Slashdot Mirror

First off, I would just like to say that I am not an `MS Bootlicker'... I prefer the GNU/Linux platform for pretty much everything I do, except for videogames (and even then... I run a hell of alot of them on WineX). I am a student at Drexel University who has attended more than a few talks about the .Net archetecture. While this does not make me an expert, It does give me some knowledge about how and why to use .Net.

Second, some definitions of .Net in general can be found here.

.NET is like Java, only incompatible with everything other than Windows. (sic)
That statement is false. Microsoft only relesed the finished Common Language Runtime for Windows, but they also relesed a good portion of the source code that makes coding the Common Language Runtime possible. There have been several ports/versions, which include Rotor, Mono and dotGNU.

The only added feature is language-neutrality (you can use more than just C# to code .NET objects) although that exists under Java, too, although to a lesser extent (There are many compilers that take many non-Java programming languages as imput and put out Java bytecode, however those are not very widely used and supported)
And That is not one of the marketing points of Java. Many advocates of Java that I have spoken to (Which, in this case, is not many... most people I know despise it) have a `one language to solve all' mentality. They would program everything in it, given the chance. .Net, in a sense, is revolutionary in this respect. It makes it possible to easially integrate several languages together, as long as they can all compile to MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language). How many of you people have tried to integrate C and Perl together? What about Visual Basic and C/C++ (VS6-)? (and before anyone says ``why the hell would you want to do that?'' to me, it is much easier to build windows interfaces in VB than C/C++... and in come cases, it is much easier to write faster or Object Oriented code in C/C++). The amount of work neccesary is close to prohibitive in some respects. When it isn't, slower interpereted code is produced instead. Not with .Net, though. Just compile everythign to MSIL, and then when you run the program for the fist time, *poof*... it changes into actual, optimized executable code.

Java is... the only language that runs on every major and most minor platforms.
Such as... ?? The only reason that .Net isn't on a system (that I know of) is because Microsoft is trying to be competitive in that area, and the actual manuacturer doesn't wish to convert the code itself. (e.g.: Micrsoft is competing with PalmOS for the PDA Market, so it obviously won't relesese .Net for that environment. In addition, Palm might not have relesed the programming specs for PalmOS, which would make it hard for microsoft to do so. However, what is stopping Palm from releasing the CLR for PalmOS? Not much.)

75% of webservers don't run Windows. 100% of cellphones don't run Windows. 60% of PDAs don't run Windows. Let's face it: .NET is just a desktop solution, nothing more.
You don't need windows to implement the .Net CLR. The code has been published and is available for free online. Anyone who wants to can make their own version. Even comes with documentation, and builds on Windows, OSX, and FreeBSD.

The main problem with .Net is that it ties you to a specific OS which makes it a pain from a business economics point of view

Ask the Canadians about hard wood lumber

Okay lets try.

How do you feel about hard wood lumber quantaman?

Thank you for that question quantaman, Well I strongly object to them, the U.S. has been trying this for years and every time it gets struck down by a NAFTA tribunal (or is it a court can't remember), either way I heard the ruling was supposed to be due this past thursday but got delayed, hopefully it will come out soon and the insane (23%) tariffs will be gone. I've heard that the American complaint seems to be that the Canadian government didn't make the lumber companies pay for the trees or something but the Canadian system just uses a different method of payment (stumpage fees), the main reason why the Canadian lumber industry was so much more sucessful is because of a massive modernization a few years ago and probably also low labour costs due to the low Canadian dollar, why should we be punished for your over valued dollar?

If you haven't figured it out yet, Free software is free.
Really? Well I was under the impression that you can pay for GLPed software! Besides you ignored the question with regards to BSD based software, do you want to pay tariffs for OS X?

They raise the price for their own citizens whose per capita income may already be below the current price of many applications.
Yeah, those poor western Europeans (whom I was thinking of).

Do you expect the next generation of Americans make their living playing first person shooters?
No when due to free trade other economies like South Korea and India raise their standard of living by actually being allowed to make money by selling to the U.S. start wanting their own products and services then the next generation of Americans will haev to fill that need. Hey that kind of sounds like capitalism! The fact is that with trade everyone benefits, including you! True you might suffer a little bit at first while trying to adapt and at the end you might not still be the allmighty super power but your standard of living will be higher, and isn't that what's important?


I am an American and tariffs on offshored code would benefit me and all my countrymen. Perhaps you have your own reasons for wanting to see a weak America, quantiman Al-Husseini. Yes I will excuse you for being naive, but only if your highest level of education was a taliban religious school.

Hey I respent that, I don't belong to the taliban! I'm a proud comrade of the Republic of Soviet Canuckistan!!

