Slashdot Mirror

Please consider these links, then:

Regarding GNUTella

"The Free Software Foundation is concerned with the freedom to copy and change software; music is outside our scope. But there is a partial similarity in the ethical issues of copying software and copying recordings of music. Some articles in the philosophy directory relate to the issue of copying for things other than software. Some of the other people's articles we have links to are also relevant.

"No matter what sort of published information is being shared, we urge people to reject the assumption that some person or company has a natural right to prohibit sharing and dictate exactly how the public can use it. Even the US legal system nominally rejects that anti-social idea."

Selling Free Software

"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

"Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."

The Street Performer Protocol

"The artist offers to continue producing their freely-available creations so long as they keep getting enough money in donations to make it worth their while to do so."

Hopefully these links will provide you some food for thought about the 'party line' on how "liber" books and pieces of artwork could work out economically, tavarich. Except that few people bother to think such things through these days, do they?

Please consider these links, then:

Regarding GNUTella

"The Free Software Foundation is concerned with the freedom to copy and change software; music is outside our scope. But there is a partial similarity in the ethical issues of copying software and copying recordings of music. Some articles in the philosophy directory relate to the issue of copying for things other than software. Some of the other people's articles we have links to are also relevant.

"No matter what sort of published information is being shared, we urge people to reject the assumption that some person or company has a natural right to prohibit sharing and dictate exactly how the public can use it. Even the US legal system nominally rejects that anti-social idea."

Selling Free Software

"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

"Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."

The Street Performer Protocol

"The artist offers to continue producing their freely-available creations so long as they keep getting enough money in donations to make it worth their while to do so."

Hopefully these links will provide you some food for thought about the 'party line' on how "liber" books and pieces of artwork could work out economically, tavarich. Except that few people bother to think such things through these days, do they?

In light of the exceptional (and continued) success of the Open-Source Software model as well as the proliferation of peer-to-peer networks, I would like to get Slashdot readers' opinions on how a similar fledgling model is being applied to ideas, inventions, and patents. Particularly, I am interested in how advances in 3D and circuit board printers could lead to the 'Napsterization' of commercial products.

We have all had our own version of the Jump to Conclusions mat which never saw the light of day due to our own time and resource commitments. What if implementing that idea were as easy as contributing to an open source project. Ok, what if it were almost that easy?

My reasoning is this: I have noticed a recent rise in "open idea" sites such as Half Bakery, SlipHead, and Should Exist. These sites all have one common theme: put your idea out in a public discussion forum for others to enjoy, contemplate, and critique. My thoughts are that this methodology, coupled with the growing ease of desktop manufacturing, has a potential to revolutionize the way new concepts are created and developed. It also has potentially profound effects on procuring patents, business practices, and intellectual property in general. The question then is: How can these open ideologies and development processes excel within a predominately capitalistic society?

What are your thoughts?

``Intellectual property''
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''

The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)

If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.

``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.

Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.

According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US. See http://www.wipout.net/ for a counter-WIPO campaign.

The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make WIPO embarassed.

``Intellectual property''
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''

The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)

If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.

``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.

Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.

According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US. See http://www.wipout.net/ for a counter-WIPO campaign.

The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make WIPO embarassed.

The old/original BSD license had 4 `clauses' of which one required you to mention Berkeley in any advertising/documentation for the end product. This `advertising clause' was, as you might imagine, not only a huge practical problem, but incompatible with the GPL.

The revised BSD license -- which almost all current `BSD licensed' software uses -- deleted the advertising clause, removing the conflict with the GPL.

The old/original BSD license had 4 `clauses' of which one required you to mention Berkeley in any advertising/documentation for the end product. This `advertising clause' was, as you might imagine, not only a huge practical problem, but incompatible with the GPL.

The revised BSD license -- which almost all current `BSD licensed' software uses -- deleted the advertising clause, removing the conflict with the GPL.

Horrors.

I'm not sure, but I think the Apache 2.0 license has been revised further to make it more clear that it is GNU GPL compatible

Unfortunately not. Instead of fixing the problem, the Apache group made a public statement to say that the incompatibility doesn't exist. - The problem arose from the press release of the Apache License-2.0, in which they gave "GPL compatibility" as a justification for the new license. Note that if you combine a GPL'd and an APL'd work, it's the GPL'd works license that is infringed, so the decision isn't up to the Apache group. The Apache guys might need a good clothes line.

From FSF's license list: The Apache Software License, version 2.0: This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Xouvert is dead. If you don't believe me check their mailing lists.

As much as I'd like to commiserate, there simply isn't enough detail on what the problems are which makes it difficult for anyone to help. But Ballmer reveals more than is probably healthy for Microsoft here:

"The people who are making political decisions instead of business decisions, we're going to lose some," said Ballmer. "The people who are making business decisions based on where are the applications, what is the value, what is the lowest cost of ownership, we're not losing them.

"For us, anything that becomes a political issue, nobody wins them all on merit."

However, this is a compelling reason to stand on the side of free software for freedom, rather than low price (and this, again, is one reason why "free software" trumps "open source"). Low price may get people's attention, but sometimes unexpected expenses come up and what will keep people around (such as the Chinese government as mentioned in the article) in the long term is software freedom--being able to inspect, share, and modify the software. When you base your decision on software freedom, software proprietors simply can't compete no matter how much they mark down the cost of their software. They know that and that is where free software can win. Technical merit can be had with enough time and effort, and low price is a side effect of software freedom. But the freedom itself, by definition, is not something you can get from any proprietor. The free software community does themselves a disservice by not teaching people about software freedom.

Yes, I'm aware SCO has sued folks, and that Stallman has not. That is the way their claims differ. They are similar in that SCO claims that any system based on Unix must necessarily be Unix; Stallman claims that any system including GNU utilities and such is the GNU system, and should be named as such.

Don't believe me? Check out this excerpt from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html:

Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are free software.

Stallman claims this even though the authors of the software in question may not want their software to be considered part of the GNU system, just as IBM doesn't wantJFS to be considered part of SCO's Unix.

Hmm, I don't think so: Debian News mentions a Debian package being faster thanks to O2 instead of O3. Now this has nothing to do with Gentoo as a distro, but are you aware of the best settings for every package you install?

No, I'm not aware of the best settings for every package I install; neither are you or anyone else for that matter. But I am aware that a good compiler + good compile options + prelinking can yield faster performance on the average. That is what Gentoo offers.

Also, quite a lot of distributions compile for >= 586

Great! The more the merrier. However, as a binary distro becomes more mainstream, optimizations become less and less of a option (especially for commercial distros where support costs are a real concern). GCC allows for some fairly fine grained compile options, if that is your choice. That is the main strength of Gentoo; a user has as much choice and freedom to tweek the software as (s)he wants.

If my understand is correct, some of the guys from the GNU Radio Project have developed a USB based software radio device that works with in linux. It is called the Universal Software Radio Peripheral. I think the first prototypes have shipped. The cost is pretty close to your price range. You can see it in action running an oscope program here. And of course it can be extended to do many more exciting things.

They specifically don't want software to be owned. Software that is not owned is in the public domain. Therefore they desire software to be in the public domain. Maybe not in the present, but eventually.

Free speech is not absolute. And not all freedoms are deemed equal (some conflict). As Brad Kuhn and RMS have pointed out in their talks, your freedom to drive your car on the sidewalk is not deemed as valuable as my freedom to walk down that sidewalk safely (sadly, I don't know of a transcript of Kuhn's talk about how he came to free software or else I would cite the exact language). So, in copylefted free software licenses (such as the GNU GPL), one is prohibited from placing restrictions on the freedoms the license grants to licensees. The FSF argues that it is necessary to place these restrictions on licensees in order to grant these freedoms for derivative works and thus grant more important freedoms to a wider audience.

One thing that needs to be said is that this is worth millions of dollars in free publicity for IBM. There are many programmers who, before IBM started supporting Open Source, would not have considered working for IBM.

I'm not saying that IBM is asking for Java to be Open Source because of publicity. But that support has a wonderful side-effect for the company.

It's great to have a large organization like IBM that can use its voice to do something that has long been needed. The world needs better GUI support for Java.

We need true native Java compilers, so that it is not easy to de-compile Java, as it is now. (I get the impression that GCJ merely makes calls to libgcj, as the home page says, and is therefore easy to decompile. Does anyone know if that is true?) Business logic is very easy to steal through de-compilation.

You selling software is morally wrong, according to RMS.

And your support for this statement is where, exactly? You've provided the URL to an interview that doesn't seem to back up your assertion and then not clarified precisely what statement RMS made that backs up what you claim he said.

The closest thing I could find in that interview to backing up your statement is:

[Q:] Is it your belief that "high-paying organizations" (i.e. proprietary software vendors) should be banned?

[RMS:] I would not ban high salaries, but I think they should have a high tax bracket. As for making software proprietary, I really don't care whether it is legal as long as in practice it is rare enough to have no significant impact on society.

This does not support your statement and it looks like you don't really understand what RMS means when he refers to proprietary software. He is not against commercial software, he is against proprietary software.

You selling software is morally wrong, according to RMS.

And your support for this statement is where, exactly? You've provided the URL to an interview that doesn't seem to back up your assertion and then not clarified precisely what statement RMS made that backs up what you claim he said.

The closest thing I could find in that interview to backing up your statement is:

[Q:] Is it your belief that "high-paying organizations" (i.e. proprietary software vendors) should be banned?

[RMS:] I would not ban high salaries, but I think they should have a high tax bracket. As for making software proprietary, I really don't care whether it is legal as long as in practice it is rare enough to have no significant impact on society.

This does not support your statement and it looks like you don't really understand what RMS means when he refers to proprietary software. He is not against commercial software, he is against proprietary software.

Free Software

What you're actually describing is copylefted software.

Open Source

Here you're actually describing non-copylefted free software.

Probably the best sources of information are the categories of software listing from the FSF, and the Open Source definition from the OSI.

In practical terms, Open Source is free software, the distinction has to do with the goals and priorities of the respective movements.

Free Software

What you're actually describing is copylefted software.

Open Source

Here you're actually describing non-copylefted free software.

Probably the best sources of information are the categories of software listing from the FSF, and the Open Source definition from the OSI.

In practical terms, Open Source is free software, the distinction has to do with the goals and priorities of the respective movements.

The FSF has written an essay to clarify this point. I think it is one of their most underrated essays. This essay has been published by the FSF for years now and is also in RMS' book of selected essays "Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman". Please notice how different this essay is from what the Open Source Initiative says about the free software movement (in case you don't already know, the OSI reduces the free software movement, from which it sprang, to "ideological tub-thumping").

The FSF has written an essay to clarify this point. I think it is one of their most underrated essays. This essay has been published by the FSF for years now and is also in RMS' book of selected essays "Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman". Please notice how different this essay is from what the Open Source Initiative says about the free software movement (in case you don't already know, the OSI reduces the free software movement, from which it sprang, to "ideological tub-thumping").

The FSF can do that much better than me. They have very interesting articles in their philosophy section. They even have some audio and video material.

The FSF can do that much better than me. They have very interesting articles in their philosophy section. They even have some audio and video material.

I wish you had produced this article rather than related it with what appears to be your failing memory. In addition to the other essays others have already pointed to, I direct your attention to the notes on the use of the term "intellectual property" or "IP". This term is bad, and Stallman misses no opportunity to say as much in his talks, because it conflates a lot of different areas of law (copyright, trademark, patent, just to name a few) and presents them as though they were one cohesive set of laws with a common ground. They are anything but that. The term also prejudices one's thinking to cut short the discussion on how these laws should be thought of--property is one possible way to think about them (not a particularly accurate way), not the only way.

If you understood Stallman's motivation and logic as well as you say you do, you would know this too. Your post is highly overrated and I hope it is moderated down.

