Slashdot Mirror
RMS Responds To Allchin's Comments
Thanks to Dan Gillmor for pointing out RMS' response to the commentary from Microsoft's Allchin recently. The comments are pretty normal for RMS - the delineation between Open Source and the Free Software Movement, and what the differences are, as well as his non-opinion of "intellectual property". I've been notified that this response was a draft of RMS' - we'll update it with the final when it's ready.
listen man, linus used his tools to write the system. say it again slowly, he used the GNU tools to write his system. are you getting it yet. He STARTED with the GNU tools to write an operating system. he then wrote an operating system that would be free. it isn't that hard to understand.
What has OpenSource/ Free Software to do with the "American Way"? I thought that most OS/FS- Deveopers life somewhere out of the US?
And thank you for writing a huge block of semi-comprehensible drivel about a bunch of lazy fucks who seldom deviate from the short path between their on-campus offices and the rooming house they live in several blocks off campus.
If all I had to do was keep the cooties out of my beard and the bag of bong-fuel full, I'd sit around and craft a compiler and a toolchain, too.
I'm not that kind of drain on society, however.
You're obviously a facist. No seriously. That perspective is fundamentally facist. There's nothing inherently wrong with that so long as you are aware of it and accept it.
what was freely given to you in the first place.
I read Slashdot mainly to stay informed on technology in general. I usually dip into the comments regularly to see if there is any intelligence displayed. I usually get the same old "Linux is sucks" or "Microsoft is evil" arguments which bore me, and make me want to find another news source.
But it's the comments like these that always make me come back for more. Seriously. There is nothing in my daily life that can evoke the same mix of mirth, confusion, and awe that something like "RMS NEEDS TO HUMP A JAR OF SPAGHETTI" can.
Thank you, Artificial Vagina Man, for making my day complete.
Under such a license, the reference implementation could be copied and incorporated into proprietary programs, but (significant) changes would have to be donated to the community.
"Yes, you can have our Kerboros implementation for you proprietary HellOS 666. No, you cannot fork incompatible proprietary versions from it."
Somebody would have to work out the details (obviously, some types of changes need to be legal to allow the integration of code into other programs) and to write it up in Legalese...
Stephan
You wrote that so fast you probably didn't catch the obvious. Take for instance a piece of work my father did (he's the inventor of the Logic State Analyzer btw...) I remember long ago him working on a device in the garage, we called it the "garagect", a mix of the words garage and project. It was open to him and a friend to work on. He later patented it, further opening it to the world.
During the mid 80's he developed it and kind of dropped it. Later in the late 90's his son wrote up a buisness plan on it for his MBA, turns out the technology was still unimplemented and worth something. By the time it came time to make money on it market he had shown it to three different companies.
Interestingly enough the three companies he showed it to had almost overnight "innovated" this device for themselves. After showing two of them the error of their ways, they acknowledged his patent and payed royalties. One company still remains defiant however, and has a patent for simular technology (indeed the difference is in the words chosen to describe the process) that is even more shady.
Meanwhile you mention that STOS doesn't have any innovation. I say it has a lot of innovation, and true innovation potential. Even though someone may have done it elsewhere most open source is innovative for that particular coder. And many times, when something is worth money they want to get funding and make money off it. You think Ximian would be anything if they didn't have more of a plan than "We'll just see where this open source thing goes."
Meanwhile my father is still smart. He innovates on his spare time, and then sells the invention to his company. He's up to 9 patents I think.
So in short, just becuase someone gets (or got) funding it doesn't mean it didn't start as a spare time operation. Just becuase it is open sourced doesn't mean it isn't funded to make money.
I liked what you said, but I had to point that out.
But what about Windows? Why don't people say Microsoft(tm) Windows(c) NT(r) or whatever? It's always Windows, or NT, or 2000. Microsoft never gets any credit for all their hard work and millions of dollars spent developing the product everyone takes for granted. And don't forget the too numerous to mention innovations Microsoft has research for the good of the user. Many people can't even name their operating system, responding to 'what operating system do you run' questions with stuff like Office or Explorer. Almost all the software millions use every day goes by unrecognized. Microsoft has done a lot for the Windows community, and their EULA is beyond reproach and a model license for all software developers to follow. Just give them a break already, Microsoft may be too humble to demand people refer to the Windows operating system as 'Microsoft Windows' in recognition of their contributions to it, but have some respect and do it anyways.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Name on of the items on that list which was not released on an open source compliant license. I'm betting you won't even try, so I'll go over some of the obvious ones:
It's worth emphasizing the size of innovation by the BSD group. After AT&T changed the licensing for Unix, you still had almost all the necessary components of a Unix system available from BSD under the BSD license. That's pretty significant "innovation".
sigs are a waste of space
Instead, RMS is getting everywhere. Or his works and ideas impact the whole software world and beyond.
His editor is the standard editor in computer science departments all over the world.
His compiler is used from commercial OSes to embedded system development. His compiler is the standard compiler for Apple's Mac OS X. Not to mention Linux and the BSDs.
He started the movement that (with its spin-off, the Open Source movement) turns the software world around, away from Bill Gates' vision back toward the form in its earliest days (when source code is shared).
His license is used in an increasing amount of source code that begins to cover most software application areas and reduces Microsoft's businesses (in line with the original goal of replacing proprietary software with free software).
And his ideas even spread beyond software, into other forms of IP (see why Gnutella is named GNUtella, even though it is not GNU software)
And you are saying he is getting nowhere?
He does not have to enter the world of marketers and executives; his works will bring them to the world of Free Software, willingly or unwillingly. Microsoft's Allchin is an example.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
embrace and extend. Hardly a reason to call someone a liar, misinformed maybe, but then again "LIAR" is troll talk
Brian Seppanen
Minister of Information and Propaganda
Brian Seppanen
Minister of Information and Propaganda
Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo
How about the bulk of the internet standards like sendmail, bind, ppp, pop3, telnet, and usenet?
---- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(
My problem with this is that GNU claims ownership of other peoples' projects. RMS has always said his intention was to develop a GNU operating system and he started with the tools and would then develop the kernel (I find this unbelieveable, I mean, who wouldn't start with the kernel). He then, at least implies, that Linus simply wrote the kernel to the GNU operating system. By implication, RMS is the owner of the whole project and Linus is just the author of one part of it. This attitude continues today as well known projects such as the Gimp and Abiword suddenly and without warning are called small parts of another large GNU project.
As far as I'm aware, Linus wrote the operating system because he wanted a *nix at home. It is true he used the gnu tools to develop it but it seems the intention wasn't to write a kernel for the GNU operating system. Currently, GNU is a set of tools and until GNU finish a kernel, I think they stretch their point by insisting Linux be called GNU/Linux.
Put a sticker on the distribution - "Contains GNU tools" if you like. After all, there isn't all that much stuff in your average Linux distro that couldn't be replaced with a non-GNU version.
Having said this, RMS is an extraordinary individual and people should have respect for what he has achieved.
Regards
The question is, is samba a GNU product. It's GPL, granted but does anything released under the GPL suddenly become part of the GNU operating system now?
Not only was Mosaic not originally open-source (the source was available but that's all), but it wasn't where the web started out - the first browser/editor was for NextSTEP if I remember correctly - don't know if it was open source or not though. I've certainly never seen it anywhere.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Give me a break. His wording may not be 100% correct, but the point stands: Microsoft's Kerberos breaks interoperability with MIT Kerberos. And MS did this specifically to embrace and extend Kerberos. What part of that do you disagree with?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
People listen to RMS because they often agree with him and everyone loves to be told they're right at some time or other.
He is much needed - if we lose people with his fervour (the thing that means he *doesn't* gel with executives) then it will surely have a knock-on effect down the line to people who hold less extreme views. Why? Because then people can cast *them* as the 'extremists' who no-one should listen to and so it goes on.
It's just as condescending to say 'How many years until we give up on RMS?' as it is for RMS to state that holding a view on 'intellectual property' is thoughtless, only this time you're playing to the crowd and not standing up for anything. People will make up their own minds on whether they want to listen to him, just as they will on whether intellectual property is something worthwhile to think about.
Is Free Software harmful to free enterprise?
If not, why bother to bring it up?
Er...unethical in the sense that every single author of the software they sell their services for has given them permission to sell that software?
Is this Slashdot or some Microsoft discussion board?
This isn't traditonal industry and we're busy ensuring the ignorant proponents of the "things must stay as they are" frame of mind don't win the day.
How the hell do Red Hat make any money at all then? Think 'services'.
Trust one of the few trolls to support Allchin to be imediately and easily disproven.
>It should be clear from this paragraph that RMS >is only interested in his own freedom, not your >freedom. In particular, not your freedom to >refuse to share.
You think RMS would like to FORCE people to use the GPL?
Did it not occur to you that he might have wanted to replace it without forcing anyone?
Oh no, you're a troll...
Redhat make lots in turnover, but we all know they are in the red.
You know, even if the forway of Free Software into the business world turns out to have a calamitous ending it DOES mean that the software involved has had a shed load more attention heaped upon it and will therefore be much improved from what it was.
Once again, RMS is not making it all-or-nothing.
He is making his OWN position all-or-nothing (ie. he will work for Free Software or no software at all).
All he wants to do is build an alternative to proprietary software. he's raised his flag and if you want to you can rally to it, or not.
It is up to each business as to whether they rally to the flag in some form of other.
Some have (IBM), and some never will (Microsoft).
Lame-o,
All of those things are physical world items, not duplicatable infinitly without depletion.. Food is the closest, but it's not pure.
People so often forget that information, though a noun, is duplicatable infinitly without depletion.
If I know 10 things and you know 2 things, and I tell you everything I know, and you tell me everything you know, we both know 12 things. we've BOTH profited, without losing anything..
but noooooo, dumbasses like the RIAA, the MPAA, and good ol' M$, would rather you not remember basic Information Theory(tm)
Thanks for playing.
US$0.02++
yea, I guess that's why Solaris doesn't have a journaling filesystem, and GNU/Linux has 4(5?)
UFS vs. (JFS, XFS, GFS, ReiserFS, ext3(?), tuxFS(?)..
troll
US$0.02++
aah vertias, yes.. can I get the code for that?
US$0.02++
Actually, after thinking about it for awhile, I can kind of see where you're coming from. The Microsoft argument can be seen as "No one motivated by mere interest can innovate." I disagree, because the world's greatest artists and musicians aren't motivated by money at all. But, much of the interesting projects *have* been funded by companies and governments.
Of course, oftentimes the funding came as an afterthought (as in the case of UNIX, where Bell Labs completely disapproved of the project and it had to be done secretly on spare time). There's also Linux, which started out as an experiment in programming for the protected mode of the i386 processor (and then became an attempt to create a better Minix).
Actually, it was completely different from Multics and it was a non-funded project that was built despite Bell Labs' denial of permission. Furthermore, any of this really doesn't matter: all that's required for something to be open source is that the environment of free sharing of information be present.
SGI is a private company that has funded many projects. Are they not open source because they have been privately funded? Business is not the root of all evil, you know.
Saying free software development doesn't produce innovations is like saying the scientific method doesn't produce technological advancement. No, PEOPLE do. But sharing neat ideas is how they get turned into something useful rather than buried in a closet somewhere.
Texas Instruments invented the integrated circuit, but Intel was the one to make a microchip out of it. Atari didn't invent the videogame (both space war and pong were around before then), but Atari was the company that made the coin-operated video game industry happen. In each case, they got sued for patent infringment on things that they did the real work of making sucessful.
Giving other people explicit permission to improve on your ideas is what free software, open source, collaborative development, whatever you want to call it, is all about...
Rob
Also, the LGPL does exist, and is used by the FSF, tho it is preferably to use the GPL, and it does not even have such requirements when you DO distribute your modification. So, if RMS was really totally against your freedom to not share, why did he come up with the LGPL, and why does he consider the APSL non-free specificaly because it requires the sharing of all mods, not just re-distributed ones?
craig
Sure, GNU/Linux is technically more correct, but the world has standardized on Linux.
The world has also standardized on closed, commercial software. Until RMS came along.
Thanks to his death grip on his ideals we have a lot of quality, yet free, tools. I say we let his work (and that of FSF) be acknowledged.
oh, you're so tolerant of RMS for so long, let's reward you w/ a pink ribbon to match that useless slab of muscle flapping around in your head. you can tie it on your curly tail so your busy hands are free to amend "but some animals are more equal". oink oink oink!
"but any freedom is a worthy freedom [squeal!]. why, Boxer, you are free to break your back for the Farm, just as i [squeal!] am free luxuriate on my two legs and think of Tactful Ways and Means and Ends. being an defective dismissant is hard work, too, you know. [squeal!]"
You're applying your own interpretation to my words. I was talking specifically about the section I quoted, and yes, RMS is very right about that. Using the overarching term 'intellectual property' for trademarks, patents and copyrights is fuzzy thinking.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Yeah, but if you asked me my opinion on all of them at once, I'd have to tell you I have no opinion that could really apply to all of those things. Just because you can lump things into a category and label it doesn't mean that all of the same statements apply to all of them.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You are a willful idiot. Trademarks, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets have _very_ different properties, even from a purely legal standpoint. Lumping them together under 'intellectual property' is largely just a way of distinguishing them from physical property. They barely have anything to do with one another.
It's kind of like lumping together derivatives, bonds, and stock and asking someone to come up with a general opinion about all of them as 'financial instruments'.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Communism is a political ideology about physical goods. Applying the word to those who think that copyrights and patents are the wrong answer to how to compensate artists and inventors is a nasty bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Despite the fact that you agree with me, I invoke Godwin's law.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Actually, to better put it in a general sense, we should say this: "In the land of the brave and the free, we defend our freedom with firearms." When it all comes down, the second Amendment is the great guaranteer of all other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Did you read the article?
The Mercury article is more mainstream than say, Slashdot or LinuxNews. Not everybody knows what the FSF stands for.
I thought he made it pretty clear, and though I disagree with some of the stuff RMS and FSF says, I thought the article was pretty good.
And HURD wasn't mention at ALL.
Je ne parle pas francais.
In my admittedly limited experience, the GNU versions of most Unix utilities appear to be BETTER than the originals, or even the versions of those utilities that ship as part of expensive, proprietary products such as Solaris or Window NT. In my mind, that hardly makes them cheap rip-offs.
If you want examples of innovative software released specifically under the GPL, I would nominate two right off the bat: EMACS and GCC, particularsy the former. If you know of an earlier text editor that was user-extensible on the fly, I'd like to see it. Not only are EMACS and GCC GPLed products, but were written by RMS himself.
Also, in their defense, UNLIKE MICROSOFT, the FSF in particular has never claimed to be an innovator, AFAIK. Their goal has always been to produce a free-as-in-speech Unix clone, and that is what they did. Other free software projects that released their code under the GPL have been more original. Perl, for example (although GPL wasn't its first licence).
I would also argue, quite reasonably I think, that FSF's most important innovation of all was the GPL itself: A viral copyright that guarantees that works so protected, and all derivative works, cannot have their freedom revoked by profiteering private concerns. That's downright brilliant.
GNU/X/BSD/GNOME/KDE/Reiser/IBM/{etc}/Linux since there are so many important contributors to Linux.
I love to use GNU tools and do so on Solaris, HP-UX as well as Linux. I am a strong Emacs advocate (used it since 86-87) and publicly relate RMS's enormous contribution to the world of computing.
However when RMS wants to steal the spotlight by insisting on GNU/Linux he is in fact hurting himself and more importantly open/free software.
Please Richard continue to be a hero of the free software by not always claming/demading the main spotlight.
As far as I know, it was not the implementation but rather the specification that was used. Microsoft deliberatly used an empty field designated in the specs to break compatibility.
Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.
Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.
http://smokedot.org/
once the language is affirmed, dialog can take place.
Yep. Just about every protocol in existance, open or closed, has "private" fields. They're dangerous to use because it can mean compatibility problems, but they're there to use.
It's not much different from the glibc extensions to the *standard* C library. Depending on them can bite you in the ass.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Though there is no difference between Free Software and Open Source, there is a world of difference between their movements. First of all, the Open Source movement doesn't capitalize "movement".
Every year the Movement gets a little bit smaller. It would be even smaller still, if it weren't for the GNUspeak sucking in the newbies.
I can be an American without having to be a Democrat, and I can be a Christian without having to be a Baptist. But God Damnit why can't I be an advocate for Free Software without having to kiss Stallman's unholy butt!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Rehashing the company line with no additional content is insightfull score 4? God it's bad enough having the microsoft surfs; giving them a score?
If I had been one of the primary developers of gcc, gdb, emacs, and god knows how many other utilities that are bundled with most distributions, I would probably make use of every opportunity to evangelize the use of "GNU/Linux" too. Not that I think that RMS is solely motivated by such personal sentiments; he is simply asking that the contributions of the GNU project be acknowledged when people talk about Linux as an operating system (as opposed to a kernel). His point of view, while perhaps tiresome to those of us who already know of the issue, is valid. Who knows, maybe the columnist didn't know about it before RMS wrote him. Perhaps that's one fewer person that doesn't know how the histories of Linux and the GNU project are intertwined.
Well, remember that the next time you recompile your kernel...
:)
...with gcc.
I think your own link describe where you are wrong. the word "Intellimouse" refer to the scroll wheel (also used a the third button), which was in fact invented by microsoft.
I am going to shower now. I just defended microsoft.
Actually, this is one of the best balanced RMS statements I've seen: he takes a lot of care not to sound "a lot like a cocky communist", as someone noted elsewhere in this thread, but rather a "freedom-fighter". A very nice read, puts many people/accents into/in right places.
--AP
If one owns themself, doesn't that imply that one may own other people? This is the doublespeak used to justify slavery in the first place.
People are not property, people are the owners of property. Property does not have rights. So how can property own property?
Your Randite propoganda falls down under it's own twisted complexity.
All your rights are belong to us!!!
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
RMS does not portend that Linux is part of the GNU project: it is not. That is why he calls it GNU/Linux and not GNU Linux. Note the "/". That indicates a combination, not ownership.
Opinions change daily as new information arrives. Stay tuned.
-russ
From http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html:
Clearly RMS has no problem with your "freedom to refuse to share". What he is against is your "freedom" to limit the freedoms of others (ie. oppress others).
Chris.
If the kernel is the engine, GCC is the auto factory. Gnu utilities are the smaller parts of the car; it just so happens that the Gnu versions of those parts do a lot more than the BSD (or BTL) versions, while retaining excellent robustness & correctness.
Kids love features, so good luck with your ressentiment-fueled vendetta against Gnu utilities. People just like 'em.
You've just told a guy with a Rudolf Rocker quote in his sig that he's a communist! LOL!!! (Rudolf Rocker was a major Anarcho-communist writer/activist BTW)
No owners for bitpatterns!
bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
No, moron, I'd like proof that Microsoft stole MIT's code, not references to stories about the fact that their version of Kerberos uses the auth-data field in the way it was specified. Tell me about the code - or shut up, as you're not answering my question.
RMS claimed that MS stole MIT's implementation and used it in Windows.
I want proof of THAT. Nothing else.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
As far as I know, it was not the implementation but rather the specification that was used.
Unfortunately though, unless the article misquotes RMS, that's not what he's claiming.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Seriously, why should a computer program be copyrighted at all (even the GPL is copyright)? None of the early projects used copyright or patents but they mangaged to send people to the moon, create email, the net, the web, and Unix among others. In what way has the ability to copyright a list of instructions helped innovation?
Well, all of those early projects were paid for by the taxpayer or through donations. That won't cut it for sustaining a business model -- which is what you have today.
Personally, I prefer to work in the computer industry and be paid for what I do, rather than work in Denny's, earn crap wages, and then come home at night and pour my bitterness out onto a keyboard.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
A specification is not software, jd. RMS claimed that software was taken - not a spec.
Either he's imprecise or he's a liar.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The author of the post claiming that he was searching the MS kerberos binary is sort of worthless
... search for the string 'regents' Although, ftp.exe is not an embrace and extend issue, it does show that MS uses open source code that it can proprietize...
