Slashdot Mirror

WTF? It's like saying somebody should buy an F1 car just because it's fastest

I agree 100%. People should buy a machine to suit their needs. Anyone who blindly buys the fastest model available is just being egotistical and foolish.

which does not cost them their house and children

A new Mac mini goes for $599 and a MacBook is $999. This is hardly "house and children" figures. Pick a reasonable Mac then go to Dell and spec out a similar machine. The PC prices will be in a close neighborhood.

not require special fuel and can run on ordinary road

This article is not about the iPhone. It is about Apple systems running OS X that can utilize Boot Camp.

Hardly any "special fuel" required on OS X systems. Take your pick from any of the great open source apps available for the platform: Firefox, Thunderbird, Inkscape, Gimp, VLC, Eclipse, the list goes on. Wanna write some code? Xcode comes free with OS X. Don't wanna use Xcode, then use another IDE or directly use make, gcc, gdb, and vim.

As for your "ordinary road" comment ... I'm writing this on a four year old iMac. Over the years I've upgraded the memory (Crucial has great prices) and hard drive (1TB was only $99 at Fry's). My mouse of choice is a five button Logitech scroll mouse. I hardly feel "locked in" or "abused".

Way to go on a tangent!

Way to spread FUD. How about we just let people use the computer that best suits their needs.

Getting back on topic, I've been running Windows 7 in both Boot Camp and Parallels 5 with no problems. I don't know what the damage is with this "article".

WTF? It's like saying somebody should buy an F1 car just because it's fastest

I agree 100%. People should buy a machine to suit their needs. Anyone who blindly buys the fastest model available is just being egotistical and foolish.

which does not cost them their house and children

A new Mac mini goes for $599 and a MacBook is $999. This is hardly "house and children" figures. Pick a reasonable Mac then go to Dell and spec out a similar machine. The PC prices will be in a close neighborhood.

not require special fuel and can run on ordinary road

This article is not about the iPhone. It is about Apple systems running OS X that can utilize Boot Camp.

Hardly any "special fuel" required on OS X systems. Take your pick from any of the great open source apps available for the platform: Firefox, Thunderbird, Inkscape, Gimp, VLC, Eclipse, the list goes on. Wanna write some code? Xcode comes free with OS X. Don't wanna use Xcode, then use another IDE or directly use make, gcc, gdb, and vim.

As for your "ordinary road" comment ... I'm writing this on a four year old iMac. Over the years I've upgraded the memory (Crucial has great prices) and hard drive (1TB was only $99 at Fry's). My mouse of choice is a five button Logitech scroll mouse. I hardly feel "locked in" or "abused".

Way to go on a tangent!

Way to spread FUD. How about we just let people use the computer that best suits their needs.

Getting back on topic, I've been running Windows 7 in both Boot Camp and Parallels 5 with no problems. I don't know what the damage is with this "article".

WTF? It's like saying somebody should buy an F1 car just because it's fastest

I agree 100%. People should buy a machine to suit their needs. Anyone who blindly buys the fastest model available is just being egotistical and foolish.

which does not cost them their house and children

A new Mac mini goes for $599 and a MacBook is $999. This is hardly "house and children" figures. Pick a reasonable Mac then go to Dell and spec out a similar machine. The PC prices will be in a close neighborhood.

not require special fuel and can run on ordinary road

This article is not about the iPhone. It is about Apple systems running OS X that can utilize Boot Camp.

Hardly any "special fuel" required on OS X systems. Take your pick from any of the great open source apps available for the platform: Firefox, Thunderbird, Inkscape, Gimp, VLC, Eclipse, the list goes on. Wanna write some code? Xcode comes free with OS X. Don't wanna use Xcode, then use another IDE or directly use make, gcc, gdb, and vim.

As for your "ordinary road" comment ... I'm writing this on a four year old iMac. Over the years I've upgraded the memory (Crucial has great prices) and hard drive (1TB was only $99 at Fry's). My mouse of choice is a five button Logitech scroll mouse. I hardly feel "locked in" or "abused".

