Slashdot Mirror

My boss, who sits on Ways and Means (the committe which is in charge of the budget) and a few of his friends have been talking amongst themselves and they are planning a number of hearings this year to discuss open source in general and more specifically as a way to save goverement money from going to huge software companies like M$ as a way to help cut some goverement spending.

That's a real shame because it means that they have genuinely taken in the watered-down message the open source movement promotes--that we should weigh software issues not on ethics or freedom, but on cost of development, distribution, and even (ironically) settle for proprietary software when it is technically more functional than an "open source" competitor. The open source movement pitches this message because they're chiefly speaking to businesses and they believe any freedom talk will interfere with conveying their development methodology message to businesses.

As such, if the US Government is doing what you describe, they're probably just using that talk to get Microsoft to drop its price on the software it licenses to the US Government. Other countries and US states have done this before, and it will be done again. Lowering the cost of Microsoft software is probably the reason why Massachusetts allowed Microsoft's proprietary Office formats to be included as an "open format". There's no part of the open source movement's message a proprietor can't cater to, so proprietors love to frame the issues at hand as the open source movement discusses them.

Better to focus on software freedom, which the free software movement has been pitching for over a decade longer than the open source movement has been touting their message. Those who want software freedom for its own sake never have to settle for stumping for non-free software because the free software message doesn't focus on a development methodology to make development cheaper, faster, and produce less buggy software. The free software movement centers on giving computer users the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software. The open source movement's goals are fine as far as they go, but they don't go far enough. They say nothing about the most important question we can ask: how should we treat other people? This is an ethical question which demands an ethical response.

My boss, who sits on Ways and Means (the committe which is in charge of the budget) and a few of his friends have been talking amongst themselves and they are planning a number of hearings this year to discuss open source in general and more specifically as a way to save goverement money from going to huge software companies like M$ as a way to help cut some goverement spending.

That's a real shame because it means that they have genuinely taken in the watered-down message the open source movement promotes--that we should weigh software issues not on ethics or freedom, but on cost of development, distribution, and even (ironically) settle for proprietary software when it is technically more functional than an "open source" competitor. The open source movement pitches this message because they're chiefly speaking to businesses and they believe any freedom talk will interfere with conveying their development methodology message to businesses.

As such, if the US Government is doing what you describe, they're probably just using that talk to get Microsoft to drop its price on the software it licenses to the US Government. Other countries and US states have done this before, and it will be done again. Lowering the cost of Microsoft software is probably the reason why Massachusetts allowed Microsoft's proprietary Office formats to be included as an "open format". There's no part of the open source movement's message a proprietor can't cater to, so proprietors love to frame the issues at hand as the open source movement discusses them.

Better to focus on software freedom, which the free software movement has been pitching for over a decade longer than the open source movement has been touting their message. Those who want software freedom for its own sake never have to settle for stumping for non-free software because the free software message doesn't focus on a development methodology to make development cheaper, faster, and produce less buggy software. The free software movement centers on giving computer users the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software. The open source movement's goals are fine as far as they go, but they don't go far enough. They say nothing about the most important question we can ask: how should we treat other people? This is an ethical question which demands an ethical response.

Why having a free software bios is a good idea. Any Questions?

This has nothing to do with GNU Hurd, but instead with Free Software itself - to ensure that users aren't restricted by the software they use it is necessary to have Free versions of _ALL_ parts of the system, including the BIOS. If there is one single part of the system that is non-Free, then the entire system is comprimised.

Contrary to popular opinion, Stallman is the last person in the entire Free Software/Open Source movement that I would expect doing something due to an ego issue. Listen to his speeches, read his writings, hell, email the man himself and ask him if this is due to Hurd. He just wants to see people not chained by thier own technology.

This has nothing to do with GNU Hurd, but instead with Free Software itself - to ensure that users aren't restricted by the software they use it is necessary to have Free versions of _ALL_ parts of the system, including the BIOS. If there is one single part of the system that is non-Free, then the entire system is comprimised.

Contrary to popular opinion, Stallman is the last person in the entire Free Software/Open Source movement that I would expect doing something due to an ego issue. Listen to his speeches, read his writings, hell, email the man himself and ask him if this is due to Hurd. He just wants to see people not chained by thier own technology.

"Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission.

This makes it even more critical that we get free software BIOSes, and soon!

