Slashdot Mirror

Correction: plan nine ISN'T open source according to Richard Stallman.

- the plan nine license requires all changes be sent back to them;

- you (possibly) can't sell your code for a profit;

- lots of other problems with the license. (see here for Stallman's take on it.)

Bootlegging of Music With Napster Hurts Free Software

QPL was a Free (as defined by the FSF) license, just not GPL-compatible

The QPL was not the original licence. QPL didn't come along until 1999. The original Qt licence is very non-free - there are restrictions on even using it to create (not distribute) software, there are special restrictions if you're getting paid to develop software, and so on.

However, even with QPL the problem still exisited that a lot of KDE code was released under the GPL, and the authors hadn't explicitly allowed linking with non-GPLed code. That was RMS's concern from the QPL until until the GPL dual licencing.

Please try to get your facts straight. Five minutes with Google can keep you from looking like a fool.

I think your view of .NET is a little clouded by the fact that Microsoft is involved. Sure Microsoft has demonstrated monopolistic practises, but when is the last time they released a standard to ECMA [www.ecma.ch] and then purposely broke it?

That would be the ECMA standard for the Windows operating system. As someone pointed out on
Linux Today during the deIcaza/.NET furore the other week, this ECMA standard didn't help the Wine developers much.

I admit that this comment is going to sound very ad hominum: We need to examine Obasanjo's claims carefully. He's worked for Microsoft very recently.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't call attention to this, but Microsoft as a company has a really bad track record of astroturfing just about any kind of on- or off-line forum:

• CompuServe forums
• Political Action Committee
• "Independent" research groups
• Letter writing campaigns
• MSNBC articles
• online poll 1, online poll 2
• ZDNet talk backs

Sorry, Dare, but that's the facts: if you lie down with pigs, you wake up smelling a bit like pig excrement.

Yes its a shame that this business folded; for the acceptance of linux as a viable gaming market and such potential growth across desktops etc; for those talented programmers who worked for the company; and those - myself included - whom have enjoyed their games.

However Draeker (an ex Apple lawyer) apparently had some rather novel business practices, which (at least when things began to get awkward) allegedly seemed to involve manipulating a rather gullible employee into bankrolling the company. Before any more moderators get too slap happy on the parent post please consider this:

Loki Speaks up on Chapter 11
Specifically this and related threads: More informative media on Loki

Which highlights this:
Founder, Creditors Differ as to Loki's Future Course

You missed a few.

well, they do have massive filesystem corruption bugs.

no, wait- the stable series has that as well.

There is an article on Linux Today that says the exact opposite, that apache will die... see it here.

Either post links, facts, or other references, or don't expect anyone to listen to you.

And I especially don't care for users who think they've got clout just because they have a low UID. Remember, if you win a race in the special olympics you may have first place, but you're still retarded.

Exactly what kind of "fair" Slashdot settlement do you think we could all agree on? The last time I proposed a fate for Microsoft, fair wasn't exactly topping my evaluation criteria.

You can read SuSE's announcement about this here, along with details of how to get updated SuSE packages.

While strictly true, this is a blatantly unfair claim. If we accept that actions are expressions of either freedom or power (as per Kuhn and Stallman's definition), we must also accept that expressions of power either limit others' freedom, or limit others' power. Using power to limit freedom, we can all agree is evil. Using power to limit power, however, must be allowed in some form, unless you feel that no-one may stop thieves and murderers.

If you acknowledge that software licensing is a form of power (and it is RMS's primary contension that proprietary licensing is an exercise of power that deprives users of essential freedoms), then it follows that GPL licensing uses power to limit power. It becomes a question of whether it's acceptible for individuals to limit others' power in this way. But you can't simply vilify all forms of power.

Hrm. Now all we need is ESR flying off his rocker (if he has one) and deciding to speak for all Linux users in decrying the Chinese government and saying how none of us want that government using Linux.

But I've got to reply here - I can't mod everybody down !!!

What is this attitude? I didn't totally get RMS' argument, sure, but ESR's really made the case final.

I can only recommend that you read the article by ESR before you start agreeing with him !!!

Well, the funny part was that they wanted Microsoft to pay $1.1 billion for the computers to run it on :) These links should really be their own /. story, or at least a SlashBack:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-11 -20-017-20-PR-RH
http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/

Here is an article about this issue on LinuxToday.

Here is an article about this issue on LinuxToday.

The OSOpinion article refers to Greg Roelofs'
forum post. My favorite part of the Roelofs' post is this classic line:

" So I nominate this for the 2001 tempest-in-a-teapot award... But since the /. crowd lives for this stuff, I wouldn't presume to imagine that my comments will have any discernable effect on the (flame)festivities. :-) "

How many posts did that article get the other day? :)

Apple and proprietary developers have generally gotten along well with the BSD and gcc people as far as license issues go.

What?

Recently, maybe, but take a look at this link to a copy of the 1993 g++ FAQ:

Because the legal policies of Apple threaten the long-term goals of FSF, as well as the concept of free software, no support will be lent to efforts to port GNU software to Macintosh or other Apple hardware.

The FSF didn't end the boycott of Apple until 1995, and even then, they pretty much said that unless supporting MacOS was ridiculously easy, they wouldn't bother accepting patches because that might impact their effort to produce the "GNU operating system".

If you want a quick summary of the boycott, the reasons, and how the FSF eventually "forgave" Apple the same way he "forgave" KDE, you can check out this link. Frankly, I'm surprised that the FSF and Apple are managing to get along as well as they are; it speaks volumes about Apple's commitment, and about the way the FSF has matured over the years, as well.

my definition of freedom will probably always conflict with his. This is my right. I fear that if his vision were the dominant one, I would no longer have this right.

No kidding... In the flerbage article, ESR asked this question of both RMS and Tim O'Reilly (when the latter two were having their debate): if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?

Did RMS ever answer? Because if Mr. It's All About the Freedom To Choose wants to forbid the existence of proprietary software -- not just discourage it through discussion, but to forbid it beyond discussion -- then he's clearly unfit for any kind of leadership position.

Point being, a couple of days ago there was an article linked there to Newsforge with an interview with Alan Cox about his views on the DMCA and these changelogs.

For the lazy, the essential point is that AC has gotten legal advice that he very well could be charged in the US for posting the vulnerabilities based on an interpretation of the DMCA, but that no "sane" US court would convict him. However, he does not want to spend 6 months in the US to go through the process.

So, basically, he's making a political point about stupid laws. He's welcome to if that what he wants. As others have said, it's not like most people interested in kernel changes can't use diff.

Glenn

> It has adapted by pushing for laws like the DMCA
> and the SSSCA to stop Open Source/Free Software.

Despite the fact that there also against the SSSCA?

(1) Hasn't really helped their stock price. They are still not profitable, and won't be for a while. They say that pro forma profitability should happen next quarter.

(2) For curious folks, here is Amazon's Linux page.

(3) Amazon uses Linux despite attacks by high profile people. However, when you get down to it, it is about money. They don't really give a shit about Linux itself. They don't have feelings for it. Don't forget that. It is about the money. (And the nookie. They did it all for the nookie, the nookie.)

They have made improvements, and in my experience ext3 is faster than ext2. See for example the Michael Johnson email:

Despite writing some data more than once, ext3 is often faster (higher throughput) than ext2 because ext3's journaling optimizes hard drive head motion.

The actual quote (Feeling Lucky at Google with "ghandi first they") is here :

First, they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

Now they're fighting us.

An official statement on why ext3 was chosen (ext2 compatibility is a major reason, but not the only one) can be found here.

On this page, a redhat employee explained why they chose ext3.

It was also the topic of a previous slashdot post.

This extract sums it up :

Why do you want to migrate from ext2 to ext3? Four main reasons: availability, data integrity, speed, and easy transition.

[...]

Again, we don't claim that every one of these points are unique to ext3. Most of them are shared by at least one other filesystem. We merely claim that the set of all of them together is true only for ext3.

You may or may not care about a very short essay I wrote on this subject that was published at here, entitled "The Alexandria Effect", in which DRM leads to a new sort of Dark Ages, similar to what happened after the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.

The Alan Cox series (latest is 2.4.10-ac11) works fine here. I'm currently running 2.4.9-ac18 from a week ago. Here's how to get it. I use gcc 2.95.4 under Debian - as far as I know it was not yet recommended to compile the kernel with 3.0+, but it might work.

The min difference is that Linux is complete operating system with support from big companies such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard. BSD is a niche operating system with little support outside th hobby community. It is prety much dead. Solaris is Sun's unix and it is more or less holding its own. Here's a link about the state of Unix Today

The main difference is that Linux is a complete operating system with support from big companies such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard. BSD is a niche operating system with little support outside the hobby community. It is prety much dead. Solaris is Sun's unix and it is more or less holding its own. Here's a link about the state of Unix Today

"On 16 August 2001 the W3C made public a proposal to substantially change their patent policy framework. Amongst the changes is support for a new licensing model (called RAND) that legitimises the W3C's role in developing and promoting standards that could require the payment of royalties."

Today, September 30, is the last day for submitting a comment. You can read more about this at Linux Today.

Act now, while you can still access the Web via free software.

linuxtoday. have submitted this to slashdot - hopefully it wont get rejected. last day for comments is today (sep 30 2001). and thats final. this sucks. apologies for posting this, but i dont know how long my submission will sit in a queue.

Send your level headed comments to :
www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org

Read current archives at:
archives

the entry at linuxtoday.com is clearer.

I am pleased that Slashdot has finally posted a comment about this issue. I am disappointed that my Saturday submission to Slashdot was discarded, that time is now running out and the issue now appears so obtuse.

http://www.openphd.net/W3C_Patent_Policy/draft.xht ml

This new Slashdot submission tells us to see this this link (written by Scott Peterson of HP):

http://www.aful.org/pipermail/patents/2001-August/ 002341.html

---Quote---
That a particular path has been chosen before is not itself of great help in judging the appropriateness of taking that path in some other situation -- the different context may make the choice less appropriate, or, indeed, the prior choice may have been a poor one.

The primary value that I see in noting the prior use of RAND-based policies is that it may be helpful to look to what the experience has been where that choice has been made. I believe that there are significant context differences that must be considered, so I am skeptical about simple extrapolation from that past experience. However, I think that one's analysis could be more complete by considering this history.
---End Quote---

I sincerely hope this doesn't mean Scott Peterson of HP is trying to tell us royalty-free standards may no longer be appropriate for the WWW. They have served us so well.

You should visit the W3C Backgrounder and FAQ that are also cited by me. It helps this Slashdot submission make sense:

http://www.w3.org/2001/08/patentnews

http://www.w3.org/2001/08/16-PP-FAQ.html

"RAND means that someone may or may not need to pay a fee, and that it is at the discretion of the license holder."

So yes we are talking about the prospect of future fee-based W3C WWW standards.

RAND also envisages the prospect of licensing audits:

RAND "may include reasonable, customary terms relating to operation or maintenance of the license relationship such as the following: audit (when relevant to fees), choice of law, and dispute resolution."

As part of the theoretical underpinning of this new policy we are also told: "On the other hand, there are other technologies, typically higher level, where it might be appropriate to accept fee-bearing requirements in a Recommendation. It is worth restating that, as of today, W3C is not aware of any fee-based license required for any of its Recommendations. Thus, there is an established history of RF [Royalty Free]."

So again the W3C are telling us that it "might be appropriate to accept fee-bearing requirements in a Recommendation."

If you think Scott Peterson has convinced you see this recent post to the W3C Patent Policy archive:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpoli cy-comment/2001Sep/0011.html

In particular "It is true that some standards bodies operate successfully under RAND rules, and that some standards requiring licensing have been adopted without apparently serious damage. However, this has happened mostly in cases, such as consumer electronics or semiconductor manufacture, where a few large companies with enormous capital investments make essentially all of the products. In such a situation, patent licensing does not greatly increase the already large barriers to entry. This does not describe the environment in which W3C recommendations are used; in software, patent licensing costs (including administrative costs) may frequently exceed all other costs involved in developing a product."

Readers may be interested to know that I was approached by LinuxToday to put the document I wrote in full on their Web Site:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09 -30-001-20-NW-CY

I didn't even need to submit it to them. By Slashdot initially ignoring my submission I think they did a disservice to their readers. This is an important issue for the future development of the World Wide Web.

Regards,
Adam Warner

Heres what I was just about to submit:

LaBrea - The Tarpit: Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
- -
With the recent proliferation in worms (Code Red, Sircam, Nimda, etc) beyond either switching to a more secure? webserver or keeping up to date with the patches for your own and hoping that others do the same; approaches to actively dealing the problem have been limited. One can try to either contact the administrator[s] of the machines infected or take a slight more risky proactive approach. 'LaBrea' - The Tarpit offers proof of concept? for an interesting open source approach.
Linux today, Wired and Linuxsecurity have covered this developing project, more information is available from Hackbusters here, here, here, here, here, or here.
- -
Im off to sulk. :)

Suppose you are using some Free Software in your business. You find a bug or discover you need a new feature, so you take care of it (or hire it done) yourself. Then you have what you need, and you don't really have to do anything else.

However, a new version of the program will soon be released. You must decide whether you want to use the new version, and if so you must integrate your changes into it. This happens each time a new version comes out. If you were to send in your changes and get them integrated into the mainline code, each new version would already have your changes.

As long as you keep your changes private, nobody else is using them. Once your changes get integrated into the mainline code, other people start using them, and improving them. As a result, each new release of the program not only has your changes integrated, it may have improvements on your changes.

Thus, publishing your changes (1) cuts your own workload and (2) attracts free assistance from others with similar needs. The process doesn't depend on altruism or a sense of community, although many people are also motivated that way. It doesn't depend on people working to establish a reputation, although many are. It doesn't depend on proprietary alternatives being intolerably restricted, expensive, or buggy, although they often are.

It seems to me that while OSDN brings in revenue, there is an unexplored opportunity for another branch to fill exactly the niche that the article is discussing. VA Linux is no longer in the hardware business. That makes them a completely neutral player relative to that business. And they have all that knowledgable talent.

I might be wrong but I doubt that people who were originally drawn to Linux were interested in corporate hype. Isn't this supposed to be a distinguished feature of the movement? And coming off of the 10 year anniversary, Linux doesn't need the evangelism anymore. Heck, the corporations such as IBM and HP will do all the evangelism required.

There is a natural niche for older knowledgable players in any industry, and that's to be lovable curmudgeons. They've already made their mark. They have good reputations. In other words, they're naturals for the type of journalists the article calls for.

Furthermore in order for VA Linux to succeed in their SourceForge endeavor, they have to find a way to reach people outside of the current Slashdot box. Slashdot doesn't complement VA Linux at all when it comes to the image the company needs to sell to people outside the community. As Eric Raymond wrote, the company's survival depends on selling products to people different from Slashdot's audience.

Linux will survive but VA Linux won't unless they do something drastically different from what their competitors offer. VA Linux is selling a product that in essence says that things are broken in current industry. But pure Linux advocacy is incapable of reaching the people that VA Linux needs to reach to make the sale. The message needs to be communicated in a different way, and the article shows a way to try this.

In addition to the information found in the press release below,
Xandros has this to say about its plans:

"Xandros is developing a customized Debian-based Linux
distribution that is derived from version 3.0 of the award
winning Corel LINUX OS. It will support both the KDE
and Gnome desktop environments. In addition to the
features that Linux users expect, Xandros will be
distributing significant additions and enhancements.
Furthermore, Xandros is creating a server and enterprise
management solution that will significantly reduce the total
cost of ownership of computing environments. The overall
solution is complete "off the shelf", but Xandros
Professional Services can customize and integrate the
products as well as provide enhancements to legacy
systems as needed. Finally, all Xandros offerings will be
backed by world-class support."

So there is a version 3 of CLOS. What happened to ver 2? The last release was ver 1.1. It is a licensing deal so Corel will still own the distro. Xandros plan enterprise version. I wonder if it is the software part from Rebel? You can see bios of all the the key players at the Xandros web site. It seems like they all were graduates of Corel U(ex employees cut loose in the last bloodbath). They are also supporting Gnome which is a change from CLOS 1.1. Should be interesting.

More Linux News here.

Linux Today has a poll where you can vote for the best operating system.

Note: This is an unbiased and unscientific poll, for entertainment purposes only.

Of course, ReiserFS is IN the kernels they distribute, though they turn on slow mode (read: extra debugging). After the comments from RedHat, and their actions, it seems to me they are deliberately trying to forgo ReiserFS. After all, given not only the restrictions above (install/upgrade), but the added *intentional* slowing down of ReiserFS for those who choose to format a partition with such, it is less likely a user will use reiserfs, and those that do will be very unhappy (to say the least).

I don't think that ESR's article should be read without looking at AC's reply down the page.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-08 -17-016-20-OP-CY-0055

ESR writes the following in his article:

But now let's suppose that, after years of lobbying, messrs Kuhn and Stallman get a law passed that makes proprietary licenses illegal. We are now in the world of the FSF's premise.

From where is Raymond getting this? I have never read anything from the FSF or Stallman that advocates making proprietary licenses illegal or anything even morally equivalent to this position. Can anyone supply a reference to any statement from the FSF or Stallman supporting Raymond?

I see ASCI White runs AIX and IBM said gladly replace AIX with Linux someday so we could see the fastest computers running Linux not too soon.

The article is here, and it's a very good read. I too would be interested in the answer from Bradley or RMS.

If you really want to know what happened, check out this Linux Today Story.

Basically, Scott has been screwing his employees over for the last 18 months, and when he was told to pay up, cowardly claimed chapter 11 so that he could continue paying himself, and no-one else.

I think all of this sympathy is misplaced.

Also, LinuxGames did a retrospective article the night that the Loki news first broke. It covers history, achievements, difficulties, and the possible future of Loki. Read it here