Slashdot Mirror

This is the clearest example of RMS simply stating that he will not tolerate programmers attempting to earn a liiving wage off their own work.

Nice to hear someone with a clue speak about Free Software and the GNU project for a change. For reasons that aren't terribly easy to grok, RMS keeps telling people not to use the term intellectual property, so you might want to read that too :)

To the extent that I can see, that term isn't very good, because it accepts the premise that thoughts, ideas and concepts can be owned, which many believe shouldn't be possible, me included. There are other reasons to, so read the link.

It kind of sounds like this, but there's less emphasis on the listener's freedom and more acceptance of commercial involvement.

I wonder whether the RHUG people will be able to build Jazilla using gcj and so create a native binary package. Then we could see whether it is faster or slower than Mozilla.

• Linux users are threatened by SCO. Probably an empty threat.
  
• Windows users are threatened by the BSA. Usually an empty threat, but not always.
  
• Almost everyone with a Web site is threatened by SBC. Definitely not an empty threat, even if SBC ultimately loses in court (as it should).
  
• The RIAA is suing ISPs to get users' private information, and the MPAA wants to hack into every computer to check for copyrighted material. The most serious threat of all, as their lobbyists mean they'll probably win.
  

Python certainly isn't the first semi-mainstream language to provide higher-order features. Smalltalk has been around in one form or another for 30 years. Smalltalk may not be the flavor-of-the-day like Python, but it's a proven, mature system which probably has been used for more 'mission-critical' systems at businesses than Python. As Python mature and Smalltalk evolves into something else, this is bound to change.

Anywho, Perl has more users than Python, has been around for longer and boasts the same higher order techniques and advanced types that support FP well.

Not that I'm telling you to switch to Perl or Smalltalk- everyone has their preference.

I stumbled on to Python 6 years ago and was seriously impressed. A year and a half or two after that I found Squeak Smalltalk and was utterly blown away. Contained all of the stuff I liked about Python, but had more of it! Utter simplicity and total consistency. A hacker's dream- you can change anything about the Smalltalk system within the system itself. Want to experiment with changing the way the language works? No need to drop down to C as you would with Python.

If you like Python or Ruby and have an open mind, it's definately worth checking out Smalltalk. If you'd like to try out an implementation that has good Unix integration, check out GNU Smalltalk; if you'd like to try an implementation that takes computing to the next level with a truly innovative GUI toolkit, check out Squeak. Both are open source, naturally.

I suggest the open mind because Smalltalk isn't Java. It isn't C++. Even Python can look like legacy compared to Smalltalk sometimes. Just like an old C hacker or C++ fan needs an open mind to be able to look at Python without immediately dismissing it because it doesn't look like C/C++/Java, a Python or Ruby user must keep her mind open when looking at Smalltalk for the same reason.

For those interested in trying out an open source Smalltalk that has access to all the .NET libraries and compiles to IL, check out #Smalltalk. And no, nothing was sacrificed to run Smalltalk on .NET as is done with some .NET languages. The #S developers implemented what the CLR didn't support, and made sure it still worked sensibly with .NET. A good example of how new languages on the .NET CLR don't have to just be "syntax skins."

You get recursion when you expand the 'G' in \GNU (had to escape that 'G' so we wouldn't be here forever).

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

As of 05/16/03 these files were available at ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/openlinux/contrib/RPMS/l ibc6

It looks like these files have been removed.

linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 4525 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i586.rpm 4450 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i686.rpm 4450 KB 07/28/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 4477 KB 07/22/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.7ac1-1.i686.rpm 4463 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 4606 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i586.rpm 4589 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i686.rpm 4589 KB 07/28/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-doc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 800 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-doc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 801 KB 07/22/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-include-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 836 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-include-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 864 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-alpha-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 295 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-alpha-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 292 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-arm-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 222 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-arm-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 274 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-common-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 9333 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-common-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 9403 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-i386-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 281 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-i386-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 276 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-m68k-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 602 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-m68k-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 583 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-mips-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 322 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-mips-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 322 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-ppc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 419 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-ppc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 403 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 489 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 489 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc64-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 458 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc64-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 456 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

As of 05/16/03 these files were available at ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/openlinux/contrib/RPMS/l ibc6

It looks like these files have been removed.

linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 4525 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i586.rpm 4450 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i686.rpm 4450 KB 07/28/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 4477 KB 07/22/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.7ac1-1.i686.rpm 4463 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 4606 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i586.rpm 4589 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i686.rpm 4589 KB 07/28/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-doc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 800 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-doc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 801 KB 07/22/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-include-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 836 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-include-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 864 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-alpha-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 295 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-alpha-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 292 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-arm-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 222 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-arm-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 274 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-common-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 9333 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-common-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 9403 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-i386-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 281 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-i386-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 276 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-m68k-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 602 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-m68k-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 583 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-mips-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 322 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-mips-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 322 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-ppc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 419 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-ppc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 403 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 489 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 489 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc64-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 458 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc64-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 456 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM

Uhhh, that's what it stands for, eh?

Well, it is actually "GNU General Public License" in full, but GPL for short (I suppose you get to choose what you want the G to stand for).

illegally copying IP *is* theft. Make no bones about that.

What's interesting about your claim in a thread that centers on the GNU General Public License is how you are simultaneously misrepresenting two authorities you appeal to. Neither the FSF nor U.S. Copyright law consider copyright infringement to be theft.

And it's not surprising you would make such a mistake, considering you are arguing in terms of "IP" or intellectual property. It's important to understand that copyright law is not the same as patent law, trademark law, and other laws commonly discussed as "IP" and therefore it doesn't help anyone to think of them as a cohesive whole.

illegally copying IP *is* theft. Make no bones about that.

What's interesting about your claim in a thread that centers on the GNU General Public License is how you are simultaneously misrepresenting two authorities you appeal to. Neither the FSF nor U.S. Copyright law consider copyright infringement to be theft.

And it's not surprising you would make such a mistake, considering you are arguing in terms of "IP" or intellectual property. It's important to understand that copyright law is not the same as patent law, trademark law, and other laws commonly discussed as "IP" and therefore it doesn't help anyone to think of them as a cohesive whole.

The GNU Project was conceived in 1983 as a way of bringing back the cooperative spirit that prevailed in the computing community in earlier days---to make cooperation possible once again by removing the obstacles to cooperation imposed by the owners of proprietary software.

In 1971, when Richard Stallman started his career at MIT, he worked in a group which used free software exclusively. Even computer companies often distributed free software. Programmers were free to cooperate with each other, and often did.

By the 1980s, almost all software was proprietary (18k characters), which means that it had owners who forbid and prevent cooperation by users. This made the GNU Project necessary

Do you know how to read? Try reading the GPL. It requires any derivative works to also be GPL. That's a restriction, because it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL. Pretty serious restriction, if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.

But not a professional reader, I see. The GPL places no restriction on sale of software. Thats not its purpose in the least. It is there to protect your copyright to the code, no more and no less. If I release a silly script of code under the GPL and you use it in a work, there is nothing stopping you from selling that work (including my work). Of course there is nothing stopping me from buying it and then releasing it for free, either since under the license you would of course, be releasing it under the GPL.

Tell the FSF -- Slashdot can't do anything about it.

This is another example of a company that is willing to cooperate, but has had a few snags in their plans. They've said they're going to post the code online (which they don't have to do) so lets see if they do.

I try to donate every year to different charities like the EFF and others. I'm not wealthy so it usually amounts to ~$300/year. I've never dontated to the FSF, because it is unclear to me where my money is going. I will not give the FSF a dime until until they stop childish behavior such as this, and another reservation I have about donating to the FSF foundation is what projects are funded? Does the FSF fund any "open source" projects? Would projects that compete with GNU/ projects receive any funds?

I have no interest in donating to the FSF if my money is going to be spent telling people how to name their software projects or "educating" people on why the name open source is bad.

If Richard Stallman does not want 'his' GNU-projects to mention non-free software, then I wouldn't bring my own projects to GNU either. You shouldn't act like commercial software doesn't exist or can't coexist, or force people to do so. I consider this a ridiculous restriction and bad politics.

