Slashdot Mirror

"Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement."

"It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." - The Right to Read

You don't need a JVM, you can go directly to machine code.

Otherwise I agree, I've felt that a lot of Java code I read is equivalent to scripting (think WSH / VBScript). Or it has been built point-and-click style via Eclipse with little thought to what actually needs to happen. Some is good, it's just that a lot isn't.

I don't believe it's good to lose one's software freedom and let unknown people determine what you make your computers do.

Warning: I am not a lawyer, I just spew stuff on Slashdot.

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#MereAggregation

What is the difference between “mere aggregation” and “combining two modules into one program”?
        Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.

        Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL—if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.

        What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

        If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

        By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

Would a judge be bound by this? I don't know. But remember, we don't have to convince Raenex; Raenex has to convince a judge.

Has Oracle actually launched a suit, or are they merely considering it? Also, what are their specific claims, if such they make?

Raenex's argument is that the work "Entire Contents of Ubuntu on a CD" is technically a "work based on the Program".

What program? Can the distro as a whole be considered a single program?

Bundling non-free works on a medium that is distributed to the public makes the distribution as a whole "based on altered GPLed code" because it is technically a "work based on the Program".

How is Adobe Acrobat altered GPL code? Other parts of the distro may be altered GPL code, but they would include the source (or have it available).

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

Fortunately, license incompatibility matters only when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn't stop us from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict.

bold added

For two reasons: 1. Because he might be right at first glance, working for Oracle, and planning to use this interpretation against Red Hat and Google in court. 2. Because Kufat, who also posted in the thread, asked me on EFnet #nesdev to correct Raenex.

2. makes sense if you're a human being; 1. makes sense if you're a lawyer for Red Hat or Google. Also, would an attorney characterize an organization's interpretation of its own license as bizarre? Mistaken or legally untenable perhaps, but bizarre?

File and track licenses

Done and done.

Digging a little deeper moderates "doesn't work" to barely works.

If you get all the compiler/linker flags right everywhere, yeah.

And also, the FAQ item is not a statement, it is a question, to which the answer is "this is what you need to do to make RTTI work with shared libraries". So I do not think you have proved RTTI does not work.

This is also true of the MOC. It barely works. It twists up the build situation horribly and breaks the language.

What language? C++ is already broken beyond repair.

Sorry, that rhetoric is no argument for breaking the language.

The Qt-approved subset of it, though, works nicely with moc.

That does not sound like a ringing endorsement.

But you avoided the main point: what stops you from embedding a (const char *) string pointer in each QT object and using that for introspection?

The fact that it alone is not enough for useful introspection. Every QObject-derived class does point to a type featuring a class string, among many other things provided by moc.

So what else is needed for useful introspection? And why is the MOC the only way to embed a type string in a class?

Digging a little deeper moderates "doesn't work" to barely works.

If you get all the compiler/linker flags right everywhere, yeah.

This is also true of the MOC. It barely works. It twists up the build situation horribly and breaks the language.

What language? C++ is already broken beyond repair. The Qt-approved subset of it, though, works nicely with moc. I don't remember if I ever had issues with it which were not highlighted in Qt Builder as my own errors. One moderately annoying thing is the Q_OBJECT boilerplate in every class which does not trigger an error if missed in some cases, but that's one mandatory token which becomes your second nature after some practice.

But you avoided the main point: what stops you from embedding a (const char *) string pointer in each QT object and using that for introspection?

The fact that it alone is not enough for useful introspection. Every QObject-derived class does point to a type featuring a class string, among many other things provided by moc.

Digging a little deeper moderates "doesn't work" to barely works. This is also true of the MOC. It barely works. It twists up the build situation horribly and breaks the language.

But you avoided the main point: what stops you from embedding a (const char *) string pointer in each QT object and using that for introspection?

Yeah, smack dab in the GCC FAQ.

You can include the FSF in the list of authors of GPL programs who disagree with your interpretation. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation for information on aggregation; bundling GPL and proprietary parts and having proprietary parts execute GPL parts in an automated fashion is permitted. A common example would be the way many proprietary router web interfaces execute GPL utilities and receive their output via pipes or similar mechanisms.

I'm not sure how you define "aggregation", but it seems clear that it differs from the FSF's definition.

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

when i first read it i thought stallmen was a nut but as i watch technology progress i see more and more that he is right, while i still believe that propriatary software is not a mortal sin, but more and more he seems right. some day we are all going to look back and have to grudgingly admit he was right.

My argument in that case is that grep is insufficiently expressive for the modern world.

The UNIX "everything is a file, and those files are all ^J delimited records" is a hack for a world when record based file systems were seen as overcomplicated (because, well, MULTICS style files were overcomplicated). It's time to move up.

A more interesting loop would be this:

Write Editor with Lisp interpreter in C. (check)
Write Browser with JavaScript interpreter in Lisp. (partial check -- I don't think w3 supports JavaScript)
Write JVM in JavaScript. (check)
Write x86 emulator in Java. (check)

Now run the editor on your x86 system, run the browser in that editor, run the JVM in that browser, run the x86 emulator in that JVM, repeat.

A more interesting loop would be this:

Write Editor with Lisp interpreter in C. (check)
Write Browser with JavaScript interpreter in Lisp. (partial check -- I don't think w3 supports JavaScript)
Write JVM in JavaScript. (check)
Write x86 emulator in Java. (check)

Now run the editor on your x86 system, run the browser in that editor, run the JVM in that browser, run the x86 emulator in that JVM, repeat.

I'll top you with this. Luckily, the GPL has traditionally not been splashed in-your-face in most applications. Annoyingly, Android apps with GPL licenses seems to reverse that trend. I wish they would stop.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

• * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (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 distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

See also:

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

No you don't. Not to simply use it. See ClickThrough page which addresses this exact question. Shame on OP for not posting it.

Might want to read a little further: it specifically says you don't have to agree to it unless you want to distribute or modify it. And agreeing doesn't put any obligations on you, again, unless you distribute or modify.

Who has the power to enforce the GPL? (#WhoHasThePower)

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhoHasThePower

The newest version of the GPL, version 3, forbids it. GPLv2, the license of the Linux kernel, may allow it. Android is mostly Apache 2.0.

The newest version of the GPL, version 3, forbids it. GPLv2, the license of the Linux kernel, may allow it. Android is mostly Apache 2.0.

Look at the free SPSS work-alike PSPP. http://www.gnu.org/software/pspp/ Sounds like R might be a bit much for your needs.

If you ship free software as defined by the FSF or by the Debian project, or you ship open source software as defined by Open Source Initiative, then do you "ship" only the copies you make, or do you also "ship" the copies people make from those copies?

The founder of the Free Software Foundation appears to agree with me:

- You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
- You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to the source code, since making changes in a program without having the source code is exceedingly difficult.)
- You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a fee.
- You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the program, so that the community can benefit from your improvements.

The Apache and BSD licenses violate the second criteria for free software licenses, they do not grant you the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs, because they do not grant you access to the source. You can throw around the binaries to an Apache or BSD licensed program yourself, but nobody is obligated to give you the source. In that way, they're no different than most other freeware. Heck, some of Microsoft's shared source licenses are more open than them.

Let's look at RMS's own definitions of free software

- You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
- You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to the source code, since making changes in a program without having the source code is exceedingly difficult.)
- You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a fee.
- You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the program, so that the community can benefit from your improvements.

According to RMS himself, founder of the FSF, the Apache and BSD licenses are not free software licenses because they specifically violate the second value; the freedom to modify, which requires source code.

The Apache license (as well as BSD licenses) make no requirement that the source be provided, so they're not really "free software" licenses in the "freedom" sense

The Free Software Foundation appears to disagree with you.

They're certainly not opensource licenses since they make no requirement that the source be open

The Open Source Initiative appears to disagree with you.

They're basically just free-as-in-beer distribution licenses; you can share the binaries all you want, but you can't really change them, because nobody is obligated to give you the source to go with those binaries

And how did they create those binaries? By compiling the source code, which was Apache or BSD licensed. The derived work may be proprietary, but the ASL or BSDL code it open.

The GPL license is not copyleft. OpenJDK is GPL 2, as Harmony was Apache 2.

Apache 2 is GPL 3 compatible, but not GPL 2 compatible.

GPL compatible licenses
Apache GPL compatibility

I used to have a shuffle and there was a set of perl scripts that I could run. I just dropped the files on and then ran the script before removing the device and it worked fine. Don't know if it works on the 6g, but it's worth having a try?

This looks like what I used, but it was a few years ago: http://www.gnu.org/s/gnupod/

Thanks for the info.

Does copyleft mean that if you use something what you release has to also be open source and free? Does that mean that Oracle is actually suing Google to be more open in their implementation rather than shut it down?

Do we know why they won't open source the compliance tools? Does that effectively prevent other implementations of Java from existing? Do we know why Oracle wants that?

I forget that not everyone here is familiar with Free Software and Open Source licenses. Copyleft is "a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." Since most of OpenJDK is under the GNU General Public License, the most common and best known Copyleft license, if you use any OpenJDK code as part of something which you release, it must also be released under the GPL. If you add some features to OpenJDK and release it, this applies, but it does not apply to Java programs complied by the OpenJDK compiler or Java bytecode running on the OpenJDK JVM.

In contrast, since the Apache Harmony project is under a permissive, non-Copyleft license, anyone is able to use it for any purpose, including using it in proprietary, non-Free software, which is what Google has done by using parts of it in Android.

Oracle does not want anything to be more open. I haven't been following their suit against Google closely, but I believe their claims are primarily about patent infringement. They have attempted to make some bogus copyright claims, but I think they've abandoned that by now since Google didn't use any of their code and doesn't seem to have violated anyone's copyright license. The patents Oracle is claiming Google violated are probably violated by anyone implementing Java whether they use OpenJDK, Harmony, or some unrelated implementation. Oracle seems to be saying, "as long as you use the implementation of Java we control, we probably won't sue you, but if you piss us off, all bets are off." Since patents covering software are independent of the implementation source code and language, this is potentially dangerous for anyone using Java and probably other languages.

Thanks for the info.

Does copyleft mean that if you use something what you release has to also be open source and free? Does that mean that Oracle is actually suing Google to be more open in their implementation rather than shut it down?

Do we know why they won't open source the compliance tools? Does that effectively prevent other implementations of Java from existing? Do we know why Oracle wants that?

I forget that not everyone here is familiar with Free Software and Open Source licenses. Copyleft is "a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." Since most of OpenJDK is under the GNU General Public License, the most common and best known Copyleft license, if you use any OpenJDK code as part of something which you release, it must also be released under the GPL. If you add some features to OpenJDK and release it, this applies, but it does not apply to Java programs complied by the OpenJDK compiler or Java bytecode running on the OpenJDK JVM.

In contrast, since the Apache Harmony project is under a permissive, non-Copyleft license, anyone is able to use it for any purpose, including using it in proprietary, non-Free software, which is what Google has done by using parts of it in Android.

Oracle does not want anything to be more open. I haven't been following their suit against Google closely, but I believe their claims are primarily about patent infringement. They have attempted to make some bogus copyright claims, but I think they've abandoned that by now since Google didn't use any of their code and doesn't seem to have violated anyone's copyright license. The patents Oracle is claiming Google violated are probably violated by anyone implementing Java whether they use OpenJDK, Harmony, or some unrelated implementation. Oracle seems to be saying, "as long as you use the implementation of Java we control, we probably won't sue you, but if you piss us off, all bets are off." Since patents covering software are independent of the implementation source code and language, this is potentially dangerous for anyone using Java and probably other languages.

I'm programming in this right now: http://gcc.gnu.org/

And the IDE is absolutely terrific: http://projects.gnome.org/gedit/

ah yes, here's the old RMS argument (different era of java licensing) http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html

You can relicense the code to a newer version of the GPL as long as it has the "or any later version" clause and since and the LGPLv2.1 allows you to relicense it as GPL. Read the bottom of this page. The FSF talks about in which directions you can relicense the code.

Yes, you're mistaken.

The GNU people have a chart that may help alleviate your confusion.

