Slashdot Mirror

I doubt the intent of the license was to prohibit writing applications in certain languages while still opening the code.

Such languages are called Java-trapped. Java itself used to be Java-trapped until Sun released OpenJDK.

exactly, wasnt just that what the "java trap" was all about?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

Protecting Your Right to Tinker

Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device. This may be as simple as a set of instructions, or it may include special data such as cryptographic keys or information about how to bypass an integrity check in the hardware. It will depend on how the hardware was designed—but no matter what information you need, you must be able to get it.

This requirement is limited in scope. Distributors are still allowed to use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they gave you. The GNU Project itself uses GnuPG to prove the integrity of all the software on its FTP site, and measures like that are beneficial to users. GPLv3 does not stop people from using cryptography; we wouldn't want it to. It only stops people from taking away the rights that the license provides you—whether through patent law, technology, or any other means.

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

It's a straight up violation. Go find the author of the software... any author of any part of the software will do.. and invite them to sue the manufacturer. Direct them to the Software Freedom Law Center.

Some group named "Hacktivismo" decided to make a license that protected human rights. GNU, rightly,
called it out on not being a free software license (and it's not free in Debian's eyes or open source in OSI's eyes either):

If we were ever going to make an exception to our principles of free software, here would be the place to do it. But it would be a mistake to do so: it would weaken our general stand, and would achieve nothing. Trying to stop those particular activities with a software license is either unnecessary or ineffective.

[...] Also, at least under US law, a copyright-based source license can't restrict use of the program; such a restriction is not enforcible anyway. [...]

First of all, my credentials: I'm not a professional sysadmin, just a professional software developer who also admins a few systems. You may want to give more weight to opinions posted by actual school sysadmins.

Okay, my recommendation: Ubuntu. And my dis-recommendation: you don't want XP.

With Ubuntu, if the computers are reasonably fast, you can do a full re-install in a short amount of time. I imagine there will be cases where someone manages to monkey around with a computer and mess it up, and ease and speed of re-install will be a win for Ubuntu. With Ubuntu you don't need to install, reboot, install a driver, reboot, install another driver, etc. Note that if you know what you are doing as a Windows sysadmin, I believe you can make a "slipstreamed" CD image with the drivers and such pre-installed, which would mitigate this a lot.

Other Linux distros would also work well, but Ubuntu has the momentum as the free home-user Linux distro of choice. Some of the high-school kids will possibly already be running Ubuntu at home. I would suggest having all students login as "guest" and have the "guest" account set up so that, when the user logs out, the /home/guest directory is removed and then replaced with a copy of a standard /home/guest directory. If some clever little black-hat wannabe edits .profile or something to try to set up a joke on the next user, this would sort that out.

With XP, you can configure the logins to be non-Administrator, and unless you are totally insane you will do so. It's hard enough to keep the computers virus-free in any event, and if you let high school kids have privileges to install software, you are just asking for trouble. But you will absolutely want anti-virus, and that means you will want to keep the anti-virus up to date, and that is a big headache that you can completely avoid with Ubuntu.

Now, as for software. Everything I'm discussing below is available on both Linux and Windows. On Ubuntu, it's trivial to install these; on Windows it would be more work. (But again you could probably work something out with a "ghost" disk image or some such.)

Depending on what kind of engineering we are talking about, many of these students may move on to using Matlab in their working lives. Matlab is expensive, but educational copies are probably available. But there is also the completely free GNU Octave, which is basically a Matlab-alike, and is freely available on Ubuntu. There is even a GUI wrapper for Octave, written for the KDE environment, but I haven't tested that. I have only used Octave for DSP work, but it is adequate for that, and did I mention that it's free. The graphing tools in Octave are not as good as real Matlab but they can get the job done.

http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/

I have hopes that someday Matlab will fall by the wayside, and Python will replace it. Specifically, Python with the NumPy and SciPy extensions. With SciPy, Python can do much of what Matlab can do, and it does it with a much better base language; Python is a marvelously clean and tidy language, while the Matlab language is just annoying. Let's face it, it will be many years if ever before Matlab could be replaced by Python, but there are science labs and engineering groups out there using Python and the numbers will only grow. The graphing tools in SciPy are IMHO better than the ones in GNU Octave, and almost as good as the ones in Matlab. You can get Python with all the SciPy stuff pre-installed as the project Python(x,y):

http://www.pythonxy.com/

There is also a project to take every bit of free math software and glue it all together into an amazing giant math tool: this is called Sage. Sage, also, is based on Python. You run Sage as a server and you use any standard web browser as the GUI client. You can run Sage on the same computer as the web browser, or you can set up one

It's open in many more ways than that... e.g. Apple wrote a BSD'd compiler for C like languages (clang) which for C and objective-c beats the pants of gcc in almost every way, and is getting *damn close* on the C++ front.

