Okay, that is a serious problem... it's easy to solve for outsiders, but family... because the stakes are so high (you can pick your friends, but family is like luggage - you're stuck with it), people get bent out of shape easier, and stay bent out of shape longer.
Not knowing the details, I'd say continue being generous - leading by example is always a good thing, as is anything that increases the total amount of "Good" in the world.
Sorry that I assumed you were pushing religion. My bad. Please accept my apologies.
I'm sorry, but anyone who tries to tell me that my kids come second to anything is wasting their breath
It ain't easy being a Christian, believe me.
Me, I'd rather be the one who does what's right because it's right, not because I'm afraid someone is up there keeping score. If I only do it to get some reward in some hereafter, it really shouldn't count for much (actually, it should count as a negative in my books). I'm not going to let someone else dictate my morals - that's abrogating my responsibility to use my head, and it also over-simplifies a lot of grey areas. So I guess a more general statement would be "It ain't easy, period, if you have a conscience." Or "It's complicated."
It's not intellectual lethargy - it's a hypocritical unwillingness to admit that what they are doing is unethical.
That's why they'll bend over backward to make the argument that it isn't stealing ("oh noes - it's just teh copyright infringement - they still have their original bits").
But watch those same ones whine if you take code licensed under the gpl and say "I'm going to modify it and sell a proprietary closed fork - I'm not stealing your work - you still have your original code". All of a sudden, licenses mean something.
And this despite the fact that RMS actively encourages people to pirate closed-source applications because anyone who writes closed software somehow deserves it for their "anti-social" behaviour.
That works so well that all the big software companies like Apple and Microsoft are doing it... NOT!
All those expertise-sellers, and we're still waiting for the year of the linux desktop, because upgrades still break things on a regular basis (which is why so many of us distro-hop - in my case from slackware to redhat to mandrake back to redhat to suse to opensuse and now fedora 16).
Most people don't want to buy expertise - they want something that "just works". For the average consumer, if it needs support, it's broken... and they're right.
Some people just don't want the government wasting time and money spying on them. And they don't want that same government wasting their time and money using businesses like facebook and google and whatever to spy on them. And they don;t want businesses to spy on them because it's none of their d**** business.
Busybox is currently being re-implemented by sony in such a fashion, so please try to keep up, mkay?
If you want other examples, look up the whole "linux headers in android" tempest in a teapot - where it's perfectly fine to copy huge chunks of code residing in files that are licensed GPL2, w/o having to license the result as GPL2. Or were you asleep when the FSF tried to use this to attack Android?
The courts (Feist vs Rural, Goolab vs Nintendo) have consistently held that copying of the non-protectable portions of copyrighted material, copying of "only one way to do it" code, as well as modifying contents in ram, are all just fine. The GPL cannot prevent you from doing any of these, the same as you can make a derivative phone book using the list of names and telephone numbers in a copyrighted phone book and there's nothing that the copyright holder can say about it.
Another example - Oracle vs Google. The names of the individual java classes, as well as the class hierarchy, while they are part of a copyrighted work, are not protected - they are both "scene a faire" material (there is only one way to make a compatible class structure and that is to use the same class names) and they are not actually executable - they are symbolic names that only allow you to locate the code inside each class to actually execute. You do need to rewrite the contained code, except when there is again "only one way to do it" or "one generally accepted way to do it", in which case you can just copy the "one way" with impunity.
The thing is that the function and class names are not themselves "functional" - they do not compile down to instructions to "do something" - they're just a symbol used to locate the actual code within the function. Changing a function name from add to sub doesn't suddenly make the sub function do anything different from when it was called add. In an API that is meant to implement specific functionality, because the function and class names are not separable from the functionality (changing the function name breaks the API), you don't have a separate interest in copyright in the function and class names. So, the class names become "one way to do it" when implementing, say, a java clone or a clone of an existing GPL program, and you only need to modify the contained code - the code that is actually, pardon the pun, functional.
People keep thinking that fair use is the only way to override copyright, when there are SO many exceptions. For example, you can make and distribute a large-print or audio edition of a "non-dramatic copyright work" without the original copyright holder's permission for use by people with vision problems - something that is going to come more and more into play as the population ages.
