Slashdot Mirror

Actually, the purists will tolerate software of poor quality if it means not having to use proprietary software. Yes, they will do their best to fix bugs and make free software superior. After all, their goal is to wipe out proprietary software and make it unnecessary. But again, making superior software is a secondary consideration. That's my only point. Having superior software is not the primary goal, having free software is.

In other words, what makes free software superior isn't usability stability, it's the fact that it is free to begin with!

Richard Stallman, the guy who started the idea of free software and who created the General Public License has said repeatedly that he is not concerned with the technical superiority of software. Check out this page for all the original goals and objectives of free software. It's really quite fascinating stuff.

P.S. Hmmmm...the FSF site is down so the link above won't work. It's mirror site, gnu.org is also down.

If we're going to use an algorithm encumbered by patents, we might as well use MPEG-4.

However if your CODEC is not covered by any patents, then please consider releasing it under a BSD or GPL license.

For information on why software patents are bad for free software, please visit The League for Programming Freedom

If we're going to use an algorithm encumbered by patents, we might as well use MPEG-4.

However if your CODEC is not covered by any patents, then please consider releasing it under a BSD or GPL license.

For information on why software patents are bad for free software, please visit The League for Programming Freedom

Otter said:Nope, that's the Open Source people. You might want to read the FSF site a little more carefully, especially the stuff distinguishing "Free" from "Open Source"

Not a problem. I love reading FSF pages.

Implicit in all free speech is the public good. In the clasic case of speech, free publication is frank and honest discource. Without it truth does not emerge. In the software case, freedom is the ability to modify and distribute improved code for any purpose. Without it software can not improve. The goal is better software, freedom is the means. It can be argued that freedom is a goal in and of itself, but it's more sensible to see it as it is. Freedom is not cheap, it is not easy, but it is the only way to assure the public good. Let's have a look at some of the things the FSF has to say:

How about RMS's clasic Why sofware should be free
"The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how decisions about its use should be made. ... I would like to consider the same question using a different criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general."

and " In other words, we should perform a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society as a whole, taking account of individual freedom as well as production of material goods. In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and show that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software.(1)"

From "Why software should not have owners".
"What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate."

It seems that they only way to get the software you want, which we will call "best", is to have free software. Software optimization is a FSF goal as well. Indeed "bad" software part of the material harm non free software and bogus laws cause us all.

Now go jump in a lake with a raft the size of your UID.

Gee, thanks for that and all the talk about "Zelots" "spewing". You must get a kick out of abusing the whole free software movement at Slashdot's expense. You even seem to enjoy abusing slashdot itself.

Otter again:I accept that dealing with a desktop Linux installation is a hobby in its own right and that you have to spend time to make it work and deal with some things that justa aren't there.

How insightful. You seemed to have missed the whole point of free software, that superior software comes from sharing the development of common tasks. I'll have to point people who might be misled by you to the free software foundation where they can mull freedom for themselves.

Your comment expresses the existance of something I'm not aware of. Just what is missing from Abi Word, Star Office, KDE Word, or vi/ispell/Latex, for that matter? I use M$ Word everyday because the company forces it on me. Of it's vast capability, 90% is useless fluff that gets broken at each "upgrade", 5% is anoying and must be turned off again at each "upgrade", and the remaining 5% produces spellchecked text with funny characters in a disgusting binary format that gets broken with each "upgrade". I used to use Word Perfect, until M$ broke it ruining their platform. Comercial software has mostly provide me with headaches, and their adverts are bad jokes. I'd like to see the comercial OS that does all that you imply Linux should do before it's ready for the desktop.

Sheldon now:I think you've hit upon the fundamental problem with Open Source. It's not that Open Source is a bad thing, it can actually be quite good. But it's ridiculous to assume it will ever completely replace the commercial software market.

Oh my, there's an echo in this room. Thanks for the recomendation. Now I know just how to get my work done. I'd better throw all that good free software I have at home away fast.

