I won't go as far as that, because I still believe in freedom, which includes the freedom to use the GPL should you wish:-)
However the GPL is best suited towards applications, and not libraries. I have free will, so I freely choose not to use Kylix because they have used the GPL and not the LGPL for their runtimes.
(actually, I might still use it, for evaluation purposes, to see if it is worth purchasing the commercial version and the greater freedoms that would come with the proprietary version. But I as sure as hell would not want to distribute anything written with the "open" edition lest my freedom not to have a roommate named Bubba be put in jeopardy).
The second point does not require modification, only that the ability be available. Support can still occur for non-modified software. But if the governmental department is large enough, the ability to modify can be damn useful. I'm not thinking of your local water board, but of large national bureaus.
Re:Where's the outrage for the other crap going on
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 2
For the berating, I do apologize. I was on my feet all day at LWCE and I was tired and exhausted. But I will not apologize for my main point.
There's a lot of unjust imprisonment in the world, but to focus on one to the exclusion of all else is counter productive. Yes, I said counter productive. The rest of the world is going to look at the protests and think "hackers only care about hackers, so this protest doesn't mean anything." They will be wrong, but that is what they will think.
People won't care about our issues until we care about theirs. And if no one cares about anyone else's issues, we cease to be civilized.
I don't want to berate anyone for rallying around Sklyarov. But I do want to open people's eyes tot he fact that Sklyarov is not alone.
KOffice runs *natively* on Linux, FreeBSD and Tru64 (judging from the precompiled packages available), and can also be compiled "out of the box" on Solaris, IRIX, and all the rest. OpenOffice is being developed in large part on Solaris under the auspices of SUN, and if it's predecessor StarOffice is any consideration, it will run natively on Linux, Solaris and Windows.
the attitude here is that if I purchased (not 'licensed', Western-style EULAs not withstanding) a Windows CD, it's mine to do with as I wish
That's my attitude as well, and I've been fully grounded in Western culture for more than three decades. That attitude is why I am attracted to Open Source, and why I feel that some Open Source and Free Software licenses miss the boat.
The copy of the software that I have aquired legally is mine (whether through purchase or legal download). I have zero rights to anyone else's copies, but mine is mine and damn you if you tell me what I can or cannot do with it.
I should be able to give away my boxed set of Windows without having to ask permission. I should be able to install it on my desktop *and* on my laptop without having to buy another copy. I should be able to dissect, decompile and reverse engineer it. I should be able to make as many archival copies as I require. If that's not the way Microsoft wants it, then they should never have *sold* me a copy. They should have leased the copy instead. But they did not. They placed a box on the store shelf for sale, and I purchased it, and the US Commercial Code says that even if I don't own the IP to the contents, I do own the physical CD and the particular instance of the information recorded on it.
Free Software developers sometimes makes the same mistakes that they think they own your copy of the code. I picked up a copy of Kylix Open [sic] Edition yesterday at LWCE. It's my copy. I should be able to do anything with it without having to ask the author for permission. Yet I am legally forbidden to use Kylix to create an MIT or MPL licensed application. Simply because they chose to use the GPL instead of the LGPL for their runtime.
You make an excellent point, but at the same time ignore an important one.
Citizens aren't being required to use Open Source. Only the government is. It's still a bit of a stretch though. What I would rather see is to add certain items to the standard governmental procurement checklists:
Source code is available
Software can be modified by user
Software (modified or not) can be deployed/distributed without paying additional license fees
But your point is still well taken. So many people are caught up in the FSF rhetoric that they would enslave people in order to free them. The four freedoms listed by the FSF are wonderful. But they are not the primary freedoms in a person's life. Freedom to choose what software you want to use ranks higher. To limit that choice in the name of freedom is hypocrisy.
Where's the outrage for the other crap going on?
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Okay, we've got protests getting organized left and right. I've received fundraising requests in my email. I see people up in arms and outraged with righteous indignation.
Good for you.
But where the hell were you guys for all the other crap going on in this country and all the rest? From the looks of things, you all act as if this were the first injustice ever perpetrated in history.
In California our prisons are overflowing with those who got arrested, indicted, convicted and sentenced for nothing more than ingesting chemical substances. Unwittingly violating the DMCA is just one of hundreds of nonviolent acts that can land you in jail. Why do we only care about one of them?
Let's free Sklyarov, but at the same time lets get all the other people convicted of nonviolent activities freed as well.
The crux is even more basic than that. Just what is a monopoly? And how does one determine that without having to drag someone into court?
Exclusive contracts would be legal for Microsoft if they had only 1% of the market. Legal if they had only 10%. Legal if they only had 49%.
But would it be legal if they had 51%? 60%? 80%? 90%?
The trouble with the antitrust laws as they are written today is that there is no objective guide as to what is a monopoly without going to court. A slap on the wrist ten years ago would have stopped Microsoft from being a monopoly today. But ten years ago their exclusive contracts weren't illegal.
I'm not denying that Microsoft is a monopoly. I'm just pointing out that the checks we have today are woefully off base and out of touch with reality. Law that doesn't apply equally to everyone is bad law. If it's wrong for Microsoft to offer exclusive contracts, then it should be wrong for everyone else as well.
Microsoft has done a lot of illegal things over the years. But the courts have never seen fit to do anything about them until very recently. They should have been slapped down hard for the theft of Stac code. They should have been slapped down hard for violating the Java license. They should have been slapped down hard for violating the Sporkin decree. They should have been slapped down hard every time their install deliberately overwrote another company's software. They should have been slapped down hard each and every time they reneged on an agreement with a supplier or customer. They should have been slapped down hard for consumer fraud. But no, we wait until there's no possible remedy other than disection and dissolution before we act.
Microsoft restricts freedoms of the OEMs to use the competetive solutions!
No they don't. They only offer their products at a cheaper price if you don't use a competitive solution. There was nothing whatsoever stopping any OEM from shipping dual boot Win/Be machines except those contracts that the OEM's signed with full foreknowledge of the consequences.
"Mr. Auto Manufacturer, I will sell you these radial tires for $5 a piece if you agree not to use any other tires but mine."
Actually, nothing whatsoever is stopping them from *shipping* dual boot systems at time of purchsase. Just don't sign on Microsoft's dotted line, pay a little more for Windows, then do whatever the hell you want.
Why are we running Microsoft through the wringer on this one when it's the OEM's that voluntarily agreed in writing not to make dual boot systems? (yeah, yeah, don't answer, I know already - it's because it would all be perfectly legal if Microsoft wasn't Microsoft)
Oh I agree with you totally! I don't know where you got the idea that I thought Windows was an OS:-) It may be marketed as an OS, but Microsoft only makes two operating systems: DOS and NT.
Those nice and usable GUIs are not Linux. It is the tenth anniversary of the Linux *kernel*. The kernel itself hasn't radically changed at all. It has ten years worth of incremental improvements, but I seriously doubt you could show me something in the paging module that is radically different from ten years ago.
There is only one regulation needed. And it's a small one. Good thing is, it's already covered under the US Commercial Code. "Keep your word".
By selling their software, Microsoft (and all other commercial software distributors) are claiming that it is merchantible. Duh! So stop disclaiming all warranties and merchantibility.
Let the commercial software developers be held to the same standards as the commercial toaster manufacturers.
Because if it's the job of the government to create our operating systems, then it might also be their job to create out email clients, window managers, desktops and latest first-person-shoot-em-up games.
Somewhere you have to draw the line, and without any criteria you can't do it. Which is why I asked my question, in an effort to get some criteria.
Take a look at a Unix family tree. FreeBSD has a direct line all the way back to BSD UNIX. Neither Linux nor GNU can claim that. It's closer in lineage to being a True Unix than many Certified Unices.
FreeBSD, SunOS and Solaris have a single common ancestor. If the Sun offerings are indeed real and genuine Unix, then surely FreeBSD is in the same family. My neighbor is a "Smith". His daughter was born "Smith" but married a "Jones". Even though her name is legally "Alice Jones", she is still most certainly a "Smith".
FreeBSD does indeed share code with AT&T based systems: the code that AT&T got from BSD UNIX. It was not a requirement of the court settlement that AT&T had to remove any BSD licensed code. (44BSD-Lite still had some AT&T code left in it, the settlement merely declared it "clean").
FreeBSD is a Unix-workalike. Filesystem, kernel architecture, tools, etc. GNU isn't even close. Ever play the game "which one is not like the other"? Go grab any random GNU tool and compare it to the corresponding tools from FreeBSD and five other Genuine Certified Unix(tm) systems. GNU will stand out like a sore thumb.
Jordan was young when he started with FreeBSD. He is older now. When you get older your metabolism changes and you have to work harder to keep your youthful appearance and shape.
Since when has it been the job of a government to create operating systems? Why should the users of existing operating systems be required to pay for its development?
What makes a Unix a real Unix? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the kernel is macro or micro. It has a lot to do with trademarks and history.
FreeBSD does not have the legal right to call their OS "Unix", since they have not paid for that right. However, considering their history, FreeBSD is much more Unix than most certified Unices. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. Linux is also a waterfowl, but of the flightless variety living in the southern hemisphere:-)
I recall that Darwin has been listed as an official Unix by the OpenGroup. Certainly Apple calls it such on the box of Mac OSX.
One great myth of Copyright is that you can get contaminated by looking at the code. This is not true.
Copyright protects a particular *expression* of an idea, not the idea itself (that's patent's job). Examine the Rogue Windows source, Apple source, and anything else you want, and write your own version. You just can't copy the code.
It's actually slightly trickier than this. Copying code and file layouts, and other similar things, could still get you in trouble. However you are on safe grounds if you "keep the book closed while you write in the answers."
That said, corporations (and individuals) are jealous of their own code. If they know you've seen their code, they may very likely take you to court. In in a civil case they don't have to prove anything, only to get a jury to agree with them. And you also have the phenomena known as "cryptomnesia". You think you're writing original code, but you're just transcribing what you saw last week. That's why some folks use "clean room" processes to reverse engineer stuff.
But unlike some past cases where is was closed binary distributor versus closed binary distributor, FreeBSD and Darwin are wide open. Show me, Mr. Prosecutor, what part of the printout known as Exhibit A was created by your client. With the corporate backing of Apple, I don't think Jordan or FreeBSD will have any worries.
Hmmm, I started Freenix (my name for any free Unix-like implementation) with Slackware-96, so I've got you beat by one year:-)
But I learned computing on 4.1BSD UNIX. Using FreeBSD is like coming back home. It's simple, elegant but still complete and packed to the brim with everything you could possibly want.
p.s. Linus did now about 386BSD, and was interested in it (like most hackers a decade ago). Unfortunately that was during the time of the AT&T lawsuit, which was why Linus stayed away. No one new if it was going to be around the following week. Timing is everything in this business.
Yeah, Sun is going to call it Sun/Linux, because Sun made it. But saying that LinuxOS must be called GNU/Linux because gcc was used is a specious argument. Programs are most certainly NOT called after the compiler that created the binaries.
FreeBSD also uses the exact same build-chain that LinuxOS does. Shall we call that GNU/FreeBSD?
I just bought a new computer. As for my old computer, I'm giving it to a friend's kid. He's 14 and very bright.
He gets the computer for no monetary cost. But there are strings attached. He can use Windows for all of his games, but harddrive two will have some form of Unix on it. And he will learn how to program with it.
He is so exciting he can barely sit down. He's already downloaded djcpp onto his dad's computer and grabbed a book on C.
He wasn't advocating dumping any GUIs. And he wasn't advocating that everyone start with the CLI. All he was saying is that starting with a GUI will stunt your understanding of how computers work.
Not everyone needs a thorough understanding of how computers work. But if that is what you want, then by all means spend some time learning the fundamentals, because knowing the toolbar layout of Office 2000 won't get you there.
Go look up the definition of "operating system" in a dictionary. Even you are giving more credit than is necessary to the OS.
From www.m-w.com: "software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and controlling input and output functions)".
That pretty much defines the kernel and nothing else! Of course, to be of any use there must be some sort of infrastructure around it. But it's entirely possible to boot up all the way to a minimal bourne shell without once loading any GNU code into memory.
