Now, before some GPL-zealot chimes in with, "But the GPL is free!" let me point out (as if noone ever has before) that the GPL is a very restrictive free license.
Naturally the GPL is a restrictive license. There is no other way for it to remain free software (for sure). The author of the GPL, RMS (this is not counting the gang of lawyers that helped him out), doesn't even believe in copyright licenses. He wishes everything could all be public domain. The obvious problem is that most people aren't hackers, don't give a damn about the Hacker Ethic, and certainly don't feel like sharing.
The GPL makes sure that there is still software you can share. Unfortunately, it is written in such a way that it can not ``play nice'' with the other free software licenses, but if it were to do so, it would also open up holes that proprietary software licenses could take advantage of, and thus be able to transform the GPL'ed work into a non-free software package.
This was clearly against RMS' intentions.
Some intelligent and well meaning individuals even argue whether the GPL is actually free, and I am at times tempted to agree with them. The GPL is indeed "obligatorily open," but that doesn't necessarily promote freedom, unless it's the FSF defining "freedom."
Copyright law is intended to serve as a safeguard against the natural right to copy. The right to copy is one of the freedoms the GPL upholds. Yes, it is the FSF's brand of freedom that the GPL upholds, but when you talk about being free, you talk about your freedoms. Pluralized. This is because you have several freedoms (this is from the point of view of a U.S. citizen, FYI). In the U.S. you are not completely ``free'' in the sense that you have every available freedom known to humanity. This is because there is more than one kind of freedom. The GPL does a very good job of defining which freedoms it upholds, so calling it ``non-free'' is an exercise in counterproductive nonsense, as it is paramount to saying that ``anything less than anarchy is not free, and if I can't be free, I'm going to create an anarchy''.
The problem with any anarchy, however, is that there are no laws or governmental bodies to protect your freedoms, and thus, you can lose your freedoms the first time someone comes around whom you can't best in a fight. The notion doesn't sound very appealing. Of course, anarchies wouldn't be a problem if everyone was an essentially good person. Only the most naive of us believe this is the case.
This is great if you are a big fan of the GNU Project. There are plenty of good reasons to be, but some people aren't or don't have the choice. If the developer doesn't control the all the licenses involved in a project then it boils down to two possibilities: rewrite the GPL code or rewrite the non-GPL code. In either case, good solutions exist which can't be used. Which portion do you suppose the developer will rewrite if the non-GPL portion of the project is, say, Oracle?
Much of this could be applied to proprietary software licenses as well. It is simply the nature of the beast. Unless everyone feels like sharing software freely as was done in days past, there will be a need for the GPL. And since the GPL must uphold the freedoms it promises its users, it's going to have to be a restrictive license. I'm sure that RMS would agree with me that this is an unfortunate situation.
Now, I said all that to say this: The problem here is that we are discussing an open-source repository rather than a GPL repository. The former would be generally useful to free software projects and the latter would be useful only to GPL projects. If your stated goal in life is promoting the GNU Project then a GPL repository would right up your alley. But if you have issues with the GPL, either legal or philosophical, then a GPL repository's usefulness to you is marginalized.
Quite naturally. However, I was never commenting on the overall topic at hand, merely the slanderous usage of terms such as the ``General Public Virus''. I would actually agree that a repository which contained software from all of the free software licensing schemes would be a Good Thing. I would also wager that a separate repository for GPL and LGPL stuff only could be a Good Thing as well. If you went through all of the above simply to state this, you need not have bothered. I knew this well enough before I even clicked ``read more''.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the GPL is congruent to free. There are lots of ways to make software free, but only one way to make software GPL. Not everybody who dislikes the GPL is a horrible miscreant who wants to enslave software.
All I ever asserted was that GPL'ed software was free software, not that it was the only free software. Therefore, neither of those comments apply to myself particularly well.
..I wasn't even arguing with your views on the subject of a component library, merely how you presented them. Slanderous terms such as the ``General Public Virus'' do not promote understanding. See Bruce Perens' long list of running commentary on the subject for more about the ``viral behavior myth''.
And since you bothered to claim that for everyone except RMS and myself it's a ``no brainer'', perhaps I should point out that despite the fact that *BSD has been around far longer and was fully functional before the conception of GNU/Linux.. well, which is more popular today, do you think? And, ah, why do you think that is? If it was a purely technical edge, there would be no room for GNU/Linux, as *BSD has been mature for far longer. And since the GPL isn't a ``truly free'' license, it couldn't be philosophical, either, eh? Quite simply, your argument holds water like a sieve. Good job!
At any rate, you're doing very little to prove yourself as anything other than a bigot to me, especially since you opted for another low blow by implying that GPL'ed software is not truly free. The GPL is free in the sense that it wants to be, and there is more than one kind of freedom.
Thanks for making my point for me. If I am actively maintaining a public domain program and a GPL'd library exists that would be useful to me, then I effectively have two choices: either abandon my public domain status and incorporate the library, or reimplement whatever features in the library I wanted. Of course, I could fork the code, but do I really want to maintain two versions of the code? No. If I'm going to have to implement a fully public domain version of the code, then why would I bother with the GPL'd code?
So.. so what? All this proves is that you should choose your words more carefully, and have a better comprehension of what you're talking about. I certainly didn't ``prove your point'' for you, since what I said didn't have a damn thing to do with what you said except for the fact that I disproved an offhand remark of yours. Then again, very little of what you've said hits me as being very clueful.
If you really want to make your case on these kinds of issues, do so in a calm, eloquent manner.. one that promotes understanding rather than bandying about all sorts of flamebait-loaded terminology. You certainly don't come off as being very informed.
To top all of this off..
