Slashdot Mirror

Remeber people, it is called Free Software, not Open Source Software. RMS is going to hate this! (or maybe love it, since he gets to correct everyone.) This, along with several things, is something that RMS feels very strongly about, and with good reason. OSS does not have the same meaning as Free Software. Read this to understand more Free Software

What is the current state of the HURD? In reading the web page it looks like a great kernel, but it seems as though development is moving on rather slowly. What can people out there do to spur development on the HURD? What resources are available to developers to help them get started? I personally think it would be great to see another free software kernel based on fresh ideas.

If you stuff things into a library, you are using the library, not deriving from it.

Two interpretations:

• This discriminates against systems without dynamic linking capability. For example, DOS doesn't have the .dll or .so mechanism; libraries are generally statically linked, and GPL infects all static linked programs.
• The import library needed to link against a DLL is a "work based on the Program" and infects any program linked against it with GPL. Red Hat wants this interpretation to be true, for its Cygwin package depends on it.

I would tend to agree too, but look at it this way... GNU defines free software as software whose users have the following freedoms:

1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
2. 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.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
4. 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.

With copyright laws, none of these freedoms are guaranteed. Without copyright laws, users would seem to naturally retain freedoms 0 and 2.

On the other hand, without copyright law, it might _not_ be illegal for some schmuk working for some company that released binary-only software to post the source code on a web site. To keep something closed source, wouldn't _everybody_ with access to the source have to agree to keep the source closed?

To do so would doubtless involve that schmuk violating his contract, thus he'd be breaking the law. But once he did so, anybody who hadn't signed a contract could do whatever they wanted with impunity.

This illustrates my other point: without copyright, users retain the rights to exercise freedoms 1 and 3, if not the practical wherewithal to do so. I am under no legal obligation to release my code, and you are under no legal obligations whatever regarding my code. This seems again an improvement (from the RMS standpoint), for all cases except currently GPL'd code.

This situation would protect rights, without implementing government-enforced entitlements (that I must give you my code)... and rights seem to be more what RMS is about.

IANAL += 1; /* :-) */

I choose to release my library code under the LGPL because it is my intent to allow others to integrate my library code (such as my recently released AVLMAP library) into applications that are distributed in binary-only form. When the application is not intended as a resource of code for developers I see no reason that the code has to be found there. I do not see the distribution of an application as a means to get the library source into the hands of developers. This is especially so when the purpose of the library isn't really related to the purpose of the application. My AVLMAP library could be used in just about any kind of application. I'd much rather have the source downloaded from my web site or one of the mirrors, or found on sites like Freshmeat where they can be exposed to the vastness of open source free software of all kinds.

The LGPL was changed from Library to Lesser because, I believe, RMS wanted to promote having more libraries released as just GPL , as opposed to making a different license available for other programs. You can read about that here . I just happen to not totally agree with RMS on this. But there is a difference and you should read both carefully and decide for yourself which you want to use.

IANAL += 1; /* :-) */

I choose to release my library code under the LGPL because it is my intent to allow others to integrate my library code (such as my recently released AVLMAP library) into applications that are distributed in binary-only form. When the application is not intended as a resource of code for developers I see no reason that the code has to be found there. I do not see the distribution of an application as a means to get the library source into the hands of developers. This is especially so when the purpose of the library isn't really related to the purpose of the application. My AVLMAP library could be used in just about any kind of application. I'd much rather have the source downloaded from my web site or one of the mirrors, or found on sites like Freshmeat where they can be exposed to the vastness of open source free software of all kinds.

The LGPL was changed from Library to Lesser because, I believe, RMS wanted to promote having more libraries released as just GPL , as opposed to making a different license available for other programs. You can read about that here . I just happen to not totally agree with RMS on this. But there is a difference and you should read both carefully and decide for yourself which you want to use.

IANAL += 1; /* :-) */

I choose to release my library code under the LGPL because it is my intent to allow others to integrate my library code (such as my recently released AVLMAP library) into applications that are distributed in binary-only form. When the application is not intended as a resource of code for developers I see no reason that the code has to be found there. I do not see the distribution of an application as a means to get the library source into the hands of developers. This is especially so when the purpose of the library isn't really related to the purpose of the application. My AVLMAP library could be used in just about any kind of application. I'd much rather have the source downloaded from my web site or one of the mirrors, or found on sites like Freshmeat where they can be exposed to the vastness of open source free software of all kinds.

The LGPL was changed from Library to Lesser because, I believe, RMS wanted to promote having more libraries released as just GPL , as opposed to making a different license available for other programs. You can read about that here . I just happen to not totally agree with RMS on this. But there is a difference and you should read both carefully and decide for yourself which you want to use.

IANAL += 1; /* :-) */

I choose to release my library code under the LGPL because it is my intent to allow others to integrate my library code (such as my recently released AVLMAP library) into applications that are distributed in binary-only form. When the application is not intended as a resource of code for developers I see no reason that the code has to be found there. I do not see the distribution of an application as a means to get the library source into the hands of developers. This is especially so when the purpose of the library isn't really related to the purpose of the application. My AVLMAP library could be used in just about any kind of application. I'd much rather have the source downloaded from my web site or one of the mirrors, or found on sites like Freshmeat where they can be exposed to the vastness of open source free software of all kinds.

The LGPL was changed from Library to Lesser because, I believe, RMS wanted to promote having more libraries released as just GPL , as opposed to making a different license available for other programs. You can read about that here . I just happen to not totally agree with RMS on this. But there is a difference and you should read both carefully and decide for yourself which you want to use.

IANAL += 1; /* :-) */

I choose to release my library code under the LGPL because it is my intent to allow others to integrate my library code (such as my recently released AVLMAP library) into applications that are distributed in binary-only form. When the application is not intended as a resource of code for developers I see no reason that the code has to be found there. I do not see the distribution of an application as a means to get the library source into the hands of developers. This is especially so when the purpose of the library isn't really related to the purpose of the application. My AVLMAP library could be used in just about any kind of application. I'd much rather have the source downloaded from my web site or one of the mirrors, or found on sites like Freshmeat where they can be exposed to the vastness of open source free software of all kinds.

The LGPL was changed from Library to Lesser because, I believe, RMS wanted to promote having more libraries released as just GPL , as opposed to making a different license available for other programs. You can read about that here . I just happen to not totally agree with RMS on this. But there is a difference and you should read both carefully and decide for yourself which you want to use.

IANAL += 1; /* :-) */

I choose to release my library code under the LGPL because it is my intent to allow others to integrate my library code (such as my recently released AVLMAP library) into applications that are distributed in binary-only form. When the application is not intended as a resource of code for developers I see no reason that the code has to be found there. I do not see the distribution of an application as a means to get the library source into the hands of developers. This is especially so when the purpose of the library isn't really related to the purpose of the application. My AVLMAP library could be used in just about any kind of application. I'd much rather have the source downloaded from my web site or one of the mirrors, or found on sites like Freshmeat where they can be exposed to the vastness of open source free software of all kinds.

The LGPL was changed from Library to Lesser because, I believe, RMS wanted to promote having more libraries released as just GPL , as opposed to making a different license available for other programs. You can read about that here . I just happen to not totally agree with RMS on this. But there is a difference and you should read both carefully and decide for yourself which you want to use.

This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library.

Also, I don't know what version of GLIBC you're using, but:

pillo:/usr/local/src/glibc-2.1.3$ head COPYING.LIB
GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

And at the top of just about every source file, too:

pillo:/usr/local/src/glibc-2.1.3/stdio$ head fgets.c
/* Copyright (C) 1991, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is part of the GNU C Library.

The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.

Et cetera. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the GNU C library was in fact the entire point of Stallman creating the LGPL. BTW FWIW, the COPYING.LIB file is the licence for the GNU C library, not COPYING.

