Slashdot Mirror
2012 Free Software Award Winners Announced
jrepin writes "Free Software Foundation president Richard M. Stallman announced the winners of the FSF's annual Free Software Awards at a ceremony held during the LibrePlanet 2013 conference. The Award for the Advancement of Free Software is given annually to an individual who has made a great contribution to the progress and development of free software, through activities that accord with the spirit of free software. This year, it was given to Dr. Fernando Perez, the creator of IPython, a rich architecture for interactive computing. The Award for Projects of Social Benefit is presented to the project or team responsible for applying free software, or the ideas of the free software movement, in a project that intentionally and significantly benefits society in other aspects of life. This award stresses the use of free software in the service of humanity. This year, the award went to OpenMRS, a free software medical record system for developing countries."
If those licenses don't make the software really free they can't win the price, because.... it's the price for FREE software.. It's not that hard.
2012: Dr. Fernando Perez, (IPython)
2011: Matz (ruby)
2001: Guido van Rossum (python)
1998: Larry Wall (perl)
Rasmus Lerdorf (php) must feel a little left out.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
As someone who writes software for living, I admire these people.
From what I saw and read the award means just about as a mug saying "worlds greatest grandpa".
Many developers share that view. Many others do not. Is this really the time and place?
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
That's a silly thing to say considering it's the developer himself who is free to determine the license he wishes to release his work under. A lot of developers want to release their work under the GPL, and a lot don't. But all are free to license their work as they see fit.
GPL doesnt "make the software really free" unless you subscribe to a particular definition of freedom which excludes developer freedom.
Much like liberty doesn't make people really free unless you subscribe to a particular definition of freedom which excludes jailor freedom.
Any definition of freedom that doesn't let me put other people into cages just isn't really freedom.
Many developers share that view. Many others do not. Is this really the time and place?
Really?
The time and place?
This is SLASHDOT!
There's no place like
That's not free software according to the FSF because it is BSD licensed rather than GPL. Also it was 'written solely to undermine freedom'.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100806143457345
36:50
What we are entering in upon then is our maturity. It isn't that GNU is finished. GNU, fortunately, is renewed all the time and is becoming renewable. In the same way that there was a moment a few years back when I talked to Leon, and I realized that there were a bunch of young hackers in their late teens who were getting into apps and that's going to have an enormous effect in renewing what was there. We are gonna have a flood of people towards GNU, and that's going to make an immense difference.
It's going to happen everywhere. But Mr. Jobs is investing heavily in LLVM solely so he can stop using GCC, lest the patents somehow leak across the GPLv3 barrier, and we become able to use his claims. Nobody has ever tried before, to build a multi-platform C compiler solely in order to undermine freedom. [laughter] A hardware manufacturer or two has done something here and there -- we had a little bit of BSD interest in non-copyleft compilation -- but here's the man whose selfishness surpasses any recorded selfishness. [laughter/applause]
38:26
It's unfortunate. But writing software is what we do best. And catching GCC with LLVM isn't going to be easy. [?] you know, there's lots to do.
Basically the FSF's objection to LLVM is that it duplicates functionality in GCC and that they don't control it so they can't put it under GPVv6 when an angel reads that out to Stallman in a toejam inspired hallucination.
The strange thing is that bad mouthing competing projects because you don't control them is the sort of thing Jobs or Ballmer would do.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Stallman cracks me up.. I just love the paper hippie poster award that he is handing out. It's also funny because besides smiling the recipients look as if they barely want to touch it..
once more into the breach
That's not free software according to the FSF because it is BSD licensed rather than GPL.
That's not true. The BSD license is definitely present in the FSF's list of free software licenses.
So LLVM is free software because of its license but it was 'written solely to undermine freedom'? Wait, what?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Yippie !! What more can a hard-working basement dweller want !!
The irony ?? No one wants that as the prize !!
not only is the BSD license on the FSF list, but IPython, for which Fernando Perez just won the FSF award for Advancement of Free Software is BSD licensed!
I'm reading the link you made, snd the original and plain BSD license _is not_ considered free or compatible with GPL. The modified BSD license, that removes the advertising clause, is considered free but dangerous precisely becuase of the kind of confusion you just experienced.
Philosophilically,was he talking: free range mind of the developer? or one limited by the range of the employer?
I realize it's Sunday morning, yet after reading the above comments, might I suggest you offer a new moderation option of dipshit. About as entertaining as an Ellen Degeneres marathon.
The Ipython notebook, although not an original idea (I think they were inspired by the Sage notebook), is just fantastic. I do a fair amount of exploratory analysis and it's so much better doing it in a notebook than in a standalone script - I get to see all the plots, and document as I go along. Most importantly, it lets me experiment with commands as one would in a regular interpreter shell, but without the clutter of all my faulty commands.
If anyone wants to help open source, I would strongly recommend helping improve ipython, scipy or matplotlib. Fernando Perez pointed out in a recent conference that while on the surface these all seem like excellent, well polished projects, if one looks at the committers, they'll find most commits are being done by 2-3 people (for each project). It's not healthy for it to depend on so few people. As a case in point, the main committer for matlplotlib passed away recently and everyone's nervous about its future.
Beetle B.
GPL doesnt "make the software really free" unless you subscribe to a particular definition of freedom which excludes developer freedom.
Shame you got modded Troll, because you're exactly right. Software Freedom and Developer Freedom aren't the same thing, nor are they obligatorily linked. GPL is about Software Freedom and BSD is about Developer Freedom. There's no better way to explain this than to compare the two licenses.
Of course the WTFPL folks would argue that neither are either.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
How about giving them an option to use that for FREE on their terms versus "being given" something by Bill and Melinda that uses power requirements they don't have and expires in 3 years causing them to spend all their Medical Aid money on software, not medicine.
The USA is far to behind for this, and far to ligatuous. It's ironic, because you'd think the USA would benefit form all the Federal interest in Open Medical Redords standards... But in reality, that mandate is going to be so complex, only the big companies already playing have a chance.
So LLVM is free software because of its license but it was 'written solely to undermine freedom'? Wait, what?
The fact is the GPL is a restrictive license and is thus about control to a degree, now restrictive license advocates will often resort to attacking permissive licenses by argumentum ad absurdum with a false analogy about imprisoning people or claiming that source code can be 'closed' simply because of the ability to create closed derived works. This is done through ignorance, malice and/or an inability to communicate their point effectively in context.
Permissive licenses allow different ideologies to interoperate, leaving the choice of what to code to give away to the developer and not forcing them to have the same ideology just to work together.
You can keep developers free to do whatever they want to users.
Or you can keep users free from the controll of developers.
Without context free is just a useless word (like all the rest of 'em).
Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
option to use that for FREE on their terms versus "being given" something by Bill and Melinda
I don't quite follow you, but you've piqued my interest... Is there an article you could link to for this concept or an alternative explenation?
Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
\\\ Any definition of freedom that doesn't let me put other people into cages just isn't really freedom. \\\\ spoken like a true Nhilist .. great in theory but lacks any practical application in the what most of us call the "real world". ;-)
James Douglass Garden City, Kansas Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle