Slashdot Mirror

See gcc news.

What, you expect him to port it by himself to Windows and MacOS just to fit the OSS mantra? Add "currently available" to that sentence and it's an incontrovertible statement of fact. Understanding has nothing to do with it.

I check the GNUnet homepage, and among the listed requirements are GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD.

with that attitude they never will. you know why alot of people dont use linux? because there most people dont use linux. the follow the hurd justification is kind of a self defeating argument.

I highly doubt that many people aren't using linux because they're following the Hurd.

However, as far as software goes...the words free software and open source do refer to the same thing.

No, they don't. If they did "refer to the same thing" one might wonder what the differences in the two movements are. There are some non-free software licenses (and licensed under them non-free software) that are acceptable to the Open Source Initiative. Some of this software is licensed under the original Artistic License and the Apple Public Source License. This is basic set theory--the set of licenses that qualify for being listed as Free Software are simply not the same set of licenses that are approved by the Open Source Initiative.

There's two movements with very different views and goals, one of them calls it free software and the other calls it open source -- when they speak about the same thing.

Your description is self-contradictory. If the two movements really spoke of the same thing one would have a hard time understanding how you could conclude they have "very different views and goals". The Open Source movement's goals simply do not include talking about software freedom, therefore they never engage in such discussion. Conversely the Free Software movement's goals include teaching people about software freedom, thus this movement takes the time to point out that the pragmatic advantages we all cherish come from particular freedoms in the licenses. This is a fundamental difference between the two groups. This difference informs the criteria by which the two groups judge software licenses.

The essay you claim awareness of tells us in the very first sentence:

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas.

Given all I just said, I'll take one of your remarks out of conversational order to illustrate my point in regard to a specific license--the GNU GPL:

GNU Emacs? That's open source even though it's maker likes to call it free software.

I disagree that it is at all appropriate to refer to GNU Emacs as "open source". It's virtually impossible to read the GNU GPL and come away with a significant understanding of the Open Source movement. The GPL was written with the four fundamental freedoms of Free Software in mind and the GPL's preamble alone makes it clear that the focus of the GPL is defending these freedoms for all computer users. The Open Source movement had nothing to do with writing the GNU GPL or the Emacs license (from which the GPL came). This is because the Open Source movement did not exist until roughly a decade after these documents were written. Therefore it is historically and ideologically incorrect to identify GNU Emacs as being "open source".

However, as far as software goes...the words free software and open source do refer to the same thing.

No, they don't. If they did "refer to the same thing" one might wonder what the differences in the two movements are. There are some non-free software licenses (and licensed under them non-free software) that are acceptable to the Open Source Initiative. Some of this software is licensed under the original Artistic License and the Apple Public Source License. This is basic set theory--the set of licenses that qualify for being listed as Free Software are simply not the same set of licenses that are approved by the Open Source Initiative.

There's two movements with very different views and goals, one of them calls it free software and the other calls it open source -- when they speak about the same thing.

Your description is self-contradictory. If the two movements really spoke of the same thing one would have a hard time understanding how you could conclude they have "very different views and goals". The Open Source movement's goals simply do not include talking about software freedom, therefore they never engage in such discussion. Conversely the Free Software movement's goals include teaching people about software freedom, thus this movement takes the time to point out that the pragmatic advantages we all cherish come from particular freedoms in the licenses. This is a fundamental difference between the two groups. This difference informs the criteria by which the two groups judge software licenses.

The essay you claim awareness of tells us in the very first sentence:

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas.

Given all I just said, I'll take one of your remarks out of conversational order to illustrate my point in regard to a specific license--the GNU GPL:

GNU Emacs? That's open source even though it's maker likes to call it free software.

I disagree that it is at all appropriate to refer to GNU Emacs as "open source". It's virtually impossible to read the GNU GPL and come away with a significant understanding of the Open Source movement. The GPL was written with the four fundamental freedoms of Free Software in mind and the GPL's preamble alone makes it clear that the focus of the GPL is defending these freedoms for all computer users. The Open Source movement had nothing to do with writing the GNU GPL or the Emacs license (from which the GPL came). This is because the Open Source movement did not exist until roughly a decade after these documents were written. Therefore it is historically and ideologically incorrect to identify GNU Emacs as being "open source".

That would be nice; we've never seen anything like that before in the Unix world...

*smiles*

Please go to GNU's web site and view the GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses

You will find that X11 and The modified BSD license are listed. Even the OriginalBSD License is listed under GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses.

Cheers! And Best Luck to all who promote Free Software ... GNU style, or BSD style.

Please go to GNU's web site and view the GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses

You will find that X11 and The modified BSD license are listed. Even the OriginalBSD License is listed under GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses.

Cheers! And Best Luck to all who promote Free Software ... GNU style, or BSD style.

Please go to GNU's web site and view the GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses

You will find that X11 and The modified BSD license are listed. Even the OriginalBSD License is listed under GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses.

Cheers! And Best Luck to all who promote Free Software ... GNU style, or BSD style.

No. The GPL requires that if they give you the binaries, they're required to give you access to the source as well. And you can do whatever you want (subject to the GPL) with the source.

The GPL means that someone else can buy it and redistribute it for free, but the author is under no obligation to do so. (And that only applies to the GPL components, which may or may not include the installer and other Libranet-specific components.)

Read the GPL

The "cost of distribution" part only refers to distributing the source code to accompany binaries; it doesn't refer to distribution as a whole. The GPL isn't about making all software free as in beer; it's about making sure that all users have access to the source code, and they can do whatever they want with such code. The "all software free as in beer" bit is just a bonus...

...he has done more to advance open source computing through his writing than most.

Then it would be inappropriate to grant him an award "for the advancement of Free Software". Perhaps you weren't aware of the difference between the Free Software and Open Source movements.

...he has done more to advance open source computing through his writing than most.

Then it would be inappropriate to grant him an award "for the advancement of Free Software". Perhaps you weren't aware of the difference between the Free Software and Open Source movements.

I believe OSX on i386 will cause a major movement toward more open source software development.

And that should be why they dismiss your submission: their goal is to move people to freedom, hence the name of the "Free Software" movement, not to move people to dismiss software freedom or back licenses which deny computer users software freedom. It makes no sense to give a Free Software advancement award those who make non-free software.

I believe OSX on i386 will cause a major movement toward more open source software development.

And that should be why they dismiss your submission: their goal is to move people to freedom, hence the name of the "Free Software" movement, not to move people to dismiss software freedom or back licenses which deny computer users software freedom. It makes no sense to give a Free Software advancement award those who make non-free software.

We were never on the topic of "OSS/FS awards". The award is being given "for the Advancement of Free Software". There is no mention of the other movement and for good reason. The event is being organized by the FSF and the GNU project which have no affiliation with the Open Source movement. Please take the time to read the press release and learn the difference between the two movements so you won't be confused and confuse others.

We were never on the topic of "OSS/FS awards". The award is being given "for the Advancement of Free Software". There is no mention of the other movement and for good reason. The event is being organized by the FSF and the GNU project which have no affiliation with the Open Source movement. Please take the time to read the press release and learn the difference between the two movements so you won't be confused and confuse others.

Really he's trying to do what he think is best for his country, which he believes involves using Open Source software.

No, he believes doing what's best for his country involves using Free Software, not "Open Source". He takes the Microsoft rep to task for referring to what he's doing as "Open Source". The bill he backs specifically mentions "Free Software". He is aware the two are not the same thing and he chooses to back the Free Software movement. This has been discussed before.

I nominate Bill Gates. He should get the award for advancing free software

You seem not to be the only one that wants Bill Gates too recieve it...

from the list of 1999 Free Software Award Nominees: ...Fractint Team, FreeBSD Team, Bill Gates, John Gilmore, Andi Gutmans....

I have one thing too say:

ROTFLOL !

snprintf() is in the ISO C99 standard (section 7.19.6.5 in the draft - I don't have the final standard).

Of course, GCC doesn't support printf(), let alone snprintf(). It is true that snprintf() is in the GNU C library, but that is only available for GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd systems (see http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc). Although many people (including myself) use one of these, some use a BSD-based operating system (and a few perversely insist on using Microsoft products). GCC on such a platform claims only to be a "conforming freestanding implementation" so does not provide such facilities.

Of course, GCC admits it doesn't support structures with volatile fields in registers, GAS segment violates when passed data from /dev/random, GLIBC does not include a garbage collector, Linux (yes - the limit is posted in /usr/include/linux/limits.h) has a limit of 4096 characters in path names and GNU Emacs cannot even handle large files on a 32-bit system. (I thought that the GNU standards specifically required techniques that do not arbitrarily limit processing capability - Bison has the same problem by requiring the stack size to be a compile-time constant.) Perhaps I should switch to FreeBSD...

Nope, 100% wrong. Nothing could be more friendly than having 100% control of your computer.

I agree if we use "user-friendly" to mean "we are as accommodating to the user as possible, and we trust the user". However the conventional usage is "we make things as easy for the user as possible", which GNU does not do (emacs, as just one example). GNU authors are geeks who write for geeks, and I think they secretly like the feeling that they are part of a secret club that nobody else can understand.

