Slashdot Mirror

The word "free" has more than one meaning:

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

Free of charge does not mean it is free software.

Perhaps you need to learn a bit or two about what people have been doing to get Java programs onto devices without the JVM

Seeing one closed off, 'play by our rules or gtfo' company, whining about another closed off 'play by our rules or gtfo' company is golden.

Flash has some particularly closed bits (client-server communication protocols and Sorenson codecs, IIRC), but in general, it's relatively open. SWF has a published (though arguably incomplete) format.

You could theoretically implement your own version of their runtime, though that's proven difficult, but implementing other tools which target Adobe's runtime is not only allowed, it's been done with MTASC and Ming and a handful of others. And the basic Flex SDK is open source.

Not to mention that Adobe doesn't insert itself between developers and deployment, and they've done plenty to signal that when the HTML 5 revolution arrives, they're happy to target that as well.

All in all, they're doing pretty well on the "openness." And they're almost inarguably doing more to reassure the world they're committed to a growing platforms where developers have options than Apple is.

Yeah, I'd love for HURD to pick up steam.

For those who don't know, HURD is the official GNU kernel.

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html

I've been checking into the status of HURD for ever since I heard of free software. It's been slower than watching paint dry.

But I still hold out hope for rapid progress when it starts to get a footing. The one big advantage is its modularity and extensibility. I'd like to think that would mean we'd get a more responsive free desktop one day without the burdens of big-iron Linux.

The MAFIAA read this and thought it was a good idea.

Of course, if they want spyware on every computer, then you can no longer have control of your computer. Software development will have to be heavily regulated.

RMS saw it coming over a decade ago; go read his little parable The Right to Read , if you don't know it already.

Perhaps this?

One wonders if Apple would go after him for doing such a thing. As the EFF shows, you're never on sure ground with Apple because Apple accepts/rejects app submissions seemingly arbitrarily. And they are working off of a history of legally threatening people on baseless claims and profound misreads of policy. I don't think it a stretch to wonder if Apple would consider a different version of the application they refused to distribute to be a violation of section 7.3 of their most recent revision of the Apple iPhone Developer Program License Agreement which aims to stop developers from distributing rejected iPhone applications via other means. Granted, a different program would no doubt use different API and possibly offer users entirely different features, a different look and feel, and it could even be distributed under a FLOSS license (or "FOSS" as Apple prefers to call it—can't have people thinking about "libre" as that might lead to people inquire what software freedom means!), but from Apple's perspective: there's a monopoly to sustain here.

The Right to Read was written 13 years ago, and is still remarkably prescient.

Fortunately for you, there is no such modification. Users have no interest to receive, modify and redistribute code.

Please visit The Free Software Definition and read. Just read. 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: (four freedoms are enumerated, see link) A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Need more?

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

--FSF, 2010/03/30 05:22:50

In short, you do not know what you are talking about, and should desist blathering nonsense immediately. The GPL was explicitly created to protect the interests of the user. If that user is not a programmer, then they are going to receive less benefit than if they were. On the other hand, many people who are not programmers are able to derive benefits from the GPL beyond being clearly permitted to redistribute products they have purchased as is already covered by first sale law; for example, you can download OpenWRT or DD-WRT for your Linksys/Cisco router because of the influence of the GPL. See, one programmer can produce code that many people can execute. And by extension, with the benefits of Free Software, the users will have the right to do so.

The viral nature of the GPL is a major stumbling block for companies

...which only want to take, and never give. We don't need them. Over time even Microsoft has been releasing source code of its own volition. IBM has gone from one of the most closed companies on the planet to one of the champions of Open Source and even Free Software. Entire corporations are profitably operating on the basis of developing FoSS.

>... like the lack of a pre-processor ...

Use m4? ... and making everything a class (oh - already did that one) ...

Every function needs to be enclosed in a class, but you don't have to use an object-oriented paradigm. A class can just be a collection of miscellaneous static functions. They don't have to operate on "this". Pass in what you want them to operate on.

Collect 'em all in a class called Global or Util.

...You'll be free.

Android Theme

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html , section 10:

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

An entity transaction is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

So the way I see it, either they have the right to redistribute, or Intel would be committing copyright infringement.

And it would be an obvious loophole if a contract, NDA, EULA or anything else could trump the GPL, because then people would just distribute a GPL application with an additional bit saying "Actually you have to agree not to redistribute this application".

While at it, I offer you to query my own Zebra server, I guarantee to only return the best available routes ;-))

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

Contact me off-line if you are interested.

Seriously, I have some friends who do like you, they start by blocking China, then Korea, then end up blocking half of the world to enhance their security.

In my humble opinion, this is not a valid security approach, I actually use some requests or connection attempts from these countries to test and strengthen my security. Hackers can get to your machine from US relays/proxies or US compromised machine anyway and blocking only drops the packets as they arrive to your machine, no DOS protection or bandwidth savings.

In short, I believe blocking China gives you a false sense of security, use China to learn how to make your system secure in the first place instead but the is just my 2 cents hence my very personal opinion ;-))

This is why banks should use Linux. That way it would be impossible to install the same malware on all systems. Because each slightly different model, released on slightly different dates, would have different versions of incompatible libraries

“Why GNU/Linux Viruses are fairly uncommon” from Charlie Harvey

VC++ doesn't support variable-length arrays ... Variable-length arrays are part of the C99 standard

Yes, VC++ does not support C99 - it sticks to C90 with a few common extensions (such as // comments). Heck, it even won't let you declare variables anywhere except the beginning of blocks when compiling .c files.

However, C99 is not a subset of C++. The priority for VC++ is to support C++ - which is why VC++2010 adds a bunch of C++0x features (auto, decltype, lambdas, static_assert, rvalue references). It does have a few C99 features, to the extent C++ TR1 requires them - most notably, stdint.h.

That's 10 years old at this point and it's a pattern I employ often.

The standard is 10 years old, yes, but it is relatively obscure. Even GCC doesn't claim full compliance yet, and that's saying something. Speaking of VLAs specifically, they have been broken in GCC until very recently - 4.4 still listed them as "broken", and only 4.5 declares full support - and the latter was released on March 31, 9 days ago.

I haven't actually seen any code using VLAs in the wild, likely precisely because of that - it's simply non-portable in practice. So far it seems that any practical use of C99, by and large, is restricted to stdint.h (immensely useful), "restrict" (can be very handy for particular applications), and free-form comments and variable declarations.

By the way, the topic of C99 compiler support in general, and VLA support in particular, is, in fact, a favorite one for flamewars on comp.lang.c.moderated.

VC++ doesn't support variable-length arrays ... Variable-length arrays are part of the C99 standard

Yes, VC++ does not support C99 - it sticks to C90 with a few common extensions (such as // comments). Heck, it even won't let you declare variables anywhere except the beginning of blocks when compiling .c files.

However, C99 is not a subset of C++. The priority for VC++ is to support C++ - which is why VC++2010 adds a bunch of C++0x features (auto, decltype, lambdas, static_assert, rvalue references). It does have a few C99 features, to the extent C++ TR1 requires them - most notably, stdint.h.

That's 10 years old at this point and it's a pattern I employ often.

The standard is 10 years old, yes, but it is relatively obscure. Even GCC doesn't claim full compliance yet, and that's saying something. Speaking of VLAs specifically, they have been broken in GCC until very recently - 4.4 still listed them as "broken", and only 4.5 declares full support - and the latter was released on March 31, 9 days ago.

I haven't actually seen any code using VLAs in the wild, likely precisely because of that - it's simply non-portable in practice. So far it seems that any practical use of C99, by and large, is restricted to stdint.h (immensely useful), "restrict" (can be very handy for particular applications), and free-form comments and variable declarations.

By the way, the topic of C99 compiler support in general, and VLA support in particular, is, in fact, a favorite one for flamewars on comp.lang.c.moderated.

1997:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

2009ish:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090623/0415565326.shtml

Are we there yet?

I read it.

Not only is it open source, but even the FSF considers the APSLv2 to be a free software license:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

There's no call for rudeness, even on slashdot.

Sun never made native executables

This goes against the very idea of Java: write once, run everywhere. And there is at least one compiler to native code: gcj

way to point and click on a java file and have it run without having to type java x

If vact, there is: executable JAR.. There's also Java Web Start, that allows running a Java window application in a single click from a webpage, using the sandbox security. For this two options, you need the Java runtime installed

As a result JavaFX was too little too late.

Sun didn't care for desktop Java for a long time, unfortunately.

>That snippet from Stallman is disturbing. It's almost like he's completely forgotten why Free Software is actually appealing to people.

It's not disturbing when you consider the fact that RMS's philosophy is the basis of the progress that the free software community has been able to make so far, and that progress is why normal users are attracted to Linux (a system that works well).