Or you could recognize that all copyright is an immoral usurpation of power over others (no matter whether you use that power for profit like big content or for the "benefit" of users like GNU) and choose to defy copyright law, coincidentally saving you the trouble of understanding copyright licenses such as the GPL (which is apparently much harder than one would expect, judging from this whole misbegotten ask/. and the proliferation of retards demanding you "accept" the GPL (ala EULA) during installation of GPLed windows programs.).

Hasten the obsolescence of these "middlemen" by promoting and developing replacement technology

Replacement technology whose makers will inevitably draw lawsuits from the big incumbent publishers for "inducing" copyright infringement. It tends to happen every time there's such a disruptive development.

Become politically relevant.

I send letters to my representatives, and I get back a form letter claiming that the draconian laws are in the best interest of America, which just reinforces my belief in how strongly bought my representatives are. I vote, and my preferred candidate loses. I try to spread word of mouth about my preferred candidate in those few venues I know of that haven't already put up a complete ban on political discussion, and nobody appears to show any interest.

Make them fear you by providing a threat of being voted out of office for not representing your interests.

This doesn't help for people who happen to live in a district whose representative has a "fairly safe seat" for one of the two largest parties.

Support and promote open-source/free technology and content.

"Content" referring to works of authorship other than computer programs, I assume. What's the business model to fund the creation of entertainment works with professional production values to be distributed under some license for free cultural works?

The manual is the last resort when someone didn't design the app very well.

Yeah, programs should run like this:

root:/etc# grep
GNU grep version X

Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.

Do you want to search a file?([Y]/N) Y
What is the location of the file? [./] ./
What is the name of the file? [passwd] group
Do you want to ignore case?([Y]/N) Y
Do you want to invert match?([Y]/N) N
Do you want to select only those lines containing matches that form whole words?([Y]/N) N
Do you want to select only those matches that exactly match the whole line?([Y]/N) N
Do you want to suppress normal output; instead print a count of matching lines for each input file?([Y]/N) N
...
Do you want to report Unix-style byte offsets?([Y]/N) N
...
Do you want to prefix each line of output with the 1-based line number within its input file?([Y]/N) Y
...
Okay, now that that's finished, we've stored these questions as your default choices. We'll ask you again next time, but you just need to press enter instead of typing the answer and pressing enter.
Now, what do you want to search for? Don't worry about using a regular expression, we'll send your natural-language request to a Mechanical Turk and ask them to convert it into a regular expression. [I wanna find all the instances of user IDs that are lower than 1000 but greater than 500] I wanna find all the instances of group IDs that are lower than 1000 but greater than 500
Okay, thanks. Go have a beer while your expression is parsed.

The trouble is, this M$ shill pretty much spot on: the opposition to this technology amounts to whining by a small minority. Even if that wasn't the case, the entire fruits of the information revolution that we have enjoyed for the past few decades is rapidly on the way to the equivalent of a virtual totalitarian police state, because the Authorities will no longer tolerate so much freedom and power in the hands of the 99%.
It is time to accept that those people who genuinely enjoy freedom need to become technologically self sufficient. There is a new revolution gathering pace in the form of those who don't want to rely on consumerism to satisfy their needs and would rather build things for themselves. Right now, all the knowledge you need to continue having what you are used to is still available for anyone who cares to search for it. Start educating yourself on the basic principles of computer hardware, mesh networks, electronics. Sieze the day, for tomorrow that knowledge might be restricted, or forbidden.

The little-known GNU Stow project has been available to do this for over a decade. Although it uses the convention /usr/local/package-name instead.

But RMS actually encourages selling copies of any software; he sold copies of EMACS, which is definitively not "manually coded for a client".

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible â" just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

Selling Free Software

but what does it all have to do with Linux?

He explains his version here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

tl;dr The percentage of code in a common Linux "distro" is about 3% Linux code and about 25% Gnu code. So, that part makes sense. I do feel for the guy: to him, someone else stole his glory.

It's not really Ubuntu specific; I suspect they use Ubuntu as the example just because it's the one most organizations are actually likely to want to mention.

The FSF's list of free Linux distros - https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html - is pretty short and, well, not comprised of the distros that first spring to your mind, probably.