Now this gets interesting: if SCO continues to distributed NMAP will the FSF start filing lawsuits?

Unless the FSF holds the copyright to nmap (or had it assigned to them), they have no legal standing with which to sue, as it's not their code being used in contradiction of the license.

This is why the FSF wants people to assign copyright to them for any contribution to FSF projects; it makes their recordkeeping and paperwork easier in case something like this happens.

Jay (=

I have enough trouble getting my boss to distinguish b/t "open source" and "shareware". Throwing "free software" into the mix is going to hurt corporate adoption, not help civil liberties.

The thing that Bruce Perens, etc., understand that Stallman does not is "branding". "Open Source" is a distinct, brandable term. It has successfully fought off imitation brands like Microsoft's "Shared Source" concept. It even has a crisp, compact logo. The FSF does not understand this game, and they can't seem to produce a brand name w/o botching it up with recursive algorithms ("HURD"), semantic ambiguitiy ("free software"), or phonetic confusion ("GNU"). And their logo sprawls all over the place.

Furthermore, the FSF appears to have a touch of NIH syndrome ("not invented here"). Stallman tries to draw a distinction b/t the terms "free software" and "open source", but they mean the same thing, practically speaking. Why hair-split the semantics when you could present a unified, prepackaged concept to the world?

Sigh... enough ranting. I just want to see FSF do the little things that would help give it corporate cred.

FYI, the GNU homepage has a lot of actions you can take to support free software politically. Take a look.

I have enough trouble getting my boss to distinguish b/t "open source" and "shareware". Throwing "free software" into the mix is going to hurt corporate adoption, not help civil liberties.

The thing that Bruce Perens, etc., understand that Stallman does not is "branding". "Open Source" is a distinct, brandable term. It has successfully fought off imitation brands like Microsoft's "Shared Source" concept. It even has a crisp, compact logo. The FSF does not understand this game, and they can't seem to produce a brand name w/o botching it up with recursive algorithms ("HURD"), semantic ambiguitiy ("free software"), or phonetic confusion ("GNU"). And their logo sprawls all over the place.

Furthermore, the FSF appears to have a touch of NIH syndrome ("not invented here"). Stallman tries to draw a distinction b/t the terms "free software" and "open source", but they mean the same thing, practically speaking. Why hair-split the semantics when you could present a unified, prepackaged concept to the world?

Sigh... enough ranting. I just want to see FSF do the little things that would help give it corporate cred.

FYI, the GNU homepage has a lot of actions you can take to support free software politically. Take a look.

I have enough trouble getting my boss to distinguish b/t "open source" and "shareware". Throwing "free software" into the mix is going to hurt corporate adoption, not help civil liberties.

The thing that Bruce Perens, etc., understand that Stallman does not is "branding". "Open Source" is a distinct, brandable term. It has successfully fought off imitation brands like Microsoft's "Shared Source" concept. It even has a crisp, compact logo. The FSF does not understand this game, and they can't seem to produce a brand name w/o botching it up with recursive algorithms ("HURD"), semantic ambiguitiy ("free software"), or phonetic confusion ("GNU"). And their logo sprawls all over the place.

Furthermore, the FSF appears to have a touch of NIH syndrome ("not invented here"). Stallman tries to draw a distinction b/t the terms "free software" and "open source", but they mean the same thing, practically speaking. Why hair-split the semantics when you could present a unified, prepackaged concept to the world?

Sigh... enough ranting. I just want to see FSF do the little things that would help give it corporate cred.

FYI, the GNU homepage has a lot of actions you can take to support free software politically. Take a look.

corrected link here.

I really need to find it again so that I can post the exact reference when needed. In that rant, Stallman unambiguously made it clear that he considers making money from software to be *bad*, period.

He was responding to the talk given by our buddy Darl McBride Text here

Ripped straight from The GPL (emphasis mine)

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Thus it would seem that if you disagree with the GPL (which SCO has stated publicly on several occasions) you have no right to software licensed under the GPL. However I post to /. and thus IANAL.

They make a proprietary version of GNUe.

