Slashdot Mirror

[...C]onsidering that they've almost certainly contributed several orders of magnitude more to the project than you have, I think that not being on an equal footing is entirely reasonable.

It's not reasonable if you're interested in software freedom, or building and maintaining a software commons. I know I would much rather work as equals in a project no matter how much code I've contributed, so I'm not going to get involved with software licensed under Microsoft's new license. I concur with oddjob, the GNU GPL lets me participate as equals with all the other GPL licensees for as long as the covered program is licensed under the GPL.

This is not the first time we've seen this kind of inequity among participants--there is a similar imbalance of power in the APSL (Apple Public Source License). The FSF commented on this in their essay describing why the APSL is not a Free Software license.

"C" is designed to run well on a variety of platforms and you can gain "evironment specific optimizations" at compile time. There is is not really a big tradeoff there. Furthermore there's no reason Java can't be compiled. See GNU Java compiler. I think the original poster's question still stands. Can we rely on the Java compiler to do a good job of optimizing the code?

The ultimate answer is "maybe". Sure, it'll be able to do some stuff, perhaps a lot. It won't be able to fix poor data structure usage, bad algorithms and pussy footing around.

Yes, but after banning all of the RIAA-affiliated bands, the only performer left might be Richard Stallman singing the Free Software Song...

;-)

What about hurd?

What if the artist encourages it?

What if the artist is pissed off by it?

Is violating the license less morally wrong if it's easy?

What about if the copy is of a lesser quality than the original?

What if it's a license that you like?

I used OOo Draw to specify the animated elements, and traced out their paths via other elements and object prperties.

A 1-line description would have saved me searching through the man page

Most GNU programs do have such 1-line descriptions. I just tried ls --help and got this:

$ ls --help
Usage: ls [OPTION]... [FILE]... List information about the FILEs (the current directory by default).
Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuSUX nor --sort.
[snip]

For example, some of the more common consistent switches in GNU are:

• /s in DOS == -R in GNU ("Recursive")
• /q in DOS == --quiet in GNU
• /p in DOS == |less in GNU
• /y in DOS == -f in GNU ("force yes")
• /? in DOS == --help in GNU (all programs that conform to the GNU command line standards support --help)

A 1-line description would have saved me searching through the man page

Most GNU programs do have such 1-line descriptions. I just tried ls --help and got this:

$ ls --help
Usage: ls [OPTION]... [FILE]... List information about the FILEs (the current directory by default).
Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuSUX nor --sort.
[snip]

For example, some of the more common consistent switches in GNU are:

• /s in DOS == -R in GNU ("Recursive")
• /q in DOS == --quiet in GNU
• /p in DOS == |less in GNU
• /y in DOS == -f in GNU ("force yes")
• /? in DOS == --help in GNU (all programs that conform to the GNU command line standards support --help)

This presumes a sort of linearity that may not apply. Just because growth times are better times doesn't mean growth is the right measure to optimize.

An alcoholic is happier when drunk, but that doesn't mean his drinking is making him happy. I think the possibility of an analogy to society's preference for periods of rapid growth is obvious enough that I needn't belabor it.

That said, you should understand that by definition, as Chair of the Federal Reserve, his objective is to maximize economic growth.

I understand that is what he thinks and what everyone around him thinks. I'm still incined to question whether that should be his job, and particularly whether that objective should be the sole basis for a discussion of intellectual property.

I'm not convinced that other constraints shouldn't be operative. For instance, suppose the conference decides that economic growth will be maximized if all public libraries are closed. Does that mean Greenspan should recommend such a policy? Shouldn't other objectives enter into his calculations?

It exists! It's right here! :)

5. For far too long, power has been concentrated in the hands of "root" and his "wheel" oligarchy.

RMS doesn't like wheel all that much neither.

And GNU doesn't consider the APL to be truly Open Source, but all that idealistic chatter is pretty much besides the point. Open or not, it's still a pain in the ass to have Macs and Windows and Linuxes all run side by side on the same network.

Actually, to be fair, gnu.org believes that the APSL is Open Source, just not Free Software. But then, so are a lot of other licenses for programs most of us would have no problems using and working on.

As for your contention about Mac, Windows, and unix being difficult to make work together, it really depends. For pretty much ages these have all supported various protocols which would allow collaboration, mostly tcp ones we know and love (ftp, http, etc). The native formats are at issue, but there has always been software available for interoperability. Now I understand Mac OS X comes with SAMBA, as does Linux. So whereas I understand nfs and afs on Windows is not what one would like, the other two in teh mix have come to the plate with software that lets them work with Windows.

And GNU doesn't consider the APL to be truly Open Source, but all that idealistic chatter is pretty much besides the point. Open or not, it's still a pain in the ass to have Macs and Windows and Linuxes all run side by side on the same network.

Actually, to be fair, gnu.org believes that the APSL is Open Source, just not Free Software. But then, so are a lot of other licenses for programs most of us would have no problems using and working on.

As for your contention about Mac, Windows, and unix being difficult to make work together, it really depends. For pretty much ages these have all supported various protocols which would allow collaboration, mostly tcp ones we know and love (ftp, http, etc). The native formats are at issue, but there has always been software available for interoperability. Now I understand Mac OS X comes with SAMBA, as does Linux. So whereas I understand nfs and afs on Windows is not what one would like, the other two in teh mix have come to the plate with software that lets them work with Windows.

And GNU doesn't consider the APL to be truly Open Source, but all that idealistic chatter is pretty much besides the point. Open or not, it's still a pain in the ass to have Macs and Windows and Linuxes all run side by side on the same network.

Actually, to be fair, gnu.org believes that the APSL is Open Source, just not Free Software. But then, so are a lot of other licenses for programs most of us would have no problems using and working on.

As for your contention about Mac, Windows, and unix being difficult to make work together, it really depends. For pretty much ages these have all supported various protocols which would allow collaboration, mostly tcp ones we know and love (ftp, http, etc). The native formats are at issue, but there has always been software available for interoperability. Now I understand Mac OS X comes with SAMBA, as does Linux. So whereas I understand nfs and afs on Windows is not what one would like, the other two in teh mix have come to the plate with software that lets them work with Windows.

And GNU doesn't consider the APL to be truly Open Source, but all that idealistic chatter is pretty much besides the point. Open or not, it's still a pain in the ass to have Macs and Windows and Linuxes all run side by side on the same network.

Actually, to be fair, gnu.org believes that the APSL is Open Source, just not Free Software. But then, so are a lot of other licenses for programs most of us would have no problems using and working on.

As for your contention about Mac, Windows, and unix being difficult to make work together, it really depends. For pretty much ages these have all supported various protocols which would allow collaboration, mostly tcp ones we know and love (ftp, http, etc). The native formats are at issue, but there has always been software available for interoperability. Now I understand Mac OS X comes with SAMBA, as does Linux. So whereas I understand nfs and afs on Windows is not what one would like, the other two in teh mix have come to the plate with software that lets them work with Windows.

If yah sue everyone that uses your tech then your tech will disappear.

They are not doing that, they sat on it for over ten years, and now their dipping into the pockets deep enough to pay. Anyway, I'm baffled where this patent came from. Remember this page? It goes on and on about how gifs are evil because of patents and uses a jpeg for an image.

The moral of the story here is: don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Even if only 0.001% of the violators get prosecuted or sued, you need to know that you could be next.

If you're "keeping up with traffic" on the freeway by driving 90 in a 55 zone, you are guilty of reckless driving, regardless of whether you get a ticket. If you don't like it, help change the law instead of pretending that you didn't do anything wrong.

We use a license that restricts how your code is used, yet you want no restrictions on how the creations of others is used?

Bad analogy. Please read paragraph 5 of the link you are referring to. The GPL does not restrict how your code is used. It gives you extra rights above what the copyright law provides when dealing with code that was written by other people.

DRM on the other hand attempts to restrict the rights you have under the copyright law.

In my mind, DRM is not needed and the copyright law is just fine. The plain old copyright law (without DMCA or DRM) allows copyright holders to go after and sue people that are illegally distributing their work. The big question is: So why does not RIAA/MPAA just do that; sue uploaders? It is like they want to appear more helpless than they actually are just to have more laws passed that allow them to have more control over how the stuff they sell is used.

False. Dumbass/troll. GPL FAQ

bad of course. it goes against everything Libre Software stands for

Hunh? What, Libre Software stands for making sure any and all content should be available without compensating the creator of the content in any way, shape or form? We use a license that restricts how your code is used, yet you want no restrictions on how the creations of others is used? *Rhetorical Question* Are you after a free ride, or Freedom?

I understand that you want fair use rights, as do we all. IMHO, if someone wishes to release thier creations with DRM, they are free to do so. I am free to ignore thier creation due to the DRM if I wish. Libre Software providing the freedom to release your creation as you want, and being compansated if you wish, is a good thing as it provides more freedom.

Until someone comes up with a viable way of compensating creators for thier content without restricing how that content is used in any way shape or form, restricted content is going to be reality, unfortunately. Using OSS tools to provide such restrictions, though distasteful, seems to be almost acceptable. At the very least, it shows that some proponents of Software Libre are sensitive to the needs of content creators, and so offers an olive branch to them. That should show we're not after a Free Ride, but Freedom.

