RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License 749
dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."
Refuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
ego anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
What RMS is saying is that UnitedLinux cannot put per-seat (or any other kind) of restrictions on how GPL'd software is used; they can only restrict the non-GPL (and similar license) software. Not saying whether this is good or bad, but if open-source developers were to all use GPL (or compatible) licenses, that a per-seat licensed Linux system would be impossible. This would be a good thing in RMS's mind.
Surely a step backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
If United Linux thinks they can "unseat" RedHat by using a per seat license, they are dead wrong, regardless of what RMS thinks.
Good luck at your going-out-of-business sale, United Linux.
Re:ego anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ego anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Surprisingly enough, it seems Slashdot screwed up when they said otherwise. Hard to believe.
Re:Refuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only question is whether or not UL is violating the GPL. As far as I can tell, they're not, because the thing that requires per-seat licensing is their own code, not GPL'd code... but I haven't looked very hard. If they aren't violating the GPL, then there's no way that a developer can prevent UL from using their GPL'd code without violating the GPL themselves.
But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really claim to fully understand all the implications of the GPL. This is just the way it seems to me.
$.02.
Re:ego anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
"[United Linux] cannot restrict the GPL-covered programs in the system [with per-seat licensing], because that would violate the GNU GPL, but the system also contains non-copylefted programs which are points of vulnerability. Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"
That isn't hubris, it's consistency with the same message that RMS has been putting out for as long as I can remember: "Restrictive licensing doesn't respect the non-side-constrained freedom of individuals to do as they see fit with software and source."
Hurray, it's fun to bash RMS, isn't it?
RMS off base? (Score:4, Insightful)
What am I missing? Is UnitedLinux truly as evil as Microsoft for selling a standardized binary set with source code on the side? Or is RMS just tired of capitalism?
huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you people actually read?? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had read the article you would realise that Stallman, contrary to some of the fights he picks, is actually being quite reasonable here.
What he's saying is that he doesn't approve of the licence, and that authors should beware of licences other than the GPL because they may not protect their work from being kidnapped like this.
Also, it's worth pointing out that in this case Linux and Main went to Stallman for his opinion, he didn't get on a soap box and force it down anyone's throat.
--
Andy
Re:He's right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know, but it seems to me that UL are saying that you can't re-release their own code, not the GPL'd code on the system. And if that's the case they're no problem. But if they're restricting the usage of GPL'd software (in either binary or source code form) then that's a violation of the GPL which provides that once you receive code you can give it away.
But, IANAL, so take my opinion as such.
It's just as well (Score:2, Insightful)
What I'm saying is that the companies involved in this united linux are probably doing this as a "last ditch" effort. I say this because I've used each one of them and each one of them didn't work all that well which means if I have problems being a slackware user, I'm sure the less knowledgeable people do. No users = no income and thus drastic measures must be taken.
When this fails we might be a few distros less than we are now bringing us closer to a TRUE standard. What I don't understand though is why can't we actually HAVE a standard? What's so hard about it? As a linux user I'm annoyed at the fact that all of these distributions seem to think they are right. I hate to say this but 90% of the software each of them use they didn't write, so why does it matter what the directory structure is? PICK A @#$% STANDARD!!
Re:Gee, what a suprise... (Score:1, Insightful)
In case it escaped your notice, Slashdot is more a discussion site than a news site. The question is, is it interesting / important enough to the Slashdot crowd to be discussion worthy. I think the number of comments posted by the end of the day will answer that question decisively. RMS is almost always disucussion worthy. :)
Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You said:
"nobody likes the title GNU/Linux, nor uses it"
Wait a minute here.
Do you ever use Linux before, or are you just one of those "parrots" that utter whatever others have said ?
Ever heard of Debian ?
Do you know that the Debian distribution calls their Linux "GNU/Linux" ?
It only goes to show how pathetic some of you can really be. None of you have done as much as RMS, and still you pick on that guy just because of the "GNU/Linux" thing.
Tell you something, sonny, nobody is perfect. Not RMS, nor Ghandi or George Washington.
Remember the famous quote
"Judge not, lest thou be judged"
The way you ( and others like you ) judge RMS is EXACTLY the way others are judging you. The majority of the OSS people may disagree with RMS's stand on "GNU/Linux", but we DO respect what he has done, and we WILL NOT pick on that guy just for the fun of it.
