Slashdot Mirror

C++ header files basically guarantee a slow build due to reparsing. Precompiled headers only help if you don't change a prototype.

If you could have C++ but pull class/function prototypes out of the object files like with Java or C# it would fix a lot of build time problems as you would never need to reparse a header.

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/IncrementalCompiler may be of use if you still hold out hope of faster C+ builds...

...is a great example of why proprietary software is inherently unethical, and we should all be exclusively using Free software instead. Proprietary software companies will screw you over, any chance they get.

...is a great example of why proprietary software is inherently unethical, and we should all be exclusively using Free software instead. Proprietary software companies will screw you over, any chance they get.

What is free about a Non-GPL (non-free) piece of software?

I suggest you read about free software on http://www.gnu.org/ for a couple of hours to assimilate the concept.

I don't have to make money from a program for that program to compete with another. If I give my program away with freedom it will be a better competitor than one without freedom. Pull your business model out of the 80s and you will make more money.

Both Apple and ATT have non free practices at the core of their business. It is not surprising that they would each pretend to be more customer friendly than they really are. The iPhone suffers restrictions from both companies that are integral to each company's business model.

It would be better to have free software devices that could use free spectrum. This would remove the ability of others to restrict your communications and such things are vital if we are to undo the damage broadcast media has done to democracy.

>It's all about the micro-browser now. Just you watch. The Hirp of Internet Replacing Plugins (HIRP) browser will be what drives all of our web needs in the next 2-5 years/decades. You'll see.

I HURD that this project got delayed.

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

It is true that free software may not measure up in all areas (it is also true that free software surpasses proprietary software in some), but in the long run, those losses are truly survivable. If you are willing to adapt, you'll never have to "pirate" software again. The primary argument against the GIMP is that it lacks CMYK support (which is coming), but I am not effected since I am not in the printing biz. I suppose everyone using this flash isn't either though.

In what universe is the BSD license less free than the GPL, of any version???

BSD - Basically, do whatever you want, just include the credits of previous contributors. http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html/

GPL - Basically, as basically as it can be stated, if you modify the code source, " . . .However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work." If you start in gpl, you're stuck in gpl. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html/

(and anyway, it's irritating to have to lose the state of your ssh sessions...)

One word: screen!

It lets you reconnect to your ssh sessions and pick up where you left of. My life's gotten a lot easier since I discovered it; perhaps it will help you as well.

Or Richard Stallman

It's rare to encounter if you only install software from your distribution, because typically, people will hack around it or simply force everything to compile against the same version of the library. I documented this problem a few years ago: here's a relevant GCC bug and if you want a slightly easier to read explanation read this doc I wrote on writing shared libraries and search for "scoping".

The long and short of it is that in ELF, every symbol exported by a shared library (including internal symbols if you aren't careful!) exists in a global scope. Imagine you have a function called "clear()" defined in your program. Not so unlikely, right? Now imagine that you link against libfoo.so.1, which in turns uses libncurses to implement some of its functionality. Well, now you have a problem. It turns out that the ncurses API dates from before the time when prefixing function names with the library name was common in UNIX, and it also defines a function called clear. In any sane operating system (like Windows - gasp) this is not a problem. Your program doesn't use ncurses directly, so there's no conflict there. And libfoo is not linked "backwards" against your program either. So when libfoo invokes clear(), control should be transferred to libncurses.

However, that's not what happens. What actually happens is that libfoo jumps into your program and then crashes with stack corruption, because clear() was defined there first. The fact that libfoos ELF headers state that it depends on libncurses will cause ncurses to be loaded into memory, but not actually used for this function.

To put it mildly, this is not what most developers expect. The example above may seem contrived, but a far more common case is when a program indirectly uses two versions of the same library. This is what happens when you use mozilla.org provided Firefox binaries. Then, Firefox from upstream is compiled against libstdc++.so.5, because it's more widely available. Firefox loads some plugin .... for instance maybe it loads SCIM if you want to type Chinese as part of the GTK+ input methods framework .... which in turn loads something else written in C++ .... which in turn loads libstdc++.so.6 - well, now you lose, because you have the same library defining symbols with different names. The OS has sufficient information to pick the right one, but doesn't, because of the general way in which binary loading on Linux works.

For the specific case of libstdc++ this is "fixed" by using symbol versions which are basically a gross hack ... they make the risk of name collisions less likely but do not eliminate them. Except that it wasn't actually fixed, as that bug describes. This is a general problem that affects all libraries on ELF based platforms.

What information and knowledge then can you not access from a Windows or Mac OS X based computer?

You're asking the wrong question. I can't tell whether you're being disingenuous or merely stupid, but there is no point in debating this with you.

Some of the problems with proprietary software you can find here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.

Sounds like you moved straight from the ghetto into a Windows or Mac programming position, being oh-so-grateful that you could make large amounts of money writing shitty software on shitty operating systems. I suppose it's a little above dope peddling, but not much.

There is nothing in the GPL or any open source license I know of that says you get access to the hardware. The GPL says nothing about the hardware. If they weren't strictly following the GPL they can get sued. If they didn't provide a written offer to provide the source code they are in violation. I didn't read about any violations in the article. Keep in mind that just because the system uses GPL binaries doesn't mean they can't run proprietary stuff on the system. You can run proprietary code on your Linux box at home can't you?

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

Ruby and Erlang are the two I've spent the most time with so far. I like Ruby enough so far, that I've decided to write the initial
batch of install scripts for OpenQabal in Ruby.

Outside of that wish-list, I also harbor some vague hope of one day finding time to dabble with Forth, Fortran, Perl, and maybe Dylan.

Just thought this was an opportune time to reference The Right to Read

Free has two definitions. Censor has one. Weed is not information, bits that can be duplicated. This is the same argument as theft vs copyright infringement. I take your weed, you no longer have it. I copy your video, you still have your copy and now I have mine. It seems you are the one with the logically flawed argument.

So, since the mods find you so "informative" Mr. "It isn't censored," let's see you produce the missing 15 seconds of that internet video clip. Can't do it? Why not? "It's not teh censereed!!!" Come on buddy, where is it? What, you can't find it? Oh and if you could it would be illegal for you to post it? Why? Because you would need a license to do so. Wow, just like in China!

Under the new rules, video sites require a license that only state companies can obtain. That is in line with regulations that require all Chinese media to be state-owned.

Only the privileged are allowed access to the information. Just because there is a legal way for a privileged few to obtain the information doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Should your right to read be based on your ability to pay or your rank in the Chinese government? Is there really any difference? Can information that is not gratis truly be libre?

Although it is common to speak of "GNU Emacs", it has been revealed that it was intended to be "GNU/Emacs"; no, not in the same sense of GNU/Linux, but rather to speak of them being one and the same. All it is missing now is a kernel, but I'm sure something will show up to allow GNU/Emacs be a standalone operating system.

Hey, why not bundle gcc and the kernel with it :-P

You may think you are joking, but the maintainers of the FreeBSD's port of OpenOffice.org have in the past insisted on building their own version of gcc — just so that OO.o was built by the compiler they new as "good".

The asinine practice has since stopped, but the port named gcc-ooo is still here, and its description says:

GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection includes gcc, g++ for OpenOffice.org compilation This port installs the various front ends as gcc-ooo, and g++-ooo into the ${PREFIX}/bin directory. WWW: http://gcc.gnu.org/

This does not affect the users directly, but it is a major pain for integrators/porters. OO.o has a terrible habit of bundling all of the 3rd-party software packages, that it uses, into its own source tree. I'm talking about (probably missed some):

• agg
• bash
• bitstream-vera
• bsh
• bison
• boost
• curl
• db42
• dmake
• expat2
• freetype
• icu
• jpeg
• firefox (or some other Mozilla-based browser)
• libmspack
• libsndfile
• libtextcat
• libwpd
• libxslt
• neon
• nss
• nspr
• python
• sane-backends
• STLport
• unixODBC
• unzip
• vigra
• xmlsec1
• xt
• zip
• zlib

If they could, I'm certain, they would've bundled Java too, but — fortunately — Sun's license prohibits that... Now I realize, that this is done to offer "a single package" to those, who build it on their own, but nobody does. Everybody gets these from their OS' integrators. And the pain for us is enormous, because to force OO.o build to stop its silly ways is a serious undertaking. For some of the above packages there is --with-system-foo configure-flag, but not for all, and the default is to always use the bundled one, so support for the external ones bitrots quickly...

Most of the local builds don't bother and so end up wasting disk space and CPU-time rebuilding packages, which are external to OO.o. The end results are also bloated, duplicating stuff, that's already installed on the users' systems and without bug-fixes, which have already gone into each of the respective package since its most recent "bundling" into OO.o tarballs.

Download a source tarball and see for yourself... Something like: tar tjf OOo_OOG680_m9_source.tar.bz2 | grep 'z$'. No other software project does this on this scale and for good reasons — it is Just Wrong[TM]. OO.o better clean up their act in this respect...

