Eben Moglen — GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

Linux.com's Joe Barr was recently able to sit down with Professor Eben Moglen at the San Diego Red Hat Summit and discuss the GPLv3 and what it means beyond the Microsoft/Novell deal on video. "Professor Moglen explains briefly about GPLv3's work on globalization of the software license, preventing harm to others by members of the community, and the most contentious in earlier drafts, DRM."

GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

[HappySmileMan]

I should hope not... I expected it to be about open-source software and Linux...

It was also being drafted long before the MS/Novell agreement IIRC

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

[Tovok7]

I should hope not... I expected it to be about open-source software and Linux...

The GPL isn't about "Open Source" and Linux either. It is about securing people's freedom. Unfortunately, most people are not aware of this important issue.

Re:

[HappySmileMan]

"Open Source" is about securing people's freedom...

And pretty much the only difference between GPL and proprietary licenses is that it's open source...

You can still charge for the use or purchase of a program made with it, however the source must be available at the same price as the binary.

Re:

[HappySmileMan]

Ok by "pretty much the only difference" I meant "the most relevant difference to this topic", Slashdot needs and "Edit" button

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm]

You're correct. s/and/an/

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

[Tovok7]

I said that the GPL is not about Open Source, because most people I know (also many non-computer guys) think of Open Source as having the source code available somewhere. They mostly don't care whether that's the case or not. They do not know that the trademark "Open Source" meant originally Free/Libre Software. They do not know that it is their freedom which is at stake here. Even Bruce Perens one of the founders of the Open Source movement said that It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again [debian.org]. We should listen to him!

Re:

[edwdig]

They do not know that the trademark "Open Source" meant originally Free/Libre Software. They do not know that it is their freedom which is at stake here.

Or, just maybe, most people don't see it that way.

People generally don't consider it a blow against their freedom that their car doesn't come with the required information to make an exact replica of the engine, or when their microwave doesn't come with a circuit diagram, or their music CDs don't come with sheet music.

Why would they see it any differently w

Re:

[init100]

People generally don't consider it a blow against their freedom that their car doesn't come with the required information to make an exact replica of the engine, or when their microwave doesn't come with a circuit diagram, or their music CDs don't come with sheet music.

Why would they see it any differently with software?

But then, the microwave doesn't make the food recipe secret just but heating your food in it. Those items that you mention cannot be compared with software. What analogies would you use for your work products stored in secret-format files that you cannot use with competitors' products without them doing a lot of reverse engineering?

Re:

[edwdig]

But then, the microwave doesn't make the food recipe secret just but heating your food in it. Those items that you mention cannot be compared with software. What analogies would you use for your work products stored in secret-format files that you cannot use with competitors' products without them doing a lot of reverse engineering?

Your argument is about data formats, not software. Very, very, different things.

Re:

[init100]

Yes, but software uses these formats to store and communicate information, making it relevant.

Re:

[edwdig]

Information is also stored and communicated using hard disks. Do you expect the manufacturer to therefore give you the information necessary to build your own replica of their hard disks?

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

[jbn-o]

"Open Source" is about securing people's freedom...

No, "open source" is not about software freedom and it never was [gnu.org]. The open source development methodology has to do with writing more reliable software, more quickly, and at lower cost. To understand why this misses the point the free software movement raises, consider this excerpt from "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software":

"The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that?

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom. So I have to do without it. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it."

I'm glad open source proponents use the GNU GPL and help secure software freedom for the users of those programs, I'm also glad open source proponents work together with free software activists on a variety of issues. I'm even glad that people go into depth on how to make money and license software under free software licenses (most notably: the GPL and LGPL). But these business-oriented discussions are not the most critical issues—human rights for software users and building community are more substantial issues. The open source movement was defined in part to get away from the "freedom talk" free software activists engage in, thus it's no surprise that when some people talk about "open source" they're not calling attention to freedom very much. Some open source proponents, such as Eric Raymond, want to talk about what the two groups have in common which means often talking about only the open source movement's values. The organization founded to champion open source's values, the Open Source Initiative, has considerable work to do to reframe the debate such that software freedom is an important part of that movement, assuming they want to make that a goal in the first place [digitalcitizen.info].

Re:

[Kjella]

You know, that really never quite came together for me. As a proponent of open source code, you must think that having open source code is important. However, open source code doesn't promote open source software which would lead to more open source code. Except for what companies decide to give out of charity, every closed source branch is a dead end. Not only that, but every user those closed derivates take means less people have the ability to modify the code and less people to improve on it. Even if I k

Re:

[75th Trombone]

Just don't complain about not getting anything in return.

They don't. They don't think they should. That's their whole point.

disclaimer: I'm a proponent of GPL and BSD licenses.

Re:

[Kjella]

They don't. They don't think they should. That's their whole point.

Except they do, at least some of them some of the time. Here's for example a blurb from an interview with Theo [newsforge.com]:
"NF: Lots of hardware vendors use OpenSSH. Have you got anything back from them?
TdR: If I add up everything we have ever gotten in exchange for our efforts with OpenSSH, it might amount to $1,000. This all came from individuals. For our work on OpenSSH, companies using OpenSSH have never given us a cent. What about companies that in

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

[JimDaGeek]

Huh? Even if MS gave away their code with a purchase of MS Windows, you couldn't change the code and distribute it. With GPL, I could download your code that you charge for, and then give it to everyone I want without fee. You cannot do that with proprietary code. Heck, end-users are not even allowed to OWN the code/software they buy from a proprietary vendor. They just get to use/license it.

Everyone keeps thinking the GPL is about developers. However it is not. The GPL is about users and their freedom with the software. Say it over and over in your heads people... The GPL is about users.

BSD-style licenses basically say I don't care about what you do and I don't care if you restrict users of derivatives works of this code.
GPL-style licenses basically say you can create derivative works, you can distribute those works. However, you cannot restrict the rights of the users of this work from doing the same. BSD does NOT provide for that when it comes to derivative works.

So, in a nut shell, if you don't care who does what with the code, BSD or (even better IMO) LGPL can help you there. However, if you care about the users of your work the GPL is a good bet.

Me personally, I write code for users not developers. I enjoy writing code and having someone say that it came in handy and helped them. Those are the people I want to see have rights that copyright just doesn't provide.

Re:

[djmurdoch]

Heck, end-users are not even allowed to OWN the code/software they buy from a proprietary vendor.

End-users don't own my GPL'd code. I do.

If the end-user owned it, they wouldn't be required to distribute their source with their modifications. They could do whatever they liked with it.

Re:

[edwdig]

No, you don't. If you release any code under the GPL, any user is granted rights to that code. Regardless of what crap you think. If you release "your" code under the GPL, I have full rights to modify, distribute or sell the code I got from you.

Not quite right. You have rights to distribute, but not full rights. The author can distribute however he wants, however, receipts have some strings attached, so it's not full rights.

Re:

[init100]

No, you don't. If you release any code under the GPL, any user is granted rights to that code. Regardless of what crap you think. If you release "your" code under the GPL, I have full rights to modify, distribute or sell the code I got from you.

The difference is that the copyright holder has the right to distribute his code under any license, not just the GPL. If he owns the copyright for the entire package, he can relicense the package at will. This is the basis for multi-licensing, and this is the reason why e.g. MySQL requires you to grant them an unlimited license to be able to contribute, so that they can sell their code to such companies that cannot use the GPL version.

As a recipient of GPL-covered code, you cannot do that.

Re:

[djmurdoch]

End-users don't own my GPL'd code. I do.

No, you don't. If you release any code under the GPL, any user is granted rights to that code.

That's right, but not very precise. If I release my code under the GPL, *I* grant any user certain limited rights to that code. I'm the owner of the code, so I can do that.

The recipient of the code doesn't become the owner. If they did, they wouldn't be bound by the GPL. They are using my code with my permission, only in the way that I've allowed them to use it.

Regardles

Re:

[kestasjk]

I would consider BSD to be more open and better for encouraging competition. With BSD code you're saying "If anyone can take this code and make it so much better that people will pay for it, good for you!"

Mac OS X, for all I hate it, is a good demonstration of this. Instead of having to write a piece of crap from scratch Apple can take a solid base and develop on it. If they can develop enough that people pay for it good for them.
Windows should use BSD code too; stop worrying about the base and spend al

Re:

[Azul]

That's a very interesting perspective. Thanks for posting it. :-)

Re:

[kinglink]

See there's the exact problem. People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die. Because you can't see any benefits from working with corporations. Not every corporation is Microsoft. They want to do business and make money. That doesn't mean they don't want you to make money also, but their goals are their own company's growth. What Linux needs to do is work with companies that are willing to build up Linux as well. The doesn't mean open it u

Re:

[JimDaGeek]

See there's the exact problem. People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die.

This is just silly. Linux will never "die". It may never be mainstream, however it won't die. It is a robust OS with tons of devs interested in developing for it. Sure, it might not come in a pretty box like Vista; it might not have 7 different versions like vista and it probably won't be priced anything like vista, but it will never die.

Working with Corps. WRT Fr

Re:

[75th Trombone]

Linux ... might not have 7 different versions like vista

GUFFAW!

(ahem.) No, no sir, it does not have seven different versions. It has over three hundred. [wikipedia.org]

I'm just sayin' is all.

Re:

[rtb61]

You really seem to have a dysfunctional under standing of open source software. Not all open source software is 'Linux', in fact there are many open source products that run on windows and other operating systems. Open source and using GPL is suitable for some products because companies want to create their own code free of proprietary hooks that always seem to cause a lot of problems down the track.

Many corporations not associated with producing software can contribute a portion of what they spend on lic

Opensource software sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to hell, communists. You democrats are trying to destroy the United States' only hold over China: They need Microsoft software. When they can get crappy free solutions to do the same, the United States will just continue to become indebted to China and other countries. And it will be all your fault, you Hillary fanboys. For the sake of national security, free software efforts must become against the law. Besides, free software destroys our free market, creating monopolies, by selling at excessively low prices. Would Microsoft get away with giving away free products to take competitors' market share away? No. Neither should these ****ing tree-hugging, Prius-driving free software zealots. The captcha is appropriately "planking."

Re:

[HappySmileMan]

Is it just me or is "Anonymous Coward" a very hateful person?

He/she seems to be the only user here to ever go on a freedom-bashing/flaming/hate-filled rant.

Re:

[iminplaya]

I see it as sarcasm, and that's the way I'm going to take it. I certainly cannot take it seriously. That's for sure.

Re:

[unlametheweak]

I suppose that's why it's rated as flamebait. He's more than likely just trying to get a reaction (no matter what his/her actual beliefs are). It's a lame form of sarcasm if that's what it was intended to be. BTW I HAVE read about US politicians saying they wanted laws against FOSS because it supposedly hearts the US capitalist economy.

Re:

[Valtor]

...Neither should these ****ing tree-hugging, Prius-driving free software zealots...

Wow. I wonder what OSS has done to you, for you to hate it so much? I hope you are not loosing sleep over this...

Re:Opensource software sucks.

[jeevesbond]

This is such a hilarious troll, normally I wouldn't feed but the parent post is so ridiculous that it's gone beyond trolling into some random fantasy land.

Go to hell, communists.

The GPL is not Communist in nature, in fact when I distribute software under the GPL it's all about me and my choice to share work with others. In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine. Secondly, nowhere in the GPL does it say you cannot charge for your work, Studio to Go [ferventsoftware.com] is a good example of this.

You democrats are trying to destroy the United States' only hold over China: They need Microsoft software. When they can get crappy free solutions to do the same, the United States will just continue to become indebted to China and other countries. And it will be all your fault, you Hillary fanboys.

Right, because Free software is all a conspiracy to ruin the US. Of course most of the people who answered the survey in this MIT study [mit.edu], when asked what their motivation is, said: 'I'm a Hillary fanboy and want to ruin the US!' Or could it be that FLOSS developers enjoy coding and want to share stuff they like? Which do you think is more likely?

I like FLOSS but am not a Hillary fanboy. In fact am not really interested in your elections, suprise: there are people who live outside the US!

For the sake of national security, free software efforts must become against the law.

This is the funniest thing I've read for a long time. It would be interesting to see this happen, my hypothesis is that this would ruin software development in the US. Am pretty certain your country would suffer rather badly if it outlawed FLOSS but the rest of the world continued developing it. Think of all those savings your corporations would be missing out on! What about the US corporations who're distributing FLOSS, e.g. IBM, Sun, HP, Dell, RedHat et al?

Besides, free software destroys our free market, creating monopolies, by selling at excessively low prices. Would Microsoft get away with giving away free products to take competitors' market share away? No. Neither should these ****ing tree-hugging, Prius-driving free software zealots. The captcha is appropriately "planking."

Oh dear, that's funny. Free software does not destroy the free market, but encourages it. With FLOSS there's much less possibility for vendor lock-in (since everything is out in the open and I can't imagine the many volunteers working on FLOSS projects being happy with creating proprietary file formats etc.). Theoretically Microsoft would not get away with giving away software for free, yet that's exactly how they gained their monopoly: by turning a blind eye [arstechnica.com] to piracy. Your point is invalid in another respect: Microsoft is a company whereas Free software is an ecosystem/licensing model. If all proprietary software disappeared tomorrow there would still be plenty of competition, this is one of the things people complain about with GNU/Linux: there's too much choice!

I'd almost like to see your post modded up as 'Funny', just because it's so stupid and full of hilarious vitriol. Also I feel it's important to debunk rubbish like this sometimes, just in case someone else read your post and thinks that you've got a point (a scary prospect).

Re:Opensource software sucks.

[lixee]

In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine.

Communism, as preached by Mark, has never been implemented. What you're thinking of, is some kind of Bolshevism.

Re:

[jeevesbond]

Communism, as preached by Mark, has never been implemented. What you're thinking of, is some kind of Bolshevism.

You're absolutely right of course, I was 'dumbing down' the issues somewhat. The average westerner's definition of 'Communism' is that totalitarian state I was referring to: Soviet Russia under Stalin typifies Communism for most people.

My apologies for continuing to perpetuate mis-information.

Re:

[JimDaGeek]

You know the post you are replying to is meant as sarcasm [wikipedia.org]. :-)

Re:

[mudshark]

This is such a hilarious troll, normally I wouldn't feed but the parent post is so ridiculous that it's gone beyond trolling into some random fantasy land.

Indeed.

YHBT. HAND.

Re:

[rxmd]

WHOOOSH!

(Still made a couple of good points though.)

Re:

[init100]

It would be interesting to see this happen, my hypothesis is that this would ruin software development in the US. Am pretty certain your country would suffer rather badly if it outlawed FLOSS but the rest of the world continued developing it.

I'm pretty sure that if the US would outlaw free software, the state department would begin a strong lobbying campaign around the world to make sure that every other country also enact such laws. I mean, they already did it with software patents in the EU, to secure the profits of the mostly american corporations that hold (currently invalid) european software patents.

Re:

[Freed]

Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.

Where did Stallman or Kuhn ever say that the GPL is the only license with a righ

Re:Opensource software sucks.

[Dionysus]

Where did Stallman or Kuhn ever say that the GPL is the only license with a right to exist?

Guess you haven't read Why Software Should Be Free [gnu.org] or Kuhn's response to the Slashdot interview [slashdot.org]. Both men believes the choice of license is not something the developer should be allowed to decide.

To quote Kuhn:

Today, some argue that the "right to choose your own software license" is the greatest software freedom. By contrast, I think that, like slavery, it is an inappropriate power, not a freedom. The two situations both cause harm, and they differ only in the degree of harm that each causes.

Re:

[Freed]

>Guess you haven't read Why Software Should Be Free or Kuhn's response to the Slashdot interview. Both men believes the choice of license is not something the developer should be allowed to decide.

Thanks for the links. However, calling the power to choose one's license inappropriate does not imply that no license but the GPL should exist. Instead, in Freedom or Power? [gnu.org] Kuhn and Stallman argue that, given today's laws, the _ethical_ choice is a free software license:

We believe you should decide what to d

Re:

[frogstar_robot]

Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.

What's so great about a world where Bill Gates and Co. are basically entitle

Freedom vs. Power

[Freed]

Bottom line is that he who writes the code chooses the license. That is TRUE freedom whether apparent fascists such as yourself like it or not.

If we take freedom to be the ability to make decisions that mainly affect you, and power to be the ability to make decisions that mainly affect others, then we could say that the choice of license is an exercise of power. For more on this opinion, see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.htm l [gnu.org]

Re:

[frogstar_robot]

I'm still free to choose or create code not covered by abusive licenses. I mostly avoid MS' products because of the onerous and abusive terms under which I'm permitted to use them (no negative reviews of MS products for instance). If the terms of abusive licenses are enforced by various forms of Fritz chips then I'll allow that the FSF comes off as being more sane on the issue than a freeper like petrus4. As things stand, licenses are tools and the FSF has created useful ones which I am grateful for. I

Re:

[Freed]

I see where you are coming from. There are professional constraints, yes, but we often have discretion to solve these in a number of ways using free software. Moreover, outside a restrictive job, I choose for myself only free software with one exception. If there is nonfree software that I need to study in order to help develop a free workalike, then I will obtain a license for it and study it. It is funny to go on about how we might be a Stallman-bot, but, of course it is plainly a matter of ethics.

Re:

[petrus4]

It is funny to go on about how we might be a Stallman-bot

You are a Stallmanite drone, although the one thing I give you some credit for is your ability to take in absolutely any argument that you are faced with and somehow re-interpret it (at least in your own head) so that it still comes out conforming with your programming and paints Stallman as a saviour. For most people afflicted with the degree of brainwashing that you display, cognitive dissonance is usually a problem. Your capacity for bogus ration

Re:

[Freed]

>You are a Stallmanite drone...

You are implying that I agree with whatever Stallman says, which is just false. You seem to depend on ad hominem in place of a legitimate argument against free software. It's like a Democrat without any arguments calling a Republican a Bush drone. To the extent that the world will depend on fairly evaluating arguments, your position will dwindle. Good day.

Re:

[petrus4]

FSF comes off as being more sane on the issue than a freeper like petrus4.

What's a freeper? ;)

Re:

[frogstar_robot]

www.freerepublic.com

It's your new online home. You'll fit right in.....

Re:

[petrus4]

Interesting. So because I don't advocate a form of leftist extremism, it's automatically assumed that I must be a fascist instead?

Re:

[frogstar_robot]

You advocate only commercial software companies being allowed to write software and Open Source (a form of free speech) be outlawed. The state only allowing corporates to create things is one definition of fascism. So yes, you advocate a form a fascism.

Re:

[petrus4]

I don't advocate open source being outlawed at all. What I advocate is the erradication of what I percieve as an authoritarian, Marxist cult. (the FSF)

The single main reason why I advocate that is because I believe that open source under other licenses actually stands to experience much greater levels of adoption than if the FSF continues to exist, primarily because the FSF advocates (and is itself the source of) an ideology which causes alienation, conflict, and division.

Re:

[frogstar_robot]

The FSF only has authority over their own software. Sure they offend you but there is no reason for a reasonably free society to 'outlaw' or 'eradicate' them. We already tolerate actual communists, nazis, a rogues gallery of actual cults, and a number of other groups with the audacity to have a different point of view. All the FSF really does is publish software under some licenses and allow others to use those licenses. Well, they also have the unmitigated gall to exercise their free speech rights too.

Re:

[Dionysus]

FOSS doesn't put them out of business but it sure forces a degree of honesty out of them. Bottom line is that he who writes the code chooses the license.

You do realize that's a choice FSF doesn't believe you as a developer, have a right to make? Just read what Freed wrote in reply to your message, or some of the quotes from Kuhn or Stallman.

Re:

[frogstar_robot]

The FSF isn't ever going to be in a position to dictate over code they didn't write unless it links to their code. Even if the words of FSF proponents can be twisted into some sort of impending dystopia, it ain't gonna happen. The words of the FSF in no way detract from the validity of mine (Torvalds' actually): He who writes the code chooses the license.

Re:

[Freed]

>You do realize that's a choice FSF doesn't believe you as a developer, have a right to make? Just read what Freed wrote in reply to your message, or some of the quotes from Kuhn or Stallman.

Of course, by "have a right" you mean "should have a right". In Freedom or Power? [gnu.org] they write:

However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.

It seems they merely reject ad

Re:

[Freed]

Sorry to belabor this point, but there are other indications that, regardless of what the FSF may believe, it intends that developers should be able to choose a number of licenses. One such indication is simply having _provided_ any number of licenses to choose from, including any of version of the GPL as well as the LGPL. Another is advocating exception clauses when appropriate, such as the linking exception in the GNU C Library and GNU Guile and having a system of permissions and restrictions in the GPL

Re:

[jeevesbond]

However, a GPL monoculture has been seen time and again to be the end goal. Stallman's ideal scenario would be every bit as much a monoculture as Microsoft's

A license monoculture is not the same as a software monoculture under the control of one company. As for the rest of your post: weird and reality-twisting. Richard Stallman would like everyone to use the GPL? That's hardly a suprise. Yet you make it appear that promoting the GPL is the same as threatening to shoot anyone who doesn't. Only Microsoft

Re:

[bagofbeans]

There are a plurality of licenses, and GPL is simply one of them. No-one is forced to use GPL. If you like a program released under GPL and want to include its functionality in your own program (for sale of not), you can always re-write it.

Until GPL, re-write was the only option, and if every program in teh world was GPL, that still remains an option.

Re:

[init100]

Stallman's ideal scenario would be every bit as much a monoculture as Microsoft's

No, it wouldn't, since all software wouldn't be owned by a single entity. It would be a license monoculture rather than a software monoculture.

Re:

[multisync]

Go to hell, communists

I love how whenever you start talking about "freedom" with certain types of people you get called a "communist."

I know the AC is just trolling (or he's a total ass-hat), but I've actually encountered this in real life with otherwise intelligent people. You start talking about openness and choice and they feel threatened by that for some reason. I guess the only freedom they care about is their freedom to amass wealth.

Dumb and/or Insecure

[bill_mcgonigle]

You start talking about openness and choice and they feel threatened by that for some reason.

They're too dumb to figure out how to make money without keeping secrets, and perhaps they don't think they could convince somebody their ideas are correct without the coercive use of force.

Re:

[Ant P.]

If freedom is a communist idea, what does that make the United States, in your opinion?

A fascist dictatorship?

Re:

[lilomar]

Freedom is a communist idea, or at least a communist ideal. From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom. Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as action with content. (McLean and McMillan, 2003) They believed that communism allowed people to do what they want, b

Nice but

[Mateo_LeFou]

I'd like someone at linux.com to explain the rationale behind publishing one brief clip per day over the course of the week, instead of just publishing the interview. I'm not saying its a horrible thing to do.. just can't figure out why.

Re:Nice but

[otomo_1001]

I am guessing the theory was that if they broke it up that more people would come back to read it. More pageviews = more ad revenue?

God I hope not, the "news" with 5 pages of 2 paragraphs each is bad enough as it is. Now if the news sources think that spacing the article out over time will help, we can pretty much kiss the usefulness of the web goodbye.

This pretty much guarantees I will not be reading anything from linux.com now.

Re:

[alexgieg]

I think it's about time for someone to develop a "MergeNews" Firefox addon. You load an article in a known news source that suffers from multiple-page syndrome, it loads all the pages in the background, constructs a single, merged one, without the useless things of the original, presenting you the result.

Who's up to the task? ;)

Re:Nice but

[Mateo_LeFou]

I don't have much spare time to offer, but I'll give you a cooler name:

Call it "Y'know, Web 1.0 was, overall, working pretty well for me, thanks."

Or YW1.0WOWPWFMT, for short

Re:

[hendersj]

It's already been done:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/209 9 [mozilla.org]

It's called "printable view" nt

[mackyrae]

nt

Re:

[flyingfsck]

The main problem with internet news, is that you cannot wrap fish in old news, so stuff tends to hang around until someone eventually forgets to renew his domain name.

Re:

[qortra]

I'm not at linux.com, but I'll give it a go. You're right that this seems a little short, but the Serial [wikipedia.org] has a long and venerable tradition in western literature and journalism. Especially in this case, most people are not inclined to sit down with a tub of popcorn and watch an ogg of Eben Moglen for 10 minutes. On the other hand, 1.5 minute segments are much more digestible. And, if it's good, it's something to look forward to for a few days.

Re:

[Roblimo]

The real reason for publishing these five videos separately is so that they are searchable separately by topic.

This makes them more useful, long-run, for people who are just learning about free software -- or about Eben Moglen, for that matter.

- Robin

Maybe not profit

[ushering05401]

Maybe they want the story present for multiple days without appearing to have stale news so that more people will become aware of the information.

Maybe they want search engines to return more hits for solid GPL3 related info, so they will pepper the sight with multi-part articles for a while... if a casual browser hits one they will see links to the others w/out having to use more searching.

Maybe they are more concerned about casual users educating themselves on this issue as the hardcore ones are already i

Novell may have big problems

[PoliTech]

Novell views GPLv3 as a danger to its agreement with MS to resell SUSE Linux certificates. Novell comments that if "the Free Software Foundation releases a new version of the GNU General Public License with certain currently proposed terms, our business may suffer harm." That verbiage is from the annual report's risk factors section.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/0000 95013407012375/0000950134-07-012375.txt [sec.gov]

The FSF has as much as said that they will target the Microsoft-Novell deal. http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale [fsf.org], and since it's not a matter of "if" GPLv3 becomes more than a draft, as much as it is "when"...

The current draft of GPLv3 can affect Novell's biggest source of cash - Microsoft. (and may also affect SUSE gaining more market share in the enterprise) If the final GPLv3 impacts the patent agreement between Microsoft and Novell, Novell has big problems. And (IMHO) increasing SUSE acceptance among enterprise customers suffers a setback.

Re:Novell may have big problems

[sharperguy]

The entire aim of the GPLv3 is to baisically fix "bugs" and loopholes present in the GPLv2 in order to make sure that the four software freedoms are always present in GPL-licenced software.

Any company that claims their business may suffer harm should either point out why certain points in the licence are unfair, or accept that the reason they will "suffer harm" is because they were exploiting the errors within the GPL for their own means and therefor going against the spirit of Free Software.

The FSF may be specifically targeting the M$-Novell deal in some areas, but it is not the only rational, because the creation was already underway before it was apparent the deal had even been agreed apon. Also if they target this deal then it is because of areas of the agreement which are not in the spirit of Free Software, and should only affect these areas.

