Slashdot Mirror

The BSD license is a recognized Free Software license

Correction on my part: The original BSD license. Check the FSF for details. And you have read the FSF discussion of the difference between 'Free Software' and 'Open Source', haven't you? Included in that text is:

The focus of their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or manuals) to sell to the users of this free software. They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part of our community, because some of the money is donated to free software development.

which sounds like the FSF doesn't cotton to embrace-and-extend tactics to me.

and likewise he'd not take kindly to you claiming that he's in favour of "embrace and extend".

I understand there are a lot of things Theo doesn't take kindly. That's just part of his charm. The modified BSD license is not a copyleft license, thougn, or at least the FSF says it isn't:

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice.

The FSF recognizes it as being compatible with the principles of Free Software, but the lack of copyleft keeps it from being an embrace-and-extend-proof license.

Theo is a smart guy, and I'm sure he knows that.

The BSD license is a recognized Free Software license

Correction on my part: The original BSD license. Check the FSF for details. And you have read the FSF discussion of the difference between 'Free Software' and 'Open Source', haven't you? Included in that text is:

The focus of their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or manuals) to sell to the users of this free software. They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part of our community, because some of the money is donated to free software development.

which sounds like the FSF doesn't cotton to embrace-and-extend tactics to me.

and likewise he'd not take kindly to you claiming that he's in favour of "embrace and extend".

I understand there are a lot of things Theo doesn't take kindly. That's just part of his charm. The modified BSD license is not a copyleft license, thougn, or at least the FSF says it isn't:

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice.

The FSF recognizes it as being compatible with the principles of Free Software, but the lack of copyleft keeps it from being an embrace-and-extend-proof license.

Theo is a smart guy, and I'm sure he knows that.

Apple was also a contributor to the SSA project for GCC, which I believe improves all frontends. IIRC, their interest was in using the SSA tree for autovectorization work.

So (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong), if you're using gcc to compile c++ on linux, you're using Apple code.

Thanks to Debian's rigid enforcement of the Free Software Guidelines (which went on to become the Open Source Definition), it's also very easy to keep everything "i-tal" on a Debian system.

though not Free Software because it doesnt' seem to like GPL stuff much, like many corporations

You clearly don't know what "free software" means (or you're trolling, but I doubt that). See here, here, here, and .

though not Free Software because it doesnt' seem to like GPL stuff much, like many corporations

You clearly don't know what "free software" means (or you're trolling, but I doubt that). See here, here, here, and .

though not Free Software because it doesnt' seem to like GPL stuff much, like many corporations

You clearly don't know what "free software" means (or you're trolling, but I doubt that). See here, here, here, and .

Here's at least part of the reason (I think) everyone wants Sun to make their implementation of Java, free software:-

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

They fixed the licence it is much better now. The Licence is now considered Free software see:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html

