Slashdot Mirror

It's GNU/Linux, you insensitive clod!

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

It is exactly this kind of illegal downloading that would go away if they offered reasonably priced legitimate copies. It's true that they will have to offer some recording capability (probably with reduced resolution) -- people feel pretty strongly about their ability to record what they see on their TV.

However, for all the grandstanding of the media companies in the US, the real "piracy" (actually, a very bad term) problem they face is in the far east. The problem is not people downloading low-resolution copies of movies (which doesn't cost them much business), but entire factories which churn out illegally copied DVDs, and people who buy the cheap fakes rather than the expensive originals.

As long as we're dreaming up OS wishlists, I'd like to be able to run the Hurd and an OS which incorporates ideas from the Synthesis project.

The license for Gizmo Project software is quite clear, the software doesn't even qualify for the weaker standard of "open source" (weaker than "free software" which requires that the user have permission to make private derivatives):

License Restrictions

You may not reproduce or distribute the Software for any purpose whatsoever. Without limiting the foregoing, you may not copy the Software to any server or location for reproduction or distribution. You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software. The restrictions contained herein apply equally to any updates that may be provided to you by SIPphone.

The company offers what they call "Opensource support", which appears to be little more than name-dropping. But I expect people around here to know better than to take on faith whatever a proprietor says.

At the very least, even if there is no intention to bamboozle users into adopting the software, this is yet another use of the term "Opensource" which shows how people don't understand what that term means. Reminiscent of examples of same from the FSF essay on the differences between the free software and open source movements (examples include Neal Stephenson's writing, the State of Kansas' definition, and a particularly interesting example from a trade show in late 1998).

As a result of a little digging into Project Gizmo, I still see no real competition for GNOMEMeeting. I see one more proprietor asking me to install a mysterious program on my computer so that the proprietor can do something on my computer that I am prohibited from inspecting, sharing, or modifying.

I know a HURD full of HIRDs just waiting to bring GNU users the ability to install kernel drivers.

Have you read RMS' "Right to read"? It talks about debuggers a bit, which one might see as the software equivalent of soldering irons and oscilloscopes.

Definitely a thought-provoking piece, and you really have to wonder just how visionary RMS really was when he wrote it. I hope that he wasn't, for obvious reasons, but it's rather scary to see that the things he writes about are already here, even though applied on a different level (hardware instead of software).

"Free as in the Stallman sense" includes every Free Software license listed on the FSF's Free Software license page. That includes stuff that can be forked off into a proprietary branch. What you are referring to instead is "copyleft", which is a subset of Free Software.

I know I'm being pedantic here, but my rationalization is that I can be since the "Free" means "free speech" crowd is as well. Copyleft isn't as free as free speech (when you seem to agree with). Since it is considered a subset of Free Software, it's a valid example to consider. For any holdouts still out there, please look at the GPL, I see several restrictions on use of the object (code or whatever) that simply wouldn't apply to free speech. We don't have to attribute where we heard a saying. We don't have to include licenses or disclaimers on our speech, etc.

My beef is that there's an even higher standard of "freeness" being claimed than is usually applied. I'm not saying that the GPL is unreasonable, just that the hype is sufficiently wrong for the nitpicks claiming otherwise.

Mind you, these restrictions usually aren't troublesome to comply with. But if someone whines about an Apple exec warping the meaning of "Free", then they should understand that their best examples of "Free Software" aren't as free as they claimed either.

" The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.

For example, we felt justified in installing Unix on our computer in the 1980s, because we were using it to write a free replacement for Unix. Nowadays, since free operating systems are available, the excuse is no longer applicable; we have eliminated all our non-free operating systems, and any new computer we install must run a completely free operating system." (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Pro prietarySoftware)

The FSF doesn't seem to condone or support unauthorized copying and use of proprietary software, considering that it's still proprietary software. If there is a free alternative, there is absolutely no excuse to use proprietary software, whether or not you pay for it.

I don't want my computer to clique me into a particular "community".

I want it to be a toolbox that allows me to be a part of many communities I choose to join.

And if you don't like the software available, it is, you know, possible to write your own, to your - or the world's[1][2][3][4][5][6] - standards of function, style, consistency, robustness, and hipness.

