Slashdot Mirror

They certainly did a lot of pimping of the word "innovation" during the anti-trust trial, but this seems to be genuinely innovative stuff to me.

It's not quite "innovative" in the sense that it hasn't been done before, but it certainly hasn't been done well. So if Microsoft really pulls it off it might quite rightly be a major coup.

There are related efforts in the free software community as well. The GCC project has implemented object-level compatibility between C++ and Java, for example. It's not quite seamless, and never can be owing to langauge differences. But it's a nice starting achievement, to which I hope other OO languages will be added in the future.

Ummm.... Let me think.... NO! You do NOT have to agree to the GPL or BSD to use software licensed under it. You do own the copies of Free software that you posess. However, under copyright laws, you can't redistribute it. The only thing that lets you do that is the license, and to do so, you must agree to the other restrictions it slaps on.

Copyright is not ownership, copyright is just that. A monopoly on the right to make a copy.

If you're an open source programmer as you claim, it'd probably be a good idea to read some of the Free Software Foundation's pages on licensing, copyright, and the GPL, which explicitly counter all your claims in far more detail than I could go into here.

The GPL grants you certain rights in return for you giving up certain rights.

Specifically you can copy, modify, and distribute the code. But if you do happen to modify it you are forced to release the source to your changes.

To address some specific problems:

• The GPL does not require you to release anything, ever. You may modify GPL-covered source code to your heart's content for your own personal (or, arguably, in-house) use and never even tell anyone. Since you aren't distributing the software, the author's copyright has no hold over you. As a parallel: Writing in the margin of a book -- or tearing out the ending and replacing it with a version you like better -- cannot be restricted by the book's author's copyright. Copying and distributing your modified version -- or the author's version, intact -- requires the author's permission.
• What the GPL does say is that if you do distribute the covered software (or modified versions), then you must distribute the source under the GPL. Again, this is not a restriction of your rights; it is a delineation of the permission to copy, which the author has granted you. The author has not granted you permission to distribute his/her software under your own terms; to do so would violate not some contract, but rather the author's copyright.

  Consider: If you walk on my lawn without my permission, that's trespassing. If I permit you to walk on the north side, but not the south side, that grants you rights you didn't have; you don't give up any rights. The provision that you may not walk on the south is not something that you "give up" in order to obtain my permission to walk on the north; it's just the limit of the permission which I grant you.

• The GPL does not speak to your "right to use" the software. Term zero of the GPL states that "[a]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." The GPL neither grants a "right to use" nor limits a "right to use"; it doesn't deal with such a right at all.

  If you believe that you need the author to grant you a "right to use" his/her software, in addition to the fact of your having legally obtained a copy, then it seems to me that you must therefore conclude that you don't have a "right to use" any GPLed software! (Unless, of course, the authors have specifically granted you a "right to use" in addition to the GPL-granted rights to distribute and modify.)

If the libaries is licences with GPL you will have to GLP you product if it linkes with it. If the libary is under the LGPL wou can link with the libary without having to (L)GPL your application.

If the libaries is licences with GPL you will have to GLP you product if it linkes with it. If the libary is under the LGPL wou can link with the libary without having to (L)GPL your application.

how can you not belive that? let me point you to this and this or this. people do it all the time, and I am supprised that you, a /. reader, haven't atleast picked up on that.

That is, unless you have a lot of money and enjoy fighting lawsuits.

That's because only the copyright holder of a work whose copyright has been violated has standing to sue. While I might imagine that the FSF might be willing to lend you some legal advice if you hold the copyright to your work, they don't have standing to sue themselves and may choose not to devote substantial resources to it.

Imagine what kind of legal power - and money - a company like Sony could bring to bear in a copyright violation. Imagine the legal delays that can be done. Can you afford the plane fare to fly you and your attorney to wherever the lawsuit will be contested?

Please see the FSF's page on Violations of the GPL, LGPL and GFDL, in which it emphasizes that the only person who can act on a violation is the copyright holder.

Note that it may be required, and definitely is advisable, that you assign copyright to the FSF in writing - not in comments in the source code, but as a legal document written on paper with a "wet signature". I believe the FSF has a page about that somewhere but I couldn't find it. I do know that copyrights can only be assigned to someone else in writing.