Thankyou - I'm sure you are too.
because they probably removed any text which would indicate the origin. If you want proof that MS has used BSD code in proprietary apps, look at ftp.exe with win98
I don't care if MS has used BSD code - I know for a fact that they have - search for the string "regents". What I'm talking about it whether or not they 'stole' the BSD code for Kerberos. The only way to steal is by not accepting their license terms. And the only way to do that is by not displaying their copyright anywhere (these terms are from the current MIT distro). MS's Kerberos implementation doesn't include ANY kind of BSD acknowledgement.
But then, it doesn't look anything like the BSD code either. The imports and exports look like a Windows app, not a ported app. Take a look for yourself - you'll see what I mean.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
No, you are wrong. The correct name of the Kernel is "Linux". It was named "Linux" by Linus Torvalds.
The correct name of the OPERATING SYSTEM that includes the Linux kernel, the GNU compiler and the GNU utilities and shells is GNU/Linux.
Some make the point that it should perhaps be called GNU/X/Linux for those of you who use X. It is an interesting point.
Be happy that Microsoft hasn't obtained a business practices patent on "embrace, extend and extinguish".
This page accidentally left blank
Copyright laws do not exist to make Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Jim Allchin, Larry Elison, and others as much money as possible. They exist for the purpose of encouraging expression of ideas. Suuuure.... If you're in the USofA and are a strict constitutional literalist. Art. I, Sec. 8 grants Congress authority to enact law "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts"... and of course, we know exactly how much the current interpertation of copyright law conforms to THAT!... The world needs and tags.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
That should read "The World Needs and tags....
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Fuck, Fuck, Fuck.
Let's get this right... I KNOW no-ones going to read this far into the comments, but...
What I wanted to say was:
The world needs _academic fantasy_ and _reality_ tags...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Sounds like an artifical limit/quota to me. Do you consider the US Constitution to be "socialism"?
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Jesus never held a job or owned property. He went from town to town preaching the word and in return people give him food to eat and a bed to sleep in out of the goodness of their hearts.
If Jesus were alive today conservatives would call him a "lazy commie pinko bastard"...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Emulation of old personal computers, console game systems, and arcade games were first created as non-commercial software, many under open source and free software licenses.
And let's face it... what software is more important than that which lets us revisit our youth?
---ZandramasX
IANAL but I believe this is mandated by trademark law. You cannot trademark a noun, only an adjective. If it turns into a noun, it becomes public domain. That's why you always hear the trademark owner say "Foobar(r) brand zibwats" not "Foobar(r)".
Liam Healy
Debugging is parallel if everyone is actually working on different bugs. In real life people are often working on different symptoms of the same bug. In the case of open source its even worse because no one really knows what everyone is doing, so you will have a bunch of people fixing the same problems. This means that you waste massive amounts of time.
BTW: Linux development is slowing because the system is getting as complicated as the commercial software solutions. The programmers who though "I'm better than everyone else, I don't have to follow these rules" are discovering that they aren't significantly better, they were just more ignorant about the real issues. Now they have a system that is rapidly becoming a mess because they have chosen goals other than maintainability. This is the beginning of failure. Maintainability, clear well defined behavior and algorithms are the beginning of all the other quality metrics.
Yes the declaration of independence was very vehement about free enterprise and profiteering. In fact our entire constitution is filled with praising free enterprise and corporate profits. All that talk about inaliable rights and pursuit of happiness is always quoted but nobody seems to want to publisize the parts of the declration, constitution, or the bill of rights that talk about corporatism and profit.
Oh wait a minute....
War is necrophilia.
First of all the chief claim made by Allchin was not that free software does not innovate it was that it's un-american, destroys intellectual property, and ought to be legislated. I don't think he even mentioned the lack of innovation bit.
As for the second part every time this subject comes up I refer to the same projects.
Postgres does things no database vendor ever even thought of like user defined operators, loadable stored procedure languages, in addition to the vastly rich geometric and time datatypes and corresponding operators. Yes in postgres you can run the following query. "select all points that are outside this circle" or "list all lines that are perpendicular to this one". That's just scratching the surface of what postgres offers.
Leaving that aside take a look at zope, enhydra (and xmlc), jabber. Yes dig a little into just these four projects and you will see more innovation that MS has ever made in their entire history.
One last thing go and browse around sourceforge, set up an account and play for a while. Sourceforge itself is one of most innovative things I have seen in a long time.
Open source is the richest source of innovation in the industry today.
War is necrophilia.
If the GPL is tested and found invalid it would be best thing to ever happen. Whatever the reason is for the GPL being invalid it could be used to invalidate all software licenses. I think the FSF ought to pick the right case and purposfully throw the case. If they did it carefully they could invalidate all shrink wrap and clickthrough licenses. That would be good thing but it might sink the whole .net scheme.
War is necrophilia.
I love it... you write a post correcting someone's word usage and you can't even properly spell "speech".
Pot. Kettle. Black.
that's pretty much the point...
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
If you're trying to get your company to support open source, do you show RMS to your boss? Of course not. You show him ESR's Cathedral and the Bazaar, or some similar business-oriented work.
We should count ourselves fortunate that Allchin was so unreasonable, but MS will approach the issue much more subtly next time--through the halls of congress rather than the media. Are we going to be ready?
RMS's highflautin rhetoric is the specter haunting the cause of Open Source. It's all well and good to believe it. But for God's sake, don't try to convince non-geeks of it unless you want them to think you're a communist. When/if MS lobbies the government to outlaw the GPL, we would need a public outcry to save Open Source. If we argue like RMS, we'll get laughed at by the media. It's time to stop ignoring his strident rhetoric and show how open source benefits free enterprise.
This will be a PR battle, first and foremost, and open-source evangelists can't forget it. Convincing geeks of open source is one thing; explaining to people in the real world is another.
I used to write off RMS just like everyone else. But then I started to actually listen to what he was saying, and realized that he's right.
Perhaps he is, perhaps he is not. But note how long it took for you to come to that conclusion, and you probably know and think a lot about software. Do you think you will be able to easily convince John Ashcroft or Ted Kennedy of your noble principles?
No matter how you parse it, RMS sounds utterly outrageous. And that's the last thing we need. You are welcome to argue the irrelevant non-distinctions of "Free Software" vs. "Open Source" or "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux." But a legal attack by MS on the GPL would transcend these trivial issues of nomenclature. Let's be serious: would you want RMS testifying to congress?
So companies should be free to steal from the public domain and sell it back to you? .
point missed: you cannot steal from the public domain.
Some make the point that it should perhaps be called GNU/X/Linux for those of you who use X. It is an interesting point.
Why not X/GNU/Linux? This seems logical, since X is sort of a "top-level" interface layer, with easy graphical access to simpler tasks; then we have the GNU tools, which allow more of a "nuts and bolts" interaction with the system (Linux). Oops, I almost forgot... calling it X/GNU/Linux doesn't give Stallman top billing.
Besides, typing out XFCE/X/GNU/Linux/AMD/VIA/Seagate whenever I wanted to refer to my system would send me straight to carpal tunnel hell.
So, in the interest of simplicity, I happily run Linux. But for all the Stallmanites out there, I'm certainly not forgetting about the importance of the GNU tools. I am keenly reminded of GNU's contributions while muddling about without them in the HP-UX systems at work.
--LordEq
Tho' your promise count for nothing
Think back to your school days, specifically basic geometry. Remember the relationship between rectangles and squares? All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. This is because squares are a certain type of rectangle.
The same holds true in the open-source world. The OSM is about providing access to the source code of software. Different people license their source in different ways (e.g. BSD vs. Sun Microsystems). The FSM is based around one of these licenses, taking the OSM one step further. It specifies that open-source software must always remain open. The OSM does not specify this.
To use an OOP analogy, just like a square is a subclass of a rectangle, the FSM is a subclass of the OSM. That's my take anyway. =)
- Milo Hyson
Great List. I would also add PERL in its
own category.
Also Emacs - and the concept of imbedding
an operating system in a text editor 8).
The money I make is based on the work of James Clerk Maxwell. Where do I send the check?
In the battle for civil rights, it was the restrictors of freedom, both the state governments but most importantly the Klan, who had the guns. The 2nd Amendment doesn't "guarantee" anything. What guarantees your rights is a society that is willing to pay a heavy price to enforce them, and a legal system that doesn't look the other way when demogogues, overfunded lobbys, and corporate interests try to take them away.
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
you can take our code..... but you can never take our freedom.
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
which means that you have to actually innovate and write good code to get paid for it.
for the unenlightened, can you explain the differences between static and dynamic linking? i don't know since i don't do high level languages.
No it isn't. It's much closer to a "If you're not for us, your against us" tactic.
It says, "you can use our stuff, and make more stuff out of our stuff, but only if you lisence any resulting stuff the same".
Embrace and extend is like "we'll get our stuff to support your features and play nice with your system, but then well add more features to ours that you can't use", thus meaning that if you want to use the fancy new stuff you gotta use the extended and the extended ain't shared with the original authors.
So like I said, it's quite different.
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
It never occurred to me before that the GPL is also an "embrace and extend" strategy.
No it isn't. It's much closer to a "If you're not for us, your against us" tactic.
It says, "you can use our stuff, and make more stuff out of our stuff, but only if you lisence any resulting stuff the same".
Embrace and extend is like "we'll get our stuff to support your features and play nice with your system, but then well add more features to ours that you can't use", thus meaning that if you want to use the fancy new stuff you gotta use the extended and the extended ain't shared with the original authors.
So like I said, it's quite different.
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
Did you read what RMS said about the Kerberos stuff:
"In 2000, Microsoft undermined the Kerberos secure login software in this way. They added a small secret feature to their version of the Kerberos software, simply to make it incompatible. The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server. The result: anyone who wants to communicate with the Microsoft server software has to run Windows on his desktop.
The Kerberos community was incensed when they saw this, but they had no way to stop it. Kerberos had been developed at MIT, and released as free software--but not under the GNU GPL. The lax license used for Kerberos was no bar to Microsoft's plans. If the Kerberos developers had released Kerberos under the GPL, Microsoft could not have undermined it in this way."
RMS, but, of all the bleeding edge (and I mean political here) zealots you could have, this man is wonderfully articulate. He takes a lot of guff for his opinions, but if nothing else, he sure expresses them well.
Read my diary.
Allchin went on to say that he was offended by the roads in the US. "They should have been built, nobody would argue with that, but then they should have been turned over to private interests who know how to take care of roads and protect them." He further clairified his position saying "It's unamerican. I'm an american and I'm not for this 'public use of roads' so it must be unamerican! Damn fucking commie roads...commies...get me my meds."
-- James Dornan
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Which describes how to configure your Kerberos client to authenticate with a Win2k domain controller.
I sat back, opened a telnet session to the NetBSD box and successfully logged in to the box using my Win2k password.
This works, it works very well.
I'm planning to set my Sparcstation up to authenticate the same way, as well as my DECstation now running Ultrix.
Richard Stallman is wrong. The free kerberos can communicate with the Microsoft server.
as i understood it back when this was a big controversial topic, nobody was ever claiming that you couldn't do what you have done at home.
the issue i recall people complaining about was that it would be impossible/illegal (can't remember which) to write unix-based win2k domain controller software (which is supposed to happen with Samba 3.0, right?), because win2k clients expect their pdc to understand the contents of that funky reserved field in kerberos, thus forcing anyone who wants to run a win2k domain to do it using a domain controller running win2k.
i mean, think about it - what makes more sense from Microsoft's perspective? it doesn't do them much harm if an occasional unix box can authenticate on a win2k domain - what would really hurt them would be people being able to avoid licensing win2k server for use as their pdcs.
-steve
--- "We also were guided by the unlikelihood that anyone would face supernatural evil armed only with technology."
That's a good point. How would a software license be relevant if MS just implemented and tweaked a spec?
This is rather troubling, however. The GPL is really no defense of an 'embrace and extend' strategy targeting any other open specification. TCP, IP, XML, LDAP, SVG, HTML, and on and on - they are all vulnerable, no? Witness incompatible browser 'features' as regards HTML rendering.
But that doesn't obviate the importance of the GPL. Quite the contrary; it emphasises the necessity of finding a way to apply the spirit of the GPL to this type of situation. A copyright that says something like 'if you implement this specification, you must not extend it, and you must publish your implementation.'
Does anything like this exist? Would copyright law support such a thing?
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Excellent.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
I think its a ploy...
Get rid of OpenSource etc. and then release their
own version of Linux/UNIX/whatever...
Or it could be that I've had one too much mugs of
coffee this morning.... go figure.
I do agree that freedom is also the freedom to fuck up. And in that sence open source is more free than the GPL, but I totaly understand RMS' reason for making this restriction, I don't really see what the big deal is, if you don't like it, don't use it. I like the GPL, i agree with it, so many people seem to want it all for free(beer) but charge everyone for what they do.
I see RMS' point; technically speaking, GNU/Linux is more correct. And, I feel that the GNU project's assistance to the Linux community should be more widely recognized. But, RMS' insistence on the naming issue is most reminiscent of the Open Group's guidelines for the use of its Unix trademark, which mandated, for example, that covered operating systems always be refered to as "Unix operating systems" and never just "Unix". (That trademark has changed hands many times over the years, and is now so tenuous due to common usage and non-enforcement as to be almost unenforceable.)
I think that Mr. Stallman should at this point stand back and let users formulate their own speech patterns as they choose.
As someone else points out in another thread, there is much software in the typical linux distribution that falls either in the GNU or Linux categories. (And they also incorrectly assume that "GNU" refers to all GPLed software, and not just that software created as part of the GNU project.) As such, I'm thinking that "Linux-based unix distribution" or something like that would be more appropriate.
I just wanted to let you know that this is one of the best posts I've ever read on /. It's all right there.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Not to mention gcc ... at least I can't think of an equivalent free compiler that isn't based-on gcc.
-Karl
The company wanted to engineer a rice that tastes like the famous Indian Basmati rice. I'm not sure how they engineered it, probably by genetic manipulation. Then they patented the modified rice, and also its flavour. Then they started enforcing the patent against the original Basmati rices, which the Indian farmers have been farming for centuries. Now they are trying to use WTO to patent their rice also in India. Then the farmers would have to buy licences for their own Basmati rice.
Yes, this really is true. The farmers are of course quite pissed off and try to fight against the company in USA. I'm not sure what the status of the tragedy is right now.
It looks like the source to WorldWideWeb.app (the original NeXTstep Web Browser) is here. I haven't seen any sort of license in the source files that are still there though...
We're bought and sold for corporate gold
We all credit RMS with creating the GPL & FSF, which provides the majority of code for any Linux/*BSD distribution.
But, RMS is an idealist, with his position too unwavering for the average engineer.
Linus, on the other hand, is thoughtful, easy-going and pragmatic. An engineer's engineer; the one we'd all want for a boss.
That's why we want it referred to as Linux and not GNU/Linux. We need RMS to remind us how far we've straid from his ideals, but we'd rather not show him in public as our standard bearer.
For that, we have Linus.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Its 'HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN' not 'HELLO'! Jeez, at least get it right!
sendmail? shit i don't know. it's a big buggy peice of crap from the old unix days. as far a E-Mail, the origins arn't clear. but i would imagine it's also from a research group at a company from the 60's or 60's.
Mosaic: Once again privatly funded research. NCSA Mosaic i belive.
Apache: A Patchy Web Server, from the same place as Mosaic.
Not to say open source hasn't inovated anything, but those are not good examples. they all come from research projects from large privatly funded oraniztions.
the best thing i can think of offhand is PNG.. even though it's more of a reation to GIF and freakin Unisys's patents. OggVorbis similarly is a reaction to mp3 and fofenhifers patents.
-Jon
Streamripper
this is my sig.
Perl=sh+lots of stuff. sh is from Unix (see above)
Gnutella=Nullsoft's creation. Nullsoft is owned by AOL (damit)
-Jon
Streamripper
this is my sig.
Hmmm. It just occurred to me that uname which is part of the GNU sh-utils packages reports the following:
And if you go to the info page for uname you are told that -s prints the operating system name.
BTW. I have a great deal of time for RMS. He is someone who is doing what he believes in, which is building a software community, rather than building a large bank balance. I wouldn't like to speculate which of these is more in keeping with the "American way".
#exclude <ms/windows.h>
The parent post is just flamebait... if you'd read the links in the article, or even the parent post itself, you would see that. Don't belive everything you read, even if it uses tactful language.
Pointing out to someone that their ideas resemble some aspects of communism (I've always boiled communism down to 'from each his ability, to each his need', but that's just me..) is as necessary as pointing out to someone that they're writing in english, or that they're using http to access slashdot. If, however, the poster had said his ideas wern't communist, your comment would be unimpeachable. The point made was concerning software, not political ideologies.
The flaw you point out - who determines need, and who fills that need - is, truthfully, never fully addressed, even by Marx. Marx's reasoning, to greatly summarise (if you have free time, I suggest reading The German Ideology, or buying (!) 'The Marx Engles Reader', edited by Robert Tucker) is that there will be at some point a revolution by the working classes of the world, after which a society will develop in which everyone will willingly inhabit a system where each individual does the work which they want to do, and takes only what they require. This 'state' would have no government as it is known now, and the only person who determines your need would be your (honest) self
There are several remarkably serious problems with this system - who decides what infrastructure to build and where, what to do with people who don't follow the rules, etc. . The reason communism has and had such an influence and pull over people is not the system itself, but the basis for it - that there is a pattern to history (oppression of the ruled classes by the ruling class, revolt by the rulled class, establishment of a new ruling class who in turn oppresses the new ruled class), that the pattern is reaching a climax with the new (in Marx's time) simplification of class conflict into a bourgeoisie and proletariat, and - this is where theory comes in - that the only way history can go after this simplification of class conflict is to a system in which class conflict, and therefore conflict (economic and otherwise) itself, is no more. And the fact that if there was a consensus in a population to agree to the to/from principal, it could work. It's just the consensus that's the bitch.
It also seems odd that pro-abortionists are against the death penalty. One group wants to save innocent babies, but kill convicted felons of the worst sort. The other group wants to save the murderers and rapists and kill unborn children.
It means that companies infringing it have to pay not only a legal cost (if any) but also a public-relation cost. I believe is this PR cost which keeps big companies selling in the mass-market from openly infringing GPL.
For small companies, or companies operating in niche markets, PR costs might be acceptable, however.
Ciao
----
FB
Cheshire Cat
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
You are right. The MSDN document you link to allowed this group to develop mod_auth_kerb, an apache authentication handler for kerberos. It works in Windows 2000 Domains, too.
I solve this problem by refering to the system as 'GNU,' not as 'Linux.' If you have to choose one or the other, GNU makes more sense.
Think about it this way. ~28% of a typical distribution is comprised of FSF software. ~3% is the Linux kernel. Much of the remainder is copylefted, so can easily be called part of the GNU project, even if not officialy so. Linux is useless without GNU, and is completely wrapped up in it; therefore, the system is GNU.
Furthermore, would you call Windows NT 3x 'OS/2' instead of 'NT,' because that's where the kernal came from! *grin*
Regarding your discussion of the origins of Linux... You're way off base. Linus wrote Linux using GNU tools and every part of his 'operating system' was comprised of GNU tools. Compiler, C libraries, shell, editor, etc. etc. What possible good does a kernel do without any way to interface with it?!
Also, the GNU project has been working on HURD for a LONG, LONG time. They ^did^ start work on a kernel, but not first. No one, I mean NO ONE could have started a kernel first if the goal is to write a complete, free system. You obviously know nothing about either OS development, Linux and GNU history, or both. How, exactly, do you write a kernel without a compiler, libraries, and an interface? Stallman started in the right order, and Linus stepped in and wrote a kernel that worked with it. If he didn't want it to be used with GNU he wouldn't have built it on top of GNU!
The argument is rather silly if you ask me. Too many egos.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Quite simply, Mouse Systems developed and patented the scrolling mouse about 10 years ago.
Microsoft LICENSED the scrolling technology after we sued them, of course. Still, MS gets the public credit for "inventing" this. At least Logitech is more decent about it (even though we sued them also.)
--I'm glad I'm not competing with Microsoft anymore... What?!! We are now? Oh, SH*T!!
which was in fact invented by Microsoft.
1
You don't need to shower after all. The scroll wheel was invented by Mouse Systems in 1991 (patents received in 1995/96.) Microsoft pays royalties for every IntelliMouse...GOD, I wish I had retained the rights to it. Oh, well.
See this ref:
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05530455__
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US0544648
IntelliMouse, NOT!!
:)
I'd like to correct you, Cliffton. The IntelliMouse scrolling technology is LICENSED to Microsoft, not invented.
Quite simply, Mouse Systems developed and patented the scrolling mouse about 10 years ago. Microsoft started copying it in '94 - '95 and released it as their own "innovation" in 1996. We sued them (not very successfully) in the '97 - '98 timeframe and our company went under in 1998. KYE had bought Mouse Systems and is still the patent owners; all Microsoft scrolling mice refer to our scrolling patents and Microsoft pays royalties (chicken feed, however.)
--Will Gillick
refs:
Mouse Systems scrolling patents:
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05530455__
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05446481
Microsoft's IntelliMouse patent (refers to above):
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05912661
FYI, if you click on the Mouse patent images, you'll see some FuNkY scrolling prototypes that I still have in my closet.
Thanks, RGM.
(this happened after my time, but...)
HP came up with the optical tracker for use with their CapShare hand scanner (one of the last innovations of hand scanners B4, well, you know.) They then shopped this around to companies, big and small, including Microsoft, and Mouse Systems. We were evaluating the HP tracker for a new optical mouse (Mouse started the optical mouse back in 1982) but our company folded in late '98 so we never got it to market.
Sigh for us, but hooray for HP!! Hiss for Microsoft for taking the credit.
--Will Gillick
Btw, the IntelliMouse scrolling technology is LICENSED to Microsoft, not invented by them.
Mouse Systems developed and patented the scrolling mouse about 10 years ago. Microsoft started copying it in '94 - '95 and released it as their own "innovation" in 1996. We sued them (not very successfully) in the '97 - '98 timeframe and our company went under in 1998. KYE had bought Mouse Systems and is still the patent owners; all Microsoft scrolling mice refer to our scrolling patents and Microsoft pays royalties (chicken feed, however.)
refs:
Mouse Systems scrolling patents:
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05530455__
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05446481
Microsoft's IntelliMouse patent (refers to above):
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05912661
FYI, if you click on the Mouse patent images, you'll see some FuNkY scrolling prototypes that I still have in my closet.
re: Sun, the LED mice were invented by Steven T. Kirsch of Mouse Systems in 1982, and sold to Sun Microsystems for about 5 years (until Logitech won the contract.) --was there, did that
Vive le Canada uni sti!
The usual rantings, and nothing really new or constructive to argue against Allchin. Disappointing. He was more concerned with this FSF/GPL as opposed to the topic at hand.
Well, the difference is that with the GPL you get the source code, with Microsoft you don't. If you have the source code you can make your own modifications, and distribute them to the other users of the software. This way, the vendor can never force a protocol down your throat, because you can just change it and give the modified copy to all your friends/colleagues.
So the conclusion is that this part: "add a minor bit of technology, so that nobody else can use it, then release that secret wrinkle so that only GPL software can communicate with other GPL software." does not hold for the GPL, since you can just change it back, or look at the code and extract the spec.
That aside, what about FreeNet? That's under the GPL and is one of the most inovative pieces of software to be developed in the past several years, IMO. It isn't complete yet, but I see no reason it won't be completed.
Pro-life vs. Anti-abortion is not a "semantic" difference.
err.. yes it is.
In one context, pro-life could mean anti-murder. In another context, anti-abortion could mean not stopping print jobs halfway through (called aborting).
Semantics very much depend on the context. Fortunately, as humans, we develop a context from our environment and current affairs, so terms that are in themselves completely meaningless, become meaningful in the current 'social' context.
"Excercise for the reader: try to make a comperable list of innovations that Microsoft has made. ;-)"
http://research.microsoft.com/
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
My Linux distro has a lot of GPL code, but significant and crucial parts fall under the Apache Licence, the MPL, the QPL, the Perl Licence, OpenSLL/SSLeay licence, various BSD licences and plenty of "homebrew" others. Even if stuff uses the GPL for its licence that doesn't make it "GNU" software unless the FSF own it.
If fact every piece of non "GNU" code were thrown out from Linux it would be as boring and pointless as HURD.
In short, RMS looks like a fool to keep insisting on the distinction. The bit about using GNU/Linux to distinguish from Linux the kernel is particularly silly since the context should indicate what is meant and if not then "Linux distro" or "Linux kernel" would suffice to clear things up.
Richard Stallman has to repeat his message because people are too daft to understand it.
Perhaps the problem is that people read his message and think to themselves, "What a lunatic." As far as I can see, his position is that programmers shouldn't have the freedom to not speak (release their code); he then says that this is standing up for freedom.
How the hell are we supposed to pronounce GNU/Linux, anyway? If you just say "GNU Linux" it sounds like you mean Linux was done by GNU. I think the point Stallman's trying to make is that the OS consists of GNU and Linux, so why not push people to say "GNU and Linux" is their OS?
Since when is it part of capitalizim to impart artifical scarcity? This is just as bad as the government pay farmers not to grow crops. Let them grow all they want when the supply gets to high and the price falls enough farms will be forced outta business and into other lines of work that an equilibrium will be established. Thats the the point of capitalizm balance and freedom. Artifical limits and quota's thats socailizm. Remember that the US says that everyone has the right to pursue happiness, not the right to be happy. There is an important difference between the two. Along the way you may fail. Read your history many many of americas greatest minds fail horribly many times before they made it big!
read what I wrote again. you missed something namely if the freedom is real or percieved. *think* about it.
americans seem to spend very much time in self-congratulatory celebration of their "democracy" and their freedom -- yet americans are in many ways more confined than regimes they consider to be un-free. it is really easy to buy into the idea of "freedom" if you know nothing else than the status quo.
Think about it: are you free? What freedoms do you enjoy? Are these freedoms _real_ or just percieved? What freedoms do you lack? Which freedoms are significant? Are you able to think _beyond_ current laws and legal principles and think about what is _morally_ better?
Most people are unable to.
I think RMS is trying to remind you that the US never turned out the way its founding fathers wanted it to, and it is ironic that you make orwellian references because orwellian is just what the US has become. The individual does not matter.
The only important kind of entity in the US is the campaign-contributing and lobbying corporations. The well-being of the individual has not been an issue for a very, very long time.
It is much like calling Crayola markers "magic markers" or Puff's brand facial tissue "kleenex". The point still gets across, no significant meaning is lost.
The Intellimouse isn't all that inovative. The only difference between it and older optical mice is that the camera is better and doesn't require a special pattern to read, which I put down to simple advances in camera technology. This describes such mice.
Most of the standard utilities that are bundled with Linux are GNU implementations of the standard Unix tools. e.g. bash is a GNU developed shell, grep is a GNU developed version of the Unix grep. Awk, ls, mkdir, ln and most of the other basic utilities are GNU tools, Gnome is a GNU program.
Probably the majority of individual programs in a (GNU/) Linux distro are part of the the GNU canon and even the percentage lines of source code may be above 50% GNU.
That doesn't mean that the distro should necessarily be called GNU/Linux since there are usually many things in it that are not either GNU or Linux e.g. Sendmail, KDE, openssl, Berkeley DB, etc etc.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Actually, the Intellimouse wasn't designed by Microsoft, either. The chip that makes it work is designed and built by Agilent. Amusingly, though, Microsoft apparently turned down an exclusive deal for the technology, so Agilent is now selling them to everyone under the sun. That's why the other guys were able to follow up on Microsoft's "innovation" so rapidly; they just bought the innovative part from the same third party.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Apache good as it may be, was hardly the first web server. Unix, as far as I can remember inherits frequently from other, proprietary OS:es. As for Mosaic see the previous discussion on it in this thread.
We're talking innovation not improvement here.
.oO Kaa Oo.
You are right it is a restriction. But you misunderstand the reason for that restriction. It sounds like you want to leech off the free software community but give nothing back.
(4) the software must therefore not call anything GPL'd.
That is not true. A program can make use of any dynamic libraries. You just can't statically link the libraries with your program.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
RMS writes:
The "free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not price; specifically, that all computer users should have the freedom to study, change, and redistribute the software that they use.
My claim is as follows: the BSD vs GPL debate which Microsoft has entered by endorsing BSD and vilifying GPL is confused by misconceptions about freedom, and these misconceptions, from my reading at least, seem particularly widespread on slashdot.
The problem starts with the beer/speech distinction between types of freedom, which RMS alludes to in the quote above. I admit that at first glance this distinction has a certain appeal to it - free beer obviously is free in a different way from free speech. However, what this distinction misses is that every freedom for one person involves taking away a freedom from someone else. Once you grasp this idea, it is obvious that any talk of GPL being more free than BSD or vice versa is utter nonsense. What does make sense is to talk of one license (or system of government etc) offering more freedoms of a certain flavour. Which flavour you prefer depends on your tastes and how much you stand to benefit or lose when that flavour is enforced. Criticisms of the flavours other people prefer (e.g. calling it "Un-American" or the splurges of moral indignation regularly seen on Slashdot) when they are not backed up by a reasoned argument based on something other than freedom are just as nonsensical as criticisms of other peoples preferred flavours of ice cream!
Now, the flavour of freedom much of the open source community prefers is to be free to view, copy, and modify the source code and, in some cases, to prevent others from removing this freedom when they modify the source code and distribute binaries. On the other hand, the freedom Microsoft and many closed source vendors prefer is the freedom to recoup their investments and make profits by requiring users of their software to buy a licence for the software.
Which flavour should we choose? As ever in politics, the answer will involve trying to find the best way of reconciling conflicting preferences. What it does not involve is a choice between freedom and lack of freedom - it is a choice between different flavours of freedom.
I can criticize the government without fear of retribution
Darryl Cherney, Judy Bari, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Bobby Seal, Leonard Peltier, and the WTO protesters who got shot at with rubber bullets are all going to be very glad to hear you really can do that in the US.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Output from Eazel's Nautilus installer:
/tmp/eazel-installer.TGAHPL298
g s-en.xml
/tmp/eazel-install.log ...
[root@the-shell eazel]# eazel-installer.sh --server=triggerfish.eazel.com --port=8888
Eazel Installer 1.0
Choosing default texts
debug: found an old tmpdir:
Trying to contact Eazel services, ignore any 404 warnings at the next line
warning: HTTP error 404 "Not Found" on uri http://triggerfish.eazel.com:8888/installer-strin
Choosing default texts
: Eazel Package System - rpm4
d: SOFTCAT host: triggerfish.eazel.com
d: SOFTCAT port: 8888
Writing logfile to
Nautilus-Installer-ERROR **: file eazel-package-system-rpm4.c: line 197 (eazel_package_system_rpm4_query_foreach): should not be reached
aborting...
SEGV (6) -- SOMEBODY SET US UP THE BOMB.
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
And people wonder why RMS hasn't gotten anywhere. So starting the developement of the GNU OS is nothing?. The creation of the FSF is nothing? Gnome is nothing (the developement of Gnome was started by the FSF!). GCC is nothing? Emacs is nothing? Come on, just shut up!
Just because he's against them doesn't mean he has to presume that we'd agree with that position. And to frame our disagreement in the language of thoughtfulness/thoughtlessness insults the hours of philosophical and moral debate we have invested in arriving at our own conclusions, be they contrary to his or not.
:-)
Best wishes,
SisterRay
Uh... from the article RMS states that:
That term is a catch-all, covering copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other disparate legal systems; they are so different, in the laws and in their effects, that any statement about all of them at once is almost surely foolish. To think intelligently about copyrights, patents or trademarks, you must think about them separately.
It sounds to me like you read what you wanted to and skipped over the rest he doesn't state his opinion on them as a whole nor does he use the term to discuss anything because its too general. He isn't expecting anyone to agree with him, he's just saying if you're smart you won't over generalize and that's true.
How many more years until we just give up on him?
Why do we keep listening to RMS?
Hopefully we never will because free software should be our goal. You should listen to your roots because if you don't you might forget yourself. In this case forgetting yourself means promoting GNU/Linux until its popular enough for people to make commerical applications for it and being content with that...a free platform on which you can run a lot of non free software...I have to ask what is the point of that? Why not just use windows if you use one piece of non-free softwrae its just as bad as using all non-free software in my opinion. Go install windows if that is what you want...as for me I'm happy with my freedom and with GNU/Linux, the free software movement, RMS and all
Those familiar with Apache's history will remember it's called Apache because it was a set of patches to the NCSA's implementation - A Patchy Web Server. So no, it's not something innovated either. UNIX was created at AT&T, and for a while back around the end of the eighties it looked like BSD would be ruled an illegal clone of it. That's what moved people off 386BSD and onto Linux, as it turns out. So no innovation there.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I dunno - I heard some guy talk about the history of UNIX, and he made a big deal about how the lawsuit scared developers away from BSD. So my facts are based on what he said, and may be wrong... oh well.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
They've innovated new ways to take cash from customers by selling them crappy software with questionable licensing practices.
BigCat79
BigCat79
"The dead have risen and are voting Republican!" --Bart Simpson
somebody set us up the bomb
I love it- just cause the moderators don't get it, they rate you with troll. heheheheh
same as it ever was: "...sources close to Microsoft told me that the company's programmers are having "panic attacks" about Mac OS X's new Aqua UI. Particularly troubling to Microsoft is Macintosh's new intuitive Finder (i.e., the Mac version of the Windows Explorer shell), which features several panes that simplify drilling down through subdirectories. Microsoft's UI team is suddenly playing catch-up-with-the-Mac again..." http://www.windows2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?A rticleID=16230
go for it, and charge admission... heh heh ALL YOUR SCROTUM ARE BELONG TO US
"...sources close to Microsoft told me that the company's programmers are having "panic attacks" about Mac OS X's new Aqua UI. Particularly troubling to Microsoft is Macintosh's new intuitive Finder (i.e., the Mac version of the Windows Explorer shell), which features several panes that simplify drilling down through subdirectories. Microsoft's UI team is suddenly playing catch-up-with-the-Mac again..." AGAIN, STILL, AND ALWAYS ----->http://www.windows2000mag.com/Articles/Index . cfm?ArticleID=16230
Someone call my name, or a variation thereof?
--
Dyolf Knip
The sentence did compute, and it meant something very different from what you transformed it to.
Of course, that doesn't mean it was correct; but your post is even less correct than the post you replied to.
What I wonder is how so many people who pride themselves on being clever could simultaneously come to pretend that restriction (of how I can use my software improvement) is freedom. It has a 1984 quality to it. This all seems pretty simple: (1a) there are lots of things that need doing before volunteers will get around to doing them, (1b) those things have to be done by people who are payed, (2) their salaries must come from customers, (3) the customers won't pay unless the software is proprietary, (4) the software must therefore not call anything GPL'd. So it follows, as the night follows the day, that anything with a GPL is of use only to hobbyists who trail along several years behind the commercial world, duplicating established functionalities. That's not bad, it's just not enough. When people start waving the free software flag and talking about evil, it's a good idea to check that your wallet is still in your pants.
Look around. The world is big and complicated. It's even possible that "the free software community" is doing a little leeching, or being payed back in currencies other than contributed software. It looks to me like FreeBSD is going to rule, just because they don't rule themselves out.
This is a good sign, to my wondering, child-like eyes. Stallman is fighting MS bluster with facts and information; he remains self-consistent and logical, unperturbed and reasonable. He puts forth his philosophy, which, I've been here, what, almost a year? - and finally it all begins to make sense to me, because it is logical. MS by contrast Does appear shrill and emotional. This confirms my opinion that Truth will out.
/.) tactics and strategies, might very well be strengthening the case for GPL and OSS because they are cornering the market.
And most of the posters - most of you folks - really get it! Much more than I... it's just plain frikkin' gratifying to see a consensus on the side of logic.
Stallman Needs to continue preaching. He needs to continue preaching until the average American - yes, you there sitting in the Barcalounger with the can of Spud beer - starts to 'get it'. I would love to be a CNN reporter asking people in the street "What do you think about GNU/Linux, the FSF, and the GPL?" And yet, these things are so vitally important to the tides of change in the world that We the People have a great need to understand the importance of all this.
So I would implore all of us to discuss and post until we are conversant in these matters. Not one of us can understand all of the implications of FSF philosophy and MS crapification tactics, but together we can gain a comprehensive understanding. For instance, I get the feeling that MS, through there well-known (here in
...and the market, like a dog, does not like to be cornered...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Is it my ''FREEDOM'' to take your work and claim the credit?
"FREEDOM" is not being forced to open up your source after using a piece of GPL/GNU software. I call that a cancerous growth that most developers stay away from.
im not saying im being forced to use it, im just tired of people like you claiming it has anything more to do with freedom than the copyright.
1) I didn't write a compiler, I was just using X as an example.
2) if you didn't release the source, sold it, that would be fine. It's called FREEDOM.
If it's not Public domain, it's not free as in speech. Neither is the copyright. Learn the difference.
Do you think the murderers on death row thought about the lives of the people they killed? Even through the eyes of God, the death penality is justified.
why does that matter?
I wrote compiler X. Big piece of software was written using compiler X. Should I get credit? No!
The GNU is fine and dandy, but..Credit should only be given where credit is due.
It seems that RMS likes to take credit for any piece of software written under the GPL/GNU. I wish someone would create a "public domain" operating system.
gtk+'s tear off menus
-Compenguin
Your argument is dangerous and wrong.
It is dangerous because on a first reading it credibly invalidates Stallman and Lincoln's statements, if the reader is not paying attention.
However, on subsequent readings it becomes apparent it is wrong.
Neither Stallman nor Lincoln said you must give up all your property rights.
What they do say, when there is a CONFLICT, human rights must prevail.
And of course, one basic HUMAN right is the PROPERTY right to ones own body.
Think before you post.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
So both statements are true then? :)
All my suspicions confirmed
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
That letter was perfectly justified, and if you've ever written commercial software in your life you know damn well why. There is free software, and there is commercial software, and you can't just go and do with commercial software what you can with free software. (a.k.a., you can't just run off a dozen copies of a Win98 CD)
How can your "secret wrinkel" be secret if everyone has the source code dumb ass..
And you point out very nicely that what the public perceives as innovation is what's visible to them.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
he only way capitalist model still works is by enforcing artifical scarcity of information
Excellent point - another reason Capitalism needs to change dramatically.
Well, I don't read it that way. I can't say it justifies shouting about proof, really. But then, I don't know anything about Kerberos beyond what I read on /. when M$ lawyers came creeping.... :-)
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
You don't find this funny? I believe the humor lies in the somewhat crazed translation. You may want to read the "All your base are belong to us" part once again.
Regards,
Hoarycripple
--
So what you're saying is that becuase Microsoft hasn't innovated much of anything, it's OK for open-source to follow the same route? Am I misunderstanding you? I would like to think that the goals of the open-source community would not be determined by what Microsoft has or hasn't done.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Whatever was done in the past is not my point. Rather, why should the open-source movement look at Microsoft as any sort of standard as to innovation. Microsoft says open source is not innovative. The fact that Microsoft itself does not innovate does not invalidate that observation. It does not change the issue. Is open source innovative at this point in time? For the most part, no. If someone can point out to me some innovative open source projects, I will gladly eat crow and smile about it. I just don't see them out there.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Yes, that is true, but the pot calling the kettle black does not invalidate the fact that the kettle is indeed black. To continue the analogy, why should the kettle (open source movement) even care that the pot is black, or that the pot is mouthing off about the kettle in the first place? The fact that Microsoft is not innovative does not invalidate the observation that Open-Source projects are for the most part not particularly innovative either. As I stated previously in the thread, if someone can point out truly innovative open-source projects, I'll eat my crow and like it too.
And I read in Nested mode, thank you very much.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Having hacked around the binaries of the MS Kerberos implementation, I can find no evidence that they've used any of the MIT implementation of Kerberos. So what makes RMS so sure that it is using their source code? After all, the spec is out there online for anyone to implement for free. Why does he think they didn't do that?
you obviously didn't read the article:
In 2000, Microsoft undermined the Kerberos secure login software in this way. They added a small secret feature to their version of the Kerberos software, simply to make it incompatible. The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server. The result: anyone who wants to communicate with the Microsoft server software has to run Windows on his desktop.
nowhere did RMS say that they "used any of the MIT implementation of Kerberos".
