gnu.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Fractint vs. Emacs by Kyobu · 2000-01-01 03:56 · Score: 1 · on Software Version Numbering After 2000?

Fractint (currently on v. 20.0) and Emacs (currently on v. 20.5) have historically been in competition for the largest real version numbers. In response to apsmith's assertion that large version numbers imply obsolescence, Emacs is an obvious counterexample. Fractint is a little more dubious, but it remains very powerful.

OOPS - Trying Humpin list again by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-30 11:08 · Score: 0 · on DVD Hearing Victory: We Won - For Now

You have one bat and there are 100 million holes Visit Humpin! (No, it's not what you think!)

Temporary restraining order DENIED!

Thanks to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the organization and support provided by a few of our fellow defendants we are still here! Another hearing is scheduled for January 14th.

We would like to point out to all of the mirror sites with things like "fuck the lawyers" on them that it is because of a generous group of lawyers that we are still here. These lawyers are working for free (or much less than they could get by going over to the Dark Side) and don't deserve this kind of abuse.

Here is the EFF's stance on this case.
If you need a REAL reason to host these files, try reading this. Truth has never been more purely distilled.

Save a copy of this web page now!

We have just been informed that the DVD Copy Control Association is seeking a restraining order against us (named as "Doe 28") for distributing DeCSS and linking to pages that distribute it and linking to pages that link to pages that distribute it.

Section 48 of this request states that we supposedly "have received notice through the MPA and refused to remove the information at issue". This is absolutely false! We have never received any such request (from the MPA or anybody else for that matter) and we obviously were not given the opportunity to refuse! Either Jared Bobrow needs to go back to law school or the DVD CCA needs to get a new firm. This is the kind of sloppy work that could get an important document thrown out.

Here is a 2600 story on this.

Explanation on legality of this information

The software (source as well as binaries) offered on this site can be freely redistributed because it was published under the GNU General Public License. The purpose of this software is not illegal copying of DVD disks. It is meant to provide information necessary to be able to program a DVD player for Linux. To do this, the CSS system needs to be incorporated in the player. Recently the (very weak) DVD content scrambling system was deciphered, freeing the way for a Linux DVD player. The CSS system is not a copy protection system, since it does not prevent copying of the disk. Writing information about the way an encryption scheme functions is completely legal. The source code and binaries on this site are completely legal too, since they contain no code from the DVD consortium or its members. The sources and programs on this site were written by third parties using clean-room reverse engineering methods which are (ready?) completly legal.

Attention www.rhythm.cx was hosting a list of mirrors for these files. That list of mirrors has been replaced with a page reading "This site has been taken down for legal reasons." Here's what the maintainer put on the site the day it was shut down:

NOTE (Thu, Nov 11, 12:17pm EST): I've recently been informed that a law firm which is likely to be one that would try get these mirrors taken down has been visiting this mirror site as well as others. With that said, there is a possibility that I may have to remove this site in the near future because like everyone else, I can't afford to go to court to fight it. Luckly, it seems fairly unlikely that any law firm will ever be able to get rid of all these mirrors at this point (there are currently 41 in 8 different countries and this list is growing every day). However, I have only seen very few mirror _lists_ like this one anyplace. If anyone has the resources, it might be wise to mirror this list of mirrors as well so that the right people will still know that these mirrors exist.

Here is a 2600 story with more details on how rhythm.cx was shut down.

Current Mirrors Last updated: Thu, Dec 30, 2:55am EST
Numbers are only for the maintainer's convenience

Much thanks to this site for listing mirrors of the mirror lists.

This site contains some good technical documentation as well as more source code that the DVD consorium's lawyers would rather you not see:
http://crypto.gq.nu/

Semi-broken Mirrors
(These mirrors sometimes work and sometimes don't)
http://joe.to/storage/files/decss.zip
ftp://eris.giga.or.at/pub/hacker/crypt/ DVD/
http://gullii.stu.rpi.edu/dvd/files/D eCSS.zip and http://gullii.stu.rpi.edu/dvd/f iles/css-auth.tar.gz
http://www.discordia.de/decss/DeCSS.zip and http://www.discordia.de/decss/css-aut h_tar.gz and http://www.discordia.de/decss/LiVid.tgz

Broken Mirrors
(These are listed here for the notification of the people who run them)
http://members.theglobe.com/avoiderman/css-auth.ta r.gz
ftp://mikpos.dyndns.org/pub/cssdvd.zip
ftp://195.115.63.44/pub/DeCSS.zip
http://home.c2i.net/buddha9/
http://frodo.campus.luth.se/~iocc/tip.html
http://home.t-online.de/home/skinner01/decss.zip
ftp://ftp.firehead.org/pub/
http://freeweb.digiweb.com/business/avoiderman/
http://www.hack.b3.nu/

Mirrors shut down by The Man
(A moment of silence, please.)
http://www.rhythm.cx/dvd/css-auth.tar.gz and http://www.rhythm.cx/dvd/DeCSS.zip
http://dvdcracked.tvheaven.com/index.html
http://home.worldonline.dk/~andersa/download/DeCSS .zip
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10079-100-143 3209.html?tag=st.dl.10001_104_3.lst.titl edetail
http://www.theresistance.net/files.html
http://cryptome.org/dvd-css.htm
http://www.d.umn.edu/~dchan/css/
http://caspian.twu.net/dvd/
http://mclaughlin.orange.ca.us/~andrew/
ftp://134.173.94.44

Re:It simply doesn't (!) by toastyman · 1999-12-30 08:10 · Score: 5 · on When Does Y2K Begin?

Oh, C software is very very vulnerable. Take a look at GNU software that has had problems.

Or a list of changes FreeBSD has made. (Note that about half of these are ported applications, not FreeBSD specific)

Or look here at some reasons why C is vulnerable to Y2k problems.

Just because it was written in C doesn't make it Y2k bugproof. Using time_t when possible is great, but the act of trying to make things human readable/parseable makes it harder.

Note too that most old Verisign keys expire on 12/31/99, people with old browsers should have fun on SSL sites. (Netscape allows 'Continue Anyway', IE won't allow you to)

Kevin

Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-29 06:42 · Score: 0 · on DVD Hearing Today - Are You Ready to Rumble?

You have one bat and there are 100 million holes Visit Humpin! (No, it's not what you think!)

Save a copy of this web page now!

We have just been informed that the DVD Copy Control Association is seeking a restraining order against us (named as "Doe 28") for distributing DeCSS and linking to pages that distribute it and linking to pages that link to pages that distribute it.

Section 48 of this request states that we supposedly "have received notice through the MPA and refused to remove the information at issue". This is absolutely false! We have never received any such request (from the MPA or anybody else for that matter) and we obviously were not given the opportunity to refuse! Either Jared Bobrow needs to go back to law school or the DVD CCA needs to get a new firm. This is the kind of sloppy work that could get an important document thrown out.

Here is a 2600 story on this.

Explanation on legality of this information

The software (source as well as binaries) offered on this site can be freely redistributed because it was published under the GNU General Public License. The purpose of this software is not illegal copying of DVD disks. It is meant to provide information necessary to be able to program a DVD player for Linux. To do this, the CSS system needs to be incorporated in the player. Recently the (very weak) DVD content scrambling system was deciphered, freeing the way for a Linux DVD player. The CSS system is not a copy protection system, since it does not prevent copying of the disk. Writing information about the way an encryption scheme functions is completely legal. The source code and binaries on this site are completely legal too, since they contain no code from the DVD consortium or its members. The sources and programs on this site were written by third parties using clean-room reverse engineering methods which are (ready?) completly legal.

Attention www.rhythm.cx was hosting a list of mirrors for these files. That list of mirrors has been replaced with a page reading "This site has been taken down for legal reasons." Here's what the maintainer put on the site the day it was shut down:

NOTE (Thu, Nov 11, 12:17pm EST): I've recently been informed that a law firm which is likely to be one that would try get these mirrors taken down has been visiting this mirror site as well as others. With that said, there is a possibility that I may have to remove this site in the near future because like everyone else, I can't afford to go to court to fight it. Luckly, it seems fairly unlikely that any law firm will ever be able to get rid of all these mirrors at this point (there are currently 41 in 8 different countries and this list is growing every day). However, I have only seen very few mirror _lists_ like this one anyplace. If anyone has the resources, it might be wise to mirror this list of mirrors as well so that the right people will still know that these mirrors exist.

Here is a 2600 story with more details on how rhythm.cx was shut down.

Current Mirrors Last updated: Wed, Dec 29, 3:14pm EST
Numbers are only for the maintainer's convenience

Much thanks to this site for listing mirrors of the mirror lists.

This site contains some good technical documentation as well as more source code that the DVD consorium's lawyers would rather you not see:
http://crypto.gq.nu/

Semi-broken Mirrors
(These mirrors sometimes work and sometimes don't)
http://joe.to/storage/files/decss.zip
ftp://eris.giga.or.at/pub/hacker/crypt/ DVD/
http://gullii.stu.rpi.edu/dvd/files/D eCSS.zip and http://gullii.stu.rpi.edu/dvd/f iles/css-auth.tar.gz
http://www.discordia.de/decss/DeCSS.zip and http://www.discordia.de/decss/css-aut h_tar.gz and http://www.discordia.de/decss/LiVid.tgz

Broken Mirrors
(These are listed here for the notification of the people who run them)
http://members.theglobe.com/avoiderman/css-auth.ta r.gz
ftp://mikpos.dyndns.org/pub/cssdvd.zip
ftp://195.115.63.44/pub/DeCSS.zip
http://home.c2i.net/buddha9/
http://frodo.campus.luth.se/~iocc/tip.html
http://home.t-online.de/home/skinner01/decss.zip
ftp://ftp.firehead.org/pub/
http://freeweb.digiweb.com/business/avoiderman/
http://www.hack.b3.nu/

Mirrors shut down by The Man
(A moment of silence, please.)
http://www.rhythm.cx/dvd/css-auth.tar.gz and http://www.rhythm.cx/dvd/DeCSS.zip
http://dvdcracked.tvheaven.com/index.html
http://home.worldonline.dk/~andersa/download/DeCSS .zip
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10079-100-143 3209.html?tag=st.dl.10001_104_3.lst.titl edetail
http://www.theresistance.net/files.html
http://cryptome.org/dvd-css.htm
http://www.d.umn.edu/~dchan/css/
http://caspian.twu.net/dvd/
http://mclaughlin.orange.ca.us/~andrew/
ftp://134.173.94.44

Re:There is NO GEEK TICKET. by waldoj · 1999-12-29 03:37 · Score: 2 · on Geeks, Geek Issues and Voting

Signal 11, with all due respect, I'm not sure that I agree with you.

I guess the first order of business is to say "the Computer Geek ticket." But since computer geekdom is what brings most of us to Slashdot, I think the computer part was a given.

Second, you're right, geeks are not limited to computers. But it is those computers that, by and large, bind us. As a large part of our lives, they can, at times, become a cause. (ie, etoy, encryption rights, privacy, etc.) So we choose to focus on that afor the purpose of this discussion.

Thirdly, you're right, geeks do have a wide range of political tastes. But it seems that most of the geeks that I know are Democrats, frequently with Liberatarian leanings. And the more that I've thought about this, the more that it seems logical to me.

We [computer] geeks are all about rules. Every language, standard, RFC and protocol is a set of rules by which we abide. Thanks to things like the RFC system, these rules can be changed. But we recognise the importance of a core set of standards by which further standards can be devloped.

This, IMHO, is quite similar to our US system involving the Constitution, with amendments and, of course, thousands upon thousands of laws within the scope of that Constitution. A rule set that can be modified, with subrules that must fit within the intitial standard.

To many of us, this is extremely logical. It fits into all of our programming knowledge neatly. So the Libertarian Party, whose core value is upholding the Constitution, is an extremely logical party to identify with. Further, Democrats, for the most part, tend to be more in line with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Not always, of course, but more so than Republicans.)

So, we have a political leaning. And we have causes based on our desire to have the freedom to live the way that we like to. To export strong encryption, to use strong excryption, to be free from government monitoring, to be free from censorship, and to be free to engage in the computing practices that we see fit on our own systems, from disassembly to peaceable protest.

In conclusion: Yes, Signal 11, I think that there is a Geek Ticket. The candidate that best matches our common ideals to have the freedoms to take part in the open sourced, copylefted, quasi-socialist ventures that so many of us live for and love so much. We don't need to form a new party or anything, but I do think that it would be helpful for us to determine which candidate best meets our common ideals.

And that's why I think this is a great story with great threads. :)

[OFF] [Way Way Way OFF] Q: Why by A+Big+Gnu+Thrush · 1999-12-29 00:22 · Score: 1 · on DVD Hearing Today - Are You Ready to Rumble?

Do not meddle in the affairs of literary critics, for they are boring and quick to verbosity.

I'd like to first say that Stallman makes some excellent points in the essay section of this web page. Freedom of information is important, and present copyright laws appear to be curtailing that freedom. However, the fiction portion of this web page is, at best, drivel.

Fiction, by definition, does not require a plot, but it usually helps. Stallman has chosen the genre, yet takes advantage of none of the benefits of fiction, namely: emotional interest in the characters, and tension as those characters struggle. Instead we are treated to what is almost a laundry list of potential crimes and their consequences, all leading up to the glorious "Tycho Uprising" and the ensuing freedom of information. Because, as we all know, information wants to be free. (Sorry, I had to work that in somewhere.)

Dan solves his problem with a little mini-revolution, freeing a tiny portion of information to be shared between himself and his future wife. Touching, but we'll never know. Stallman moves on to the next item on the list. FBI, Microsoft Support, Central Licensing, now on to "the administrators" and potential expulsion. But the punishment is fitting for the crime, or rather the society. Lissa and Dan will not be expelled, but denied access to the information they need to graduate. This is a nice touch. Our future society recognizes the importance of access to information, yet, paradoxically hoardes it where it cannot be used.

In this single detail, Stallman underscores the dilemma society has long been faced with: the interests of the individual at the expense of the society. Nameless faceless corporation (hint: M$) and its fat cat CEO (hint: BG) get rich by hiding information and selling it back to us in cheap (as in quality) maintenance releases. Long suffering society pays this extortion fee just to be able to write emails to Grandma.

The fiction, sadly, is not faithful to the complex reality it attempts to abstract. Stallman reduces the problem to simple black and white. He paints a dismal picture of life in 2047 (and with the robots taking over the world in 2084, there isn't much time!) and then offers the nice pat happy solution of the Tycho Uprising. (I like the name he chose. The data from Tycho Brahe's work allowed other astronomers to draw conclusions about our solar system before the invention of the telescope. An excellent case history of free information benefitting society at large. Though Tycho didn't exactly suffer.)

He hits on some interesting points, but the stilted attempt at science fiction masks the logic and insight. Nothing is lost (and much gained) by skipping the "story" altogether in favor of the Author's Note

Re:reverse engineering = debugging, soon illegal?! by plsander · 1999-12-28 22:08 · Score: 2 · on DVD Hearing Today - Are You Ready to Rumble?

The link you are looking for is: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/righ t-to-read.html. Peter

Re:Why is Media Player bad? by Greg+Merchan · 1999-12-28 17:31 · Score: 2 · on Yahoo Keeps Offering Real; Fox Now Allows Linux

This is from a story I submitted that was rejected, maybe this is a better place for it. (It would be nice if the submit.pl could say just one word about the reason for rejection, so that I may learn how to write better submissions.)

"I was working at my box and listening to CNN. A subordinate clause spoken there indicated that Microsoft intends to push Windows Media Player over mp3 because of the copyright protections it affords. I tried to find a press release on microsoft.com, but found very little. What I did find were claims to compression superiority over mp3 and general references to pay-per-view media formats and the like. The compressi on stats were based on conversions of WAV's and PCM's to both formats with Microsoft claiming 50% greater compression at the same quality level. The pay-per-view idea reminds me of RMS's 'Right to Read' essay. Regardless of what happens with Yahoo! and Real Networks, if an open source competitor doesn't appear, this could threaten the viability of free software in the desktop market."

When I cut, pasted and previewed just now, I found errors in what was displayed. Such as the failure to acknowledge the closing tag at 'claims'. I kluged it for this post. There was also a stray caret-M which MS uses for EOL. I wonder why we haven't seen recent sources for slashdot. ;)

Re:Why is Media Player bad? by Greg+Merchan · 1999-12-28 17:31 · Score: 2 · on Yahoo Keeps Offering Real; Fox Now Allows Linux

This is from a story I submitted that was rejected, maybe this is a better place for it. (It would be nice if the submit.pl could say just one word about the reason for rejection, so that I may learn how to write better submissions.)

