gnu.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

I still like the software effort better... by Ben1234 · 2003-03-20 07:54 · Score: 1 · on Turn Your Monitor Into an HDTV

HDTV on a computer monitor for $399 seems like it defeats the purpose. A good analog signal looks great on a VGA monitor. HDTV really only shines when the image is on a big screen. But if you really want to put HDTV on your computer monitor I would check out the gnu Radio project which has been mentioned here numerous times and try HD for a little effort rather than $399.

This war is piracy by rednaxel · 2003-03-20 06:26 · Score: 0, Flamebait · on Updates on War in Iraq

When RIAA says file sharing, copying, etc is piracy, I always remember RMS, when he says that to copy a file cannot be compared to "attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people" (link below). Pirates used to steal gold, but this time the pilleage is oil.

Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding

the concept of "illegal file sharing" by gstover · 2003-03-20 03:30 · Score: 1 · on Texas Rep Wants To Jail File Traders

The existence of a concept of "illegal file sharing" makes me realize that in the US, the only freedom we still have may be the freedom to spend money. (We probably have some others, but you know what I mean.) I presume we've all read The Right to Read.

The FSF's position still doesn't make sense by The+Pim · 2003-03-19 11:52 · Score: 2, Insightful · on Revised W3C Patent Policy Out, Comments Invited

The FSF has expanded the explanation of its position (about which I asked Eben Moglen in his slashdot interview), but I still don't buy it.

Under Section 7, the "field of use" restriction is a "conditions are imposed on you [the distributor of GPL'ed software] that contradict the conditions of this License". The "conditions of this license" require, for example, that those receiving distributions of GPL'ed software have the right to run the program for any purpose (Section 0), the right to modify it for any purpose (Section 2), etc.

Yes, the patent license imposes conditions on "you"; and yes, those receiving the software may not have all the rights (ie, unfettered modification) that the GPL requires. But the second is not caused by the first, and therefore section 7 does not apply.

Specifically, as I understand, the hypothetical patent licenses would say something like, "this license permits you to practice patent P only for the purposes of implementing standard S". It would not say anything about the terms under which you may distribute your implementation. The fact that others will be restricted in how they may modify your software is due to their license from the patent holder (even if it happens to be the same license you have), not due to a "condition imposed on you".

The "detailed step-by-step example" makes the fallacy more plain:

However, he knows full well of a condition on that code that contradicts the GPL (violating Section 7) -- namely, he knows that C's patent license prohibits folks from taking his URL parsing code and putting it into, say, a search engine. Therefore, under GPL Section 7, he is prohibited from redistribution.

I similarly know full well that C's patent licence prohibits folks from taking GNU Emacs and adding URL parsing code. By this logic, I am prohibited from redistributing Emacs.

The only difference between the two cases is that a large class of modifications (any that would remove the program from the scope of the patent license) is prohibited in the first, while a smaller class (any that would bring Emacs under the scope of the patent) is prohibited in the second. But this is immaterial to the GPL.

Re:FSF's position by Drakonian · 2003-03-19 07:13 · Score: 1 · on Revised W3C Patent Policy Out, Comments Invited

I found that this version made just as much sense as your linked version, but then IANAL.

License revocation on lawsuit . . . by SquareOfS · 2003-03-19 06:26 · Score: 5, Interesting · on Revised W3C Patent Policy Out, Comments Invited

Most comments will probably be about what the FSF got exercised over, namely the restriction of the royalty free license to standard implementations. The summary page mentioned in the article, however, also has an interesting point:

The license may be suspended if the licensee sues the licensor.

(Disclaimer: IANAL, nor have I yet waded through the legalese of the proposal itself -- just the summary)

Does that mean that the following can happen:

Entity A implements a W3C standard, in the process receiving a royalty-free license for some implicated technology from Entity B.
A distributes its implementation.
time passes . . .
A sues B on an unrelated matter, say for example, getting B to abide by the terms of an open-source license.
B suspends A's royalty-free license on the technology in the standard implementation.
All distributions of A's implementation now in license limbo courtesy of a suit on an unrelated matter?

How on earth can this be a good idea?

FSF's position by arvindn · 2003-03-19 05:58 · Score: 4, Interesting · on Revised W3C Patent Policy Out, Comments Invited

Here are FSF's views on the (previous version of the) royalty-free patent policy.

Re:Inching closer? by bezuwork's+friend · 2003-03-19 02:28 · Score: 1 · on A Slightly-Softer Microsoft Shared Source License

BSD code has no restrictions, the GPL is viral ...

I attended some of the talks given at the Open Standards/Open Source for National and Local eGovernment Programs conference going on presently at GW University, and one speaker did discuss the M$ FUD claim that the GPL is viral. I wasn't aware of the issues involved previously and so I'll reiterate them here for those that are interested.

Apparently, this stems from the use of the term "contains" in the GPL license (see paragraph 2b - GPL license). M$ claims that this term requires that a proprietary software residing on a medium along with a GPLed software becomes GPLed upon distribution of the medium, even if the two are independent. Thus the supposed viral nature of the GPL - that it infects everything it touches.

The speaker noted this is clearly not the intent of the GPL. While the speaker pointed out that no court cases have directly addressed this issue, he noted that legal commentators agree the GPL doesn't apply to proprietary software distributed with GPLed software so long as the two softwares are not integrated. Even if the two softwares dynamically link, the GPL will not "infect" the non-GPLed software.

Fantastic by arvindn · 2003-03-19 02:27 · Score: 4, Insightful · on DRM and Threat Analysis

He has made a profound point in so few words. There can be no excuse for /.ers for not reading this article.

I just want to make the observation that in real life you don't get to choose your threat, of course; both threat models are present to some extent. You can only talk about which threat model $protection_measure addresses and to what extent.

Another thing is that *AA can hope to bring the Napster model closer to the small-scale copying model by persecuting individual users. Witness:

The first, which I'll call the Napsterization model, assumes that there are many people, some of them technically skilled, who want to redistribute your work via peer-to-peer networks; and it assumes further that once your content appears on a p2p network, there is no stopping these people from infringing.

On most p2p networks there is no anonymity and so there is still a chance of preventing this scenario. But all that changes when freenet comes into the picture. If it gets widely used, an ugly, long-drawn, bloody clash between "content creators" and "pirates" is inevitable. There are two possible outcomes at the end of it: 1) a draconian world ruled by the evil side 2) a severe reevaluation of our current notions on copyright, intellectual property, and revenue models. I dearly hope the clash occurs and the latter outcome results. The sooner we get out of the digital dark age the better.

Re:stealing? by Planx_Constant · 2003-03-19 01:48 · Score: 1 · on Users Conned by Cable Con

Because copying music isn't stealing. I have the right to make copies of music that I own, which is great if I want to listen to something on an MP3 player, make a mix CD for my car, etc. Now sharing those copies is stealing... except that it's not, always. Music in the public domain, or which the copyright holder has made available for free distribution, like this, or this, etc. Trying to gain access to pay-per-view without actually paying per view is something else entirely.

Re:Closer to GPL by ryants · 2003-03-18 18:02 · Score: 2, Informative · on A Slightly-Softer Microsoft Shared Source License

You are under no obligation to send your changes back to the community under the GPL.

Please see the GPL FAQ.

Re:Moderators on drugs again? by david+duncan+scott · 2003-03-18 15:37 · Score: 1 · on What Software Do You Use for Unix Backups?

Well, it looks like GNU jammed on that cheap hack around 1997. Maybe there's a case to be made for updating.

While we're at it, President Clinton is out of office now, Puff Daddy has changed his name two or three times, and the Florida Marlins are no longer the World Champions.

Re:the companies themselves.. by walt-sjc · 2003-03-17 22:06 · Score: 1 · on Recycling Old Cell Phones (redux)?

Yeah, I'll take my Q45 "rice burner" over a pile-of-crap crown vic any day.

But back on the topic at hand...

I would REALLY like to see some way of altering the frequency to run at 900M or 2.4G and use these things as a much-better home cordless. US Cell phones are pretty close to these frequencies arn't they?

In fact, it looks like this is just a nokia cell phone that's been adapted for exactly this use. Probably special software and such, but the basics are there.

Seems to me that someone could come up with a home / business model cell tower head end - maybe based on a software radio system that runs on unlicesensed frequencies.

No one distro to rule them all? by msimm · 2003-03-17 15:46 · Score: 2, Interesting · on The Definite Desktop Environment Comparison

Disclaimer: I posted this previously here, but the conversation has already fizzled out and I'm sort of hooked on this topic, personally. So in response to the original question:

Do you figure that Linux should just pick a default window manager now and build upon that to allow a seamless interface from those coming from Windows XP to Linux?

I think the KDE/Gnome unification project is a step in that direction (IMHO the right step). Next I'd like to see a list of basic applications that make up the base Linux distribution. NOTHING FANCY. Windows has things like the Notepad, Imaging and the Calculator.

What do you think those applications do? Are they easy to use? Wouldn't just about every user be able to figure out what they are and how you use them?

With Linux Notepad is called VI and in the 4 years I've used Linux I still haven't figured out how to use it. So the first thing I do is install Nano, which I know to do because I've installed Debian (which I uninstalled because the tulip driver that came with it at the time was not compatible with my Linksys ethernet card, which requires the tulip driver, but like a different tulip driver). Of course I need to install Ncurses first because Nano wont install without it. But my system comes with Ncurses, its fairly common. But its the wrong version. So before I edit I install both.

Seems like a lot of work just because the average distribution doesn't think like a light load computer user.

Simple, useful applications like Nano (based on my old good friend, Pico!) are fairly common. It shouldn't be THAT difficult to put together a short list of basic applications that would define the base Linux operating system. Name them SANELY (Nano sounds cute, but it needs to sound something like what it is). Include command line applications and X applications. KISS, but cover your bases. Not with extra apps, just look at Windows if you need to know what your average new user needs. Plan on something going wrong, "you don't need Nano, VidConfigureX will configure that for you!" just doesn't cut it.

Linux configuration is getting pretty close to standardized, why does every distribution contain a custom tool set? I'd like to learn this once and I cant see a good technical reason that I can't. Make one skinnable, so distros can make it fit nicely into their vision, but make it consistent.

Adopt a single installation scheme. Everyone knows VISE and it does the trick. Custom packaging is great, their will always be someone smarter out their with a better way. But I'm a big fan of the Loki installer, because it works and because it looks good and makes me feel like I know what's going on. Those things are important.

I don't think any single thing I've mentioned doesn't already exist. I just doesn't exist in any one place. That's ironic because where talking about market penetration without even talking advantage of what we've already got.

Give me a basic distro with what I've mentioned above. Add a package management system like portage and unite Gnome and KDE and you've got a desktop revolution.

Until then its just boys and toys.

Re:Who is going to lead the way? by msimm · 2003-03-17 14:09 · Score: 1 · on Ask Nicholas Petreley About Linux Usage Statistics

Do you figure that Linux should just pick a default window manager now and build upon that to allow a seamless interface from those coming from Windows XP to Linux?

I think the KDE/Gnome unification project is a step in that direction (IMHO the right step). Next I'd like to see a list of basic applications that make up the base Linux distribution. NOTHING FANCY. Windows has things like the Notepad, Imaging and the Calculator.

What do you think those applications do? Are they easy to use? Wouldn't just about every user be able to figure out what they are and how you use them?

With Linux Notepad is called VI and in the 4 years I've used Linux I still haven't figured out how to use it. So the first thing I do is install Nano, which I know to do because I've installed Debian (which I uninstalled because the tulip driver that came with it at the time was not compatible with my Linksys ethernet card, which requires the tulip driver, but like a different tulip driver). Of course I need to install Ncurses first because Nano wont install without it. But my system comes with Ncurses, its fairly common. But its the wrong version. So before I edit I install both.

Seems like a lot of work just because the average distribution doesn't think like a light load computer user.

Simple, useful applications like Nano (based on my old good friend, Pico!) are fairly common. It shouldn't be THAT difficult to put together a short list of basic applications that would define the base Linux operating system. Name them SANELY (Nano sounds cute, but it needs to sound something like what it is). Include command line applications and X applications. KISS, but cover your bases. Not with extra apps, just look at Windows if you need to know what your average new user needs. Plan on something going wrong, "you don't need Nano, VidConfigureX will configure that for you!" just doesn't cut it.

Linux configuration is getting pretty close to standardized, why does every distribution contain a custom tool set? I'd like to learn this once and I cant see a good technical reason that I can't. Make one skinnable, so distros can make it fit nicely into their vision, but make it consistent.

Adopt a single installation scheme. Everyone knows VISE and it does the trick. Custom packaging is great, their will always be someone smarter out their with a better way. But I'm a big fan of the Loki installer, because it works and because it looks good and makes me feel like I know what's going on. Those things are important.

I don't think any single thing I've mentioned doesn't already exist. I just doesn't exist in any one place. That's ironic because where talking about market penetration without even talking advantage of what we've already got.

Give me a basic distro with what I've mentioned above. Add a package management system like portage and unite Gnome and KDE and you've got a desktop revolution.

Until then its just boys and toys.

Re:I must be ignorant by sacrilicious · 2003-03-17 09:04 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

if anything prevents the BSD community from benefiting from Apple's efforts, it is Apple's use of a GPL-like license

Maybe the meta-message here is that the GPL's utter simplicity can be relied upon and easily comprehended. The bsd license allows relicensing of the variety that Apple has undertaken, making it necessary to hire some expert legal firepower to determine what consequences the new licensing terms will have.

Granted, Apple is being a better open-source-like citizen than most corporations. But the bsd folks would find objectionable the following clauses in the APSL, which are rather pointedly not aligned with the GPL (analyzed further here):

CENTRAL CONTROL OF MODIFICATIONS
2.2 (c) if You Deploy Covered Code containing Modifications made by You, inform others of how to obtain those Modifications by filling out and submitting the information found at http://www.apple.com/publicsour ce/modifications.html, if available.
TERMINATION OF LICENCE
9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) ... (b) ... or (c) suspend Your rights to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute the Affected Original Code until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below. Such suspension of rights will be effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License. ...
12.1 (c) This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.

Re:So much is GNU however by Arandir · 2003-03-17 07:01 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

Your [implied] argument seemed to be that "GPL software == GNU software". This is an absurd statement. You further compound your absurdities by claiming that KDE is part of the GNU project.

Let me quote from RMS:

It wouldn't be fair to put the name GNU on every individual program that is released under the GPL. If you write a program and release it under the GPL, that doesn't mean the GNU Project wrote it or that you wrote it for us. -- gnu-linux-faq

There you go. Or did you need a quote from someone more authoritative on GNU than Richard Stallman?

You can use GNU Emacs on Windows by MichaelCrawford · 2003-03-17 04:31 · Score: 1 · on Debunking Linux-Windows Market Share Myths

I personally prefer using the CodeWarrior IDE text editor on Windows (even when I'm not compiling with CodeWarrior) but I have GNU Emacs on my Win2k box and use it from time to time.

Read the GNU Emacs FAQ for Windows.

Heck, if they can make Emacs run on VMS, they sure can make it run on Windows.

Re:keyword by irix · 2003-03-17 04:16 · Score: 1 · on Debunking Linux-Windows Market Share Myths

You don't say what language you are using, but I will assume C/C++ here...

no context-sensitive help

You use the context sensitive help in your IDE regularly? What for?

no organized documentation

man

intellisense

I have no idea what this is.

no autocompletion, and having to resort to home-brewed makefiles

There are IDEs for Linux that have autocompletion. You should check out Anjuta or KDevelop for GNOME and KDE respectively. Makefiles are a powerful tool, but it you don't want to bother to read the freely available docs, Anjuta and KDevelop will generate Makefiles (using automake) for you. You could even check out automake, autoconf and libtool yourself.

Re:It reminds me the Hello World joke... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-17 03:36 · Score: 0 · on CIOs Looking At OSS

GNU humor: "If it was funny in 1985, it's funny today!"

Surely you're trolling? by foolip · 2003-03-17 01:00 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

If you believe that which you say, you've never read or heard his words.

Go read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html to understand the difference between Free Software and the superfluous spin-off "Open Source".

Then read everything else in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

To finish off, go to http://audio-video.gnu.org/ to get some live action!

Don't take this as an insult, but please know the Word before you speak it (yes, that was a biblical allusion).

Surely you're trolling? by foolip · 2003-03-17 01:00 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

If you believe that which you say, you've never read or heard his words.

Go read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html to understand the difference between Free Software and the superfluous spin-off "Open Source".

