most (all?) countries in Europe use the comma and period in the opposite way the US does
Not the UK or Ireland, but AFAIK everywhere else. (Of course, only for currency;-)
All of continental Europe uses a comma as a decimal sign, and and a period (full stop) as a thousands separator. Also, multiplication is denoted by a raised dot, not a cross.
The exception (of course) is England, which is like the US, except that a period is frequently used to denote multiplication, just to make things even more confusing
I should know; I'm a mathmatician from the continent (Norway) living in Eng-A-Lond.
As a person who studys at and works for a university, I can say that Oxford did the right thing. As it is, universities don't have all that much money, especially for lawyers.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Oxford University (and Cambridge, and Harvard etc.) is unbelivable rich. This is common knowledge in the UK.
They's just ignore it--everybody knows Oxford is better than Cambridge anyway. And we appear to have a more-or-less sensible computing service to boot. Seriously, though, people have gotten away with stuff that's a lot worse than that god knows how many times.
There have been various attempts at distributed operating systems in the past; some, such as amoeba and plan 9 are actually usable, to a certain point. Unix is here to stay--it's not going to disappear until someone maxes the next "big step" in computing, and maybe not even then. There are a number of projects out there that are quite interesting. On the one hand, you have OSes like QNX which were designed to be entirely distributable (for lack of a better word) from the ground up. One of K&R (I can't remember which one) once said that one of the places where unix failed to take the "everything is a file" concept to its logical conclusion was networking. (In plan9, pretty much everything, including networked stuff is a file). I don't think that distributed OSes will kill unix, but that unix will eventually become a distributed OS. For example, GNU/HURD (which is getting along very nicely BTW), while not an attempt at a distributed OS, is designed in such a way that it will be easy to transform into a distributed system.
First, I'm wondering if this is really needed. There are certainly cases of authors putting copyrighted material out there electronically, free for the copying. I know O'Reilly did this with on of their books. Bruce Sterling also did this with The Hacker Crackdown.
How does this imply that the FDL is not needed? I think that this argument reduces to say that there are in fact people who are willing to publish docs under something FDL-ish. I'd say that if such cases did not exist, there would be no raison d'etre for the FDL at all.
I think the FDL is good because, amongst other things, it is a good "boilerplate" license that allows you to do this sort of thing, one that has been proofread by lawyers to boot. If everyone were to come up with their own license, there is a fair bet that some well-meaning author would come up with a license looks superficially solid, but has no legal clout, or disallows something that the author really wanted to allow.
The reason this concerns me is that if I were an author, I'd want to get a royalty for any copy of the work that gets sold for cash.
Ah. Now, if you were a programmer, wouldn't you like to have get a royalty for every copy of your program that was sold for cash? But wait, that wouldn't be free software, would it? I think the arguments, in the case of software documention, are very similar.
It doesn't seem right that a publishing company could publish the book and pay nothing. (see below.)
Why not? If they charged an excessive amount of money, someone else could publish the same book and take away their market. It's called capitalism, and in this case (surprise!) it actually prevents you from getting screwed, funny as though it may seem.
And given the two examples above, I don't think that selling a book to a publisher and getting royalies precludes free electronic distribution.
Of course it doesn't. In other words, there is nothing that precludes you from selling a book to a publisher, and releasing it under the FDL.
In other words, it seems to me to make sense to have a license that allowed free electronic distribution, but that required print distributors to come to an agreement with the authors regarding payment. (Obviously complicated if it has passed through many hands.)
What's really so different about hardcopy and electronic distribution? Is it the fact that someone (the publisher) makes money out of the hardcopies? I think the laws of the market, competition in particular, would do their job and prevent any outrage.
My second comment is that I suspect that the motivation to "FDL" a document won't be nearly as strong as the motivation to "GPL" a piece of software. One of the reasons I think that the GPL works is that most GPL'd software was written for the authors. They write something they need, perhaps throwing in things for people to ask as a favor. Regardless, they end up with something they can use themselves. In other words, their work has value to them after they've completed it. Documentation, on the other hand, is pretty much useless to the author (in most cases) after its completion. Presumably the author knows everything in the document and thus no longer needs the document.
You've cited one reason why someone might GPL a program, but which does not apply to the FDL. I don't think it follows from there that there is no reason why anyone would use the FDL, and I don't think that this is the only reason people write free software either. Cases in point: gcc, glibc.
And that's the thing. The motivation to write an FDL'd document may be altruism, or the desire for community approval, but it won't be self-interest. On the other hand, the motivation to write a GPL'd piece of software certainly can be self-interest. I write a program because I want the program, first and foremost.
That's not to say that I'm opposed to other people using the FDL. If people want to, more power to them.
So then the FDL does serve a purpose after all. I think it's good that people who want to write free docs have a solid license that allows them to do so, rather than just slapping a possibly legally invalid two-line notice on them. Don't you?
But if I were going to write technical docs (which I have thought about doing) I'd want to retain copyright. I'd probably allow free unmodified distribution, but I'd want to have the ability to sell the work to a publisher as well. It doesn't seem that the FDL allows this, unless the publisher is real stupid.
If I were to write software manuals (which I have thought about doing as well 8-)) I'd certainly want to retain copyright, or assign it to some trusted entity. I wouldn't want to write a non-free manual for a free program; personally I think that's rather ungrateful.
The phrase reads "proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors". You're telling us that Microsoft Word format may be readily edited and viewed by may free programs. In that case, it is no longer covered by this clause, and so your entire argument falls apart. I don't really think that you've read what was written carefully enough.
Off course, it arguable whether Microsoft Word format is as widespread as you say. While some programs has more or less working support for certain subsets, I do not know of any that will not die horribly when faced with some of the more advanced features of the format.
I believe the exact wording is:...Version 1.1 or any later version... The thing is, even if the FSF brings out a new version, your docs will still be available under the old license, as well as the new one.
Of course, this line is out of the example paragraph that tells everyone how they can license their docs under the FDL. If you wanted to, you could use another boilerplate paragraph to do the same thing. Not that the FSF's GPL page and pretty much all of their programs (in the copyright notices) say the same thing. On the other hand, eg. the Linux kernel is licensed under the current version of the GPL only, for whoever knows what reason.
Ok let me get this straight... I release a document under this license, and then if the FSF changes it in a way that I disagree with to the point I decide it is as evil as Microsoft, I can't leave it under the old version?
Yes, you can. However, people can also choose to use it under the terms of the new version. Off course, the chances of the FSF ever changing one of their licenses to something even remotely non-free are slim to non-existent. Whether you like them or not, the FSF's ideals are very well-published, and it is also generally agreed upon that they can be trusted to stick to them.
I'm stuck with my document being under a liscense I feel is morally wrong. I could go and release a new version under a license I do agree with, but all the old versions are under the license I don't like. Or would I be legally allowed to declare that my document is no longer under GFDL?
No. If you've already released a version under the FDL, then you can't go back and change that. However, you can still release it under some other license. In fact you can, at any time and as often as you feel like it, release anything that you have copyright on under whatever license you feel like.
How do I do that without screwing over all of the people who have benefited from it being a GFDL document?
Just release it under some similar, free license. Or release it under the FDL again, but do not include the "or any later version" clause in your copyright statement.
Does anybody else feel that all the programmers have become a bunch of lawyers? It just seems we spend more time today worrying about what code/documentation has what license that we spend actually designing and writing code.
Unfortunately, yes. As far as free software is concerned, I think that this has happened because if you want to make sure that neither you nor anyone gets screwed, you are going to have to worry about it. Such is the world.
I'm not sure I like this as much as I like the Open Content License. The FDL seems a lot more restrictive than the GPL or LGPL ever was. Then again, documentation is very different from software, so these added restrictions might well be necessary. It seems as though the FDL is geared specifically towards software documentation, whereas the OPL is more general-purpose. I wonder if this was intentional. Somehow I'm not certain that it was.
More restrictive? The open content license does not allow you to sell copies of an OCL'ed book. That right is crucial, if, for instance, you have some free software that you've changed, and you would like to update the docs as well. You would never have companies like Red Hat if "free" software was distributed under that sort of license. The FDL does allow you to charge money. I think that this right is absolutely crucial for documentation that calls itself free. (Ironically, the FSF is often accused of being anti-commercial--I think that this sort of thing is proof that they are not rabbidly anti-capitalistic). The only restrictions in the FDL are ones that prevent you from chucking out the original author's name, omitting short philosophical sections (such as the gnu manifestion in the emacs manual, I suppose) and those that prevent you from claiming false endorsement. I think that's quite acceptable, really. Oh yes, and you have to distribute it in a format which actually makes it possible to make modifications without jumping through hoops.
so does this mean that certain books will be able to be published and not need permission to be copied? (not copyrighted) what about plagarism? will our teachers be able to spot these new uncopyrighted works?
Documents released under the FDL are certainly copyrighted, just like software released under the GNU GPL is. However, the license gives you the right to make modifications and release them, as long as you follow certain (liberal) conditions. That's the whole point, you know.
Sounds like someone has already done some thinking on the subject. Has anyone put up (on the web)an analysis of these licenses a la the ones for sofware licenses at the GNU site? It would be a useful thing to have, if only to flame and argue over.8-(
If you really want to have a hardcopy of the GNU Make manual, you can order it from the GNU folks. It's a great way to support free software (and free manuals).
Does anyone know what the significant differences between the OpenContent license (which this book) is distributed under) and the GNU FDL, which there was a story about on Slashdot a couple of days ago? I looked at it briefly, and the only thing that struck me was the must-be-supplied-in-source-format-as-well clause in the GNU one, but I could be wrong.
GNU Make? That's a texinfo book, like for instance the GNU Emacs manual. HTML is one of the various supported output formats. Info is another one. Better still, you can run it through tex and get a really-good looking book. The GNU Emacs manual is printed in this way, and it looks really good--all six hundred pages of it.
I posted a reply to this, but it ended up in the <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/1<nobr>2<wbr></wbr></nobr> /0917223&cid=108">wrong thread</a>.
I posted a long reply to this, which somehow <A href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/1<nobr>2<wbr></wbr></nobr> /0917223&cid=115">ended up</A> in the wrong thread.
Yes, there is GCC which is a very important utility. But if it didn't exist under the GPL someone would have written one under another license because they needed it.
This point in particular is one of the most annoying ones frequently made by anti-GNU revisionist. Much has been said about open source and the power of 'gotta scratch that itch' development. However, there are some problems which 'scratch the itch'-motivation do not solve very easily. No one would write a C compiler just to scratch an itch with the old one, at least not except for in the most severe of circumstances. GCC exists because RMS realised that it (or something like it) had to.
If it were not for GCC, the best we would have had today would have been some mediocre free compiler, with a up-gunned 'professional' edition which you would have to use for anything but the simplest of development.
If I were you i'd watch yourself here. Because it's guys like you, the Johnny-come-only-to-the-GNU-world people that are rabid FS advocates and haven't really learned the real history or the current world that make themselves sound rather silly by assuming that GNU is the only player in the free software world. Stop reading the GNU and Linux ads and start learning about other licenses and other areas that write free software.
I don't agree with your premises or your conclusion, but I do agree with the advise given to newbies in general: go out there and familiarise yourself with the history of free software/open source. Tour www.gnu.org and www.*bsd.org. There is lots of information there. (Note to new readers: I did note write the comment that DQuinn is replying to.)
In my experience, most newbies are of the 'wow it's cool to run all this stuff for free, but couldn't someone tell RMS to stop shouting GNU/Linux 'cos everyone knows that the Linux os was written by scratch by Linus & co'. But then again, my perspective is probably different.
If you want to talk about disrespect, I have an email from RMS that states quite plainly that he doesn't care at all about etiquette and thinks that his ideas and opinions are wanted by everyone and he can infultrate any list he wants and say whatever he wants, even though the people involved have rejected the ideas he gives out by choosing a different open-source license. That's disrespect!
Do you think you could post that email here (unless it's private) or at least forward it to me (gs234.at.you.know.what.goes.here.cam.ac.uk) if you're afraid of spamming Slashdot?