You two virtual people need to get real jobs. I'm really sick of running into you two bullshitters while I'm trying to catch up on news.

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Since these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Linux is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux.

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.

When he speeks of the age of Free Software and Open Source he fails to mention the fact that open source (note no capital letters) is actually much older than Free Software, and thus Free Software is not in any way revolutionary; unless one considers restrictions on source code a freedom, which I don't.

Which brings us to the fact that I hate the fact that the Fascist Software Foundation and Richard M. Stalin have the guts to call it Free software.

Symbolics is actually extremely relevant as one of the organizations indirectly responsible for the creation of the Free Software Foundation; Richard Stallman points to Symbolics hiring away nearly all of the hackers from the AI lab , this being one of the events that led to RMS' later actions.

A number of projects have since tried to build environments with tightly-integrated Lisps; none have been much more than curiosities.

The other major linkage is that the bulk of the members of the Unix Haters "cabal" were folks that hated Unix not simply in abstract, but rather in comparison to Lisp environments like Symbolics/Genera.

I'm not sure how this all would connect to the "Anti-Lisp" notions of the Anonymous Coward. Just as the Unix Haters Handbook presents very little about what they would propose as a preferable alternative to Unix, the AC doesn't present any information as to what he would prefer to Lisp.

You don't.

Specifically, the immutable sections are intended to be a place to put stuff

that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (For example, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.)

to quote from the Free Documentation License, section 1.

Because the invariant sections (which are specially designated Secondary Sections) cannot contain information that the work is primarily about, it shouldn't go out of date in any way that is meaningful to the work in question. And anyway, if the author really screwed up and put something totally wrong in such a section, you can feel free to add your own errata.

Of course, any product that fails to satisfy that last criterion is neither free software by the FSF definition nor open-source software by the OSI definition. However, there are plenty of packages that claim to be "free" or "open" and in fact are not. (Consider Sun's SCSL, used for Java, or SSH's read-only licenses, used for ssh.)

In short, the question I ask myself when evaluating a piece of software is "Will this seemingly free software fuck me over in the future?" If I used Debian, I'd have an easy answer to that question, without having to check each package myself.*

*In fact, I don't use Debian, because I prefer RPM and the BSD ports as package formats, but that's another story.

If you can't take criticism of your government then I suggest you lock yourself in your basement and never leave again. Big BIG news flash for you : not only are lots of people criticising the governments of China, SAudi Arabia and the Taliban, there are also lots of people criticising the governments of France, the UK, Canada, Australia.... doubtless the Vatican too.

Sure, intelligent people can find something wrong with every government, but we're talking about geeks. These fucking morons act as if America is the only country with problems, and that is bullshit!

WHAT is this problem that some Americans have taht they get so defensive when they're the ones being criticised? GROW UP. Learn to deal with it.

I can deal with intelligent criticism, but not this moronic biased bullshit. Doublethink is my kryptonite.

If you can't take criticism of your government then I suggest you lock yourself in your basement and never leave again. Big BIG news flash for you : not only are lots of people criticising the governments of China, SAudi Arabia and the Taliban, there are also lots of people criticising the governments of France, the UK, Canada, Australia.... doubtless the Vatican too.

Sure, intelligent people can find something wrong with every government, but we're talking about geeks. These fucking morons act as if America is the only country with problems, and that is bullshit!

WHAT is this problem that some Americans have taht they get so defensive when they're the ones being criticised? GROW UP. Learn to deal with it.

I can deal with intelligent criticism, but not this moronic biased bullshit. Doublethink is my kryptonite.

Well, they are releasing a Linux version. Besides, no one complains that xbill uses Bill Gates in an open source game, so turnabout is fair play.

Now if they were using the FSF's GNU mascot, on the other hand, I think you'd have more of a point.

Especially for a monopolostic company, you need to understand how consumers use your software. As usual MS missed the boat.

Piracy allows a whole bunch of people to use something right away, if they like it, they give it to their friends

I dare say a large number of games have gotten enormously popular riding fame based partly in piracy (unreal tournament?)

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a
Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Since these humble
beginnings, a multi-million dollar
industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but
until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the
recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Linux is
now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows. While there
are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system,
none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux.

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.

This is wrong, how many programs from the FSF have you seen whithout the FSF credits ? Let's see some points. Firstly from the GPL-Howto :

Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as "Copyright 1999 Linda Jones"), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL).

GPL is not public domain, there is a copyright owner.
Secondly, from the GPL:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty[...]

and

2.b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

given that

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

So the facts are :

• a GPL'd thing as an owner mentionned in the copyright notice
• the notice must remain accross the distribution chain

This is wrong, how many programs from the FSF have you seen whithout the FSF credits ? Let's see some points. Firstly from the GPL-Howto :

Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as "Copyright 1999 Linda Jones"), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL).

GPL is not public domain, there is a copyright owner.
Secondly, from the GPL:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty[...]

and

2.b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

given that

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

So the facts are :

• a GPL'd thing as an owner mentionned in the copyright notice
• the notice must remain accross the distribution chain

I suggest you read the Free Software Foundation web pages, particularly the "philosophy" section. You will see that "Free Software" is just communism under another name.

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.

The role of someone on the GNOME Board of Directors is to represent the best interests of the GNOME project not the interests of any other third party. Can RMS make this distinction?

On a more straightforward level, and again look at the recent GNU libc license issue, RMS is basically a nut-case and a control freak. If he has any real control over the GNOME board, it will NOT cause the GNOME board to make better or even more rational choices. I think it would be downright sad to watch a lot of good work from a lot of dedicated people become hijacked by a nut-case and made irrelevant.

It is impossible for anyone to "hijack" free code. The source is free and anyone can fix it to their liking. It's called a fork, it's happened many times before and we are all better off for it. Look at all the choices free software has given you. Window managers are a good example, there are dozens if not hundreds of good window managers that all work on top of XFree86. Advocating that kind of freedom hardly makes someone a "nut case and a control freak".

RMS represents pretty much the extreme of trying to prevent people from using what he considers "non-free" software. He routinely uses both license and PR to try to discourage "non-free" software. If he were in a position to do so, I'd expect him to work to work hard to prevent or at least strongly discourage "non-free" software from being able to use GNOME, for example by trying to force changes in the licensing.

What bullshit. Free software was started on non free platforms and no one wants to prevent anyone from using whatever they want. No one has a beef with functionality. While it's hard to understand why anyone would surrender their rights to use software for any purpose they chose, modify that code to suit themselves and share those modifications, no one will keep you from doing it. Free software is all about user freedom and NOT telling other people what to do with their computers. RMS's license is grounded in sound thought and will not change. The concerns you have are all legacies of comercial software.

So RMS wanted an alternative to KDE bacause it was not "Free Enough" and created GNOME. They build the proyect on GTK Toolkit which is LGPL. LGPL allows to be used by non-Free products (see why LPGL is bad)

But now KDE is completely GPL and Free (Qt Toolkit now is GPL). So it is the perfect Free Desktop. Meanwhile GNOME have walk the oposite path and now is commercial.

I think RMS should join KDE team :-)

I purchased Crossover several weeks ago and have been completely satisfied. Quicktime works great. Being able to watch the Fellowship of the Ring trailer on Linux is great! Shockwave works well for many sites. (In particular, Shockwave plugins for stuff like 3D has problems.) Codeweaver's tech support mailing list is great, the developers reply quickly and are very helpful.

While I would prefer that Crossover be free software, at least Codeweavers is contributing most of their improvements back to the main Wine project. Pretty much only the Crossover plugin itself is proprietary software. Buying Crossover is a great way to support the development of Wine and get Quicktime support on Linux right now.

Instead of using powerchute with the APC UPS, you could try apcupsd - it's Free and works perfectly for me. I must have installed it on close to 50 boxen, and it's never given me any troubles yet.. unlike the closed-source stuff you get with it..

Howard (I know this isn't Howard, it probably goes to a default@howardstern.com -- please pass this on to him),

I saw you mentioned on Slashdot tonight: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23009&cid=2477 192

Is that true? If you said "well screw that!" for Windows XP, perhaps you'd be interested in Linux, which can be downloaded freely from the Internet! You can install it on as many computers as you want to; there essentially is no license to violate (there's a license, but it's completely different -- the GPL http://www.fsf.org , which simply says that if you make changes and sell the changes, you have to provide the source code with it). And the complete source code is available, for free!

There's a new company, Lindows.com, http://www.lindows.com which is rewriting Windows from scratch, so they can run Windows games under Linux. Many programs already run under Linux, using an emulator called WINE http://www.winehq.org which can handle 90% of the Windows calls -- and which is constantly being improved, a new version being released every two weeks.

It would help your listeners greatly if you would mention this. The alternative is free, and open -- it comes with the source code, so if there's a bug, or a feature you'd like to see, you (or someone you pay) can easily modify the source. No waiting on hold with Microsoft Tech Support and being ignored because your problem isn't important enough. Any programming shop can fix your problem.

Most Windows programs already run on Linux, and it's only going to improve from here! I have no financial interest in this (I'm retired), I simply want to help your listeners make the better choice. Those with cable modems or DSL can download a CD image in 10-20 minutes, then burn it onto a CD and install it on all their friend's computers, completely legally.

Freedom is killer. That's what this country was based on. Especially in these unstable times, we need to protect freedom. Please help spread the message -- there's a free alternative.

Thanks,
Thing 1

PS It would be really cool to have recordings of your shows available on your web site. I'd love to hear the segment where you discussed Windows XP. Please consider it. You could even sell ad space in the recordings, for a separate revenue stream. Sure, some people will FF through them, but most will have it on while doing other things. I can help set this up if you like.

PPS You may also want to let your listeners know about the piece of legislation Senator Hollings is embarrased to discuss, but is promoting because of payments from the entertainment industry. It's called the SSSCA, and will kill the technology industry -- all digital devices will be required to have strong copy protection, which means writing "hello world" will require a Computer Science degree to protect the output. It also means the death of the open source industry, which is what created Linux. It's a response to the Napster-like ability of all media to be digitally transmitted, at no cost, with perfect copies. It's a new world; just as we lost the buggy whip industry when automobiles came around, we will lose the "media conglomerates" -- but they'll try to stop progress by buying legislation, and that hurts everybody. Imagine if you couldn't make mix tapes. That's their future. Again, choose freedom. Thanks.

You can't use the libraries for GPL programs because the *GPL* doesn't allow you to do that, not because Microsoft is stopping you from using the libraries. You can certainly use the Microsoft libraries with just about any other non-viral license.

As for the LGPL vs GPL libraries, let's see what the FSF has to say:

We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only (AC notes: This means GPL, not LGPL), we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives.

So the FSF, under whose banner we march unto Freedom, says that libraries should be GPL'd, restricting non-GPL'd programs from GPL'd libraries and essentially blocking off use of non-GPL'd libraries for GPL developers. So again we see the FSF advocating less Freedom rather than more.

The right to keep my own programs proprietary.

Except that, as the copyright holders, the FSF may assert its copyright and effectively bar you from distributing their copyrighted code.

You'll have to prove to their lawyers that you aren't using the latest GNU-approved code, but some older "freer" GPL. While that may not be so difficult, the time and effort on your part to defend yourself is simply wasted. This is how the Church of Scientology gets its way so often, not through winning in the courts but simply using them as a harrassment tool.

The FSF doesn't support anything resembling freedom as it's commonly understood, but a massively bastardized redefinition of it to suit their own ambitions. Their Freedom[3] is so nicely worded that you don't realize that under the GPL you actually don't have the freedom of choice to release changes or not.

As far as Free licenses go, the GPL is the worst of the lot. And as far as free software leaders go, Stallman is by far the worst figurehead.