All of the GNU software is properly part of the operating environment, not the operating system. I would agree that an accurate description of my system at home would be "The Linux OS with a highly modified and ported GNU operating environment plus additional tools and utilities integrated by Slackware Inc." But it isn't "GNU/Linux", or "LiGNuX" or "GNUlix", or whatever else RMS is urging folks to call it this year.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't go as far as that, because I still believe in freedom, which includes the freedom to use the GPL should you wish :-)
However the GPL is best suited towards applications, and not libraries. I have free will, so I freely choose not to use Kylix because they have used the GPL and not the LGPL for their runtimes.
(actually, I might still use it, for evaluation purposes, to see if it is worth purchasing the commercial version and the greater freedoms that would come with the proprietary version. But I as sure as hell would not want to distribute anything written with the "open" edition lest my freedom not to have a roommate named Bubba be put in jeopardy).
The second point does not require modification, only that the ability be available. Support can still occur for non-modified software. But if the governmental department is large enough, the ability to modify can be damn useful. I'm not thinking of your local water board, but of large national bureaus.
For the berating, I do apologize. I was on my feet all day at LWCE and I was tired and exhausted. But I will not apologize for my main point.
There's a lot of unjust imprisonment in the world, but to focus on one to the exclusion of all else is counter productive. Yes, I said counter productive. The rest of the world is going to look at the protests and think "hackers only care about hackers, so this protest doesn't mean anything." They will be wrong, but that is what they will think.
People won't care about our issues until we care about theirs. And if no one cares about anyone else's issues, we cease to be civilized.
I don't want to berate anyone for rallying around Sklyarov. But I do want to open people's eyes tot he fact that Sklyarov is not alone.
You mean Unix-wide, not OS-wide, don't you?
KOffice runs *natively* on Linux, FreeBSD and Tru64 (judging from the precompiled packages available), and can also be compiled "out of the box" on Solaris, IRIX, and all the rest. OpenOffice is being developed in large part on Solaris under the auspices of SUN, and if it's predecessor StarOffice is any consideration, it will run natively on Linux, Solaris and Windows.
the attitude here is that if I purchased (not 'licensed', Western-style EULAs not withstanding) a Windows CD, it's mine to do with as I wish
That's my attitude as well, and I've been fully grounded in Western culture for more than three decades. That attitude is why I am attracted to Open Source, and why I feel that some Open Source and Free Software licenses miss the boat.
The copy of the software that I have aquired legally is mine (whether through purchase or legal download). I have zero rights to anyone else's copies, but mine is mine and damn you if you tell me what I can or cannot do with it.
I should be able to give away my boxed set of Windows without having to ask permission. I should be able to install it on my desktop *and* on my laptop without having to buy another copy. I should be able to dissect, decompile and reverse engineer it. I should be able to make as many archival copies as I require. If that's not the way Microsoft wants it, then they should never have *sold* me a copy. They should have leased the copy instead. But they did not. They placed a box on the store shelf for sale, and I purchased it, and the US Commercial Code says that even if I don't own the IP to the contents, I do own the physical CD and the particular instance of the information recorded on it.
Free Software developers sometimes makes the same mistakes that they think they own your copy of the code. I picked up a copy of Kylix Open [sic] Edition yesterday at LWCE. It's my copy. I should be able to do anything with it without having to ask the author for permission. Yet I am legally forbidden to use Kylix to create an MIT or MPL licensed application. Simply because they chose to use the GPL instead of the LGPL for their runtime.
Citizens aren't being required to use Open Source. Only the government is. It's still a bit of a stretch though. What I would rather see is to add certain items to the standard governmental procurement checklists:
But your point is still well taken. So many people are caught up in the FSF rhetoric that they would enslave people in order to free them. The four freedoms listed by the FSF are wonderful. But they are not the primary freedoms in a person's life. Freedom to choose what software you want to use ranks higher. To limit that choice in the name of freedom is hypocrisy.
Okay, we've got protests getting organized left and right. I've received fundraising requests in my email. I see people up in arms and outraged with righteous indignation.
Good for you.
But where the hell were you guys for all the other crap going on in this country and all the rest? From the looks of things, you all act as if this were the first injustice ever perpetrated in history.
In California our prisons are overflowing with those who got arrested, indicted, convicted and sentenced for nothing more than ingesting chemical substances. Unwittingly violating the DMCA is just one of hundreds of nonviolent acts that can land you in jail. Why do we only care about one of them?
