The problem with EUAs are that they are not contracts, yet most governments treat them every bit as binding as your mortage agreement which took seventeen signatures and nine attorneys to validate.
The law has thrown away common sense when it comes to information. In every other type of contract or agreement in the world you need either a) a face-to-face handshake or verbal assent, or b) a signature. Only in the software world do you get licenses that say "by using this software you agree to...".
If a company wishes to provide a level of permission to the user equal to or greater than what copyright provides, then a click-through or shrink wrap license is fine. But if they desire to remove any rights that you already possess, then they need to get your explicit consent.
Sure, getting signatures and stuff is going to crimp the style of software manufacturers. But so what? The industry practice of unilaterally imposing private law (a contract) on me crimps my style as well! If I purchase a box from a third party retailer, I expect full legal rights to use the contents in any lawful manner.
Imagine the following license inscribed on the barrel of a number two pencil: "By using this writing instrument, you agree not to let any other party use the instrument, nor disassemble the pencil for any manner; this pencil may only be used in conjunction with approved writing surfaces; you must surrender the pencil upon demand."
You need a minimum screen size for quite a few things. That the poster was using 640x480 as a min size speaks a lot for him, since many designers user 800x600 or even 1024x768.
Any images depend on the minimum screen size. To state an obvious one, a 500x15 "rule" won't work very well on a 320x240 screen. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you have to start catering to folks with 48x24 pixel screens.
Right now the big thing with embedded is handhelds. But when you think about, just about everything is embedded! Think ATM machines, ultrasound carts, game boxen, etc, etc.
You can always contribute to what is missing. So what's missing? Lots of stuff in the average OSS/FS project. That stuff may not be coding, however, but so what? Get your name known to the developers by doing some of the unglamorous stuff while you learn the code base better.
Documentation. If you have decent language skills and half a brain, write handbooks, reference manuals, tutorials, etc. Follow the guidelines of the LDP (or the appropriate project) to ensure consistency. And don't ignore API documentation.
Testing. It's absolutely asinine that the majority of projects dump untested code onto the end user. You, as an individual, can put a stop to this insidious practice. Start testing the code while it's in a prerelease state. Go over the bug logs and verify that old bugs are still gone in newer builds. If there's any sort of design/req/spec documents, test against those. And submit full, clear and complete defect reports.
Process. All too often the hacker leaves the principles of proper software engineering at work. If you see a project without any formal design or architecture, create some. Ditto for requirements and specifications. You will have to be very tactful with the project members on this issue though. But most developers worthy of the name will welcome your help in this area. You will have to know the code pretty well to do this.
Example code. All libraries and a few applications need example code. All to often they are missing or what they have is cheesy. Write some decent sample code for the project. And write a decent template while you're at it.
The ideas abound. Just use your brain and you'll think of something.
I thought the idea was that we'd put up sites to hawk our wares, with product reviews by trusted individuals, register our pages with search engines and let people find us when they want us.
No. The idea is simply a network of linked information. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want an ad-free network then go create your own. But this network belongs to the public at large and the last time I checked, advertisers where still a subset of the public.
Don't get too elitist about your purity. You do admit you're hawking wares, and there's millions of people out there who think that that kind of commercialism doesn't belong on the web either.
Now it is difficult to praise the virtues of Linux to my students (I teach UNIX/Linux to Computer Science students) when faced with these facts...
Who said anything about Linux? One, the operating system is not the browser, no matter how much Bill Gates testifies to the contrary. Don't blame Linux for the faults of Mozilla or Konqueror. Second, both Mozilla and Konqueror run on more than just Linux. They also run on GNU, BSD, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and every other Unix. Three, IE has been in the works for about a decade. Konqueror has been in the works only about two years at the most. Ditto for Mozilla, which was rewritten from scratch. Considering the ages of the browsers, they're doing quite well, and will far surpass IE when they get to IE's age.