That's exactly why a Free bios is necessary. I am typing this up in a Free Software browser (Konqueror) in a Free Software window manager (KDE), which run on top of a Free Software graphical manager (X), which runs on top of a Free Software system (Gnu), which runs on top of a Free Software kernel (Linux), which is booted by a Free Software boot loader (Grub). All of this Free Software runs on top of a non-free BIOS.

This raises the question - Am I really Free? When a Free Software BIOS exists, you can make a safe bet that I'll be using it.

(P.S. I'd suggest against using the term Open Source to describe software which is made to protect the rights of the users. There is a huge difference between Free Software and Open Source - Namely OS completely avoids any real mention of software Freedom. You won't find any mention of the four freedoms on OSI's site. Indeed, the only real mention of software freedom is where they call it ideological tub-thumping. This is definitely a Free Software issue, not an Open Source issue.)

I was thinking more along the lines of the GNU Hurd kernel plus glibc/gcc/GNU userland plus Portage for app/sw installs and updates. A frankenstein-type melding of different technologies to be sure, but one with as many core deficiencies and limitations removed as possible, IMHO.

>Your problem is that you pit FOSS licences and
>their supporters against each other for no good
>reason.

Er...I think that fight's already been started...and not by me. Stallman thinks everyone is entitled to his opinion, and his opinion only. That to me, by definition, is not freedom.

This might interest you as well...it talks about some of the other, more practical problems associated with the GPL...Stallman's megalomaniacal egotism notwithstanding.

Before you also accuse me of doing exactly the same thing he does here, realise that my interest would not be in seeing the GPL erradicated completely, at all...Rather what I want is for Stallman to stop telling people that the GPL is the *only* valid OSS license in existence, and that the others should not exist. They should be able to just as much as the GPL itself does, IMHO.

3.2 Can I look as Sun's sources to get inspiration?
No. In fact, if you read Sun's sources we can't accept any code from you.

They may be friends, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody has a &@$% clue how to pronounce 'gnu'.

(GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX"; it is pronounced "guh-noo.")

I don't know how they decide that Theo or Guido or whoever is eligible (I'm sure they've received awards, though possibly of much less significance).

Reading this FAQ entry should shed some light on why linus has never been, and probably will never be up for this award.

He actually has a position on that matter :)

McGrath is the head developer of the GNU C Library, which is an absolute necessity for an entirely F/OSS system.

Remember, Richard isn't unsung...

See:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCMereAg gregation
Can you run a device driver as a separate program?

Mmm...?

And doesn't the operating system load the device drivers into memory and access their functionality through predefined, although complex, set of api that makes them function together as one program?

Also: on LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html

See:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCMereAg gregation
Can you run a device driver as a separate program?

Mmm...?

And doesn't the operating system load the device drivers into memory and access their functionality through predefined, although complex, set of api that makes them function together as one program?

Also: on LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html

Versiontracker.com listed quite a few proprietary freeware and shareware image editors for Mac OS X. In fact, I even remember paying for shareware GraphicConverter back in the Mac OS 8 days. But you must be unfamiliar with the idiomatic use of capitalized "Free" on Slashdot, which refers to free software as defined by the FSF.

For all the people who dismiss Richard Stallman's writings as nuts, I would like note that this story serves as a perfect example of how your freedoms are affected by non-Free software.

You paid your hard earned money for use of this software. You can not legally modify the software to your hearts content (try creating a server/dumb terminal windows distro for your office, for example). You can not look at the source code to find out how the OS _really_ works without signing a draconian NDA. (Indeed, Windows seems designed to be as confusing and difficult to modify as possible to keep people from mucking with it.) You must buy a copy for each computer you install it on, which sucks if you just want to set up a cheap box for your kids. You must comply with a sketchy EULA that when voided makes your copy as legal as one downloaded off P2P. And having read and understood the EULAs to all versions of Windows, I can almost state as fact that a good 75% of Windows users who think they are legal are actually not.

And now you have to call up Microsoft just to get your damn copy of Windows to work. You have paid your money for this software and are assumed to be a criminal for it until you get the smile and node of Steve Ballmer? Wake up and stop bending over! You should not need to knowingly break the law in order to use your software! You don't need to click "next" on draconian EULA's, trying to stay blissfully ignorant of what you have agreed to! The articles written by the Free Software Foundation that talk about freedoms lost are not the ramblings of some dusty academics, they are fighting what people do their best to stay ignorant of every time they sit in front of a computer!

