>Once again, the FSF takes a noble goal to a loony extreme.
As far as i understand FSF nothing has changed. Their position was always that everyone should have the same freedom related to software (files of functional work) on your computer.
So the shift doesn't come from the FSF but from the hardware manufactures. At that point of time where they pull the firmware out of the hardware and put it into a file of my computer the same qestion arrises as for any other software: Why should one person have more power over this file on my computer than i?
As i understand it the position of the FSF was always "We are all in the same boat". So everyone should be able to change it or nobody. Now that the firmware is just a file on my harddisk, just a pice of software, why should the right person (employee of the right company) be able to modify it and i'm not? If you allow this compromise for firmware you have to answer the question "and why don't make the same compromise for a driver, or for a binary which does foo?". At the end it is all the same. It is a file on my computer which does some functional work and in the eyes of the FSF this should alway bee free softwar so that everyone has the same freedom and noone has power over you and your computing.
>So, Free by way of the (L)GPL isn't exactly free.
But the GPL isn't the Free Software Definition, the GPL is just one of many Free Software licenses! And i can't find anything in the Free Software definition which doesn't fit any rational definition of the word.
Now because GNewSense is the name of the distribution like Debian, Fedora, SuSE, RedHat,... All this names are fine and this are all names of GNU/Linux distributions.
It is not the FSF who put the distribution together. It is a distribution like every other distribution just that they do it in a way that the FSF can endorse it. But GnewSense ist not the only Distribution the FSF endorse: see here
They just sponsor gnewsense.That means that they can host their mailinglist at gnu.org and such thinks but it's not the FSFs distribution like Debian wasn't the FSFs distribution at the time the FSF sponsored Debian
>the FSF for understanding now what people expect you to do if you want to put your name on a software distribution.
And when will Linus Torvalds understand that he have to create his own distribution if he wants to put his name on a software distribution? *SCNR*
>It's not really a completely free distro, as they allow documentation that uses the GFDL license with invariant sections. Many (including Debian) consider that to be a non-free license
Debian consider the GFDL as a non-free software license and even the FSF agrees that the GFDL is a non-free software license. But the GFDL is not a software license at all the GFDL is a documentation license and the FSF consider it as a free documentation license.
>What about Java? You've got AWT (which is old and ugly), Swing (which is newer and stands oWhat about Java? You've got AWT (which is old and ugly), Swing (which is newer and stands out on any desktop) or Swing (which generally looks native, but which would generally also require you to bundle the JAR with your app, making the download considerably bigger in a lot of cases).ut on any desktop) or Swing (which generally looks native, but which would generally also require you to bundle the JAR with your app, making the download considerably bigger in a lot of cases).
For Java you have at least in the GNU/Linux world the same options as for Mono:
- GNOME: gnome-java
- KDE: Qt-Jambi
- Windows&MacOS: You can use Qt too
>A GPL advocate sees an entirely different situation. To him, it is the code that comes first, and the applications built from that code are a secondary consideration.
That's entirely wrong. It's not the code that comes first, it's the people. Code doesn't have to be free! Code doesn't life, code doesn't have feelings... in short code doesn't care to be free or not. It's the people who uses the software who should be free. With the GPL i can ensure that every person who uses software i have written is free. With a non-copyleft license i can't ensure it.
That's for me the big difference: People who uses copyleft licenses want that everyone who uses their code has the same freedom. People who uses non-copyleft code want that the code get spread as much as possible and that the code is as free as possibel ("do with it what you want even if it means that the people who come after you have less freedom")
Both concepts are OK, because wether you do it with a copyleft license or with a non-copyleft license you do always free software and that's good. I as a copyleft advocate see also benefits in using non-copyleft licenses. There are situation where spreading is more important than everyones software freedom by using this particular code. E.g. if you want to make Open Standards popular like Ogg Vorbis or ODF. Than i think it is more important that everyone can use the reference implementation in his products than that every user of a product with this reference implementation has software freedom.
>The original public domain work remains public domain. Necessarily. Always. Forever. There is no extant legal mechanism that can make a public domain work proprietary.