I'm the biggest KDE fan, but...
on
KDE 2.0.1 is out
·
· Score: 1
I'm the biggest KDE fan, but why is this even a slashdot article? This is a minor bugfix release. Will there be another KDE article next month for 2.1? Let's not smother a good thing with too much trivial reportage.
Well, yeah... But KWord and the rest of KOffice are still beta software.
Re:Danger -- BSD can't grok KDE
on
KDE 2.0.1 is out
·
· Score: 2
I didn't have any of these problems with KDE on FreeBSD. Of course, I use the ports so it wasn't I who had to configure a linux-centric suite into a non-linux environment. (KDE is getting over this centricity problem, but it's still there in spots) The only BSD related problem I had was with the konsole segfault bug, which is supposed to be fixed in 2.0.1.
I, too, am now using Konqueror as my primary browser. I still have to keep netscape around for one or two websites, sigh...
I have a few problems with java (perhaps I need to switch to kaffe), and some wierdass layouts that some web "designers" love cause it fits, but overall it's great.
My main criticism is with the separation of the KDE desktop from the browser. I used to use kfm in WindowMaker or icewm to get a lightweight but vey flexible setup.
I like it the way it is now better. With kfm, I can't use it as a file browser without the desktop icons appearing on my Windowmaker desktop, and KDE icons clash horribly with the Windowmaker look. Now I can use Konqueror (as I am right this instant) as simply a file/web browser, with no desktop to get in the way. Throw on the kstep theme and it fits right in.
(Of course, I normally use KDE as my primary desktop, but I still switch over to Windowmaker occasionally, since it still beats all others in the aesthetics department)
People will no more call the GNU/Linux system only as Linux.
This does not follow out all. None of the Linux distributions out there are the GNU System. RMS says that it should be called "GNU/Linux" because it really is the GNU System with just the kernel swapped out. But there is *NO* GNU System! There is not now any stable OS with a stable hurd to swap out. And there certainly wasn't when the first Linux distributions arose out of the primordial software soup.
Rather, I think when Debian GNU/Hurd is finally released as stable (and it really ought to be named just "Debian GNU System"), then all of this crap about "LiGnuX" will disappear.
And BeOS, BSD, Darwin and Solaris also have GNU software. What's your point? Are you demanding that Steve Jobs call his new product "GNU/OS X"?
Until GNU finally completes its own operating system by integrating a working hurd into the rest of their OS stuff, there is no GNU System. It does not exist.
We've got Linux and the BSDs, why do we need anything else?
Because there can be no GNU System without the hurd. The rational for calling a particular OS environment "GNU/Linux" is just ridiculous if there has never been a completed GNU System for it to be derived from. But even Debian Hurd won't be the GNU System, it will just be the Debian distribution of an OS never released by its makers.
No matter how you define "operating system", it still requires a kernel. No kernel, no operating system. And GNU is described by its makers as an operating system.
Moderators: don't mod this down. I am not bashing your holy GNU. I think GNU is great. But I'm also honest enough to admit that it isn't an operating system, yet. In the meantime it makes a great parts repository for those creating other free operating systems.
It was never intended for hyper-precise description of the layout of the material.
No it wasn't. Unfortunately, 99% of web designers don't know that. I have a big suspicion that most of them don't even know what HTML even is. If these guys want to be taken seriously by developers, then they need to start holding html code reviews, logging bugs and defects against their design, and instituting the bare minimums of software engineering.
When the entire world is using screwdrivers to hammer in nails, don't bash the guy asking about tools to drive in screws with.
IBM is compartmentalized. All the different parts are not always in sync. While some divisions may approve of Linux, others could care less. I remember when IBM systems did not support IBM's OS/2 either. I'm not sure whether the Thinkpad does even to this day.
Don't think of IBM as a single corporation. Think of it as a collection of individual corporations issuing a common stock.
I'm simply amazed that I'm reading this! The GPL is not the only Free Software license!!!!!!!
Both the Apache and BSD licenses are Free Software and certified as such by the Grand Guru of GNU himself. Please go peruse the GNU and FSF pages at your leisure and round out your otherwise fine education.
It is well known that the BSD's are the darlings of the elitist 'thinks linux is too popular' crowd.
I wouldn't call it a crowd. More like a small group of malcontents. The vast majority of *BSD users did not choose their system because Linux was too popular.
the BSD'ers have no problems with restrictive liscences.
The various BSDs are very concerned with restrictive licenses. So much, in fact, that they will include no software with a restrictive license in the default OS and environment. So much, in fact, that they segregate GPL and LGPL licensed software to its own tree. They do not want to place any restrictions on the recipients use of their source code. That someone may later come along and distribute their stuff closed source is of small concern to them, since the original is still there unharmed and unrestricted.
It depends on your definitions of "operating system" and "distribution". Everyone has there own definitions. I like to draw lines between the operating system and the operating environment. Different distributions will have the same OS and nearly the same OE, but everything else can be different. In the case of Linux, the OS is the linux kernel plus necessary infrastructure (lilo, sysvinit, etc). The OE is mostly GNU.
In the case of the various BSDs, they all have different operating systems and operating environments. Comparing them to different Linux distributions misses the mark. Because they are completely different systems, they are further apart than the various Linux distros. But because they have kept close compatibility with each other, they can be closer together than some Linux distros are.
A real BSD "distribution" would be one that takes an existing BSD OS/OE and packages their own stuff on top. The only one that I know of is PicoBSD.
OT: I forsee the day when all these components are readily interchangable. Choose your OS (linux, bsd, hurd), choose your OE (GNU, BSD, mix), and choose your user software (shell, desktop, etc). Mix and match to your heart's content while running the installer.
I don't think a single one of them has paid attention to the definition when talking about Open Sourcing their products. That's one of the (many) problems RMS and the FSF have with the term and movement.
Any word can be abused. The number of proprietary software products that label themselves as "free" is staggering. It's a very specious argument to disparage "open source" as a term open to abuse when the alternative is a term much more abused.
Re: I can't believe this needs to be said again
on
FSF Europe Founded
·
· Score: 2
...um.."except change the license" is a restriction. The GPL is a restriction too.
I was not talking about licenses. I was talking about the philosophy of Free Software in general. Please reread my posts. My problem with RMS has nothing to do with his software, the GPL or Free Software in general. It has everything to do with his goals and ideology.
I am not attacking RMS the man. Instead I am attacking his philosophy which is a much different thing. RMS does not want software to be owned. This is the foundation upon which his entire philosophy rests. But I cannot accept that premise. This doesn't mean that I reject Free Software however, because I don't. In fact, the concept of Free/Open software is that much stronger because it doesn't depend upon a single philosophy.
And you are free to release your own software under any license you like. He doesn't dictate that.
No, he doesn't dicate that. But throughout his writings and talks he makes it very clear that he considers the authors of proprietary software to be immoral and evil. If he had the power to dictate what licenses people could or could not use, and exercised that power, I would stop attacking the philosophy and start attacking the man.
Is it an American thing, to attack whoever accomplishes something?
To restate the obvious, I am not attacking RMS. I am only attacking his philosophy. Is it a <insert your nation here> thing to consider a disagreement to be a personal attack?
I wish you'd just leave the poor guy alone. He is also a human being, you know.
And as a human being he has the capacity to be wrong.
And for all the people who endlessly post "he's a communist", he's stated publicly he isn't...so what is *that* all about?
For the record, I have never accused RMS of being a communist. If you're going to comment on my post, then please do so. But don't drag in every peeve you've got and dump it here.
But that is not what I meant. I was talking about the FSF not wanting software authors to distribute their own software (speech) under a proprietary or closed source license. In essence, the FSF wants my users to decide whether my work will be public or private. Because an Open Source work cannot be kept private if just one user wants it public. RMS does not want me to distribute software that says "for selected users only".
So I will reiterate: The FSF doesn't want me to distribute software privately to selected users only, only publicly to everyone my users choose to give it to, or not at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with EUAs are that they are not contracts, yet most governments treat them every bit as binding as your mortage agreement which took seventeen signatures and nine attorneys to validate.
The law has thrown away common sense when it comes to information. In every other type of contract or agreement in the world you need either a) a face-to-face handshake or verbal assent, or b) a signature. Only in the software world do you get licenses that say "by using this software you agree to...".
If a company wishes to provide a level of permission to the user equal to or greater than what copyright provides, then a click-through or shrink wrap license is fine. But if they desire to remove any rights that you already possess, then they need to get your explicit consent.
Sure, getting signatures and stuff is going to crimp the style of software manufacturers. But so what? The industry practice of unilaterally imposing private law (a contract) on me crimps my style as well! If I purchase a box from a third party retailer, I expect full legal rights to use the contents in any lawful manner.
Imagine the following license inscribed on the barrel of a number two pencil: "By using this writing instrument, you agree not to let any other party use the instrument, nor disassemble the pencil for any manner; this pencil may only be used in conjunction with approved writing surfaces; you must surrender the pencil upon demand."
You need a minimum screen size for quite a few things. That the poster was using 640x480 as a min size speaks a lot for him, since many designers user 800x600 or even 1024x768.
Any images depend on the minimum screen size. To state an obvious one, a 500x15 "rule" won't work very well on a 320x240 screen. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you have to start catering to folks with 48x24 pixel screens.
Right now the big thing with embedded is handhelds. But when you think about, just about everything is embedded! Think ATM machines, ultrasound carts, game boxen, etc, etc.
You can always contribute to what is missing. So what's missing? Lots of stuff in the average OSS/FS project. That stuff may not be coding, however, but so what? Get your name known to the developers by doing some of the unglamorous stuff while you learn the code base better.
Documentation. If you have decent language skills and half a brain, write handbooks, reference manuals, tutorials, etc. Follow the guidelines of the LDP (or the appropriate project) to ensure consistency. And don't ignore API documentation.
Testing. It's absolutely asinine that the majority of projects dump untested code onto the end user. You, as an individual, can put a stop to this insidious practice. Start testing the code while it's in a prerelease state. Go over the bug logs and verify that old bugs are still gone in newer builds. If there's any sort of design/req/spec documents, test against those. And submit full, clear and complete defect reports.
Process. All too often the hacker leaves the principles of proper software engineering at work. If you see a project without any formal design or architecture, create some. Ditto for requirements and specifications. You will have to be very tactful with the project members on this issue though. But most developers worthy of the name will welcome your help in this area. You will have to know the code pretty well to do this.
Example code. All libraries and a few applications need example code. All to often they are missing or what they have is cheesy. Write some decent sample code for the project. And write a decent template while you're at it.
The ideas abound. Just use your brain and you'll think of something.
I thought the idea was that we'd put up sites to hawk our wares, with product reviews by trusted individuals, register our pages with search engines and let people find us when they want us.
No. The idea is simply a network of linked information. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want an ad-free network then go create your own. But this network belongs to the public at large and the last time I checked, advertisers where still a subset of the public.
Don't get too elitist about your purity. You do admit you're hawking wares, and there's millions of people out there who think that that kind of commercialism doesn't belong on the web either.
Now it is difficult to praise the virtues of Linux to my students (I teach UNIX/Linux to Computer Science students) when faced with these facts...
Who said anything about Linux? One, the operating system is not the browser, no matter how much Bill Gates testifies to the contrary. Don't blame Linux for the faults of Mozilla or Konqueror. Second, both Mozilla and Konqueror run on more than just Linux. They also run on GNU, BSD, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and every other Unix. Three, IE has been in the works for about a decade. Konqueror has been in the works only about two years at the most. Ditto for Mozilla, which was rewritten from scratch. Considering the ages of the browsers, they're doing quite well, and will far surpass IE when they get to IE's age.
I'm the biggest KDE fan, but why is this even a slashdot article? This is a minor bugfix release. Will there be another KDE article next month for 2.1? Let's not smother a good thing with too much trivial reportage.
KWord definitely sucks
Well, yeah... But KWord and the rest of KOffice are still beta software.
I didn't have any of these problems with KDE on FreeBSD. Of course, I use the ports so it wasn't I who had to configure a linux-centric suite into a non-linux environment. (KDE is getting over this centricity problem, but it's still there in spots) The only BSD related problem I had was with the konsole segfault bug, which is supposed to be fixed in 2.0.1.
I especially didn't have any boot block problems.
I, too, am now using Konqueror as my primary browser. I still have to keep netscape around for one or two websites, sigh...
I have a few problems with java (perhaps I need to switch to kaffe), and some wierdass layouts that some web "designers" love cause it fits, but overall it's great.
My main criticism is with the separation of the KDE desktop from the browser. I used to use kfm in WindowMaker or icewm to get a lightweight but vey flexible setup.
I like it the way it is now better. With kfm, I can't use it as a file browser without the desktop icons appearing on my Windowmaker desktop, and KDE icons clash horribly with the Windowmaker look. Now I can use Konqueror (as I am right this instant) as simply a file/web browser, with no desktop to get in the way. Throw on the kstep theme and it fits right in.
(Of course, I normally use KDE as my primary desktop, but I still switch over to Windowmaker occasionally, since it still beats all others in the aesthetics department)
Yeah, I know tons of BSD people who understand GIMP perfectly well.
People will no more call the GNU/Linux system only as Linux.
This does not follow out all. None of the Linux distributions out there are the GNU System. RMS says that it should be called "GNU/Linux" because it really is the GNU System with just the kernel swapped out. But there is *NO* GNU System! There is not now any stable OS with a stable hurd to swap out. And there certainly wasn't when the first Linux distributions arose out of the primordial software soup.
Rather, I think when Debian GNU/Hurd is finally released as stable (and it really ought to be named just "Debian GNU System"), then all of this crap about "LiGnuX" will disappear.
And BeOS, BSD, Darwin and Solaris also have GNU software. What's your point? Are you demanding that Steve Jobs call his new product "GNU/OS X"?
Until GNU finally completes its own operating system by integrating a working hurd into the rest of their OS stuff, there is no GNU System. It does not exist.
We've got Linux and the BSDs, why do we need anything else?
Because there can be no GNU System without the hurd. The rational for calling a particular OS environment "GNU/Linux" is just ridiculous if there has never been a completed GNU System for it to be derived from. But even Debian Hurd won't be the GNU System, it will just be the Debian distribution of an OS never released by its makers.
No matter how you define "operating system", it still requires a kernel. No kernel, no operating system. And GNU is described by its makers as an operating system.
Moderators: don't mod this down. I am not bashing your holy GNU. I think GNU is great. But I'm also honest enough to admit that it isn't an operating system, yet. In the meantime it makes a great parts repository for those creating other free operating systems.
It was never intended for hyper-precise description of the layout of the material.
No it wasn't. Unfortunately, 99% of web designers don't know that. I have a big suspicion that most of them don't even know what HTML even is. If these guys want to be taken seriously by developers, then they need to start holding html code reviews, logging bugs and defects against their design, and instituting the bare minimums of software engineering.
When the entire world is using screwdrivers to hammer in nails, don't bash the guy asking about tools to drive in screws with.
You've misunderstood Capers Jones. A properly engineered product will have fewer defects, but a part of that engineering includes testing.
Not only are testing and fixing bugs considered work, they are also considered to be an integral part of software engineering.
The last thing the industry needs is the belief that programmers should only code... oh wait, that is the belief...
IBM is compartmentalized. All the different parts are not always in sync. While some divisions may approve of Linux, others could care less. I remember when IBM systems did not support IBM's OS/2 either. I'm not sure whether the Thinkpad does even to this day.
Don't think of IBM as a single corporation. Think of it as a collection of individual corporations issuing a common stock.
I'm simply amazed that I'm reading this! The GPL is not the only Free Software license!!!!!!!
Both the Apache and BSD licenses are Free Software and certified as such by the Grand Guru of GNU himself. Please go peruse the GNU and FSF pages at your leisure and round out your otherwise fine education.