Every Windows user is giving up their freedom to click on icons and be annoyed by clippy. This article is damn good proof that those who speak of software freedom might actually know what they're talking about.

Teaching Linux is like teaching Esperanto: not practical in the real world. Students should be taught skills they can readily use in the real world, and with computers that means Windows. Too bad, its true.

Wow.I can see why you posted that as an AC.

What exactly are these windows specific "real world" skills that we should teach a k-12 student?

Intenet usage?... check
Word processing? Spreadsheets? Presentations?... check check check
Programming?... check
Photo Editing?... check


Is it that Linux looks so different that kids wouldn't be able to find their way around in windows?

I've got a "real world" story for you.
Two years ago I put together one of these k12ltsp labs for a small school of about 300 students ages 5-13. I doubt very many of them had ever heard the word Linux before.
Guess what? They took to it instantly. Even the older kids that were using windows for several years.

The fact is Linux (LTSP especially) is a much more economically viable option for schools.

One more thing. You have the right to your own opinion, but your analogy was weak.
Esperanto provides no immediate benefit. Using Linux saved the school enough budget that they were able to purchase flat panel monitors for the entire lab this year.

Verisign, Thawte, etc are trusted. Some company that gives it out for free without any sort of checking is not.

Unless you work there, Verisign is just a faceless enigma. You know more about your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate, than you know about Verisign.

If a cert is signed only by Verisign (and the nature of X.509 certs is that they only have one CA) then you have to decide to either trust it completely, or trust it not at all. And if, like 99.999999% of the population, you simply have no clue as to whether or not Verisign can be trusted, best practices are to assume the worst, and the certs are effectively meaningless, whether they are signed by Verisign or by some kid in his basement.

As it turns out, there's a better way: PGP. PGP uids can be signed by multiple entities, so if you have a clue about some signers and no clue about others, you can throw out the info that means nothing to you, and still take advantage of the info which has meaning. And even for the signatures that you're uncertain about, if you're willing to quantify how uncertain you are, then you can multiply uncertainties, based on the idea that conspiracies are hard to pull off.

The only problem with PGP, is that use of it in concert with secure connections, hasn't really caught on. But surprisingly, the idea isn't unheard of or completely dead, either. If people ever start to take internet security really seriously, there are projects like GnuTLS. It's a long way off from the mainstream, but just about everything we take for granted these days, was like that at one time. :-)

Here ya go.
Regards,
Steve

(not (eq? a b))

The earliest version of Emacs I can lay my hands on dates from 1992. Searching it for occurrences of "(not (eq" reveals lots of hits. One of them (hanoi.el) is from a file last modified in 1987.

So clause 1 of the patent is not novel, and the idea existed widely in the literature and publicly available information at least 18 years before the patent was filed, and quite possibly as much as 42 years.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. We looked into deploying GNU's oSIP library. Unfortunately, it wasn't up to snuff with what we needed (namely, four VoIP lines on a device), and the amount of rearchitecting required could not be justified in terms of man-hours and time constraints. So it's an off-the-shelf SIP stack for us. Given a longer deadline and several people working on the problem, it could have been done, but the realities of business meant that in our case open source was simply not a good strategy.

You want GNU Radio.

Java (14080 projects)
C# (2206 projects)

Also, don't forget there is a very interesting ahead-of-time Java compiler as part of the gcc toolchain, gcj. It isn't complete, but it is constantly improving and can now be used to write SWT and Gnome applications. Good stuff!

I hate to see C# getting any uptake when all it is intended to do is allow Microsoft to co-opt all of Java's good ideas while stifling portability as much as possible. It is a transparent Java ripoff.

You should try gcj with the SWT or gnome-java bindings. Nothing doggy about it. :-)

BTW, gcj is the gcc Java compiler.

GNU Go is actively developed, but it still does not match commercialGo software, ranking 1-2 stones weaker. It is rated from 8 to 9 kru, which is a weak amateur.