If you are really somebody, show us your stuffs, and let the rest of us judge your worth.
Please stop picking on RMS.
Thank you !
Re:ego anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, what you say is entirely unproven. The software economy would not necessarily collapse. It might even get a lot better. We don't know yet because it hasn't been tried. Most of the people engaged in writing software for a living do not write software that ends up shrink-wrapped in a box on a retail shelf. Most developers write custom code for complex one-off applications that, even if the code were GPL, probably wouldn't be very useful except to the customer it was written for.
In fact, what we might see is a boom of software employment as companies took major packages and hired developers to add bits and pieces that they felt were valuable for their business. Of course, you're right. No one would make money selling software. They would make money writing it.
Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?! (Score:2, Insightful)
He's got his cause and he's fighting for it. Not that it in itself doesn't warrant mocking. But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.
RMS Again (Score:3, Insightful)
But he wants people to licence software under the GPL, which allows what Caldera et al are proposing. As long as they supply the source code ...
It really offends me when people like RMS seem to work to defeat companies like Caldera and SuSE, who have done a great deal for the Linux community, by taking away their revenue stream. By providing me with a Linux distribution, they provide me a valuable service. Yes, I can roll my own if I want to, but the time and effort that a packaged distribution saves me is worth some money to me!
As long as UnitedLinux complies with the licences of its component parts, neither I nor RMS have any right to bitch about how much the distribution costs.
The comparison to Microsoft is invalid because there are competing distributions of various prices, from Slackware and Debian on the $0 end to RedHat and Mandrake on the pay end, whereas there is no competition to Windows. If the distribution is done right and works well, market competition will take care of "fair pricing."
Re:ego anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure you can. The whole FSF business model is based on the idea that you can charge whatever you want for whatever you want, as long as you make the source code available. So, if the UnitedLinux people want to apply per-seat fees for support, download, media, whatever, they are not restricted from that practice. Of course, since the source code has to be available for the GPL'd parts, there's also no reason that a customer actually has to pay those fees (since he can duplicate the software from the source) unless he wants the support &c.
Yes, I know RMS issue is with the non-gpl code, but that doesn't change the fact that companies are perfectly free to ask for per-seat fees for GPL code.
Re:developer refusal. (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS says:
"[...] Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"
The point RMS is making is that this use is NOT permitted under the GPL, so by using the GPL for your own software you are refusing!
Did you read the article? His statement is only 3 sentences, after all.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where were you when RMS started his GNU operation back in MA ?
What does that matter? If the poster was in Boston or Madagascar, their geographic location in past has nothing to do with this issue.
Where were you when Linux and all the open source community were / are threatened by MS?
Threatened by Microsoft? Give me a BREAK conspiracy boy. Microsoft has gone after Linux in the Marketplace. Microsoft did not kick in your front door, point a gun to your head and say "Stop programming GPL boy"! Get over it bubbie, we live in a Capitalistic society where you don't get special brownie points for writing software under the GPL. Linux has to compete in the same world as Microsoft. Apple doesn't start crying when Microsoft plays ruff, why should you? They fight back.
Critters like you always pick on RMS, but none of you ever done even 1% of the stuffs RMS has done for the community.
So the only people that comment on a subject, in your opinion, are people that has done a certain percentage of activity on that subject? So if you never made a film in your life, you don't have the right to comment on a film's quality or a director's ability? If you never been an astronaut, you can't comment on NASA's budget? Just because RMS "started" the Free Software movement, he is golden and beyond criticism? I don't think so.
RMS leaves a lot to be desired in the promotion of Open Source software and his public persona might have set it back. The last thing I would want to do is put RMS in front a Corporate Executive to explain why Open Source is better than Microsoft's product. If I were Bill Gates, I would pay the man to make speech after speech to corporations about the benefit of the GPL.
Re:ego anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, nobody could make any money selling that software. The software economy would collapse, and hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone would be out of work.
This is a popular misrepresentation of the software industry.
Most programmers are employed developing custom systems that never leave the buyer's premises. In such cases, software licensing is irrelevant. Only a small fraction of programmers are emplyoed making software that gets sold on a store shelf. The ratio may on average is like 19:1 depending on which job sites/pages you look at, but I suspect it's much higher than that.
To these programmers, free software is actually a huge benefit. In fact. a good deal of free software also comes from these developers as a by-product of work they do for hire.
Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive.
RMS's intentions may be more noble than you think.
Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Likening the practice to Microsoft Software, Slashdot reader 'Jucius Maximus [slashdot.org]' has issued a brief statement condemning the proprietary software that appears to have been recomended for distribution by Richard M. Stallman. RMS called upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by UnitedLinux distributions, similar to Microsoft's practices of not allowing their software to run on Free Operating Systems.
Re:RMS off base? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is nothing new; Caldera has been doing this since day one. They've also been failing since day one. Most software developers know that if you keep using the same methods you'll keep getting the same results, but Caldera hopes it will be different with a new name.
Believe it or not, RedHat seems to have a great commitment to freedom. With RedHat and Debian available, I don't see a whole lot of room for other distributions; especially not for non-free ones.
Legal challenge to the GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironic, really.
Amazing Business Plan (Score:2, Insightful)
/me giggles like a schoolgirl (Score:3, Insightful)
There's just something funny [gnu.org] about comparing RMS [stallman.org] to Ghandi or Washington.
:wq
Re:None of it? (Score:4, Insightful)
> If you buy Caldera Linux, powered by UnitedLinux, you are free to copy, modify and distribute any of the GPL code that comes with it.
You are also free to run it as you like, including let several people access it. That makes a per-seat restriction in GNU GPL a breach of contract.
If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is true that open source software is a better way of doing things, that it is more compelling, then this is a perfect test case for it. What will companies think about paying per-seat licensing and having to manage all the licensing nightmares associated with it when most of what they are buying is under the GPL? Will they look to a more open alternative? Will they even care?
RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.
Re:Well that settles it! (Score:4, Insightful)
All Red Hat has to do to blow the doors off so-called "UnitedLinux" is not go to a per seat license.
Scratch them off the list of distros other than Red Hat and Mandrake that I will try. Someday, though
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to say "SO WHAT?!?" to UnitedLinux per-seat licensing. As long as they are still forced to release any changes they make to the source code of any GPL'd application, which they are, then any contributions they make can still be picked up by Debian, RedHat, and other distributions. What does it matter, as long as the source is available?
And if they really CAN sell per-seat licensing to more than three people, which I doubt, more power to them. But if they don't at least offer a free binary distro in addition to the for-pay distro, nobody will be willing to try their distro out anyway. I would consider it near-untested if only their per-seat-paying customers were using it.
RMS needs to relax a little, and have faith in the GPL he wrote. No need to get all up in arms. Stupid people will go out of business. Software written by smart people will dominate the world. It's the Linux way.
Re:He's right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone will run Debian.
Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Many great visionaries have been considered eccentric because of a few of their views. Many eccentrics have been considered great visionaries because of a few of their views.
These two statements cannot be denied.
RMS is considered a great visionary. RMS is considered an eccentric.
These two statements cannot be denied.
RMS is considered an eccentric. RMS is considered a visionary
These two statements cannot be denied.
Let's face it, RMS is an eccentric visionary (or perhaps a visionary eccentric). Only RMS, or a mindless idiot, could possibly agree with ALL of RMS' views.
In the minds of many, the idea of Free Software paints him as a visionary genius, while the GNU/Linux thing paints him as a mouth-foaming, moon-howling loonie. Unfortunately, the whole GNU/Linux thing gets more press than than the Free Software thing.
Personally, I think that RMS is a nutter, but a nutter that we need.
I also think that Freedom in Software is more important than recognition for the GNU Project.
If RMS disagrees with me on that last point, I'd like to see him admit it publicly!
Re:I can't believe what I'm seeing here.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, all they need to do is make a proprietary installer (or any other required bit of software). Everything else could be GPLed and they would still be okay with their per-seat licensing.
That doesn't mean we should make it easier for 'em and not GPL our code.
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Per seat licensing certainly hasn't helped Caldera despite the fact that Caldera controls the remnants of SCO's vast VAR channel. For that matter per seat licensing didn't help SCO in the face of a massive Linux onslaught.
