Slashdot Mirror

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

You post this question on slashdot? Just lob a great big fat one right across the plate...

I'm going to assume you knew what you were doing...

``It is unfortunate that the mono is so closely associated with Windows, if the mono team had created/implemented a
completely new set of cross-platform libraries (that bore no relation to Microsoft's framework) it would be more accepted.''

But then they would just have done what various others have already done, wouldn't they?

``It is unfortunate that the mono is so closely associated with Windows, if the mono team had created/implemented a
completely new set of cross-platform libraries (that bore no relation to Microsoft's framework) it would be more accepted.''

But then they would just have done what various others have already done, wouldn't they?

I agree. Why don't these people who want to use .NET (managed code) just use Java? At least that is platform agnostic (limited to whatever platforms Java is ported on).

By the way, what about dotGNU? http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ At least that will be released under GPL and not some dual licence with GPL.

Richard M. Stallman wrote me an e-mail on my issue, which he agreed to being published as well. This is what he had to say:

For the sake of the free software community, assuming the program you are working on is useful (I don't know its name or what it does), please don't accept the contract you have been offered. Please tell them it would not be right to accept pay to deny the community what you have already planned to contribute.

(I won't say "open source community" because our community wasn't built by the ideas of open source. It was built by the szabad software movement. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.)

If they plan to use their own improvements in-house, you could offer to work on those for them, as long as it doesn't stop you from contributing other things.

If they want to make a version to distribute to others as proprietary software, of course you should not help them do that.

The "Open Source Definition"?
What does that have to do with open source? You mean "Open Source (TM)"? Sorry, that doesn't exist.
If you meant "Open Source Initiative Approved License (TM)" then you might be onto something, but that's not what's being claimed.

Open source has a Linux centric background, but nobody can dictate what exactly it means. It is commonly accepted today to mean you can see the source.
GNU's take on "open source"
The original open source announcement
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines>What it was based on

It's funny it started because "free software" was too ambiguous. ROFL!

GNU's right..

Ambiguity
The term "free software" has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, "Software you can get for zero price," fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, "software which gives the user certain freedoms." We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.
Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly "right" that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for "free software" has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes "open source software."
The official definition of "open source software," as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression "open source software" is "You can look at the source code." This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
That obvious meaning for "open source" is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined "open source":
Linux is "open source" software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

Whatever meaning the OSI meant open source to have (the Linux centric ideals) is lost.

FSF/Open Source -- when discussing open source software that meet's the Free Software Foundation's view of open code

You don't have to agree with the FSF, but you should at least understand the nature of the disagreement.

Isn't this pretty much why RMS argues against using the phrase "open source"?

IIRC, his point was basically that "free software" allows you to study, modify, and use the software. Open source, on the other hand, means just that; the source is there for you to look at, but different licenses have different restrictions on the use and modification of the code.

In RMS's own words: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

OSI's definition of Open Source: http://opensource.org/docs/osd

It is against the FSF definition of free software:

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.

(emphasis mine)

It is obviously also against the spirit of the GPL, although the letter of the GPL does not require portability. The FAQ does contain the obvious warning against writing software which runs only (is "trapped") on a particular proprietary system.

Please mod the parent down. Open Source must conform to the Open Source Definition, which lists ten points. Free Software must respect the Four Freedoms that the FSF enumerated. These are roughly equivalent. The FSF prefers the GPL, but they accept other licenses are Free Software.

Not only that, he took the copyright that the law gives him for such software and gave up any ability to make money off it by releasing it as GPL.

*facepalm* Have you actually read the GPL?

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney Next time please do the two seconds of research it would take to not look like a complete dumbass.

Except in robin hood mythology they fought for basic justice, food, and shelter. Here you are fighting for Mariah Carey mp3s and Wayans Bros movies. Something tells me there's a fundamental difference between these things.

Books constitute capital. A library book lasts as long as a house, for hundreds of years. It is not, then, an article of mere consumption but fairly of capital, and often in the case of professional men, setting out in life, it is their only capital.
--Thomas Jefferson

To varying degrees the works that come under copyright protection can be considered capital. Certainly the issue has come up regarding the digital copying of books, but there is a lot of educational and political material being released as video as well. It is about basic justice and property rights. Anyone who thinks this is just about entertainment hasn't been paying attention. The Right to Read is a good place to begin informing yourself.