And given the propensity of GPL advocates to accuse others of guilt by association with "slavery", "warez doodz", and other "abuses" of software, I'd rather keep my software genuinely free and well clear of the General Public Virus.
And somehow you feel that your particular brand of bigotry is any better?
Yeah. That's precisely what it is. Now to explain: There are *BSD bigots. There are GPL bigots. There are all sorts of bigots. However, just because, say, some black person calls a white person a ``cracker'' or ``honkey'' doesn't make me glad I'm not black any more than some white person calling a black person a ``nigger'' makes me wish I wasn't white. Again, your arugments don't make sense. Apparently you spend too much time paying attention to the lowest common denominator rather than informing yourself about the issues at hand and then going on to make an educated decision.
To clarify: I made some inflammatory remarks in response to your rather obvious bigotry. I was not making inflammatory remarks toward people who support licenses other than the GPL (even proprietary ones, and certainly not other free software ones), just those who slander the GPL for reasons that are completely unfounded. Being slanderous just to be slanderous is what we call either ``flamebait'' or ``inflammatory''.
As an aside, I'm not completely against proprietary software. I don't think it's ``give me GPL or give me death!'' I think PINE and PICO are nifty. There are better tools, like Mutt and Emacs (or just Emacs with Emacs/Mutt), but PINE and PICO still fit their niche. I don't see a reason for them to be GPL'ed. I also don't see a reason for games like Quake to be GPL'ed. While it would be nice, computer games aren't quite as important as your basic tools, such as your compiler and debugger and what have you. Critical pieces of your overall system (such as the OS) do well as free software because, quite simply, they need to work, and if you have to beg someone to fix their fuckup, it's not going to seem very worthwhile to use that OS.
Public domain and, say, BSD-licensed software are free software just as GPL'ed software is free, except that without a copyleft, there's no guarantee that they'll stay free. There's less incentive to contribute to the main branch. There's more incentive to fork it into a commercial work. Generally speaking, there's less incentive to share. Those who uphold any semblance of the Hacker Ethic would want to share, and would want others to share too. The perceptive ones, such as RMS, would realize that most people do not want to share, and that if they're going to make software that can not be shared, they sure as hell are not going to use his software in the same manner as their proprietary works.. And thus was born the GPL, a license which forbids others from restricting the rights of users to share GPL'ed software and code. The only ``advantage'' BSD-style licenses have is that they may be made proprietary. This is sort of counter-productive to people who believe in sharing, since proprietary software is not meant to be shared.
..that the work done by the FSF to construct GNU and further the efforts of free software didn't inadvertantly help Unix at the same time. Many Unices use GNU software packages. I can barely remember the last time I used a Korn, C, or plain old Bourne shell (not that there aren't others that aren't GPL'ed).
Those were great moments for both GNU and Unix, strange as that may sound.
The usage of the term ``General Public Virus'' all but confirms it. Serious usage of this term indicates a lack of understanding, and is strongly indicative of the notion that the person using said term dreams of software that they may not only use, but abuse as they see fit (and, indeed, extends this dream to cover all software ever created.. apparently this isn't just restricted to people who deal in warez anymore). No one is forced to GPL their software, and if you wish to build your work upon the work of others, you must abide by their licensing scheme. If you don't like it, do it yourself. It's rather simple.
Complaining that the GPL doesn't achieve your aims and objectives very well is ludicrous. Just don't use it. What can not be argued (reasonably) is that the GPL fails to achieve its own aims and objectives. It has done so with flying colors. So, if you like the GPL, use it, if you don't, then another license will suit you better. Complaining that you can't turn GPL'ed software against its intended goal is paramount to complaining you can't enslave people anymore.
The other obvious hole in the logic presented here is the notion that you can't use GPL'ed code in a public domain software package. This isn't entirely true. Public domain means that there is no copyright license. You are free to fork the unlicensed software package and relicense it. So, while it is true that you can't use GPL'ed code in public domain software and still have it be public domain (it is now under a copyright license -- at least your fork of it -- the GPL), it is not true that you can't do it at all. You could relicense it under any other license as well. Of course, the original would still be public domain, but your ``distribution'' of it wouldn't have to be.
If so, then you must have been serious when you asked what the big deal is. It doesn't revolve around what they/can/ do, it's the consequences of doing so (from a social and/or legal point of view). The other replies to your post go into more detail, so I will not duplicate that material here.
The remark was mostly a reference to ``officially'' supported architectures, a la:
This port runs stable since Feb. 1998 on many of the Apple Macintosh 'PowerMac', CHRP and PReP computers. The boot-floppies are 'in work'. Debian/PowerPC will be official released with Debian 2.2 ('potato').
The other (more interesting) ports seem to be a little farther away.
For the most part I've given up complaining or even commenting on any new distributions, although new ones based on Debian interest me (vaguely). There are simply too many distros these days (hundreds?). I see no point in supporting a fork off of Debian (I don't see Debian getting ``outpaced'' very easily), and anything that tries to keep pace with Debian and add ``just a few new features'' to make it easier to install or configure or whatever would die for (hopefully) obvious reasons, due to being sucked back into the ``main'' distribution.
What makes Debian the most attractive (to me) is all of the architectures they plan to support. They already support 4 (1 more than RH), and the others they have the ball rolling toward look interesting as well (Debian on PPC could be a major win). I would much rather Debian become ``the'' standard than Red Hat. Being able to use whatever hardware you please is a definite bonus (not that Red Hat support for Intel, Alpha, and SPARC isn't cool.. it's just that I haven't heard any mention of them trying to expand this.. maybe I'm a nut who wants to buy an iMac for no apparent reason?)