Re:advantages of multiple inheritance
on
PHP 5.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I would suggest that you take a chill pill. Goto is no worse than any other language construct. All language constructs can be abused - but the pathological fear of goto shown by too many people is based in part on stupidity, and in part on simple ignorance.
The ability to use a goto to jump out of deeply nested statements, or to jump directly to a common exit point of a function (so as to have one unique return point from any function) is a feature that people should be using to make code more, not less, maintainable.
Similarly, the ability to use a setjmp to jump outside of a function can result in code that is cleaner than a bunch of try/catch/finally statements, as well as reducing code duplication.
So why not quit with the "oh my I iz so l337 cuz I don't uze teh ebil GOTO" attitude, hmm? Just because YOU can't use it properly doesn't mean others can't.
The rules of resolving the order of multiple inheritance are simple in c++. The problem is that java was supposed to be conceptually more along the lines of a "c++ for dummies" (garbage collection and no pointers, for example), and you get what you ask for.
Prior to java, many of us went down the "let's make everything into a class" in c++, and realized just how stupid that was. But history has a way of repeating itself.
WRT the GPL, you used the terms "an unconditional grant of any and all permissions" - which is NOT what the GPL gives. Your argument is the straw man, not mine. Either that, or English isn't your first language, or you're being dishonest. Pick one (or more) - I really don't care all that much, given your lack of integrity to this point.
I never said multiple inheritance was a Java concept. In fact, I think one of the mistakes in Java was *not* supporting multiple inheritance, just like another one was stuffing everything into classes and objects.
Multiple inheritance in c++ is simple. People who think otherwise need to sit down for 15 minutes and review it to see how much better it is than interfaces.
Actually, copyright allows you to make and distribute derivative works under the condition that you replace all materials that are protected by copyright with original material (which is far from "all the code"), except for things like "scene a faire" code (code which there is only one way to do it) - which you are allowed to copy as well.
The GPL can't take away your statutory right to do this, any more than the phone company can prevent you from releasing your own phone book based on the list of names and phone numbers in their phone book (Feist vs Rural).
Don't be a hypocrite, the MIT, BSD and Apache licenses (in increasing order of restrictiveness) are still more restrictive than an unconditional grant of any and all permissions,
Except that the GPL doesn't give you an "unconditional grant of any and all permissions." Try again.
Not all "derivative works" are created equally. A derivative work based on only the non-copyrightable portions is not infringing copyright.
For example, you can create a derivative work of the phone book from the names and phone numbers without violating copyright (see Feist vs Rural).
So, want to try again? There are 5 separate work-arounds to the GPL that cover every situation.
You don't have to re-write ALL the code - a point you missed. All you have to do is re-implement only those parts that copyright laws say you have to. Google for "feist vs rural" and "linux headers android fsf fud" for more info.
So I can just write an application that downloads a freeware proprietary application from another developer and uses its code as long as I don't write it to disk? I'm sure some pretty big companies won't be happy to know that.
By the way, in what case law do you base that interpretation of derivative works?
The legal argument was that the editing resulted in a derivation on a fixed media. At all times, for instance, CleanFilms sold edited films with a legitimately purchased original copy. Furthermore, every rented unit in edited format had a corresponding original copy that was purchased at retail. The judge ruled that the fixed media caused the violation
Also see Goolab vs Nintendo - the Game Genie The Game Genie modified the in-ram copy of the game - and was held not to be infringing copyright.
So yes, if you legitimately have a copy of software, you can modify the in-memory image to your hearts content.
As for examples of FSF FUD and disinformation, this "study" is a good starting point. Search for "FSF Linux Android FUD" for another example. Then look on the FSFE site for speeches by Stallman encouraging people to violate copyright because the writers "deserved it." When you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you end up with flees.
Now, as to commercial software - the gpl is hostile to the "sell copies of the software to make a living" model. The "sell the software and make money off of support" model doesn't work for consumer software - if it's buggy enough to need that much support, it's not ready for consumers. This is a contributor to the failure of linux on the desktop.
My thinking was along the lines that proprietary licenses can prevent you from looking at the code because they don't even have to give it to you if you ask for it, unlike the gpl... just a quick clarification, I guess I should have been clearer:-)
For example, copyright only applies to something that is stored in a fixed form. For example, you have copyright you a short story once you save it - not before. The version in memory is not subject to copyright because of the "fixed form" rule for written works.
Also, stuff that is not creative, nor stuff that is "only one way to do it", (search for "scenes a faire") is not protected by copyright. You're free to copy it. Same with stuff that is just a collection of facts, such as constants and enums in headers. (search for FSF FUD Linux Android)
So, just take the gpl code you want to use, strip out the comments (they're protected by copyright), replace the function bodies with your own implementation, replace any expressive text strings (like hints and help), and images, and recompile your brand new binary-compatible closed-source implementation.
Knowing the generally poor quality of open source (try compiling the software that comes with a distro and watch all the errors and warnings....) you'll probably catch and fix a few bugs in the process. Your choice as to whether to pass them back to the original authors, since your version of the code is no longer governed by the gpl.
Yeah, mostly proprietary software developers who want to use the efforts of free software developers while locking their own users up. I couldn't care less - let them write their own code.
They don't need to start from scratch. In any software project, there's plenty of stuff that isn't protected by copyright that they are free to copy. Most of the simple stuff in header files, for example, as well as the function and class names, methods, signatures (pretty much the entire API), and any code that is basically "only one way to do it".
So, all anyone has to do is strip out your comments (comments are creative and such are protected by copyright), replace the code in the function bodies with their own (except for the "only one way to do it" aka "scenes a faire" code, which they can copy verbatim), replace any copyrighted images, text strings and other protected elements, and release a completely closed source, fully binary compatible clone under the license of their choosing.
Or, they can in the alternative dynamically patch the code in memory on loading (copyright protection doesn't apply to code that is not "permanently fixed in some medium" - anything loaded into ram is fair game as long as you don't save the result to disk or some other (at least semi)-permanent medium) and not release the sources for the patcher - and no, this does not fall under the definition of linking so that provision is not triggered.
And these are only 2 of at least 5 different ways that I know of to use gpl code in proprietary projects w/o having to distribute the source to the proprietary bits when distributing the binaries.
Now, normally people wouldn't bother - but with the past abuses of the gpl by the FSF and company to peddle FUD and misinformation, there's a growing willingness to give them a good smack-down and end this nonsense by attacking the gpl directly. The ABM (Apache, *BSD, MIT) licenses have proven to be less likely to cause the numerous forks that result in wasted resources and duplication of effort than the gpl (FreeBSD by itself is more than 75% of all *BSDs, compared to how many linux distros to reach that same 75%????), and they still get code contributions, so there's really no reason to stick with the gpl anyway - which is one reason why gpl adoption percentages are shrinking.
And of course, all this ignores the *huge* growth in closed-source code in the last few years. The market is speaking, and except for common infrastructure, most people want the benefits of closed-source software, which includes more stable funding for maintaining and improving the software, and people being paid to find the bugs (nobody wants to do bug hunts in free software - they're all too busy scratching their own itches) and quality assurance.
free from restriction # the gpl imposes restrictions on distribution if you modify the code, and also on how you can license mods, and restrictions on linking or licensing under another license.
False. Under copyright law, you didn't have the freedom to distribute anyway. The GPL has given you the conditional right to distribute. That's more than no right to distribute.
Don't be intentionally stupid, please. The GPL is still more restrictive than the ABM (Apache, BSD, MIT) licenses.
free to share and copy # the gpl makes you share your modified source
False. I can modify the source to GPL software and use the modified version to my heart's content.
No you can't. You can't use it, for example, as a closed-source product.
Fortunately, because of the way copyright works, there are ways to take any gpl'd software and modify it so that you can legally create a product licensed any way you want, from completely closed-source, to public domain.
Re:advantages of multiple inheritance
on
PHP 5.4 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Gotos are great. Look at your switch statement. See those case labels - they're the targets for the computed goto. Or do you not use switch statements?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with goto. Just people who abused it and it got a bad reputation.
I'd add getting rid of GLOBAL declarations inside functions, implementing proper variable scoping rules, and no auto-vivication of variables to that list. It needs a real clean-up.
The slide show (I won't dignify it by calling it a "paper" or "study") is total crap. Really. Get over it.
As I pointed out, it starts by cherry-picking a source. That's not "scientific" - that's blatant bias. THAT is the first problem with the numbers, and it's a fatal blow.
Look at how many people are agreeing. Why are they so vocal? It''s because the FSF and RMS are now a bad joke and an embarrassment.