Soko

The GNU Classpath project is completely free Java.

And here: DotGNU

Actually the .NET framework has been around for a while. The installation crashes every time I try to install it on my 2K box (even with re-installing Windows, but I think that's just me).

Platforms for Java: Windows, Solaris, Linux, AIX, Irix, Tru64, ........

Really? I'll take your word for it, I suppose, but the only platforms the Sun JRE supports are Windows, Linux, Solaris and almost FreeBSD.

How about this one:
Platforms for C/C++: Well, anything supported by gcc would be too many to list, and there are other C compilers out there.

How many classes are taught at your university with C/ or C++? At mine it's a lot more than are taught with Java...

When selecting a programming language, pick the best tool for the job. If your coding for Windows, C# may be the best choice for you. If you want binary-ish compatibility across platforms, go for Java. If you want fast portable code, pick ISO C.

How much development is still done in "regular" C and C++?

Who actually owns copies of those standards? I know I don't - simply because they charge several hundred bucks a copy.

You should have a pretty good idea of the ISO standards for C/C++ if you're a competent coder. Plus, you should use a compiler which tells you when you violate them. Adding -ansi -pedantic -Wall to your gcc commands can go a long way towards making long-lasting, proper C and C++ code.

Check out the list of packages included with Red Hat Linux 9. You'll find exactly zero non-free software. There is one file (the README, perhaps? It's been a while) that states that while you have the right to copy it (the file), you do not have the right to modify it (the file). If you have a problem with that, dump the GPL now, because the GPL (the document itself) has the same proviso as does the BSD license. FreeBSD even has a whole document devoted to how various degrees of restrictive licensing interact in the ports system.

But you are probably thinking of the Office and Multimedia Applications CD which is not part of Red Hat Linux 9, but rather an add-on 7th or 8th disk included with Red hat Linux 9 Professional and you will find that the licensing on all of that software includes specific language that allows for duplication of the Red Hat Linux 9 Professional ISOs. These packages are also not required (in fact, I don't even think they're referenced) by the base installation of the software.

What I don't understand is how there can be such wild misinformation as there has been about Red Hat.

This move has the obvious intent of invoking one of the more useful properties of the Internet: it interprets restraint (I'm generalizing the concept of censorship, which is usually what is cited in this particular quote) as damage and routes around it. Red Hat was spending more and more money per release on providing ISO downloads. What to do? Stop providing a download for the ISOs and let the community create a better solution. If they didn't think the community would do so, they certainly would not be in the free software business (I say free software only because Red Hat as a company pre-dates other terms for this business model, not be cause "open source" would not have applied equally well).

Maybe it's because they feel they have to emphatically latch on to any half-brained directives RMS belches out in half-sleep, even when they seem designed solely to inflate his ego.

From that page:

``Creator''
The term ``creator'' as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a deity (``the creator''). The term is used by publishers to elevate the authors' moral stature above that of ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the publishers can exercise in the name of the authors.

May I propose the term GNU/creators instead?

Not sure which would happen first: riots because of all the unemployment this would create, or the creation of a software blackmarket.

You forget the third choice: defining "sell" in such a way as to include only proprietary software. It'd make RMS mad, but it'd let free software continue.

You obviously haven't had the utopian vision of a society that shares its code for the common good, unlike other evil entities that exploit, control and enslave its users with a monopoly that can, and apparantly does have the money to pay off the corrupt politicians.

Thats swell. But you still have to eat.

I think somewhere in there is some truth, but the GPL was started by people who were trying to STOP you from making money off it, but to entice you to add to the pool of useful code, at least thats the impossible dream I had when I read it.

I don't believe for a minute that the GPL was designed to STOP you from making money. Not for a second. It was designed to keep IMPROVEMENTS basically in the public domain. My company and your company may compete, but one wont have an advantage only because of software. Of course, this is not true either, since I can take ANY GPL software and make tons of changes, and NEVER release my source code. Legally. As long as I don't distribute the binaries, I don't have to release the the source. The main limiting factor of the GPL is to the DISTRIBUTORS. Not users. It keeps RedHat from changing Apache in a way that will only work with their brand of linux, without releasing the code. It helps prevent forks in the code.

But the GPL was not invented to STOP you from making money. I wonder how many people actually have READ the damn GPL instead of just talk shit about it?

Quoting from the GPL...

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price....

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

GPL is free as in speech, NOT always free as in beer. I can make all the profit off of GPL I want, it was designed so I COULD, so everyone could. It insures I can't stop YOU from making money with it. I can't distribute it modified without sharing the modified source. This point seems to get missed all too often.

I am a debian user, and I think this is bad. Sourceforge is my principal source of informations when I search for a project that do what I need to do. Now if I need to go to sourceforge, then Savannah, then Alioth, then myownproject.org, then myownprojecttoo.net... Well in this case I think a bunch of project could pass under the radar and will be never seen by others :-(. Sourceforge was good because there is a single point where to search against (Sorry but I never go to savannah :-/). Now If I need to go everywhere to find something, Google will be my friend, bur Google is not the panacea too. This will have the side effect that Sourceforge, Savannah, Alioth, and others will be parcelated and unuseable like all the webrings you can find and cannot use because you don't know them except if you are in it or know someone in it :-(.

Does anybody know if there are other sourceforge installations that dedicate themselves to some specific "sub-genre"?

Like Savannah?

on my freebsd box, these are the versions of gcc that are available as ports:
/usr/ports/lang $ ls -a | grep gcc
gcc27
gcc28
gcc295
gcc30
gcc31
gcc32
gcc33
/usr/ports/lang $

Version 3.3 is beta though.

> developing under your favorite text editor feels like comparing Eclipse to the dinosaur age - I can't live without refactoring now

You can have a better IDE doing refactoring as well.

Im totally addicted to vi.

You'd be using glibc for sure.

Although some businesses may be drawn toward RMS...

Not once they hear this!

I coded my site and did all my graphics and the simple yet crisp look of the page IMO is sweet. But! Putting that GNU head on my front page is not going to happen...

Personally, I'm quite fond of the "Boar's head,", but I can see why you wouldn't want it on your site. However, That's the GNU logo. You say you want to support the FSF on your site - well how about you put up the Free Software Foundation logo. That's fairly clean and professional looking.

This is only slightly off topic since GNU is a project under FSF... I tried twice last year to support the Savannah Project by purchasing a Verisign SSL certificate for their website. I received zero responses. Looks like they have a cert from Entrust now. But shouldn't donators get faster responses?

Its ALL about the Ben Franklins.

Ahem...ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please...

I now present, for your listening enjoyment, The Free Software Song!!!

You realize, don't you, by actually saying that something will never happen, you have practically assured that it will happen at some point. Just like when people said man would not fly.

Well, watching HDTV with a computer has already happened. :) See the HDTV snapshots from the GNU Radio project site.

Edventure

Moodle

cbd.

My guess is GPL will appeal to you the most,

Yeah, the GPL does appeal to me. Free software and all, you know?

GCC, KDE and The Gimp are not freeware but Free Software, it's not quite the same thing. You can look here for more information on the subject :
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

Patents are a critical part of the foundation of successful free markets. Why would anyone want to innovate if not to profit from his innovations?

Some people forget that computing is one industry that did not always have to deal with patents as it does now. Computing was moving along perfectly well without them, so patents don't come off as necessary to spur innovation, but weapons to needlessly hobble competitors. Patents are being awarded for ridiculous and obvious ideas that stifle the development of software and hardware for all but the richest participants. The consumer does not benefit from this reduction in competition. Furthermore, your point suggests you think that if one industry has patents they all should have them. I suggest you examine the details on how patenting works in each field and you throw out such broad sweeping conclusions.

For a far more prescient, detailed, and learned view of patents specifically talking about patenting algorithms used in the production of computer software (sometimes inaccurately called "software patents"), listen to or read RMS' talk on patents.

Hehe... I am probably the first person that ever ran Dillo on Debian/Hurd. I hacked the shit out of Gnu Portable Threads and got it to compile under Hurd about a year ago. This gave me pthread emulation. I compiled Dillo as my test app. It kind of worked but was not really usable. An aside, I submitted my Pth Hurd patch and it was incorporated upstream! :-)

Dunno if Dillo can be compiled with QPE. It would probably work great with Debian/Zaurus though. I would be running Debian on it now ( I'm a Debian old-timer ), except QToptia works fine and for a PDA, its pretty spiff. I still use this gadget at work a lot and need QPE so I can do stupid crap like beam files via the IR port to my boss's Sony Clie' and sync with MS Outlook, etc.

for the record: the ways in which the APSL does not meet the GNU's notion of "free" can be found here. I acknowledge that there are other licenses than the GPL and other open source organizations than GNU, but I think this particular analysis does quite a good job at laying out the issues.

I think this is a cool development of TI, but the real future is software definied radio and the GNU Radio project, which is a general purpose computing device that can operate on any frequency - all determined by software, not hardware.

Planet P Blog

It is strange how "questioning" something, in English, is implied to mean "disbelieve". As in questioning authority, etc.

Or you could use GNU Radio and do it in software.