-Iwan
This is an ethical problem and RMS does an outstanding job defending our rights.
Though inhabitual, his position concerning Open Source is right and coherent: You *can't* fight for Freedom if you accept concessions with what you describe as *bad*.
Now, if RMS'positions often regard computer science, it is because he is working in this area now, the real question is "can we have our innovation and creativity biaised by financial interests ?"
How can we doubtlessly agree when we see a company patenting something not because it is revolutionary but because it is common sense?
In such case, we all know "they" patent it because of the money they get out of it, they patent it as marketers, not as scientists nor artists.
So, when will they patent laws?
They actually started, it is called the ISO standard and we all know how much royalties we have to pay to grant this "honour" to an organization. ISO9xxx standards are hinderences to evolution.
The GPL can actually be applied to many domains such as Art (try this too). If we want to progress, we have to share, if we want to share, we need to renounce to any mark of property. Or to share the discovery's rights with any person who directly or not contributed to it, which is equivalent to sharing it with the whole universe and is reflected by the GPL.
I say "Go on, Richard, I am standing with you".
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
"A few atoms won't even light a match" - Dr Jones, 1933
"A few atoms won't even light a match" - Dr Jones, 1933
"A few atoms won't even light a match" - Dr Jones, 1933
"A few atoms won't even light a match" - Dr Jones, 1933
Yes, well, that you are tired is all too obvious.
...when you were born with a silver spoon like RMS. his outdated arguments could easily be applied to many other areas, such as construction, the health industry, and most ironically, education.
i stopped listening to him in the 80s. i don't understand why anyone cares what that spoiled brat has to say.
--
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
how about this -
perl
patch
configure
gopher
www/browsers
muds
markup language/links
And of course the whole process of 'distributed development'. You are silly to think that open source - or its extension, academic research - doesn't innovate, all you are doing is narrowing down the list of what you consider 'innovations'. Open source makes 'self-assembly' development possible - development from the bottom up.
Note how each gnu package, for instance, is its own component, free to evolve (within reason) but also able to be connected in a chain like tinker toys so people can build large distributions out of it (m4/autoconf/automake/etc for example). And 'patch' is a wonder in itself - I think in retrospect it will go down as one of the most influential piece of software in history.
Without these interconnections, truly portable software - and distributed development - becomes very difficult.
Ed
Not being American, but having spent a year of my life there, I initially liked the "patriotic" touch in RMS's response. To me, this sort of rhethorics[1] seemed right for your typical politician on the campaign trail, just like we were able to witness before last year's presidential elections.
RMS, however, doesn't need to win any election by persuading the American patriot in every one of his listeners that he is their friend and that he will fight for their genuinely American interests. He doesn't get enough media exposure for that anyway. The only thing he could do was to show those people who would bother to watch his mostly one-man-campaign how little sense Jim Allchin's remarks make, with a little saticiral twist. And that's just how I understand his duckspeak.
-Hilko
[1] I couldn't imagine just this kind of rhethorics happening in mainstrem politics here in Germany. Not because we aren't a free country, but people seem to take their freedom more for granted, they don't view themselves in a revolutionary state -- not since the 70s, anyway. But I'm getting OT.
If that technology would ever get invented, it will not only be the better software than any proprietary, closed software, but also the more expensive one, because it is the software with inherently the better value.
I think it would be great if all government funded software development would be GPL or at least open source code software.
I bet I missed the point again.
If the U.S. hadn't the 2nd Amendment, then still anyone who desires had the right to choose to be an anarchist and terrorist, just it would be a little less dangerous for the usual civilian not to get shot for all the wrong reasons.
Just because someone wanna be an anarchist, doesn't mean I would want to allow my government to allow that person the access to weapons which makes anarchist's (or fascist's or racist's) ego trips a deadly play.
I am sure, if Lincoln would live today, he wouldn't support the 2nd Amendment and would fight a war to enforce it to replaced with something more intelligent or to be dropped from the Constitution altogether. But helas, find a true hero like him in these days, one who doesn't uplift the forefather's wisdom into untouchable holyness, and still uses his brain to adjust the flaws of the constitution the forefathers left behind, and would just serve truthfully for the good of the people without opening himself up to any sort of mental bribery.
How has Lincoln NOT fought FOR human rights and by that also FOR property rights ? Humans can't survive without owning property, it's the freedom of the individual to collect property, which allows survival. The most basic human right is the property right over your own body. So where could he not be a hero for people who love freedom ?
That signature would only make sense, if your definition of freedom includes the individual freedom to take away freedom/human/property rights from another individual human being. If you define freedom like that, then your freedom becomes murderous.
That can't be the definition of freedom in any sane person's mind and I doubt very much that even the forefathers had ever that definition in mind. That's the anarchist's definition of freedom, which is nothing but "sleazy (American?) sales trick" to cover up some unethical usage of freedom, which directly denies each human the euqal chance of survival.
If humans are all created equal, then our freedom can't include the freedom to take away another human's freedom. That would directly lead to extinction of humans. I thought that's a given definition of freedom worldwide.
May be that's the point noone in Europe can "get" when lurking to all this "Amercian Freedom Bragging" here at /.
http://joshua.editthispage.com/2001/02/16
What RMS doesn't understand is that this battle won't be won all at once.
I won't pretend to know what RMS does or does not understand, but in any case I'm not really sure which "battle" you're referring to. If you mean convincing the corporate world to use free software, well, I don't think that's exactly a priority for RMS. If people use free software it is because it's better suited to their needs, or they believe in the free software ideals -- not because they have been hypnotized into using it through propaganda of Allchin's sort. And if the corporate world only understands the Allchins and Microsofts, so be it. Free software got this far without them...
What about Debian GNU/Linux? Personally, I don't see the problem with the prefix... In any case, details are important for an advocate -- for the rest of us, not so much. Compare "GNU/" with the (R) and (TM) symbols that nobody ever uses in email but which you will always find in magazines...
For you and the others like you:
The depiction of life in the US by Slashdot posters is about as accurate as the depiction of Microsoft software. There's plenty of room for improvement but idiocy like "The only important kind of entity in the US is the campaign-contributing and lobbying corporations. The well-being of the individual has not been an issue for a very, very long time." is about as accurate as "WinBlows is completely unusable! You have to reboot every five minutes!"
You are really a dummy and so are the moderators. *Most* people in the world are not familiar with the concepts of free software and how they differ from open source philosophy. Thus RMS must explain the differences.
For chissake, Allchin called the GPL "opensource." He obviously knows nothing about the fsf ideals!
And RMS did address Allchins concerns quite well. He pointed out that the beliefs of the fsf are not un-american, but have their roots in the same ideas of many great past American leaders.
It may be "the same tired argument and same tired distinctions" to you, but you obviously do not care about these ideals. And these ideals are why the fsf was founded. Thus, you have no business suggesting what direction the fsf take.
"This goal is why we labored for a decade to develop a complete free operating system. This goal is why GNU/Linux exists. When our work is described as "open source", that has the effect of attributing it to the wrong philosophy, a philosophy which does not ask people to do the work we did. The Free Software Movement is often forgotten because of this misattribution of our work." RMS
I'm not altogether sure of the relationship between FSF and Linux, but didn't the FSF have plans for hurd to be the kernal. The only reasons that Linux became the kernel was that Linus released it under GPL and it worked.
Is the RMS claiming that the FSF planned GNU/Linux from the start? I like RMSs articulation and view points, but is his mind faltering or his ego over whelming?
Your links are irrelevant to the question asked. The question is whether Microsoft used Open Source code to write their Kerberos implementation and you respond with links to stories about Microsoft's implementation being faulty.
That's like claiming M$ stole Mozilla code because their HTML impelementation is not standards compliant. Illogical, isn't it.
Microsoft embracing and extending Kerberos was because the Kerberos spec (RFC 1050) had an extra field specifically for people to use to send extra data. This has nothing to do with BSD vs. GPL or whatever else RMS was talking about but with the fact that the Kerberos spec had a loophole that encouraged interoperability which M$ exploited. Or is RMS suggesting that RFC's should now be GPLed?
Anyway, M$ did provide the altered specs after much community outcry.
I think that it is about more than just credit for FSF. I think that there is a serious desire to be as correct as possible. for example he writes:
I mean yeah, its true, but he doesn't respond to what Allchin says at all. I mean he could say the above and then discuss GPL's impact on several of the systems he points out. But instead he just states that he has no opinion on IP, says why, and thats that.
I am sorry, but this is just being picky for picky's sake. This is not sticking up for the FSF.
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
I don't think that RMS really gives a shite about taking on Microsoft. From my understanding of his line, it's more like,
"Well free software must exist, so we will providea free alternative to all software so that no one has to ever use non-free software. If you don't want to join us, then go and enjoy loosing your liberties, but we will hold our heads high and look down our noses at you and pity your self-inflicted slavery."
I believe that making everyone use free software is not his plan, he just wants it there so that the elite goup of computer uses in the world who value freedom above all else can use it and form a big community and make him feel special.
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
Yes, I agree, one of RMS' prime motivations seems to be correctness, or to put it other way, be is bloody pedantic.
In every article of his that I have read, he never lets a single wrong point, or even slightly vague description go by. His dedication to pedantry is trully mind boggling.
Although I really enjoyed this article, and think that ol RMS is trully an awesome character, I really do wonder how he has the energy to be so picky all the time.
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
Well, didn't Allchin state that he meant exclusively the GPL license? That seems to indicate that he recognized the differences between open source and free software, but not the terms. Stallman is correct in clarifying the vocabulary. Allchin's misuse of the word "open source" and the ensuing reaction is what elicited the restatement. It's entirely appropriate to assert the difference between the terms.
perl, patch, configure -- developer-facing, highly derived from original UNIX work
www/browsers -- giving you this one, as noted above; gopher is part of that but I haven't checked the origin
muds -- nope, originally developed on an Essex University mainframe in 1978, later licensed to CompuServe commercially; see this history from the co-inventor
markup language/links -- invention of these concepts is somewhat disputed, but none of the major early candidates I know of (SGML, Xanadu, HyperCard) were open source software projects
the open source development process -- sorry, I'm just not impressed by what I've seen of the software in this space, so it's hard for me to sing the praises of the system
Tim
I wish you UNIX youngsters would listen to someone who, although he went over to the dark side of the Mac in 1984, was a UNIX kernel hacker in the early 1980's, when bsd was still fresh. I am telling you that those were not at all open source licensing conditions. I am telling you that UNIX source both in BSD and AT&T forms was closely held and closely controlled at the time. It took quite a while before anyone heard of FreeBSD. What's more, BSD is a clone of the original closed source UNIX system. UNIX was innovative and remains the standard of technical excellence of operating system architectures, but it was not from open source.
Historians of X Window treat it as the "me too" GUI that it is. As for your statement, it was the first cross platform network GUI. That's something that Macintosh still doesn't do, this seems to be an oxymoron; but in any case, one of the oldest (and still-living) Mac products is called Timbuktu, and it has long been a cross-platform network GUI.
GCC is developer-facing and it's hard to claim as an innovation due to its clone nature. It's not exactly up to the standards of compiler architecture of the time, as I think anyone who has studied compilers could attest.
Finally, closing your message with a slap at the graphical user interface shows an actual distate for innovation. This is one of the odd things about the open source movement. It declares itself revolutionary but is in fact reactionary. It has a set of tastes that was laid down twenty years ago and has not moved forward in any significant way since then. In the meantime, mainstream computing and even the popular taste have passed it by.
Tim
(Footnote on TeX history: 1986 is the earliest documented date of release I found, but Knuth says "it still took many, many years to finish TeX".)
Allow me to quote from a widely-reprinted history of BSD:
Up through the release of 4.3BSD-Tahoe, all recipients of BSD had to first get an AT&T source license. That was because the BSD systems were never released by Berkeley in a binary-only format; the distributions always contained the complete source to every part of the system. The history of the Unix system and the BSD system in particular had shown the power of making the source available to the users. Instead of passively using the system, they actively worked to fix bugs, improve performance and functionality, and even add completely new features.
With the increasing cost of the AT&T source licenses, vendors that wanted to build standalone TCP/IP-based networking products for the PC market using the BSD code found the per-binary costs prohibitive. So, they requested that Berkeley break out the networking code and utilities and provide them under licensing terms that did not require an AT&T source license. The TCP/IP networking code clearly did not exist in 32/V and thus had been developed entirely by Berkeley and its contributors. The BSD originated networking code and supporting utilities were released in June 1989 as Networking Release 1, the first freely-redistributable code from Berkeley.
The first Berkeley distribution was in 1977. The first free distribution was eleven years later. Saying that BSD was developed as open source is just plain wrong.
I don't think that you know anything about compiler theory if you're seriously claiming that GCC is innovative.
Your statements about Timbuktu and X Window are unsupported. In particular, your statement that Timbuktu long postdates X is apparently false, since the X history links I gave earlier show that X is from the late 1980's, while Timbuktu was an early Mac product.
As for TeX, I do find one source showing a book date earlier than 1986, which is 1984 -- which, again, is after the release of the Macintosh. Apparently the actual language documentation was not released until 1986, so I don't know what an earlier "release" could have meant. I believe the 1980 date for TUG may be in error.
I have spent quite a while looking over TeX history links and they are ambiguous on the initial release date and original licensing conditions. I have found, in this thread and the previous one, that open source advocates often falsely claim that closed-source software projects originated as open source, so I am unwilling to accept an unsupported claim that TeX was developed as open source. Anyone who has actual information, as opposed to the kind of flame I'm responding to, is invited to speak up here or to write me. Thanks.
Tim
It appears that there were earlier releases of TeX in the 1982-1984 period, although few traces of them remain. It also appears that the 1986 release obsoleted most of the earlier work.
There is a little information on the licensing in 1986, though I couldn't find anything earlier that addresses the question. This source says: We are frequently asked if it is proper for the recipient of a Unix TeX tape to give Unix TeX to other sites. Since Donald Knuth has released the TeX programs as free public-domain software, it is quite proper...
This demonstrates that TeX in 1986 was free software, but leaves open the question about earlier distributions.
Tim
(What the hell do I know about it? Well, I wrote my first TCP/IP stack in 1984....)
Tim
Tim
We could quibble about whether the first web browser was really an innovation or not. Berners-Lee has been quite modest, as well as very honest about his debts to SGML, HyperCard, and Xanadu.
Still, prior art notwithstanding, it does seem reasonable to accept web browsers as an FS/OS innovation, by which I mean a new user-facing product category. In fact it was the biggest new product category of the nineties. So this should be taken as a partial answer to concerns about FS/OS stifling innovation.
Tim
Perl is a very poorly designed language made mostly by cobbling together features and syntax from other UNIX utilities. Awk, yacc and lex are much better designed string manipulation languages.
Distributed file systems are nothing new, and did not originate in the open source world. Andrew was originally created under high security conditions at Carnegie-Mellon's ITC (where Jim Gosling worked, and where I had a summer job.) Though it was funded by IBM, that was long before IBM jumped on the open source bandwagon.
Tim
Emacs did not begin as an open source project. It was part of a proprietary operating system, Honeywell's Multics. You can read more than you want to know about its history here.
Tim
Anything that was part of BSD was not developed as open source. BSD was treated as a proprietary operating system. So much for nethack as an example -- BTW, nethack is derived from rogue, another part of UNIX.
You have not named a particular chess client that you believe created the product category and was open source or free software.
I found two pages on X Window history (here and here). Both clearly frame X/Windows as a derivative product that came about after other GUI platforms. (It was also radically inferior to the Macintosh, even though it came afterwards.)
GCC is a clone of the Unix CC.
TeX may be an example of an innovative piece of software that originated under free/open conditions. I can't find anything to the contrary. I have never used TeX so I can't comment on whether it really deserves to be considered innovative; I will note that it came after troff, and that although it came after the GUI revolution it missed the boat, so there may be reason to consider it regressive rather than innovative.
And so on. I don't know all of your examples, but the ones I knew did not encourage me to bother checking out the rest. If you continue to defend that list, please give specific references.
Tim
Who here has even HEARD of Zero Wing before this rediculous fad caught on? I mean, just because some jackhole pulled out his Genesis a few weeks ago, and realized how poorly the game was translated, doesn't justify MAJOR over use of this (double-plus-un-funny) joke. I honestly don't understand why anyone feels it necessary to constantly keep repeating this joke, except maybe to piss me off.... Oh well, people are cattle...one person does something funny, suddenly everyone's doing the same damn thing.
Why focus on the distinctions between open-source and free software? Allchin didn't address the distinction at all; to him, as to others, they are one and the same. Only RMS would insist on dredging up the same tired argument and same tired distinctions on such a matter.
Aren't those distinctions important to the FSF? That "to Allchin as to others, they are one and the same" is all the more reason to continue pointing out the differences so that the "public" can distinguish the groups rather than lumping them all together. We don't stop harping about stereotypes when we are talking about people just because "they are all the same" to most people anyway.
I could leave it at that, but RMS is so condescending it makes me retch:
"I have no opinion 'intellectual property rights,' and if you are thoughtful you will have none either."
Just because he's against them doesn't mean he has to presume that we'd agree with that position. And to frame our disagreement in the language of thoughtfulness/thoughtlessness insults the hours of philosophical and moral debate we have invested in arriving at our own conclusions, be they contrary to his or not.
Though I guess you can infer that from previous remarks, I think the more important point he was trying to make in this article was that there are many different types of IP, and to put a label on them all (copyright, trade mark, patents, etc.) in an indescriminant fashion, whether as 'good' or 'bad' or something we should worry about protecting, would be wrong. I.E., he was pointing out that that Allchin was just spouting over simplified marketing talk.
RMS has done some good deeds in his tenure as free-software partisan extraordinaire, but enough is enough. I've said it before and I'll say it again: he lacks both the tact and the skill to be an effective discussant of the issues he preaches about. He is going toe-to-toe with marketers and executives. His is a different world entirely. How many more years until we just give up on him?
Why do we keep listening to RMS?
Well, I for one am glad that there are at least some hardliners on "our side" of the camp to offset those on the other side. You might argue that firebrands like RMS scare people away. I think American poltics disproves that -- people will keep there distance, sure, but in the end, he is still shifting the middle closer to our end of the field.
We could just call it LiGNUX and get it over with.
But masters, remember that I am an ass: though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass.
I challenge any one of you, before criticizing Stallman, to ask yourself "What have I done?" Relative to Stallman, probably not a lot. Slashdot posters get on Stallman's case for being too idealistic about his license changing the world and nitpicking on definitions, but he's justified in doing so because he wrote so much of the code and conceptualized much of the OS that people take for granted. It's not just idealism for him, because he's mainly responsible for those [huge] accomplishments. That said, I admire the fact that Stallman doesn't waiver on his license or the definitions that he defined to please software-industry weasals. Far from being robotic, he's refrshingly human and that's reflected in his politics and philosophy.
The Free Software Movement has a more ambitious goal, to replace proprietary software with free software that respects your freedom.
I've been getting a lot of letters from the BSA and Microsoft's lawyers lately regarding licensing compliance and it made me stop to think how possible it would be to say screw it and implement a "Free Software" solution to meet our business needs. Basically, I'd have to tear down our whole information systems infrastructure and start all over again. We are completely dependendent on Microsoft to stay in business. We don't have the resources to have to train every new employee how to send an email or create a document --- they come in already knowing because they are familiar and comfortable with Microsoft products. I'm the most technically adept person and the company and *I* have to "read the manual" to figure out how much disk space I have available on my Linux box. The problem with Ivory Tower software is that it is written by and for people who like things overly complex. Everytime we add a new server we end up going with Microsoft because it integrates with everything else. That lone Linux box is an island.
"We're tired of all those Microsoft developers shoving their Win-Ho's in our face."