You can take a public domain work an release it under an restricted license. So now people can get and use the public domain work as non-free software. So the work now exists as public domain and as non-free software!
Now it depends on marketing, publicity or what ever which version most people will use. But it can happen that most people uses the public domain work without knowing that it exists in the public domain and under a really restrictive license. It can even happen that the source of the public domain work (e.g. the hosted website) get lost so that at the end there only exists the restricted version of the public domain work.
This are all examples not for "make a proprietary work based on public domain work" but for turning a public domain work into a proprietary work either beside the public domain work or as the only option (if the public domain work gets lost).
Lawsrence Lessig had a similar example in one of his free culture talks. He showed a book of a public domain work which was released as ebook and the ebook has restrictions e.g. for copying parts out of it which was backed by laws like DMCA. So effectively this work become non-free for everyone who gets it as an ebook even if it also exists in the public domain. I think you can imagine what happens if ebooks become the only or at least primary medium for books.
Therefor we need copyleft, not only to keep derivate works free but also to make sure that the original will be free as long as it exists.
>And yet, as 2short pointed out, modifying and compiling public domain source code creates a proprietary work BASED on said public domain source code. The original program, as originally claimed, remains public domain.
Not necessarily.
You can also compile the original public domain work and release it with a different name and under a non-free software license. So with some marketing many people will use this program, will have zero freedom and probably don't even know that there exists the source code for (probably) the same program which could give them some freedom.
So the result will be that people will have non-free software, will use non-free software and don't know that they could have more freedom or that there exists more freedom.
You can even go one step further and imagine that the source of the public domain version (e.g. the webpage where it is hosted) is that unpopular that most people won't find it through normal internet search (e.g. because of a bad page-rank) or maybe the webpage will go down so that at some point of time only the non-free version exist.
>So yes, the FSF "simplification" does border on falsehood.
So even if the FSF simplifies, you are doing exactly the same!
It's not that easy to say that public domain or non-copyleft stays always free. That's only true as long as the original sources exists and someone cares about it. On the other hand copyleft garantees that the program will be free as long as _any_ copy of the program exists.
Now, obviously, I think that Open Source evangelists like me have a role in talking with business people that Richard can't fill. His brain wiring isn't built for it. The a priori arguments he makes are not the way to start selling these concepts to business people, but hopefully they will eventually come to appreciate Richard's arguments after they enter through Open Source.
I think it is OK to talk to business people about practical and economic advantages and leave freedom aside. But i think it is wrong to do this in the name of "Open Source". You can use the term "Free Software" and talk only about practical and economic advantages. This way you will take care that the business people will at least see the freedom in the name and _this_ will eventually lead them to appreciate Richard's arguments after they enter. But if you put them on the "Open Source" track they will probably never find the connection to Free Software, Richard, GNU, etc.
Choosing the right arguments for the right audience: YES!
Rename the Free Software movement: NO!
>The big problem is that we don't all agree that these things are threats.
It is not the question if we agree if something is a threat or not. It is a question if we share the same fundamental values. If we agree that everyone who gets a copy of a GPL program should have the freedom to use, study, modify and share it than we had no problem with GPLv1 and GPLv2, we have no problem with GPLv3 and we will not have any problem with any version of the GPL in the future. If we don't agree on this fundamental value than of course we can disagree potential on every version of GPL.
If I release GPL'ed code and I own a patent on my algrothm, I expect to be able to enforce it.
So basically what you say is that you want to give your users the freedom to use, study, modify and share the software by copyright but deny them the same freedom by patent law. So at the end you have simply picked the wrong license. Decide if you want to give your users this freedom or not. If yes, than you have no problem with the GPL if not than of course you have a problem with GPL because GPL says something which you don't want to to so you should chose a different (non-free) license.
You could even say that you practise a fraud on someone if you give him a copyright license which says that he can do foo and bar and if he starts doing foo and bar you come with patent law and try to stop him.
