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."
Mmm, nothing like being slashdotted. I'll try to comment on some factual points, though.
There is no "Artifex Public License". There is the AFPL, or "Aladdin Free Public License," but we've never claimed this to be open-source, as it's not consistent with the Open Source Definition.
Our decision separate from the GNU name has no effect on the freedoms guaranteed to our users. We've always done a GPL release within a year of the AFPL release, and will continue to do so.
The text quoted above correctly describes the AFPL versions of Ghostscript - commercial distribution is not allowed. However, commercial Linux distributions do of course distribute the GPL version.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
The Artifex license is not the point of contention, here. The Free version of Ghostscript is (and I believe always has been) GPLed. For more on the actual disagreement, see here (and its followups): http://www.ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-devel/2002 -December/002261.html
There's no problem mentioning non-free software in the README for a GPL'd project, and the Ghostscript guys will continue to do so. Stallman doesn't want official GNU projects doing that, so Ghostscript is leaving GNU.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
It starts, "A GNU program should not recommend use of any non-free program."
I've seen many GPL programs that don't live up to that rule.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
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.
> 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
You must call it GNU/Ghostscript...
You know, flaming Stallman is getting to be a little bit overdone here. I think that maybe it is time to put some of these things in perspective.
Stallman's FSF is an entity with an over political purpose. To that end, sub projects that do not align themselves with that overt political purpose probably do not fit within the project and should be excluded. So Ghostscript wasn't aligned and it had to go.
Those who flame Stallman for his fanatacism or lack of current code shouldn't forget his critical early contributions - without Stallman working himself almost to death in the 80's, sacrificing money, power, time, and big fancy jobs to support his project, there would have been no base of free and open software for Linux to run. Stallman created from sratch (and in many places, single-handedly) the largest and most essential parts for a free operating environment, an open alternative to big,commercial, expensive Unix. Would Linus have really jumped into making a kernel (or had any experience with Minix) if there wasn't a widely available free and open set of libraries, utilitites, compilers, and debuggers to run on the system? Possibly, but it certainly seems less likely.
While I understand how tiresome and boring it can be to have our morals, ethics, and beliefs get in the way of our more immediate gratification, that doesn't change the fact that Stallman has done more than anyone to get free and open software where it is today. His relentless (and seemingly tireless) dedication to the cause launched free and open software for the world. That we have so many alternative licenses and viewpoints today is owed to his presenting the first so many years ago.
There is always a role (and a need) for the dedicated, single-minded project that defines a rigorous (and righteous) goal and pursues it unswervingly. I see GNU standing side by side with groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the Medecins Sans Frontiers. It is so easy to forget how important free and open software is to the modern technological, economic, and now even political and social worlds that we find it easier to sneer and laugh at what seems like an anachronism. But Stallman's project is far more relevant and important to the continued success of technology than most will admit.
If free and open software marches on, then it will always need Stallman and the FSF hoisting the original colors and beating the drum to remind them of the pace, no matter how out of place or out of tune he may seem at the time.
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