Neither Sun's Community license nor the APSL are Open Source licenses. Try again.
You can find a list of approved Open Source licenses at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
It is well known that the BSD's are the darlings of the elitist 'thinks linux is too popular' crowd.
I wouldn't call it a crowd. More like a small group of malcontents. The vast majority of *BSD users did not choose their system because Linux was too popular.
the BSD'ers have no problems with restrictive liscences.
The various BSDs are very concerned with restrictive licenses. So much, in fact, that they will include no software with a restrictive license in the default OS and environment. So much, in fact, that they segregate GPL and LGPL licensed software to its own tree. They do not want to place any restrictions on the recipients use of their source code. That someone may later come along and distribute their stuff closed source is of small concern to them, since the original is still there unharmed and unrestricted.
It depends on your definitions of "operating system" and "distribution". Everyone has there own definitions. I like to draw lines between the operating system and the operating environment. Different distributions will have the same OS and nearly the same OE, but everything else can be different. In the case of Linux, the OS is the linux kernel plus necessary infrastructure (lilo, sysvinit, etc). The OE is mostly GNU.
In the case of the various BSDs, they all have different operating systems and operating environments. Comparing them to different Linux distributions misses the mark. Because they are completely different systems, they are further apart than the various Linux distros. But because they have kept close compatibility with each other, they can be closer together than some Linux distros are.
A real BSD "distribution" would be one that takes an existing BSD OS/OE and packages their own stuff on top. The only one that I know of is PicoBSD.
OT: I forsee the day when all these components are readily interchangable. Choose your OS (linux, bsd, hurd), choose your OE (GNU, BSD, mix), and choose your user software (shell, desktop, etc). Mix and match to your heart's content while running the installer.
I don't think a single one of them has paid attention to the definition when talking about Open Sourcing their products. That's one of the (many) problems RMS and the FSF have with the term and movement.
Any word can be abused. The number of proprietary software products that label themselves as "free" is staggering. It's a very specious argument to disparage "open source" as a term open to abuse when the alternative is a term much more abused.
...um.."except change the license" is a restriction. The GPL is a restriction too.
I was not talking about licenses. I was talking about the philosophy of Free Software in general. Please reread my posts. My problem with RMS has nothing to do with his software, the GPL or Free Software in general. It has everything to do with his goals and ideology.
I am not attacking RMS the man. Instead I am attacking his philosophy which is a much different thing. RMS does not want software to be owned. This is the foundation upon which his entire philosophy rests. But I cannot accept that premise. This doesn't mean that I reject Free Software however, because I don't. In fact, the concept of Free/Open software is that much stronger because it doesn't depend upon a single philosophy.
And you are free to release your own software under any license you like. He doesn't dictate that.
No, he doesn't dicate that. But throughout his writings and talks he makes it very clear that he considers the authors of proprietary software to be immoral and evil. If he had the power to dictate what licenses people could or could not use, and exercised that power, I would stop attacking the philosophy and start attacking the man.
Is it an American thing, to attack whoever accomplishes something?
To restate the obvious, I am not attacking RMS. I am only attacking his philosophy. Is it a <insert your nation here> thing to consider a disagreement to be a personal attack?
I wish you'd just leave the poor guy alone. He is also a human being, you know.
And as a human being he has the capacity to be wrong.
And for all the people who endlessly post "he's a communist", he's stated publicly he isn't...so what is *that* all about?
For the record, I have never accused RMS of being a communist. If you're going to comment on my post, then please do so. But don't drag in every peeve you've got and dump it here.
But that is not what I meant. I was talking about the FSF not wanting software authors to distribute their own software (speech) under a proprietary or closed source license. In essence, the FSF wants my users to decide whether my work will be public or private. Because an Open Source work cannot be kept private if just one user wants it public. RMS does not want me to distribute software that says "for selected users only".
So I will reiterate: The FSF doesn't want me to distribute software privately to selected users only, only publicly to everyone my users choose to give it to, or not at all.