There is one good reason to reserve copyright to yourself, and it is a considerable reason. You may wish to be able to provide the software under a proprietary license to someone else who wouldn't be required to redistribute source, perhaps for a fee. That is done, for example, for the proprietary license to CygWin, which allows proprietary Unix applications to be readily ported to windows without requiring source code disclosure, in the case that the proprietary license to CygWin is purchased.

If relicensing your source is not in your plans, assign the copyright to the FSF.

Mike

That is, unless you have a lot of money and enjoy fighting lawsuits.

That's because only the copyright holder of a work whose copyright has been violated has standing to sue. While I might imagine that the FSF might be willing to lend you some legal advice if you hold the copyright to your work, they don't have standing to sue themselves and may choose not to devote substantial resources to it.

Imagine what kind of legal power - and money - a company like Sony could bring to bear in a copyright violation. Imagine the legal delays that can be done. Can you afford the plane fare to fly you and your attorney to wherever the lawsuit will be contested?

Please see the FSF's page on Violations of the GPL, LGPL and GFDL, in which it emphasizes that the only person who can act on a violation is the copyright holder.

Note that it may be required, and definitely is advisable, that you assign copyright to the FSF in writing - not in comments in the source code, but as a legal document written on paper with a "wet signature". I believe the FSF has a page about that somewhere but I couldn't find it. I do know that copyrights can only be assigned to someone else in writing.

There is one good reason to reserve copyright to yourself, and it is a considerable reason. You may wish to be able to provide the software under a proprietary license to someone else who wouldn't be required to redistribute source, perhaps for a fee. That is done, for example, for the proprietary license to CygWin, which allows proprietary Unix applications to be readily ported to windows without requiring source code disclosure, in the case that the proprietary license to CygWin is purchased.

If relicensing your source is not in your plans, assign the copyright to the FSF.

Mike

As has been mentioned (many times) before, we're at step 3.

Understand that the very nature of Free software means that it can't get "gotten rid of", no matter how much money Microsoft throws at fighting it. The way things are at the moment, Free software just can't lose. Take a step back and realise that "losing" means being removed from society, so that it can't be used by anyone, and not having a small market share. Even if Free software doesn't end up with huge market share, informed people can still use and develop it, no matter what goes on in the rest of the software world. This is a very good thing; Free software is gaining popularity and momentum because lots of people are starting to see this.

Copyright (c) 2001 The International Government of Microsoft All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in executables, without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of executables must be obtained at an outrageous price, must retain this license, and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions of executables must also be kept away from sites like 3r33t eReEt, 1337, and 31337, as they may be pirates of software which take away from our trillion dollar business.

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment:

This product is the best product you could ever buy. You are getting sleepy, BUY MORE MICROSOFT.

4. Neither the name of Microsoft, Bill Gates, or any other Microsoft employee may be used in the
same sentence as Open Source, Linux, BSD, or Anti Trust lawsuits, else they'll feel lethal wraith.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MICROSOFT AND THE KINGDOM OF BILL GATES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE BUGS, SECURITY LEAKS, COSTS, SERVICE PACKS, THOSE SERVICE PACKS' SERVICE PACKS, AND THE PATCHES TO THOSE SERVICE PACKS. THE IMPLIED NOTION OF OBTAINING A STABLE PRODUCT ARE FRUITLESS AND SHOULD YOU COMPLAIN, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE WILL RESULT IN YOU CALLING OUR TECHNICAL SUPPORT LINE AT THE RATE OF 599.99 PER MINUTE WHERE YOU WILL BE PLACED ON HOLD ONLY TO LISTEN TO YANNI, KENNY G, AND BARBARA STREISAND. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. ALL YOUR SOURCE CODE ARE BELONG TO OUR PATENTS.

Section (5) grants exclusive authority to obtain, modify, et al., any GPL'd code to those who agree to the GPL's terms. Sony, by using GPL'd code, agrees to the GPL's terms. And so they may not licence their modification under any terms but the GPL.

So even if Sony released the source, should they do so under any terms other than the GPL's, they'd be breaking the GPL.

I'm no expert. Don't take my word for it.

Anon. Cowherd

... seriously, if all you people are serious about the GPL (I'll take a neutral stance on the GPL itself), for God's sakes, get a real organization together to handle these things, so that there's always someone to turn to when there is a GPL violation. You know, some professional and legal experts to help the cause out.

