Linux OS? Not GNU/Linux ? :)

[diligentcircle]

Because if you don't have source code you can't (realistically) port something to your different hardware platform and it's a lot more work to modify it (the program itself, not accompanying documentation) for instance to remove references to the original authors, the licensing information. It's also a lot more work to remove copyright protection. Or to obfuscate it so it isn't dead obvious it's the same program.

Your point? So they can pretend they made it, and that's wrong, and they can refuse to release source code. Of course, in the case of the GPL, this is illegal. But this is only a sort of valid argument if you presuppose that proprietary software is bad. If that's your position, I agree with you, but I was getting the impression that you were listing this as a disadvantage of free software compared to proprietary software.

Or to add ads, malware, and so on.. of course I already said this..

Those all can be added without the need to modify the source code. Heck, for a trojan horse, you don't need to include the original program at all. For the rest, just use a startup script that executes the malware along with the legitimate program. Not difficult at all. You could even obfuscate the script so it's not obvious to most readers what is really being done. Or you could use a compiled language instead of a scripting language for the task, maybe even build in the execution of the legitimate program to the malware.

 

[Exophase]

Your point? So they can pretend they made it, and that's wrong, and they can refuse to release source code. Of course, in the case of the GPL, this is illegal. But this is only a sort of valid argument if you presuppose that proprietary software is bad. If that's your position, I agree with you, but I was getting the impression that you were listing this as a disadvantage of free software compared to proprietary software.

I don't use language like "wrong" and "bad" when talking about software licensing and distribution. I don't think that way. What we're talking about is a desire to not have your program modified outside your terms and misrepresented. This desire isn't exclusive to GPL proponents. It's easier to modify open source software. That it's illegal to do so without complying with the license is beside the point.


I really don't know how you've concluded that I'm making some argument that GPLed software can be released w/o source in violation of the license agreement, and that's wrong because releasing software without source is wrong. Um, no, I'm saying that GPLed software can be changed and THEN released without source, and that a person can have a (justifiable) point of view that a third party can do more damage in being able to make source-level changes that they don't make available. That it isn't merely analogous to illicitly distributing software (not that proprietary software implies anything about distribution rights). It's not that you can illegally ignore the license any more than you can any other license, it's that you potentially have more power while doing so. You really don't understand this?

Those all can be added without the need to modify the source code. Heck, for a trojan horse, you don't need to include the original program at all. For the rest, just use a startup script that executes the malware along with the legitimate program. Not difficult at all. You could even obfuscate the script so it's not obvious to most readers what is really being done. Or you could use a compiled language instead of a scripting language for the task, maybe even build in the execution of the legitimate program to the malware.

You know full well that I was saying that having the source makes it EASIER, not that no form of malware can be made by modifying proprietary binaries. Yes, you can merge a separate binary/script/whatever that's independent of the binary being executed. Actually changing the binary to bury some nefarious functionality along with its normal functionality is more subtle and more difficult to detect.


It doesn't really help that a lot of people are fairly complicit with license violations, even those that otherwise encourage the GPL. How many times now have I seen programs that make it clear they're GPLed, they include the copying terms and everything, but when you ask for the source they say "oh, give me a few months to clean it up." And no one really minds. Most people are happy with a smokescreen that the person is following the license because most people don't personally want the source, they just want to believe it's free (and that they can trust the person who gave them the binary).

 

[diligentcircle]

What we're talking about is a desire to not have your program modified outside your terms and misrepresented. This desire isn't exclusive to GPL proponents. It's easier to modify open source software. That it's illegal to do so without complying with the license is beside the point.

Why does it sound to me like you're talking more about art than engineering?


The point of the GPL isn't to control people. It's to ensure that every derivative of your program will always be free. You're supposed to be able to modify it; what you're not permitted by the license to do is make it proprietary. If someone disregards this because they can break the law, that's no good, but I really don't see how this is harmful in the long run in a way that proprietary software isn't.

I'm saying that GPLed software can be changed and THEN released without source, and that a person can have a (justifiable) point of view that a third party can do more damage in being able to make source-level changes that they don't make available.

