Linux.com

Nokia very recently launched a new linux based device. Now they promise not to sue the linux kernel developers and users.
The sincerity of their sacrifice brings tears to my eyes.

#

Well said. They are shamelessly harvesting the Free Software community's fruit, promising they won't hurt the trees.

#

Note to Stallman:

The Wall has fallen. The USSR has been dissolved. Five-year plans are a relic of the past. China is (reluctantly) trending toward capitalism. Marxism/Leninism has been a proven disaster. Get the picture?

However, there's this little island off the coast of Florida where they'd love you. This guy named Fidel runs the place...

#

Note to the loser who posted this. China has resoundingly dumped Microsoft and gone with Linux. So have many places in Europe. Many in Latin America and Asia are going that way. I can bet that folks like you can barely click on proprietary GUIs and feel bad that the number of free software users and developers is growing everyday and that you would be left behind. There's a small place where they would love you. Its called the "closed-source ghetto" where they can enslave you forever.

#

OK, now that was funny. I'd mod up if I could.

#

Here is a good example of RMS at his worst.
Lets face it, RMS has done more harm to the free software world than good, he is known to bicker about the silliest things like GNU/Linux instead of linux (which shows that he is a sore loose BTW)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Also his quarell over KDE's QT licence lead to the developers being split into GNOME and KDE thus wasting valuable linux resources and unnecessary bloat of distros, and look what has hapenned now, KDE continues to grow stronger and more user friendly while GNOME has faded in to obsecurity.

Its high time that RMS should realise that he has done good things for OSS in the pst and now its time to hangup his boots and retire rather than causing further harm to linux by his rhetoric. What we need is more of the practical people like Torvalds and less of the extremists like RMS and his henchmen like Eric S Raymond etc.

I ofcourse wellcome nokia's contribution, we should not view everything as a trojan horse.

#

RMS is trying his best to get the things right in a right manner. You need to widen your knowledge sphere mate

#

>RMS has done more harm to the free software world than good

YAMOA, Yet Another Moronic Opinion Again. How could the _founder_ of a succesful social movement do more harm than good to it?

Why do you think RMS is wrong? Give arguments at least once. RMS has the same right than you (I would say much more) to express his _opinions_ about issues related to free software.

PS: Regarding QT licenses, obvioulsy RMS has have a huge influence in Qt becoming free software. But this issue is completely off-topic to Nokia announcement.

#

Why do you think RMS is wrong? Give arguments at least once

Every time RMS hits mainstream news, the MS trolls pop up and throw in ad hominem attacks. Maybe that's part of the change in strategy. Too bad that troll got in so early in the threads. Maybe Team99, or whatever it is called this year, is well staffed and funded.

#

You might be well server to investigate Adm Rickover and his initial boon to the Nuclear US Navy (and all Navies with nuclear ships) and his later hinderence to said program later in his life. Essentially, founding a thing, be it nuclear subs or the FSF, is fine and dandy but when the founder and lead spokesman becomes an immovable rock in the face of technical advancements the founder can become a wall instead of a road.

IMHO RMS started paving the road years and years ago, but he has since become a rock in the way. That's just my 2 cents.

Resources:

<a href="http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsubmarine10.htm" title="about.com">http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsu<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> marine10.htm</a about.com>

<a href="http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/jul-aug/schratz.html" title="af.mil">http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/<nobr>a<wbr></nobr> ureview/1983/jul-aug/schratz.html</a af.mil>

#

The above statement is pretty idiotic, IMO. Stallman is NOT standing in the way of technical advancement, he's standing in the way of politicized threats to the very existence of free software. There's no "technical advancement" even being discussed here. As one who is intimitely and personally familiar with Rickover's influence, good and bad, on the Navy Nuclear program, comparing Stallman to Hyman is worth less than the 2 cents you gave it.

#

I ofcourse wellcome nokia's contribution, we should not view everything as a trojan horse.

No, but we should view trojan horses as what they are: a danger.

In fact, one thing RMS fails to mention which I think is important:
Saying that only the Linux kernel may use the patents is IMO incompatible with the GPL (the license the Linux kernel uses). Because of that Nokias offer is in effect worth absolutely nil.
Quoth the GPL, paragraph 6:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Not allowing any other project to use the code in the Linux kernel directly contradicts this sentence.

#

>Saying that only the Linux kernel may use the patents is IMO incompatible with the GPL

I don't think so.
Nokia isn't contributing any code to Linux, thus they haven't agreed to the GPL.
Of course, that's another demonstration of why software patents are bad.

#

You are wrong, even if Nokia does not contribute to Linux, they are distributing it (see new Nokia phone), so they agreed with the GPL, otherwise they are infringing copyrights.

#

yes, but anyone that adds to the kernel must ensure that the re-use of their code is legal. if they do not then they are imposign a restriction on the kernel, whether it is their restriction or someone else's. therefore, the right to use the patents is useless, because it can't be implemented.

#

yes, but anyone that adds to the kernel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

You don't have to add to the kernel. You just have to distribute the kernel, modified or not and you come under the GPL and thereby lose the right encumber it with patents. Nokia did nothing more that what they are already required by copyright law to do. They are taking favors from free software and making it look like they are doing free software a favor.

#

You don't appear to be very well informed as to the current state of software patents, and Nokia's position with reference to them. Or perhaps you just have to bash anything RMS says. You certainly appear to have a bit of a grudge against him.

In an attempt to inject a bit of reality into your ad hominem tirade I might mention:
1. Nokias pro software patent stance.
2. Nokias reliance on the linux kernel.
3. The very likely possibility that this is just a propagande move designed to convince the EU parliament that the megacorporations will be benevolent dictators over the software fields once they are granted the monopoly that the new directive in affect gives them.

#

I'd very much like you to tell all the people using Gnome their GUI has fallen into obscurity. I doubt they noticed. I doubt Red Hat or Ubuntu noticed either.

And I'd *love* you to tell RMS and ESR the latter is the former's henchman. I'd love to see their reaction.

That you don't know stuff isn't a problem, but stop shouting silly things like that please. Get a clue.

#

An utterly useless, irrelevant, mud-slinging jerk. How much did M$ pay you?

#

It's quite fine for a creator of a project to continue to promote it.
GNU/Linux is actually that, the linux kernel running under the GNU system.

Many people like to shorten the name to just 'linux' in the same way that people shorten mcdonalds to 'maccas' or Microsoft Window XP to just 'windows'. This doesn't mean that people can not and shouldn't refer to things by there true names.
Where has RMS lost? The linux kernel was a great gain for the free software movement. HURD is a wonderful idea although maybe a bit ambishous.

I think you dear sir and fairly misinformed and a bit more willing to give up some of your freedoms.

 

#

I think you are wrong this shows him at his worst. However I do agree he can be rather pendantic.

On the articles subject matter, I think he is correct to look the gift horse in the mouth. On the short term Nokia's offer sounds great. Longer term it does pose some valid questions. Ones, he IMO is correct to point out. It shows prudence that all offers from proprietary works should be well reasoned out. As an example, not all patches to any kernel is accepted blindly no matter the source.

#

His opinion is well funded and he gives good arguments and context. Why is he pedantic?

#

Many other's opinions are well-funded. Consider MS.

#

I think he meant "well founded". Just being pedantic. I'm sure RMS *wishes* he was well funded!

#

Being strict and pedantic is absolutely necessary, when trying to adhere to morals, ideals, principles and beliefs.

RMS may sound extreme, but what if he had said that a little Free is good enough? Would we have a complete Free OS right now anno 2005? I think not.

Free Software is not a business of easy money, so we need RMS as a pure, unbending and relentless counterweight to the proponents of easy money.

Control and lockin happens when we let it happen. At least RMS actively fights against that.

#

I think you misunderstand my attempt to correct the parent post about him being at his worst. Even if pendandicy (?) was the issue. It isn't at least to me. I was simply trying to point out, I guess badly, the points RMS raises here are IMO valid.

#

I was simply trying to point out, I guess badly, the points RMS raises here are IMO valid.

Thats because you are extremely ignorant and out-of-touch with reality. Try reading some other posts and learning how much Nokia supports software patents in Europe and how they are required by copyright law to adhere to the terms of the GPL (since they distribute the linux kernel) and therefore cannot impose patent restrictions on it. Next, they will brag about the fact that they pay income tax (what a virtue).

#

At the risk of feeding a troll...

Lets face it, RMS has done more harm to the free software world

  than good,

Although this is a matter of opinion, I think that any reasonable
person will look at rms's balance sheet and see that his good to bad
ratio is way far in the good side.

GNU/Linux instead of linux

This is an idealism v. pragmatism argument. He does make some valid

  points in this area.

(which shows that he is a sore loose

This is an ad hominem attack. What has he lost? And since your
attack was as it is, I will reply in kind by pointing out that the
word you were looking for is loser, and that the word loose makes no
sense at all in this context. Proof read more rigorously or look the
word up if you don't understand correct usage.

Also his quarell over KDE's QT licence lead to the developers being

  split into GNOME and KDE

It also resulted in the release of QT under a truly free license. A
net win for the community.

KDE continues to grow stronger and more user friendly while GNOME
has faded in to obsecurity.

I am not sure you understand what the word obscurity means. If you
think Gnome is obscure, what is CDE? I would imagine it would come as
a suprise to all the Gnome developers and Novell (buyer of Ximian, who
built their business on Gnome) to find out that Gnome is obscure.

Its high time that RMS should realise that he has done good things for OSS in the pst and now its
time to hangup his boots and retire rather than causing further harm
to linux by his rhetoric.

I shiver to think about how many worthwhile things we as a planet
would not have if not for idealists. If not for the radical
idealists, the upper level of believers in any movement would be
middle of the road, causing the median believers to be much less
resolute in their convictions to right whatever wrong they are
fighting. It is a yin-yang thing. You need the idealists.

What we need is more of the practical people like Torvalds and less

  of the extremists like RMS

see above comment...

his henchmen like Eric S Raymond etc.

I laughed at this. I thought you might know what you were talking
about until I got to this. Maybe you should do a little reading on
the OSI v. FSF. also known as open source v. free software, aka
idealism v. pragmatism, before you spew forth malformed thoughts such
as these. esr as rms's henchman... you are a silly person.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

rdc

#

The licence for QT was "free" anyway from the start, it wasnt free enough (if you get my point) for those evangelists hence the war. And anyway our community didnt win anything by trolltech releasing qt under gpl, we are net loosers as we forked developementinto gnome and kde, each with their bloated up libraries and dependencies, which bloat up linux distributions so much that windows looks very lean in comparision.

Fool, you may like radical idealists (castro anyone?) gun toting and howling like mad, but as history shows they amount to nothing at the end, see what hapenned to all those communist states in the end.

I meant that GNOME still has a long way to come to compete with KDE with reagards to user friendliness, and polished and smooth appearance and integratednes of applications. Lets face it, everone knows that GNOME SUCKS.

"henchmen" was used to describe the bunch of people who write "open letters" regularly which serve to practical value except to
1. Stir up further dissent in a extremely divided community.
2. Serve to show that the writer is still alive and not in the wilderness<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

My prediction is that just like communism which was a nice social idea acceptable to all failed, the free software/GPL will also fail, due to the fact that by nature we all are capitalists in the pure sense of the word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

Cheers! and the big finger to RMS and ESR and their disciples too.

#

KDE still has a long way to come to compete with GNOME with reagards to user friendliness, and polished and smooth appearance and integratednes of applications. Lets face it, everone knows that KDE SUCKS.

#

So he "corrects" one idiotic post with another!

The Gnome vs KDE debate has nothing to do, at this point, with the licensing. But at least the parent reveals his true feelings on Free software, and admits that he really is nothing more than a troll/shill.

#

My prediction is that just like communism which was a nice social idea acceptable to all failed, the free software/GPL will also fail, due to the fact that by nature we all are capitalists in the pure sense of the word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

Must be a guy with MSCE or some crappy proprietary software developer who's skills are becoming fast irrelevant because of free software alternatives. Keep praying for the fall of communism. Before long the free software tanks will steamroll your closed-source junk.

#

Another sick corporate brown noser, with his slavish opinions on how to his masters in the
coporate world will be well served, by kissing
their rear ends.

What are you doing dabbling in linux, haven't you
heard of richmond where your kind dwells.

We need a vigillantes like RMS or we are likely to
be seduced into loosing our freedoms.

#

Actually, the situation's even worse than RMS describes - there are two other major limitations to Nokia's promise.

For one, the promise not to use patents against the Linux kernel is limited to those kernels that are released on kernel.org - the standard vanilla kernel, Andrew Morton's -mm kernel, the old kernel branches (2.4 etc.) and so on. However, more or less no major distribution (with Slackware being a notable exception) distributes these vanilla kernels - more or less all vendor kernels are heavily patched, often with new features and bugfixes backported from newer releases, and other things. Nokia does not say anything about these kernels.

And furthermore, the promise only applies to kernels that have already been released on kernel.org - there is nothing that's said about *any* new versions.

In short - if you're using a vendor kernel, you're not covered. If you make modifications to the kernel yourself - you're not covered. If you upgrade to a newer version - you're not covered. And, of course, as RMS pointed out, if you're using *anything* else, then you're not covered.

So Nokia's announcement really isn't just "next to nothing" - for all practical purposes, it *is* nothing.

#

"there is nothing that's said about *any* new versions."

That's actually incorrect. Nokias statement is here:
<a href="http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,1522,,00.html?orig=/iprstatements" title="nokia.com">http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,1522,,00.html?orig=/<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> prstatements</a nokia.com>

This is the relevant part:
"The aforesaid non-assertion shall extend to any future Linux Kernel to the extent that Nokia does not declare any new functionality embodied in such Linux Kernel to be outside the scope of this Patent Statement. Nokia shall issue such declaration through its website no later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the official release of such Linux Kernel."

I'd say RMS is correct.

#

If you need a practical example of a big company threatening open source developers with purely bogus reasons, why not having a look at the following news items:

<a href="http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11886" title="cdfreaks.com">http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11886</a cdfreaks.com>
<a href="http://www.cdrlabs.com/#3" title="cdrlabs.com">http://www.cdrlabs.com/#3</a cdrlabs.com>

and the following threads:

<a href="http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=138061" title="cdfreaks.com">http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=138061</a cdfreaks.com>
<a href="http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19840" title="cdrlabs.com">http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1984<nobr>0<wbr></nobr> </a cdrlabs.com>

Just to quickly summarise:

These are sad days for the owners of a Plextor DVD writer. Plextor showed us again how much they really care about their customers, by deciding to threaten Zeb, the developer of PxLinux (formerly hosted at <a href="https://sourceforge.net/projects/pxscan/" title="sourceforge.net">https://sourceforge.net/projects/pxscan/</a sourceforge.net>) with a lawsuit.

The so called reason for this, is because Plextor sees any software using certain SCSI commands to communicate with their drive as illegal. Plextor believes only they have the right to interface with the unit and nobody else.

PxLinux is the only software in existence capable of performing writing quality scans under Linux (using Plextor's drives), since Plextor's own Plextools Pro works exclusively under Windows, and Plextor does not care to provide this feature for Linux anyway.

PxLinux is actually the Linux port of PXScan, another open source software written by Alexander Noe (<a href="http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~noe/Plextor/" title="tu-chemnitz.de">http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~noe/Plextor/</a tu-chemnitz.de>), which this time works under Windows and offers quite a few unique features and improvements over Plextor's Plextools Pro and even over their poor-selling commercial rip-off named Plextools XL.

As I'm sure you've guessed, Alexander is also a Plextor target, being threatened with a lawsuit as well.

This comes after Plextor already stopped Erik Deppe, the developer of Nero CD-DVD Speed (<a href="http://www.cdspeed2000.com/" title="cdspeed2000.com">http://www.cdspeed2000.com/</a cdspeed2000.com>) to release his latest version of CD-DVD Speed, which was capable of doing quality scans on Plextor drives.

The latest in this story is that Plextor has also sent a threatening letter to CDRLabs (<a href="http://www.cdrlabs.com/#3" title="cdrlabs.com">http://www.cdrlabs.com/#3</a cdrlabs.com>), asking them to stop their registered forum users promoting this "illegal" software at the expense of their own poorer one. So much with the freedom of speach too...

I reckon this subject is worthy of a news headline and proper debate, and I also think we should show our support and appreciation to the developers and transmit a strong negative message to Plextor as they deserve.

In spite of the lack of any legal grounds, they hope that by employing strong arm techniques they can bully the developers to shut down these projects. This is Plextor's sad way of ensuring they have complete monopoly over the software used by their customers with their drives, and to force their customers into buying their expensive and less capable software instead.

This comes after their last two drives (PX712 and PX716) were plagued by multiple software and hardware problems, which made the life of many customers a complete nightmare, forcing many customers to RMA their drives several times until they finally got a decent drive. All this while Plextor calling themselves the "King of Quality" and charging for their drives significantly more than almost any other manufacturer...

I reckon we should have sued them, for selling substandard hardware, not the other way around!

Their greed and contempt towards their customers seems to have no limits nowadays. Let's make this outrageous action known to the world and give them a lesson!

RMS wanted an example of a company threatening a software developer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, here's one!

#

That is, a letter threatening to sue OS developers for patent violations. Nokia would gain nothing by alienating a developer community that only helps it. Instead of considering just the theoretical possibilities of a lawsuit, you also have to take into account the practical realities of the marketplace. The fact is developers are valuable to Nokia and you don't want to piss them off by suing them (this also applies to Sun).
Pretty much the only company that gains nothing from OS developers is MS and THAT is the company you should be on the lookout for. It makes me sad to see when all these OS developers attack companies that are making gestures toward them (even if they're not as big as they would like them to be) and ignore the real monster lurking in the corner.

#

You seem to have missed the context of that request. RMS had left Nokia far behind when making that request. It's not Nokia specific, nor kernel specific.

#

Stallman is right that this grant doesn't actually offer anything that releasing the gadget doesn't grant anyway. That is, since they are publishing the kernel source (and applications) covered under the GPL, they can't impose additional conditions -- such as keeping current on patent royalties -- on the use of that code. In fact, their obligations extend beyond their announcement. If I extract code from the kernel and put it in my program, they can't enforce patents on that either. (Of course some idiot jury or corrupt judge could rule otherwise.)

There's one place where their announcement seems to offer something just publishing under the GPL doesn't. That's the threat against anybody else enforcing patents against code in their gadget. Normally they would wait for whoever was suing actually to sue Nokia before enforcing their own patents against the attacker. Of course, they haven't actually offered to enforce their patents against such parties; they have only announced that such parties don't automatically get a license to use any Linux code that implements their patents. Since the GPL doesn't actually allow that restriction, it's moot. Because otherwise the patents already were not licensed, there's nothing left.

Certainly anybody they already have patent-rights exchange agreements with is free to sue any other user of Linux without fear of Nokia enforcing anything against them. Likewise, anybody who doesn't distribute anything all, and is just a litigation shell, such as Nathan Myhrvold's outfit. Lots of people were fooled by this, and only the dedicated will read this or Stallman's remarks. That made it a crafty thing to do, but also reveals their true intent.

#

(My name is Grigor Gatchev.)

The grant of Nokia is project-specific, not code-specific. If you extract code from the kernel and use it in your own program (eg. kernel drivers for interfacing with Nokia devices), the grant does not apply - you may be attacked by Nokia.

This is truly an experiment how little they may give and still pretend to be "friendly". I am sorry to be so harsh, but... this is the truth.

#

I've butted heads with RMS in the past both publicly and privately, but in this issue I must concur that he is right. It's nothing more than an un-fullfilable promise and will cause more damage if allowed to happen. His analogy is bang on the money here, and I, for one, am glad to see him taking a stand on this one.

Gerk

#

While the EU patent issue is an important one, and Mr. Stallman offers useful advice, what about the patent battle in America? Has Mr. Stallman, an American, given up the battle in his own country?

I say let the European's fight the FOSS war in the European theatre and let the American's fight the FOSS war in the American theatre. In other words, let the citizens of a given jurisdiction fight the battles in their own jurisdictions. But the battles have to be fought concurrently, and in a coordinated fashion, in each theatre. And if another front opens up (e.g. DRM), then that has to be taken on as well.

And I think that someone should be responsible for coordinating the worldwide effort to protect FOSS and to coordinate overall strategy.

After all, it seems likely that the corporations already have their strategies against FOSS (secretly) mapped out and, possibly, coordinated. FOSS should do the same - except for the secret part.

#

I think, even for Americans it is very important to not to have patents in EU, because it will then provide unified juridical space and allows patent holders to be more aggresive, knowing that there is no rich country that is excluded.

#

the GPL clearly state that you cannot distribute GPL software if you encumber it with other restrictions?

They HAVE to agree not to sue folks over their patents, or the GPL for the kernel becomes void to them and they are guilty of massive copyright infringement by distributing the kernel on their devices.

As RMS says - nice gesture, means nothing.

#

Why do you think there is so much lobbying?



If ownership of thoughts, or "intellectual property," is rejected by the EU; the US will have to abandon them too: To prevent becoming a technological backwater.



The only way the patent-hobbled software monopolists can survive, it to similarly hobble other nations.



Our freedom, as software developers, has been taken in the US. It is humbling irony that this time, Europe can win it back for us.



John

#

If ownership of thoughts, or "intellectual property," is rejected by the EU; the US will have to abandon them too: To prevent becoming a technological backwater.

I have the impression, these days, that America thinks she has the (God given) right to run the world. Given the political climate, a win against software patents in the EU does not, in my opinion, automatically mean a win against software patents in America.

#

It's not a guarantee but I think the grandparent post was, though, right about the US becoming a technological backwater if it is the only country that recognizes software patents. And I say: I hope it happens! After a couple of years of citizens and companies living with a legal climate that, in effect, enforces a "Buy American Only" program, changes will be made. Or politicians will be out looking for new jobs.

As for the political climate: I'm so disgusted with the current climate that it makes me nauseous. I've been a life-long Republican voter and this is the first time in 30-plus years that I've voted Democratic. The excesses of the current administration are absolutely unbelievable. It's a wonder that we have any allies at all.

#

If ownership of thoughts, or "intellectual property," is rejected by the EU [...]

I think its too late. The leaders of Europe (that is the governments) do want to introduce "Intellectual Property". They even put it into the draft for the joint Constitution for the Nations of Europe. Fortunately, the Constitution will not take into effect.

#

And since France recently voted 'no', to the EU's constitution, things have become really confusing.

#

Watch out. Don´t confuse "intellectual property" with "patents". The problem here is about patents over software, where intellectual property and/or copyrights would be enough to protect the author´s rights over his own software creations.
It´s like music, for example. You can write a song and then copyright (or copyleft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;D ) it. That´s ok, you are protecting yourself from someone that could "steal" your song and make money for YOUR work. What monopolists are doing is to get a patent for "a method of combining 3 simultaneous notes to get a nice sound" and then suing you for using a "chord" in your song! (Or a double click in your application...)

#

Recently I have come to the conclusion that most people perceive the FSF description as something other then what it is , even myself I whas in that category of people.

The FSF is a "Political" group of people who gets to decide what software get the mention Free software certification by FSF. They absolutely do not base there descision on the merits and quality of software or there license , but on what political views and favor they support at this momment in time.

I dont think that the Nokia issue is really a big problem people see them coming a mile away.

But the fact that many software license which are certified Free Software when in fact in there design it allow for the closing of the source code and removal of the basic freedom which are at the core of the FSF and this for us all and that this is acepted by the politcal body controlling the FSF at this time in my opinion is absolutely wrong.

Many people knew me as one of the most vocal defender of the FSF and OSI , but in recent years both group have became politcal body instead of defender of rights of the users and access to the code.

When the OSI allow for many license to close the source code in there design I think that its absolutely wrong that they are certified and called Open Source, I view this iin the same way as a murder law which is illegal inside the country but when your outside of the limit of the country you can kill your neighboor for any reason , for me its absolutely wrong , allowing the closing of the code for Open Source is the absolute opposite of what The OSI stands for and is supposed to be certifying .

When the FSF allow for many license to remove the basic rights for which the FSF stands for and allow them to be certified and called Free Software it become a mockery of the principle and of the value that is perceived as the basis for the FSF very existance.

Bot license are missing some final and decisive wording , both have the same flaw, those words which are missing : AT ALL TIME.

The Fact that those word are not in the description that The OSI and FSF use for there certification allow for a real problem which allow cetification of license which are absolutely the opposite of what those groups stand for and are supposed to protect.

By this text I encourage everyone to refuse the Current FSF and OSI certification as they are political motivated scam of what they really stand for.

I myself refute the validity of both certification at this period in time as the description they use is politicaly motivated and not based on the defense and protection of the right those two certification are suppose to be protecting.

Free Software certification should be given to free software who are Free Software at all time , not just when some people decide they would like it to be.

Open Source certification should be given to Open Source software who are Open Source at all time , not just when some people decide they would like it to be.

Sorry for the disturbance , but I am making you aware of something absolutely wrong in my view. And shall continue to do so every time I see a posting refering to the FSF and OSI as I belive them to be politcal scammer at this moment in time.


 

#

Anything that has been released under the GPL stays that way. There is no going back. But if the *author* wishes to make further changes and release the package as proprietary code, how could you stop him? And how would it be possible for the FSF to know what products will be later released under a different license? They can't see the future.

Be specific and tell us what software you think was certified, and then "taken back," and tell us what you think could be done to the certification program to fix this problem.

#

Add the word "at all time" to every "official" description by those two groups, otherwise its a political scam.

This way it become Real Open Source as the source stay Open Source at all time.

This Way it become Real Free Software as the Free Software stay Free Software at all time.

Otherwise you have someting which "can be in some occasion" or is "half the time" certified as Open Source and Free Software. Those are politically certified in my view.

Would you put a gun that fire properly 1/10 of the time and certify it as combat ready ? I would not.

Would you certify a computer that work half the time as a working computer ? I would not.

There is more to free Software certification then the GPL :

<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html</a gnu.org>

There is more to the Open Source license then the GPL :

<a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/" title="opensource.org">http://www.opensource.org/licenses/</a opensource.org>

"But if the *author* wishes to make further changes and release the package as proprietary code, how could you stop him? "

This comment of yours is absolute pure non sense , if the author wish to change the license of is software there is nothing illegal with that , there something wrong but its another discussion in itself , exept is software whont be free software or Open Source if the license he choose is not , unless he choose one of those half the time or can be sometime License, which are what I have a problem with and are what I discuss.

" And how would it be possible for the FSF to know what products will be later released under a different license? "

The FSF and OSI certify license not product.

"They can't see the future."

There not even seeing the past. They are also playing some political game.

"Be specific and tell us what software you think was certified, and then "taken back,""

Be a moron and ask me for something which you introduced<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ( people who cant sign there text with there name or choose a nickname or try to switch my text to something they wish to discuss instead of what I offered when I am not replying to another comment I have in uther disgust , I dont feel they deserve any respect from me as they dont have the decency to give me some in the first place ).

"," and tell us what you think could be done to the certification program to fix this problem. "

I already did to both Group , They both think its ok , I dont. Discussion are over and done , I am done beeing insulted by politicaly motivated people or ask to show them what they whant to show me.

I said what I add to say , its clear precise and definitive , feel free to disagree , I dont care.

#

At first I thought you were a troller masquerading as a <a href="http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/patois.htm" title="hutman.net">patois</a hutman.net>. A quick google session showed that if you are, you are an unusually consistent masquerader, so I'll assume you're sincere.

Here's the rub:
If you wish to be able to say that your posts are "precise and definitive", and be taken seriously, you really need to work on your english. Your grammar leaves a lot to be desired. Also, you appear to consistently confuse add with had. In short; your posts are anything but "precise and definitive". I believe that I understand what your grudge against the FSF and the OSI is, but only because I'm pretty well versed in the area already. Had i not been I'd have had no idea what you were talking about.
You really can't do anything but take a wild guess att what sentences such as this one are supposed to mean:
" I am done beeing insulted by politicaly motivated people or ask to show them what they whant to show me."

#

Your absolutely and definitively wrong if you think that my grammar is going to be influencing people who are corrupt and politicaly motivated in there choice and acceptance of the "official" definitons as they are now.

And you even more wrong if you think I search for the support , acceptance and recognition and to be taken seriously by people who write as anonymous.

I just happen to be right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,as I tried the proper way first , I guess your little annoyance of not being able to read proper english for you from my text is going to be something I have to live with.

#

Do you believe that the presentation of an idea is irrelevant to the chance of that idea gaining acceptance? I'll assume that you do not.

Given that assumption, and the fact that you _are_ trying to spread a political message, why would you:

1. Not want to improve the presentation of the message?
2. Attack anyone who responds to you, regardless of whether they agree or not?
3. Refuse to clarify your position when people make it clear that they do not understand what you have written?

I'm not quite sure why I bother to try again after you answered my first attempt to help you with a <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html" title="nizkor.org">personal attack</a nizkor.org>. It's probably because you remind me of myself in my teens. A rebel without a clue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Eventually I realised that using my intelligence to craft well thought out and formulated messages, mostly free of <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index" title="nizkor.org">fallacies</a nizkor.org>, made for far more rewarding interactions with others. Such messages are actually listened to and tend to be respected by reasonable people whether or not they agree with the message.

#

From what I manage to understand from your text, you sound like you actually have a point and I get the feeling it's important too.

The impression I get is that you think the licenses approved by the FSF and OSI somehow allow someone, other than the actual copyright owner, to take the code covered by FSF/OSI approved license and make something proprietary out of it. Did I understand you properly?

If this is what you were trying to tell us, then yes, you are correct. Neither FSF or OSI require copyleft style restrictions to approve a license. However, FSF makes it very clear that they would prefer it if only the copyleft licenses were used.

If this isn't what you were trying to say, then I haven't managed to understand you. If this is the case, could you please give us an example on which licenses you believe are good and which are not.

For example, are you trying to say that the GPL is flawed? Or is it one of the licenses that gets it right?

If I understood you correctly, you disapprove of BSD style licenses.

Please help me to understand you.

#

"The impression I get is that you think the licenses approved by the FSF and OSI somehow allow someone, other than the actual copyright owner, to take the code covered by FSF/OSI approved license and make something proprietary out of it."

Yes and no , Proprietary is only important for the FSF and Free Software as proprietary software can be Open Source. But you got the essential that without the word " At all time" some Free Software license can be made proprietary and some Open source license can be closed source or have there source closed. And not by the copyright owner.

"then yes, you are correct."

I know , and that is the problem ( For me ).

"Neither FSF or OSI require copyleft style restrictions to approve a license. "

For me thats a problem in itself.

"FSF makes it very clear that they would prefer it if only the copyleft licenses were used."

I would prefer if they called them Lesser Free Software , part of the job of the FSF is to keep people informed of what is an aceptable Free Software license and its also there job that there is absolutely no ambiguity in the definition as to not let someone say : "well I can do that with this license then it must be ok with a copyleft license too as both are Free Software."

Not everyone can be a doctor or engineer its not based on politics but on technicality<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It should be the same with both FSF and OSI certifications.

Something wich can be closed and only kept to himself in my view is the absolute opposite of what Free Software and Open Source is , thats what they are fighting everyday and they let themself certify it in the name of politics.

"could you please give us an example on which licenses you believe are good and which are not."

All license are good as they are the choice of the one who made the software , but not all of them should get acredited as Open Source when the source can be closed and not all of them should be called Free Software when you can keep it for yourself. Its like asking the thief who should go to prison and who should be kept outside.

"you disapprove of BSD style licenses."

No , if someone whant to use that its there choice , I am against the License accrediation because it can be made closed source and it can be kept only to one self. And that the real definition is not suppose to mean its ok for x reason to do what we are fighting against.

Open Source is suppose to be Open Source at all time

Free Software is supposed to be Free Software at all time.

When its not its because the definition is writen for political reasons and not technical merits.

#

This looks like it's not a fundamental disagreement but merely a disagreement on how they should use the terms Free Software and Open Source. You do know that these terms were originally defined by these two organisations, right?

I thought I should read the definitions before actually talking about them, so I did. Free Software and Open Source definitions are pretty much equivalent, if thought about in a practical sense. However, Free Software definition includes philosophy and mentions copyleft in the actual definition. Open Source definition just plainly lists the requirements along with a practical rationale for each. <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html" title="gnu.org">The FSF's license list page</a gnu.org> has a small section for each license considering their benefits and disadvantages, Including whether they're copyleft or not. Copyleft is another term originally defined by the FSF. <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/" title="opensource.org">the OSI license list page</a opensource.org> simply lists approved licenses and the license text without anything more.

I very much doubt that anyone who actually cares about the specifics of the license, would get the wrong impression by reading the FSF approved license list and their definition. Even if they don't actually read the licenses. The OSI approved license list however, only gives you the license text.

What really is the problem for you, however, seems to be that there are a lot of people who badly misunderstand the licenses. The real problem is not that they don't understand the licenses. The problem is that they don't care enough to make an effort to understand them. No matter what the OSI and the FSF do, this won't change unless the potential consequences from not understanding rise.

Personally, I don't see it as a big problem whether or not someone can take Free Software or Open Source code, make changes and only distribute the binary. The free (as in speech) version of the code will stay available and will eventually match the closed version. I do prefer a copyleft license for code I create myself though.

I do see it a problem if someone takes GPL licensed software and tries to close it. It's pointless to blame the FSF for this though, they can't really do much because the one who broke the license terms evidently didn't care enough to even take a look at the license, why would they care to look at the FSF webpage or any other material from them?

#

Ok, lets try again just for claritys sake.

Your complaint is that you do not believe that non-copyleft licenses should be certified by FSF or OSI?

If that's not it, could you please supply examples of licenses that you feel should not be certified, along with your rationale for that opinion?

#

Please realise that you are simply vouching for a real strong variant of 'Copyleft'.

While I am almost in favor for your suggestion this does not hold for other people: There are developers who prefer strong, weak or no copyleft at all.

Both, the Free Software definition as well as the DFSG (aka OpenSource definition), simply allow all kinds of this spectrum to be called Free Software (or OpenSource Software).

Btw:
Rest assured that the FSF (North America) is not only a political organisation: As a GNU developer I can affirm that it is some kind of secretariat, too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

And finally:
I am sure there are more people who would support your strong copyleft idea: How about calling it eternal copyleft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

"Please realise that you are simply vouching for a real strong variant of 'Copyleft'."

No , realise that I dont play politics at all and that I am perfectly aware of the true meaning of Free Software and of Open Source , Copyleft is something else which can apply or not.

"this does not hold for other people"

People are irrelevant , its the quality of the license that are of value or lack there of in this case.

"There are developers who prefer strong, weak or no copyleft at all."

Realise that Because those developper have political power and influence on those two group doing the certification Some license which are not Open Source and Free Software at all time get certified as such. All this due to there influence and the big holes allowing it in the "official" definition from them.

BTW : I know what I discuss perfectly.

And finaly :

I dont give any value to comments made by Anonymous , they tend to be afraid to put there name beside what they have to say , if you whant to discuss eternal copyleft start your comment on it below the main text and not in reply to my comment or try to have your own article published.

When one allow for some discrepency in certfication we end up with removing all value from the certification.

What would be the point of identifying and certifying human beings when cats , dogs , elephants and every other living animal including plants when they have a banana in there possesion are certified as Human beeing too. Thats what the current and official description of those two official groups do currently.

I am done being nice with politicaly motivated people and anonymous.

#

Above post whas from me

#

"I am done being nice with politicaly motivated people and anonymous."

You're also done being effective.

Even Stallman could teach you a thing or two about effectively presenting and nurturing an idea. All I see here is an extremist viewpoint poorly communicated driven by a massive ego.

#

Then I guess your a blind men , after all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

#

No, I agree with the post you responded to. You do have a point, but you're presenting it in a way that most people won't even understand. The huge effort needed to actually understand you makes most people just stop right there. You've been surprisingly easy to understand when you've responded to my posts though.

In addition to being hard to understand, the way you became completely unreasonable to anonymous cowards almost made me ignore you as a troll.

#

And just what do you think you were doing by posting your comments here. Social chit chat or
peddling YOUR POLITICAL opinions as gospel truth.

Isn't this hippocracy ? You have the right to express your political opinions but the FSF does
not !

#

Making sure some people saw it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

I dont push a political agenda , if I where I would agree with the current definition as they are politicaly based , Its not a religion btw<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Where did I say the FSF cant express there view ? I guess reading is part of why you have no understanding , Disagreement on definition dont mean I am against the FSF or OSI or what they are all about , It only mean that at this moment in time there definition is not conform with the actual "real" definition and what there meant to protect and until they change it there own acreditation is tottaly meaningless for me and I will say so every chance I get.

Acreditation should be based on technicality and not politics. And the Definition should be what its actually meant to be not some definition wich as Politcal view in mind first.

" Anonymous Reader " , hippocracy is not even a word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

#

"I dont push a political agenda , if I where I would agree with the current definition as they are politicaly based , Its not a religion btw"

Please have a look at the actual meaning of <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=political" title="reference.com">political</a reference.com> and <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=politics" title="reference.com">politics</a reference.com> .
You appear to only be aware of the 5th interpretation of political and the 4th interpretation of politics. Your opinion is by definition political in nature.

"hippocracy is not even a word"
I wouldn't complain about others misspelling words if I were you. Your posts are the only ones in this thread I have trouble understanding.
By the way, I'm a different anonymous.

#

"Your opinion is by definition political in nature."

Moron , no , its not an opinion and its not a political view. That is very clear.

"I wouldn't complain about others misspelling words if I were you."

I am not complaining or said you mispelled it , I said its not a word , its your choice to correct it so that its the word you wanted to use. I have not removed in anyway your right to correct what you said or clarify it. If I where you I would go shoot myself , your sobbing , complaining and your words dont affect me at all.

"Your posts are the only ones in this thread I have trouble understanding."

No , but then again how would you know the difference ? Someone ( meaning not a meaningless nameless stupid coward ) , and who is inteligent certified to you that you where right in your understanding ?

"By the way, I'm a different anonymous."

No , btw , your exactly the same.

#

Why is it that you become non-reasonable when you respond to anonymous messages? Anyway, I mostly agree with the anonymous coward here.

Your opinion (yes, it is an opinion) is political. Of course, that is, unless you disagree on what political and/or opinion means. However, the way most others understand those words, what I just said is true.

#

I ask you several questions.
1. Have you seen RMS happy about ANYTHING, most of the time he is grouchy and grumpy as ever in his writings.
2. This atricle is a crank brained RMS theory, now tell me this, if you were a nokia exec and you read what RMS has said, you will feel understandably upset and will reconsider contributing to OSS at all in the future.
3. Remember the days when no major company acknowledged linux and linux was a laughing stock, well all of you oss kiddies may have not been old enought then, but i was around and let me tell you think. any kind of contribution from a major company is beneficial and shows that at last they are taking note that there is a new player in town.

So to RMS all i can say is, old man just stop jabbering and use your time to add some code to emacs etc rather than causing problems.

No wonder even his pet gcc project people kicked him out long time ago, see how well gcc is doing without his meddling.

#

1.) I don't think most businesses would even be able to tell you who rms even is, let alone ignore him.

2.) The world will not come to an end if Nokia wants to have a hissy fit over rms's comments and takes their software and goes home.

3.) The only major that were laughing at Linux was Microsoft and their toadies. Old SCO (perhaps not a "major" company) did for a bit and look where they are now: sold off their not-quite-dead-but-bleedin'-bad UNIX business and recently sold the rest of the company to Sun. What might have been had they decided to go with the flow?

I'm tickled that these johnny-come-latelys want to contribute to Linux. However, they need to understand how OSS works. If they have a problem with that, then they should stay the heck away. It is not the OSS community's responsibility to bend to their way of doing software. They've decided to join the OSS party and is is them who need to adapt.

#

Sorry, have to side with RMS on this one.

"any kind of contribution from a major company is beneficial and shows that at last they are taking note that there is a new player in town."

Nokia is only promising not to sue because of its use of the Linux kernel, as a company, it would not be good business to sue those that you are benefiting from, especially when it would involve a complete re-write from scratch or buying a license from an existing manufacturer.

Furthermore, do you really believe that Nokia or any large company cares about GNU/Linux? They only care about the bottom line, as long as GNU/Linux remains profitable for them they will continue to use / abuse it. The true test will be in how much Nokia will give back to the community.

#

"1. Have you seen RMS happy about ANYTHING"

Yes. When Larry McVoy, of the BitKeeper fame, "eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, by announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects to use and promote his non-free software"

Soyapi

#

you are just troll like me.

USA let CHINA be semi-capitalism country.
As of the result, more trouble happpening everyday!

Pollutions, Surplus population, Oil war, Nuclear weapons...

so fact is USA's fucking capitalism make world sick!

#

I think RMS's is most upset is because nokia didnt choose HIS kernel, ie the HURD.

He continues to be irritated when linux is bought in to the picture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Richard Stallman doesn't code the Hurd, and the Hurd is still in Alpha and unstable.