Then again, the FSF is guilty of so many lies in the last year (the anti-Android licensing FUD was just the tip of the iceberg - there's plenty more for anyone who cares to look), blatant hypocrisy (such as RMS speeches, hosted on FSFE, encouraging people to violate the copyrights of people who write proprietary software), and sheer stupidity (this is just the latest of many examples - did you really think that sending a letter to IBM telling them that you could help them convert to open source was anything but a severe case of brain-fart-disease? Or that closed source software was a threat to them?) that you've brought it upon yourselves.
Besides, now that copyright law has been sufficiently clarified by the courts, it's very easy to get around the restrictions of the GPL and take any gpl'd code and legally create a closed-source version that can be distributed under a binary-only license, it's not even relevant any more - same as RMS, same as the FSF.
Slashdot Mirror
Ruby on Rails - the perfect blend of poor performance (Ruby) and gaping holes (Rails).
Okay, that is a serious problem ... it's easy to solve for outsiders, but family ... because the stakes are so high (you can pick your friends, but family is like luggage - you're stuck with it), people get bent out of shape easier, and stay bent out of shape longer.
Not knowing the details, I'd say continue being generous - leading by example is always a good thing, as is anything that increases the total amount of "Good" in the world.
Sorry that I assumed you were pushing religion. My bad. Please accept my apologies.
Me, I'd rather be the one who does what's right because it's right, not because I'm afraid someone is up there keeping score. If I only do it to get some reward in some hereafter, it really shouldn't count for much (actually, it should count as a negative in my books). I'm not going to let someone else dictate my morals - that's abrogating my responsibility to use my head, and it also over-simplifies a lot of grey areas. So I guess a more general statement would be "It ain't easy, period, if you have a conscience." Or "It's complicated."
People tell scientists that they are not smart enough to understand the definition of "democracy".
It's not intellectual lethargy - it's a hypocritical unwillingness to admit that what they are doing is unethical.
That's why they'll bend over backward to make the argument that it isn't stealing ("oh noes - it's just teh copyright infringement - they still have their original bits").
But watch those same ones whine if you take code licensed under the gpl and say "I'm going to modify it and sell a proprietary closed fork - I'm not stealing your work - you still have your original code". All of a sudden, licenses mean something.
And this despite the fact that RMS actively encourages people to pirate closed-source applications because anyone who writes closed software somehow deserves it for their "anti-social" behaviour.
That works so well that all the big software companies like Apple and Microsoft are doing it ... NOT!
All those expertise-sellers, and we're still waiting for the year of the linux desktop, because upgrades still break things on a regular basis (which is why so many of us distro-hop - in my case from slackware to redhat to mandrake back to redhat to suse to opensuse and now fedora 16).
Most people don't want to buy expertise - they want something that "just works". For the average consumer, if it needs support, it's broken ... and they're right.
Fair enough - I didn't notice that you weren't the one who I had originally replied to. Sorry, and please accept my apologies.
Some people just don't want the government wasting time and money spying on them. And they don't want that same government wasting their time and money using businesses like facebook and google and whatever to spy on them. And they don;t want businesses to spy on them because it's none of their d**** business.
If you want other examples, look up the whole "linux headers in android" tempest in a teapot - where it's perfectly fine to copy huge chunks of code residing in files that are licensed GPL2, w/o having to license the result as GPL2. Or were you asleep when the FSF tried to use this to attack Android?
The courts (Feist vs Rural, Goolab vs Nintendo) have consistently held that copying of the non-protectable portions of copyrighted material, copying of "only one way to do it" code, as well as modifying contents in ram, are all just fine. The GPL cannot prevent you from doing any of these, the same as you can make a derivative phone book using the list of names and telephone numbers in a copyrighted phone book and there's nothing that the copyright holder can say about it.
Another example - Oracle vs Google. The names of the individual java classes, as well as the class hierarchy, while they are part of a copyrighted work, are not protected - they are both "scene a faire" material (there is only one way to make a compatible class structure and that is to use the same class names) and they are not actually executable - they are symbolic names that only allow you to locate the code inside each class to actually execute. You do need to rewrite the contained code, except when there is again "only one way to do it" or "one generally accepted way to do it", in which case you can just copy the "one way" with impunity.
