Slashdot Mirror

Check out gcj. One of it's primary uses is targeting embedded systems. It's quite lean and mean for a Java runtime.

HTH.

There is some reason whey the FSF does not consider this license a Free Software license or GPL compatible, and I am sure it is not just because "it is a license that MS uses". The FSF has a pretty darn good lawyer/Professor of Law & Legal History named Eben Moglen, so I don't think the "it is a license that MS uses so we won't" argument will stick.

As others have pointed out, the FSF does consider the CPL a Free Software license, though not GPL compatible. In their words:

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.)

The correct link is here

this falls precisely into the Java trap. Please see RMS for details. This project while being "open source" requires a non-compatible runtime to be present.

That's how the (software) patent game works. It's virtually impossible to avoid violating patents due to the very nature of software. When challenged, the big guns go through their patent portfolio and can usually find something that the challenger violates in some way. Then, a cross licensing agreement is hammered out. Thus, the big fish are protected, but any small fry can't compete.

So, yes, everyone is guilty, but the IBM's of this world can weather the war just fine, while everyone else gets wiped out. In fact, the war is already in full swing and has simply become part of doing business.

I think RMS covers this in his speech The dangers of software patents.

This is the reason I keep wondering about whether or not this, that, or the other Java package can be compiled to native code with GCJ. If so, that should solve the overhead issues involved in calling up a JVM...

Imagine I add code to Apache that contains a patent I hold. Now, I wait a few years for it to become popular, and then start suing left, right and centre).

You can't do that under the GPL. By attempting it, you've given up your rights to distribute the software.

The GPL's wording on this is, IMHO poor. But the subtlety of the wording is very very important, and may provide better protection than the CPL... (which I haven't read)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. . . ."

The odd part about this is that 1. if you contribute the patented code and don't implicitly grant license to use it, you violate the GPL and are guilty of copyright infringement.

More interesting, and this is where it might beat the CPL (or at least your example), is in situations where somebody notices a patent violation in a GPL'd product which they didn't write, there is absolutely no way they can profit from exploiting the patent while simultaneously allowing the software to be distributed.

This is a double-edged sword, and, IMHO a very sharp one. There's no incentive to persue patents on GPL'd products... except to stop their distribution and hold the author of the patented system guilty of violating the GPL.

Now the patent holder might persue the author punatively, but the copyright holders will probably not care.

The GPL is tricky and subtle.

IANAL of course.

Think again

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.)

Agreed. The design philosophy of linux has always baffled me. The kernel is huge, and does much more than it should. It seems much more manageable if the kernel handles resource management, like allocating memory, disk operations, and scheduling. Everything else should be components built on top of the kernel.

Oh yes, the Hurd way. Hurd is an interesting concept, but I doubt it will ever be significant - Linux is eating it's potential users.

Or it could be some rather critical problems in Hurd, such as the inability to support partitions over 2 GB in size (not really a Hurd problem, just really stupid driver design - Hurd's file system drivers memorymap the entire partition, and since the address space of a 32-bit processor is just 4 GB...).

In any case, I doubt Linux had any real design philosophy behind it at the beginning, and when it had become significant enough to deserve one, it was too late to make fundamental changes to basic architechture.

But with Linux I have to recompile the kernel to get sound card X to work, because my distro didn't have the right #define. It doesn't make sense. Many computers don't even have a sound card, so what does that have to do with the kernel?

Some computers don't have hard disks either. And if they do, they could be IDE, SCSI or SATA drives (not to forget the old XT drives, still supported by the kernel :). As for what a sound card has to do with the kernel, it's simple: kernel's task is to control access to the hardware resources, and to provide a virtualization layer to hide the implementation details of that hardware from the applications. Kernel provides a virtual machine to the applications to run in.

Linux design principle seems to include every possible driver with the kernel. This makes sense, since the kernel-driver interface changes with almost every build, so you'd need to recompile any external drivers anyway.

And, ultimately, is there all that much difference between recompiling kernel and installing a driver ?

That's a misunderstanding. It's not about how you distribute it. It's about the technical aspects of library-linking.

The FSF is very clear on this matter, and their stance is that linking to a GPL-ed library constitutes a 'derived work' under the GPL, and thus the resulting executable must be GPL-licenced.

Merely running your code on Linux or using a GPL-ed interpreter to run your program does not constitute a 'derived work' under this definition.
Linus Torvalds himself has clearly delineated where this border is with the kernel: User space programs are not derived works, neither are kernel modules.