RedHat has become the de-facto Linux standard by writing cool software and giving it away. Caldera, SuSE, and TurboLinux have all created distributions that were better than RedHat's, but RedHat's distribution was freely available, and you could build on RedHat's free tools (because you had the source) and so RedHat won.
Ransom Love has got to be the thickest member of the Linux community. RedHat has beaten Caldera time and again by giving away software, and yet he still refuses to learn. The only way that these companies have a chance of unseating RedHat is to out-RedHat them. They need to give away even more cool software so that they can become the standard.
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, this argument is flawed, as the number of people using a software much less it's lisence doesn't make software good or bad. "Look at windows!" ;)
As you say, it's a flawed argument.
It sends entirely the wrong message. Better to educate corporate types now that there is an alternative to seat-licensed software.
Corporate types will be disappointed if they try to apply their present software purchasing and licensing mindset to OSS and GPL'd software. This disappointment might translate to a backlash against Linux/OSS and GPL'd software in the future.
They need to start thinking in terms of very low cost to deploy many seats with some fixed support cost for deployment + some fixed cost for development/enhancement/customization + some support cost per seat.
In their present application deployment models, they cost out per-seat licenses + large initial application development costs + typically very small ongoing enhancement/customization costs and + some support cost per seat.
Some are starting to see the no-seat-licensing model as attractive for POS and the like. Best they truly understand what OSS costs are rather than give in to the natural inclination to not rethink.
Re:None of it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure after being in the Linux bis for so long they aren't going to try to stop people from re-releasing GPL'd software, however they can and probably will stop them from releasing parts of their own software that is not GPL'd that sets them apart from the pack so to speak.
Re:RMS Again (Score:5, Insightful)
I concur with RMS: Boycott all companies at all involved with per-seating licensing of GPL software.
The Letter But Not Spirit (Score:3, Insightful)
As the creator/author/maintainer of WidgetApp which is licensed under the GPL, I want everyone to not only use the software freely but contribute to it.
However because United Linux has this per-seat cost scheme it appears that you pay for the pre-built binaries. While the source code is freely available for you to download and compile yourself even under the United Linux, it makes WidgetApp appear as if the creator/author/mainters of are getting paid for their development. A person buys the seat of United Linux and will automatically believe that a "piece of the pie" is going to all of the contributors. This is a bad thing and not what was intended with the GPL.
So while they are honoring the letter of the GPL(the source code must be available and is available) it seems to deny the spirit of making useful programs freely available to everyone.
This whole thing shows a loophole in the GPL which may never be closed. As long as United Linux offers source code for free they can charge per seat for binaries. People who don't want the appearance of being paid are now stuck because of the GPL(ie you can't deny United Linux access to the source any more than you can to you or me or Microsoft).
Beyond that as another poster pointed, good luck making this buisness model work. This seems to offer more headache and cost more money and will be hard to compete with Red Hat's service structure or Debian's pure free-ness.
Re:From the United Linux Site Faq (Score:3, Insightful)
However I do use Suse.
I'd guess the per-seat licensing is more to do with Service Contracts. Downloaded ISO's generally come with no support, this has been true for RH and Mandrake. Bought distros (like the Suse 8.0 Proffessional version I just recently acquired) come with limited installation support and after that - you're on your own.
Since the United Linux consortium are aiming squarely at Enterprise and commercial custom, they're talking about that sector of the market as it is more likely to be profitable. They are not really interested in the home user.
I'd guess more Corporations might take an interest in GNU/Linux if 'per-seat licensing' were in place as they'd have a support lifeline.
Businesses need to have a support agreement (even huge corporations with inhouse knowledge) no support contract or service agreement would leave them vulnerable to problems which might jeopardise continuity.
I'd seriously doubt they'd strangle the non-enterprise user, they'd have only small change to gain by forcing non-enterprise customers to pay non-seat and too much to loose as a lot of non-enterprise customers are the people who write most of their product.
I doubt very much GNU/LInux is the core product that brings their revenue. I'd guess their principle resource is the knowledge of their staff.
But then, that's true for any company.
Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
All the GPL says is that if you distribute binaries containing GPL'd code, you must make the source code for those GPL'd binaries available under the GPL I am still free to distribute any binaries I created for a fee, as long as I give you the source under the GPL!
Additionally, a Linux distribution such as SuSE and others, may contain code that is licensed under proprietary licenses. These other applications such as installers, management software, config tools, and other value-added features may be licensed under whatever schema its creator sees fit. Such tools can be licensed on a per-seat basis if chosen.
If I buy a license for United Linux, I can take any GPL'd software distributed with United Linux and reuse the on 100,000 different machines without paying anyone for that useage.
I really don't see the problem here. I write GPL'd software. If my software were to be distributed with commercial software that was charged for under a different license I would not have a problem with this! Hell, it's part of the reason I chose to use GPL in the first place!
Free to use, free to modify, free to redistribute, and free to chage a fee for redistribution!!! RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!
GNU & RMS are irrelavent (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the software which counts. People didn't
start using emacs and gcc because the license kept them from making proprietary derivatives. They use these programs because the license allows them to use the software for free. People use X11 all over the place, and (surprise!) it doesn't have a strictly GNU license.
The GNU license is ubiquitous, not because it is on high moral ground, but because it is easy boilerplate to slap on to software projects which noone expects to make money. Back in the day, the equivalent would be to just put some random disclaimer with a statement releasing the code to the public domain. Putting a GNU license on
something is equivalent to genuflecting at an altar. It's doesn't really require a lot of thought.
If linux had a BSDish license, RMS and GNU would be a footnote in free (as in beer) software history. It is not GNU which distinguishes Linux, it is Linux. Its own unique mix of features and hype marks it.
The economy would expand if software were free (Score:3, Insightful)
> hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone
> would be out of work.
Imagine a world where air, water, and sunlight were free. Imagine the economic nightmare. If water were free then all the bottled water producers, utility companies, canteen makers would go out of business. If air were free, all the air purification systems, air conditioners, perfume manufacturers would go out of business. If sunlight were free, all the lamp makers, light bulb makers, flashlight makers, and candle makers would go out of business.
Of course, this isn't what's happened, at least in my part of the world.
Why?
Because even free things need packaging, customization, integration, bugetting, and quality assurance and because it's free, the demand for things increase dramatically. Take water, for instance. If producing water were expensive, people would not need garden hoses because they would not be watering their lawns. They would certainly not use it in water engines and fire hydrants, water cooling jackets, water guns, fountains, and bath products because these things would be too expensive to be useful.
Re:GNU & RMS are irrelavent (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL made writing code a social action -- you could guarantee that your code would always be free, and no one else would ever be confronted with the a myterious black box they couldn't screw with, that contained your stuff. It is about making technology open and transparent.
On the other hand, if it truly is "the software that counts", why didn't BSD win out over Linux ? Isn't BSD generally conceeded to have many benefits and higher qualities than Linux ?
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
GNU/Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason is not that debian's installer crashes on my laptop and mandrake's runs perfectly. It is not that debian still uses the 2.2 kernel. It is not the ease of hardware detection and software installation in mandrake.
It is the culmination of all these things. If debian would simply shape up and work on their installer, upgrade their kernel, and their hardware detection method I would switch. A completely GPL distrobution is extremely appealing, but ease of use it what it boils down to.
I use linux on all of my systems because it is the easiest form of unix, the easiest operating system on earth. VMS has funky commands, and we all know the problems with windos. Linux is the most logical system, and roadblocks like licensing fees may kill it.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that distro companies need to turn a profit, but most distros offer a more complete edition with proprietary software thrown in. I buy that software to support the company.
Proprietary licensing can and will kill gnu software.
Please
Re:None of it? (Score:3, Insightful)
To say otherwise, to claim that the GNU software can ONLY be run on all-GNU platforms, would require the removal of all GNU software from any 'un-pure' OS, and that's just NOT gonna happen anytime soon.