That would be The Free Software Foundation. One of the things that the FSF does is to provide legal help in dealing with apparent GPL violations. Apparently their basic strategy is to start out nice ("You may not realize it, but you're violating the GPL. Here's how to get into compliance.") and only make threatening noises after being nice fails. That seems like a pretty reasonable way of doing things to me. FWIW, they've been pretty successful at getting violators into compliance, with Objective C being a notable success story (they got NeXT to release the source of their compiler for it, as it was built around gcc.)

Is there anything in slashcode that doubles the number of moderators when "GPL" and "Violation" appear in the same article title? If not there sure should be.

Just a warning people, get your facts straight, count to 10 and think about what you're doing before you do something about this. The author of this diary had a really unfortunate encounter with a really annoying Sony employee who most likely doesn't represent the official company's position. Unless you're in a position to verify that there has been a GPL violation don't go off flaming Sony. If you can prove it then follow the steps on the GNU site.

If indeed Sony is violating the GPL, maybe we can convince IBM (who is apparently all about Linux these days) to put their money where their mouth is and give some of the financial muscle needed to take on another huge corporation.

... seriously, if all you people are serious about the GPL (I'll take a neutral stance on the GPL itself), for God's sakes, get a real organization together to handle these things, so that there's always someone to turn to when there is a GPL violation. You know, some professional and legal experts to help the cause out.

That would be the Free Software Foundation.

In the days of fear that cryptography could be a potential shield for child pornographers, there was a quote going around: "Child abuse" is the root password to the Constitution. The same idea can be applied to "public safety", "national security", or whatever cherished value moves people in any given time.

Mount a good enough PR campaign, and civil liberties demonstrate an astonishing degree of elasticity. M$ has the motive, means, and opportunity to initiate such a campaign.

Stallman has written on essentially this topic. Spooky, interesting stuff.

I mean, can a what to do when you see a possible GPL violation link from GNU itself be clearer than anything else? Just read it, people. C'mon.

Mr. Mundie "The goal of the G.P.L. is sweeping up all of the intellectual property. . . "

A few points, IMHO:

1) good for open source, as "intellectual property" is doublespeak - in US law, there never has been any ruling that says that copyright, trademarks, or patents are inalienable rights but rather a deal between the people and busnesses to maximise innovation NOT to make money. See the Supreme Court ruling in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."

2) Weather you are libertarian, liberal, or conservative, I think most people would be happy to limit the "rights" of companies and countries - they have been taking too "rights" for them, many at the people's expence.

some further reading

prolebox

Mr. Mundie "The goal of the G.P.L. is sweeping up all of the intellectual property. . . "

A few points, IMHO:

1) good for open source, as "intellectual property" is doublespeak - in US law, there never has been any ruling that says that copyright, trademarks, or patents are inalienable rights but rather a deal between the people and busnesses to maximise innovation NOT to make money. See the Supreme Court ruling in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."

2) Weather you are libertarian, liberal, or conservative, I think most people would be happy to limit the "rights" of companies and countries - they have been taking too "rights" for them, many at the people's expence.

some further reading

prolebox

rantbox

--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?

And an overview of categories of software.

An overview that includes "XFree86-style" software in the "free software" category:

Non-copylefted free software comes from the author with permission to redistribute and modify, and also to add additional restrictions to it.

If a program is free but not copylefted, then some copies or modified versions may not be free at all. A software company can compile the program, with or without modifications, and distribute the executable file as a proprietary software product.

The X Window System illustrates this. The X Consortium releases X11 with distribution terms that make it non-copylefted free software. If you wish, you can get a copy which has those distribution terms and is free. However, there are non-free versions as well, and there are popular workstations and PC graphics boards for which non-free versions are the only ones that work. If you are using this hardware, X11 is not free software for you.

This says that, err, umm, according to the overview of categories of software, somebody can take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret. (Anybody who believes otherwise either has not read, or does not understand, the "overview of categories of software" page in question.)

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

Go on, read it. I dare you.

You're going to find that the BSD license is approved by the FSF. If anything, the BSD license has more freedom, as many people have said in earlier threads.

Sorry, Apple is doing nothing wrong or out of the ordinary.

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

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Now, this article is not talking about Free Software. It is talking about Open Source Software (Free Software is OSS, OSS is not necessarily Free Software) that is specifically NOT Free Software. This software does protect "freedom" to co-opt the software.

