The definition belongs to the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
If they can't decide on a known license, force them to post the license as "Unknown".
That's putting the onus on Freshmeat to keep track of OSI's approvals and update their own list. It's far easier to just list the big five or six and group the rest under "Open Source". There's no need to worry. Freshmeat checks their submissions, and if anyone is lying it doesn't get put up.
Even writing a custom license is better than using the generic term "Open Source".
It's not open source unless it's uses an OSI approved license. It would have been nice if OSI had gotten their trademark on Open Source, but that changes nothing. "Open Source Software" is a much more specific term than "Free Software". While Microsoft can get away with calling IE "free software", it would be an outright lie for them to call it "open source software".
I have confidence that if Sun is using an "industry accepted Open Source license" it will be one approved by the OSI.
Ah yes, OS/2. I loved it. I still do. If there was any support for it I would still be using it.
The OO desktop beats anything else I have ever seen. Add on ObjectDesktop and it got even better. Over the past few years using Linux/BSD and KDE, I've been thinking how to do the same thing under Unix. I've come to the conclusion that you can make it LOOK like Warp easily enough, but it will take a hell of a lot of work to make it act like it.
I also used the OS/2 voice recognition (which was the precursor to ViaVoice) on a 100Mhz box. I only had 16Megs, so it was a bit slow, but I am still amazed at how accurate it was.
I didn't do much dictation with it, but it was great when you were trying to play solitaire with your hands full eating a greasy double cheesburger...
There are a million ways around this "problem". First, Qt is released under a *dual* license, so it's perfectly LEGAL to distribute and use a ViaVoice/Qt library. Second, the only parts of KDE interfacing with the ViaVoice module will be the LGPL parts. Third, ViaVoice could very well be a runtime module with runtime linkage and all that.
And finally, if you're still too worried, try a less retentive distribution. I got a kick out of Debian calling me a criminal for giving my friend a copy of KDE1 (it would have been wrong to say no), and I can't wait for them to do it again.
Because there is at least *one* Linux guy involved with that site. The Tucows BSD site has been a disaster from the very beginning, and it's pretty clear that there is no one there that knows BSD. They treated it as an extension of the Linux site, and BSD as merely another BSD distribution.
Go read some of the Tucows articles on BSD. If they had done the same thing with Linux, you guys would be calling for the head as well!
It's also safer to dump BSD because a) it's a smaller number of people, b) ports makes Tucows pretty much irrelevant to BSD users.
Because TuCows lied. An error is an error is an error, and we all make them. But when we realize we have made an error, but do nothing to correct it, that error becomes a lie.
Would you complain if the TuCows Linux aread continually stated that Linux was released under the BSD license, or that it had no applications available, or that it was unsuitable for newbies, kept confusing distributions with each other, yada, yada, yada? Of course you would.
For the sweet love of God, you BSD nuts have all sorts of good things going for you but you continue to shoot yourself in the foot.
Shooting yourself in the foot is a habit common to all freenix types, not just BSD. If you step out of the Linux camp and view the perspective from a neutral vantage point, you'll see that penguinistas are every bit as petty and irrational as the daemonics.
1)Lets see, you have what, 8 or 9 different version, openBSD, freeBSD, etcBSD... so there is a nice selection available.
And how many Linux distros are there? (there's only 5 or 6 BSDs) Before you say that Linux is just a kernel that hasn't forked, I'm talking about distributions. Or if you will, the "GN" portion of "LiGNuX".
2) You have an old slow file system, so newbies don't get intimidated by anything happening too fast.
A myth. As completely untrue as the myth that Linux uses the BSD TCP/IP stack.
So... why can't you guys stop acting like a red headed buck toothed stepchild and just friggin calm down a bit.
Okay, let's turn the tables around and imagine what the typical penguinista would have done if: TuCows had on a prominent review of Debian GNU/Linux on their *Linux* site with a) a download link to pointing to Redhat, b) the assertion that Debian was released under the BSD license, c) there were no applications available for it, and d) the conclusion that the user should stick with Windows because Debian is too hard.
A. Californians elected GOP legislators who, fed by fat cat Texan-owned firm campaign contributions, pushed through deregulation.
There was no deregulation. The proof is simple. All PG&E has to do is raise their rates and their problems are over. But they can't do that. All they can do is beg, threaten and whine to the regulators for permission to charge a little bit more.
What happened instead was that certain sectors of the energy market were opened up to competition, which is not deregulation. It's the tons of regulations still in place that's causing this problem to spiral out of control. PG&E and SCE have government granted monopolies. I have absolutely ZERO choice about whom I buy my electricity from. And I would gladly pay a market price for my electricity in order to forestall blackouts, but again, the government won't let me excercise that choice.
California chose to deregulate the wholesale market, without deregulating the retail market.
Close, but no cigar. The fact is that they didn't even deregulate the wholesale market. All the did was open up that segment to competition. Removing one or two regulations while keeping thirty million regulation in place is not deregulation.
It's sort of like NAFTA. By attaching the term "free trade" to a managed trade agreement, the politicians have managed to forever sully that phrase in the public's mind. Now they are doing the same thing with "deregulation". It doesn't matter that PG&E has to get government permission to change its rates, the public heard the word "deregulate" from Gray Davis' mouth, so it must be true.
You realize, of course, that 24% is a puny profit, particularly so for a company that is considered by the DOJ to be a monopoly. Of course, it depends on whether that is gross profit or net profit. If it's gross profit,it's worse than puny, it's time to dump the board of directors.
Anti-trust laws are about monopolies doing all the underhanded tricks that we can ignore normal companies doing (because when normal companies do it, it is good for consumers).
So, you're agreeing with me here? Isn't this the same as saying what Microsoft did would have been good for consumers if they were a "normal" company? But that they in fact got in trouble for being big? And that if they were small you wouldn't care?
Yes, there is a law backing the DOJ up. The problem is that it is an arbitrary law. It is not applied equally to all persons. It is only applied to a certain class of person, and the majority of the DOJ/MS trial was determining if Microsoft was in fact a member of that class. Microsoft is getting in trouble for something that would only earn a yawn if anyone else did it.
But back to the original post... Do you really equate what Microsoft did (bundling a browser into the OS, not heeding Judge Sporkin's amazingly vague decree, and offering price discounts for exclusive contracts) to murder?
Yes, there are specific crimes that Microsoft has committed. But the DOJ case isn't about them, rather it was the Caldera and Sun cases that pursued any genuine law breaking.
The difference is that Microsoft is not accused by the Justice Department of committing any crimes. They are being tried on the basis of being big, nothing more.
Oh, I definitely prefer my houses to be built out of atoms. But I also prefer them to be prepackaged into objects, instead of having to install them one by one.
I haven't used Windows in over two years. Back when I did I distinctly remember that MFC and OWL (I don't know what VCL is) had different File Save dialogs. The standard toolbar icons were different. etc...
KDE and GNOME are voluntary projects. The people who work on them are volunteers. You can't fire them. And you are not their boss to tell them what the can or cannot do. The last thing freenix needs is a UI Police, arbitrarily setting standards and confiscating noncompliant CVS trees. That kind of thinking is antithetical to Free Software. This is a Free Market of Software. It's Laissez Faire. It's radical libertarianism that takes great pride in tar and feathering any who would set down rules. There are standards in this world, many standards,. And quite a few of them compete with each other. Just like in the real world. If you don't like this chaotic situation, and would prefer a regimented world where everyone does what they're told, then stick with Windows.
That said, the solution to your problem is easy, as long as you keep the fundamental volunteerism of Free Source in mind. If you want the KDE menu to be a part of the GNOME menu, and vice versa, go do it yourself! Or find someone who can and convince them to do it for you.
This isn't Windows. Don't expect it to be.
All I see is a standardized drag and drop that's been bandied about for a couple of years and doesn't work consistently. And symlinks in the menus.
Huh? What about standardization of.desktop and.directory files? What about the new WM specs? What about XML emerging as a standard file format? And more that I can remember off the top of my head. And more in the works.
But it is much easier to write OO in an OOL. Yes, it's possible to write a GUI desktop using assembler. And just as C++ originally compiled into C code, C still compiles to assember. So why not cut out the middle man and just use assembler? Using assember for a GUI desktop is like building a house with atoms. C at least gives you compounds (wood, iron) and it makes your job easier. But building a house with unshaped logs and lumps of ore is still stupid. Looking at OO done in C is like looking at a log cabin. It has it's charm, to be sure, but most of us don't want to live in a log cabin. C++ gives you the equivalent of premade planks and nails.
This is either a troll, or an emotional outburst devoid of any rationality. I'll assume the latter.
I have 2 sets of mime types My KDE panel applets won't launch in the GNOME panel, and vice versa
This sort of interoperability is being worked on even now as we speak. Don't expect overnight perfection. If you look at the history of KDE and GNOME, you'll find that the developers desire this compatibility and have been slowly but surely implementing it.
When I add an application the the kpanel, it doesn't appear on the foot menu, and vice versa
It's one thing for the main root menus of the respective desktops to recognize the menus of the other, and display them. I expect this interoperability very soon. But you're talking about *panels* here. Switching between panels is going to be a rare occurance. And the process of adding an item to a panel takes approximately 8.5 seconds.
QT and GTK are themed using different engines, with no reason why.
Plenty of reason why, if you would just use your head. Both of these toolkits are distinct from each other. They are developed by distinct groups of people. And their theming engines have distinct goals. QT themes are more powerful than GTK themes in some ways, and GTK themes are more powerful than Qt themes in others. I for one do not want a theme engine based on the lowest common denominator.
Imagine a Windows user clicking Start to reveal `MFC applications' `VCL applications' etc.
Apples and oranges. My KDE menu most certainly does NOT distinguish between Motif, Qt, Fox, FLTK and GTK applications. KDE and GNOME are desktops, they are not widget toolkits. To make the proper analogy, imagine a Windows user clicking the main menu to reveal "Windows applications", "DOS applications", "BeOS applications", "Mac applications",...
I wasn't there when Steve and Richard slugged it out. All I know is that Objective C was a *frontend* for gcc. That's even how RMS describes it, as a front end. Every front end I have ever seen was not a derivative of the back end.
front ends are bounded by the GPL because (for the purpose of the GPL) they are derivatives of gcc.
The GPL cannot and does not rewrite Copyright law. And the GPL clearly states that it operates under Copyright law. It doesn't matter a hill of beans what the purpose of the GPL is, front ends are not automatically derivatives of the back ends. I don't know whether or not Objective C was a derivatie of gcc or not, but judging from its description as a "front end", I can only surmise that it was not.
The GPL was not violated. The Ojective C compiler was a front end for gcc. It was not a derivative. It used no gcc code. It only used gcc, it did not derive from it. The GPL only covers the original work and derivatives, as defined by copyright law.
There should be NO proprietary standards... This is an opinion I share with many techies.
But it is not an opinion shared by general public. Getting back to the original topic, an article in GNUpedia written/edited by RMS that said "there should be NO proprietary standards" would be extremely biased.
Slashdot Mirror
Whose definition of "Open Source" is it?
The definition belongs to the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
If they can't decide on a known license, force them to post the license as "Unknown".
That's putting the onus on Freshmeat to keep track of OSI's approvals and update their own list. It's far easier to just list the big five or six and group the rest under "Open Source". There's no need to worry. Freshmeat checks their submissions, and if anyone is lying it doesn't get put up.
