Slashdot Mirror

Of course, that's what happened, and that's one way of building a successful standard. The ANSI C and ANSI C++ standards still have had, and continue to have, a profound impact on C and C++ programming. In fact, the standardization process itself was going on for long enough and involved enough people in the community that many bugs got worked out.

Another reason for the wild success of C and C++ is what they didn't standardize: the language creators tried to refrain from trying to standardize things they did not understand or could not understand at the time, and focused on giving developers the tools with which they could build entirely new sets of efficient standard libraries themselves.

Think about how much code is out there that wasn't written using the features of C90, how much C code actually makes assumptions about endianess and the size of pointers, and how long it took most commercial C++ compilers to actually implement the spec.

Yup, but pretty much all that code has been migrated to ANSI standards compliance: because of careful design of the standard, that conversion can be automated in almost all cases. What can't be fixed automatically usually is an easy-to-fix compile-time error.

As for about "assumptions about endianness and the size of pointers", those are perfectly valid: they are implementation defined or unspecified features. It's a valid choice in a language standard, even though I don't particularly like them. Note that CommonLisp is full of implementation-defined and unspecified effects, too.

Your last comment means that your definition of "real" certainly differs from mine. Just for curiosity, what do you consider to be a real software project implemented in Scheme (not including Scheme implementations)?

Guile alone has a significant number of desktop applications that are largely written in it (see here). There are also many other systems where Scheme is used as an extension language. Also, compilers like Bigloo are actually both quite nice and reasonably efficient; I have never found anything comparable for CommonLisp.

Overall, I think your last point is pretty key to understanding why CommonLisp never took off more widely: its community often had a disdain for the applications and concerns of people outside their community, considering anything that didn't fit into their little world "not real".

I had never heard of AOP before this article, but it does sound familiar. This is one of the ways existing (elisp) code in emacs can be modified (see elisp docs). I have found it to be a very nice way to quickly make small modifications to large pieces of existing code.

A web browser is very well suited to navigating hierarchal documentation structures

Well, first, it's a trademark, not copyright. Copyrights, patents and trademarks are all very different, and you should be carefull which you're talking about.

And secondly, yes, they do have a trademark on the word "Windows."

Ah, but there are 2 kinds of performance, see:

Magic Bullet performance, and

No Weak Points performance.

In Magic Bullet performance, you do one thing, really really well, and ignore any potential problems ( single CPU motherboards are in this category ), but ...

... in No Weak Points performance, you instead make sure that no matter what .. the system continues responding, functioning, reducing whatever obstacle/work/opposition it's there to deal-with.

Single Ultrafast CPU, is so very fast that rarely does some wonky process saturate the CPU, .. BUT .. if one does, you're experiencing a DoS from your-own system, because there isn't another CPU ( not saturated ) that is/would-be paying any attention to you...

The believing-mode ( think-of-the-money, or just-believe-in-this, or ignore-what-alternatives-may-be, or propaganda, etc. ) is a human rendition of Magic Bullet Mode...

Ah, but there is also No Weak Points mode, eh?

in No Weak Points mode, there are 2(+) CPUs, sharing the work, so that some process would have to saturate both of 'em ( drastically less likely ), simultaneously, to DoS the system.

In other words, it's much more likely to be responsive .. every second it's running, though it mayn't be as quick at finishing something as the single-CPU version would, when it wasn't experiencing saturation... ( partly due to slower chips, partly due to non-shareable tasks or non-threaded processes ).

The Japanese developments called 'Go' ( the game ), and 'Ninpo' ( formerly nin-jutsu ), and the ( unknown nationality ) programming environment/language Pliant all embody the No Weak Points mode of surviving ongoingly ( whereas, our planet's fossil-record is littered with the remnants of races who, magic-bullet-style, evolved-themselves 'off a cliff', as it were, due to specialization or dependency ).

Magic Bullet mode is good for when things are peachy, and the system ( one's-self, being a possible 'system' ) is 'in its element', but...

No Weak Points mode is better at ensuring enduring survival.

Continuity plans, that include having backups, and having alternate sites, and cross-training, and developing understanding of 'what's going on' ( outside one's specialty ) and not putting all one's family/execs in one plane, etc. are showing No Weak Points mode...

Consider the meaning-of ( and justification-for ) 'diversification', and see if it doesn't contrast directly with 'consolidation'...

( and remember! civilized minds cannot hold balance between two concepts, for even a second, so ... where was I? )

As for nothing needing so strong a CPU, though, .. I gather all RSYNC servers need very strong CPU because the RSYNC system doesn't cache the individual-block checksums, so the machine has to calculate 'em all every time the given file is requested...
... and compression, movie-viewing, etc. are all requiring strong CPU, too

To most of these end-users, having or not having access to the source code is moot so why push something on them that they probably don't even want?

That is a fundamental, fundamental aspect of the GPL which RMS has expounded on many times.

In short, every end-user should have the power to select a programmer on the free market to improve the software he uses. If they don't want it, they simply aren't aware of the possibilities.

(The specific example of a military Tank Commander is one of the most extreme cases where the user wouldn't want to modify the code, because it'll be tied into painfully over-engineered software. Almost every other situation, including military users in R&D or training, will have greater utility from source code access. The X-Box in particular is someplace where users would love the source code.)

But the IT department has that right as agents for the corporation

According to the text of relevant laws and licenses, they have rights as individuals as well.

Corporations don't like that idea, though, and that is one reason why Bill Gates has been so successful in convincing them that the GPL is viral and evil. Gates often spreads misdirection (the word "viral" is inaccurate), but he can speak the truth too: when he tells CEOs that if their programmers modify GPLed code, the corporation might not be able to keep the changes from escaping to the public, he's right.

What he doesn't tell them, of course, is that public release will usually be non-harmful or even beneficial. (Letting that slip undermines his business model)

This answer which you cited last week seems pretty clear to me.

Unfortunately, that answer solves nothing. It is the contents of a FAQ on GNU's webpage, and it doesn't matter, legally. The only things which really matter are the text of the GPL, and the laws of the jurisdiction.

"Distribution" has a meaning in the English language. "To pass out". Giving the software to other members of a company means "passing it out". And before it can be passed out, someone's got to make some copies. "Reproduce it".

"Reproducing" or "distributing" a copyrighted work (which all GPLed programs are), is illegal. Unless the copyright holder has given you permission. It is one of the actions that are "prohibited by law if you do not accept this License." (GPLv2 section 5)

So, if one employee gives the program to another, he must do so under the GPL. Which means granting the reciever full permission to give further copies to whoever he wants.

A comparison:
Can an employee of a company make a copy of Adobe Photoshop for another member of the company? Then why could he make a copy of Gimp, without special permission from the author.

Now, if the FSF had intended to permit corporations to alter GPL code, and give it to all their employees, but under the threat of termination and lawsuit if they passed it out to anyone else, then they should've stated this in the license.

The vague FAQ entry might amount to a promise from the FSF that they won't procescute a corporation for doing that, but other users of the GPL (like Linus Torvalds) will not necessarily agree with that interpretation.

This answer which you cited last week seems pretty clear to me.

Unfortunately, that answer solves nothing. It is the contents of a FAQ on GNU's webpage, and it doesn't matter, legally. The only things which really matter are the text of the GPL, and the laws of the jurisdiction.

"Distribution" has a meaning in the English language. "To pass out". Giving the software to other members of a company means "passing it out". And before it can be passed out, someone's got to make some copies. "Reproduce it".

"Reproducing" or "distributing" a copyrighted work (which all GPLed programs are), is illegal. Unless the copyright holder has given you permission. It is one of the actions that are "prohibited by law if you do not accept this License." (GPLv2 section 5)

So, if one employee gives the program to another, he must do so under the GPL. Which means granting the reciever full permission to give further copies to whoever he wants.

A comparison:
Can an employee of a company make a copy of Adobe Photoshop for another member of the company? Then why could he make a copy of Gimp, without special permission from the author.

Now, if the FSF had intended to permit corporations to alter GPL code, and give it to all their employees, but under the threat of termination and lawsuit if they passed it out to anyone else, then they should've stated this in the license.

The vague FAQ entry might amount to a promise from the FSF that they won't procescute a corporation for doing that, but other users of the GPL (like Linus Torvalds) will not necessarily agree with that interpretation.

(Note that the following discussion assumes the military contractor will be modifying GPLed source code. The fact that they will be "writing software on Linux" doesn't necessarily mean they'll do that)

I'm not sure where one draws the line between the rights of the programmer and the rights of the corporation (s)he works for.

Well, an employee should feel free to do anything his employer gave him permission to do.

When the corporation (or another employee, acting on the corporation's behalf) gives him a copy of a modified, GPL program, it gives him permission to redistribute it to whoever he wants.

reasonable grounds for dismissal

If that ever happened, it would be proof that the corporation is violating the GPL. It would violate this line of section 6:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

Once they impose a restriction on redistribution to any user of the program, they no longer have rights to modify or distribute that program.

Why can't this happen? Because the assumption that "one corporation is a single entity for purposes of the GPL" is incorrect. A company cannot modify a GPL program for "internal use only", unless they're willing to take the risk that a random employee will post it to USENET's comp.source, and they'll have no legal recourse.

C was chosen because not everyone could afford C++ compilers when gtk+ was designed.

I'm sorry? How much do you pay for g++? This is the GNU Network Object Model Environment, isn't it?

C was chosen because not everyone could afford C++ compilers when gtk+ was designed.

I'm sorry? How much do you pay for g++? This is the GNU Network Object Model Environment, isn't it?

Show me a single program that is successful because it has a ridiculous number of configuration options.

The proof, which is left as an exercise to the reader, is more or less the same as one would use to proove the lameness of most window-managers. (Hint: Try to prove that it is LAME to have more than three applications taking up screen-share at once.)

Personally, I have my Perl bookshelf for on the road. I don't need Safari yet, but the breakeven isn't much considering the price of new books. (a 10 bookshelf is about the same cost as between 4 and 5 real books on your shelf). I guess the next time I need to extend my zoo or to get newer animals, I'll expect to go on safari.

Google deserves a patent because I love Google and they are not Microsoft or Amazon. What better justification is there?

Seriously though, this is a valid patent because it documents a new, usefull, and unique idea. The patent makes no proprietary claims about any of the trivial processes Google may employ in delivering it's product, just the core, non-trivial, methods used to generate it. Although the patent does mention the site and the systems required to support it, it is clear that it is the unique search functionality that is patented and not the website or it's infrastructure. Quite unlike the Amazon patent I ranted about yesterday.

This is becoming less and less of a joke, and it horrifies me.

Look what the Department of "Justice" is doing.

Once DRM gets well established, it will be only a step away from the govt. being able examine anything on your computer, no questions asked. And that is frigteningly close to the Orwell's thought police.

If you haven't yet, go read Stallman's a right to read. On second thoughts, why bother? We'll be experiencing it in a few years anyway.

For a text retrieval / linear algebra project (latent semantic indexing, et cetera), I used Matlab for quick testing and experimentation. Then, when it was time to write some stand-alone code to accompany my paper, I used the GNU Scientific Library (GSL). In addition to its own operations, it provides an interface to CBLAS (C Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms) which are pretty useful themselves. I considered LAPACK, but the documentation seemed less accessible. Both LAPACK and GSL are based on BLAS (Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms).

For a non-research project (nautilus shell simulation for the Ball State University math department), I used Maple and the Geometer's Sketchpad.

josh

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

This "distribute" within 2b of the GPL has been explicitly interpreted, by Richard Stallman and others with key position in open source licensing organizations, not to apply to large organizations that deploy software internally. While this means big corporations can deploy GPL'ed software without publishing their modifications to it, thereby favoring centralization of business assets, it also means the ultimate beneficiary of GPL software is the government since it is the biggest organization of them all.

Fundamentally, the GPL is the product of the communist culture from which Stahlman issued as close as his immediate family who were card-carrying members of the US communist party.

If you thought there was a conflict between centralized business and communism you should read more on the history of the communist revolution in Russia -- specifically the half-billion (2003USD) contribution to Leon Trotsky made by Wall Street magnate Jacob Schiff, without which Trotsky could not have started bolshevism.

Trotsky and Schiff both would have approved of the GPL.

# run up the spammers' advertising bills on Overture
wget --timeout=3 --wait=2 --random-wait \
--output-document=- --cookies=off --tries=2 \
--user-agent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)" \
"http://www.overture.com/d/search/?Keywords=bul k+email" \
"http://www.overture.com/d/search/?Keywords=ema il+marketing" \
"http://www.overture.com/d/search/?Keywords=mil lion+email" \
"http://www.overture.com/d/search/?Keywords=opt -in" | \
grep -i /d/sr | \
wget --timeout=3 --wait=2 --random-wait --cookies=off --tries=2 \
--user-agent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)" \
--force-html --base=http://www.overture.com/ --input-file=- \
--output-document=/dev/null

Wonder if Overture needs the cookie for this to actually have effect. I don't wanna risk it.

This (brief) code is hereby released, without copyright, under the GNU General Public License version 2.

# run up the spammers' advertising bills on Overture
wget --timeout=3 --wait=2 --random-wait \
--output-document=- --cookies=off --tries=2 \
--user-agent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)" \
"http://www.overture.com/d/search/?Keywords=bul k+email" \
"http://www.overture.com/d/search/?Keywords=ema il+marketing" \
"http://www.overture.com/d/search/?Keywords=mil lion+email" \
"http://www.overture.com/d/search/?Keywords=opt -in" | \
grep -i /d/sr | \
wget --timeout=3 --wait=2 --random-wait --cookies=off --tries=2 \
--user-agent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)" \
--force-html --base=http://www.overture.com/ --input-file=- \
--output-document=/dev/null

Wonder if Overture needs the cookie for this to actually have effect. I don't wanna risk it.

This (brief) code is hereby released, without copyright, under the GNU General Public License version 2.

This is very true, chaeron. I think it is also a side effect of another phenomenon, something I realized painfully in 2002 while out of work.

The fact is that software development and information technology is an industry undergoing severe deflation. It used to be such deflation affected only hardware, a byproduct of it becoming a commodity industry. But with interest rates so low and growth not so good, most businesses are really cutting costs and anything which doesn't translate directly and can be seen to translate directly into improved sales or profits is a likely candidate.

In my opinion, which was discussed extensively in a forum at realrates.com, demand for programmers has been constant since 1990 and, in fact, slightly decreasing. There has been a lot of demand for other computing specialists, including the database development crowd to which I now belong. The reason for this is that businesses have moved to buying shrinkwrap solutions rather than keeping a stable of expensive programmers. For most companies who cannot sell a product to a zillion customers and thereby fund an expensive development group, doing software is just too expensive and consumes resources not related directly to sales or support. Heck, I saw an article in one of those business mags for the suits that recommended rethinking corporate philanthropy so that it is more oriented towards sales and so the business gets something back for it. Buying shrinkwrap is the cheapest form of outsourcing there is.

If tools for special effects in movies are any indication, large sectors of what were hot domains for programmers are becoming standardized and usable directly by functionals. Naturally, the company that makes these tools needs programmers, but once a market has a dozen competitors offering products that everyone else buys that caps the limit on the number of coders. And, of course, if the sector sees a shakeout, as most eventually do, that trims the demand more.

I think this phenomenon is behind the rise of one-size-fits-all enterprise packages like PeopleSoft, SAP, and the Oracle Financials entrants. Suits seem to have decided that software is so much a drain they win bigger if they distort their policies and procedures to fit the software rather than using custom. I think this phenomenon is also behind the push for software that lets one DBA administer hundreds of databases.

Not all software application areas seem to be sucuumbing to this. Games development still looks like it can afford building independent engines and the like. But it'll probably happen there, too. I mean, realistically, what's the point of repeating a creation of a good renderer? Most games today seem to be built using tools that let artist-designers develop scenes and having extensive parameter files. How much longer before a half dozen companies standardize that and make up for any efficiencies by simply exploiting faster hardware?

Frankly, I think the reason why scripts are becoming so popular and widely used is that they can do a job quickly. That means it's cheaper because it draws fewer programming hours. And, with reason, I think the suits don't see a cost to impossible-to-maintain software, at least not one that's comparable to the price of paying the programmer hours. If there are components of their process that must be maintained carefully, they buy that. Anything else by definition doesn't require long term maintenance. It does require speed, flexibility, and low cost.

I, like many people here, love to code and it's what I envisioned doing indefinitely. But the demand is decreasing. So, I get my kicks doing ETL, database, and business intelligence stuff, using gawk to do it whenever I can. And with gawk I can knock out applications really fast. Clients often don't even know or care as long as the job gets done cheaply and quickly.