You're saying that damage would happen, but you're not explaining what this damage is. What, are you referring to the potential phenomenon of a slightly improved proprietary program outclassing the free program? That's an argument for copyleft licenses instead of permissive ones. But if it's under a copyleft license, whether the infringer can get away with it or not, it's illegal in countries that actually enforce their laws properly. Hence, this proprietary version will be stuck underground. So in reality, all that's going to happen is free software being used on cheap Chinese computers and tablets with the manufacturers of these devices lying about their origin.

You know full well that I was saying that having the source makes it EASIER, not that no form of malware can be made by modifying proprietary binaries.

I understood you just fine. I'm just not convinced that it's so much easier to put malware in free software.

Yes, you can merge a separate binary/script/whatever that's independent of the binary being executed. Actually changing the binary to bury some nefarious functionality along with its normal functionality is more subtle and more difficult to detect.

Here you are talking about people not being able to examine the code for bad things, and you honestly think people would notice if there are two separate binaries, one of which could easily be renamed and/or moved to make it even less obvious?

Most people are happy with a smokescreen that the person is following the license because most people don't personally want the source, they just want to believe it's free (and that they can trust the person who gave them the binary).

I don't know what country you're living in where laws are just left unenforced, but in countries like the U.S. where they are enforced and/or you can sue, this talk of "trust" has no merit.

 

[ajbrehm]

We all know the story. Half of us agree with you, half of us are tired to the death of Stallman. We've been through all this before, and we don't reply in any kind of seriousness, because we know it will lead nowhere.

There are those of us who agree with Stallman yet are tired of him anyway.

 

[moxie]

Yes. I'm probably somewhere around that position, too.

 

[_wb_]

Me too, more or less. Not actually tired of Stallman, but not actively doing effort to follow his latest speeches or essays, like I used to do 15 years ago. Still have a "happy hacking!" autograph of him lying around somewhere though, and somewhat proud to have it.

 

[ajbrehm]

Me too, more or less. Not actually tired of Stallman, but not actively doing effort to follow his latest speeches or essays, like I used to do 15 years ago. Still have a "happy hacking!" autograph of him lying around somewhere though, and somewhat proud to have it.

I have that too, on a "GNU/Linux" t-shirt.

 

[mclien]

I think the two sides that argue this Linux vs. GNU/Linux often aren't aware of thier own points of view. (From my point of view naturally)


side a) Stallmans goal is to achive a better/ equitably world, where his tool is freely availible software, for spread technilogy to everyone


side B) want my hardware under my control and not be dependent from a company (apple/windows)


These are very different motivations and thus in many ways not compatible. So arguing about that from this point of views is pointless.

 

[apink]

I think the two sides that argue this Linux vs. GNU/Linux often aren't aware of thier own points of view. (From my point of view naturally)


side a) Stallmans goal is to achive a better/ equitably world, where his tool is freely availible software, for spread technilogy to everyone


side B) want my hardware under my control and not be dependent from a company (apple/windows)


These are very different motivations and thus in many ways not compatible. So arguing about that from this point of views is pointless.

Thus the irony of the situation:  Stallman's vision is that software should be viewed as a tool, once given, it should be adaptable by the new user.  He wants software without copyrights.  His solution to this was to produce a new copyright(left) that ensures that the software is adaptable by its user.  The irony now is that people are attacking Stallman's solution because it takes away the rights of those who wish to copyright their own material when it is based upon copyleft material.  His copyright is taking away their right to copyright (their) material, thus Stallman gets the blame.  Nice little catch-22.

 

[comradekingu]

Its not a catch-22, its ignorance. If its a derivative work (a legal term with its own reach) then it is not material you are free to do as you wish with, as it isnt yours at that point. My knowledge of copyright law isnt absolute, but both are valid by the law we as citizens are governed by, dare i guess in any western country. A lot of critizism about stallman is probably warranted, but so much of it stems from poor understanding of either him or law in general. If you read what he says rather than what people say about RMS it makes a whole lot more (inherrent holistic) sense.

You can make your own work based on copyleft material such as GPL, so long as it doesnt use the codebase, as for software patents lets not get into it, but dynamic linking is ok, static linking makes it a part of said project.

Its that same copyright that holds up in law, hence why the GPL also has a foundation and proven such when tried.

If you respect your own right to copyright your material you should also respect others enough to allow them to do what they want with their material. There is no two ways about this.

Ones decision to not use closed source DRM software is just as legitimate as ones decision to not use free (as in freedom) software.

I am a FSF member as of late.

 

[Exophase]

You can make your own work based on copyleft material such as GPL, so long as it doesnt use the codebase, as for software patents lets not get into it, but dynamic linking is ok, static linking makes it a part of said project.

According to the FSF (in what was probably written by Stallman), dynamically linking a GPLed library makes it subject to the terms of the GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins

Of course, not everyone agrees.

 

[_wb_]

At that link it says:

"[...] If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. [GPL applies]

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. [GPL probably does not apply] [...]"

Essentially if you use something as if you're just calling an auxiliary program, then it's fine, but if it is more closely linked (shared data structures or non-trivial API), then you have to use the LGPL (the "L" originally stood for "Library" for this reason) if you want to enable non-free programs to use your library.

So e.g. something like SDL (which is LGPL'ed for a reason) would force basically anything that uses SDL to become GPL'ed if it were GPL'ed itself, because there is no way you can argue that SDL is just an external program you are calling from your program.

Something like eSpeak (which is GPL'ed) would not force an application that uses it to become GPL'ed, since in this case you just call an external program from your program. It doesn't really matter whether you use a system call to "espeak" for that, or a function call to some main function in libespeak.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

The legal implications of a "borderline case" make it a no-brainer, though. Nobody wants to risk creating a precedent.

 

[_wb_]

It's easy enough to avoid creating a precedent if you're really using a GPL'ed library in a way that is not essentially more than just a call to an external program: you simply write a GPL'ed program that calls the library, and you call that program from your non-GPL'ed program.

Of course that "trick" would not work if the library is used as an essential and integrated part of your program, as is the case with e.g. glibc or SDL. For exactly that reason those libraries have the non-strong copyleft LGPL license (which does not have the "viral" property of the GPL).

Choosing between GPL and LGPL is quite important for libraries: if you pick the GPL, you're "infecting" anyone who uses your library in a nontrivial way, while the LGPL only affects people who want to modify/fork your library, not the ones who merely use it. Depending on your point of view, both choices can be valid: if you want to encourage the world of software to become more Free, it can be a good strategy to make a kick-ass library and release it under the GPL; if you want to encourage the world of software (including the non-free part of that world) to use your library, it's a better idea to release it under the LGPL.

 

[comradekingu]

I should think its enough to use a compatible license (in those cases it isn't a standalone function), isn't that what makes it compatible? GPL does not infect anyone, it implicates those who wish to use it as their own. Such is the nature of an opt-in system.

 

[ZXDunny]

Would there be any benefit to me choosing the LGPL for my entire project? Sounds like it's a better license than the GPL.

D.

 

[Exophase]

Would there be any benefit to me choosing the LGPL for my entire project? Sounds like it's a better license than the GPL.

D.

Unless you anticipate people linking against your code without the need to modify it then no, there's no benefit. Maybe you'll want this if it makes it easier to do custom frontends or something.

The dynamic linking viral property creates some interesting scenarios..

Let's say someone makes a closed source program that uses shared objects as plugins (like ePSXe or a variety of other PS1 emulators using the same plugin API). Then someone comes along and makes a plugin and puts it under GPL - what are the implications? Is someone at fault if the plugin gets used with the non-GPL emulator? Who? It's not the emulator author's fault, especially if they stopped working on the emulator long before the plugin was released. Is the user who decides to put the two together at fault?

 

[klapse]

Just stop trying to tell other what they ought to be saying.

No, *you* just stop telling other what they are allowed to trying to tell other what they ought to be saying.


Recursion is fun! But seriously you made good points. I think that the battle is lost overall -- the majority now call the whole OS "Linux". But I think the people reminding everyone of GNU serve a useful role as well, so let them do their thing.

 

[moxie]

I agree completely. I do see a difference between "people reminding" and "zealots crusading", though.

 

[ZXDunny]

I agree completely. I do see a difference between "people reminding" and "zealots crusading", though.

"GNazis"

D.