--Joe

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

1. A network-based sales system, comprising:
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
at least one merchant computer; and at least one payment computer;


How could they possibly know that Amazon has exactly this setup?

2. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message and said access message each comprises a universal resource locator.

This sounds exactly like one-click to me.

Amazon's one-click patent was filed September 12, 1997; whereas this was filed October 24, 1994. How could the one-click patent be filed if it was alreay there? ...and don't say "you must be new here" :)

4. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said access message comprises a buyer network address.
5. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 4, wherein:
said product can be transmitted from one computer to another; and
said merchant computer causes said product to be sent to said user by transmitting said product to said buyer network address only.

What?!? Said product is transferred to the buyer network address only? I never shipped any of those books I bought from Amazon to an IP address!

15. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 14, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount; and
said payment computer is programmed to ensure that said user account has sufficient funds or credit to cover said payment amount.

Surely this already existed. I doubt every time someone swiped an American Express card before October 24, 1994, a human being was called to look up an account balance in a paper ledger.

39. A method of operating a shopping cart computer in a computer network comprising at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products, at least one shopping cart computer, and a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer

Funny, I figured you just needed a program to do a shopping cart, instead of a whole computer! Here we have a buyer computer, merchant computer, payment computer, and a shopping cart computer. Wow.

I'd look at the other patents, but I'm getting dizzy....

Here ya go
Hurd

and ya, it's out, just not very... umm... how to say.... useable? :)

will they put out the f*cking $100 one? The one we were all hoping for? Right after Duke Nukem Forever comes out, right?

I'm fairly certain that the HURD will come out before the $100 iPod ;-)

Let me get this straight: is this an attempt to get Sun to cooperate on creating an open source Java implementation? I don't see any mention of opening up specifications, or even the to-be-developed implementation becoming the reference implementation.

If so, what's all the fuss about? We already have several efforts underway that implement Java as OSS. Why does'n IBM join them?

Let me get this straight: is this an attempt to get Sun to cooperate on creating an open source Java implementation? I don't see any mention of opening up specifications, or even the to-be-developed implementation becoming the reference implementation.

If so, what's all the fuss about? We already have several efforts underway that implement Java as OSS. Why does'n IBM join them?

What about the already existing Open Source Java implimentations?

GNU Compiler for Java is available from the FSF. There is also work to make a Mozilla plugin for using GCJ to allow Java Applets to run.

Kaffe PersonalJava 1.1 compliant Java.

Kaffe once shipped with RedHat. GCJ currently ships with most major linux distributions right now.

IBM doesn't needs Sun's help/permission. Why don't they start to contribute to the already existing free java stuff like gjc and GNU Classpath?

IBM doesn't needs Sun's help/permission. Why don't they start to contribute to the already existing free java stuff like gjc and GNU Classpath?

They aren't competitors. Notes is a collaboration/groupware suite.

And we aren't collaborating in a group right now? People don't use Intranets and Internet email for what they would have bought Notes for in the mid-90s? I knwo for a fact that that's what happens at non-Microsoft shops. w.g. Oracle doesn't use Notes internally. It uses Internet email, web-based solutions and some collaborative addons of their own.

They aren't competitors. XML is just one of many protocols that can be used to implement CORBA. Corba is an Architecture, XML is a data transmission format.

I was talking about XML in the large: XML+SOAP+WSDL, etc. Obviously these are both pitched as enterprise integration technologies and XML-based ones have a lot more traction in business today (think .NET and Axis) than CORBA does.

You don't (if you are sane) use a scripting language to write enterprise-level apps like finance or CRM software, or secure distributed systems, or high-performance numerical software.

GNU Enterprise is finance software written in Python. Secure distribute systems in Python? How about mojo nation or ZEO, or the MEMS Exchange or BitTorrent. High performance numerical software? You'd better tell someone down at Lawrence Livermore National Labs that they are insane because they show up at every Python conference and by now have spent millions on Python code. I don't see Java or C# mentioned on their list of key languages. Java in particular is a horrible language for that sort of thing. Do a Google for "Java Floating Point".