Hey, we have always known, struggled, and argued with software being too expensive to develop and maintain. Much of the training professional programmers get concerns how to build better software. We've always felt a tension between quality and speed in the sense of rapid development. The suits have decided that we took too long to solve the problem and found their own way. Oh well, the computer giveth and the computer taketh away.

Gee, way to show you don't know what you're talking about. Every compiled language turns the result into assembly language.

Java is not compiled into machine code, because there is no machine.

I've HEARD some java compilers actually can compile into ASM, but I haven't seen them, because everyone whinges and bitches about how this defeats java's imaginary "write once run everywhere".

I suggest the FSF should pushing for the use of spanish words gratis and libere in place of free.

Perhaps you should listen to the speeches FSF members have made. When introducing the concept of software freedom they address the alternate terms and mention that when speaking other languages they do use the term appropriate in that language. "Free" is the most appropriate term in the English language, it just happens to come with a double meaning which needs to be clarified. But this is hardly a major stumbling block to people understanding the concept.

If copyright is the Free Software Foundation's enemy, this is where to strike. It's time to think outside the jail of our language. LSF has a nice ring to it.

I think the confusion a name change would provoke outweighs any advantage a name change would gain. It doesn't take much time or effort to learn the concept of freedom (and English speakers are familiar with it in other contexts like "Free Tibet", so the idea is useful in other places too).

Copyright is not the FSF's enemy. Proprietary software is the enemy of Free Software. Copyright is leveraged to great success by the FSF and the GNU GPL. The problem the FSF has with copyright is a problem many other people share. If there were a grassroots copyright reform movement (which is growing, and I'm proud to say I'm working on by talking about copyright issues on my radio show), I'm sure the FSF would cheer us on.

Shortly after ALICE was ported to the palm and the pocket PC systems, respectively. :)

Are you suggesting something like this?
(I'm actually curious. At $750, this seems much more reasonable than the $1300 device listed above.)

The url is http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnuradio/ 2002-09/msg00025.html (no space before the 2002)

GNU TV would feature some of the funniest shows on television, powered by the Internet's funniest humor archive.

Here is the entire collection of mailing list conversations for the entirety of this project's lifetime.

You can see how tough roadblocks were overcome by a dedicated and brilliant team of GNU coders.

The recent trends in DRM etc are actually consequences of this. If you haven't yet, go read Stallman's A right to read. He anticipated DRM 9 years ago. The point is that there are certain things as unenforceable digital restrictions, such as sending a copy of a file on a machine you own to another machine you own through a channel you own. The media companies are seeking to prevent exactly this. To succeed, they will have to own all computing. From this point, I think we are on a path of no return. Either we will end up in a big-brother like situation, or there will be a major social revolution and rebellion, an overthrow of the existing order, and major reevaluation of the thinking on intellectual property issues.

From the article:

Central to Romer's theory is the idea of nonrivalry, a property he considers inherent to invention, designs, and other forms of intellectual creation. "A purely nonrival good," he wrote, "has the property that its use by one firm or person in no way limits its use by another." A formula, for example, can be used simultaneously and equally by 100 people, whereas a wrench cannot.

"My point was that money is not the difference"

I think that's wrong. The GPL licence implies fundamental financial differences between GPL software and open-source software. GPL software may be distributed by anyone in return for any amount of money, including no money at all. You may not want to release or distribute software that is under a GPL licence; your company may also choose not to do so; but if someone somewhere likes the GPL licence and wants to distribute free-of-charge a piece of software they have written as GPL software or to re-distribute free-of-charge existing GPL software written by somebody else, nobody else can stop them, without legal recourse.

• Financial issue #1:
  Anyone is always free to distribute GPL software free-of-charge. Nobody can prevent someone else distributing GPL software free-of-charge or for any amount of money, without legal recourse. By contrast, with certain open-source software the licence says everyone may not distribute it, whether free-of-charge or for money.

• Financial issue #2:
  Anyone is always free to use GPL software free-of-charge. With GPL software nobody can stop someone else using it free-of-charge, without legal recourse. However, with certain open-source software the licence says everyone may not use it free-of-charge.

When you said, "those who view source redistribution to be a right, have invented a license to guarantee that right", you have misunderstood the way the "common law" legal system works in countries like the USA and the UK; unless there is a specific law that forbids you from doing something, then you are generally free in law to act as you choose so long as your actions do not harm anybody or anything else (which would create a tort). If you obtain a piece of software, that software is provided to you under a software licence which is interpreted according to the principles of contract law. Therefore, by default -- no need for any extra licence(s) -- you already have the legal right to do whatever you like with a piece of software unless the legal contract you enter when you accept a software licence explicitly removes your right to take certain actions.

Most commercial software licences take away rights that you would otherwise have by default. When you have rights by default, then a licence which takes away rights, whether willingly entered or not, must be correctly described as causing a loss of rights to the end user of the software. Whether the end-users' loss of rights is good or bad from the point of view of the software author/rights-holder depends on management strategy, shareholder expectations, market competition, etc. Nonetheless, I think the advantages of GPL software -- apart from price -- from the point of view of end users -- especially of end-users who are not interested in source-code availability -- are so strongly appreciated when explained in non-technical plain English, that any GPL software which has an adequate feature set and sufficient usability for end-users will eventually achieve greater distribution and usage than equivalent commercial software, whether open-source or not. This process will be damaging to commercial software companies that do not adapt and develop ways of cooperating with and harnessing GPL software for their benefit e.g. by selling correctly priced add-on services (no unsustainable "dot-com" marketing strategies).

Lastly, I think you can be a programmer and still find the distinction between closed-source software and open-source software to be absolutely vital in many senses. You cannot speak for all programmers. It depends on the situation, the programmer, the software, the licences, the business, the management, the costs, the benefits, etc.

According to the author of the article (who is a lawyer, in Australia) a software license is only a contract if "consideration" is involved on both sides (i.e. each side has to receive something). From my an admittedly small amount of searching on the web this appears to be true. Now since the copyright holder does receive anything in the case of a free software license, it doesn't seem possible for it to be a contract.

The author then states that a pure license, one that involves no contractual obligation, can be revoked by the copyright holder at any time. Searches on the web produce a lot of people saying this is not the case but none of them are lawyers. The author only states that it is true for Australia so it may vary depending what juristiction you are in. However in the case of Australia the author cites a case involving the shareware program Trumpet Winsock which appears to back up his arguement.

The FSF site says that the GPL cannot be revoked but it presents no legal argument why this is the case. Such a legal arguement would certainly be comforting.

But now, with the 2000 versions, include Project/Project Server, Visio, MapPoint, Frontpage, Publisher, and the list goes on and on.

For Project use MrProject.

For Visio use Kivio or Dia.

I'm not familiar with MapPoint, but it seems to be more content[1] than code, unless you count the work being done with GRASS.

I'm not familiar with the full version of FrontPage, but for FrontPage Express use Mozilla Composer.

For desktop publishing use one of those graphical LaTeX editors.

[1] RMS hates the word "content", but I know of no better word to describe copyrighted works other than computer-readable descriptions of algorithms.

but what's the *nix equivalent of Yankee Doodle?

I don't know about *nix in general, but for GNU/Linux this is probably appropriate...

Implying that Free Software has a problem with people making money which isn't the case given:

Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software.

found here.

The developers doesn't get paid.
The game will be sold for money.
I think this ruins the entire idea of making the game in the first place. Sure, it would be good to have a game on Linux, but many good games have already been ported. One idea which would have been good would be to make a game free, and then show the world that there is good gaming for other platforms than Microsoft Windows and that it's free!

Mr. Moglen works for the free software foundation, and he is a staunch supporter of free software rather than open source.

Check this link for information on the differences between the two: Free software for freedom.

Dunno how, i messed up with the url, the original ./ article is here and it point to the freshmeat one that talk about the use of screen and RatPoison as windows managers (and they're both a must-try).

RTFA. The fonts have a TEMPORARY license that is not redistributable.

Then there's no reason why the GNOME project should not do as I indicated (which you would have noticed had you bothered to read the parent post):

The GNOME project should wait [to distribute the fonts] until Bitstream releases the fonts under a Free Software license.

Since you didn't read the parent post, I'm guessing you also didn't read the links I pointed to. I mention this because it might come as news to you that there is no exception given in software freedom for temporary licenses. When the fonts are free, GNOME (or whatever part of GNU would be more technically appropriate) should help users by distributing the fonts. As for the fonts before us here and now, GNOME should not distribute these fonts.