The thing is that the function and class names are not themselves "functional" - they do not compile down to instructions to "do something" - they're just a symbol used to locate the actual code within the function. Changing a function name from add to sub doesn't suddenly make the sub function do anything different from when it was called add. In an API that is meant to implement specific functionality, because the function and class names are not separable from the functionality (changing the function name breaks the API), you don't have a separate interest in copyright in the function and class names. So, the class names become "one way to do it" when implementing, say, a java clone or a clone of an existing GPL program, and you only need to modify the contained code - the code that is actually, pardon the pun, functional.
People keep thinking that fair use is the only way to override copyright, when there are SO many exceptions. For example, you can make and distribute a large-print or audio edition of a "non-dramatic copyright work" without the original copyright holder's permission for use by people with vision problems - something that is going to come more and more into play as the population ages.
The ability to use a goto to jump out of deeply nested statements, or to jump directly to a common exit point of a function (so as to have one unique return point from any function) is a feature that people should be using to make code more, not less, maintainable.
Similarly, the ability to use a setjmp to jump outside of a function can result in code that is cleaner than a bunch of try/catch/finally statements, as well as reducing code duplication.
So why not quit with the "oh my I iz so l337 cuz I don't uze teh ebil GOTO" attitude, hmm? Just because YOU can't use it properly doesn't mean others can't.
Prior to java, many of us went down the "let's make everything into a class" in c++, and realized just how stupid that was. But history has a way of repeating itself.
WRT the GPL, you used the terms "an unconditional grant of any and all permissions" - which is NOT what the GPL gives. Your argument is the straw man, not mine. Either that, or English isn't your first language, or you're being dishonest. Pick one (or more) - I really don't care all that much, given your lack of integrity to this point.
I never said multiple inheritance was a Java concept. In fact, I think one of the mistakes in Java was *not* supporting multiple inheritance, just like another one was stuffing everything into classes and objects.
Multiple inheritance in c++ is simple. People who think otherwise need to sit down for 15 minutes and review it to see how much better it is than interfaces.
Actually, copyright allows you to make and distribute derivative works under the condition that you replace all materials that are protected by copyright with original material (which is far from "all the code"), except for things like "scene a faire" code (code which there is only one way to do it) - which you are allowed to copy as well.
The GPL can't take away your statutory right to do this, any more than the phone company can prevent you from releasing your own phone book based on the list of names and phone numbers in their phone book (Feist vs Rural).
Except that the GPL doesn't give you an "unconditional grant of any and all permissions." Try again.
Not all "derivative works" are created equally. A derivative work based on only the non-copyrightable portions is not infringing copyright.
For example, you can create a derivative work of the phone book from the names and phone numbers without violating copyright (see Feist vs Rural).
So, want to try again? There are 5 separate work-arounds to the GPL that cover every situation.
That's their problem. similar example in the video field.
Also see Goolab vs Nintendo - the Game Genie The Game Genie modified the in-ram copy of the game - and was held not to be infringing copyright.
So yes, if you legitimately have a copy of software, you can modify the in-memory image to your hearts content.
As for examples of FSF FUD and disinformation, this "study" is a good starting point. Search for "FSF Linux Android FUD" for another example. Then look on the FSFE site for speeches by Stallman encouraging people to violate copyright because the writers "deserved it." When you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you end up with flees.
Now, as to commercial software - the gpl is hostile to the "sell copies of the software to make a living" model. The "sell the software and make money off of support" model doesn't work for consumer software - if it's buggy enough to need that much support, it's not ready for consumers. This is a contributor to the failure of linux on the desktop.
My thinking was along the lines that proprietary licenses can prevent you from looking at the code because they don't even have to give it to you if you ask for it, unlike the gpl ... just a quick clarification, I guess I should have been clearer :-)
For example, copyright only applies to something that is stored in a fixed form. For example, you have copyright you a short story once you save it - not before. The version in memory is not subject to copyright because of the "fixed form" rule for written works.
Also, stuff that is not creative, nor stuff that is "only one way to do it", (search for "scenes a faire") is not protected by copyright. You're free to copy it. Same with stuff that is just a collection of facts, such as constants and enums in headers. (search for FSF FUD Linux Android)
So, just take the gpl code you want to use, strip out the comments (they're protected by copyright), replace the function bodies with your own implementation, replace any expressive text strings (like hints and help), and images, and recompile your brand new binary-compatible closed-source implementation.
