Slashdot Mirror

If Microsoft were to take, oh, let's say Ghostscript, and integrate it into MS Office, they would most likely go out of business within a quarter, because all of office would now be GPL'd. MS wouldn't have a choice.

Briefly, aggregation does not necessarily imply being a derivative work. If the interface (using pipes and sockets) between the hypothetical Microsoft Ghostscript and the rest of Microsoft Office is clean enough, then Microsoft would only be responsible for releasing their changes to Ghostscript.

Darwin is a BSD derivative. As the GNU/Linux FAQ states, the GNU/ thing does not apply to BSD derived work.

So no GNU/Darwin. Just Darwin.

Are you sure it wasn't these guys?

MS has released the source code for their crown jewels. Unfortunately, that's not cool. MS released it under terms that are not only unacceptable, but amount to a booby trap. If folks read the MS code, they are ``contaminated'', unable to work on libre implementations of the same ideas.

Apple has released their code, with terms that many will find unacceptable. If you can't accept it on the terms they offer it, it's the same as not releasing it at all.

Imagine setting up a dozen machines at a conference or a LAN party and having them automatically self-configure their networking and discover each others services, without having to worry about subnet masks or a DHCP server.

Imagine not being able to do this because the APSL won't mix with the license terms of your distribution. Imagine not being able to do this because Apple decided that they made a mistake, and cencelled your license. Imagine Apple sueing the developers of (so far hypothetical) Zeroconf-libre, saying that they have stolen code from Rendevous.

Getting totally off-topic, the libre implementation should be known as either Krendevous or Gnondevous.

The GPL is a useful tool for lots of objectives, but just using it doesn't make your work part of the GNU project - According to the FSF GPL FAQ, that only happens if the developers and GNU Project agree and the developers explicitly contribute their code to the GNU Project. This *has* happened with many of the programs that are commonly used with Linux, but also *has not* been done with many of the others, so they're Not GNU.

The name GNU/Linux doesn't increase *my* awareness of software freedom - it increases my awareness of Stallman's goals of mindshare-hoarding. Has anybody done an inventory of popular Linux distributions to find out what proportion of projects have been donated to the GNU Project?

But actually, what convinced me to say GNU/Linux was this picture

Quit complaining. While it is not copylefted software, it is still free software.

Adding an NDA is directly incompatible with the GPL. Just read it:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Tacking an NDA onto the program would clearly classify as adding a "further restriction on the recipients' excercise of the rights granted herein." That makes requiring one a violation of the GPL. I'm not sure whether that's a violation that would actually void the NDA requirer's rights under the GPL, or if the NDA would just be considered to be void and unenforcable.

All they have to do is invoke the clause saying that a violator permanantly forfeits rights to distribute the work in question.

I don't see a clause like that in the GPL. Could you point it out?

I do see section 4, which says that "[a]ny attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." However, that provision does not imply that the violator is attainted against receiving a new license ... which is as simple as downloading a new piece of the covered software.

(In programmatic terms, you need an instance of permission in order to legally redistribute copyrighted works. If you violate GPL, you destroy your instance of permission (and, more importantly, you break the law in so doing). However, just because you destroyed an object doesn't keep you from getting a new object of the same class later on ... and you get a new GPL license with every copy of the software.

License * foo; /* pointer to a license instance */
foo = new License(LGPL, glibc); /* get a license */
foo->violate(); /* implicitly deletes foo */
foo = new License(LGPL, glibc); /* can still get a new one */

To summarize: The GPL does not contain any terms which "taint" violators from re-accepting the license in the future, nor which withdraw the offer of future licensing. The GPL's "teeth", basically, are not license revocation but copyright law.

Then I'm not even beginning to talk about their continuing blatant and I mean like *B-L-A-T-A-N-T* GPL violations.

What GPL violations? The GPL only requires that they distribute source to those individuals that receive binaries from them. If you haven't received binaries from them you don't have any rights to the source.

Have you actually read the GPL? Have you even bothered to read the FAQ? Do you even know what you are talking about? If you want the source, just ask someone who has bought the product to give it to you. They certainly give it to you. They may say no, though, because unless they themselves distribute the binaries to you they don't have to give the source to you.

IANAL, but my lawyer is. :)

For that matter, I'd like to do video editing at some point in the future (when I get a digital camcorder).

Video capture on Linux... from a "freebie" capture port on your video card??

Forget it man.

Video capture requires drivers AND applications. You buy a video card for Linux, and IF the manufacturer supports Linux, video drivers are all you get. ATI has drivers for Linux... but not even the 3D part. See what I mean?

The only way to get Linux capture drivers is to buy a dedicated capture card for Linux. That way you get what you paid for, with no "missing features" on the Linux side.

Besides, the way things improve and drop in price, you never want to buy this hardware BEFORE you are ready to begin using it.

Me? I have a MSI GeForce4 4400 (oc'd of course). Capture only works on Windows, but in a few years I expect Linux capture support to become a competitive feature... just like primitive driver support has become now.

I've used broadcast capture equipment, and while this capture port can be called a "toy", the MSI Video-In/Out port which handles uncompressed 720x480 fine (if your drive can not handle uncompressed YUV I sugest HuffYUV which is lossless compression).

Whatever you use, "realtime" MPEG compression sucks. It looks OK if you consider how hard your PC is working to do the job in software, but there's just no substitute for variable-bitrate multipass compression. CBR video creates fixed size files that are compromised everywhere... multipass VBR allows you to lower the "average" bitrate by 25%, AND give better quality (presuming you lower the bitrate floor and ceiling and have a good encoder).

I've transferred 8 hours of VHS to DVD so far. Did someone say Star Wars? I didn't. ;-)

With VHS, you shouldn't have to capture at 720x480 because of the limitations of VHS resolution on the VHS tape... you can get away with 360x480 (not a typo!) and then double the horizontal lines... a good capture card does this in hardware.

IF there's a way to use 360x480 on DVD and specify the aspect ratio as 8:3 (did I do that right?), you'd save a LOT of DVD space but I have not tested this. Until I figure that problem out, there's no advantage to capturing at this res... but it's worth mentioning if your hardware cannot keep up (you would have to stretch the video afterwards).

In short, dual boot... or fork out real cash for professional capture under Linux. You have a limited selection under Linux and will pay more until the market becomes more viable.

You'd also need to MASTER your DVD's under Windows. No authoring sw for Linux anywhere (AFAIK). Once you HAVE mastered your DVD, you CAN burn it under Linux using dvdrtools.

Because if you don't accept the GPL then you can't legally use the product.

Sorry, no. Section 0 of the GPL clearly states:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted (...).

The GPL assumes that since you have legally obtained a copy of the program -- recorded onto a hard disk, CD-ROM, book, or other piece of your property -- that you already have the right to use it. In doing so, you're simply legally using a piece of your private property, an action to which copyright traditionally does not address.

Well-established, constitutionally upheld, internationally valid, largely uncontroversial Berne-Convention-class copyright only affects you when you copy, publicly perform, redistribute, etc. a covered work. It is only the experimental, alpha-test-quality, constitutionally untested, and controversial DMCA-class laws which attempt to extend copyright from the right to copy and publish to the right to enslave and deprive the user.

That's why I said "might". But the Holy GPL, on Item 1, first paragraph says that thou shalt "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;"

"About KDE" is where the license is displayed, so, yes, it may an issue.

Likewise, some people don't fully understand the GPL. They think that if someone is selling GPL'd software, then they must give the source code away to everyone for free. Really, all GPL requires the seller to do is provide a copy of source code to their customers. Sure, the customer can then turn around and give that source code away to anyone for free, but the seller is under no obligation to do so, because they're only providing software to the buyer. The GPL is not about giving away all your rights as a software manufacturer or retailer, it's about preserving the rights of the buyer.

If the German government is the sole customer of the Kroupware program, then the developers of that program are under no obligation to put up an anonymous access FTP site and say, "Free Downloads for Everyone!" They are only obligated to provide the source code to their buyer. The German government could then distribute it for free to all German citizens, but the citizens could then likewise distribute it for free to the rest of the world. The GPL is not about restricting rights; it's about preserving them.

Yes, GPL includes rights that PBS does not normally grant, namely you can redistribute and edit or make derivative works. No show that I am aware of grants these rights.

You don't seem impressed with the rights so I'll explain a little more.

Redistribution - A show runs on PBS once or twice and might never run again or disappear from their website. You may have made a personal copy for yourself but most people will not have done that so it effectively disappears. With the right to redistribute it doesn't disappear.

Editing - the examples of editing you gave aren't very compelling from the creative perspective. More interesting is using excerpts in another work, finding footage is one of the hardest things about video production.

For more in depth explanation of the GPL see the philosphy section of the Free Software Foundation Website.

I do share your scepticism about this being a buzz kind thinig because they are only releasing shows in 120kbps, not even VHS quality. That limits its usefulness significantly.

You don't seem to understand. If Palladium becomes a de facto standard, virtually all content will require a Palladium machine. Microsoft will monopolize the gateway to that content. If you want to read the news, listen to music, or watch movies, you will have to use Palladium. Blind people will be unable to read electronic books because we can't encrypt braille. Search engines will not be able to read web sites. Instead, they will index based on whatever keywords the author tells them to.

Palladium is a direct attack on Open Source Software (OSS). Sure, in theory, OSS can process DRM protected content, but first it has to be signed. If you change the software, it will not work with protected content unless the changes are signed. This flies in the face of software freedom. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the signing authority will sign future versions of OSS. Even if the signing authority signs OSS, it will require a lengthy and expensive auditing process, slowing development and artificially inflating the price.

The Palladium scheme allows Microsoft to decide who can, or can not create trusted software. If it's anything like the DVD-CCA, the opportunity will cost $112,000. After spending the $112,000, the author then has to follow whatever draconian rules Microsoft puts forth or their license will be revoked. This is clearly intended to create an artificial barrier to entry and cut off competition. It also gives Microsoft power over hardware manufacturers and software companies. Based on Microsoft's history, I have no doubt they will use their signing power as leverage when dealing with hardware manufacturers and software developers. If a hardware manufacturer or software company fails to comply with Microsoft's demands, they will encounter roadblocks when signing their drivers and software.

Palladium also sets up a key authority to control the master keys. If you want your content protected, you have to get permission from the key authority. Rest assured, the price and restrictions will be well within reach of most media companies, but out of reach for most independent publishers. This is just another artificial barrier to cut off competition. You can also be certain that the price scheme will be more economical for large publishers than for small ones, thus encouraging consolidation.

Palladium includes the ability to revoke licenses for content, thus allowing the government to outlaw content through court rulings, legislation, executive orders, FCC rules, etc (just like the Bush administration removed content from libraries after 9/11). The system will also allow the media to 'erase' historical news reports (Texaco get accused of accounting fraud, so they pay the media to erase news reports about Enron), and revoke licenses during times of national tragedy, similar to Clear Channel's post 9/11 blacklist (don't want people hearing John Lennon's Imagine when they're supposed to be clamoring for revenge).

By acquiring a Palladium machine, you are helping to entrench Palladium as a de facto standard, making it easier for content companies to wrap all their content in DRM. If you support Palladium, you will be responsible for this.

The worst of all is that people will be forced to use Palladium or TCPA machines, when laws like CBDTPA (the former SSSCA) will be passed.

Thus, sooner or later, the right to share will be outlawed, and people will no longer be able to "turn DRM off".

When no TCPA-free or Palladium-free hardware will be available and the ISPs will only allow TCPA machines to be connected to the Internet, there will be no alternative.

The worst of all, most of the people are totally unaware that many of their freedoms are about to be stolen.

For an introduction see:

http://action.eff.org/tinseltown/

http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/

TCPA / Palladium Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html

"The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

(The important thing about this story is that it was written before the DMCA was even proposed!)

"What's Wrong With Copy Protection" by John Gilmore.

http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm

Well, the worst thing you can say about GIMP is not supporting CYMK and a probably a couple more other patented stuff.

Plugins, it will not load Photoshop's, AFAICS even if run on Windows, but that is hardly something you will really miss, since it has a huge amount of plugins by itself, and if you're not happy with how one works, or need something extra, it's *relatively* easy to change and extend (or maybe you could convince a more experienced GIMP user/developer to help you extend it).

GUI, it's not Photoshop (and who said Photoshop's gui was simple?) but it has already won some prizes, and, its the origin of GTK+ (GIMP ToolKit), which is used in one of the two most used Free Software desktop environments.

Feature set, if you consider Photoshop as a 100% feature set app, GIMP may not be 100% to your eys, but if you consider PaintShopPro as 100%, then GIMP is eons ahead.

The lack of CYMK, makes GIMP not ready for the world of print, but in the fully digital world, there's absolutely no need for Photoshop. It may have a different UI, or you may not like the interface, the extensibility and the Freedom (no, you are not free to share a Photoshop copy with your friends or family, for instance).

But do join the GIMP mailing lists, and you'll see that in the digital world, you can (and probably will) live very happy without Photoshop.

CBDTPA & other such future laws will outlaw information sharing. They will forbid the fundamental right to share. It is very important to understand this process.

(1) "The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

(The important thing about this story is that it was written before the DMCA was even proposed!)

(2) "What's Wrong With Copy Protection" by John Gilmore.

http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm

(3) "Re-evaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html

What is copyright, and what is it meant to accomplish? How can we tell whether it is meeting its goals?

This was also written before the DMCA; Stallman argued that copyright law had _already_ gone too far.

(4) Sold Out, By James Boyle

http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/boyle/sold _out.htm

CBDTPA & other such future laws will outlaw information sharing. They will forbid the fundamental right to share. It is very important to understand this process.

(1) "The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

(The important thing about this story is that it was written before the DMCA was even proposed!)

(2) "What's Wrong With Copy Protection" by John Gilmore.

http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm

(3) "Re-evaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html

What is copyright, and what is it meant to accomplish? How can we tell whether it is meeting its goals?

This was also written before the DMCA; Stallman argued that copyright law had _already_ gone too far.

(4) Sold Out, By James Boyle

http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/boyle/sold _out.htm

Open Source software will be used by government wherever possible. This definition includes a superset of free software, and especially includes FreeBSD, Mozilla, the NPL, and other licenses in addition to the GPL.

FYI, all of the licenses you mentioned (FreeBSD is not a license, BSD is), are considered Free Software/Software Libre licenses.

Do you worry about the old GPL being enforcable? It's never been challenged in a court of law. It's never been tested to see if it stands up. RMS acknowledges that.

Some software is created just for fun. Other software is created to insure that you have control of your computer. Don't confuse "commercialism" with the evil practices of current commercial software vendors. They are stupid and will be replaced. Much software created just for fun is of great use to all of us becuse it was licensed as free. Go visit clarity to learn what why and how.

What concerns us most is the thin layer between hardware and software: items like the BIOS and flash ROM. That layer is ripe for DRM and other technologies. That issue is quite different from Stallman's essay mentioned in the post. This isn't an issue of Free (as in freedom) hardware, but is about a matter of that "thin layer" of software where DRM will likely dwell.

FSF is currently extremely short on resources, but we hope to put at least some force behind initiatives to create Free Software in this area. In some sense, it is the last frontier for freedom on our computers. Indeed, the only proprietary software code anywhere in my computer is that which lives in the BIOS. Before now, the issue was not so strategically significant, but the fact that DRM technologies may soon live in that very BIOS makes it more significant than ever.

If anyone has an interest and reverse engineering experience, and would like involved with working on the free BIOS projects, particularly for laptop devices, please contact me. Also, please contact me if you would like to donate to a restricted fund for this effort, as we are considering setting one up if there is substantial interest.

Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation

Slashdot Revenue Denial HOWTO version 0.02

Slashdot provides information. Information has value protected under intellectual property laws. Since Slashdot does not believe in intellectual property, as demonstrated by its support of an organisation which does not believe an author should have any rights on the products of his mind, its editors are implying that Slashdot itself has no value. As such, it should not claim compensation for its services.

So much for the philosophy. How can you fulfil Slashdot's own wishes? The basic aim is to stop views of Slashdot's advertisements, so its sponsors no longer perceive Slashdot as providing worthwhile exposure, and stop sponsoring it.

• If you are using Mozilla, simply right-click the advert at the top of the page, and select "Block images from this server". Do this whenever you see a new advert appear on a Slashdot browser window.
• Or you can add an entry to /etc/hosts under a Unix-based system or C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC\HOSTS under an NT-based system:

  127.0.0.1 images.slashdot.org
  127.0.0.1 images2.slashdot.org
  127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 ln.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 m2.doubleclick.net

• Looking for a ready-built revenue denial product? On Windows or Unix, you could try AdBuster, AdKiller or Internet Junkbuster. And WWWoffle is a comprehensive caching solution.

Please distribute this HOWTO widely and add to it if you have further useful advice.

Slashdot Revenue Denial HOWTO version 0.02

Slashdot provides information. Information has value protected under intellectual property laws. Since Slashdot does not believe in intellectual property, as demonstrated by its support of an organisation which does not believe an author should have any rights on the products of his mind, its editors are implying that Slashdot itself has no value. As such, it should not claim compensation for its services.

So much for the philosophy. How can you fulfil Slashdot's own wishes? The basic aim is to stop views of Slashdot's advertisements, so its sponsors no longer perceive Slashdot as providing worthwhile exposure, and stop sponsoring it.

• If you are using Mozilla, simply right-click the advert at the top of the page, and select "Block images from this server". Do this whenever you see a new advert appear on a Slashdot browser window.
• Or you can add an entry to /etc/hosts under a Unix-based system or C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC\HOSTS under an NT-based system:

  127.0.0.1 images.slashdot.org
  127.0.0.1 images2.slashdot.org
  127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 ln.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 m2.doubleclick.net

• Looking for a ready-built revenue denial product? On Windows or Unix, you could try AdBuster, AdKiller or Internet Junkbuster. And WWWoffle is a comprehensive caching solution.

Please distribute this HOWTO widely and add to it if you have further useful advice.

Slashdot Revenue Denial HOWTO version 0.02

Slashdot provides information. Information has value protected under intellectual property laws. Since Slashdot does not believe in intellectual property, as demonstrated by its support of an organisation which does not believe an author should have any rights on the products of his mind, its editors are implying that Slashdot itself has no value. As such, it should not claim compensation for its services.

So much for the philosophy. How can you fulfil Slashdot's own wishes? The basic aim is to stop views of Slashdot's advertisements, so its sponsors no longer perceive Slashdot as providing worthwhile exposure, and stop sponsoring it.

• If you are using Mozilla, simply right-click the advert at the top of the page, and select "Block images from this server". Do this whenever you see a new advert appear on a Slashdot browser window.
• Or you can add an entry to /etc/hosts under a Unix-based system or C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC\HOSTS under an NT-based system:

  127.0.0.1 images.slashdot.org
  127.0.0.1 images2.slashdot.org
  127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 ln.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
  127.0.0.1 m2.doubleclick.net

• Looking for a ready-built revenue denial product? On Windows or Unix, you could try AdBuster, AdKiller or Internet Junkbuster. And WWWoffle is a comprehensive caching solution.

Please distribute this HOWTO widely and add to it if you have further useful advice.

Slashdot Revenue Denial HOWTO version 0.01

Slashdot provides information, which has value under intellectual property laws. Since Slashdot does not believe in intellectual property, as demonstrated by its support an organisation which does not believe an author should have any rights on the products of his mind, Slashdot is implying that it itself has no value. As such, it should not claim compensation for its services.

So much for the philosophy. How can you fulfil Slashdot's own wishes? The basic aim is to stop views of Slashdot's advertisements, so its sponsors no longer perceive Slashdot as providing worthwhile exposure, and stop sponsoring it.

• If you are using Mozilla, simply right-click the advert at the top of the page, and select "Block images from this server".
• Or you can add an entry to /etc/hosts under a Unix-based system or C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC\HOSTS under an NT-based system:

  127.0.0.1 images.slashdot.org

• Looking for a ready-built revenue denial product? On Windows or Unix, you could try AdBuster, AdKiller or Internet Junkbuster. And WWWoffle is a comprehensive caching solution.

Please distribute this HOWTO widely and add to it if you have further useful advice.

If you know what the GPL says, and what it entails, you will see why MS has to make sure there is no GPL code being used in their products. Thats not being evil, thats living in the real world where what you and your employees do has real consequences. Grow up.

Sorry, but if you knew what the GPL says, you'd realize that it cannot give anyone else the right to release (or force MSFT to release) their source code.