Er, clang/llvm have some grand goals, but so far, they very clearly don't "beat the pants off gcc in almost every way."

gcc optimizes better, has been ported far more widely, supports many more languages (and of course in cases like C++, is a much more complete compiler -- clang C++ support is still pretty basic), and of course is much more mature. One of clang/llvm's widely touted advantages -- faster compilation -- is shrinking as the compiler grows. clang/llvm's optimization will improve with time, but on the other hand, so will gcc's (the gcc devs are not just sitting around twiddling their thumbs).

Here's a recent comparison of gcc 4.5 and llvm 2.7: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00948.html

The main advantages of clang/llvm basically seem to be (1) more modular design, which hopefully makes them easier to work on, and makes them more suitable for non-traditional roles like run-time compilation of graphics shaders etc, and (2) the BSD license, which allows companies to make proprietary extensions to them, and which seems to be the main reason apple is backing them.

Clang/llvm seem to be a nice modern design, and will no doubt provide some good competition for gcc in the future, but they're not quite there yet.

Come back crying in 9 months when CLang has reached it's goals and you get even more angry that libc++ stomps all over libstdc++. Sorry, but even the most ardent C++ compiler engineers recognize the writing on the all---LLVM/Clang are just better and when they reach feature parity the results aren't even close. It is LLVM that is forcing GCC to get off it's ass and improve, not the other way around.

It's open in many more ways than that... e.g. Apple wrote a BSD'd compiler for C like languages (clang) which for C and objective-c beats the pants of gcc in almost every way, and is getting *damn close* on the C++ front.

Er, clang/llvm have some grand goals, but so far, they very clearly don't "beat the pants off gcc in almost every way."

gcc optimizes better, has been ported far more widely, supports many more languages (and of course in cases like C++, is a much more complete compiler -- clang C++ support is still pretty basic), and of course is much more mature. One of clang/llvm's widely touted advantages -- faster compilation -- is shrinking as the compiler grows. clang/llvm's optimization will improve with time, but on the other hand, so will gcc's (the gcc devs are not just sitting around twiddling their thumbs).

Here's a recent comparison of gcc 4.5 and llvm 2.7: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00948.html

The main advantages of clang/llvm basically seem to be (1) more modular design, which hopefully makes them easier to work on, and makes them more suitable for non-traditional roles like run-time compilation of graphics shaders etc, and (2) the BSD license, which allows companies to make proprietary extensions to them, and which seems to be the main reason apple is backing them.

Clang/llvm seem to be a nice modern design, and will no doubt provide some good competition for gcc in the future, but they're not quite there yet.

Also potentially amusing, this is perhaps the only software license I know(other than perhaps the not-publicly-disclosed ones regarding DRM system robustness), where a software bug could put you in violation of the license.

Read the license. It mentions intent to cause bodily harm. A clearer example of bug == violation is AGPL section 13, which puts you in violation if you break "view source".

As a restriction on use, this breaks freedom zero and No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.

But, er, no one is seriously planning to use this, right?

OK, so EMACS is a 'traditional Operating System"?

Well, there are many who would say so ...

the GPL would be a level 0 license with no restrictions

In your dreams. Methinks you haven't actually read the GPL. Compare it to public domain (that would be level 0), and to BSD [234]-clause (say levels 1,2...).

That apart, it's a nice idea. Like if the FSF or GNU published a list of FOSS-compliant licenses. Doing the same for commercial software would at least let you avoid reading the ultra-small print, and maybe even strengthen the argument of the copyright holder.

OK, so EMACS is a 'traditional Operating System"?

http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg

You could forward your phone calls through a VoIP application, or use the wifi at Starbucks & leave your phone line open. As for the SSH connection - there's GNU screen.

If there is need for a product, some company will make it.

Not if no company recognizes the need, or the one company that does recognize the need gets blocked by patents.

Content doesn't magically appear so I don't understand your point. Someone has to create content.

Yes, somebody has to create works,* but everyone who creates works starts out by consuming works.

They will always be individuals whose need to create is their sole purpose in life.

Thus we have to deal with the transition around the time when someone discovers his purpose, and make sure that becoming an author does not pose an undue entry barrier. As of right now, this is easy because common Internet consuming machines (desktop and laptop PCs) can also be used as low-end creating machines. But if it costs two months' wages to get an entry-level creating machine because all the mass-market machines are consuming machines, these individuals won't fulfill their sole purpose because it is cost prohibitive to get started. For example, I think my purpose in life is to create video games that can be played by multiple people in a living room. But there still aren't a lot of home theater PC users in my audience, so in order to do that, I would need a console license, and that in turn requires a corporation or LLC, a dedicated office, and a track record on another platform.

* I prefer the term "works of authorship" over "content".

One is being developed, gnash. Unfortunately, in my experience it doesn't actually work very well for most Flash content out there, at least not yet. When and if it does, I will withdraw my argument.

I don't care about the existence of a public specification. The OOXML debacle highlighted exactly how completely and utterly useless a public spec really is. The useful thing is a public interoperable implementation. And until one exists, I will not call a standard open, no matter how many pages of specifications they've published.

The GPL license includes a warranty disclaimer, though.

It's a nice disclaimer, but given the current ruling I don't think you could get away with that if you delivered open-source software (say, Pentaho) and it didn't work for the purpose you said it would be good for. Remember, open source is not the same as free. Pentaho et al would certainly be liable if their software did not perform according to the claims they made.

Even for free software, I can think of a situation where someone might get sued for delivering free software that doesn't work. However, that is mostly theoretical.

In the main: if you just deliver normal software and don't make outrageous claims in order to sell the software, you are unlikely to face any trouble.

In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is.

The FSF agrees that the term is confusing and proposes the alternate term "uniform fee only" to describe a public offer of a patent license with all the terms and royalties spelled out up front.

The GPL license includes a warranty disclaimer, though.

Yes, it works well, and an implementation has been part of the ubiquitous GNU compiler collection for several revisions: gcc.gnu

IANAL, but the Affero GPL might offer interesting solutions to this issue. It could be interesting to build on software available under the Affero GPL and run the software you're developing as a service from the beginning. That way a third party might have the right to get a copy of the software and the source code, or not, IANAL.

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?

No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.

There is also the issue that to be considered distribution under US law the transfer must be legal. If an employee gives you a copy but they did not have the legal authority to give it to you, no distribution has occurred (it would be theft in that case).

Since when does everything have to be geared around content creation? Content creators are not the target audience here

The word "content" confuses things, so can you be more specific? I'll pretend you meant "works of authorship", and photos, e-mails, and Facebook posts certainly qualify as this.

Not every device has to be geared towards the tech-savvy.

But if devices unsuited for the tech-savvy pass some point in popularity, the loss of economies of scale for devices geared towards the tech-savvy will likely make them unaffordable. This has already happened in other markets; want to know more?

I am not a bookmark manager, but what the hell. Those folks actually spent a bit of time thinking about this shit, you know. If you're still confused after reading the FAQ, direct your question to GNU or FSF, not bloody slashdot.

Honest question: does distribution internal to an organization count as distribution as described by the GPL? That is, if I have code subject to the GPL, and I distribute it to my employees without allowing them access to the source code, am I violating the GPL?

Honest answer: No.

I hope http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html helps. You may also ask the funding body for help if it is an external one. Finally there is the Freedom Of Information Act. But first try to resolve this within the institution you are working for. Resolving means that you get a copyright disclaimer.

I hope http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html helps. You may also ask the funding body for help if it is an external one. Finally there is the Freedom Of Information Act. But first try to resolve this within the institution you are working for. Resolving means that you get a copyright disclaimer.

For example when you modify GPL code (a single character in a source file is enough) and even if you just use that in-house
you are required to publish the modification or the license grant by the copyright holder is null and void.

You're wrong.

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

"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization."

FACT 6: if the Bob is a big enough entity then the FSF may decided to sue Bob

The FSF does not have standing to sue unless they own Alice's work that Bob is distributing. Alice would have to assign copyright of her code to the FSF for them to be able to do so.

Even better answer: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution

No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

This should answer your question: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization."

According to the GPL FAQ over at gnu.org, internal corporate use does not count as distribution: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

Or the mythical sages of Emacs configuration left their caves once and enlightened us all.

I yet to see a single Emacs user who has written the .init.el her/himself - not grabbed some decade old copy off the net.

It's probably just me, but these statements seem contradictory.

Seriously, emacs users are actually a really helpful bunch, check out the emacs wiki for instance. Or consider the amount of effort that's gone into making the customization system (M-x customize) easy for both end users to use and emacs-lisp developers to incorporate into their extensions. Or the quality (and price!) of the Emacs manual, Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp, or Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.