>The GPL even covers this when it says: "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
>So you must pass the same freedoms on to the next guy. This includes the right to pick the BSD license.
No, the GPL relates to what is defined in the GPL and the BSDL isn't defined in the GPL.
Basically there are 3 possibilities:
1. All the code is licensed under "BSDL or GPL". That would mean that everyone could pick the license he likes and can use, modify or distribute the code under GPL, BSDL or "BSDL or GPL"
2. Some Code is licensed under BSDL and some code is licensed under GPL. Now as long as you distribute the entire code the GPL is the important license because the GPL has the same rules like the BSDL and some more. But now the code under BSDL will always be under BSDL and the code under GPL will always be under GPL. That means that you have to deliver always both licenses and mark which license covers which part of the code. If someone divides the code than only the license is valid which covers that piece of code.
3. Some code is licensed under BSDL and some Code is licensed under "BSDL or GPL"
In this case we would have the same situation like described in 2. The entire work would be licensed under "BSDL or GPL" but there would be some parts marked as BSDL only. Therefore you would always have to distribute under "BSDL or GPL" or split off the "BSDL only" part.
Now the question is what kind of situation matches to our problem?
I think we can rule out situation 2 because then also OpenBSD would have to follow the GPL and i don't think they would do this.
If i look at the license header, which states "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation." than it suggests that we have a situation like described in situation 1. Than everything the Linux guys did was OK.
We could also have a situation like described in 3.. Than it would be wrong what the Linux guys did. But on the other hand every diff i have seen uses only the "BSDL or GPL" language so that you can argue that if we are in situation 3 than the authors have failed to highlight the "BSDL only" part and suggested to the users that everything is licensed under both licenses by only using the "BSDL or GPL" language. Than it would be a bad license header created by the OpenBSD guys and as a result of it a misunderstanding between both parties. I think such a misunderstanding can be clarified by fixing the license header to make clear where are the "BSDL only" parts. Than the Linux guys can go on and either replace the BSD only parts or keep the complete license which would be than something like "foo and bar is licensed only under BSDL and for the rest you can choose GPL or BSDL".
1. Better hardware support especially for wlan and 3D graphic and with "better support" i don't mean proprietary drivers but free drivers or at least specs.
2. Free Java (IceTea) has to become ready to use and default on every GNU/Linux distribution
3. Free Flash (gnash, swfdec) have to improve and become default in all GNU/Linux distribution or even better part of the browsers.
>true, but while the GPLv2 only talks about what you can and cant do with the code, the v3 goes on to talk about what you can and cant do with hardware thats to interact with the code in binary form.
Neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 talks about what you can do with the code. You can do with the code (and with the hardware) whatever you want. But if you distribute the software you have to retain all four freedoms.
>i dont have a problem with tivo wanting to lock what can or cant be run on their device because basically they are into selling black boxes. but personally i would not bother as i would go for a generic box in combo with linux and mythtv. hell, it looks like with linuxMCE its a snap to set up: http://linuxmce.org/
If it would be just the hardware, than i would agree with you. But it is not at all about the hardware, it is about the software. If i put my code under the GPL i want that everyone who becomes a copy can use it, improve it and share it. If Tivo denies you this rights, whether by changing the license, by refusing to give you the source code, by using additional software to block you, by using hardware to block you or by any other technical or legal solution someone will find in the future, than Tivo violates the spirit of all GPLs and the license GPLv3.
>this is quite interesting, and he is right about the GPLv3. its kinds moved in the direction of the MS EULA. as in, "if you want to use our product you cant do these things" and then goes on to list just about everything interesting you can do with a computer;)
Technically you can do everything you want with GPLv3 code. The only think you can't do is to deny your users freedom. But that's rather an ethical barrier than a technical one and exactly the same barrier which also exists in GPLv2 and which was form the beginning the entire purpose of the GPL.
>One thing I've always wondered is, if the GNU is all about 'open source' and
GNU isn't about Open Source, GNU is about Free Software!
>For instance, I understand that they're trying to promote reciprocal freedom, but *freedom* implies directly that, well, you shouldn't have drastic, overarching restrictions on what people are legally allowed to do with software. The GPL puts a lot of restrictions on what you can't do, and what you're required to do if you even get near it, link to it, or do anything else.
You can say it in one sentence:
The GPL gives you the freedom to do what you want but denies you the power to restrict the freedom of others.
Or:
Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.
>I often wonder how Linus ended up with GPLv2 in the first place?
Basically it wasn't Linus who chose the GPL for Linux. At the beginning Linus chose a non-free license and someone else (i don't remember the name) convinced him to replace the non-free license with the GPL. At least that's what Linus said in his book "Just for fun".
Having this in mind you won't be surprised in many other areas like the Bitkeeper incident or Linus comments about Free Software, GPLv3, DRM, etc.
Linus is a brilliant Hacker and i have a lot of respect for him and his work. But if it comes to Free Software and the political an social dimension of the culture technique software in the digital age than Linus is definitely the wrong to ask.
>Linux relicensing won't happen. It pretty much can't happen. Any contributor to any file that does not have "or later version" (and there are many) in the license would have to sign off on the change. Some of them are dead, so you'd probably have to track down their descendants / executors.
That's not quite correct. Sure it's would be hard to relicense Linux. Especially if you want to do it at once. But it can happen like Mozilla managed to relicense their code.
Probably the easiest way would be to ask any known (GPLv2 only) developer for permission, accept from now on only "GPLv2 or later" and wait some years. In 3-5 years almost 100% of Linux would be "GPLv2 or later" so that you could relicense relatively easy.
Re:Apache Licence
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, GPLv3 is compatible to the Apache License v2.
>Would everybody please read ESR's essay on "Goodbye, 'free software,' 'hello open source'"? Excerpt:
"We suggest that everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source". Open-source software. The open-source model. The open source culture. The Debian Open Source Guidelines. (In pitching this to the corporate world I'm also going to be invoking the idea of "peer review" a lot.)"
And here what Alan Cox has to say (to ESR and OpenSource):
That would be because we believe in Free Software and doing the right thing
(a practice you appear to have given up on). Maybe it is time the term
"open source" also did the decent thing and died out with you.
If you use "GPLv2 or later" than it is compatible otherwise not. But this was clear from the beginning. Every new GPL will always be incompatible with the old GPLs that's why the "or later"-clause exist. The only way to make an new GPL compatible to a old GPL would be to make the new GPL equal to the old GPL and than you wouldn't need to write a new one.
>The incompatability stems from the incompatability between v2 and v3. v3 is not "backwards compatible"; nor is it compatible with other licenses.
GPLv3 is compatible with other licenses, it is even more compatible than GPLv2. GPLv3 will be compatible to all license to which GPLv2 is compatible. For a list see GPL(v2)-Compatible Free Software Licenses. GPLv3 will be at least also compatible with the Apache license and afaik the Eclipse license.
I disagree. Being neutral is one of the worse behavior in todays society.
environmental pollution? Is it ok or not? Maybe we should be neutral.
discrimination? good or bad? Maybe we should be neutral.
enslave people? good or bad. Maybe we should be neutral.
starting the Iraq war? ok or not? Maybe we should be neutral.
etc.
People like to be neutral because than they don't have to think about (complex) subjects.
They think by being neutral they keep them self out of politics. That's not true. Also neutral people influence politics and not to the good. Already Edmund Burke said: "If the good guys are doing nothing it will be enough for the evil to succeed".
Also Free Software and the digital age raises questions and people should think about it. Free Software exists for a special purpose. That's because people believe in freedom in the digital age. Allowing or supporting non-free software would not help this movement but would make it more difficult.
Everybody should think about the topics which are important to us and our world. Of couse everyone is free to form his own opinion but just being neutral is a really bad attitude. Not everything is good and not everything is bad, so we can't say everything or nothing (GNU/Linux requests Free Software? Than we also have to allow MS to forced people into digital chains? This would be a stupid implication).
Slashdot Mirror
>Once again, the FSF takes a noble goal to a loony extreme.