You are encouraged to give up your rights when starting up a "Free" project in order to allow the FSF enough rights to provide protection from would-be code thieves.

Granted, much of the GPL'd software that exists is not turned over blindly to the FSF, but for the projects that are (a great many useful projects are under that banner), the rights to code that are dependent on the whim of Stallman.

At LinuxWorld in San Francisco, Geoff Harrison (sp?), co-author of the Enlightenment window manager, talked about text/speech conversion. If I recall his talk correctly, most proprietary voice recognition software is derived from the free sphinx system developed at Carnegie-Mellon University, which also has a sourceforge area. The web page at CMU talks about a sphinx3 program that is slower but more accurate, which sounds like a better fit for transcribing a previously recorded interview, but I did not see a link to the source code for it.

Geoff's employer, Cepstral, also claims to have released some related software under "relatively liberal" permissions. (Sorry, I could not find any download links or texts of the corresponding copying permissions.)

The sphinx2 copying permissions have an advertising restriction similar to the one that made the old BSD copying conditions GPL incompatible but "free" in the opinion of the Free Software Foundation. I do not know about the situtation with sphinx, sphinx3 or any Cepstral contributions.

The GNOME Desktop is developed using the GTK toolkit which uses the LGPL License.

The KDE Desktop is developed using Qt toolkit. The Qt toolkit is licensed under GPL (free edition).

The Free Software Fundation recommends using GPL instead LGPL for software. The reason is that GPL encourage free software projects but LGPL can be used in any project (remember that FSF promotes FreeSoftware).

So ? What toolkit whould FSF promote ? Qt or GTK ?
What Dekstop should FSF support ? KDE or GNOME ?

You may say that Qt is not pure GPL because it is dual licensed. But that make no sense. If Qt is distributed under a non-free (free as in beer) license, this is an extra motivation for developers to use the GPL edition.

I think FSF should evaluate which is the best way to achieve its objetives.

The FSF considers for example the 3-bullet BSD license free software. But it is not copyleft.

The FSF considers for example the 3-bullet BSD license free software. But it is not copyleft.

The FSF considers for example the 3-bullet BSD license free software. But it is not copyleft.

Java is NOT open-source. Don't even begin to think that it is. Sun has been trying to pass their SCSL off as a GPL... but it is FAR from it. Truly open-source application are those which satisfy by the definition of open-source by either the FSF or OSI.

I point you to these limitations within Sun's Community Source License (SCSL) which you are purporting to be open-source:

1) Modified source code cannot be distributed without the express written permission of Sun.

2) Binary programs built using modified Java 2 SDK source code may not be distributed, internally or externally, without meeting the compatibility and other requirements described in the License Agreement

There is NOTHING open about these two line items. They give you the source, but open-source is more than just looking at it.

I encourage you to investigate what open-source really means by visiting the two sites I mention above.

Best regards.

Try to keep the message simple. The Free Software Foundation still has the best philosophy pages and it's good to memorize the fundamental software freedoms, but don't expect most people to really care. This is a free speach issue and people do understand that. Tell them that it is fundamentally UnAmerican to limit what people do with their own property in their own homes, and that such arbitrary extention of copyright franchises will bite them in the ass later.
Someone pinch me.

Try to keep the message simple. The Free Software Foundation still has the best philosophy pages and it's good to memorize the fundamental software freedoms, but don't expect most people to really care. This is a free speach issue and people do understand that. Tell them that it is fundamentally UnAmerican to limit what people do with their own property in their own homes, and that such arbitrary extention of copyright franchises will bite them in the ass later.
Someone pinch me.

It is readily apparent that there is a faction within the W3C that is trying to cash in on corporate patents. I see no other motivation for the W3C to even consider adopting such a policy. I'm sure they've had much pressure for years to make this kind of move. From companies such as Microsoft, Sun, and others. These corporate sloths have been trying for years to get the W3C to adopt their patented products under these kinds of guidelines. It looks like now that this could become a reality.

