Slashdot Mirror

In the mean time, there's one case where it is acceptable to run a nonfree JavaScript program: to send a complaint to the website operators saying they should free or remove the JavaScript code in the site. Please don't hesitate to enable JavaScript temporarily to do that -- but remember to disable it again afterwards.

From TFA:

Unfortunately, once again, the Copyright Office requires the use of proprietary JavaScript in order to submit the comment and they are only accepting comments online unless a person lacks computer or Internet access. However, we mailed a copy via the post and we are posting it publicly in the hopes that they will read it and understand that their infrastructure is so broken that we cannot even tell them that it is broken. At this time, we have received no response from the Copyright Office, and once again our comment has not been published.

So it's acceptable, but by God they're not going to do it, and it's the Copyright Office's fault that it won't bend over to accommodate the FSF's narcissistic choice.

HTML is considered a cultural work, not computer program. Free Software Foundation is not as adamant about cultural works being free as it is about computer programs and their manuals being free. For example, its own license list recommends publication of opinion works under CC BY-ND, a license that is non-free because it prohibits derivative works.

It's a client-side application written in JavaScript using your web browser's scripting engine. But though the scripting engine in IceCat/Firefox and Chromium is free, the client-side application running inside that engine is proprietary, and the LibreJS extension blocks it from running because it is proprietary.

What on Earth is the chance of encountering a ship on the high seas that carries scientific papers?
And then you go ahead and brutally rob the owners of said papers?
I'm sorry but this sounds like pure fantasy, at least in the 21st century. Unless the author fell prey to decades of propaganda and actually meant to refer to copyright infringement.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

US Supreme Court rules that copyright infringement does not easily equate to theft:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

Stop perpetuating propaganda.

Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea.
We should not tolerate marine thuggery.

Copyright infringement, however, can't be easily equated to piracy or theft.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

I AM NOT ARGUING FOR BACKDOORS, I AM ARGUING FOR THE USE OF A WARRANT

A warrant to go use the backdoor. ...Unless I'm REALLY mis-reading your statements. That backdoor doesn't exist yet you know. Yes, they can essentially go snoop on a LOT of information about you, sans any real warrant, (Legally, they still need a warrant, but I think we both know that's been worked around).

BUT. Hard encryption is still beyond their power to break. They can't do it on any meaningful scale. Now, if they had Osama Bin Laden's hard drive and he wasn't an idiot, then they might fire up some serious server farms and try and take a crack at it.

If you're arguing that the FBI and CIA and the rest start getting warrants before snooping on people, GREAT. It's a really good idea.

But what do you think those "third party keys" go to?

a controllable munition, where they simply control distribution. That won't stop you from using it, but it only be useable to a few (as great as it is). Tell me how PGP will protect your voicemail and GPS position that tracks your position constantly when there are no authorizations needed to collect it?

PGP is not a controllable munition. It's an idea. If there's ever ONE copy of it anywhere, everyone can get it. It's NOT controllable. The NSA, for all their power, can't remove things once it's been released to the Internet. It's the wild. Untamable.

how PGP will protect your voicemail

Well, if you really want to be secure: Call using VoiP, something like GNU SIP Witch. Which uses libgcrypt, which was built off of GPG if I remember correctly.

If you don't care about the call in transit, secure voicemail is a pretty common thing for people who have to deal with HIPPA. It essentially takes the call and stores it in an encrypted format. (Which you could do with GPG if you really wanted to, you just have to have some telephony set up to download voicemails as files)

and GPS position that tracks your position constantly

What tracks you? If you're walking around with an iPhone, then you kinda get what you deserve. I mean, no one is forcing you to do that. GPS doesn't just magically bounce off you and into NSA's collectors. Go pick up open Android if your paranoid.

Right, so how do you encrypt a call to someone who does not know how to use encryption when it is illegal to teach them how to use it?

It's NOT illegal to teach them. (Wait, US law, right? wtf kind of dystopia do you live in?) You teach them how to set up VoiP and enjoy hard encryption. You know, if they want. You're not going to be able to get everyone to do it. You won't even be able to get most of them to CARE. But the people who DO need to have security and privacy, like my senator, my boss, my HR, my lawyer, and my accountant most certainly need to have access to real, true, non-fucked HARD encryption.

How does that help people who don't know how to compile software.

Plenty of companies repackage these tools to sell to clueless suits. Unless they worm their own servers into the process or do something stupid and roll their own, then it's just as secure. Netflix is the best example of a company taking what was previously only available to the uber-race and repackaging it for the masses. But most people simply don't care about encryption, so you're probably not going to get ludicrously rich. Still, there's big business here.

Ok, you're clueless. And you think everyone else is as well. Are you thinking of anyone else except yourself?

Yeah like true real editor ED!

That's why we have --gnu-style-long options ;)

http://www.gnu.org/prep/standa...

Also, nobody is "emulating" those commands. They're simply implementing the interfaces, among other available interfaces.

What is really liberating is to keep the manual open when deciding which options to use, so you can quickly and easily get exactly the behavior you want.

The real problem is nonfree software—software which denies its users the freedoms of free software—which is also appropriately called user subjugating, proprietary software—not nationalism. There are plenty of software distributors in other countries that mistreat their users by distributing proprietary software. All proprietary software is inherently untrustworthy because proprietary software doesn't grant its users software freedom. Some distributors distribute proprietary software precisely because they know they stand a good chance of getting away with malware (including digital restrictions, spyware, ransomware, and backdoors).