As far as i understand FSF nothing has changed. Their position was always that everyone should have the same freedom related to software (files of functional work) on your computer.
So the shift doesn't come from the FSF but from the hardware manufactures. At that point of time where they pull the firmware out of the hardware and put it into a file of my computer the same qestion arrises as for any other software: Why should one person have more power over this file on my computer than i?
As i understand it the position of the FSF was always "We are all in the same boat". So everyone should be able to change it or nobody. Now that the firmware is just a file on my harddisk, just a pice of software, why should the right person (employee of the right company) be able to modify it and i'm not? If you allow this compromise for firmware you have to answer the question "and why don't make the same compromise for a driver, or for a binary which does foo?". At the end it is all the same. It is a file on my computer which does some functional work and in the eyes of the FSF this should alway bee free softwar so that everyone has the same freedom and noone has power over you and your computing.
>So, Free by way of the (L)GPL isn't exactly free.
But the GPL isn't the Free Software Definition, the GPL is just one of many Free Software licenses! And i can't find anything in the Free Software definition which doesn't fit any rational definition of the word.
>But he was kicked off the board due to mono releasing its class libraries under the MIT/X11 license instead of LGPL
That's just wrong! Miguel leaves the FSF long before mono or even .Net exists!
>Should that not be GNU/gNewSense?
Now because GNewSense is the name of the distribution like Debian, Fedora, SuSE, RedHat,... All this names are fine and this are all names of GNU/Linux distributions.
>Now that the FSF put together a distribution
It is not the FSF who put the distribution together. It is a distribution like every other distribution just that they do it in a way that the FSF can endorse it. But GnewSense ist not the only Distribution the FSF endorse: see here
They just sponsor gnewsense.That means that they can host their mailinglist at gnu.org and such thinks but it's not the FSFs distribution like Debian wasn't the FSFs distribution at the time the FSF sponsored Debian
>the FSF for understanding now what people expect you to do if you want to put your name on a software distribution.
And when will Linus Torvalds understand that he have to create his own distribution if he wants to put his name on a software distribution? *SCNR*
>It's not really a completely free distro, as they allow documentation that uses the GFDL license with invariant sections. Many (including Debian) consider that to be a non-free license
Debian consider the GFDL as a non-free software license and even the FSF agrees that the GFDL is a non-free software license. But the GFDL is not a software license at all the GFDL is a documentation license and the FSF consider it as a free documentation license.
>What about Java? You've got AWT (which is old and ugly), Swing (which is newer and stands oWhat about Java? You've got AWT (which is old and ugly), Swing (which is newer and stands out on any desktop) or Swing (which generally looks native, but which would generally also require you to bundle the JAR with your app, making the download considerably bigger in a lot of cases).ut on any desktop) or Swing (which generally looks native, but which would generally also require you to bundle the JAR with your app, making the download considerably bigger in a lot of cases).
For Java you have at least in the GNU/Linux world the same options as for Mono:
- GNOME: gnome-java
- KDE: Qt-Jambi
- Windows&MacOS: You can use Qt too
>A GPL advocate sees an entirely different situation. To him, it is the code that comes first, and the applications built from that code are a secondary consideration.
That's entirely wrong. It's not the code that comes first, it's the people. Code doesn't have to be free! Code doesn't life, code doesn't have feelings... in short code doesn't care to be free or not. It's the people who uses the software who should be free. With the GPL i can ensure that every person who uses software i have written is free. With a non-copyleft license i can't ensure it.
That's for me the big difference: People who uses copyleft licenses want that everyone who uses their code has the same freedom. People who uses non-copyleft code want that the code get spread as much as possible and that the code is as free as possibel ("do with it what you want even if it means that the people who come after you have less freedom")
Both concepts are OK, because wether you do it with a copyleft license or with a non-copyleft license you do always free software and that's good. I as a copyleft advocate see also benefits in using non-copyleft licenses. There are situation where spreading is more important than everyones software freedom by using this particular code. E.g. if you want to make Open Standards popular like Ogg Vorbis or ODF. Than i think it is more important that everyone can use the reference implementation in his products than that every user of a product with this reference implementation has software freedom.
>The original public domain work remains public domain. Necessarily. Always. Forever. There is no extant legal mechanism that can make a public domain work proprietary.
You can take a public domain work an release it under an restricted license. So now people can get and use the public domain work as non-free software. So the work now exists as public domain and as non-free software!
Now it depends on marketing, publicity or what ever which version most people will use. But it can happen that most people uses the public domain work without knowing that it exists in the public domain and under a really restrictive license. It can even happen that the source of the public domain work (e.g. the hosted website) get lost so that at the end there only exists the restricted version of the public domain work.
This are all examples not for "make a proprietary work based on public domain work" but for turning a public domain work into a proprietary work either beside the public domain work or as the only option (if the public domain work gets lost).
Lawsrence Lessig had a similar example in one of his free culture talks. He showed a book of a public domain work which was released as ebook and the ebook has restrictions e.g. for copying parts out of it which was backed by laws like DMCA. So effectively this work become non-free for everyone who gets it as an ebook even if it also exists in the public domain. I think you can imagine what happens if ebooks become the only or at least primary medium for books.
Therefor we need copyleft, not only to keep derivate works free but also to make sure that the original will be free as long as it exists.
>As long as it's not to run non-free software... It seems a strange kind of freedom to me.
No, you are also free to run non-free software.
Nobody stops you from doing it!
>And yet, as 2short pointed out, modifying and compiling public domain source code creates a proprietary work BASED on said public domain source code. The original program, as originally claimed, remains public domain.
Not necessarily.
You can also compile the original public domain work and release it with a different name and under a non-free software license. So with some marketing many people will use this program, will have zero freedom and probably don't even know that there exists the source code for (probably) the same program which could give them some freedom.
So the result will be that people will have non-free software, will use non-free software and don't know that they could have more freedom or that there exists more freedom.
You can even go one step further and imagine that the source of the public domain version (e.g. the webpage where it is hosted) is that unpopular that most people won't find it through normal internet search (e.g. because of a bad page-rank) or maybe the webpage will go down so that at some point of time only the non-free version exist.
>So yes, the FSF "simplification" does border on falsehood.
So even if the FSF simplifies, you are doing exactly the same!
It's not that easy to say that public domain or non-copyleft stays always free. That's only true as long as the original sources exists and someone cares about it. On the other hand copyleft garantees that the program will be free as long as _any_ copy of the program exists.
I think it is OK to talk to business people about practical and economic advantages and leave freedom aside. But i think it is wrong to do this in the name of "Open Source". You can use the term "Free Software" and talk only about practical and economic advantages. This way you will take care that the business people will at least see the freedom in the name and _this_ will eventually lead them to appreciate Richard's arguments after they enter. But if you put them on the "Open Source" track they will probably never find the connection to Free Software, Richard, GNU, etc.
Choosing the right arguments for the right audience: YES!
Rename the Free Software movement: NO!
>The big problem is that we don't all agree that these things are threats.
It is not the question if we agree if something is a threat or not. It is a question if we share the same fundamental values. If we agree that everyone who gets a copy of a GPL program should have the freedom to use, study, modify and share it than we had no problem with GPLv1 and GPLv2, we have no problem with GPLv3 and we will not have any problem with any version of the GPL in the future. If we don't agree on this fundamental value than of course we can disagree potential on every version of GPL.
If I release GPL'ed code and I own a patent on my algrothm, I expect to be able to enforce it.
So basically what you say is that you want to give your users the freedom to use, study, modify and share the software by copyright but deny them the same freedom by patent law. So at the end you have simply picked the wrong license. Decide if you want to give your users this freedom or not. If yes, than you have no problem with the GPL if not than of course you have a problem with GPL because GPL says something which you don't want to to so you should chose a different (non-free) license.
You could even say that you practise a fraud on someone if you give him a copyright license which says that he can do foo and bar and if he starts doing foo and bar you come with patent law and try to stop him.
>The GPL even covers this when it says: "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
>So you must pass the same freedoms on to the next guy. This includes the right to pick the BSD license.
No, the GPL relates to what is defined in the GPL and the BSDL isn't defined in the GPL.
Basically there are 3 possibilities:
1. All the code is licensed under "BSDL or GPL".
That would mean that everyone could pick the license he likes and can use, modify or distribute the code under GPL, BSDL or "BSDL or GPL"
2. Some Code is licensed under BSDL and some code is licensed under GPL.
Now as long as you distribute the entire code the GPL is the important license because the GPL has the same rules like the BSDL and some more. But now the code under BSDL will always be under BSDL and the code under GPL will always be under GPL. That means that you have to deliver always both licenses and mark which license covers which part of the code. If someone divides the code than only the license is valid which covers that piece of code.
3. Some code is licensed under BSDL and some Code is licensed under "BSDL or GPL"
In this case we would have the same situation like described in 2. The entire work would be licensed under "BSDL or GPL" but there would be some parts marked as BSDL only. Therefore you would always have to distribute under "BSDL or GPL" or split off the "BSDL only" part.
Now the question is what kind of situation matches to our problem?
I think we can rule out situation 2 because then also OpenBSD would have to follow the GPL and i don't think they would do this.
If i look at the license header, which states "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation." than it suggests that we have a situation like described in situation 1. Than everything the Linux guys did was OK.
We could also have a situation like described in 3.. Than it would be wrong what the Linux guys did. But on the other hand every diff i have seen uses only the "BSDL or GPL" language so that you can argue that if we are in situation 3 than the authors have failed to highlight the "BSDL only" part and suggested to the users that everything is licensed under both licenses by only using the "BSDL or GPL" language. Than it would be a bad license header created by the OpenBSD guys and as a result of it a misunderstanding between both parties. I think such a misunderstanding can be clarified by fixing the license header to make clear where are the "BSDL only" parts. Than the Linux guys can go on and either replace the BSD only parts or keep the complete license which would be than something like "foo and bar is licensed only under BSDL and for the rest you can choose GPL or BSDL".
1. Better hardware support especially for wlan and 3D graphic and with "better support" i don't mean proprietary drivers but free drivers or at least specs.
2. Free Java (IceTea) has to become ready to use and default on every GNU/Linux distribution
3. Free Flash (gnash, swfdec) have to improve and become default in all GNU/Linux distribution or even better part of the browsers.
>true, but while the GPLv2 only talks about what you can and cant do with the code, the v3 goes on to talk about what you can and cant do with hardware thats to interact with the code in binary form.
Neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 talks about what you can do with the code. You can do with the code (and with the hardware) whatever you want. But if you distribute the software you have to retain all four freedoms.
>i dont have a problem with tivo wanting to lock what can or cant be run on their device because basically they are into selling black boxes. but personally i would not bother as i would go for a generic box in combo with linux and mythtv. hell, it looks like with linuxMCE its a snap to set up: http://linuxmce.org/
If it would be just the hardware, than i would agree with you. But it is not at all about the hardware, it is about the software. If i put my code under the GPL i want that everyone who becomes a copy can use it, improve it and share it. If Tivo denies you this rights, whether by changing the license, by refusing to give you the source code, by using additional software to block you, by using hardware to block you or by any other technical or legal solution someone will find in the future, than Tivo violates the spirit of all GPLs and the license GPLv3.
>this is quite interesting, and he is right about the GPLv3. its kinds moved in the direction of the MS EULA. as in, "if you want to use our product you cant do these things" and then goes on to list just about everything interesting you can do with a computer ;)
Technically you can do everything you want with GPLv3 code. The only think you can't do is to deny your users freedom. But that's rather an ethical barrier than a technical one and exactly the same barrier which also exists in GPLv2 and which was form the beginning the entire purpose of the GPL.
>One thing I've always wondered is, if the GNU is all about 'open source' and
GNU isn't about Open Source, GNU is about Free Software!
