Slashdot Mirror

Try GNASH if you're on Linux.
 

http://www.gnu.org/education/education.html

No, Stallman has never "advocate[d] open source software over any proprietary software" as he is not now nor has he ever been a part of the open source movement.

Stallman founded the free software movement over 10 years before the open source movement began. Since the open source movement began he has spent time explaining how the open source philosophy and practical outcomes are distinctly different from his older movement (an older version of this essay is also online). Every talk I've heard him give contains a cogent explanation about these differences.

Perhaps if you understood the differences you'd understand why "various foreign governments already hav[ing] access to the Windows source" doesn't respect a user's software freedom (not even for the governments that are allowed to read said source code as merely having and reading source code is insufficient to be considered "free software" or "open source" despite the confusion with the latter) and therefore does not actually address any of the salient issues he's raising. One of his recent talks, "What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad?" from October 19, 2011 covers this ground and related issues quite well.

No, Stallman has never "advocate[d] open source software over any proprietary software" as he is not now nor has he ever been a part of the open source movement.

Stallman founded the free software movement over 10 years before the open source movement began. Since the open source movement began he has spent time explaining how the open source philosophy and practical outcomes are distinctly different from his older movement (an older version of this essay is also online). Every talk I've heard him give contains a cogent explanation about these differences.

Perhaps if you understood the differences you'd understand why "various foreign governments already hav[ing] access to the Windows source" doesn't respect a user's software freedom (not even for the governments that are allowed to read said source code as merely having and reading source code is insufficient to be considered "free software" or "open source" despite the confusion with the latter) and therefore does not actually address any of the salient issues he's raising. One of his recent talks, "What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad?" from October 19, 2011 covers this ground and related issues quite well.

No, Stallman has never "advocate[d] open source software over any proprietary software" as he is not now nor has he ever been a part of the open source movement.

Stallman founded the free software movement over 10 years before the open source movement began. Since the open source movement began he has spent time explaining how the open source philosophy and practical outcomes are distinctly different from his older movement (an older version of this essay is also online). Every talk I've heard him give contains a cogent explanation about these differences.

Perhaps if you understood the differences you'd understand why "various foreign governments already hav[ing] access to the Windows source" doesn't respect a user's software freedom (not even for the governments that are allowed to read said source code as merely having and reading source code is insufficient to be considered "free software" or "open source" despite the confusion with the latter) and therefore does not actually address any of the salient issues he's raising. One of his recent talks, "What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad?" from October 19, 2011 covers this ground and related issues quite well.

No, Stallman has never "advocate[d] open source software over any proprietary software" as he is not now nor has he ever been a part of the open source movement.

Stallman founded the free software movement over 10 years before the open source movement began. Since the open source movement began he has spent time explaining how the open source philosophy and practical outcomes are distinctly different from his older movement (an older version of this essay is also online). Every talk I've heard him give contains a cogent explanation about these differences.

Perhaps if you understood the differences you'd understand why "various foreign governments already hav[ing] access to the Windows source" doesn't respect a user's software freedom (not even for the governments that are allowed to read said source code as merely having and reading source code is insufficient to be considered "free software" or "open source" despite the confusion with the latter) and therefore does not actually address any of the salient issues he's raising. One of his recent talks, "What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad?" from October 19, 2011 covers this ground and related issues quite well.

Not always, which was part of his point: he's discussing obfuscated JavaScript.

From the GPL 3.0:

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.

In other words: just because JavaScript is deployed in the same language as it's written doesn't mean that what your browser receives is the source code. JavaScript obfuscators/compressors/optimisers introduce a source/'object' distinction comparable to what we see in C.

Also there are JavaScript development frameworks which translate some other programming language into JavaScript. GWT does this. Again, what your browser receives is certainly not the source.

It's a trap!

HTML isn't a Turing-complete language (and CSS3 is a non-issue). HTML is supposed to describe the markup of a given page and isn't really used to process a user's computing: it can be considered as a user interface to a larger system. The issue arises when users start using web sites that rely on non-trivial amounts of Javascript or any server side (PHP, Ruby, Perl) code in order to process the user's computing. If this is the case, then the user falls into the Javascript trap.

"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project."

You should read what the FSF says about that: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

In retrospect, it would have been neat to have written that kind of thing into the GPL (the spooks would have run Windows servers instead, and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13).

Even the FSF says the GNU AGPL addresses some, but not all, of their issues with software run over a network—best to just roll your own versions of the cloud stuff on your compy if you really give a fuck about not being mined and mailed out.

In retrospect, it would have been neat to have written that kind of thing into the GPL (the spooks would have run Windows servers instead, and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13).

Even the FSF says the GNU AGPL addresses some, but not all, of their issues with software run over a network—best to just roll your own versions of the cloud stuff on your compy if you really give a fuck about not being mined and mailed out.

The term "Intellectual Property", is considered misleading by many who advocate for electronic freedom. Please consider avoiding the term so as not to indirectly support the claims of those who want to restrict these freedoms.

http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/manual/wget.html

Whooooooosh

https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/know.your.sysadmin.html

"GPL isn't a documentation license."

`This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License' link

Yes, but it wasn't designed for documentation.

"The GPL itself isn't licensed under the GPL"

insert brain-fart ...

I have no idea what you're saying here.

I think, if you can't freely compile the source code, the software is not exactly free. Freedom 1 at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html says that you need to be able to change the program (at source code level) and to incorporate these changes into the running program. This basically requires the ability to easily compile a working binary from source code.

"GPL isn't a documentation license."

`This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License' link

"The GPL itself isn't licensed under the GPL"

insert brain-fart ...

They can waste their mod points all they want they can't show me a SINGLE CASE, not one, where the GPL foundation was able to keep a company from changing the license to their own products. And I never said anything about retroactive, which is why I said you can fork the last GPL version and they can't do shit because if you tried to retroactively change a license you would be laughed out of court.

Kinda fucking sad that only the proprietary guy has actually read the fricking GPL, but show me anywhere where the FSF can control FUTURE licenses because its NOT IN THERE. all the GPL does is makes sure that particular release that was done under GPL then STAYS under GPL, they can change the license at any. time.they.want. and it does not matter because the version that is ALREADY GPL STAYS GPL, which was the whole fucking point, that you wouldn't come to depend on a piece of FOSS and have them pull the rug out from under you by pulling a switch.

But that does NOT give you the right to everything a company makes from that moment on, or even every single version of a particular software that they make because it is THEIR PROPERTY and if they want to make it GPL,MPL, if they want to say you have to do a fricking rain dance to get a copy of the latest version? they can do that. what they CAN'T DO is take what was already GPL and wave a magic wand and make it proprietary, it just does not work that way and no case law that I'm aware of lets a company change a license retroactively from whenever they feel like it. If the court allowed that then there wouldn't be any licenses, because you could never know if the deal you made today would be upheld tomorrow.

So its nothing to get your panties in a twist over guys, you can decide to be a dumbass and trust old Monty again (seriously guys look at the MariaDB license again, old Monty has it set up so all the code belongs to him, no reason he can't sell it out from under you again) or you can go to one of the other SQL variants or hell, if you want you and some other devs can take the last GPL version of MySQL and fork it and make something better. Make it belong to the actual community so it can't be sold and get behind that like you did with Libre office, why not do that? But this is a tempest in a teapot, who cares, you have options galore.

I don't know where OSI would stand on this merger, but Richard Stallman appears to be categorically opposed to the movement, as he thinks it is based on wrong values, among other things.

Consider if the FSF merges with a different organization with a different charter; like the often more corporate-friendly Open Source Initiative.

I don't see how a merger between FSF and OSI would pose a problem. The Open Source Definition published by Open Source Initiative is worded nearly identically to the Debian Free Software Guidelines on which it was based, and each of the OSD's conditions maps to one of the FSF's four freedoms.

Would be nice if such a guarantee could be written into the license itself.

I agree. But given how some countries appear not to recognize a dedication of a work to the public domain as irrevocable, charters are the best we have.

Wait, what? As a true geek, you should only listen to GNUs n' RMSes.

• briefly describe why 'Happy Birthday' is copyrighted, and that it's a legal liability for the company
• slightly modify 'Join us now, in freedom' to include birthday lyrics
• describe why it's freely singable, as long as you don't try to restrict others from singing it
• pay a real songwriter to compose alternative birthday song that people would actually want to sing as a birthday song
• license song as GPL or Creative Commons
• print out song and short description on postcards
• as a footnote, include a URL pointing to average-person-understandable description of how copyright is being weaponized, and that copyleft is an alternative
• send postcards to HQ for restaurants, letting them know they can sing it freely
• people hear the same song in multiple restaurants and start getting curious
• copyleft birthday song replaces copyrighted birthday song
• people start understanding copyright, copyleft, and Creative Commons better
• Freedom, freedom, freedom, oy!

the TSX compatibility timeline will take roughly that long

From the SiSoftware link you provided:

Hardware Lock Elision (HLE) is a legacy compatible instruction set extension, i.e. transparent to CPUs that do not support TSX. The very same code can execute on TSX-capable CPUs - and benefit - but also work on legacy CPUs without performance penalty.

Thus, HLE at least can be adopted immediately by operating systems, compilers and runtimes. That actually started over a year ago for GCC. Intel's compiler uses TSX as well. RTM requires a feature test for compatible use, but it can still be utilized, particularly in runtimes (JVM, CLR, v8, etc.)

So seven years is too pessimistic. Haswell users with recent compilers are already using TSX.

Great benchmark link, BTW.

First, let me say that I agree with you completely. You're not the first person to come up with the idea, I recall that being hashed out a while back and found this site that references it:
http://www.sitepoint.com/open-source-licensing/

*** Update from the bottom of this post ***
It is probably worth reading all of this and clicking the many links. After spending over an hour and a half on this silly quest I have managed to find some suitable tools that will help you (and others) as well as a variety of resources which we could use to easily create our own such tools. It's a good idea and an idea that is long overdue. There are some, it turns out, that have already attempted it but I am thinking a more robust solution would be an excellent addition to the community. I've done "my part" at this point but I'm probably willing to get my hands a little dirtier if need be but I suspect there are people here who have skills I don't and who have skills that aren't as rusty as my own.

Either way, be sure to read this as there are some decent links and there are some actual scripts that people have coded that do accomplish this task. The links are in the list and I've made an effort to describe them to some extent or at least indicate their importance so that you can narrow down which ones you wish to review and which ones you can just safely ignore. I don't think you (and I) are the only folks who are interested in it so the time invested is likely not wasted. Thanks for the thought process which engaged my brain hamsters. I enjoyed the chase.
*** End Update ***

Anyhow... That would be an excellent addition to the web. I've never seen anything of the sort actually done about it though it's been pondered in the past so I meandered off to Google and pulled a couple of links out of my favorites to see what I could come up with. But, be aware, I don't have exactly what you're looking for (or know if it exists as of yet) but I'll add to this post as I search and if I can't find what it is that you're looking for (it seems unlikely and I'm not sure why - it's pretty obviously something that would benefit the community and it doesn't look all that difficult) I can at least provide you with the resources to create the tool you're looking for. Hopefully that helps...

You can kind of do it on your own, manually, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses

Larry Rose's book 'Open Source Licensing' is available free online, specifically chapter 10 applies:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm

This is not even remotely what you asked for but still interesting and on-topic (and I want to share it):
http://www.tldrlegal.com/compare

You could get SOME of that data here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

This one isn't complete but is simple and easy (and, like the last one, new to me):
http://jan-krueger.net/doc/opensource-licenses.html

In my search I found this, which isn't what you wanted but is a start:
http://creativecommons.org/choose/ (It looks to be pretty basic, and it is, but it is a good start.)

Another one that is new to me but pretty quick and easy to use. Still not what you wanted though:
http://www.croftsoft.com/library/tutorials/opensource/

This one looks a lot like the one from Wikipedia, I've not checked to see if it is a duplicate or not:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_o

I thought you were joking. Then I read this - https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Mail-Amusements.html
It's amusing though, thanks for the tip :)

Exactly. They're not "failing to disclose which sites are being banned", they're succeeding in not disclosing which sites are being banned. This is by design and intention, not some consequence of an "ecosystem".

I started using GNU/Linux in 2005 and the only thing I regret is not starting sooner. Never going back to windoze.

http://www.gnu.org/

There is an ongoing project for development of a python front end for GCC. I don't know its current status but it most be experimental.
Also there is the Java implementation of Python, JPython. By virtue of running over the JVM Just In Time compiler Python code gets compiled to native code in runtime eventually.
I can understand your point about C but the lastest C++ compilers are looking real good for the same job, even if you limit yourself to a subset of C++. I have been converting some old libraries and small apps from C to more modern C++ using mostly strings and maps and I can report that is much safer and readable than C. Just using std::string to replace char*s have been a pleasure in security gained, even if std::string is not very nice.
Practically hadn't needed pointers in most cases.

By "a full Linux distro" they mean GNU/Linux. Now we're starting to see why RMS would always insist on the distinction. Debian is GNU/Linux. Fedora is GNU/Linux. Android is not; it uses Bionic instead of glibc, and it uses a different fundamental set of userspace CLI applications instead of Bash and Coreutils.

What moron walks around saying "gee in yoo Linux"?

The kind that doesn't know how to pronounce g'noo?

For references to corresponding source code, we recommend

// @source:

followed by the URL. This satisfies the GNU GPL's requirement to distribute source code. If the source is on a different site, you must take care to handle that properly. Source code is necessary for the program to be free.

To indicate the license of the JavaScript code embedded in a page, we recommend putting the license notice between two notes of this form:

@licstart The following is the entire license notice for the JavaScript code in this page. ...
@licend The above is the entire license notice for the JavaScript code in this page. .....

Makes perfect sense...

Posting AC because I'm modding...

If you are going to object to minified JS, you also have to object to any code which is difficult to comprehend, and then you place a subjective quality on what is truly free

There is no objection to using minimized and obfuscated JS; the real issue not being able to consent to running code since the JavaScript is "unreadable" and proprietary.

If you read TFA, you will notice a link to The JavaScript Trap. In Appendix A, it encourages a convention for releasing obfuscated code:

For references to corresponding source code, we recommend

// @source:

followed by the URL. This satisfies the GNU GPL's requirement to distribute source code. If the source is on a different site, you must take care to handle that properly. Source code is necessary for the program to be free.

To indicate the license of the JavaScript code embedded in a page, we recommend putting the license notice between two notes of this form:

@licstart The following is the entire license notice for the JavaScript code in this page. ... @licend The above is the entire license notice for the JavaScript code in this page. .....

As a JavaScript developer, this is a no-brainer for me.

I think you should have read the article that was linked from the article, that specifically mentions this type of Javascript-code:

"in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long"

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

The FSF was never interrested in giving developers freedom, they are care about users freedom. They want source code to be available so if a user wants a program to work in a different way then intended by the original developer they can modify it themselves or pay a developer to do so.

I think the FSF wants developers to create code users ask for. The user would pay the developer for the time spent on creating that code.

Stallman wants users to do exactly that, wrt regulations.gov and others, in the case "when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software". That's how he developed GNU: until it was more mature (and Linux came along), he used non-free Unix to test.

Does this downloaded copy of the JS code come with a license that secures the four essential freedoms to users? Usually it doesn't unless you're on GNU.org or a MediaWiki site.

If the author licensed it that way then yes, if not then obviously it wouldn't and absolutely shouldn't.

I think you may be confused with the Open Source Initiative (who have never actually accomplished anything of note interestingly enough); the FSF has been bluntly pushing the whole "proprietary software is immoral" ideology from the beginning, nothing has changed on that front.

I agree, I remember Bruce Perens pointing out that the only real point of difference between him and Richard Stallman in terms of ideology was that whilst he believed Free and non-Free Software should co-exist Stallman believes everything should only ever be Free Software.

Remember when the FSF was all about having choice instead of pushing their agenda, when the whole goal was to make sure there was always an alternative so you didn't HAVE to use proprietary if you didn't want to? Wasn't that nice, didn't they seem a hell of a lot less circle loopy in those days? why oh why must every single cause end up ruled by the completely loony tune?

Firstly, Stallman founded the FSF and is still president of it.

Secondly, when was the FSF ever about choice? I think you may be confused with the Open Source Initiative (who have never actually accomplished anything of note interestingly enough); the FSF has been bluntly pushing the whole "proprietary software is immoral" ideology from the beginning, nothing has changed on that front. Why do you think they created the GPL instead of just using BSD 3-clause if they actually ever thought the way you seem to think they did?

I never realized visiting a website required me to "sacrifice my freedom"!

Look, I know it's a lot to ask that you actually pause to reflect before dashing off that Frist Psot and racking up all that precious karma. But why don't you wind down your supercilious, holier-than-thou tone and actually read what Stallmann says about the Javascript trap?

If you did, you'd see that he has a perfectly valid point about how the effect of non-Free licenses, combined with minified (and therefore effectively unreadable) code, especially that which uses dynamically constructed elements, is hard to read, hard to share and hard for the community to improve. The tone of the article is pragmatic, reasoned and doesn't jump up and down crying 'Injustice!' or waving a placard. Much as you might hate this, it's a reasonable technical argument that follows logically from the concept of Free Software itself.

If you want to argue against Free Software on its merits, knock yourself out. I work with both proprietary and Free software all the time, and I see the benefits of both. But when you start pitching a fit and belittling someone else's calm, reasonably stated points without even attempting to address the logic, then you've lost any credibility. Honestly, you can ridicule Stallmann all you like, but you might want to consider what you look like to others as you indulge in this kind of adolescent, pop-collared frat-boy humour.

Does this downloaded copy of the JS code come with a license that secures the four essential freedoms to users? Usually it doesn't unless you're on GNU.org or a MediaWiki site.

I understand the intent of the four freedoms. I also understand why people would enjoy those freedoms granted to them by other software writers. But what I do NOT understand is why people think they're entitled to any of it. If I write software and license it in some FSF/Stallman-approved fashion, good for you, and good for everybody (theoretically).