It this email is the one I think it is, it is the recent opensd.tech/sabotage spectacle. I have to say that I disagree; RMS never tried to push his opinions there, he simply defended himself against some rather nasty, personal accusations. I think that he (and anyone else) has got the right to defend themselves against that sort of stuff.
-- Big Gaute (not to be confused with LG) "There was a time when a guy who died at forty was revered as the toughest and most doggedly ancient son of a bitch in Cow Ass Clearing, Shitoleshire, Engalond, back in the year dot." - Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan #25
Why the heck would anyone actually buy RMS's ``books'' when they are just primnouts of the info files that are available with every software package??
Hey, but the info files are good, man. I haven't seen the gcc one, but I have the emacs one in my possession--all six hundred pages of it. It's brilliant, and beautifully printed. In general, the FSF only sells hardcopies of those manuals which are in a fairly complete state. A lot of time and effort went into those files; referring to them as 'just printouts' like that is rather disrespectful of that time and effort.
serioulsy, I was looking into the inernal gcc docs and coughed up $50 for the gcc manual from RMS, and was sorely disappointed because it was just a verbatim printout of the gcc info manual..
You can't have been looking very hard into these things when you did, the fact that all of these manuals are available in electronic format, some even on the GNU website, is quite well published.
I wound up giving it 2/5 stars (not on amazon)
I don't think it makes sense to give the book a bad score just because it's also available online.
Debian looked into creating a distribution using the Linux kernel and FreeBSD user tools. Or the other way around.. perhaps someone else has more information.
Not really. There were some folks who wanted to create a Debian port running on a FreeBSD kernel. Nothing much ever came out of it; at least I haven't seen it mentioned on the debian mailing lists in the last couple of months or so.
Seriously, I think RMS is bad for the Open Source movement
Yes! Richard has some serious issues. I had the privilage (?) to see him assault the tech list at openbsd.org a while back.
I witnessed this 'assault' as well. The whole thread started with someone quoting an article (from Wired, I think) which stated that RMS had tried to, quote, sabotage, unquote the work of Symbolics, a software company which made a proprietary product based on work originating in the AI lab at MIT, where RMS worked. This 'sabotage' amounted to creating free equivalents of Symbolics' proprietary programs--the very same activity that, even today, most of the free software/open source work consists off. In any case, RMS mailed the list and said 'not really, sabotage (by the sound of it) is a serious crime and I've never done it' at which point Brett Glass (who, by the sound of it has got some sort of axe to grind concerning RMS and can be found spouting largely unsubstantial diatribes against copyleft in general and RMS in particular anywhere you care to look, try dejanews or just search Slashdot) accused him off being spiteful, vindictive, anti-commercial, trying to destroy the livelihood of programmers everywhere, and more to the point a saboteur). At this point RMS sent one more message stating that Glass' mail was full of complete bollocks (only much more politely--RMS is a perfect example of online civility, IMHO) and that those who really wanted to know about the event should read the book 'Hackers' by Steven (sp?) Levy, which I recommend as well. Anyone else who cares to have a look can just do a deja search.
Does that constitue 'assault'? I don't think so. RMS simply responded--briefly and to the point--to a very insulting personal attack made in a public forum.
An interesting sideshow to the main event was Theo de Raadt, who ordered RMS off the list using phrases such as "bugger off" and "go away, Satan". I have absolutely no other problems with Theo whatsoever; if he wants to dislike the GPL then that's his god-given right. But I really do think that this sort of behaviour is neither appropriate, excusable or more to the point good for open source/free software. If RMS had been in the habit of acting like a computer thug a la Theo, we would never have been where we are today. Have you ever thought about that?
It was confirmed to me that Richard has some serious grudges against the corporate software world,
You bet. RMS dislikes proprietary software, pretty strongly in fact. This is hardly a secret, and software such as GCC would not have existed without it.
and the GPL is a direct attempt to destroy that world.
Bzzt! Wrong. Copyleft and the GPL is attempt to create an alternative; to make it possible to use computers without having to give up the right to help your neighbour. I do believe that RMS has in fact gone as far as criticizing others (eg. the creators of the X Window system) for caring "more about users than about freedom". If RMS' sole concern was to grab as many users as possible and then put all proprietary software vendors out of business, do you think he would have bothered?
