ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   10 May 2002  19:55:23
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2002/0509/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    [LWN.net]
 
    Sections:
     [2]Main page
     [3]Security
     [4]Kernel
     [5]Distributions
     [6]Development
     [7]Commerce
     [8]Linux in the news
     [9]Announcements
     Letters
    [10]All in one big page
 
    See also: [11]last week's Letters page.
 
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [12]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    May 9, 2002
 From:    Leon Brooks <leon@cyberknights.com.au>
 To:      Linux Weekly News - Letters <letters@lwn.net>
 Subject: Is free enough?
 Date:    Thu, 2 May 2002 19:15:56 +0800
 
 On last week's LWN front page, Jonathan wrote:
 
 > Is it not enough that the resulting software be free?
 
 No.
 
 It must also be libere, befreit, liberato, and so on; the word `free' is a
 near-perfect illustration of the ability of commerce to drag down a language.
 BSD is almost entirely unencumbered, but it is not libere, only at large.
 Unfortunately, the only reasonably free populations on the planet are that
 rapidly dwindling number who are prepared to insist on their freedom.
 
 The FSF should not have a monopoly any more than Larry Ellison or Bill Gates,
 but should not be dismissed, either. The GPL does have the extremely useful
 property of insisting that any enhancements to software are available for all
 to criticise and/or benefit from.
 
 It is proper for the FSF to claim as much of the pie as it can for its cause,
 and proper for representatives of other licencing schemes to lobby for their
 own points of view. You can bet the colectivo norteamericano will be lobbying
 for all its worth. How about you? What are you doing about this windfall?
 
 Cheers; Leon
 From:    dm@chrononaut.org (David Moles)
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Subsidizing the development of non-free software
 Date:    Thu,  2 May 2002 10:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
 
 In regard to FSF Europe's suggestion that copylefted free software
 be given preferential funding treatment over non-copylefted free
 software in the EU's "Sixth Framework Program", LWN writes:
 
 > LWN has often pointed out the benefits of the GPL. But this sort
 > of attempt to create governmental preferences for a specific
 > software license could well be self-defeating. Reasonable
 > people - all of whom support free software - can and often do
 > disagree over software licenses. This recommendation looks like
 > an attempt by one group to grab preferential treatment over the
 > others. Is it not enough that the resulting software be free?
 
 The free software and open source communities should not let
 political, personal, and "religious" issues cloud discussion of
 these questions. If you write software, I support your right to
 release it under the license of your choice. But this is not a
 simple matter of disagreement over software licenses among
 reasonable people.
 
 Let me put the question another way: Is it acceptable for private
 interests to take free software developed with the public's money
 and make it into software that is not available to the public?
 
 This is the question the EU needs to think through. Some people
 would say it is. Some people (Microsoft, for one) have gone even
 farther and say it's not only acceptable, but desirable.
 
 Personally, I would prefer not to see my tax dollars subsidizing
 the development of non-free software. And, make no mistake, that
 is what you are doing when you fund the production of
 non-copylefted free software.
 
 Is it enough for version 1.0 of the resulting software to be free,
 if subsequent versions are not?
 
 -- David Moles
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this
 country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a
 profit out of the public for a number of years, the government
 and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such
 profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances
 and contrary public interest."
 
                            -- Robert Heinlein, "Life-Line" (1939)
 From:    Mike Howard <mike@clove.com>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: Necessity of Copyleft
 Date:    Thu, 02 May 2002 09:43:37 -0400
 LWN says:
 
 > LWN has often pointed out the benefits of the GPL. But this sort of
 > attempt to create governmental preferences for a
 > specific software license could well be self-defeating. Reasonable
 > people - all of whom support free software - can and often do disagree
 > over software licenses. This recommendation looks like an attempt
 > by one group to grab preferential treatment over the others. Is it
 > not enough that the resulting software be free?
 
 No.
 
 Perhaps you are not familiar with the way UNIX distributions used to
 be constructed prior to GPL.  Code was often donated to the public by
 either being placed in the public domain - uuencode/uudecode, Gilman's
 tar program - or released under something like the Berkeley licence -
 sendmail, the Berkeley sockets distribution, all the underlying TCP/IP
 implementation, and many other things.  Vendors, such as SCO, used
 slightly modified versions of the code and documentation giving neither
 credit to the authors [or as little as possible] and distributing
 the code as a proprietary implementation.
 
 The result was that they were able to sell publicly available code
 which was incompatible with the publicly available implementations and
 hide their trivial modifications.  They also published butchered and
 degraded versions of the public documentation - at least in the case of
 sendmail - without crediting the original authors or leaving pointers
 to the original, more complete and more useful documentation.
 
 The Copyleft stops this practice and is indispensable in preventing
 its odious return.
 
 --
 Mike Howard <mike@clove.com>
 From:    Daniel James <daniel@mondodesigno.com>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: re: The Trouble with Vorbis
 Date:    Fri, 3 May 2002 12:28:48 +0100
 
 Hello,
 
 On your 'Linux in the news' page this week, your editor mentioned the
 article The Trouble with Vorbis on Kuro5hin, and added 'Ogg Vorbis
 may not be as free as it seems'.
 
 I for one don't share the criticisms of this piece. It's not good
 enough for some people that free software developers spend years of
 their life working on projects with modest reward - they have to
 deliver full documentation to third parties too. And turn down
 opportunities to earn a living while they're at it.
 
 I too look forward to the release of a Vorbis specification which can
 be adopted as a standard, but neither I nor anyone else is in a
 position to demand it from the developers.
 
 Daniel James
 From:    David Fallon <davef@tetsubo.com>
 To:      Brian Beesley <BJ.Beesley@ulster.ac.uk>
 Subject: Response to your letter to lwn.net
 Date:    02 May 2002 14:52:32 -0700
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 Hi, this is in response to you letter to lwn.net
 ([13]http://lwn.net/2002/0502/letters.php3)
 
 In general, I agree with you, but I wanted to raise some specific points
 that you may have missed. In particular, your point four:
 
 > 4. I don't see any reason to accept the inclusion of "billboards" into
 > the linux product (source or binary), even if commercial organizations
 > were to offer real money to sponsor their inclusion. IMO "free
 > software" means "free of intrusion by advertising" as well as "free as
 > in beer" and "free as in spirit". The problem here is, if we accept
 > advertisements in source code, where do we stop? Advertisements
 > appearing during system startup? Advertisements during user login?
 > Advertisements appearing at random times during normal operation?
 
 You have the right idea, but you miss the point of open source. I
 applaud anyone clever enough to convince people to pay him or her to
 include advertisements in the kernel source. Why? Because, as it's an
 open source operating system, your or I are in no way forced to view or
 use those advertisements. Envision the scenario where linus was paid a
 great deal of money to put an advertisement saying "brought to you by
 nike" instead of the standard kernel messages. While linus is off
 rolling in his piles of wealth, all the kernel developers have switched
 to alan's tree. And 15 minutes after the kernel is released, a patch
 appears on the kernel mailing list to remove it. You or I are only
 forced to deal with these things when we deal with proprietary software,
 when we don't have the rights inherent in the GPL. Just like when
 dealing with free speech, it's critical for open source advocates to
 hold up the right for everyone to modify the source, no matter how
 repugnant the change. It will never be a problem, because fundamentally
 the system works. Your right to include the advertisements is a
 confirmation of my right to patch them right out of existence.
 
 Anyways. Rock on, and thanks for taking the time to read this, if you've
 gotten this far. :)
 
 --
 dave
 From:    Jason Baietto <jason@baietto.com>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: GPL virus...
 Date:    01 May 2002 23:14:33 -0400
 
 First, let me state that I'm a huge fan of Richard Stallman
 and the FSF.  However, while reading your recent interview
 with Richard Stallman, I couldn't help but make a connection
 between the GPL and his analogy of patent-infected code being
 like salmonella-infected food.
 
 Many people who don't agree with the fundamental principles
 of the GPL refer to it as a "virus".  While I don't subscribe
 to this view myself, it seems that if a GPL virus did exist
 it would have to be called..."Stallmanella" :-)
 
 Take care,
 Jason
    [14]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2002 [15]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/
    3. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/security.php3
    4. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/kernel.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/dists.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/devel.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/commerce.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/press.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/announce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/bigpage.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/letters.php3
   12. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   13. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/letters.php3
   14. http://www.eklektix.com/
   15. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор