Slashdot Mirror

• Q. I want to distribute binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if I give users the diffs from the "standard" version along with the binaries?
  
  A. This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the source doesn't really do the job.
  A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time. The standard distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs probably won't work with that version.
  So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with the binaries.

What, but I thought that Slashcode is GPLd?

Yes, this is true, however that is not what I am talking about. As an aside, it is worth mentioning that when having GPLd Slashcode, Taco is determined to get as much out of it as possible; rather than simply making the code available for all to use and modify for their own gains, Taco uses this solely to get free labour. Anyone who has submitted a valid bug report and received the Taco Response(tm) of "Well code up a patch and we'll include, else fuck off." will know what I mean here.

Well then, what do you mean?

As you may be aware, Slashdot recently included a set of fields [slashdot.org] that you can fill in with your instant messaging details.

Sounds neat - people can contact me in realtime! I still don't see the GNU tie-in...

Yes, doesn't it? However look again at the list:

• AOL IM
• ICQ UIN
• Yahoo! ID
• Jabber

See anything missing? Hint: it's a very popular messaging system. That's right, MSN Messenger is missing! For some people, such as me, this makes the feature entirely useless as I only use MSNIM. All my friends use MSNIM, so why should I install another client just to receive messages from Slashdot users?

Sounds like an oversight to me. The OSS doesn't ban oversights.

Oh, to be young and naive. Such a bug report was submitted [sourceforge.net] by Super Trooper, a diligent Slashdot reader. The text of the bug and Taco's response are included:

Submitted By:
Jon Anderson (s_trooper)
Users Status:
Closed
Summary:

Missing MSN Messenger entry in user info
Slashdot recently added fields for AOL, Jabber, Yahoo!
and ICQ instant messenger screen names to the User Info
preferences page. However, an entry for MSN Messenger
is conspicuously missing. I can only assume this was an
accidental oversight on the developers' part.

Date: 2002-12-16 06:59
Sender: cmdrtaco
Logged In: YES
user_id=288856

not a bugl

Yup, not a bug. This means one obvious thing - it was deliberate.

Cut to the chase. So Taco is a Microsoft hating fuckwit who probably phoned up the few friends he has to boast about how his omission of MSNIM will singlehandedly bring down Micro$$$oft. Will you please tell me how this means Taco goes against the spirit of the OSS movement?

OK, you win. For those of you who have looked at the definition of open source software [gnu.org] will be interested to look at clause 5: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Now, this is one of the single most sensible, rational parts of the open source and free software philosophies. Were this clause not there, it would be a slippery slope to begin by excluding oppressive regimes, then maybe unethical companies, then maybe companies who make lots of money already...

Hmm. I see what you're getting at.

Yes, exactly. The point is, the overarching principles of free software sensibly include everyone. This makes perfect sense, and guarantees true freedom of software. By deliberately and arguably even actively not supporting MSNIM, Taco has demonstrated that he cares more about childish ya-boo-sucks posturing than he does about the freedom of software; the freedom of choice. I have no choice; Taco has effectively said that I must use a different messaging system if I want to use this software's feature. Taco has removed my freedom of choice.

I think it is fair to say that RMS

OpenZaurus, a completely open source

Open source, eh? Do you happen to know what license it's under, then?

Their website doesn't mention anything about that.

Since it's apparently based on Linux, I'd expect it to be under the GPL (at least in part). But that obviously isn't the case. Look at the Openzaurus download page. There are links to 20 different binary packages, but no links to source code. According to the GPL, you must put source links in the same place as binary ones.

Downloading an unpacking those binaries won't reveal any licensing information, nor "an offer good for three years to supply source to any third party".

Searching around on the Openzaurus site for source code, I find an intriguing FAQ entry which claims that Openzaurus code is GPL, and another which explains a way to get the source. Or rather... a way to get some source code. Actually... patches against other, 3rd party distributions. Which if you had those distributions, you might be able to assemble into the Openzaurus source code... The code to some version of Openzaurus, not necessarily the same code that built the binaries you have.

All of that is completely against the GPL.

You can't give out patches- it must be the whole source.
The source code and binaries you provide must correspond exactly (same revision).

OpenZaurus, a completely open source

Open source, eh? Do you happen to know what license it's under, then?

Their website doesn't mention anything about that.

Since it's apparently based on Linux, I'd expect it to be under the GPL (at least in part). But that obviously isn't the case. Look at the Openzaurus download page. There are links to 20 different binary packages, but no links to source code. According to the GPL, you must put source links in the same place as binary ones.

Downloading an unpacking those binaries won't reveal any licensing information, nor "an offer good for three years to supply source to any third party".

Searching around on the Openzaurus site for source code, I find an intriguing FAQ entry which claims that Openzaurus code is GPL, and another which explains a way to get the source. Or rather... a way to get some source code. Actually... patches against other, 3rd party distributions. Which if you had those distributions, you might be able to assemble into the Openzaurus source code... The code to some version of Openzaurus, not necessarily the same code that built the binaries you have.

All of that is completely against the GPL.

You can't give out patches- it must be the whole source.
The source code and binaries you provide must correspond exactly (same revision).

OpenZaurus, a completely open source

Open source, eh? Do you happen to know what license it's under, then?

Their website doesn't mention anything about that.

Since it's apparently based on Linux, I'd expect it to be under the GPL (at least in part). But that obviously isn't the case. Look at the Openzaurus download page. There are links to 20 different binary packages, but no links to source code. According to the GPL, you must put source links in the same place as binary ones.

Downloading an unpacking those binaries won't reveal any licensing information, nor "an offer good for three years to supply source to any third party".

Searching around on the Openzaurus site for source code, I find an intriguing FAQ entry which claims that Openzaurus code is GPL, and another which explains a way to get the source. Or rather... a way to get some source code. Actually... patches against other, 3rd party distributions. Which if you had those distributions, you might be able to assemble into the Openzaurus source code... The code to some version of Openzaurus, not necessarily the same code that built the binaries you have.

All of that is completely against the GPL.

You can't give out patches- it must be the whole source.
The source code and binaries you provide must correspond exactly (same revision).

OpenZaurus, a completely open source

Open source, eh? Do you happen to know what license it's under, then?

Their website doesn't mention anything about that.

Since it's apparently based on Linux, I'd expect it to be under the GPL (at least in part). But that obviously isn't the case. Look at the Openzaurus download page. There are links to 20 different binary packages, but no links to source code. According to the GPL, you must put source links in the same place as binary ones.

Downloading an unpacking those binaries won't reveal any licensing information, nor "an offer good for three years to supply source to any third party".

Searching around on the Openzaurus site for source code, I find an intriguing FAQ entry which claims that Openzaurus code is GPL, and another which explains a way to get the source. Or rather... a way to get some source code. Actually... patches against other, 3rd party distributions. Which if you had those distributions, you might be able to assemble into the Openzaurus source code... The code to some version of Openzaurus, not necessarily the same code that built the binaries you have.

All of that is completely against the GPL.

You can't give out patches- it must be the whole source.
The source code and binaries you provide must correspond exactly (same revision).

The professor's article consistently fails to give credit where credit is due. "Linux" is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a part of an operating system called a kernel (which acts as a bookkeeper managing the resources of a computer so applications can share those resources without conflict). It's fair to credit the major chunks of an operating system; GNU and Linux are both valuable chunks. It's also less confusing to the reader if one refers to the union of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel by mentioning both parts (hence the term "GNU/Linux"). For the FSF's take on this, please read their essay which also has a link to a FAQ on this issue.

Also, the article inappropriately and inaccurately attributes the concept of copyleft to the Open Source movement. Copyleft, to quote the FSF, is "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well". This concept and the term was invented by Richard Stallman, father of the Free Software movement. Stallman started GNU and the Free Software Foundation over a decade before the Open Source movement came along. He also defined the need for software freedom, something the Open Source movement eschews.

Finally, it would be nice if the professor clarified that the term "free" has multiple meanings in English and that the meaning which is most important for this discussion is the one referring to certain freedoms, not price. The "free" in "free software" has to do with the freedoms to share and modify software. The freedoms of free software are a big part of why the GNU/Linux system (and other free software systems) are worth using.

I hope the professor will find the time to correct the errors in his article.

The professor's article consistently fails to give credit where credit is due. "Linux" is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a part of an operating system called a kernel (which acts as a bookkeeper managing the resources of a computer so applications can share those resources without conflict). It's fair to credit the major chunks of an operating system; GNU and Linux are both valuable chunks. It's also less confusing to the reader if one refers to the union of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel by mentioning both parts (hence the term "GNU/Linux"). For the FSF's take on this, please read their essay which also has a link to a FAQ on this issue.

Also, the article inappropriately and inaccurately attributes the concept of copyleft to the Open Source movement. Copyleft, to quote the FSF, is "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well". This concept and the term was invented by Richard Stallman, father of the Free Software movement. Stallman started GNU and the Free Software Foundation over a decade before the Open Source movement came along. He also defined the need for software freedom, something the Open Source movement eschews.

Finally, it would be nice if the professor clarified that the term "free" has multiple meanings in English and that the meaning which is most important for this discussion is the one referring to certain freedoms, not price. The "free" in "free software" has to do with the freedoms to share and modify software. The freedoms of free software are a big part of why the GNU/Linux system (and other free software systems) are worth using.

I hope the professor will find the time to correct the errors in his article.

The professor's article consistently fails to give credit where credit is due. "Linux" is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a part of an operating system called a kernel (which acts as a bookkeeper managing the resources of a computer so applications can share those resources without conflict). It's fair to credit the major chunks of an operating system; GNU and Linux are both valuable chunks. It's also less confusing to the reader if one refers to the union of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel by mentioning both parts (hence the term "GNU/Linux"). For the FSF's take on this, please read their essay which also has a link to a FAQ on this issue.

Also, the article inappropriately and inaccurately attributes the concept of copyleft to the Open Source movement. Copyleft, to quote the FSF, is "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well". This concept and the term was invented by Richard Stallman, father of the Free Software movement. Stallman started GNU and the Free Software Foundation over a decade before the Open Source movement came along. He also defined the need for software freedom, something the Open Source movement eschews.

Finally, it would be nice if the professor clarified that the term "free" has multiple meanings in English and that the meaning which is most important for this discussion is the one referring to certain freedoms, not price. The "free" in "free software" has to do with the freedoms to share and modify software. The freedoms of free software are a big part of why the GNU/Linux system (and other free software systems) are worth using.

I hope the professor will find the time to correct the errors in his article.

The professor's article consistently fails to give credit where credit is due. "Linux" is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a part of an operating system called a kernel (which acts as a bookkeeper managing the resources of a computer so applications can share those resources without conflict). It's fair to credit the major chunks of an operating system; GNU and Linux are both valuable chunks. It's also less confusing to the reader if one refers to the union of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel by mentioning both parts (hence the term "GNU/Linux"). For the FSF's take on this, please read their essay which also has a link to a FAQ on this issue.

Also, the article inappropriately and inaccurately attributes the concept of copyleft to the Open Source movement. Copyleft, to quote the FSF, is "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well". This concept and the term was invented by Richard Stallman, father of the Free Software movement. Stallman started GNU and the Free Software Foundation over a decade before the Open Source movement came along. He also defined the need for software freedom, something the Open Source movement eschews.

Finally, it would be nice if the professor clarified that the term "free" has multiple meanings in English and that the meaning which is most important for this discussion is the one referring to certain freedoms, not price. The "free" in "free software" has to do with the freedoms to share and modify software. The freedoms of free software are a big part of why the GNU/Linux system (and other free software systems) are worth using.

I hope the professor will find the time to correct the errors in his article.

Because, of course, that is the primary reason that 'copyright violations' are not theft.

Surely our protection of an author's interest in his work ought to include considerably more than just preserving the original... A stable and equaitable society will balance and regulate those interests to ensure the greatest overall benefit.

No kidding. Now, how much protection should be afforded, in what areas, and for what length of time? These are areas where people can and do have legitimate disagreements. I've already said that I disagree with much of how the current patent system is run. I think copyright terms are completely out of control in terms of length.

I suggest you actually read what Stallman has to say before you decide whether he's wrong.