So is it Windows's fault that it's too broad and not restrictive enough on new tools, or is it Mac's fault that it's provincial and overweaning?

Well, lending books isn't illegal yet.

Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license.

fuck you

free throw
free press
free speech
free market
free the slaves
land of the free, home of the brave
Freetown

Where, exactly, can I hear Stallman "shrieking that the word [pirate] only has a single proper meaning"? Certainly not in the list of words you might want to avoid. Without any references to primary sources, your post is highly overmoderated and is properly identified as namecalling, thus making the post either flamebait or a troll worthy of a lower score.

Who is "defin[ing] a word to mean whatever you want" or "[g]etting upset that someone used the word 'free' to mean 'no cost'"?

I can point to where the FSF patiently acknowledges the ambiguity and patiently explains why they are focusing on the freedom meaning (including explaining which specific freedoms you get). I've heard speeches where Eben Moglen, counsel for the FSF, uses the word to mean zero cost and freedom in the same speech.

As for "hacker", the term did not originally mean what the popular press means when they use the term. In fact, there was a book called "Hackers", which includes some information about RMS, which referred to the old usage of that term.

None of the replacements for "free software" you mention work well, and this is usually cleared up in every FSF talk at the top of the Q&A session. Liberated/unenslaved/freed software doesn't work for software that was always free from the start (like GNU Emacs). Entities can't be liberated if they were always free. This same problem plagues all but one of your other suggestions. Liberty software might have worked, but by now you're about 20 years too late. The term "free software" is already listed in the most widely-used free software license, the GNU GPL. Changing terms now would not clearly help.

But you also have the problem of specifying how software is free -- what freedoms do you get, exactly? Instead, I recommend taking the time to explain what software freedom means. This will require people to stop believing that the right combination of two words will accurately convey ideas of arbitrary complexity.

You're not alone in your thoughts on this issue, in fact the people who founded the Open Source Initiative (and thus started the open source movement) thought as you do and coined the term "open source", in part, to do this job.

As RMS points out, they too failed:

"The term ``free software'' has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, ``Software you can get for zero price,'' fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, ``software which gives the user certain freedoms.'' We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.

Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly ``right'' that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for ``free software'' has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes ``open source software.''

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for `

None of the replacements for "free software" you mention work well, and this is usually cleared up in every FSF talk at the top of the Q&A session. Liberated/unenslaved/freed software doesn't work for software that was always free from the start (like GNU Emacs). Entities can't be liberated if they were always free. This same problem plagues all but one of your other suggestions. Liberty software might have worked, but by now you're about 20 years too late. The term "free software" is already listed in the most widely-used free software license, the GNU GPL. Changing terms now would not clearly help.

But you also have the problem of specifying how software is free -- what freedoms do you get, exactly? Instead, I recommend taking the time to explain what software freedom means. This will require people to stop believing that the right combination of two words will accurately convey ideas of arbitrary complexity.

You're not alone in your thoughts on this issue, in fact the people who founded the Open Source Initiative (and thus started the open source movement) thought as you do and coined the term "open source", in part, to do this job.

As RMS points out, they too failed:

"The term ``free software'' has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, ``Software you can get for zero price,'' fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, ``software which gives the user certain freedoms.'' We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.

Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly ``right'' that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for ``free software'' has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes ``open source software.''

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for `

None of the replacements for "free software" you mention work well, and this is usually cleared up in every FSF talk at the top of the Q&A session. Liberated/unenslaved/freed software doesn't work for software that was always free from the start (like GNU Emacs). Entities can't be liberated if they were always free. This same problem plagues all but one of your other suggestions. Liberty software might have worked, but by now you're about 20 years too late. The term "free software" is already listed in the most widely-used free software license, the GNU GPL. Changing terms now would not clearly help.

But you also have the problem of specifying how software is free -- what freedoms do you get, exactly? Instead, I recommend taking the time to explain what software freedom means. This will require people to stop believing that the right combination of two words will accurately convey ideas of arbitrary complexity.

You're not alone in your thoughts on this issue, in fact the people who founded the Open Source Initiative (and thus started the open source movement) thought as you do and coined the term "open source", in part, to do this job.

As RMS points out, they too failed:

"The term ``free software'' has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, ``Software you can get for zero price,'' fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, ``software which gives the user certain freedoms.'' We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.

Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly ``right'' that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for ``free software'' has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes ``open source software.''

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for `

None of the replacements for "free software" you mention work well, and this is usually cleared up in every FSF talk at the top of the Q&A session. Liberated/unenslaved/freed software doesn't work for software that was always free from the start (like GNU Emacs). Entities can't be liberated if they were always free. This same problem plagues all but one of your other suggestions. Liberty software might have worked, but by now you're about 20 years too late. The term "free software" is already listed in the most widely-used free software license, the GNU GPL. Changing terms now would not clearly help.

But you also have the problem of specifying how software is free -- what freedoms do you get, exactly? Instead, I recommend taking the time to explain what software freedom means. This will require people to stop believing that the right combination of two words will accurately convey ideas of arbitrary complexity.

You're not alone in your thoughts on this issue, in fact the people who founded the Open Source Initiative (and thus started the open source movement) thought as you do and coined the term "open source", in part, to do this job.

As RMS points out, they too failed:

"The term ``free software'' has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, ``Software you can get for zero price,'' fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, ``software which gives the user certain freedoms.'' We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.

Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly ``right'' that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for ``free software'' has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes ``open source software.''

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for `

From Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail:

The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made--which means, in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.

So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they *could not use*. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do.

But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do!

What RMS implies, and I wholly agree with it, is that if copying had been easy at the beginning then there wouldn't been copyright laws at all. In this sense copyright laws are completely artificial. These laws try to simulate real property laws in a world where there is no real property.

Here's an example how absurd copyright laws are. Suppose I go to a concert and listen to the songs. Suppose I have good memory and I can write down the songs using a pen and a paper after the concert at home.

The pen and the paper is mine. I used my mind to write down the songs. How is it the songs are not mine?

Mozart exactly did this. If Mozart did this now he would be in jail.

Why Software Should Not Have Owners
./ Interview with Bradley Kuhn, VP of FSF

No..

> I don't give a damn how much Sun paid you from
> their Microsoft settlement to get the
> pattent-encumbered CDDL approved

The FSF has it on thier list of free software licenses too.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLI ncompatibleLicenses

And it's our responsibility to be good to corporations, even to the point of allowing them to take works out of the commons, because why? The corporations that complain the most about the GNU GPL (Apple and Microsoft, among others) are those that treat their users horribly by distributing programs the users aren't allowed to inspect, share, or modify. The progress the free software movement made before the open source movement existed (which was over a decade of work) happened largely without the direct input of proprietors like what ESR is talking about. The GPL was never anti-business. And yet even after the open source movement continues to try to reframe the debate away from software freedom, the GNU GPL is the most popular free software license in existance.

I think ESR doesn't like the GPL because it works against the open source movement's goal to work for business by introducing them to programmers who are willing to work without payment (cheap labor has been a rallying cry of business, and a source of genuine social discontent amongst workers, for a very long time). The open source movement was founded and continues to do what they can to dismiss software freedom. Software freedom gives people the idea that they don't need the beneficiaries of "open source" as much as they need communities of partners, both individual and organizational. But open source advocates don't see this. They want to pretend that the free software movement and open source movement share a common philosophy despite that never having been the case.

ESR is showing off his ahistorical silliness again. But more importantly, he is trying to reframe the issues away from software freedom as a value unto itself and toward "openness" and innovation. From the very first lines of the article, and his speech, he wants his organization (the Open Source Initiative and, to a larger degree, the open source movement) to get credit for work he had nothing to do with writing -- the GNU GPL. The GPL predates anything to do with "open source" and therefore existed independant of it. Neither the OSI nor ESR have yet to write a single license which can compare to the licenses the Free Software Foundation have written. When it comes to advice about the GPL, consult with experts: Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, and Brad Kuhn, FSF members all. Leave those who want to either "steal thunder" (as the saying goes) aside.

BSD-like for code that either isn't terribly interesting or important enough to care about it being embraced and extended or code that represents a canonical implementation of a proposed standard that it is hoped will be widely adopted. Yes, even by Microsoft.

GPL-like for interesting and unique code that presents a "Unique Selling Point" for Free-as-in-speech software. Organisations that want use it to reduce development costs and to later redistribute products need to accept the author's terms, or get off their arse and develop their own equivalent code.

