But he has a lot of kooky supporters that are feverishly working on his behalf. It's almost just like a cult, Stallman even refers to himself as "Saint Ignucius":
Posted on 06/03/2008 12:15:33 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it. These events are: (1) the release of a new version of the widely used license that covers such software, i.e., the General Public License version 3, and (2) a round of lawsuits filed by the Software Freedom Law Center against for-profit companies using the software for commercial gain. Four companies to date, the largest of which is Verizon Communications Inc., have been sued for violation of the GPL.
Although the lawsuits are not about changed provisions in the GPL, both events are muscle-flexing by the free software community and, taken together, may foreshadow new risks in the irreconcilable conflict between open source software and its widespread use by for-profit companies. With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences. For-profit companies using open source software should take notice and understand the risks.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
I still don’t trust Stallman. He’s a whacked ideologue as much as GE is.
About HURD, does that mean HURD will finally get somewhere after almost 18 years of development? It would be interesting to finally see a true microkernel operating system in wide use.
I was thinking in the context of a GPL enforcement being tested, not the validity of the license in general.
It’s not retroactive, but it does freeze them. It’s not only not business-friendly, it was done as a direct attack against business.
And even for new people with new devices to run Linux on, the GPL 3 again tells them how they can design that new hardware — it can’t require code signing with secret keys. That just doesn’t sound very “free” to me.
Me neither. He's a nutjob. It seems that every movement, ideology or project has one.
About HURD, does that mean HURD will finally get somewhere after almost 18 years of development? It would be interesting to finally see a true microkernel operating system in wide use.
I've always views HURD as a proof-of-concept rather than a viable operating system. History has pretty much discounted the usefulness of a true microkernel OS. Slow IPC resulting in poor performance has pretty much narrowed the usefulness of a true microkernel OS to narrow, fixed-function applications. The hybrid kernel has proven to be sufficiently flexible and speedy as to make the microkernel a bit player.
But he has a lot of kooky supporters that are feverishly working on his behalf. It's almost just like a cult, Stallman even refers to himself as "Saint Ignucius":
Actually, it's an attack against those businesses that want something for nothing.
And even for new people with new devices to run Linux on, the GPL 3 again tells them how they can design that new hardware
The problem with the Tivoization of code is that it violates the principle of the GPL. Not the letter of it, so no enforcement action, but the whole point of the GPL is that by receiving code from your peers you agree to make your changes available. By locking the hardware so that only your code runs kind of defeats the purpose. Thus V3.
Of course, the hardware makers can always just not use GPL code. That's pretty much the message that V3 is sending. Play by the rules or go play somewhere else.
Yeah, kind of like Microsoft has Steve Ballmer, Laura Didio and...
You.
They modify the code, they release the modified code. I don't see a problem.
The problem with the Tivoization of code is that it violates the principle of the GPL.
I just see it differently. It holds true to the spirit of free software. The purpose is that changes are given back, and they are. Build your own DVR off of what TiVO has given you. It just don't hold true to a spirit of open hardware. But to me open hardware is a completely separate issue, something that shouldn't be leveraged by a software license.
That's pretty much the message that V3 is sending. Play by the rules or go play somewhere else.
I can still be critical of the rules. I am very critical of the rules in most proprietary licenses, and I'm not going to give the GPL a break just because it's open source.
With all the computing power we have now I think we can afford a trade-off of speed for ultimate robustness and security, especially in servers. I'm thinking Minix with that IIRC 4,000 line kernel, everything else is a process that can be killed and restarted if it hangs or crashes and has to have permission to do what an application requests.
seems like a trojan horse in contract.
Seems the entire concept is based on ALL GPL is free unless there is money involved therefore it goes back to ME.
Essentially trying to turn freebie programmers that could not get a job into raiders.
I can see where forbiding open source programs in a company would be a very very very good idea.
That's the letter of the GPL. The spirit is where the Tivo problem comes in.
Tivo released their changes, but their changes will only work on their hardware. Contrariwise, the hardware locks keep anyone from taking the code and modifying it further and still running it on Tivo-made hardware. Even if you bought and paid for that hardware.
No bug fixes. No performance improvements. Just lock in to what Tivo wants you to run on hardware that belongs to you.
That violates the spirit of the GPL. You're supposed to be able to help improve the code. You're supposed to be able to change the code. Tivo locked that out.
I can still be critical of the rules. I am very critical of the rules in most proprietary licenses, and I'm not going to give the GPL a break just because it's open source.
No argument there. I think that Tivo did a dumb thing for the same dumb reason that a lot of companies think that putting locks and DRM and such are a good idea. I wish that GPL v3 wasn't necessary.
But someone has to send a message to Tivo and the other idiot companies that trying to force people to use hardware in only the way that they want is just dumb. And it's insulting.
It never went to trial, Wallace isn't a lawyer and had none on retainer, he ridiculously tried to represent himself and his complaints were repeatedly thrown out for not being properly crafted or submitted, hardly a legitimate test of the license.
Not at all. Tivo and others are free to continue using the code they have right now under GPL v2 rules forever.
Seems the entire concept is based on ALL GPL is free unless there is money involved therefore it goes back to ME.
Not even close. GPL is free to use. If you take GPL code and use it, you have to abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules, write it yourself or use something else.
Essentially trying to turn freebie programmers that could not get a job into raiders.
HA! Did you know that a majority of Linux kernel coders are employed by large companies? And that they employed specifically to work on Linux kernel code?
I can see where forbiding open source programs in a company would be a very very very good idea.
I think so too. I think you should stop using open source programs right now.
Please log off of Free Republic and go away.
Unlike you I refuse to digest much less regurgitate the lies from the left. I speak out against them instead, too bad it bothers you but it's not changing.
LIAR!
Others please note that LIAR is simply a descriptive keyword that I'm inserting into my reposes to the troll from Redmond. It will make it easier to find, copy and paste these responses when he slinks off to another thread and tries posting the same debunked FUD again.
Now, back to cases:
Did you even read the article?
Far from being thrown out on procedural grounds, the judge went to great lengths to explain why he ruled in favor of the FSF:
"When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, as well as the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom. A dismissal is appropriate only if the plaintiff can establish no set of facts, even if hypothesized, consistent with the allegations of the complaint that would entitle him or her to relief.... Moreover, the court must examine only the complaint, and not the merits of the lawsuit."
And as far as being specifically about the GPL, the judge in the case said this:
" [T]he GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation."
Seems like a pretty legitimate test after all.
Ah, good. Please explain why it is okay for Microsoft to give it's source code to the Chinese Communists while denying it to a US Federal Court on grounds of "national security."
I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
The authors of the GPL state that it is a license, not a contract.
Fair enough. And there are quite a few coders who have expressed the same complaints as you.
Fortunately they can continue to use the GPL v2 for their code.
It was still dismissed before ever going to trial on proceedural grounds, with the judge saying he had failed to provide proof of injury. Wallace had no legal counsel, and no idea of what he was doing, for you claim that as some great victory is laughable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.