From the GPL:

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it[)]
[. . .]
[Given you a]ccompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code[. . .]

This is somewhat simplified (for instance you don't have to do the above if you just provide source up front.)

Note the parenthetical statement "or a work based on it." That is key. No one may take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret.

See the GPL.

See an explanation of Free Software.

And an overview of categories of software.

-Peter

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Now, this article is not talking about Free Software. It is talking about Open Source Software (Free Software is OSS, OSS is not necessarily Free Software) that is specifically NOT Free Software. This software does protect "freedom" to co-opt the software.

From the GPL:

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it[)]
[. . .]
[Given you a]ccompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code[. . .]

This is somewhat simplified (for instance you don't have to do the above if you just provide source up front.)

Note the parenthetical statement "or a work based on it." That is key. No one may take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret.

See the GPL.

See an explanation of Free Software.

And an overview of categories of software.

-Peter

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Now, this article is not talking about Free Software. It is talking about Open Source Software (Free Software is OSS, OSS is not necessarily Free Software) that is specifically NOT Free Software. This software does protect "freedom" to co-opt the software.

From the GPL:

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it[)]
[. . .]
[Given you a]ccompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code[. . .]

This is somewhat simplified (for instance you don't have to do the above if you just provide source up front.)

Note the parenthetical statement "or a work based on it." That is key. No one may take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret.

See the GPL.

See an explanation of Free Software.

And an overview of categories of software.

-Peter

This, though, seems to be the approach the corporate world, by and large, is taking to OSS: either create it in-house (like Java) or suck in a BSD-licensed product and hack on it (like Berkeley DB -- and either close the source (countless BSD derivatives) or keep it on a leashed license like APSL. The GPL prevents this sort of thing, but scares off a lot of companies in the process. (Then again, some provisions of the APSL do too...)

The upshot is that you should probably release code under whatever license you and your cohorts feel comfortable with, and deal with it when people do things you don't like but are within the rules of the license. After all, we're supposed to be responsible people, right?

That was a damn good piece of high-brow trolling. Perhaps the author needs to go read all the stuff at gnu.org. The FSF was never about giving things away free. "free" as in freedom is what they mean. And about the fsf backing for-profit companies. I am sure the author appreciates the kick ass kde project. I hope he takes some time to divine where the compiler used to compile the code came from. It surely didn't fall out of the sky or arrive on an AOL cd. Most parts were written by people working at for-profit companies.(cygwin).

Oh, that's crap. As I understand it, one way to troll is to completely go off the handle without bothering to address the substance of what you're objecting to. From that vantage, I don't see how "This argument is crap and I stopped reading" is any less trollish than unloading on RMS and his penchant for insisting that others follow his semantics. People are allowed to think that RMS's opinions are wrong. They are allowed to say so in very strong (even offensive) terms, and simply doing so doesn't make them trolls.

More to the point, if you'd read the entire article you would have hit some interesting stuff. While a good part of it is tiresome KDE vs. Ximian Gnome partisanship, there's also a perfectly reasonable call for the FSF to release information on their finances.

Point is, just screaming "troll" isn't a good enough argument against Powell's article. It fails to contest, for example, Powell's claim that

it is absolutely undeniable that the FSF has thrown its support behind a desktop controlled by two for-profit companies, one of which has an officer who sits on the FSF's board; the same company has purchased advertising aimed at confounding those who are seeking a desktop that is truly free in every rational sense of the word; and the other company has suggested that users can assist its product in surviving but help it avoid paying its bills by donating to the Free Software Foundation, or else an officer of that company has flung down and danced upon his fiduciary responsibilities by saying, in a communication that is part of his corporate function, that people might want to send money to the FSF instead of the company.

I mean, when you look at it that way, it reeks. If the FSF wants to represent the interest of hackers and geeks in the public sphere, I think it's perfectly reasonable that us hackers and geeks call them when they're out of line (or, as is the case here, when there's enough going on to make them look like they're out of line). Just because they're not the RIAA doesn't mean they're saints. If they're not doing anything wrong, the only thing releasing information would do is completely exhonorate them.

Lastly, let's not forget that they're a Foundation, not an individual. Organizations, whether foundations or corporations, can't (or at least, shouldn't be allowed to) claim the same rights as individuals.