LGPL-like for code that would, if it weren't for its intended usage, be otherwise licensed as GPL-like above, but it's better if it's widely used. Yes, even by proprietary applications.

MPL-like for 'donated' code for which the original author wishes to reserve rights for themselves that they don't necessarily wish to grant to others. Their code, their right to choose. If you don't like it, play somewhere else.

None of what I've written above is original, even rms has said similar things in the past.

Conceivably, I can accept (and even hope for) the theoretical possibility that the time will come when everyone accepts that Free software is here to stay and that no-one wishes to try to selfishly exploit it. Just like the possibility that one day humans will learn to treat each other with respect and consequently, police forces, weapons, property rights and even laws are no longer necessary to deter unwanted exploitation. Sadly, that day is not yet here. And that's where I disagree with esr.

That question is non-sense. You confuse programming languages with compiler implementation techniques.

A language is a syntax (how do I write it?) and a semantic (what does it do when I run it?). Languages never say anything about you are supposed to implement it, and so asking if a language is interpreted or compiled is just non-sense.

There are many implementations of the Java language, with many different execution strategies.

• Sun's implementation of Java is a Just-In-Time compiler (JIT).
  
• 
  SableVM is also an implementation of the Java language. It's execution strategy is to interpret the bytecode.
  
• 
  GCJ is another implementation of the Java language. It's execution strategy is to compile ahead of time.
  
• 
  DrJava is yet another implementation of the Java language. It's execution strategy is to compile the Java source code to Scheme code, then macro-expand the Scheme code to primitive Scheme, then compile that to bytecode, then interpret the bytecode.
  

• 
  The Ocaml language comes standard with three implementation: an interpreter, a bytecode compiler/bytecode interpreter pair, and an aggresively optimizing native code compiler. Somebody else also implemented a JIT.
  
• 
  The standard Python implementation is an interpreter. Starkiller is a Python compiler, and Psyco is a Python JIT.
  
• Last but not least, GCC is a C compiler (of course), and Cint is a C interpreter.
  

Now go in peace, and never say "compiled language" again.

That question is non-sense. You confuse programming languages with compiler implementation techniques.

A language is a syntax (how do I write it?) and a semantic (what does it do when I run it?). Languages never say anything about you are supposed to implement it, and so asking if a language is interpreted or compiled is just non-sense.

There are many implementations of the Java language, with many different execution strategies.

• Sun's implementation of Java is a Just-In-Time compiler (JIT).
• SableVM is also an implementation of the Java language. It's execution strategy is to interpret the bytecode.
• GCJ is another implementation of the Java language. It's execution strategy is to compile ahead of time.
• DrJava is yet another implementation of the Java language. It's execution strategy is to compile the Java source code to Scheme code, then macro-expand the Scheme code to primitive Scheme, then compile that to bytecode, then interpret the bytecode.

• The Ocaml language comes standard with three implementation: an interpreter, a bytecode compiler/bytecode interpreter pair, and an aggresively optimizing native code compiler. Somebody else also implemented a JIT.
• The standard Python implementation is an interpreter. Starkiller is a Python compiler, and Psyco is a Python JIT.
• Last but not least, GCC is a C compiler (of course), and Cint is a C interpreter.

Now go in peace, and never say "compiled language" again.

Sounds like this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/moglen-harvard-speec h-2004.html.

It's only free if you release your web app as GPL also.

Not very free IMHO.

I think mysql license info about the GPL is incorrect.

GPL mentions modified versions, if you use mysql as a basic sql engine, and not modify its sourcecode, its still GPL compliant.

The GPL FAQ mentions using a GPL program for non-free software.

So, Just as you can use VI to write non-free code, you can use SQL for a non-free database. You havn't modified MYSQL sourcecode, you are using it as its intended purpose.

The GPL also says if you fork or exec a plugin you dont need to release your source, seems the same as a select or put. Now your interface plugin to the MySQL database would have to be GPL'ed by default.

I dont know how MySQL team could say using the product voids GPL, its sourcecode modification not use that voids GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesUsing TheGPLForAProgramMakeItGNUSoftware

Now this is getting ridiculous.

OK, let's try a simple thing.