Look: you can understimate Python just as the Unix vendors understimated Linux. In the long run it doesn't really hurt anyone, even you. It is always more comfortable to presume that things will stay in the mental boxes we've built for them in our minds.

> Getting more contributors to OSS Java projects would
> be a pragmatic and actually helpful goal to work
> towards. As opposed to demanding Sun give away their
> source. IMHO

Just for reference, those of us currently involved in
developing free implementations of Java have not, to
my knowledge, demanded that Sun give away any source.
ESR has, but he doesn't speak for us.

Of course it would be hugely helpful if Sun gave away
their source. That would be man-years of work we wouldn't
have to do. For instance, right now some people are
actively working on Swing. I would expect this to take
quite a long time... Sun could shorten that considerably

We don't really expect that, however. And we don't really
need it; we'll do ok at our own pace.

The things we really could use, and that I at least really
would like Sun to change, are:

* Access to the TCK. No free implementation has ever
been run against the TCK. It has never been available
under suitable terms. E.g., becoming a Sun licensee
is not acceptable.

* Access to the JCP. I'm told that at the moment there
are still terms in the JCP that prevent developers of
free Java implementations from participating. So, for
the most part, we stay away. This is particularly
unfortunate as participation in the JCP would be
mutually beneficial.

* Lift restrictions on subsetting. Those of us working
on free implementations all understand that there is
a huge amount of value in compatibility. We don't
want to fragment the platform -- we aren't MS. However,
free software isn't well suited for a "have one big
complete release" model. Instead we do things piecemeal,
as they are implemented. In the past anyway, Sun
has frowned on this sort of thing and made various
attempts (e.g., in JSR click-throughs, or even in
licenses at the front of books) to prevent this.

The next question, though, is "what's in it for Sun?".
What is their incentive for opening things a bit more?
Unfortunately, I don't have very good answers here, yet.
I do think the free software community and Sun could
be natural allies in this space. Java has made good
inroads into free software, however it is still a work
in progress. E.g., Mono has appeared, perhaps in 5
years C# will have displaced Java in the free world
as well.

Obviously Dr. Michael Bull forgets about the DRM built into the device. He should have read FSF's The Right to Read article. However, the DRM on the ipod thanks to DVD Jon, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Sure.

Common Lisp

ANSI Common Lisp standard (X3.226-1994)

Popular commercial implementations:

Allegro Common Lisp
Xanalys Lispworks
Macintosh Common Lisp
Corman Common Lisp

Popular free implementations:

CMUCL
CLISP
Open MCL
SBCL
GCL

All of these implement the Standard, some better than others. All have interesting extensions which are not portable. All bring different elements of interest to the table of developers looking to solve different problems.

Perl and Python haven't for whatever reason needed to be forked to provide a better implementation for a specific market segment. While large applications are being written in these languages, they're obiviously not in environments where the demand on the engines is high enough to warrant someone funding a fork and a port. (say, Perl for Palm, or Embedded Python, or Enterprise Ruby, whatever -- there is no complete "Python Compiler", for example, that I'm aware of at least). Though ActivePerl et al should be acknowlegded.

BEA has JRockit which is its own JVM, though it may well ship Suns class library. They felt that they wanted a better JVM to meet their markets needs better than IBM and Sun were.

Put an implementation to work and the market will fork it as necessary. Just ask MS.

The problem is the way Java is being developed and maintained as a proprietary programming language base.

There are two major Java implementations currently in use -- one by IBM, one by Sun Microsystems. Both of them may come without charge, but are without the freedom that would make them qualify as Free Software.

Therefore, all software written in Java (even software under a Free Software license) running on such a platform will "put the user's freedom at risk" (a quote from FSF/GNU people). It's like running Free Software on Windows.

If you want more detailed 411 about the status of Free Software versions of Java, hit up the following URL:
http://www.gnu.org/directory/devel/prog/java/

What do you mean refuse to endorse or link to Debian??

The Hurd seems to get along quite nicely with Debian.