The goal of GNU is to produce the world's best software and that includes ease of use.

From the horse's mouth: The principal goal of GNU was to be free software. And: The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular.

the easiest installs available anywhere

Newbie software install in Windows: double click on setup.exe, keep clicking OK. Done.

Newbie software install in GNU: Let's see, it's .tar.gz, so I have to untar it ... can't remember how that works ... man tar ... OK, there it is. Now let's read the README. Configure, fine. GCC not found? What the hell is that?

Is there a single piece of comercial software that you can point to that does not have a free analog that's just as easy to use and more powerful?

Linus certainly seems to think so. Remember the kerfuffle over his use of some proprietary package to maintain the Linux kernel? He said he just wanted to use the best tool, whether it was free or not.

What kind of privilege escalation is there on a userless OS?

As many on this forum have established, although Win 95/98 are userless, WinNT does have privilege checking and administrator accounts.

And with reference to your spelling of MS with a dollar sign, you might find this Penny Arcade cartoon helpful.

The one that should shut up is YOU. Just because you don't agree with his views doesn't give you the right to hold hate speech about him.

Bury the "GPL is viral" myth!

One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespace thank you very much).

The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. To put it bluntly, Perl scripts will still look less beautiful than our friend Mr Goatse. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD^H^H^H^H Perl is dying. Larry is buggering it up the ass without lubricants, just like Shoeboy is doing to Larry's daughter.

Well, Thomas Jefferson had utter disdain for "it" as well. Franklin ignored the system out of disdain, and probably could have doubled his net worth on his Franklin Stove alone. So we are in good company.

The first problem is that almost ANY discussion of "IP" is utterly pointless, since it is such a broad topic as to render any argument on the subject automatically overly broad. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty)

Patents would seem to be a necessary evil in a capitalist society. Sadly, our (US) patent system is clearly completely broken. Did you know that "Save as . . ." is patented? Do you realize that, in clear violation of US patent law, patents issue daily for "technology" that wasn't invented by the applicant, and the real "inventor" simply never thought to try to patent such a trivial "advance?"

I would encourage you to re-think your grossly over-simplistic view on the issue of "IP."

-Peter

In other news, they (VA) are outsourcing sales offshore. CSS will be "reselling" soresforge "licenses". That is a hoot. Don't these people know the FREE code is here.

Silly Faggots, Dicks are for Chicks!

~ R.W.S. gagged

• They do not promote innovation, but merely fast patenting. The nature of CS is such that many ideas are independantly developed, and would be available without patents
• Software progresses faster without them. Here[PDF] is a (very) detailed analysis of the topic.
• Patents Don't encourage disclosure -- it's not very disclosed if no-one who might implement it will read it for fear of a lawsuit! I think M$ has this as a policy, but I can't find proof.
• Limited times are a joke -- many products are obsolete in 6 monthes. Others take 6 monthes to get going.

Did you check out the philosophy of GNU and the Free Software Foundation, and their GPL (General Public License). You also might want to see the views of Richard Stallman.

Sign the petition to get rid of software patents: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/pasp01/petition-sign .html And for anyone who wants info on why software patents are bad: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/patent-reform-is-not -enough.html

To quote their summary: "GNUnet is an anonymous, distributed, reputation-based network." It's the reputation part that should cover poisoning pretty well (the anonymous part is pretty cool, too).

Yeah, the code is pretty much still at the Alpha stage, but if you want to help....it's gnu code after all.....

ILLEGAL unlicenced software

Linux for XBOX unlicensed? More like GNU General Public License.

On the other hand, Richard Stallman agrees with you. I personally think he's a nut, but he does have some interesting ideas. Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html.

Now now. I know 45MB is nothing to sneeze at, but let's not forget when they posted a link to a 1.1GB VOB on the front page.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/06/174023 3&mode=nested&tid=117

The link has since died, and the full movie is only available on special request from the FSF (a smaller(60MB) version is now available) or to FSF developers.

The video available wasn't even all that good. With the a/v occasionally losing sync, wierd artifacts in the video, etc. However, I believe these were chalked up to the Free software that they were using.

Oh well, just so you know. These guys have done worse ;-).

"The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system..."

I think that RMS named it GNU's Not Unix to make sure no one would get confused.

they did not understand that you have to be able to code games (graphics) in it before someone will pick it up

SWING is not to bad now only thanks to 2GHz client side machines

what we need is an open classpath (pun I know) and a gcc that can compile it (which people are doing) so its looking good for java and open source

frankly SUN should submit the large bulked up version to EMACA and keep the emmbeded versions and swing and JDBC for itself and save a hell of a alot by not haveing to fund all of this via a profit makeing comapny instead have a java Foundation which is Non profit

god why is this so hard for scott and co to do

Microsoft would likely have supported standard Java and added lots of proprietary libraries

For widespread adoption by the open source community, Java missed its window of opportunity for the most part--Sun's policies still don't make it a good platform.

Microsoft would likely have supported standard Java and added lots of proprietary libraries

For widespread adoption by the open source community, Java missed its window of opportunity for the most part--Sun's policies still don't make it a good platform.

...[W]e have a huge number of people who use the two terms interchangeably because they do refer to the same thing. It is (mostly) the same software, the same licenses.

Those people who use the terms "Open Source" and "Free Software" interchangeably do not understand the history and purpose of the two movements (perhaps they understand neither movement). The two movements do not refer to the same licenses in the same way nor do they stand for the same interests. That is why I pointed you and all the other readers to this essay which lays out these differences far more clearly than the glib retort found in the Open Source Initiative's FAQ entry on the matter.

As the linked to essay clearly points out, supporters of both movements do get along and work together on specific projects; their differing philosophies have some common consequences. That doesn't mean everything these two groups seek to advance is the same nor does it mean they work on projects for the same reasons.

Yes, indeed these are great news! I'm really happy that Velug finally managed to pull out something good for us all :)

Oh yes, i live in Caracas, i run Freebsd in my home, i also do a little sysadmin job in another Freebsd machine on a cybercafe, and put Linux in a community FM radio (94.9FM) (only heard in parts of Caracas)

Im always trying to show the benefits of free software to my friends, and it is not easy. The same, well known issues arise again and again, but i will never give up :) Of course i don't push people to anything, in the end its their choice to give it a try. The incidents in Peru have been very inspiring for me to continue, and i hope to meet some of these fine people now finally in a position to do something positive for us all.

I can't accept the position of almost all the privately held media in Venezuela that absolutely everything out of this governement is bad and worst than the previous. This can't simply be true. Too many important people has been given now the oportunity that none of the previous corrupt politicians ever made to anyone unless a lot of cash were offered beforehand, in which case, of course was only for the benefit of the big foreign corporation interests.

Please continue to spread out the good positive news!

For people not living in Venezuela:

Most private media owners declared war to the current President, Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias, who apparently refused to continue maintaining special privileges for the sector. It was clearly evidenced in past Coup d'Etat (that only lasted 2 days!) when they not only closed the only non private held TV station (and all community radios), but also they self censored themselves by not showing any kind of news coverage of the events.

People who had satellite and cable TV could watch from CNN and Telemundo the events that were taking place only blocks away, but none of the local media were willing to show. One worker who later resigned in channel RCTV was literally given the order "Don't put on air any pro chavez demonstration".

Any journalist is supposed to get and show you both sides of a story, and then let you decide. In Venezuela, most news will only cover one side. As you have clearly seen, the intent for a few (used to be more priviledged than now class) is to get rid of Chavez at all costs. Simply because he is not willing to adhere to their interests.

Yes, 10 yrs ago Chavez attempted a Coup d'Etat, failed and went to prision. He later was set free, founded a political Party, and he cleanly won elections for president in 98. Truly some people were so angered by all the previous governements that made a dream of having a sort of "mesiah" that would came and clean it all. The reality showed otherwise. Trying to revert 4 decades of corruption is no small task, and it still erodes current goverment, so there have been lots of mistakes.

Mistakes that were not disguised, or denied, mistakes thas had been admited! And countless efforts have been made to settle things down, dialogue tables, international mediators (including the Carter Center), but there is a small yet powerful sector which happens to control most media which simply cares nothing and want him out.

I am still positive though. Things like Community Radio (known as Low Power FM movement in the states) and adoption of "Free Software whenever possible by the governement, are clear indications that things can be done, and ARE being done.

> Let me start by saying I'm all for Open Source software

That's it. You don't grok free software. It is not the same thing philosophically.

> Oh grow up!

I'm amazed my maturity interests you, but I am 30, have a job and a family, and have had some pretty good education, including some reading in Philosophy. Now on to the debate.

> Think for a moment about who you're freeing.

The users, and in the measure in which government has grown dependent on Informatics, the people.

> Most corporations are given the right to modify programs to fit their individual needs.

No, they aren't. I work at a big European telecom operator, and we have neither the Microsoft source code nor the Amdocs (our billing system vendor) one. Now, I think it is self-defeating proposition to run a business without the source code to one's core system, as is a billing system to a telecom operator. But the incredible thing is that MBAs think it is good. No need to tell you how much shareholders' money is wasted.

> The average consumer doesn't know source code from techno-bable. They couldn't change or modify their programs any way.