Before you go off on me, here's my line of thinking: if you give an organization the same rights as an individual, the organization will have greater rights in a de facto sense. They have resources (time, money, personnel, etc.) to fight when their rights are infringed that individuals simply don't have. I mean, I don't have a legal team to fight for me when I say something that pisses someone off and they take me to court, but major corporations and organizations do. They, by entension, have more real free speech than I do simply because they can defend what they say and I can't -- this holds true even though we technically have the same rights.

The US Supreme Court made a huge mistake when it decided that corporations have personhood. Extending that outward, I think we have every right to see the finances of a corporation or organization, and every right to want to see them when that organization claims to represent us. It's always a good idea to be a little wary of anyone who claims to speak for anyone else, even if they're the FSF, even if they're right most of the time. Just because everything they did yesterday was good doesn't mean we can assume everything they're doing today is all peaches.

Oh, that's crap. As I understand it, one way to troll is to completely go off the handle without bothering to address the substance of what you're objecting to. From that vantage, I don't see how "This argument is crap and I stopped reading" is any less trollish than unloading on RMS and his penchant for insisting that others follow his semantics. People are allowed to think that RMS's opinions are wrong. They are allowed to say so in very strong (even offensive) terms, and simply doing so doesn't make them trolls.

More to the point, if you'd read the entire article you would have hit some interesting stuff. While a good part of it is tiresome KDE vs. Ximian Gnome partisanship, there's also a perfectly reasonable call for the FSF to release information on their finances.

Point is, just screaming "troll" isn't a good enough argument against Powell's article. It fails to contest, for example, Powell's claim that

it is absolutely undeniable that the FSF has thrown its support behind a desktop controlled by two for-profit companies, one of which has an officer who sits on the FSF's board; the same company has purchased advertising aimed at confounding those who are seeking a desktop that is truly free in every rational sense of the word; and the other company has suggested that users can assist its product in surviving but help it avoid paying its bills by donating to the Free Software Foundation, or else an officer of that company has flung down and danced upon his fiduciary responsibilities by saying, in a communication that is part of his corporate function, that people might want to send money to the FSF instead of the company.

I mean, when you look at it that way, it reeks. If the FSF wants to represent the interest of hackers and geeks in the public sphere, I think it's perfectly reasonable that us hackers and geeks call them when they're out of line (or, as is the case here, when there's enough going on to make them look like they're out of line). Just because they're not the RIAA doesn't mean they're saints. If they're not doing anything wrong, the only thing releasing information would do is completely exhonorate them.

Lastly, let's not forget that they're a Foundation, not an individual. Organizations, whether foundations or corporations, can't (or at least, shouldn't be allowed to) claim the same rights as individuals.

Before you go off on me, here's my line of thinking: if you give an organization the same rights as an individual, the organization will have greater rights in a de facto sense. They have resources (time, money, personnel, etc.) to fight when their rights are infringed that individuals simply don't have. I mean, I don't have a legal team to fight for me when I say something that pisses someone off and they take me to court, but major corporations and organizations do. They, by entension, have more real free speech than I do simply because they can defend what they say and I can't -- this holds true even though we technically have the same rights.

The US Supreme Court made a huge mistake when it decided that corporations have personhood. Extending that outward, I think we have every right to see the finances of a corporation or organization, and every right to want to see them when that organization claims to represent us. It's always a good idea to be a little wary of anyone who claims to speak for anyone else, even if they're the FSF, even if they're right most of the time. Just because everything they did yesterday was good doesn't mean we can assume everything they're doing today is all peaches.

Well, Lisp isn't really based of anything, at least, not off of any other programming langauges. It is based on the concept of the Lambda Calculus, which is something of a way to describe programs in a mathematical way. Or, something like that. <g> Honestly, I've never gotten a great definition of lambda calculus, but I'm content that Lisp is cool. ;-)

Now, as to why you haven't heard of it before, my guess is because you are either not a University Computer Science graduate, or you haven't branched into functional programming. Most universities will cover it at least very briefly in some sort of programming languages class, though rarely do they do it justice.

As for functional programming, it's a programming paradigm, like imperative or object oriented programming. It tends to be very powerful, often makes use of constructs which are terse (fewer lines of code to do the the same thing than required in other langauges) and generally makes extensive use of recursion.

Lisp is very interesting, however. Even though it is usually thought of as a functional language, it actually provides excellent support for functional, imperative, and object oriented programming. In fact, many people think the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) is one of the best Object Oriented Programming implementations available. It was also the first object oriented langauge that was standardized (by ANSI or ISO, I don't remember for sure which one).

It's also been around for a while. In fact, Lisp is one of the oldest programming langauges still in somewhat common use today. (The only older language being Fortran, which predates it by about 5 years, as I recall.)

If you've never had any experience with functional programming, I strongly encourage you to investigate and study[1] it a little, even if you never really use it, because you will learn a great deal about programming in general for your time invested.

Now, as for what applications have been written in it, the canonical example is GNU Emacs. At it's core, Emacs is basically a lisp interpreter, and most of the editor is then written in Lisp.

While applications that are written entirely in Lisp are perhaps not as well known, one of the most common places to find Lisp is as an extension language for other programs. Here are a handfull that make impressive use of Lisp:

The GIMP uses Scheme, a dialect of Lisp for it's Script-Fu, which can be used to programatically execute anything that can be done by hand.

Autodesk, the makers of the industry leading CAD software AutoCAD use their own dialect of Lisp, called AutoLISP, for programming and customising the AutoCAD software.

Siag Office is a free small, Open Source, and very impressive, Office Suite making extensive use of Scheme. (SIAG == Scheme In A Grid). It includes a very cool Spreadsheet program, as well as others, and is highly customisable.

GnuCash makes use of the Guile library to provide Scheme as an extension and scripting language for the application.

Speaking of Guile, Guile is the official extension language library of the GNU project. Using Guile to provide Scheme scripting, you can add support for scripting and extensibility to any application. Guile is used in many applications including GnuCash (mentioned above), the SCWM Window Manager, the TeXmacs editor (integrating Tex support into an Emacs like editor), and many others.

One last example is the Sawfish Window Manager, which seems to be among the most popular Window Managers around these days. It makes use of an Emacs-ish philosophy, having a very small core program, including a lisp interpreter, and implementing most of its feature set on top of that with lisp.

This is, of course, not an exhaustive list of applications written in, or making use of, Lisp, however I think everyone here will prolly recognise a few names there. ;-)

[1] If you're interested in learning more about Lisp, I strong suggest you take a look the book Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. The full text is available online at the link here, and it is one of the best books ever written about Computer Science. It's also used as an early CS text book at MIT.

Well, Lisp isn't really based of anything, at least, not off of any other programming langauges. It is based on the concept of the Lambda Calculus, which is something of a way to describe programs in a mathematical way. Or, something like that. <g> Honestly, I've never gotten a great definition of lambda calculus, but I'm content that Lisp is cool. ;-)

Now, as to why you haven't heard of it before, my guess is because you are either not a University Computer Science graduate, or you haven't branched into functional programming. Most universities will cover it at least very briefly in some sort of programming languages class, though rarely do they do it justice.

As for functional programming, it's a programming paradigm, like imperative or object oriented programming. It tends to be very powerful, often makes use of constructs which are terse (fewer lines of code to do the the same thing than required in other langauges) and generally makes extensive use of recursion.

Lisp is very interesting, however. Even though it is usually thought of as a functional language, it actually provides excellent support for functional, imperative, and object oriented programming. In fact, many people think the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) is one of the best Object Oriented Programming implementations available. It was also the first object oriented langauge that was standardized (by ANSI or ISO, I don't remember for sure which one).

It's also been around for a while. In fact, Lisp is one of the oldest programming langauges still in somewhat common use today. (The only older language being Fortran, which predates it by about 5 years, as I recall.)

If you've never had any experience with functional programming, I strongly encourage you to investigate and study[1] it a little, even if you never really use it, because you will learn a great deal about programming in general for your time invested.

Now, as for what applications have been written in it, the canonical example is GNU Emacs. At it's core, Emacs is basically a lisp interpreter, and most of the editor is then written in Lisp.

While applications that are written entirely in Lisp are perhaps not as well known, one of the most common places to find Lisp is as an extension language for other programs. Here are a handfull that make impressive use of Lisp:

The GIMP uses Scheme, a dialect of Lisp for it's Script-Fu, which can be used to programatically execute anything that can be done by hand.

Autodesk, the makers of the industry leading CAD software AutoCAD use their own dialect of Lisp, called AutoLISP, for programming and customising the AutoCAD software.

Siag Office is a free small, Open Source, and very impressive, Office Suite making extensive use of Scheme. (SIAG == Scheme In A Grid). It includes a very cool Spreadsheet program, as well as others, and is highly customisable.

GnuCash makes use of the Guile library to provide Scheme as an extension and scripting language for the application.

Speaking of Guile, Guile is the official extension language library of the GNU project. Using Guile to provide Scheme scripting, you can add support for scripting and extensibility to any application. Guile is used in many applications including GnuCash (mentioned above), the SCWM Window Manager, the TeXmacs editor (integrating Tex support into an Emacs like editor), and many others.

One last example is the Sawfish Window Manager, which seems to be among the most popular Window Managers around these days. It makes use of an Emacs-ish philosophy, having a very small core program, including a lisp interpreter, and implementing most of its feature set on top of that with lisp.

This is, of course, not an exhaustive list of applications written in, or making use of, Lisp, however I think everyone here will prolly recognise a few names there. ;-)

[1] If you're interested in learning more about Lisp, I strong suggest you take a look the book Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. The full text is available online at the link here, and it is one of the best books ever written about Computer Science. It's also used as an early CS text book at MIT.

Well, Lisp isn't really based of anything, at least, not off of any other programming langauges. It is based on the concept of the Lambda Calculus, which is something of a way to describe programs in a mathematical way. Or, something like that. <g> Honestly, I've never gotten a great definition of lambda calculus, but I'm content that Lisp is cool. ;-)

Now, as to why you haven't heard of it before, my guess is because you are either not a University Computer Science graduate, or you haven't branched into functional programming. Most universities will cover it at least very briefly in some sort of programming languages class, though rarely do they do it justice.

As for functional programming, it's a programming paradigm, like imperative or object oriented programming. It tends to be very powerful, often makes use of constructs which are terse (fewer lines of code to do the the same thing than required in other langauges) and generally makes extensive use of recursion.

Lisp is very interesting, however. Even though it is usually thought of as a functional language, it actually provides excellent support for functional, imperative, and object oriented programming. In fact, many people think the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) is one of the best Object Oriented Programming implementations available. It was also the first object oriented langauge that was standardized (by ANSI or ISO, I don't remember for sure which one).

It's also been around for a while. In fact, Lisp is one of the oldest programming langauges still in somewhat common use today. (The only older language being Fortran, which predates it by about 5 years, as I recall.)

If you've never had any experience with functional programming, I strongly encourage you to investigate and study[1] it a little, even if you never really use it, because you will learn a great deal about programming in general for your time invested.

Now, as for what applications have been written in it, the canonical example is GNU Emacs. At it's core, Emacs is basically a lisp interpreter, and most of the editor is then written in Lisp.

While applications that are written entirely in Lisp are perhaps not as well known, one of the most common places to find Lisp is as an extension language for other programs. Here are a handfull that make impressive use of Lisp:

The GIMP uses Scheme, a dialect of Lisp for it's Script-Fu, which can be used to programatically execute anything that can be done by hand.

Autodesk, the makers of the industry leading CAD software AutoCAD use their own dialect of Lisp, called AutoLISP, for programming and customising the AutoCAD software.

Siag Office is a free small, Open Source, and very impressive, Office Suite making extensive use of Scheme. (SIAG == Scheme In A Grid). It includes a very cool Spreadsheet program, as well as others, and is highly customisable.

GnuCash makes use of the Guile library to provide Scheme as an extension and scripting language for the application.

Speaking of Guile, Guile is the official extension language library of the GNU project. Using Guile to provide Scheme scripting, you can add support for scripting and extensibility to any application. Guile is used in many applications including GnuCash (mentioned above), the SCWM Window Manager, the TeXmacs editor (integrating Tex support into an Emacs like editor), and many others.

One last example is the Sawfish Window Manager, which seems to be among the most popular Window Managers around these days. It makes use of an Emacs-ish philosophy, having a very small core program, including a lisp interpreter, and implementing most of its feature set on top of that with lisp.