Re:

[Kjella]

Any company that claims their business may suffer harm should either point out why certain points in the licence are unfair, or accept that the reason they will "suffer harm" is because they were exploiting the errors within the GPL for their own means and therefor going against the spirit of Free Software.

Yes, because RMS is such a compromising, cautious and pragmatic man that he'd never accept any colleteral damage in the name of Free Software.

Re:

[apokryphos]

On the other hand [opensuse.org], the third and latest draft [fsf.org] does not prohibit Novell [novell.com] of any of its Linux offerings.

Re:LOL

[marcosdumay]

The GPL is not anti-bussiness nor anti-capitalist. It is just against one kind of business, that is selling the same software again and again for huge profits at each copy. A business plan that can not be sucessfull on a free society.

Re:

[sharperguy]

No, no it is not It is against people putting restrictions on the use of software once it has been obtained. These rescrictions can include restriction to modify, redistribute, or even just use in a way other than originally intended. They are against this because they feel it directly affects the freedoms of you and me. Most people in the modern world use computers, many on a daily basis. They say that if restrictions are placed on how the computers are used, then restrictions are placed on how people li

Re:

[marcosdumay]

"However, you need to keep in mind that those "huge profits" are paying off the costs of development."

But don't forget that the only reason FOSS is sucessfull is because it have much lower development costs than proprietary software. Otherwise, you wouldn't even listen about it.

Anyway, if there is a place for proprietary software (I think there is, but it is so small that we won't miss it if copyrights go away), that development model will continue to be sucessfull, GPL existing or not.

Re:

[beyondkaoru]

you bring up a decent view. you shouldn't be modded down or given stupid answers so i'll try to give a good one. i can definitely understand the feeling of wanting money for selling one's work.

i can try to give a rebuttal, but to do so requires primarily me giving an anti-intellectual-property speech. well, here it is. the argument here is that having a world of all free software is _more_ according to capitalist ideals than having a world that is all or mostly proprietary software. the capitalist ideal inv

Re:

[bnenning]

Someone needs to sit a few people from Novell down at some point and explain to them that a desire to ensure that businesses suffer harm was arguably one of the main motivations behind the GPL having been written at all.

Tell that to the thousands of companies saving billions of dollars by using GPL software.

For once, I wish someone could actually give me a reasoned rebuttal on why they believe that I'm wrong in believing that (at least the intention behind) the GPL is largely anticapitalist

The GPL is neithe

Re:LOL

[multisync]

Someone needs to sit a few people from Novell down at some point and explain to them that a desire to ensure that businesses suffer harm was arguably one of the main motivations behind the GPL having been written at all. For once, I wish someone could actually give me a reasoned rebuttal on why they believe that I'm wrong in believing that (at least the intention behind) the GPL is largely anticapitalist

Please explain to me how a developer choosing to license software with the GPL is "anti-capitalist?" All the GPL does is grant additional rights to the user, provided they abide by the terms of the license. If they don't abide by those terms, they are not entitled to those additional rights.

How is this different from commercial software? It comes with a license as well, outlining the terms under which you may use it. If you do not wish to abide by the terms of the license, you are free to try another product with a different license (BSD, for example). Nobody is forcing you to use this particular software. And nobody is preventing another business from releasing software under the license of their choice.

What is "anti-capitalist" about users and developers having choice?

Re:

[weicco]

Just a thought. Something to discuss about...

FSF writes GPL and FSF holds copyrights to GNU software? This means that FSF has very large influence on GPL licensed software. Not directly of course but when they choose to move GNU stuff from v2 to v3 others are most likely to follow, some maybe even forced to. Could one even say FSF has monopoly on GPL? Just kidding :)

So FSF isn't actually forcing developers to move to v3 but they sure has a strong influnce on this matter. Maybe that's what's bugging some p

Re:

[multisync]

You raise an interesting point. The FSF does swing a big hammer, but ultimately the developer and user still have the choice to move on to something else, just like with commercial software. The advantage free software has over its commercial counterpart (and the reason I believe it does not conflict with capitalism) is that it provides opportunities for small businesses to fill a niche by adding something of value (training, support, implementation etc) to an existing project to differentiate themselves fr

Re:

[weicco]

If you think about it, copyright itself is actually "anti-capitalist." It is an artificial restriction placed on the market to give an advantage to a particular entity (the copyright holder).

This goes little offtopic and I'm sure this has been discussed here earlier but...

