Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people,
People like you, perhaps, who misinterpret him and put your words in his mouth? Maybe if you bothered to actually listen before spouting your bullshit, you might understand what RMS is saying. Maybe you should try reading RMS's own words, rather than what other people filter them into?
that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers.
Ahhh personal attacks... The last refuge of the wrong, and so exceedingly convincing, too.
As has been mentioned (many times) before, we're at step 3.
Understand that the very nature of Free software means that it can't get "gotten rid of", no matter how much money Microsoft throws at fighting it. The way things are at the moment, Free software just can't lose. Take a step back and realise that "losing" means being removed from society, so that it can't be used by anyone, and not having a small market share. Even if Free software doesn't end up with huge market share, informed people can still use and develop it, no matter what goes on in the rest of the software world. This is a very good thing; Free software is gaining popularity and momentum because lots of people are starting to see this.
IIRC, the original author of DeCSS did not originally intend the code as a means of expression; instead, he whipped up DeCSS in order to watch movies.
The intent of creating a work has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on its expressive content. This is the fatal flaw of your argument.
An example begs. You could write a beautifully enchanting poem with the sole purpose of getting some girl to sleep with you. But your motivation doesn't affect the poem. If the same poem were written to inspire people to donate to charity, it would still be the same poem, and it would still be just a poem. The qualities and characteristics of the poem don't depend on why it was written. It's just a poem - it just expresses something. The author may or may not have intended the poem to have particular expressions, but the author cannot prevent the poem from having expression. Even the null poem has expression. I'm not sure what it is (or isn't), but that's stop it from existing.
Expression just exists in works, it isn't only in works which are created in a certain set of ways. Works are expressive. If you create a work you cannot help but allow it to express something.
First, PDF *does not* prevent copying. In fact, Adobe went out of ther way to ensure that the PDF itself could indeed be legitimately passed around. The bits in question simply flag two conditions
And these conditions are used by PDF viewers to restrict access. The thing is, you need access in order to copy. I'm not talking about copying the whole file, I'm talking about copying a section out of the document, like a paragraph or image (don't go crawling to copyright, either, because quoting like this is often covered by fair use). So these access controls are effectively preventing copying.
1. Don't allow changes. This one simply (and quite reasonably) implements within a PDF the same requirement that exists even in many open source licenses: don't make changes to someone else's work and then pass on those changes as if they were the original author's.
You've missed the point. Passing off someone else's work as your own is called plagarism, and has nothing to do with copyright. People detected and combated this before PDF came along with its protection bit, you know, and the methods to do this are still applicable.
The point is that you may want to change the document while still acknowledging its authorship. I don't know about redistribution, but I'm fairly sure that if it's for private use then you have every right to make as many modifications as you like. This bit therefore restricts my personal liberties, and as shown actually acheives very little, since it requires the client to honour it.
2. Don't allow printing of the PDF. This is also quite reasonable, and there are many good reasons for allowing authors (or distributors) to specify this option: Sometimes, the document is large and may change frequently, therefore, allowing printing makes little sense, and can result in an organization incurring very high costs for users printing off their own personal copies of documents.
Where do you get off thinking you can tell me what I can and cannot do with my dead trees?
If there is the possibility that company has problems with people printing personal copies of large documents, the sensible company sends a memo telling its employees not to print personal copies of documents larger than X pages, rather, put in a request to the document manager who will organise professional printing of enough copies of the document.
And then there is the legal aspect - you often need to print documents when they have become evidence in court. If you don't, you could be liable for contempt of court or obstruction of justice (or something).
it's reasonable to have to actually *buy* the printed version if that's what you're after. (Again, it's generally cheaper, too.)
This evidence actually supports not having the print-restriction - if reasonable and economically motivated people will buy the professionally printed version, what need is there for the print-restriction? A few unreasonable people who insist on having poorer quality, more expensive copies? Let the idiots have their poorer quality! But don't restrict the reasonable person under the presumption that you can stop the unreasonable one from doing their unreasonable actions - that is just foolishness.
If you post PDF file on the Internet or on any kind of public network, you are, in essence, forfeiting any copyrights you may have had
This is utter rubbish, and a shame, too, because prior to this you made some excellent points about fair use.
Copyright exists precisely for the protection of a published work (as opposed to unpublished ones). You cannot say that the act of publishing in any way forfeits your copyright, legally or even practically, because the whole point of copyright is that you have control over the access and distribution of your published work.
What's the difference between your statement and the statement that when you publish a book you give up your copyright? You don't give up the copyright for the material form, why should you for the electronic form?
any form of protection is futile anyway
Except for legal protection, which copyright is afforded. Since the courts have the backing of government and police, they are the ones who are able to make you pay damages, etc. At the risk of suggesting an even more litigious society, people should rely less on arbitrary protections which don't work, such as these PDF copy-controls, and more on protections which actually work, such as legal ones and (strong) encryption.
Oh, he understands them alright. That's why he's starting to dig his heels in. The really cunning thing is that he knows the difference isn't obvious, particularly to Joe Sixpack. He knows that unless it's pointed out to them, they'll just keep on thinking "free" as in "free beer". And this is why he's deliberately clouding the issue, by using the word "free" in that way. You shouldn't be too surprised by this, though, because it supports his personal interests.
... career civil servants who... do a good deal of thinking...
You've obviously never watched the excellent (though very cynical) comedy "Yes, Minister" (or "Yes, Prime Minister"). Yes, civil servants think a lot - they think about how to keep their gravy train going, and how to set things up such that decisions are made the way they would like.
If the interface intercepts the nerve signaling (i.e., moving an arm in VR does not move the arm in reality) then the interface intercepts any conscious control of the autonomic system, and he breathes normally, regardless of what his brain is telling the rest of his body to do!
Wow, imagine the possibilities! You could have a VR where you can swim, and it feels like you're holding your breath for a real long time. Of course, IRL, you're breathing as normal, but the system is telling your lungs to breathe, and blocking the results from your brain...
And that's just a fairly simple example. "Limitation of the flesh" would have substantially less meaning with a VR interface "kludging" around those limitations for you.:)
... there's no reason to suppose that the Matrix itself also wasn't sentient.... This would explain why it didn't indiscriminately kill the rebels at any chance - it had stepped back, and decided not to interfere, and see who is the more resilient of the two.
Sounds like a pretty good description of God to me. And I'm not even a religious zealot or anything.:)
Nar, just noting the similarities in the names, that's all. Hell, after my comment I checked out the HOWTO again to see if I could have a shot at it now that I've bothered to go to XF4.:)
Check out MindTerm. It's a free (GPL) pure Java implementation of an ssh client. Works wonderfully as an applet under the common browsers. So the best way to be sure you can always access your account is to install this on your webserver, then all you need is a web browser with a Java runtime. This even allows you access from things like knee-capped kiosks, where all you get is a browser.
But the system is going to be non-invasive, and all of the arguments we're having have already been had within MS.
While that may be so, the motives of the arguers here and those at MS are almost certainly quite different. It's rare for MS to care about the same things as its customers.
For days after that point, if I even closed my eyes for a second, I would be in another Doom level, lobbing all sorts of artillery at various heinous creatures coming after me. It wouldn't stop.
Yeah, this reminds me of one time I'd been playing 1-1 deathmatch (over modem) until about 3 or 4 in the morning. I turned off the light to go to bed, but as I lay down into bed, a blurry red LED caught my eyes (which were having trouble focusing after the 6 or so hours of staring at the screen). I instantly recognised it as a rocket, hurtling directly towards me. I physically strafed out of its way, nearly falling out of bed!:) Realising what I'd just done was pretty disturbing, too.:)
The best thing is that I can still usually convince people to play an hour or two of DoomGL at LAN parties, which is a nice refreshing retro hit.:)
But this is not how copyright law defines distribution, and the GPLv2 clearly states it is operating under copyright law.
Yes, hence the public performance hoop RMS is thinking of jumping through.
If my friend uses my modified GIMP over the network, he is not receiving GIMP. No portion of the binary is being transmitted to him. What is the legal difference between his using my GIMP locally on my machine or using it remotely on my machine?
While he is not receiving your modified GIMP, the use of it is effectively unchanged. When the GPL (both 1 & 2) was written, the only way to use a program was to receive a distribution of the binary (or source) and run it on your computer. This is no longer true. It is possible to use programs over the Internet (ie. ASPs) without ever receiving the binary or source. This situation is just as bad as proprietary non-free software where you get a binary but no source, perhaps worse. Hence RMS wants to fix it.
This is the crucial point - that it is technically possible to allow people to use a program without ever 'distributing' it to those users, in the copyright sense of distribution.
This is similar to public performance, because a public performance of a song is not distributing the song to the listeners, but it is allowing them to hear and appreciate the song.
Contributing back to the community is merely a side effect of Free Software, not its goal.
Nonsense. That a free work can never be made non-free, either in its original form or as a derived work, is an explicitly stated goal of the FSF. They feel that free licenses like the BSD license aren't useful, because they don't guarantee the freedom of all derivative works like the GPL does.
Users only have the right to source code for those programs they possess of copy of.
And users have no right to license derivative works under anything but the GPL. This is a tradeoff between the rights of individuals and the rights of society as a whole, where the rights of society have won. It is more important to ensure that free software stays free than it is to allow derivatives to be licensed freely.
I do not restrict your freedom by putting a lock on my own door. I can only do that by putting a lock on *your* door.
No, but you can infringe upon the previous point if you lock your door, and your house contains a modified version of my free program. If that's for private use, fine, but (following the analogy) allowing people to stick their arms through your window to use your program is arguably not private use. By locking your door you can restrict my free access to the source of a derivative of a GPL program.
And that is to start regulating Public Performance. This would be a very radical thing to do, and the implications of opening this pandora's box should be thought out long and hard.
I have confidance that RMS will do nothing but that. He's in no hurry.
They only way to prevent owned derivitives is to own the original.
Under the current copyright system. It is plausible that a system could exist in which derivatives could be protected without requiring ownership.
Thus the ownership imposed in the GPL is more of a legal hoop that the FSF has to jump through in order to achieve its slated goals of free software. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical with opposing software ownership, and then using it as a means to the end of free software. The GPL only exists as this means as a result of the current copyright system system. It only endorses ownership in as much as it is forced to in order to have legal grounding in the current copyright system. If a solution could be found which did away with software ownership and still preserved the freeness of free software, I'm sure the FSF would jump all over it.
Personally, though, I've never been sure about how I feel about software ownership.
However, as the copyright holder, you are totally free to impose whatever restrictions you choose. It is perfectly acceptable to say that these restrictions are the same as the GPL, except with the following alterations/additions/whatever. The license you have applied is then not the GPL, but it may still be GPL compatible, depending on the alterations.
Then don't apply it to your software. Or modify it to suit your tastes. Although a modified version may not be free, or may be incompatible with the GPL. This would mean that you couldn't use GPL'd code in your program,and others couldn't use your code in their GPL'd programs, unless you were willing to license your code under the GPL.
Upon a second reading of the LGPL, it may be a violation of the LGPL to release non-libraries under that license.
Nonsense. You can apply any license to any work you like. I could write a book and GPL it if I wanted, even though it doesn't make much sense. The GPL defines "Program" as "any program or other work"; the LGPL defines "Library" as "any such software library or work". The "work" can be anything you have copyright of.
But wait! You're in violation of your license! Wha...? You heard me. The mythical Free Paper License requires all referenced content to be available under the conditions of either the FPL or the LFPL.
You can't be in violation of your own copyright license. You can't sue yourself for copyright infringement. The GPL doesn't require that all copies have certain properties, it requires that all people who have obtained the software under the GPL obey certain restrictions. You have not obtained the software under the GPL. In any case, since you're the copyright holder, you could always grant yourself a specific exception.:)
But the GPLv3 will regulate how my friends can use my modified copy of GIMP if they do so over the internet instead of physically walking to my residence.
The way I understood it, the use of your modified GIMP across the network counts as a rather wierd kind of "distribution". Thus, there would be no restrictions on how your friends could use your modified GIMP, but you would be required to make its source available to them, the same as if they had downloaded binaries from you and were running them on their machines.
Personally, I think this is a good thing. I don't see any substantial difference between downloading a binary and running it locally, and running that binary remotely on someone's web server, with the input/output of the program going from/to you. I don't see how you can make the I/O channels of your binary available across the web and claim that your modified GIMP binary is only for your own private use.
Adding clauses to the GPL preventing this will make the programs covered more free, because it means that improvements will make it back to the community, rather than being hidden behind a false "private use" ASP screen.
1) I write a GPL'ed application that links to a closed-source, proprietary library, such as Motif, and distribute just my application's source.
1) Read Section 3 of the GPLv2.
Incorrect. Section 3 of the GPL only deals with situations when binaries are distributed:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided...
Since the original poster said he'd only be distributing the source to his application, he is fine. However, if anyone down the track attempted to distribute binaries, then there'd be trouble. This means that you can link to any non-free library you like, but your application can only ever be distributed as source.
The copyright holder may add a specific exception to the license, allowing distribution of binaries linked to that specific library (or one providing equivalent functionality). This is like an extension of the system libraries clause. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think this would make the program any less free. I'm interested in what others may think of this.
There is also the additional problem that the license does not apply to the copyright holder. The only person who can be infringed against (and therefore subject to damages) by breaking the license is the copyright holder. Since it's unlikely that the copyright holder would seek damages against themselves, this means that they don't need to to abide by the conditions of the GPL. They can therefore distribute binaries linked to non-free libraries (even statically, if the non-free library allows it, though most non-free libraries forbid this method of redistribution, instead requiring the non-free library to be obtained directly from the author). However, anyone who receives these binaries may not redistribute them, because the GPL applies to them. This means that a copyright holder alone may distribute binaries linked to non-free libraries. The way around this is for the copyright holder to grant a specific exception in the license, as above, which allows anyone to redistribute binaries linked to the particular non-free library. Of course, if an application developer uses someone else's GPL'd code in their program which links to a non-free library, they may not grant an exception for that code, so they cannot distribute binaries at all, and the viral nature of the GPL is preserved. The other person may grant an exception if you ask them, but they have no obligation to.
(This last part always makes me feel uneasy; if I've got it wrong, please let me know.)
On the other hand, they explicitly discourage the use of public domain.
My understanding was that they discouraged the use of public domain because it doesn't afford the same protection against non-free derivative works that the GPL does. People are only required to own software (with the GPL) so far as to enforce (in the context of the current copyright system) the distribution and derivative rules. If stuff could be placed into the public domain such that all improvements to it were also public domain, then that would be great, but unfortunately the GPL is needed to enforce such a system.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people,
People like you, perhaps, who misinterpret him and put your words in his mouth? Maybe if you bothered to actually listen before spouting your bullshit, you might understand what RMS is saying. Maybe you should try reading RMS's own words, rather than what other people filter them into?
that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers.
Ahhh personal attacks... The last refuge of the wrong, and so exceedingly convincing, too.
If anyone is still ignorant about the OSS movement, they will now feel the urge to find out what it's all about.
Precisely. that's why you win after step 3.
As has been mentioned (many times) before, we're at step 3.
Understand that the very nature of Free software means that it can't get "gotten rid of", no matter how much money Microsoft throws at fighting it. The way things are at the moment, Free software just can't lose. Take a step back and realise that "losing" means being removed from society, so that it can't be used by anyone, and not having a small market share. Even if Free software doesn't end up with huge market share, informed people can still use and develop it, no matter what goes on in the rest of the software world. This is a very good thing; Free software is gaining popularity and momentum because lots of people are starting to see this.
That's one of the things this case is trying to fix. They want to make a statement that fair use takes priority over restrictive access control.
IIRC, the original author of DeCSS did not originally intend the code as a means of expression; instead, he whipped up DeCSS in order to watch movies.
The intent of creating a work has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on its expressive content. This is the fatal flaw of your argument.
An example begs. You could write a beautifully enchanting poem with the sole purpose of getting some girl to sleep with you. But your motivation doesn't affect the poem. If the same poem were written to inspire people to donate to charity, it would still be the same poem, and it would still be just a poem. The qualities and characteristics of the poem don't depend on why it was written. It's just a poem - it just expresses something. The author may or may not have intended the poem to have particular expressions, but the author cannot prevent the poem from having expression. Even the null poem has expression. I'm not sure what it is (or isn't), but that's stop it from existing.
Expression just exists in works, it isn't only in works which are created in a certain set of ways. Works are expressive. If you create a work you cannot help but allow it to express something.
First, PDF *does not* prevent copying. In fact, Adobe went out of ther way to ensure that the PDF itself could indeed be legitimately passed around. The bits in question simply flag two conditions
And these conditions are used by PDF viewers to restrict access. The thing is, you need access in order to copy. I'm not talking about copying the whole file, I'm talking about copying a section out of the document, like a paragraph or image (don't go crawling to copyright, either, because quoting like this is often covered by fair use). So these access controls are effectively preventing copying.
1. Don't allow changes. This one simply (and quite reasonably) implements within a PDF the same requirement that exists even in many open source licenses: don't make changes to someone else's work and then pass on those changes as if they were the original author's.
You've missed the point. Passing off someone else's work as your own is called plagarism, and has nothing to do with copyright. People detected and combated this before PDF came along with its protection bit, you know, and the methods to do this are still applicable.
The point is that you may want to change the document while still acknowledging its authorship. I don't know about redistribution, but I'm fairly sure that if it's for private use then you have every right to make as many modifications as you like. This bit therefore restricts my personal liberties, and as shown actually acheives very little, since it requires the client to honour it.
2. Don't allow printing of the PDF. This is also quite reasonable, and there are many good reasons for allowing authors (or distributors) to specify this option: Sometimes, the document is large and may change frequently, therefore, allowing printing makes little sense, and can result in an organization incurring very high costs for users printing off their own personal copies of documents.
Where do you get off thinking you can tell me what I can and cannot do with my dead trees?
If there is the possibility that company has problems with people printing personal copies of large documents, the sensible company sends a memo telling its employees not to print personal copies of documents larger than X pages, rather, put in a request to the document manager who will organise professional printing of enough copies of the document.
And then there is the legal aspect - you often need to print documents when they have become evidence in court. If you don't, you could be liable for contempt of court or obstruction of justice (or something).
it's reasonable to have to actually *buy* the printed version if that's what you're after. (Again, it's generally cheaper, too.)
This evidence actually supports not having the print-restriction - if reasonable and economically motivated people will buy the professionally printed version, what need is there for the print-restriction? A few unreasonable people who insist on having poorer quality, more expensive copies? Let the idiots have their poorer quality! But don't restrict the reasonable person under the presumption that you can stop the unreasonable one from doing their unreasonable actions - that is just foolishness.
If you post PDF file on the Internet or on any kind of public network, you are, in essence, forfeiting any copyrights you may have had
This is utter rubbish, and a shame, too, because prior to this you made some excellent points about fair use.
Copyright exists precisely for the protection of a published work (as opposed to unpublished ones). You cannot say that the act of publishing in any way forfeits your copyright, legally or even practically, because the whole point of copyright is that you have control over the access and distribution of your published work.
What's the difference between your statement and the statement that when you publish a book you give up your copyright? You don't give up the copyright for the material form, why should you for the electronic form?
any form of protection is futile anyway
Except for legal protection, which copyright is afforded. Since the courts have the backing of government and police, they are the ones who are able to make you pay damages, etc. At the risk of suggesting an even more litigious society, people should rely less on arbitrary protections which don't work, such as these PDF copy-controls, and more on protections which actually work, such as legal ones and (strong) encryption.
Oh, he understands them alright. That's why he's starting to dig his heels in. The really cunning thing is that he knows the difference isn't obvious, particularly to Joe Sixpack. He knows that unless it's pointed out to them, they'll just keep on thinking "free" as in "free beer". And this is why he's deliberately clouding the issue, by using the word "free" in that way. You shouldn't be too surprised by this, though, because it supports his personal interests.
You probably want CFLAGS=-S
:)
... career civil servants who ... do a good deal of thinking ...
You've obviously never watched the excellent (though very cynical) comedy "Yes, Minister" (or "Yes, Prime Minister"). Yes, civil servants think a lot - they think about how to keep their gravy train going, and how to set things up such that decisions are made the way they would like.
If the interface intercepts the nerve signaling (i.e., moving an arm in VR does not move the arm in reality) then the interface intercepts any conscious control of the autonomic system, and he breathes normally, regardless of what his brain is telling the rest of his body to do!
:)
Wow, imagine the possibilities! You could have a VR where you can swim, and it feels like you're holding your breath for a real long time. Of course, IRL, you're breathing as normal, but the system is telling your lungs to breathe, and blocking the results from your brain...
And that's just a fairly simple example. "Limitation of the flesh" would have substantially less meaning with a VR interface "kludging" around those limitations for you.
... there's no reason to suppose that the Matrix itself also wasn't sentient. ... This would explain why it didn't indiscriminately kill the rebels at any chance - it had stepped back, and decided not to interfere, and see who is the more resilient of the two.
:)
Sounds like a pretty good description of God to me. And I'm not even a religious zealot or anything.
Nar, just noting the similarities in the names, that's all. Hell, after my comment I checked out the HOWTO again to see if I could have a shot at it now that I've bothered to go to XF4. :)
The same genius who came up with Xinerama?