Firstly, thank you immensely for the positive changes recently instated to revive this noble community of intellectual exchange from a critical state. I am excited to see where things progress, but I feel compelled to bring up a related series of egregious architectual faults with the site design.

I speak of nonlibre Javascript software embedded into every page, a good deal of which is not even hosted on your own domain.

Slashdot unfortunately falls prey to the very same ills that plague nearly every modern website these days: a deep level of user tracking outsourced to thirdparty corporations. This is for any reason unethical, be it for financial gain or otherwise. That it happens on a technology enthusiast site with such a large quantity of intellectual commentary on the systemic ethical quandries inherent in mass surveillance is a tragic irony.

Using the GNU LibreJS extension for Firefox-based browsers to prevent falling into the Javascript trap is an eyeopener. This page alone currently has 79 unique pieces of Javascript code that is detected and blocked by LibreJS. Javascript can be an ethical way to extend website functionality only under the following conditions:

0) All Javascript code must be Free/Libre Software. 'AGPLv3 or later' preferred.

1) Javascript must NEVER be loaded from a server not under the site administrator's direct control.

2) Javascript code must not be doing something unethical, like user tracking without consent.

3) All pages must retain core functionality when Javascript is disabled.

Please respect these rules, as running software on our machines as a website administrator puts you in a very powerful position. That most site admins abuse this position of power through either malicious intent or neglect is why many of us choose to disable Javascript entirely. Right now none of these points are being met, so Slashdot has a lot of work to do to ethically implement Javascript functionality into the site. It is quite depressing that 2) even needs to be mentioned, but Google Analytics code is embedded directly into all Slashdot pages that allows 3rdparty tracking even for users who arent logged in.

As for point 0), you can follow the instructions here for an effective way to license all Javascripts code under a GPL-compatible license.

As for 1), there is no excuse for executing code on all of your users' machines that you are not even in control of. On this page alone, Javascript files are attempted to be loaded from googleadservices.com, cdn-social.janrain.com, cdn.taboola.com, s.ntv.io, googletagservices.com, google-analytics.com and rpxnow.com. Stop this immediately. And stop hosting images from thirdparty servers, as they can contain malicious exploits as well. This page loads images from gstatic.com, doubleclick.net, amazonaws.com, & scorecardresearch.com.

It displays an ineptitude in website administration on an embarassing level if admins cannot create and host all of the images, code, and css on their own website. Even advertisements, if they must exist, should be selfhosted (although accepting subscriptions & donations would be a great alternative!).

For point 3), we should at the very least be able to change our comment viewing threshold without logging in, post a comment as AC, and create accounts & login without Javascript. Please test the website with GNU LibreJS, NoScript, and uMatrix browser extentions to ensure functionality. This site has enough techsavy users who care and use some (or all) of these extensions. Please do not make our lives hardware to participate in making this community better.

And fina

Firstly, thank you immensely for the positive changes recently instated to revive this noble community of intellectual exchange from a critical state. I am excited to see where things progress, but I feel compelled to bring up a related series of egregious architectual faults with the site design.

I speak of nonlibre Javascript software embedded into every page, a good deal of which is not even hosted on your own domain.

Slashdot unfortunately falls prey to the very same ills that plague nearly every modern website these days: a deep level of user tracking outsourced to thirdparty corporations. This is for any reason unethical, be it for financial gain or otherwise. That it happens on a technology enthusiast site with such a large quantity of intellectual commentary on the systemic ethical quandries inherent in mass surveillance is a tragic irony.

Using the GNU LibreJS extension for Firefox-based browsers to prevent falling into the Javascript trap is an eyeopener. This page alone currently has 79 unique pieces of Javascript code that is detected and blocked by LibreJS. Javascript can be an ethical way to extend website functionality only under the following conditions:

0) All Javascript code must be Free/Libre Software. 'AGPLv3 or later' preferred.

1) Javascript must NEVER be loaded from a server not under the site administrator's direct control.

2) Javascript code must not be doing something unethical, like user tracking without consent.

3) All pages must retain core functionality when Javascript is disabled.

Please respect these rules, as running software on our machines as a website administrator puts you in a very powerful position. That most site admins abuse this position of power through either malicious intent or neglect is why many of us choose to disable Javascript entirely. Right now none of these points are being met, so Slashdot has a lot of work to do to ethically implement Javascript functionality into the site. It is quite depressing that 2) even needs to be mentioned, but Google Analytics code is embedded directly into all Slashdot pages that allows 3rdparty tracking even for users who arent logged in.

As for point 0), you can follow the instructions here for an effective way to license all Javascripts code under a GPL-compatible license.

As for 1), there is no excuse for executing code on all of your users' machines that you are not even in control of. On this page alone, Javascript files are attempted to be loaded from googleadservices.com, cdn-social.janrain.com, cdn.taboola.com, s.ntv.io, googletagservices.com, google-analytics.com and rpxnow.com. Stop this immediately. And stop hosting images from thirdparty servers, as they can contain malicious exploits as well. This page loads images from gstatic.com, doubleclick.net, amazonaws.com, & scorecardresearch.com.

It displays an ineptitude in website administration on an embarassing level if admins cannot create and host all of the images, code, and css on their own website. Even advertisements, if they must exist, should be selfhosted (although accepting subscriptions & donations would be a great alternative!).

For point 3), we should at the very least be able to change our comment viewing threshold without logging in, post a comment as AC, and create accounts & login without Javascript. Please test the website with GNU LibreJS, NoScript, and uMatrix browser extentions to ensure functionality. This site has enough techsavy users who care and use some (or all) of these extensions. Please do not make our lives hardware to participate in making this community better.

And fina

Firstly, thank you immensely for the positive changes recently instated to revive this noble community of intellectual exchange from a critical state. I am excited to see where things progress, but I feel compelled to bring up a related series of egregious architectual faults with the site design.

I speak of nonlibre Javascript software embedded into every page, a good deal of which is not even hosted on your own domain.

Slashdot unfortunately falls prey to the very same ills that plague nearly every modern website these days: a deep level of user tracking outsourced to thirdparty corporations. This is for any reason unethical, be it for financial gain or otherwise. That it happens on a technology enthusiast site with such a large quantity of intellectual commentary on the systemic ethical quandries inherent in mass surveillance is a tragic irony.

Using the GNU LibreJS extension for Firefox-based browsers to prevent falling into the Javascript trap is an eyeopener. This page alone currently has 79 unique pieces of Javascript code that is detected and blocked by LibreJS. Javascript can be an ethical way to extend website functionality only under the following conditions:

0) All Javascript code must be Free/Libre Software. 'AGPLv3 or later' preferred.

1) Javascript must NEVER be loaded from a server not under the site administrator's direct control.

2) Javascript code must not be doing something unethical, like user tracking without consent.

3) All pages must retain core functionality when Javascript is disabled.

Please respect these rules, as running software on our machines as a website administrator puts you in a very powerful position. That most site admins abuse this position of power through either malicious intent or neglect is why many of us choose to disable Javascript entirely. Right now none of these points are being met, so Slashdot has a lot of work to do to ethically implement Javascript functionality into the site. It is quite depressing that 2) even needs to be mentioned, but Google Analytics code is embedded directly into all Slashdot pages that allows 3rdparty tracking even for users who arent logged in.

As for point 0), you can follow the instructions here for an effective way to license all Javascripts code under a GPL-compatible license.

As for 1), there is no excuse for executing code on all of your users' machines that you are not even in control of. On this page alone, Javascript files are attempted to be loaded from googleadservices.com, cdn-social.janrain.com, cdn.taboola.com, s.ntv.io, googletagservices.com, google-analytics.com and rpxnow.com. Stop this immediately. And stop hosting images from thirdparty servers, as they can contain malicious exploits as well. This page loads images from gstatic.com, doubleclick.net, amazonaws.com, & scorecardresearch.com.

It displays an ineptitude in website administration on an embarassing level if admins cannot create and host all of the images, code, and css on their own website. Even advertisements, if they must exist, should be selfhosted (although accepting subscriptions & donations would be a great alternative!).

For point 3), we should at the very least be able to change our comment viewing threshold without logging in, post a comment as AC, and create accounts & login without Javascript. Please test the website with GNU LibreJS, NoScript, and uMatrix browser extentions to ensure functionality. This site has enough techsavy users who care and use some (or all) of these extensions. Please do not make our lives hardware to participate in making this community better.

And fina

No, that is not the problem.
That is your problem.

No, it a general problem, because writing POSIX compliant code should work properly on anything that has a Unix certification that references a specific POSIX standard for a requirement of compliance.

As long as an OS behaves like Unix for all people who actually use that OS: it is Unix.

I'd argue that's Unix-like if it 'behaves like', but "is not Unix".

If you want to argue from a POSIX C programmer point of view, you should have made that ten posts earlier clear.

fork() is fork(). If fork() is broken, it doesn't matter if I am a programmer or a user at that point. If I am using something that expects to meet Unix certifications that include POSIX standards that require this, it's going to be broken.

Sorry, we hear your screems, but we are only Users!

I'm a user.

For that we have a standard C linrary ... no idea why you don't use it.

fork() is mapped into the GNU standard C library (and many other Unix standard c libraries, including the one provided by installing xcode)... It's not particularly any more low level than using the C library?

By the way, I have Python scripts that use Python's natively provided fork function too. It's not even strictly used by low-level languages only.

The fact I spent enough time debugging the issue to identify the problem wasn't even the C library at fault doesn't make me stop being a user.

Mac OS X is based in FreeBSD

No... Mac OS X is based on a Mach micro kernel that has been extensively modified to become a hybrid kernel, there is a BSD subsystem that runs under the kernel to map Mach tasks, security policies and provide POSIX compatible APIs to the userland (this is pretty identical to how the Windows POSIX subsystem works) and then there are some BSD userland utilities that are linked against Apple's libc.

and as far as I can tell: this is Unix, too.

FreeBSD interestingly doesn't have the issues OS X does.

POSIX is by no means a definition for being Unix, or Windows NT and laters would ne Unix, too.

Unless Unix certification that allows you to call your product 'Unix' explicitly mentions which POSIX standards should be implemented, and in this case, the particular referenced POSIX standard mentions fork() behavior.

I respect you angel'o'sphere, but I genuinely do not agree OS X can be called a genuine Unix system if it doesn't meet the certification requirements (even if it holds one by passing a few select tests). I can turn a blind eye to a specific version, or a one off bug. But, I haven't even scratched the surface with issues. I only chose fork() because it's one of the simplest to explain, there are other issues I've seen with pthreads, unix sockets etc. It's a mess, I can call it Unix-like, but certainly not Unix.

Check for yourself. Straight from the horse's (or gnu's, if you so prefer) mouth: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li.... See there Apache, Artistic 2.0, several BSDs, CECiLL, and lots of others you never heard about listed under free.

Please, research your stuff before spouting out.

The GNU people don't recognize anything as 'free' if it's not licensed under GPL.

Objectively false.

No. Let copyright exist for those who want it. Instead start using and promoting Free Software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
http://askubuntu.com/questions...

No. Let copyright exist for those who want it. Instead start using and promoting Free Software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
http://askubuntu.com/questions...

The IP holder does not want the content to go out. Why should they not do with what is theirs?

First, why say "intellectual property" instead of "copyright"? The term "intellectual property" lumps together copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity. These areas of law have different origins, different scopes, and different reasons for existing. Conflating them just confuses readers.

Second, Konami's IP is 133.221.216.6. When you abbreviate "intellectual property" to "IP", you're making restrictions associated with copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity sound as natural as the use of Internet Protocol.

Third, what purpose does legal recognition of copyright serve? In the U.S. legal framework, copyright theoretically exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8). I fail to see how dog-in-the-manger tactics promote any progress.

All that just shows how insane the current duration is. Go back to a copyright of 14 years (or less) and this would not even come up.

And the difference between the copyright term and the patent term just shows how insane the term "intellectual property" is. If exclusive rights under one area of law expire 20 years after application, and exclusive rights under another area of law expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, how can "intellectual property" be considered a cohesive field of law?

Ultimately, the rationale for the present copyright term is the life of those heirs who knew the author personally. But the entertainment industry is willing to budge on neither the scope nor the duration.

People ought to own the cars they buy including the software in the cars. The published software should have been published as free software in the first place. Stop making excuses against customers stuck with proprietary software. It was Tesla's choice to put that information into the software, but there are more important issues than future products at stake here: It's only a matter of time until we learn of more ripoffs ala VW's recent gaming the environmental reviews. The thing that ties these issues together is that proprietary software makes it all of a piece.

Then you haven't listened to his copyright talks or read any of his articles and stories, so you're really not trying and then get away with flaunting your ignorance of what he says. So I'll point you to some: Copyright vs. The Public talk given at Bern on 2010-02-11 (I imagine a copy of this will show up on https://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/ soon alongside recordings of a lot of his other talks), Reasons not to do business with Amazon, The Danger of E-Books, and his dystopic short story The Right to Read which presciently describes the kinds of anti-reader controls common in proprietary e-books. Your Baen library is not the norm; Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other DRM-laden e-books are sadly the norm. One should address how most readers read e-books to provide an adequate response, not cite the unusual exceptions that respect a reader's privacy and ownership of a copy of the e-book.

As to what you call "childishness", I refer you to "Why Call it the Swindle? because that entire essay addresses your point. Regarding lending, you and another followup poster both missed the point—lending should not require an intermediary, break a reader's privacy, nor set terms on the loan. There's no technical reason why an e-book lending should have one reader reveal to a third party which e-books they are lending to another reader, nor revealing the identities of either side of the loan. And you give away how you miss the point where you try to criticize by saying "even if it is for a lowly 14 days"—if it were really the reader's e-book (like it is with books), the reader/e-book owner should set the terms of the loan for their e-book including the loan period. Giving any intermediary power means tracking and restricting to whom one may lend their e-books, a significant downgrade from books and totally technically unnecessary to boot. These needless restrictions and many others are more than ample reason for renaming Amazon's "Kindle" into Swindle, or pointing out how the Kindle burns your freedoms as well as highlighting that digital restrictions management is anti-reader.

Finally, your use of the word "marketplace" suggests you value market success more than human freedom and people behaving ethically. That's a dangerous value system; I'll point you to the GNU project's commentary on the word "Market" since it's applicable here too, particularly that all DRM schemes are implemented with non-free, user-subjugating, proprietary software.

Then you haven't listened to his copyright talks or read any of his articles and stories, so you're really not trying and then get away with flaunting your ignorance of what he says. So I'll point you to some: Copyright vs. The Public talk given at Bern on 2010-02-11 (I imagine a copy of this will show up on https://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/ soon alongside recordings of a lot of his other talks), Reasons not to do business with Amazon, The Danger of E-Books, and his dystopic short story The Right to Read which presciently describes the kinds of anti-reader controls common in proprietary e-books. Your Baen library is not the norm; Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other DRM-laden e-books are sadly the norm. One should address how most readers read e-books to provide an adequate response, not cite the unusual exceptions that respect a reader's privacy and ownership of a copy of the e-book.

As to what you call "childishness", I refer you to "Why Call it the Swindle? because that entire essay addresses your point. Regarding lending, you and another followup poster both missed the point—lending should not require an intermediary, break a reader's privacy, nor set terms on the loan. There's no technical reason why an e-book lending should have one reader reveal to a third party which e-books they are lending to another reader, nor revealing the identities of either side of the loan. And you give away how you miss the point where you try to criticize by saying "even if it is for a lowly 14 days"—if it were really the reader's e-book (like it is with books), the reader/e-book owner should set the terms of the loan for their e-book including the loan period. Giving any intermediary power means tracking and restricting to whom one may lend their e-books, a significant downgrade from books and totally technically unnecessary to boot. These needless restrictions and many others are more than ample reason for renaming Amazon's "Kindle" into Swindle, or pointing out how the Kindle burns your freedoms as well as highlighting that digital restrictions management is anti-reader.

Finally, your use of the word "marketplace" suggests you value market success more than human freedom and people behaving ethically. That's a dangerous value system; I'll point you to the GNU project's commentary on the word "Market" since it's applicable here too, particularly that all DRM schemes are implemented with non-free, user-subjugating, proprietary software.

Then you haven't listened to his copyright talks or read any of his articles and stories, so you're really not trying and then get away with flaunting your ignorance of what he says. So I'll point you to some: Copyright vs. The Public talk given at Bern on 2010-02-11 (I imagine a copy of this will show up on https://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/ soon alongside recordings of a lot of his other talks), Reasons not to do business with Amazon, The Danger of E-Books, and his dystopic short story The Right to Read which presciently describes the kinds of anti-reader controls common in proprietary e-books. Your Baen library is not the norm; Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other DRM-laden e-books are sadly the norm. One should address how most readers read e-books to provide an adequate response, not cite the unusual exceptions that respect a reader's privacy and ownership of a copy of the e-book.

As to what you call "childishness", I refer you to "Why Call it the Swindle? because that entire essay addresses your point. Regarding lending, you and another followup poster both missed the point—lending should not require an intermediary, break a reader's privacy, nor set terms on the loan. There's no technical reason why an e-book lending should have one reader reveal to a third party which e-books they are lending to another reader, nor revealing the identities of either side of the loan. And you give away how you miss the point where you try to criticize by saying "even if it is for a lowly 14 days"—if it were really the reader's e-book (like it is with books), the reader/e-book owner should set the terms of the loan for their e-book including the loan period. Giving any intermediary power means tracking and restricting to whom one may lend their e-books, a significant downgrade from books and totally technically unnecessary to boot. These needless restrictions and many others are more than ample reason for renaming Amazon's "Kindle" into Swindle, or pointing out how the Kindle burns your freedoms as well as highlighting that digital restrictions management is anti-reader.

Finally, your use of the word "marketplace" suggests you value market success more than human freedom and people behaving ethically. That's a dangerous value system; I'll point you to the GNU project's commentary on the word "Market" since it's applicable here too, particularly that all DRM schemes are implemented with non-free, user-subjugating, proprietary software.

Then you haven't listened to his copyright talks or read any of his articles and stories, so you're really not trying and then get away with flaunting your ignorance of what he says. So I'll point you to some: Copyright vs. The Public talk given at Bern on 2010-02-11 (I imagine a copy of this will show up on https://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/ soon alongside recordings of a lot of his other talks), Reasons not to do business with Amazon, The Danger of E-Books, and his dystopic short story The Right to Read which presciently describes the kinds of anti-reader controls common in proprietary e-books. Your Baen library is not the norm; Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other DRM-laden e-books are sadly the norm. One should address how most readers read e-books to provide an adequate response, not cite the unusual exceptions that respect a reader's privacy and ownership of a copy of the e-book.

As to what you call "childishness", I refer you to "Why Call it the Swindle? because that entire essay addresses your point. Regarding lending, you and another followup poster both missed the point—lending should not require an intermediary, break a reader's privacy, nor set terms on the loan. There's no technical reason why an e-book lending should have one reader reveal to a third party which e-books they are lending to another reader, nor revealing the identities of either side of the loan. And you give away how you miss the point where you try to criticize by saying "even if it is for a lowly 14 days"—if it were really the reader's e-book (like it is with books), the reader/e-book owner should set the terms of the loan for their e-book including the loan period. Giving any intermediary power means tracking and restricting to whom one may lend their e-books, a significant downgrade from books and totally technically unnecessary to boot. These needless restrictions and many others are more than ample reason for renaming Amazon's "Kindle" into Swindle, or pointing out how the Kindle burns your freedoms as well as highlighting that digital restrictions management is anti-reader.

Finally, your use of the word "marketplace" suggests you value market success more than human freedom and people behaving ethically. That's a dangerous value system; I'll point you to the GNU project's commentary on the word "Market" since it's applicable here too, particularly that all DRM schemes are implemented with non-free, user-subjugating, proprietary software.

Then you haven't listened to his copyright talks or read any of his articles and stories, so you're really not trying and then get away with flaunting your ignorance of what he says. So I'll point you to some: Copyright vs. The Public talk given at Bern on 2010-02-11 (I imagine a copy of this will show up on https://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/ soon alongside recordings of a lot of his other talks), Reasons not to do business with Amazon, The Danger of E-Books, and his dystopic short story The Right to Read which presciently describes the kinds of anti-reader controls common in proprietary e-books. Your Baen library is not the norm; Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other DRM-laden e-books are sadly the norm. One should address how most readers read e-books to provide an adequate response, not cite the unusual exceptions that respect a reader's privacy and ownership of a copy of the e-book.

As to what you call "childishness", I refer you to "Why Call it the Swindle? because that entire essay addresses your point. Regarding lending, you and another followup poster both missed the point—lending should not require an intermediary, break a reader's privacy, nor set terms on the loan. There's no technical reason why an e-book lending should have one reader reveal to a third party which e-books they are lending to another reader, nor revealing the identities of either side of the loan. And you give away how you miss the point where you try to criticize by saying "even if it is for a lowly 14 days"—if it were really the reader's e-book (like it is with books), the reader/e-book owner should set the terms of the loan for their e-book including the loan period. Giving any intermediary power means tracking and restricting to whom one may lend their e-books, a significant downgrade from books and totally technically unnecessary to boot. These needless restrictions and many others are more than ample reason for renaming Amazon's "Kindle" into Swindle, or pointing out how the Kindle burns your freedoms as well as highlighting that digital restrictions management is anti-reader.

Finally, your use of the word "marketplace" suggests you value market success more than human freedom and people behaving ethically. That's a dangerous value system; I'll point you to the GNU project's commentary on the word "Market" since it's applicable here too, particularly that all DRM schemes are implemented with non-free, user-subjugating, proprietary software.

Yes, Windows is a non-free operating system as it always was. What inconveniences its proprietor puts in a user's way is up to the proprietor as it always was. You're right to point out free software options, and thanks for doing that! But Windows, Chrome OS, MacOS, GNU/Linux, and some BSD variant are not equivalent alternatives to each other on the grounds of giving users freedom from proprietary oppression. You might as well add the Amazon Swindle to that list too, for all the freedom to read that device gives its users. The details of the lack of freedom differ but it's precisely the same in so far as revealing who has the upper hand. There are variants of GNU/Linux which allow the user to run, inspect, share, and modify the entire OS and recommend only free software be installed on top of that OS.

Just because the proprietor chooses to put malware like hassles, spying functionality, and other things users hate into this variant of Windows doesn't mean another variant is any better. Windows 7 shouldn't get a pass because Windows 10 is too much of a pain to use or becomes untrustworthy. Apple, Google, and Amazon's software aren't on the user's side because those companies are not Microsoft. For all we know these systems have malware working secretly in ways that aren't so obvious. Perhaps a malware mechanism is not so easily identified by locking out so-called "preferences" (they're not really preferences if the user can't really choose how the program works). It's easy for a proprietor to spy on, rat out, and disrupt the user while giving the user the illusion they're in control via configuration choices. What Microsoft has done here with Windows 10 is a matter of degree not of substance.

This is the power of a proprietor at work. The only thing that differs is how much that power is revealed to the user of the proprietary software.

So whether a nonfree OS does this kind of thing now or later doesn't really matter because in all cases the proprietor had the upper hand before, has the upper hand now, and will keep the upper hand for as long as that software is nonfree. All that changes are the details and the revelation to those who look into some of these details.

Nonfree software does not respect your privacy or your work. It doesn't matter who the proprietor is, what OS they're trying to get you to accept, or whether the preferences give users the flexibility users want. This is why Richard Stallman calls proprietary software users "useds".

Yes, Windows is a non-free operating system as it always was. What inconveniences its proprietor puts in a user's way is up to the proprietor as it always was. You're right to point out free software options, and thanks for doing that! But Windows, Chrome OS, MacOS, GNU/Linux, and some BSD variant are not equivalent alternatives to each other on the grounds of giving users freedom from proprietary oppression. You might as well add the Amazon Swindle to that list too, for all the freedom to read that device gives its users. The details of the lack of freedom differ but it's precisely the same in so far as revealing who has the upper hand. There are variants of GNU/Linux which allow the user to run, inspect, share, and modify the entire OS and recommend only free software be installed on top of that OS.

Just because the proprietor chooses to put malware like hassles, spying functionality, and other things users hate into this variant of Windows doesn't mean another variant is any better. Windows 7 shouldn't get a pass because Windows 10 is too much of a pain to use or becomes untrustworthy. Apple, Google, and Amazon's software aren't on the user's side because those companies are not Microsoft. For all we know these systems have malware working secretly in ways that aren't so obvious. Perhaps a malware mechanism is not so easily identified by locking out so-called "preferences" (they're not really preferences if the user can't really choose how the program works). It's easy for a proprietor to spy on, rat out, and disrupt the user while giving the user the illusion they're in control via configuration choices. What Microsoft has done here with Windows 10 is a matter of degree not of substance.

This is the power of a proprietor at work. The only thing that differs is how much that power is revealed to the user of the proprietary software.

So whether a nonfree OS does this kind of thing now or later doesn't really matter because in all cases the proprietor had the upper hand before, has the upper hand now, and will keep the upper hand for as long as that software is nonfree. All that changes are the details and the revelation to those who look into some of these details.

Nonfree software does not respect your privacy or your work. It doesn't matter who the proprietor is, what OS they're trying to get you to accept, or whether the preferences give users the flexibility users want. This is why Richard Stallman calls proprietary software users "useds".

This is reminiscent of Microsoft FUD from the 90s. If you find GPL code valuable and want to use it, don't begrudge giving your changes back. That covers about 90% of the cases. If you're out combining multiple pieces of different software, you have to be aware of the license terms. There are lawyers who specialize in this and even entire software products dedicated to it. But the problem isn't a function of any particular license it's a function of having disparate licenses. The FSF has actually gone to great lengths to make this easy. The way I handle this is I look at the list of GPL-compatible free software licenses at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li... and only accept code with licenses on the list.

With the GCC runtime exception I seriously doubt anything in zfs.ko has to be GPL as compiled. The only way the argument works is if a kernel object (ko) is considered part of the kernel vs being a shared library. In the "kernel" case, SFC is right. In the shared library case, Canonical is right. I personally agree with Canonical - if it looks like a duck and it flies like a duck, it's a duck.Kernel objects look and behave exactly like shared libraries in that the kernel doesn't need them to function, only to extend functionality, which is exactly what a shared library does.

TFI says: "The FSF, stewards of the GPL, have stated many times over the past decades that they believe there is no legal distinction between dynamic and static linking of a C program and we agree. Accordingly, the analysis is quite obvious to us: if ZFS were statically linked with Linux and shipped as a single work, few would argue it was not a “work based on the Program” under GPLv2." And that's where it all falls apart. How do we know that it's not a "mere aggregation". See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp... which argues that determining whether a separate module is a covered work is actually a tricky question requiring some thought and analysis.

There are undocumented gzip command line switches (-m, -M) that control embedding timestamps in gzip archives. They're not mentioned in the man page or --help output, but you can see them in the source here (line 344): http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gzip.git/tree/gzip.c

#ifdef UNDOCUMENTED
" -m, --no-time do not save or restore the original modification time",
" -M, --time save or restore the original modification time",
#endif

I learned about this because I had to ensure consistent hash values of build artifacts for regulatory reasons and I believe it is a misfeature. For me the Principle of Least Surprise would have gzip produce this exact same output given the same input, by default. As it is you get a slightly different output each time you compress the same set of bits, and that is entirely down to this timestamp. I think the fact that switches to achieve that behavior exist yet are undocumented belies some conflict about this.

First off, the proper term is GNU/Linux; you're not just being advised to run only the Linux kernel.

You are using gnu.org as a reference for calling Linux GNU/Linux. How about using a neutral source?

The proper term is to use the name the particular distribution. Very few only runs GNU/Linux so it is just as wrong as just calling it Linux.
If you run Debian you call it Debian, if you run Ubuntu you call it Ubuntu.
If you mean a Linux based system you say Linux based. You don't say Busybox/Linux. (But for some damn reason there always shows up this dude that insists that you should say GNU/Linux when you call a Busybox/Linux for just Linux.)

First off, the proper term is GNU/Linux; you're not just being advised to run only the Linux kernel. If the people advising you know what they're talking about, they should be advising you to run a completely free OS -- a free kernel (such as GNU Linux-libre) and free software on top of that. The more free software you can get on your system, the more you can put yourself in control of your computing. And this terminology difference is also apropos because this issue comes down to the very issue being raised in that term "GNU/Linux", namely software freedom -- the developers of the GNU system want to share in the credit so as to remind people to demand software freedom.

A class-action suit won't help Microsoft Windows users if those users accepted terms to allow the proprietor to do this to your computers.

But the heart of the issue remains: it's your computer, you should be allowed to run the software you want with it, and make sure that that software does only what you want. So what you want is software freedom. Not user subjugation to someone else's authority unvetted by you on a level that's as detailed or as abstract as you wish. You can't have that kind of control with nonfree, user subjugating, proprietary software no matter who the proprietor is. No amount of believing otherwise, adding more nonfree software, or changing configuration parameters on nonfree software (such as setting registry values this way or that way) will give you software freedom.

The parent is probably referring to the fact that CDDL is NOT compatible with the GPL.

https://lists.debian.org/debia...

Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and JÃrg Schilling
released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license.
The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL. The FSF itself says that this
is the case as do people who helped draft the CDDL. One current and
one former Sun employee visited the annual Debian conference in Mexico
in 2006. Danese Cooper clearly stated there that the CDDL was
intentionally modelled on the MPL in order to make it GPL-
incompatible. For everyone who wants to hear this first-hand, we have
video from that talk available at [2].

You can read the FSF position about the CDDL at [3]. The thread behind
[4] contains statements on the issue made by Debian people; for more
context also see the other mails in that thread.
In short - the CDDL has extra restrictions, which the GPL does not
allow. JÃrg has a different opinion about this and has repeatedly
stated that the CDDL is not incompatible, interpreting a facial
expression in the above-mentioned video, calling us liars and generally
appearing unwilling to consider our concerns (he never replied to the
parts where we explained why it is incompatible). As he has basically
ignored what we have said, we have no choice but to fork. While the CDDL
*may* be a free license, we never questioned if it is free or not, as it
is not our place to decide this as the Debian cdrtools
maintainers. However, having been approved by OSI doesn't mean it's ok
for any usage, as JÃrg unfortunately seems to assume. There are several
OSI-approved licenses that are GPL-incompatible and CDDL is one of
them. That is and always was our point.

[1] http://www.opensource.org/lice...
[2] http://meetings-archive.debian...
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li...
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian...

Is Pale Moon fixed? I don't see any mention of that.

We switched to Pale Moon and are now not having problems with the instability of Firefox when there are many windows and tabs open. Since Pale Moon is based on Firefox, most of the Firefox add-ons work.

In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

A few of the many, many articles about abuse by Microsoft:

Microsoft has no plans to tell us what's in Windows patches. Each update is a black box, and it's going to stay that way.

Leaks show that Microsoft writes release notes, so why can't it publish them? The lack of documentation of Windows' updates is a baffling move on Microsoft's part.

Microsoft's Software is Malware. Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user.

How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again?

NSA Backdoor Exploit in Windows 8 Uncovered

Microsoft Gave the NSA Direct Backdoor Access to Outlook, Skype

Microsoft [lack of] Privacy Statement

Here's how to Block Windows 10 "Spying"

No proprietor can be trusted, that's what the free software movement has been telling us for decades. It's not at all surprising that a company which has been distributing proprietary malware for a long time continues to do so. Only people who think they know an OS by running it for a long time or want to believe that a proprietor-supplied control would truly protect one's privacy from the proprietor would believe otherwise.

Then use progressive enhancement. In the HTML page, send a "To log out, close your browser" message. Attach a script that replaces this message with a button to log out as described in the linked answer. To get past the extension that blocks non-free scripts, distribute this script under a free software license and add appropriate metadata.

Then use progressive enhancement. In the HTML page, send a "To log out, close your browser" message. Attach a script that replaces this message with a button to log out as described in the linked answer. To get past the extension that blocks non-free scripts, distribute this script under a free software license and add appropriate metadata.

So, before you keep going all RMS and howling about how it's not pure enough for you .

Even RMS doesn't seem to care about the setting being 'difficult to find. Especially since you can install your own version of the OS. His biggest worry is that some drivers are binary blobs.

Oddly, I have that tab open right this very minute. It has been open for days - I keep downloading a distro every once in a while and trying them in a VM.

It's odd to see it brought up but not entirely unknown.

http://www.gnu.org/distros/fre...

That's the "official" link - as far as I know. All of those should be free software by FSF beliefs. Every bit of code in them should have source available. There should be zero closed binaries or the likes. So far? Meh... I've found some interesting ideas with great potential.

Why not? People are making it for free. There's actually a wiki devoted to OSes, and there are quite a lot of them. Working on a kernel is fun.

These are the advantages and challenges of the GNU kernel. If you want to understand why people like the Hurd kernel, I would suggest reading that.

Why not? People are making it for free. There's actually a wiki devoted to OSes, and there are quite a lot of them. Working on a kernel is fun.

These are the advantages and challenges of the GNU kernel. If you want to understand why people like the Hurd kernel, I would suggest reading that.

You can probably now use emacs as a fucking video player. Ain't nobody getting any work done now.

That would be EMMS

If you pay attention to it, it IS following the Unix Way.

I recall a time 10 or 15 years ago when I actually had to use ed . . .

[...]

What I really remember from it was the shock of needing to use ed for the first time in decades, and relief that I could pull it off . . .

Bless you, sir. You have not lost the pure faith.

What parts of the GPL don't you understand: GNU General Public License

"All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."

"You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License."

"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."

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

"Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."

Why did Red Hat adopt SystemD? Red Hat makes money supporting Red Hat Linux. SystemD requires a lot of support. Adopting SystemD causes Red Hat to make more money.

Since Red Hat is the dominant provider of Linux, other distributions were forced to adopt SystemD, also.

There is some conflict of interest. A long time ago, Red Hat gave Linus Torvalds Red Hat stock.

Red Hat's decision gives short-term gain. Over the long term, adopting software that is not finished is destructive toward the entire Linux community, and the entire world.

Microsoft Windows will die. Microsoft Windows has a universal back door through which any change whatsoever can be imposed on the users. Windows is spyware.

The world needs a standard operating system. Maybe ReactOS will be the future?

Stallman is indeed a fundamentalist. His goals are just fine - but he's about as remote from what a typical software engineer is as it's possible to be. That's OK, he's the idealist - and that lets the rest of us be pragmatists.

GPL is great for complete software packages - emacs, gcc...that kind of thing. But for libraries, it sucks. That's why we have LGPL. Sadly, there is a lot of anti-LGPL rhetoric out there https://www.gnu.org/licenses/w...

I think we need something like that for OpenHardware. The ability to use a piece of OpenHardware design in a closed-hardware ensemble without hiding the open part of the design...putting a BeagleBone inside my (commercial) 3D printer perhaps.

Keep that in mind - while I consider why LGPL is a good thing for *parts* of systems.

I get paid for writing software - I need that money to by food, clothing, housing, transport, etc. When I put something out into the public domain it's because I expect to get a fair trade out of it - I give you my software - some of you give me back bug fixes, improvements, etc. My gift to you is repaid to me - possibly in just a small way - but possibly many, many times over...it's a fair trade for some kinds of software - but not for others.

Yet when I open-source a game (I've actually done this) - I got 300,000 downloads in the first month - a lot of thanks and ego-boosting praise - but almost zero actual tangible benefits in return (one guy - a musician - sent me a new, original music track). But if I open-source a library (and I've done that too, on many occasions), then with only a tenth the number of downloads - for years to come, my library was polished, fixed and improved - for free! That's because users of libraries are software engineers, and they are capable of helping out - players of games are typically not.

I learned my lesson - and I mostly OpenSource library code - or complete applications that programmers are likely use the most - these things give me a return on my work.

With a library, we need to allow the maximum number of people to use it in order to get constructive input. If I use GPL, it effectively causes all users of my library to have to license their application via GPL (or similar) too. That cuts out 100% of all commercial users and a large chunk of potential OpenSource users. The only people who can use my code are those who are working on GPL'ed applications - and those are a small minority. With LGPL, I can force the library sources to remain free - while allowing the maximum possible number of users to want to help with the maintenance. This gives me my best return on investment.

So it makes sense to have an LGPL-like license for hardware components - the BeagleBone inside my 3D printer design, for example. Keep the BeagleBone "open" and "free" while allowing me to use it in some larger project that I can sell to keep the lights on.

But for Stallman, this is a religious matter - he's trying to get me to use GPL on my library in an effort to leverage more GPL'ed applications out there. That's a nice goal - but it not one that a typical working programmer can rationally cope with. Closed source code pays the rent.

    -- Steve

"If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the "owner" of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF?

Make sure you get the mark correctly here. This isn't a copyright, it is a trademark issue and something that is decidedly very different. It is really silly to confuse intellectual property as if it is all one and the same.

Then again, I've seen even supposedly competent lawyers screw the terms up and even misapply one kind of law with another.

It all depends on what Sony plans on doing with the phrase that will determine just how silly or useful the trademark will become. If Sony is doing to be adding hooks into their consoles to encourage YouTubers to make videos of games on those consoles as some sort of special console feature.... I'd be very supportive of the idea. The one click hooks that Mojang put into Minecraft (to give an example) that allows content to be streamed directly to Twitch could be expanded upon and simply installed by default into the next upgrade of the PlayStation line for all games played on that console. Calling that the Sony Let's Play service would be a really good idea and a real selling point in the console industry.

Using it to shut down other more inventive Let's Play content developers on the other hand is likely not going to work out so well.

Open source software is not always free software.

I'm aware of philosophical differences between users of the two terms. But I wonder what substantial difference you're seeing between the terms with respect to the software itself, as the Open Source Definition published by Open Source Initiative is nearly word-for-word identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.