The common definition does not place free software inside the freeware category. In fact, they are disjoint sets (no software fits in both categories). Also, the "free" in both names are two completely different words. This is the definition the parent is referring to:

The term "freeware" has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available). These packages are not free software, so please don't use "freeware" to refer to free software.

On a technically oriented computer website like this, the free software and freeware distinction is important. Mixing them up is just confusing.

This is the definition the parent is referring to:

The term "freeware" has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available). These packages are not free software, so please don't use "freeware" to refer to free software.

On a technically oriented computer website like this, the free software and freeware distinction is important. Mixing them up is just confusing.

I'm going to start compiling a list of all the things RMS thinks is a trap. So far we have:

cloud computering
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/30/2146250

Java:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Then the usual stuff; shaving, bathing, etc.

Well, it's all open source. Since you're such a huge RMS fan, why don't you make it? You can even use his tools and software licenses! Of course, that would take a lot more effort than posting on Slashdot.

If you're not trolling and you're genuinely trying to get other people to do work you want done, you should consider asking people more nicely. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar, as the old saying goes.

Actually, RMS' software is all free software. The programs I named are each very complex programs anyone would be proud to have developed if any one of them were all they wrote. People use lots of free software programs, particularly server-side, even though they have no idea that they're using them. There's a difference between the philosophies of the two movements that sometimes result in distinct results.

Being a fan of RMS is not what's required to properly address RMS' concerns here. Ultimately I think that you're trying to motivate someone who owes you nothing by complaining about them (this makes you seem impolitic), and presenting no clear understanding of the magnitude of the issues in front of us (this makes you seem insensitive). Consider what RMS is talking about and you'll see that the lack of trust is not so easily handled by making a new product. For instance, with email one might want to host their own email service so they're not dependent on a server they don't control. But that requires considerable infrastructure and publicly signing encrypted email isn't (yet?) transparently useful across all of the most widely used email programs. I believe the issues RMS raises aren't new issues per se, but they are mostly new in scale—we've had these problems before but now that a lot more people with a wide range of technical skill are online we face new difficulties addressing all of their needs in ways novices can appreciate and get behind.

Well, it's all open source. Since you're such a huge RMS fan, why don't you make it? You can even use his tools and software licenses! Of course, that would take a lot more effort than posting on Slashdot.

If you're not trolling and you're genuinely trying to get other people to do work you want done, you should consider asking people more nicely. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar, as the old saying goes.

Actually, RMS' software is all free software. The programs I named are each very complex programs anyone would be proud to have developed if any one of them were all they wrote. People use lots of free software programs, particularly server-side, even though they have no idea that they're using them. There's a difference between the philosophies of the two movements that sometimes result in distinct results.

Being a fan of RMS is not what's required to properly address RMS' concerns here. Ultimately I think that you're trying to motivate someone who owes you nothing by complaining about them (this makes you seem impolitic), and presenting no clear understanding of the magnitude of the issues in front of us (this makes you seem insensitive). Consider what RMS is talking about and you'll see that the lack of trust is not so easily handled by making a new product. For instance, with email one might want to host their own email service so they're not dependent on a server they don't control. But that requires considerable infrastructure and publicly signing encrypted email isn't (yet?) transparently useful across all of the most widely used email programs. I believe the issues RMS raises aren't new issues per se, but they are mostly new in scale—we've had these problems before but now that a lot more people with a wide range of technical skill are online we face new difficulties addressing all of their needs in ways novices can appreciate and get behind.

don't forget Octave! (it's more-or-less a FOSS Matlab clone, and follows more closely to Matlab syntax than SciLab)

The Change Log is even more hilarious:

http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/~checkout~/hurd/gnumach/ChangeLog

The last change was over a year ago, and reads:

        * doc/mach.texi: Many typos fixed.

Fixed typos! Hah.

Someone needs to tell Thomas Schwinge (gently) that he's wasting his life.

It's coming! Immediately after Hurd is complete. Uh oh! According to the Hurd website: "The latest release of GNU Mach is version 1.3, 2002-05-28." Oops.

RMS' "The Right to Play [a game]":
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

just s/Book/Game/ and you're there :p

You can write C code anyway you like just run indent later (assuming you aren't afraid of command line tools like the other guys around here ;).

Here is a wonderful manual:

http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/manual/html_node/Index.html

Now look what it says under Copyright notices: ...
Copyright © 1976 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

Damn it guys, you had 32 years to figure it out!

This problem is almost as old as C itself and every new generation of programmers has to invent idiotic coding rules about tabs and who knows what, so you have something to keep your minds occupied while you are programming.

Also, most UNIX apps are developed for Linux and later ported to Solaris, not the other way around...

There was a time, actually not all that long ago, that Sun (SunOS and Solaris) was the development platform of choice (coming from its BSD roots). In fact, GCC was first developed for the VAX and Sun circa 1988.

From: A Brief History of GCC

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 87 10:56:56 EST
From: rms (Richard M. Stallman)

The GNU C compiler is now available for ftp from the file
/u2/emacs/gcc.tar on prep.ai.mit.edu. This includes machine
descriptions for vax and sun, 60 pages of documentation on writing
machine descriptions (internals.texinfo, internals.dvi and Info
file internals).

In addition, the definition of "most UNIX apps" depends on the target audience; most mission-critical apps are NOT developed first on Linux, but rather enterprise Solaris, HP-UX / MPE or similar class systems.

Like, say, writing Emacs or taking on the onerous task of replacing Unix with entirely Free software?

The Swiss seemed to have some sort of conception that open source was at higher level morally - which I still don't understand.

Open source, is definitely morally better in the same way as a clean factory is morally better than a dirty one. Maybe the owners chose the clean factory because it was cheaper, but they still aren't polluting the environment and they're still worth supporting because they are morally neutral. The other factory actually is polluting and is morally bad.

If you start to look at the F in FOSS, however, it's quite different you'll find that many people choose to be involved because they want to contribute something useful to the world. That seems to be pretty clear.

It's Free Software that matters. (Open source is only a subset of Free software. Irrelevant per se.)

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Goddamn!

By massive brute force that isn't practical for anyone that doesn't have as tight control over the OS as Microsoft.

Not quite. Microsoft changed the way shared DLLs worked by requiring developers use Microsoft redistributable packs for DLL updates if they needed to - which would only update the system should those DLLs be out of date. Additionally, Windows XP has some mechanisms to present older software with the correct version of the DLL they are looking for.

For new software and new dramatically different DLLs, Microsoft simply names their new DLLs new names, such as riched20.dll, riched32.dll, Msftedit.dll

Linux libraries work the same way, where you can find libgtk-x11.so libgtk-x11-2.0.so.. etc. Preventing such conflicts.

That's precisely what I'm talking about. OS X packages using the NeXT Framework and appdir mechanisms don't have those problems. Those problems only come when you drop back to the traditional UNIX model.

I have done plenty of OS X development, I could package 'mc' into a application directory with all it's required files, like any other OS X applications and trust me - it would segfault on newer and older versions of OS X. These issues are not just because the binaries happened to be arranged in the traditional UNIX model.

That's not "hilarious", that's "how it should work".

Wait? You advocating people pirating software? Because that hilarious comment was only about me seeing someone do piracy.

You've been brainwashed into thinking that software distribution NEEDS to be complex and require complex packaging schemes.

I personally prefer to have all the software on my system centrally managed by a software management systems, that automatically update, install, uninstall all the software with just one click - the end result is not complex.

I don't want to goto websites, downloading .dmg images, drag and dropping the application into a folder, then creating dock menus (I'm not sure if my parents could even handle that), having to update the software myself... - This end result just ends up being a lot of work, for flexibility in moving applications around which is... Not very useful at the end of the day.

That is technically possible, if you move an application by copying it and deleting the original, then don't run it even once.

Just a note, don't do this with Tinkertool, you will be sorry.

You can, I suppose, but I've been downright abusive and I haven't managed to break anything yet.

I have, plenty of times.

Cite, please.

GNU has some notes.

You have to work REALLY hard to make it impossible to use your software with BSD code. Even with the old BSD license about the only license I can think of that wasn't compatible with it was, well, the GPL.

If you want your BSD license code to remain BSD, as in, only the same restrictions as BSD, it is also incompatible for developers who develop only under the BSD license.

If the signing keys were managed by a third party, and we could blacklist self-signed keys, then such a system might work out. That said, I don't know many non-techies that would want to pay yearly for a signing key just to send e-mail.

Modern certification schemes have no arbitrary limits to the number of CAs that can validate an identity, and users aren't placed into a position of having to totally trust or mistrust any particular CAs. This gets rid of the need for any blacklists; you can use whitelists or a very simple algorithm to guess trustworthiness of CAs. This gets rid of the need to pay a lot for signatures (in fact, for most people, it's free).

But certification is secondary anyway, because..

Worse, you'd certainly see spammers getting multiple keys under fake names, so I'm not sure that this would do much at all.

That's not a problem either, because you don't care so much as to whether the name is fake or not, as you care about whether that identity has been used to send spam or not. A spammer can generate as many identities as he wants, but the only way an identity can accrue good reputation is to not send spam.

As an end user you don't even need to read the GPL, it doesn't apply to you.

Just because you, as an end-suer, do not read a given body of text does not necessarily mean that body of text is no an EULA. Lots of people don't read the EULAs associated with commercial software. Again, if you actually read the GPL (emphasis added:)

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

This whole section is referring to using the program, not "developing" or "modifying" the program (the other sections cover that). The above quoted section of the GPL directly addresses and pertains to the GPL. Furthermore, GNU themselves, instructs you to display the GPL to the end-user.

If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode: [example elided] Of course, your program's commands might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an âoeabout boxâ.

EULA are counter to the spirit of open and free software. Software does not require a license to use, you have the right to use software as long as you acquired it legally.

Licenses like the MPL or the GPL are for those who wish to modify and distribute software, because those activities are restricted by copyright law and the licenses are needed to allow you to do them.

EULA's are contracts that force users to give up some of their rights or regulate how they use the software beyond the restrictions imposed by copyright.

Mozilla's EULA was relatively benign as far as EULAs go but a EULA just the same. Since having a EULA means an app isn't free software Ubuntu couldn't/wouldn't include the EULA version in Ubuntu.

(Emphasis added)

Did you ever read the GPL?

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

Sounds like the typical "By using this software, you give up the right to sue us" wording that appears in most EULAs.

The GPL contains a EULA just like all other software. It's practically financial/legal suicide to release software without a EULA in today's lawsuit happy world.

While you are technically right the implications of your position are perhaps more troubling than you realize. What Apple is doing is taking a Universal Turing Machine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

And turning it into a closed, limited, system. If this catches on it could spread to laptops and desktops perhaps leading to this grim scenario:

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

Disclaimer I am NOT a GNU zealot, I do have an itouch, OTH it's the last Apple product I'm getting if they go this route which is WORSE than Microsoft. Dual booting XP and Ubuntu and configuring a Linux phone/mp3 player isn't THAT hard that I am willing to just sacrifice a computers basic nature as a Universal Turing Machine or my basic freedom to tinker just to have a shiny Apple gadget.

Force Ubuntu to invoke the copy right on *every* launch: from the GPL 2.0

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

It too bad though. What would happen if Mozilla decided not to cave? Ubuntu would have either had to decide to suck it up or not distribute Firefox. Ubuntu users would have installed Firefox anyway.

This is bullshit whining from a small, but vocal, group. Mozilla should have told Ubuntu to pack sand.

Don't discard Emacs just yet, run this on top of Win95 B and you will get what you want. There's even a Windows keyboard compatibility mode so, CTRL ZXCV works as does CTRL S for save, the rest I can't remember ..

GNU Emacs FAQ for MS Windows

Parent is another fool (or a paid-for shill) that thinks apple is some saviour and somehow very different from micro$oft.

The fact remains apple is every a bit as evil as micro$oft. M$ even owns some apple shares. It's the same racket.

If you're looking for something different, try http://gnu.org/

Provided the authors state what attribution they require (in the case in point: "requiring any published article that uses results of the software to cite our paper"), the line: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." seems to be cover such a requirement.

But if you read the text of the license, you find that the attribution requirement kicks in only if the modified work is a Collective Work or a Derivative Work of the covered work. If a program doesn't copy parts of itself into the output, then its output is not a Derivative Work of the program, as the FAQ for another license explains.

I think that a clause that impose citation on program results is always void. A clause that require citation on paper based on program result is probably always void. From a paper can derive others papers and for sure these cannot be under your license.

A license is valid only if there is the copyright statement:

      Copyright (C) Year1, Year2, ... YearN Name1, Name2, ... NameN

      where
      * YearX is a year where the code has been modified
      * NameX is the name of a copyright holder

Also you can add WEB address:
      site: http://myuniversity.univ/myresearch_paper.html

You can use as NameX your name, your professor's name, ... the institute name, ...

