Slashdot Mirror

This is untrue. You are not allowed to sell GPL'd software unless all authors of the software are in agreement with the action. You may charge for the distribution of the software as long as the fee applies solely to the distribution . This is according to the license. As long as someone receives the software, they may request the source by which you, the author(s), must comply.

Just because you have to make the source available to anyone who receives the software and you can't limit their redistribution does not prevent you from selling GPL'd software without the authors consent.

See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGP LAllowMoney

If you like open source, you'll love this. I recommend you use it.

Some people just want to get their work done. Sometimes the ethical hairsplitting and free vs. not-free debate gets in the way of that. Some people want software, not a cause.

Yeah, I used to think that way. When I started writing software to do some astrophysical computing (lots of numerical integrals), I just used the numerical analysis package I had always used in grad school. My thoughts were precisely, "Hey, it works, why should I change? It just takes time and effort."

Now the software's done. And it's quite good. So good that I want to distribute it, so other scientists can use it too. But ooops! The numerical analysis package I used doesn't allow me to redistribute its source code. On their website, they even encourage my colleagues to tattle-tale on each other if they ever find someone redistributing their source code. So now I find myself having to go back and change the software so that it runs on GSL instead.

So, in this case, not using free software wound up costing me some time. Last week I changed the first module over to GSL. And it was like a breath of fresh air. The GSL integrator is much better than the proprietary one, too.

I had always followed the GNU movement, but it never hit me practically until this point. The whole time I was writing the software, the restrictive license of the original numerical analysis package was hanging over the project like a cloud. Now I really can understand what free-as-in-freedom means.

So, if "work" for you ever means programming for a non-profit/scientific community, be very wary of following the lazy, non-free route. It may even save you some time, as it would have in my case.

Really? Windows has excellent development tools (almost all 3rd party tools run on Windows, and Visual Studio is usually considered one of the best if not the best IDE for development).

*cough* Ok, I'm not going to get into a debate about VS with you. It's been about two yearsa since I used it and it may have changed. But my residual opinion of it is vastly different from yours.

Having said that, I don't think Windows is a good development environment for the very non-scientific, non-quantifiable reason that I feel more productive under OS X. Yes, you can get many of the same tools that come with OS X for Windows, such as GNU Screen, vim, and others.

But like the author of the article in question, I started out with MS operating systems back on DOS 3.0. I used MS OS's for almost 20 years before I switched to OS X, and I was amazed at the cohesiveness of that OS. I get more done because of things both small and large.

• The application menu is always at the top of the screen, so (a) with a glance I can tell what app is foremost and (b) my eyes dont have to jump around to find it
• QuickSilver. An app launcher on steroids. With this the whole "one button mouse" joke becomes irrelevant because my hands don't need to leave the keyboard.
• Alt-Tab vs. Cmd-Tab. On Windows, when you hit Alt-Tab you can only go one way in the list of apps that pop up: left to right. Cmd-Tab is much more robust: Shift-Cmd-Tab takes you to the left, and the arrow keys work as well. You can also quit an app by Cmd-Tabbing to it and hitting Q. i.e. Cmd-Tab-Tab-Q. I use this a lot.
• Terminal.app is just far superior to the command window.
• Spotlight. I have the JavaDocs for my company's entire application setup to be searchable through Spotlight, as well as the J2EE JavaDocs and others. Finding documentation involves the following: Ctrl-Space first few characters of class name. The end.
• PDF integration. I deal with a lot of documentation, and since Word is still the de facto standard they tend to be in Word format. Since that's resource hog when dealing with large documents, I save them as PDFs, something that you can natively do in OS X. Much less troublesome that way, plus then THEY can be searched with Spotlight.

And so forth. None of these things are killers in and of themselves, but taken together they tend to make your development efforts far less time intensive.

Pretty please with sugar on top, don't use that term. It is confusing the issue.

The difference is that this company has a virtual monopoly that's growing stronger (no thanks) to Intel planning on building DRM technology into their new chips so Linux and other free variants of the The GNU Operating System http://www.gnu.org/ may not even work in the future.