"Last you checked" was a while ago.

Ask the FSF

How did this idiot get moderated up? As I work on my reply, I'm increasingly sure he's a troll. If he's not a troll, then he's really stupid.

This is how you can get away with releasing only the ORIGINAL code, and not the Linksys mods.

The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

Think about it. They distributed the source for the "Program" as outlined above. "A work based on the Program" can refer to either the Program (the original) or the "work based on the program" - that is, the derivative. So, if you take it to always mean "The Program" or the ORIGINAL program - then you only must distribute the ORIGINAL PROGRAM and not the mods! Perfectly within the GPL.

Perhaps, but changing your definition in mid-clause is likely to get you smacked down in a court. That said, here's another quote from the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2)...provided that you also do one of the following:

Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code....

The corresponding source code would be the code that corresponds with the program you distributed. While it's not the most clear phrasing possible, no other interpretation is reasonable (and the court will support "reasonable" interpretations). Changing your definition of Program midway through would be a no-no.

The GPL doesn't say you have to release your mods, but only a list of the changes and what dates. Have you actually read the GPL?

Yup, several times. The GPL quite clearly says you need to release your changes. Anyone foolish enough to try and challenge it on these grounds will get laughed out of the courtroom for clearly trying to play word games. Contrary to popular belief, a contract does not need to be phrased to be resistant to playing word games and other trickery. If the meaning is reasonably clear to all sides involved, it will stand.

The other problem with the GPL is that there is conjecture and opinion throughout, not fact, as there must be in an Agreement. IANAL but I worked in the world of Contracting (as in Construction) and you must specify everything, not give opinion.

The first time the GPL gets tried in court it will get thrown out because it's full of opinion, and holes like I just pointed out.

At least here in the United States, the basis of any agreement is that everyone involved agrees what it means. Your free to sprinkle it with opinions, write it on a napkin, and generally do what you will. If the court believes that both sides agreed on the intent, it's legal.

All that said, it's irrelevant. "The GPL", as found, say, here, has three distinct parts: A Preamble, the Terms and Conditions, and information using the GPL yourself. Only the Terms and Conditions matter, the rest is just some documentation and suggestions. That documentation tries to spread a message and explain why the Terms and Conditions say what they do. But this preamble and documentation is not the license! I think you'll find the Terms and Conditions extremely straightforward, listing the rules of the game, and with no significant opinions interjected.

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

This is an OPINION that "the best way to achieve this."

Did you really expect them to release proprietary intellectual property?

I sure do, because I read the GPL as requiring it.

GPL:

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications....

In TiVo's case, people seem to go along with TiVo's claim that "the work" is the modified kernel which TiVo does provide source for.

I think "the work" is the whole box. What good does a modified kernel do without the apps on that box. Are the apps "merely aggregated" (GPL's exception for derivative works) with the kernel? Not in such a closed box (no "ls" to see those parts and these parts).

What's Linksys's "work?" Once again, I claim it's the whole access point/router. They don't sell the kernel binary by itself and firmware updates are distributed with GPL and proprietary code in one lump (maybe not statically linked, but I don't think that's a reasonable exception).

credit where it's due

But it seems like the truth is, linksys did because they wanted to be good citizens. The GPL has never been tested in court. It is easy to comply with the terms of the GPL.

What was that case with MySQL AB now again? I thought it was a matter of taking a GPL violator (NuSphere) to court. Although they did settle, it was firmly on MySQL ABs terms, since NuSphere was going to lose.

That said, they may have had the option not to release it. The GPL has small teeth: the only real penalty is forced compliance. Though it could be considered copyright infringe.

Nope. If you break the GPL you lose the right to distribute the piece of GPLed software. So Linksys could be forced to inhibit sales of hardware flashed with Linux, and develop (or licence) replacement software. Does that make good business sense?

So the question that i see: If linksys did not release the source code, or in anyway comply, what would have happened? Would the coders who wrote the code utilized take legal action? I will not assume the chances of that are.

Why not? They could have had help from the FSF, like MySQL AB had.

But for the point, let's say they did. they sued for (x) million dollars.

Or they could be sued to stop distributing the GPLed softeware.

snip

If they are sued Linux will take a hit in terms of market penetration. If they are left alone, the GPL will take the hit.

Because of the flaws in you reasoning above, I don't think this holds.

"In one such argument, a person stated that his use of one of the BSD licenses was an "act of humility": "I ask nothing of those who use my code, except to credit me." It is rather a stretch to describe a legal demand for credit as "humility", but there is a deeper point to be considered here.

Humility is abnegating your own self interest, but you and the one who uses your code are not the only ones affected by your choice of which free software license to use for your code. Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to defend their freedom. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, to lie down and do nothing is an act of weakness, not humility."

" Humility is abnegating your own self interest, but you and the one who uses your code are not the only ones affected by your choice of which free software license to use for your code. Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to defend their freedom. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, to lie down and do nothing is an act of weakness, not humility."

" Humility is abnegating your own self interest, but you and the one who uses your code are not the only ones affected by your choice of which free software license to use for your code. Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to defend their freedom. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, to lie down and do nothing is an act of weakness, not humility."

"They are under no obligation to do so, if they did the country they operate from would certainly not be considered a free country anymore."

"In one such argument, a person stated that his use of one of the BSD licenses was an "act of humility": "I ask nothing of those who use my code, except to credit me." It is rather a stretch to describe a legal demand for credit as "humility", but there is a deeper point to be considered here.

Humility is abnegating your own self interest, but you and the one who uses your code are not the only ones affected by your choice of which free software license to use for your code. Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to defend their freedom. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, to lie down and do nothing is an act of weakness, not humility. (emphasis mine)"

Wasn't opensource about freedom?

The Open Source movement eschews freedom. The Free Software movement is about freedom. When Open Source advocates adopt the language of freedom, I think that's good and telling at the same time--good in that more people need to know about software freedom. I agree with the FSF when they say we need more freedom talk. And I think everyone is grateful for the Open Source movement bringing in more people who use and develop Free Software (as well as securing the GNU General Public License--developed by and for the Free Software movement--as the most widely used Free Software license). But I find it is also telling at the same time because it means the message the Open Source movement was based on, the message that movement conveys--a development methodology--is being lost.

The "gn" in most open source applications stands not for "GNOME", but for "GNU". GNU, in case you haven't heard, stands for "GNU's Not Unix!", one of the earliest and essential parts of the free (as in speech) software movement. This used to divide Gnome and KDE folk because KDE, early on, was not free. That is (to some degree, at least) no longer the case. HTH.

You seem to think that OpenSource = GPL. This is not true. There is plenty of open and not-so-open source license. In fact the FSF try to distance itself from the open source movement. The GPL is probably the worse of these license. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to post a troll here. IANAL but I have some arguments who make me think GPL should never be used.

1- The text is too long. I know this is an overused argument but a license should merely say what you can do and can't do with the software the license cover. The GPL is much more a political manifest that a license: it don't only say WHAT it permits/forbid but also WHY. The text is bloated and that make it obscure.

2- The GPL claims it can be recursively modified by the FSF on the back of the copyright holder of a GPLed software. The GPL says:

"9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation"

Imagine this scenario: You wrote a great piece of code. As you wanted to share it with the community, you made it GPLed. Then the FSF create a new version of the GPL but you don't agree with it. What can you do? Nothing. Your software is now *free*. You must live with the new GPL no matter what.

You said: "If the GPL does change to define, say, execution of programs via CGI interface, as distribution, it's hard to fully imagine what the repercussions will be". I don't agree with you. It's easy to imagine the main repercussion. If the GPL do such a change, many people will feel betrayed and stop GPLing their software and they will stop using GPLed software too.

You seem to think that OpenSource = GPL. This is not true. There is plenty of open and not-so-open source license. In fact the FSF try to distance itself from the open source movement. The GPL is probably the worse of these license. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to post a troll here. IANAL but I have some arguments who make me think GPL should never be used.

1- The text is too long. I know this is an overused argument but a license should merely say what you can do and can't do with the software the license cover. The GPL is much more a political manifest that a license: it don't only say WHAT it permits/forbid but also WHY. The text is bloated and that make it obscure.

2- The GPL claims it can be recursively modified by the FSF on the back of the copyright holder of a GPLed software. The GPL says:

"9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation"

Imagine this scenario: You wrote a great piece of code. As you wanted to share it with the community, you made it GPLed. Then the FSF create a new version of the GPL but you don't agree with it. What can you do? Nothing. Your software is now *free*. You must live with the new GPL no matter what.

You said: "If the GPL does change to define, say, execution of programs via CGI interface, as distribution, it's hard to fully imagine what the repercussions will be". I don't agree with you. It's easy to imagine the main repercussion. If the GPL do such a change, many people will feel betrayed and stop GPLing their software and they will stop using GPLed software too.

GNU oleo comes to mind. There's also a program called sc.

And, heck, Angband is actually (mostly) FREE SOFTWARE for crying out loud! Doesn't that fit with Slashdot's mission? ;^)

Yes, I'm just kidding. But there is a grain of truth... :^D

Eiffel is, or are you concerned about possible IP problems with the language spec per se?

take the best aspects of java, objective-c, eiffel and maybe some smalltalk like elements and roll them up into one language.

