Linux is getting MS so worried that they sponsor tests to discredit Linux. This is the beginning of a marketing campaign against Linux--Microsoft is going to War.
Abbreviation for "Freely Redistributable Software" which entered general use on the Internet in 1995 after years of low-level confusion over what exactly to call software written to be passed around and shared (contending terms including freeware, shareware, and `sourceware' were never universally felt to be satisfactory for various subtle reasons). The first formal conference on freely redistributable software was held in Cambridge, Massachussetts, in February 1996 (sponsored by the Free Software Foundation). The conference organizers used the FRS abbreviation heavily in its calls for papers and other literature during 1995; this was probably critical in helping establish the term.
You are right, but the Java license is not Open Source, and O'Reilly makes a mistake in pushing that Java license in place of the GPL under the banner of Open Source. The OSI should point that out to O'Reilly.
But, hard to believe why Linus Torvalds wants to work in Moscow instead of the Silicon Valley... he has a family and he is considered normal by most people. (I.e., it is more believable if someone say RMS is moving to Moscow.)
Even though Eric denies he is trying to be the leader, he still assumes "the leadership position" in his acts as the president of the OSI. He should not declare by himself some license is Open Source or not, as in the case of the Apple license. He is the marketing person, and not some authority.
There should be a "check and balance" mechanism to make sure Eric stays loyal to the hacker community in his handling of "Open Source." For example, Eric should be responsible to the SPI, who shall have the final say over anything controversial. Or the OSI shall license the trademark "Open Source" from the SPI in its marketing activities.
The free software community is bigger than the FSF, yet they are the only beneficiaries of any donations from people like Cheapbytes. The distribution of reward should be more even throughout the community.
Come on, it is "donations." There is nothing in the GPL that requires donations, and there is nothing preventing others from donating to other parties. Trying to confuse revenue with donations? They are separate matters.
Also by mixing money issues in the license you are creating all kinds of potential interest conflicts. Free Software works partly because of the lack of financial conflicts. For people who wants earn money by writing software, they can always determine their own price. There is no need to confuse that with Free Software. Anyone writing GPLed software decided already they don't make guaranteed income from this activity.
Basically it is fine for you to make any license you like, but you shall not try to confuse the issues by using the term "copyleft" while your license does not follow it.
Brett Glass, it is ridiculous for you to comment on the foundation of the Free Software movement. It is like a fox telling a farm owner how to keep his chicken farm secure. You have done your best to discredit the concept of Open Source, and what you want is a source of free code to profit from. And now you are pretending to be a friend of Bruce Perens and tell him about RMS?
It cannot be denied that Red Hat has contributed a lot to the Linux community. Red Hat has contributed RPM, a GPLed program, and is now supporting GNOME, also GPLed/LGPLed. Red Hat served as the seed to start other distributions, like Caldera and SUSE, and two new ones recently (Independent Linux and BuroLinux). It is really hard to find another company with this kind of pro-Free Software record. Red Hat probably has the best record of all commercial Linux distributors.
Hopefully as long as the current leadership stays in charge, Red Hat won't change its ways.
Open Source == Free Software, for now, according to the author of the Open Source Definition, Bruce Perens. But how can Free Software supporters keep it that way? How can hackers ensure that Eric Raymond stays loyal to them?
Maybe, just maybe, keep Open Source (TM) owned by the Software in the Public Interest, and license to OSI for marketing. But let SPI have the final say if something controversial comes up.
I simply ignore him and I'm sure many other people do. He's not the main force pushing linux-it's companies like IBM, Oracle as well as many people who find that it just works better than NT.
Ha, you are showing your true face...companies are the main force pushing Linux forward?
You are not a Linux person.
Why perl? why not Python, or Java, or Tcl?
on
Unix in Perl
·
· Score: 1
Yes, Tom is big on Perl. But he did not provide argument on why Perl is the right tool for the job. He did not show proof why Perl is better than Python, or Java, or Tcl, for the job.
Incidentally, if Richard Stallman has his way, GCC will not be able to be used to write commercial (or even non-GPLed!) products in the future, because its runtime libraries will be released under the GPL rather than the LGPL. See Stallman's remarks at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-n ot-lgpl.html
Brett Glass, you know that RMS said in the article thatlibraries like libc would not be GPLed. So what you said above is total lies.
Now you are caught lying, what will you do about it? Will you admit your mistakes and apologize, or you will ignore it or just hide?
Disagreeing is OK....such as with Brett Glass?
on
New Mozilla License
·
· Score: 1
Remember what you said, and repeat that to YOURSELF.
The problem in the InfoWorld forums seems to be that too many of the regular participants "have religion" and attempt to shout down alternative viewpoints. People should be willing to listen even if they eventually decide that they still disagree.
You know, one Brett Glass is guilty of this. Whenever someone brings up the GPL, he would go banana and attack it without any willingness to accept alternative viewpoints.
Oh, you are Brett Glass, so do it yourself first, in InfoWorld forums and elsewhere.
Everyone, please check out Brett Glass's past actions and reputation in the InfoWorld forum run by Nick Petreley. Basically, he will do whatever it takes (even lies) to bash the GPL. For a sample, check out this forum and look for Glass's postings.
Brett Glass, please go back to the InfoWorld forum. The people there still worry about you.
Microsoft is defeated on the Java front
on
Microsoft's COOL
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's attacks on Java have failed. It is an acknowledgement that Microsoft is giving up on the Java front. It is time to withdraw and to regroup.
Visual J++ and WFC users, screw them. They are being left to be picked up by Java and Swing.
Microsoft's fortunes in the Software Wars are declining...
Can't use GPLed software since output is GPLed,na
on
Rumours
·
· Score: 1
One cannot use emacs because the text file it created is GPLed.
One cannot use the GIMP because images edited with the GIMP are GPLed.
One cannot use a GPLed circuit design program because the chips so designed are GPLed.
One cannot use GPLed CAD program to design a car because such a car is GPLed.
That's what Sprint is thinking, I guess...
"production of services"--is that software?
on
Rumours
·
· Score: 1
What services? It does not sound like production of software. If not software, why would Sprint be afraid of? Because of lack of warranty and no one to sue?
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is getting MS so worried that they sponsor tests to discredit Linux. This is the beginning of a marketing campaign against Linux--Microsoft is going to War.
Ok, great... here come the people who want to create their own favirote licenses and push them, further dividing the community...
We don't need more licenses, or a license factory.
We need to discourage new licenses.
And the OSI is a marketing organization. It shall not push a "true" open source license.
And remember, something is not Open Source until the SPI agrees.
Maybe Bill Gates sees the division inside the Free Software community over the term "Open Source" and is now trying to add to the confusion.
Anyway, Open Source (TM) is Free Software (Freely Redistributable Software, or FRS).
Open Source is a trademark of the Software in the Public Interest.
And Microsoft is testing the water on violating the trademark. Microsoft is looking for a fight?
Is is time for the community to put aside differences and to stand together in preparation for the coming direct conflict with Microsoft?
Get the facts straight. BSD or X11-licensed software is Free Software. See the GNU website.
Do not spread false statements.
From ESR's "Jargon File":
// n.
(Freely Redistributable Software)
FRS
Abbreviation for "Freely Redistributable Software" which entered general use on the Internet in 1995
after years of low-level confusion over what exactly to call software written to be passed around and
shared (contending terms including freeware, shareware, and `sourceware' were never universally felt
to be satisfactory for various subtle reasons). The first formal conference on freely redistributable
software was held in Cambridge, Massachussetts, in February 1996 (sponsored by the Free Software
Foundation). The conference organizers used the FRS abbreviation heavily in its calls for papers and
other literature during 1995; this was probably critical in helping establish the term.
You are right, but the Java license is not Open Source, and O'Reilly makes a mistake in pushing that Java license in place of the GPL under the banner of Open Source. The OSI should point that out to O'Reilly.
While yet another attempt, this one is not another Bruce Perens or Eric Raymond-wanna-be but from the lawyers and their friends at Harvard...
Would be interesting to see how the non-Hacker-origin activitists' attempt turns out.
Taking away the best talent from the US?
But, hard to believe why Linus Torvalds wants to work in Moscow instead of the Silicon Valley... he has a family and he is considered normal by most people. (I.e., it is more believable if someone say RMS is moving to Moscow.)
My apology to ESR. The above posting is lacking in politeness. The message should have been more polite.
There should be a "check and balance" mechanism to make sure Eric stays loyal to the hacker community in his handling of "Open Source." For example, Eric should be responsible to the SPI, who shall have the final say over anything controversial. Or the OSI shall license the trademark "Open Source" from the SPI in its marketing activities.
A shorter version of the same story (IMHO) can be found here.
Come on, it is "donations." There is nothing in the GPL that requires donations, and there is nothing preventing others from donating to other parties. Trying to confuse revenue with donations? They are separate matters.
Also by mixing money issues in the license you are creating all kinds of potential interest conflicts. Free Software works partly because of the lack of financial conflicts. For people who wants earn money by writing software, they can always determine their own price. There is no need to confuse that with Free Software. Anyone writing GPLed software decided already they don't make guaranteed income from this activity.
Basically it is fine for you to make any license you like, but you shall not try to confuse the issues by using the term "copyleft" while your license does not follow it.
Enough said.
Brett Glass, it is ridiculous for you to comment on the foundation of the Free Software movement. It is like a fox telling a farm owner how to keep his chicken farm secure. You have done your best to discredit the concept of Open Source, and what you want is a source of free code to profit from. And now you are pretending to be a friend of Bruce Perens and tell him about RMS?
Come on. Behave with more honesty.
Rob, thanks for everything you have done at slashdot!
It cannot be denied that Red Hat has contributed a lot to the Linux community. Red Hat has contributed RPM, a GPLed program, and is now supporting GNOME, also GPLed/LGPLed. Red Hat served as the seed to start other distributions, like Caldera and SUSE, and two new ones recently (Independent Linux and BuroLinux). It is really hard to find another company with this kind of pro-Free Software record. Red Hat probably has the best record of all commercial Linux distributors.
Hopefully as long as the current leadership stays in charge, Red Hat won't change its ways.
Open Source == Free Software, for now, according to the author of the Open Source Definition, Bruce Perens. But how can Free Software supporters keep it that way? How can hackers ensure that Eric Raymond stays loyal to them?
Maybe, just maybe, keep Open Source (TM) owned by the Software in the Public Interest, and license to OSI for marketing. But let SPI have the final say if something controversial comes up.
Ha, you are showing your true face...companies are the main force pushing Linux forward?
You are not a Linux person.Yes, Tom is big on Perl. But he did not provide argument on why Perl is the right tool for the job. He did not show proof why Perl is better than Python, or Java, or Tcl, for the job.
Tom, please provide the proof.
Incidentally, if Richard Stallman has his way, GCC will not be able to be used to write commercial (or even non-GPLed!) products in the future, because its runtime libraries will be released under the GPL rather than the LGPL. See Stallman's remarks at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-n ot-lgpl.html
Brett Glass, you know that RMS said in the article that libraries like libc would not be GPLed. So what you said above is total lies.
Now you are caught lying, what will you do about it? Will you admit your mistakes and apologize, or you will ignore it or just hide?
The problem in the InfoWorld forums seems to be that too many of the regular participants "have religion" and attempt to shout down alternative viewpoints. People should be willing to listen even if they eventually decide that they still disagree.
You know, one Brett Glass is guilty of this. Whenever someone brings up the GPL, he would go banana and attack it without any willingness to accept alternative viewpoints.
Oh, you are Brett Glass, so do it yourself first, in InfoWorld forums and elsewhere.
Brett Glass, please go back to the InfoWorld forum. The people there still worry about you.
Visual J++ and WFC users, screw them. They are being left to be picked up by Java and Swing.
Microsoft's fortunes in the Software Wars are declining...
One cannot use emacs because the text file it created is GPLed.
One cannot use the GIMP because images edited with the GIMP are GPLed.
One cannot use a GPLed circuit design program because the chips so designed are GPLed.
One cannot use GPLed CAD program to design a car because such a car is GPLed.
That's what Sprint is thinking, I guess...
What services? It does not sound like production of software. If not software, why would Sprint be afraid of? Because of lack of warranty and no one to sue?