Check out MindTerm. It's a free (GPL) pure Java implementation of an ssh client. Works wonderfully as an applet under the common browsers. So the best way to be sure you can always access your account is to install this on your webserver, then all you need is a web browser with a Java runtime. This even allows you access from things like knee-capped kiosks, where all you get is a browser.
But the system is going to be non-invasive, and all of the arguments we're having have already been had within MS.
While that may be so, the motives of the arguers here and those at MS are almost certainly quite different. It's rare for MS to care about the same things as its customers.
For days after that point, if I even closed my eyes for a second, I would be in another Doom level, lobbing all sorts of artillery at various heinous creatures coming after me. It wouldn't stop.
:) Realising what I'd just done was pretty disturbing, too. :)
:)
Yeah, this reminds me of one time I'd been playing 1-1 deathmatch (over modem) until about 3 or 4 in the morning. I turned off the light to go to bed, but as I lay down into bed, a blurry red LED caught my eyes (which were having trouble focusing after the 6 or so hours of staring at the screen). I instantly recognised it as a rocket, hurtling directly towards me. I physically strafed out of its way, nearly falling out of bed!
The best thing is that I can still usually convince people to play an hour or two of DoomGL at LAN parties, which is a nice refreshing retro hit.
But this is not how copyright law defines distribution, and the GPLv2 clearly states it is operating under copyright law.
Yes, hence the public performance hoop RMS is thinking of jumping through.
If my friend uses my modified GIMP over the network, he is not receiving GIMP. No portion of the binary is being transmitted to him. What is the legal difference between his using my GIMP locally on my machine or using it remotely on my machine?
While he is not receiving your modified GIMP, the use of it is effectively unchanged. When the GPL (both 1 & 2) was written, the only way to use a program was to receive a distribution of the binary (or source) and run it on your computer. This is no longer true. It is possible to use programs over the Internet (ie. ASPs) without ever receiving the binary or source. This situation is just as bad as proprietary non-free software where you get a binary but no source, perhaps worse. Hence RMS wants to fix it.
This is the crucial point - that it is technically possible to allow people to use a program without ever 'distributing' it to those users, in the copyright sense of distribution.
This is similar to public performance, because a public performance of a song is not distributing the song to the listeners, but it is allowing them to hear and appreciate the song.
Contributing back to the community is merely a side effect of Free Software, not its goal.
Nonsense. That a free work can never be made non-free, either in its original form or as a derived work, is an explicitly stated goal of the FSF. They feel that free licenses like the BSD license aren't useful, because they don't guarantee the freedom of all derivative works like the GPL does.
Users only have the right to source code for those programs they possess of copy of.
And users have no right to license derivative works under anything but the GPL. This is a tradeoff between the rights of individuals and the rights of society as a whole, where the rights of society have won. It is more important to ensure that free software stays free than it is to allow derivatives to be licensed freely.
I do not restrict your freedom by putting a lock on my own door. I can only do that by putting a lock on *your* door.
No, but you can infringe upon the previous point if you lock your door, and your house contains a modified version of my free program. If that's for private use, fine, but (following the analogy) allowing people to stick their arms through your window to use your program is arguably not private use. By locking your door you can restrict my free access to the source of a derivative of a GPL program.
And that is to start regulating Public Performance. This would be a very radical thing to do, and the implications of opening this pandora's box should be thought out long and hard.
I have confidance that RMS will do nothing but that. He's in no hurry.
They only way to prevent owned derivitives is to own the original.
Under the current copyright system. It is plausible that a system could exist in which derivatives could be protected without requiring ownership.
Thus the ownership imposed in the GPL is more of a legal hoop that the FSF has to jump through in order to achieve its slated goals of free software. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical with opposing software ownership, and then using it as a means to the end of free software. The GPL only exists as this means as a result of the current copyright system system. It only endorses ownership in as much as it is forced to in order to have legal grounding in the current copyright system. If a solution could be found which did away with software ownership and still preserved the freeness of free software, I'm sure the FSF would jump all over it.
Personally, though, I've never been sure about how I feel about software ownership.
You can't modify it and still call it the GPL.
However, as the copyright holder, you are totally free to impose whatever restrictions you choose. It is perfectly acceptable to say that these restrictions are the same as the GPL, except with the following alterations/additions/whatever. The license you have applied is then not the GPL, but it may still be GPL compatible, depending on the alterations.