>For instance, I understand that they're trying to promote reciprocal freedom, but *freedom* implies directly that, well, you shouldn't have drastic, overarching restrictions on what people are legally allowed to do with software. The GPL puts a lot of restrictions on what you can't do, and what you're required to do if you even get near it, link to it, or do anything else.
You can say it in one sentence:
The GPL gives you the freedom to do what you want but denies you the power to restrict the freedom of others.
Or:
Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.
>I often wonder how Linus ended up with GPLv2 in the first place?
Basically it wasn't Linus who chose the GPL for Linux. At the beginning Linus chose a non-free license and someone else (i don't remember the name) convinced him to replace the non-free license with the GPL. At least that's what Linus said in his book "Just for fun".
Having this in mind you won't be surprised in many other areas like the Bitkeeper incident or Linus comments about Free Software, GPLv3, DRM, etc.
Linus is a brilliant Hacker and i have a lot of respect for him and his work. But if it comes to Free Software and the political an social dimension of the culture technique software in the digital age than Linus is definitely the wrong to ask.
>Linux relicensing won't happen. It pretty much can't happen. Any contributor to any file that does not have "or later version" (and there are many) in the license would have to sign off on the change. Some of them are dead, so you'd probably have to track down their descendants / executors.
That's not quite correct. Sure it's would be hard to relicense Linux. Especially if you want to do it at once. But it can happen like Mozilla managed to relicense their code.
Probably the easiest way would be to ask any known (GPLv2 only) developer for permission, accept from now on only "GPLv2 or later" and wait some years. In 3-5 years almost 100% of Linux would be "GPLv2 or later" so that you could relicense relatively easy.
Yes, GPLv3 is compatible to the Apache License v2.
>Would everybody please read ESR's essay on "Goodbye, 'free software,' 'hello open source'"? Excerpt:
"We suggest that everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source". Open-source software. The open-source model. The open source culture. The Debian Open Source Guidelines. (In pitching this to the corporate world I'm also going to be invoking the idea of "peer review" a lot.)"
And here what Alan Cox has to say (to ESR and OpenSource):
Source: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/ 2007-February/msg01021.html
And of course everyone should read this http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-t he-point.html (already mentioned from someone else)
>However, GPL v2 is not compatible with GPL v3
If you use "GPLv2 or later" than it is compatible otherwise not. But this was clear from the beginning. Every new GPL will always be incompatible with the old GPLs that's why the "or later"-clause exist. The only way to make an new GPL compatible to a old GPL would be to make the new GPL equal to the old GPL and than you wouldn't need to write a new one.
>The incompatability stems from the incompatability between v2 and v3. v3 is not "backwards compatible"; nor is it compatible with other licenses.
GPLv3 is compatible with other licenses, it is even more compatible than GPLv2. GPLv3 will be compatible to all license to which GPLv2 is compatible. For a list see GPL(v2)-Compatible Free Software Licenses. GPLv3 will be at least also compatible with the Apache license and afaik the Eclipse license.
I disagree. Being neutral is one of the worse behavior in todays society.
environmental pollution? Is it ok or not? Maybe we should be neutral.discrimination? good or bad? Maybe we should be neutral.
enslave people? good or bad. Maybe we should be neutral.
starting the Iraq war? ok or not? Maybe we should be neutral.
etc.
People like to be neutral because than they don't have to think about (complex) subjects. They think by being neutral they keep them self out of politics. That's not true. Also neutral people influence politics and not to the good. Already Edmund Burke said: "If the good guys are doing nothing it will be enough for the evil to succeed".
Also Free Software and the digital age raises questions and people should think about it. Free Software exists for a special purpose. That's because people believe in freedom in the digital age. Allowing or supporting non-free software would not help this movement but would make it more difficult.
Everybody should think about the topics which are important to us and our world. Of couse everyone is free to form his own opinion but just being neutral is a really bad attitude. Not everything is good and not everything is bad, so we can't say everything or nothing (GNU/Linux requests Free Software? Than we also have to allow MS to forced people into digital chains? This would be a stupid implication).