Anyway, from the FAQ, here's how Libranet aims to entice:
Save time (lots and lots of it) and skip the confusing learning curve. Benefit by the many hours we have invested into taking the standard Linux distribution and refining it into a first class desktop.
Sort of vague. Anyone want to get a copy and tell us what's so neat about their desktop?
Not really. We provide simple to follow instructions to step you through the installation. You will need to make a decision about the size of your Linux partition. The rest of the installation is mostly automatic.
That's in reference to the difficulty of the installation. Interesting, but installation on Red Hat 5.1 (to give a reference on why I don't see installation as being ``insurmountable'', although configuration can be a pain.. yes I know RH != Debian, but come on) really wasn't all that difficult (for me). The main annoyance with GNU/Linux is having to fool around with PnP (which is easily solved.. get an external modem and use the almighty serial port).
Most of the rest of it is stuff you would find relavent in describing practically any other Linux. I'm not too excited so far.
After glancing at the ``desktop'' section and reading a little more, it seems like the only other real feature here is that they've somehow cleaned up the configuration process and automated much of it during installation saving you ``many hours''. I think they could have been more vague (maybe). Am I missing something here I should have caught onto by now? Hmm.
..we're somehow not free to dislike it? Or to say something when they claim that they want to promote ``open debate'' yet act in opposition to what they state?
You seem to be the victim of a rather flawed scale of logic.
If Red Hat were to pour this kind of money into any of the established groups, they would in effect be buying the group (by being by far the largest contributor).
Pardon me, but uh, how do you figure? If say, for example, I donated 5 billion dollars to the FSF, would I ``own'' it? Would Bill Gates if he did? Donating money to a special interest group, non-profit organization, or whatever isn't exactly the same as buying stock in a company. And with RMS at the helm, I sort of doubt you're likely to alter the aims of the FSF by offering him money. He could make tons of money just by being a programmer.
Your argument, therefore, does not compute. Are you holding back some critical detail, or, ah.. what?
I, for one, see absolutely no need for yet another ``open source'' group. And that's not just because I object to the usage of the term. It's just a idiotic practically (to anyone with sense) speaking as it is philosophically (to me).
Thank you for enlightening me of your complete and utter lack of intelligence. You'll be happy to know that henceforth all communiques coming from your little corner of stupidity will be ignored until the day you die. However, just to perhaps encourage brain cell growth in that shriveled little head of yours: My signature means that it's pointless to reply to my post with the intention of evoking some sort of response from my end unless your replying post is scored 1 or higher because, well, I have a hard threshold of 1. If you feel that is egotistical, you are of course welcome to your (rather moronic) opinions. I am, quite honestly, however, surprised no one has tagged you as flamebait, because quite obviously you're not a biped and I'm flaming you because you're an asshole.
One day people will phrase these questions (at least they should be queries, you presumptuous little bigot) politely, rather than mindlessly attacking anyone who isn't ``cool'' to them like some sort of barbarian with an ``inadequacy'' complex. Ha!
Well, it's offtopic as it relates to the story, but it's not offtopic with regards to this thread of conversation (sort of). Honestly, what's with damn near every post on this article having been moderated? Sure, I've got moderator access right now, but you know, I don't think everything everyone has to say is worthy of 2 - 5 points of being ``insightful'', ``informative'', and ``interesting''. I thought the moderation system was meant to find the few, rare gems. If every post gets moderated, it's the same as if none of them had gotten moderated. That is, it's counterproductive. Perhaps a little more thought and care should be put into this procedure? Urk.
I could understand it if I got tagged a -3 on that post for ``overrated'', but seriously, ``troll''? You've to be kidding me. Well, it wouldn't be the first (and far from the last) time when I voiced an actual opinion that a moderator thought was some sort of flamebait. Get a grip. I post often enough for you people to (probably more for the worse than for the better) know what is and is not a valid statement from my camp. heh.
At any rate, for those of you mindlessly crying out, ``Politically Correct''.. You've obviously never seen me post anything on a controversial issue (new to Slashdot, anyone?). I find the accusation to be useful for generating a few laughs, however.;)
..I actually find myself wishing for some more moderation. Honestly, anyone who's doing some moderation today, please take a moment to read this: I really don't need to hear anyone making cheap jokes at the expense of a couple of dead people. It's not funny. It's not cute. They're dead. Those were human lives. No one deserves to be murdered (this becomes an arguable point when it comes to the legal system and the death penalty, but in those cases the offenders have committed murder themselves, and as much as we all hate spam, it's not murder), and all of these tasteless jokes would be appropriately tagged ``flamebait''. Anyone who really cares to read all these sick, tasteless gestures can lower their threshold to 0 or less if they haven't already. I for one did not need this to ``brighten'' up my morning.
Assuming you're correct, such a statement would be patently ridiculous. There is a distinct difference between ``free'' as in ``free to use or abuse as you see fit'' (with regards to what you do with the source code, not with regards to just running the application) and ``free'' as in the freedoms the GPL was meant to protect. The GPL was never written under the pretense that it was ``free'' in the first sense I used. It might as well be public domain in that case. Sure would save all of the headache involved in writing a license. The GPL is restrictive. It's not meant to be ``free'' as in ``not restrictive''. I guess one really has to actually sit down and read the damn thing to understand that. I wish more people would before they slammed it. You don't even have to get past the preamble. =P
Yes, of course you expect people to link to your library. However..
The only purpose for releasing a library on the GPL instead of the LGPL is to force all programs linking against it to be GPL'd. RMS has -said- this. This is what he -wants-... the idea being every time a license conflict occurs, the other software will be legally forced to comply with the GPL by becoming GPL until the whole world (or at least lots of software) is GPL.
