Slashdot Mirror

If the apps truly were free then battery depletion due to activity unrelated to the user's intended functionality of the program wouldn't be a problem; you (or someone else) would quickly get into the source code and remove the offending routines. The problem described in the summary occurs only with proprietary apps, whether or not you have to pay for them.

Great! I hope they fixed the currently broken AVR support.

The page I linked to above also shows many changes to AVR support; whether that makes it non-"broken" or not, I don't know.

Also, it's quite surprising to me since as far as I know it's necessary to use TI's compiler to generate C6X code. I found one initiative to port GCC to it, but afaik it didn't get finished. My understanding is that it is no small job to get Linux to compile on non-supported compilers, so I'm interested in the toolchain they are using.

GCC 4.7 (which will be released soonish; it's basically already done) supports the C6X architecture.

From the GCC 4.7 release notes:

New Targets and Target Specific Improvements:
...
C6X

• Support has been added for the Texas Instruments C6X family of processors.

A nontechnical user receives an email that claims they can unlock a free copy of Angry Birds Extreme by following some simple instructions to enable non-curated apps--they click through all warning messages (because that is what Windows has trained them to do over the last 20 years) and boom--they are using a buggy malware infested piece of crap app.

Assuming a non-DRM'd Apple product would use similar "any file is executable" convention.

you claim that Apple could provide an easy option to use a non-curated means of loading native apps onto their iProducts

You seem to think that the freedom to tinker is somehow a trade-off for your own user experience. Good luck for when you live in a world like this.

http://sozi.baierouge.fr/wiki/en:welcome

"[...] not organized as a slideshow, but rather as a poster where the content of your presentation can be freely laid out [...] series of translations, zooms and rotations [...]"

It's GPL 3.0 software and it's an extension for Inkscape.

There's a difference between a user license and a distribution license.

No, there isn't. Even the GPL itself acknowledges this:

2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

You may make, run and propagate covered works* that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.

*A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.

-- GNU General Public License V3

That's right: an explicit and conditional use license. A very generous one, compared to proprietary EULAs, but nonetheless, a use license.

Providing support isn't the only revenue option for software that's freely modifiable and re-distributable. Other than the most common revenue source, which is using an OSS project to attract an employer, there's:

• Donations, which most OSS projects handle poorly by offering nothing in return. Kickstarter got this, or
• Using a near-OSS licence that removes the freedom to run (freedom 0) but keeps the important freedoms to tinker and to break-away, which makes it feasible to charge for the software. This could work in an app store by forcing any forked app to be listed on the same store, with the original app author getting a cut equal to the price of his original app, and the authors of the new app keeping any premium.

The AGPL and GPL, in particular, require equal treatment and reciprocity for all distributors.

One problem with GPL family licenses is that it is not clear to what extent the programs installed in a single web site form "a larger program" as opposed to an "aggregate". The GPL leaves this vague on purpose so that highly paid lawyers can hash it out in court.

Libraries only indeed. They spent most of their development effort on variadic templates but came up short. Herb Sutter addressed this in one of his talks at Going Native. The gcc guys aren't exactly finished either.

Personally, I started using Bing once Google became incapable of trying to correct my every search. Google, unless my search query is "HowdoIfixmyspacebar," maybe you should consider all those missing spaces as intentional?

But then, I don't have any taste anyway.

The worst correction I ever saw was the change of search term into the name of an illegal drug. I could live with the illegal drug under "Did you mean..." but not as an autocorrection.

As it was my original search words brought up many pages. Autocorrection is so not perfect. And of course searching for spilling checker was bringing up results for "spelling checker" instead.

consumption

Which makes me think of consumption the disease. Can we get a more precise word in there?

It's not built for content creation though.

And this is where the problem comes. Someone who has already sunk $499 into a viewing-only device and then gets an urge to start creating works is likely to have no money left to buy a device for creating and thus to end up just deciding not to create. That's why I bought a netbook instead of an iPad.

This is the FSF's position, but some people think the requirement to preserve the BSD license text is a "further restriction" relative to GPLv2.

Even if those people are correct (one might argue that the text the BSD license says must be preserved falls under "appropriate copyright notice", or is close enough that a court would not find it a substantial breach of the GPL), explicitly dual licensing is useful to satisfy said people's paranoia, especially if you want your code merged into their project.

Of course, if we're going to start interpreting the GPL that strictly to the letter, section 2a of GPLv2 gets violated constantly...

First, please stop calling it "commercial" software. Open source - even GPLed - software can be commercial too, and there are plenty of examples of such. We're talking about proprietary software.

Cutting it right there. You obviously misread my post. I have never ever claimed that proprietary licensing was any solution -- absolutely not -- I am an eager fan and user of open source software every day, but I also want to use it in my professional work.

You can. As long as you license it under the GPL. If you insist on restricting the users of your own software, who are you to criticize the GPL?

However, GPL is inherently incompatible with software that is not open source, so it is not really "free".

Incompatible freedoms. Just like my freedom of punching you is incompatible with your freedom of not being punched, your freedom of restricting your users is incompatible with their four freedoms.

Usually what people care about in copyright is not really the right to very strictly control the reuse of your source code, but the so-called artistic "moral rights"

It is? I'd like to know on what you base that claim, please.

GPL is just prohibiting the reuse of your code for no reasonable purposes, if all you want is acknowledgement and recognition -- the copyright hack part is by large redundant, but also restrictive and hostile to commercial reuse.

"No reasonable purposes" is subjective. Obviously the creators of the GPL and many of its users disagree.

Although I am perfectly aware there there are many people who really believe in the FSF mantra, this is just a small fraction of open source developers.

Again, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for a citation for that. In any case, not "believing the FSF mantra" does not mean they don't want copyleft - for example, dual-licensing under both the GPL and a proprietary non-"viral" license is very common (as MySQL AB used to say, if you're Free, we're Free, if you're proprietary, we're commercial). A non-copyleft license like the BSD or MIT wouldn't work for this purpose.

For each GNU person, there are several people who feel excluded and deprived because they can not use this supposedly "free" software.

Yeah, mostly proprietary software developers who want to use the efforts of free software developers while locking their own users up. I couldn't care less - let them write their own code.

I think in most instances, the original creator of the GPL software would be happy to share the source code of their creation for a simple attribution even to closed source software, but the GPL specifically disallows this.

And of course the GPL disallows that - that's its whole purpose. Your argument is more or less like saying "I think in most instances, drivers of SUVs wanted a small compact car" and then criticizing the SUV for not being a compact car. It makes no sense.

So it seems to be in contrast with what most people perceive and believe free software to actually be!

If it is, it's the developers fault for choosing a license they don't like. And in any case, they can switch at any time, they're never locked to the GPL.

By the way, I'm guessing you think that because you want to, or do you have any evidence that points to that?

Sigh... Why do I let myself get dragged into this same argument time and time again...

The FSF has, in fact, defined what it means by "freedom". It doesn't try to hide this. It is explicit. The "freedom" it aims for are the 4 freedoms stated here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The goal is not only to give your end user freedoms, but to ensure that their end users also enjoy the same freedoms. They don't pretend to give you freedom to do whatever you want. The 4 freedoms are things that you would not otherwise be able to do under copyright law. They are the minimum for which the FSF considers it "free" software. Other software that offers more freedoms *in addition to these 4* is also called free software.

A more permissive license than GPL will often offer more freedoms to the person receiving the code. In a way they are more free to do what they want to do. For example, I could write a license that specifically allows you to libel me in derived works. Normally, you do not have the freedom to do that. If I give you permission to do so, in a way, you are "more free". I am removing restrictions on what you can say and how you can behave. But is such a license "better"?

You may be able to profit from libeling me in a way that you could not if libel we not possible. So, you might argue that it is a better, more free license. Others might argue that the freedom to libel the authors of software is damaging to the community. Others might even say that it is immoral. If there is a compelling reason to add such a freedom, I may do so, even if it is damaging in some ways. Ordinarily, I will not.

The restrictions on distribution that the GPL does not remove are similar. These are not things you would ordinarily be able to do. The extra freedom you enjoy may be profitable to you, but it may be damaging to other people if you choose use them (i.e., if your derived work is popular, but not free software, then others are deprived from the freedoms you enjoy). If there is a compelling reason to do so, I would certainly use a less restrictive license. Most other free software authors would too. But ordinarily I will choose not to, because the restrictions prevent damage in ways that are important to me.

I respect that those things may not be important to you. I even respect that you may not be able to comprehend the damage. If you did, we would likely not be having this conversation. The choice of license is definitely a balancing act and free software writers choosing the GPL are indeed striving to achieve a certain set of freedoms for everyone rather than a broader set of freedoms for a few.

I hope that clarifies things a little.

If it's alternative licenses that you're hoping for, there's a whole bunch of them that are available, including one from many of the companies/orgs that have any stake in FOSS, such as Nokia, IBM, Sun and so on. You are right about his Marxist leanings - if you look @ that page, you'll see that most of the licenses that are GPL compatible are the ones from non-profit orgs, as well as ones associated just w/ programs, rather than companies (e.g. Apache, Eiffel, NCSA, et al), while the bulk of the licenses that came from companies, such as IBM, Lucent, MS, QPL, Sun, Apple, et al). Interestingly enough, there is even a GPL that is non-Free - GPL for Computer Programs of the Public Administration. Somebody @ FSF was asleep @ the switch.

What surprises me is how so many people in the FSF allow RMS to ramrod his views into the final documents, making it impossible to profit from it. But frankly, I think FOSS is doing fine - just need to go by OSI instead of FSF: that organization at least has a life, and is not dependent on ESR the way FSF is on RMS. If I were in the software business, those were the guys I'd be talking to, not the FSF ones.

I also think that w/ GPL3, even packages that were popular and reputed, such as GCC, are going to lose their users. As it is, the BSDs have switched to Clang/LLVM, and not only has Minix joined them, but even Debian is developing a Clang package. I don't think it'll be long before Linux too looks for a non GNU userland so that the ball&chain of GPL 3 is not flying like an albatross over it. This despite Linux itself being only GPL2: not much use stating that they're not going w/ 3 when everything GNU riding on top of them - glibc, bash, et al will be GPL3.

First, nothing restricts you from editing the source code.

Well technically yes. But that's only unless I want to make use of those modification by e.g. publishing the application that contains some GPL code – even if the GPL part of my application is just a tiny part of the larger application.

The GPL unrestricts it, as long as you comply with a few requirements.

Few? Have you ever actually tried reading the GPL? It is not on par with an MS EULA's, but doesn't come very far. If I wanted to distribute my creations to the greater public, I would choose a license that is very easy to understand in a few sentences, like the BSD license.

GPL is bullsh*t because it presents itself as a free license and makes a loud claim of freedom etc. etc., but it actually takes those freedoms away from your users and restricts their use of your source code – thus it's anti-innovative and anti-progress (unless you subscribe to GPL as well – but then again, that's rarely possible in real world end user applications.)

Supporting GPL and opposing copyright doesn't go together.

Wrong. I, and no doubt others, support the GPL as long as copyright exists. Eliminating copyright would automatically give everyone freedoms 0 and 2 over any software package, making the GPL less important.

I recommend the AGPL version 3 or later; this license will preserve the user's software freedom and keep users on a level playing field with you. I also recommend enforcing your license. The Software Freedom Conservancy can help you enforcing your license with the assistance of experienced GPL enforcers. As you probably already know, if the program is proprietary nobody will be able to determine if the program is DRM-free or not. If any distributor discriminates against free software, you can choose not to do business with them.