Knowing the generally poor quality of open source (try compiling the software that comes with a distro and watch all the errors and warnings ....) you'll probably catch and fix a few bugs in the process. Your choice as to whether to pass them back to the original authors, since your version of the code is no longer governed by the gpl.
Sure it does. Many of the major projects (LibreOffice, Firefox, GIMP, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Python, Perl, even KDE) work under Windows and OSX.
They don't need to start from scratch. In any software project, there's plenty of stuff that isn't protected by copyright that they are free to copy. Most of the simple stuff in header files, for example, as well as the function and class names, methods, signatures (pretty much the entire API), and any code that is basically "only one way to do it".
So, all anyone has to do is strip out your comments (comments are creative and such are protected by copyright), replace the code in the function bodies with their own (except for the "only one way to do it" aka "scenes a faire" code, which they can copy verbatim), replace any copyrighted images, text strings and other protected elements, and release a completely closed source, fully binary compatible clone under the license of their choosing.
Or, they can in the alternative dynamically patch the code in memory on loading (copyright protection doesn't apply to code that is not "permanently fixed in some medium" - anything loaded into ram is fair game as long as you don't save the result to disk or some other (at least semi)-permanent medium) and not release the sources for the patcher - and no, this does not fall under the definition of linking so that provision is not triggered.
And these are only 2 of at least 5 different ways that I know of to use gpl code in proprietary projects w/o having to distribute the source to the proprietary bits when distributing the binaries.
Now, normally people wouldn't bother - but with the past abuses of the gpl by the FSF and company to peddle FUD and misinformation, there's a growing willingness to give them a good smack-down and end this nonsense by attacking the gpl directly. The ABM (Apache, *BSD, MIT) licenses have proven to be less likely to cause the numerous forks that result in wasted resources and duplication of effort than the gpl (FreeBSD by itself is more than 75% of all *BSDs, compared to how many linux distros to reach that same 75%????), and they still get code contributions, so there's really no reason to stick with the gpl anyway - which is one reason why gpl adoption percentages are shrinking.
And of course, all this ignores the *huge* growth in closed-source code in the last few years. The market is speaking, and except for common infrastructure, most people want the benefits of closed-source software, which includes more stable funding for maintaining and improving the software, and people being paid to find the bugs (nobody wants to do bug hunts in free software - they're all too busy scratching their own itches) and quality assurance.
Not really. The license for most proprietary software doesn't let you look at and modify the code.
Don't be intentionally stupid, please. The GPL is still more restrictive than the ABM (Apache, BSD, MIT) licenses.
No you can't. You can't use it, for example, as a closed-source product.
Fortunately, because of the way copyright works, there are ways to take any gpl'd software and modify it so that you can legally create a product licensed any way you want, from completely closed-source, to public domain.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with goto. Just people who abused it and it got a bad reputation.
I'd add getting rid of GLOBAL declarations inside functions, implementing proper variable scoping rules, and no auto-vivication of variables to that list. It needs a real clean-up.
The slide show (I won't dignify it by calling it a "paper" or "study") is total crap. Really. Get over it.
As I pointed out, it starts by cherry-picking a source. That's not "scientific" - that's blatant bias. THAT is the first problem with the numbers, and it's a fatal blow.
Look at how many people are agreeing. Why are they so vocal? It''s because the FSF and RMS are now a bad joke and an embarrassment.
Then again, the FSF is guilty of so many lies in the last year (the anti-Android licensing FUD was just the tip of the iceberg - there's plenty more for anyone who cares to look), blatant hypocrisy (such as RMS speeches, hosted on FSFE, encouraging people to violate the copyrights of people who write proprietary software), and sheer stupidity (this is just the latest of many examples - did you really think that sending a letter to IBM telling them that you could help them convert to open source was anything but a severe case of brain-fart-disease? Or that closed source software was a threat to them?) that you've brought it upon yourselves. Besides, now that copyright law has been sufficiently clarified by the courts, it's very easy to get around the restrictions of the GPL and take any gpl'd code and legally create a closed-source version that can be distributed under a binary-only license, it's not even relevant any more - same as RMS, same as the FSF.