The main purpose of source code is not modifying it, but avoiding proprietary lock-in. Please educate yourself.

> now stop fighting the licence war

If we allow everyone to hoard software and claim it's free or open or standard, like Apple and the Unix vendors and Microsoft all have done, we loose our freedom again.

> make your products useable.

That needs efforts currently wasted on useless forking, semi-free code and proprietary systems interoperability.

> So then why are people complaining when Apple and other companies release the sorce to programs?

They didn't. Apple released under a quasi-free license mostly that was already available under a really free license.

> Just because it isn't GPL licensed?

No, because it is not free.

> You can't have consensus because different people want different things.

Yes, but most forking is not because of different, valid goals: it is because of bad technical decisions (for instance RPM as a dpkg fork), proprietary licensing (for instance the original TrollTech Qt licensing) or just the not-invented-here syndrome.

> Freedom and Security are on to ends of a scale. There has to be a balance. Complete freedom means no security, complete security means no freedom, but you have to provide a reason.

Go educate yourself about risks and security. Usually free software is more secure than equivalent proprietary software.

> Safety, if M$ Office breaks, theres technical assistance for them.

There isn't. There is no warranty, there is no security, there is no source code to fix things. There are thousands of people who know a little about MS Office, but no one has the source code. The end result is that people learn to live with brokenness in proprietary programs, while with free software it can always be fixed.

> Ease of use, most OSS software is nice sometime seven great once it's running, but getting it up and running is a pain.

This is being addressed by several distributions. Rome wasn't built in one day.

> Extra steps, as nice as the OSS office suite is, the users still have to select M$ Office format to save their documents so everyone else can read them.

This is because MS Office documents are proprietary. If they were open standards, there would be no need of converstion. But still, if things are saved in XHTML, PDF, RTF and the like, MS Office users can read them.

I don't know why I loose time trying to teach people who can't to their homework reading.

> Let me start by saying I'm all for Open Source software

That's it. You don't grok free software. It is not the same thing philosophically.

> Oh grow up!

I'm amazed my maturity interests you, but I am 30, have a job and a family, and have had some pretty good education, including some reading in Philosophy. Now on to the debate.

> Think for a moment about who you're freeing.

The users, and in the measure in which government has grown dependent on Informatics, the people.

> Most corporations are given the right to modify programs to fit their individual needs.

No, they aren't. I work at a big European telecom operator, and we have neither the Microsoft source code nor the Amdocs (our billing system vendor) one. Now, I think it is self-defeating proposition to run a business without the source code to one's core system, as is a billing system to a telecom operator. But the incredible thing is that MBAs think it is good. No need to tell you how much shareholders' money is wasted.

> The average consumer doesn't know source code from techno-bable. They couldn't change or modify their programs any way.

The main purpose of source code is not modifying it, but avoiding proprietary lock-in. Please educate yourself.

> now stop fighting the licence war

If we allow everyone to hoard software and claim it's free or open or standard, like Apple and the Unix vendors and Microsoft all have done, we loose our freedom again.

> make your products useable.

That needs efforts currently wasted on useless forking, semi-free code and proprietary systems interoperability.

> So then why are people complaining when Apple and other companies release the sorce to programs?

They didn't. Apple released under a quasi-free license mostly that was already available under a really free license.

> Just because it isn't GPL licensed?

No, because it is not free.

> You can't have consensus because different people want different things.

Yes, but most forking is not because of different, valid goals: it is because of bad technical decisions (for instance RPM as a dpkg fork), proprietary licensing (for instance the original TrollTech Qt licensing) or just the not-invented-here syndrome.

> Freedom and Security are on to ends of a scale. There has to be a balance. Complete freedom means no security, complete security means no freedom, but you have to provide a reason.

Go educate yourself about risks and security. Usually free software is more secure than equivalent proprietary software.

> Safety, if M$ Office breaks, theres technical assistance for them.

There isn't. There is no warranty, there is no security, there is no source code to fix things. There are thousands of people who know a little about MS Office, but no one has the source code. The end result is that people learn to live with brokenness in proprietary programs, while with free software it can always be fixed.

> Ease of use, most OSS software is nice sometime seven great once it's running, but getting it up and running is a pain.

This is being addressed by several distributions. Rome wasn't built in one day.

> Extra steps, as nice as the OSS office suite is, the users still have to select M$ Office format to save their documents so everyone else can read them.

This is because MS Office documents are proprietary. If they were open standards, there would be no need of converstion. But still, if things are saved in XHTML, PDF, RTF and the like, MS Office users can read them.

I don't know why I loose time trying to teach people who can't to their homework reading.

> Let me start by saying I'm all for Open Source software

That's it. You don't grok free software. It is not the same thing philosophically.