FSF does have a well-maintained and reasonably phrased listing of why they don't consider most major distros free:

https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

It's not really Ubuntu specific; I suspect they use Ubuntu as the example just because it's the one most organizations are actually likely to want to mention.

The FSF's list of free Linux distros - https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html - is pretty short and, well, not comprised of the distros that first spring to your mind, probably.

FSF does have a well-maintained and reasonably phrased listing of why they don't consider most major distros free:

https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

if "screen" ( http://www.gnu.org/s/screen/ ) is still better and faster at task managing than your GUI, you've failed. If normal users are still having problems with sound, you've failed.

Really? Because I haven't seen either of those limitations hurting windows much. Believe it or not, I would rather use screen than the crap interface in windows (YES I have used 7) and sound is STILL a pain in the ass to get working with any windows version that was not pre-installed without trudging through the hardware manufacturer's website.

It was years ago that linux became better than windows at both window management and hardware support, saying otherwise is FUD.

Yeah, I use Linux, but mainly "CLI" coz the "popular" linux desktops are shit and have got even shittier. They're not good for the noobs. They're not good for the nerds. The Linux Desktop bunch should get a clue, if "screen" ( http://www.gnu.org/s/screen/ ) is still better and faster at task managing than your GUI, you've failed. If normal users are still having problems with sound, you've failed.

As for Windows, too bad reactos isn't making progress fast enough: http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

The main goal of the ReactOS project is to provide an operating system which is binary compatible with Windows. This will allow your Windows applications and drivers to run as they would on your Windows system. Additionally, the look and feel of the Windows operating system is used, such that people accustomed to the familiar user interface of Windows® would find using ReactOS straightforward. The ultimate goal of ReactOS is to allow you to remove Windows® and install ReactOS without the end user noticing the change.

Otherwise it would be nice to see Microsoft sweat more (but not Ballmer tho ;) ) to actually come up with a better product .

And if David Kappos' recent move is any indication, her next big step is clear: head up the US Patent and Trademark Office when Kappos leaves. I'm guessing that IBM would love this move because there she can better serve IBM's interests against those of the public. Kappos, current USPTO Director, was former IBM vice president and assistant general counsel of "intellectual property" law. IBM holds the most patents. First-to-file undoubtedly helps large firms like IBM because large firms hire lots of lawyers to file all sorts of patent applications. The more patents IBM holds, the more IBM can cross-license their way out of any threatened patent litigation by threatening countersuit and then negotiating a patent license.

Obligatory xkcd link.

And of course "Eternal Flame".

Yes, the capitalisation of my comment's subject is deliberate.

Mustn't forget to include the Other Obligatory xkcd link.

Obligatory xkcd link.

And of course "Eternal Flame".

Yes, the capitalisation of my comment's subject is deliberate.

Utilitarian value? Have you seen GNU's list of recommended distros? Names that one's never heard of, like Blag, Dynebolic, Trisquel, et al. What about Red Hat, Debian, Canonical, you may ask? Well, GNU very helpfully explains why they're not truly free. In general, they 'do not have a policy of only including free software, and removing nonfree software if it is discovered', and also, the kernel includes “blobs”: pieces of object code distributed without source, usually firmware to run some device. In short, if a non-free firmware is needed to make your box work, software freedom would be better off w/ your box not working rather than being contaminated w/ a working driver whose source-code isn't publicly released. It is this equating of non-free software w/ E-coli that keep sane people away from FSF and their wacko campaigns

Utilitarian value? Have you seen GNU's list of recommended distros? Names that one's never heard of, like Blag, Dynebolic, Trisquel, et al. What about Red Hat, Debian, Canonical, you may ask? Well, GNU very helpfully explains why they're not truly free. In general, they 'do not have a policy of only including free software, and removing nonfree software if it is discovered', and also, the kernel includes “blobs”: pieces of object code distributed without source, usually firmware to run some device. In short, if a non-free firmware is needed to make your box work, software freedom would be better off w/ your box not working rather than being contaminated w/ a working driver whose source-code isn't publicly released. It is this equating of non-free software w/ E-coli that keep sane people away from FSF and their wacko campaigns