You probably mean proprietary software. For example MySQL is Free Software and commercial.

i wrote some elisp to play GNU Go in an Emacs buffer. check it out! (fishing for bug reports; patches welcome.)

see also: GoMode (emacswiki)

i wrote some elisp to play GNU Go in an Emacs buffer. check it out! (fishing for bug reports; patches welcome.)

see also: GoMode (emacswiki)

AFAIK, the current state of the art of Go on computers is Goemate and Go4++.

GNU Go is actively developed, but it still does not match commercial Go software, ranking 1-2 stones weaker. It is rated from 8 to 9 kru, which is a weak amateur.

Computers have thus far not been too great at cracking go via the usual searching algorithms, as it has a high branching factor - starting at 361, much higher than chess! It is only recently that Go programs have even begun to achieve low levels of competence. Besides the limited searching and pattern recognition of current software, future programs may improve by decomposing Go into 'subgames', allowing it to be more readily attacked.

This service has been brought to you by GNU units.

Yes, Linux as a term is used too loosely, and broadly.

Some badly needed clarity as to what Linux is:

Linux is the name of a kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and friends. Contrary to popular belief, there is one, and only one important Linux distribution, it is www.kernel.org.

Anyone with a copy of Linux obtained from there is free to share and modify it. Thus by definition it is free software.

The copyright holders of Linux share it with the world with via a copyleft free software license called the GNU General Public License. The principal of copyleft is, "if you redistribute this work to others, please pass on the same freedoms to them that were given to you." Thus, copyleft is the "golden rule" applied to software, with some legal machinery to make it work.

Linux is thus always free software. There are no non-free versions of Linux.

You're not talking about free as in "no cost" are you? Anyone with a copy of free software can redistribute it for any price they choose. This has helped our community grow immensely. It is an important freedom.

I think you and others are confusing GNU/Linux distributions, with Linux itself. I would sugest that you spend some time reading the philosophy of the GNU project.

Sadly, several companies pollute the free software ecosystem with non-free garbage. Quite a few of these programs are "free download", but come with no real freedom.

Yes, Linux as a term is used too loosely, and broadly.

Some badly needed clarity as to what Linux is:

Linux is the name of a kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and friends. Contrary to popular belief, there is one, and only one important Linux distribution, it is www.kernel.org.

Anyone with a copy of Linux obtained from there is free to share and modify it. Thus by definition it is free software.

The copyright holders of Linux share it with the world with via a copyleft free software license called the GNU General Public License. The principal of copyleft is, "if you redistribute this work to others, please pass on the same freedoms to them that were given to you." Thus, copyleft is the "golden rule" applied to software, with some legal machinery to make it work.

Linux is thus always free software. There are no non-free versions of Linux.

You're not talking about free as in "no cost" are you? Anyone with a copy of free software can redistribute it for any price they choose. This has helped our community grow immensely. It is an important freedom.

I think you and others are confusing GNU/Linux distributions, with Linux itself. I would sugest that you spend some time reading the philosophy of the GNU project.

Sadly, several companies pollute the free software ecosystem with non-free garbage. Quite a few of these programs are "free download", but come with no real freedom.

Hahahaha. When I was writing the GP, I thought of linking to the FSF's take on Intellectual Property, but decided that doing so would be pushing my agenda a little too hard.

You, sir, have read me well.

Common Public License Version 1.0

This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.

For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Certainly. If you can obtain permission for the picture to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

I think OS should know how long it wants "free beer". http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

With Microsoft, wouldn't it be Proprietarybase? Wouldn't Microsoft leave the Freebase to the pinko hippies of the Free Base Foundation?

quickly reveal that the Gnu Public License

Isn't this more along the lines you're looking for? Then add this if you really want to get fancy.

Found this on Stallman's computer the other day. Apparently he wanted to use this song as 'The Free Software Song' but I guess he was afraid of a lawsuit from Iron Maiden for copyright infringement.

[best sung on the melody from 'Iron Maiden - Can I Play With Madness']

Give me some code to wonder,
to wonder if I'm free.
Give me some code to wonder,
to wonder if I can tweak.
Give me the strength to put my code up,
share it with everyone.
Don't need no DRM to unlock this code,
Gonna make my own fork,
Break out of this place!

[chorus]
Can I play with my code,
I just stared at my EULA.
Can I play with my code,
there's no freedom here at all.
Can I play with my code,
But Gates just looked and he laughed at me.
Can I play with my code,
He said you're blind, too blind to see.
[/chorus]

I screamed aloud to the rich man,
I said don't lie don't say you don't know.
I say you pay for your poor code,
in this world or the next.
Oh and then he fixed me with a copyright note,
and the patents raged in his eyes.
He said do you wanna have the code son,
I'll give you the code.
Your soul's gonna burn in the court.

[2 x chorus and then do the moonwalk for the rest of the song]

Original lyrics here - http://www.lyricsfreak.com/i/iron-maiden/68047.htm l
The current "Free Software Song" - http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.html

And there is no way you're going to get them to alter their license just because Stallman thinks they should.

This isn't stallman's doing. OSI is ESR's organization. Unlike the FSF they don't code or do anything useful but for some reason they are considered an authority just because they claim they are. Now they're playing games with the community's public image. Let me be quite clear here: OSI are just some assholes with a website. They have nothing to do with the community.

Instead of trying to reduce the number of Open Source licenses, people should instead come up with a comparison chart.

A summary of Free Software licenses.

Sam Greenblatt, a member of the OSDL board, was quoted as saying something very unclear: "Eventually there should be three licenses: The GPL, a commercial version of the GPL...". The GNU General Public License (GPL) allows one to distribute copies of covered works for a fee. Many people have turned GCC (the GNU Compiler Collection), one noteworthy GPL-covered program, into a commercial work by distributing copies of it for a fee, some have also based for-hire consulting services on GCC. These consultants develop GCC as a business activity.

Most of the time when people say "commercial" in this context, they don't mean that. That word was just a poor choice which may stem from not fully understanding what software freedom entails. What they really meant to say was "proprietary", which is something different. In this case, I don't know what that other meaning would be; a proprietary GPL would not be the GPL, it would be a perverse opposite of what the GPL stands for and accomplished long before the open source movement existed. Thus I'm left thinking Greenblatt's statement is at best unclear, non-sensical at worst.

Sam Greenblatt, a member of the OSDL board, was quoted as saying something very unclear: "Eventually there should be three licenses: The GPL, a commercial version of the GPL...". The GNU General Public License (GPL) allows one to distribute copies of covered works for a fee. Many people have turned GCC (the GNU Compiler Collection), one noteworthy GPL-covered program, into a commercial work by distributing copies of it for a fee, some have also based for-hire consulting services on GCC. These consultants develop GCC as a business activity.

Most of the time when people say "commercial" in this context, they don't mean that. That word was just a poor choice which may stem from not fully understanding what software freedom entails. What they really meant to say was "proprietary", which is something different. In this case, I don't know what that other meaning would be; a proprietary GPL would not be the GPL, it would be a perverse opposite of what the GPL stands for and accomplished long before the open source movement existed. Thus I'm left thinking Greenblatt's statement is at best unclear, non-sensical at worst.

Though open-source may be great, why should I be *forced* to GPL my game code, which has little to do with LibSDL development?

If your game truly has little to do with LibSDL, it is not a derivative work, and therefore doesn't have to be GPL'ed. I doubt you could sucessfully argue that a game isn't a derivative work of the rendering library it depends upon, though.

The question of whether linking a library into an application makes the result a derivative work is an open one. The FSF has it's opionion, but as they note, "[it] is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide."

But want to make a derivative work, the cost is making it GPL'ed.

Absolutely. He's even got a hymn..

Listen to it and you'll see why I just cannot take the guy seriously.

He thinks everyone is entitled to his opinion, and from all indications is opposed to diversity of opinion if it doesn't conform to his own. In my mind, that is not freedom.

Yes, I agree he is quite "agressive", if that's the right term. And I too sometimes feel he's pushing it a bit too far (I've just listened to a speech from Kuhn, and he seems easier to agree with), but I still feel Stallman isn't doing this for his personal interests though. He might like it, all the attention and so forth, but I still think his motivation is Free Software, and that he puts that first, before himself. (Or at least I hope so.)

Cheers,
Christoffer

I mean, if I write a book and call it "Foundation", set it in a SF universe and talk about psyhohistory, it would be purely coincidental, right?

What about a short story written by a leader of the Free Software Foundation, set in a speculative fiction universe where incumbent publishers of works of authorship control what computers are allowed to do, and mentioning the history of how minds worked before the publishers gained control? Then you'd have this.