He disagrees with the BSD licensing scheme since it doesn't try to obliterate the idea of making money from writing software.
Once again, wrong. Of all the licenses out there, the new BSD (or more correctly X style) license has got to be one of his favourites. He prefers copyleft licenses, but BSD is much better than most of the alternatives.
His ego,
Funny you should mention ego--RMS and the FSF has taken a lot of flak lately for arguing that everyone should use the name GNU/Linux rather than Linux. If RMS and the FSF had simply taken the BSD road and required everyone who uses their software to stroke his ego, do you think he would have had to argue? He could simply threaten you with a lawsuit instead. Yes, I am refering to the "obnoxious advertising clause" here. The original UBC one has been removed, but there are plenty of others who have added their names to the list. In all fairness, there are many who have not, but I still find it strange that this sort of mandated ego-stroking is never questioned.
victim complex, and irrational "manifest destiny" can do no good for the open-source community. I once followed him, but then learned better.
Slashdot Mirror
It might interest the readership to know that there is a free (speech) version of Civilization, Freeciv.
The exception (of course) is England, which is like the US, except that a period is frequently used to denote multiplication, just to make things even more confusing
I should know; I'm a mathmatician from the continent (Norway) living in Eng-A-Lond.
They's just ignore it--everybody knows Oxford is better than Cambridge anyway. And we appear to have a more-or-less sensible computing service to boot. Seriously, though, people have gotten away with stuff that's a lot worse than that god knows how many times.
There have been various attempts at distributed operating systems in the past; some, such as amoeba and plan 9 are actually usable, to a certain point. Unix is here to stay--it's not going to disappear until someone maxes the next "big step" in computing, and maybe not even then. There are a number of projects out there that are quite interesting. On the one hand, you have OSes like QNX which were designed to be entirely distributable (for lack of a better word) from the ground up. One of K&R (I can't remember which one) once said that one of the places where unix failed to take the "everything is a file" concept to its logical conclusion was networking. (In plan9, pretty much everything, including networked stuff is a file). I don't think that distributed OSes will kill unix, but that unix will eventually become a distributed OS. For example, GNU/HURD (which is getting along very nicely BTW), while not an attempt at a distributed OS, is designed in such a way that it will be easy to transform into a distributed system.
How does this imply that the FDL is not needed? I think that this argument reduces to say that there are in fact people who are willing to publish docs under something FDL-ish. I'd say that if such cases did not exist, there would be no raison d'etre for the FDL at all.
I think the FDL is good because, amongst other things, it is a good "boilerplate" license that allows you to do this sort of thing, one that has been proofread by lawyers to boot. If everyone were to come up with their own license, there is a fair bet that some well-meaning author would come up with a license looks superficially solid, but has no legal clout, or disallows something that the author really wanted to allow.
Ah. Now, if you were a programmer, wouldn't you like to have get a royalty for every copy of your program that was sold for cash? But wait, that wouldn't be free software, would it? I think the arguments, in the case of software documention, are very similar.
Why not? If they charged an excessive amount of money, someone else could publish the same book and take away their market. It's called capitalism, and in this case (surprise!) it actually prevents you from getting screwed, funny as though it may seem.
Of course it doesn't. In other words, there is nothing that precludes you from selling a book to a publisher, and releasing it under the FDL.
What's really so different about hardcopy and electronic distribution? Is it the fact that someone (the publisher) makes money out of the hardcopies? I think the laws of the market, competition in particular, would do their job and prevent any outrage.
You've cited one reason why someone might GPL a program, but which does not apply to the FDL. I don't think it follows from there that there is no reason why anyone would use the FDL, and I don't think that this is the only reason people write free software either. Cases in point: gcc, glibc.
So then the FDL does serve a purpose after all. I think it's good that people who want to write free docs have a solid license that allows them to do so, rather than just slapping a possibly legally invalid two-line notice on them. Don't you?
If I were to write software manuals (which I have thought about doing as well 8-)) I'd certainly want to retain copyright, or assign it to some trusted entity. I wouldn't want to write a non-free manual for a free program; personally I think that's rather ungrateful.