There is no legal significance in saying that something is a 'system requirement'.

To that end, we have the Lesser GPL, which would allow compiled applications themselves to be closed-source.

It's funny you mention readline, because I seem to recall there being some disagreement about it being GPL'd as opposed to LGPL'd. In the FSF's opinion on the subject, "releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline."

It is paradoxical here that the FSF dims their own light on behalf of their own greater good. In the case of readline, and I'm sure a possibly GPL'd java class library, is that when the license which inhibits adoption by closed-source folks who wish to develop in their own manner, these same closed-source folks will instead opt for a more restrictive/liberal alternative (depending on your point of view) that enables them to continue to do what they've been doing all along--develop closed-source software. This slows the overall adoption rate of open-source software.

Open-source seems to grow best when it's not forced down our throats or dangled in front of us like an unattainable carrot. The ideal solution should be to showcase the power of open-source in combination with the freedom to do what you want with it, including using it in closed-source. This greatly assists open-source's wide-scale adoption. Lao Tsu said it best: "Build your enemies a golden bridge to retreat across."

Look at GCC and friends--closed source software built on GPL'd and LGPL'd libraries released for open-source platforms such as Linux increases that platform's market share. Regardless of how you perceive Flash and RealPlayer1, they are both closed-source applications that help Linux be a better desktop OS because you can easily view a good chunk of the WWW with it without having to learn about swfdec or mplayer/xine, respectively. And people all over can move their IIS/Oracle/ASP application letter by letter to LAMP2--all because interoperability with the closed and open is possible.

In summary, let the open and the closed comingle, because the open will certainly prevail.

1. It should also be noted that once in the open-source world, people will be more prone to ditch those closed-source holdovers in favor of the aforementioned open-source (and many times superior) alternatives.

2. Substitute L for F, N, O, H, as applicable. The P can stand for whatever the hell you want--I'm not getting into that tonight. ;)

--sean

To that end, we have the Lesser GPL, which would allow compiled applications themselves to be closed-source.

It's funny you mention readline, because I seem to recall there being some disagreement about it being GPL'd as opposed to LGPL'd. In the FSF's opinion on the subject, "releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline."

It is paradoxical here that the FSF dims their own light on behalf of their own greater good. In the case of readline, and I'm sure a possibly GPL'd java class library, is that when the license which inhibits adoption by closed-source folks who wish to develop in their own manner, these same closed-source folks will instead opt for a more restrictive/liberal alternative (depending on your point of view) that enables them to continue to do what they've been doing all along--develop closed-source software. This slows the overall adoption rate of open-source software.

Open-source seems to grow best when it's not forced down our throats or dangled in front of us like an unattainable carrot. The ideal solution should be to showcase the power of open-source in combination with the freedom to do what you want with it, including using it in closed-source. This greatly assists open-source's wide-scale adoption. Lao Tsu said it best: "Build your enemies a golden bridge to retreat across."

Look at GCC and friends--closed source software built on GPL'd and LGPL'd libraries released for open-source platforms such as Linux increases that platform's market share. Regardless of how you perceive Flash and RealPlayer1, they are both closed-source applications that help Linux be a better desktop OS because you can easily view a good chunk of the WWW with it without having to learn about swfdec or mplayer/xine, respectively. And people all over can move their IIS/Oracle/ASP application letter by letter to LAMP2--all because interoperability with the closed and open is possible.

In summary, let the open and the closed comingle, because the open will certainly prevail.

1. It should also be noted that once in the open-source world, people will be more prone to ditch those closed-source holdovers in favor of the aforementioned open-source (and many times superior) alternatives.

2. Substitute L for F, N, O, H, as applicable. The P can stand for whatever the hell you want--I'm not getting into that tonight. ;)

--sean

TeX has always been a darling of the open-source community, but this is despite the fact that it's not actually copylefted.

Lots of open-source software isn't copylefted. For example, X11. See "What Is Copyleft"

So why is Java so often spoken of with disdain?

The problem is not that it's not copylefted; the problem is that it's not Open Source! Or rather, Sun's implementation isn't. Free implementations exist, but they yet to catch up with the full Java standard. Lots of software will only run on proprietary JVMs.

Consider the BitTorrent client Azureus. It is GPLd, but in practice it only runs with Sun's JVM. If you want to run it, you must first sacrifice your freedom by accepting Sun's Java license. The package as a whole is non-free, and contributing third-party code from another GPL project could land you in court.

This legal minefield has hindered Java's adoption in the Free Software universe.

The GNURadio project has a HDTV implementation which AFAIK is grandfathered, and can *IGNORE* the broadcast flag. Hardware for GNURadio continues to be developed and prices for the high-speed electronics required continue to fall.

Well, there's always this, but I don't know what's happened in the past year or so...

Sounds like a job for Gnu Radio...who needs a hardcoded tuner anyway!

even if personal/ power tiffs were going on

Thats to be expected with pretty much any project I think.

Hope that's a useful datapoint

Very. I'd cringe if I had to use Bitkeeper too. I guess I'm on the do-not-sell list now too. ;)

Do you mean this message? Or did you flame them on their own list?

P.S. I think that was supposed to be http://www.soulsound.net/, not http://www.souldound.net/.

arch tutorial

If you distribute MyApp it must be under the GPL regardless of whether you have made changes to LibFoo. Well, at least if linking is considered to be "combining two modules into one program". See the GPL FAQ, and specifically this.

According to the GPL FAQ even dynamically linking proprietary code with GPL code is not allowed. See in particular GPL and plugins, Mere Aggregation, and Windows Runtime and GPL.

According to the GPL FAQ even dynamically linking proprietary code with GPL code is not allowed. See in particular GPL and plugins, Mere Aggregation, and Windows Runtime and GPL.

According to the GPL FAQ even dynamically linking proprietary code with GPL code is not allowed. See in particular GPL and plugins, Mere Aggregation, and Windows Runtime and GPL.

According to the GPL FAQ even dynamically linking proprietary code with GPL code is not allowed. See in particular GPL and plugins, Mere Aggregation, and Windows Runtime and GPL.

RMS gives very interesting and informative talks on software patents from time to time. Recently I went to such a speech and discovered how rewarding it can be for people who want to understand better the problem with patents. (I wrote some info on my blog). People who are interested on these subjects should have a look at FSF website.

EU should never allow any kind of software patents. Such mistake would destroy the software economy and force small or mid-sized companies to spend more on legal costs rather than software research and development. Also, the patents will not protect small businesses from hungry MegaCorps (tm): These laws are made for MegaCorps, not for protecting innovation. Inventors and programmers do not want and do not need software patents; without public domain stuff you cannot build or invent something new.

I don't agree with this argument, but will try to explain how some people could.

In my book, "distribution" means: passing copies around. In that context, what's the difference between selling or leasing a device?

You are correct about "distribute". Techincally, if you pass out something to several people, you have distributed it, regardless of whether you were conferring ownership to them, or if you expect them to give the stuff back next week.

However, in certain specific legal situations (such as executing a will), "distribute" can mean confer ownership. If that definition held regarding the GPL, then anyone who rented out software for a limited time could claim the recipient has no right to ask for source code, as it hasn't been "distributed". That would be wrong, but it could take a lawsuit to prove it.

Did you take your Free Software licensing quiz today?

Not everything on those webpages is correct. In particular, they sometimes (erroneously) use a different definition of "distribute" than you just did. On FAQ claims that using a program throughout a large organization is not distribution, when obviously that can't happen without someone "passing copies around".

They should remove that FAQ, because if it were actually true, the GPL would have a loophole so large as to be essentially PD.

I don't agree with this argument, but will try to explain how some people could.

In my book, "distribution" means: passing copies around. In that context, what's the difference between selling or leasing a device?

You are correct about "distribute". Techincally, if you pass out something to several people, you have distributed it, regardless of whether you were conferring ownership to them, or if you expect them to give the stuff back next week.

However, in certain specific legal situations (such as executing a will), "distribute" can mean confer ownership. If that definition held regarding the GPL, then anyone who rented out software for a limited time could claim the recipient has no right to ask for source code, as it hasn't been "distributed". That would be wrong, but it could take a lawsuit to prove it.

Did you take your Free Software licensing quiz today?

Not everything on those webpages is correct. In particular, they sometimes (erroneously) use a different definition of "distribute" than you just did. On FAQ claims that using a program throughout a large organization is not distribution, when obviously that can't happen without someone "passing copies around".

They should remove that FAQ, because if it were actually true, the GPL would have a loophole so large as to be essentially PD.