I wouldn't be surprised if the folks over at the FSF have something to do with this as well. This is the kind of thing that the FSF always harps on. Staunch FSF supporters have always felt that the FSF software model should extend to standardization. Which I think is bunk.

If this policy is adopted, we will definitely see a competing standards body to take its place.

We'll end up with the FSF version of the W3C, and the OSS version of the W3C.

IMHO, this is a really bad thing. This move by the W3C would cause an even greater fragment in the open source community.

That's not something we need in the open-source community. We've got enough challenges as it is.

In the meantime, please provide xStore with information so that we can send you, the user of this product, the package that you are entitled to. Please provide the serial number of your DiscZerver product and the 'system page' with your response. The 'system page' is located at [http://your_Zerver_name_or_IP_address/admin-cgi/s ystem].

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter
what?

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Of course if you get really pedantic, you'll notice the MPL is on the list of GPL-incompatible licenses, but the MPL allows a module to be licensed under other licenses (including GPL), so...

But it's the volunteers that make the movement. Without them, the FSF would be nowhere. So, the FSF is the volunteers.

glibc is part of the FSF. And here we have an example of the very desent am talking about.

Perhaps you're looking for the FSF, or Free Software Foundation?

While the FSF layers help bring the RT Linux patent case to a close, they still can not get the popular press and Slashdot to refer to the kernel as Free Software or Copyleft instead of the overly vague term "open source" which can sometimes be morph into closed software.

I actually saw Richard Stallman give a talk on linux 3 years ago when I was at Georgia tech. He discussed how the software project had grown from inauspicious roots as a terminal emulater that Linus had written in C to becoming an OS, based in Andrew Tannenbaum's xenix microkernel.

Of course, the time was ripe for a project like this, since Andrew wasn't willing to accept any patches to his system, effectively preventing the inclusion of virtual memory, multitasking and a useful filesystem. Stallman made the point that any usable ase for an OS would have been successsful at that point, as long as the developer was willing to accept people's additions. Linus just happened to be in the right place at the right time

It's funny to think that, had RMS had more foresight, we'd all be using HURD today, and Linus would be an unknown doctoral student/graduate at Helsinki university!

While the answers as to why individuals write free software will satisfy Rick Boucher's personal curiousity, in order to help him support the free software movement a different question also needs to be answered, especially when the above is being asked by a decision maker that is not yet commited to free software: Why is it in the interest of the community to move from the propriety software framework to the free one.

Answers to the second question were already given by a good number of capable people. Many Ideological answers reside on the Free Software Foundation philosophy pages (to name an obvious source), but decision makers will be more interested in the practical ones.

Practical answers for the community question are also abundant, such as the ones on the Opensource website (to name another obvious source); I also remember a nice economical analysis on free software posted recently on slashdot (could someone please provide the URL?).

A 2-liner for Mr. Boucher: When sufficiently many people are involved in free software, the productivity of the entire community increases substantially. Therefore it is in the economical interest of the community to provide financial incentives, such as job positions, to free software developers.

Recently, as more demonstrations of productivity increase are witnessed, major companies like IBM have started financing free software developement in order to share in the benefits.

That is a safe way to play it honestly. I don't mean to sound like im paranoid or that people can completely just steal the works of others.. But it would take lawyers and a court case to settle any kind of dispute and most open source people do it to scratch an itch or have fun, just as I do. Where is the fun in going through a legal battle? It seems pretty hopeless but that is what corporations with lawyers on payroll can do. Pretty scary. While a lot of people dislike RMS and dont really like the FSF if you believe in the GPL as a lic and can get your project brought under the FSF umbrella it is a really cool thing.

The tagline for the FSF's mission is too "develop, preserve, and protect" free software. Free in their sense of the word free.

One of the most helpful places I found to learn about copyright, albeit with the obvious slant towards "FSF Free" software, was this page

FSF Philosophy, here is an interesting piece by stallman Stallman on copyright

I don't agree with a lot of the FSF ideas but I also dont agree with the way copyright applies to software, at least the current court case examples.