But if I decide I don't want to license it in this very liberal way, what gives you the right to demand a license? If I make some js widget-driven site and minify all my code, obscure it, and whatever else... that's my business, right? You can use it or don't use it -- it's all the same to me. Maybe I'm ignorant of licensing. Or maybe apathetic. Or lack of time. Or all of the above? If you sent me an email about my site and demanded licensing stuff, I'd tell you to go find a hobby...

Yeah, it's a US government site. And...? How is it that you (a hypothetical US citizen) using the site making you sacrifice your freedoms?

Does this downloaded copy of the JS code come with a license that secures the four essential freedoms to users? Usually it doesn't unless you're on GNU.org or a MediaWiki site.

The LGPL was created more as a long term 'bait & switch' tool - to promote the parts of the software that the GNU project did care about as far as adaptation went, even if they didn't care about the main parts. If you read Stallman's essay Why you should n't use the Lesser GPL for your next library (emphasis mine), it's obvious that it's only an expedient license to be used only when there are plenty of alternatives available - such as C libraries. They certainly don't want you to use that in your killer app that requires dynamic linking. Once it's popular enough, they can 'upgrade' the license to something like GPL3.

Of course, given how people are fleeing from GCC to LLVM/Clang, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point, using the same reasoning as in that article, they put GCC under LGPL. However, make no mistake - while you may maintain that a developer can decide whether to use GPL or LGPL, RMS clearly wants people to use GPL over LGPL.

Only decentralised currencies implemented in Free/Libre Software have the true and honest potential to bring about egalitarian, global access to capitalistic activity and wealth transfer.

Such a fascinating world we live in. On one side we have people who, from the bottom of their heart, believe a dead man from 2,000 years ago will return to earth and escort them to heaven. On the other side are FOSS zealots who believe some new "digital/Internet/super techno like us" currency is going to change the world and overthrow the old world order. Sad, but still fascinating.

>Because end users won't give a damn about how much time did it take to build, or whether it's opensource.

I don't give a damn if it's good, only whether it's free software.*

* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

The GNU site describes the history of HURD's experimentation w/ different microkernels. It doesn't explain why L4 failed - it just somewhat tersely states that its work stopped in 2005, after which 2 more microkernels - Coyotos and Viengoos - were tried out.

As I've noted elsewhere in this page, they could have simply forked Minix 3, which is small and well documented, and gotten a microkernel that provides all the services that HURD requires. After all, Minix is modelled on Unix and provides the microkernel underpinnings, while HURD provides the upper layers that consume the microkernel services. These 2 could have been a beautiful combination if not for the clashes b/w the licenses.

the 'gnu/linux' tag was an attempt to politicalize the kernel by RMS.

Wow, the level of malice or cluelessness in that sentence, where should I begin...

RMS stated the free software movement in 1983 whereas Linus wrote his little kernel in 1991. Motivated by the GNU project, using GNU tools and releasing it under the GNU license, no less. That makes Linus undoubtedly the outsider trying to join the club. He should be grateful RMS doesn't suggest we call GNU/Linux just GNU. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu

It's not like RMS is asking you to call it Stallmanix!

Next time, get your facts straightened up before commenting or if you're trolling, go fuck yourself.

there isn't even basic SATA and USB support

Reposted from above re SATA support:
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/sata_disk_drives.html

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Both GNU components and the Linux kernel come with a written permission to call it whatever you want. I can take all these components, distribute them even verbatim and call them "yomama", and I would be fully compliant with the licenses. The difference is that no one would have a clue what I am talking about.

For this reason it is correct to call it Linux, or Android or Ubuntu or any other name (subject to trademark laws of course). Just use the name most people are familiar with so they know what you are talking about. Calling these systems GNU is merely a courtesy, a form of respect you pay to the GNU project, not a requirement in any way, and not "the right way" but merely your preference.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Both GNU components and the Linux kernel come with a written permission to call it whatever you want. I can take all these components, distribute them even verbatim and call them "yomama", and I would be fully compliant with the licenses. The difference is that no one would have a clue what I am talking about.

For this reason it is correct to call it Linux, or Android or Ubuntu or any other name (subject to trademark laws of course). Just use the name most people are familiar with so they know what you are talking about. Calling these systems GNU is merely a courtesy, a form of respect you pay to the GNU project, not a requirement in any way, and not "the right way" but merely your preference.

If they dumped Hurd now it would be a complete loss of face

Yay it's the daily make shit up about the FSF/RMS thread!

http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/rms-ama.html

TL;DR

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-08/msg00000.html

Seriously, is it hard to google RMS Hurd before posting crap?