Then read everything else in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

To finish off, go to http://audio-video.gnu.org/ to get some live action!

Don't take this as an insult, but please know the Word before you speak it (yes, that was a biblical allusion).

Surely you're trolling? by foolip · 2003-03-17 01:00 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

If you believe that which you say, you've never read or heard his words.

Go read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html to understand the difference between Free Software and the superfluous spin-off "Open Source".

Then read everything else in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

To finish off, go to http://audio-video.gnu.org/ to get some live action!

Don't take this as an insult, but please know the Word before you speak it (yes, that was a biblical allusion).

Re:how about... by Kadagan+AU · 2003-03-17 00:04 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

Since GNU stands for GNU's not Linux

Ok, this is the second time I've seen this so far in replies to this story. I have to admit, I'm slightly confused. I always thought GNU stood for GNU's Not Unix... that's why it's GNU, not GNL. Feel free to prove me wrong ;)

~Jon~

Re:GNU/Linux, fah! by Thnurg · 2003-03-16 22:00 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

Yup, it IS childish and petty
Stallman does not want to 0wn Linux, since he is firmly of the opinion that software should not have owners.

Re:Why not the FSF/Emacs/GCC/GDB month? by dougmc · 2003-03-16 16:56 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

Open Source may not even be here today without him.

Um, you're kidding, right?

Do you really think that RMS is the first person to make something and then give it away?

Yes, he wrote some very useful software. Yes, he got people thinking about `free software'. Yes, he came up with the GPL. Yes, he sang the Free Software Song ... but he wasn't the only person to write software and give it away, and he wasn't even the first.

Things may have played out differently if he hadn't ever done the things he did, but to suggest that

Open Source may not even be here today without him.

is disingenuous at best. He may be one of the more vocal proponents of a large movement, but the idea was already around, he just helped to give it a voice. If he hadn't done so, things would be different, but he did NOT single handledly save the free software world from the Evil Corporations.

And he doesn't even call it `Open Source'. He likes the term `Free Software', and will talk about the differences between the two at great length if you let him.

Free Software, not Open Source by epsalon · 2003-03-16 15:55 · Score: 3, Informative · on RMS Turns 50

RMS has nothing to do with the "Open Source" movement. RMS's movement is called "Free Software", or GNU. More information is available on the GNU site.

Re:Gosh.. by Michael+Wardle · 2003-03-16 14:50 · Score: 2, Informative · on RMS Turns 50

For a few insights into this rebellion against control, read Free as in Freedom and Why GNU su does not support the wheel group.

Microsoft and the GNU Project by NZheretic · 2003-03-16 13:23 · Score: 1 · on RMS Turns 50

Many Microsoft users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is more often known as 'Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX 3.0' or SFU, and many users are not aware of the extent of its connection with the GNU Project.

There really is a SFU; it is a subsystem, and these people are using it. But you can't use a subsystem by itself; a subsystem is useful only as part of a whole operating system. SFU now inludes Interix which is normally used in a combination with the GNU development toolchain and libraries : the system is basically GNU, with SFU functioning as the compatibility DDL Library layer.

Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the compiler toolset, which is SFU, and the whole system, which they also call `SFU''. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't promote understanding.

Programmers generally know that is a Subsystem. But since they have generally heard the whole system called `Interix' as well, they often envisage a history which fits that name. For example, many believe that once Softway Systems finished writing the posix compatibility DDL Libraries, they looked around for other free software, and for no particular reason most everything necessary to port a Unix-like system was already available.

What they found was no accident--it was the GNU system. The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. The GNU Manifesto had set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system, called GNU. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also outlines some of the original plans for the GNU system. By the time Interix was written, the system was almost finished.

Most software projects have the goal of developing a particular program for a particular job. For example, Softway Systems set out to build an environment to allow UNIX apps to be ported directly to NT. Donald Knuth set out to write a text formatter (TeX); Bob Scheifler set out to develop a window system (X Windows). It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.

If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? If you had access to the full source code of SFU with Interix, you might find found that, GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 60% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no compatable subsystem. SFU by without Interix itself could be about 20%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be `GNU''.

But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.

Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is a system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting major components, such as the assembler and linker, because you can't have a system without them. A complete system needs more than