• Prototypes are best done in higher level language, in this case, Matlab. Hands down. You want to test a new research methodologies fast. You don't want to get bogged down by unneccessary programming constructs. Moreover, it's the scientist's job who do the prototyping (since he invents the algorithm, right?). Scientists are more familiar with Matlab than C++ or Java.
• Be aware that prototypes are ALWAYS poorly structured. More often than not, they're more like spaghetti code and/or copy and paste. Prototypes are just prototypes. They're just proof of concepts that a particular method works.
• Consequently, you may want a cadre of C++/Java developers to do the structuring. It's more like 4 low level developers per 1 scientist who does the prototyping. Often times the scientists don't know low level languages well. So, it's the C++/Java developers' job to figure out the scientist's program. Of course, the scientist would have to explain how the algorithm / source code works. On the contrary, reading MatLab / R is NOT as hard as what people says here (they must be smoking cracks. Don't listen to them). The only trouble is to familiarize yourself with Matlab / R API, which can be cryptic for some.
• With respect to libraries, Matlab / R have a throng of ready made scientific libraries. Of course, for C++ you can use GSL, LAPACK, ATLAS, etc. But the problem is that sometimes the library call does NOT correspond one-to-one. So, you'll need to tinker around to find out how each library call behaves. Moreover, for some operations, like Matrix / Vector operations, are very simple in Matlab / R, since matrices / vectors can be treated as if they were scalars. Be careful in porting those.
• In addition, you'll need to profile the library call. Make sure you actually GAIN speed with such library calls (or else you'll need to use something else). In addition, speed is NOT the only concern. Accuracy is VERY important. You don't want to use a speedy library with expense of accuracy. In scientific programs, this tradeoff is OFTEN NOT desirable. Make SURE the libraries have the same accuracy level. This is often the grounds to dismiss some unknown library who only claims that they're fast. Losing one degree of accuracy is often a BIG issue in scientific library. For example: If a library is at least 10^-16 accurate may not be acceptable as opposed to a library with an accuracy of at least 10^-17. Think of simulations, which may have millions upon millions of iterations. One degree difference in accuracy often makes a HUGE difference in the final result. Therefore, it is OFTEN more desirable to obtain an open source library where you can inspect the algorithm and point out places where a library call may lose accuracy.
• Familiarize yourselves with many scientific algorithms that improves accuracy. In Matlab or R, they autodetect pathological situations where accuracy can lose. You'll need to do that manually in C++. For example: If you have a nearly singular matrix, you'll need SVD for better accuracy. In general, you can use QR decomposition. If the accuracy is not really an issue, LU decomposition might be enough. In Matlab / R, it can detect the matrix automatically when you try to invert the matrix and use the appropriate algorithm. Pay attention to that. Make sure your C++ program also behaves similarly.
• You MUST make A LOT of regression tests. If it is possible, make the prototype run with the same file format as in the final product. If it isn't possible, convert the file format first and then confirm with the scientist that both of them are exactly the same. Make sure that for all tests, both returns the same numbers

Not quite. By your logic, it is a violation of the GPL to download a GPL'ed program without the source (that is, you download the binary and not the source, even though the source is available):

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

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

That's obviously rediculous. Both licenses obviously deal with distribution and not the act of simply getting a copy for yourself.

Derivative work or not, releasing diffs wouldn't really get you anywhere if your goal was to un-GPL the software you're releasing by making it private or closed source. However, if you want to stick it to them by not "[causing] the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change", http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC3 well that's just brilliant.

What would you call Linux then?

To address the thread-starter's comment in this /. thread, Opera isn't being ignored by just people in discussions like this. It's ignored by users as well; Opera is remarkably unpopular.

I'll offer some reasons why I ignore Opera:

• Opera is proprietary software. I value my software freedom, so I'm not willing to lose it by using software that doesn't respect my freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify the program any time I want for any reason I want. I refuse to discuss free and proprietary software as though they have an equivalent effect on the user by framing the issue exclusively on technical features or cost.
• Opera doesn't obey the CSS3 I'm interested in (if it implements anything in CSS3 at all). I understand that CSS3 isn't official, but with Gecko I get support for some CSS3 selectors that let me do nice things such as fast tabs with :target. I don't use MSIE, but there is a clever set of JS scripts to add some CSS3 support and fix some of the bugs in MSIE.
• Opera doesn't have the rich set of extensions I can find for Firefox. This is probably a corollary to the first point about software freedom.

To address the thread-starter's comment in this /. thread, Opera isn't being ignored by just people in discussions like this. It's ignored by users as well; Opera is remarkably unpopular.

I'll offer some reasons why I ignore Opera:

• Opera is proprietary software. I value my software freedom, so I'm not willing to lose it by using software that doesn't respect my freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify the program any time I want for any reason I want. I refuse to discuss free and proprietary software as though they have an equivalent effect on the user by framing the issue exclusively on technical features or cost.
• Opera doesn't obey the CSS3 I'm interested in (if it implements anything in CSS3 at all). I understand that CSS3 isn't official, but with Gecko I get support for some CSS3 selectors that let me do nice things such as fast tabs with :target. I don't use MSIE, but there is a clever set of JS scripts to add some CSS3 support and fix some of the bugs in MSIE.
• Opera doesn't have the rich set of extensions I can find for Firefox. This is probably a corollary to the first point about software freedom.

The GPL and the FSF are the direct result of an intellectual exercise to determine the best way to get to the end goal of freedom-to-modify code/Software. You may call that self-righteous and moralizing, I call it brilliant. RMS may seem a little too passionate for some, but that's because he is passionate, idealistic, and uncompromising in his beliefs. If you disagree with his beliefs, that fine. But saying, The FSF doesn't need him, bullocks I say. There is a "movement" available for those who disagree, talk with Bruce Perens.

