Did you failed to notice that OpenMoko's claim is that it was the first instead of the cheapest?
Because there was nothing to say... it's just marketing. They cannot market their product as the second best, so the facts don't matter that much to them. Neither the Nokia1973, nor the Greenphone is released to end users yet, so until that happens they can speculate that they are first.
Look at the open source database management systems. They all come with almost the same slogan, they are all "the worlds' most... ":
MySQL: The world's most popular open source database
Berkeley DB: The world's most popular embeddable database engine
PostgreSQL: The world's most advanced open source database
They have been found, in theory, to not be as collision-proof as previously thought, but noone has yet found a way to take one block of data and modify it such that it would have an identical hash signature as the original.
So did everybody think before 2005, that this has only theoretical implications. Totally false. These guys found and presented at Eurocrypt 2005 a very practical way of generating extremely meaningful collisions for Postscript documents. Works also for any other file type that has redundancy and some way to do conditional branching including HTML, binary executables, etc.
I agree however, that the editor did such a lousy job with this submission. Where the fuck are the "Related Stories" links? Where the fuck is the name of the professor? Zonk deserves a kick in the balls for this shit!
The text in question is not part of the GPL itself; it is part of a section, outside the license, entitled "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs".
Ok, thanks for explaining, now I kind of see what bothers you, even though I still don't agree that this is malice, or that it's being done in the sole interest of the FSF, while disregarding the freedoms of the people releasing code under the license. Point 9. clearly explains what's with the "or later" clause. Maybe it is still quite implicit about the fact that you could also use this version only, which somebody might want to do. But you have to consider that the FSF thinks that would a bad idea, so not worth encouraging in the license itself.
So, if somebody never reads point 9. of the GPL, but still wants to apply the license to her code, she might think that the only way she could do it is by copying (but not reading) the big chunk of text from the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" to every source file and adding her name there. While I'm sure some people actually did this, the fact is that they didn't even try to understand that one of the many consequences of doing this would be that they allow the code to be distributed under updated versions of the license, which the FSF might one day write. Well, if they failed to understand this and still applied the license then they and not the FSF are to blame if the license doesn't suit their needs. The FSF could have gone into whatever detail you want explaining this, still it would have made no difference into this dont-read-dont-think-apply-license-scenario. At least the default wording chosen by the FSF is the most permissive one, which means that if you just go with that you always have the choice to relicense later under something more specific.
As you point out, the FSF has had 15 years during which it could have published updated information about the ramifications of the recommended clause. This would not have required changing the license itself.
The FSF cannot know what "the ramifications of the recommended clause" might be for your particular project. That's why most companies and many individuals hire copyright lawyers, if they need this kind of advice. The FSF cannot know what your exact goals are when applying their license, so what they assume is that since you are using a Free Software license you care most about Freedom, and that's what they offer you by default. And, true, this is not appropriate for everyone. Organisations like MySQL are actually not so much interested in Freedom, but they like the GPL because of its vitality and its incompatibility with proprietary licenses, and build their whole business model on top of that. So should the FSF now also explain what the benefits of dual licensing are? And since they are there, maybe they should also explain what the benefits of proprietary licenses are. You see the point? FSF would be quite biased in this matter, since their stated goal is to promote Freedom, not the opposite of it.
I'm not objecting to the fact that the FSF didn't say anything about this in 1991; I'm objecting to their continued silence on the matter, right up until the point at which it became an issue with the next version of the license, over 15 years later.
You are plain wrong. The Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL goes into more detail and explains the rationale behind the "or later" recommendationand why you should (not must(!)) use that formulation. Also, if you check the transcripts of Richard Stallman's talks, you will see that he always gave a similar answered when asked about the clause. The fact that there was not so much emphasis on that clause in the discussions until recently, is caused by the fact that until recently there was no GPLv3 in the work
My argument is simple: instead of explaining the rather complex issues involved, they try to pull a fast one and recommend language that's primarily in the FSF's own interests, rather than the users of the license, without any comment on the matter.
What you seem to forget is that GPLv2 was released in 1991 when there was no FOSS, nor could anybody predict what will be the world looking like 16 years from then. Even less was (nor will it ever be) the FSF able to understand the "complex issues" regarding the tens of thousands of projects using their licenses. But at least they understood that things are going to change, and maybe at some time the license will need to be updated. And this is clearly stated in the license itself:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
What is not clear ? What additional explanation do you need ? And, more important, could the FSF have provided you that explanation in 1991 and they malevolently omitted it ?
I suggested that it would be better to provide an analysis of the issues involved, and allow users to make an informed choice. Hoping to trick users into doing what the FSF considers the right thing is a tactic that is beneath them.
This is very vague. More precisely, what would such an analysis contain?
Do they have any kind of official roadmap for KDE4 ? Looking at the not-updated-in-agesFeature Plan and yet-to-be-written Release Plan makes me doubt that they plan to ship anytime soon. Are you guys sure that it's going to be "some time this year" as the article states?
I can hardly wait to be able to run KDE apps on MacOSX without having to start an X server, and have proper copy-paste support, correct window stacking and native look an feel. There are KDE applications like Krusader for which there is hardly any alternative on the Mac.
Sorry to say this, but your comments here are so full of crap. You are criticising the FSF for using "tactics" that corporations and politicians also use. You do not have a cogent argument of why such tactics are inherently evil, since it's clear that they preserve choice for developers not restrict it (you can always transform ""GPLvX or later" into ""GPLvY only, Y>=X" without legal problems but not the other way around), and also the goal they are striving for is very important for those of us who value freedom (it's very well explained by the grandparent comment). So please be constructive, please point us to any another way to achieve this same goal, by using "tactics" which you find more appropriate. Do you think that it would be more appropriate that all contributors to "GPLvX only" projects assign copyright to a company (like MySQL) which can then decide which license to use? Or what other means can you think of for preserving the choice to update the license in highly decentralised projects?
We're going to have to do this with Adium as well.
You might want to do this, and it's your choice, but you do have the choice, you do not have to do this. Your contributors submitted you code under "GPLv2 or later", so explicitly or more likely implicitly they agreed with this formulation. Sure, this formulation allows you to start releasing the whole application under GPLv2 only. At the same time it also allows somebody who can identify a "GPLv2 or later" piece of code to distribute it, even fork the current version of Adium under GPLv3, you cannot stop this.
We are unable to contact some contributors to get their ok on using GPLv3 [...]
You don't have to contact anyone as long as you don't change the clause from "GPLv2 or later". So I must understand that you don't like the "or later" clause, and it has nothing to do with what the commiters you cannot contact maybe had in mind. This is certainly understandable (after all Linus had the same fears you have now) and you can surely do it. It's your choice.
Personally, I would advise you to look thoroughly at the draft of GPLv3 and see whether you really wouldn't like your code to fall under that license too (via the "GPLv2 or later" clause you already have). This first because GPLv3 if just a bug-fixed version of GPLv2 so many consider it better. Second, because you are not in the same position as MySQL, and don't have all the options they have. MySQL is owning the copyright for the code, directly or indirectly (via copyright waiving), so they can change their license any day of the week without any legal trouble. On the other hand, once you decide to go "GPLv2 only", if afterwards you don't ask all your commiters to wave copyright you are basically stuck with "GPLv2 only" FOREVER. This is basically what Linus did for Linux a long time ago and many people currently think that it was a mistake (even more if OpenSolaris ever gets released under the GPLv3 and gets full support from the FSF and large distributions like Debian). The "or later" clause provides more flexibility, more choice, in situations like yours (that's why it was devised in the first place, to stimulate choice not to inhibit it), but if you if you are willing to give away this flexibility for the sake of having ONE license, then at least read the GPLv3 and make sure you don't like it more than GPLv2. This because going "GPLv3 only" is also an option you will soon have.
this is the year that sun's "whatever the hell we are calling thin clients this year" breaks the MS stranglehold on the corporate desktop
They call it Sun Ray. They have little guys like this in the university I previously studied, and they are extremely neat. However, since Microsoft's domination on the desktop is based on marketing and not on any kind of technological merit, innovative ideas like this just don't stand a chance, and it's really a pity.
For me a 13'' MacBook with Firewire 800 and extension capabilities would be enough. I'm typing this from my MacBook and I find its form factor very attractive (as tall as the 12'' PowerBook, only wider). Sure it's not light, and it also has the glossy display I was very scared about at first, but which I find quite nice after some time of getting used. On the other hand, MacBooks are much more affordable compared to the MacBook Pros, so I'm thinking of buying one for every member of my family.
