Slashdot Mirror
Ghostscript Leaves GNU
commanderfoxtrot writes "Ghostscript 7.07 has been released. However, this is the last GNU release. They will continue to make releases under the GNU GPL, but because of disagreements over censorship of the AFPL releases and the development model in the GNU release their development process has become incompatible with the goals of the GNU project as interpreted by Richard Stallman."
From the Artifex Public License
You do need an Artifex license if you intend to redistribute Ghostscript technology with your commercial product, or if you intend to use any source code from Ghostscript technologies within your commercial product.
That's just not "Free Software." It's open source, and it may be a profitable business model. I wish them the best of luck as I have used the GS tools for years with great satisfaction. But there can be little question that this is not the kind of freedom that the GNU folks wish guaranteed to those that use their software.
If Stallman's dream is free software, how the heck is advertising non-free software part of that dream?
I write GPL software and I have no "fear" (except that I constantly have to explain what the GPL and Stallman really say.. to dim bulbs who get their facts from slashdot posts instead of reading the damn license for themselves).
So much cluelessness in such a short post. The fact that you got modded "insightful" is simply baffling. I'm convinced that there are fewer UNIX users and more Windows users on Linux than ever.
We'll start with the basics. The GPL is a license. GNU is a system with a corresponding project. Choosing the GPL for your license does NOT mean you are part of the GNU system.
The FSF is a sponsor of the GNU project. They are not the politza. They couldn't care less if your software is licensed with the GPL or not. They only care about the GNU project.
The FSF has strict guidelines about software that can be accepted into the GNU system. The Ghostscript guys have decided that they want to do things differently. No big deal. Ghostscript will still be released under the GPL. It won't affect your GNU/Linux distribution in the slightest.
If Stallman has done all that much damage to Open source with the GNU/Linux thing, then why (from a marketing standpoint) is Linux winning so much mind share compared to BSD? If you are really looking for villains, MS and SCO are much more appropriate targets.
Rather than hate the guy, I just ignore him. In the larger scheme of things, he really is a non-player frankly. Actions by heavyweights like IBM, HP, and Sun carry SO much more weight than ramblings of Stallman.
Here we have a company that could easy just release closed source software. They may even make more money that way. Instead they release the current version free for non-commercial use and the previous version GPL free.
Where the open source community should be thankful for this and applaud a potentially useful mix of semi-open source commerical software with GPL software, all that anyone can do is complain that they promote themselves in the GPL version.
Well. It's GPL. You can always remove the recommendation from the readme. The high and mighty ideology of the FSF is really really tiring.
They're getting downright fickle and biting the hands that feed them in a lot of ways. True, GPL software can exist without GNU projects, but the GNU projects "collect" the various projects under a single banner for maximum visibility by the public. If your going to have free software, it's going to have to be under a "TV" type model where companies release code for older versions as "advertizement" for their newer versions or services. RMS & Co is becomming as over-reactive as BillyG and StevieB.
On another note, after 10 years of GPL, there's a rewrite going on. With the current heavy-handed tactics, what's really going to be in it? How many more developers are they going to alienate with GPL 3.0? How hard is the FSF going to push for everyone to adopt the "new rules" or be "cenured"?
This isn't the image that the corperate world needs to see! There's finally some successful companies that live off GPL works, that businesses can look up to. Any messing with the rules now throws 10 years of businesses experience with the GPL out the window and guts the whole OSS thing!
> Stallman has done more harm to the Open Source movement than
;-)
> anyone else.
That's over the top. Granted, Stallman is an idealistic nutcase
with strange ideas and strange priorities, and he likes to shove
them down everyone's throat, but nevertheless he has actually
provided quite a bit of really useful stuff. He coordinated the
early development of some very important things: gcc (without
which we wouldn't have Linux *or* Free/Net/Open BSD in their
current forms) and a number of important filesystem tools, plus
of course Emacs, without which we would all die or (worse
have to use vim.
It's only recently, after the OSS movement gained some real
momentum in the form of lots of programmers writing code, that
RMS seems to have stopped contributing anything useful himself
and gone off into full-time-ideology mode. (Does he still write
code these days? HURD? What? Anything anyone *uses*?)
Still, even in full-time-ideology mode, he's mostly harmless.
Most folks pay more attention to other people (ESR for example),
and even the people who consider RMS as the big leader don't buy
his most inane ramblings. What harm has he done, other than
annoy people such as yourself who haven't learned to ignore him?
Yes, the GS departure is another example of how the Gnu project
is becomming irrelevant. But the Gnu project is becomming
irrelevant *mostly* because the open-source movement has gained
such momentum that it no longer needs the FSF as such. We depend
on certain Gnu software, but if the FSF evaporated tomorrow we'd
still have (and still be able to develop and improve) that
software. The FSF as an institution we no longer need, and the
reason we no longer need them is because (though RMS does not
realise it yet) they were successful.
The FSF gave people like Linus the tools they needed to create
free software. The internet gave them the ability to easily
share it. Linux attracted lots of developers and created a
critical momentum. Companies like RedHat and IBM gave the
movement enough credibility (in the eyes of suits) to force
everyone in the industry to take notice. The rest is details.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
There is really no big deal to this at all. GPL != GNU. The GPL'ed version will still be just as Free. The only difference is that GS won't be an official part of GNU.
The GNU project (funded by the FSF) is a specific project which is not necessarily exclusively GPL'ed code. It can include any code that is Free as in Freedom. The FSF and RMS have set up certain guidelines for the criteria a project has to meet to be part of the GNU. They didn't suddenly decide on this. Now, you may disagree with those criteria. You may think that simply the promotion of any proprietary product in an unobtrusive manner shouldn't warrant disqualification from GNU, but you're not the one's who set the rules.
You don't like it, e-mail the FSF and explain to them why not, in a manner which doesn't boil down to the mindless rant. Every club has certain rules -- minimum guidelines for acceptance, and you should look at the GNU project as sort of a club; if you are just on the boundary of meeting those criteria, and are rejected for falling slightly short, you may naturally think that the club is being puritanical and unbending. However, "minimum standards" has to have a certain meaning.
Personally, I think that these things should be acceptably part of the GNU, so long as the ads are unobtrusive. Mention in the readme file -- aso opposed to a screen-wide pop-up -- counts as unobtrusive in my book. The definition for what counts as an unobtrusive ad should naturally be laid out. (I actually believe the GPL allows coders to, for example, mandate certain short messages be displayed on their progs...e.g., the Vi message about helping children...but, GPL != GNU).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
"Proprietary software is a social and ethical problem, and the point of GNU is to solve that problem."
WTF? That just makes someone think the writer is a total nutcase fanatic, with a broad statement like that. It's an absurd claim that really isn't backed up by any facts.
Yes free software is better, but to say it's a social and ETHICAL problem is going WAY to far. It's almost communist. like say:
"Selling food for profit is a social and ethical problem, kwikimarts should be closed down"
It would seem like not many people posting here have much of an idea what RMS has gone through for his beliefs. Stallman is an atheist, but he believes fervently that all proprietary licences on software are wrong. Not like 'we have to have a choice', but like 'there should be no proprietary code'. It's a big thing to believe in in the current intellectual property-laden world, but it is this belief and not just sharing code with friends that led to the making of the GNU project. Now, you may not have the same extreme views on IP, but respect RMS and the GNU project for still doing what they said they would do - provide and advocate the use of absolutely free (as in freedom) software. Also notice the frequent use of absoulutes here. This is the way RMS is when it comes to software. There is no middle ground where some of your code is proprietary and some isn't. It's all or nothing.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient