We've just about completed our backlog and have started taking new projects. You should expect an invitation by the end of the year. Conservancy has been very careful not to accept new projects until we're absolutely sure we have the resources to take care of them.
I asked the Slashdot folks to make the video available in a format viewable with Free Software. I've sent an email to ask to make sure that happens. Unlike RMS, I don't necessarily object to videos of me being available in proprietary formats, as long as they are *also* available in a format viewable with Free Software.
I suspect this was just a communication problem between me and the interviewer. It should get resolved.
I agree the victory is not "major", but "important". As for Samsung, they already settled their part of this case and are (to my knowledge) in compliance on their TV products.
I cannot figure out why the headline says that the EFF won this case. This case was brought by the Software Freedom Conservancy, with the Software Freedom Law Center acting as the Conservancy's legal counsel. The EFF was not, nor has ever been to my knowledge, involved in anything to do with the GPL.
Also, winning the whole case is probably inaccurate. What's been achieved here is a permanent injunction and judgment against one of the violators. Thus, the case against Westinghouse has been won, but there are other defendants in the case as well.
I'm heavily involved in the FLOSS non-profit world. I have a Master's Degree in Computer Science that has not done all that much for me. I regret getting it.
If you don't plan to teach high school or college, then you would be better served getting a degree in another field. For example, getting an MBA or a law degree might make it possible for you to broaden the range of things you can do. (I'm against getting a law degree, but for other reasons.)
If you want to go into not-for-profit or governmental policy work in computing, getting an MPA (Master's in Public Administration) would be good.
In short, your professors want you to do what they did. Given that B.S. degrees are not as valuable as they once were, it's worthwhile to have some sort of graduate degree, but getting it in another field will expand your horizons and opportunities and also give you more perspective as a computer scientist/engineer.
Even after years of conversations with us in the FLOSS community, Matt still doesn't get it. He's completely focused on “businesses with a codebase that release it under some license”. He doesn't understand community-driven software that isn't tied to on specific corporate entity.
The GPL is specifically designed for community-driven software that is not tied to one company. Matt could very well be right about the limited, pro-corporate world he occupies; it could very well be better for them to use the Apache license.
However, individuals and very small contracting agencies benefit best when they can be put on equal footing with the big guys. The only types of licenses that do this are copyleft licenses.
Finally, declaring that people's life's work trying to make the world a better place — even if you disagree with their politics — is disingenuous at best. I've spent most of my adult life working to make the GPL and the codebases around it better. I'm sorry to hear that Matt thinks I've been busy dumping radioactive waste on his world.
I used to run the GPL enforcement efforts at FSF. Since I left FSF, I
am involved with similar work now that I'm with the Software Freedom Law
Center.
The first thing to do is a always to notify the copyright
holders of the software in question. They are the only people who have
the power to carry out an GPL enforcement action. Once the copyright
holders want to do the enforcement, then you could have them contact the
Software Freedom Law Center for help. We do pro bono GPL enforcement for
community projects when we can. We can't promise to take on every client
who contacts us, but I am sure a GPL enforcement case with good facts
would get serious consideration.
Mentioning the EFF in this context is sheer confusion, though. EFF has
nothing to do with issues related to Free Software, they don't hold any
copyrights on software.
Poker in Boston and Free Software Community
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Outside of my day job as ED of FSF, I am very avid poker player, and have
been playing poker profitably since even before I knew what Free Software
was. About a year and a half ago, I began to get more serious about
playing when I (at long last) discovered how close Foxwoods is to Boston,
and how many home poker games run in the Boston area (although precious
few of them are public-transit accessible). Indeed, poker is booming
here: even The Boston Globe ran an article on 22 April 2004 about our
poker scene.
I play in a Tuesday home game run in the home of a Computer Science
graduate student from a nearby University. Although some complain about
the fact that the chips are all in "power of 2" denominations, that game
does in fact draw a great mix of geeks and non-geeks. Occasionally there
is geek talk at the table, but more often, it's not.
I have found, actually, that poker in general and home poker in particular
are excellent opportunities for geeks to apply their native skills to
something new and exciting, while meeting people outside their regular
sphere. Also, working on "reading" people, which is central in the higher
limits and in "big bet" poker, can help geeks learn the empathy skills
that a purely technical focus often neglects.
Finally, for those of you in the Free Software world who would like to see
Free Software Internet poker, I urge you to look at Mekensleep's
work. While they are creating a general GPL'd engine for online
gaming, they are focusing their efforts foremost on poker. I hope some
will choose to contribute to the project.
Oh, and if anyone is looking for a home game, be sure to check out this site to find one.
* gnuftp, the FTP server for the GNU project was root compromised.
* After substantial investigation, we don't believe that any GNU
source has been compromised.
* To be extra-careful, we are verifying known, trusted secure
checksums of all files before putting them back on the FTP site.
Events Concerning Cracking of Gnuftp
A root compromise and a Trojan horse were discovered on gnuftp.gnu.org, the FTP server of the GNU project. The machine appears to have been cracked in March 2003, but we only very recently discovered the crack. The modus operandi of the cracker shows that (s)he was interested primarily in using gnuftp to collect passwords and as a launching point to attack other machines. It appears that the machine was cracked using a ptrace exploit immediately after the exploit was posted on bugtraq.
(For the ptrace bug, an root-shell exploit available on 17 March 2003, and
a working fix was not available on linux-kernel until the following week.
Evidence found on the machine indicates that were cracked during that
week.)
Given the nature of the compromise and the length of time the machine was compromised, we have spent the last few weeks verifying the integrity of the GNU source code stored on gnuftp. Most of this work is done, and the remaining work is primarily for files that were uploaded since early 2003, as our backups from that period could also theoretically be compromised.
Historical Integrity Checks
We have compared the md5sum of each source code file (such as.tar.gz,.tar.bz2, diff's, etc.) on ftp.gnu.org with a known good data. The file, ftp://ftp.gnu.org/before-2003-08-01.md5sums.asc, contains a list of files in the format:
MD5SUM FILE [REASON,... REASON]
The REASONs are a list of reasons why we believe that md5sum is good for that file. The file as a whole is GPG-signed.
Remaining Files
The files that have not been checked are listed in the root directory as "MISSING-FILES". We are in the process of asking GNU maintainers for trusted secure checksums of those files before we put them in place.
We have lots of evidence now to believe that no source has been compromised -- including the MO of the cracker, the fact that every file we've checked so far isn't compromised, and that searches for standard source trojans turned up nothing.
However, we don't want to put files up until we've had a known good source confirm that the checksums are correct.
Alpha FTP Site
The Alpha FTP site at ftp://alpha.gnu.org/ has been a lower priority for us, but we plan to follow the same procedure there.
- -- Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director Free Software Foundation | Phone: +1-617-542-5942 59 Temple Place, Suite 330 | Fax: +1-617-542-2652 Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA | Web: http://www.gnu.org
Clarification from FSF on Section 6 of LGPL
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 4, Informative
LGPL's Section 6 allows you to make new works that link with the LGPL'ed
code, and license those new works any way you see fit. Only the LGPL'ed
code itself must remain Free. Such 'client code' (as mentioned in the
story posting) can even be proprietary; it need not be LGPL'ed. LGPL's
Section 6 does place some requirements on what you do, but that is only to
make sure that people can effectively exercise their freedoms to copy,
modify, and redistribute the LGPL'ed code.
-- Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
We do request that if you download the book rather than buy it, that you
make a donation to the Free Software
Foundation instead to help offset the cost of producing and formatting
the book for publication. Indeed, I am frankly afraid that our meager
savannah resources will collapse from the slashdot effect.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
I hope that you will choose to give to
FSF and EFF equally. The very evening that Lessig made his challenge
at the conference, he also spoke at an FSF fund-raiser, so I know that he
supports the mission of both organizations.
I strongly believe that the battles that are coming will require that FSF
(where I work) and EFF both be as strong as possible. I pay $107.40
annually for my home Internet service (a cheap 56K dialup). I am today
renewing my annual donation to EFF, increasing my usual amount from $65 to
$107.40. I just yesterday pledged $120 to FSF for 2003. (Eben Moglen,
BTW, recently
gave substantially more than that). I hope that you will choose to
support both organizations at the same level as your ISP charges (or split
the amount of your annual ISP charges equally between FSF and EFF).
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
Epson has been negotiating in good faith with us to bring their product
into compliance with the terms of the GNU GPL and LPGL. We are moving as
fast as we can to assist them in their efforts to comply, but with our
limited resources we can only move so fast. We hope that the matter will
be resolved soon.
Epson has been much more friendly than most violators. Epson on their own
chose to put up that web page and admit their violation publicly. We did
not require them to do so. Almost always, compliance is reached through
private discussions between the Free Software Foundation and the violating
party. Only rarely (usually because a third party posts on slashdot;)
does the public even become aware of the compliance efforts underway.
We at FSF have spent a few minutes reviewing Mr. Asay's paper. We are
glad to see that someone who once took a clear anti-GPL stance now claims
an "admiration" for it. We noticed the paper contained a number of email
quotes from our founder, Richard Stallman, and our General Counsel, Eben
Moglen. The quotes appear to be taken from various email
conversations that Asay conducted with Moglen and Stallman separately.
Quoting email out of context is always tricky, and the conflict and
confusion with our official statements regarding the GNU GPL are apparent
rather than real.
We do, from time to time, have occasion to clarify our views on the GNU
GPL, and we work hard to be responsive to questions from the community on
them. This does serve to generate a lot of email traffic concerning the
Foundation's opinions on GPL, and out of context pieces of the whole of
such correspondence can be confusing. When we get pieces together that
are particular good and clear, we post them on our philosophy page, as we did
with Eben
Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GNU GPL, and in our GNU GPL FAQ.
As for the GNU GPL, version 3, we had indeed long ago seen Mr. Harris'
proposal, but we did not feel it was representative of our plans for next
version of the license. The copyright of the so-called draft of GPL
Version 3 distributed alongside the article, thus, is incorrectly
attributed to the Free Software Foundation. We do not hold copyright on
it, nor did we have a hand in drafting it.
Efforts for development of real GNU GPL, Version 3 continue within the
Foundation. We of course expect to have extensive public discussion
before any draft is finalized as the official new version of the license.
In March 2002, We approved the
Affero GPL, which includes a draft of one major provision we are
considering for the next version of the GNU GPL. Of course, when we do
announce that a draft copy of actual "GNU GPL, Version 3" is available, it
will certainly come directly from the Foundation.
Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
Actually, this is a big point of concern for us the Free Software
Foundation. We agree with bwt (the poster) that initiatives like DRM and
so-called "trusted computing" mean that the issue raised in his post must
be looked at differently.
What concerns us most is the thin layer between hardware and software:
items like the BIOS and flash ROM. That layer is ripe for DRM and other
technologies. That issue is quite different from Stallman's essay
mentioned in the post. This isn't an issue of Free (as in freedom)
hardware, but is about a matter of that "thin layer" of software where DRM
will likely dwell.
FSF is currently extremely short on resources, but we hope to put at least
some force behind initiatives to create Free Software in this area. In
some sense, it is the last frontier for freedom on our computers. Indeed,
the only proprietary software code anywhere in my computer is that which
lives in the BIOS. Before now, the issue was not so strategically
significant, but the fact that DRM technologies may soon live in that very
BIOS makes it more significant than ever.
If anyone has an interest and reverse engineering experience, and would
like involved with working on the free BIOS projects, particularly for
laptop devices, please contact me.
Also, please contact me if you would like to donate to a restricted fund
for this effort, as we are considering setting one up if there is
substantial interest.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
I was quoted a bit out of context in this article. Here are the full
statements that I recall making, that were quoted only in part:
" [ For a distribution business, ] I think that it's a
wrong-headed approach to mix free and non-Free Software, because it
leaves corporate users in a dilemma: they don't know off-hand what parts
of the distribution they can freely copy around the company and what
parts they can't."
and:
"Many users care about freedom, and those users don't want
this non-Free Software in their distributions."
I just wanted to clarify the statements, because I don't believe they were
as sensational as the article makes them out to be.
[ Here's a shortened version of a comment I posted when Barr's article
was originally slashdotted, that is pertinent here.
"Change your name before I come" is RMS' personal requirement when accepting a speaking
engagement. Actually, other FSF speakers often speak to groups that call
themselves "Linux" groups. We ask only that the advertising and press
material about our particular speech call the system, GNU/Linux.
Of course, when I and other FSF speakers make a speech, one of the
items on our agenda is to ask such groups, as a favor to the GNU project,
to change their name and/or documents to say "GNU/Linux" consistently.
While it is RMS' personal demand that the name change occur as a
term to accept the engagement, the FSF does not, as an organization,
demand such name changes. We simply request them.
Comparing it to Microsoft's tactics is out of proportion. FSF firmly
stands for free speech rights. We assert your right to call the operating
system anything you like; we request as a favor that you call it
GNU/Linux.
RMS is a highly sought-after speaker. As it turns out, since he is not
(nor never has been) paid a salary by the FSF, he collects speaker fees to
help pay for his living expenses. As with any speaker, it's his
prerogative to set the terms of his speaking engagements. Indeed, every
speaker has his or her own set of requirements. (AAMOF, ESR's are available
online.) Personally, I have a rule that there must be vegetarian
restaurants that someone can take me to in the towns I visit. Of course,
FSF doesn't take a position on vegetarianism, but it's a personal need of
mine that I can't ignore---even when I am speaking on behalf of FSF.
While RMS won't come to speak for your group if it's called a "Linux"
group, I'd be happy to come, as would many of the other FSF speakers.
While I am there, I am, of course, going to ask you to change the
name of the group. But, please note the key point here: just because RMS
sets a personal rule doesn't mean it is ipso facto FSF policy.
While it is RMS' personal demand that the name change occur as a term
to accept the engagement, the FSF does not, as an organization, demand
such name changes. We simply request them.
GPL never stood for "GNU Public License", actually. It has stood for "General Public License" since version 1 in Feb. 1989. Before that, each GNU program had its own license: "The GNU Emacs Public License", etc. The General Public License generalized them all.
This article misrepresents some of RMS' personal positions as positions of
FSF as a whole. It is indeed correct that RMS will not speak to groups
that call the whole GNU/Linux operating
system by the name of "Linux".
However, this is RMS' personal requirement when accepting a speaking
engagement. Actually, other FSF speakers often speak to groups that call
themselves "Linux" groups. We ask only that the advertising and press
material about our particular speech call the system, GNU/Linux.
Of course, when I and other FSF speakers make a speech, one of the
items on our agenda is to ask such groups, as a favor to the GNU project,
to change their name and/or documents to say "GNU/Linux" consistently.
While it is RMS' personal demand that the name change occur as a
term to accept the engagement, the FSF does not, as an organization,
demand such name changes. We simply request them.
Comparing it to Microsoft's tactics is out of proportion. FSF firmly
stands for free speech rights. We assert your right to call the operating
system anything you like; we request as a favor that you call it
GNU/Linux.
RMS is a highly sought-after speaker. As it turns out, since he is not
(nor never has been) paid a salary by the FSF, he collects speaker fees to
help pay for his living expenses. As with any speaker, it's his
prerogative to set the terms of his speaking engagements. Indeed, every
speaker has his or her own set of requirements. (AAMOF, ESR's are available
online.) Personally, I have a rule that there must be vegetarian
restaurants that someone can take me to in the towns I visit. Of course,
FSF doesn't take a position on vegetarianism, but it's a personal need of
mine that I can't ignore---even when I am speaking on behalf of FSF.
While RMS won't come to speak for your group if it's called a "Linux"
group, I'd be happy to come, as would many of the other FSF speakers.
While I am there, I am, of course, going to ask you to change the
name of the group. But, please note the key point here: just because RMS
sets a personal rule doesn't mean it is ipso facto FSF policy.