Re:Refuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) United Linux core source code will be avaliable for free. Anyone can recreate the system, but will not be allowed to call it United Linux (this is only a Copyright matter, ragarding the *brand*)
2) United Linux binaries (full distribution) will come bundled with proprietary software. Many of these softwares are not controled by the United Linux members, and cannot be released or distributed in any other way. Many of these software only offers per-seat licenses. So, United Linux MUST be licensed per-seat. (again, this is not a violation of GPL. See [1])
3) The original distributions will still have their releases, with the core United Linux technology. This means, as I see, that it will follow the same standards of United Linux. Any software certified for United Linux will run on these distributions. Looks like that even the 1st CD of these distributions will be pure United Linux. The distributions can follow the licensing scheme of their choice, based on the licenses of the software they provide. (No GPL violation here either)
As far as I can see, United Linux main distribution can very well come bundled with Oracle, LinuxCAD, StarOffice etc. Many of these comercial softwares have per-seat licenses. The choice United Linux have is either to have per-seat licenses, or to not provide these softwares.
About [1], think about this. If you download all
As far as I see, United Linux plan does not violate anything. It only provides what the marketing (big players) is asking for. And that is a Linux distribution there they can run their full scale, proprietary, applications, on certified hardware, with a contract support. Theirs is a good plan, and something we have needed to be able to further Linux adoptions in big corps. Does that mean that Linux will be non-free ? No. Does that mean that they are evil ? Again, no. Does that mean that corporations will have no other choice ? Again, no.
People talk a lot about freedom. Can it still be freedom if it is forced uppon you ? Are the corporations not FREE to choose ? Are these companies not FREE to choose a business model ?
As long as they does not violate any law or copyright (as you can be very sure that considering who they are, they wont), I think United Linux is something we should be extremely proud of.
Re:As I said, nobody is perfect. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is more important:
a) to have free software and free Operating System.
b) to give GNU-project free publicity and recognition
I believe that point a) is more important. ALOT more important. RMS should be grateful that with Linux, we have free Operating System. Instead of really caring for free software, all he seems to care about is the fame and glory of the GNU-project (which has gotten alot more publicity, thanks to Linux).
Yes, GNU-software is important part of a Linux-distro. So what? The fact still is that we now have a free OS. Why does it matter to RMS if it's not called GNU/Linux, if it fulfills the goal of FSF and RMS? Because RMS is so fanatic when it comes to the naming-thingy, it seems that it never was about free software, it was about glory and fame for the GNU-project, and he just used free software as a tool to get that fame. We have now free software and OS, RMS should be happy. He's not. He's annoyed because his project didn't get all the fame and glory.
If it really were about free software, RMS should be extatic that we now have a complete free OS. He's not.
Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the BSDs use the BSD user-land. Most have a few tools from the GNU project, but essentially the userland is the BSD core and BSD will work without any of the GNU tools being installed at all.
It's that simple. Take the GNU operating system. Add the Linux kernel (because the GNU kernel, HURD, wasn't ready when Linux was written). What do you have?
If you're a Slashdot AC troll, GNU + Linux = Linux. If you're RMS, Deborah or Ian, me, or half a dozen other people who feel that credit should be given where credit is due, it's GNU/Linux. BSD is BSD, it isn't GNU + anything, therefore it doesn't have GNU in the title.
It would be perfectly possible, incidentally, to create a BSD/Linux, which uses the BSD Init (no, Slackware's is not the same thing), uses the BSD Login and getty routines, logins boot into ASH or KSH, etc. I wish someone would, the Linux kernel has so much support, and the BSD userland is just so logical and pleasant to use.
(Incidentally, how long before this gets modded down? Every time I post anything remotely of the "RMS is not an eye-swivelling loony" variety I get modded down. It's very disheartening, and a somewhat ludicrious position when agreeing with the person who has done more for the free software community than any other living person (not to mention, though he'd hate it being said, the open source community too), is opening yourself up to accusations of trolling and flamebaiting.)
Re:developer refusal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, insightful. Regardless of the perpetuation of the RMS misquote from the article summary, the actual content of the message is still somewhat relevant. There seem to be a number of people who understand the situation (RMS is pushing the GPL, as typical; UL is presumably only doing the per-seat license on the parts of the distribution they develop from scratch) who are still upset because they feel it's exploiting a loophole in the GPL to build a semi-proprietary gestalt off of free components.