What do you think about this link?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalD istribution

If you think the statement made here is factually incorrect, then please provide actual arguments with links supporting your point of view. Calling my statements crap does not count as an argument :-)

You missed gcj, which eliminates both the VM and runtime compiliation overhead.

Might as well screw deterministic memory- something more than necessary with realtime embedded systems.

This problem is eliminated with gcj, as long as you know what you're doing regarding GC. There is also a real-time specification for Java, which was apparently used to program a sophisiticated Boeing drone. This was announced at JavaOne earlier this week. Finally, the Javolution library is a useful tool in this area as well.

Maybe JIT moved Java from being fully interpreted, but it's still interpreted and "compiled" at runtime making it theoretically (a.k.a Javaly) and realistically on average always slower and more of a memory hog than unnamed alternatives, that's all. But, sometimes that's ok right?

Apparently, in the case of VB, Perl, Python, Ruby etc. etc. etc. Besides, as I pointed out above, there are ahead-of-time Java compilers. (JET is a commercial alternative for Windows.)

Look at how Java has taken over the desktop application market where that least matters. How many Java desktop applications do you run?

Several.

Can you tell it's Java?

No, not in the case of Eclipse, Azureus or RSSOwl. Can you? (BTW Azureus is one of the top applications on Sourceforge.) Others are minimally identifiable, but their interfaces are no stranger than Winamp or many other current applications.

If programming will always be hard, one might wonder what skeletons in the closets Java fanatics have at the price of conformity to an interface. Java version incompatibilities, buggy VMs, oh my.

As opposed to (just to pick my favorite whipping boy) C++ compiler incompatibilities, memory issues, third-party library incompatibilities, and fragility?

Java isn't perfect. I'm personally interested in seeing a truly open language developed which is more suitable for HPC, numerics and realtime, and leverages the best features of Java and C#. Until then, however, I think Java is a very good alternative for many projects, large and small.

Don't use LGPL. It's not about free software. It's about companies being able to steal your code and use proprietary software with. It is NOT about free software!

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

From the /. summary:

Trolltech has released Qt 4.0 both under commercial and GPL licenses [...]

I think what was meant here was proprietary licenses, not commercial licenses. This is a rather common misunderstanding that stems from not seeing the GNU GPL as a license under which one may do commercial work. But many developers and distributors have done commercial activity involving GPL-covered works over the years. What the GPL prohibits is distribution of proprietary derivatives, hence the GPL is not a proprietary software license.

Well, for one thing, there's the issue of freedom.

Then there's the fact that it is slow when compared to most other languages which are used for designing large scale systems (C, C++, etc.).

Then also, it is viewed as a favorite of suits, and therefore by (admittedly somewhat childish) knee-jerk reaction, it is derided by geeks.

Hi Dalibor,

I am not aware of Kaffe, or gcj, or GNU Classpath biting Sun hands

Kaffe accepts donations from Microsoft to implement Microsoft's contested extensions.

The leader of the Free Software Foundation (under whom GCJ/Classpath is developed) starts an uncalled for flamewar over Java's status.

Sun could easily "punish" projects for stuff like this (through more restrictive licenses, withholding key information from the public, etc.), but they don't. They're nice people, not intending to throw up any barriers. Yet time and again they are painted as an evil entity to be defeated for no reason what-so-ever. Thankfully, cooler heads usually prevail. Unfortunately, these cooler heads are usually not the OSS community or fan base. :-/

In the words of Richard Stallman...

Don't you just hate receiving Word documents in email messages? Word attachments are annoying, but worse than that, they impede people from switching to free software. Maybe we can stop this practice with a simple collective effort. All we have to do is ask each person who sends us a Word file to reconsider that way of doing things.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments. html

Actually, the FSF lists the CDDL as a Free Software license.

-Peter

there's a good chance that the Apache JVM will quickly exceed Kaffe and GCJ

For some facts please read The Apache Harmony Blog

there's a good chance that the Apache JVM will quickly exceed Kaffe and GCJ

For some facts please read The Apache Harmony Blog

Java: One Step Closer To Open Source

*sigh* Sun is already as open as they're going to go with Java by releasing it under the Java Research License. Now Sun has never complained about or hawked Open Source JVMs, but neither have they been too keen on helping out projects who bite their hands. As a result, the project to watch is the Apache Harmony Project. Given that Apache maintains a close relationship with Sun, hasn't burned their bridges, and has a good track record for completing very complex software, there's a good chance that the Apache JVM will quickly exceed Kaffe and GCJ.