If you can't redistribute something based on GPL code under the GPL (e.g. because you don't own the copyright for the MSFT code), then you are not allowed to distribute it at all (without removing either the GPL-covered stuff or the MSFT stuff).

If you had read the GPL, you would realize that this is directly spelled out in Section 7:

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

Since the GPL only applies when someone distributes the software, it normally doesn't prevent you from writing and using something that you will never distribute to anyone.

IMHO, what MSFT is trying to do (aside from the usual FUD) is to prevent people from using GPL code even in their own programs (e.g. a proprietary web-site backend).

cdurst
Typical Disclaimer: IANAL

He announced at OSCON that he would only publicly speak one more time after the event. If you're at LinuxWorld in SF this week, you can see him Wednesday night at Affero's benefit for the FSF, detail are here and FSF's press release is here .

Play pinball and support the FSF at the Full Tilt For Software Freedom in San Francisco during LinuxWorld.

it's kinda hard to find since it is only displayed in bold letters Donating Online , but i think you can handle it. i plan to begin donating as soon as i get done with grad school. dont let that stop you-you can start right now :)

I'm sure if Richard Stallman wants to sell GNU Emacs manuals in Peru (he gets $45 a pop for them) the government will assist him in doing so in whatever capacity they can.

I said UCITA is "bad for users of Free Software" when I really meant to say that it's bad for Free Software in general (the FSF has a good explanation of it).

Having said that, UCITA is indeed bad for users of Free Software. When Free Software authors are held liable for defects while software companies are allowed to disclaim liability (exactly the opposite of the way it should be!), both the developers and users of Free Software suffer. When proprietary vendors are allowed to create closed and legally inaccessible file formats, the developers and users of Free Software suffer greatly.

UCITA is an immense threat to anybody who is not a big corporation.

Cheer up folks... DotGNU, the GNU project's complete replacement for MS.NET, is the answer.

DotGNU's Portable.NET provides support for C# development and a CLR to run the IL bytecodes with. The compiler is written in C, meaning that its performance is far better than the Mono and MS.NET compilers. Also, it can bootstrap off of gcc (side-stepping many legal issues with MS that Mono will probably have to deal with).

The DotGNU SEE provides the framework for data marshalling and security of downloaded components. The plugin architecture of the SEE provides the ability to run a JVM (or Perl's Parrot vm, for that matter) as easily as the pnet CLR; plugins should also be able to provide data marshalling between the runtimes as well as between runtimes and native code. The DotGNU DEE (a distributed collection of SEEs) provides the server side support.

The DotGNU Virtual Identities system provides a passport/hailstorm replacement that is secure, decentralized, and even allows the individual to serve up their own info. instead of relying on a third party.

The DotGNU project is also a GNU/FSF project; most of the code is owned by the Free Software Foundation, and is therefore permanently GPL protected.

DotGNU is also aiming for full ECMA compliance, while still providing an ever-growing collection of GNU extensions which are available via the non-standard DotGNU namespace.

Within a year, DotGNU will be a superior and fully working replacement for MS.NET, and if the folks at Apache have any sense, they'll leave the darkside and join us back in the light.

I wonder what the Free Software Foundation is going to do about their images now :-/

I wonder what the Free Software Foundation is going to do about their images now :-/

You may be a lot closer than you realize to being able to help the elite coders of the GNU world. Send a few bucks, you can get started here.
Donating a little money to the Free Software Foundation is like handing fresh ammunition and rations to the experienced soldiers already pushing back the enemy, while you sharpen your own skills for the day you can take your place on the frontline. This will help until the day when all universities and research centers GPL code they produce; at that point there will be more money for GNU software than anyone will know what to do with (reflect for a moment on how much tuition costs...academia is awash in cash, not even counting federal grants, etc.)

There are two X11 replacements that come to mind .... Berlin and Crust.

I believe that "that story [the poster] read somewhere" was Richard Stallman's "dystopian short story" The Right To Read. I'd recommend giving it a gander, as it appears RMS was remarkable prescient: his story was published five years ago in the Communications of the ACM.

The FSF strives to create the same situation as you are describing. The FSF wants free software to be the best. If it is the best then people will use it because it is the best tool for the job.

Take a look at the FSF Web site. They go into this subject quite deeply. The perspective is a little different. They expand on how using non-free software enslaves the users.