Because, of course, that is the primary reason that 'copyright violations' are not theft.

Surely our protection of an author's interest in his work ought to include considerably more than just preserving the original... A stable and equaitable society will balance and regulate those interests to ensure the greatest overall benefit.

No kidding. Now, how much protection should be afforded, in what areas, and for what length of time? These are areas where people can and do have legitimate disagreements. I've already said that I disagree with much of how the current patent system is run. I think copyright terms are completely out of control in terms of length.

I suggest you actually read what Stallman has to say before you decide whether he's wrong.

Because, of course, that is the primary reason that 'copyright violations' are not theft.

Surely our protection of an author's interest in his work ought to include considerably more than just preserving the original... A stable and equaitable society will balance and regulate those interests to ensure the greatest overall benefit.

No kidding. Now, how much protection should be afforded, in what areas, and for what length of time? These are areas where people can and do have legitimate disagreements. I've already said that I disagree with much of how the current patent system is run. I think copyright terms are completely out of control in terms of length.

I suggest you actually read what Stallman has to say before you decide whether he's wrong.

Because, of course, that is the primary reason that 'copyright violations' are not theft.

Surely our protection of an author's interest in his work ought to include considerably more than just preserving the original... A stable and equaitable society will balance and regulate those interests to ensure the greatest overall benefit.

No kidding. Now, how much protection should be afforded, in what areas, and for what length of time? These are areas where people can and do have legitimate disagreements. I've already said that I disagree with much of how the current patent system is run. I think copyright terms are completely out of control in terms of length.

I suggest you actually read what Stallman has to say before you decide whether he's wrong.

>GNOME and many other "GNU-named" things aren't really GNU, so Stallman >has no claim to them.
>

I think you'll find Gnome is (c) the FSF... (checks) yup, here we go:

"Gnome is the GNU Network Object Model Environment. It intends to build a complete, easy-to-use desktop environment for the user and a powerful application framework for the software developer."

It is oversimplifying the issues to talk about "Intellectual Property". There is no body of law which deals with "Intellectual Property". There is patent law, there is copyright law, there is trademark law, and there are other laws. All of these bodies of law are different. SCO is trying to obfuscate the issue by using the term "Intellectual Property". They started the dispute claiming that IBM had breached their contract with SCO by revealing trade secrets to the Linux community. Recently, Linus Torvalds was criticized for saying that he didn't care about patents. Now SCO are claiming that they own the copyright for certain parts of the kernel. Needless to say, they have made no attempt whatsoever to prove any of these assertions. The use of the term "Intellectual Property" in this context constitutes fraud. It's well worth reading this article on the use of the term "intellectual property".

Yes, the GPL "ebodies the principles of Free software" but the Free Software Foundation recognizes many other licenses as Free. In particular, there are many license that are Free but non-viral, like the X license or the Python license. The FSF says: "The term ``open source'' software is used by some people to mean more or less the same thing as free software. However, their criteria are somewhat less strict; they have accepted some kinds of license restrictions that we have rejected as unacceptable."

You can use all the GNU software without using the name GNU/Linux, absolutely right, and he isn't even suggesting that you can't.

Gee, really?

Copyright apologists often use words like ``stolen'' and ``theft'' to describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.
So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system--at least in the US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is ``theft.'' Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority...and misrepresenting what the authority says.

The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.

Apparently you haven't heard of GNUnet .

• GCC
• Ghostscript
• glibc
• GNU Emacs
• AbiWord
• BASH
• most of the Unix-like command line tools (make, tar, ls, etc.)
• CVS
• GIMP
• GNOME

So, most of the "basic" OS, as well as several important applications, are part of GNU. Whether you want to call such an OS GNU/Linux is up to you, but RMS is right when he says that without GNU, there would certainly not be such an operating system based on the Linux kernel available today.

This is discussed in the GNU/Linux FAQ.

OTOH, Linux is a cool name (because it contains an X), and Linus doesn't care how people pronounce it.

This is only half-joking. I think the name might really have something to do with it.

To continue your car analogy, the GNU system is like a car that has everything but an engine; it's got a frame, transmission, suspension, body, interior, and all the rest. If you drop in an engine made by someone else (the Linux kernel), then, hey presto, you've got a great car. It's not quite a car without the engine, but it's most of one.