The D programming language looks somehow interesting...

I haven't read it but judging from the title and review, I don't think it will do you much good right now. It appears to be talking about some of Apple's own custom frameworks and lower level UNIX stuff. Somebody on the GNUstep list mentioned recently that they're interested in cloning Rendezvous but it's still just vapor.

Now, Aaron Hillegass' previous book, Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, is VERY good and will mostly stand you in good stead with GNUstep. It's a great introduction to OpenStep/Cocoa/GNUstep concepts. Combined with the documentation on the GNUstep site, the docs over at Apple and asking questions on the GNUstep mailing lists, you'll be fine.

would I gain any cross-platform Linux-Mac OS X benefits

the GNUstep frameworks and Apple's Cocoa are both based on the OpenStep API, so they're mostly source-compatible. There are some pitfalls and considerations that you'll need to know about before you start on any ambitious programs, however. I'd suggest just becoming familiar with Cocoa and/or GNUstep first, then try writing a simple little app and porting it. There's a very cool project underway called Renaissance that will make portable UI design much easier. I can say that it's easier to design/build on Linux/GNUstep and then move to OS X rather than the other way around.

GNUmail is an example of a great portable OS X/Linux/BSD success story. Nice app.

Hope this helps. Drop on by the GNUstep discussion list some time and say hi. Always nice to know who's interested in the project.

Modern C++ is a wonderful language, at least I think so. But it is much different than the "old" C++, almost to the point of being a different language. So if you've had bad experiences with C++ in the past, perhaps you should give it another look. And C++ is not dead, there are a lot of interesting advancements in the language, and more properly how to use it. There are a whole lot of generic programming and template patterns which are comming out which show that C++ has a lot more power than people ever thought.

Of course C++ does tend to have some problems with Open Source projects, which C usually doesn't have. So I certainly don't frown on C development either. And plain old C is usually very easy to integrate into other languages/environments.

1. C++ compilers are just now catching up to the standard. gcc 3.3 for instance is pretty darn good now, but lots of compilers have lots of problems.
2. C++ can be very slow to compile (or more technically to link), especially as you use lots of templates.
3. The binary ABI is not universal. It's hard to write shared libraries in C++, so it's not as useful for components as it is an entire application.
4. Dynamic linking in of C++ is next to impossible (dynamic linking often uses the dlopen() system calls, and it how most run-time plugin architectures, such as in Apache or Python work).
5. Although in theory C++ is very portable, in practice that is still difficult (usually a victim of poor linkers). C++ which works fine under Linux may have serious problems under say AIX or HP-UX, unless you test on those platforms.

However, C++ is certainly still alive and very viable on a whole. And O'Reilly just published the new C++ in a Nutshell book which covers the ISO standard C++ very well. Also you should look at the Boost Project if you're looking for more advanced C++ libraries (many of the Boost developers actively participate in the C++ standardaization effort, and Boost is often thought of as the testbed for possible language additions for the next round of standardization).

But I do agree, that you need to pick the language according to the project. There is no one best language. When I look for other open source projects with the intent of being able to take advantage of the openness (i.e., modify the code), I tend to look for projects written in Python. I particularly avoid Perl, becuase it is much harder for me to understand. I also avoid Java because it's a proprietary language with no open source JDE/JDK and I think the language sucks when compared to ISO C++. But again, those are my preferences.

Please do not spread lies.

You might take your own advice ;). Actually this is a common misconception about the GPL. You will notice the relevant section more fully reads:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Notice that you can choose to do a, b, or c. Most people choose a) in which case I can, for instance make Rifter's Nifty Linux Distribution and charge $5000US for it, include the source, and when someone comes to me for source I can say "sorry charlie, $5000US please!" I cannot, however, prevent any of the people who pay me $5000US from posting the source to slashdot, putting it on an ftp site, printing it on toilet paper, whatever floats their boat. They will, of course, have to choose a,b, or c themselves when distributing binaries, though.

The b option you mention only applies if I fail to provide source along with binaries. This is an incentive to provide source directly with binaries and not be an ass about making people submit requests for source through som esoteric bureaucratic procedure. The stick in this deal is that if Rifter's Nifty Linux Distribution, costing $5000, does not come with source in the same package, I have to give source to every tom, dick, and harry that shows up, whereas if I do supply source along with binaries (per option a) I do not have to care.

Option C is kind of interesting. I really dislike option C being there, but I understand it is an out. Essentially it says I can relay someone else's promise to give you source. I wonder if this is how Microsoft got away with not distributing source with the GPL software they sell and telling people to download it from gnu.org?

note that you are under no obligation to supply source code to anyone asking for it, you have to supply only to those who got the binary from you.

