Slashdot Mirror

GCJ

You're looking for gcj.

Yet another misinterpretation Richard Stallman's manifesto! It must drive him bonkers.

Got to hand it to Bill, he had the interviewer backpedalling wit that one because he had a valid point -- there are too many extremists and extremist views in the Linux/OSS community. Take for instance RMS, who says not only should software be given away for $0, but if you charge money for software, you are committing an unethical act.

If you're going to call RMS an extremist, which he admitedly is, you may as well try to get what kind of extremist he is correct. RMS does not say that software should be given away for free (money). In point of fact he encourages people to sell their software for as much as they think they can get for it! (See this for corroboration.) When RMS talks about "free" programs, he is talking about ones freedom to use and modify it, not its price.

"If Linus is the only person that can change a specific part of the kernel, what good does notifying the world instead of just him do?"

Linus may be the only one who commits patches to the official kernel, but he's not the only one who writes patches.

More importantly, people in a production environment should be running a vendor-provided installation (RHEL, SuSe etc). The company that sold them the operating system and the support should also provide kernel updates, including their own patches if they think the offical ones are not coming through in time.

In other words, having a free (as in beer) GNU/Linux installation means you assume total responsibility for the OS. That includes using the freedom of the software to patch the sources and fix any security issues that arise.

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of shit?
A: The bucket.

This is DEFINITELY a good advice. The other day I told the project manager that I was going to use this Java library and he came back to me, saying "hey, the library is versioned at 0.0.6, that doesn't look good AT ALL". No matter that it was part of Classpath and passed a bunch of unit tests I threw at it.

Would be nice if they had a Linux port. Or if the source code is made freely available, someone would have written a clone [or hopefully nicer ;-)] UI!

PHP is not a bad scripting language, though it is mostly used for web backends. I think a lot of admins are still more comfortable using something like PERL for these kinds of tasks

if you add a bit of textutils and pipe-fu into the mix it can do wonders. i use it for scheduled db backups, monitoring [ups, services, etc.]. its always proven itself very flexible and useful.

and if youre looking for some ideas you could always check out some oss projects

They do, CD Text is almost never used though.

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this

The only sticky part is the licensing of free software - total freedom would allow me to fork the source for profit yet that would then restrict the freedom of others in using said free software thus making the software not free anymore. So to remain free I cant do certain things to software restricting my own freedom.

As for Opera thanks but no thanks I have the desire to keep using as much really free software as possible promoting further development.

Per the FSF "No GIFS" page, the reason they currently are against GIFS is the outstanding IBM patent.

Is that patent a member of the 500? And if so, will that be sufficent to change the status of GIFs, as well as the compress program?

Several organizations of the Sri Lankan IT industry, along with the Lanka Software Foundation and Lanka Linux User Group have worked around the clock for the last couple of weeks to create a set of applications to manage the Tsunami recovery program (URL not given to avoid being slashdotted). We made them Free and Open Source from the beginning, and most of the code are already in SourceForge.

But you have a statutory right to reverse engineer software, and nothing can take that right away from you. And if you promise not to do it, that promise is automatically null and void. There are a few other things most EULAs say that have no standing in law. Why do you think no EULA has ever been tested in court? Because {excuse my French} they're fucking illegal as fuck is why not. Anyway, if you rightfully own the CD on which the software is recorded, by law nothing on that CD is a secret from you.

Still not convinced that statutory rights are inalienable? A piece of paper signed by a woman in the presence of witnesses consenting to sexual relations won't get you off a rape charge. Saying no to sex is a statutory right. You can't waive it. Ever.


And the only licence I'd like to see made law is this one.

IBM has basically given away most of its IP portfolio?

Errmm, while I don't know how exactly many patents IBM holds, 500 is by no means, nowhere near, not even vaguely close to being "most of its IP portfolio".

Also, please don't use the term "IP": it muddies the waters: see here for why it is unhelpful at best to use the term IP.

I could have said, "Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a copy for you." Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, "Mail me a tape and a SASE, and I will mail it back with Emacs on it." But I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.

And wrong:

Free software business already exists. In fact, I started a free software business in 1985. I was selling copies of GNU Emacs. I was looking for a way to make money through free software. So I said, "Pay me $150, and I will mail you a tape with the GNU Emacs text editor." People started paying me, and I mailed them tapes. I made enough money to live on. I stopped this because I started the Free Software Foundation, and it seemed appropriate for the Free Software Foundation to start distributing GNU Emacs. I did not want to compete with the Free Software Foundation, so I had to find a different way. For several years, the Foundation made enough money this way to pay several employees, including programmers. So actually, if I had done it myself, I would probably have become comfortably well off by selling copies of free software.

After that, I started another free software business where I would make changes on commission.

I could have said, "Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a copy for you." Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, "Mail me a tape and a SASE, and I will mail it back with Emacs on it." But I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.

And wrong:

Free software business already exists. In fact, I started a free software business in 1985. I was selling copies of GNU Emacs. I was looking for a way to make money through free software. So I said, "Pay me $150, and I will mail you a tape with the GNU Emacs text editor." People started paying me, and I mailed them tapes. I made enough money to live on. I stopped this because I started the Free Software Foundation, and it seemed appropriate for the Free Software Foundation to start distributing GNU Emacs. I did not want to compete with the Free Software Foundation, so I had to find a different way. For several years, the Foundation made enough money this way to pay several employees, including programmers. So actually, if I had done it myself, I would probably have become comfortably well off by selling copies of free software.

After that, I started another free software business where I would make changes on commission.

You know, up until the originating post I never really heard anyone use Treacherous Computering, but it seems to be thrown into almost all of your statements? Why?

The topic of this article is a processor that implements a Treacherous Computing specification.

If you do not like the restrictions on a certain platform - don't buy it.

So if intolerable restrictions were to begin to affect both Mac and x86 PC platforms, then which platform should one buy instead?

Businesses will distribute information to residential users in the manner they see best fit for their purposes. If this means DRM then they will utilize DRM.

My point was that under the Microsoft Office pricing structure, Office DRM is not the best manner to distribute information to residential users, and thus OpenOffice.org is safe for the foreseeable future.

• GNU coding standards
• Information for maintainers of GNU software

• GNU coding standards
• Information for maintainers of GNU software

What's the best way to go about ensuring Linux/POSIX compatibility over the web? Compile farms?

You might look into Cygwin to get started. I haven't used it, but it is a popular POSIX layer for Windows.

You won't need a compile farm for a one-person project. IIRC, 90K lines of code took about 5 minutes to compile on an old Sun workstation, and Make-like tools speed incremental builds. Even on an old computer, you would probably spend more time figuring out parallel builds than you would save by using them.

What's the protocol for crediting them for the work?

I'm sure the FSF would have a few opinions about this. Basically, give credit where credit is due in a file or on your website, unless someone doesn't want it.

What are the criteria for determining whether or not something is "pre-alpha", "alpha", "beta", etc.

For a one-person project, just don't worry about it.

If I have legal questions regarding licenses or IP, who should I talk to?

For a one-person project, just CYA (cover your ass). Don't take code from sources with licenses incompatible with yours (yes, you really do have to read the licenses). Basic questions are almost certainly already answered somewhere on a newsgroup or forum. If you find code that is unlicensed to the best of your knowledge, you probably still want to find who the author is or see if there are multiple sources on the web (it may be public domain).

MORE IMPORTANTLY:

It seems you are beginning to fall into a trap that many many programmers do when taking on a new project. You are starting to ask lots of questions about process before you even really get deep into your work. Don't worry much about the bureaucracy of sophisticated version control or bug tracking, right now. For a relatively small code base, you can easily spend more time learning the nuances of your tools than you do programming, which is no help to your progress. The most important thing you can do now is focus on your program and its architecture and keep backups of your work (at least every night do a backup). If you feel you've achieved a milestone, make a complete and separate copy of that source tree for future reference.

What do you need binaries for? You have the source code, for crying out loud! Just download a DOS port of GCC {there must be one}, and use that to compile the Apache, PHP and MySQL sources.

You can get the source code for GCC itself at http://gcc.gnu.org/.

The question is whether or not the difference between the work of a game coder and the work of a graphic artist is a relevent distinction. What is it that makes software special? Why should the creators of some forms of content be allowed to place restrictions on the copying of their work when others shouldn't?

I respect Stallman, but not as a philosopher (as an aside, I don't respect Raymond at all). His insistence on constraining or altering the meanings of words and phrases in ways that are inconsistent with present and historical usage is a source of many problems. Saying that GPLed software is free as in speech is misleading since I've never known free speech to mean anything other than any form of expression with no restrictions placed upon its content. As the law stands, the only restrictions on the content of software are those imposed by patent and copyright law, and both of these apply to all software regardless of license. If we take free to mean unrestricted, only uncopyrighted software could be considered free. In order to realize Stallman's vision of a world where all software is "free" we would have to restrict people's rights to form certain kinds of contracts. It's not often listed alongside free speech et al. but I consider the freedom to form contracts to be a very important component of our society.

I like the GPL, but that's because I like the idea that an author who wishes to share his or her work can see to it that he or she will always be able to take advantage of any improvements made by others. It's a license with extremely generous terms but with relatively minor restrictions that work to encourage others to share their work as well.

Well, that's what I think anyway.

You can find it here

in what way does a coder differ from a graphics artist? according to stallman's views, should a graphics artist not be able to freely obtain the art of a game so he could modify it, without having to pay for it? after all, that is what he demands of software. it has to be free so a coder is free to change it without having to pay for it. does he have double standards?

Although the GPL can make it more difficult to earn money from software it does in no way require the software to be free of charge.

RMS observed a basic injustice: The tendency of binary only software to lock in its users, to surrender him/her to the whim of the developer. RMS postulate four kinds of freedom which must be true for software and which the GPL is based on philosophically.

Works of art do not put such shackles on their recipients (Art doesn't have users - there is no algorithmic dimension to it) - and that's why there is a difference.

When Stallman talks about proprietary art being ok, he's refering to the consume-and-forget style of gameplay that currently dominates the gaming industry.

Do you have any sources to indicate that? Thought not. It's pure speculating and misrepresentation of Stallman's views.

Here's a quote, summing up his thoughts on the matter (from Free Software and Free Manuals:

As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.

He's not "using double standards". He recognizes that not every kind of work requires the same freedoms. We currently have a copyright regime where different kinds of works have different levels of copyright power.

RMS once proposed a system of reduced copyright powers that would work better for readers/viewers/listeners/etc. (since American copyright is ultimately aimed at benefitting readers, not publishers or authors). He framed his system on the kind of work something is--what function does it perform--under which all works may be copied verbatim and distributed non-commercially. Functional works, one class of work, may also be modified. Works which express people's thoughts is another class of work. These works only need to be copied, as changing them runs the risk of misrepresenting the ideas the author was trying to convey (perhaps this is closer to something you'd find amenable). The third class are aesthetic works which are works where the most important thing is "just the sensation of looking at the work" and this class has no easy answers. You can read the transcript of his talk or listen to it online.

He's not "using double standards". He recognizes that not every kind of work requires the same freedoms. We currently have a copyright regime where different kinds of works have different levels of copyright power.

RMS once proposed a system of reduced copyright powers that would work better for readers/viewers/listeners/etc. (since American copyright is ultimately aimed at benefitting readers, not publishers or authors). He framed his system on the kind of work something is--what function does it perform--under which all works may be copied verbatim and distributed non-commercially. Functional works, one class of work, may also be modified. Works which express people's thoughts is another class of work. These works only need to be copied, as changing them runs the risk of misrepresenting the ideas the author was trying to convey (perhaps this is closer to something you'd find amenable). The third class are aesthetic works which are works where the most important thing is "just the sensation of looking at the work" and this class has no easy answers. You can read the transcript of his talk or listen to it online.

He's not "using double standards". He recognizes that not every kind of work requires the same freedoms. We currently have a copyright regime where different kinds of works have different levels of copyright power.

RMS once proposed a system of reduced copyright powers that would work better for readers/viewers/listeners/etc. (since American copyright is ultimately aimed at benefitting readers, not publishers or authors). He framed his system on the kind of work something is--what function does it perform--under which all works may be copied verbatim and distributed non-commercially. Functional works, one class of work, may also be modified. Works which express people's thoughts is another class of work. These works only need to be copied, as changing them runs the risk of misrepresenting the ideas the author was trying to convey (perhaps this is closer to something you'd find amenable). The third class are aesthetic works which are works where the most important thing is "just the sensation of looking at the work" and this class has no easy answers. You can read the transcript of his talk or listen to it online.

Wrong.

Stallman is quoted here saying that game engines should be free, but approves of the notion that graphics, music, and stories could all be separate and treated differently (i.e., "Non-Free.")

We have to ask ourselves what Stallman actually said before we swallow the summary. The summary does fly in the face of the underlying ethos of Stallman articles such as The Right to Read. It contradicts what others, like Lessing have to say. It even contradicts what the article itself seems to say, when it compares Stallman to Martin Luther, who translated the bible so everyone could read it.

The right to read clearly demonstrates the cultural consequences of non-free software: complete enslavement to those who control publishing. The reasoning is that no one is equal to the sum of all previous work and that we all need access to knowledge. Those who control that knowledge control society. The phrase "free as in speech" makes it just about impossible to consider art "non free". Nothing could be freer that your ability to sing Woody Guthrie tunes.

People like Laurence Lessing have extrapolated Stallman's concepts and filled in the details for art and culture. His book Free Culture, attributes Stallman as the visionary who first realized how technology and certain anti-social tendencies could cause great social harm. As in technology, if we are not free to build on what has come before, we are lost, ignorant, dependent and enslaved.

We can take this a step further by realizing that the most important knowledge is not practical at all. The "Liberal Arts" are those that involve persuasion, and are called so because their study was once restricted to "liber" or free men. Slaves were not allowed to learn how to persuade their neighbors, though they could be taught all manner of practical knowledge. It does not matter what we know, if we are unable to convince others of what is right.

So, what did Stallman say?

A game scenario can be considered art/fiction rather than software. So it is okay to split the game into engine and scenario, then treat the engine as software and the scenario as art/fiction.

That's it and there's really no direct contradiction. The author claims that the story and art work should be covered by copyright law. That's a world different from saying it should be "non-free" as if the author has suddenly adopted the most Zealous stance of the Copyright Warrior. It does not have Richard Stallman claiming that copyright law, as it exists, is correct. The authors of the Creative Commons and the Free Documentation License are not suddenly endorsing "Digital Rights Management". All it says is that source code and pure art are different.

You are fundamentally confused when you ask:

according to stallman's views, should a graphics artist not be able to freely obtain the art of a game so he could modify it, without having to pay for it? after all, that is what he demands of software.

Source code has the ability to be far more restrictive than any previous form of artwork and applying those restrictions to art is a cultural dissaster. You already have the ability to quote graphics and other art work. You may indeed take someone else's image and modify it and present it as your own. You can do the same thing with a song too. No one can keep your from studying a painting and making one of your own. If you think otherwise, it is because people like Bill Gates have expanded and misapplied copyright laws to cover non human readable formats and perverted trademark to cover common words and phrases. The whole idea that you can't use even the smallest quote or part of someone else's work is absurd as someone owning "Word". If you think you don't have this ability, the copyright warriors own your soul.

From the essay:

It also assumes that people care how the software works and are willing and able to modify it.

No, what RMS is getting at does not assume this, it means appreciating that what we've got now came from pursuing these freedoms and not giving up on them in spite of technical limitations. If we all moved in the direction of focusing on technical innovation instead of freedom, we would not be able to maintain software freedom. We would drop free software, perhaps pick up the philosophy of the open source movement (which champions technical efficiency not software freedom) and then, ultimately, drop that too whenever a proprietor offered some technical advantage that software failed to deliver. Business gets behind "open source" because the term invites users to have warm fuzzy feelings and think that they are being nice, even if they're not offering software freedom (as some open source licenses do not offer software freedom). The open source movement got its start from the groundwork laid down by the free software movement.

Most car drivers aren't auto mechanics, but they benefit greatly from having a wealth of competing mechanics to choose from when their car doesn't do what it is supposed to do. That same principle applies here. Nationally, the US benefitted from a country of car tinkerers who later entered the military and used their technical smarts acquired in their garages to fight a world war. You, as a user who does not program, do not benefit when the details are kept from you as proprietary software keeps its real operation from users, because those operational details are also denied those who are more technically capable than you which means you cannot benefit from their wisdom, their bug fixes, and the improvements they write.

Most people aren't programmers, but most can do something well. Perhaps you can draw, compose music, write documentation, help debug by providing detailed reports of bugs, or something else. Many programs need skills programmers don't have, skills you might posess. You don't have to be a programmer to help improve the program in dramatic ways (easily understood documentation for novices is particularly needed). You will end up leveraging the freedoms of free software to provide this contribution because you will end up discussing something with someone who knows the program by studying its source code and sharing improvements.

[...] there is virtually no enforcement of these terms in the non-business portion of the software world.

Not too long ago Slashdot readers read of drug bust-style raids on people who copy DVDs without license. In another thread on Slashdot's front page right now, software copyright holders (particularly proprietary software copyright holders) are complaining that the DMCA doesn't give them enough power to bust the people illicitly sharing copies of their software. ISPs aren't withholding names because they're defending our privacy. They don't want to do the work it would take to meet all of the requests that would go to them. It seems to me as if it is a matter of time before more people get busted similarly for illicit distribution of software.

If I give my (fictional) copy of Microsoft Office to my friend, the FBI will not show up at my door to arrest me -- or at least I can find no evidence to suggest that this has happened to anyone.

Brad Kuhn of the Free Software Foundation addressed this point in his talk to the University of Illinois last year: (skip to 1h42m22s)

"The reason I'm completely against the copying and sharing of proprietary software without license is not because I think it's unethical, but because I think it hides the real harm that proprietary software licenses cause; because if yo

>>So long as you do not comingle GPL code with your own you are free to make use of it in your business and can even make some serious coin at it.

It's you who is ignorant my friend. What you're talking about is called LGPL, not GPL. GPL applies to linked code as well, which is what makes it unuseable.

I suggest you take the time to read up.

>>So long as you do not comingle GPL code with your own you are free to make use of it in your business and can even make some serious coin at it.

It's you who is ignorant my friend. What you're talking about is called LGPL, not GPL. GPL applies to linked code as well, which is what makes it unuseable.

I suggest you take the time to read up.

THere is also GNU Radio

Could you please explain what censorship is taking place here? Other than the obvious removal of illegally distributed content.

If this was to be implemented I don't see why it would only affect corporations and business entities. It would provide extra protection for GPL'd software copyright holders in the event of their copyright being infringed amongst others.

Without trying to get too windy, the reason this infringes on anyone's right, is because copyright was never meant to be like this. Copyright is there to protect the authors from someone else selling their re-produced works for profit. That is not what is currently happening. What is currently happening is our Fair Use rights are being taken away.

We need to look at the larger picture here, rather than just music and videos. This affects all forms of publication. Free access to information is what spawns innovation. It is what drives people to do more, to build upon someone else's idea and make it better.

You need to read Stallman's The Right to Read. Far fetched? Maybe. Possible? Most definitely.

Software in the public domain is, by definition, Free; so is BSD or GPL'd software. "We want to give away our work" people more often use the BSD rather than the GPL, actually. The primary motivation for using the BSD is that you want your software to be used, period. You use the GPL if you want your software to be used, but not abused. The particular license you use depends on what you want for the software you wrote. In any case, the 4 freedoms of Free Software all grant the user rights, like you said.

The point of the FSF folks is that "freedom to use software any way you want to" isn't really accepted as an inherent or Creator-given freedom right now. So we have the situation where the average EULA goes on restricting your freedoms for pages and pages of fine print. Do you read the entire license agreements for all the software you use? If so, I commend you; most people just click 'Accept' or 'Ok'. Many of them violate these agreements without realising it, because the licenses are just unreasonable. And so, to be called Free, software should have freedom 0.

This leads to the question of why software should be free at all. You should probably read the FSF philosphy pages for the most common arguments.

Their goal, it seems to me, has more to do with bringing down the tradition of property than it has with sharing their work. But they know that just standing up and saying "we want to abolish property" wouldn't fly...
Actually, they openly say that software should not be property. (See the essay "Why software should not have owners.") They do not claim that software should not have copyright holders; the FSF is a notable copyright holder itself. They feel that the institution of property as currently understood is valuable for physical objects, but not for software. If I own a chair, you cannot get one unless you either make a new one, or take mine away, leaving me chairless. On the other hand, if I have software, you can make yourself a copy for free; this does not harm me. The fact that there is no marginal cost associated with software production means that it is different from traditional property, and should be treated as such.

This is also why it upsets many people when the RIAA and MPAA call file-sharing theft. It's really copyright infringement; still illegal, but different from theft. On the other hand, 'Thief!' pushes emotional buttons; it's easier to get public opinion on your side than if you call them 'copyright infringers'.

There are many major differences between that and the M$ crack. The most important being:

1. The FSF did not hide anything. There were too many independent parties involved for them to be able to lie about any detail. M$ can say whatever M$ wants.
2. A local user was involved with the FSF crack. I doubt there was any relation at all with M$ from the people who cracked M$, in other words anyone could have done it.
3. The FSF ftp site was a repository that could easily be checked by the original developers and from previous GPG signed files and their MD5 sums. Microsoft's site was their holy of holies and I doubt anyone else had coppies that were not compromised or that could be compared as easily, but we will never really know by difference 1.

Please don't try to compare the Microsoft monoculture disaster to free software. You can't.

Such a company cannot use so much as a line of GPL code without legally binding themselves to commit suicide, hence for them GPL != free. For them, GPL is the most expensive thing in the world.

The GPL is free as in freedom not free as in beer. True, the company can't use GPL in their current bussiness model and nobody is forcing them to use it! Software companies managed to do their own coding even before free software became so widely known and used.

However, from your description I'd say that the company could perfectly well use a support bussiness model. Their primary clients are probably bussinesses (and not individuals) which usually want a support contract with their software. Software is (usually) sold only once, but support contracts continue as long as the software is used. The software also sounds like it sometimes needs per client customization: opening the source will enable the clients themselves to do these modifications, which improves the software and saves Qualystem the expense of making it theirselves (they could also charge for customizations the clients can't do themselves).

This is just another example, though. I know nothing of the actual company itself.

Nothing sucks more to basically being locked out of a free software project just because you don't happen to have the newest version of some proprietary software that is a important component in the toolchain.

this is what annoys the heck of me when people write GPL licensed java programs that depend on Sun's java runtime to run. And why RMS is so right to point out about the Java trap.

There's a great article called Can you trust your computer? written by Richard Stallman concerning initiatives like DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) and TC (Treacherous Computing).

It seems like a better tool for the job might be GNU Radio...

The .NET framework has a free implementation. The Java platform has a free implementation in the combination of GCJ, Kaffe, and GNU Classpath. Which is more complete in practice?

The .NET framework has a free implementation. The Java platform has a free implementation in the combination of GCJ, Kaffe, and GNU Classpath. Which is more complete in practice?

It's too bad people must be willing to use unfree software before they can use your free software.

It's too bad people must be willing to use unfree software before they can use your free software.

RMS answered the "communist" accusation in 1992's Why Software Should be Free, the section "Why don't you move to Russia?".

What was meant was that since the computer is such an important tool in our culture(s), that indeed a limitation of freedom in software can directly translate into a loss of personal freedom.

So in essence the freedoms are the same. Also, your own comment seems to refute your last sentence.

Check this out, might help. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

So now, is HURD so unimportant [...]

It's dead, Jim.

Well, their website has a decent amount of information about it. It's being actively developed and Debian is providing a binary distrobution of it right now. I don't know whole lot about it, but it seems like an interesting project.