If it's "GPL-style", it's not the GPL, and exact license terms may be different.

..that if they get a request for the source from those who they distribute to...they have to fork the changes over to that group or person. If not, they don't have to; not just anyone can demand the source -- the recipients have to.

In case of the GPL: I learned just today, that what you wrote, isn't true. Section 2b of the GPL states: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License". So basically, if you distribute the program (to buyers of a device with the binary inside) you have to make the source available (to anyone who asks). I'm not sure if "all third parties" means: "anybody" or "any user of the program", but it's clearly not limited to "buyers of that device". Ofcourse, this only applies if you are distributing the program. As long as it's just sitting on your desk, nobody can demand anything from you.

Theoretically, if the same device is leased they would not have to distribute the source also...though I'd like to hear a counter argument.

In my book, "distribution" means: passing copies around. In that context, what's the difference between selling or leasing a device?

Did you take your Free Software licensing quiz today?

If it's "GPL-style", it's not the GPL, and exact license terms may be different.

..that if they get a request for the source from those who they distribute to...they have to fork the changes over to that group or person. If not, they don't have to; not just anyone can demand the source -- the recipients have to.

In case of the GPL: I learned just today, that what you wrote, isn't true. Section 2b of the GPL states: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License". So basically, if you distribute the program (to buyers of a device with the binary inside) you have to make the source available (to anyone who asks). I'm not sure if "all third parties" means: "anybody" or "any user of the program", but it's clearly not limited to "buyers of that device". Ofcourse, this only applies if you are distributing the program. As long as it's just sitting on your desk, nobody can demand anything from you.

Theoretically, if the same device is leased they would not have to distribute the source also...though I'd like to hear a counter argument.

In my book, "distribution" means: passing copies around. In that context, what's the difference between selling or leasing a device?

Did you take your Free Software licensing quiz today?

I know at least one very sharp businessman who explained to me how he carefully made sure the proprietary code in his system would only be dynamically linked to the GPL-protected code. If he left things statically linked, he would be legally bound to release all of his code and his investors wouldn't allow that.

Hmmm, according to my reading of the GPL FAQ, even dynamically linking creates a derivative work, and thus all of the code would need to be under the GPL. No?

No X = less drag and better security.

Did you take your Free Software licensing quiz today?

R is like SPLUS. If you _must_ have SPSS, look into PSPP.

I'm building the latest on all of my clients' mail exchangers and our primary boxen. ;)

Here's the command to install/upgrade 3.0 via CPAN:

# perl -MCPAN -e shell;
cpan > install Mail::SpamAssassin

(many lines, type in the administrator's e-mail address, say no to network tests)

exit

#

Very difficult stuff. :) Keep up the good work.

Oh! Some link whoring as well:

SpamAssassin Milter for Sendmail - Filters everyone without procmail

SpamAssassin Milter Quarantine - Quarantines spam messages and sends summaries in digest for 1 or more times daily rather than simply delivering to the end user.

How about a script that produces a random anticopyright story, such as The Right to Read or Melancholy Elephants. I'm certain RMS wouldn't object, as long as you stick the license text on the end; I doubt Spider Robinson would object either, given the nature of the story.

Things licensed as Open Source do better on "just the facts" vs hype. Maybe it's because their audiences would take them to task if they did otherwise, but description of things such as GCC, Wikipedia , the Linux kernel, the GIMP, to name just a few, are completely factual. Not entirely free of marketing but tolerable are the Linux site's description of Linux, OpenSSH, bzip2, Project Gutenberg, and an XWindows organization X.org.

Particularly note Wikipedia and Google. The description of Wikipedia was made and chosen by the users. I can't think of a better testament that what users really want is just the facts. And Google understood that the last thing a person wants to do when anxious to find something quick is be forced to wait for a bunch of pointless graphics and generic ads to load. Really aggravating when on dial-up. Before Google, I got to where I knew just when to hit the stop button when loading Yahoo's main search page so I'd get the text input line and search button and miss all the extra crap they used to put on their main page.

Of course open source isn't totally above marketing. FreeBSD, Mozilla Firefox, KDE, Apache, OpenOffice all lay it on. They can point to all kinds of statistics to justify their hype, but the hype is still irritating when it catches my attention. These are easy to accept in spite of the marketspeak because I've heard from elsewhere that they're good.