"I was working at my box and listening to CNN. A subordinate clause spoken there indicated that Microsoft intends to push Windows Media Player over mp3 because of the copyright protections it affords. I tried to find a press release on microsoft.com, but found very little. What I did find were claims to compression superiority over mp3 and general references to pay-per-view media formats and the like. The compressi on stats were based on conversions of WAV's and PCM's to both formats with Microsoft claiming 50% greater compression at the same quality level. The pay-per-view idea reminds me of RMS's 'Right to Read' essay. Regardless of what happens with Yahoo! and Real Networks, if an open source competitor doesn't appear, this could threaten the viability of free software in the desktop market."

When I cut, pasted and previewed just now, I found errors in what was displayed. Such as the failure to acknowledge the closing tag at 'claims'. I kluged it for this post. There was also a stray caret-M which MS uses for EOL. I wonder why we haven't seen recent sources for slashdot. ;)

Re:Yet another licence.... by Uri · 1999-12-27 20:13 · Score: 4 · on Apple Posts Darwin / Open Source News

The reason Apple chose Yet Another Licence is because it contains a number of Apple-centric control clauses, which prevent it from being truly free:

CENTRAL CONTROL OF MODIFICATIONS

2.2 (c) if You Deploy Covered Code containing Modifications made by You, inform others of how to obtain those Modifications by filling out and submitting the information found at http://www.apple.com/publicsour ce/modifications.html, if available.

TERMINATION OF LICENCE

9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) ... (b) ... or (c) suspend Your rights to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute the Affected Original Code until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below. Such suspension of rights will be effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License. ...

12.1 (c) This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.

Re:Two factors by cnflctd · 1999-12-27 08:45 · Score: 1 · on Why is BSD Not As Popular As Linux?

selfish

RMS calls it "pragmatic idealism", noting that "The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy."

Would you admit at least that this selfishness isn't inspired by greed? Idealism is not a vice, so leveraging the copyright laws for idealistic reasons shouldn't be either.

Re:Why I use Windows, and not Linux by G27+Radio · 1999-12-23 23:12 · Score: 2 · on "What is Linux Missing?"

On the face of it, it's not all that hard: parse the Makefile and pull out any configuration options. Present them to the user in a nice friendly format (complete with default options already selected) and give them a button to push.

Actually I thought about it a little more and it maybe a 'meta-configure' script could be set up to pop up a Tk GUI interface asking for options such as --prefix= for configure, etc.

The standard make targets defined in the GNU Coding Standards (here) include most of the work that needs to be done by the Makefile. Using a meta-configure program and make doesn't mean that you can't distribute the binary as part of the package. In fact I'm pretty sure you doesn't even have to include the source code as part of the package but it's recommended. (obviously you would need at least one or the other.)

Some of the stuff people release for Unix needs all kinds of wierd input to get it properly installed. But A LOT of it only needs stuff as simple as an installation path if you choose not to use the default.

The way I see it, autoconf and make already simplify installs and uninstalls tremendously. It seems like a relatively small step to make an interface to them that end-users can use as easily as InstallShield.

numb

This is Why. by ph43drus · 1999-12-23 12:01 · Score: 1 · on RMS on Java and GPL

Stallman is acting in accordance to his stated beliefs and philosophies. I am happy whenever I see him at this. Here's why.

He has declared that users have four basic freedoms (don't like this? What do you think the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independance are?). These freedoms happen to be:

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).

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).

Stallman and all his followers (myself included) have decided that users need to have these rights, and that these rights should apply to all software. Thus we will demand those rights. These demands preclude any IP laws and rights. Period. On a most basic level we do not agree with IP. The fact that they own the trademark is ok, that is fine, but the liscence is just slimy, and as such, there needs to be a replacement, and Sun is at fault and deserves a good sound tongue lashing from Stallman.

Remember, just because it's legal doesn't mean it is good.

Oh yeah, go read over the "why we exist" section on www.gnu.org. It might help you to understand what we stand for.

Jeff

Re:A lot of people seem to misunderstand the GPL. by Adrian+De+Leon · 1999-12-23 01:45 · Score: 1 · on RMS on Java and GPL

RMS doesn't fear _Commercial_ software, it's _Propietary_ software which he and other like me don't like.

There is such thing as Commercial Free Software you know. here is more info

Lawsuit On What Grounds? by Carnage4Life · 1999-12-22 20:45 · Score: 2 · on On The Linux Culture and Money

Why don't the developers get together for a class action lawsuit and at least get a slice of the pie?

Thanks for identifying yourself as a newbie not only to Slasdot but also to Linux as well. A quick intro is necessary...Firstly I'd like to know what grounds you want them to sue Redhat on?
Due to the nature of the GPL the developers that have contributed to the linux kernel and the Redhat distro have no beef with Redhat. Redhat has not violated the GPL in any way so that cannot be a reason to sue.
Secondly Redhat hires/supports a couple of the core kernel developers and thus these people have no more reason to sue Redhat than an employee of Dell, eBay, Microsoft or any other multibillion dollar company who draws a salary. Does this mean we can all sue our employers because our company's make millions in revenue while most of us make less than $100k a year? Thirdly Redhat did let developers get a slice of the pie with the letter...read about this here and here.

Now the only question I have to ask is; exactly how and for what reasons are developers going to sue Redhat?

It's one thing to bust your ass for your own greater glory, but how can you sit back and watch someone else profit handsomely from someone else's labor?
If you got the letter you have profitted handsomely since the IPO. If you didn't get the letter, I remember Redhat hovered between 40 & 80 for a few weeks, this would have been a good time to show solidarity for linux and invest in yourself (assuming you're an OSS developer for linux)....and you'd be profitting handsomely as well.

Finally and most importantly, OSS developers i have met were not and are still not in it for the money. I write code and give it away because I like writing code and I want people to use it and if they find any bugs and fix them whooopeee .
Lawsuit, paaah.

Bad Command Or File Name

This will be different by dsplat · 1999-12-22 18:19 · Score: 1 · on Wireless Keyboard... Without The Keyboard

I thought it was hard the first time I typed on one of the cheap modern keyboards that provides very little resistance and no click. Typing without a keyboard is taking that to an extreme. And I just started paying more attention to the way I type. My junior high school typing teacher would be appauled. From what I can tell, I use three finger and my thumb on my left hand and one finger and my thumb on my right. Not to mention frequently stretching them. I do wonder how it will interpret odd typing styles.

Then, of course, there is the whole issue of how well it can discriminate chords. I use Emacs, The One True Editor (C-0 M-x all-hail-emacs), which is well known for some of the secondary meanings of its acronym including "Esc Meta Alt Ctrl Shift". We just express it more compactly as M-A-C-S-. Humor aside, will I be able to type M-C-v or C-@ or other three key chords with ease?

Who can enforce the GPL by Merk00 · 1999-12-22 02:58 · Score: 2 · on Who Enforces the Open Source Licenses?

Only the copyright holder would be able to enforce the GPL. Anyone else, whether the FSF or Red Hat, would not have legal standing to bring a suit. This would basically be a case in which there would need to be enforcement of a contract. The contract would be the GPL and the contracting parties would be the copyright holder and the violator.

Even though the FSF could not sue the violator, the copyright holder could have the FSF represent them as their lawyer in court. This would help to transfer the financial burden away from the copyright holder.

Simply changing the name of the copyright holder to the FSF would not give them enough standing to sue because it was requires signed documentation that the copyright is being transfered to a new party (see the GNU website for more.

There isn't much chance of recieving monetary damages in an Open Source case because it is required to register a copyright with the copyright office (is that the USPTO?). All that a court could legally do is order a company to comply with the GPL, which is what is intended in the first place.

Matt Leese

Re:Corporate vs Open Source by baiano · 1999-12-21 23:06 · Score: 1 · on Who Enforces the Open Source Licenses?

> All software blest by the GPL is ipso facto freeware

Make that "freedomware", please, for example, because Free Software is *NOT* "freeware"! :-)

everything.blockstackers by cazz · 1999-12-21 19:12 · Score: 1 · on Quake 1 GPL'ed

After going to the link [?] on the above article, I realized that the link for GPL goes to the description on everything.blockstackers.com instead of a non-opinion based description of GPL. A better place for the [?] link of GPL would be to point either to www.gnu.org or http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (the gpl).

everything.blockstackers by cazz · 1999-12-21 19:12 · Score: 1 · on Quake 1 GPL'ed

After going to the link [?] on the above article, I realized that the link for GPL goes to the description on everything.blockstackers.com instead of a non-opinion based description of GPL. A better place for the [?] link of GPL would be to point either to www.gnu.org or http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (the gpl).

Re:Well, I'd say the obvious answer is the FSF by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-21 19:04 · Score: 1 · on Who Enforces the Open Source Licenses?

And of course what to do when someone thinks he has seen a violation ;-).

RMS has done that a long, long time ago. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html.

The whole discussion seems to me like the typical GPL discussion: A bunch of people ranting about this or another open source license, without ever having read the relevant things...

OF COURSE THE FSF SELLS STUFF by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-21 09:20 · Score: 0 · on Tales From The Bazaar

RMS has never been against making money -- as long as the money goes to the FSF. Check out this page. Sheesh, the FSF's docs cost more than ORA's, and I can only wonder if they are as good.

RMS said that he wouldn't object to ORA so much if their documentation wasn't so good. It seems that the very excellence of the various animal books makes it a lot harder to get people interested in documentation projects because ORA has already covered the topic so well.

Sour grapes.

Still, in a world that has actors spouting endless nonsense on scientific issues about which they have no clue, I suppose it's only natural that we have a truly amazing hacker blathering about philosophy and economics.

The trouble is that people actually listen to them. Thats when the fun begins...

Re:Well,,,, by Jonas+�berg · 1999-12-21 02:28 · Score: 1 · on Tales From The Bazaar

It's here.

Re:horrible article by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-20 00:26 · Score: 0 · on Wired on Amazon.com Boycott

And Stallman created Linux? Huh?

Project GNU; maybe you've heard of it. Turns out we're using his purpose-built tools (for building a copylefted operating system) to finish precisely the job he started.

Re:Let's see the good, bright side. by vectro · 1999-12-19 02:04 · Score: 2 · on Brazilian Gov't May Pass Pro-Free Software Law

Actually, the law does not just require open source, it explicitly requires Free Software. Richard Stallman has a webpage on the differences.

Re:RMS wrote too much code :-) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-19 01:44 · Score: 0 · on RMS The Coder

Mail a bug report to bug-gnu-utils@gnu.org ;)

Information on the FSF-award... by voop · 1999-12-13 20:17 · Score: 3 · on Free Software Foundation Awards Tonight

can be found here.

To quote from the page: "We want to give this award to a person who has made a great contribution to the progress and development of free software (free as in freedom; see our definition of free software), through activities that accord with the spirit of free software."

I guess I'd vote for Knuth. Not just for TeX....but also for his other, widely *published* work on algorithms. While not necessarily being free "software", algorithms (and knowledge about) are important for free software....

Go Knuth (not that the other nominated aren't worthy...they definitely are...)

umm--no...(Re:RMS on a rampage) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-13 17:12 · Score: 0 · on Richard Stallman Calls for Amazon Boycott

The issue is not whether or not the software is GPL, but whether or not it is Free Software, which is considerably broader. You need to do some reading on www.gnu.org, I think.

Re:It's about freedom, not commercialism by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-09 12:19 · Score: 0 · on What about the Artistic License?

Oh - it gets better :)

Consider this quote...

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.'' - ref page

Apparently, GNU promotes and ethically agrees with the dissemination of software against the wishes and lisence of the author - so personally I think the GNU folks would applaud you ignoring the GPL if you want too.

&sign($AC[0]);

Re:Quake, Privacy & Piracy - Rant by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-09 11:11 · Score: 0 · on Loki to Distribute Quake III Arena

Rant -- Please bare with me.

"CD Key systems are a necessary evil."
They certainly are evil. Necessary? Hardly.
I "prohibitedly copied" Quake 2 like a freak. To this day I install off a Class release of Quake 2 and then upgrade to 3.20.
Know what?
3.14+ doesn't require a CD to play. Know what else?
I BOUGHT Quake 3 for Linux.
Why? Because I support Linux games.
Do I support CD-Keys? Not at all. I don't play half-life, starcraft, or any of them.
A game should sell itself on its on merits not because "if we put a CD-Key in it the pirates will just go buy it". And that's not being theortical, that's being practical. If Quake 3 had licensed / bought / whatever the CD-illa technology so a CD could not be copied it still would have been a pointless endevour. Need a crack? That's what the 'net is for. Need a server? Use Shareware Gamespy. ID gets screwed and whatever cost it was for CD-illa was just wasted.
If a game is good *most* people are going to buy it. If you artifically try to inflate sales with flashy graphics, lots of hype, but no substance, you won't make any money and for good cause! The world needs less crap anyway.
Now Quake 3 for instance.... Would have sold any damn way! It's got the Quake name on it and the gameplay to match.
Why did you add a CD-Key?
Because Activision, the all mighty publisher, wanted greater protection on their investment?
Well fuck them!
Because the few people that came on board to ID aren't rich yet?
Same to them!

Can please somebody learn a lesson from that damn game Deer Hunter? Price point. $20.
Make any game $20 and they sell like NUTS! Even crappy games like Deer Hunter! It's not like it's the crack addict with no money turning to stealing to get more crack. It's a game! Price it like one!

Lastly,
Do I support properity software? No.
Then why did I buy Doom, Heroes of Might and Magic, Quake 1, Quake 3, Fallout?
Because just like in the OS market (as if there was one...) the change will come. Open Source software (the GPL'd kind with little restrictions available to the maker) will provail.

If I have to buy the Linux Version of Quake 3 to get the word out on Linux so be it. But I, for one, don't intended to pay for closed source games in the very near future.

Re:Sounds good to this uninformed reader by Luis+Casillas · 1999-12-09 09:29 · Score: 1 · on What about the Artistic License?

Can anyone clarify for me, is it the case that if you use a library that is GPLed, your code must also be GPLed? If that is the case, that makes it impossible for a closed source project to use GTK for example (unless the library's originator licenses it to you under special license - does anyone know of a famous example of this?). I personally don't think that limiting the amount of software written with a library is a good thing.

You are right that programs that link GPL libraries must be distributed under GPL (unless they are independent works from the GPL library involved-- check out Python or Hugs for non-GPL programs that can be used with GPL libs). However, GTK is under the LGPL, not the GPL, IIRC. You can link non-GPL stuff to it.

Take a look at this RMS article, where he argues for putting out more libraries under GPL. Actually, try reading through the whole philosophy section of the FSF website, and make up your own mind about what it's about. Don't count on /. hearsay to give you an accurate picture.

---

Re:Sounds good to this uninformed reader by Luis+Casillas · 1999-12-09 09:29 · Score: 1 · on What about the Artistic License?

Can anyone clarify for me, is it the case that if you use a library that is GPLed, your code must also be GPLed? If that is the case, that makes it impossible for a closed source project to use GTK for example (unless the library's originator licenses it to you under special license - does anyone know of a famous example of this?). I personally don't think that limiting the amount of software written with a library is a good thing.

You are right that programs that link GPL libraries must be distributed under GPL (unless they are independent works from the GPL library involved-- check out Python or Hugs for non-GPL programs that can be used with GPL libs). However, GTK is under the LGPL, not the GPL, IIRC. You can link non-GPL stuff to it.

Take a look at this RMS article, where he argues for putting out more libraries under GPL. Actually, try reading through the whole philosophy section of the FSF website, and make up your own mind about what it's about. Don't count on /. hearsay to give you an accurate picture.

---

Sorry, I should have known better by st.+augustine · 1999-12-09 01:49 · Score: 1 · on What about the Artistic License?

My mistake -- the FSF does not require you to assign copyright to them if you want your work to be incorporated as part of the GNU project; they just prefer it.

The relevant document is Legal issues about contributing code to GNU. In it they list three methods of allowing your software to be incorporated into the GNU project (allowing it, that is, in terms of copyright law):

Assigning the copyright to the FSF. (This is the easiest.)
Licensing the software to the FSF. (From context this seems to be more specific than just releasing your software under GPL. The main disadvantage of this is that if someone violates the terms of the license, the FSF can't sue them -- you have to do it yourself. Also, this doesn't work for modifications to existing GNU software.)
Putting the software in the public domain. (This allows anyone to do anything they like with it, including repackaging it under the Joe Bloggs Private License, though that would of course only apply to copies received from Joe Bloggs. This lets in all the evil the Artistic license keeps out.)

Apologies for my erroneous oversimplification.

No, you're not required to assign copyright by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-09 00:06 · Score: 0 · on What about the Artistic License?

Some of the confusion may arise because if you want your program to become part of the GNU project, you have to assign your copyright to the Free Software Foundation (give the software to them, in other words). By doing that you relinquish your rights as author and can no longer release closed-source versions.

Developers of official GNU packages are not required to do any such thing. Please do not spread misinformation like this. I am developing an audio application for GNU, and although they encourage assigning them the copyright, they do not require it.

Here are some relevant quotes from the GNU maintainers' info documents:

The copyright-holder may be the Free Software Foundation, Inc., or someone else; you should know who is the copyright holder for your package.

This section applies if the package you are maintaining is copyright Free Software Foundation.

(those are from the copyright sections of the maintainer's document at gnu.org)

From the GNU Coding Standards, in the Accepting Contributions section:

If the program you are working on is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation...

The little project I'm doing is at www.gnu.org/software/octal/ -dto@qwsi.net

Re:It's about freedom, not commercialism by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-08 22:48 · Score: 0 · on What about the Artistic License?

If this is wrong, please correct me.

Nop, it points exactly in the right direction. Chosing a license it about expressing what one wants to achieve with the to-be-released-code.

I reclently wrote a small library for parsing a specific file format. Not a big deal (it will not entitle me to the next big Linux IPO :-)). I thought about the potential users. There are few out there, but my primary goal for releasing the code was actually that it is used. Therefore, the BSD license was the better choice over GPL, because it allows easier inclusion in commercial products - thus a wider range of potential users.

I learned on a very simple example that maybe the GPL is not all honey: The GNU tools basically have coined a new command-line option standard, the usage of long options, starting with "--". I'd personaly love to see this implmented in much more tools, including comercial software. The code for evaluating the command line is of course (L)GPLed, making it much more difficult to use it in commercial software. Having to make the decission myself, there are usually much more important things to hack than command line parsing, so people stick with the short options. Here the GPL prevents the wider usage of a potential new standard.

RMS's argument of course it that all software should be free. So this is a no-brainer for him. Maybe someday even he will find out that there is not only black and white, but shades of gray. Commercial software has its place and is not illegal :-)

BTW: How does it come that an organisation like the FSF who promotes free software (like in "free speach") has a page up, were they try to tell you which words you have to use, and should not use? Free speach, but only for them, ey? We, the unwashed masses, have to follow their definitions? Strange understanding of freedom!

It's about freedom, not commercialism by alisdair+mcdiarmid · 1999-12-08 22:05 · Score: 2 · on What about the Artistic License?

RMS is not out to stop companies making a buck on their software. Their licence is not there to stop people forking their software, then selling it. The GPL is not defined as it is because they want to stop these things.

The GPL is about freedom. The whole point of it is that, once a piece of software is GPLd, that source will forever be available. We want our software to be freely available to all. If you use the GPL, you are stating that you will not allow someone to close off your source and distribute their derivation.

If all we cared about was whether commercial forks were possible or not, why not just stick "you may not sell this software for a profit" lines in your source? It's about more than that: GNU wants software to be free. Remember the concept of copyleft?

How many times is this debate going to come up on Slashdot? A summary of the two main licences:

1) GPL - use this licence if you want your software to remain Free as long as you decide to keep it that way. You do not have to license subsequent versions with the GPL; you may relicense at any time. However, no-one else may relicense your software, or distribute binaries without source.

This means that, in simple terms, your source code and any derivations will be available to anyone who has access to the binary.

2) BSD - use this licence if you want to get a protocol, standard or ethos popular. For example, if you want people to use your software as widely as possible, and the source is not as important as the idea behind it, this may be applicable to you.

If this is wrong, please correct me.

Bruce Perens on why to avoid the Artistic License by Paul+Crowley · 1999-12-08 21:47 · Score: 4 · on What about the Artistic License?

Bruce Perens has argued strongly for avoiding this license. In his article on the Open Source Definition for Open Sources, he writes:

Please see appendix XXX for the full text of the Artistic License. Although this license was originally developed for Perl, it's since been used for other software. It is, in my opinion, a sloppily-worded license, in that it makes requirements and then gives you loopholes that make it easy to bypass the requirements. Perhaps that's why almost all Artistic-license software is now dual-licensed, offering the choice of the Artistic License or the GPL.
Section 5 of the Artistic License prohibits sale of the software, yet allows an aggregate software distribution of more than one program to be sold. So, if you bundle an Artistic-licensed program with a 5-line hello-world.c, you can sell the bundle. This feature of the Artistic License was the sole cause of the "aggregate" loophole in paragraph 1 of the Open Source Definition. As use of the Artistic License wanes, we are considering removing the loophole. That would make the Artistic a non-Open-Source license. This isn't a step we would take lightly, and there will probably be more than a year of consideration and debate before it happens.
The Artistic License requires you to make modifications free, but then gives you a loophole (in section 7) that allows you to take modifications private or even place parts of the Artistic-licensed program in the public domain!

Avoid. If you want to allow commercial forks, go for the X license (not the BSD license: see RMS's article on The BSD License Problem. If you don't, go GPL or LGPL.
--

License Code? by Gleef · 1999-12-08 20:30 · Score: 2 · on JBuilder Foundation is Free - and for Linux

Anonymous Coward wrote:

First step - the download:
it was ok so far, but you have to be a community.borland member in order to get your license code.
...
Third step - starting it up
The first time you start it up you have to type in your license code.

I thought Roblimo said this was Free software? This doesn't sound Free at all to me. I can't get to the site to check for myself, it gives me a "Forbidden" error.

----

Re:SUN is as bad as Microsoft by kemokid · 1999-12-07 21:09 · Score: 3 · on Corporate vs Open Source:Sun Stealing Blackdown?

It's interesting to consider this event in the larger light of what free software/open source is all about. It seems to me that many people in the "open source" world think that some other corporation (Sun, IBM, Netscape, etc.) will save them from the Great Satan. But of course the other corporations want to be Great Satan.

This is one reason why some people prefer the phrase "free software" over "open source". Because, as RMS points out here, the phrase "open source" de-emphasizes the community aspect of free software, and has led some companies (most egregiously, Apple) to thinking that they can just open up a little bit of code and then get free development.

For the record, I'm no free software firebrand. But given recent events, I've started re-reading some of RMS's tracts, and they continue to make quite a bit of sense. Sun is one company that just doesn't seem to get it (although the jury's not out yet). Does IBM get it? Too early to tell. It seems that the only ones that do are new companies (e.g. Red Hat/Cygnus, SuSE, etc.) that have started since the free software movement began.

Re:Can linux companies survive ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-05 03:05 · Score: 0 · on FreeMWare: Like VMWare but Open Source

I agree 100%. But this also raises some serious questions about whether linux companies can survive.

More specifically, it raises serious questions about whether proprietary linux companies can survive. Hopefully, the answer is "no."

In particular, commercial software is invariably greated with hostility

As it should be...

I am saddened that there is a faction of linux users that remind me of the warez scene.

Just what the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about people who want Freedom? They are far, far different than people willing to sacrifice their Freedom in order to run proprietary software, whether or not they pay for it.

Please understand what GNU/Linux is all about: Freedom...something you'll never get from proprietary, closed software.

Re: OK, ere'sa URL by PiMan · 1999-12-04 22:40 · Score: 1 · on GNU/Hurd Web Server Online

This is the official GNU Hurd site. Short summary: It's a microkernel, which means it's harder to develop and possibly slower, but more versatile in what it can do. Think a kernel that's nothing but modules.

You forgot what "free" means. :P by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 20:57 · Score: 0 · on FreeMWare: Like VMWare but Open Source

Of course I pay for my software. So far I've paid for Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, and the Gimp. The reason why I WON'T pay for VMware is because it won't be free even after I pay for it. I'll still be constrained by their stupid license.

Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml before you come back here and try to rant about topics about which you clearly have no clue. Thank you.

What the name ``Hurd'' means by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 11:33 · Score: 3 · on GNU/Hurd Web Server Online

Excerpted from www.gnu.org/software/hurd.html:

According to Thomas Bushnell, BSG, the primary architect of the Hurd, ```Hurd' stands for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'. We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms.''

Slashdotted by Azul · 1999-12-04 11:27 · Score: 2 · on GNU/Hurd Web Server Online

Some persons are bashing Hurd for not standing up to being Slashdotted.

I'd like to remind everyone that resisting being Slashdotted does not require a good processor or a good operating system or a lot of memory (that is, unless you are building pages dynamically in a wrong (eg. cgi) way), just a good network connection.

This box could run any operating system on a fast processor with a lot of memory and the results would be the same if it had the same bandwitdh.

So don't bash Hurd merely because this box was Slashdotted.

For those who don't know, Hurd is GNU's kernel. I won't tell you here all the reasons why you should be interested on it, though.

Alejo

Slashdotted by Azul · 1999-12-04 11:27 · Score: 2 · on GNU/Hurd Web Server Online

Some persons are bashing Hurd for not standing up to being Slashdotted.

I'd like to remind everyone that resisting being Slashdotted does not require a good processor or a good operating system or a lot of memory (that is, unless you are building pages dynamically in a wrong (eg. cgi) way), just a good network connection.

This box could run any operating system on a fast processor with a lot of memory and the results would be the same if it had the same bandwitdh.

So don't bash Hurd merely because this box was Slashdotted.

For those who don't know, Hurd is GNU's kernel. I won't tell you here all the reasons why you should be interested on it, though.

Alejo

What HURD is... by Ian+Bicking · 1999-12-04 11:26 · Score: 2 · on GNU/Hurd Web Server Online

To the user, HURD looks a lot like Un*x. It's a microkernel operating system, which means that there is a small kernel (relatively) who's primary duty is to help various daemons communicate with each other.

These daemons do all work, and make the system look like a POSIXesque system. The daemons are (theoretically) easier to mix and match then a big monolithic kernel's functions. They also could potentially perform better in an SMP environment (since there's lots of seperate processes).

The other big thing in the HURD is file translators -- these are programs that are run when a file is opened, read, written to, whatever. So, for instance, you could have a file translator that creates virtual directories or makes a transparent ftp connection (so that, for instance, the file /ftp/ftp.cdrom.com/pub/README would transparently retrieve a file).

You can read much more at the HURD's website.

Re:open source? free? by SyniK · 1999-12-03 02:29 · Score: 1 · on Loki to Distribute Quake III Arena

I'm with you in principle :), but I also want to support Linux games, so I'll buy the Linux version.
If you want to remain principled just pirate it like everybody else...
I'm not advocating piracy. I'm just advocating standing by your principles :).

PTO infringing patents by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-02 22:54 · Score: 0 · on Amazon Takes Round One in Patent Dispute

The USPTO patent site uses gifs images all over the place. As all good /.ers know, gif 'technology' is patented by Unisys and IBM and to stay legal you have to stick with pngs and jpeg images on your web site (see this GNU page for details.

So, can anyone tell me, has the PTO licenced gif technology from Unisys (unlikely - have you licenced it?) or are they breaking their own rules? I would suggest that anyone wanting to break the system could start by using the PTO's own system against them ...

Roddy McLachlan

Richard Stallman & Solutions by Dacta · 1999-12-02 17:19 · Score: 3 · on DoJ Seeks Advice on Effects of Microsoft Breakup

http://www.gnu.org/philosoph y/microsoft-antitrust.html

I think the first two ideas are very good. I'm not convinced about the third - I think it needs more explaiation. Sure, closed hardware specs are bad, but I'm not sure MS should be punished for them. If we have all the interfaces for MS software, reverse engineering closed source hardware should be easier, anyway.

Re:Breaking up Microsoft by vectro · 1999-12-02 16:07 · Score: 5 · on DoJ Seeks Advice on Effects of Microsoft Breakup

Richard Stallman wrote an interesting piece about what might be the best punishment for Microsoft from the perspective of Free Software.

It can be found here.

Slashdot Mirror

Domain: gnu.org

Comments · 13,360