The majority of it is implemented. http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html

According to the Gnu website, "Gnu" in this context is prounced with a hard G, and is not silent.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

It's not on the web page, but there is a 0.8.10 from a week ago:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnash/2012-02/msg00000.html

Instead of pirating Matlab you should take a look at Octave. It's fairly similar to Matlab and heavy duty enough for regular work, not just the home projects you mention pirating Matlab for.

Which is still incompatible with the GPL(2|3). See the GPL sections I posted, or read the relevant licenses yourself:

https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Which is still incompatible with the GPL(2|3). See the GPL sections I posted, or read the relevant licenses yourself:

https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

There is nothing in FRAND, that I can see, that prohibits open source software or other open IP. In fact, Standards committees -- given a choice -- would far rather build in open IP to closed IP (even FRAND) into a Standard. Can someone knowledgable explain how FRAND in any way harms open source?

Prohibits, no. However it does discriminate against those who cannot pay the license fees but would otherwise still be able to implement the standard - most of the open-source contributors are like this - e.g. VideoLAN (scroll down to "Patent threats").

It doesn't have to be approved to be considered open source by the OSI, just comply with the definition.

It's on the FSF licenses list, though.

Say I find a Windows PC, remove its hard drive for analysis, put it in a USB enclosure, and mount it read-only on a Linux box to make the scan process immune to boot-sector malware. Is there a Free compiler capable of compiling Visual Basic code? As of a year ago, there wasn't. If not, the program is Java trapped.*

* The term's origin is historical; Java itself is no longer Java trapped, but plenty of other languages and APIs are.

Yeah, Stallman's The Right To Read may be getting linked a lot (for free, still) - but it is so apt.

Dear Mr Gates,

I have noticed how fond you are of the excellent efforts of the Khan Academy to disseminate knowledge to anyone for free.

I'm very excited to have found two more projects that should really be up your alley. You will probably want to donate billions to them right away!

They are very much in line with what the Khan Academy is trying to accomplish, but they are working at another perspective of knowledge.

They are about fascilitating the dissemination, creation and construction of knowledge and information on computing hardware:

http://gnu.org/

http://linux.com/

They are Free and Open instructions for computers (machines to process data with). With these free of cost and Free as in freedom software projects and the excellent efforts of the Khan Academy, all the children of Earth (with access to computing hardware - that is yet another avenue you could look into) can really get a leg up.

Sincerelly,
Dr Pointer-Outer-Of-Obvious-Ironies-Dinkelspiel

Haha, nicely done!

Dear Mr Gates,

I have noticed how fond you are of the excellent efforts of the Khan Academy to disseminate knowledge to anyone for free.

I'm very excited to have found two more projects that should really be up your alley. You will probably want to donate billions to them right away!

They are very much in line with what the Khan Academy is trying to accomplish, but they are working at another perspective of knowledge.

They are about fascilitating the dissemination, creation and construction of knowledge and information on computing hardware:

http://gnu.org/

http://linux.com/

They are Free and Open instructions for computers (machines to process data with). With these free of cost and Free as in freedom software projects and the excellent efforts of the Khan Academy, all the children of Earth (with access to computing hardware - that is yet another avenue you could look into) can really get a leg up.

Sincerelly,
Dr Pointer-Outer-Of-Obvious-Ironies-Dinkelspiel

"Intellectual Property" is a (purposeful?) misnomer: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

You're wrong. That's not why the GPL was invented. There must be a lot of uninformed people out there to mod that insightful...

The GPL was invented as license that preserves the user's 4 freedoms as the code is passed between users:

  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The FSF, who wrote the GPL, are totally okay with businesses using GPLed code. (a link to a reference escapes me now, but it's there over fsf.org).

You're also wrong in thinking that only volunteers use the GPL -- lots of company's have business models mounted on GPL code.
E.g., Red Hat, AdaCode, .. You're dead wrong if you think for example, the Linux kernel, which is GPL, is written mostly by volunteers.