There is a price you pay for using any kind of software. This may or may not include money. Proprietary software vendors who produce libraries also expect you to link against them. However, they also expect you to fork over some cash, possibly among other things. GPL'ed libraries expect you to GPL the program. You're not being forced to use GPL'ed stuff any more than you are proprietary works. If you don't like the license, use something else.
RMS has said that he only wants libraries which offer something new and unique that hasn't already been done to be GPL'ed. Stuff that everyone already has one of (like a C Library) should be LGPL'ed for strategic purposes. Just because RMS is trying to proliferate the works of his philosophy doesn't mean he is holding a gun to your head saying you have to use stuff released under his license, or even license your software with his license. He'd probably like you to, but he's not going to track you down and murder you in the night if you don't. Many people's arguments would seem to indicate otherwise. heh.
So... well, personally, I wouldn't use a GPL'd library. Ever. For anything. But people have gotten used to libraries being LGPL'd. When a GPL'd library comes along, it's easy to make the mistake (unless you're already looking for it.)
Well, that's your choice, and you're welcome to it. I'm not sure what this all has to do with whether or not the GPL is ``free'', but ok. The point being, with regards to that last sentence of yours, that people should pay attention to the licenses of the software they are using. If you're a programmer, you really can't afford to do otherwise. I wouldn't follow Corel's example in this case.
..that the above post was not moderated down, but my response to it was (it was regarded as flamebait, specifically).
Just thought I'd throw away a little more karma just to point out how utterly clueless some moderators are, especially since this subthread wasn't even a flamewar until Jay became a part of it.
I didn't insinuate you were doing anything. Luser.;)
Joking around aside, it seems that you are paying attention to this thread, despite your delusions that I was insinuating that you weren't (or something). And I work graveyards (I'd say ``what's your excuse'' but obviously you were working, so, um.. yeah).
I'm studying actually. Taking a few breaks in between thoughts to check up on replies on Rag Dot (Inside Joke: Slashdot).
If you want a really good name for it, try Slashnull (as in Slashdev Slashnull, or/dev/null;). Signal 11 also has a good name or two for it if you can pry it out of him. Ha!
One thing I'm definetly not doing is extolling Free software as the be all and end all, nor am I telling others what they can and can't do with . Though most likely, my words are lost on deaf ears....:)
Then who is? Certainly not Signal 11 nor myself. =P
I think it would ship with a very small embedded-like OS, given its goal. Something like Linux is overkill for simple web surfing.
My thoughts exactly. However, whatever OS it is, it could be a Good Thing. Here's why: companies like Dell, even though they have Linux desktops, also have evil Winmodem policies. So, you can get a ``good'' Linux desktop from them, but you're going to get screwed with a) no modem and b) second-rate mice (M$ IntelliMouse is not a major win).
So, basically, when you buy a Linux desktop from Dell, most people (who actually use Linux.. yet I doubt most of these people would buy Dell) would want to a) replace the mouse with something from Logitech b) replace the keyboard with.. the Happy Hacking Keyboard, of course! and c) get a LAN modem and put that damn Ethernet card to good use. =P
Of course, none of that helps Joe Public, and it doesn't help us stamp out second-rate hardware built to be Windows-only (Winmodem proliferation leads to.. suffering) or work with optimum performance only with Windows (Sound Blaster, anyone?). Knock out IntelliMice and we're really in business!
Back to my original point, however: If Dell or anyone else ships an ``Internet machine'' it's obviously going to need a modem. And since it won't be shipping with Windows, it will need a real modem, which is a Good Thing for everyone except Microsoft (which means the GNU/Linux, *BSD, and every other crowd can rejoice about the same thing.. a rare occurance, to say the least).
..like an obligatory cheap shot, and it probably is, but I'm not trying to flame you, so yeah. Ha!
In my experience, the people who DO the most are those who SAY the least. Words are cheap. Action is not. In short, put your money where your mouth is. Make it work; others will follow. That is the real nature of [humans]. [ed.'s note: PC ``spell'' checking included to help both genders feel at home;O]
And just what are you spending your time doing right now?;)
For most of your (rather pathetic) argument, please refer yourself to this post. Most of it applies to you, as well, I'm sure.
Once again, you distort the truth - or ignore it - in your blind zealotry for the GPV.
Actually, my current project involves the foundation of a lot of LGPL'ed code with a nice proprietary chunk to top off the entire program. Details are being withheld at this time thanks to the fact that I dislike vaporware announcements (although GPL advocates can rest assured that it's just a game). Therefore, this vacuous shot in the dark comment, along with everything else you've accused me or anything/anyone else of here is completely unfounded.
The truth is that the X Window System cannot, could not, and was in no danger of being "lost". Yes, the X Consortium was on the verge of changing the license terms so that future releases would have been proprietary. So what?
Can you say, ``fork in development''? I guess people don't realize how serious that scenario really is. The problem with X and BSD licensing schemes is that they're only free as long as the principal maintainers decide it should be. I, for one, am not that trusting. I don't believe in the ``spirit of goodness'' in the way some others do, that it ``permeates all of humankind'' or whatever, and neither does the GPL. Neither do the laws of most ``free'' countries. Get a grip.
Only in the limited, communistic definition of "free" that RMS and his zealots use. Here's a clue for you, though I have little hope it'll stick: True freedom necessarily includes the freedom to do things that piss you off. Until you realize that, this flamewar will never end.
This is where the above link comes in real handy. I suggest you try it. I think it's really amusing that you think I'm the clueless one, so much so that you think I don't know about the XFree86 Project. Thanks for the laugh. By the way, this wasn't a flame war until you made it one. Perhaps you should join the rest of us instead of acting like a little twit AC script kiddie troll-like thing with a bad attitude? heh.