Let's free Sklyarov, but at the same time lets get all the other people convicted of nonviolent activities freed as well.
The crux is even more basic than that. Just what is a monopoly? And how does one determine that without having to drag someone into court?
Exclusive contracts would be legal for Microsoft if they had only 1% of the market. Legal if they had only 10%. Legal if they only had 49%.
But would it be legal if they had 51%? 60%? 80%? 90%?
The trouble with the antitrust laws as they are written today is that there is no objective guide as to what is a monopoly without going to court. A slap on the wrist ten years ago would have stopped Microsoft from being a monopoly today. But ten years ago their exclusive contracts weren't illegal.
I'm not denying that Microsoft is a monopoly. I'm just pointing out that the checks we have today are woefully off base and out of touch with reality. Law that doesn't apply equally to everyone is bad law. If it's wrong for Microsoft to offer exclusive contracts, then it should be wrong for everyone else as well.
Microsoft has done a lot of illegal things over the years. But the courts have never seen fit to do anything about them until very recently. They should have been slapped down hard for the theft of Stac code. They should have been slapped down hard for violating the Java license. They should have been slapped down hard for violating the Sporkin decree. They should have been slapped down hard every time their install deliberately overwrote another company's software. They should have been slapped down hard each and every time they reneged on an agreement with a supplier or customer. They should have been slapped down hard for consumer fraud. But no, we wait until there's no possible remedy other than disection and dissolution before we act.
Microsoft restricts freedoms of the OEMs to use the competetive solutions!
No they don't. They only offer their products at a cheaper price if you don't use a competitive solution. There was nothing whatsoever stopping any OEM from shipping dual boot Win/Be machines except those contracts that the OEM's signed with full foreknowledge of the consequences.
"Mr. Auto Manufacturer, I will sell you these radial tires for $5 a piece if you agree not to use any other tires but mine."
Actually, nothing whatsoever is stopping them from *shipping* dual boot systems at time of purchsase. Just don't sign on Microsoft's dotted line, pay a little more for Windows, then do whatever the hell you want.
Why are we running Microsoft through the wringer on this one when it's the OEM's that voluntarily agreed in writing not to make dual boot systems? (yeah, yeah, don't answer, I know already - it's because it would all be perfectly legal if Microsoft wasn't Microsoft)
Oh I agree with you totally! I don't know where you got the idea that I thought Windows was an OS :-) It may be marketed as an OS, but Microsoft only makes two operating systems: DOS and NT.
Those nice and usable GUIs are not Linux. It is the tenth anniversary of the Linux *kernel*. The kernel itself hasn't radically changed at all. It has ten years worth of incremental improvements, but I seriously doubt you could show me something in the paging module that is radically different from ten years ago.
There is only one regulation needed. And it's a small one. Good thing is, it's already covered under the US Commercial Code. "Keep your word".
By selling their software, Microsoft (and all other commercial software distributors) are claiming that it is merchantible. Duh! So stop disclaiming all warranties and merchantibility.
Let the commercial software developers be held to the same standards as the commercial toaster manufacturers.
Because if it's the job of the government to create our operating systems, then it might also be their job to create out email clients, window managers, desktops and latest first-person-shoot-em-up games.
Somewhere you have to draw the line, and without any criteria you can't do it. Which is why I asked my question, in an effort to get some criteria.
Take a look at a Unix family tree. FreeBSD has a direct line all the way back to BSD UNIX. Neither Linux nor GNU can claim that. It's closer in lineage to being a True Unix than many Certified Unices.
FreeBSD, SunOS and Solaris have a single common ancestor. If the Sun offerings are indeed real and genuine Unix, then surely FreeBSD is in the same family. My neighbor is a "Smith". His daughter was born "Smith" but married a "Jones". Even though her name is legally "Alice Jones", she is still most certainly a "Smith".
FreeBSD does indeed share code with AT&T based systems: the code that AT&T got from BSD UNIX. It was not a requirement of the court settlement that AT&T had to remove any BSD licensed code. (44BSD-Lite still had some AT&T code left in it, the settlement merely declared it "clean").
FreeBSD is a Unix-workalike. Filesystem, kernel architecture, tools, etc. GNU isn't even close. Ever play the game "which one is not like the other"? Go grab any random GNU tool and compare it to the corresponding tools from FreeBSD and five other Genuine Certified Unix(tm) systems. GNU will stand out like a sore thumb.
Sigh...
Jordan was young when he started with FreeBSD. He is older now. When you get older your metabolism changes and you have to work harder to keep your youthful appearance and shape.
Since when has it been the job of a government to create operating systems? Why should the users of existing operating systems be required to pay for its development?
What makes a Unix a real Unix? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the kernel is macro or micro. It has a lot to do with trademarks and history.
:-)
FreeBSD does not have the legal right to call their OS "Unix", since they have not paid for that right. However, considering their history, FreeBSD is much more Unix than most certified Unices. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. Linux is also a waterfowl, but of the flightless variety living in the southern hemisphere
I recall that Darwin has been listed as an official Unix by the OpenGroup. Certainly Apple calls it such on the box of Mac OSX.
One great myth of Copyright is that you can get contaminated by looking at the code. This is not true.
Copyright protects a particular *expression* of an idea, not the idea itself (that's patent's job). Examine the Rogue Windows source, Apple source, and anything else you want, and write your own version. You just can't copy the code.
It's actually slightly trickier than this. Copying code and file layouts, and other similar things, could still get you in trouble. However you are on safe grounds if you "keep the book closed while you write in the answers."
That said, corporations (and individuals) are jealous of their own code. If they know you've seen their code, they may very likely take you to court. In in a civil case they don't have to prove anything, only to get a jury to agree with them. And you also have the phenomena known as "cryptomnesia". You think you're writing original code, but you're just transcribing what you saw last week. That's why some folks use "clean room" processes to reverse engineer stuff.
But unlike some past cases where is was closed binary distributor versus closed binary distributor, FreeBSD and Darwin are wide open. Show me, Mr. Prosecutor, what part of the printout known as Exhibit A was created by your client. With the corporate backing of Apple, I don't think Jordan or FreeBSD will have any worries.
Hmmm, I started Freenix (my name for any free Unix-like implementation) with Slackware-96, so I've got you beat by one year :-)
But I learned computing on 4.1BSD UNIX. Using FreeBSD is like coming back home. It's simple, elegant but still complete and packed to the brim with everything you could possibly want.
p.s. Linus did now about 386BSD, and was interested in it (like most hackers a decade ago). Unfortunately that was during the time of the AT&T lawsuit, which was why Linus stayed away. No one new if it was going to be around the following week. Timing is everything in this business.
Yeah, Sun is going to call it Sun/Linux, because Sun made it. But saying that LinuxOS must be called GNU/Linux because gcc was used is a specious argument. Programs are most certainly NOT called after the compiler that created the binaries.
FreeBSD also uses the exact same build-chain that LinuxOS does. Shall we call that GNU/FreeBSD?
I just bought a new computer. As for my old computer, I'm giving it to a friend's kid. He's 14 and very bright.
He gets the computer for no monetary cost. But there are strings attached. He can use Windows for all of his games, but harddrive two will have some form of Unix on it. And he will learn how to program with it.
He is so exciting he can barely sit down. He's already downloaded djcpp onto his dad's computer and grabbed a book on C.
I learned that stuff when I was in school!
He wasn't advocating dumping any GUIs. And he wasn't advocating that everyone start with the CLI. All he was saying is that starting with a GUI will stunt your understanding of how computers work.
Not everyone needs a thorough understanding of how computers work. But if that is what you want, then by all means spend some time learning the fundamentals, because knowing the toolbar layout of Office 2000 won't get you there.
Go look up the definition of "operating system" in a dictionary. Even you are giving more credit than is necessary to the OS.
From www.m-w.com: "software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and controlling input and output functions)".
That pretty much defines the kernel and nothing else! Of course, to be of any use there must be some sort of infrastructure around it. But it's entirely possible to boot up all the way to a minimal bourne shell without once loading any GNU code into memory.
All of the GNU software is properly part of the operating environment, not the operating system. I would agree that an accurate description of my system at home would be "The Linux OS with a highly modified and ported GNU operating environment plus additional tools and utilities integrated by Slackware Inc." But it isn't "GNU/Linux", or "LiGNuX" or "GNUlix", or whatever else RMS is urging folks to call it this year.