I suppose the main reason I jumped in and am being so stubborn is that people have to realize how powerful copyright can be in anyones hands, especially pertaining to software and corporations control of software. Some of the papers are outdated making references that it is unfeasible for your average computer user to copy a CD onto another, its obivous this has the MPAA terrified.

My whole philosphy on all of this is there are some fundamental considerations to be had on software. It is so fast moving and so dynamic that it is just too fast for the court system, the patent system, or anything else. Software is treated like a book. I know a lot about book writing and how that goes. I have waded through large grizzly contracts that signed over my copyright on my work to the book I am writing. The courts view software in nearly the same light right now. That is one of the main points that causes the FSF to exist. I just tend to believe they are on a far extreme of where things will most likely end up in an optimal world some day. But without the extremes on both sides I don't think progress and new thinking would ever occur, and for that I admire each and every author who releases his code with the intentions of sharing with others, regardless of the lic or semantics, the fact that people want to share their thoughts and ideas is the profound part for me. I want to see this continue, but I also think that ignorance to how perilously thin those rights are can be jeapordize the very ideals that cause people to share their thoughts, ideas, and software :)

Thanks for actually reading my post and engaging in intelligent discussion, it happens so rarely here ;)

Jeremy

That is a safe way to play it honestly. I don't mean to sound like im paranoid or that people can completely just steal the works of others.. But it would take lawyers and a court case to settle any kind of dispute and most open source people do it to scratch an itch or have fun, just as I do. Where is the fun in going through a legal battle? It seems pretty hopeless but that is what corporations with lawyers on payroll can do. Pretty scary. While a lot of people dislike RMS and dont really like the FSF if you believe in the GPL as a lic and can get your project brought under the FSF umbrella it is a really cool thing.

The tagline for the FSF's mission is too "develop, preserve, and protect" free software. Free in their sense of the word free.

One of the most helpful places I found to learn about copyright, albeit with the obvious slant towards "FSF Free" software, was this page

FSF Philosophy, here is an interesting piece by stallman Stallman on copyright

I don't agree with a lot of the FSF ideas but I also dont agree with the way copyright applies to software, at least the current court case examples.

I suppose the main reason I jumped in and am being so stubborn is that people have to realize how powerful copyright can be in anyones hands, especially pertaining to software and corporations control of software. Some of the papers are outdated making references that it is unfeasible for your average computer user to copy a CD onto another, its obivous this has the MPAA terrified.

My whole philosphy on all of this is there are some fundamental considerations to be had on software. It is so fast moving and so dynamic that it is just too fast for the court system, the patent system, or anything else. Software is treated like a book. I know a lot about book writing and how that goes. I have waded through large grizzly contracts that signed over my copyright on my work to the book I am writing. The courts view software in nearly the same light right now. That is one of the main points that causes the FSF to exist. I just tend to believe they are on a far extreme of where things will most likely end up in an optimal world some day. But without the extremes on both sides I don't think progress and new thinking would ever occur, and for that I admire each and every author who releases his code with the intentions of sharing with others, regardless of the lic or semantics, the fact that people want to share their thoughts and ideas is the profound part for me. I want to see this continue, but I also think that ignorance to how perilously thin those rights are can be jeapordize the very ideals that cause people to share their thoughts, ideas, and software :)

Thanks for actually reading my post and engaging in intelligent discussion, it happens so rarely here ;)

Jeremy

This revolution began on the shoulders of the

insane, people like Richard Stallman, who hold so

firmly to their points that everyone who doesn't

get the point says "oh, i get it, he's insane."

Then a whole bunch of money got thrown at us, and

everyone tried to make us insane people the

saviors of the world. Now that is collapsing, and

it's back on the shoulders of the insane folks to carry

the free software/open source revolution.

I say, welcome back. I prefer the company of

geeks who work for no money anyways.

You can ask for a fee, but you must also make it freely available to anyone that asks.

for every person that pays you for your software, there can be 10 or 100 or 1000 that won't send you a dime

Lovely, hey?