Flash and Silverlight are fully documented, and there exists free implemenetations: Gnash and Moonlight, respectively.

Learn LISP!

It has a funny name, and carries the mystique and credibility you seek. Nothing says "way old school" and "MIT Wizard" like piles of LISP with your tag on them. Of course, you'll have to leave vim behind - there is only one, true tool for the LISPer, now that dedicated machines like Symbolics are all in the museums.

The opportunities here are boundless - there are whole categories of libraries for HTTP and HTML that simple don't exist yet! If that seems to trivial a challenge, why not look into one of the projects to write and OS in LISP?

Please take a look at our ideas list and let us know (summer-of-code@gnu.org) if you have any questions.

Please take a look at our ideas list and let us know (summer-of-code@gnu.org) if you have any questions.

Allow me to answer with a quote straight from the horse's mouth. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Basically, the "timeline" starts ticking when Verizon distributes software derived from GPLv2 source code and that distribution needs to contain the written offer to provide source. Thereafter, the recipient has the right to request the source code for up until 3 years after he initially receives the executable binaries. In theory, this allows for creative monetization schemes for earning money via F/OSS.

I hope that answers your question.

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) <not applicable to Verizon>

I use linux because the software I use: emacs, LaTeX, gcc, is unavailable on Windows, at least without hacking or using some emulator that never quite works right

• "GNU Emacs for Win32."
• "MiKTeX is an up-to-date TeX implementation for the Windows operating system."
• "MinGW: A collection of freely available and freely distributable Windows specific header files and import libraries combined with GNU toolsets that allow one to produce native Windows programs that do not rely on any 3rd-party C runtime DLLs."

also, wow, file management is a pain in the arse using a mouse

how do people manage without grep, sed and awk?

Anything else you wanted?

Google is hard:

Emacs for Win32: (http://www.google.com/search?q=emacs+win32)
Faq: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html
Download: ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/GNU/windows/emacs/ (The faq contains other links that may be faster for you)

LaTex for Win32: (http://www.google.com/search?q=latex+win32)
Faq/Download info: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/~fittond/win32latex/win32latex.html

gcc for Win32 (MinGW for this particular answer, there is cygwin and such as well): (http://www.google.com/search?q=gcc+win32)
Info: http://www.mingw.org/

command line utils for Win32: (http://www.google.com/search?q=unix+utils+win32)
http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/
Includes:
bc, bison, bzip2, diffutils, fileutils, findutils, flex, gawk, grep, gsar110, gzip, indent, jwhois, less, m4, make, patch, recode, rman, sed, shellutils, tar, textutils, unrar, wget, which

To answer your question, my windows machine does just fine when I want to use the unix utilities that I love, not real sure why yours can't, other than googling is hard.

For the record, all of the above web pages were basically the first result from google, I guess I'm feeling Lucky today.

Quite the contrary. From the GPL (version 2) item #2:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

The biggest reason that I've heard that holds any water as to why there isn't any commercial game development on Linux (or the *BSD's) is the problems with cross-platform development. Which was true once upon a time. As in, the cost to do it was quite high.

BUT, today what do we have? We got games being developed not only for the PC/XBox, but also the PS3, Wii and toned town version(s) for the PSP and/or the GBA/DS. Clearly there isn't much of a fear/cost with regards to cross-platform development any more.

My opinion as to what the next reason will be is licensing. The bulk of the useful tools on the Linux Distro's are (L)GPL'd. Now, I know that the dynamically linking to a lib that is LGPL'd is ok, but not to one that is GPL'd. Also, has anyone taken a look at (at least Ubuntu's) libc? It's LGPL'd. Anyone here want to dl LIBC? Because that'll be necessary to alleviate any legal ambiguity regarding libc's usage even if the Linux people /say/ it's fine.

Quite frankly, I see this free (as in RMS's definition) software thing as having shot itself in the foot. RMS wanted an "us" v.s. "them" thing:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

And guess what. He got it. Congratulations.

Don't play stupid, Twitter -- you damn well know I'm talking about the Linux kernel (along with other, less important, projects that are still licensed under GPLv2 without the "or later" clause -- which do exist, I'm sure). And you also damn well know that the GNU toolchain can perfectly well be used to build non-GPLv3 (and even proprietary) applications. Output isn't covered by the GPL unless the program puts it's own code into it (and Bison has an exception for that), glibc is LGPL rather than GPL, etc. Speaking of which, gnu.org's glibc manual still even lists LGPLv2 (not v3) as the license! (I realize it's the COPYING file in the actual source that matters, but I don't have current glibc source available right now and don't feel like bothering to download it to check.)

In other words, I've been around here on Slashdot long enough to know how you can be rather zealous (to put it politely) in your Free Software advocacy, and that means that I can see through your bullshit. But don't misunderstand me: I'm just as big an advocate as you are, and I understand these licensing issues at least as well as you do. I just realize that spreading FUD isn't helpful to the cause, and I look forward to the day that you realize it too.

Not all video gaming platforms run Windows, Windows Mobile, Linux, or Mac OS X. In fact, some of them have no "file system" to speak of. This means that both code and data have to be placed in the executable and linked into the same address space. As I understand the GNU General Public License, that would put the data under the GPL if any of the code is under the GPL.

Even with a file system, the GPL doesn't make clear what counts as "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". In fact, this appears to have been left vague on purpose: "Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide."

Even apart from video games, what license should be used for, say, icons used by GPL software?

That's how it starts, but that's not how it would end. Think of how much the government or any power abusing company seeking more of that would be on this like FOS. Especially if it becomes commonly manufactured. Not that this is 100%, but I wouldn't see a situation like this technology being force trickled on consumers to be completely unlikely either.

We've had it before, I believe it was called trusted computing. Boy do people love how that has turned out, if I recall correctly.

I understand that a processor blueprint is not something that people want compromised. Throwing a technical attempt to solve the problem rather than dealing with human error is just putting the blame in the wrong places and throwing stuff at the wall hoping things will stick.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Except LGPL also permits static linking, for whatever that's worth. Of course it's not what certain GPL promoters want it to mean, and really I'm sympathetic to their cause, but there are limits to what you can claim as "derived". IMHO, those limits allow a symbol table without making it a "derived work". Otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to use reverse-engineered protocols and file formats, which are a well established freedom for compatibility and interoperability.

This is all relative to the GPL 2.0 btw, I don't know the 3.0 very well. But take this comment from the FSF FAQ:

So they want to have a blurry definition depending on how extensively you use the library, and I don't think that will stand up very well.

Personally, I would put the blurry line as a matter of distribution... if you distribute your executable bundled with the GPL'd library, then you are providing a derived work. If you require end users to acquire and install the library themselves, then you are linking against a specification, and the user is free to choose the implementation. Further, any potential license violation is at the user's end, for they were the one to mix the GPL'd library with the proprietary executable. For example, OS X masquerading BSD libedit as GNU readline.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Except LGPL also permits static linking, for whatever that's worth. Of course it's not what certain GPL promoters want it to mean, and really I'm sympathetic to their cause, but there are limits to what you can claim as "derived". IMHO, those limits allow a symbol table without making it a "derived work". Otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to use reverse-engineered protocols and file formats, which are a well established freedom for compatibility and interoperability.

This is all relative to the GPL 2.0 btw, I don't know the 3.0 very well. But take this comment from the FSF FAQ:

So they want to have a blurry definition depending on how extensively you use the library, and I don't think that will stand up very well.

Personally, I would put the blurry line as a matter of distribution... if you distribute your executable bundled with the GPL'd library, then you are providing a derived work. If you require end users to acquire and install the library themselves, then you are linking against a specification, and the user is free to choose the implementation. Further, any potential license violation is at the user's end, for they were the one to mix the GPL'd library with the proprietary executable. For example, OS X masquerading BSD libedit as GNU readline.

What does "written offer valid for any third party" mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?

        If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.

        If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

        The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what? If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it. If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

If there's something they've changed in your project then purchase a copy and put the changed code in your version, since any modified GPL code must be re-distributed as GPL code.

Incorrect - please don't perpetuate the myth that the GPL 'infects' other code and causes it be relicensed as GPL against the author's will - it doesn't. And you will be violating the copyright of the infringer, which makes you no better than them.

You are sort of right: the GNU GPL does say that "any modified GPL code must be re-distributed as GPL code." But the imprecise language means you are confusing the meaing of 'must'.

In this case, the 'must' DOESN'T mean that any code that modifies the original GPL code is automatically (re)licensed under the GPL.

The 'must' means that if you don't license your modified and distributed code as required by the GPL, then you do not have re-distribution rights under the GPL license for the original code, and since you don't have any other license or basis for re-distributing the copyrighted GPL code, you are committing copyright infringement of the original GPLed code.

Solutions to this copyright violation: cease-and-desist, or pay infringement damages, or both since infringement has usually already happened. But in no case is the company REQUIRED to license its patches under the GPL - they just need to stop distributing, and probably pay damages for past distrbutions without a license.

-----

If a company violates the GPL by:

1. distributing binaries of GPL-licensed software,
2. that contain source code changes from upstream,
3. which source code the company won't make available to users to whom the company distributed the binaries,

Then:

4. the GPL simply doesn't provide any re-distribution rights that allow the company to distribute the copyrighted upstream software,
5. thus the company is in violation of the copyrights on the upstream software,
6. thus the company must:
6a. cease distributing their modified software, or
6b. pay infringement damages.

-----

Q: Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
A: The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.(emphasis added)

Q: If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?
A: No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.

If there's something they've changed in your project then purchase a copy and put the changed code in your version, since any modified GPL code must be re-distributed as GPL code.

Incorrect - please don't perpetuate the myth that the GPL 'infects' other code and causes it be relicensed as GPL against the author's will - it doesn't. And you will be violating the copyright of the infringer, which makes you no better than them.

You are sort of right: the GNU GPL does say that "any modified GPL code must be re-distributed as GPL code." But the imprecise language means you are confusing the meaing of 'must'.

In this case, the 'must' DOESN'T mean that any code that modifies the original GPL code is automatically (re)licensed under the GPL.

The 'must' means that if you don't license your modified and distributed code as required by the GPL, then you do not have re-distribution rights under the GPL license for the original code, and since you don't have any other license or basis for re-distributing the copyrighted GPL code, you are committing copyright infringement of the original GPLed code.

Solutions to this copyright violation: cease-and-desist, or pay infringement damages, or both since infringement has usually already happened. But in no case is the company REQUIRED to license its patches under the GPL - they just need to stop distributing, and probably pay damages for past distrbutions without a license.

-----

If a company violates the GPL by:

1. distributing binaries of GPL-licensed software,
2. that contain source code changes from upstream,
3. which source code the company won't make available to users to whom the company distributed the binaries,

Then:

4. the GPL simply doesn't provide any re-distribution rights that allow the company to distribute the copyrighted upstream software,
5. thus the company is in violation of the copyrights on the upstream software,
6. thus the company must:
6a. cease distributing their modified software, or
6b. pay infringement damages.

-----

Q: Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
A: The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.(emphasis added)

Q: If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?
A: No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.

He's not asking them to give him anything, he's asking them to comply with the GPL which states software that imbeds GPL code must also be released under the GPL. That is the essence of the GPL. The GPL was designed to fork. GPL software can be sold. It just can't be re-distributed under a different license.

"So what's all this then?"

Well, that link says they're running OpenNMS 1.0.2, which, given the questions Cittio employees have asked on the OpenNMS mailing lists in the past, seems very unlikely (although technically possible). If they *are* using 1.0.2, they very likely *have* made modifications, 'cause that code has plenty of bugs that have been fixed in later OpenNMS releases. ;)

One thing that Tarus didn't really mention is that we (The OpenNMS Group) have had a few folks come to us wanting quotes to compare us to Cittio, and they've been rather surprised that Cittio is in fact already using OpenNMS under the covers. The problem is not with them using OpenNMS, OpenNMS is all about sticking not only to the letter but also the spirit of the GPL, and they can do whatever they want with it as long as they're complying with the distribution requirements of the license. The problem is whether Cittio *is* upholding their side of the GPL, and it's unclear whether they are -- and there are some signs that they might not be.

As for them not having to offer the source until they distribute the software, yes, that's true, but from what we've heard from existing Cittio customers, that is not being made clear to them. Not only that, but while the wording of the GPL may not make it obvious, the FAQ does:

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

It seems likely that they've incorporated OpenNMS into their software at a lower-level than just screen-scraping it's output and stuffing it into their own UI. At that point, they should be prepared to provide the modified OpenNMS source to their customers. Not only that, but considering how tough companies are on open-source developers accidentally "tainting" open-source code with IP from their closed-source employers, it's more than a tad annoying that many closed-source companies taking advantage of open-source software are happy to use it, but ignore the spirit of sharing that is part of being in the community. "We won't say anything, but if you do ask us for the source, we'll fax it to you." ;)

Again, all this is unproven, and that's part of the reason Tarus posted, the question is -- what's the next step?

• Octave
  
• Scilab
  
• SAGE
  

• The user is in complete control of this list. Otherwise it turns into trusted computing which has it's own (arguably scarier) problems.
• The user doesn't click 'Ok' to every application that asks to run. Again, the user is the weakest link.