I wanted to suggest everybody to stop using the term "GNU/Linux" and using "Linux" instead as a form of peaceful, non-confrontational protest against FSF's damage to Open Source enterprises.

Good Luck. Linux is GPL and uses GNU utilities. Almost all Linux Distros are GNU/Linux. Chicken and the egg.

From http://www.fsf.org/about/leadership.html

The Free Software Foundation is directed by:

* Richard M. Stallman, President
* Peter T. Brown, Executive Director

The Free Software Foundation has six people on its board of directors. They are:
* Geoffrey Knauth, Senior Software Engineer at SFA, Inc.
* Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University
* Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia University
* Henri Poole, Founder of CivicActions, a grassroots campaign technology consulting firm
* Richard M. Stallman, Founder of FSF and the GNU Project and author of the GNU GPL
* Gerald J. Sussman, Professor of Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Maybe you should take some time out to read a few essays or listen to full presentations, instead of reacting to sound bits fleeting across the web, before making your own useless sound bits.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

What is it about trying to protect users rights that gets so many people torqued?

Oh... I see, its the uncompromising demeanor of RMS. Tuff s#1T. Keep it up Richard.

The GPL and the FSF are the direct result of an intellectual exercise to determine the best way to get to the end goal of freedom-to-modify code/Software. You may call that self-righteous and moralizing, I call it brilliant. RMS may seem a little too passionate for some, but that's because he is passionate, idealistic, and uncompromising in his beliefs. If you disagree with his beliefs, that fine. But saying, The FSF doesn't need him, bullocks I say. There is a "movement" available for those who disagree, talk with Bruce Perens.

I wanted to suggest everybody to stop using the term "GNU/Linux" and using "Linux" instead as a form of peaceful, non-confrontational protest against FSF's damage to Open Source enterprises.

Good Luck. Linux is GPL and uses GNU utilities. Almost all Linux Distros are GNU/Linux. Chicken and the egg.

From http://www.fsf.org/about/leadership.html

The Free Software Foundation is directed by:

* Richard M. Stallman, President
* Peter T. Brown, Executive Director

The Free Software Foundation has six people on its board of directors. They are:
* Geoffrey Knauth, Senior Software Engineer at SFA, Inc.
* Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University
* Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia University
* Henri Poole, Founder of CivicActions, a grassroots campaign technology consulting firm
* Richard M. Stallman, Founder of FSF and the GNU Project and author of the GNU GPL
* Gerald J. Sussman, Professor of Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Maybe you should take some time out to read a few essays or listen to full presentations, instead of reacting to sound bits fleeting across the web, before making your own useless sound bits.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

What is it about trying to protect users rights that gets so many people torqued?

Oh... I see, its the uncompromising demeanor of RMS. Tuff s#1T. Keep it up Richard.

The GPL and the FSF are the direct result of an intellectual exercise to determine the best way to get to the end goal of freedom-to-modify code/Software. You may call that self-righteous and moralizing, I call it brilliant. RMS may seem a little too passionate for some, but that's because he is passionate, idealistic, and uncompromising in his beliefs. If you disagree with his beliefs, that fine. But saying, The FSF doesn't need him, bullocks I say. There is a "movement" available for those who disagree, talk with Bruce Perens.

I wanted to suggest everybody to stop using the term "GNU/Linux" and using "Linux" instead as a form of peaceful, non-confrontational protest against FSF's damage to Open Source enterprises.

Good Luck. Linux is GPL and uses GNU utilities. Almost all Linux Distros are GNU/Linux. Chicken and the egg.

From http://www.fsf.org/about/leadership.html

The Free Software Foundation is directed by:

* Richard M. Stallman, President
* Peter T. Brown, Executive Director

The Free Software Foundation has six people on its board of directors. They are:
* Geoffrey Knauth, Senior Software Engineer at SFA, Inc.
* Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University
* Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia University
* Henri Poole, Founder of CivicActions, a grassroots campaign technology consulting firm
* Richard M. Stallman, Founder of FSF and the GNU Project and author of the GNU GPL
* Gerald J. Sussman, Professor of Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Maybe you should take some time out to read a few essays or listen to full presentations, instead of reacting to sound bits fleeting across the web, before making your own useless sound bits.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

What is it about trying to protect users rights that gets so many people torqued?

Oh... I see, its the uncompromising demeanor of RMS. Tuff s#1T. Keep it up Richard.

The Free Software community decided years ago that Amazon was not a threat, and GNU ended its boycott. Get with the times.

What I like most about iTerm is the "Tab" funtion. Instead of opening couple of windows, you can just work on one widow and switch to any Tab you want.

Or for the most up-to-date nix & win versions, go here: http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/index.html#downlo ading

The claim that C cannot inline functions from another source file is also wrong. This is a limitation in gcc, but other compilers can do it, and IIRC the intel compiler can.

GCC supports inline functions and most other aspects of C99.

The Amsterdam Compiler Kit was originally known as the Free University Compiler Kit (or VUCK, since V stands for Free in Dutch). RMS wrote:

I would say that since the time about two and a half years ago when I actually started working on GNU, I've done more than half of the work. When I was getting ready to start working on the project, I first started looking around for what I could find already available free. I found out about an interesting portable compiler system which was called ``the free university compiler kit'', and I thought, with a name like that, perhaps I could have it. So, I sent a message to the person who had developed it asking if he would give it to the GNU project, and he said ``No, the university might be free, but the software they develop isn't'', but he then said that he wanted to have a UNIX compatible system too, and he wanted to write a sort of kernel for it, so why didn't I then write the utilities, and they could both be distributed with his proprietary compiler, to encourage people to buy that compiler. And I thought that this was despicable and so I told him that my first project would be a compiler.

...The rest is history...

-Don

According to the GPL FAQ:

Copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.

The CD info is factual public-domain data, and song titles can't be copyrighted. Anyone's added comments or notes are copyrighted to their respective authors. The freedb software merely translated it into another form, which doesn't give them any ownership rights, and ergo they can't impose GPL on it.

Database dumps are NOT "source code" no matter what the freedb guys say. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Well, that looks quite plausible to me, as rec.aviation.military has jus about as much in common with the gnu libc faq and the MicroVAX FAQ combined as this discussion about freedb data.

You can charge more than $10 - the FSF charges $45 for example - http://www.gnu.org/order/source18.html

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

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

And, how about sourceforge etc? Sure a distro is large, but could they host it?

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

With these tools, I have never found any need for Ruby, with or without Rails. I tried it and the first thing I noticed was ugliest quirk they stole from FORTRAN-77: the "end" statement. All the editors I use have a syntax enhancement mode that shows which brace pairs with the one where the cursor is. Why, oh why, throw away that very useful feature? What, exactly, did the Ruby creators think they would gain with that? This very small detail shows that the whole language isn't as well thought out as its fans claim, so I guess I got prejudiced against Ruby from the very beginning. When you code for a living, when the lines of code you wrote in your decades of work start to get into the millions, you will know how these apparently small details add up in the end. I need my language to work together with my editor, not fight against it.

Ruby fans remind me of Lisp fans. Very vocal, always ready to present their arguments, concede no points, admit no failures. But one gets the impression that they are mostly academics, people who do not code for a living. If you have to solve a real life problem instead of a textbook example there are more practical languages to work with.

Oh, sure, Ruby is very flexible, very adaptable, but in professional work one needs the efficiency of specialization. I use PHP for web access to databases, Perl for small scripts that handle text files, C++ with Qt for GUI work, Python for prototypes and C for deliverable number crunching applications. For professional work one needs professional tools, swiss army knives are for boy scouts.

One of the freedoms of free software is that I'm under no obligation to publish my changes. In the words of the definition of the term "free software" in this context:

"You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity."

Which lays out my reluctance to explain to you or anyone else what my Firefox modifications do or why I put those changes into my copy of the program. I'd cite a relevant section of the applicable license, but no such section exists.

I was unable to quickly find information on gcc bootstrapping. Can you provide any information describing this process?

It is called GNAT: The GNU NYU Ada 9X Translator. "GNAT is a free, high-quality, complete compiler for Ada95, integrated into the GCC compiler system." Note that "The work was co-sponsored by ARPA and the Ada Joint Program Office." Also look at GNADE, the GNU Ada Database Environment.

For windows, I use py2exe and have a custom script that makes an innosetup install file. If you are interested, I can dig up this script for you (I think it should actually be a distutils setup, that would be nice) however, they are trivial to make.

For OSX I use BundleBuilder which generates mac bundles and is really, really nice especially since OSX comes with python pre-installed. I even use this script to create non-python bundles.

For linux I use PyInstalelr and tarballs :) There is really no good consistent linux installer, but I have had some success with PyInstaller.

Ubuntu is supposedly "Linux for human beings", not "Linux for open source zealots who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of proprietary software."

The Ubuntu community is built on the ideas enshrined in the Ubuntu Philosophy: that software should be available free of charge, that software tools should be usable by people in their local language and despite any disabilities, and that people should have the freedom to customise and alter their software in whatever way they see fit.

These freedoms make Ubuntu fundamentally different from traditional proprietary software: not only are the tools you need available free of charge, you have the right to modify your software until it works the way you want it to.

GNU should focus on making better software, not pursuing an ideology.

Well, except for the whole Treacherous Computing thing, that is, because the entire point of it is that there would be an unbroken chain of "Trusted [sic]" hardware and software leading from the framebuffer itself to the TPM to the virtualization software itself to the OS to the application.

In other words, if the entire system is "Trusted [sic]" then the system will know that it's "safe" to play at full resolution because nothing including the VM will take a screenshot. If, on the other hand, there is a "non-Trusted [sic]" object anywhere on the chain it would immediately assume that it was compromised and would play at the low resolution to begin with.

So no, virtualization -- or any other "take a screenshot"-like method -- will not work. Not to mention that such a workaround is lossy anyway, and is therefore not a solution.

In the end there is only one solution to this whole mess: outlaw DRM, and crack the encryption for all the DRM that already exists. I don't have much hope for the US (or the world in the short term), but eventually it will have to happen or else we'll fall into this sort of dystopia.

Rubbish. The GPL is not a licence to use, it is a licence to modify, copy and redistribute.

From the GPL itself:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted

And, later on in the same document,

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.

So, you need no licence to USE the software, any more than you need a licence to read a book. You only need the licence to modify it or redistribute it, activities which would otherwise be illegal under copyright law. You may use the software even if you reject the GPL entirely.

Just like your GNU/Linux operating system comes with a licence associated with it, defined in the accompanying documentation and here online. Doesn't need a physical embodiment.

Nope, afraid not. vi is a modern-day abomination. Ed is the standard text editor.

... will it run make?

You can't download it as a 'dump', but he doesn't have to provide it as one.

Wrong. He does have to provide a dump, according to the GPL. The GPL requires you to provide the sources in the "prefered form" for making modifications to it. In this case, requiring to fetch the whole database query by query and having to convert the result back to text files would certainly not qualify as the prefered form.

For more information, see this section of the GPL FAQ: Can I use the GPL for something other than software?.

And here is an excerpt from paragraph 3 of the GPL:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

Note that the GPL requires distribution from the "same place", so pointing to the original freedb mirrors would not be sufficient (and would not ensure that the data remains the same anyway). This is clarified in this section of the GPL FAQ: Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?

You can't download it as a 'dump', but he doesn't have to provide it as one.

Wrong. He does have to provide a dump, according to the GPL. The GPL requires you to provide the sources in the "prefered form" for making modifications to it. In this case, requiring to fetch the whole database query by query and having to convert the result back to text files would certainly not qualify as the prefered form.

For more information, see this section of the GPL FAQ: Can I use the GPL for something other than software?.

And here is an excerpt from paragraph 3 of the GPL:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

Note that the GPL requires distribution from the "same place", so pointing to the original freedb mirrors would not be sufficient (and would not ensure that the data remains the same anyway). This is clarified in this section of the GPL FAQ: Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?

Quote from one of the freedb authors:

freedb2 is the development project that played a big role in the demise of freedb. That the developer is advertising it here now, apparently trying to profit from what he caused is immoral in my opinion.

Additionally, using the name freedb2.org is stealing freedb's name. Furthermore horar has not yet released source code or a database dump, so as of this moment, freedb2 is a closed source project, which violates the GPL under which the database archives are released. Even if the GPL may not be enforceable in this case, not releasing a database dump is certainly morally wrong.

As far as I can see, freedb2 is not distributing the database dump, which was licensed under the GPL. I do not like to see comments on Slashdot promoting a project that violates the GPL. freedb2 has used the data provided under the GPL by freedb and is not giving anything back (yet?).

To be clear about why freedb2 violates the GPL, I will point out that the GPL requires every distributor to make the source code (plain text database dump) available "from the same place" as the binaries (the database used by freedb2). So simply adding references to the original freedb mirros would not be sufficient in this case, especially because these CD databases evolve over time so it is likely that freedb and freedb2 could contain different data. For reference, see this section of the GPL FAQ.

I have contributed a large number of CDs to the freedb database (including corrections to existing entries). I have done it because I knew that the database was licensed under the GPL and could not be taken away from the users (note that I am talking about the database, not the programs used for accessing it). I was using the old XMCD before the database was taken over by what became Gracenote. I was very happy to see freedb emerging, promoting freedom as one of its core values. That's why I contributed my CDs to this free database.

Unless the freedb2 developer (who seems to be responsible for the problems with freedb) complies with the GPL and offers a complete dump of the database, I will discourage anybody from using freedb2.

Here's a screenshot of your console application augmented for GUI interaction. You might be surprised.

It's a video. If it didn't require Flash 8, ...

it'd require streaming windows media (horrible),

realplayer (oh, the humanity!)

or quicktime (actually i wouldn't mind that).

The 3 year commitment only applies if you (or the upstream) chose section 3b of the GPL, to accompany your binary distribution with a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide source for no more than the reasonable cost to you of providing it, on a media commonly used for software interchange.

If you use 3a or 3c, you have no such 3 year commitment.

From the GPL:

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

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

If you distribute under 3c, then you must (a) point to someone who distributes under 3b and (b) have received binaries from that 3b distributer or a 3c distributer "downstream" from the 3b distributer (the 3b offer is transferrable).

So, the three year rule applies w.r.t 3c distribution -- it just applies to someone other than you. You do have to find that someone, however (and, technically, have obtained binaries from them).

My point is that you can't redistribute under 3c and refer to an "upstream" distributer distributing under 3a, because 3a does not (a) require distribution to all who request source, and (b) does not meet the three year rule. You have to be able to point to a 3b distributer.

AFAIK, because the major distros redistribute under 3a, this makes pointing to them as "upstream" distributers under 3c impossible, which is the crux of the issue at hand.

I've read some posts arguing about how the Free Software Foundation(FSF) has no standing to take GNU/Linux distributors to court for non compliance with the GPL. Well, let's take a look on how they do have standing be checking some of the software in FSF's GNU Project.

• GNU Coreutils
• GNU Compiler Colection
• GNU Ghostscript
• GNU GRUB

There's more, not all of the sofware I mentioned is copyrighted by the FSF, but I'm sure some of the most important is. Not to mention that companies like Trolltech own the copyrights of vital parts of SimplyMEPIS and other distributions.

"Why should the "upstream" or "bigger" distro supplier be obligated to distribute source code for YOUR particular distribution?"

Because when they distributed that code to you, they were bound by the same GPL as you are. They are obligated to provide you with the source code should you or any third party ask for it, just like you are.

Why is it so hard to read the GPL?

I remember when I read the internal memo, my first though was: great, this is the kind of software that we really need in the FOSS movement if we ever want to get to the profanum vulgus, or the masses if you will. But then one idea fix, or a thought if you will, started to dominate my mind. Are the FSF followers ever going to buy the idea, pun not intended, that buying the right to listen is even slightly less outrageous than being forced to buy your God given right to read, or even think, for that matter? Most probably we'll see piration enabled forks of that software in less than three months. Of course using subversion instead of cvs may and will slow down that forking process but this may be only the matter of time. This is, however, a great step in the right direction. That's what I told Rob back than and that's what I say now. We'll probably see some great development advance starting right now. So I say: Thanks! In the name of the entire Free Software movement.

Amazon did sue Barnes and Noble. But hang on, even the FSF ended their boycott of Amazon. It seems they haven't gone after anyone else.

Here's a preview of Emacs 22 from lwn.net.

Here's all the new features in Emacs since the last release (very long).

The main thing blocking the release of Emacs 22 is that RMS is bent on obsessively polishing the manuals before even starting an official pretest (which I think is not good prioritization, considering the release process has already taken three years.) But development snapshots of Emacs 22 are already widely available, and the software is in an extremely stable, usable (release-quality, really) state.