Also RMS has once stated that the Hurd isn't the highest priority of the free software development, as we already have Linux and BSD Kernel. Hurd is just an attempt of technical advancement over existing kernels.

#

The sole reason i today can write this posting from behind my Linux Workstation running on AMD64 is because of the GPL. Without the GPL none of this would have happened. Thats why even Steve Ballmer called the GPL the cancer of the software industry. Never forget that.

The only way out for BIG Software is to bring down the extend and quality of GPL licensed software to such a scale that GPL-ed software alone won't be enough for end-users or small business to meet their software demands.

The current road-map by BIG software to bringdown the scale and extend of GPL-ed software currently in use all across the world is by opting for Global Software Patents. The first hurdle BIG software has to take, is to get Software Patents legislated inside the EU.

Thats my take on this, and Richard Stallman is rather to the point about that inside his article. That he brings up Nokia on one side giving the Linux kernel project a couple of freebees, but on the other side lobbying for Software Patents inside the EU is a very good illustration of whats going on. Of course Microsoft as a US Corporation cannot start lobbying for this inside the EU, so Nokia instead has started lobbying.

Robert

#

"Of course Microsoft as a US Corporation cannot start lobbying for this inside the EU, so Nokia instead has started lobbying."

MS has done massive lobbying in the EU.
For example:
A threat against the the Daninsh government to withdraw jobs if it didn't agree to the directive had people up in arms when the media got wind of it.

MS was an official sponsor of the Irish EU presidency. A presidency that made it their personal crusade to ensure that the directive was rammed through. Odd that huh?

These are just two examples from a bottomless hole.

#

Did i speak of bribery? I don't think so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

next to nothing, since the GPL was taken seriously enough by a German court to enforce it on someone who had misappropriated GPLed software and it's in essence merely a restatement of Nokia's obligations under the GPL, having declared they are using a piece of GPLed software;

software patents also mean next to nothing except in the fevered mind of some demented executive. Patent law provides for the object to be patented, to be presented in prototype form, and its details divulged so that anyone with an inkling of technical know-how can reproduce it. But patent law also provides that anything worth patenting must be non-trivial.

Now software patent attorneys apparently are satisfied with submitting patent applications without the object of the patent, the software, to be presented in prototype form, ie, in full source code form, and its details so divulged together with all and any relevant pieces of documentation.

In other words, software patent attorneys have done the otherwise unthinkable - they have NOT contested the claim that software patents are trivial and trivially-implementable, because they are seeking protection on the bare idea without reference to any implementation. If their only evidence is the idea that such-and-such, and they are seeking protection on the very idea itself and not on any specific implementation, they must believe that any specific implementation is trivial.

And if it is trivial to implement software on the basic idea, then it is not worthy of any protection whatsoever, because it adds nothing to industry.

In other words, this sort of protection is usually found condemned in various crimes acts passed by various parliaments to protect citizens from unscrupulous blackmailers.

Wesley Parish

#

1. Nokia figths against software patents. Nokia, however, supports patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions (CII). It is a big difference. Restricting patentability to CII does not solve all the patent issues of free software community, but at least helps a lot.
   <a href="http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/kinv/index.en.html" title="ffii.org">http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/kinv<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> index.en.html</a ffii.org>



2. Nokia Internet Tablet is shipped with several GPLed/LGPLed applications and libraries besides Linux kernel. As far as I know, according to current GPL/LGPL Nokia cannot make any patent claims against the these products (without facing copyright issues). Nokia is interested in the development of these software products and keeping them patent-free.

#

"Nokia figths against software patents."
That so? Do you have any facts to support this assertion? The site you link to <a href="http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/nokia/index.en.html" title="ffii.org">believe the exact opposite.</a ffii.org>

"Nokia, however, supports patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions (CII). It is a big difference."
You may want to actually read the articles on the page that you linked to. ALL the proponents on software patents that I'm aware of claim not to want software patents, and yet they support, and lobby for, a directive that will allow them. As the directive is formulated, "Computer-Implemented Inventions" include both patents on pure software and business method patents.

#

That's why I referred to that page. It shows that if CII is not defined well then it can be the same as pure software patents.

Actually I happen to know the real intention of Nokia. Nokia wants protection for real ideas (e.g. a totally new mathematical approach on encription), while making generic ideas (embedding objects into SIP messages) or re-used ideas (e.g. call forwarding on Skype's VoIP protocol) non-patentable.

Personally I do not belive that it is possible to make such legislation. People responsible for making rules are not prepared to understand the issue itself. I think the law should be made by SW engineers of Europe rather than politicans.

#

"Actually I happen to know the real intention of Nokia. Nokia wants protection for real ideas (e.g. a totally new mathematical approach on encription), while making generic ideas (embedding objects into SIP messages) or re-used ideas (e.g. call forwarding on Skype's VoIP protocol) non-patentable."

Did you read <a href="http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/nokia/index.en.html" title="ffii.org">the list of patents</a ffii.org> Nokia have applied for that FFI consider to be software patents?
In the sea of patents you find such great innovations as:

Method of providing information in a communication system using a mobile telephone
System and method for content vending
Integrity check in a communication system
System and method for generating descriptive hyperlink names
Method and system for providing location-based services
Image browsing and downloading in mobile networks
Illuminated pushbutton keyboard.
Telephone with abbreviated dialling.

I did not have to look hard for those either. I don't know where you get your information, but I'd say you've been taken in by PR.

#

So will this announcement by Nokia cause all Free/Open Source Software to be integrated into the Linux kernel (for patent protection), just like Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows?

On a more serious note, are gcc and glibc (which are used to build the Linux kernel on all architectures) covered by this protection? If not, what good does it do to protect the kernel source but not the tools used to build it?

#

<a href="http://2005.guadec.org/press/releases/nokia_donation.html/" title="guadec.org">http://2005.guadec.org/press/releases/nokia_donat<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> on.html/</a guadec.org>

Donations of sales of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet in the Developer Device Program will go to the GNOME Foundation.

#

That's a different case...

Maybe we should thank them with that donation, but not the matter here.

PS. that URL 404's.

#