Slashdot Mirror
Debug your Code, or Else!
Trevor Lovett writes "I ran across a collection of famous software bugs that have caused large scale disasters including the explosion of the Ariane 5 rocket due to integer overflow and the misfiring of a US Patriot missile that caused 28 deaths because of accumulated floating point error. "
but it worked on my computer...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Wrong Starting Estimate of Uranus mass
But I thought Uranus is a hole...
(Sorry, I just had to)
Developers: We can use your help.
GNU is a free (beer) system with a not-free (speech) viral license. Go figure!
I usually resist the urge to respond to people's sigs, but yours just begs it.
How could software distributed under the GPL be any more free? Have you read the GPL? Are you aware that it is not an end user license? Are you aware that one needn't agree to the terms in order to use GPLed software in any way he chooses? Are you aware that anyone may sell any peice of GPLed software? Are you aware that the FSF actively encourages people to do so?
The only "freedom" that the GPL takes away is the "freedom" to restrict other users freedom if you choose to redistribute it.
Finally, let me address the use of the term "viral" to describe the GPL. The common case is for someone to take a substantial GPLed work and make a few changes and redistribute.
All the arm waving about a small piece of GPLed code "infecting" a larger work is a smokescreen created by people who don't like the fact that they can't take GPLed software, make minor modifications then sell it as software that restricts users. It is well known that Microsoft took the BSD IP stack (under its "non-viral" license) and used it in several of their distinctly non-free OSes.
-Peter
There is absolutely not any such requirement. Again, I ask, have you read the GPL? You can check it out at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
Furthermore, this is a FAQ.
To repeat myself, any use of software distributed under the terms of the GPL, to include modification, is not only not disallowed by the GPL, but is explicitly outside of the scope of the GPL.
You certainly can "combine" GPL software with non-GPL, and the use of the word "viral" is clearly pejorative.
It is true that code covered by the GPL cannot be lifted and distributed under conflicting terms. Is there any license this isn't true of? Can you lift BSD code and remove the authors indemnification or the "advertising clause" protection if there is one? Of course not. The only thing that makes the GPL different than the BSD license in this way is that the GPL vehemently protects the users freedom as well as the(original) authors.
You can, however, "combine" GPL code by linking, to include compile time linking, with any software under a GPL "compatible" Free license.
Furthermore, and remembering that your sig levels its accusation at GNU as a whole, a significant portion of GNU's distribution is licensed under the LGPL which may be linked with anything.
So, if it seems that the "irony" is lost on me, it is only because that irony only appears to exist if you base your perception of GNU on false presuppositions.
-Peter