Bad though some of those are, Microsoft is worse. Maybe what MS does should be called extreme marketing? In a few moments of searching, I was unable to find even a badly overblown description of just what Windows XP or MS Office is and during the search was wading through hype about MS's latest whatever: "Try the new digital music experience from Microsoft. You'll love it!"

As for throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I will spend a little time trying not to do that, but when it does happen I hope it clues the promoters in to realizing they made the waters too murky. Accepting something in spite of murk is not the way to persuade them to clean up. I like to tell them about it too. You never know when commentary might actually be heeded. I'm sorry if a good thing gets short shrift, but when time is limited, books will be judged by covers. People are often asked to try to word emails so spam filters will pass them. I feel I'm not asking too much of marketing to do the analogous.

By default in the US, no, because compilation of a computer program is preparation of a derivative work. Of course, this depends largely on what the client agrees to and what is covered in copyright law there (which can vary, despite how widely the US is able to export its copyright regime around the world via so-called "free trade" agreements). I'm guessing that Microsoft isn't going to allow anyone to share or modify the source code, or prepare derivative works from that source code.

In other words, it's still not free software and it would not benefit anyone (whether you are an individual programmer, would-be programmer, or representative of a government) to look at it lest they be accused of infringing upon Microsoft's copyright in the future.

"Property" . . . there's an interesting word with a very precise definition, "Stealing" is another one. Yet again we have a post which insists that copyright infringement is the same as "stealing property".

I believe it is time for the entire Slashdot community to stop laughing at Richard Stallman becuase he has been "bitching" about avoiding the term of "intellectual property" for bloody decades. It is not unlike The Right to Read when back in February 1997 all of us were foolishly laughing how ridiculously paranoid that essay was, and now we are all screaming bloody murder and wetting out pants because suddenly we have DMCA. Such a moronic behaviour only makes us look like idiots. Maybe this is time to stop and think about it.

"Property" . . . there's an interesting word with a very precise definition, "Stealing" is another one. Yet again we have a post which insists that copyright infringement is the same as "stealing property".

I believe it is time for the entire Slashdot community to stop laughing at Richard Stallman becuase he has been "bitching" about avoiding the term of "intellectual property" for bloody decades. It is not unlike The Right to Read when back in February 1997 all of us were foolishly laughing how ridiculously paranoid that essay was, and now we are all screaming bloody murder and wetting out pants because suddenly we have DMCA. Such a moronic behaviour only makes us look like idiots. Maybe this is time to stop and think about it.

gfortran is coming along nicely. http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran

Actually, there is not GCC-3.5 snapshot in this ftp.

open4free ©

Quoting the article:

GCC is, of course, released under the GNU Public License, and I own a commercial license for the Intel compiler.

Actually, the name of the license is the GNU General Public License. It is "General" because when the GNU project began there was no single license used throughout the project; .

[...] while GCC has not quite reached the performance of its commercial competitor [...]

GCC can be commercial too -- many firms distribute copies of GCC for a fee. I believe the author should have said "proprietary" meaning that what the Intel compiler program does, exactly, is secret. As RMS said when describing a proprietary web video streaming application he didn't want MIT to use to distribute a feed of his talk on copyright and globalization:

"What it does is secret. You can't study it; you can't change it; and you certainly can't publish it in your own modified version. And those are among the freedoms that are essential in the definition of "free software."

GCC, by contrast, is free software licensed under the GNU General Public License. Getting back to the article:

These "coyote" benchmarks provide an excellent example of the advantages of "open" software development.

Here I don't think "open" was the best choice of words, I think "free" would have been more accurate. The GNU Compiler Collection was originally the GNU C Compiler and first written by RMS. I guarantee you that RMS did not and does not now do work for the open source movement. He makes effort to make that point clear (like when he corrected Mike Uretsky who made the same mistake). The FSF asks you not to lump their work in with the work of the open source movement. Eben Moglen spoke at Harvard some months ago and also made this distinction. Prof. Moglen makes it clear why they are so adamant on this point:

"We need to keep reminding people that what's at stake here is free speech. We need to keep reminding people that what we're doing is trying to keep the freedom of ideas in the 21st century, in a world where there are guys with little paste-it labels with price tags on it who would stick it on every idea on earth if it would make value for the shareholders. And what we have to do is to continue to reinforce the recognition that free speech in a technological society means technological free speech. I think we can do that. I think that's a deliverable message."

I don't think he's overstating the case.