The phrase reads "proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors". You're telling us that Microsoft Word format may be readily edited and viewed by may free programs. In that case, it is no longer covered by this clause, and so your entire argument falls apart. I don't really think that you've read what was written carefully enough.
Off course, it arguable whether Microsoft Word format is as widespread as you say. While some programs has more or less working support for certain subsets, I do not know of any that will not die horribly when faced with some of the more advanced features of the format.
I believe the exact wording is: ...Version 1.1 or any later version... The thing is, even if the FSF brings out a new version, your docs will still be available under the old license, as well as the new one.
Of course, this line is out of the example paragraph that tells everyone how they can license their docs under the FDL. If you wanted to, you could use another boilerplate paragraph to do the same thing. Not that the FSF's GPL page and pretty much all of their programs (in the copyright notices) say the same thing. On the other hand, eg. the Linux kernel is licensed under the current version of the GPL only, for whoever knows what reason.
Yes, you can. However, people can also choose to use it under the terms of the new version. Off course, the chances of the FSF ever changing one of their licenses to something even remotely non-free are slim to non-existent. Whether you like them or not, the FSF's ideals are very well-published, and it is also generally agreed upon that they can be trusted to stick to them.
No. If you've already released a version under the FDL, then you can't go back and change that. However, you can still release it under some other license. In fact you can, at any time and as often as you feel like it, release anything that you have copyright on under whatever license you feel like.
Just release it under some similar, free license. Or release it under the FDL again, but do not include the "or any later version" clause in your copyright statement.
Hard to tell now, isn't it...
Sounds like someone has already done some thinking on the subject. Has anyone put up (on the web)an analysis of these licenses a la the ones for sofware licenses at the GNU site? It would be a useful thing to have, if only to flame and argue over .8-(
If you really want to have a hardcopy of the GNU Make manual, you can order it from the GNU folks. It's a great way to support free software (and free manuals).
Does anyone know what the significant differences between the OpenContent license (which this book) is distributed under) and the GNU FDL, which there was a story about on Slashdot a couple of days ago? I looked at it briefly, and the only thing that struck me was the must-be-supplied-in-source-format-as-well clause in the GNU one, but I could be wrong.
GNU Make? That's a texinfo book, like for instance the GNU Emacs manual. HTML is one of the various supported output formats. Info is another one. Better still, you can run it through tex and get a really-good looking book. The GNU Emacs manual is printed in this way, and it looks really good--all six hundred pages of it.
I replied to this, but it ended up in the wrong thread 8-(.
I posted a reply to this, but it ended up in the <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/1<nobr>2<wbr></wbr></nobr> /0917223&cid=108">wrong thread</a>.
I posted a long reply to this, which somehow <A href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/1<nobr>2<wbr></wbr></nobr> /0917223&cid=115">ended up</A> in the wrong thread.
This point in particular is one of the most annoying ones frequently made by anti-GNU revisionist. Much has been said about open source and the power of 'gotta scratch that itch' development. However, there are some problems which 'scratch the itch'-motivation do not solve very easily. No one would write a C compiler just to scratch an itch with the old one, at least not except for in the most severe of circumstances. GCC exists because RMS realised that it (or something like it) had to.
If it were not for GCC, the best we would have had today would have been some mediocre free compiler, with a up-gunned 'professional' edition which you would have to use for anything but the simplest of development.
I don't agree with your premises or your conclusion, but I do agree with the advise given to newbies in general: go out there and familiarise yourself with the history of free software/open source. Tour www.gnu.org and www.*bsd.org. There is lots of information there. (Note to new readers: I did note write the comment that DQuinn is replying to.)
In my experience, most newbies are of the 'wow it's cool to run all this stuff for free, but couldn't someone tell RMS to stop shouting GNU/Linux 'cos everyone knows that the Linux os was written by scratch by Linus & co'. But then again, my perspective is probably different.
Do you think you could post that email here (unless it's private) or at least forward it to me (gs234.at.you.know.what.goes.here.cam.ac.uk) if you're afraid of spamming Slashdot?