If people on slashdot spent half as much time coding as they did worrying about what other people are doing in relation to GPL (et.al), this would be a moot point.
This seems to imply that most people on Slashdot know how to code. I'm not to sure I agree with that. It's ``News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.'' not ``News for Nerds. Stuff for Hackers.'' =P And most hackers do spend most of their time, well, hacking. A few exceptions exist (witness ESR), but they are, well, few.
The problem with your argument is simple: the fact that the GPL is a free software license and whether or not it is compatible with any other license have absolutely nothing to do with one another. That said, I am having difficulty divining your point. If you're trying to insinuate that the GPL is not a truly ``free'' license, you're doing a very poor job of it.
Actually, the problem was because of GPL, in my opinion. The license that purports to be the "free" one is the one that's being the most demanding and dictatorial here.
It's a free license, under the definition of free software put down by RMS, but it's also a copyleft, a subcategory of free software also defined by RMS, and thus, it's also a restrictive license, unlike BSD.
The idea of being free (as in freedom) is good, and should be along the lines of "use this software to enable other good software, in whatever way the person writing the new software desires." Meaning that people should be free to extend with other free and/or open source software, with slightly modified licenses like Qt, as shareware, or as full-blown commercial software. That would be a truly free license.
Then use the BSD license and don't whine about not being able to incorporate GPL'ed code when you do. It's pretty simple. Whining about not being able to use GPL'ed code in whatever software is paramount to whining that you don't have access to the source code to MacOS, Windows, or any other proprietary work. The authors are free to choose whatever license they choose. If you don't like that, that's fine. Don't use it. Not everyone is going to bend over backwards to be your bitch, however, to use the vernacular. =P
Common Misconception: Everyone tries to weigh the GPL against their own definition of ``freedom''. Well, everyone, there are different kinds of freedom. The freedoms that the GPL enforces are no more and no less than the ones that RMS has stated as those being its purview. The only true ``freedom'' according to bigots who make these unfounded attacks upon the GPL is complete and total anarchy. Sure, you're free, up until someone decides to enslave you. The GPL works to protect the freedoms it has defined as being important, not all ``freedoms'' that these people believe they have a ``right'' to. There's.. a bit of difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Naturally the GPL is a restrictive license. There is no other way for it to remain free software (for sure). The author of the GPL, RMS (this is not counting the gang of lawyers that helped him out), doesn't even believe in copyright licenses. He wishes everything could all be public domain. The obvious problem is that most people aren't hackers, don't give a damn about the Hacker Ethic, and certainly don't feel like sharing.
The GPL makes sure that there is still software you can share. Unfortunately, it is written in such a way that it can not ``play nice'' with the other free software licenses, but if it were to do so, it would also open up holes that proprietary software licenses could take advantage of, and thus be able to transform the GPL'ed work into a non-free software package.
This was clearly against RMS' intentions.
Copyright law is intended to serve as a safeguard against the natural right to copy. The right to copy is one of the freedoms the GPL upholds. Yes, it is the FSF's brand of freedom that the GPL upholds, but when you talk about being free, you talk about your freedoms. Pluralized. This is because you have several freedoms (this is from the point of view of a U.S. citizen, FYI). In the U.S. you are not completely ``free'' in the sense that you have every available freedom known to humanity. This is because there is more than one kind of freedom. The GPL does a very good job of defining which freedoms it upholds, so calling it ``non-free'' is an exercise in counterproductive nonsense, as it is paramount to saying that ``anything less than anarchy is not free, and if I can't be free, I'm going to create an anarchy''.
The problem with any anarchy, however, is that there are no laws or governmental bodies to protect your freedoms, and thus, you can lose your freedoms the first time someone comes around whom you can't best in a fight. The notion doesn't sound very appealing. Of course, anarchies wouldn't be a problem if everyone was an essentially good person. Only the most naive of us believe this is the case.
Much of this could be applied to proprietary software licenses as well. It is simply the nature of the beast. Unless everyone feels like sharing software freely as was done in days past, there will be a need for the GPL. And since the GPL must uphold the freedoms it promises its users, it's going to have to be a restrictive license. I'm sure that RMS would agree with me that this is an unfortunate situation.
Quite naturally. However, I was never commenting on the overall topic at hand, merely the slanderous usage of terms such as the ``General Public Virus''. I would actually agree that a repository which contained software from all of the free software licensing schemes would be a Good Thing. I would also wager that a separate repository for GPL and LGPL stuff only could be a Good Thing as well. If you went through all of the above simply to state this, you need not have bothered. I knew this well enough before I even clicked ``read more''.
All I ever asserted was that GPL'ed software was free software, not that it was the only free software. Therefore, neither of those comments apply to myself particularly well.
..I wasn't even arguing with your views on the subject of a component library, merely how you presented them. Slanderous terms such as the ``General Public Virus'' do not promote understanding. See Bruce Perens' long list of running commentary on the subject for more about the ``viral behavior myth''.
And since you bothered to claim that for everyone except RMS and myself it's a ``no brainer'', perhaps I should point out that despite the fact that *BSD has been around far longer and was fully functional before the conception of GNU/Linux.. well, which is more popular today, do you think? And, ah, why do you think that is? If it was a purely technical edge, there would be no room for GNU/Linux, as *BSD has been mature for far longer. And since the GPL isn't a ``truly free'' license, it couldn't be philosophical, either, eh? Quite simply, your argument holds water like a sieve. Good job!
At any rate, you're doing very little to prove yourself as anything other than a bigot to me, especially since you opted for another low blow by implying that GPL'ed software is not truly free. The GPL is free in the sense that it wants to be, and there is more than one kind of freedom.