I think that point gets to the center of the problem with Barr's article.
It seems to suggest that every position that RMS takes is automatically
FSF policy. Of course, as our president and founder, many of RMS'
personal positions match FSF policy exactly. But, most of them don't; RMS' personal website is full of
personal positions that aren't FSF policy.
P.S. Finally, there is a factual error in the article. the GPL is the
"General Public License". The G stands for General, not GNU. I usually
say "GNU GPL" to make that clear.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote A Requiem for Ian Murdock.
Lord Crc,
We've just about completed our backlog and have started taking new projects. You should expect an invitation by the end of the year. Conservancy has been very careful not to accept new projects until we're absolutely sure we have the resources to take care of them.
I asked the Slashdot folks to make the video available in a format viewable with Free Software. I've sent an email to ask to make sure that happens. Unlike RMS, I don't necessarily object to videos of me being available in proprietary formats, as long as they are *also* available in a format viewable with Free Software.
I suspect this was just a communication problem between me and the interviewer. It should get resolved.
I agree the victory is not "major", but "important". As for Samsung, they already settled their part of this case and are (to my knowledge) in compliance on their TV products.
— bkuhn, President, Software Freedom Conservancy
Slashdot readers might be interested to read the actual judgment as issued by the Court, which is available Conservancy's announcement of the decision. I also wrote a blog post about the decision that may be of interest.
— bkuhn, President, Software Freedom Conservancy
I cannot figure out why the headline says that the EFF won this case. This case was brought by the Software Freedom Conservancy, with the Software Freedom Law Center acting as the Conservancy's legal counsel. The EFF was not, nor has ever been to my knowledge, involved in anything to do with the GPL.
Also, winning the whole case is probably inaccurate. What's been achieved here is a permanent injunction and judgment against one of the violators. Thus, the case against Westinghouse has been won, but there are other defendants in the case as well.
— bkuhn, President, Software Freedom Conservancy
It was reported that the paper is to be presented at a peer reviewed conference. Anyway, even if the findings are accurate, it doesn't really impact the security of any productions systems. I've written a more extensive discussion of this issue, and how people jump to bad conclusions about academic articles like this one.
I'm heavily involved in the FLOSS non-profit world. I have a Master's Degree in Computer Science that has not done all that much for me. I regret getting it.
If you don't plan to teach high school or college, then you would be better served getting a degree in another field. For example, getting an MBA or a law degree might make it possible for you to broaden the range of things you can do. (I'm against getting a law degree, but for other reasons.)
If you want to go into not-for-profit or governmental policy work in computing, getting an MPA (Master's in Public Administration) would be good.
In short, your professors want you to do what they did. Given that B.S. degrees are not as valuable as they once were, it's worthwhile to have some sort of graduate degree, but getting it in another field will expand your horizons and opportunities and also give you more perspective as a computer scientist/engineer.
Even after years of conversations with us in the FLOSS community, Matt still doesn't get it. He's completely focused on “businesses with a codebase that release it under some license”. He doesn't understand community-driven software that isn't tied to on specific corporate entity.
The GPL is specifically designed for community-driven software that is not tied to one company. Matt could very well be right about the limited, pro-corporate world he occupies; it could very well be better for them to use the Apache license.
However, individuals and very small contracting agencies benefit best when they can be put on equal footing with the big guys. The only types of licenses that do this are copyleft licenses.
Finally, declaring that people's life's work trying to make the world a better place — even if you disagree with their politics — is disingenuous at best. I've spent most of my adult life working to make the GPL and the codebases around it better. I'm sorry to hear that Matt thinks I've been busy dumping radioactive waste on his world.
I think the fundamental problem is that FLOSS community needs diversity and cannot be tied to a single for-profit entity. For a project to succeed with a healthy community, it needs individual developers or a non-profit entity (run by developers) to control it. I've written a blog post about this specific issue in response to Monty's linked in the main article.
I used to run the GPL enforcement efforts at FSF. Since I left FSF, I am involved with similar work now that I'm with the Software Freedom Law Center.
The first thing to do is a always to notify the copyright holders of the software in question. They are the only people who have the power to carry out an GPL enforcement action. Once the copyright holders want to do the enforcement, then you could have them contact the Software Freedom Law Center for help. We do pro bono GPL enforcement for community projects when we can. We can't promise to take on every client who contacts us, but I am sure a GPL enforcement case with good facts would get serious consideration.
Mentioning the EFF in this context is sheer confusion, though. EFF has nothing to do with issues related to Free Software, they don't hold any copyrights on software.
Over at the Software Freedom Law Center, we've published a white paper regarding the new rules. That might be of interest to some.
I play in a Tuesday home game run in the home of a Computer Science graduate student from a nearby University. Although some complain about the fact that the chips are all in "power of 2" denominations, that game does in fact draw a great mix of geeks and non-geeks. Occasionally there is geek talk at the table, but more often, it's not.
I have found, actually, that poker in general and home poker in particular are excellent opportunities for geeks to apply their native skills to something new and exciting, while meeting people outside their regular sphere. Also, working on "reading" people, which is central in the higher limits and in "big bet" poker, can help geeks learn the empathy skills that a purely technical focus often neglects.
Finally, for those of you in the Free Software world who would like to see Free Software Internet poker, I urge you to look at Mekensleep's work. While they are creating a general GPL'd engine for online gaming, they are focusing their efforts foremost on poker. I hope some will choose to contribute to the project.
Oh, and if anyone is looking for a home game, be sure to check out this site to find one.
Yes, the crack was carried out by a local user. We don't know if it was a social engineer or someone who compromised an existing account.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
.tar.gz, .tar.bz2, diff's, etc.) on ftp.gnu.org with a known good data. The file, .asc, contains a list of files
... REASON]
Hash: SHA1
To the Free Software Community:
Summary
* gnuftp, the FTP server for the GNU project was root compromised.
* After substantial investigation, we don't believe that any GNU
source has been compromised.
* To be extra-careful, we are verifying known, trusted secure
checksums of all files before putting them back on the FTP site.
Events Concerning Cracking of Gnuftp
A root compromise and a Trojan horse were discovered on gnuftp.gnu.org,
the FTP server of the GNU project. The machine appears to have been
cracked in March 2003, but we only very recently discovered the crack.
The modus operandi of the cracker shows that (s)he was interested
primarily in using gnuftp to collect passwords and as a launching point to
attack other machines. It appears that the machine was cracked using a
ptrace exploit immediately after the exploit was posted on bugtraq.
(For the ptrace bug, an root-shell exploit available on 17 March 2003, and
a working fix was not available on linux-kernel until the following week.
Evidence found on the machine indicates that were cracked during that
week.)
Given the nature of the compromise and the length of time the machine was
compromised, we have spent the last few weeks verifying the integrity of
the GNU source code stored on gnuftp. Most of this work is done, and the
remaining work is primarily for files that were uploaded since early 2003,
as our backups from that period could also theoretically be compromised.
Historical Integrity Checks
We have compared the md5sum of each source code file (such as
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/before-2003-08-01.md5sums
in the format:
MD5SUM FILE [REASON,
The REASONs are a list of reasons why we believe that md5sum is good for
that file. The file as a whole is GPG-signed.
Remaining Files
The files that have not been checked are listed in the root directory as
"MISSING-FILES". We are in the process of asking GNU maintainers for
trusted secure checksums of those files before we put them in place.
We have lots of evidence now to believe that no source has been
compromised -- including the MO of the cracker, the fact that every file
we've checked so far isn't compromised, and that searches for standard
source trojans turned up nothing.
However, we don't want to put files up until we've had a known good source
confirm that the checksums are correct.
Alpha FTP Site
The Alpha FTP site at ftp://alpha.gnu.org/ has been a lower priority for
us, but we plan to follow the same procedure there.