Finally, there's a common misunderstood myth repeated in the end of the article:

"Choice" is the key word here -- choice is good, be it in democracy or software. Intel provides a useful alternative to GCC for development on ia32 systems. One compiler might have a great environment for developing GUI code; another compiler might generate fast code. GPL-like freedom may be important -- or not -- as individual circumstances dictate.

Many people believe this, I've even heard a variant of this myth being repeated by a representative of the Mozilla Foundation. Choice is no substitute for software freedom, in fact they speak to different aims entirely and in computer software choice is not as important as software freedom. If all we have are three web browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Opera) choice is satisfied. B

Quoting the article:

GCC is, of course, released under the GNU Public License, and I own a commercial license for the Intel compiler.

Actually, the name of the license is the GNU General Public License. It is "General" because when the GNU project began there was no single license used throughout the project; .

[...] while GCC has not quite reached the performance of its commercial competitor [...]

GCC can be commercial too -- many firms distribute copies of GCC for a fee. I believe the author should have said "proprietary" meaning that what the Intel compiler program does, exactly, is secret. As RMS said when describing a proprietary web video streaming application he didn't want MIT to use to distribute a feed of his talk on copyright and globalization:

"What it does is secret. You can't study it; you can't change it; and you certainly can't publish it in your own modified version. And those are among the freedoms that are essential in the definition of "free software."

GCC, by contrast, is free software licensed under the GNU General Public License. Getting back to the article:

These "coyote" benchmarks provide an excellent example of the advantages of "open" software development.

Here I don't think "open" was the best choice of words, I think "free" would have been more accurate. The GNU Compiler Collection was originally the GNU C Compiler and first written by RMS. I guarantee you that RMS did not and does not now do work for the open source movement. He makes effort to make that point clear (like when he corrected Mike Uretsky who made the same mistake). The FSF asks you not to lump their work in with the work of the open source movement. Eben Moglen spoke at Harvard some months ago and also made this distinction. Prof. Moglen makes it clear why they are so adamant on this point:

"We need to keep reminding people that what's at stake here is free speech. We need to keep reminding people that what we're doing is trying to keep the freedom of ideas in the 21st century, in a world where there are guys with little paste-it labels with price tags on it who would stick it on every idea on earth if it would make value for the shareholders. And what we have to do is to continue to reinforce the recognition that free speech in a technological society means technological free speech. I think we can do that. I think that's a deliverable message."

I don't think he's overstating the case.

Finally, there's a common misunderstood myth repeated in the end of the article:

"Choice" is the key word here -- choice is good, be it in democracy or software. Intel provides a useful alternative to GCC for development on ia32 systems. One compiler might have a great environment for developing GUI code; another compiler might generate fast code. GPL-like freedom may be important -- or not -- as individual circumstances dictate.

Many people believe this, I've even heard a variant of this myth being repeated by a representative of the Mozilla Foundation. Choice is no substitute for software freedom, in fact they speak to different aims entirely and in computer software choice is not as important as software freedom. If all we have are three web browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Opera) choice is satisfied. B

Quoting the article:

GCC is, of course, released under the GNU Public License, and I own a commercial license for the Intel compiler.

Actually, the name of the license is the GNU General Public License. It is "General" because when the GNU project began there was no single license used throughout the project; .

[...] while GCC has not quite reached the performance of its commercial competitor [...]

GCC can be commercial too -- many firms distribute copies of GCC for a fee. I believe the author should have said "proprietary" meaning that what the Intel compiler program does, exactly, is secret. As RMS said when describing a proprietary web video streaming application he didn't want MIT to use to distribute a feed of his talk on copyright and globalization:

"What it does is secret. You can't study it; you can't change it; and you certainly can't publish it in your own modified version. And those are among the freedoms that are essential in the definition of "free software."

GCC, by contrast, is free software licensed under the GNU General Public License. Getting back to the article:

These "coyote" benchmarks provide an excellent example of the advantages of "open" software development.