So.. so what? All this proves is that you should choose your words more carefully, and have a better comprehension of what you're talking about. I certainly didn't ``prove your point'' for you, since what I said didn't have a damn thing to do with what you said except for the fact that I disproved an offhand remark of yours. Then again, very little of what you've said hits me as being very clueful.
If you really want to make your case on these kinds of issues, do so in a calm, eloquent manner.. one that promotes understanding rather than bandying about all sorts of flamebait-loaded terminology. You certainly don't come off as being very informed.
To top all of this off..
And somehow you feel that your particular brand of bigotry is any better?
Yeah. That's precisely what it is. Now to explain: There are *BSD bigots. There are GPL bigots. There are all sorts of bigots. However, just because, say, some black person calls a white person a ``cracker'' or ``honkey'' doesn't make me glad I'm not black any more than some white person calling a black person a ``nigger'' makes me wish I wasn't white. Again, your arugments don't make sense. Apparently you spend too much time paying attention to the lowest common denominator rather than informing yourself about the issues at hand and then going on to make an educated decision.
To clarify: I made some inflammatory remarks in response to your rather obvious bigotry. I was not making inflammatory remarks toward people who support licenses other than the GPL (even proprietary ones, and certainly not other free software ones), just those who slander the GPL for reasons that are completely unfounded. Being slanderous just to be slanderous is what we call either ``flamebait'' or ``inflammatory''.
As an aside, I'm not completely against proprietary software. I don't think it's ``give me GPL or give me death!'' I think PINE and PICO are nifty. There are better tools, like Mutt and Emacs (or just Emacs with Emacs/Mutt), but PINE and PICO still fit their niche. I don't see a reason for them to be GPL'ed. I also don't see a reason for games like Quake to be GPL'ed. While it would be nice, computer games aren't quite as important as your basic tools, such as your compiler and debugger and what have you. Critical pieces of your overall system (such as the OS) do well as free software because, quite simply, they need to work, and if you have to beg someone to fix their fuckup, it's not going to seem very worthwhile to use that OS.
Public domain and, say, BSD-licensed software are free software just as GPL'ed software is free, except that without a copyleft, there's no guarantee that they'll stay free. There's less incentive to contribute to the main branch. There's more incentive to fork it into a commercial work. Generally speaking, there's less incentive to share. Those who uphold any semblance of the Hacker Ethic would want to share, and would want others to share too. The perceptive ones, such as RMS, would realize that most people do not want to share, and that if they're going to make software that can not be shared, they sure as hell are not going to use his software in the same manner as their proprietary works.. And thus was born the GPL, a license which forbids others from restricting the rights of users to share GPL'ed software and code. The only ``advantage'' BSD-style licenses have is that they may be made proprietary. This is sort of counter-productive to people who believe in sharing, since proprietary software is not meant to be shared.
..that the work done by the FSF to construct GNU and further the efforts of free software didn't inadvertantly help Unix at the same time. Many Unices use GNU software packages. I can barely remember the last time I used a Korn, C, or plain old Bourne shell (not that there aren't others that aren't GPL'ed).
Those were great moments for both GNU and Unix, strange as that may sound.
The usage of the term ``General Public Virus'' all but confirms it. Serious usage of this term indicates a lack of understanding, and is strongly indicative of the notion that the person using said term dreams of software that they may not only use, but abuse as they see fit (and, indeed, extends this dream to cover all software ever created.. apparently this isn't just restricted to people who deal in warez anymore). No one is forced to GPL their software, and if you wish to build your work upon the work of others, you must abide by their licensing scheme. If you don't like it, do it yourself. It's rather simple.
Complaining that the GPL doesn't achieve your aims and objectives very well is ludicrous. Just don't use it. What can not be argued (reasonably) is that the GPL fails to achieve its own aims and objectives. It has done so with flying colors. So, if you like the GPL, use it, if you don't, then another license will suit you better. Complaining that you can't turn GPL'ed software against its intended goal is paramount to complaining you can't enslave people anymore.
The other obvious hole in the logic presented here is the notion that you can't use GPL'ed code in a public domain software package. This isn't entirely true. Public domain means that there is no copyright license. You are free to fork the unlicensed software package and relicense it. So, while it is true that you can't use GPL'ed code in public domain software and still have it be public domain (it is now under a copyright license -- at least your fork of it -- the GPL), it is not true that you can't do it at all. You could relicense it under any other license as well. Of course, the original would still be public domain, but your ``distribution'' of it wouldn't have to be.
If so, then you must have been serious when you asked what the big deal is. It doesn't revolve around what they /can/ do, it's the consequences of doing so (from a social and/or legal point of view). The other replies to your post go into more detail, so I will not duplicate that material here.
The remark was mostly a reference to ``officially'' supported architectures, a la:
The other (more interesting) ports seem to be a little farther away.
For the most part I've given up complaining or even commenting on any new distributions, although new ones based on Debian interest me (vaguely). There are simply too many distros these days (hundreds?). I see no point in supporting a fork off of Debian (I don't see Debian getting ``outpaced'' very easily), and anything that tries to keep pace with Debian and add ``just a few new features'' to make it easier to install or configure or whatever would die for (hopefully) obvious reasons, due to being sucked back into the ``main'' distribution.
What makes Debian the most attractive (to me) is all of the architectures they plan to support. They already support 4 (1 more than RH), and the others they have the ball rolling toward look interesting as well (Debian on PPC could be a major win). I would much rather Debian become ``the'' standard than Red Hat. Being able to use whatever hardware you please is a definite bonus (not that Red Hat support for Intel, Alpha, and SPARC isn't cool.. it's just that I haven't heard any mention of them trying to expand this.. maybe I'm a nut who wants to buy an iMac for no apparent reason?)