The important the difference between MS and other corporations is that if you read between the lines they don't even try to sell their product anymore, like NATO with their new ground-(HAARP etc)-to-DeathRay(tm)-satellites-to-ground, MS now only repeats one message: Resistance is futile. We will force our evil (software) upon you regardless of you wanting it or not.

Intel is pushing a technology called Treacherous Computing, which will prevent unsigned code from running on their hardware. So even if you have the source code, if you try to remove the DRM restrictions, the hardware will refuse to run the modified binary.

The Free Software Foundation admits that the anti-DRM provisions in the GPLv3 will not be enough on their own to prevent the nightmare scenario where users can't trust their own computers.

People who understand the dangers of Digital Restrictions Management at a technical level (ie.Free and Open Source software developers) should warn the general public to avoid buying DRM-crippled hardware. Consumers should know about the great variety of DRM-free computers and accessories built specifically to work with Linux, the KDE desktop, and other Free and Open Source applications.

On the music side, there are plenty of websites that legally sell DRM-free, RIAA-free music by independent artists. Consumers can use a cross-platform, iTunes-like application called Songbird to easily download songs from these sites.

As for movies, building a Linux media center works just as well as the DRM-crippled offering from M$FT. Just download MythTV and run it on a computer equipped with the pcHDTV HD-3000 card and the PVR-350 card -- these will capture both standard definition (NTSC) and Digital/Hi-Definition (ATSC/HDTV) signals.

It's clear that RMS feels that in some cases it is better to use the GPL than the LGPL.

I think RMS would say the GPL is preferable in the vast majority of cases. Else why would he urge developers -- in bold letters -- to release their libraries under the GPL?

But getting back to the topic of this thread: should GNOME's multimedia backend be licensed under the weak LGPL, when we know that the entertainment cartel has been one of the most vocal advocates of Digital Restrictions Management and Treacherous Computing?

Preventing users from skipping computers
Controlling your computer over the internet with rootkits
Instilling fear by suing innocent people
Suing independent competitors out of business
Bullying witnesses into perjury
and the list goes on...

The answer is absolutely no, and I daresay the FSF is of the same opinion, since they will include anti-DRM provisions in the GPLv3.

Developers of Free and Open Source Software should use every legal tool at their disposal to protect the users' freedom. One of the best tools is to license music and video apps under the GPL, so that the entertainment cartel can't poison their hard work with draconian DRM. Otherwise, the developers might as well be working for the RIAA and MPAA!

Open Source developers who care about the users' freedom should help out multimedia projects that are licensed GPL (such as Xine, MPlayer, and VideoLAN).

It's clear that RMS feels that in some cases it is better to use the GPL than the LGPL.

I think RMS would say the GPL is preferable in the vast majority of cases. Else why would he urge developers -- in bold letters -- to release their libraries under the GPL?

But getting back to the topic of this thread: should GNOME's multimedia backend be licensed under the weak LGPL, when we know that the entertainment cartel has been one of the most vocal advocates of Digital Restrictions Management and Treacherous Computing?

Preventing users from skipping computers
Controlling your computer over the internet with rootkits
Instilling fear by suing innocent people
Suing independent competitors out of business
Bullying witnesses into perjury
and the list goes on...

The answer is absolutely no, and I daresay the FSF is of the same opinion, since they will include anti-DRM provisions in the GPLv3.

Developers of Free and Open Source Software should use every legal tool at their disposal to protect the users' freedom. One of the best tools is to license music and video apps under the GPL, so that the entertainment cartel can't poison their hard work with draconian DRM. Otherwise, the developers might as well be working for the RIAA and MPAA!

Open Source developers who care about the users' freedom should help out multimedia projects that are licensed GPL (such as Xine, MPlayer, and VideoLAN).

select "recovery mode" from the grub menu, it will boot into single user mode and you are root.

Though I'm sure there's another way, the easiest way to prevent this is to set a grub password.

Not trying to flame, I love Ubuntu.

Me too. Just poking fun.

Not quite the damning of the LGPL that his link suggests.

Good job selectively quoting the FSF site, which is titled: Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library. How much more explicitly can it be stated than that?

To further quote from the Free Software Foundation website:
...If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries.

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

The GNOME Foundation didn't listen to Richard Stallman or the FSF and started to cater to the business interests that are pushing proprietary software infested with treacherous computing and DRM to handcuff users.

Not quite the damning of the LGPL that his link suggests.

Good job selectively quoting the FSF site, which is titled: Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library. How much more explicitly can it be stated than that?

To further quote from the Free Software Foundation website:
...If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries.

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

The GNOME Foundation didn't listen to Richard Stallman or the FSF and started to cater to the business interests that are pushing proprietary software infested with treacherous computing and DRM to handcuff users.

KPDF has an option to enable reading DRMed files but I dont hear anyone complaining about that.

KPDF is licensed under the GNU General Public License, and benefits from the GPL's strong copyleft protection. Therefore, the user will always have access to the KPDF source code (including any DRM components), allowing the user can remove the DRM and be left with a fully-functional PDF viewer.

This is less than can be said about GStreamer's plugins, which are proprietary and closed-source in order to prevent users from modifying them (ie. removing the DRM and being left with a functional plugin). GStreamer, being licensed as LGPL, allows proprietary and closed-source plugins to link to it, while KPDF, being licensed as GPL, does not. That's the fundamental difference, and that's why the Free Software Foundation warns against using the LGPL for any project.

Aaron Seigo, a lead KDE developer, has written extensively on this: DRM + source code = no DRM

Oh, and you can turn off the KPDF DRM at compile time and by unchecking "Obey DRM limitations" in Settings->Configure KPdf->General.

KPDF has an option to enable reading DRMed files but I dont hear anyone complaining about that.

KPDF is licensed under the GNU General Public License, and benefits from the GPL's strong copyleft protection. Therefore, the user will always have access to the KPDF source code (including any DRM components), allowing the user can remove the DRM and be left with a fully-functional PDF viewer.

This is less than can be said about GStreamer's plugins, which are proprietary and closed-source in order to prevent users from modifying them (ie. removing the DRM and being left with a functional plugin). GStreamer, being licensed as LGPL, allows proprietary and closed-source plugins to link to it, while KPDF, being licensed as GPL, does not. That's the fundamental difference, and that's why the Free Software Foundation warns against using the LGPL for any project.

Aaron Seigo, a lead KDE developer, has written extensively on this: DRM + source code = no DRM

Oh, and you can turn off the KPDF DRM at compile time and by unchecking "Obey DRM limitations" in Settings->Configure KPdf->General.

Ever since a company called Fluendo joined the GNOME Foundation's Advisory Board, GNOME is obligated to use GStreamer (a software product sponsored by Fluendo) as its audio and video backend. This wouldn't be bad, if it weren't for the fact that GStreamer uses Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to handcuff users and leave them at the mercy of the entertainment cartel. In order to do this, GStreamer is denying its developers the right to license their constribution under the GPL, so that Fluendo can sell closed-source, proprietary DRM plugins that let the MPAA and RIAA control the users' viewing habits.

GStreamer has hurt the multimedia effort on Linux and the Free Desktop because they stole talented developers from mature mutimedia projects such as Xine, MPlayer, and VideoLAN, all of which were started before GStreamer and all of which have strong copyleft protection by being licensed under the GPL. In other words, GStreamer further fragmented the Linux multimedia developer base purely for the selfish, immoral purpose of ramming DRM down Linux users' throats.

Ximian, a company instrumental in founding GNOME, sold out to big business in 2002 by switching Mono's license from the GPL to the weaker MIT X11 license. Instead of helping out the myriad of established multimedia apps such as Kaffeine, AmaroK, and KMPlayer, Ximian started a whole new app called Banshee, whose only claim to fame is that its license (MIT X11) allows linking to proprietary DRM plugins.

These are just some example of an increasing problem GNOME is experiencing: it is pandering (and in some cases outright selling out) to companies that don't necessarily have the users' best interest in mind. One can say that the whole reason GNOME was started was to allow proprietary software (including draconian DRM) to use the hard work of open source developers.

KDE, on the other hand, is licensed solely under the GPL because the toolkit it is based on (Qt) is also GPL. KDE is also committed to preventing DRM from infesting their user's computers: for KDE4, they are building a multimedia framework called Phonon that does not depend on GStreamer, but which can use any number of backends, including DRM-free ones.

Am I the only nerd in the world that's gets annoyed when someone uses "win" for "good idea"?

Well, it's traditional, to the point that the (hilarious) GNU coding standards quoth:
Please don't use "win" as an abbreviation for Microsoft Windows in GNU software or documentation. In hacker terminology, calling something a "win" is a form of praise. If you wish to praise Microsoft Windows when speaking on your own, by all means do so, but not in GNU software. Usually we write the name "Windows" in full, but when brevity is very important (as in file names and sometimes symbol names), we abbreviate it to "w". For instance, the files and functions in Emacs that deal with Windows start with 'w32'.

Does that mean that the hardware drivers that interface the Sony PlayStation 3 will be released as Free and Open Source Software under the GNU General Public License?

If so, where can I download the modified Linux kernel?

Does that mean that the hardware drivers that interface the Sony PlayStation 3 will be released as Free and Open Source Software under the GNU General Public License?

If so, where can I download the modified Linux kernel?

Apparently you haven't read the GNU/Linux naming FAQ which addresses many of your concerns.

Your second argument is circular. Just because people say "I run Linux" doesn't make it fair or correct, as I have already explained.

Microsoft does call their product Microsoft Windows, particularly after February 2004 when they settled a trademark infringement lawsuit for many millions of dollars; a lawsuit they brought against Michael Robertson's "Lindows". After the judge denied Microsoft's preliminary injunction request and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark, Microsoft reconsidered their entire lawsuit and it wasn't long before they issued suggestions to reporters asking them to use the term "Microsoft Windows" which they could obtain trademark power on rather than "Windows" which they most likely could not. Now that GNU/Linux distribution carries a different name and Microsoft holds the "Lindows" trademark. This story was covered on /., you should look it up.

Finally, filling in "the last critical gap" doesn't give one the power to deny all other contributors to the system and take full credit. Calling the official GNU system by their chosen name doesn't mean they deserve no share of the credit for the system running with other kernels.

By the way, I run both Slackware *and* Mandriva. Cuz sumtimes I feel like a nut...sometimes I dont...

One thing I would like to see would be a GUI front-end to the configure, make, make install process.

here, catch.

There is now a list, Audio and Video Recordings about our Philosophy, on the FSF website.

They politely suggested that GnuTLS, which isn't even remotely drop-in, be used instead.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2006-03 /msg00091.html seems to indicate that the devs are still discussing HURD...

...of course HURD is the Gargantuan Ancient Granddaddy of Cathedral vs Bazaar style development ...

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/samizdat-respons e.html

...I can tell you exactly why the HURD tanked. It was listening to a presentation by HURD's project lead in 1996, and realizing the project was doomed, that started me on the train of thought that led to "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". They were trying to do engineering and pure R&D at the same time; they lacked focus or any drive to actually ship code; and their development group was too small and inbred.

at least, there's an interesting relationship: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-l4.html

When Stallman was at FOSDEM recently, I recorded and made a transcript of his GPLv3 talk.

And last time he came to Dublin, Irish Free Software Organisation recorded and made a transcript of his software patents lecture.

More transcripts and recordings can be found on IFSO's transcripts/recordings page, and the GNU philosophy recordings page.

Stallman will give his rare business speech this Thursday, March 16th, at the FOSS Means Business event in Belfast, Northern Ireland. That should be recorded and made available soon afterward - if the recording goes well.

...we, erm, wouldn't need Autoconf?

I code for this API and the sources end up being source compatible. But then there are library paths and stuff, which is why even something as homogenous as Linux is forced to create LSB standard. The API standard OTOH, is crystal clear - look at the API tables in terms of availability. And yeah, my project is called Portable.net, so I've put in my time writing portable code for various platforms (even BeOS and SkyOS). Wish the threading models worked the same, that's all :)

I think there's an awful lot of BSD-licensed software shipped by default with RedHat and the other Open Source distributions. The GPL is not the only open-source license. There are several free software licenses that are compatible with the GPL.

The GPL (as do most other F.O.S.S. licenses) prohibits selling the actual software. You can sell support for the software, and charge for the cost of the media or distribution, and you can sell the hardware the software runs on. But you can't sell the software itself.

Have you actually read the GPL? You must definitely are allowed to sell the software. You're even allowed to charge a reasonable fee for the source, to cover media and postage, etc.

What you can't do is take GPLed software, and sell it under terms that strip the receiver of their rights under the GPL.

Now in practice that means that it would be very difficult to run a profitable business selling GPLed software, as you can't prevent your customers from starting their own, rival businesses and undercutting you. In that, you're right - every successful open source company sells related services as well - or instead of - software. However, you are wrong in saying that you are not allowed to seel GPL software. You most certainly are, there just isn't a lot of scope for making money doing it.

the hyena-like behaviour of some in the ... world.

If a better, revised GPLv3 emerges, one that two people or more can actually understand and agree upon, which is more than can be said for the present draft

and possix and BSD userland and kernels have been around for alot longer and would hav existed to this day without RMS.

Um.... Stallman had something to do with a lot of this stuuff too.

He coined the term POSIX, convinced a lot of people it was a good idea and wrote a good many of the tools included in the systems you mention.

Yes, Stallman is uncompromising, political to a fault, sometimes even harsh and annnoying. But since when has ever claimed to be anything else?

That seems to be it. It's freedom 3, coming from RMS's printer driver issue, at least partially.

You are ignorant. You don't know the difference between free software and open source. Learn more about it. Start here and here. Free software is about freedom... Freedom is, among other things, a human right and civil liberty and should be part of any political agenda.

But let's call a spade a spade here and look at what GPLv3 is about: attempting to hide attempts to restrict developers under the guise of being an update to the world's most popular open source license.

The GPL has always been restrictive in specific ways. And version 3 does have additions to its restrictive nature. Read why. You don't have to agree with him but at least your not ignorant. If GPL is too restrictive for you then don't use for your code.

I hope Forbes will let Richard Stallman explain his reasons for including anti-DRM provisions in GPLv3.

Otherwise, it seems that Forbes is biased and acting in the interests of the Intel, Sony, Tivo and other business interests that want to hijack the hard work of open source developers in order to hancuff users and consumers with draconian treatcherous computing.

But then again, writing stories that are merely disguised propaganda for the business cartels is nothing new for Forbes.

Simply put: they are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.

Stallman repeatedly states that software freedom is his goal, and not its widespread adoption by "practical minded" corporations. He has nothing against corporations if they do not interfere with his primary goal. That make's him a zealot, I guess. I call it clear thinking. Time and again he has been proven correct in the face of criticism.

Simply put: they are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.

Stallman repeatedly states that software freedom is his goal, and not its widespread adoption by "practical minded" corporations. He has nothing against corporations if they do not interfere with his primary goal. That make's him a zealot, I guess. I call it clear thinking. Time and again he has been proven correct in the face of criticism.

Yes, Digital Restrictions Management (as I borrow from Stallman) are my sole reason for avoiding eBooks. Besides that, eBooks don't really give me any real advantage over regular books, aside from, potentially, the ability to search large volumes of text (that is if the publisher gives me permission to). In my views the small technological advantages do not win over the basic freedoms I value so highly.

I may not have more rights with regular books, but at least I know I have rights that can't be taken away at the publisher's whim.

I have, however bought eBooks, but only those that come in forms that freely allow me to do as I please with them (such as PDF files).

Perhaps my feelings are inspired by Stallman's article that appeared in ACM about 10 years ago, The Right To Read

The fact that GPL requires a lawyer to describe what you can and can not do with software is scary enough for businesses. "If we compile our proprietary software with gcc, do we now have to distribute the source?"

You should check that with other compilers, too. The last commercial compiler I bought (a version of Borland C++) came with a list of exclusions to the license that meant any given project may or may not be legal to distribute in binary form if compiled by it, depending on what kind of software it was. I forget the details, but I recall that "operating environments" (which could have described what I was developing at the time) were not permitted, and I think anything that competed with a Borland product may have been excluded.

GCC's fairly simple: all you need to do is read the licences in question (there are two, the one for GCC itself, which is traditional GPL, and one for 'glibc', which is GPL plus an exception to the requirement to license any product linked with it under the GPL) to realise that the answer to your question is no. Anyone reasonably well educated can do it. Certainly any experienced and competent IT manager ought to be able to.

"If we include the GPL'd drivers for the left-handed USB Framis, are we compelled to release our source, or just the driver's source code?"

A slightly more complex question, but it's still reasonably simple to answer. Read the license. It outlines cases where this is necessary in very clear (although admittedly technical) terms. Also note, most businesses would probably ask a lawyer to check the license terms on any product that they purchased the right to use like this anyway.

Businesses do not like confusion. The government gives us all that we can stand, so adding in an obscure, vision-inspired license doesn't make us comfortable.

I think the only way you can describe the GPL as obscure is if you haven't read it. The GPL v2 is very easy to read, and the GPL v3 draft is even easier.

Compare it with other organisations redistribution licenses, e.g. the Microsoft .NET framework EULA, or the even harder to understand Intel Performance Primitives Library EULA.

Use GNU stow and install as a regular user. It was designed specifically to make this happen, and it works quite well.

I wish they would take this out of their FAQ:

To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted. . .

They're calling something unethical in all cases with no explanation. Sounds like religious fanatacism to me.

link to the quote:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Rel easeUnderGPLAndNF

If you believe this is a plausible future, then it's not really that unreasonable of a comparison.

Richard Stallman correctly predicted many of the ways in which Big Corporations and Big Brother will use DRM (also known as Digital Restrictions Management, Treacherous Computing, or Handcuffware) to enslave people. Just read the essay he wrote, titled "Can you trust your computer?" and look at some of the recent Slashdot stories and you'll see that he's been all along.

I have nothing but respect for Stallman's courage to take on the powerful and wealthy interests that want to subjugate the populace. This is the time to show our gratitude for his uncompromising ideals by donating to the Free Software Foundation (which Richard Stallman founded and leads) and to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.

You can find free c c++ & java tools and tutorials all over the internet.

Best places to start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language
http://gcc.gnu.org/

Check these out for decent technical graphics and voluminous data analysis:

http://labplot.sourceforge.net/

http://soft.proindependent.com/qtiplot.html

http://scigraphica.sourceforge.net/

These are typically better than oocalc for more sophisticated analysis (labplot uses the very powerful GNU Scientific libs as backends). Also, better 3-D graphics using the qwt libraries.

Smalltalk, because you are completely isolated from the boring mechanics of programming. Nasty things like files, editors, compilers, linkers.
http://www.smalltalk.org/main/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk

Smalltalk, because there are 2 very good free (gratis),
http://www.exept.de/exept/english/Smalltalk/frame_ uebersicht.html
http://smalltalk.cincom.com/index.ssp

and at least 2 Free ( Libre ) implementations.
http://www.squeak.org/
http://www.gnu.org/software/smalltalk/smalltalk.ht ml

Smalltalk, because is was deliberately designed for small people to have fun,
yet you can grow-up with it.
http://www.squeakland.org/

Smalltalk, because it is well documented.
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html
http://www.whysmalltalk.com/tutorials/visualworks. htm

In a couple of words, it Just Works, and your sanity will not be harmed.

If you can't drop the "program in a file" paradigm, then checkout
http://www.ruby-lang.org/
http://www.python.org/

Don't even dream about anything BASIC because your dreams will turn into really horrendous nightmares before you can even turn around twice.

From the article:

""Companies could still maintain intellectual property rights, so that they are the only ones who can sell it, but members of the public should be able to inspect it," Dill says."

Not only does maintaining "intellectual property rights" not preclude others from distributing copies of the software for a fee (as anyone who understands Free Software licensing already knows), merely inspecting the software is insufficient to get real work done in a way that is beneficial to the public.

I served on the Champaign County election equipment advisory board—an appointed board made up of representatives of businesses and political parties from Champaign County, Illinois. Over months in the past couple of years this board weighed a few machines from a variety of vendors so that we could make a recommendation to the elected County Board who would then make the final decision and sign the appropriate contracts. We were told at the first meeting that we were only to consider machines from "approved vendors" but in the end we learned that even the machines we were considering had not yet all been approved by the State of Illinois. It was just a means of narrowing the allowable debate, effectively excluding a variety of vendors who probably never knew we were seriously considering voting machines.

I knew early on (and did my darndest to convince my fellow board members) that we want complete source code to the machines we'd buy so that we could make repairs and improvements while enjoying the benefits of global competition. Locally we have lots of talented computer programmers, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is in this county. It is a shame to waste all the talent we have by getting into a monopoly.

Politically, there are good reasons to need the source code too: it's your machine paid for with your tax dollars, so you should not be restricted from getting it fixed when it breaks, running it any time you want, and not just inspecting what it ostensibly does. But we should also not constrain ourselves to the features the machine has today. Locally, we could switch from a first-past-the-post to some kind of ranked voting system (like instant run-off or some Condorcet system) for local elections. But so long as we can't get the vendor to do what we want and as long as we can't help ourselves because we're choosing to buy into a monopoly for support (which is what you do when you get proprietary software), we have an additional restriction to overcome with our voting machines—we can't switch to the voting system we want because the proprietor won't let us and we can't afford to simply switch to another set of machines.

I discussed Free Software voting machines on Counterpunch.

This entire conversation is a trap, and most /. readers are falling into the trap. The trap is that Microsoft would rather frame the debate around software features than software freedom. This way Microsoft can continue to have a part of the debate rather than being dismissed out of hand.

First and foremost flex is a word, then a lexer. The rest is not really important.

LaTeX gets its usefulness and power from packages. Unless you want to standardise on a given reference set of packages, it can't be used sensibly for archival purposes. because you'll have to store all possible packages in all versions along with your data. If you're willing to do that, you could run Word in an emulator, too.

A set of LaTeX packages is much more Free than a copy of Microsoft Word and a copy of Bochs, and LyX is more useful than Word run in Bochs.

There is no universal method for package versioning

As I understand the LaTeX license, each package file name refers to one published version and only that version. See FSF's comments about the LPPL version 1.2.

LaTeX documents are really difficult to parse on a computer

If you want more semantics in your TeX so that you can easily produce both printed and electronic documentation, give Texinfo a try. It'll do until the CSS paged media recommendation becomes widely implemented.

LaTeX gets its usefulness and power from packages. Unless you want to standardise on a given reference set of packages, it can't be used sensibly for archival purposes. because you'll have to store all possible packages in all versions along with your data. If you're willing to do that, you could run Word in an emulator, too.

A set of LaTeX packages is much more Free than a copy of Microsoft Word and a copy of Bochs, and LyX is more useful than Word run in Bochs.

There is no universal method for package versioning

As I understand the LaTeX license, each package file name refers to one published version and only that version. See FSF's comments about the LPPL version 1.2.

LaTeX documents are really difficult to parse on a computer

If you want more semantics in your TeX so that you can easily produce both printed and electronic documentation, give Texinfo a try. It'll do until the CSS paged media recommendation becomes widely implemented.