Please do not spread lies.

Here's a quote from the GPL:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code

Here's a quote from the GPL FAQ:
This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

I don't know why you guys are going on about BCD as if it is a godsend or something -- it's horrible. Not only is it wasteful of space (instead of 256 possible values per byte, you can only have 100), but when converting [ascii|int] [to|from] bcd, you have all sorts of possible flags:
- what to do if it's an odd number of nibbles (left 0 ? left F ? right 0 ? right F ?)
- what to do if it's too small or too big for the buffer you're writing into (error ? 0 ? 0-fill ? F-fill ? )
- when reading an odd number of nibbles, do you want to start from the second nibble? or is the last nibble invalid? how do you even know in advance if it's an odd number of nibbles or an even?

Of course you can define a set of conventions to avoid these problems, but it all makes for quite voluminous code, and then if you need to go against convention sometime then your library won't support it.

Here's a better solution: use (*gasp*) integers. And if your language's integer size isn't big enough for what you want, then use some library that allows for arbitrarily-sized integers, such as GNUmp. Heck, if you only need 64-bit and you have a 32-bit machine, just define your own library! (stick 2 ints together). It'd take all of ten minutes of coding..

PS. Why does the GNU 'search' page never return any results? Searching for 'mp' didn't find that; I had to look it up in the directory of all packages.

While it is a great idea to provide translations of the GPL and other OS and/or Free licences, the FSF makes it quite clear here that the English version of the GPL is the official version that actually applies legally.

Any time I sign up for anything, I always create a special e-mail address just for that company or organization. However, there's just one address I actually USE for communicating with friends/family, which I'm careful not to post anywhere. I've been doing this for quite some time now.

I have come to the conclusion that no businesses or organizations actually sell my e-mail address.

I do not get spam at the addresses I create for companies/organizations, with the exception of those that post my e-mail address on the Web (such as eBay, Mozilla's Bugzilla, and Slashdot before they began obfuscating e-mail addresses) and it gets harvested by spiders. When this does happen, it's easy to create a new address, update the site to use the new one, and delete the old one to stop receiving that spam.

Other sources of spam are the address I use for domain registrations (harvested from the registrar's whois database, in violation of the registrar's terms of service), and GPL'd software I released (listed here without obfuscation).

Aside from that, nearly all my spam is sent to the one address I actually use for communicating with friends and family. Thank God for RBLs and bayesian filtering.

http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html my boy. Read and learn.

GNUNet

Look at

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

for a definition of "copyleft".

if you see both objectivity and insight at the same time, your eyes see w/ neither. insight comes from intimacy w/ some matter, whereas objectivity relies on consensus of the senses only. better to say frankly that you enjoyed the article and agreed w/ it enough to be willing to read more in the same vein.

back on topic: it would be nice for managers to engage in their own open-foo initiatives, like: open-door policy, timely feedback on well-delineated expectations, actual participation in the work to understand its grotty nature, and so forth. the manager that understands the congruence of these practices w/ the motivation behind free software (and, by extension, open source software) is best positioned to grow. those that don't, won't.

you can't compile/link with GPL stuff with the 7.0/.NET compiler due to licensing restrictions

Huh? Isn't this a GPL'd program compiled with Visual Studio .NET? Aren't any libraries that come with the compiler considered "major components ... of the operating system" under section 3 of the GNU GPL?

That is because THEY [the FSF who] are demanding things. Specifically the right to rename other people's stuff against their wishes.

The FSF is asking, not demanding, you call the GNU system with the Linux kernel "GNU/Linux" or some other name that gives GNU a share of the credit. Second, they aren't renaming or suggesting you stop giving Linux credit for being a major component in a GNU/Linux system. Linux is the name Linus Torvalds gave his kernel in 1991. GNU is the name of the free software operating system started in 1984. If anything, you have it exactly backwards--calling the entire operating system "Linux" refers to the GNU system by the name Torvalds uses for his kernel. I hope you'll take some time to read their FAQ on the issue.

That is because THEY [the FSF who] are demanding things. Specifically the right to rename other people's stuff against their wishes.

The FSF is asking, not demanding, you call the GNU system with the Linux kernel "GNU/Linux" or some other name that gives GNU a share of the credit. Second, they aren't renaming or suggesting you stop giving Linux credit for being a major component in a GNU/Linux system. Linux is the name Linus Torvalds gave his kernel in 1991. GNU is the name of the free software operating system started in 1984. If anything, you have it exactly backwards--calling the entire operating system "Linux" refers to the GNU system by the name Torvalds uses for his kernel. I hope you'll take some time to read their FAQ on the issue.