Ok, first of all, eBooks are NOT going to replace real books; people like paper books. Books are static information, and people like to have an object associated with that information, something with a smell and a feel that reminds them of the last time they read it, etc. I'm sure this has all been said before anyway.

• Xerox PARC's Electronic Paper This technology takes two plastic sheets and immerses tiny beads, one side coated black the other white, inside a wax-like substrait sandwiched between the two sheets. With a small electric current any arbitrary ball twists in the substrait and thus changes it's color. This technology should allow for a flexible 8 1/2 x 11" sheet which can represent at least 300dpi... easily good enough for an electronic newspaper or book.
  
• Then there's AT&T's eink, another technology which promises similar display capabilities.
  

I presented the link to his article as a counterpoint to RMS for people who find RMS's stridency to be too much. The fact that Garfinkel does not appear to be participating in the Amazon boycott certainly does indicate that his opinions differ from Stallman's on at least some subjects. I thought that the common ground that the two of them share might offer some insight.

Oh, and he also mentioned that he hasn't made much money off the link at this point. The way I see that link is Garfinkel's attempt to provide an easy way for anyone who has found his web site to order any of his books.

I don't see why a library-ish part of any GPL'ed software should be republished under the LGPL. LGPL is for special circumstances only. I recommend reading Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library by Richard Stallman.

It's very simple. Short of requesting a change of license from the author, if you decide to derive a library from someone else's GPL'd work you must meet the terms of the original license. Many libraries are released under the GPL... the LGPL now stands for "Lessor General Public License", and any reference it may have had to "Library" has been removed at rms's request. Please see the GNU Licensing page for details on the differences between the GPL and LGPL, as well as Project GNU's philosophy behind each.

is nothing wrong with people paying for things.

It's always the same with copyrighted material: The system encourages publishers to publish trash. There is no warranty on the content, only on the media. If a fella doesn't like the content, he can't return it; he has been irreversibly screwed out of four hours of work.

The warez system is a way to try before you buy, and content authors who realize this may release their content under GNU FDL, OPL, or something similar.

• Why Software Should Not Have Owners
• The GNU Manifesto
• Why Software Should Be Free
• Free Software is More Reliable!
• Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator

this comment posted with 100% proprietary Microsoft® software

• Why Software Should Not Have Owners
• The GNU Manifesto
• Why Software Should Be Free
• Free Software is More Reliable!
• Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator

this comment posted with 100% proprietary Microsoft® software

• Why Software Should Not Have Owners
• The GNU Manifesto
• Why Software Should Be Free
• Free Software is More Reliable!
• Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator

this comment posted with 100% proprietary Microsoft® software

• Why Software Should Not Have Owners
• The GNU Manifesto
• Why Software Should Be Free
• Free Software is More Reliable!
• Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator

this comment posted with 100% proprietary Microsoft® software

• Why Software Should Not Have Owners
• The GNU Manifesto
• Why Software Should Be Free
• Free Software is More Reliable!
• Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator

this comment posted with 100% proprietary Microsoft® software

RMS also wrote a dystopian story story Right To Read which was supposed to depict a worst-case scenario. It is a quick read. Take a look and consider the question it indirectly poses: How do we retain the freedoms we love?

It's somewhat scary to see that this story, which I first rejected as "far beyond reality" has become too realistic for comfort within 3 years. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that the next 3 years will complete the picture. After all, we already have "Pay-per-view" websites with monopoly on information, and I seem to recall that the next generation of DVD will have an unique key for each player.

stuff accesses just as easy to the web surfer, no matter where it's located.

Not 100% accurate. The user might only see com instead of co.uk (or even better to), but ping times to faraway sites are bound to be lower because, for example, light moves only 299.8 km per millisecond. Latency produces slow loading sites, which turn off users who browse linearly and don't use Open Link in New Window aggressively.

That said, it is not true that "if they don't do everything _legal_ to up their earnings, he stockholders can and will sue." The management of a company is simply not under obligation to explore every possible legal source of revenue. Can I sue Ford because they don't write software, or GM for not owning gold mines ? If I buy Redhat stock and they don't drill for oil, I was not injured in any way because I knew they weren't in the oil business when I bought the stock.

The responsibility of the mangement to the stockholders is merely to not fail to do something a stockholder would naturally expect without telling them first. You can't start a company with a nice looking published business plan and have a real secrete plan of paying yourself a salary to do nothing until the company folds.

There would be no reason to uphold a suit against Amazon for failing to pursue the patent, especially if they had declared publicly that they were not going to pursue software patents. A good court would hold that the stockholders can sell their stock if they don't like it. A good court would see itself as a protector of the stockholder from deceit and neglience. The market will take care of incompetence; the court just has to assure the information is not kept from the market.

Think about it this way: the ability of stockholders to take their money and run makes the stockmarket a very efficient judge of business strategies. Do you really think that a judge and jury can do a better job ? Resort to the courts may be justified when extreme and rare plots and colusions attempt to hender the efficiency of the market.

There existed no reasonable expectation that Amazon should have a business plan based on the bureaucratic incompetence of the PTO. Amazon could have choosen to explicitly deny themselves that path.

But they didn't. Jeff Bezos and his company have choosen a business plan which has as a primary feature the denial of my freedom. Their plan is make sure no one else (including me) can make a one-click shopping site, and they plan to live off of this government enforced monopoly. If that doesn't make Amazon the Antichrist, it at least puts them on the same team.

I loose freedoms every time the PTO gives out a patent, but much of the time I at least get something back -- a business that would not have been worth trying without the monopoly guarantee is attempted, bettering the economy on the whole. However, Jeff Bezos and Amazon are just a tax. If we did not award business method and software patents, someone still would be selling books online with one click, and I would still have a tiny piece of freedom that Jeff Bezos wants from me.

Sorry, but what is the point of your .sig?

It announces one of my copylefted games, namely Hampsterdeath for DOS, Windows, and Linux.

I'd go there, but it's down.

Typical for my college's ISP :-) Seriously, it was a critical hardware failure; they got it fixed about six hours after you posted.

When I was using gcc *.c -lalleg -o drm (Dr. Mario clone) and gcc *.c -lalleg -o whack (Hampsterdeath), compiling source code took a long time for me too. But then, I learned how to use GNU Make.

No, more like...Is it Free? I'd rather have _free_ open source software than have to obide by a "community license" or have to pay for the source, just like some companies *cough*microsoft*cough* do.

Make mental note, avoid that AC's hairstylist...

(See this picture if in doubt.)

This is the coolest GPL project I know of, and these guys rule:

http://pages.hotbot.com/cooking/anton_verheijen/ma in.html

From the page:
The project is not yet complete (hardware is 100% finished). The ultimate goal is to produce a player that can play of IDE harddisks, CD-roms and flashcards. Initially it is meant for home and car use (due to the probable size and power requirements of the first version). Later on, I'd like to reduce the size of the PCB and make it about the size of a 2.5" harddrive.

I wanna build one sooo bad. I've got a billion old HD's lying around rangin from 20MB to 1.2GB.

Maybe it won't make for a directly portable CD/mp3 player, but the fact that it's GPLed leaves the door open...

funfunfun.

/nutt

WE DO NOT WANT YOUR COMMERCIAL SHIT. And yes we include BSD in this because it can be used in commercial software.

You say non-copyleft licenses suck. You're reading this on a text browser, right? Mac OS is proprietary buyware. Windows 9x is proprietary buyware. BeOS Personal is freebeerware but still proprietary. X Window System is X11-style free software, and so is BSD. So you're reading Slashdot on GNU/Linux with the Lynx or w3m browser, right?

If you want it to be GNU GPL, then just make a couple changes and fork off your own distro. That has been OK since June 1999, when Berkeley finally removed the advertising clause from the BSD license.

And there is commercial free software: just look at boxed distributions (e.g. Red Hat Linux) of primarily GNU GPL software.

MIDI (hence Jazz++) is a composing tool

Which just shows how Jazz++ fits in twice with the open source model. According to the GNU GPL, "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" and that's the MIDI format, right?

One thing I don't get is what's the "++" in Jazz++? Is it an overly large object-oriented variant of Jazz?

"free" 3d engine may be windows based, although the license is "lame",

From what I gathered in the article, the license sounds like the GNU Lesser GPL. However, it seems to be under a Slash-DoS attack now. I'm checking Google's cache. And if it is Lesser GPL-like, someone will probably port the engine to Mac OS, BeOS, and the various Unix-like systems.

... mostly along the same lines, including BEAST/BSE (sorry, don't know the URL - should be linked from the GNOME site), GNU OCTAL (http://www.gnu.org/software/octal/octa l.html - the Gsynth guy is now working w/ this project), and Buzz under WINE as a stopgap until one of the others gets usable.

I should note, though, that none of the things I mentioned, or Gsynth, for that matter, are quite the same thing as Rebirth, ReCycle, or Reason. The ones I mentioned probably share more of a common heritage with trackers, though they're also based on modular soft synths and effects processors.

Point No. 2
It is a documented fact that many computer freaks are avid followers of music too (Maybe the combination of form and artistry makes music appeal to them as much as programming). Many of these people (myself included) are not avid Microsoft fans, so the opportunity to have a usable music program on the OS of choice is a very cool idea.

The only worry is that RMS will inflict on us ever longer versions of the Free Software Song, with him on lead vocal ;-)

Point No. 2
It is a documented fact that many computer freaks are avid followers of music too (Maybe the combination of form and artistry makes music appeal to them as much as programming). Many of these people (myself included) are not avid Microsoft fans, so the opportunity to have a usable music program on the OS of choice is a very cool idea.

The only worry is that RMS will inflict on us ever longer versions of the Free Software Song, with him on lead vocal ;-)

Do you plan to actively support the use of FreeNet using free Java tools (like kaffe, japhar, gcj)?

The source code for "GNUtella" will only be released when the authors go from simply making hollow threats to release the software under the GPL, to actually following through with it.

GNUtella isn't free software, and it won't be free until they Show Us The Source. And does anyone here think AOL will really let the Nullsoft people do that without sending a platoon of lawyers to stand on their throats?

How come the GNU project people aren't pitching a fit over their trademark here?

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

``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

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.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

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.

Here's the full text.

Basically, the idea is that you have patterns of rows, in which you can input data, such as note trigging, effect parameters, etc. Then you make a sequence out of these patterns and the program plays them.

OCTAL is going to have virtual sound machines, meaning modules that can produce or transform sound. You then program each of these machines to play music or produce effects.

An app similar to OCTAL is already out for Windoze, called Buzz and it has proven that such a concept works great and has the ability to produce unique sounds. (I should know, I wrote a whole lot of songs using Buzz). Unfortunately, Buzz is not open-source (albeit it's free) and it's not available for Linux or anything like that. So, I'm definitely looking forward to OCTAL coming out, as it's going to kick loads of ass.

I don't like using CSound because it's too cumbersome and nonrealtime for me. With OCTAL (and Buzz), things are much easier (although you don't have as much power), yet you still get very nice results. Finally, compared to old-style trackers that only played samples at different speeds (that's where tracking began), OCTAL soft-synthesizes sound right on the spot, giving you the best sound possible. The main disadvantage of this all is that it's quite CPU intensive.

So, check it out: http://www.gnu.org/software/octal/ I can't wait till it comes out and I'm drooling over it. Serious. Very exciting stuff (at least for me).

The NPL (the particular MPL-based license used by Netscape for the Mozilla release) grants special rights to the initial developer (in the case of Mozilla, this is Netscape). Specifically: If you release modifications to NPL-covered code, Netscape can use your code in non-NPL products for up to two years following its release (after that, the normal requirements of the MPL apply to Netscape and to everyone else). In addition, Netscape can make their own modifications to NPL-covered code without these modifications falling under the NPL.

Read the licenses yourself if you want the details.

Note that the GPL was not really an option for the Netscape source release, as it is too restrictive to allow Netscape to base their browser on an open-source project while still fulfilling their contractual and legal obligations with regard to licensed, patented, or export-controlled code that is included in the final product. You may complain about some of the terms in the MPL/NPL, but remember that many of them were absolutely necessary for the Mozilla source release to take place.

It seems like you're referring to the General Public License terms allowing you to copy and distribute verbatim copies of source code provided:

• "you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty"
• "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty" and
• "give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program"

The copyright holder, of course, has the right to copy and distribute without meeting the conditions of the GPL, since the copyright gives them the right to copy. So Eddy may very well have been able to release CPHack under the GPL, yet distribute it without meeting the above terms.

Now if I want to redistribute Eddy's source on my web site, I do have to meet the above conditions. So, my site has a version of the source code with conspicuous copyright notices, warranty disclaimers, and a copy the license. It reminds me of self-repairing DNA in a way. :-)

By the way, if you ran the program, you'd see that in does indeed display a copyright notice. The window's title bar reads "Cyber Patrol Hack v0.1.0 - (C)2000 Eddy L O Jannson". There's also a conspicuous message reading "Released under the GNU Public License".

I tend to agree that this code was not GPL'd. The GNU site gives recommendations on how to best identify your program as being released under the GPL, but how much is required to legally be considered a GPL release?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Public Domain means anybody can do anything with the code. CPHack is not public domain.

The GPL allows free modification and redistribution, but prevents redistribution under more restrictive terms, therefore it is not public domain. CPHack might be under the GPL, but yes there appears to be some controversy about that.

The Artistic License also allows free modification and redistribution, and also prevents redistribution under more restrictive terms, but is looser than the GPL as to where the more restrictive terms can't be.

If copyrights were assigned to Mattel, than Mattel has the right to redistribute the software under new and different licenses. Under the circumstances, I don't think they will.

Assuming the software actually was distributed under the GPL, than we all have the right to redistribute it, verbatim or in modified form, under the GPL. I don't know where the mention of the Artistic license is coming from, because the only one who can change the license to Artistic is the copyright holder (i.e. Mattel), and the chances of that are slim.

----

Whether you agree with this or not is another matter entirely, but it's clearly his reasoned view, and I doubt it's going to change now.

or
Maybe we need this dotshit

I hate to sound like a gun manufacturer or a child pr0nographer, but it seems like the eToothpaste eDelivery eServices and the trade-stocks-at-3-AM and dancingsquidtitties.com wouldn't be there if people didn't want them. Their movement into the web is more or less the inevitable result of the common folk moving into the web.
So, while I understand the frustration of one of the most empowering communication and information-transforming tools ever created being used to sell crap even more useless than the crap we sold last week, it may be a great opportunity for those with brains. The eOverload lowers the noise-to-signal ratio, but it doesn't drive good information out. If little Johnny's dad gets a shiny new computer and a DSL line so that he can buy underwear at the speed of light using the Business Model of the Future, that doesn't stop Johnny from visiting GNU or Bartleby or the DXM FAQ. I'm talking about guerilla education here. Let's let the dots put a computer in every nook and cranny, build powerful internet backbones and make everyone need high-speed reliable access as one of life's basic requirements.

That's when we move in...

It take advantage of some of the great work underway in the NetBSD, FreeBSD, and Linux communities

Who is this fellow kidding? Linux is under GNU GPL, and APSL is incompatible with GPL.

It take advantage of some of the great work underway in the NetBSD, FreeBSD, and Linux communities

Who is this fellow kidding? Linux is under GNU GPL, and APSL is incompatible with GPL.

Why

AltiVec support in GCC

AltiVec enabled GCC patches

Why

AltiVec support in GCC

AltiVec enabled GCC patches