The computer will now know everything about you -- who you talk to, where you go, how you work. And all of this will be owned by Microsoft.

they won't know about me.

Now, when I first read this, I was a psyched as the next slashbot. Hey, I use Linux at home as a desktop OS, at work as a high-throughput workstation OS, and also at work as a low-downtime server OS. It's the closest thing to the "perfect solution" to yet come out of the software industry.

So what could be wrong with its adoption by the German government?

Basically, the problem is the German government itself. While it is ancient history to most Americans, the two World Wars (I and II) still loom menacingly in the minds of many Europeans.

Likewise, the hard line taken by GNU, the FSF, and people like RMS and ESR, has reminded more than one person of the fascism practiced half a century ago in Germany. Indeed, it's taken all of RedHat's marketing skills to overcome this image in selling Linux to corporate customers.

I just think that at this point, we don't want to be seen as "cutting deals" with those that might conceivably tarnish Linux's already questionable image. The general public already associates Linux with hackers and pirates; let's try to leave Nazis out of it.

That said, there are plenty of other places that we should be trying to woo with OSS. "Good guys" like France, England, and even Canada, could be great for Linux's reputation in the global community.

For all the evil that Micro$oft represents, one thing must be acknowledged: they understand the importance of public perception. I'd hate for Linux to underestimate this, and go the way of BeOS and OS/2.

The Free Software Foundation publishes a good comparison of various licenses which you might be interested in reading if you are interested in the different types of source-available software licensing.

In other words, Open Source Software is not Free Software. Thanks, Einstein.

How is that insightful?

Red Hat 7.3 includes a package called "dvdrecord", which is a fork of cdrecord that has been patched for use with DVD-R drives. (The official cdrecord program does not include DVD-R support because the author sells that as a commercial product.) If you're not using RH 7.3, you can build dvdrecord yourself from source: dvdrtools.

Thus far I'm just using them as if they were higher-capacity CD-ROMs, using the ISO 9660 file system. It seems to work fine. There is some early UDF support in mkisofs, but I haven't yet tried it.

DVR-104 is the OEM version -- bare drive. The A04 is the retail box model with (useless) software bundle.

Works fine with Linux and dvdrtools.

The author writes: and who gave them permission to make those copies?

Honestly, is this a serious question to pose to /.? I don't know that /. is in any way connected to this site. So what's going on here? It sounds like the author is trying to rally public outrage by claiming to be a victim.

Personally, I found the writer just a little bit insulting and selfish. (No offense, but that's how I read it.) To the author, I say: if you have copyright disputes with the site, contact the maintainers. Copyright problems happen all the time, and are handled gracefully and quickly. You don't need my help or /.'s involvement in this.

I suspect the only injury was to the writer's pride. Had there been any commercial loss from the infringement, he would not have used this "wounded bird" rouse in his story.

On the same topic, you might consider an more enlightened view, and place your old sites under the GNU Free Document license. Details are available at: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/fdl.html

So, to the author's (seemingly) rhetorical question, I reply: if you are serious, your question is completely off topic.

Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image" from the Linux web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for me in the "required configuration" section of the manual. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although the advocates of Linux self-righteously boast the efficiency of their chosen operating system and deride the "bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are blatantly incorrect. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system? Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet.

The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality.

Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Windows XP will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that those Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux.

> But how will the GPL license of the software affect their works?

This seems to be a growing issue. E.g., there has been a recent discussion on the Freeciv mailing list, where they are actively trying to get their hands on improved graphics but want to be rigorous about licensing issues. (And alas, they had to reject some nice tilesets that various people have submitted because of dubious licensing status.)

It seems to me that this would be worth writing the FSF about and seeing whether they are interested in providing a "content" license. They recently produced their GNU Free Documentation License in recognition that the GPL doesn't cover everything, but that does not seem to be completely apt for game artwork (and other game content) either.

They do link to another Design Science License for data, which you may want to evaluate. But IMO it would be great if you could get the FSF to produce and defend a free content license (GCL?) that was explicitly defined to work like and with the GPL.

The reason I think the FSF might take an interest is because so much new GPL'd software is GUI-oriented and requires graphics of one sort or another, and a basic corpus of free/licensed graphics might help free software take off in new areas like it has in infrastructure.