That is because THEY [the FSF who] are demanding things. Specifically the right to rename other people's stuff against their wishes.

The FSF is asking, not demanding, you call the GNU system with the Linux kernel "GNU/Linux" or some other name that gives GNU a share of the credit. Second, they aren't renaming or suggesting you stop giving Linux credit for being a major component in a GNU/Linux system. Linux is the name Linus Torvalds gave his kernel in 1991. GNU is the name of the free software operating system started in 1984. If anything, you have it exactly backwards--calling the entire operating system "Linux" refers to the GNU system by the name Torvalds uses for his kernel. I hope you'll take some time to read their FAQ on the issue.

I just want to know when they're going to add OO support to as.

Kind of like the IETF's philosophy has been famously summarized as "We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code."

And Linus to add, "I have the numbers for the current practice being BAD. You show me yours to back up YOUR claims. Until you do, you're just spouting opinions and hot air."

I like both very much. I'd love to see it when it's done, but until then it's just hot air.

Yes, during a re-partition, you can only make partitions for the largest contiguous block of free space on the drive. A defrag cleans up the stray files that litter the drive and makes (most of the time) the free blocks that are there, bigger. This enables you to create an even bigger partition for Linux (or whatever) to use.

You're right, I don't think Joe does care about the cost of office. Or if they do care, they just buy PCs with OEM copies of Microsoft Works on it because that's all they need anyway. I just went through this yesterday with a user. I hate working on that machine because Works really isn't designed the same as Office. But I have to admit, if I had nothing else to use, Works could do the job.

Yes, piracy is keeping free software in general from becoming more prevalent. This applies to more than just Windows and Office. More people don't use the GIMP because they just use their copy of Photoshop they bootlegged at work. They don't use Python or Perl, because they have a bootleg of VB. There are probably other examples, but I don't want to actually think on a Sunday. ;+) The flipside to this is that most casual users of bootlegged software don't need all the premium features of the software in question. They would be perfectly happy with a "Photoshop-Lite".

You know, I prefer to keep the discussions of free (as in speech) software separate from the discussion of free (as in beer) software. Linux and the quality applications surrounding it, can not remain a zero cost item forever. There are many charitable souls out there working on free software, but it would be wrong to assume that an entire software industry should be based on free labor. It's just plain wrong to do that in a market economy. Free (as in speech) software is another matter though. And I'll stop there... I'm sure it's all been said before and more eloquently.

The reason to bring it up is because it is directly related to this case, as I pointed out. The confusion created by SCO is only possible because of the confusion between Linux (kernel) and GNU/LInux (base OS). If asking people to give credit where credit is due alienates them, then that is a serious problem. Obviously, this indicates that people have a lax attitude towards intellectual honesty. If being asked to be intellectually honest offends and alienates some people, then obviously their college professors should have flunked them out of several courses.

The point of the FSF is not to get as many people as possible to use GNU/Linux. It is to get as many people as possible to embrace Free Software, thus a certain set of freedoms which should be granted to everyone using software. If they have to compromise those values to get Free Software in the corporate world, then it's not really about Free Software anymore. The software is still Free, of course, but there are prone to be problems in the future. Getting companies to use Free Software is only half way there. RMS has written a very good article on why it's just as important to educate people on the Freedoms Free Software provides, as it is to get them into the community.

Assuming that you accept the FSF's gospel of What Is Free, you'll find that RMS already explicitly regards the BSD license as a free software license. Definitions here.

If the issue is the threat of lawsuits over intellectual property then corporate America and everyone else are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products as a development platform.

Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers exposed. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents,
http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/
"Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit, language, development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write and/or any other LZW capabilities in their own products (e.g., by way of DLLs and APIs)."

Microsoft also licensed database technology for Microsoft's SQL server from Timeline Inc, under similar license terms as did with Unisys. This license did not grant Microsoft the right to sublicense to third party developers to extend functionality, in some cases even restricting the use of visual basic. Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option for the license which left third party developers, users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft products at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents. Timeline Inc asked Microsoft to upgrade to a similar license used by Oracle, but Microsoft refused, so the whole issue went to court and in 2002, Timeline Inc won.
http://www.timeline.com/021903PR.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html

While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.

How many other cases exist where Microsoft has included third party technology in it products, but has also taken the cheaper licensing option and left developers and even users exposed to the threat of lawsuit? Due to the closed nature of the proprietary business model, how can third party developers even check?

Microsoft's products and platforms do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA ( End User License Agreements ) provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.

The Gnu General Public License (GPL) and Gnu Library General Public License (LGPL) are based on years of solid legal research.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Since The SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used within the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since The SCO Group claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code The SCO Group h

If the issue is the threat of lawsuits over intellectual property then corporate America and everyone else are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products as a development platform.

Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers exposed. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents,
http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/
"Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit, language, development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write and/or any other LZW capabilities in their own products (e.g., by way of DLLs and APIs)."

Microsoft also licensed database technology for Microsoft's SQL server from Timeline Inc, under similar license terms as did with Unisys. This license did not grant Microsoft the right to sublicense to third party developers to extend functionality, in some cases even restricting the use of visual basic. Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option for the license which left third party developers, users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft products at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents. Timeline Inc asked Microsoft to upgrade to a similar license used by Oracle, but Microsoft refused, so the whole issue went to court and in 2002, Timeline Inc won.
http://www.timeline.com/021903PR.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html

While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.

How many other cases exist where Microsoft has included third party technology in it products, but has also taken the cheaper licensing option and left developers and even users exposed to the threat of lawsuit? Due to the closed nature of the proprietary business model, how can third party developers even check?

Microsoft's products and platforms do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA ( End User License Agreements ) provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.

The Gnu General Public License (GPL) and Gnu Library General Public License (LGPL) are based on years of solid legal research.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Since The SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used within the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since The SCO Group claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code The SCO Group h

Open Forum Europe got stitched up.

The patent directive is far from a done deal, as the success of last week's lobbying in Brussels shows.

The important point, that the journalist didn't realise, was that Mike Banahan was not talking about a consultation run by the European Commission or the European Parliament, but about a *consultation run by a firm of lobbyists* who had been hired by a consortium of big business associations. (Remember that OFE's response was paraded not by the Commission, but by this consortium of associations).

So the real story is

Lobbyists for big business [*not* the European Commission or the European Parliament] are determined to introduce software patents in Europe despite widespread opposition from European companies and software developers, according to a UK open-source software lobbying group.

The subsequent paragraphs take on a completely different dimension when you realise they are about the lobbying firm for the business associations, not the European institutions:

Mike Banahan, chief technology officer with OpenForum Europe, a subsidiary of technology lobbyist InterForum, said the group received clear indications during a consultation on the proposal that some form of software patenting would be introduced, regardless of the fact that the consultation showed heated opposition to such patents.

"We were briefed that a position that was in total opposition to patents would be discarded, that that was not a position they were prepared to take," Banahan said. "The position was, given that there will be software patents, what kind will there be? It was presented as a done deal."

OpenForum had not intended to submit a position paper on software patents, as it focuses on end user adoption of open-source software, but the group's opinion was solicited by the organisers of the consultation, Banahan said. The paper was misinterpreted in the press as supporting software patents, he added.

The quotes are echoed in this posting to the FSF Europe-UK list:

He stated (as off the record as he could get in a public forum) his statement on software patents was written from the point of view of - IF software patents were a done deal (and he was informed that they pretty much were, by the people asking him for a statement) then there should be exclusions for Free Software to safeguard the common interests.

He also said (again as completely off-the-record as possible) that he had been told that any anti-patent statement would be discarded, as many others had already.

The parliament vote is now expected in the first week of September. The Socialist group in particular is very divided. But internal party-group positions are expected to take shape this week, while the MEPs are all gathered together in Strasbourg, before they disperse for the long summer recess. It is therefore worth contacting MEPs now, sooner rather than later, to have maximum effect.

Contact details for UK MEPs can be found by clicking on the map here

(This information sent to ZDnet on Thursday night, but apparently not of interest).

...it still propagates what I perceive to be a very big misconception about what copyright is really for. The Constitution of the United States, in the copyright clause, has specifically stated that the purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts", not specifically to provide authors like J.K. Rowling with an incentive to continue writing. Richard M. Stallman (whatever you may think of him) explains this very well in this article. Copyright law is not a monopoly granted by a (responsible) government in an attempt to strike a balance between the rights of authors and rights of the public, but rather as an attempt to balance two different, sometimes conflicting rights of the public: the public wants a lot of good quality works for its consumption, and the public also wants these works to be available at low cost. Stallman makes a nice analogy between this dilemma and that of building public works projects like buildings and dams. For public works, a government would want to build the best and safest public works, while at the same time it wouldn't want to spend too much money to do so. Nobody will build a bridge or dam for free, of course, so the government then has to decide how much money it is willing to spend for the public's welfare. For copyright legislation, the government is not spending public money, but the public's rights and freedoms.

Well, the United States government has done, with the current travesties of law like the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA, the equivalent of having contractors build a bridge that totally covers the river. And worse yet, it is attempting to wrestle other countries into making similar laws apply there as well, under the pretext of protecting international trade.