A parallel to this is the freedoms and philosophy behind the US Constitution. Those freedoms and structures formed the basis of the progress in Silicon Valley and other places which allowed for the current state of art in computing.

But if a consumer were to say he wants the advanced computers that a free-enterprise system allowed to develop without the free-enterprise system, he would be committing the same fallacy as someone who wants Linux, GNOME, and the entire constellation of free software without the free software philosophy.

Bravo to RMS.

He has his rabid detractors, but, over time, he is proven right again and again.

GNOME and Ubuntu diving headlong into the Mono abyss is basically TuxRacer sliding with blinders on.

This is precisely why I'm using GnuTLS for a project I'm working on right now. The documentation is fairly complete, with lots of examples, and (probably) every function described. I'm not totally sure about a comparison between GnuTLS vs. OpenSSL in terms of speed or functionality, but as long as the code works well, good documentation can make the difference between using something and not using something.

No, for ordinary customer use, read the license. (http://www.nvidia.com/content/DriverDownload-March2009/licence.php?lang=us). Tha't the normal, single user license. A commercial vendor might arrange a different license, perhaps associated with a bulk purchase: this vendor did not bother to do so.

This NVidia license also does not eliminate the GPL on the Linux kernel, which you can review at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html. The GPL and the "tainting" of the GPL kernel by the NVidia modules prevents vendors shipping it pre-installed. That means no OS images can be shipped with it pre-installed, it has to be installed on a system by system basis.

At my last look, SuSE came with a badly written YaST utility that would reach out to Nvidia and download a frankly out of date NVidia. This isn't the same thing at all as being able to pre-install and preship the machines with the drivers ready to go.

"Replacing the default Mesa ones" is fine. Doing it in complete secrecy from the operating system's package management, so that the ordinary vendor provided updates will overwrite the NVidia drivers, is both foolish and and destabilizing.

I'm delighted for friend that he's doing well. Who set up the drivers for him, or did he do it himself? The licensing can be quite awkward, and to be frank, a lot of users don't pay attention to it.

"Internet Protocol lawyering"? You didn't need to correct yourself because "intellectual property" is already not a specific area of law. Patent law is as different from trademark law as it is from real estate law.

The Java trap doesn't really apply to Mono. The real problem with Java was that developers tended to use non-free Java tools even when developing for and on GNU/Linux. That's not the case at all with Mono. In fact, there are any number of Free Software projects written in Mono that will not run on Microsoft's .NET because they use GTK# or other Mono-specific extensions.

Besides, it is not as if the GNU project doesn't have it's own C# tools. Take a look at DotGNU, for instance. If Mono is so bad, then where does the FSF get off supporting DotGNU as an official GNU project? Heck, if you search on gnu.org you will even find several comments by RMS himself about the glowing promise of Mono. Take This one, for example.

When push comes to shove RMS' real issue with Mono is that he'd rather have you write your Free Software in C (or guile). The rest is pure FUD. If Microsoft decided to target gcc, Emacs, or whatever, tomorrow with a full frontal patent assualt they could probably come up with something that would be useful. You don't see RMS telling people not to use these software products because they might be infringing on Microsoft's patents.

So why, precisely, is Mono a special case?

The Java trap doesn't really apply to Mono. The real problem with Java was that developers tended to use non-free Java tools even when developing for and on GNU/Linux. That's not the case at all with Mono. In fact, there are any number of Free Software projects written in Mono that will not run on Microsoft's .NET because they use GTK# or other Mono-specific extensions.

Besides, it is not as if the GNU project doesn't have it's own C# tools. Take a look at DotGNU, for instance. If Mono is so bad, then where does the FSF get off supporting DotGNU as an official GNU project? Heck, if you search on gnu.org you will even find several comments by RMS himself about the glowing promise of Mono. Take This one, for example.

When push comes to shove RMS' real issue with Mono is that he'd rather have you write your Free Software in C (or guile). The rest is pure FUD. If Microsoft decided to target gcc, Emacs, or whatever, tomorrow with a full frontal patent assualt they could probably come up with something that would be useful. You don't see RMS telling people not to use these software products because they might be infringing on Microsoft's patents.

So why, precisely, is Mono a special case?

It's because of the Java trap, and it is a problem that became obvious before Mono or .net. Basically, Microsoft owns the platform, so it doesn't matter how open source your programs are, Microsoft still exerts some control over them.

I read somewhere that RMS is not opposed to Mono specifically, and in fact favors it, but he views it in the same way he views Wine: a nice tool for portability. And from what I've heard, Mono is a nice tool, but it is not without dangers, especially since the owner is known to be hostile to open source.

I think it's highly likely that if .NET didn't come from Microsoft, nobody would be getting quite so emotional about the whole thing.

As a matter of fact, that'snot true. The '.net trap' is just another version of the Java trap, only made more dangerous by the fact that Microsoft is known to be hostile to open source.

If you disagree and you don't like it, then fine; don't use it and stop whining.

The problem is that mono is included in Gnome, and if it spreads it will get harder and harder to avoid. Some of us would prefer to keep that from happening, because we know what the potential consequences would be.

For fun, I just pasted the text of The Right To Read into this. According to this test, Stallman is informally a weak man, and formally a weak woman. :-)

Total words: 1031

Genre: Informal
    Female = 1551
    Male = 1708
    Difference = 157; 52.4%
    Verdict: Weak MALE

Weak emphasis could indicate European.

Genre: Formal
    Female = 1244
    Male = 926
    Difference = -318; 42.67%
    Verdict: Weak FEMALE

Weak emphasis could indicate European.

The word "study" does not appear in either GPL version 3 [gnu.org] or GPL version 2 [gnu.org].

The FSF does define the freedoms that their licenses are intended to protect here. The first freedom is to run the program, and the 2nd is to STUDY it. So if the argument ever turns from specific wording to "intent" of the license, I think this is clearly documented.

So, what does the GPL actually say, and how does that effect the issue of creating a derivative work?

So, what does the GPL actually say, and how does that effect the issue of creating a derivative work?

using the term "Free Software" is implying that someone sides with the FSF and GPL over other open source licenses.

No, the term "free software" implies the four freedoms, nothing more, nothing less. There's lots of pubic domain and BSD-ware which is called free software (eg. Chromium, Postgres, BSD itself). If you're trying to draw a line between free software and open source, the line has already been drawn.

using the term "Free Software" is implying that someone sides with the FSF and GPL over other open source licenses.

No, the term "free software" implies the four freedoms, nothing more, nothing less. There's lots of pubic domain and BSD-ware which is called free software (eg. Chromium, Postgres, BSD itself). If you're trying to draw a line between free software and open source, the line has already been drawn.

Remember, there's nothing stopping Oracle from charging for GPL source code, and they only have to provide access to the source code to the people they distribute the binaries to.

Wrong. GPLv2 section 3 specifically requires the source code to be made available to any third party, regardless of where they got the binaries:

Actually, it is not wrong. If Oracle chose to distribute the source at the same time as the binaries to those they sell to, then they would _not_ be required by the GPL to supply the source to any third party, and they would still be adhering to the GPL.

This is because there are three options in section 3 for source code access. 3a is to distribute source with the same time as the binary. 3b is to distribute the binary with an offer (valid to any third party) and 3c is to distribute the binary including the original offer (if you yourself received this as per 3b, and are distributing non-commercially.)

Thus, if the software was distributed as per 3a (binary+source) to someone who purchased it, then third parties would have no right to request the source per 3b from oracle, and the infringement would by the purchaser for not including the source as per 3a (as they cannot pass on an offer as per 3c, as they didn't get it by 3b themselves)

Remember, there's nothing stopping Oracle from charging for GPL source code, and they only have to provide access to the source code to the people they distribute the binaries to.

Wrong. GPLv2 section 3 specifically requires the source code to be made available to any third party, regardless of where they got the binaries:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

GPLv3 section 10 specifically grants all recipients of the code (binary or source) the same license that you have, including the right to distribution:

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

Both versions of the GPL prevent you from placing further restrictions on third party licensees. So long as Oracle make the source code available at cost, they have likely fulfilled their obligations under the GPL.

Remember, there's nothing stopping Oracle from charging for GPL source code, and they only have to provide access to the source code to the people they distribute the binaries to.

Wrong. GPLv2 section 3 specifically requires the source code to be made available to any third party, regardless of where they got the binaries:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

GPLv3 section 10 specifically grants all recipients of the code (binary or source) the same license that you have, including the right to distribution:

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

Both versions of the GPL prevent you from placing further restrictions on third party licensees. So long as Oracle make the source code available at cost, they have likely fulfilled their obligations under the GPL.

I just want to point out that there are 3 different topics you're talking about there:

1. C++
2. OpenGL
3. Development/building on Linux

Indeed, there are pretty deep concepts behind each of them: C++ is related to fundamental programming concepts, object orientation, and metaprogramming, OpenGL deals with framebuffer rendering/graphics, and Linux development deals with source control, Makefiles, compilers, and configuration setups.

These concepts are not orthogonal by any stretch of the imagination, but it might help to keep in mind that each of them can be studied without the other.

Speaking from personal experience as a 'graphics guy', I would suggest you look further than OpenGL if you want to learn C++. OpenGL is great, don't get me wrong, but it is just an API, and a fairly limited one at that. You won't learn much C++ trying to figure out how to set up texture contexts and binding VBOs.

I would recommend writing a raytracer or your down software-based rasterizing renderer (or both!) - you'll find youself diving right into the data structures that are important to graphics and tackling 'fundamental' problems that really test your programming abilities, versus realizing that you passed GL_LINE to glBegin() instead of GL_LINES or some stupid API issue like that.

Later, you can work on your OpenGL skills; heck, you could even play with it in Python if you're curious. You'll find that any API is easier and more satisfying to use if you say 'How does this API address the following problem in graphics?' as opposed to browsing through the API reference and saying 'Ooh, what does this function do?'.

As for the Linux part, my advice would be to read up on Makefiles and spend some time writing them for various projects. When you've really got a handle on them, you can move on to CMake or autotools or whatever - but jumping into those without knowing that basic mechanism does you a disservice. I'd also recommend experimenting with one of those fancy programming editor (I recommend The One With All of the Modifier Keys), but there are several that are very good.

Good luck!
njord

I see this all the time in Bittorrent discussions, but there seems to be a double standard once the GPL comes into play. How can something be stolen if I still have a copy? Also, I wasn't going to develop the code anyways, so you didn't lose anything. And non-GPL distribution will actually _help_ the official version by making more people aware of it.

Double-standard? What are you talking about? The GPL is not a piracy license; it depends on copyright law.

W

Software Freedoms. If I get a closed-source copy of this binary the freedom to redistribute this derivative source has been violated.

In particular, in C and C++, there's locking, but there's no way within the language to even talk about which locks protect which data.

That's true of standard C++. However GCC has thread safety annotations. We use them at work, they're pretty handy.

... is it just me or do these style devices remind you of One of RMS' essays: the right to read.

(BTW, in the off chance that anything I just posted provides inspiration (ha!), all these images are hereby released under creative commons.)

For one thing, which Creative Commons license?

For another, all Creative Commons licenses are incompatible with all GNU licenses because unlike CC licenses, GNU licenses do not allow authors to require downstream reusers to remove attributions to the author. See Wikisource discussion. As for whether code and other parts of a video game form an "aggregate" that does not require license compatibility, I'm not sure what the GPL means by "separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program".

(BTW, in the off chance that anything I just posted provides inspiration (ha!), all these images are hereby released under creative commons.)

For one thing, which Creative Commons license?

For another, all Creative Commons licenses are incompatible with all GNU licenses because unlike CC licenses, GNU licenses do not allow authors to require downstream reusers to remove attributions to the author. See Wikisource discussion. As for whether code and other parts of a video game form an "aggregate" that does not require license compatibility, I'm not sure what the GPL means by "separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program".

Actually, the GPL extends plenty of freedom to developers; the only restriction is that those developers cannot impose any further restrictions than those imposed by the GPL

Another problem is that a lot of works, even works under "permissive" licenses, are licensed incompatibly with the GPL. For example, how would one make a video game using engine code and scripts under the GPL with, say, textures under the Creative Commons Attribution License? One might claim that the game engine code, scripts, and non-program assets make up an "aggregate" under the GPL, but I'm still having trouble figuring out what constitutes "other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program", if the engine puts specific requirements on those files.

What makes you think that corporate programmers are necessarily going to do drudge work better than volunteers?

Because programmers aren't the only people that contribute work to a product. Name three well-known video games made entirely of free software and free cultural works.

Even if HTML5 "efficiency" sucks now, give it 6 months; it will improve. Open source evolves into a superior product because of the ability to innovate with legal freedom.

You mean like this http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

How is H.264 any more cross-platform and open than Flash? While Adobe's implementation of Flash is closed, I suspect that this one http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ might be open.