About bittorrent there is no doubt that it will be growing more and more with time, but there is another proyects like:
WASTE and MUTE
About freedom, here are some interesting articles by Richard Stallman

Right to Read
Misinterpreting Copyright
Reevaluating Copyright
Freedom or Copyright

Good bye
PS: RMS lost some records maybe somebody can help him Can you find any of these records?

About bittorrent there is no doubt that it will be growing more and more with time, but there is another proyects like:
WASTE and MUTE
About freedom, here are some interesting articles by Richard Stallman

Right to Read
Misinterpreting Copyright
Reevaluating Copyright
Freedom or Copyright

Good bye
PS: RMS lost some records maybe somebody can help him Can you find any of these records?

About bittorrent there is no doubt that it will be growing more and more with time, but there is another proyects like:
WASTE and MUTE
About freedom, here are some interesting articles by Richard Stallman

Right to Read
Misinterpreting Copyright
Reevaluating Copyright
Freedom or Copyright

Good bye
PS: RMS lost some records maybe somebody can help him Can you find any of these records?

About bittorrent there is no doubt that it will be growing more and more with time, but there is another proyects like:
WASTE and MUTE
About freedom, here are some interesting articles by Richard Stallman

Right to Read
Misinterpreting Copyright
Reevaluating Copyright
Freedom or Copyright

Good bye
PS: RMS lost some records maybe somebody can help him Can you find any of these records?

The easiest way to force something under the GPL or other copyleft licenses is to make a derivative work from GPLed code. So consider using the GNU Scientific Library or something similar as your base. Your University will most likely not make you rewrite it and, if they have a legal department, will most likely not ask you to violate the GPL.

For a good piece on GPL in academia, see Releasing Free Software if you work at a University by Richard Stallman.

Sorry the link is
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

When is /. going to get a post correction feature?

Also good is the FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory http://directory.fsf.org/ Which allows you to search for free and legal alternatives under different categories. Good for finding out the names of things.

As a number of people have mentioned, Internationalization and localization can be an incredibly complex process.

Since you are working with an existing system, you don't have the option of designing in I18N support from the very beginning.

Get a good book.

I recommend "XML Internationalization and Localization" by Yves Savourel, and "Beyond Borders web globalization strategies" by John Yunker. Both the authors have been in the I18N business a long time. They know what they are talking about.

Choose your tools wisely.

Use MySQL 4.1 (or newer) --

Since MySQL 4.1, you have the option of choosing which character set to use on a per DB, per table, or per field basis. The simplest solution is to just make the entire DB use the UTF-8 character set (This may not be appropriate for reasons of optimization or other reasons).

Learn about Unicode/UTF-8. (Others have provided links)

Store your localized data in UTF-8. Using a single character set makes life much easier.

Use a fairly recent version of PHP --

PHP 4.1.1 (or newer) comes bundled with GNU Gettext.

GNU gettext

http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/ You probably don't need to download it, since it should be included with your version of PHP. Just enable it in the php.ini, or compile it in from source.

GNU Gettext has been around for a number of years. It's fairly efficient, well maintained and has a larger user base. It basically makes use of mapping a reference ID and a language-locale to a string of text. It replaces the ID with the appropriate text in your template to create a finished document. Text for different language-locales are stored in separate files called PO files.

You will also want a PO file editor.

Here are a couple of articles on GNU Gettext

http://www.phpdig.net/ref/rn26.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/php/2002/06/13/php.htm l
http://www.uberdose.com/php/php-and-gettext-for-i1 8n/

If you are going to be using professional translators, you may want to consider XLIFF as a document exchange format. There are XLIFF to PO converters available.

You may be considering XML (XHTML, XSLT and XLIFF) for Internationalization. The PHP solution, using Sablatron, is not yet fully-baked. I would avoid it for a production system. It shows promise for the future. Plus, XLIFF is not recommended as a storage format. You'll probably find some performance issues if you try to use it as a direct data store.

Use templates, if at all possible.