Yes, copyright law all over the world is in bad need of reform, but without remembering its original purpose for existing in the first place. Authors are granted these copyright monopolies not because they were the original creators of the work and they are entitled to it, but because it is supposed to serve the public interest. A lot of the misapplications of copyright restrictions mentioned in the article mainly boil down to violations of this principle.

Two Things:

First, a modded Xbox isn't necesseraly for playing unauthorized copies of games, it could be used to run Linux for Xbox, XMame, Xbox Media Player, etc.
Second, here's a reason why you shouldn't refer to unauthorized copying as 'piracy'.

Then finally keep /etc in CVS.

Confuse-us say, "Here are some links for you..."

The GNU GPL and the American Way by Richard M. Stallman

The GNU GPL and the American Dream by Bradley M. Khun

Can you trust your computer? by Richard M. Stallman

I know you, yes you have probably read these already, but someone else probably hasn't. Don't worry, there is still room for Anonymous Cowards to troll. Personally I consider these seminal works, but of course YMMV.

Enjoy!

Confuse-us say, "Here are some links for you..."

The GNU GPL and the American Way by Richard M. Stallman

The GNU GPL and the American Dream by Bradley M. Khun

Can you trust your computer? by Richard M. Stallman

I know you, yes you have probably read these already, but someone else probably hasn't. Don't worry, there is still room for Anonymous Cowards to troll. Personally I consider these seminal works, but of course YMMV.

Enjoy!

Confuse-us say, "Here are some links for you..."

The GNU GPL and the American Way by Richard M. Stallman

The GNU GPL and the American Dream by Bradley M. Khun

Can you trust your computer? by Richard M. Stallman

I know you, yes you have probably read these already, but someone else probably hasn't. Don't worry, there is still room for Anonymous Cowards to troll. Personally I consider these seminal works, but of course YMMV.

Enjoy!

One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespace thank you very much).

The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. To put it bluntly, Perl scripts will still look less beautiful than our friend Mr Goatse. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD ^H^H^H^H Perl is dying. Larry is buggering it up the ass without lubricants, just like Shoeboy is doing to Larry's daughter.

I think there is a lot of potential for professional-grade installations using something like Ardour. The tool itself is open-source and it runs on an open-source OS. Don't think it runs fast enough? Reconfigure your kernel by removing all the junk you don't use. Go through the startup scripts, turning off services and daemons you don't need. Switch to one of the more real-time oriented versions of Linux. Hack the source code, optimize the drivers, add your own features.

Okay, realistically, I'm not going to do this. I will plunk on my guitar in my basement, make a couple of mediocre tracks, and move on with my life.

But's what's stopping you from doing this? Or a technically savvy sound studio owner? Or, cooler than that, you could make a product by combining a rack mounted PC, a custom-configured version of Linux, a custom-configured version of Ardour, and the testing and support that would be needed. Of course, the GPL would require you to make the source code available. But that's okay. You get paid for your expertise without taking anything away from those who provided the expertise to build Ardour or Linux.

Whew, ranting a bit. Sorry. But I am excited by the possibilities.

So far all of SCO's claimed violations are related to code in the Linux kernel. Therefore GNU has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

However, this Slashdot thread is discussing Professor Chander's article on the issue which repeatedly makes reference to "Linux" as an operating system:

[...] The suit arose because IBM has made a strong push towards using the ever more popular Linux operating system for computers. [...]

[...] Then, about a decade ago, a young Finn named Linus Torvalds introduced an operating system (named Linux, after its creator) that did some of what UNIX did. [...]

I am addressing his misuse of the term "Linux" which robs GNU of any credit at all. Your critique about SCO's claims should be directed to the professor because he clearly refers to the entire OS. The professor's reference is incorrect and does not indicate Professor Chander is cognizant of what Linux actually is--a part of the whole, something that deserves recognition, but not to the exclusion of other major pieces of the system (of which GNU is clearly one such piece).

To say GNU "has nothing to do with this lawsuit" is quite wrong. The license under which Linux is licensed came from the freedom-minded concerns of the GNU project (the GNU General Public License). It's great to be thankful for the software, but don't forget the community that grew up around the freedoms of free software. The GNU project proved we can all work together leveraging the power of a copyright regime against the proprietors that want our systems to vanish is also quite an accomplishment.

I'm very grateful to GNU for their software contributions, but to say that GNU and Linux are the only important components of the O.S. is the height of silliness.

Which I never claimed, I said they were both valuable chunks of the system. I am glad you chose to include GNU in your list of contributors. I hope whatever components you select as major regularly includes GNU. I happen to agree with the GNU project's FAQ on this matter. Thanks for recognizing the GNU project's contribution!