Even writing a custom license is better than using the generic term "Open Source".
It's not open source unless it's uses an OSI approved license. It would have been nice if OSI had gotten their trademark on Open Source, but that changes nothing. "Open Source Software" is a much more specific term than "Free Software". While Microsoft can get away with calling IE "free software", it would be an outright lie for them to call it "open source software".
I have confidence that if Sun is using an "industry accepted Open Source license" it will be one approved by the OSI.
Step One: enable desktop menu
:-)
Step Two: move kicker to the top and autohide it
Step Four: choose BII decoration and System theme
Step Five: enjoy
Yeah, so where is it? I keep finding dead URLS...
Ah yes, OS/2. I loved it. I still do. If there was any support for it I would still be using it.
The OO desktop beats anything else I have ever seen. Add on ObjectDesktop and it got even better. Over the past few years using Linux/BSD and KDE, I've been thinking how to do the same thing under Unix. I've come to the conclusion that you can make it LOOK like Warp easily enough, but it will take a hell of a lot of work to make it act like it.
I also used the OS/2 voice recognition (which was the precursor to ViaVoice) on a 100Mhz box. I only had 16Megs, so it was a bit slow, but I am still amazed at how accurate it was.
I didn't do much dictation with it, but it was great when you were trying to play solitaire with your hands full eating a greasy double cheesburger...
There are a million ways around this "problem". First, Qt is released under a *dual* license, so it's perfectly LEGAL to distribute and use a ViaVoice/Qt library. Second, the only parts of KDE interfacing with the ViaVoice module will be the LGPL parts. Third, ViaVoice could very well be a runtime module with runtime linkage and all that.
And finally, if you're still too worried, try a less retentive distribution. I got a kick out of Debian calling me a criminal for giving my friend a copy of KDE1 (it would have been wrong to say no), and I can't wait for them to do it again.
So, you're saying that your statement "Kinda tells me which license is better at promoting freedom" is not bigoted?
It's benefited the BSD community because now there is one less site telling the public that BSD is unfit for human consumption.
Read BSD Today's article to get a glimpse of the kind of FUD that our community can well do without.
Because there is at least *one* Linux guy involved with that site. The Tucows BSD site has been a disaster from the very beginning, and it's pretty clear that there is no one there that knows BSD. They treated it as an extension of the Linux site, and BSD as merely another BSD distribution.
Go read some of the Tucows articles on BSD. If they had done the same thing with Linux, you guys would be calling for the head as well!
It's also safer to dump BSD because a) it's a smaller number of people, b) ports makes Tucows pretty much irrelevant to BSD users.
Tucows were BSD newbies and newbies make poor assumptions.
BSD newbies shouldn't be running major BSD sites.
TuCows is also free. Why the complaints?
Because TuCows lied. An error is an error is an error, and we all make them. But when we realize we have made an error, but do nothing to correct it, that error becomes a lie.
Would you complain if the TuCows Linux aread continually stated that Linux was released under the BSD license, or that it had no applications available, or that it was unsuitable for newbies, kept confusing distributions with each other, yada, yada, yada? Of course you would.
For the sweet love of God, you BSD nuts have all sorts of good things going for you but you continue to shoot yourself in the foot.
Shooting yourself in the foot is a habit common to all freenix types, not just BSD. If you step out of the Linux camp and view the perspective from a neutral vantage point, you'll see that penguinistas are every bit as petty and irrational as the daemonics.
1)Lets see, you have what, 8 or 9 different version, openBSD, freeBSD, etcBSD... so there is a nice selection available.
And how many Linux distros are there? (there's only 5 or 6 BSDs) Before you say that Linux is just a kernel that hasn't forked, I'm talking about distributions. Or if you will, the "GN" portion of "LiGNuX".
2) You have an old slow file system, so newbies don't get intimidated by anything happening too fast.
A myth. As completely untrue as the myth that Linux uses the BSD TCP/IP stack.
