Origins

Ringlord Technologies was founded in 1987 by Udo Schuermann for the purpose of researching and developing distributed software technologies for business and entertainment.

The company's name was derived from a software concept enabling the centralized management and configuration of workstations on an IBM Tokenring network: the ring-shaped topology combined with the resulting lordship (rule, control) over the whole network, giving birth to Ringlord Software. Since then we have altered our name to more accurately reflect our focus on research and development of (software) technologies. Hence, Ringlord Technologies.

N.B.: Ringlord Technologies is in no way, shape, or form associated with J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, or any related or derivative works by J.R.R. Tolkien or his heirs or agents. No such relationship is implied or intended by Ringlord Technologies for any reason, and no such relationship should be inferred or assumed by anyone for any reason whatsoever.

Freedom

We at Ringlord Technologies believe that personal freedom, the unrestricted sharing of knowledge, and unfettered access to information are the marks of any society that treads the path of greatness. Conversely, anyone in opposition to such tenets necessarily derives personal benefit from denying access, restricting knowledge, and restricting freedom, be it to satisfy their own greed or to protect a deeply distrustful character.

You, whether user or producer of software, declare your support for either freedom or restriction by the choices you make in real life as well as the software you use: Invest your energy and your money in software that restricts freedom and limits your choices, and not only do you declare that the ideals of freedom are of secondary importance at best, but you allow yourself to be held hostage to companies that can then take advantage of you in your powerless position. But use software that discards fetters, promotes sharing of information, and limits none of your freedoms or those of others, and you ensure that your freedoms today also will be your freedoms tomorrow.

The previous paragraph may sound like stratospheric idealism, but giving up your freedoms in any realm, be it speech, privacy, property, justice, etc. undermines the system as a whole. Who benefits when you purchase proprietary software (without access to, the the right to use the source code) for which you have to pay over and over again when new upgrades are released? Free software seeks to put the user of software in the seat of power.

Free Software

In a capitalist society the word ``free'' is more often associated with the idea that ``it costs nothing'' (and in extreme cases even that it costs nothing because it's worthless and couldn't be sold for money). The word ``free'' in Free Software refers not to price, however, but to ``freedom'' in exactly the same way that ``free human being'' refers to a person's status as an individual whose life and growth are not to be dictated and controlled by a master. Free software is free in exactly the same way that a slave is not.

The GNU General Public License (GPL)

For the reasons stated above we at Ringlord Technologies not only strongly support the concept commonly referred to as ``Open Source'' software (share the source and allow others to learn and improve the software) but we also believe that the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) and its variations (such as the LGPL) represent the strongest assurance that the works done by proponents of free software cannot be usurped by those who wish to restrict or eliminate those freedoms.

At a more philosophical level, we also believe that secrecy breeds distrust (closely guarded source code, for example, can never be trusted entirely by those who have no access to that source code). The GNU GPL seeks to break down barriers of secrecy and proprietary code hoarding, thereby stimulating exchange between developers and trust among the user base. That this is not a pipe dream is amply demonstrated by the enormous (and growing!) success of the GNU/Linux operating system.

Open Source? Free Software?

Some confusion seems to exist as to the terms ``Open Source'' and ``Free Software''. There are some, for example, who have referred to the GNU GPL as an ``Open Source'' license, or (heavens!) have introduced Richard Stallman, the creator of the GNU GPL, as a proponent of ``Open Source'' software.

The confusion may be justified, as both Open Source and Free Software are about the availability of source code vs. the hoarding of it; but the distinction should always be kept in mind: there are no provisions in open source licenses for derivative works to be similarly protected from appropriation and misuse. Only the GNU GPL requires that source code be available, and that all derivative works be equally free of what could well be referred to as intellectual property theft.

The GPL is a Virus?!

Proponents of restricted rights have recently (in 2001) attempted to animate the idea that the GNU General Public License acts like a ``virus'' because intellectual property will supposedly become ``infected'' when it comes in contact with GPL code.

Others (SCO) have recently (2003+) attempted to equate the GPL as anti-competitive, dangerous to the economy, even a threat to national security. Additionally they have tried to claim that the GPL is not even legal.

The fact of the matter is that the GPL is a software license that, in short, requires those who wish to extend a work published under the GPL, must license the derivative work under the GPL as well. Nobody is forced to use GPL code in their own software, so in cases where it would be inappropriate to extend existing works licensed under the GPL, custom code needs to be written. There is absolutely nothing virulent about the GPL unless you didn't read and understand the license. In that case you'd have a license violation on your hands that would need to be resolved with the owner of the software.

The GPL is firmly rooted in copyright, too. Just because I may choose to give away my software without a price attached, for example, does not deprive me of the right to attach conditions to the use of my software that I feel is appropriate. If I license my software under the GPL, for example, I am merely saying that I do not want anyone to use for their own, private gain the skill, time, and effort that I have invested in my software; instead they must make available, their own work under the GPL if they wish to build on my work.

And just to be sure, Free Software doesn't mean that it costs nothing; it's about freedom and liberty, so I may certainly sell GPL software, but the source code must also be available for those who wish not to pay me and instead spend their own time and effort building and configuring the software. That's exactly what companies like Red Hat, SuSE (Novell), Mandrake, etc. are doing with the Linux kernel and all the GPL software that usually is part of their distributions. They charge for the service of putting the whole thing together into one polished, easy-to-use package.

So, rather than preventing you from learning or building on existing works the way proprietary software and restrictive software licenses do, and forcing you into a dependency relationship with the owner of that proprietary software, the GPL merely requires you to share if you want to benefit from the work that others have made available to you through the sharing imposed by the GPL. In other words, the GPL forces you to be a good citizen and play fair.

If that's viral or illegal behavior, or if that is a threat to national security, then I'd rather live in a country that actually values the kinds of freedoms that the GPL supports.

The Goals of the GNU GPL

I cannot speak for Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, of course, but in a nutshell, this is what the GNU GPL is all about:

The GPL is actually far more in line with the principles of the United States Constitution than the opposite claim, put forth not long ago by a certain company in Redmond, who called the GNU GPL anti-American. Since when is freedom an anti-American principle?!

In more tangible terms, if you wrote the world's greatest email program and licensed it under the GNU GPL then nobody can take your code, change the name and a few other things, and then turn it into a proprietary commercial product for which people have to pay but cannot get the improved source code. The GNU GPL forces the derivative software to also comply with the GNU GPL, requiring that the source code is freely available. They can still sell it (and so can you and everybody else) but they must make the source code with their changes freely available.

Commercial software houses derive value from jealously guarding their software's source code from any eyes but their own. Their users must not only pay for the software (again and again) but have no ability to examine the source code, to learn from it, improve upon it, or even assure themselves that the software does what it is supposed to, and contains no surreptitious code (perhaps to steal your company's secrets or make your computer's CPU resources available to others without your knowledge).

The GNU GPL is designed to be incompatible with business models based on restricting the rights of their customers, but one business that has thrived on the GNU GPL is Redhat, who distribute Redhat Linux, a complete assembly of thousands of Free programs, pre-configured, easily installed, and ready to use. Redhat is proof that the GNU GPL is not business unfriendly. It is just unfriendly to businesses who wish to restrict their customers' freedoms.

And who but a dictator would not cheer for freedom and choice?

For more in-depth discussions of Copyleft, the GNU GPL, LGPL, as well as the philosopies and reasons behind them, please visit the Free Software Foundation (FSF) web site. Translations of the licenses into more than a dozen languages are are available there, too.