> Oh grow up!

I'm amazed my maturity interests you, but I am 30, have a job and a family, and have had some pretty good education, including some reading in Philosophy. Now on to the debate.

> Think for a moment about who you're freeing.

The users, and in the measure in which government has grown dependent on Informatics, the people.

> Most corporations are given the right to modify programs to fit their individual needs.

No, they aren't. I work at a big European telecom operator, and we have neither the Microsoft source code nor the Amdocs (our billing system vendor) one. Now, I think it is self-defeating proposition to run a business without the source code to one's core system, as is a billing system to a telecom operator. But the incredible thing is that MBAs think it is good. No need to tell you how much shareholders' money is wasted.

> The average consumer doesn't know source code from techno-bable. They couldn't change or modify their programs any way.

The main purpose of source code is not modifying it, but avoiding proprietary lock-in. Please educate yourself.

> now stop fighting the licence war

If we allow everyone to hoard software and claim it's free or open or standard, like Apple and the Unix vendors and Microsoft all have done, we loose our freedom again.

> make your products useable.

That needs efforts currently wasted on useless forking, semi-free code and proprietary systems interoperability.

> So then why are people complaining when Apple and other companies release the sorce to programs?

They didn't. Apple released under a quasi-free license mostly that was already available under a really free license.

> Just because it isn't GPL licensed?

No, because it is not free.

> You can't have consensus because different people want different things.

Yes, but most forking is not because of different, valid goals: it is because of bad technical decisions (for instance RPM as a dpkg fork), proprietary licensing (for instance the original TrollTech Qt licensing) or just the not-invented-here syndrome.

> Freedom and Security are on to ends of a scale. There has to be a balance. Complete freedom means no security, complete security means no freedom, but you have to provide a reason.

Go educate yourself about risks and security. Usually free software is more secure than equivalent proprietary software.

> Safety, if M$ Office breaks, theres technical assistance for them.

There isn't. There is no warranty, there is no security, there is no source code to fix things. There are thousands of people who know a little about MS Office, but no one has the source code. The end result is that people learn to live with brokenness in proprietary programs, while with free software it can always be fixed.

> Ease of use, most OSS software is nice sometime seven great once it's running, but getting it up and running is a pain.

This is being addressed by several distributions. Rome wasn't built in one day.

> Extra steps, as nice as the OSS office suite is, the users still have to select M$ Office format to save their documents so everyone else can read them.

This is because MS Office documents are proprietary. If they were open standards, there would be no need of converstion. But still, if things are saved in XHTML, PDF, RTF and the like, MS Office users can read them.

I don't know why I loose time trying to teach people who can't to their homework reading.

> Let me start by saying I'm all for Open Source software

That's it. You don't grok free software. It is not the same thing philosophically.

> Oh grow up!

I'm amazed my maturity interests you, but I am 30, have a job and a family, and have had some pretty good education, including some reading in Philosophy. Now on to the debate.

> Think for a moment about who you're freeing.

The users, and in the measure in which government has grown dependent on Informatics, the people.

> Most corporations are given the right to modify programs to fit their individual needs.

No, they aren't. I work at a big European telecom operator, and we have neither the Microsoft source code nor the Amdocs (our billing system vendor) one. Now, I think it is self-defeating proposition to run a business without the source code to one's core system, as is a billing system to a telecom operator. But the incredible thing is that MBAs think it is good. No need to tell you how much shareholders' money is wasted.

> The average consumer doesn't know source code from techno-bable. They couldn't change or modify their programs any way.

The main purpose of source code is not modifying it, but avoiding proprietary lock-in. Please educate yourself.

> now stop fighting the licence war

If we allow everyone to hoard software and claim it's free or open or standard, like Apple and the Unix vendors and Microsoft all have done, we loose our freedom again.

> make your products useable.

That needs efforts currently wasted on useless forking, semi-free code and proprietary systems interoperability.

> So then why are people complaining when Apple and other companies release the sorce to programs?

They didn't. Apple released under a quasi-free license mostly that was already available under a really free license.

> Just because it isn't GPL licensed?

No, because it is not free.

> You can't have consensus because different people want different things.

Yes, but most forking is not because of different, valid goals: it is because of bad technical decisions (for instance RPM as a dpkg fork), proprietary licensing (for instance the original TrollTech Qt licensing) or just the not-invented-here syndrome.

> Freedom and Security are on to ends of a scale. There has to be a balance. Complete freedom means no security, complete security means no freedom, but you have to provide a reason.

Go educate yourself about risks and security. Usually free software is more secure than equivalent proprietary software.

> Safety, if M$ Office breaks, theres technical assistance for them.

There isn't. There is no warranty, there is no security, there is no source code to fix things. There are thousands of people who know a little about MS Office, but no one has the source code. The end result is that people learn to live with brokenness in proprietary programs, while with free software it can always be fixed.

> Ease of use, most OSS software is nice sometime seven great once it's running, but getting it up and running is a pain.

This is being addressed by several distributions. Rome wasn't built in one day.

> Extra steps, as nice as the OSS office suite is, the users still have to select M$ Office format to save their documents so everyone else can read them.

This is because MS Office documents are proprietary. If they were open standards, there would be no need of converstion. But still, if things are saved in XHTML, PDF, RTF and the like, MS Office users can read them.

I don't know why I loose time trying to teach people who can't to their homework reading.

For those adopting open source, we have Peru...

No, Congressman Villanueva was clearly talking about Free Software, not Open Source (perhaps you aren't familiar with the difference between the two movements). He made explicit reference to this early in his response to the Microsoft rep who made the same error you did casting the bill in terms of the wrong movement. I explained this when it came up on Slashdot before. Given the language being used in the Venezuelan case, I have strong suspicions the same error is being made here.

Disney is a rather poor choice to cite in the context of "hav[ing]" something worthwhile. Disney is a major sponsor of the CBDTPA (née the SSSCA), a bill that seeks to further harm our ability to share. The Disney corporation speaks out in favor of infinite copyright power, part of the topic in the pending US Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft (née Eldred v. Reno). Disney is a vocal advocate of the ill-concieved concept of "piracy" and the claimed ills sharing brings to the movie and music industries. Gaining a small bit of camaderie with some Disney site admins who use Apache at the cost of losing our freedom to share is a very bad exchange.

The Norway example is typical of the misidentification of intention and statement some Open Source supporters often cite when talking about the GNU GPL. They say the GPL is an "Open Source" license, yet don't acknowledge it is only one because the Open Source Initiative chose to define its terms widely enough to include the GNU GPL in a list of approved licenses. If one takes the time to read the GPL and read what the Open Source Initiative says about the Free Software movement in its FAQ, it is clear the GPL does not say what the Open Source movement was created to accomplish. While I appreciate what Open Source movement supporters contribute by choosing to distribute their programs under the GNU GPL, I think it's unfair that the Free Software Foundation doesn't get credit for their work and the Free Software movement misses out on an opportunity to teach people about freedom and community. Please don't confuse people like Wired magazine does and cite the GPL as an "Open Source license".

Finally, your Mexico City example appears to be for Free Software when one reads the opinions expressed in the article you pointed to: "We agree with the philosophy of free software," said Valencia Garcia, aide to the city's technical coordinator, José Barberán. Just because Wired magazine misunderstands the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements does not mean you should.

For those adopting open source, we have Peru...

No, Congressman Villanueva was clearly talking about Free Software, not Open Source (perhaps you aren't familiar with the difference between the two movements). He made explicit reference to this early in his response to the Microsoft rep who made the same error you did casting the bill in terms of the wrong movement. I explained this when it came up on Slashdot before. Given the language being used in the Venezuelan case, I have strong suspicions the same error is being made here.

Disney is a rather poor choice to cite in the context of "hav[ing]" something worthwhile. Disney is a major sponsor of the CBDTPA (née the SSSCA), a bill that seeks to further harm our ability to share. The Disney corporation speaks out in favor of infinite copyright power, part of the topic in the pending US Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft (née Eldred v. Reno). Disney is a vocal advocate of the ill-concieved concept of "piracy" and the claimed ills sharing brings to the movie and music industries. Gaining a small bit of camaderie with some Disney site admins who use Apache at the cost of losing our freedom to share is a very bad exchange.

The Norway example is typical of the misidentification of intention and statement some Open Source supporters often cite when talking about the GNU GPL. They say the GPL is an "Open Source" license, yet don't acknowledge it is only one because the Open Source Initiative chose to define its terms widely enough to include the GNU GPL in a list of approved licenses. If one takes the time to read the GPL and read what the Open Source Initiative says about the Free Software movement in its FAQ, it is clear the GPL does not say what the Open Source movement was created to accomplish. While I appreciate what Open Source movement supporters contribute by choosing to distribute their programs under the GNU GPL, I think it's unfair that the Free Software Foundation doesn't get credit for their work and the Free Software movement misses out on an opportunity to teach people about freedom and community. Please don't confuse people like Wired magazine does and cite the GPL as an "Open Source license".

Finally, your Mexico City example appears to be for Free Software when one reads the opinions expressed in the article you pointed to: "We agree with the philosophy of free software," said Valencia Garcia, aide to the city's technical coordinator, José Barberán. Just because Wired magazine misunderstands the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements does not mean you should.