... but you could show more flexibility towards OSS projects by dual-licensing under GPLv2 and GPLv3.

I don't really share that concern. The GPL has been the major obstacle in most open source license incompatibilities long before GPLv3 came out. Most people need to look at this fairly complicated reference table in order to figure out the compatibility issues the GPL has with itself, saying nothing of the issues it has with other open source licenses. If GNU really likes the GPLv3, I say let them have it. After all, look what it's given us in just this one case: LLVM! I've appreciated GCC for a long time, but maybe competition within the open source universe isn't so bad.

Both patent law and copyright law are out of balance I think. My cheap monitor is black and has rounded corners, do you think Benq should pay royalties to Apple?

I agree that it would be useful if people stopped conflating patents and copyright:
This following article helps and is very clearly written if you take the time to read it slowly:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

And yes, it's written by Richard M. Stallman. Go read it anyway. Seriously.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html sums it up.

Richard Stallman was right ------ Again!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

I was hoping to find a Pirate Party response to Richard Stallman's essay on how the Swedish Pirate Party's proposed short term of copyright creates a needlessly unequal opportunity between copylefted free software and proprietary software upon entry into the public domain. In the same essay Stallman proposes a fix that resolves the unequal opportunity.

It's the unequal results upon entering the PD that is unfair: Proprietors don't release source code so upon entry into the public domain their works would be redistributed as binaries without users being free to inspect or modify the work. By contrast users would be free to incorporate the formerly copyleft free software program. As Stallman points out, "the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years". As he mentions, proprietary programs that timebomb themselves might remain useless even to users who merely want to run the program. Stallman wrote, "I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code. After all, copyleft is a means to an end (users' freedom), not an end in itself. And I'd rather not be an advocate for a stronger copyright.".

We should strive for equal opportunity for use upon entry into the PD but the Pirate Party's recommended copyright policy would allow proprietors to exempt themselves from the freeing effect of entry into the PD. Stallman's idea of requiring proprietary software escrow when the binaries are released seems eminently sensible to me. Then users would be on equal footing with formerly copylefted free software source and formerly proprietary software source entering the public domain.

If anyone can point me to a good response to Stallman's essay on this written by a Pirate Party representative I'd appreciate it. I've read the /. thread on Stallman's article and I didn't come across such a pointer.

Is this major enough?

http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditions.html

The distribution terms for Bison-generated parsers permit using the parsers in nonfree programs. Before Bison version 2.2, these extra permissions applied only when Bison was generating LALR(1) parsers in C. And before Bison version 1.24, Bison-generated parsers could be used only in programs that were free software.

The other GNU programming tools, such as the GNU C compiler, have never had such a requirement. They could always be used for nonfree software. The reason Bison was different was not due to a special policy decision; it resulted from applying the usual General Public License to all of the Bison source code.

The main output of the Bison utility—the Bison parser implementation file—contains a verbatim copy of a sizable piece of Bison, which is the code for the parser's implementation. (The actions from your grammar are inserted into this implementation at one point, but most of the rest of the implementation is not changed.) When we applied the GPL terms to the skeleton code for the parser's implementation, the effect was to restrict the use of Bison output to free software.

We didn't change the terms because of sympathy for people who want to make software proprietary. Software should be free. But we concluded that limiting Bison's use to free software was doing little to encourage people to make other software free. So we decided to make the practical conditions for using Bison match the practical conditions for using the other GNU tools.

This exception applies when Bison is generating code for a parser. You can tell whether the exception applies to a Bison output file by inspecting the file for text beginning with “As a special exception...”. The text spells out the exact terms of the exception.

You do not BUY the textbook. You merely license a one time copy of the textbook. Any unauthorized replication is punished, punished severely. Remember what happened when people "shared" a $1 song? Now, this is a $150 textbook we are talking about.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

The "wacko" RMS is more closer to the truth everyday. The only issue is his vision of the future is much closer than he ever imagined.