- --
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director
Free Software Foundation | Phone: +1-617-542-5942
59 Temple Place, Suite 330 | Fax: +1-617-542-2652
Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA | Web: http://www.gnu.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/OnYb53XjJNtBs4cRAqplAJ95PHJhIwRiwjKBqSIx ZH SVlTOtxACgyouK
QAfYhiLJcwPHio6fsk+s2uY=
=DUMO
- ----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
LGPL's Section 6 allows you to make new works that link with the LGPL'ed code, and license those new works any way you see fit. Only the LGPL'ed code itself must remain Free. Such 'client code' (as mentioned in the story posting) can even be proprietary; it need not be LGPL'ed. LGPL's Section 6 does place some requirements on what you do, but that is only to make sure that people can effectively exercise their freedoms to copy, modify, and redistribute the LGPL'ed code.
-- Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
You can check out the source from CVS. Also, most of the essays are already on the GNU philosophy page, and the rest are being put up this week.
We do request that if you download the book rather than buy it, that you make a donation to the Free Software Foundation instead to help offset the cost of producing and formatting the book for publication. Indeed, I am frankly afraid that our meager savannah resources will collapse from the slashdot effect.Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
I strongly believe that the battles that are coming will require that FSF (where I work) and EFF both be as strong as possible. I pay $107.40 annually for my home Internet service (a cheap 56K dialup). I am today renewing my annual donation to EFF, increasing my usual amount from $65 to $107.40. I just yesterday pledged $120 to FSF for 2003. (Eben Moglen, BTW, recently gave substantially more than that). I hope that you will choose to support both organizations at the same level as your ISP charges (or split the amount of your annual ISP charges equally between FSF and EFF).
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
Epson has been much more friendly than most violators. Epson on their own chose to put up that web page and admit their violation publicly. We did not require them to do so. Almost always, compliance is reached through private discussions between the Free Software Foundation and the violating party. Only rarely (usually because a third party posts on slashdot ;)
does the public even become aware of the compliance efforts underway.
You can read FSF's General Counsel's essay for more details on FSF's GNU GPL enforcement efforts.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
We do, from time to time, have occasion to clarify our views on the GNU GPL, and we work hard to be responsive to questions from the community on them. This does serve to generate a lot of email traffic concerning the Foundation's opinions on GPL, and out of context pieces of the whole of such correspondence can be confusing. When we get pieces together that are particular good and clear, we post them on our philosophy page, as we did with Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GNU GPL, and in our GNU GPL FAQ.
As for the GNU GPL, version 3, we had indeed long ago seen Mr. Harris' proposal, but we did not feel it was representative of our plans for next version of the license. The copyright of the so-called draft of GPL Version 3 distributed alongside the article, thus, is incorrectly attributed to the Free Software Foundation. We do not hold copyright on it, nor did we have a hand in drafting it.
Efforts for development of real GNU GPL, Version 3 continue within the Foundation. We of course expect to have extensive public discussion before any draft is finalized as the official new version of the license. In March 2002, We approved the Affero GPL, which includes a draft of one major provision we are considering for the next version of the GNU GPL. Of course, when we do announce that a draft copy of actual "GNU GPL, Version 3" is available, it will certainly come directly from the Foundation.
Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
What concerns us most is the thin layer between hardware and software: items like the BIOS and flash ROM. That layer is ripe for DRM and other technologies. That issue is quite different from Stallman's essay mentioned in the post. This isn't an issue of Free (as in freedom) hardware, but is about a matter of that "thin layer" of software where DRM will likely dwell.
FSF is currently extremely short on resources, but we hope to put at least some force behind initiatives to create Free Software in this area. In some sense, it is the last frontier for freedom on our computers. Indeed, the only proprietary software code anywhere in my computer is that which lives in the BIOS. Before now, the issue was not so strategically significant, but the fact that DRM technologies may soon live in that very BIOS makes it more significant than ever.