Way to go on a tangent!

Way to spread FUD. How about we just let people use the computer that best suits their needs.

Getting back on topic, I've been running Windows 7 in both Boot Camp and Parallels 5 with no problems. I don't know what the damage is with this "article".

This whole situation was foretold by Richard Stallman in an essay called The Right to Read from 1997: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

DRM will destroy books.

Until the Tycho Uprising, at least. (Can't believe no one has linked to "The Right to Read" yet. RMS, ahead of the curve as always.)

Stallman's essay with even more recent updates is here

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

Real men (still) use ed:

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

Software patents are basically "copyright" for ideas so all of this applies.

No, copyright and patents are different things. If you just wish to make a simile, you should do that more clearly.
 

Now, I'm not saying software patents shouldn't exist but rather in the context of stagnation especially with the pace of development that they should be much shorter than they are now.

No, software patents should not exist.

Besides this I fully agree with you.

Software patents are basically "copyright" for ideas so all of this applies.

No, copyright and patents are different things. If you just wish to make a simile, you should do that more clearly.
 

Now, I'm not saying software patents shouldn't exist but rather in the context of stagnation especially with the pace of development that they should be much shorter than they are now.

No, software patents should not exist.

Besides this I fully agree with you.

Do you call GPLv3+ gnash plugin an extension or workaround? What is a proprietary Flash player else than an extension? And what 3rd-party player are you talking about?

I think you mean open source.

No, I don't.

Free software is an established term that very much relies on the GPL, and is in fact, founded on the GPL.

No it's not.

Free software, as you've described, is software which provides the Four Freedoms. BSD-style licenses indeed provide these freedoms, as does the public domain.

What it doesn't do is force any derivative work to also provide the same freedoms. This means that someone could create a project which is derived from a BSD-licensed project, but which is proprietary and does not offer those freedoms -- but that fork would also no longer be BSD-licensed. The original code, under the original license, is still Free as in freedom.

But I don't think I have to say much more when the FSF itself disagrees with you.

Whenever anyone attributes "communist" aspects to the GPL (i.e., your repeated assertion that the GPL forces one to share/contribute/give back), it speaks more to the mindset of the poster than it does any insight into the GPL.

I never claimed it was communist, nor do I necessarily believe communism is bad. Your kneejerk reaction to any perceived kneejerk reaction is especially ironic.

Like which?

It's possible to compile proprietary programs with gcc. It's also possible to compile GPL'd programs with icc or Microsoft Visual Studio.

Here is a quote from the gpl-faq

Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?

        Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.

        Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons—for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.

        As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs.

So does gcc copy parts of itself into the output? I don't think this can happen in Assembler. Assembler is translated straight to machine code without adding anything.

I don't have to add much to the rest. I am not sure what derivative work means for software. I cannot see why people are that sure about it. I cannot see a reason why it is obvious that linking is derivative and shared memory, sockets or interupts are not.

Sometimes people say it is about the shared address space. With linking I have a shared address space and with shared memory, sockets or interupts I don't. But I don't see from where this definition comes from. And I don't see why the kernel which also shares address space is excluded from this rule.

For me it is obvious that derivative is about how strongly my work depends on the other work. I don't see any legal reason why the mechanism is relevant.

Where does the FSF say that not maximising freedom as well means it's less free?

Please explain to us all how something that "does not maximise freedom" is somehow more free. How does that work?

There are other criteria to judge a licence on other than how free it is, and the FSF thinks the LGPL is "lesser" in one of those other criteria, independent of how "free" it is.

Please provide a link to support this point. Find any web page from the FSF or the GNU project that explains why they use the word "lesser" in LGPL. If "lesser" doesn't mean "less free" to them, you must be able to find a web page that says so.

I guess "abandon the attempt to defend the users' freedom" wasn't clear enough for you, and you think there is still some wiggle room on this. I don't even know why you think this or why you care.

You might want to read this, where RMS tells us to try to use GPL instead of LGPL to try to force more software to be released under a free license. I dare you to find any point in that where he considers anything at all about LGPL that is not related to freedom.

Most kids like to write some kind of game as their first program. It's immediate enjoyment, and something they'd like to play with when it's done.

So a good start for learning programming might be GNU Robots. In it, you write a program for a little robot, then send it out to explore a world on its own. The robot has to run autonomously, using the program that you gave it to navigate obstacles, avoid (or destroy) enemies, pick up energy tablets, and collect rewards. And you get to watch the robot do its thing, so when it's done you can immediately update your program and try to improve it.

GNU Robot programs are written in Scheme, which should be fairly easy to learn.

(Disclaimer: I'm the original author of GNU Robots, although I turned it over to someone else after I released version 1.0D in 2000.)

Thousands of people dying cannot reasonably be described as a "minor annoyance."

Said the one who pooh-poohed the frequent computer{sic} outages in health centers and hospitals. Just for the sake of argument, we'll pick some small numbers: 3000 hospitals with at least one mission critical service tied to MS products and one computer{sic} outage per hospital per year. That'll add up to thousands of deaths quickly even with those low numbers. And you know the real numbers are much, much higher.

The Patriot Act was all ready to go and just needed a situation where it could be pushed through without a single congressman actually reading it. It was the most convoluted, obfuscated patchwork imaginable. Reading raw diff output is easy by comparison. Keeping legislation in XML (say Docbook or OpenDocument Format) and then using a version control system like SVN, GIT or Mercurial would have made the planned end result more clear.

Ok. This wealthy Nigerian who tried to light his farts for Yemen makes a point that it's dangerous to fly to the US. Now can the rest of the world go back to a more civilized way of managing air passenger traffic.

Perhaps you need to read the GPL FAQ:

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

The key point from what you linked: "and you don't give the other dept the source code (so it falls outside the gpl license)". But the license's authors have defined "distribution" to exclude propagating a work within an organization. Besides, even if it did count as distribution, we could still comply. On our Linux boxes, we get our copies of MySQL from mirrors of Canonical's Ubuntu repository, and we have the option to check the "source" box in Software Sources if need be. We also run MySQL on an internal Windows server, and we have the option to download source packages whenever we update the Windows binary package.

Please provide a link to the FSF claiming that the LGPL is "less free" than the GPL.

Are you trolling? They renamed LGPL from the "Library" GPL to the "Lesser" GPL, because they feel it is less free. It's baked right into the name that they feel it is less free.

But you asked for a link. Here you go:

Using the Lesser GPL for any particular library constitutes a retreat for free software. It means we partially abandon the attempt to defend the users' freedom, and some of the requirements to share what is built on top of GPL-covered software. In themselves, those are changes for the worse.

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

Just in case that wasn't clear enough for you, let me rephrase it: according to this gnu.org link, the LGPL does not protect users' freedom as well as the GPL. It does not maximize freedom as well as GPL. In short, it is less free, according to gnu.org.

Remember that GNU and FSF are all about the users' freedom. Freedom of any developer to make proprietary software is not viewed as a good thing. A license like GPL that restricts the ability of developers to make proprietary software is viewed as more free.

On the other hand, fans of the BSD license argue that it is "more free" because anyone may do anything with the software. GNU and FSF reject this idea.

steveha

From http://www.gnu.org/:

“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”.

Ask the software creator what is his suggested price is, and mark it as "payment for software", not as "donation" in the books. It's that simple.

Not quite:

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

"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"

It is just that it is basically impossible to ensure these freedoms for all users without restricting the ability to limit these freedoms. I could be wrong and if you know of some way to see to it that all users always get to legally enjoy these freedoms while not putting in such restrictions, I am sure there are a goodly number of people who would be happy to learn about it.

There is not doubt that with copyright laws as they are now, copyleft has issues. If you could ensure the freedoms of the users without the problems copyleft brings...

But that's just another way of saying that code must be free, no matter the user.

In short, the ideology behind GPL claims that the end sanctifies the means: it doesn't matter if the user "suffers" while striving towards a world where all code is GPL compatible.

Another anti-freedom thing about GPL is that it forces certain ideology on all software combined with GPL code. It could be argued that forced freedom is no freedom at all.

LGPL proves that GPL restricts users freedom to distribute code in unreasonable way. This proves that GPL is not so much about freedom, but about ideology, about forcing a version of "freedom" on users, on creations of other people even if they don't subscribe to the ideology behind GPL. Because that's the only real difference between GPL and LGPL.

Now this is just fine, I believe that creator of code (or whatever) has very broad freedom to require just about anything from those who want to use the code. Using GPL code to promote an ideology is just fine, just about the best way to promote an ideology I can think of. What's not fine is pretending that forcing an ideological version of freedom on other people's creations is any kind of freedom.

Or you can just release source packages and use a compiler which supports a vast number of architectures.

Not quite:

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

"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"

It is just that it is basically impossible to ensure these freedoms for all users without restricting the ability to limit these freedoms. I could be wrong and if you know of some way to see to it that all users always get to legally enjoy these freedoms while not putting in such restrictions, I am sure there are a goodly number of people who would be happy to learn about it.

There is not doubt that with copyright laws as they are now, copyleft has issues. If you could ensure the freedoms of the users without the problems copyleft brings...

all the best,

drew

All library objects are safe to use in a multithreaded program as long as each thread carefully locks out access by any other thread while it uses any object visible to another thread, i.e., treat library objects like any other shared resource. In general, this requirement includes both read and write access to objects; unless otherwise documented as safe, do not assume that two threads may access a shared standard library object at the same time.

All I'm saying is that the STL is not thread-safe, especially when writing server software - which isn't only what I'm writing about, but what the original article is writing about. The STL is also slower - benchmarks prove it. The STL adds complexity, which means more code to debug when something goes haywire. And finally, debugging a multi-threaded app is already a pain to begin with.

Look, TR1 has some interesting features. It just doesn't have a place in what I was doing, and probably won't in at least the near future. Maybe one day I'll find a need for it, or it will makes something simpler - then I'll use it. (but you have to admit the syntax is visually fugly).

Free/open-source software has a lot of these. As an open-source developer myself, I can understand why. One issue is that a lot of open-source projects are started by young naive people who do not realize how much time and effort it really takes to make a software program. Probably over half of the projects on Sourceforge fall under this category. One example is MooDNS, a DNS server that stopped development around the time the developer realized what a pain in the butt DNS compression is.

Another way open-source projects get abandoned is when other software that does the same thing comes along. For example, the GNU Hurd never became production-ready because Linux came along and was good enough that the perceived need for Hurd development went away.

Other projects that stop development are projects where the developers stop going to school and get real jobs, and no longer have time to devote to an open-source project. One example of this is the Y Window System

For all of the advantages of Free software, one issue is that, without, by and large, the developers being paid money, there is not nearly as much motivation to get something finished, so a lot of projects become vaporware.

Closer to home, I've told myself for years I would have a thread-free version of a recursive resolver for my own MaraDNS. I finally started writing the code in late 2007. Around the end of 2007, I had a working basic non-recursive cache. The project was put on hold in 2008 while I got out of the Slashdot-posting basement and looked for a girlfriend. I finally got one around the end of 2008, and was able to spend 2009 adding a lot of features to the code, making a lot of releases of the code.

Well, around September of 2009, I got burnt out. Too much work for too little (almost no) pay. I stopped doing major development on the recursive code at that point, but have a really nice non-recursive cache with most of the foundation needed to make it a recursive cache. I do want to get back in to the project; but it's a lot of work and having a few thank you emails doesn't feel like enough compensation at times, especially when the other half of the emails are people asking me to implement their favorite pet feature for fun and for free, or asking for free email support. I finally put a plug on that nonsense by making it extremely clear that I only answer private email for people willing to pay me. Here are some of my rants I blogged about. I do get the occasional "you made this nice DNS server, we would like to hire you" email, but haven't gotten a job from that yet.

I do want to finish up the recursive code, and put closure on my DNS server project, but I just haven't gotten myself in the "develop free software" mindset again.

Maybe it's time to stop goofing around on Slashdot and finish up the code. :)

You're so wrong it's not even funny. I advise you to read Stallman's essay Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”. Here's a quote from the essay that gets to the essence of what we're talking about here:

The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

As I understand it to Stallman the primary goal of Free Software is not "better software" in terms of say stability, usability etc., it's "better" in the sense that it's the most ethical.

P.S.

I'd like to point out that I personally don't think Stallman is entirely correct in his description of the Open Source movement, as the goal of Open Source has always been the same as Free Software (among other things see Bruce Peren's "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again"). However, regretfully the term Open Source has in a lot of cases, as evidenced from this entire discussion, become diluted.

The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.

The point of free software is freedom.

The fact that free software is generally of higher quality is a bonus, one that the "open source" movement focused on. The guy who created the "Open Source Definition" has said it's important to focus on freedom, but unfortunately many still think that talking about people's freedom to use, share, and modify software is just too radical.

Of course this is just an excuse from someone complaining that software costs money. Software should be free of course!

You do realize that it's perfectly ok for free (as in freedom) software to cost money, yes?

Though Emacs has a vi-simulation mode called Viper, I'm not aware of any mode to simulate the key bindings of Nano. But of course, Emacs can shell out to Nano, the GNU clone of Pico. ObTopic: And yes, there's a browser module for Emacs.

The distinction is that the GPL, version 3, and Apple's license are USE licenses.

Nothing in your post says why you believe GPLv3 is a use license, and you don't give enough to form a Google query. What in the text of the GPLv3 makes it a use license? Is it the part about "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force"? That says you can do anything you want with the work ("propagate" it) until you distribute copies to the public ("convey" it).

perhaps through a repository like we debian users have done forever?

The question remains the same: How would developers get their software into the repository, especially if it's in a genre of software that isn't very conducive to distribution as free software?

I'm a Debian user and if you're not writing free(GPL) software there's only a very remote chance that I would even be interested in using your software. In the last 5 years I've used only 2 proprietary software packages, and that's because I needed 1 to work with the RAW files my DSLR creates, and the other so I could have some way of color calibrating my monitor.

I'm not a rarity as far as Debian users go either. Proprietary software just doesn't show up on our radar very often. If I wasn't into photography I wouldn't be using any proprietary software.

The point is, why would you want to put proprietary software in a Debian repository? Not only would there be very few people interested in it, you would have to be giving it away as there is no way to purchase anything using the APT system.

What makes games special? Why should they be held to a higher standard than drivers, IDEs, spreadsheets, etc?

For one thing, it's fairly easy for free software communities to provide free alternatives to non-free "IDEs, spreadsheets, etc." and even drivers as long as the device manufacturer is willing to play ball. If the next Excel is broken, people can threaten to defect to OpenOffice.org Calc. In fact, Mozilla did just that to Microsoft by developing and promoting Firefox as an alternative to the brokenness of Internet Explorer 6.

Games made entirely of free software and free content, on the other hand, haven't seen as much success. What's the Free alternative to, say, Super Smash Bros. Brawl or Animal Crossing: City Folk or Modern Warfare 2?

perhaps through a repository like we debian users have done forever?

The question remains the same: How would developers get their software into the repository, especially if it's in a genre of software that isn't very conducive to distribution as free software?

Simply point the people to busybox site and be done.

Let's read the license, shall we?

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

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; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

M'kay? If you distribute the objects commercially, then it's your responsibility to distribute or provide the source that you used.

Why don't we create an industry funded board whose job is to make sure that silly software patents are no longer awarded? Oh wait... The industry only dislikes SOME software patents, while anyone who cares to look will see that all software patents threaten innovation and are largely anti-competitive because they rig the game in favor of big corporations. Unfortunately, software patents have become the last hurdle that the proprietary world can throw at the free software movement. Moglen and Lessig are both very persuasive (If you got a bit of free time, read "Free Culture" by the latter) I hope that upon hearing their arguments European Commission will be wise enough to reconsider its position on software patents.

From the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

        Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.

Not exactly. The FAQ answer isn't as specific as the GPL(v2) itself, which states under section 3 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; or,

which means to me that while you can charge a million for the software you can hardly charge that much for the source distribution.
Of course IANAL.

Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all? FSF speakers have long pointed out the problem of no copyright, a very short term of copyright, and overly long copyright. My experience is that calls for no or very short terms of copyright are posited by people who ought to reconsider what is in society's best interests.

No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software (said programs never enter the public domain even on paper), no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work (as some free software licenses require), and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative (like the GPL does).

Short terms of copyright (like the 2-year term you mention) means that proprietors can incorporate strongly copylefted work into their proprietary software during the time in which the software is reasonably current and likely to provide a competitive edge. This means even those who want to a defensible commons (like what the GPL maintains) cannot do so based on copyright law alone. A short term of copyright came up in Richard Stallman's critique of the Swedish Pirate Party:

How would the Swedish Pirate Party's platform affect copylefted free software? After five years, its source code would go into the public domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to include it in their programs. But what about the reverse case?

Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright, and the users don't have the source code. Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it. In addition, the users, not having the source code, do not control what the program does when they run it. To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and give the developer control over you.

So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a "time bomb" in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the "public domain" copies would not run at all.

Thus, 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. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share.

Most countries give people the means to place their work into the public domain immediately upon publication or else waive copyright restrictions their laws mandate. Building the PD in this way simply doesn't strike me as an impediment to social progress. But those looking to provide alternatives to proprietary software in order to share freedom for all computer users don't have the PD as a viable option; we would be universal donors and proprietors would build upon our works as universal recipients. I certainly don't want to treat proprietors as charities.

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.

action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...

Why - because if you take something that's GPL'd you have to offer the source? What's the big deal? It certainly costs less to make the source available to buyers than it would to write your own code from scratch.

What's a DVD cost nowadays - a dime? Heck, they could include it on a free USB key, or offer it for $1 (+ $10 shipping and handling) a pop in the written documentation:

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

You're starting to sound like Monty Widenius wanting to have the GPL retroactively removed from all versions of MySQL.

Stallman doesn't approve of anything commercial, or anyone making any profit off of anything at all.

Would you like some ketchup to go with that foot?

Well, perhaps he's saying RMS needs to STFU because what he says can sometimes be detrimental to the propagation of his message?

RMS uses fear, pure and simple, to promote the most extreme parts of his message.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

I don't even know where to start, when he starts posting stuff like that.

You've got the history wrong. There was "free software," such as TeX, before the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project, but, as Stallman explained the story, no one called it that -- sharing source code was simply the way hackers did it. Stallman launched the GNU project in 1984, after realizing that the "hacker" ethic he believed was being wiped out as hackers were being hired by commercial enterprises, and software was being enclosed within copyrights, patents, and non-disclosure agreements. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html. The Open Source Initiative was founded in 1998, explicitly to break with the FSF's perceived hostility towards commercial software, in order to create the possibility of partnerships between open source software developers and commercial enterprises. See http://opensource.org/history Personally, I have issues with both camps. Free software is a public good, but it doesn't trump all other considerations, ethical and practical. Practical success matters -- widespread adoption matters -- but not at the cost of abandoning the ethical principles. You must be consistently ethical and practical to succeed.

I don't know a terrible lot about the open source movement, but from what I've read here and elsewhere, Stallman's an extremist, and that's NOT a good role model to follow.

Stallman has nothing to do with the open source movement. The Free Software movement, on the other hand, simply believes that software should always be free, just like pacifists believe that war is always bad, no matter what justifications you can invent.

This is Stallman's stance: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

First, Gnome is a GNU project, not simply a GPL licensed. So, yes, they should agree with the Gnu philosophy, or they're lying. They are allowed to fork and get out GNU, nobody forces them to stay.

Second:
"If your approach is better, then time will prove that."

In a purely technical perspective, that's true. But the GNU philosophy is *not* purely technical, and sustains that access to code is a consumer right. So, by that POV, any proprietary software is worst from the start.

Stallman needs to STFU. He's ruining free software by trying to make it exist in some kind of walled garden where nobody who uses it can interact with anyone or anything else.

He's not ruining anything. He's saying what he believes, but doesn't force anyone to follow it. You're the censor here.

I really don't understand why "proprietary" can't be "legitimate". What ever it is, can someone post the reason why RMS made such a remark?

RMS does not think that proprietary software is ethical therefor it is not legitimate. See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

I respect Stallman's consistency, energy and dedication. I agree with him on some points but these days I wish he could be as distant from free software as possible. Stallman is an idealist and a visionary. I'd much rather see practical improvements and results. I would like to see Linux adopted more widely and I believe that it should be getting improved from a practical standpoint. If it means non-free drivers or extra efforts to be compatible with proprietary software, that's okay.

Stallman isn't a great messenger for free software. To "normal" people who aren't involved with technology, he just appears to be a weirdo, and that sort of reaffirms the belief that all that "Linux stuff" is for geeks and weirdos. Stallman is a free-thinker that doesn't always even bother to conform to notions of politeness. I remember his article on BBC where he consistently refers to Bill Gates as "Gates", not once as "Mr Gates". Of course the latter would be more in line with today's polite writing. I understand that Stallman doesn't much care for such formalities, but again this does nothing to make him seem "normal" or acceptable to non-techies.

My real problem with Stallman, though, is that I view him as a hypocritical person. He mentions freedom at every chance he gets. Free software is free, proprietary is non-free, merely open source without FSF-defined rights is non-free, etc. At the same time, GNU policies don't much look like freedom to me. As seen here, Stallman doesn't want a GNU project to assist a non-free project in any way. GNU documentation, according to their standards shouldn't even mention most non-free software, shouldn't recommend software that itself recommends other non-free software. And the standards even say not to link to or mention sites that describe or recommend non-free software.
Those kinds of standards aren't about freedom. GNU/Stallman may view the existence of proprietary software as an ethical problem. It's an assessment I disagree with, but I can respect that opinion. It's an opinion that should, then, be supported with information and clearly showing the ethical advantages of free software, as opposed to "don't mention them" mentality.

Footnote: as for Stallman's political/ethical ideals, I don't think they're very compatible with today's reality. A lot of his ideas would be better off if all computer users had some interest in computers and the software they're using. I would prefer it that way, too. But the reality is that most people only want to know as much as they need to operate the computer, and that isn't going to change.

You've probably paid for it with operating system crashes. Your time spent waiting for a reboot, re-creating lost work, and troubleshooting the failure is probably worth money. If a driver is Free (in the GNU sense), developers of the kernel and the X server can trace into it to see what's going wrong. Interactions with black boxes are much harder to debug.

Probably ed.

Java is always interpreted - sure, at runtime, it does "just-in-time" compiling and caching of byte-code - but it has to INTERPRET that first. You can't keep the cache between program runs, for security reasons.

Please see the GNU Java Compiler. To quote from the site:

GCJ is a portable, optimizing, ahead-of-time compiler for the Java Programming Language. It can compile Java source code to Java bytecode (class files) or directly to native machine code, and Java bytecode to native machine code.

99% of the time yes, Java is JIT compiled to native code. But there are ways to binary compile it. (BTW, I too hate Java.)

Any LGPL-licensed code can be converted into GPL per section 3 of the LGPL v2.1, so the effect should be the same as dual-licensing LGPL/GPL. In practice, this means the work as a whole must be used as GPL, but you could potentially take another part of the code that doesn't rely on the GPL library and reuse that in a LGPL'd project.

IANAL though.