Anyway, from the FAQ, here's how Libranet aims to entice:
Sort of vague. Anyone want to get a copy and tell us what's so neat about their desktop?
That's in reference to the difficulty of the installation. Interesting, but installation on Red Hat 5.1 (to give a reference on why I don't see installation as being ``insurmountable'', although configuration can be a pain.. yes I know RH != Debian, but come on) really wasn't all that difficult (for me). The main annoyance with GNU/Linux is having to fool around with PnP (which is easily solved.. get an external modem and use the almighty serial port).
Most of the rest of it is stuff you would find relavent in describing practically any other Linux. I'm not too excited so far.
After glancing at the ``desktop'' section and reading a little more, it seems like the only other real feature here is that they've somehow cleaned up the configuration process and automated much of it during installation saving you ``many hours''. I think they could have been more vague (maybe). Am I missing something here I should have caught onto by now? Hmm.
..we're somehow not free to dislike it? Or to say something when they claim that they want to promote ``open debate'' yet act in opposition to what they state?
You seem to be the victim of a rather flawed scale of logic.
Pardon me, but uh, how do you figure? If say, for example, I donated 5 billion dollars to the FSF, would I ``own'' it? Would Bill Gates if he did? Donating money to a special interest group, non-profit organization, or whatever isn't exactly the same as buying stock in a company. And with RMS at the helm, I sort of doubt you're likely to alter the aims of the FSF by offering him money. He could make tons of money just by being a programmer.
Your argument, therefore, does not compute. Are you holding back some critical detail, or, ah.. what?
I, for one, see absolutely no need for yet another ``open source'' group. And that's not just because I object to the usage of the term. It's just a idiotic practically (to anyone with sense) speaking as it is philosophically (to me).
Thank you for enlightening me of your complete and utter lack of intelligence. You'll be happy to know that henceforth all communiques coming from your little corner of stupidity will be ignored until the day you die. However, just to perhaps encourage brain cell growth in that shriveled little head of yours: My signature means that it's pointless to reply to my post with the intention of evoking some sort of response from my end unless your replying post is scored 1 or higher because, well, I have a hard threshold of 1. If you feel that is egotistical, you are of course welcome to your (rather moronic) opinions. I am, quite honestly, however, surprised no one has tagged you as flamebait, because quite obviously you're not a biped and I'm flaming you because you're an asshole.
One day people will phrase these questions (at least they should be queries, you presumptuous little bigot) politely, rather than mindlessly attacking anyone who isn't ``cool'' to them like some sort of barbarian with an ``inadequacy'' complex. Ha!
Well, it's offtopic as it relates to the story, but it's not offtopic with regards to this thread of conversation (sort of). Honestly, what's with damn near every post on this article having been moderated? Sure, I've got moderator access right now, but you know, I don't think everything everyone has to say is worthy of 2 - 5 points of being ``insightful'', ``informative'', and ``interesting''. I thought the moderation system was meant to find the few, rare gems. If every post gets moderated, it's the same as if none of them had gotten moderated. That is, it's counterproductive. Perhaps a little more thought and care should be put into this procedure? Urk.
I could understand it if I got tagged a -3 on that post for ``overrated'', but seriously, ``troll''? You've to be kidding me. Well, it wouldn't be the first (and far from the last) time when I voiced an actual opinion that a moderator thought was some sort of flamebait. Get a grip. I post often enough for you people to (probably more for the worse than for the better) know what is and is not a valid statement from my camp. heh.
At any rate, for those of you mindlessly crying out, ``Politically Correct''.. You've obviously never seen me post anything on a controversial issue (new to Slashdot, anyone?). I find the accusation to be useful for generating a few laughs, however. ;)
..I actually find myself wishing for some more moderation. Honestly, anyone who's doing some moderation today, please take a moment to read this: I really don't need to hear anyone making cheap jokes at the expense of a couple of dead people. It's not funny. It's not cute. They're dead. Those were human lives. No one deserves to be murdered (this becomes an arguable point when it comes to the legal system and the death penalty, but in those cases the offenders have committed murder themselves, and as much as we all hate spam, it's not murder), and all of these tasteless jokes would be appropriately tagged ``flamebait''. Anyone who really cares to read all these sick, tasteless gestures can lower their threshold to 0 or less if they haven't already. I for one did not need this to ``brighten'' up my morning.
Assuming you're correct, such a statement would be patently ridiculous. There is a distinct difference between ``free'' as in ``free to use or abuse as you see fit'' (with regards to what you do with the source code, not with regards to just running the application) and ``free'' as in the freedoms the GPL was meant to protect. The GPL was never written under the pretense that it was ``free'' in the first sense I used. It might as well be public domain in that case. Sure would save all of the headache involved in writing a license. The GPL is restrictive. It's not meant to be ``free'' as in ``not restrictive''. I guess one really has to actually sit down and read the damn thing to understand that. I wish more people would before they slammed it. You don't even have to get past the preamble. =P
Yes, of course you expect people to link to your library. However..
There is a price you pay for using any kind of software. This may or may not include money. Proprietary software vendors who produce libraries also expect you to link against them. However, they also expect you to fork over some cash, possibly among other things. GPL'ed libraries expect you to GPL the program. You're not being forced to use GPL'ed stuff any more than you are proprietary works. If you don't like the license, use something else.
RMS has said that he only wants libraries which offer something new and unique that hasn't already been done to be GPL'ed. Stuff that everyone already has one of (like a C Library) should be LGPL'ed for strategic purposes. Just because RMS is trying to proliferate the works of his philosophy doesn't mean he is holding a gun to your head saying you have to use stuff released under his license, or even license your software with his license. He'd probably like you to, but he's not going to track you down and murder you in the night if you don't. Many people's arguments would seem to indicate otherwise. heh.
Well, that's your choice, and you're welcome to it. I'm not sure what this all has to do with whether or not the GPL is ``free'', but ok. The point being, with regards to that last sentence of yours, that people should pay attention to the licenses of the software they are using. If you're a programmer, you really can't afford to do otherwise. I wouldn't follow Corel's example in this case.
Unfortunately that seems like it would sound a little too much like ``Slut''.. Imagine the confusion that could ensue. =P
..that the above post was not moderated down, but my response to it was (it was regarded as flamebait, specifically).
Just thought I'd throw away a little more karma just to point out how utterly clueless some moderators are, especially since this subthread wasn't even a flamewar until Jay became a part of it.
I didn't insinuate you were doing anything. Luser. ;)
Joking around aside, it seems that you are paying attention to this thread, despite your delusions that I was insinuating that you weren't (or something). And I work graveyards (I'd say ``what's your excuse'' but obviously you were working, so, um.. yeah).
If you want a really good name for it, try Slashnull (as in Slashdev Slashnull, or /dev/null ;). Signal 11 also has a good name or two for it if you can pry it out of him. Ha!
Then who is? Certainly not Signal 11 nor myself. =P
My thoughts exactly. However, whatever OS it is, it could be a Good Thing. Here's why: companies like Dell, even though they have Linux desktops, also have evil Winmodem policies. So, you can get a ``good'' Linux desktop from them, but you're going to get screwed with a) no modem and b) second-rate mice (M$ IntelliMouse is not a major win).
So, basically, when you buy a Linux desktop from Dell, most people (who actually use Linux.. yet I doubt most of these people would buy Dell) would want to a) replace the mouse with something from Logitech b) replace the keyboard with.. the Happy Hacking Keyboard, of course! and c) get a LAN modem and put that damn Ethernet card to good use. =P
Of course, none of that helps Joe Public, and it doesn't help us stamp out second-rate hardware built to be Windows-only (Winmodem proliferation leads to.. suffering) or work with optimum performance only with Windows (Sound Blaster, anyone?). Knock out IntelliMice and we're really in business!
Back to my original point, however: If Dell or anyone else ships an ``Internet machine'' it's obviously going to need a modem. And since it won't be shipping with Windows, it will need a real modem, which is a Good Thing for everyone except Microsoft (which means the GNU/Linux, *BSD, and every other crowd can rejoice about the same thing.. a rare occurance, to say the least).
..like an obligatory cheap shot, and it probably is, but I'm not trying to flame you, so yeah. Ha!
And just what are you spending your time doing right now? ;)
For most of your (rather pathetic) argument, please refer yourself to this post. Most of it applies to you, as well, I'm sure.
Actually, my current project involves the foundation of a lot of LGPL'ed code with a nice proprietary chunk to top off the entire program. Details are being withheld at this time thanks to the fact that I dislike vaporware announcements (although GPL advocates can rest assured that it's just a game). Therefore, this vacuous shot in the dark comment, along with everything else you've accused me or anything/anyone else of here is completely unfounded.
Can you say, ``fork in development''? I guess people don't realize how serious that scenario really is. The problem with X and BSD licensing schemes is that they're only free as long as the principal maintainers decide it should be. I, for one, am not that trusting. I don't believe in the ``spirit of goodness'' in the way some others do, that it ``permeates all of humankind'' or whatever, and neither does the GPL. Neither do the laws of most ``free'' countries. Get a grip.
This is where the above link comes in real handy. I suggest you try it. I think it's really amusing that you think I'm the clueless one, so much so that you think I don't know about the XFree86 Project. Thanks for the laugh. By the way, this wasn't a flame war until you made it one. Perhaps you should join the rest of us instead of acting like a little twit AC script kiddie troll-like thing with a bad attitude? heh.
This seems to imply that most people on Slashdot know how to code. I'm not to sure I agree with that. It's ``News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.'' not ``News for Nerds. Stuff for Hackers.'' =P And most hackers do spend most of their time, well, hacking. A few exceptions exist (witness ESR), but they are, well, few.
The problem with your argument is simple: the fact that the GPL is a free software license and whether or not it is compatible with any other license have absolutely nothing to do with one another. That said, I am having difficulty divining your point. If you're trying to insinuate that the GPL is not a truly ``free'' license, you're doing a very poor job of it.
It's a free license, under the definition of free software put down by RMS, but it's also a copyleft, a subcategory of free software also defined by RMS, and thus, it's also a restrictive license, unlike BSD.
Then use the BSD license and don't whine about not being able to incorporate GPL'ed code when you do. It's pretty simple. Whining about not being able to use GPL'ed code in whatever software is paramount to whining that you don't have access to the source code to MacOS, Windows, or any other proprietary work. The authors are free to choose whatever license they choose. If you don't like that, that's fine. Don't use it. Not everyone is going to bend over backwards to be your bitch, however, to use the vernacular. =P
Common Misconception: Everyone tries to weigh the GPL against their own definition of ``freedom''. Well, everyone, there are different kinds of freedom. The freedoms that the GPL enforces are no more and no less than the ones that RMS has stated as those being its purview. The only true ``freedom'' according to bigots who make these unfounded attacks upon the GPL is complete and total anarchy. Sure, you're free, up until someone decides to enslave you. The GPL works to protect the freedoms it has defined as being important, not all ``freedoms'' that these people believe they have a ``right'' to. There's.. a bit of difference.