This is, of course, not an exhaustive list of applications written in, or making use of, Lisp, however I think everyone here will prolly recognise a few names there. ;-)

[1] If you're interested in learning more about Lisp, I strong suggest you take a look the book Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. The full text is available online at the link here, and it is one of the best books ever written about Computer Science. It's also used as an early CS text book at MIT.

http://www.gnu.org/directory/calc.html

Calc is written in elisp and runs in a pair of frames within emacs. It works really, really well. If you have gnuplot installed on your system, it'll even plot graphs for you.

It's pretty simple: just "car", "cdr" and parenthesis. Heh, heh. You can do amazing stuff if you get used to thinking right.

This isn't to say that among certain circles you can't sustain the difference between "hacker" and "cracker" or "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", but it does mean that your power to do so is really, really limited. And, hacker prejudice aside, don't the folks who break things have just as much right to choose their name as the folks who build things?

Time to dig out RMS's "The Right To Read" essay again. The scariest part is that I probably reread this essay once a year, and each time, we've crept closer and closer to it being reality.

it is not Free in the sense of Free Software. It is merely Open Source.

Actually, FreeBSD is released under the BSD license version 2, which is a GPL-compatible free software license.

[...] and don't even get me started on gdb

I thought the GPL implies that you shouldn't discriminate who gets to use your code, and I thought that the Open Source Definition explicitly says that one "[5] must not discriminate against any person or group of persons [and [6]] must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

I'm looking & looking, but I just do see anything anywhere about it being okay to only pay attention the parts you find convenient or expedient. Maybe you can point me in the right direction here?

In the meantime, this is for me, a non-spammer, regular working shmoe, a very educational & useful book. I'm not gonna support a boycott of it just because it doesn't jibe with your situational ethics...

As to why (so termed) 1st generation microkernels are still used as the base for newer systems, I can only speculate - but I believe that tradition is the main reason here (teaching an old dog new tricks tend to be hard). Just for the record, however, there is actually an effort to port it to L4.

For more info on L4 related issues, you could have a look at L4Ka, a C++ish implementation of the L4 API.

Their goals of avoiding stagnation and fossilisation are admirable, but as an active developer (and student) of C++, I find this to be counterproductive. Thinking about new constructs and definitions is always a good goal; redefining the standard that can hardly be considered standard if divisive and stupid.

Just my $0.02.

a user interface, cross-plattform like swing, as fast like it should be... and most stuff java has, without the need for the virtual machine ..

You might want to take a look at GCJ if you want to compile Java language code into native binaries. GCJ's class libraries implement most of Java 2's APIs (RMI and AWT are not finished; volunteers are welcome to help).

Go read gnu.org. That's not what they want at all. Maybe when you realize what they want, what they do won't seem so strange.

From the DFSG:

10. Example Licenses
The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of what we consider free.

Regardless, I want to clear something up here. If your program depends upon software or libraries that are released under a license that prevents those tools from being distributed in the "main" repository, it does not stop you from packaging your software and including it in "contrib". Your software will not be forced into "non-free" if your license is DSFG-compliant.

So, start packaging!

--

From the DFSG:

10. Example Licenses
The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of what we consider free.

Regardless, I want to clear something up here. If your program depends upon software or libraries that are released under a license that prevents those tools from being distributed in the "main" repository, it does not stop you from packaging your software and including it in "contrib". Your software will not be forced into "non-free" if your license is DSFG-compliant.

So, start packaging!

--

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html

Assuming that this is not just some flamebait, NO, IT DOES NOT defeat the purpose of Free Software.

Free as in speech, not as in Beer, for Chrissakes.

In fact, I would encourage paying for Free Software, as it covers the companies'/individuals' costs whilst preserving the freedom you have with the source code.

I encourage you to peruse Gnu.org to get your head around it.
---
Vollernurd.

> I'm sorry to go off on such a rant, but I am SO tired of everything being done in an XML format.

FWIW (not much, really), I did exactly one hobby project in XML. Yech.

I switched to Guile immediately afterward. You can use it just like a ML if that's all you want to do, and you'll find it way easy to parse. As an added bonus, you can embed code in your data/documents/stylesheets if that's what you want. (Watchout for viruses, though.)

--

RedHat Linux and all Linux distributions are free as in speech...read this page or this page to find out what the difference is... the developers of Linux (Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, et al.) decided out of the goodness of their hearts to donate their software to the public. Companies like RedHat make money by selling things like technical support and services. Selling CDs is just to get into the door, really.