The comment you responded to essentially points out that this is one of the few cases where the GPL could be seen as having a similar degree of commercial exploitability as the BSD license. The BSD camp is used to accepting this issue in their quest for freedom of the end user, but it's just odd seeing it with the GPL camp and their quest for freedom of the code.
Re:Uh, no... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a user of the BSD license, I wondered if Ransom could relicense my code under a per-seat license. The obvious answer is "yes". The not so obvious answer is "yes, but so what?"
No matter what Ransom does to my code, my copy and my users' copies will still be free. Nothing he can do can alter my cvs repository. Furthermore, the users of Ransom's per-seat version are still going to know that there's a free version out there. That's because Ransom can't remove my copyright or permission notices.
But what if Ransom makes a derivative of my code and licenses that per-seat? The answer is where RMS and the BSD advocates part ways: code that I didn't write does not belong to me. His derivative bits are not mine and I have no ethical claim over them. His version is not my version. If RMS is correct in saying that "software should not be owned", then derivative software should be owned even less.
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Mandrake is trying to do?
Re:He's right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true. Section 6 of the GPL [gnu.org] states:
My ability to redistribute GPL'd code is granted by the original licensor, not the guy who I happened to get it from. They guy who I happened to get it from doesn't have the right to impose any additional restrictions, like per-seat licensing.
Also, section 3 says:
So this means that I have these rights whether I decide to re-release the binary or the source code form of the program. I just have to make sure that if I re-release the binary form, I also make available the source code. But I'm not restricted from re-releasing a binary. Which means, per-seat licensing restrictions are a violation of the GPL.
But, IANAL, so I may have an overly simplistic interpretation. It seems pretty clear to me, though.
Re:Can you people actually read?? (Score:3, Insightful)
You may or may not agree with his conclusions.
But if you read what he actually says, he often makes a good point.
Re:developer refusal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, you can sell GPL software, but you must make the source code available. You can sell it under any terms you like; YOU produced the binaries. However, you can do as you like with the source.
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
-Paul Komarek
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't think of any that does not. But if you really want to you can always run BASH as your VMS shell. On the other hand you can't run the VMS shell on a UNIX box for reasons explained below.
VMS does have equivalent mechanisms to pipes. However I must say that I have never found pipes to be especially usefull. Sure it is cute to be able to do ls * | grep foo. However at least 95% of the times I need to use a pipe in UNIX it is to construct a command feature that VMS provides for free.
Small tools fitting well together strikes me as something more fitting for the label of "logical", than something that is user-friendly only for beginners, and becomes a mess for more advanced users.
The difference between VMS and UNIX is how the tools are structured. In UNIX the command line handling is built into each program separately, so each command has code to extract flags and deal with them. If you want to change the flag assignments you have to recompile the program.
In VMS each command has a CLD definition that specifies the command, the arguments, program file to run etc. This has a lot of useful side effects, if you want to find out the arguments for any VMS command you can enter the command VERB [Command] to dump out the CLD definition.
This structure has a lot of advantages, not least being that if you want to produce a french language version of VMS you can. You can also generate GUI interfaces that will work with any VMS shell command, they simply query the CLD interface to find out all the commands supported and the arguments supported. The GUI will then work with new commands written after it, or user defined commands.
VMS was certainly not a beginner system, the expertise level of you average VMS user is likely to be much higher than that of your average UNIX user. Just because UNIX is dreadful for beginners does not mean it is good for experts. JCL is also dreadful for beginners but only JCL jocks think it is a powerful and elegant system, most impartial observers think that CP/M and MSDOS were a marked improvement over JCL.
Re:Absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
And you'll lose, and you'll lose sooo bad.
A) because not every piece of software on the disk is covered by the GPL and probably it is possible to get to that software without 'installing' the whole cd
B) Becasue you 'agreed' to the shrink wrap license by purchasing/opening the package.
And unlike windows....
C) You have alternatives that give you nearly identitcal functionality and software, that do not require a per-seat licence, but perhaps are more of a burden to you, and you still choose to use the software with the perseat license and violate the license.
The GPL only covers the software specifically licensed by the GPL. It doesn't streach across the pits on the CD to 'infect' other software distributed with it.
Re:The economy would expand if software were free (Score:3, Insightful)