If anyone has an interest and reverse engineering experience, and would like involved with working on the free BIOS projects, particularly for laptop devices, please contact me. Also, please contact me if you would like to donate to a restricted fund for this effort, as we are considering setting one up if there is substantial interest.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
I was quoted a bit out of context in this article. Here are the full statements that I recall making, that were quoted only in part:
and: I just wanted to clarify the statements, because I don't believe they were as sensational as the article makes them out to be."Change your name before I come" is RMS' personal requirement when accepting a speaking engagement. Actually, other FSF speakers often speak to groups that call themselves "Linux" groups. We ask only that the advertising and press material about our particular speech call the system, GNU/Linux.
Of course, when I and other FSF speakers make a speech, one of the items on our agenda is to ask such groups, as a favor to the GNU project, to change their name and/or documents to say "GNU/Linux" consistently. While it is RMS' personal demand that the name change occur as a term to accept the engagement, the FSF does not, as an organization, demand such name changes. We simply request them.
Comparing it to Microsoft's tactics is out of proportion. FSF firmly stands for free speech rights. We assert your right to call the operating system anything you like; we request as a favor that you call it GNU/Linux.
RMS is a highly sought-after speaker. As it turns out, since he is not (nor never has been) paid a salary by the FSF, he collects speaker fees to help pay for his living expenses. As with any speaker, it's his prerogative to set the terms of his speaking engagements. Indeed, every speaker has his or her own set of requirements. (AAMOF, ESR's are available online.) Personally, I have a rule that there must be vegetarian restaurants that someone can take me to in the towns I visit. Of course, FSF doesn't take a position on vegetarianism, but it's a personal need of mine that I can't ignore---even when I am speaking on behalf of FSF.
While RMS won't come to speak for your group if it's called a "Linux" group, I'd be happy to come, as would many of the other FSF speakers. While I am there, I am, of course, going to ask you to change the name of the group. But, please note the key point here: just because RMS sets a personal rule doesn't mean it is ipso facto FSF policy.
While it is RMS' personal demand that the name change occur as a term to accept the engagement, the FSF does not, as an organization, demand such name changes. We simply request them.
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director of the FSF
GPL never stood for "GNU Public License", actually. It has stood for "General Public License" since version 1 in Feb. 1989. Before that, each GNU program had its own license: "The GNU Emacs Public License", etc. The General Public License generalized them all.
However, this is RMS' personal requirement when accepting a speaking engagement. Actually, other FSF speakers often speak to groups that call themselves "Linux" groups. We ask only that the advertising and press material about our particular speech call the system, GNU/Linux.
Of course, when I and other FSF speakers make a speech, one of the items on our agenda is to ask such groups, as a favor to the GNU project, to change their name and/or documents to say "GNU/Linux" consistently. While it is RMS' personal demand that the name change occur as a term to accept the engagement, the FSF does not, as an organization, demand such name changes. We simply request them.
Comparing it to Microsoft's tactics is out of proportion. FSF firmly stands for free speech rights. We assert your right to call the operating system anything you like; we request as a favor that you call it GNU/Linux.
RMS is a highly sought-after speaker. As it turns out, since he is not (nor never has been) paid a salary by the FSF, he collects speaker fees to help pay for his living expenses. As with any speaker, it's his prerogative to set the terms of his speaking engagements. Indeed, every speaker has his or her own set of requirements. (AAMOF, ESR's are available online.) Personally, I have a rule that there must be vegetarian restaurants that someone can take me to in the towns I visit. Of course, FSF doesn't take a position on vegetarianism, but it's a personal need of mine that I can't ignore---even when I am speaking on behalf of FSF.
While RMS won't come to speak for your group if it's called a "Linux" group, I'd be happy to come, as would many of the other FSF speakers. While I am there, I am, of course, going to ask you to change the name of the group. But, please note the key point here: just because RMS sets a personal rule doesn't mean it is ipso facto FSF policy.
I think that point gets to the center of the problem with Barr's article. It seems to suggest that every position that RMS takes is automatically FSF policy. Of course, as our president and founder, many of RMS' personal positions match FSF policy exactly. But, most of them don't; RMS' personal website is full of personal positions that aren't FSF policy.
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director of the FSF
P.S. Finally, there is a factual error in the article. the GPL is the "General Public License". The G stands for General, not GNU. I usually say "GNU GPL" to make that clear.