When Stallman is Attacked 562
writes "Linux Tech Daily has an editorial slamming a recent Forbes.com attack piece on Richard Stallman and GPLv3. Loved or hated, do you agree with the author that the piece is FUD and completely unprofessional? Love him or hate him, is this unfair treatment of rms? Does he leave himself open to these kinds of attacks with his behavior?" The problem with the editorial of course is that many of the points made in the original Forbes piece are completely valid and true. So basically you get to choose between the linux zealot, and a writer who is obviously fairly hostile towards Stallman's ideas.
Of course Daniel Lyons is spreading FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's GNU/Linux to you! (Score:2, Informative)
What typo are you talking about again?...
Re:You don't have to choose... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I frequently disagree with Richard Stallman (Score:3, Informative)
They do fork over every single GNU program included in their distribution already. You seem to be very confused about how commercial companies in the free software space operate. A request of that nature by Richard Stallman or anyone else would be to point at the .torrent file for the source CDs. It's all there.
That's how Mandrake/Mandriva got their start. They grabbed all of RedHat's source CDs, and re-branded it as their own after making some changes they considered usability improvements.
I think you're so mired in thinking one way about how software can be sold that you can't see the reality that's right in front of your eyes.
Re:True of false? (Score:1, Informative)
Or one could realize, that the far superior Xemacs forked long ago because of Stallman's "attitude problem."
GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2 (Score:3, Informative)
More interesting to me is article 6 of the GPLv2: I can see a number of lawyers making hay of that, saying that GPLv3 introduces further restrictions. Note that when someone releases under "GPLv2 or any future version", the choice belongs to the recipient, not the licensor. The licensor can't grant rights under a license that doesn't yet exist when he makes the grant.
So, what do we get? All existing GPLv2 software is, and will forever continue to remain, licenseable as GPLv2. Even a new version of an existing program released under GPLv3 will still have its prior version and source available under GPLv2. And the first lawyer for IBM/RedHat/Novell who cares enough will use article 6 of GPLv2 to declare the extra restrictions of GPLv3 invalid for the new version of the existing program.
It's a shame that Stallman has gone on this crusade, but my money says GPLv2 is here to stay. Not many people will be releasing GPLv3 code, and the GPLv2 mainstream will fork them into irrelevancy.
Re:True of false? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You don't have to choose... (Score:1, Informative)
VIPER (Score:4, Informative)
Re:True of false? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:True of false? (Score:3, Informative)
The software licenses that Apple and Microsoft give you are more like renting than buying. You didn't really purchase Windows Vista, you paid for the right to install it on one computer. That's the sneaky thing about copyright, it allows the holder of the copyright to determine the conditions in which you may use and copy the material. It's all legal and okay, but sometimes it seems a bit unfair. Especially when we end up paying $100+ for software that we can only use under very specific circumstances. (linux is great in this way, less bullshit than the competition)
sure, no strings attached to users of the software. that's nice. I'm a developer, so I tend to focus on how a license applies to modification and redistribution. When I license software it tends to have expensive royalties, paying an extra $3 on a device that might only cost $150 on store shelves is a pretty big deal. It's no surprise that some of the more aggressive companies are willing to accept the terms of GPLv2.
Many are pretty terrified of GPLv3. Some networking/router companies (who will remain nameless) are concerned v3 will require that users have the ability to upgrade software built-in to the device/appliance. This is a problem for this company (and others like it) because to be more efficient they sell the same hardware but install different software on it and "license" software through hardware. There are little authentication/DRM chips on the devices to ensure that only Software A is run on the device, and not the more expensive Software B.
These companies will have to adapt their business model to be compatible with GPLv3, or not use GPLv3 software in their products. Likely the later, especially since Linus does not seem to want to push Linux into using GPLv3. It could be a problem if glibc goes to GPLv3 though, it is hard to find a Java JVM for Linux that runs on anything but glibc. you end up having to twist the vendor's arm to get updates.
Re:Developers don't deserve freedom?! (Score:3, Informative)
US Courts ruled way back in 1979 that this was _not_ the case.
I have a certain number of rights to use whatever I buy. If you want to take those rights away, you must use a contract. See 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu] for some very specific rights. Heck read ALL of Code 17: they're your rights. You should at least know what they are.
In Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), Federal courts ruled that so-called "click-wrap" licenses are NOT enforcable, and NOT legal.
Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), affirmed, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992) and also Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989), say that you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
I can appreciate this, but you're still wrong.
Fact is, no matter what Microsoft says, you can reverse engineer, and make changes to their software. It is 100% legal to take a Windows "demo disc" or a XP Home, and apply a patch to the registry that turns it into XP Pro. It's also legal to redistribute that patch.
No matter how many times the SPA says it, doesn't make it law. I'd appreciate it if you only say what you know to be true, instead of what you have heard to be true.
Re:True of false? (Score:3, Informative)