Finally, as for the whole "GNU/Linux" debate, RMS has some good points. He calls the Linux kernel "Linux" and the entire system "GNU/Linux," because it uses GNU components. I do think that he's fighting a losing battle to try to change what is already common terminology, but from an entirely ideological standpoint, he's probably right.

To continue your car analogy, the GNU system is like a car that has everything but an engine; it's got a frame, transmission, suspension, body, interior, and all the rest. If you drop in an engine made by someone else (the Linux kernel), then, hey presto, you've got a great car. It's not quite a car without the engine, but it's most of one.

Finally, as for the whole "GNU/Linux" debate, RMS has some good points. He calls the Linux kernel "Linux" and the entire system "GNU/Linux," because it uses GNU components. I do think that he's fighting a losing battle to try to change what is already common terminology, but from an entirely ideological standpoint, he's probably right.

Check out Debian's GNU/Hurd port. It's running from Debian's unstable branch (sid), but it looks installable and usable. GNU/Hurd isn't dead. It's just starting to stablize.

What RMS has fame envy. He feels that poor GNU has been forgoten. We like our GNU tools but this whole stamping of feet and chanting "GNU/LINUX" makes RMS look silly. His chance to do something positive was wasted by his little lecture on GNU/LINUX.

Even philosophies need marketing, which involves consistent public exposure. If it was a case of "Ok, we wrote a load of old no-longer used tools in the past but now our job is done we might as well pack up and go home" then I would agree with you. However GNU have their continuing active agenda and would like to use it to make this world a better place. RMS is a self-appointed GNU PR man, and is doing an excellent (in terms of coverage, you can't please all tastes though) job in steadily providing that stream of exposure. The fact he is intelligent, insightful, talented and stubborn has pushed GNU to where it is and kept it somewhat in the limelight. He has his agenda, you don't have to agree with it, but don't expect him to shut up because you've heard the story before. Others many not have. Look on his 'rantings' as the safety announcements that the cabin crew give before the plane takes off, ie if you think you already know it off by heart then switch off the moment they open their mouths.

Phillip.

Incidentally, the FSF has done nothing for the "OSS community", because it eschews it. Please don't lecture me about understanding RMS's philosophy when you can't even make the distinction between Free and Open.

i was snickering because, iirc, copyright is the opposite of copyleft.
an article touting the benefits of GNU uses a copyright. *snicker*

By the way, here's what I was talking about. The guy is obsessed with words.

Now, I can understand why a lot of you might think that he's nuts for continuing to rant on and on about the same 15 things over and over, but step back and read this page for a minute.

He has a point.

There is far too much slop and inprecision in the common language, and that breeds sloppy imprecise reasoning. It's one of the really big reasons why we have lawyers and marketroids in the first place, let alone explaining why they have been so successful.

You can think he's nuts if you want to, but words mean things; they carry momentum and inflection, and they guide your perception and expectations. As expert participants in a medium (the Internet, for those of you who are metaphorically challenged) that has really little to do with anything beyond raw, unadulterated communicative horsepower, that you should be able to at least apreciate that about him!

P.S. Plus, I'd rather be considered a user than a consumer anyday.

I note he didn't use GNU/NetBSD?

RTFM. I agree, though, that I have better things to do with my time than pedantic semantics (rhyme not intended).

Where did you get this idea that Sun had to do this?

GCC for your JVM

GNU Classpath for the core APIs

Is there some reason a BSD license is insufficient for your work? Or any other OSS license?

Your argument really is that Sun should relinquish Java to a standards body. This is an ongoing debate with interesting points on both sides. Simply put, though, Sun cannot be forced to do this, so if you hope to convince them you need to present a case that it would be in Sun's best interest to do so. You have not yet done this.

Where did you get this idea that Sun had to do this?

GCC for your JVM

GNU Classpath for the core APIs

Is there some reason a BSD license is insufficient for your work? Or any other OSS license?