The way I understood it, the use of your modified GIMP across the network counts as a rather wierd kind of "distribution".
Or rather, it doesn't at the moment, but it should, and this is what RMS is trying to fix.
I'm sorry to ask it, but who are "we"?
,and others couldn't use your code in their GPL'd programs, unless you were willing to license your code under the GPL.
:)
The Free Software Foundation, authors of the GPL.
The GPL is a bit too restrictive for my tastes.
Then don't apply it to your software. Or modify it to suit your tastes. Although a modified version may not be free, or may be incompatible with the GPL. This would mean that you couldn't use GPL'd code in your program
Upon a second reading of the LGPL, it may be a violation of the LGPL to release non-libraries under that license.
Nonsense. You can apply any license to any work you like. I could write a book and GPL it if I wanted, even though it doesn't make much sense. The GPL defines "Program" as "any program or other work"; the LGPL defines "Library" as "any such software library or work". The "work" can be anything you have copyright of.
But wait! You're in violation of your license! Wha...? You heard me. The mythical Free Paper License requires all referenced content to be available under the conditions of either the FPL or the LFPL.
You can't be in violation of your own copyright license. You can't sue yourself for copyright infringement. The GPL doesn't require that all copies have certain properties, it requires that all people who have obtained the software under the GPL obey certain restrictions. You have not obtained the software under the GPL. In any case, since you're the copyright holder, you could always grant yourself a specific exception.
But the GPLv3 will regulate how my friends can use my modified copy of GIMP if they do so over the internet instead of physically walking to my residence.
The way I understood it, the use of your modified GIMP across the network counts as a rather wierd kind of "distribution". Thus, there would be no restrictions on how your friends could use your modified GIMP, but you would be required to make its source available to them, the same as if they had downloaded binaries from you and were running them on their machines.
Personally, I think this is a good thing. I don't see any substantial difference between downloading a binary and running it locally, and running that binary remotely on someone's web server, with the input/output of the program going from/to you. I don't see how you can make the I/O channels of your binary available across the web and claim that your modified GIMP binary is only for your own private use.
Adding clauses to the GPL preventing this will make the programs covered more free, because it means that improvements will make it back to the community, rather than being hidden behind a false "private use" ASP screen.
1) I write a GPL'ed application that links to a closed-source, proprietary library, such as Motif, and distribute just my application's source.
...
1) Read Section 3 of the GPLv2.
Incorrect. Section 3 of the GPL only deals with situations when binaries are distributed:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided
Since the original poster said he'd only be distributing the source to his application, he is fine. However, if anyone down the track attempted to distribute binaries, then there'd be trouble. This means that you can link to any non-free library you like, but your application can only ever be distributed as source.
The copyright holder may add a specific exception to the license, allowing distribution of binaries linked to that specific library (or one providing equivalent functionality). This is like an extension of the system libraries clause. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think this would make the program any less free. I'm interested in what others may think of this.
There is also the additional problem that the license does not apply to the copyright holder. The only person who can be infringed against (and therefore subject to damages) by breaking the license is the copyright holder. Since it's unlikely that the copyright holder would seek damages against themselves, this means that they don't need to to abide by the conditions of the GPL. They can therefore distribute binaries linked to non-free libraries (even statically, if the non-free library allows it, though most non-free libraries forbid this method of redistribution, instead requiring the non-free library to be obtained directly from the author). However, anyone who receives these binaries may not redistribute them, because the GPL applies to them. This means that a copyright holder alone may distribute binaries linked to non-free libraries. The way around this is for the copyright holder to grant a specific exception in the license, as above, which allows anyone to redistribute binaries linked to the particular non-free library. Of course, if an application developer uses someone else's GPL'd code in their program which links to a non-free library, they may not grant an exception for that code, so they cannot distribute binaries at all, and the viral nature of the GPL is preserved. The other person may grant an exception if you ask them, but they have no obligation to.
(This last part always makes me feel uneasy; if I've got it wrong, please let me know.)
On the other hand, they explicitly discourage the use of public domain.
My understanding was that they discouraged the use of public domain because it doesn't afford the same protection against non-free derivative works that the GPL does. People are only required to own software (with the GPL) so far as to enforce (in the context of the current copyright system) the distribution and derivative rules. If stuff could be placed into the public domain such that all improvements to it were also public domain, then that would be great, but unfortunately the GPL is needed to enforce such a system.