Heh. I remember all the fun we had trying to fit all that text onto an EPROM label ;-)
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
reflect on those words for a few minutes - from each his ability,
to each his need. who determines need? if i need a yacht, who's
going to provide me with it? i'm a network engineer, so i'd be giving a lot more ability than, say, the mail man or a waiter or a lot of other people. still, there will be others whose ability is greater than mine; medical doctors come to mind, as do astrophysicists, etc. however, aside from racking/stacking big switches and routers, my
work is largely non-physical - so would it be said that the garbage man's needs are more important than mine, because he does physical
labour? i chose to do network engineering, and i love my work. i chose to make money with my mind, not my back. i wouldn't, however,
do it for free - not ever. if there's no profit in it, it's not worth doing. if there's no profit to be made, than a network has limited purpose and a limited lifespan. nothing comes for free, and it never will - and that is the fatal flaw of communism. someone will always
have to pay, and it's always been the proles...
michael
who is john galt?
^_^ Dear Dothead, Thank you for the respect you have given Richard and the many people who have spent the better part of a decade working at the GNU Project. It is because of cowards like you who bash, or Bourne Again SHell, without fear of retrobution that reminds us that the ignorance of a generation is a massive obstacle that will not be easily overcome. It is of fact that ingrates like you are unable to recognize the kind of influence such an extensive work like GNU Project has had that makes one realize how important a GNOME v KDE discussion actually is...though, ultimately may not seem like that, but I'm getting there. When there was just the linux kernel, it only allowed the most basic interaction with the computer; the computer remained, a phrase from "The Pirates of Silicon Valley", "A pretty blinking box with lots of lights." Without the GNU Project, the amount of work and development from Linux would only have be at four to eight percent of what it is now. When the GNU Project developed a shell for the continuing NFS from UNIX, it made a easy to use interface to work with. From that shell, were the programmes of further use developed, such as gcc, now essential to most Linux distributions, GNU and otherwise (yeah, there are otherwises, say BSD for example). From the later developed collection of shells, other programmes and systems, from GTK to SMB developed, some essential, some creating ease of use. Then, as the command line was frightening the potential masses, the GNU Project developed an environment that made users feel at ease--it was GNOME (GNU Network Object Manipulating Environment) and it was good! It used the ever so young X Windows System developed from another valiant project based on the already successful work of the GNU Project. From this point on, The GNU Project developed tools, incorporated utilities and contributed to what would become the robust operating you just call "linux." And furthermore, it should be blatent to you and anyone who actually READ the article that the GNU Project is a lot more than taking credit for a style of operating system, but is about an entire philosophy. Unlike a larger number of Open Source Movement who are more than happy to co-exist with proprietary software, the GNU Project, the driving force behind the Free Software Movement, wants "intellectual property" to become an oxymoron. It is not wrong to take credit for something you did, but to keep for the soul purpose of gaining capital? Come on, really, you don't think that is the purpose of software development? No, you're smart enough, or is that an assumption, to realize that development and understanding come from sharing what has been done. And in continuance with that, you can now see why paragraph two is SO important, to allow people to incorporate and share so that others may learn and do the same. That is why the "Open Source Tag-Along" is in that agreement, Mr. or Mrs. or Mz. X. If you have a problem with that, well, you can go...fcsk yourself. ^_^
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
You don't happen to goto abuzz.com, do ya? I think we could get along. Anyone looking for my comment to the article, it's in a reply to an offensive AnonCow. Who's up for volleyball?
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Richard's first goal, seperate GNU from everything else related to Linux. Richard's second goal, remind you that free is more important than open source. Richard's fourth goal, force everyone to use Red Flag Linux. Need that joke explained? The correct phrase, in case you're at one of our li'l parties, and you don't know who is around you, is to refer to Linux as, "free and open source developed software that is GNU/Linux developed from Linux the kernel." Don't worry, you can simply refer to "free and open source devloped software that is GNU/Linux developed from Linux the kernel," as "it" after that for ten or twenty minutes before people forget what it "it" is, and, if you really want the gold star, everytime someone calls "free and open source developed software that is GNU/Linux developed from Linux the kernel," just "linux," jump right in there and correct them. And, if you're really bored... .oO(How daring am I?)
You can point out why GNU's Network Object Manipulation Environment is far better than Kool Desktop Environment.
Well, back to the transmeta work station. FEH! Anyone else want to develope The Kernel That Is Linux for awhile? .oO(How am I suppose to test for 2ghz processors when no one made one yet?)
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
I have some serious doubts that you even have the ability to write in C, much less compose a compiler, and I, personally, do not spend time keeping "cooties out of beard," as I keep my self clean daily, not just "that time of the month, oh, darn it."
I apologize if forgetting to select "Plain Old Text" made me appear as though I was "driveling."
I would hit preview, but I have grown the habit of just hitting submit and moving on. I don't have the time to reload slashdot eighty times a day in the hopes of harping against a figure in the Linux culture, GNU/Linux at that. As I see it, you must realize that you have little to contribute to Slashdot, to Linux and I'm willing to bet, you have little to society.
As for your ever so cute description of "drain on society," I am fairly certain that I have been far more productive in the past ten years than you will be in your life time.
If you actually have something to say, and have the need to explain to people how you think some eighty plus people are wasting away their lives, feel free, Ma. AnonCow, to keep in mind that you're the one that came here for the purpose of whining the first place.
Don't worry, I remembered "Plain Old Text" this time, so, I won't appear to be drivelling, just Kvetching.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
What will win that war is systemic, on message and practical stuff about pertinent American values- in this case, free enterprise.
Free software gurantees free enterprise. Other types of licensing block enterprising by locking you out of the market not because you are worst technicaly but because you don't hold part of the market already.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hehe, of course they didn't mean this, right?
Vive le Québec libre, 'sti!
Damn, they're fast! Kudos to sv.com... some alert editor must be reading /.
Vive le Québec libre, 'sti!
What babies! You are showing your age.
This the RMS's life work and you whine about him harping on "GNU/Linux" while he singlehandledly defends the GNU GPL against a Microsoft PR campaign. This seems especially ridiculous considering that "GNU/Linux" appears only 3 times in 3 sentences of his lengthy rebuttal.
Obviously the only people that are irritated by his insistence on referring to Linux systems as GNU/Linux are ones that don't remember the times when GNU existed and Linux did not. Some of us understand the value of all of the work that has gone into GNU software, having used much of it pre-Linux.
P.S. emacs is not a rewrite of a Unix(tm) utility.
Sure, so its theology. I'm a capitalist - why? It works better than anything else I've seen (and I've seen socialism/communism/dictatorship/apartheid etc)
If my tax dollars fund research I don't want a viral software license atttached to the results - I'd rather have a "you have to pay the govt to use this" license which, hopefully will recover some of my tax dollars.
All resources are limited, including time, money is a good way of rationing out things.
**Vanuatu or bust**
Actually AD interop is pretty good. MS bought Zoomit a ways back and their technology allows interop to Netware, Notes, XML data sources, SAP, People Soft, Baan, etc.
They may not have invented it but at least its available and supported.
**Vanuatu or bust**
Interesting, "he is a registered Linux user" - so Linux use is now a sex-crime? Gets more Orwellian every day.
**Vanuatu or bust**
I really don't think you get it - they used a field for what it was designed to be used for - holding authentication data (hint: thats why its called authdata)
The fact that NTLM authentication differs from what we're used to (SID vs GID) is implementation specific.
Without doing this their Kerberos implementation would be useless for their authentication scheme
Kerberos is a protocol not an authenticator.
**Vanuatu or bust**
This is such total bullshit. Windows 2000 makes use of an openly defined as extensible field called authdata, defined in the Kerberos specification for authorization data, as do other Kerberos implementations. Windows 2000 inserts Windows credentials into this field, which is used to determine access rights within the network.
The interop issues that people who've never set up a Kerberos infrastructure in their lives are between all pre RFC-1510 implementations and V5.
Please don't just regurgitate urban myth.
**Vanuatu or bust**
He's not easy to get along with, but he's right.
Republicans are Nazis. LetsRiot!
I'll remember this the next time I buy a race car.
I'll be sure to concentrate on things like the door handles and the little twiddly knobs on the dashboard rather than the engine, the headers, exhaust system. That way I'll keep RMS happy.
See the kernel is the engine, without the kernel you have a collection of utilities that are completely useless.
I'm thinking perhaps we should use the BSD licensed utils and tell RMS to shove his GNU/Utilities up his GNU/ass.
I harbor no [sic] "resentiment" towards gnu utilities, but I disagree with the GNU GPL licensing. People should be allowed to commercialize their code if they want (even if their code is a derivative work of someone elses code). BSD let's you do this. As for whose utilities are better, that's personal preference.
At some point, high-end games are entertainment, not tools. I suppose that high-end games will be like films and continue to be developed closed-sourced. However, I'm sure somehow, someday we will be able to 'edit your own version of bladerunner' (let's wait until Ridley Scott GPL's the film stock, we've got enough trouble with the MPAA as it is...)
However, there are some gaming platforms which encourage (eg: the recently GPL'd Marathon) the creation and distribution of 'levels'. Also, the Inform compiler (which descends from Zork (which predates the FSF!)) allows for open-source development of interactive fiction games. Granted, text-based adventures aren't the high-end 3D shoot'em ups currently in vogue.
I suppose the major reason that people work on FS/OS projects is to 'build a better toolbox'. As long as the gaming industry pumps out reasonably-priced quality entertainment, it isn't worth the trouble/work to 'roll your own'.
In fact, that might just be the reason that MP3's are such a phenomenon. The recording industry is moribund (as far as variety and quality). The phrase 'reasonably-priced quality entertainment' disapeared with the 45 rpm record. MP3's are the new 45's and Napster beat the RIAA to the internet distribution channel.
My father is a blogger.
Stallman certainly wants to force people into it. He had said he want to ban propertary software.
The whole ideology aims at removing ownership, this is what communism is all about so yes, and it's a communist-influenced ideology.
Redhat just sells what others have made for them for free.
Personally I think that is highly unethical!
If companies in the traditional industry use free labour (even if it's voluntarily) they would be hanged in their balls, that's for sure.
The reason we don't call them "pro-life" is that the majority of anti-abortionists are for the death penalty. This seems to be a bit difficult to reconcile with a "pro-life" stance.
So companies should be free to steal from the public domain and sell it back to you? .
point missed: you cannot steal from the public domain.
Actually, you can take something out of the public domain and copyright it. I'd think that's equivalent to stealing.
UM...isn't that what marx said in the communist manifesto?
please give credit where credit is due.
-The American people have overpaid; I am here to ask for a refund.
I disagree. Its the kerberos protocol that was embraced and extended. The implementation was not an essential part in doing this - would not matetr what license. This is muddy thinking by RMS.
Tut via bazo est aperteni al nia!!
--
Car Granda Justa!!
I always get annoyed by Stallman's insistence that proprietary software is just flat out wrong. Don't get me wrong, I love free/open software, but there are some types of programs that I just can't see ever being written under any open/free source license. High-end games being the first thing I could think of. Not only that, but he seems to harp about "freedom", but wants to remove the freedom to release your software under any license you want.
A far more accurate description is "abortion rights supporter." However for semi-political reasons you will only rarely see this term in the (non-quoted) text of a news article in the New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post,
Now, what I am about to say here will probably offend you. The following analogy is not meant as a persuasive argument, only a tool so that you can better empathize with those who want to restrict some (or all) abortions: Fortunately we live in a more enlightened age and have at least some recognition of basic human rights, and more to the point, that all people deserve rights and respect. So "pro-slavery" cannot be called "pro-choice" since it destroys all the choices of the person being enslaved.
Some people believe people deserve basic human rights even before birth. That is why they object to the term "pro-choice" -- because to them abortion destroys the choices of a human person.
Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you anything about abortion. I doubt that I could. But what I do want you to understand is that both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are inherently biased terms. Neither one makes any sense when viewed from the other side.
And if the history is of any interest: the two sides of the abortion question were almost universally referred to (in the media) as pro-abortion or anti-abortion until 1977, when Gloria Steinem wrote an influential op-ed in the New York Times complaining that "pro-abortion" was an inaccurate description, and that "pro-choice" should be used instead. It was then that the other side started pushing the term "pro-life." Of course neither term is particularly meaningful. It seems that the only effect is to further divide.
First, why did you say that: RMS's highflautin rhetoric is the specter haunting the cause of Open Source. RMS is Free Software not Open Source. You obviously don't actually read what he's written.
RMS is against Open Source. Or at least, not for it.
Also, what ever happened to principles? Ethics, morals, etc? Are we no longer to live by principle, but by the almighty dollar alone? That's really not the kind of world I'd want to live in.
I used to write off RMS just like everyone else. But then I started to actually listen to what he was saying, and realized that he's right.
Try to think bigger than your next paycheque. The ideas of "common good", "public weal", "good of mankind" etc. actually do mean something. RMS is fighting the good fight, and people laugh at him, are embarassed by him, write him off.
I've been a programmer for the last 23 years. 13 of those have been professional. Yet I write free software, and will continue to do so. I have personally profited immensely through the use of and the examination of free software. I'm going to try to give back as much as I can.
The old saying 'tis better to give than receive' really rings true, especially if the only cost to you is time.
RMS precisly shows the hyprocrisy of Microsoft's/Allchin's arguments: GNU-style Freeware is bad, because Microsoft can't easily steal (aka embrace-and-extend) it.
For this reason, I find it dispicable that companies, such as Microsoft, Sun, etc. would take an open source piece of software and release a proprietary version, often without even providing credit to the original developers. THis practice is plagerism, plain and simple and is a far greater threat to intellectual property than the GPL. But it is legal without the protection of the GPL.
I like the GPL too, and I am no fan of any company taking an open source program and releasing a proprietary version. But you speak too harshly here. You say that this is legal without the protection of the GPL - no, it is only legal if the author of the software specifically chooses to license it thus, e.g. by using a BSD license. This isn't a choice I personally would make, but it is a valid choice, having advantages and disadvantages over the GPL.
e.g. a protocol is far more likely to be widely adopted if there is a reference implemention licensed so liberally (BSD and TCP/IP, for instance) - advantage. But other people, even people that you heartily disapprove of (Microsoft for the /. community, for instance) can profit from your work without ever sharing their improvements with you - disadvantage.
But it's not plagiarism if you clearly say "here, take this source, do what you like with it!". People are using the BSD license to give away code - that's their choice, and you have no right to complain if corporations that you dislike choose to take that which is freely given.
said that. (your sig)
Christ, have some class.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
apparently it was JFK. oops... pot, meet kettle.
FDR spouted the "only thing we have to fear" line.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Actually, that's why Linus released the kernel under the GPL in the first place: to thank RMS for gcc. Just for gcc, actually.
Before that, Linux was under a much more restrictive license. Therefore, either RMS hasn't done his research, or he's an ungrateful bastard, or still just pissed that HURD wasn't finished sooner.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Don't presume that I'm a "UNIX youngster". You'd be wrong.
If you were hacking on UNIX kernels back then, then you'd know that a huge amount of the BSD code base implemented innovations which significantly improved Unix's capabilities. You would also know that the BSD code base was widely distributed and included source from a wide variety of sources. As such, it had to employ a source code licensing model consistent with the BSD license. The only problem was the AT&T code base that lay underneath, as it was still restricted.
I'm very familiar with Timbuktu. It came out well after the X/Windows system did, and it's capabilities are not the same as X/Windows. Timbuktu gives you remote access to a local GUI, which is not the same as as network GUI. If you're remotely familiar with how X/Windows works, you'd know the difference. For example: you can't, and never could, buy Timbuktu Display Servers.
As for your comments on GCC, am I to assume that by your statement that there have been no innovations in C compilers since the orginal work of Kernigan & Ritchie? That seems rather limiting. As far as GCC being developer-facing... I guess you think developers don't use computers or something. ;-) I guess it depends what is meant by "user-facing", but I presume it means that users directly interact with the software (Microsoft I'm sure would acknowledge that there are tons of network server innovations which were done without closing the source code base). As for GCC being antiquated by today's standards, it still seems to be able to generate very efficient code compared to it's commercial competition. (Indeed, Be's decision to switch to GCC was entirely driven by performance improvements.)
I didn't slap GUI's, I'm just saying it's unfair to suggest that they are the only way to go. I just said that there are lots of TeX people who argue it's a better way to go than with traditional word processors you see today. I'm trying to point out that presuming that software has to have a fancy GUI to be an innovation is exteremly close minded. Come to think of it Emacspeak is a stunning exmaple of this ;-)
I guess you didn't look very hard doing your TeX research. I did a quick check on Amazon and found that Knuth's *2nd* book on Tex was published in 1986. As I recall, his first book, "the TeXbook" was published a couple of years earlier (Amazon shows the date it was reprinted). Presumably, Knuth would have had to convince the publishers that there was a sizeable user base before he published the book. Of course, this wouldn't have been too hard because the TeX Users Group had been existence since 1980. Knuth started working on TeX shortly after publishing Volume 3 of "The Art of Computer Programming", which was originally published in 1973. While TeX did take a lot of time to finish, like all good software projects (particularly proprietary software), there were several usuable versions of TeX around for years before it was "finished". (I believe he finished it before he wrote any more books, so that must have been some time around 1982-3.)
Taking some license to rephrase what you said: This is one of the odd things about Macintosh users. They declare themselves to be revolutionary, but they are in fact reactionary. They have a set of tastes laid down 15 years ago and have not moved forward in any significant way since then. In the meantime, mainstream computing and even the popular taste have passed them by.
sigs are a waste of space
Okay, so just so that I'm clear on this. The BSD code contributions were made freely by volunteers, who were not compensated for their contributions, nor did they hold on to the source code. (Indeed, as your own quote clearly states, BSD was never distributed without source code.) BSD was built off of the AT&T source code and for most of it's early history the developers never seperated the BSD code from the AT&T code, and a consequence, you needed the AT&T source code license to get it. This is all consistent with what I've said before.... so I'm not sure I understand what your point is.
The BSD distribution certainly included many, many innovations over the original AT&T code base. Nobody paid for those innovations, and the innovations were distributed in source form without requiring the source be kept proprietary. Certainly, the AT&T source code license didn't include a license for the BSD code.
I think it's a pretty good counter example to Microsoft's argument that innovation will not occur without the benefit of being able to keep the source code proprietary.
Please reread my posts. I never claimed that GCC was the living embodiment of the latest compiler theory. If your going to apply that kind of criteria there really isn't any software in the Windows or Macintosh world at least that qualifies as "innovative". As I've said before, GCC was one of the first cross-platform compilers, and later iterations included the innovation of being a cross-language compiler as well. On top of that, despite being so old and unsophisticated, GCC still manages to generate more efficient code than the most popular compilers out there. (I seem to recall the Metrowerks compiler has been hailed by the Macintosh community as innovative several times, yet GCC generates far more efficient code.) If you're going to continue to just say, "that's not innovative," I'd like to suggest you present the innovation that supports your point.
You say my statements about Timbuktu and X/Windows are unsupported, but you have not provided any supporting data. You're consistently stating that I'm making false, and yet you're making claims that you are not even sure of yourself. As I said before, I am sure of my claims about Timbuktu. I was there when it first came out.
So, let's review that one. First, Timbuktu is the same kind of technology as X/Windows. Timbuktu allows remote control of a GUI desktop. X/Windows' key capabilities aren't about remote control (although one could implement remote control using it's capabilities). X/Windows is a cross platform network GUI.
Now, since you couldn't be bothered to check up on X/Window's history, but it in fact was first developed at MIT in 1984. It was developed to solve problems they were facing with Project Athena. There was a lot of interest from the outside world for a standardized/hardend/freezon release. In 1988 MIT released version 11 release 2 to the general public. You can find documentation of this here.
Timbuktu was of course not developed in 1984. Indeed, it's resource requirements were far too much for the original Macintosh. I was unable to find any clear documentation about the origins of Timbuktu remote. However, rather than assuming that your claims are false, and despite the fact that I distinctly remember that X/Windows existed when Timbuktu came out, I checked for some kind of documentation. I finally found version 1.0.1 winning a 1989 Eddy award. I guess the product wasn't quite as early as you'd imagined.
So, to review, you're wrong about both when X/Windows was created, and when Timbuktu was created. You're also missing the point about the differences between X/Windows and Timbuktu.