Here I don't think "open" was the best choice of words, I think "free" would have been more accurate. The GNU Compiler Collection was originally the GNU C Compiler and first written by RMS. I guarantee you that RMS did not and does not now do work for the open source movement. He makes effort to make that point clear (like when he corrected Mike Uretsky who made the same mistake). The FSF asks you not to lump their work in with the work of the open source movement. Eben Moglen spoke at Harvard some months ago and also made this distinction. Prof. Moglen makes it clear why they are so adamant on this point:

"We need to keep reminding people that what's at stake here is free speech. We need to keep reminding people that what we're doing is trying to keep the freedom of ideas in the 21st century, in a world where there are guys with little paste-it labels with price tags on it who would stick it on every idea on earth if it would make value for the shareholders. And what we have to do is to continue to reinforce the recognition that free speech in a technological society means technological free speech. I think we can do that. I think that's a deliverable message."

I don't think he's overstating the case.

Finally, there's a common misunderstood myth repeated in the end of the article:

"Choice" is the key word here -- choice is good, be it in democracy or software. Intel provides a useful alternative to GCC for development on ia32 systems. One compiler might have a great environment for developing GUI code; another compiler might generate fast code. GPL-like freedom may be important -- or not -- as individual circumstances dictate.

Many people believe this, I've even heard a variant of this myth being repeated by a representative of the Mozilla Foundation. Choice is no substitute for software freedom, in fact they speak to different aims entirely and in computer software choice is not as important as software freedom. If all we have are three web browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Opera) choice is satisfied. B

Quoting the article:

GCC is, of course, released under the GNU Public License, and I own a commercial license for the Intel compiler.

Actually, the name of the license is the GNU General Public License. It is "General" because when the GNU project began there was no single license used throughout the project; .

[...] while GCC has not quite reached the performance of its commercial competitor [...]

GCC can be commercial too -- many firms distribute copies of GCC for a fee. I believe the author should have said "proprietary" meaning that what the Intel compiler program does, exactly, is secret. As RMS said when describing a proprietary web video streaming application he didn't want MIT to use to distribute a feed of his talk on copyright and globalization:

"What it does is secret. You can't study it; you can't change it; and you certainly can't publish it in your own modified version. And those are among the freedoms that are essential in the definition of "free software."

GCC, by contrast, is free software licensed under the GNU General Public License. Getting back to the article:

These "coyote" benchmarks provide an excellent example of the advantages of "open" software development.

Here I don't think "open" was the best choice of words, I think "free" would have been more accurate. The GNU Compiler Collection was originally the GNU C Compiler and first written by RMS. I guarantee you that RMS did not and does not now do work for the open source movement. He makes effort to make that point clear (like when he corrected Mike Uretsky who made the same mistake). The FSF asks you not to lump their work in with the work of the open source movement. Eben Moglen spoke at Harvard some months ago and also made this distinction. Prof. Moglen makes it clear why they are so adamant on this point:

"We need to keep reminding people that what's at stake here is free speech. We need to keep reminding people that what we're doing is trying to keep the freedom of ideas in the 21st century, in a world where there are guys with little paste-it labels with price tags on it who would stick it on every idea on earth if it would make value for the shareholders. And what we have to do is to continue to reinforce the recognition that free speech in a technological society means technological free speech. I think we can do that. I think that's a deliverable message."

I don't think he's overstating the case.

Finally, there's a common misunderstood myth repeated in the end of the article:

"Choice" is the key word here -- choice is good, be it in democracy or software. Intel provides a useful alternative to GCC for development on ia32 systems. One compiler might have a great environment for developing GUI code; another compiler might generate fast code. GPL-like freedom may be important -- or not -- as individual circumstances dictate.

Many people believe this, I've even heard a variant of this myth being repeated by a representative of the Mozilla Foundation. Choice is no substitute for software freedom, in fact they speak to different aims entirely and in computer software choice is not as important as software freedom. If all we have are three web browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Opera) choice is satisfied. B

Who said there are only 2 compilers? He only tested 2, that's all. Here's a bit of a list - and notice that some of these are targeted specifically to scientific computing:

1. GCC
2. Intel compiler (Intel only)
3. Comeau
4. PathScale (Opteron only)
5. Portland Group (PGI)
6. Borland

The current version of GCC is 3.4.2, and the next planned version will be called 4.0.0
More info on the GCC site

If the code in question was derived from a GPL project, it doesn't matter if he distributes it or not; it's GPL, period.

I retract my previous comment :). Confusing stuff.

Correct, but it would be a mistake to propose a replacement of the language for another (and throwing away a lot of valuable experience) just because it is commonly misused. If the language is not fundamentally flawed, then the answer might be to find a better implementation of it. GCC, for example, optionally supports bounds-checking for both heap and stack objects.