quote:

---

Original post by GBGames
I just want to comment on the "viral behavior" of the GPL.

Last I checked, hardware manufacturers can''t open source their drivers, due to NDAs and licenses. They have to keep their software proprietary because they used proprietary software. I guess "viral" works both ways.

---

Yes and no. As you clearly admit, the restrictions of certain hardware manufacturers (and by no means all - ATI and Nvidia could open source most of their product drivers if they wanted) lie in licensed technology, usually due to intellectual property concerns such as with the Content Scrambling System (CSS) for Digital Versatile Discs. As you well know, many of these IP concerns are based on incorrect assessments of the situation: DeCSS allows me to play DVDs I have legally purchased on whatever device I please; CSS, on the other hand, doesn''t prevent me from making a perfect bitwise copy of the source disc and selling it at whatever price - it doesn''t prevent piracy.

Two wrongs don''t make a right. Just because certain commercial developers/vendors/manufacturers are myopic about how to deal with IP doesn''t mean you should be, too.

I am having trouble following your post.

Yes, drivers/software can use other proprietary licenses that prevent them from opening their source, similar to how the GPL prevents software that uses GPLed source from being closed.

But I got lost with the no. What myopic considerations are you referring to? I know about DeCSS/CSS, but what does piracy have to do with it?

I assume you are trying to argue that only the GPL is a viral license, whereas proprietary licenses are not. Maybe my assumption is wrong, or I am really tired, but where does the "no" part come in?

quote:

---

Original post by GBGames
I assume you are trying to argue that only the GPL is a viral license, whereas proprietary licenses are not. Maybe my assumption is wrong, or I am really tired, but where does the "no" part come in?

---

Use of a proprietary product does not constrain your product to be proprietary unless portions of the licensed product covered by an effective NDA would be made available by your doing otherwise. An example would be incorporating source code that implemented a patented algorithm and making that source available. In the proprietary world this is easily dealt with: dynamic linking. Unfortunately, this is (obviously) not an option for device drivers.

With the GPL, on the other hand, even dynamic linking can be a problem. Real viral.

Did I say I ''liked'' everything he says? :-)
Not really. I''m no more into socialism than most americans.
But he does make an effort to think about things, so I gotta give him that respect.
I would suspect RMS is very fanatical, given he''s been focussing on free software for 25ish years now.
I don''t hold with the idea of everything being free- it is dysfunctional in todays world. Books are a similiar analougue to software, but noone tries to go make bookstores give away books: that''d be ludicrous- theres a cost associated with making books.
Someone has to pay programmers to work, someone has to pay the ISPs, someone has to pay for CD manufacture.

I do like the GPL in general.

RMS does seem to be more idealogue than anything else.

I''m not a member of the FSF, but I''m broke, so I''m a member of very little else- havn''t even paid my dues to the LUG... XD

quote:

---

Original post by Vlion
I would suspect RMS is very fanatical, given he''s been focussing on free software for 25ish years now. I don''t hold with the idea of everything being free- it is dysfunctional in todays world.

---

What makes you think RMS doesn''t want to change the world to make it not "dysfunctional"? He''s not just pushing one idea, he''s pushing whatever he thinks it takes to make it viable.

quote:

---

Original post by Vlion
Books are a similiar analougue to software, but noone tries to go make bookstores give away books: that''d be ludicrous- theres a cost associated with making books. Someone has to pay programmers to work, someone has to pay the ISPs, someone has to pay for CD manufacture.

---

RMS has nothing against people paying for material goods and services (like the CDROM or internet connection that provides the source). I think you''ve made the mistake of thinking free-as-in-cost rather than free-as-in-libre.

For the record: I used to believe in Free Software (as in speech).

Now, I just believe in Free Software (as in beer) and, for the right projects, Open Source.

I''d much rather support the EFF than the FSF.

You don''t buy the GNU Deluxe CD for $5,000 to get the CD. You "buy" it so that you can use corporate purchasing rules to support the foundation, and so that using GNU software is legit even in the most entrenched "if we didn''t buy it, there''s nobody we can sue" organizations.

Very good stuff, and I''m glad to hear all your thoughts on this!

The fundamental problem with the FSF is dogma. Everything Stallman says is Law. Some people treat him like God-- capital "G". (I read an article that called him "Saint Richard".) Obviously, that''s just stupid. Here''s a guy who has said himself that because "security is a sign of social breakdown", the FSF for a long time did not have a security system installed on its computers. They were forced to install one because someone kept erasing their files. Dude, I live on a bad street; do I refuse to lock my door and windows because "security is a sign of social breakdown"?

No, despite some comments I have made on these forums, I do not follow RMS. For this reason, I''m now considering not joining the FSF, at least not now.



==================
Benjamin Heath
==================

quote:

---

he wishes to reformulate society as a whole as some sort of neo-socialist construct. How can software morally want to be free? How can we consider such things in a vacuum, disregarding the economic factors affecting the larger world?

---

The whole "information wants to be free" thing means a bunch of different things. It means that information, in the absence of a countering force, tends to disseminate. (free as in not in prison) It means that information, in the absence of a countering force, tend to decline in price. (each person with information becomes a supplier of the information) It means that information, in the absence of a countering force, can be used for any purpose (also one of the FSF''s Free Software freedoms).

We can''t consider information in a vacuum because information can''t exist without a medium on which to express it. That''s also why information should be free. It''s already owned by the person who owns the medium.

But that''s not good enough for some people, who also want the information on the medium to be owned. The FSF disagrees with that. That''s hardly a neo-socialist construct.