Slashdot Mirror

Shame on you Slackware! http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#Slackware

but nobody ever took it seriously.

Your hipster hardcore developer friends might want to read the GCC license some day which has an explicit exception allowing the runtime code to be incorporated in closed source software without imposing the terms of the GPL.

You obtained a non-free product, good, or service that you didn't pay for.
Period.
That is theft.
Period.

It's copyright infringement, not theft. Even the law does not agree with you.

...and that is why you don't call business an "ecosystem".

Why? Compilers are pretty simple; Difficult for a lot of people to conceptualize, yes, but for those who can make that leap of understanding, not terribly difficult to design

Err, no. Let's look at C++ in particular, as it's pretty much a worst case when it comes to compiler implementation.

These guys make a living working on a C++ front-end. A front-end only. Intel licence it because writing their own C++ front-end would be a tremendous effort; C++ is a hugely complex language, for machines (i.e. compiler front-ends) as well as for humans. The optimisation and back-end work is even more effort, especially if you want to be a serious competitor among today's compilers, which gcc certainly does.

Getting these things right is, to put it mildly, not easy. Bugs in optimising compilers really do happen. Here's a compiler-bug warning I ran into just this week.

Let's also not forget the scope of the gcc project: it's not 'just' a C++ -> x86/AMD64/IA-64 compiler, the way ICC is. It reads in source-code in C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java (in theory...), Ada, and Go, and emits machine code for a great many CPU architectures.

Compilers are a legitimate sub-field of computer science, in the same way operating systems are. IBM invested in JikesRVM, a 'Research Virtual Machine' (for Java) for a reason. It's something some academics specialise in. Dismissing the field as "pretty simple" is hardly fair to its researchers and implementers.

Actually since 4.8, the correct optimization level to use for debugging is now -Og

From the documentation at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html

-Og Optimize debugging experience. -Og enables optimizations that do not interfere with debugging. It should be the optimization level of choice for the standard edit-compile-debug cycle, offering a reasonable level of optimization while maintaining fast compilation and a good debugging experience.

That's great that they have color diagnostics. When will they finally fully support a standard from 14 years ago?

Looks like it's supported now.

Why can an open source group manage to implement C99, when a giant company in Redmond has trouble?

I'm not sure whether I understood your post correctly as it seems to garbled be yes? If you doubt that RMS is objecting plugins in GCC then you're apparently new to /. and GCC.

BTW: not just Apple is pushing CLANG (and thereby LLVM), other companies include NVIDIA (CUDA uses LLVM) and IBM (CLANG was ported to Blue Gene/Q), just to name a few.

I agree with you 100%.

RMS has also written more eloquently about it than I can:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consume

The FSF was mixed about Steam for GNU/Linux. Since most of the issues remain the same with SteamOS, I'm guessing that their opinion on it will be similar.

For obvious reasons, they're never going to endorse anything that's partly proprietary, but it it moves people away from dependence on completely proprietary systems, in there view it's possible that there might be some benefit. The FSF isn't so hardline that they refuse to acknowledge the distinction between software that's mostly free versus software that's completely proprietary.

From the article I linked:

However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.

Here's RMS on the subject http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.html

How much freer could Android be? The entire platform is open source.

The only thing proprietary are the video drivers and that's because GPU vendors are douche bags.

....Android is a mix of a whole bunch of licenses. That are likely to be APACHE (Source for hoycomb anyone) as much as they under GPL...and even Linux is famously a slightly amended GPL License. The first party applications...which in my opinion are what makes Android, are not only proprietary, they work is actually done remotely in the cloud, something RMS speaks badly about for reasons.

That said if you really want to know about free from the lad himself this is Dick on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html Android which discusses all kind of interesting things including...Replicant a truly free android. As a pleasant aside https://f-droid.org/ is an open source app store with open source programs, a must for those more careful with there software, and another feather in the cap of the awesome Android.