Now on to the TeX link. I'm surprised that someone who's been around in the business as long as you would not know anything about Donald Knuth (author of The Art of Computer Programming). He's the original author of TeX, and he very much always intended it to be available to anyone who wanted it, source code included. He started work on to assist with his development of The Art of Computer Programming books. He took a 10 year hiatus from working on it after publishing volume 3 of the series, during which time he focused on the development of TeX (and Metafont). Check his CV. I noticed while looking at the CV that he actually published a book on TeX in 1979.
I also can't believe that you think that the first sentence on the home page of the TeX user's group would being in error about when the group was formed, particularly given the fact that you have no evidence to suggeset this was wrong.
Again, the specific date of TeX's development really doesn't matter anyway. TeX was (and still is) very innovative in the field of typesetting. So much so that it continues to be used today despite the fact that Knuth hasn't done much work on it since the 80's.
Finally, a comment about flames. Let's review your own postings. Despite your apparent ignorance of the history of computer science you are consistently claiming I'm making false statements (without providing any evidence to suggest your claims). When I do provide evidence, you seem to be either ignoring it, or in one case claiming it is incorrect (again, without counter-claiming evidence). For whatever rason, you seem to be clinging to your own revisionist history where software innovation has only occured in proprietary software; this is an increadible claim considering all the innovation that occured in the software industry both before the concept of source code existed, let alone the notion of copyrighting source code and providing binary-only licenses. On top of all that, you write a paragraph treatise about the tastes of the open source development being for 20 year old technology, while simultaneously disputing that any of the technologies I've brought up existed that long ago.
In short, you are flaming.
sigs are a waste of space
I did zero research, as I said, however, neither apparently did you. Apparently you also didn't read my post clearly. I can't help it if you're not familiar with this stuff. I really don't have the time to research this for your benefit.
BSD software was developed under the BSD license. Source code was distributed, and you free to make changes. While the FSF took issue with the original license's attribution requirement, that is irrelevant with regards to Microsoft's claims. Indeed, Microsoft's Winsock library is derived from that code base, as is basically every implementation of sockets. The reason this is the case is nobody had to pay to get a source code license.
I did indeed name two chess clients: xboard & winboard. If you good to ICS or similar places you'll find the history of these things.
I never said X/Windows was the first GUI. It was innovative because it was the first cross platform network GUI. That's something that Macintosh still doesn't do.
GCC is much more than a clone of CC. The original version of GCC was one of the most impressive cross-platform compilers around. It has scores of innovations that allow it to generate very efficient code (indeed, for quite some time gcc generated faster SPARC code than Sun's own compiler... that might even be true today) and doing so while supporting a wide variety of platforms. I think you'd be hard pressed today to find a compiler which supported as many different platforms (or as well). GCC has since been improved to also support a wide variety of of language front ends as well as back ends. It is the closest thing that the computer industry has to a Rosetta stone.
Just because something doesn't have a GUI doesn't mean that it's not innovative. There are those who would argue (particularly those in the TeX camp) that most GUI wordprocessors were a regression. Innovation just means that you've done something different from what was done before. Regardless of that, I believe TeX existed in 1980 (I have no idea when it was actually created, but I believe work started on this sometime in the 60's). I think you'd be hard pressed to suggest the GUI revolution had occured before that. Irregardless, for the longest time TeX had the most sophisticated typesetting algorithms inside it (indeed, TeX has been used and continues to be used for book publishing to this day, so it must be usefull to someone).
sigs are a waste of space
Actually, the BSD license has now been changed and as such it now addresses concerns raised by RMS. Either way, the advertising clause is certainly not relevant to Microsoft's claims about innovation.
BTW, I believe a good chunk of that stuff was either available under GPL, X license, or similar licenses which the FSF would be happy to dub "free" software license.
Limiting yourself to the GPL is unfair though, as the GPL really just seeked to recreate conditions which had existed earlier in computing history. The GPL didn't even exist until 1985 I think, and it took it a while to get much momentum (think for a minute... what did Microsoft "innovate" in it's first 15 years of existence?). However, the concept of doing software development and releasing the source code alongside it was basically how programming was DONE until the late 70's.
sigs are a waste of space
IMO Intellectual Property is a socialist invention. It is a restriction on free trade invented to protect the rights of the workers (artists, authors, etc...). In this sense, it serves a similar role to unions, restricting rights to perform certain actions (like copying stuff) to a select group, in order to protect their ability to earn a living from unfettered competition - which in information age reduces natural price of everything to zero.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that - but the problem is that capitalism works as an efficient mechanism for the distribution of scare resources. When the resource is information, the only way capitalist model still works is by enforcing artifical scarcity of information.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
> I have never heard any coder so frquently
> invoke the mythological heroes of the American
> nation.
Gee, what do you expect from a man being accused of commiting un-American activities? _Of course_ he is trying to show the similarities with his positions, and the historical people who defined America.
If you've a GPLed specification, then derivatives of that specification CANNOT lawfully be NDA'ed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Relax, the Free Software Folks will always have one advantage over the BSD license folks. That advantage is that Free Software folks can borrow BSD code, modify it, and release it under a GPL-like license.
BSD advocates don't mind when commercial companies do this, because commercial projects don't effectively compete with Open projects for volunteer developers. But Free Software projects do. All it takes is one dedicated hacker to change a BSD style project to a GPL style one. Of course, the improvements on the GPLed branch have to be significant enough to entice people towards the GPLed version, but that's not as hard as it sounds. There is a large body of GPLed work available. All you would really have to do is borrow some code from another GPLed product and integrate it with the BSD code.
The PR battle has already been won. Nobody is going to believe that Sun, IBM, HP, and Intel are all un-American, and all of these companies have released software under the GPL. Even the folks at the government will understand that. Especially when they realize they are getting more for their software dollar. Besides, most of the nifty new technologies available for the Free Unixes these days are GPLed. Mozilla, OpenOffice, MySQL, and QT are all examples of this. I almost feel sorry for the BSD advocates when I think of the desktop. The only set of tools that is available under a license that allows the creation of proprietary GUI applications is the LGPLed Gnome libraries.
It has really got to rankle them that their only choice for proprietary desktop applications is the FSF's Gnome. Of course they always could spend money and buy the commercial license of QT.
It's a funny world.
Jim Allchin's original diatribe that open-source software is un-American was written in short words which any red-blooded hick could understand: free software is dangerous for business. His argument may not make sense, but we're not the intended audience. The people who make most of the PC-buying decisions for corporate America aren't necessarily people who understand how PC's work, and Jim Allchin's words could probably spook a great many of them into being skeptical of open-source software. There's enough misinformation out there already; people who don't read Slashdot seem to think that free software is like the free love movement of the 1960's.
Richard Stallman's response didn't help matters any. He focuses on how the GNU GPL is different from the "open source" license, and how GNU/Linux is different from Linux... huh? Who cares? More importantly, anyone who didn't already understand the distinction isn't going to pick it up from RMS's article.
What RMS doesn't understand is that this battle won't be won all at once. The free software comunity needs to coexist with the proprietary world, and wean users gradually off proprietary software by offering superior alternatives. If RMS insists on stubbornly making it an all-or-nothing deal, he's most likely going to end up with nothing.
By the way, the correct name of the operating system is "Linux," not "GNU/Linux." It was named "Linux" by Linus Torvalds. The only person I've ever seen call it "GNU/Linux" has been Richard Stallman. Yes, much of Linux is based on GNU software, but what happens when we use GNU software on other computers? Does Solaris become GNU/Solaris, and do we rename Windows 2000 to GNU/Windows 2000? How much GNU software must be present on a computer before Richard Stallman decides the operating system must have a GNU prepended to its name?
Thanks for pointing this out... I'm finding several vague attributions of that quote to Rousseau, including a couple that explicitly state that JFK was quoting Rousseau, but I can't seem to find the original source.
(I'm posting this somewhat useless reply to get your information to a Score: 2, so people will see it.)
You can attribute that to John F. Kennedy. It's from his inaugural address.
"The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
If you had facts, you would present them.
These facts would dispute my claim that Stallman is lying with the above statement.
These facts would show that my ability to authenticate to a Windows 2000 domain controller on a DECstation running NetBSD 1.5 and the "standard, free software version of Kerberos" is a figment of my imagination.
So far, you have not.
At least FUD has some bearing in truth. The above statement goes beyond FUD and is out and out blatant lying.
Look back at Richard Stallman's commentary and he specifically states that the GPL is not Open Source, but rather Free Software.
Yet basically all of the examples you have given are ones of Open Source innovation.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to on one hand distance Open Source from the GPL when it's not convenient to be associated with Richard Stallman, and then turn around and try to link the GPL with Open Source when it seems advantageous to promote the views of Richard Stallman.
To me at least it is especially clear that the two concepts are greatly different. We need to begin talking about them as separate entities and not as part of the same.
Thus the question really is, What innovations has the Free Software Movement created?
As near as I can see from looking at the list of GNU software, every one of them is a cheap ripoff of the innovations of some other product.
Ok, it's pretty clear you either can't read or DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT.
Richard Stallman stated: "The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
Richard Stallman never claimed that given some specific instance X in conjunction with instance Y when the moon is in the house of Pluto that free Kerberos would not communicate with Microsoft's implementation.
He said that it didn't work, period.
You defend Stallman for what he didn't say, I attacked him based on what he said. How am I possibly wrong?
Windows 2000 and MIT kerberos 5 are completely interoperable, and Microsoft's changes are well-documented and "legal" according to the kerberos spec.
Did you read _why_ he said that? It's because "intellecutal property" covers too many issues to be dealt with under a single term. HE DID NOT SAY THAT YOU SHOULD AGREE WITH HIM ABOUT HIS OPINIONS, he just said that there are too many different issues to comment on them sanely as a group. Copyright, Trademark, and Patent issues are so disparate, that trying to talk about them together under the term "intellectual property" is wreckless and almost absurd.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Yeah, we don't really mind the FUD as long as you're precise about it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
he is simply asking that the contributions of the GNU project be acknowledged when people talk about Linux as an operating system (as opposed to a kernel).
If he wanted recognition, he should have released under the BSD license. I don't have to recognize his contributions, and I choose not to. It's Linux.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
it makes sure all changes are released under the GPL. It turns copyright on its head, forcing any change to be released to the community.
Software should not have owners.
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
ideas, but in the fight for daily bread --Rudolf Rocke
So, what's it called then when a company takes something public and starts charging everybody for it, doing everything possible to hide the fact that it's a public resource?
Perhaps stealing isn't the right word, but it seems to me like a slimy, shady, underhanded practice that I'd like to stomp out.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Uh huh. So companies should be free to steal from the public domain and sell it back to you? I suppose you support going into the rainforest and beating up the natives until they pay the patent fees on the plants they've been using for generations too. Same thing really.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
And is it not true that that specification had a big fat field in it for vendor extensions? And that Microsoft, as the vendor, used that specified vendor extension field, to hold the extended mapping they needed (the user sid) to get it interoperating with NT? And that Unix vendors had done the same sort of thing with that field in the past?
As far as I can tell, Kerberos was used in a totally legitimate way in ActiveDirectory. The bullshit was that Microsoft published the docs for their vendor field under "public NDA" and then threatened to sue certain discussion boards for reproducing the information.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The Windows 95 kernel (a flexible protected-mode launcher that can use DOS drivers as well as provide it's own) is explicity a reaction *against* the OS/2 design, which was thought to be very heavyweight back in the early 90s.
On the other hand, the Windows NT (OS/2 NT) kernel was an opposite reaction against the OS/2 kernel because OS/2 was thought to be too monolithic and far too dependant on i286/i386.
I think it's safe to say that Microsoft felt that the OS/2 kernel (which they helped design and build) was a gigantic clusterfuck, and so they came up with a 2-pronged strategy to do a better job.
As for Microsoft Word, it owes it heritage to Apple/Claris MacWrite far more than WordPerfect (none of the above invented the idea of word processing). I think you'll find that modern versions of both Word and WordPerfect have a lot more in common with Word 4.0 for the Macintosh than they do with WordPerfect 4.2 for DOS.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Thanks for the kick-assed post. Hopefully a moderator will notice late in the day.
There's nothing preventing a Win2K client from authenticating against an MIT Kerb realm instead of a Win2K domain server. I know this because I'm currently logged into an MIT realm in exactly the way you describe is impossible.
I am kind of curious how this works, because in my limited understanding, it would seem that you would need to have ActiveDirectory somewhere, or replace the NT Gina. Do you know of any pointers explaining interop for 2000 logons?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Yes, the ends justify the means because they reach different goals. And the implimentation is entirely different. I think that calling the GPL an "embrace and extend" strategy is pointless because - for embrace and extend to work in a neferious way you have to have a trade secret behind it.
This is simply not the case with the GPL, so yes, the ends justify the means and the means aren't as neferious as you suggest...
There is simply no comparisson. There is no lock-in with GPL'ed products. You're free to use the code as reference but not to redistribute under another license. There's a big difference here.
I never said the goals of the GPL were nefarious. On the contrary, I said they "may be noble and selfless". Nevertheless, there is lock-in with GPL'd products -- you're locked into using the GPL! The technique is different (trade secrets vs. licensing terms) but the effect is much the same, is it not?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Huh?? Given that GPL code is necessarily open (if distributed), anyone can determine the protocols it uses, write new code "clean-room" code using those protocols, and produce proprietary code that is compatible with GPL code.
Certainly it's possible. And it's easier to write specs from source code than from object code. But you still need clean-room techniques. And if there is any way that RMS can claim that your reverse-engineered code is derived from the GPL'd code and therefore subject to GPL licensing, do you doubt he'll try? RMS is no less zealous in propagating the GPL than Microsoft is in protecting its monopoly profits...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
No it isn't. It's much closer to a "If you're not for us, your against us" tactic.
That too. Of course, the GPL even punishes kindred spirits. (Witness the number of open-source licenses that are incompatible with the GPL.)
It says, "you can use our stuff, and make more stuff out of our stuff, but only if you lisence any resulting stuff the same".
The GPL is very much of a "my way or the highway" approach to "cooperation". Microsoft isn't much different either. You can use Microsoft's stuff, and make more stuff out of their stuff, but only if you use Microsoft's platform. How is this so different?
Embrace and extend is like "we'll get our stuff to support your features and play nice with your system, but then well add more features to ours that you can't use", thus meaning that if you want to use the fancy new stuff you gotta use the extended and the extended ain't shared with the original authors.
Are you trying to deny that GPL'd software tries to do exactly this? Try reading the GNU web page, Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library: "However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline."
How is that different? "You can use our fancy new features -- but only if you play the game our way." The same statement could be used about the GPL (our way == use the GPL for your code), or for Microsoft API's (our way == use a Microsoft platform for your code).
So like I said, it's quite different.
It's not at all different. You're hung up on the fact the one side wants to share with you and the other side doesn't. Both sides want to force you into a path of doing things their way, because that furthers their objectives. Sure, the objectives differ, but the approach doesn't.
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
But even Stallman freely [sic] admits that Free Software was around long before he started promoting it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
> So what you're saying is that becuase Microsoft hasn't innovated much of anything, it's OK for open-source to follow the same route?
No, he's pointing out that the pot was calling the kettle black.
Try reading in threaded mode now and then.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The chief claim made by Allchin was that free software and open source (FS/OS) do not innovate.
Of course, if he had come right out and said it he would have been proven wrong immediately, so instead he couched it in an incoherent rant about patriotism and government-funded software.
He should hire a speech writer. That would let him make his "chief claim" clearly in the future, as well as shield him against saying things that show him up as an idiot.
> No thread participant could provide an example of a new user-facing product category that had originated in the FS/OS world.
I like that "a new user-facing product category" restriction. Why is "user-facing" the only arena where innovation matters, and why do you have to create an entirely new "product category" to qualify as innovative? Could it be that you thought you had a better chance of winning the argument if you redefined it on your own terms?
And what are you going to say next year? Narrow the argument still further?
BTW, how many product categories are there? Is "game" a product category? Or "strategy game"? Or "wargame"? Or "wargame covering WWII"? What does it take to qualify as an innovation?
Also, please tell us how often any given company creates "a new user-facing product category"? When I walk into CompUSA, I see hundreds of games, but it looks like they're all clones of about 5 trendsetters. And even those trendsetters are manifestations of categories that have been around for years (or decades, in some cases).
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
for the unenlightened, can you explain the differences between static and dynamic linking? i don't know since i don't do high level languages.
Get thee to a programming class!
Basically:
Static = linked once when the program is compiled, so that the library is incorporated into the final executable.
Dynamic = the final executable dynamically links to the library (the *.so on Linux or *.dll on Windows) when it executes in order to access the routines in it.
Advantage of Static over Dynamic is that you don't need to worry about what version of the library is installed on the target machine, you already have your own version included in your program.
Advantages of Dynamic over Static (and the main reason it is used) is that it decreases the size executables take up (if 5 programs use the same library, you only need one copy), and it allows you to update a library without having to recompile all the programs that use it, provided the interface remains the same, giving the benifit of bug fixes easily for commonly used routines. (If the interface or expected behavior changes wildly then things get bad because one system might expect a certain version of a library, and another program might expect a different version with a different interface, hence the expression "DLL Hell" on MS Windows.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Well, the web started out in the FS/OS world- remember that Mosaic was the original basis of both Netscape and IE- or is that still too old for you?
Mosaic wasn't open source. In fact, Netscape were sued for stealing the code. Try again, sparky.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The open source technology movement pioneered software itself. There is absolutely no discussion on this matter. Without open source there would be no software at all - propreitry software came after open source (or free software, or whatever you want to call it) - not before.
No 'movement' pioneered software, unless you're trying to claim that the early computer scientists working at Bletchley park and other places around the world were a part of the "open source movement".
Given that Babbage designed a computer which used software (based on punchcards, no less), I suppose he invented software.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The software industry itself isnt innovative in its nature. Its evolutionary. Movement forward takes place by filling needs and slowly evolving products. You find few leaps. Sometimes there may appear to be 'inventions' like the internet (where free software played the major role), but that's usually because years of evolution happen outside the public eye and then theres a critical mass reached for mass market adaption.
Neither side 'innovates' to a large extent (which is a serious objection to the existence of software patents). Both sides appear to be 'copying', but that is because one sides users identified useful features, and reimplementing similar features will be reassuring to both users, easier for developers and good for marketing.
If you have no property rights, you have no human rights. If you do not own your own body, then you are subject to enslavement. If you do not own the food you eat, you are a slave, begging for scraps at your master's knee. If you do not own the land you live on (and yes, renting is a form of ownership -- not of property, but of a right to occupy), then you are a slave.
Lincoln should NOT be a hero of people who love freedom. At least not the thoughtful ones.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I didn't say he was consistent with himself.
I said that it's clear that he doesn't want people to have the freedom to refuse to share their code.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
An agreement is an agreement it really does not matter what you are agreeing to that much (as long as it's not criminal or unconstitutional).
War is necrophilia.
Huh?? Given that GPL code is necessarily open (if distributed), anyone can determine the protocols it uses, write new code "clean-room" code using those protocols, and produce proprietary code that is compatible with GPL code.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
... something along the lines of "it's exhilarating to stand up to an evil empire."
Oh, well.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I hereby sentence you to a month of forced Barney video watching. Then we'll see how you feel about sharing.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
In his letter he rambles to great lengths about semantics of the "free software", which the Microsoft official or Allchin didn't even mention in their statements. Then he continues rather incoherently, speaking about some American "freedoms" and "human rights", which are not really relevant, because Microsoft isn't arguing for restricting any rights, but asking creators and users of GPLed software to consider its wider implications for economical and technological progress.
RMS's comments on Microsoft's "embrace and extend"-strategy are of course a very good point. He made a small mistake by talking about Kerberos "software" and not the protocol, which is what Microsoft actually embraced and extended.
I bet RMS has gathered, over the years, a vast number of concise arguments for using GNU GPL in software business. He probably has read many other people's arguments too. Just choose the central arguments for the particular case, and adapt them intelligently. And forget the non-relevant ones, as much as you'd like to advertise them.
But, it does look like Microsoft would love to have the Committee of Unamerican Activities still around... RMS RUN! QUICK!!!
The great abolitionists of the 19th century used their wonderful oratory to combat slavers, whose crude cuss words and uncouth bribes beat the orators every time. They had to fight a war to work it out.
Actually, the primary argument put forth by the slavers was anti-Federalist. Slavery should be a state's issue. That way, we can keep our slaves.
You can notice our current US Supreme Court has made a history out of placing items they disagree with on the state's chopping blocks - like abortion.
That's the essence of 'embrace and extend'... something they already did with Java for example.
Windows 2000 and MIT kerberos 5 are completely interoperable, and Microsoft's changes are well-documented and "legal" according to the kerberos spec.
It's completely irrelevant how well the changes are documented if the documentation is not freely available.
It just struck me that RMS' views mirror a lot of what annoys me about the recording industry, especially his obsession with the GNU/Linux thing. Part of his argument is that Linux is the kernel, but not the operating system -- we will all agree with this. However, to say (or at least imply) that GNU forms the rest of what is popularly known as "Linux" is absurd. There are plenty of utilities considered standard on the platform that aren't derived from anything Mr. Stallman and his cohorts have developed.
The frustrating part is that the major record labels have the same attitude regarding Napster. This whole attitude of "collect money from your users and give it to us, the recording industry" has been central to the debate for some time, but they always neglect to mention the smaller labels that have chosen not to participate in the RIAA. The majority isn't always all that matters, and when RMS ignores the important contributions other programmers not associated with GNU have made to Linux, it's a slap in their face.
---
Josh Woodward
Josh Woodward
This is true in general, and this is why patents are temporary. This is even more true in software (where design and product are mostly the same thing).And this is why open-source is such a nice development model : it removes many (not all) barriers from sharing ideas in the software world.
And you can find many examples of this kind of innovation in open source software (yes, including the 'command-line network software installer' - aka apt).
What is still to see if open-source can sustain itself commercially. Many people have bet on it, but the final answer is still to come.
Ciao
----
FB
I don't, however, believe for a moment that the GPL would've prevented Microsoft from doing any of this -- if they didn't already, they would've just reimplemented the protocol from scratch, as they did with DCE RPC and DNS in previous versions of NT.
I'm sure either the Samba or Samba-TNG folks will make the first interoperability problem go away eventually, but it may be a few years before that happens.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Our world really is on the virge of change. On one side, we have media producers fighting hard to gain strict control over their product. Fighting hard by forging deals with manufacturers of the technology we use to prevent us from using the product in the ways we might like to. They're backed with mega-corporations and lots of money and lobbying groups on their side. They generate easy-to-use, complex solutions to otherwise simple problems in order to maintain the customer which appeal to managerial types.
On the other side, we have groups who believe in the Free Software or Open Source mantra, and are fighting hard to break down the barriers that have been built. They might not have the money the other side has, but they are noisy and they don't give up nearly as easily. They create solutions to problems with an elegant simplicity that appeals to the technically minded people using the work.
It should be a good battle unfolding in the next couple years... We'll have to see who wins.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Curious so one by one IMHO
Interesting to note no-one tries to suggest a clean example of innovation from the proprietry software community.
I stress that I feel that all software is built on the back of its predecessors to such a large extent that innovation is if not an impossibility it is close. I would be sure that any "innovation" would have been seeen as a research project previously (though the "innovation" may be the redesign that makes the target of the research possible). Are our arguments against the IP laws not based on this premise, and isn't todays story on the patenting of "private" urls just a great demonstration of this?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
just off the top of my head:
The challenge to you is to come up with an innovation of proprietry sofware? All software is built on the shoulders of giats and from the correct perspective nothing is innovative in the computer sphere.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
And you know something, MS did a nasty thing. They did not opt to keep their documentation of their Kerberos extensions a secret. They released their documentation, but then forced you to look at a click through agreement, whereby you agree not to use the information to make alternative implementations. In other words, should the SAMBA programmers reverse engineer their extension, the burden of proof goes to them, to show that they did not do so in violation of that "license".
Stallman may not have elaborated much about this, but he is wholly and totally right about MS's dishonorable motives when it comes to embrace and extend. Next time, UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT FIRST.
And a word to the Moderators: you are on crack.
It's implicit. RMS makes no distinction between the Kerberos specification and implementation. Moreover, if MIT had released their Kerberos implementation under GPL, it would not have stopped MS from doing exactly the same thing, as long as they had used a clean-room version of the software. An earlier poster claimed they did just that. Therefore, RMS's statement is misleading.
I don't see why people think you're insightful.
... I respect Allchin and RMS a hell of a lot more than you, cuz they at least discussed a topic rather than slamming a person.
If anything, you haven't added anything new, just rehashed the old anti-RMS arguments.
First allchin says open source is unamerican. Then he clarifies it by saying the GPL is unamerican and anti ip.
Did he ask RMS? No, he made public statements. So did RMS. Both have a viewpoint, both made public statements. Big deal.
In the context of "american" or not, RMS is using some imagery from american history. Nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps you are forgetting that third party ownership of recorded material is only 70-80 years old, and many of the laws protecting the original creators of IP and even the public's various permissions to use IP have radically changed in just the last two years -- in favor of corporations, not people.
RMS is absolutely right about the USPTO, IP, copyright, etc. -- it's very difficult to discuss any of it cuz it's all in flux right now.
I can say this
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
golly, maybe he owns a toyota, too. that's always a dead giveway -- registered toyota users.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Where's Pink Floyd when I need them?
I used to write off RMS just like everyone else. But then I started to actually listen to what he was saying, and realized that he's right.
It pains me to say this, but RMS is right only in the same way that Freud was "right" or Marx was "right" or Rousseau was "right".
I *like* RMS's rhetoric. And, yeah, I *do* believe he is fighting the good fight -- a fight that needs someone leading the charge. And I don not believe (as some posters suggest) that he ought to tone down the rhetoric and start thinking "strategically." (Which is shorthand for saying he ought to think in "business" terms instead of theoretical terms. I think the way we view "business" is part of the problem -- so I urge RMS *not* to tone down but instead to stay the course.)
That said, I'll say this: the problem with RMS's worldview is that he's espousing an ideology that's particularly dogmatic. The end result -- apart from the ability to "write off" RMS the same way one could "write off" Marx and Freud (by thinking, in other words, in purely "business" terms) -- is that like any ideological argument, its force to sway and persuade relies primarily on its ability to undermine the current, contemporary "prevailing wisdom". His argument remains strong so long as it remains a "minority view" -- a single voice from within the wilderness.
But as soon as the current power structure shifts -- however and wherever that shift might occur -- RMS is obligated to shift his mechanisms of persusaion, dogmatism, and ideology. If he fails -- and (to put it crudely) harps on the same old shit over and over again -- he *will* become a laughing stock and his argument, while perhaps skillfully constructed, will no longer carry any persusasive sway. He'll be relegated to "just another socialist wannabe" or "someone who espoused good ideas and fought the good fight but was eclipsed by the times." Sorta like Marx, in other words. Frued, too. He'll become historical (but no less historic, I suppose.)
No one can deny the elegance and energy of, say, Marx. But today we always (or, most always) read 'Captial' in a very compartimentalized historial context. We read 'Capital' because we're curious about the way in which Marx puts his own spin on Hegel's dialectic. We read it because it is a unique document borne out of a specific and very important time -- the industrial revolution. Be we don't -- or at least we ought not to -- read Marx as revolutionary dogma. We *could*, of course. We're certainly free to choose to do so. But if do, we run the risk of ignore the very historical forces that we're supposed to critique.
Aside from the other excellent Slashdot responses to the question of why we still listen to Richard, it's also because nobody else does the same job that he does.
These are the two main jobs he performs in the public eye:
1) having coded the basis of most Free and open source software in existance
2) the ultimate champion of Free Software advocacy
He takes permanent lifelong fulltime personal responsibility for the liberty of GPL related users and software.
Maybe nobody else has stepped up to the plate or have done as good of a job. It's freaking hard. It's not very fun unless one has obsessively narcissistic tendencies. He doesn't do it just because he likes it; he does it because it has to be done. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Or maybe like some other projects the right good gentleman has chaired, he won't relinquish the spot. :)
So why don't you ask him, or stand up to the job yourself? I'd suggest that if you're going to criticize him, that you'd better have a URL on hand that lists all your contributions to freedom and liberty. :)
===
The last paragraph does not help the cause, at least not when seen in the eyes of the common man. It only served to make RMS somewhat petty, and pettiness, IMO, is in direct conflict the ideals written about earlier in the piece. Sometimes it is wiser for one to accept a victory in principle, and ignore the small stuff. We need to have a keen awareness that the battles against non-free software are won by gaining mindshare.
cat
If you want to be pedantic then, it was the NCSA web server, improved on by the Apache project. It's still an innovation and still OSS. Unix when it first came out was innovative, I'm not talking about now.
Oops, pressed submit too soon. Netscape were sued by the NCSA for the use of the name Mosaic, not the actual source, see here for details.
Every academic I've ever met has been a pedant to various degrees (no pun intended). I don't think RMS is a particularly bad example compared to some. I just think he wants his organisation to get just as much credit as the kernel hackers do which is fair enough.
Seriously, his point is that most Linux systems are mostly based on the GNU tools and he feels a little cheated that most people concentrate on the kernel. Yes, the world mostly says "Linux" but his life's work is the GNU project and it makes sense for him to request that people refer to systems where most of the user-level software is from the GNU project as GNU/Linux systems.
While I might not be inclined to honor his request simply because GNU/Linux is a bit of a mouthful and, as you pointed out, most people just say "Linux" I don't think there's anything wrong with him requesting that people call what really are GNU/Linux systems "GNU/Linux." He's made an enormous contribution to Free/Open software whether you'll give him credit or not. Almost all the software I use on a daily basis is either directly from the GNU project or licenced under the GPL. He's done a lot for the Linux community and he wants to be recognized. So let him ask that he be recognized, and don't complain about his request. You don't have to honor it, but at least understand it.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
clippy
the embrace and extend 'mission statement'
the BSOD
the outlook e-mail virus that contacts your friends
microsoft bob
the 300 meg 'service pack'
microsoft 'interactive barney
erm thats it folks !
Also, who is saying that Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos is complying to the standard? Seems awfully non-compliant since you can't authenticate Windows clients with a Unix/Linux server.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
They weren't members of the open source movement because back then open source was the only method of producing software, so its like saying they were members of the human race: what else would they be?
It is a recent "innovation" to treat algorithms and programs as intellectual property (it's like saying the route to your house from a friend's house is your property). Until the mid 70's when you bought a program you always got the source.
Gates' real claim to fame outside marketing is that he was part of the wolf pack that devoured this particular freedom, stealing it from the rest of us to make him money.
Seriously, why should a computer program be copyrighted at all (even the GPL is copyright)? None of the early projects used copyright or patents but they mangaged to send people to the moon, create email, the net, the web, and Unix among others. In what way has the ability to copyright a list of instructions helped innovation?
BTW, Babbage released his source code too.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
GNU provided the foundation that Linux could start to exist at all. Specifically compilers, editors, assemblers, debuggers, etc...
Beginning of the nineties a serious programming environment usually hit you with hundreds, or thousands of dollers depending on the tools.
That you can just type ./configure make etc nowadays is thanks to a lot of GNU tools doing the dirty work transparently in the background.
Although I perceive Mr. Stallmans views and approach sometimes as a tad radical, I don't think that the Free Software / Open Source / whatever movement would be where it is today without his efforts.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
His statements are clear enough that a layman understands what a shitty thing Microsoft tried to pull off. And in this context he certainly didn't twist the facts.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
The standard specifies a 64 byte field, which can be used and customized for application specific extensions.
They abused it to implement their idea of Kerberos and to enforce the use of NT only domain controllers.
The specs where released under a non-disclosure agreement, which, when you looked at the implementation document, disabled you to ever use that knowledge for non MS purpose.
It was an absolute dirty stint they tried to pull off and there is still an ongoing EU investigation, because of possible deliberate non-interoperabilty; but strictly speaking they didn't break the standard.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
That's about it as far as I can see.
MS seem to be pissed off that they can't just take Linux wholesale, modify it so that it doesn't work with any standards and then sell it back to us keeping the changes secret.
Actually, I see this as a good sign. If they are pissed that they can't just take the code then that means that they do *want* to take the code. That means that the code must be better than what they have. That means that they are losing.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It's (probably) not hard to demonstrate that most new ideas have come out of closed software, but I wonder if you're looking in the wrong place. It's not as if innovation didn't exist before closed software did.
Innovation takes two things: Someone to come up with an idea, and someone to implement it.
Absolutely anyone can come up with an idea. People don't come up with more ideas just because Microsoft or some other closed source business is paying them.. although it's fairly obvious that these companies will do their share of hiring innovative people. But there will be at least as many ideas coming out of other people.
One of the barriers is then whether these people will share their idea. If they're a Microsoft customer, they might send an idea to Microsoft. If they're an open source user they might mention it to the developmer. (If any.) You can bet that closed source companies also have marketing experts that collect information useful to working out what is wanted and what will sell. It doesn't mean this wouldn't happen (albeit at a different rate) if the product was free.
The other requirement is someone to implement it. In closed source if it looks like a good idea, it'll get done (sometimes), and usually fast. In open source, it might get done at some point if nobody forgets about it and then when someone can be found who wants to do it. This might be encouraged if the same feature is seen to be very useful elsewhere.
To sum up, open source may clone existing products, but closed source also clones existing ideas. Ideas, meanwhile, come from everyone. They just get implemented at different rates.
Innovation doesn't come from closed source or open source. It comes from people, and a good deal of those people aren't involved in the project concerned.
===
Internet Explorer- Mosaic/Netscape
Microsoft Messenger- AOL Instant Messenger Winamp/Realplayer- Windows Media Player Windows - MacOS
DOS- Unix
MSMoney- Quicken
MSWord- Word Perfect
Win95Kernel- OS/2
Outlook- flu sufferer's used kleenexes(tm)
Innovative Marketing- The Borg ("Star Trek")
What have I missed :)
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
In other words, if you create new software using software licensed under the GPL, the new software must also be published free of charge, with the source code available for anyone to use and modify.The cascading effect of this is to create a collection of software that cannot be owned by anyone.
I am not sure if this is the same as saying that GPL is there to ensure that free software is owned by everybody, but that is not relevant.
Scientifically, I don't think that there is anything tangible on earth which doesn't belong to somebody. Any tangible item is property of someone and is owned. Just by the very biological nature of humans and mamals in general. We all are in a constant fight to defend and protect what we perceive as being our property, my own body is my property, what I eat is my property and what I work for and collect as the fruits of my laboer with the goal to feed myself is my property.
I do see IP and patents and trademarks just a way to convert intangible collections of thoughts and ideas in something, which has for a specific time period the qualities of property, so that profit for your labor into intangible thought processes can be collected.
Communism has proven that property as a whole given to the whole of the population doesn't mean there is no property or that property is owned by nobody. It just says that it is distributed by a party representing the whole of the population back to the whole population. It replaces the individual freedom of a person to collect property and accumulate property with distributing the collective property as the whole owned by the whole population back to them.
This process takes away one very basic freedom, one which Lincoln and the forefathers certainly would never have wanted to take away, namely the individual freedom of choosing to work with the goal to collect individual property.
If RMS cites Lincoln with: "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail." then I like to ask him what he thinks one of the most basic human rights is.
I happen to believe that one of the most basic human rights is equal freedom for any individual to work with the goal of collecting property to ensure his survival. Actually that's exactly what Lincoln's main goal (trying to implement what the founding fathers had put in the constitution but didn't live up to), when he fought for liberation of the slaves and requesting to give them property (land through the Homestead Act, for which he asked the owners to prove it up, i.e. to work for to own it). May be I don't use the legal definition and terminology of human and property rights according to the books, but I do think that I use them in their true meaning.
Lincoln in defense of the freedom of people just amended the (not so flawless) constitution of the forefathers to ensure that true freedom for everybody really prevails in enforcing equal property rights.
So to me the quotes from Lincoln by RMS don't support his thought process of ensuring freedom and human rights through GPL, in making sure that free software can't be owned by anyone or that free software must be owned by everybody as a collective.
RMS further says:
But defenselessness is not the American Way. In the land of the brave and the free, we defend our freedom with the GNU GPL.
May be you defend some freedoms with GPL, but you certainly don't defend the freedom to work and collect property with the GPL. One of the most basic freedoms Lincoln stood for.
As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."
I don't know in which context Lincoln said this, but I do believe that phrase was formed because a human being (a slave) was considered property of another human being (slaveholder). This only proves that by the very nature of our biological existence a human body is always owned by the person living in that body.
I don't know any animal which doesn't thrive, defend and fights for his property against another animal for survival. Humans do the same. No theoretical scheme of collective ownership of all tangible and intangible values will be able to supercede that basic natural (defined in our genetic make-up) principle. That's were I see a basic contradiction to nature itself in what RMS apparently stands for.
Just my 0.02 c of non technical thoughts to RMS' thinking.
-------- Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
The main reason I would imagine that it was brought up was that Allchin's comments have received much scrutiny, and any response from RMS would be read with nearly as much interest. People that are new to the GPL need to know how it's different from other licenses, don't they?
The important rule of running any serious advocacy program is this: "Never miss an opportunity to educate someone."
Now, because many of us here on /. have heard this before, it sounds like a "tired party line", but to some people, it's the first time they've heard about it. Are we so egotistical to think that RMS was talking to us? Realize that his audience is diverse in these situations, and he has to give something novel to all of them.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
But at the same time, he doesn't appear to be guilty of doublethink. The marketdroids of many companies are not only doubleplusgood duckspeakers, but they're also doubleplusgood doublethinkers.
Microsoft unbellyfeel GPL.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Much as I like Linux and grdugingly admire RMS the big question I've yet to see answered is "Has the GNU/GPL been tested in court?"
:-)
It sure would be interesting to see the GNU/GPL thrown out as un-constitutional or to see it challenged outside the US
Don't think you read the article right. RMS is not saying if you are thoughtful you will think the same way as me about intellectual property. He is saying that if you are thoughtful you will see that intellectual property is a catch-all for a bunch of different things, and each of those different things should be discussed seperately.
He actually doesn't state what his opinions are, or tell anyone to agree with them, only that intellectual property as a concept can't really be discussed in the way that Allchin was discussing it.
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
last post, bitch
I think Microsoft is basically making some assumptions about copyright that don't add up. Let's take a simple scenario: the government develops some software, and releases it under the GPL.
Now, if the government made it, they own the copyright, and as such can sell the code to interested parties such as Microsoft under a different license. Alternatively, Microsoft can get the code under the terms of the GPL gratis.
If instead the government had released the code under a traditional proprietary license, then Microsoft can still license the code if they want to "extend" it. They just don't have the option of extending it under the terms of the GPL.
Now, of course, if people make GPL'd contributions to the government's code, and the government incorporates those changes without getting copyright, then the "proprietary license" option disappears to a certain degreee. That being said, those are improvements that wouldn't exist at all under the traditional proprietary license, so I still don't see how this can be seen as a problem.
So, can someone tell me the scenario under which the GPL would give Microsoft, or any other "innovator" fewer options than if the code was released in the more common manner?
sigs are a waste of space
The criticism that the GPL harms innovation is obviously silly but what strikes me is that the Microsoft comments are heavily leaning towards portraying the GPL in a generally negative light.
They're probably hoping people won't realise you don't have to use it.
I couldn't give a good god damn less what you may or may not vaguely recall reading when this was a hotly-debated issue on slashdot several months ago.
My actual experience trumps your fuzzy recollections every day of the week.
For what it's worth:
Here's how it was explained on previous episodes of Slashdot versus Microsoft:
Kerberos is designed to be an Authentication protocol. Which means it can verify who you are.
It does not attempt to be an Authorization protocol, which means it has no ability to tell the system what rights you have.
A Unixy example of this is that Kerberos can tell your system that you are in fact a user named 'root'. What it can't tell the system is that you have a UID of 0 and therefore have Superuser rights. (MS is of course using their SID concept instead of UID/GID.)
Now, if you've had any experience with NDS or LanMan Domain security, you'd know that the primary purpose of directory systems is to centralize authorization management: mapping a single user list to a various ACLs and other privledges on hundreds or thousands of boxes around the world. So a non-extended Kerberos would have been useless to Microsoft, or anyone else trying to sell a directory management system to corporate america.
On the flipside, your company probably wasn't using Kerberos for anything unless you had some different system for mapping authentication to authorization in place. What sucks, is that right now, there is no mapping between the MS authorization system and any other system you might want to use. But you can see the possiblities -- a single login system that gets you Local Administrator on your NT box and wheel access on your Unix box.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
It should be clear from this paragraph that RMS is only interested in his own freedom, not your freedom. In particular, not your freedom to refuse to share.
It is not just his freedom, but the freedom of users everywhere. But, even ignoring this, he *does* respect your freedom to refuse to share. As you know (I know you know because I've seen your comments here before and I'm on your FSB mailing list), you can take a piece of GPL'd software, hack it to hell, and not distribute it. You can use it for whatever. What the GPL prevents, as you well know, is preventing people you give copies to from sharing.
So, your comment should read, "It should be clear from this paragraph that RMS is only interested in his own freedom, not your freedom. In particular, not your freedom to prevent others from sharing" (emphasis added). Now, proprietary software companies are founded on the basis that this is a true freedom - in particular, Microsoft (or at least Allchin) believes it to be so key to their business that other ways of doing things must be stomped out at all costs. But, RMS does not believe in a freedom to prevent others from sharing. Please don't misrepresent him.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
All right...
MS Bob(tm): Innovative attempt to introduce user friendliness to computing. So user friendly, if you typed your password incorrectly 3 times, it would offer to change it for you.
MS Ergonomic Keyboard: Combines a keyboard with breasts. As close as many geeks will ever get to touching breasts.
MS Wheel Mouse: May be an actual innovation. Seeing as how Microsoft defines innovation differently from the rest of the world, this one must have slipped through somehow.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
All the GPL being outlawed (which wouldn't happen, it would be more subtle), we wouldn't lose much. We'd rerelease it under the GPL. Very little is actually GPL'd because of the GPL. It is much more common for people to avoid the GPL because of it.
The Open Source community cares little for Free Software, but makes different demands.
If I announced that I was part of the "community" and would sell GPL licenses (which I can do, I just can't stop you from redistributing), you'd al flame me, while I'd be legally in the right.
The right to a downloadable ISO, web site, and ftp site, is NOT a right that the GPL ennumerates.
Why is this a war. RMS has the right idea. He didn't go and talk Netscape into open sourcing Navigator. He didn't talk AT&T into openning Unix, he went and wrote his own.
We need more coding, less Slashdot ranting. The goal isn't world domination. If you want the freedoms that the GPL provides, only use GPL'd (or less restrictive, a la BSD) licensed sosftware. If you want global domination, go grab your dice and a war game and play, otherwise stop with the mental masturbation.
RMS gets credit for many things. He is an idealist and DID something to make his ideals work. ESR is an opportunist who wrote an completely preposterous essay and tried to steal the thunder of someone actually doing something.
The whole "open source" process fails for large projects. All the significant projects are run by a small group. While Linux has many "contributers" the core team is small, and Linux's development is slowing because of the management issues.
The best free software (Emacs, Apache, Perl, Samba, GCC, etc.) are ALL small teams or individuals writing great code. Even if they get contributions, the direction is set by a small group. The "Open Source" projects that ESR talks about are among the weaker links (Mozilla is the prime example, but I'd argue that Linux falls in here... all the stability arguements are in contrast to Windows, which by engineering tradeoff has more features and less stability, not against other Unixes. Does anyone here REALLY feel that Linux stacks up against HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, or BSD 4.4 Lites in stability? I mean the kernel, not the mess of software).
The Mythical Man Month holds...
Open Source is the trojan horse to destroy Free Software. By focusing on the convenient instead of the ideals, once the Millions of Eyeballs theory falls to the Mythical Man Month, then Open Source becomes passe.
Show RMS some respect... y'all run his code, use his license, and piss on his work because it isn't convenient to placate your corporations?
What the hell?
Governments (US and otherwise) might choose to encourage free software by, for example, requiring software developed in academia with government funding to be distributed under the GPL. US policy was close to that until the Reagan years, when it switched to encouraging commercial exploitation of intellectual property developed in academia.
Governments might also choose to use GPLd software, with mods and extensions done by government employees coming out under the GPL. That's scary for Microsoft. Suppose, as a cost-cutting measure, the US General Services Adminstration made a decision that all government web sites would run on Apache, implementing it by ruling that higher priced (non-free) software could not be procured with Federal funds. That's what this is all about.
Well, the web started out in the FS/OS world- remember that Mosaic was the original basis of both Netscape and IE- or is that still too old for you? Of course the counter point is that nobody can come up with a new, user-facing product category that originated at Microsoft, either. Everything they do is copied from somebody else. Their implementations may be nice, but they're still copies of others' technology.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Netscape were sued by the NCSA for the use of the name Mosaic, not the actual source, see here for details.
Unix, apache, sendmail, Mosaic (where both Netscape and IE sprang from) to name just 4. There is no one true path to innovation, it just irks me that the great imitator throws the word about as if they've had one original idea in the whole of their existence (unless you count Microsoft Bob or the dancing paperclip, I suppose).
If a group of people donate their time to build a house, does this hurt the home-building industry?
When doctors donate their time to help people (for free), is this a threat to doctors who just want to make money?
If I give a cup of sugar to my neighbor am I undermining the super-market?
Heck, if I grow food and give it away (which I do), I'm REALLY hurting people! Geesh! And I thought I was just being nice!
No, it is completely believable, because you omit a crucial part of the GNU goal: create a Unix-compatible operating system. With such a goal, it became possible for him to "eat the problem slowly by the sides", so to speak, for that way he could start working on existing, proprietary Unix systems. Make a little utility to replace cat -- trivial. Make a little utility to replace ls -- easy. Make a not-so-little utility to replace grep -- not so easy but totally doable... you get the point. If you make them with portability in mind, it makes total sense to attack the problem "outside in".
I'd also say the fact Linus' kernel fit so perfectly in that missing slot WITHOUT IT BEING LINUS' INTENTION speaks a lot for the wonders of portability.
Put a sticker on the distribution - "Contains GNU tools" if you like. After all, there isn't all that much stuff in your average Linux distro that couldn't be replaced with a non-GNU version.
Do you know of any free (as in speech) non-GNU C or C++ compiler? How about all those gazillion classic-Unix command line utilities?
Having said this, RMS is an extraordinary individual and people should have respect for what he has achieved.
Amen to that bro.
He's done a lot for the Linux community and he wants to be recognized. So let him ask that he be recognized
As a note - I see RMS as a very principled person, I dont believe he wants to maintain the "GNU/Linux" moniker simply to get credit for himself (and I don't see your comment as stating this succinctly, I just want to provide some clarity on what I believe to be the nuance of his purpose)
He wants to maintain the clarity in the Meat Space in order to keep focused on Free Software - which is undoubtedly his loftier and very amiable goal.
Allot of people believe RMS to be an egotist, based on his writing, but I see him as being more pragmatic - he is sticking to this 'GNU/Linux" point in order to reinforce and maintain the profile of his true goals.
Where does he say that? The exact quote please!
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
By the way, thanks for saying that the system's real name is GNU/Linux. However, it really helps to make things clear if you refrain from abbreviating it to "Linux". Then you can distinguish between GNU/Linux, the whole system, and Linux, the kernel. That would only have required 16 more characters in this article--and you could have won most of them back by replacing "usually known as just plain Linux" with "often called `Linux'"
This has always seemed to me to be one of the stupider things that RMS always harps on. I wish he would just give it a rest. Sure, GNU/Linux is technically more correct, but the world has standardized on Linux.
Well, let's see:
- I can vote for the officials who are going to govern me
- I can practice my religion openly, in contrast to two of my grandparents who were literally the only members of the families to survive the Nazis
- I can criticize the government without fear of retribution
And here's what I can't do:- Buy one copy of Quicken and install it on two computers
- Make my own carbonated beverage and sell it as Coka-Cola
- Break into computer systems I'm not supposed to be in
- Cause everyone else to vote for Ralph Nader
Yes, on the whole I think I'm way ahead of people in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia or China.You remind me of the Ask Slashdot where the questioner was waxing enthusiastic about life in countries that dodn't belong to the WIPO, like Afghanistan. Know what? If the right to warez is so important to you, go live in Afghanistan. Of course, the Taliban won't let you own a TV.
Richard Stallman writes: "The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
a nn ing/security/kerbsteps.asp
I have a DECstation 5000/133 at home which was running NetBSD 1.5. (I'm now back to Ultrix 4.5)
I also have a Windows 2000 Server running Active Directory that I wanted to use as a Kerberos authentication server.
So I downloaded the latest Krb5 software from MIT's distribution site. I compiled this under NetBSD and installed the various binaries, etc.
I then went to Microsoft's site and read this document:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/library/pl
Which describes how to configure your Kerberos client to authenticate with a Win2k domain controller.
I sat back, opened a telnet session to the NetBSD box and successfully logged in to the box using my Win2k password.
This works, it works very well.
I'm planning to set my Sparcstation up to authenticate the same way, as well as my DECstation now running Ultrix.
Richard Stallman is wrong. The free kerberos can communicate with the Microsoft server.
Interesting. It never occurred to me before that the GPL is also an "embrace and extend" strategy. While RMS and Bill Gates seem to be polar opposites, they both play the game the same way -- Microsoft prefers that Microsoft code only play nice with other Microsoft code and RMS prefers that GPL code only play nice with other GPL code. Both hope to eventually conquer the entire software industry through network effects. The GPL uses viral licensing while Microsoft uses proprietary secrets, but it remains the same game, and Microsoft has been more successful at the game.
Does this make RMS hypocritical for criticizing Microsoft's "embrace and extend" practices while essentially playing the same game? His goals may be noble and selfless, but do the ends justify the means?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
The Open Source Movement is content to co-exist with proprietary software--that is why I do not support it. The Free Software Movement has a more ambitious goal, to replace proprietary software with free software that respects your freedom.
It should be clear from this paragraph that RMS is only interested in his own freedom, not your freedom. In particular, not your freedom to refuse to share.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The Kerberos community was incensed when they saw this, but they had no way to stop it. Kerberos had been developed at MIT, and released as free software--but not under the GNU GPL. The lax license used for Kerberos was no bar to Microsoft's plans. If the Kerberos developers had released Kerberos under the GPL, Microsoft could not have undermined it in this way.
This doesn't make sense at all--Kerberos is an open protocol (RFC 1510), so how would GPLing one specific implementation prevent embrace-extend tactics? The worst that could happen is that Microsoft be declared non-compliant, but even that didn't happen because Microsoft was simply using bits specifically reserved for implementation-specific use.
This seems like such an obvious error, am I missing something?
--
Then, he throws the obligatory intentional misstatement: Why focus on the distinctions between open-source and free software? Allchin didn't address the distinction.... Pretty much guaranteed to draw a bevy of people screaming how Allchin explicitly drew the distinction between GPL and non GPL code and explained how it was only the GPL code that was Un-American.
Then, he employs the standard technique of quoting out of context, ala "I have no opinion 'intellectual property rights,' and if you are thoughtful you will have none either." Read the rest of that statement in the original story and you'll see what I mean.
The final part of Chuck's troll demonstrates his knowledge of the community he is trolling. In this case, he knows the /. geeks don't have much respect for the mental capacity of marketroids so he suggests Stallman, a mental giant, is not up to going toe-to-toe with marketers and executives.
I'd have to say, Chuck - you pulled out just about every trick in the book. And judging from the response, I'd say you succeeded.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
"A few atoms won't even light a match" - Dr Jones, 1933
Although it pains me to agree with an M$ representative who is speaking in his company's commerical interests, I must agree with Allchin that free software and open source primarily clone existing user-facing commercial products rather than innovating in that space.
Tim
You know what? I hold RMS in the highest respect. If I had to choose one reason, this would be it: the Free Software Foundation is not a "pet-project" to him that was interesting for a few days and then faded to the back of his mind. He believes strongly in something, and he does what he believes. Ten years later, he is still doing what he believes.
I can't believe anyone would complain that:
I'd like to know, if the distinction between two philosophies is a "tired argument" then what exactly is Microsoft's argument? Every single sentence that comes out of that company includes the word "innovative." Well, if Microsoft is so innovative, why do their products suck so much? Why, in order to increase their profits, do they have to send lawyers after a free software community? This is, after all, what this story is all about. They want to damage the community in such a way that will benefit them. Is that what you call innovation?Let me tell you what I believe. Innovation is finding out what is better for the consumer and then delivering a solution that satisfies all involved parties. Innovation is raising yourself by climbing higher, not by pushing others down. Microsoft actually never rises. They only push others down and step on them harder and harder. They constantly destroy the software industry for their own benefit. In my opinion, if anybody is spouting a "tired argument," it is Microsoft claiming how innovative they are. They aren't.
Richard Stallman, I salute you for your efforts. Keep up the fight and never give up.
To think intelligently about copyrights, patents or trademarks, you must think about them separately. My views about copyrights are too complex to fit in this article, but one general principle applies: they cannot justify denying the public important freedoms. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."
I have never heard any coder so frquently invoke the mythological heroes of the American nation.
orwell's 1984 would call this doubleplusgood duckspeaking, i.e. lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It makes a lot of open sourcers and free software folks feel good about themselves and their movement, when, at least in a small part of their souls, they should be at least somewhat concerned that Allchin's offhanded, unprepared commentary got such widespread press coverage.
The great abolitionists of the 19th century used their wonderful oratory to combat slavers, whose crude cuss words and uncouth bribes beat the orators every time. They had to fight a war to work it out.
RMS has to directly take on Microsoft et al. I work with a third party and I will tell you, high-faluting speech about abe lincoln will not win that war. What will win that war is systemic, on message and practical stuff about pertinent American values- in this case, free enterprise.
Goat sex free since 2001
Everything you need to know in order to fully understand the RFC-complaint changes that microsoft made to their Kerberos implementation can be freely found online or in the MSDN materials. A good place to start would be here.
The changes microsoft made were to make kerberos understand the more flexible security model and ACL scheme in Win2K, and are not at all an attempt to embrace and extend. If you're running Win2K, the changes are crucial. If you're not running Win2K the changes are irrelevant, so they're not going to entice people to migrate away from the MIT implementation.
This is a misreading of what he said. He did not say he was against them. He said he had no opinion at all on them because the whole term is too encompassing for one opinion to cover all the things the term covers. He's right beyond a shadow of a doubt here.
I would say this one attempt to misread what he said casts a great deal of doubt on your ability to make even the vaguest stab at objectively judging his opinions.
I will agree with you that he trotted out the whole 'Open Source' vs. 'Free Software' thing again, and it wasn't particularily relevant in this case. A few of the things he said are relevant though.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
He mentioned their decision to embrace and extend Kerberos in Win2000. I thought that this was a particularly good choice because it showed:
An example of free software so innovative that Microsoft wanted to use it (scratch the "Free Software stifles innovation")
How a BSD-style license, which Microsoft advocated, let them take it and
How Microsoft then turned around and screwed the people who had written the software in the first place by deliberately destroying interoperability
I'd like a large serving of evidence and proof please.
Having hacked around the binaries of the MS Kerberos implementation, I can find no evidence that they've used any of the MIT implementation of Kerberos.
So what makes RMS so sure that it is using their source code? After all, the spec is out there online for anyone to implement for free. Why does he think they didn't do that?
Pretty strong claims to be making in public. Well, here's one in return -- Richard M. Stallman, You are a LIAR -- Back Up Your Claims.
Heck, I'll even challenge him to a one-legged arse kicking contest if he's interested.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
What salient points do you want RMS to discuss? As RMS never grows tired of stating, he is a representative of the Free Software Movement which is about freedom at all costs, while most people including yourself are members of the Open Source movement which is willing to compromise with closed source developers.
They're the responses of someone who's been spouting the same party line for the last twenty years and who will gladly and graciously take any opportunity to do the same anew. This isn't a criticism of the free software movement.
Yes, it is. You're so called tired party line is the ethos of the Free Software Movement. People like you and ESR are members of the Open Source Movement which RMS keeps pointing out in the article (did you read it all?), he is not a part off. The Free Software Movement is not about compromise it is about "Give me freedom, or give me death".
Finagle's First Law
Richard Stallman has to repeat his message because people are too daft to understand it. that Allchin doesn't get it is not very surprising, but that the open source hangarounds don't get it is downright disappointing.
if I were RMS, I'm not sure I would be so patient. I would probably blow up every now and then, when people don't bother to make the mental effort to understand exactly what he is talking about.
One very nice aspect of Stallman's commentary is that he provided a solid example of Microsoft's behavior relative to Free Software. He mentioned their decision to embrace and extend Kerberos in Win2000. I thought that this was a particularly good choice because it showed:
Having a nice solid example is a big step up from the generic rantings so popular on slashdot. Instead of "Microsoft wants a license that lets them swipe free software for their own ends", Stallman has shown that Microsoft has used more permissive licenses to swipe free software and screw existing users.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Did you actually read what he said, or were you just looking for a nice quote that you could use out of context to give you an excuse to say something nasty about him? If you had a shred of honesty you would have noted that the full context was:
He's not saying that he's against IP rights generally but that they're such a diverse issue that treating them as a monolithic concept is stupid. I'd say that's a very fair comment and shows that he has probably thought about the issue a lot more than most talking heads who blather about the necessity of protecting intellectual property in the media.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
<takes deep breath; exhales loudly> What's this got to do with anything? What part of "open source" don't you get? The source code of these programs is openly available and open to modify! Hence: Open. Source. Hello?! McFly?!
I figure you've got this mental image of "open source" as being the product of the übergeeky, hunched over their machines into the small hours, surrounded by a debris of fast food wrappers and mouldy styrofoam coffee cups. Open Source has nothing to do with this stereotype.
That these programs were developed by "private initiatives" and "corporate consortiums" (sic) is irrelevant. Whether these programs were written by the weird on extreme coffee jags or by 9-to-5 MIS minions in suits is irrelevant. Whether these developments were funded by large corporations or done on one's own dollar is irrelevant. The point is, they've made the source code publically available. These "corporate consortiums" have given something back to the community. They have put their money where their mouths are for open standards. They have not locked up their source code behind NDAs and attempted to pervert open protocols and justified this antisocial behaviour by claiming the right to "innovate" like Microsoft have done. These organisations should be applauded for their public spirit, not sneered at.
For this reason, I find it dispicable that companies, such as Microsoft, Sun, etc. would take an open source piece of software and release a proprietary version, often without even providing credit to the original developers. THis practice is plagerism, plain and simple and is a far greater threat to intellectual property than the GPL. But it is legal without the protection of the GPL.
Copyright laws do not exist to make Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Jim Allchin, Larry Elison, and others as much money as possible. They exist for the purpose of encouraging expression of ideas. When code is copyrightten and kept secret, this is a serious misuse of copyright law and in some ways threatens the entire system. (Patents are another story.)
The GPL is about returning copyright law to its original intent-- the intent to share expression, and this ideal, I believe is one of the things that RMS referrs to in his article.
The software industry is still in its infancy, and this is why companies like Microsoft continu to profit on the upgrade cycle and why cusotmers continue to buy the products. Very profitable but not very sustainable.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Has anyone considered the possibility that RMS might just be an email bot with a web spider hooked up?
I mean, how hard could it be?
Grep the file for "Linux" and if there's X amount of "Linux"es in a certain context, fire off a slightly randomized rant about proper use of GNU/Linux.
Check for certain key words in any discussion FSF or open source, and then fire off a rant.
It couldn't be *that* hard.
Hell, I'm surprised there's no perl script out on the net which lets you auto-create an RMS response to any given statement.
If you release it under the GNU license (wait... he likes the GNU license, right?) he could even use it himself (assuming he exists at all) and save himself all *KINDS* of effort...
Hey, RMSBOT?
I am pro open source Linux, because it should be FREE as in beer, not free as in french revolution.
I like beer. I don't like guillotines.
pvh
"The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -- David Hume