According to their website, the GNOME project is part of GNU. GNU was founded to make the dream of software freedom a reality. The Bitstream Vera fonts offered to us here and now (the "beta" fonts) are not Free Software. Nobody is licensed to redistribute the fonts, so they cannot possibly qualify as Free Software. Therefore, it makes no sense why GNOME would do anything with these fonts at all. The GNOME project should wait until Bitstream releases the fonts under a Free Software license.

I'm disappointed that an official part of GNU would get involved with these non-free fonts. If you are interested in using only Free Software, I urge you to not obtain copies of these fonts under their current license. It's times like these one can measure how interested they are in pursuing freedom versus pursuing convenience. The freedoms of Free Software got us the community we treasure. Don't throw that away.

According to their website, the GNOME project is part of GNU. GNU was founded to make the dream of software freedom a reality. The Bitstream Vera fonts offered to us here and now (the "beta" fonts) are not Free Software. Nobody is licensed to redistribute the fonts, so they cannot possibly qualify as Free Software. Therefore, it makes no sense why GNOME would do anything with these fonts at all. The GNOME project should wait until Bitstream releases the fonts under a Free Software license.

I'm disappointed that an official part of GNU would get involved with these non-free fonts. If you are interested in using only Free Software, I urge you to not obtain copies of these fonts under their current license. It's times like these one can measure how interested they are in pursuing freedom versus pursuing convenience. The freedoms of Free Software got us the community we treasure. Don't throw that away.

Let's imagine that you took one of Steven King's novels and wrote an alternative ending. Could you legally distribute that and tell your customers to go and purchase Steven King's book if you want to read the first part of the story. Of course not. Creating a program that requires an external library is a similar type deal.

Now if your program communicates with a separate GPLed program via pipes (or other methods) that's a totally different story. Read the FAQ, it should clear things up.

How about this. The one thing guaranteed to be common about all Linux distributions is the kernel...

Nice try, but this in in their FAQ (although "Frequently Made Arguments" would be a better name). You are free to disagree, but you have to respond to their counter-arguments or things will just go in a circle.

Secondly, things are named by the people who drive their development.

This isn't an argument, this is a statement of fact. The FSF doesn't dispute that people do, in fact, call the system Linux, and they even support people's free-speech right to call it whatever they choose (this is a FAQ, too). Their argument is over what the system should be called.

From what I know, the FSF didn't lead development of operating systems based on the Linux kernel.

The whole purpose of the GNU project, starting in 1984, was to develop a free operating system. It's hard to say that they didn't "lead" the development when they were the people to start it. This in, in fact, the FSF's main argument, which you have still failed to address. (They also respond specifically to suggestions that the GNU name only be used for those components they particularly developed.)

I don't really want to have to argue the side of the FSF here; I'm not their spokesperson, and my views are not identical theirs. I just find it frustrating to watch people argue in circles about this all of the time because they don't respond to counter-arguments. Still, your post is much better than the vast majority on the topic.

1. With what compiler?
2. Why? Why do that just to mock RMS? He started a project to do a full free operating system almost 20 years ago which I'm very happy for. Give the guy a break. He may be a hero but he's (in his own words) no buddha, most of us wants credit once in a while.
3. While I can understand why RMS wants to bring attention to the GNU project and it's goals (free software), I can't help but feel suspicious of the "linux fanboys" that insist, time and time again, even totally out of the blue and uncalled for, to call it the system just Linux without those three letters.
4. I can't even believe this link should be necessary.

It is quite possible to disagree with Richard Stallman's views, especially if you don't start with the same values as axioms. And, in person, he is not always the most suave and charming character, to say the least. But if you actually read anything he has written, you'll find that his essays never make personal attacks, almost always try to directly respond with reasons to the actual arguments of those who disagree with him, and maintain a calm tone.

It is unfair to base your opinion of him on the strawmen propped up continually at Slashdot, and embarrassing that his strongest critics don't measure up to RMS's level of rationality.

(To be fair, the particular post I'm responding to is pretty mild; it doesn't make any arguments, it simply takes the Slashdot characterization of RMS as a given.)

Based upon this, wouldn't any software linking against libraries (assuming they GPL-ed) on a system be required to be GPL-ed?

Yup. You can find this answer and many others like it in the GPL FAQ