GNU/Linux is the operating system

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq

While individual components are being published as GPLv3, they're requesting, and getting, written permission from some contributors to re-publish the code under alternative licenses, at Canonical's whim. That is releasing licensing rights to someone else. Even if Canonical proves trustworthy (and they've not, due to their strange browser collection data practices), that goes far beyond most open source or freeware licenses.

Although I enjoy slinging mud, copyright assignments and contribution agreements are commonplace when contributing to larger free/open source projects.

Transferring copyright for example to GNU is mandatory when contributing, gives the project the flexibility to relicense in case an upgrade is in order (like GPLv2->GPLv3) and avoids having to hunt down all individual contributors in case a change in license is required. Such agreements are in place with Apache and Mozilla too.

All things considered, GNU would indeed be more trustworthy in my book than Canonical (if only because GNU doesn't have a commercial motive) but regardless when an "entity" does the bulk of the work I think it's fair to allow them the flexibility to relicense when contributing.

It is a different situation when the owning "entity" drops the ball and the community does the bulk of the work, but then the option to fork is always open. LibreOffice serves as a nice reminder that being able to relicense doesn't mean much if the community decides to fork and move on.

It's perfectly ok to sell Android and Linux according to the GPL, the license used by Linux.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

many universities have a site license available for you to use it

And if not, anyone can download and use its open source clone, GNU Octave.

Richard M. Stallman already said similar things in his
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
2002 article.

In a maze of scripts and Makefiles and scripts generating Makefiles and scripts generating scripts that call make, euphemistically called "a custom buildsystem", hunting down the right 'make' to change into 'make -d' can take a while.

That sounds like you're not doing sub-makes with $(MAKE), which would have passed down the -d automatically. See http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/MAKE-Variable.html#MAKE-Variable and http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Options_002fRecursion.html#Options_002fRecursion

In a maze of scripts and Makefiles and scripts generating Makefiles and scripts generating scripts that call make, euphemistically called "a custom buildsystem", hunting down the right 'make' to change into 'make -d' can take a while.

That sounds like you're not doing sub-makes with $(MAKE), which would have passed down the -d automatically. See http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/MAKE-Variable.html#MAKE-Variable and http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Options_002fRecursion.html#Options_002fRecursion

Asking what we're getting in exchange for the acceptance of DRM means one's priorities are misplaced—this question is entirely misplaced because nothing should restrict the reader. Trying to bargain for better terms after accepting a deal signals profound ignorance of how to get what readers need: the right to read.

Well done, you always get lots of up mods just for posting a 20 year old essay by someone who believes that all information should be free. The problem that Stallman did not realise when he wrote that and maybe has never realised is that money makes the world go around so most people need a way of making it.

He has some very interesting ideas and has given a lot to the computing community but large parts of life have simply passed him by, notably he has no children or dependants. For the majority of us who do decide to have kids we have a problem of having to make sure we have a steady income stream for the rest of our lives and any fluctuations in that stream can ruin your dependants lives or at the very least leave them suffering far more hardship and worry than you would like to see.

That leaves may of us in a position where we actually agree with the spirit of the right to read but have long since realised that our best hope of providing or our own family is in selling our services as software developers because it is one of the few things we are any good at. Unfortunately the people who want to pay us though often dictate that the code we produce belongs to them, not us.

I am sure I could eek out a living by trying to only write open source modules for stuff like drupal and doing software as service type jobs but I would be deny myself a way of making money from one of best assets which is my ability to sit down with a problem and invest a large amount of time in it, eventually coming up with a solution that nobody else has. If I instantly give that solution away to everyone then they can use it without recompensing me for the huge amount of time I invested in figuring out that solution I eventually get to was even possible.

Sharing all information freely might be better for society, but it is designed to be incredibly detrimental to us as individuals in the capitalist society we live in. In light of this I actually think that Stallman's entire movement is a completely misguided adventure. Instead of just taking aim at a few poxy restrictions on software he should have realised that the only thing that allowed the sharing of code he wanted was the academic nature of his environment at the time.

He often said that authors should be allowed to charge money for writing software, but you have two choices if you do this. One is that you sell the source code such that if the buyer needs a future modification they can do it themselves of hire someone cheaper than you. Second is that you only give them the end product so for any modifications they HAVE to come back to you so you have a closed market and can charge more. People who choose the latter are simply bad at capitalism and the world we live in punishes you remorselessly for that, even if it would be better for society.

Losing the freedom to read is never a wise choice to make and certainly something to be politically active about. The world doesn't have to end for significant bad things to occur which demand our active principled disagreement and action. This issue isn't just about what one chooses to use on their site, it's about what users under the digital restrictions have to live with to make their computers behave in the way they want to. Saying one doesn't have to use digital restrictions management on their site is taking the weapon-user's point of view instead of the reader's point of view. Your attempt to marginalize the reader by comparing the objection to the world ending is reduction by hyperbole.

Asking what we're getting in exchange for the acceptance of DRM means one's priorities are misplaced—this question is entirely misplaced because nothing should restrict the reader. Trying to bargain for better terms after accepting a deal signals profound ignorance of how to get what readers need: the right to read.

From http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/:
"In addition to Scheme, Guile includes compiler front-ends for ECMAScript and Emacs Lisp (support for Lua is underway),..."

So unless that page is inaccurate I guess that means it's still underway.

Where in the announcement of Make 4.0 is there any mention of Lua?

can I shove this in the face of windows fanboys who say that anyone could submit anything they want to Linux and you don't really know what's in there?

The fork of the Linux kernel maintained by Linus Torvalds contains non-free software. The Linux kernel fork maintained by the Linux Libre team is based on that kernel and "remov[es] software that is included without source code, with obfuscated or obscured source code, under non-Free Software licenses, that do not permit you to change the software so that it does what you wish, and that induces or requires you to install additional pieces of non-Free Software".

So you could point anyone running non-free software to the FSF's list of free GNU/Linux system distributions and to the guidelines where one can understand how the FSF decides what to put on that list.

can I shove this in the face of windows fanboys who say that anyone could submit anything they want to Linux and you don't really know what's in there?

The fork of the Linux kernel maintained by Linus Torvalds contains non-free software. The Linux kernel fork maintained by the Linux Libre team is based on that kernel and "remov[es] software that is included without source code, with obfuscated or obscured source code, under non-Free Software licenses, that do not permit you to change the software so that it does what you wish, and that induces or requires you to install additional pieces of non-Free Software".

So you could point anyone running non-free software to the FSF's list of free GNU/Linux system distributions and to the guidelines where one can understand how the FSF decides what to put on that list.

From http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/:
"In addition to Scheme, Guile includes compiler front-ends for ECMAScript and Emacs Lisp (support for Lua is underway),..."

So unless that page is inaccurate I guess that means it's still underway.

So fucking sad

Do you see its name on this website ? http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html These are the only free distros

http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#BSD

The "kernel" is not an operating system, and without GNU, you do not have a functional system. See: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools

To be fair, GNU has a reasonable claim to contributing at least as much (if not more) than the Linux kernel did to the operating system people refer to as "Linux" or "GNU/Linux." See here.

I think they are overly sensitive about it, but I do see where they're coming from. It is in fact possible to see both sides of an issue, if you open your mind a little.

And, importantly, the straw man that you're arguing against (that RMS wants people to call the kernel GNU/Linux) is way out in left field. If you are confused about GNU's position, it's clearly laid out here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

Slashdot is currently running this story with the logo of the Open Source Initiative—an organization RMS has never been a part of, did not start, and which offers a different philosophy that does not agree with the philosophy of the older free software movement Stallman did start.

I don't know why someone would make the choice to run this story with the wrong logo attached to it, but I hope Slashdot will correct the error. It is still unfair to misrepresent RMS's opinion.

Really wish he'd have used Microsoft Office as the example.

Mr. Stallman has been aware for years that the public is tired of free software advocates demonizing Microsoft. It pays to mix up the examples a bit, and GIMP wasn't that much harder for me to learn than Photoshop.

1) Few service providers have adopted Affero

Well, duh. If your business model is to use FOSS code and not share your changes, then the last thing you're going to do is choose a license that requires you to share your changes. :)

2) It doesn't deal with the problem of lack of "control over the computing the server does for them. It also does not tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining or changing their data in other ways."; yet

It deals with the problem in part. You can't know what other software is making use of data you give to them. However, it does give you the ability to just clone their service and modify it to suit your own purposes and host it on your own server.

3) other FSF licences are extremely popular

This really isn't a shortcoming in the Affero license. It is likely the reason that nobody uses it though. Proprietary companies will always take BSD code over GPL code as it places fewer constraints on them, and they're clearly going to take GPLv2 over GPLv3 over Affero GPL for the same reason.

Now, if you're donating to the community then a large variety of motivations will apply, but self-interest should probably tell you to prefer the licenses in the reverse order, as using the more copyleft-style licenses increases the utility of the effort others expend to extend your work.

So saying "One thing the FSF's licences haven't dealt with properly" is uninformed bullshit.

Lol, unnecessary hostility. Since

1) Few service providers have adopted Affero; and

2) It doesn't deal with the problem of lack of "control over the computing the server does for them. It also does not tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining or changing their data in other ways."; yet

3) other FSF licences are extremely popular,

the Affero licence clearly hasn't dealt with it.

One thing the FSF's licences haven't dealt with properly is the problem of Free software being used to TAKE control rather than GIVE it. Most of the huge SaaS providers are running Free software, adapted as they will - but with code not distributed, because it doesn't need to be as long as they're not distributing their proprietary platforms - and with all your data on their systems. Should the GPL be adapted to deal with that? Could it?

Maybe the FSF need to prepare a set of terms to explain what counts as adequate vs inadequate control over systems and data - to be more clear about e.g. how one could prepare a 'phone ecosystem which leaves control in the hands of the user. For "server" to be a person's home computer rather than Google's cloud would perhaps be a start.

Uh, please look up the GNU Affero GPL. It is intentionally one-way compatible with the GNU GPL 3.0.

So saying "One thing the FSF's licences haven't dealt with properly" is uninformed bullshit. Like with any licensing choice, it's a tradeoff between freedoms to use and freedoms to abuse. But the abuse case is important enough to the FSF that they do offer this licensing choice and make it possible to employ it in connection with GPLv3-licensed software.

Should the GPL be adapted to deal with that? Could it?

You mean this:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

Yes it can and has been adapted for that situation.

"I've seen articles that call me "The father of open source". Now what use is it to be talked about if I'm associated with the wrong views! So I sent a letter to the editor saying, "If I'm the father of open source it was conceived through artificial insemination using stolen sperm without my knowledge or consent"." —Richard Stallman, August 5, 2013, New York City University, New York City, USA

I believe he'd be the first to point out to you that you are misattributing the movement he started (as he frequently mentions in his talks such as this one around 58m25s including being talked about with the wrong views at around 1h). RMS wrote the GPL and started the GNU Project so that users could live in freedom enjoying the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; the very freedoms that the open source movement was formed to never bring up so the open source proponents could pursue mere technical practicality (a term he describes well around 57m10s) and talk about "licensing terms" as you describe—free of ethical issues. The way you put it makes the two movements seem like some insigificant name difference for no particular reason, but that's completely untrue. Giving the wrong philosophical views credit happens elsewhre too and correcting this misapprehension is the basis for giving GNU a share of the credit when discussing a GNU/Linux system.

Careful speech and well-explained distinctions are among rms's hallmarks—he speaks and writes with a precision not often found these days. The GNU Project has helpfully collected a list of terms to avoid, terms people often speak or write without understanding how their own thoughts could be pure nonsense or clear misstatement. It behooves people describing him and his work to get these terms right. After all, it's only fair that one not misrepresent his views when describing him.

Perhaps you'd benefit from watching a few of his speeches so you can better understand what he says and thinks, then perhaps you won't make the errors you made in your post.

"I've seen articles that call me "The father of open source". Now what use is it to be talked about if I'm associated with the wrong views! So I sent a letter to the editor saying, "If I'm the father of open source it was conceived through artificial insemination using stolen sperm without my knowledge or consent"." —Richard Stallman, August 5, 2013, New York City University, New York City, USA

I believe he'd be the first to point out to you that you are misattributing the movement he started (as he frequently mentions in his talks such as this one around 58m25s including being talked about with the wrong views at around 1h). RMS wrote the GPL and started the GNU Project so that users could live in freedom enjoying the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; the very freedoms that the open source movement was formed to never bring up so the open source proponents could pursue mere technical practicality (a term he describes well around 57m10s) and talk about "licensing terms" as you describe—free of ethical issues. The way you put it makes the two movements seem like some insigificant name difference for no particular reason, but that's completely untrue. Giving the wrong philosophical views credit happens elsewhre too and correcting this misapprehension is the basis for giving GNU a share of the credit when discussing a GNU/Linux system.

Careful speech and well-explained distinctions are among rms's hallmarks—he speaks and writes with a precision not often found these days. The GNU Project has helpfully collected a list of terms to avoid, terms people often speak or write without understanding how their own thoughts could be pure nonsense or clear misstatement. It behooves people describing him and his work to get these terms right. After all, it's only fair that one not misrepresent his views when describing him.

Perhaps you'd benefit from watching a few of his speeches so you can better understand what he says and thinks, then perhaps you won't make the errors you made in your post.

"I've seen articles that call me "The father of open source". Now what use is it to be talked about if I'm associated with the wrong views! So I sent a letter to the editor saying, "If I'm the father of open source it was conceived through artificial insemination using stolen sperm without my knowledge or consent"." —Richard Stallman, August 5, 2013, New York City University, New York City, USA

I believe he'd be the first to point out to you that you are misattributing the movement he started (as he frequently mentions in his talks such as this one around 58m25s including being talked about with the wrong views at around 1h). RMS wrote the GPL and started the GNU Project so that users could live in freedom enjoying the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; the very freedoms that the open source movement was formed to never bring up so the open source proponents could pursue mere technical practicality (a term he describes well around 57m10s) and talk about "licensing terms" as you describe—free of ethical issues. The way you put it makes the two movements seem like some insigificant name difference for no particular reason, but that's completely untrue. Giving the wrong philosophical views credit happens elsewhre too and correcting this misapprehension is the basis for giving GNU a share of the credit when discussing a GNU/Linux system.

Careful speech and well-explained distinctions are among rms's hallmarks—he speaks and writes with a precision not often found these days. The GNU Project has helpfully collected a list of terms to avoid, terms people often speak or write without understanding how their own thoughts could be pure nonsense or clear misstatement. It behooves people describing him and his work to get these terms right. After all, it's only fair that one not misrepresent his views when describing him.

Perhaps you'd benefit from watching a few of his speeches so you can better understand what he says and thinks, then perhaps you won't make the errors you made in your post.