You're propably right. This is one reason why if I ever release any code into the "wild" I use BSD license. But without copyright laws I don't think I could add any restrictions to my code and how it is distributed among people and I w

Re:

[honkycat]

Others have said it, probably better, but the GPL is not really aligned with either socialism or capitalism, merely with the idea that software (and perhaps more generally information, but it only deals with software) should not have artificial restrictions placed on its duplication. This embraces aspects of socialism ("share the wealth") and capitalism (only scarce commodities have value, and information by its nature is not scarce). You can argue about whether it's beneficial to an economy to enforce ar

Re:

[75th Trombone]

their aim ... to rid the world of non-free software.

And THAT right there is why it's not completely crazy to suggest that the (intention behind the) GPL is anti-capitalist. It's not crazy to suggest that if Stallman could, he would prohibit all licenses but the GPL. (There are quotes from the FSF website and from FSF people earlier in the topic that explicitly say as much.)

Yes, plenty of companies save/make tons of money via Free software. Stallman does not care. Stallman has shown in many ways that h

Re:

[petrus4]

That wasn't my response...that was an AC. ;)

Re:

[PeterBrett]

i hope any SEC filing/statement mentions potential harm due to changes in software licensing...

I'm sure that you're pleased to hear that they do [groklaw.net].

GPLv3 vs. the DRM lockdown

[Freed]

As long as...great great tinkerers need to worry about the freedom to tinker, http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ [freedom-to-tinker.com];
...the powerful such as Bill Gates keep investing in long-term research on how to lock people down;
...we leave it to the U.S. government to following the Constitution, including recovering the real purpose of copyright and patents by, e.g., repealing the DMCA;
We will need the likes of the GPL3 to give an option to reduce the inevitable temptation of vested interests to use DRM to subjugate people.

Re:

[Freed]

>that Novell would have to suffer though? Sure they earned money from m$ but is that so bad? they shouldnt have gpl3 hurt novell imho.

Money from MS in itself has nothing to do with it. Indeed, of the three parts of the deal--business, technical, and patent, it is just the patent agreement that is the problem. Fixing the loophole that it exploited is far more important than the fates of corporations, particularly ones that have shown willingness to exploit find and exploit such loopholes.

If you are unco

To explain

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I am NOT the hate-filled idiotic Annomynous Coward. While I am from the good ol' US of A, (Still the most free country in the world despite what Bush Jr has done to try not to make it so) I believe that Open Source through the GPL is the only way to get a REAL competitor to Windows. Despite how important Microsoft was to the OS Revolution (I won't deny MS's contributions to getting a 'computer in every home'), Microsoft will easily help a competitor to make a standard (i.e. Embrace), adding new stuff that the competitor doesn't have (i.e. Extend), and then preventing said competitor from using their stuff when it becomes a defacto standard (i.e. Extinguish). Of course, the GPL prevents this because if you modify the code and publish the product, you accept the conditions of the GPL, which includes having to share the source code with the user, including the modified parts. However companies like Tivo and Novell have created ways to short-circuit GPL v2, by using DRM and Patents... thus GPL v3 closes these two loopholes. Novell and Tivo can gladly stick with GPL v2, but they will have to fork to avoid GPL v3. Meanwhile, most end-users would not care about GPL v2 or v3, just that it is free as in beer, rather as in freedom.

Re:

[jez9999]

(Still the most free country in the world despite what Bush Jr has done to try not to make it so)

Most free in what way? Freedom to own guns? Perhaps (Iraqis might be freer there, though). Freedom of anything else? Nope.

Re:

[iago-vL]

That's fine and dandy until somebody takes your markets your application and sells it for millions, while you're slaving away. Perhaps you could argue that selling it is "messing with it" -- but that's not necessarily true. And then comes the legal-speak...

Re:

[MightyMartian]

If it was that valuable then you're an idiot for giving it away.

Perhaps one sees more money in support than in enforcing various kinds of licensing schemes which often piss off customers rather than aid them in the work they need to do with the software. I'd gladly give software away if I could instead get lots and lots of support contracts.

Re:they're right

[Teun]

People don't get rich by making dumb business decisions.

What makes you think Getting Rich is the (ultimate) goal in life?
Most that I know who write their code under the GPL just want to have a good life and share with like minded.
Sharing != giving away.

Re:

[iminplaya]

That's far too complicated. My "license" simply says, "Go nuts." I won't let anybody prohibit me from using and copying and distributing anything that contains any code that I wrote. You can't steal the sun from me...or something like that.

Re:

[jez9999]

So, you're using the BSD licence.