You may not be able to use the same template for all language-locales, but they should work for most cases. If you have a BDI language, for example Arabic or Hebrew, would likely need a separate template.

Localize your CSS stylesheets.

You may have locale specific layout and formatting information in your stylesheets.

From a design point of view, consider using a combination of a Front Controller pattern to switch languages and a Page Controller pattern to apply the templates.

Where are you storing the article data? Is it in the MySQL DB, or is it in static files that are referenced by the DB? Focus most of your efforts on the part that is most critical, MySQL if most of the data is in the DB, or PHP if most of the data is static. But remember, you are going to have to internationalize both parts of your system.

Don't forget, text from many other languages takes up more space than english to say the same thing. Sometimes 30-50% more space. This can significantly impact layout in heading sections, column widths, a

As a number of people have mentioned, Internationalization and localization can be an incredibly complex process.

Since you are working with an existing system, you don't have the option of designing in I18N support from the very beginning.

Get a good book.

I recommend "XML Internationalization and Localization" by Yves Savourel, and "Beyond Borders web globalization strategies" by John Yunker. Both the authors have been in the I18N business a long time. They know what they are talking about.

Choose your tools wisely.

Use MySQL 4.1 (or newer) --

Since MySQL 4.1, you have the option of choosing which character set to use on a per DB, per table, or per field basis. The simplest solution is to just make the entire DB use the UTF-8 character set (This may not be appropriate for reasons of optimization or other reasons).

Learn about Unicode/UTF-8. (Others have provided links)

Store your localized data in UTF-8. Using a single character set makes life much easier.

Use a fairly recent version of PHP --

PHP 4.1.1 (or newer) comes bundled with GNU Gettext.

GNU gettext

http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/ You probably don't need to download it, since it should be included with your version of PHP. Just enable it in the php.ini, or compile it in from source.

GNU Gettext has been around for a number of years. It's fairly efficient, well maintained and has a larger user base. It basically makes use of mapping a reference ID and a language-locale to a string of text. It replaces the ID with the appropriate text in your template to create a finished document. Text for different language-locales are stored in separate files called PO files.

You will also want a PO file editor.

Here are a couple of articles on GNU Gettext

http://www.phpdig.net/ref/rn26.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/php/2002/06/13/php.htm l
http://www.uberdose.com/php/php-and-gettext-for-i1 8n/

If you are going to be using professional translators, you may want to consider XLIFF as a document exchange format. There are XLIFF to PO converters available.

You may be considering XML (XHTML, XSLT and XLIFF) for Internationalization. The PHP solution, using Sablatron, is not yet fully-baked. I would avoid it for a production system. It shows promise for the future. Plus, XLIFF is not recommended as a storage format. You'll probably find some performance issues if you try to use it as a direct data store.

Use templates, if at all possible.

You may not be able to use the same template for all language-locales, but they should work for most cases. If you have a BDI language, for example Arabic or Hebrew, would likely need a separate template.

Localize your CSS stylesheets.

You may have locale specific layout and formatting information in your stylesheets.

From a design point of view, consider using a combination of a Front Controller pattern to switch languages and a Page Controller pattern to apply the templates.

Where are you storing the article data? Is it in the MySQL DB, or is it in static files that are referenced by the DB? Focus most of your efforts on the part that is most critical, MySQL if most of the data is in the DB, or PHP if most of the data is static. But remember, you are going to have to internationalize both parts of your system.

Don't forget, text from many other languages takes up more space than english to say the same thing. Sometimes 30-50% more space. This can significantly impact layout in heading sections, column widths, a

High quality? Looks more like a bunch of dodgy knock-offs of legitimate software. Oh, and anyone following the links in the parent post might want to be aware that at least one of the links will infect your computer with a virus which will render your computer unable to play games and potentially could prevent you from even BEING ABLE TO BOOT YOUR COMPUTER!

Remember kids, knowledgeable computer users only use legitimately licensed software!

I'm lucky. I know lots of really fast FTP servers with lots of high quality software on them. And best of all? It's completely free, and legal.

The Tapwave NDA prohibits free software or even freely redistributable software from being released for the platform. In addition, I could not find any Tapwave Zodiac hardware or software on the shelf at any retailer in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that I've visited, so it'll be tough to find partners for multiplayer games.