Copyleft: the magazine

Bringing together activists from across a wide spectrum of left-leaning causes, the Free Software Foundation has launched an open letter to the world condemning Microsoft Vista as not only socially irresponsible, but environmentally dangerous. Yes, the FSF and its not-so-militant wing DefectiveByDesign.org recruited a host of environmental organizations including the Friends of the Earth International and the Green Party of the UK because, as the letter puts it:

“… the Green Party and Greenpeace issued warnings about the tremendous threat posed to the environment by the disposable computer mentality promoted in Microsoft’s $500-million Windows Vista marketing campaign. Vista’s steep hardware requirements mean that to use it, most people will have to throw their current computer into a landfill and buy a new one.”

Further, they argue that Microsoft’s DRM associated with Vista blocks your legal rights to make copies of your own media files and publicly available information. This, they suggest, is in direct opposition to the work of grassroots activists and environmental organizations that both depend on the free flow of information and are so often opposed to mechanisms of control like Vista.
(more…)

In a move that should really have surprised no one, Microsoft made claims this week that its sales of Novell’s SUSE Linux do not constitute acceptance of the Free Software Foundation’s new GNU GPL v3 licensing scheme. The argument goes something like this: coupons for SUSE Linux that Microsoft sells just won’t offer any support for GPL v3 governed code, so the software (and Microsoft) is still covered under the older GPL v2. Which is probably true if Microsoft states as much in its sales contracts, since Linux is itself distributed under the older license and the implications of new code are not entirely clear. Odds are good that there will be alot of busy lawyers over the next several months. In the mean time, Microsoft’s Linux customers appear to be in legal limbo, as it is unclear what happens when they try to get tech support for the Linux servers if they have GPL v3 code, even if the problem is with the GPL v2 parts. So if this affects you, you might want to start talking to your copyright lawyer right about… now. As always, more on this as the story develops.

(via Engadget and Microsoft)

It has been a busy week or so since the launch of iPhone, with apparently every media outlet, corporation, non-profit organization, hacker, nerd and average schmuck on the planet clambering to say something about the device. Coverage has definitely been mixed, particularly in the open source and fair use communities. Some, like the Free Software Foundation and their militant Apple-hating wing Defective By Design (we joke, they’re a fun bunch of guerrilla marketers) have come out firmly against the iPhone on DRM and end-user licensing agreement grounds. The hacker community, on the other hand, has been on the all over the device like ants on a picnic. Apparently highly educated, determined, individualist and extremely willing-to-void-warranties ants, but we stand by our metaphor. Click the read link for all the gory details.

(more…)

After a month of comment, the Free Software Foundation has launched the final version of its GNU GPL version 3 license. As we reported a month ago, this new version of the public license is more international and more restrictive with regards to deals like the Microsoft/Novell patent sharing fiasco (but, ironically, allowing that deal). The open source community still seems relatively unsure of whether they like the new document, and both Sun Microsystems and the creator of Linux have expressed misgivings. However, change is inevitable, and it remains to be seen how the new license will affect the open source community once people start actually using it (or refusing to do so). We’ll keep you posted.

(via Wired and the FSF)

The Free Software Foundation has released the fourth version of its GPLv3 license. GPL, for those of you who have been living under a rock for the last decade or so, is the license that lets you download and modify Linux, FireFox and most any other open source software you use without asking permission and (frequently) paying. However, the importance of the actual text tends to be less important to the average user than it is to the developers and programmers that build software based on open source standards.

That said, this draft of GPLv3 does represent some changes from previous versions. First, FSF is still making it very difficult for companies to make “discriminatory” patent deals (like the one Novell did with Microsoft in November 2006), but is making this rule affect deals that occurred after March 28, 2007. So Novell is in the clear-ish, as should be, theoretically, its Linux customers. The FSF also hopes to force Microsoft into distributing software with GPLv3 (specifically, Novell’s SLES GNU/Linux). Kind of sneaky, but as we said before, it at least keeps Novell’s Linux customers free from prosecution.

More important for the general population is that this version has been made much more universal, with U.S.A. specific legal language having been stripped in favor of more universal and specific guidelines for keeping one’s software free.

So far, the public reaction seems somewhat mixed, with many wanting to punish Novell, while at the same time reacting generally positively to the rest of the draft. The FSF is only taking comments on this draft of the license until June 28, so all you open source developers and programmers out there should check it out and post your major gripes, criticisms and/or praises on their website.

(via the FSF)