When one person use your software to make a derivate work or distribute it unaltered he must not cancel or alter the copyright statement (if the license do not let do that). So all people can see that the original work is your and can see the WEB address that you have choose.

If one make a new paper with your software or a derived one, he can must distribute the source (if you have choose a right license, for example GPL, AGPL, ...) and if one read the source he found your copyright.

Now I only know that AGPL give you a better protection: it require that it someone make a derivate work and let people to access the binary program with a network (for example internet), than he must also redistribute the source with the modification (and your copyright statement).

So all people who look the source can see something like this:

####
Copyright (C) 2008 MyName, MyProfessor, MyUniversity
E-Mail: MyProjectEmail
home: http://myprojectsite/

This file is distributed under AGPL license.
####

For more detail read the AGPL text on http://www.gnu.org/

If FSF considers it to be free software, how it is not free software

One of the requirements of Free Software is "[t]he freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)." The Affero GPL explicitly denies this freedom:

If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.

I don't care who endorses the AGPL; by the FSF's own definitions, it is not Free Software. Get pissed off and mod me down all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the AGPL is a EULA in that it governs the behavior of people who merely run the software, even if they do not distribute it (by any reasonable definition of the word "distribute" that has been in common usage during the history of computing).

I agree, as the FSF lists it as GPL compatible and appears to endorse it for programs that are used over a network, which an exchange replacement certainly would be.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#AGPLv3.0

what FOSS software do you use for financial analysis, trading, system development, and testing in a Un*x environment?

Just Firefox. Used to access a website that runs on some proprietary stuff.

Are there programs you would like to see written or ported?

I would like to see cheap/free or AGPL licensed software like Sage - except, unlike Sage, actually would work properly.

Do any brokerages, data providers, or other services provide good support for we the few?

Their support is the same as their Windows support - Not very good in other words.

And finally, what commercial entities do you know of that are using FOSS software in their operation?"

I don't really get why you're asking.. But here is some big names, Microsoft, IBM, Novell, Sun, Cisco, Nokia, Sony, Apple...

C
    The GNU C Library
    http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/

C++
    Standard Template Library Programmer's Guide
    http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/

    Boost C++ Libraries
    http://www.boost.org/doc/libs

Java
    Java(TM) Platform, Standard Edition 6 API Specification
    http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/

Perl
    Perl version 5.10.0 documentation
    http://perldoc.perl.org/

Python
    Python Library Reference
    http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html

For learning C and C++, I recommend these books:

    Kernighan, Ritchie: The C Programming language
    Kernighan, Pike: The Practice Of Programming
    Koenig, Moo: Accelerated C++: Practical Programming by Example
    Sutter, Alexandrescu: C++ Coding Standards

Standard Template Library:

• SGI reference - readable, comes with informative explanations of concepts
• libstdc++ reference - less readable, but it may have some non-standard things that aren't in the SGI docs, useful if you're using libstd++

Boost libraries:
For anything not present in the standard library, these are the next place to check. They're freely usable in commercial projects.

In the emacs case, by the act of releasing the program under the GPL (distributing the program, stating that it is released under the terms of the GPL, and fulfilling their obligations under the GPL (making the source available, etc.)), they are explicitly granting you and everyone else the right to receive and run the program for any purpose (the FSF refers to this as "freedom 0" in their definition of free software) and also the right to study the workings of the program and also modify it to suit your needs (this is "freedom 1"), without conditions, as stated in section 9 of the GPL.

9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

in this "a copy of the program" refers to both the program and its source code.

In short, you do not need to agree to anything to have those rights to receive, run, and modify the program, as they (the person/people that made the program) have given them to you and everyone else, universally, without any terms or conditions.

the GPL only comes in for you if you want to a) redistribute the program to others or b) share your modifications to the program (distribute derivative works) with others (FSF calls these freedoms 2 and 3 respectively). Under copyright law, you do not have those rights ordinarily. What the GPL does is grant you those 2 rights, but with a few conditions (such as the requirement to make the source available) intended to guarantee that the recipients of your redistribution/modifications maintain the same freedoms you enjoyed.

in the latter case, ATI is not releasing it under the GPL, and thus they are not granting those 2 rights, and you have no right to use the program except under the terms they specific in their license.