Emacs users might be perceived as elitist or something, but the feeling I've always had is that it's a community that strives to be welcoming and not holier-than-thou.

Or the mythical sages of Emacs configuration left their caves once and enlightened us all.

I yet to see a single Emacs user who has written the .init.el her/himself - not grabbed some decade old copy off the net.

It's probably just me, but these statements seem contradictory.

Seriously, emacs users are actually a really helpful bunch, check out the emacs wiki for instance. Or consider the amount of effort that's gone into making the customization system (M-x customize) easy for both end users to use and emacs-lisp developers to incorporate into their extensions. Or the quality (and price!) of the Emacs manual, Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp, or Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.

Emacs users might be perceived as elitist or something, but the feeling I've always had is that it's a community that strives to be welcoming and not holier-than-thou.

Or the mythical sages of Emacs configuration left their caves once and enlightened us all.

I yet to see a single Emacs user who has written the .init.el her/himself - not grabbed some decade old copy off the net.

It's probably just me, but these statements seem contradictory.

Seriously, emacs users are actually a really helpful bunch, check out the emacs wiki for instance. Or consider the amount of effort that's gone into making the customization system (M-x customize) easy for both end users to use and emacs-lisp developers to incorporate into their extensions. Or the quality (and price!) of the Emacs manual, Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp, or Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.

Emacs users might be perceived as elitist or something, but the feeling I've always had is that it's a community that strives to be welcoming and not holier-than-thou.

when you've got groff??

1- it's proprietary

Safari is no less proprietary than Flash Player. SWF has had a published spec for two years. Perhaps you complain that Gnash hasn't come far enough in these two years.

Even on my desktop PC, I can tell when a site is using flash, because things get jerky.

I've seen plain HTML + JavaScript slow down PCs. I know this because I use a browser add-on that puts SWF on a whitelist.

It misused -a lot- for obnoxious ads.

So were animated GIF and Java applets before SWF became popular. So is HTML 4, with ads that float on a layer in front of the body text.

I just don't understand why it matters if the whole world starts using iPads.

This is why.

We're certainly on the road to the future spelled out here.

Can please tell me where in the AGPL this "implicit right" is derived. Because I read it and I think you're full of shit.

Frankly, that's Adobe's fault, not ours.

It could be our fault if you wanted it to be:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/
http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/wiki/

It's also the same with Firefox and their rejection of anything but Theora

More like vice versa. Theora is an extension of VP3, the only codec whose patent holder (On2) has licensed it worldwide for use in software meeting the definition of free software. All other codec owners have rejected Firefox.

huh? are you talking about their 4 freedoms?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

beyond that the only problem with free is that the english language have managed to give that word two meanings.

You mean like Octave?

I'm all for FSF, opensource, and freedoms in general. But, FFS, there IS NO HURD!! Go on, I challenge. Download that HURD kernel[...]

I won't take that challenge. Since when it is necessary to create a kernel to promote an ideology - specially if there is another mature kernel that works for that? Luckily, the ones making that claim are the zealots against the FSF, and not the FSF. In Stallman's own words:

Given the years of work we had already put into the Hurd, we decided to finish it rather than throw them away.

If we did face the question that people ask---if Linux were already available, and we were considering whether to start writing another kernel---we would not do it. Instead we would choose another project, something to do a job that no existing free software can do.

Hurd is not even in the FSF's priority project list. Do you still believe that Stallman & others are the blind zealots?

The spec for SWF is open, anyone could implement an open viewer if they wanted to. There is a project working towards this, but they are far far behind the official player (Supports much of Flash 7 and a bit of 8. The current official version is Flash 10) http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

And what's he going to do if someone gets a bug up their ass and turns gnash into a standalone player/app for the iphone? Will he still be using the "proprietary" card then? The way I see it, the only open part of the iPhone itself is the compiler...

Well, tools aren't a big problem.

I can think of three off the top of my head that I know work fine, and I'm pretty sure I could add Eclipse and Anjuta to the list.

Incosistent implementation is an issue, but jQuery fixes a lot of that. I only had to add two or three functions to my 'compatibility.js' file I use with everything to get IE in line (the rest of the stuff is things I think JS is missing in the default).

Granted, I'd still rather be programming in Python, C or even Java with a good UI library, but for the purposes of web development, it's not bad, and it takes some display related logic off of my servers, without having a huge client side hit.

Note that the FSF view the GPL as a necessary evil on the road to destroying all software copyrights entirely. This isn't hyperbole, or my opinion: read Stallman's book, particularly Chapter 4.