Slashdot Mirror

You can come up with all kinds of preposterous hypotheticals that appear to support your position...

Well, it was an example to illustrate a point, cut me a little slack. :) Obviously, there's no word processor that doesn't support the backspace key. You asked for a real world example, so I'll give you (an admittedly imperfect) one.

I've been working on some VXML applications for the past few months. VXML servers have been traditionally very expensive, but in the past few months some companies have emerged with low-cost ($2000) VXML suites.

I'd prefer to use an Open Source VXML solution but... there aren't any. There is Bayonne, the GNU Open Source Telephony Server, which has been making good progress in many areas, but still hasn't released their first solid 1.0 yet, and won't support VXML anyway, even when it does reach 1.0.

Bayonne can be made to support VXML, but only at a significant cost of development (~$10,000 worth). Given that I could spend $10,000 to code an untested open source VXML server with zero support, or spend $2000 to get a proprietary suite with gobs of support and testing behind it, which one must I choose?

I'm keeping my eye on Bayonne, and I'm hoping the volunteer crew will step up to the plate and tackle VXML support soon. (My coding chops just aren't up to it. If only!) When Bayonne approaches the functionality and reliability I need, I'll definitely use it. But I'd hate to be in government and be forced to develop and use an incomplete solution for 5 times what a reliable commercial version would cost me. (And what if my budget couldn't support the cost of development? Or couldn't waste the time?)

This is just one example; there are others. Open Source doppelgangers simply do not exist for every proprietary piece of software, and reinventing the wheel by coding it yourself isn't always the best answer. If you can't admit this, you're sticking your head in the sand.

However, I do believe in open standards, and I do think that Open Source solutions should be preferred, all things being equal. In any case where competitive Open Source solutions exist (like your Oracle example), we should use them. That's common sense. We need open source in our government, for many reasons.

But it's foolish to enforce Open Source for EVERY project at legal gunpoint. And you know, I don't think Open Source needs it. Corporate America didn't start using Linux and Apache because the government said they had to -- they used them because they were the superior tools for the job, in part because of their Open Source licensing. I think the idea of Open Source Preferred requirements puts enough pressure on government to migrate to Open Source solutions without shooting ourselves in the foot in the process.

from the changes page :
"
Relase Notes.

See this message for a list of bugs fixed in this released.
"
There is stopped reading. I guess it's needs an other release before the syntax is correct.

Why not use Stow

While Sun's licensing of Java might have set it back initially, the GCC people are reimplementing it as a Free compiler (that can compile both to native code and to Java bytecode), so Java's licensing should no longer be an issue.

For more information see the GCJ page (GCJ -- the GNU Compiler for Java -- is the name of the Java compiler component of GCC -- the GNU Compiler Collection).

A commercial company trying to use open source, like the contributor said, as a source for free labor.

People, wake up. Strong copyleft licenses are the only way to go. If the FSF has a problem with the license, you should too! The reasons are REAL!

- Cdub

In another note, here's an interesting rebuttal to the Declan article.

Also, know the Digital Speech Project. Best not reinventing any wheels.

Good thing I didn't waste an entire f*cking week compiling Gentoo 1.3 with GCC 3.1. It would have been a STUPID WASTE of time if I had done that. Yeah, good thing I saw this coming.

Yes, it's very nice that it was mentioned in the announcement for GCC 3.1.1.

at least they're teaching something RELEVANT now. When I went there, they were inflicting MODULA-3 on us. (And Pascal.. but then, I like Pascal)

So... Modula-3 is not relevant because you don't like it, but Pascal is?

Admittedly, gpc exists but gm3c doesn't. Yet.

Stallman's Right to Read essay comes closer to becoming reality every day.

Completely WRONG. A lot of GPL'ed software is COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE, and this is pointed out on the GNU website: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html I earn a living from supporting free, opensource software. Your argument just doesn't add up.

(note it was not free-as-in-beer, but "open", RMS would disagree about open because there were limits on what you could do with the code, but most people would call it "open".)

No, RMS would disagree with being cited in the context of the wrong movement. RMS is a member of the Free Software movement which stands for very different ideas. The Free Software movement has no problem with commercial software, a lot of Free Software is commercial. The Free Software movement has a problem with proprietary software. You have not given enough detail about the terms under which NeWS was available to determine whether it would be considered Free Software or not.

(note it was not free-as-in-beer, but "open", RMS would disagree about open because there were limits on what you could do with the code, but most people would call it "open".)

No, RMS would disagree with being cited in the context of the wrong movement. RMS is a member of the Free Software movement which stands for very different ideas. The Free Software movement has no problem with commercial software, a lot of Free Software is commercial. The Free Software movement has a problem with proprietary software. You have not given enough detail about the terms under which NeWS was available to determine whether it would be considered Free Software or not.

From http://llr.lls.edu/eldred/martin-original1.pdf:

The fact that creators of new works cannot merely re-use the expression contained in copyrighted work of others without permission forces them to be creative. Composers cannot rehash the melodies created by earlier composers, they must create their own new original melodies.

How is this possible? Case law states that copying four notes of another song's "hook" is enough to get a songwriter in trouble with copyright law, and that the standard for copying is not an exact match but merely substantial similarity. Another case that I've read somewhere states that there is no unprotected "idea" in music, only "expression".

Melodies are determined by the distances between adjacent notes in frequency (intervals) and in time (note duration). Four notes will contain three (interval, duration) distance vectors. Assume that the scale contains twelve distinct intervals and that a judge will distinguish three distinct note durations (eighth, quarter, and half); thus, there are 36 possible distance vectors from one note to the next, and 36 to the third power equals 46,656 distinct melodies. No other melodies are possible in the Western musical scale. If only one hundred songwriters in the world were to create one melody each week, they would run out of melodies within nine years.

"Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson details the dire consequences of literally running out of new ideas.

"The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman is another interesting short story.

For those of you that use sourceforge for their free software projects, it looks like it's time to move to savannah.gnu.org.

In case you're wondering, the gnu.org in there does not imply that your project needs to be under the GPL/LGPL --- any Free Software projects are welcome.

Why would you want to move? Well, from what I hear, extracting some of your meta-data is already hard/imposible from Sourceforge --- this seems like a trend that is likely to continue, so perhaps you should get out while you still can.

At least you can be sure that the Free Software Foundation won't pull any similar tricks.

For those of you that use sourceforge for their free software projects, it looks like it's time to move to savannah.gnu.org.

In case you're wondering, the gnu.org in there does not imply that your project needs to be under the GPL/LGPL --- any Free Software projects are welcome.

Why would you want to move? Well, from what I hear, extracting some of your meta-data is already hard/imposible from Sourceforge --- this seems like a trend that is likely to continue, so perhaps you should get out while you still can.

At least you can be sure that the Free Software Foundation won't pull any similar tricks.

The kind of search you are talking is way overkill. Your search program simply reads each filename and converts the name to all upper or all lower case before it compares to the simarly-converted requested file. See for instance these C library functions. Your program is only a few lines, and it only need pass through the directory once.

As the Road to Tycho is for intellectual property reform advocates, so should this be for those interested in the environment.

Commondreams.org has written a fictional address; conservatives and non-believers will call it propaganda, but then, as the weather patterns continue to change and the news stories about environmental catastrophes keep coming, they may have some trouble making the charge stick...

Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government.

No, not like Peru at all. Had you read the Peruvian congressman's letter you would not have made this mistake. The Peruvian bill clearly calls for free software ("software libre"), not open source. The freedom-minded perspective (what the other movement dismisses so glibly) is of the utmost importance for a proper understanding of the significance of the bill. Congressman Villanueva, the author of the letter to Microsoft and a major backer of bill #1609, understands the difference between the two movements and which is more appropriate for government to back (our government included). Congressman Villanueva takes the time to correct the Microsoft representative when Microsoft tries to slip one by him by referring to "open source". I suggest you read the letter to Microsoft and learn about the difference between the two movements. You might also want to read the Slashdot entry where these issues were discussed at length.

Then, say Collaborate is useful to general ledger programs so MS uses it in MS Money and Intuit uses it in Quicken and Quickbooks. This decreases the costs to both companies and market forces bring down the cost of the packages relative to the benefit gained by the tax funded library.

Besides, you are ignoring the fact that the legal issues of GPL require the larger work to be open sourced...

I still think my point stands: with (L)GPLed SW, the taxpayers get to use the software they paid for for ever. Companies don't have to suffer, however; if they want to charge for supporting the software, or for sticking it on a CD with their other software, they're able to do that. What they can't do is to take a piece of work that is free for anybody to use and then change it so that the people who originally had the right to use it need to pay again or have to become dependent on the company making the changes. I think the (L)GPL helps the taxpayer in this sense.

And to whoever mentioned dancing, I've seen Richard Stallman dance too. Thanks for the image. Really.

This is why.

This has all been implemented in GNUnet.

I just don't like viral licensing because it destroys the software economy by creating a tragedy of the commons.

If you like, try listening to this Stallman speech: Richard M. Stallman's speech, Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks, given at MIT. I think it addresses the issue of 'tragedy of the commons' and why it doesn't apply to digitally reproducible works. If every 'farmer' can have his own perfect copy of the common 'field' (as in the digital case) then such commons can support an indefinite number of 'farmers' without deteriorating.

The idea of copyright is to give up public freedoms (the natural right to copy or modify something you own) in exchange for a greater output of works. But when it's possible for anyone to copy works easily and perfectly, the worth of the corresponding former freedoms is very great. (Greater than that of the freedom to copy a physical object, for example.) The RIAA, DMCA, software patents, and other interfering mechanisms are preventing us from utilising these freedoms, but without offering any compensating advantages (such as lower cost).

Copyleft licenses attempt to re-establish the 'digital commons'. They give specific permission to exercise the freedoms to duplicate (and/or modify, etcetera). This is about public freedoms, not about business sense. I'm not saying Moby (or Microsoft) would necessarily make more cash through copyleft (or at least permissive licensing). But if they did copyleft their work, they would be giving freedoms back to the public - freedoms worth far more than the equivalent sales.

Where you been, son? Mac OS X was released over a year ago!

Yes, but Mac® OS X is not a UNIX® brand system. FreeBSD's not UNIX. NetBSD's not UNIX. GNU's not UNIX. (This trademark confusion almost makes me want to put together a distribution of GNU/Linux software and call it KLEENIX.)

OK, now what UNIX® system has a GUI as pretty as Mac OS X's?

GPL == General Public License I have no idea what "GPL" you are talking about but it is something different from what everyone else on this board has been talking about.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <complex.h>

int main(void) {
_Complex float f;

f=-4;
printf("N=%f%+fi\n",creal(f),cimag(f));
f=csqrt(f);
printf("N=%f%+fi\n",creal(f),cimag(f));
return 0;
}

In C, for the same function, you are allowed to send it the same array twice (it's called aliasing)

As velco pointed out, ISO fixed the aliasing problem in C99. C99's 'restrict' keyword lets a developer specify in a function's prototype that no two input pointers point to the same area of memory, letting the C compiler do Fortran-esque optimizations. GCC is working toward C99 support.

``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

what is this "euler's formula" of which you speak? i thought miller-rabin was the most commonly used primality test.

I had trouble finding a good reference for this. As I mentioned before, the Euler test is very fast, but it is vulnerable to pseudoprimes. After you find a candidate, you may want to double-check it with another algorithm, such as Miller-Rabin. Here's a crypto library that uses both.

-a

Hmm. Perhaps 2096 is a bit too far in the future for The Road To Tycho.

To be fair, he could be using a stow-like setup.

For example: GNU Stow

--Knots;

(Oops - meant to hit preview.) This is the correct URL for Qexo (Kawa-XQuery).

Yes, GCJ can handle non-Java bytecode. If Kawa is configures --with-gcj it will use GCJ to compile itself, including bytecode generated from Scheme. The result is a shared library made from source code in Java amd Scheme. It will also create a script that makes it easy to compile Scheme or XQuery to native executable.

Yes, GCJ can handle non-Java bytecode. If Kawa is configures --with-gcj it will use GCJ to compile itself, including bytecode generated from Scheme. The result is a shared library made from source code in Java amd Scheme. It will also create a script that makes it easy to compile Scheme or XQuery to native executable.

Colleges take another step down the road toward RMS's distopian future.

For the one or two of you who haven't read his piece:
The Right to Read

This is cool and all, but it is also one step closer to this.

Are you refering to Richard Stallman's short "fictional" story on this subject, "The Right to Read"?

For those not in the know, CDex is a very nice, very easy-to-use GPL (as in Open Source) Audio CD Ripper

No, the GNU GPL was written by and for the Free Software movement over a decade before the other movement existed. The GNU GPL is the chief license of the Free Software movement and it is quite misleading to attribute the GNU GPL to the Open Source movement. I am not objecting to anyone's use of the GNU GPL. It's great that supporters of the other movement appreciate the license and write free software licensed to everyone under the GPL's terms. I ask you to please give credit where credit is due and cite the correct movement when discussing the GNU GPL.

Please remember that it's quite possible to have totally independant programs within the same rpm or tarball.

From section 2 of the GPL:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
(Emphasis mine)

Maybe this answers your question?

An interesting theory, but I think that you should read this section of the GPL faq.

In short, both static and shared linking are treated the same way.

An interesting theory, but I think that you should read this section of the GPL faq.

In short, both static and shared linking are treated the same way.

From the GPL FAQ: (emphasis mine)

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

From what I read here this may be a bit of a gray zone. It sounds to me like "linking" is alredy a reason to consider the two programs as one. I'm not a Windows programmer nor a judge, so I don't know if the definition of combining two programs into one applies to linking DLLs as they are used in the mentioned programs. If it does (and it sounds like it to me), then I stand by my original point. If not, and if indeed the FSF says so (link?), I stand corrected on this point. In any case, the GPL violations by the clones are numerous, this is only one of many.

P.S. Before anyone starts yelling, here's another section from the GPL FAQ:

I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?

Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler or interpreter you are using.

You're allowed to do all that, but one goal of the open source and free software licenses is to insure that the original authors retain credit. So, you can reuse the code, change the name, modify, redistribute, even sell to your heart's content, as long as you don't misrepresent the work of others as your own.

So? The GPL doesn't forbid you from linking your GPL code against non-GPL code, and linking your GPL code to non-GPL code doesn't magically make the non-GPL code GPLd, either.

Scrolling through the posts on this topic I see so many misconceptions in either direction. As you say, I think everyone should take an hour or two, and check out the entire GPL and the FAQ, in this case, here and here.

The point is not that using non-GPL code in a GPL program "makes" the non-GPL code suddenly licensed under the GPL. If you could license the non-GPL code under the GPL, there is no problem. However, the point is that most non-GPL code has very restrictive licenses. The two licenses conflict, and in this case the GPL forbids the use of the non-GPL code in your program.

There's much more detail to following the GPL than just releasing your source.

So? The GPL doesn't forbid you from linking your GPL code against non-GPL code, and linking your GPL code to non-GPL code doesn't magically make the non-GPL code GPLd, either.

Scrolling through the posts on this topic I see so many misconceptions in either direction. As you say, I think everyone should take an hour or two, and check out the entire GPL and the FAQ, in this case, here and here.

The point is not that using non-GPL code in a GPL program "makes" the non-GPL code suddenly licensed under the GPL. If you could license the non-GPL code under the GPL, there is no problem. However, the point is that most non-GPL code has very restrictive licenses. The two licenses conflict, and in this case the GPL forbids the use of the non-GPL code in your program.

There's much more detail to following the GPL than just releasing your source.

So? The GPL doesn't forbid you from linking your GPL code against non-GPL code, and linking your GPL code to non-GPL code doesn't magically make the non-GPL code GPLd, either.

Scrolling through the posts on this topic I see so many misconceptions in either direction. As you say, I think everyone should take an hour or two, and check out the entire GPL and the FAQ, in this case, here and here.

The point is not that using non-GPL code in a GPL program "makes" the non-GPL code suddenly licensed under the GPL. If you could license the non-GPL code under the GPL, there is no problem. However, the point is that most non-GPL code has very restrictive licenses. The two licenses conflict, and in this case the GPL forbids the use of the non-GPL code in your program.

There's much more detail to following the GPL than just releasing your source.

So? The GPL doesn't forbid you from linking your GPL code against non-GPL code, and linking your GPL code to non-GPL code doesn't magically make the non-GPL code GPLd, either.

Scrolling through the posts on this topic I see so many misconceptions in either direction. As you say, I think everyone should take an hour or two, and check out the entire GPL and the FAQ, in this case, here and here.

The point is not that using non-GPL code in a GPL program "makes" the non-GPL code suddenly licensed under the GPL. If you could license the non-GPL code under the GPL, there is no problem. However, the point is that most non-GPL code has very restrictive licenses. The two licenses conflict, and in this case the GPL forbids the use of the non-GPL code in your program.

There's much more detail to following the GPL than just releasing your source.

gnugo

gnuchess

gnugo

gnuchess