Your argument really is that Sun should relinquish Java to a standards body. This is an ongoing debate with interesting points on both sides. Simply put, though, Sun cannot be forced to do this, so if you hope to convince them you need to present a case that it would be in Sun's best interest to do so. You have not yet done this.

2) You get the source code for all of the classes/libraries that come with java when you download Sun's JDK. These include the core classes like java.lang.String, etc, etc. The only thing missing, as stated above is the source code for the compiler/interpreter and other tools.

Though Sun provides the source code, it has not relinquished rights to that code. It is useful at times to peruse the code to see how some things get done, but don't copy or you may be violating Sun's copyright.

Sun can set the terms as they wish for their implementation. Others have written their own API implementations, usually in parallel with their own virtual machine implementations. The FSF's efforts (GNU Classpath and GNU Classpath Extensions) are unfortunately lagging. The really frustrating part is that I can't help them along at all because I have seen Sun's source code. I could, but they would refuse my help to avoid copyright violations.

2) You get the source code for all of the classes/libraries that come with java when you download Sun's JDK. These include the core classes like java.lang.String, etc, etc. The only thing missing, as stated above is the source code for the compiler/interpreter and other tools.

Though Sun provides the source code, it has not relinquished rights to that code. It is useful at times to peruse the code to see how some things get done, but don't copy or you may be violating Sun's copyright.

Sun can set the terms as they wish for their implementation. Others have written their own API implementations, usually in parallel with their own virtual machine implementations. The FSF's efforts (GNU Classpath and GNU Classpath Extensions) are unfortunately lagging. The really frustrating part is that I can't help them along at all because I have seen Sun's source code. I could, but they would refuse my help to avoid copyright violations.

Sorry, but the facts are well understood. It is just the definitions that are differing.

Atlantis IS freeware, but it is still non-free. Contradiction in terms? I don't think so!

I suppose one of the problems with benchmarking on Windows with GCC is that GCC does not run NATIVELY on Windows... you need to run it on top of Cygwin or MinGW.

That alone will make the performance hit that Wosniak was talking about. It's strange business benchmarking across two entirely different processors. I think they've done the best possible to balance the scales by using GCC on OSX and Linux (where it can run natively). Maybe they should have run the Dells on a similar to OSX's BSD build for x86 (maybe Darwin, though it's probably not optimized as much for x86) to get even closer to normalizing the benchmark (if it's really possible). Though, I think Linux on workstations is more realisting in the real world than BSD on x86 workstations so it's pretty fair.

In any case, if the 3Ghz G5 happens on the schedule stated by Steve Jobs, the Powermacs running dual 3Ghz G5's should be head and shoulders above the current Intel-based offerings. Of course, we'll have to wait and see what Intel and AMD have available by then.

You know, processor benchmarking is just a geek way of saying "mine is bigger than...". I think it's great that Apple's really back in the performance game, it can only help everyone by re-lighting a fire under Intel, IBM, and AMD to innovate in a contest for (temporary) bragging rights.

well, GPL, being the most prevalent license for OSS, has become nearly synonimous with Open Source for non-technical people. And is that really so bad? If you get the gist of the GPL, then you get the gist of Open Source.

Not at all. The GNU General Public License was written by the Free Software Foundation for the Free Software movement over a decade before the Open Source movement began. These two movements have different philosophies. Nothing in the pairing of the Open Source movement and the GNU General Public License tells you this. The Free Software movement supports the freedoms to share and modify software and compels you to notice that the benefits the Open Source movement champions come from the freedoms of Free Software (freedoms which the Open Source movement eschews).

Yeah, me too. But unlike the Mac, I could not run Office, Photoshop, function as a web server, surf the web, compile code
, run bioinformatics searches, do molecular modeling
and have wonderful text aliasing all at the same time.

Agreed. As a greenie geek I spent a lot of time just getting up to speed. To save you some Googling (which is a great way to learn about OS/FS), let me post some links for you. These were articles that I've found particularly helpful.

• GNUWin II Articles Directory - A good collection of famous FS/OS articles.
• Philosophy section of the GNU Project - This is the extreme left wing of free software. I personally prefer a more moderate approach, but the ideas are engaging.
• Interview with Andreas Pour of the KDE Project - This interview did much to convert me to open source philosophies.
• Legal Concepts section of CreativeCommons.org - Masterminded by Lawrence Lessig, the legal champion of the public commons. One of the greatest minds working for the cause of FS/OS. He also has a couple of books that you might consider reading. I've read the first one and found it quite interesting.

Some of these weren't around when I was getting into things. Creative Commons came a bit later. Most of my earliest reading was from GNU. You've already found Slashdot, which is one of the best resources for learning about FS/OS, especially as it relates to current developments.

One word of caution: FS/OS is a religion. People can be very zealous about their views on it. Be careful as you formulate your own opinions, which will likely change over time. When in doubt, choose a more moderate approach. (If you're interested, my personal views can be found here.)

I hope this is helpful. Well, off to more reading myself...

The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

I believe that it's important to hear all sides to any issue, so here are two Ogg Vorbis encoded recordings of Richard M. Stallman speaking about software patents and a percieved danger that they pose to software development. I know that this story isn't specifically about software patents, but you may find his ideas informative and extensible. (Disclaimer: Verbatim copying and distribution of the entire speech recording are permitted provided this notice is preserved.)

http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-cambri dgeuni-england2002.ogg Transcript
http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-patent s-lse2002.ogg

Here is a transcript of a non-recorded speech given by RMS in India also on the issue of software patents.

I hope some of you find these links useful. If anyone knows of any good links taking differing position on the issue of patent law, etc... than I would definitly encourage you to post those.

I believe that it's important to hear all sides to any issue, so here are two Ogg Vorbis encoded recordings of Richard M. Stallman speaking about software patents and a percieved danger that they pose to software development. I know that this story isn't specifically about software patents, but you may find his ideas informative and extensible. (Disclaimer: Verbatim copying and distribution of the entire speech recording are permitted provided this notice is preserved.)

http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-cambri dgeuni-england2002.ogg Transcript
http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-patent s-lse2002.ogg

Here is a transcript of a non-recorded speech given by RMS in India also on the issue of software patents.

I hope some of you find these links useful. If anyone knows of any good links taking differing position on the issue of patent law, etc... than I would definitly encourage you to post those.

I believe that it's important to hear all sides to any issue, so here are two Ogg Vorbis encoded recordings of Richard M. Stallman speaking about software patents and a percieved danger that they pose to software development. I know that this story isn't specifically about software patents, but you may find his ideas informative and extensible. (Disclaimer: Verbatim copying and distribution of the entire speech recording are permitted provided this notice is preserved.)

http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-cambri dgeuni-england2002.ogg Transcript
http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-patent s-lse2002.ogg

Here is a transcript of a non-recorded speech given by RMS in India also on the issue of software patents.

I hope some of you find these links useful. If anyone knows of any good links taking differing position on the issue of patent law, etc... than I would definitly encourage you to post those.

Actually, I think here is a more accurate view of the GNU Foundations ideas about Open Source Software.

The article seems to be pretty concentrated to OSS community. But how about GNU's definition of OSS?

Personally, I think its the license, which answers the question.

GNU regex

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.

emphasis mine...

Karrick S. McDermott

Dude, I read the article AND the Veritest docs.

The article is wrong in at least one respect, -mfpath=sse does enable SSE2 (at least as of gcc 3.1)

In redistribution of "SCO Linux" & "OpenLinux," SCO is required to yield IP claims of the whole of their respective distributions, including all improvements upon & contributions to, under terms of the GPL (GPL, Section 2c germain). Specifically, every bit of code used to create their distributions ("SCO Linux" & "OpenLinux") was required to be released under the GPL in order for SCO to legally distribute those distributions. Additionally, if in fact the above software distributions do contain the same IP that they now contest in court as stolen, then SCO's case for contention was invalidated by their very release of said code to the public under terms of the GPL. SCO's provision to their Linux business partners has no bearing on this case. The mere fact that they already yielded IP rights of the code to the GPL when they redistibuted the Linux kernel makes their case a moot point. You can not sue someone for taking something which you already gave them for free.

The court's fact finding phase would reveal whether SCO's release of Linux distributions also contain the contested IP, and if so, mitigate their claims against the Linux community.

Karrick S. McDermott