My main bank account is with Deutsche Bank. They are a great bank, so closing my account just because they are mentioned in the same article as Microsoft is just immature. On the contrary, knowing that my bank uses some Linux (as opposed to proprietary solutions) makes me feel even better with them.
Solving SAT in hardware would be enough, since you can reduce most NP-complete relatively easily to it, the SAT-solving algorithms are already highly optimized, and there were even previous attempts to build special purpose hardware for solving SAT.
I would like to recommend Y(aho)o!Sucker, to those of you who also think that Yahoo! mail sucks big time, but can't change to Gmail because of the lock-in Yahoo! is shamelessly practicing (no free email forwarding or POP access).
Also they get 500 million unique users a day on the world's most popular web site.
Didn't know why, but this affirmation seemed to me like bullshit. Until I found this:
Where do people go on yahoo.com?
mail.yahoo.com - 48%
...
This explains everything. They have a very large user base that does email there (and maybe instant messaging). Many of these need to stick with Yahoo! just because Yahoo! does not offer free email forwarding. Gmail offered forwarding from day one, so i switched right away to avoid this kind of lock-in. Now it's probably time to move my mother and my sister to Gmail too: Yahoo! is already the next AOL. Maybe the other 4,999,998 users should have a look at Y(aho)o!Sucker too.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the open source database management systems. They all come with almost the same slogan, they are all "the worlds' most
This was covered by Slashdot many times before.
I agree however, that the editor did such a lousy job with this submission. Where the fuck are the "Related Stories" links? Where the fuck is the name of the professor? Zonk deserves a kick in the balls for this shit!
Maybe it's not the first, but a Neo1973 development device will cost $350 while a Greenphone costs twice ($695).
So it was targeted towards women: "Probably the promise of 850.000,00 turned of her common sense." Makes sense.
Lame
Ok, thanks for explaining, now I kind of see what bothers you, even though I still don't agree that this is malice, or that it's being done in the sole interest of the FSF, while disregarding the freedoms of the people releasing code under the license. Point 9. clearly explains what's with the "or later" clause. Maybe it is still quite implicit about the fact that you could also use this version only, which somebody might want to do. But you have to consider that the FSF thinks that would a bad idea, so not worth encouraging in the license itself.
So, if somebody never reads point 9. of the GPL, but still wants to apply the license to her code, she might think that the only way she could do it is by copying (but not reading) the big chunk of text from the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" to every source file and adding her name there. While I'm sure some people actually did this, the fact is that they didn't even try to understand that one of the many consequences of doing this would be that they allow the code to be distributed under updated versions of the license, which the FSF might one day write. Well, if they failed to understand this and still applied the license then they and not the FSF are to blame if the license doesn't suit their needs. The FSF could have gone into whatever detail you want explaining this, still it would have made no difference into this dont-read-dont-think-apply-license-scenario. At least the default wording chosen by the FSF is the most permissive one, which means that if you just go with that you always have the choice to relicense later under something more specific.
The FSF cannot know what "the ramifications of the recommended clause" might be for your particular project. That's why most companies and many individuals hire copyright lawyers, if they need this kind of advice. The FSF cannot know what your exact goals are when applying their license, so what they assume is that since you are using a Free Software license you care most about Freedom, and that's what they offer you by default. And, true, this is not appropriate for everyone. Organisations like MySQL are actually not so much interested in Freedom, but they like the GPL because of its vitality and its incompatibility with proprietary licenses, and build their whole business model on top of that. So should the FSF now also explain what the benefits of dual licensing are? And since they are there, maybe they should also explain what the benefits of proprietary licenses are. You see the point? FSF would be quite biased in this matter, since their stated goal is to promote Freedom, not the opposite of it.
You are plain wrong. The Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL goes into more detail and explains the rationale behind the "or later" recommendationand why you should (not must(!)) use that formulation. Also, if you check the transcripts of Richard Stallman's talks, you will see that he always gave a similar answered when asked about the clause. The fact that there was not so much emphasis on that clause in the discussions until recently, is caused by the fact that until recently there was no GPLv3 in the work
What is not clear ? What additional explanation do you need ? And, more important, could the FSF have provided you that explanation in 1991 and they malevolently omitted it ? This is very vague. More precisely, what would such an analysis contain?
Macs come with iTunes, which leaves you as the only person who would want to run Amarok on a Mac. Seriously now, what would be the point?
WRONG CAPITALIZATION!
Do they have any kind of official roadmap for KDE4 ? Looking at the not-updated-in-agesFeature Plan and yet-to-be-written Release Plan makes me doubt that they plan to ship anytime soon. Are you guys sure that it's going to be "some time this year" as the article states?
I can hardly wait to be able to run KDE apps on MacOSX without having to start an X server, and have proper copy-paste support, correct window stacking and native look an feel. There are KDE applications like Krusader for which there is hardly any alternative on the Mac.
Sorry to say this, but your comments here are so full of crap. You are criticising the FSF for using "tactics" that corporations and politicians also use. You do not have a cogent argument of why such tactics are inherently evil, since it's clear that they preserve choice for developers not restrict it (you can always transform ""GPLvX or later" into ""GPLvY only, Y>=X" without legal problems but not the other way around), and also the goal they are striving for is very important for those of us who value freedom (it's very well explained by the grandparent comment). So please be constructive, please point us to any another way to achieve this same goal, by using "tactics" which you find more appropriate. Do you think that it would be more appropriate that all contributors to "GPLvX only" projects assign copyright to a company (like MySQL) which can then decide which license to use? Or what other means can you think of for preserving the choice to update the license in highly decentralised projects?
You don't have to contact anyone as long as you don't change the clause from "GPLv2 or later". So I must understand that you don't like the "or later" clause, and it has nothing to do with what the commiters you cannot contact maybe had in mind. This is certainly understandable (after all Linus had the same fears you have now) and you can surely do it. It's your choice.
Personally, I would advise you to look thoroughly at the draft of GPLv3 and see whether you really wouldn't like your code to fall under that license too (via the "GPLv2 or later" clause you already have). This first because GPLv3 if just a bug-fixed version of GPLv2 so many consider it better. Second, because you are not in the same position as MySQL, and don't have all the options they have. MySQL is owning the copyright for the code, directly or indirectly (via copyright waiving), so they can change their license any day of the week without any legal trouble. On the other hand, once you decide to go "GPLv2 only", if afterwards you don't ask all your commiters to wave copyright you are basically stuck with "GPLv2 only" FOREVER. This is basically what Linus did for Linux a long time ago and many people currently think that it was a mistake (even more if OpenSolaris ever gets released under the GPLv3 and gets full support from the FSF and large distributions like Debian). The "or later" clause provides more flexibility, more choice, in situations like yours (that's why it was devised in the first place, to stimulate choice not to inhibit it), but if you if you are willing to give away this flexibility for the sake of having ONE license, then at least read the GPLv3 and make sure you don't like it more than GPLv2. This because going "GPLv3 only" is also an option you will soon have.
We all know that 90% of the traffic is porn.
Terrorists Lose!
For me a 13'' MacBook with Firewire 800 and extension capabilities would be enough. I'm typing this from my MacBook and I find its form factor very attractive (as tall as the 12'' PowerBook, only wider). Sure it's not light, and it also has the glossy display I was very scared about at first, but which I find quite nice after some time of getting used. On the other hand, MacBooks are much more affordable compared to the MacBook Pros, so I'm thinking of buying one for every member of my family.
This ZDNet blog entry has more details: The ultimate revenge? Novell's Allison to join Google.
My main bank account is with Deutsche Bank. They are a great bank, so closing my account just because they are mentioned in the same article as Microsoft is just immature. On the contrary, knowing that my bank uses some Linux (as opposed to proprietary solutions) makes me feel even better with them.
I would like to recommend Y(aho)o!Sucker, to those of you who also think that Yahoo! mail sucks big time, but can't change to Gmail because of the lock-in Yahoo! is shamelessly practicing (no free email forwarding or POP access).
Where do people go on yahoo.com?
mail.yahoo.com - 48%
This explains everything. They have a very large user base that does email there (and maybe instant messaging). Many of these need to stick with Yahoo! just because Yahoo! does not offer free email forwarding. Gmail offered forwarding from day one, so i switched right away to avoid this kind of lock-in. Now it's probably time to move my mother and my sister to Gmail too: Yahoo! is already the next AOL. Maybe the other 4,999,998 users should have a look at Y(aho)o!Sucker too.