May I quote a GNU page: "Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!"
Thanks Richard, for just wasting it.

It starts, "A GNU program should not recommend use of any non-free program."

I've seen many GPL programs that don't live up to that rule.

Have you seen this?

Pretty neat, actually. You can compile java source to machine or byte code, link to non-java libraries, mix compiled java code with libraries in your class path, and other crazy things..

Furthermore, SCO is barred by the terms of the GNU General Public License from making copyright or patent-infringement claims...

And if all else fails, there is always the HURD... :-) (seriously!)

The proposed royalty free policy says that any royalty-free licence...

may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the Recommendation;

[W3C]

The Free Software Foundation says that such a limit infringes a clause of the GPL:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement... conditions are imposed on you... that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License.

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

[GPL]

But the limit would prohibit someone who received the code from modifying it to go beyond just implementing the standard. And the GPL does grant that right to anyone who receives the code. And it prevents you from denying the right to anyone who might receive the code.

But I'm not sure the GPL makes you responsible for guaranteeing that right to every third party -- it just prevents you from removing it yourself. So maybe you can distribute the code after all, since it is not you who may (or may not) restrict recipients from carrying out their rights under the GPL.

You are no more responsible for patent owners' potential litigation against recipients than you are for any other independent factor that might prevent a recipient from modifying the source - like a lack of money, time, tools, or clues. Patent owners' litigation against recipients is no more pertinent to a distributor than any other independent factor.

After all, there are lots of other laws that restrict the reuse and modification of GPL'd code (in spite of clauses of the GPL). You aren't allowed to use it for illegal purposes, for a start. And if that restriction (on the recipient) doesn't prevent you from distributing the code, then nor can patent restrictions (on the recipient) prevent distribution.

Moreover, code GPL'd in a software-patent-free jurisdiction could already be distributed to one where patents might prevent use or modification of the code -- and it's hardly the intent of the GPL to prevent distribution of code in Scandinavia, just because US laws may be a bit of a mess. Otherwise the GPL could be stymied by the existence of a single perverse jurisdiction anywhere in the world.

Of course you should probably talk to a lawyer if any of this matters to you. What do I know?

And in some jurisdictions this might degenerate into wrangling about the intent of those who used the GPL (and/or the intent of the GPL, which may not be the same thing). There are lots of ways this could go. That's why the GPL's absolute purity seems a bit too fundamentalist for me, though I see its advantages too.

I agree with your premise, that people ignoring absurd digital patent and copyright laws is natural and a form of civil disobedience. I think you are being very naive, however, in your assertion that since people are ignoring these (IMO wrong-headed) laws, they aren't really a problem.

Look at the history of digital copyright laws. At first they were widely ignored on the internet, to the great common benefit... it was possible to get music, lyrics, etc. very convientiently and for free. Gradually, as the ownership class* realized they were losing the profits they could reap by creating artificial scarcity, they struck back by buying legislation** and bringing the power of law enforcement*** and media propoganda**** to bear against the new competitors.

The same thing will happen with software patents... first, sneak throught the legislation as "clearing up grey areas", while greasing palms as appropriate... then, since it is "illegal," get tough enforcement laws enacted with criminal pentalies...

After the first enterprising young college student gets 5 years in jail for distributing an illegal computer program, we will see how many other people will wish to be involved in maintaining, distributing or linking to such software.

Anonymity you say? Do you really think they will continue to allow you to be anonymous if that would cost them profits? Think again. A fully locked-down internet, DRM everywhere, with passive consumers absorbing "content" from centralized powers for money is much more convenient for the owners than the chaotic free-for-all of free people expressing, exchanging and sharing as they choose. This is what we are heading for.

Do not underestimate the power of the ownership class, those who hold the patents and the copyrights... they are a tiny percentage of the population, but they control enourmous wealth, media resources, and have tremendous influence on the governments that are supposed to serve the people. They are smart and they are patient. They will work deliberatly, cleverly, insidiously and relentlessly to protect their interests. If that means you losing your freedom, they don't care.

It's not hopeless... if we organize, educate, agitate and fight we have a chance... but civil disobedience alone without being active in the political process as well will get us nothing but marginalized as dangerous "pirates," "theives," or even "terrorists."

To start with, have you given these guys money?
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation

*RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, etc.
**DMCA, etc.
***Jon Johanson, 2600 etc.
****File sharing = "piracy", encryption="terrorism", internet="immorality" etc.

I agree with your premise, that people ignoring absurd digital patent and copyright laws is natural and a form of civil disobedience. I think you are being very naive, however, in your assertion that since people are ignoring these (IMO wrong-headed) laws, they aren't really a problem.

Look at the history of digital copyright laws. At first they were widely ignored on the internet, to the great common benefit... it was possible to get music, lyrics, etc. very convientiently and for free. Gradually, as the ownership class* realized they were losing the profits they could reap by creating artificial scarcity, they struck back by buying legislation** and bringing the power of law enforcement*** and media propoganda**** to bear against the new competitors.

The same thing will happen with software patents... first, sneak throught the legislation as "clearing up grey areas", while greasing palms as appropriate... then, since it is "illegal," get tough enforcement laws enacted with criminal pentalies...

After the first enterprising young college student gets 5 years in jail for distributing an illegal computer program, we will see how many other people will wish to be involved in maintaining, distributing or linking to such software.

Anonymity you say? Do you really think they will continue to allow you to be anonymous if that would cost them profits? Think again. A fully locked-down internet, DRM everywhere, with passive consumers absorbing "content" from centralized powers for money is much more convenient for the owners than the chaotic free-for-all of free people expressing, exchanging and sharing as they choose. This is what we are heading for.

Do not underestimate the power of the ownership class, those who hold the patents and the copyrights... they are a tiny percentage of the population, but they control enourmous wealth, media resources, and have tremendous influence on the governments that are supposed to serve the people. They are smart and they are patient. They will work deliberatly, cleverly, insidiously and relentlessly to protect their interests. If that means you losing your freedom, they don't care.

It's not hopeless... if we organize, educate, agitate and fight we have a chance... but civil disobedience alone without being active in the political process as well will get us nothing but marginalized as dangerous "pirates," "theives," or even "terrorists."

To start with, have you given these guys money?
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation

*RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, etc.
**DMCA, etc.
***Jon Johanson, 2600 etc.
****File sharing = "piracy", encryption="terrorism", internet="immorality" etc.

Actually, Apple has made contributions to, and distributes GCC (which stands for Gnu C Compiler),

Funny, I thought these fine folks distributed it.

Btw, if you click on that link, you'll find out what GCC really stands for. "collection" something or another. ;)

Needless to say the game became every kind of a cesspool you can imagine. There wasn't just one level of cheating but multiple levels of cheating and betrayal.

Oh! Me! Me! Let me tell you how it continued 5 years later. When the Inner Sphere fell into strife and tyranny, in 3050, a huge invader army, sons of exiles actually, came from an unknown direction. Calling themselves the Clans and proving their amazing skills of warfare, they caused great damage to the unprepared Spheroids with their disciplined battle tactics and advanced technology.

Need I go on? =)

Then what makes it unix-like?

I define a *n?x operating system as any operating system that conforms in spirit to the Single UNIX Specification. I define a UNIX operating system as any *n?x operating system that carries the Open Group's UNIX brand. I define a *n?x GUI as any GUI which is designed to run on a *n?x operating system and which has a reasonably complete free implementation. (X desktops qualify, and the Mac GUI will qualify once gnustep matures to the point where porting Cocoa apps becomes trivial.)

Did you know that the "q" in qmail stands for "queer"??? That's SO cool!!!

Top results for one-letter google searches as of Sat May 17
a : Apple
b : B'Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the ...
c : CNET.com
d : D-Link Systems, Inc.
e : Welcome to E! Online
f : Welcome to F-Secure, Securing the Mobile Enterprise
g : G*Loomis
h : H-Net, Humanities & Social Sciences Online
i : Yahoo!
j : J-???
k : KDE Homepage - Conquer your Desktop!
l : LEXPRESS.fr : l'info au quotidien. L'actualité économique, ...
m : 3M Worldwide
n : SBC Pacific Bell Knowledge Network Explorer : Online Learning : ...
o : www.oreilly.com -- Welcome to O'Reilly & Associates -- computer ...
p : Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
q : Q4music.com - The World's Greatest Music Magazine Online
s : GNU's Not Unix! - the GNU Project and the Free Software ...
t : AT&T
u : The whatUseek Network
v : Welcome to Bobby WorldWide
w : Welcome to the White House
x : Netscape.com
y : Yahoo!
z : HealthAtoZ - Your Family Health Site

You have to admit the main advantage of GNOME is the ability to write closed-source software for it. This aspect of the LGPL is exactly why Stallman is recommending not to use it. Given all this, I can't help but think Stallman wishes he could rethink the choice of GNOME as the GNU desktop.

P.S. I'm absolutely certain you will be one of the first casualties of the war against the "software" companies. I'm also certain that you will not be missed. Good riddance to bad rubbish!!

Having the source is nice,

That might be nice, but OpenZaurus doesn't even give you the source. Notice their download page has binary images, but no source (which is against GPL). Elsewhere, there are instructions to get the "buildroot", which is not source code (according to the definitions in the GNU GPL). Instead, it is patches which could possibly be applied to 3rd party packages to create the source code.

The OpenZaurus website suggests some of their software is GPL licensed (which makes sense, if it includes Linux), but they make little visible effort to obey that license.

Having the source is nice,

That might be nice, but OpenZaurus doesn't even give you the source. Notice their download page has binary images, but no source (which is against GPL). Elsewhere, there are instructions to get the "buildroot", which is not source code (according to the definitions in the GNU GPL). Instead, it is patches which could possibly be applied to 3rd party packages to create the source code.

The OpenZaurus website suggests some of their software is GPL licensed (which makes sense, if it includes Linux), but they make little visible effort to obey that license.

This would be the one you want I think :)

Obviously, they'd have to adapt the kernel to suit their needs, since most of the hardware on the shuttle is custom designed and built for it. Under the GPL they would have to release any changes they make to the kernel back into the public domain.

No, they wouldn't. This is just FUD. See the GPL FAQ:

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. [...] If you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL

They'd only have to make the source public if they were also distributing the customised kernel. Chances are, they're only going to use their executable in this custom hardware of theirs.

It sounds like the worst of both worlds to me -- it's not free (speech or beer) but it also doesn't have the broad support of Windows or Mac OS. Sheesh.

I'm sure this will appeal to some people who like installing new OSs for the heck of it, but why not try some of the interesting free ones first?

It's a shame that no one managed to fix bug #10392 before release. Until that one's fixed, those of us who do Dreamcast hacking are stuck using GCC 3.0.4.

look here

Try this link instead: http://gcc.gnu.org/PR8610, it is smaller and easier to remember.

no software is good enough to pay for

You don't pay for software as much as you pay people for making software. I don't work for free and I'm betting you don't either.

The gcc compiler/toolset is great. You can tell the engineers put thier heart in the work, to paraphrase a robber baron. Putting few bucks into thier pockets to reward them for thier hard work and excellent product is A Good Thing. Recognition is great compensation if your other material needs/wants are met.

Check out the FSF shopping page. The books are great and well worth the money. The art work isn't quite my thing. Does your employer match United Way contributions? Direct some of your giving to the FSF.

no software is good enough to pay for

You don't pay for software as much as you pay people for making software. I don't work for free and I'm betting you don't either.

The gcc compiler/toolset is great. You can tell the engineers put thier heart in the work, to paraphrase a robber baron. Putting few bucks into thier pockets to reward them for thier hard work and excellent product is A Good Thing. Recognition is great compensation if your other material needs/wants are met.

Check out the FSF shopping page. The books are great and well worth the money. The art work isn't quite my thing. Does your employer match United Way contributions? Direct some of your giving to the FSF.