For those adopting open source, we have Peru...

No, Congressman Villanueva was clearly talking about Free Software, not Open Source (perhaps you aren't familiar with the difference between the two movements). He made explicit reference to this early in his response to the Microsoft rep who made the same error you did casting the bill in terms of the wrong movement. I explained this when it came up on Slashdot before. Given the language being used in the Venezuelan case, I have strong suspicions the same error is being made here.

Disney is a rather poor choice to cite in the context of "hav[ing]" something worthwhile. Disney is a major sponsor of the CBDTPA (née the SSSCA), a bill that seeks to further harm our ability to share. The Disney corporation speaks out in favor of infinite copyright power, part of the topic in the pending US Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft (née Eldred v. Reno). Disney is a vocal advocate of the ill-concieved concept of "piracy" and the claimed ills sharing brings to the movie and music industries. Gaining a small bit of camaderie with some Disney site admins who use Apache at the cost of losing our freedom to share is a very bad exchange.

The Norway example is typical of the misidentification of intention and statement some Open Source supporters often cite when talking about the GNU GPL. They say the GPL is an "Open Source" license, yet don't acknowledge it is only one because the Open Source Initiative chose to define its terms widely enough to include the GNU GPL in a list of approved licenses. If one takes the time to read the GPL and read what the Open Source Initiative says about the Free Software movement in its FAQ, it is clear the GPL does not say what the Open Source movement was created to accomplish. While I appreciate what Open Source movement supporters contribute by choosing to distribute their programs under the GNU GPL, I think it's unfair that the Free Software Foundation doesn't get credit for their work and the Free Software movement misses out on an opportunity to teach people about freedom and community. Please don't confuse people like Wired magazine does and cite the GPL as an "Open Source license".

Finally, your Mexico City example appears to be for Free Software when one reads the opinions expressed in the article you pointed to: "We agree with the philosophy of free software," said Valencia Garcia, aide to the city's technical coordinator, José Barberán. Just because Wired magazine misunderstands the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements does not mean you should.

Venezuela has adopted a policy for the use of Open Source software in government wherever possible...

I doubt the veracity of that translation and the reference to "Open Source" in the Slashdot headline. The multiple references to "la filosofía del código libre" sure doesn't sound like a reference to "Open Source". It sounds like the speaker is talking about "the philosophy of Free Software"; an older movement with a different philosophy than the Open Source movement. In order to fully understand what is being said I need to understand the context in which these cognates appear.

Given the letter to Microsoft by Congressman Villanueva which skillfully described Free Software to a Microsoft representative, and the number of Slashdot participants who misinterpreted that letter as endorsing "Open Source", I'm not eager to take Slashdot's critique at face value. Also I know how some Open Source movement supporters like to refer to the GNU GPL in the context of the Open Source movement even though that reference misstates the authorship and intent of the license (the GNU GPL was written over a decade before that movement existed and does not express the motivations behind the Open Source movement). Therefore I am curious to read a translation of the interview written by a human being who is familiar with the issues involved.

I shudder to think of the day when they pull the plug on sourceforge.net. People should really be moving to . I bet they won't get much coverage on the OSDN websites though.

I don't really understand why the GNU people have this large web page picking apart the old ASPL.

GNU also has web pages picking apart the MIT license, the BSD license, and the NPL. In addition, they pick apart several other licenses in their "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" page. They even argue against using their own LGPL!

Know this about the FSF, GNU and RMS: if the license is not GPL compatible strong copyleft, they don't like it and don't want you using it.

I don't really understand why the GNU people have this large web page picking apart the old ASPL.

GNU also has web pages picking apart the MIT license, the BSD license, and the NPL. In addition, they pick apart several other licenses in their "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" page. They even argue against using their own LGPL!

Know this about the FSF, GNU and RMS: if the license is not GPL compatible strong copyleft, they don't like it and don't want you using it.

I don't really understand why the GNU people have this large web page picking apart the old ASPL.

GNU also has web pages picking apart the MIT license, the BSD license, and the NPL. In addition, they pick apart several other licenses in their "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" page. They even argue against using their own LGPL!

Know this about the FSF, GNU and RMS: if the license is not GPL compatible strong copyleft, they don't like it and don't want you using it.

I don't really understand why the GNU people have this large web page picking apart the old ASPL.

GNU also has web pages picking apart the MIT license, the BSD license, and the NPL. In addition, they pick apart several other licenses in their "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" page. They even argue against using their own LGPL!

Know this about the FSF, GNU and RMS: if the license is not GPL compatible strong copyleft, they don't like it and don't want you using it.