"I've seen articles that call me "The father of open source". Now what use is it to be talked about if I'm associated with the wrong views! So I sent a letter to the editor saying, "If I'm the father of open source it was conceived through artificial insemination using stolen sperm without my knowledge or consent"." —Richard Stallman, August 5, 2013, New York City University, New York City, USA

I believe he'd be the first to point out to you that you are misattributing the movement he started (as he frequently mentions in his talks such as this one around 58m25s including being talked about with the wrong views at around 1h). RMS wrote the GPL and started the GNU Project so that users could live in freedom enjoying the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; the very freedoms that the open source movement was formed to never bring up so the open source proponents could pursue mere technical practicality (a term he describes well around 57m10s) and talk about "licensing terms" as you describe—free of ethical issues. The way you put it makes the two movements seem like some insigificant name difference for no particular reason, but that's completely untrue. Giving the wrong philosophical views credit happens elsewhre too and correcting this misapprehension is the basis for giving GNU a share of the credit when discussing a GNU/Linux system.

Careful speech and well-explained distinctions are among rms's hallmarks—he speaks and writes with a precision not often found these days. The GNU Project has helpfully collected a list of terms to avoid, terms people often speak or write without understanding how their own thoughts could be pure nonsense or clear misstatement. It behooves people describing him and his work to get these terms right. After all, it's only fair that one not misrepresent his views when describing him.

Perhaps you'd benefit from watching a few of his speeches so you can better understand what he says and thinks, then perhaps you won't make the errors you made in your post.

"Development of the Hurd has proceeded slowly." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd)

As per http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/status.html: " It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features".

Exactly how long has it been like this ? I tracked this project for about a decade until I concluded it would never be ready for production - over a decade ago.

Even RMS doesn't label the BSDs as being GNU. That FAQ is a bit dated, since further down, it refers to GNU/kNetBSD, but that project has been dead and GNU/kFreeBSD has replaced it.

RMS has nothing to do with "open source". Sad that to this day trolls and idiots keep intentionally attributing it to him, in order to misinform. Do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up.

He was the principle author of the GNU GPL, the first real open source license. The entire open source movement is based on licensing; That's how open source is defined -- by licensing terms. And RMS was the first to come up with a license that captured this essential quality and formalized it. Richard Stallman wants to use the term "free software" instead of "open source", but that doesn't make me a troll for using a different term for it than he does.

A pity so many Anonymous Cowards love replying to me with a casual "STFU" and claim I know nothing, it's off topic, etc., and people believe them. Further proof of the sad, sad state slashdot has descended into... that an informed and long-time contributor to the community gets mod-bombed while the trolls get up-modded.

"One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will run on them at an early date." So, exactly how many PDP-11's have *you* donated?...

None. GCC already supported compiling for the PDP-11. It has since March, 2002 according to the patch notes for GCC. Which, let's be honest -- getting hardware support into the compiler a mere 5 years after the line was discontinued is remarkably fast for the GNU project.

I'm still waiting for the day they include a warning when you derp a sizeof(x) into your code, when you really wanted a sizeof(*x) , something Visual Studio will happily warn me about when compiling something. Of course, gcc does what the code tells it to and reports the bytelength of a pointer variable (how useful!) without complaint, whereas Visual Studio will happily explode my system, then run screaming out of the hole with toilet paper stuck to its foot yelling "Why did you use that win32 call when, although we didn't bother putting it in the documentation, it was depreciated 8 years ago and replaced with seven other similar-sounding functions, equally badly documented and not backwards-compatable!" ...

So credit where credit is due: GCC will let you shoot your own foot without complaint, but it's a bit slow on the feature list. Whereas the big-time Windows compiler... it's got all the latest features, warnings, etc., but when you merely go for shooting your own foot, it instead blows your whole leg off, then drops a bomb on your head while muttering something about upgrading to the latest .NET and dll versions...

For what it's worth:

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/

GCC now uses C++ as its implementation language. This means that to build GCC from sources, you will need a C++ compiler that understands C++ 2003. Link

C++ programs are fatter than pure C. So, now, GCC is fatter.

Seriously guys, if you want MacOS just buy a fucking Mac and stop breaking shit in Linux.

Or, better yet, contribute to GNUstep.

bash is the flagship Linux desktop.

And ed is the standard text editor!