So... why can't you guys stop acting like a red headed buck toothed stepchild and just friggin calm down a bit.
Okay, let's turn the tables around and imagine what the typical penguinista would have done if: TuCows had on a prominent review of Debian GNU/Linux on their *Linux* site with a) a download link to pointing to Redhat, b) the assertion that Debian was released under the BSD license, c) there were no applications available for it, and d) the conclusion that the user should stick with Windows because Debian is too hard.
A. Californians elected GOP legislators who, fed by fat cat Texan-owned firm campaign contributions, pushed through deregulation.
There was no deregulation. The proof is simple. All PG&E has to do is raise their rates and their problems are over. But they can't do that. All they can do is beg, threaten and whine to the regulators for permission to charge a little bit more.
What happened instead was that certain sectors of the energy market were opened up to competition, which is not deregulation. It's the tons of regulations still in place that's causing this problem to spiral out of control. PG&E and SCE have government granted monopolies. I have absolutely ZERO choice about whom I buy my electricity from. And I would gladly pay a market price for my electricity in order to forestall blackouts, but again, the government won't let me excercise that choice.
California chose to deregulate the wholesale market, without deregulating the retail market.
Close, but no cigar. The fact is that they didn't even deregulate the wholesale market. All the did was open up that segment to competition. Removing one or two regulations while keeping thirty million regulation in place is not deregulation.
It's sort of like NAFTA. By attaching the term "free trade" to a managed trade agreement, the politicians have managed to forever sully that phrase in the public's mind. Now they are doing the same thing with "deregulation". It doesn't matter that PG&E has to get government permission to change its rates, the public heard the word "deregulate" from Gray Davis' mouth, so it must be true.
Microsoft makes 24% profit on sales.
You realize, of course, that 24% is a puny profit, particularly so for a company that is considered by the DOJ to be a monopoly. Of course, it depends on whether that is gross profit or net profit. If it's gross profit,it's worse than puny, it's time to dump the board of directors.
Anti-trust laws are about monopolies doing all the underhanded tricks that we can ignore normal companies doing (because when normal companies do it, it is good for consumers).
So, you're agreeing with me here? Isn't this the same as saying what Microsoft did would have been good for consumers if they were a "normal" company? But that they in fact got in trouble for being big? And that if they were small you wouldn't care?
Yes, there is a law backing the DOJ up. The problem is that it is an arbitrary law. It is not applied equally to all persons. It is only applied to a certain class of person, and the majority of the DOJ/MS trial was determining if Microsoft was in fact a member of that class. Microsoft is getting in trouble for something that would only earn a yawn if anyone else did it.
But back to the original post... Do you really equate what Microsoft did (bundling a browser into the OS, not heeding Judge Sporkin's amazingly vague decree, and offering price discounts for exclusive contracts) to murder?
Yes, there are specific crimes that Microsoft has committed. But the DOJ case isn't about them, rather it was the Caldera and Sun cases that pursued any genuine law breaking.
The difference is that Microsoft is not accused by the Justice Department of committing any crimes. They are being tried on the basis of being big, nothing more.
Oh, I definitely prefer my houses to be built out of atoms. But I also prefer them to be prepackaged into objects, instead of having to install them one by one.
I haven't used Windows in over two years. Back when I did I distinctly remember that MFC and OWL (I don't know what VCL is) had different File Save dialogs. The standard toolbar icons were different. etc...
.desktop and .directory files? What about the new WM specs? What about XML emerging as a standard file format? And more that I can remember off the top of my head. And more in the works.
KDE and GNOME are voluntary projects. The people who work on them are volunteers. You can't fire them. And you are not their boss to tell them what the can or cannot do. The last thing freenix needs is a UI Police, arbitrarily setting standards and confiscating noncompliant CVS trees. That kind of thinking is antithetical to Free Software. This is a Free Market of Software. It's Laissez Faire. It's radical libertarianism that takes great pride in tar and feathering any who would set down rules. There are standards in this world, many standards,. And quite a few of them compete with each other. Just like in the real world. If you don't like this chaotic situation, and would prefer a regimented world where everyone does what they're told, then stick with Windows.
That said, the solution to your problem is easy, as long as you keep the fundamental volunteerism of Free Source in mind. If you want the KDE menu to be a part of the GNOME menu, and vice versa, go do it yourself! Or find someone who can and convince them to do it for you.
This isn't Windows. Don't expect it to be.
All I see is a standardized drag and drop that's been bandied about for a couple of years and doesn't work consistently. And symlinks in the menus.
Huh? What about standardization of
But it is much easier to write OO in an OOL. Yes, it's possible to write a GUI desktop using assembler. And just as C++ originally compiled into C code, C still compiles to assember. So why not cut out the middle man and just use assembler? Using assember for a GUI desktop is like building a house with atoms. C at least gives you compounds (wood, iron) and it makes your job easier. But building a house with unshaped logs and lumps of ore is still stupid. Looking at OO done in C is like looking at a log cabin. It has it's charm, to be sure, but most of us don't want to live in a log cabin. C++ gives you the equivalent of premade planks and nails.
This is either a troll, or an emotional outburst devoid of any rationality. I'll assume the latter.
...
I have 2 sets of mime types
My KDE panel applets won't launch in the GNOME panel, and vice versa
This sort of interoperability is being worked on even now as we speak. Don't expect overnight perfection. If you look at the history of KDE and GNOME, you'll find that the developers desire this compatibility and have been slowly but surely implementing it.
When I add an application the the kpanel, it doesn't appear on the foot menu, and vice versa
It's one thing for the main root menus of the respective desktops to recognize the menus of the other, and display them. I expect this interoperability very soon. But you're talking about *panels* here. Switching between panels is going to be a rare occurance. And the process of adding an item to a panel takes approximately 8.5 seconds.
QT and GTK are themed using different engines, with no reason why.
Plenty of reason why, if you would just use your head. Both of these toolkits are distinct from each other. They are developed by distinct groups of people. And their theming engines have distinct goals. QT themes are more powerful than GTK themes in some ways, and GTK themes are more powerful than Qt themes in others. I for one do not want a theme engine based on the lowest common denominator.
Imagine a Windows user clicking Start to reveal `MFC applications' `VCL applications' etc.
Apples and oranges. My KDE menu most certainly does NOT distinguish between Motif, Qt, Fox, FLTK and GTK applications. KDE and GNOME are desktops, they are not widget toolkits. To make the proper analogy, imagine a Windows user clicking the main menu to reveal "Windows applications", "DOS applications", "BeOS applications", "Mac applications",
Clearly what RMS said disagrees with you.
:-)
This won't be the first time
I wasn't there when Steve and Richard slugged it out. All I know is that Objective C was a *frontend* for gcc. That's even how RMS describes it, as a front end. Every front end I have ever seen was not a derivative of the back end.
front ends are bounded by the GPL because (for the purpose of the GPL) they are derivatives of gcc.
The GPL cannot and does not rewrite Copyright law. And the GPL clearly states that it operates under Copyright law. It doesn't matter a hill of beans what the purpose of the GPL is, front ends are not automatically derivatives of the back ends. I don't know whether or not Objective C was a derivatie of gcc or not, but judging from its description as a "front end", I can only surmise that it was not.
The GPL was not violated. The Ojective C compiler was a front end for gcc. It was not a derivative. It used no gcc code. It only used gcc, it did not derive from it. The GPL only covers the original work and derivatives, as defined by copyright law.
There should be NO proprietary standards... This is an opinion I share with many techies.
But it is not an opinion shared by general public. Getting back to the original topic, an article in GNUpedia written/edited by RMS that said "there should be NO proprietary standards" would be extremely biased.