Still no fix for bug 8610. Large file support (> 2GB) has been broken for iostream since at least GCC 3.2

I'd post a link, but the URL for items in the GCC database is 677 character long and crashes mozilla when I paste it!?! Another search yielded a URL 1007 charaters long. And you don't seem to be able to search specifically by bug number.

So try this: GCC Bug Database Query Page

Category: Libstdc++
Severity: Serious
Priority: Medium
Responsible: Paolo
State: Analyzed
Class: sw-bug
Synopsis Search: 32-bit

nonnull (arg-index,...)
nonull attribute
The nonnull attribute specifies that some function parameters should
be non null pointers. For instance, the declaration:

extern void *
my_memcpy (void *dest, const void *src, size_t len)
__attribute__ ((nonnull (1, 2)));

causes the compiler to check that, in calls to my_memcpy, arguments dest
and src are non null.

Using nonnull without parameters is a shorthand that means that all
non pointer [sic] arguments should be non null, to be used with a full
function prototype only. For instance, the example could be
abbreviated to:

extern void *
my_memcpy (void *dest, const void *src, size_t len)
__attribute__ ((nonnull));

I bet that will be fixed in 3.4, with the inclusion of precompiled headers...

see gcc 3.4 projected changes here

According to this, if your program is multi-threaded, uses spinlocks in libstdc++, and runs on x86, then you'll have to configure gcc-3.3 for a i486+ target (instead of i386) in order to make it binary compatible with gcc-3.2.x configured for a i386 target. Otherwise when the code is mixed, the bus isn't locked when accessing the spinlock, which IMHO may cause concurrency problems on SMP boxes (?)

The new breed of gcc compiler are anywhere from 3 %to 5% slower with file processing using the C++ library. So, compiling the kernel with gcc 3.x is fine, but I suspect that something like KDE which is mostly written in C++ is impacted seriously. At least, all software using the C++ library for IO (fstream) will be much slower. On the other hand, the support for C++ standards is much better so what I do is that I compile using gcc 3.2.3 to validate my C++ and then I run the real thing with a pre 3.x compiler.

The optimiser has been vastly improved and ....

The following changes have been made to the IA-32/x86-64 port:
SSE2 and 3dNOW! intrinsics are now supported.
Support for thread local storage has been added to the IA-32 and x86-64 ports.
The x86-64 port has been significantly improved.

If you wan't compile time performance look at

Precompiled Headers

An Anonymous Coward cravenly scrawled:
"The GPL license is just as much garbage as EULA anyway, so I don't see the problem..."

Au contraire, my cowardly friend. The GPL grants rights that you normally do not have, like the right to make copies, distribute, and modify.

Nothing requires you to accept the GPL (the GPL even explicitly says so). However, if you do not accept the terms of the GPL, then there is nothing that grants you any right to redistribute/modify. Absent the rights the GPL gives you, you're just the posessor of a piece of non-redistributable source code. If you do persist in redistributing versions without adhering to the GPL, then it's simply copyright infringement, something the law is very capable of handling (perhaps a little too capable, these days).

An EULA, in contrast, purports to unilaterally take away your fair use rights. The GPL takes away no right you wouldn't have in its absence, and it gives you the option of accepting its terms, in exchange for the right to redistribute and/or modify the software.

The only right the GPL grants you if you do not accept its terms is the right to run it on your own computer, without distributing it elsewhere.

But of course, if you had actually read the damn thing, you'd know that.

For your edification, little Coward, RTFAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

On the licensing front, it's more like the mask is off. M$'s recent licensing was every bit as bad as the "zealots" and other free software advocates have said it would be all along. The Next Generation looks even worse than all but the most paranoid visions could predict. There, bare faced, is the power hungry monster we all worried about. It's not easy to force that on forgien governments and others who have considered things.

Every day, The Road to Tycho looks less like fiction. Dare to share music and you get your network access cut. How many courses depend on that access? Oh, I see you start to fail your courses before they sue you for all your future earnings. Music today, books tomorrow. Public libraries will be eliminated. These cases are not about publishing they are about sharing and control.