Slashdot Mirror

• Whirlpool library for Ruby. This is written by me, based on the sample C implementation by the inventors.
• The above library can also be used in C apps. Just copy whirlpool-*.[ch] to your project. See whirlpool-algorithm.h for API.
• The GNU Crypto library for Java contains a Whirlpool implementation.

PS, I am aware that Bekeley's OSS claim to fame - BSD - is not Free Software as defined by FSF

Saint ignucius: http://www.gnu.org/people/saintignucius.jpg

Easy. There's no such thing as "intellectual property." And there's no such thing as a legitimate software patent.

Easy. There's no such thing as "intellectual property." And there's no such thing as a legitimate software patent.

Easy. There's no such thing as "intellectual property." And there's no such thing as a legitimate software patent.

"You never even gave an example for this strong-arming."

I did. It's the GPLv3.

"Of course it takes it away, that's the whole point of DRM! You can't run modified code. That you think there is no such thing as the freedom of its users is telling."

GPL'ed software has no inherent right to dictate what hardware does as it cannot define terms of use for products unrelated to it. All the GPL can do is grant rights regrading what it licenses. That you think it can is telling.

"Please tell about the terrible deeds of the FSF."

I never even suggested that they committed terrible deeds. Surely you can argue better than to put words in my mouth.

"_That's strong-arming! You're being ridiculous. You you have any rights to RMS showing up?"

Of course I don't. I wouldn't even see RMS if he did show up (unlike RMS, I don't have an allergy to showers) but that's beside the point. RMS is a crybaby when he doesn't get his way and he uses juvenile tactics to influence others. He's successfully gotten users groups to change their names using just this tactic. I don't really care if you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

"Again, that's not true. I debunked it already and yet you repeat the same lie."

You've debunked nothing and it's no lie. If I release code under the GPL using the "or later" clause, then RMS can release a new version of the GPL that I object to and I cannot prevent my work from being used under that later license. It is an undeniable fact and it's the reason that some, such as Linus, have chosen not to use his language.

"I meant stupid not because of any properties of the name Linux because what is commonly called Linux is actually GNU. Linux chose his name for _the _kernel _he _started _to _write. Linux of course was not a GNU project. But RMS doesn not want to call Linux the kernel GNU/Linux. What he wants is to call the GNU system with the Linux kernel GNU/Linux. Debian is called "Debian GNU/Linux" by Debian. The others are called RedHat and Suse actually."

Who cares what RMS wants except RMS? Each distribution can choose the name of their product as they see fit.

There is only a GNU system in RMS's mind. What there is, in fact, is GPL'ed source code for a large variety of software that can be used to make up a Unix-like system. It's not the only open source software of it's kind BTW. The GPL license allows me to integrate the licensed software into a larger system as I choose provided I meet the terms of the GPL. Those terms do NOT include recognizing RMS's right to pick the name of my project or referring to my use of the "GNU system". There is no defensible claim whatsoever to RMS's position that "GNU/" should be prepended to Linux. If RMS wants to do his own distribution and call it the "GNU system" he is free to do so.

"Yeah, that was trolling because RMS never demanded that Linux be called anything other than "Linux.""

Like hell he didn't. Read the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

Only the most hardened RMS apologist can read this shameless, self-promoting propoganda and believe that he isn't "demanding" anything. RMS knows he's wrong so he sugarcoats it.

RMS claims that Linus, through Linux, modified the GNU system by providing an alternative kernel when that is clearly untrue. There was no kernel for the "GNU system". The problem is that RMS can't stand the heat of his own free software kitchen. His "GNU system" code got used in an alternative unix-like system and it didn't get named after him. Boo Hoo.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "troll". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Your inability to argue your indefensible positions does not make me a troll.

Just want to mention GCJ, the java native compiler, part of the GNU tools. It still has quite a way to go, but for some standalone applications it is getting quite nifty. I am not sure what niche it fills yet but linking a native binary built from java source code feels strange.

I think that "-march=pentium-m -msse3" is WRONG, as it will favor x87 instructions rather than use the SIMD vector unit. Result is that the Core benchmarks slower than the Pentium 4. WRONG!

From the Gentoo Wiki http://gentoo-wiki.com/HARDWARE_Apple_MacBook#CFLA GS

You're right that the Core Duo is based on the Pentium-M microarch, but it's had some major updates done to it. Fex, the SSE front and backend are completely redone. On the P-M, it took twice as long to decode SSE than X87. Core can handle up to three packed and micro-op SSE instructions at once, making using SSE the advantage. However, when you set -march=pentium-m, GCC prefers to generate x87 instructions. There's other changes that make Core more similar to Netburst than P-M when it comes to cost calculation, prefetch block size, etc., all of which are dependent on -march. Check out gcc/config/i386/i386.c and the IA32 Intel Architecture Optimization Reference Manual. -qed

This seems to be confirmed by posts to the GCC mailing list. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2006-06/msg00080.ht ml

[Sigh. I didn't close my <blockquote>, and I made spelling mistakes. I meant to write this:]

If you'll notice, the original statement was about it being foolish to use a license/software to push a moral war and social reform. And clearly it's not. Why? Because before the GPL, was there any license *like* the GPL?

Makes me wonder... would the "obnoxious" BSD advertising clause have been waived if it weren't for RMS and the GNU project?

If you'll notice, the original statement was about it being foolish to use a license/software to push a moral war and social reform. And clearly it's not. Why? Because before the GPL, was there any license *like* the GPL?

Makes me wonder... would the "obnoxious" BSD adversiting clause have been waived if it weren't for RMS and the GPL?

You just assigned Trademark Office to Patent Office.

Not everybody codes in C. Some code in Pascal or other languages where assignment is represented as := or <=. Some code in dialects of LISP where let and set! are used for creating variables. Some code in BASIC where = in an expression context means equality but = in a statement context means assignment. Some people code in Java, where using an assignment in the condition of an if or while loop results in a compile error of no automatic cast to boolean. Some people code for a C compiler that warns in the same case, such as GCC with -Wparentheses .

If they didn't assign copyright, yes. That's one reason the GNU project wants you to. Sun asks for this, too. Many projects, especially smaller ones, don't.

The "spirit of the GPL" is that if I own the hardware and the software, I should be able to modify the software as I wish, run the modified version on my hardware, and distribute the modified version.

It's spelled out pretty clearly in the many documents RMS has written on the topic. Example:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

In the TiVo case, I do not have the freedom to run modified TiVo software for the purpose of controlling my TiVo. Whether I have lost the freedom due to copyright or due to restrictive hardware is beside the point; preservation of freedom 0 is one of the explicit goals of the GPL.

I think Linus is 100% wrong on this one, just like he was 100% wrong when he chose BitKeeper.

Even if you installed those GNU tools into your Windows system, the Windows kernel wouldn't be using those instead of the core tools Microsoft are shipping. They'd be installed, but not be required to run your OS. Is it that hard to understand? Linux ain't usable without any decent core utilities to work with.

Your arguments are in my opinion void. The BSD systems are mostly using BSD utilities, and Debian's GNU-running systems do credit the GNU project. I assume Solaris uses the BSD utilities as well, being BSD-derivative. Nexenta, a GNU/OpenSolaris system, does give credit. No Windows system uses the GNU utilities in its core system. Mac OS X is a name for the complete operating system, not the kernel, just like Debian or Ubuntu are.

You have missed the reason why Stallman wants people to refer to the operating system as GNU/Linux.

We've fought so hard for the revolution, to spread our idealogy, to make software brighter for everyone. If we sell-out now, exchanging our values for perceived "success" as defined by only one index, profit, the "open-source" buzzword will come back and bite us in the teeth. Code we can look at but are legally prevented from adapting or redistributing is worth nothing to society. If businesses adopt "open-source" licenses that leave code only as open as a jail is for visitors, it shall be a bitter end. The movement will lose trust from the verge of true success. Remember: Freedom is fundamental.

It's nice for RMS to quantify his position by saying "By Free I mean Freedom" but the end result is the same. Perhaps someone can post a time when Richard said, "Yeah, the price on this software is just right" and there is actually a dollar amount specified. The truth is, there's a need for paid software. Paid for software produces some good stuff. It's not the endall but it has a right to exist. It feeds a fundemental human need, to be compensated. Glory alone is not a system of compensation and never will be.

It's nice for RMS to quantify his position by saying "By Free I mean Freedom" but the end result is the same. Perhaps someone can post a time when Richard said, "Yeah, the price on this software is just right" and there is actually a dollar amount specified. The truth is, there's a need for paid software. Paid for software produces some good stuff. It's not the endall but it has a right to exist. It feeds a fundemental human need, to be compensated. Glory alone is not a system of compensation and never will be.

don't take it from me, they have had web pages for many years.

I assume you mean that they have had different web pages for many years, but that's not true. http://www.fsf.org/ and http://www.gnu.org/ used to serve the same web site, until the former was redesigned a year or two ago. (See archive.org for May 25, 2003, for example).

But it's true that the GNU project and the FSF are different, and the FSF has increasingly been distinguishing the two.

Of course it works with iPod. Take a look at:

* GNUpod and gtkpod
* iPod Shuffle Database Builder

And then there's another one with a funky name I cannot remember.


I think your post, and the majority of other posts on this thread, serve to illustrate the fundamental disconnect that's in play here.

From GNUpod's home page: GNUpod is a collection of Perl-Scripts which allow you to use your iPod... If you really think this is what your typical person (you know, the type who have better things to do in the evening than sit around hacking Linux kernel modules) wants, then I don't think I can explain it to you.

gtkpod is much closer to what these "normals" would want. But it looks like there are still problems with iPod Mini support; you need a separate program to handle podcasts; there's no support for DRM'ed AAC (one of ESR's exact points, I believe); you have to use a different program to rip CDs to mp3/aac/whatever, and then manually import them.

Plus if you go to the troubleshooting links, you'll find "solutions" that talk about manually editing /etc/fstab. You may think "oh, this is simple stuff" (and for a lot of us, it is); but most people don't want to deal with the system at that level for something as trivial as getting an iPod to work! It's why a lot of Linux users (like me) defected over to OS X in the first place.

Frankly, I think ESR's thoughts on this are spot-on; and most of the posts here today are serving to prove his point, although the posters don't realize it.

what does he do day to day that makes him worth listening to?

The FSF is not comissioning any new large scale undertakings at the moment.

This is just blatantly wrong.

What do you call Gnu Flash? Other projects FSF is directing include Free Bios and an open 3D Card driver. More projects are listed here. Just like gcc was needed in the 80s, these are the utilities users need now.

At the risk of being modded for flame bait, I'll also point out that it seems most criticisms of the FSF are based on plain ignorance.

That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles explaining what you mean by free.

So instead, we have confusion over what "open source" means. That term is no more clear and comes with its own long essay on what the term means (a 10-part definition, last I looked, which is longer than the definition of free software). At least with the FSF you get respectful descriptions of how things are complete with references and quotes to back up the claims. The OSI is far more disdainful and less professional in its description of the difference between the free software and open source movements. From the essay describing the difference between the two movements: (emphasis mine)

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.

That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles explaining what you mean by free.

So instead, we have confusion over what "open source" means. That term is no more clear and comes with its own long essay on what the term means (a 10-part definition, last I looked, which is longer than the definition of free software). At least with the FSF you get respectful descriptions of how things are complete with references and quotes to back up the claims. The OSI is far more disdainful and less professional in its description of the difference between the free software and open source movements. From the essay describing the difference between the two movements: (emphasis mine)

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.

That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles explaining what you mean by free.

So instead, we have confusion over what "open source" means. That term is no more clear and comes with its own long essay on what the term means (a 10-part definition, last I looked, which is longer than the definition of free software). At least with the FSF you get respectful descriptions of how things are complete with references and quotes to back up the claims. The OSI is far more disdainful and less professional in its description of the difference between the free software and open source movements. From the essay describing the difference between the two movements: (emphasis mine)

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.

That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles explaining what you mean by free.

So instead, we have confusion over what "open source" means. That term is no more clear and comes with its own long essay on what the term means (a 10-part definition, last I looked, which is longer than the definition of free software). At least with the FSF you get respectful descriptions of how things are complete with references and quotes to back up the claims. The OSI is far more disdainful and less professional in its description of the difference between the free software and open source movements. From the essay describing the difference between the two movements: (emphasis mine)

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.

[...] in order for FOSS to win-out, it may need some non-FOSS code in the short term. That's always been the case.

To win what, exactly—popularity? For free software advocates popularity is not a goal. Freedom is a goal, a goal that is not achieved by installing non-free software on one's computer.

Even in the essay discussing the LGPL (formerly known as the "Library GPL" now known as the "Lesser GPL") one can see the FSF making this point:

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

ESR, Eric S. Raymond, is not associated with "FOSS". FOSS is a term used when one wants to give credit to both the Free Software and Open Source movements without favoring either. ESR is a proponent of the Open Source movement and one of the people who started the Open Source Initiative over a decade after the GNU Project and the Free Software movement had been going.

The Free Software movement advocates exclusively for free software because only free software respects users software freedoms (the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software). The Free Software movement examines these issues in terms of ethics, speaks to all computer users, and takes a far broader view than the Open Source movement which never discusses user's freedoms and examines these issues in terms of a developmental process that is chiefly aimed at businesses.

The OSI has given a remarkably disrespectful view of the differences between the two movements, reducing the difference to "ideological tub-thumping" in their FAQ. The Free Software Foundation has a far more informative and respectful view in an essay on the differences between the two movements.

That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles explaining what you mean by free. Further, even if you do want to do write these articles, the executives at the companies you are writing will not read them. You even have an interest in the topic, have you read them?

The bottom line is that most business executives do not want to put themselves on the line to come up with a creative product strategy, and even those that do have to deal with stifling organizational inertia. This is partly why iPod and iTunes still dominate the downloadable music market. It is rare for a company to be able to come up with and put into the market a product people want. Most companies simply follow someone else. They wait to see what happens when someone else tries something new and different and if the business model looks viable, they try to jump on the train about 5-10 years down the line - even technology companies.

So, I don't think it is a matter of thinking the Linux community is cheap. It is rationalization in support of complacency. It is a matter of a lack of imagination. The best approach to these people is to ignore them. If you can't ignore them because their software is key to what you do, then you need to demonstrate there is a market for it, get someone to bet their career on it, and then wait 3 years as they try to get "buy-in" to actually do it. Note: You as an individual, don't make a market.

I used to talk with product vendors all the time. I've personally found that the most effective strategy for getting companies to change is to bring these issues up during contract negotiations where you imply that you will take away revenue streams they already have. You make X dollars providing Z software/service, I'd like to see this new product from you and would be willing to spend Y to get it. I know that other companies in my industry would be interested in the same product. I also know your competitors are talking with me about providing this service to me and as part of a larger package where I would move all my money to them.

This is a line of reasoning that most executives at companies can understand. However, you can have this conversation only when you control fairly large sums within another company and where these arguments can be used - not when you are some end user spending less than $5,000 for software once every few years. You also aren't going to get someone to bet their career unless it is a good risk, and in this case, it sounds like you yourself are even uncertain about it.

"We have a serious problem. Whenever I try to pitch Linux to anyone under 30, the question I get is: 'Will it work with my iPod?," he said. "We are not yet as a community making the painful compromises need to achieve widespread desktop market share. Until we do, we will get locked out of more hardware."

>As a user, if your priorities are cutting-edge technology (without the nicks and cuts of a blade) and freedom, Fedora is a great disto to use.

I agree with this statement by Max Spevack. I'm a long time Debian GNU/Linux user. Recently i switched to Ubuntu because the desktop software of stable was to old and testing/unstable is a moving target and i want a system which i can trust that if it runs today it will run tomorrow too. So Ubuntu was the logical step, almost Debian stable with up-to-date Desktop software.

But i'm not really happy how Ubuntu handles non-Free Software, like Max said: "Ubuntu is one example, as there is very strong language about their commitment to Free and open source software, right up until the line stating that they include binary-only drivers on their CDs and in their repositories."

I think Fedora could be the right choice if i wouldn't be used that much to the Debian way of doing things (deb, dpkg, update-alternatives,...).

And that's leeds me to the question: Fedora seems to be a respectable Free Software GNU/Linux distribution. Wouldn't it be the almost perfect distribution which could be "approved/recommand by FSF"? Has Fedora already thought about such a step or even asked the FSF to get listed at http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDi stributions ?

If you can't find a way to sync your iPod with your Linux machine you haven't really been looking!

When will we get to mod articles "-1, Troll"?

The books are NOT DRM'd. The entire system is strictly freely-licensed.

But if this projectd works in developing countries, the major publishers in developed countries will likely use the result to promote similar projects, except with oppressive DRM. You've all read "The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman, right?

Case in point, a friend called me in to help her with a DOE application that was running under Java. Worked on Redhat, but not Linspire. Worked on Mac and PC. Didn't work under any of the other linux desktops. Just figuring out where the fonts are stored on each of these was a pain (we needed specialized math symbols installed...next version I've told her to just use bitmaps instead).

If it's a Java app, why not just put the font you need in the .JAR?

But, of course, that's not the point. The point is that different kinds of UNIX have different libraries, paths, etc. Luckily, there's a solution for that! It's called GNU Autoconf, and if you use it your program ought to build correctly on everything from RedHat to Debian to HP-UX. All you have to do is write the Autoconf script and distribute your code in the standard "tarred & gzipped source code" format. Easy, isn't it?

Of course, if you're complaining that it doesn't work when you try to distribute a binary, the solution is equally easy: don't try to do stupid stuff like that!

If I could compile a native executable that Just Worked(tm) then I would love it.

You can compile Java to native code.

Mono is still a better option.

Where? On windows? No thanks.

When AT&T created UNIX, they were a regulated monopoly. They were restricted in two critical ways WRT UNIX.

1. They could not market products outside of the Phone systems market, and
2. They could not artificially restrict (non-telephone?) technology that they created.

When they resumed selling UNIX, they were sued by other computer companies citing (1) above. At&T lost again.

So the lawyers looked at the apparent legal condrum, and concluded that they had to make UNIX available, but they could neither market it or support it. Thus, what they did was write up a non-disclosure agreement that allowed entities (mostly Universities, at the time, who got it for a song), to play with the source, but only disclose it to other people who had a similar license (which soon became just about any universities, and many large companies). In return for signing the NDA, and paying the license fee, you got a mag tape that included the source code and a bootable binary and a hearty "good luck".

The result was that UNIX, although technically proprietary was the next - best thing to Open Source for many years until the push to truely proprietarize and commercialize it in the 80s.

Stallman, on the other hand, just didn't like proprietary systems, generally (as noted in his article that another poster pointed out). When he came up with GNU, he choose UNIX because he thought that it was a good system to n replicate. The impending (effective) closure of the UNIX codebase was little more than a synergistic coincidence.

(( I also once made the mistake of presuming that RMS created GNU because of the impending closure of UNIX, but I was intelligent enough to forward my article to him for comment, and he was kind enough to provide me with the necessary correction ))

Vi? Real men use ed! After all, it is the standard UNIX text editor!!!

Ed, man! !man ed

• Linux
• Mac-OS X
• MS DOS
• MS Windows
• NetBSD
• FreeBSD
• OpenBSD
• Solaris
• AIX
• SunOS
• Ultrix
• and others

Bah! I think all those word processors you list are bloat-ware. A truly elegant word processors is Ed, man! !man ed
http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html

Everyone knows Ed is the true father of all word processors.

From the article:

Meanwhile, high fees for Unix outraged Richard Stallman, a grad student who used it at the MIT artificial intelligence lab. Software, he decided, was an intellectual asset and should be free, like the published work of his fellow researchers. He set about building a set of tools called GNU that programmers could use to create their own software.

Sigh. High fees had nothing to do with it. Anyone who has spent an hour reading about the history of the GNU project would know that.

Was the stress of RIAA's lawsuit the cause of this old man's death?

If RIAA caused his death, can RIAA members be classified as Enemy Combatants?

Protect Fair Use,
Protect the First Amendment,
Protect the Right to Read

You don't seem to know anything about the APSL, troll.

There are already free JVMs and free Java compilers. The problem is the class libraries. Java's standard libraries are huge, and free reimplementations are having a hard time keeping up. Without the libraries, open source versions of javac and the JVM won't bring us significantly closer to the goal of a completely free Java platform.

Stallman: "Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued."

The key difference is that one person can easily create a single software product that sinultaneously contains any number of 'patentable' ideas. This is the opposite of patenting in eg. chemical engineering or pharmaceuticals, which tend to focus on a single complete process or product (such as a compound).

Stallman: "Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued."

The key difference is that one person can easily create a single software product that sinultaneously contains any number of 'patentable' ideas. This is the opposite of patenting in eg. chemical engineering or pharmaceuticals, which tend to focus on a single complete process or product (such as a compound).

No, not really.

Current copyright law is too severe, but arguing that the concept is wrong just makes you look silly.

Oh?

(from:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Mod ifyGPL)
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

It's non-free and non-free and not open source and not GPL compatible.

I'm about as likely to use this shared-source "GPU" as I am to use XFree86 4.4.

I'm even less likely to contribute to it.

It's non-free and non-free and not open source and not GPL compatible.

I'm about as likely to use this shared-source "GPU" as I am to use XFree86 4.4.

I'm even less likely to contribute to it.

(from:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#M odifyGPL)
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).