Simple, the tool chain for most ARM chips is proprietary and hard to work with

Yeah, I know GCC is just too damn proprietary with its fascist GPL, and definitely hard to work with, I mean you have to use the command line.

Too bad no one uses GCC at all.

(And yes, if you want, there's also LLVM, also open-source and "proprietary").

That's what I'm wondering about, do you feel like you really "get" the open source community, and RMS and all the fights about GNU vs GNU/Linux? Do you think you'd feel more a part of it if the GNU manifesto had less emphasis on purity and freedom, and more on sharing and having fun?

Eh... I don't think I would feel more a part of it. I like the GNU manifesto, they have a purpose, and one that my beliefs happen to coincide with. Sure we're not on the exact same page, and I'm not as rabidly about purity and freedom as RMS and other GNU advocates, but in the same way, when I share stuff, I don't want others to be able to unshare it. So it works. We need the rabid bulldogs, and tame poodles as well.

N.B.: I did not actually read the GNU Manifesto. I already agree 100% with the GPL already, even the GPLv3... so I see little point in reading a Manifesto that I might have a different take on, but whose kool-aid I have no doubt already drunk.

So I don't think that there's many people sitting there thinking, "with this semicolon I strike another blow for freedom!", but I do think there's people who've chosen to contribute to open source, as opposed to some other movement/group, since they are motivated by that idea of being a sort of freedom fighter.

For instance when I contribute something my thoughts are often some combination of "this X really helped me, I hope it will make things easier for you" and "X was really bugging me so I fixed it, here's the code so I can stop worrying about it". But the reason why I expend those efforts towards open source, as opposed to something else, is that I like the idea that I'm building this ecosystem of free software. And even if I don't contribute as much as a lot of others, nor necessarily agree with their beliefs, I can understand and sympathize with them on an emotional level.

That's what I'm wondering about, do you feel like you really "get" the open source community, and RMS and all the fights about GNU vs GNU/Linux? Do you think you'd feel more a part of it if the GNU manifesto had less emphasis on purity and freedom, and more on sharing and having fun?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

That "crazy" RMS had the date wrong! With respect to textbooks at least, It was suppose to be 2026 not 2096!!

Parent is actually combining two different "this". Functions that don't need the full calling system can use an alternate fast calling system that's less expensive. Optimizing compilers can do this automatically. Separately, small functions (or functions called once, or non-small functions) can be inlined, usually automatically. It's usually documented in the compiler optimization options, for one.

The right to read. Seems like possible outcome of fully digital textbooks if DRM is combined with Apples walled garden approach.

This would be slightly more on-topic in a SOPA thread, but your mention of restricting compilers makes it relevant:

The Right to Read

You're right, not yet. There are some yet outstanding bugs in GCC 4.6 and the upcoming 4.7, that LibreOffice is hitting during compilation when attempting to use -flto.

Why does NASA, a government agency, claim copyright on software?

And why does NASA release software under a non-free license?

It's not that hard. Use an existing license. Stop inventing your own licenses that conflict with truly free collaboration.

Use an existing license. Stop inventing your own licenses that conflict with truly free collaboration.

The issue is that a license like the GPL is discriminatory to certain business models, namely those that keep source code changes private. The problem is that such discriminatory terms are inappropriate in a taxpayer funded project. Taxpayers who chose to make derived works and keep the changes private should be allowed to do so.

If you fund a project yourself you have every right to make that project GPL based. However if you seek taxpayer funding you have to be fair and accommodating to all taxpayers, even those you disagree with.

Why does NASA, a government agency, claim copyright on software?

Why not?

And why does NASA release software under a non-free license?

Because it's better.

It's not that hard. Use an existing license. Stop inventing your own licenses that conflict with truly free collaboration.

You mean locked down freedom hating licenses like GPLv3?