It this email is the one I think it is, it is the recent opensd.tech/sabotage spectacle. I have to say that I disagree; RMS never tried to push his opinions there, he simply defended himself against some rather nasty, personal accusations. I think that he (and anyone else) has got the right to defend themselves against that sort of stuff.
--
Big Gaute (not to be confused with LG)
"There was a time when a guy who died at forty was revered as the toughest
and most doggedly ancient son of a bitch in Cow Ass Clearing, Shitoleshire,
Engalond, back in the year dot." - Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan #25
Hey, but the info files are good, man. I haven't seen the gcc one, but I have the emacs one in my possession--all six hundred pages of it. It's brilliant, and beautifully printed. In general, the FSF only sells hardcopies of those manuals which are in a fairly complete state. A lot of time and effort went into those files; referring to them as 'just printouts' like that is rather disrespectful of that time and effort.
You can't have been looking very hard into these things when you did, the fact that all of these manuals are available in electronic format, some even on the GNU website, is quite well published.
I don't think it makes sense to give the book a bad score just because it's also available online.
Not really. There were some folks who wanted to create a Debian port running on a FreeBSD kernel. Nothing much ever came out of it; at least I haven't seen it mentioned on the debian mailing lists in the last couple of months or so.
I witnessed this 'assault' as well. The whole thread started with someone quoting an article (from Wired, I think) which stated that RMS had tried to, quote, sabotage, unquote the work of Symbolics, a software company which made a proprietary product based on work originating in the AI lab at MIT, where RMS worked. This 'sabotage' amounted to creating free equivalents of Symbolics' proprietary programs--the very same activity that, even today, most of the free software/open source work consists off. In any case, RMS mailed the list and said 'not really, sabotage (by the sound of it) is a serious crime and I've never done it' at which point Brett Glass (who, by the sound of it has got some sort of axe to grind concerning RMS and can be found spouting largely unsubstantial diatribes against copyleft in general and RMS in particular anywhere you care to look, try dejanews or just search Slashdot) accused him off being spiteful, vindictive, anti-commercial, trying to destroy the livelihood of programmers everywhere, and more to the point a saboteur). At this point RMS sent one more message stating that Glass' mail was full of complete bollocks (only much more politely--RMS is a perfect example of online civility, IMHO) and that those who really wanted to know about the event should read the book 'Hackers' by Steven (sp?) Levy, which I recommend as well. Anyone else who cares to have a look can just do a deja search.
Does that constitue 'assault'? I don't think so. RMS simply responded--briefly and to the point--to a very insulting personal attack made in a public forum.
An interesting sideshow to the main event was Theo de Raadt, who ordered RMS off the list using phrases such as "bugger off" and "go away, Satan". I have absolutely no other problems with Theo whatsoever; if he wants to dislike the GPL then that's his god-given right. But I really do think that this sort of behaviour is neither appropriate, excusable or more to the point good for open source/free software. If RMS had been in the habit of acting like a computer thug a la Theo, we would never have been where we are today. Have you ever thought about that?
You bet. RMS dislikes proprietary software, pretty strongly in fact. This is hardly a secret, and software such as GCC would not have existed without it.
Bzzt! Wrong. Copyleft and the GPL is attempt to create an alternative; to make it possible to use computers without having to give up the right to help your neighbour. I do believe that RMS has in fact gone as far as criticizing others (eg. the creators of the X Window system) for caring "more about users than about freedom". If RMS' sole concern was to grab as many users as possible and then put all proprietary software vendors out of business, do you think he would have bothered?
Once again, wrong. Of all the licenses out there, the new BSD (or more correctly X style) license has got to be one of his favourites. He prefers copyleft licenses, but BSD is much better than most of the alternatives.
Funny you should mention ego--RMS and the FSF has taken a lot of flak lately for arguing that everyone should use the name GNU/Linux rather than Linux. If RMS and the FSF had simply taken the BSD road and required everyone who uses their software to stroke his ego, do you think he would have had to argue? He could simply threaten you with a lawsuit instead. Yes, I am refering to the "obnoxious advertising clause" here. The original UBC one has been removed, but there are plenty of others who have added their names to the list. In all fairness, there are many who have not, but I still find it strange that this sort of mandated ego-stroking is never questioned.
Damned right.