is no FSF-copyrighted code in KDE code tree and there has never been. So RMS has granted his forgiveness to some hypothetical non-KDE Qt-applications that use FSF-copyrighted code.
2. In the previous story there is a comment from someone who claims to be rms here saying KDE is still illegal and should not be used. Now I have no idea about its authenticity, but it seems to have ticked off some.
3. There is a disagreement about the allegation of RMS that violating of GPL would terminate authors license for the GPL code forever. This is the referenced text from GPL, section 4: Any attempt otherwise to
copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties
who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not
have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full
compliance.
However, here is a text from GPL, section 6: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms
and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
So if KDE hackers would give the entire CVS tree with new GPLd Qt to someone who has had nothing to do with KDE, he would have a fully legal codebase. If he then gives it back, Section 4 would suggest that KDE hackers would get automatically a new license hence having a fully legal codebase too.
4. I at least have never seen RMS or anyone enforce this interpretation of GPL before. If it is taken as a principle by everyone, how many free software projects would then be in "shady" legal position. For example (and I am not quite sure about the absolute facts about this case) some GNOME hackers took the HTML-widget code from KDE, removed the copyrights, and used it as a basis for their gtkhtml-code. They did put the copyright notes back, but it still seems a GPL-violation to me. If KHTML coders have not formally forgiven and relicensed the code, wouldn't this make GNOME "illegal" too?
Slashdot Mirror
I sleep with the demon duck of doom.
Sounds almost like me. I usually have infinite knowledge and no memory of it at the morning.
My toxic ass gas is bouncy. Please, god, stop bouncing my ass gas.
You silly American bastards, the great is not to create, whacko whacky whacker. I am going off to massage my monkey. That is my final word, and this is the last vodka i'm drinking. (Not really)
MS argues that it blocks browsers because they can't handle XHTML. I tried to validate their start-page with http://validator.w3.org, but MS seems to think W3C can't handle their XHTML either and blocks it. At least the error page doesn't seem to be valid XHTML. So much for "embracing standards".
MS wants to replace a consortium-controlled graphices API with an API that it can control alone. Read details at
Microsoft and 3D Graphics: A Case Study in Suppressing Innovation and Competition
One issue that is creating a lot of confusion and disagreement and for which RMS or FSF have not officially (at least i have not seen) taken a clear position on is distributing GPLd programs with a proprietary OS.
If a GPLd program links to for example libc on a proprietary UNIX, my reading of GPL says that it is legal at least as long as they are distributed separately. But what is the situation when they are distributed with the OS (for example GNOME with Solaris or bash with MacOSX)? From what I've read, Apple's lawyers seem to think it is illegal and it was used as one of the arguments to why Qt being counted as an operating system library would not make distributing KDE with Linux legal. Even RMS has been claimed to agree on this.
However, many seem to think distributing GPLd works, that link to the proprietary OS libs, with the OS is perfectly legal and for example the possible distribution of GNOME with Solaris in the future make it IMHO an important question that needs to be clearly answered.
Well I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the rms-account as well, but Stallman does have rms@stallman.org as an email account too. For example check out the bottom of the www.stallman.org (www.stallman.org is The Real Thing, as it is referenced from www.gnu.org). But it's probable that both accounts are fakes :)
Okay, let's see whether there is any substance in this disagreement.
1. As I have understood there is no FSF-copyrighted code in KDE code tree and there has never been. So RMS has granted his forgiveness to some hypothetical non-KDE Qt-applications that use FSF-copyrighted code.
2. In the previous story there is a comment from someone who claims to be rms here saying KDE is still illegal and should not be used. Now I have no idea about its authenticity, but it seems to have ticked off some.
3. There is a disagreement about the allegation of RMS that violating of GPL would terminate authors license for the GPL code forever. This is the referenced text from GPL, section 4:
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
However, here is a text from GPL, section 6:
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
So if KDE hackers would give the entire CVS tree with new GPLd Qt to someone who has had nothing to do with KDE, he would have a fully legal codebase. If he then gives it back, Section 4 would suggest that KDE hackers would get automatically a new license hence having a fully legal codebase too.
4. I at least have never seen RMS or anyone enforce this interpretation of GPL before. If it is taken as a principle by everyone, how many free software projects would then be in "shady" legal position. For example (and I am not quite sure about the absolute facts about this case) some GNOME hackers took the HTML-widget code from KDE, removed the copyrights, and used it as a basis for their gtkhtml-code. They did put the copyright notes back, but it still seems a GPL-violation to me. If KHTML coders have not formally forgiven and relicensed the code, wouldn't this make GNOME "illegal" too?