Todos con Software Libre
El Software y el conocimiento debe ser Libre
El Software y el conocimiento debe ser Libre
Jul 1st
New GNU releases:
autogen-5.12 gprolog-1.4.0 parallel-20110622 binutils-2.21.1 grep-2.9 parted-3.0 ccrtp-2.0.0 help2man-1.40.4 sipwitch-1.0.3 gawk-4.0.0 icecat-5.0 solfege-3.20.0 gcc-4.3.6 libgcrypt-1.5.0 ucommon-5.0.3 gcc-4.6.1 libmicrohttpd-0.9.12 unrtf-0.21.2 glibc-2.14 libzrtpcpp-2.0.0 xorriso-1.1.0.pl01 global-5.9.6 mtools-4.0.17 gnutls-2.12.7 octave-3.4.2
To get announcements of most new GNU releases, subscribe to the info-gnu mailing list: http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnu. Nearly all GNU software is available from http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/, or preferably one of its mirrors (http://www.gnu.org/prep/ftp.html). You can use the url http://ftpmirror.gnu.org/ to be automatically redirected to a (hopefully) nearby and up-to-date mirror.
Several GNU packages are looking for maintainers and other assistance. Please see http://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.html#unmaint if you’d like to help. The general page on how to help GNU is at http://www.gnu.org/help/help.html. To submit new packages to GNU, see http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html.
As always, please feel free to write to me, karl@gnu.org, with any GNUish questions or suggestions for future installments.
Jul 1st
A legal case is being heard before the District Court of Berlin which may have enormous consequences for the way that software is developed and distributed. The adversaries in the case are the manufacturer and distributor of DSL routers AVM Computersysteme Vertriebs GmbH (AVM), and Cybits AG (Cybits) which produces children’s web-filtering software.
The case was brought to court by AVM with the aim of preventing Cybits from changing any parts of the firmware used in AVM’s routers, including the Linux kernel. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) and http://gpl-violations.org consider AVM’s action as a broad attack against the principles of free software, and thus against the thousands of individuals and companies developing, improving and distributing free software.
Berlin, 20th June – Tomorrow on June 21st a legal case will be heard before the District Court of Berlin which may have enormous consequences for the way that software is developed and distributed. The adversaries in the case are the manufacturer and distributor of DSL routers AVM Computersysteme Vertriebs GmbH (AVM), and Cybits AG (Cybits) which produces children’s web-filtering software. Both companies use the Linux kernel, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GNU GPL); a Free Software license permitting everyone to use, study, share, and improve works which use it.
The case was brought to court by AVM with the aim of preventing Cybits from changing any parts of the firmware used in AVM’s routers, including the Linux kernel. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) and gpl-violations.org consider AVM’s action as a broad attack against the principles of Free Software, and thus against the thousands of individuals and companies developing, improving and distributing Free Software.
“I decided to contribute my work to the Linux kernel under the GNU GPL, and let others benefit from it. I’m happy if companies make a lot of money with software written by me and thousands of others. But in return, when they distribute our software I want them to give others the same rights they received from me”, said Harald Welte, founder of gpl-violations.org and copyright holder of several parts of the Linux kernel.
This is however exactly what AVM tried to avoid when in 2010 they filed two actions against Cybits. AVM claimed that when their customers install Cybits’ filtering software on AVM routers it changes the routers’ firmware and consequently infringes on AVM’s copyright. In the opinion of AVM, even changing the Linux kernel components of the firmware is not allowed. The Court of Appeals of Berlin rejected this argument in its decision on the request for a preliminary injunction in September 2010, after Mr. Welte intervened in the case. Now, the District Court of Berlin will have to decide on the issue again, this time in the main proceedings.
“This case has far reaching consequences for the future of Free Software and the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL is a legal license set by the original authors of the software. These terms are not optional” said Till Jaeger from JBB Rechtsanwälte who represents Mr. Welte in this case.
If AVM succeeds in forbidding others from exercising the freedoms explicitly granted by the GNU General Public License terms, it will directly contravene the legal rights of the original authors of the programs, who decided that software freedom and cooperation is more important to them than directly receiving license fees. Moreover, there are also significant economic and business implications. First, it will give device manufacturers the chance to veto software from third parties on their products, resulting in worse products for the user and them being locked-in to purchasing future products from a particular vendor. Second, it will give companies like AVM an unfair advantage over their competitors who are in compliance with the Free Software licenses which they use. Third, it will threaten the cooperative software development model, which has been successfully used by many companies worldwide for three decades.
“AVM is attacking the very foundations of Free Software: They want to take away freedom from others. We have to act when a company sues others for executing their right to modify Free Software. AVM’s behaviour must not be tolerated. If they are successful in court it will be disastrous for the global market for embedded devices, which includes mobile phones, network hardware, and other Linux based products” says Matthias Kirschner, FSFE’s German Coordinator.
“Ironically, by preventing others from enacting the rights granted by the GNU GPL, AVM itself is in violation of the license terms. Therefore they have no right to distribute the software” says Till Jaeger.
FSFE and gpl-violations.org are committed to encouraging the use of Free Software by companies and developers by making licensing and compliance as easy as possible. Generally it is considerably easier to comply with Free Software licenses than with EULAs and other license agreements for non-Free software. Often it is only necessary to add a copy of the GNU GPL license text to documentation, and add an offer to provide the software source code (see FSFE’s compliance tips).
Jul 1st
Oracle, IBM, and the Apache Software Foundation jointly announced earlier this month that OpenOffice.org would become an official Apache project. Users and contributors should be aware that it will become easier for proprietary software developers to distribute OpenOffice.org as nonfree software since all Apache projects are distributed under the terms of the Apache License.
While we do recommend the Apache License in specific situations, we do not believe it is the best choice for software like OpenOffice.org. This situation calls for copyleft, because the gains free software stands to make from a non-copyleft license don’t justify giving a handout to proprietary software developers.
When OpenOffice.org moves to a non-copyleft license, there’s a ready replacement for people who want a productivity suite that does more to protect their freedom: LibreOffice.
Oracle, IBM, and the Apache Software Foundation jointly announced last week that OpenOffice.org would become an official Apache project. OpenOffice.org is an important piece of free software, and many of its supporters suggest that this change will give them more control over the project’s future direction. However, users and contributors should be aware that, as part of this transition, it will become easier for proprietary software developers to distribute OpenOffice.org as nonfree software.
All Apache projects are distributed under the terms of the Apache License. This is a non-copyleft free software license; anybody who receives the software can distribute it to others under nonfree terms. Such a licensing strategy represents a significant policy change for OpenOffice.org. Previously, the software was distributed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). The LGPL is a weak copyleft license, so programs that merely link to the software can be released under nonfree terms, but the software covered by the LGPL must always be released, along with its source code, under the LGPL’s terms. Free software developers are clearly comfortable with a partial copyleft when it’s appropriate; in numerous surveys of free software projects, the LGPL is commonly listed as the second-most popular license (after the GNU General Public License), or else follows close behind.
While we do recommend the Apache License in specific situations, we do not believe it is the best choice for software like OpenOffice.org. This situation calls for copyleft, because the gains free software stands to make from a non-copyleft license don’t justify giving a handout to proprietary software developers.
Fortunately, there’s a ready alternative for people who want to work with a productivity suite that does more to protect their freedom: LibreOffice. Anybody who’s comfortable with OpenOffice.org will find a familiar interface and feature set in LibreOffice, because it was originally based on the same source code. Since September 2010, numerous contributors have been working to improve the software, and the project’s legal steward, The Document Foundation, is committed to keeping it licensed under the LGPL.
LibreOffice’s commitment to user freedom does not end at the license of its source code. Like OpenOffice.org, the software’s built-in extension manager makes it easy to add new features, but unlike OpenOffice.org, its extension database only lists add-ons that are under a free license. OpenOffice.org points to a database that includes proprietary extensions, and doesn’t always provide clear licensing information. This approach to extensions risks turning free software into a platform for the development and promotion of proprietary extras.
Anybody who plans to use or contribute to one of these productivity suites should understand how these policies affect them, and consider which better complement their own goals. While both pass the most important test of being free software, we recommend LibreOffice because its policies do significantly more to promote the cause of free software.
Jul 1st
2011-07-01 The Danger of Software Users Don’t Control Vienna, Austria
2011-07-12 Philosophie et histoire du logiciel libre Strasbourg, France
2011-07-13 Réflexions quant à l’utilisation et la modification du droit d’auteur en faveur de la Liberté Strasbourg, France
2011-08-25 — 2011-08-28 GNU Hackers Meeting Paris, France
2011-07-13 John Sullivan at the Greater Hartford GNU/Linux User Group Hartford, CT