Well, there's your problem. You don't need to recompile a kernel to use a printer! Next thing you know you'll be saying that freeways aren't ready for cars because you got a flat tire on your bicycle...
The reality is: Linux geeks bash Windoz...But can't live without Windoz, so, most must dual boot.
I haven't booted into windows since 1998. I finally deleted it last summer since it was taking up space. My computer is 100% Microsoft free. Not that I'm a Linux fanatic by any means. I've played with Solaris, BeOS and FreeBSD. My primary OS is now Slackware and I keep FreeBSD around.
I have never purchased a MS operating system (preinstalled or otherwise). I *have* purchased DR DOS and OS/2, and of course Slackware and FreeBSD. In fact, now that I think about it, the only thing I have ever purchased from MS was Flight Simulator 1.0.
"It's very possible to meet all the criteria of the BSD license, and release a new package under the GPL."
Copyright law does not allow you to change the copyright of anything that is not yours. Period. Unless the license in question allows you to do this then you simply cannot. It has nothing to do with the license, but everything to do with the law.
there is no need to keep the BDS code in a seperate file.
The BSD license does not allow you to change the license. You certainly can keep the BSD code mingled in with the GPL code, but it is going to be very problematic, which is what I said.
Besides, the GPL nature of the Linux kernel precludes incorporating BSD code into the 'official' code base.
It depends upon the nature of the code. If this porting would require slipping in single lines of code here and there, it would be very problematic. However, if the BSD code can be isolated into a single source file, then simply license that file under the BSD and the package as a whole under the GPL. Similar things are done under several GPL projects.
Do you know of any OSS project that has this type of documentation? It seems that this would go agtainst the hacking of code togather.
I don't expect specs and reqs with "hobbyist" software. In fact, the docs for my own projects are pretty sketchy. But the standards should be different for community-based and especially commercial software.
If there are 100 people working on a project and you don't have specs, chaos is guaranteed. These docs don't need to be dibertesque tomes of minutiae. For example, the linux project has the simple but effective spec of conforming to Unix and POSIX standards. As long as there is an authorative source defining how the software is to work, that is fine by me.
"Since you use the term "Open Source" rather than "Free Software", I'm assuming your goal is NOT freedom."
Rational discourse demands a common set of terminology. Communication cannot occur unless meanings are known. Intelligent people will either use the dictionary or present a rigid set of definitions.
The Free Software Foundation has not presented a rigid set of definitions of "free software". They have only four very loose and broad "freedoms". On the other hand, the OSI has presented a rigidly defined set of standards and meanings. It is no wonder that intelligent people use the term "Open Source" when referring to software whose source is open.
Every piece of software (and I mean every single one) that meets the Open Source Definition also meets the loose definition of free software put forth by the FSF. Freedom to run the program, for any purpose? Covered. Freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs? Covered. Freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor? Covered. Freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public? Covered.
Of course there is the possibility that Open Source can be confused with source code that is merely available for perusal. But there is equal or even greater confusion in the public to confuse free software with freeware. To the average intelligent user with a dictionary, the term "free software" means software that is free of cost. I don't know languages other than English, but I have been told that "libera softvaro" is pretty much meaningless out of context.
But just what is this "freedom" you mention? There is no definition for it in the FSF pages, so I must resort to my dictionary, where I find seventeen definitions, many of which are contradictory. Which one am I to use? Is the "free" in free software related to "free electron"? "Free party"? "Free verse"? It surely can't be the "free" in "free speech" or "free press", because those freedoms give me the right to create and publish closed source and proprietary software!
But you are correct when you say that the goal of using the term "Open Source" is not some vague and ill-defined freedom. The goal is instead clarity and understanding.
"tell me why I should be forced to pay for testing"
Nobody if forcing you to do anything. Hell, nobody is even forcing you to make it Open Source!
You are certainly free to do no quality testing. You are also free to be a fool. If you are a commercial OSS firm that pays for development but does not pay for quality assurance, you have excercised your freedom and proclaimed yourself a fool.
Software that is not professionally tested is not professional. It should remain in the realm of hobbyists.
I definitely agree. Too many developers (of both the commercial and non-commercial variety) believe that QA people are merely bug finders. This is absolute nonsense. Dumping beta OSS on the public to avoid paying for a QA team results in low quality.
Not having any statistics, I can only surmise one of two possibilities. A) too few bug reports will be submitted to be of any use, B) too many bug reports will be submitted leading to information overload.
As a professional QA engineer, I thought I would do my civic duty in the OSS community and perform a somewhat rigorous testing of a certain noted software project. I submitted about a dozen bug reports after an half day of testing. One of them resulted in a fix. Of the rest, the typical response from the developer was one to two months later, with the typical reply being that it wasn't really a bug.
In another noted (and commercially funded) OSS project, I offered my services as a QA tester and was accepted. Then I asked for requirement and specification documents, only to be told that they didn't exist. After a bit of pleading one of the developers spent about ten minutes coming up with a two paragraph spec of the entire project.
Dumping software testing off on the unsuspecting public is not only an insult to the QA engineer, but also to the user.
If you are a commercial organization, don't release your product until it is finished. First impressions are everything.
With Open Source, you will not be able to control how the software will be presented. No matter how much you emphasize the fact that the software is unstable and alpha quality, some bonehead distribution will include it with no warning. With no foreknowledge that your software is buggy, crash prone and unready for use, your potential customer will have their first impression be that of your software dumping the X server or corrupting the file system.
Do you really think I'm so stupid as to talk about Free Software and Open Source without first reading that article you mention?
Before you start quoting chapter and verse from the Holy Works of Saint IGNUtius, try finding out what the definition of Free Software really is.
The Free Software definition, as stated by RMS on that very same site lists four very simple and broad criteria. The Open Source Definition, which derives from the Debian Social Contract, is a clarification of the same. Any software that meets the Open Source Definition must also meet the Free Software definition. That's because every one of the FSD points are covered in the OSD.
"people within the Free Software Movement believe that it is correct not to restrict the freedom of individuals by licensing software in such a fashon that restricts their freedom to learn and share."
No one's freedom to share is being restricted by closed source. You can only share what is your own. No one is stopping you from sharing your own software. But you have no right to share someone else's software anymore than you have the right to enter someone's house without permission and share their food with the hungry.
Copyrights and software ownership is a separate topic so long as RMS and the Free Software community as a whole continue to copyright their works.
No one is enslaved, subjugated or dominated by closed source software. This is a blatant falsehood perpetuated by those wishing only to control the manner of software distribution. Freedom does not mean you can reach beyond your personal domain and intervene in someone else's life. Yet this is precisely what RMS proposes in the name of freedom. His ideas of freedom include restricting the rights of free speech and free press for software developers.
"The easiest solution is simply to use "source" as what is unrestricted instead of software."
Then why not call all of this stuff "Open Source"? Oh wait, they already do...
Open may mean everything and nothing when applied to software, but when applied to source code, it's much easier to understand. There's less confusion with "Open Source" than "Free Software". Sure, one can confuse "Open" with OpenWindows, the Open Group, and other closed source stuff, but at the same time one can easily confuse "Free" with freeware or even free speech.
"...a division of Teradyne made in an effort to orient themselves correctly with Free software tools they wanted to use."
I have always despised political correctness. It is a lame substitute for intelligent thought. What the fig is the word "correctly" doing in the above sentence? Is this some sort of Free Software Feng Shui? The last things Open Source needs are self-appointed P.C. Police. And only utter hypocracy will result when people attempt to link Free Software with mandatory thought and behavior.
I don't know how much business Caldera is getting, but I know for an absolute fact taht Redhat is not getting all the business.
SuSE is still going gangbusters, Mandrake keeps making Redhat look behind them, Corel is due out with v2 real soon, Slack just came out with v7.1, ad infinitum. On the non-Linux side, the FreeBSD camp is starting to get some serious attention.
This is not the Windows world. People won't run a particular distribution just because everyone else is. Once you've had a taste of free choice, you won't go back. Most of us don't give a rip what distro our neighbor is using.
The safe way to upgrade ANY system is to delete and reinstall. Unless of course you are a Good Little Citizen(tm) and did everything the distro's CEO told you to do.
The distribution does not know YOU. They don't know what software you installed outside of the package system. They don't know what configuration files you edited by hand. They don't know that package A is still needed by you even though it is deprecated in the upgrade.
Besides which, I've never found a distribution that upgraded without problems. With delete and install you have no problems.
Well, you did say *GNU* which in the context of BSD is guaranteed to push people's hot buttons. If you were concerned about FreeBSD changing some of their old tried-and-true utilities, then you should have said so. But when you say that FreeBSD is dumping BSD stuff for GNU stuff, you deserved all the flamage you got. I mean, you don't call the Pope a Mormon and then expect to get away with it!
"Will UNIX developers want to port their applications to an operating system that costs more in hardware and OS software both?"
Come on and get a clue! As RMS is so fond of telling everyone who will listen (or who won't for that matter), free software is not about price! If he was interested in no-cost instead of open source, he would have founded the Freewarez Foundation.
And if you look at commerical Unix systems, you'll find with only a few exceptions, that they all cost much more than Apple, both for the hardware and the software.
Who gives a rip what a Macintosh costs? If you're a commercial developer, go out and buy one or lose that market! If you can't afford a single Macintosh to use for porting, maybe it's time to rethink your whole business model from the ground up. I've lived so long with developers telling me I have to upgrade my hardware in order to use their software that I just don't have sympathy for this complaint of theirs.
You are happy because of the freedom you have with Linux or because AT&T decided to give you Plan 9?
I am happy that AT&T has the freedom to release Plan 9 under any license they want. I am happy that RMS has not achieved his goal of eliminating individual liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's your problem. You don't need to recompile a kernel to use a printer! Next thing you know you'll be saying that freeways aren't ready for cars because you got a flat tire on your bicycle...
The reality is: Linux geeks bash Windoz...But can't live without Windoz, so, most must dual boot.
I haven't booted into windows since 1998. I finally deleted it last summer since it was taking up space. My computer is 100% Microsoft free. Not that I'm a Linux fanatic by any means. I've played with Solaris, BeOS and FreeBSD. My primary OS is now Slackware and I keep FreeBSD around.
I have never purchased a MS operating system (preinstalled or otherwise). I *have* purchased DR DOS and OS/2, and of course Slackware and FreeBSD. In fact, now that I think about it, the only thing I have ever purchased from MS was Flight Simulator 1.0.
you can simply add to the copyright statement. this way you can relicense it.
This would be a major copyright violation. Without the permission to do so, you may not relicense anything. BSD is not public domain.
"It's very possible to meet all the criteria of the BSD license, and release a new package under the GPL."
Copyright law does not allow you to change the copyright of anything that is not yours. Period. Unless the license in question allows you to do this then you simply cannot. It has nothing to do with the license, but everything to do with the law.
there is no need to keep the BDS code in a seperate file.
The BSD license does not allow you to change the license. You certainly can keep the BSD code mingled in with the GPL code, but it is going to be very problematic, which is what I said.
Stupidity should be painful
:-)
It is! The problem is that ignorance numbs
Besides, the GPL nature of the Linux kernel precludes incorporating BSD code into the 'official' code base.
It depends upon the nature of the code. If this porting would require slipping in single lines of code here and there, it would be very problematic. However, if the BSD code can be isolated into a single source file, then simply license that file under the BSD and the package as a whole under the GPL. Similar things are done under several GPL projects.
Do you know of any OSS project that has this type of documentation? It seems that this would go agtainst the hacking of code togather.
I don't expect specs and reqs with "hobbyist" software. In fact, the docs for my own projects are pretty sketchy. But the standards should be different for community-based and especially commercial software.
If there are 100 people working on a project and you don't have specs, chaos is guaranteed. These docs don't need to be dibertesque tomes of minutiae. For example, the linux project has the simple but effective spec of conforming to Unix and POSIX standards. As long as there is an authorative source defining how the software is to work, that is fine by me.
You sounded as if RMS will use force to forbid others to release close sourced software.
He hasn't done it yet because he doesn't have the political power to do so. But he has advocated it, several times. Reread the GNU Manifesto.
"Since you use the term "Open Source" rather than "Free Software", I'm assuming your goal is NOT freedom."
Rational discourse demands a common set of terminology. Communication cannot occur unless meanings are known. Intelligent people will either use the dictionary or present a rigid set of definitions.
The Free Software Foundation has not presented a rigid set of definitions of "free software". They have only four very loose and broad "freedoms". On the other hand, the OSI has presented a rigidly defined set of standards and meanings. It is no wonder that intelligent people use the term "Open Source" when referring to software whose source is open.
Every piece of software (and I mean every single one) that meets the Open Source Definition also meets the loose definition of free software put forth by the FSF. Freedom to run the program, for any purpose? Covered. Freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs? Covered. Freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor? Covered. Freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public? Covered.
Of course there is the possibility that Open Source can be confused with source code that is merely available for perusal. But there is equal or even greater confusion in the public to confuse free software with freeware. To the average intelligent user with a dictionary, the term "free software" means software that is free of cost. I don't know languages other than English, but I have been told that "libera softvaro" is pretty much meaningless out of context.
But just what is this "freedom" you mention? There is no definition for it in the FSF pages, so I must resort to my dictionary, where I find seventeen definitions, many of which are contradictory. Which one am I to use? Is the "free" in free software related to "free electron"? "Free party"? "Free verse"? It surely can't be the "free" in "free speech" or "free press", because those freedoms give me the right to create and publish closed source and proprietary software!
But you are correct when you say that the goal of using the term "Open Source" is not some vague and ill-defined freedom. The goal is instead clarity and understanding.
"tell me why I should be forced to pay for testing"
Nobody if forcing you to do anything. Hell, nobody is even forcing you to make it Open Source!
You are certainly free to do no quality testing. You are also free to be a fool. If you are a commercial OSS firm that pays for development but does not pay for quality assurance, you have excercised your freedom and proclaimed yourself a fool.
Software that is not professionally tested is not professional. It should remain in the realm of hobbyists.
I definitely agree. Too many developers (of both the commercial and non-commercial variety) believe that QA people are merely bug finders. This is absolute nonsense. Dumping beta OSS on the public to avoid paying for a QA team results in low quality.
Not having any statistics, I can only surmise one of two possibilities. A) too few bug reports will be submitted to be of any use, B) too many bug reports will be submitted leading to information overload.
As a professional QA engineer, I thought I would do my civic duty in the OSS community and perform a somewhat rigorous testing of a certain noted software project. I submitted about a dozen bug reports after an half day of testing. One of them resulted in a fix. Of the rest, the typical response from the developer was one to two months later, with the typical reply being that it wasn't really a bug.
In another noted (and commercially funded) OSS project, I offered my services as a QA tester and was accepted. Then I asked for requirement and specification documents, only to be told that they didn't exist. After a bit of pleading one of the developers spent about ten minutes coming up with a two paragraph spec of the entire project.
Dumping software testing off on the unsuspecting public is not only an insult to the QA engineer, but also to the user.
If you are a commercial organization, don't release your product until it is finished. First impressions are everything.
With Open Source, you will not be able to control how the software will be presented. No matter how much you emphasize the fact that the software is unstable and alpha quality, some bonehead distribution will include it with no warning. With no foreknowledge that your software is buggy, crash prone and unready for use, your potential customer will have their first impression be that of your software dumping the X server or corrupting the file system.
Do you really think I'm so stupid as to talk about Free Software and Open Source without first reading that article you mention?
Before you start quoting chapter and verse from the Holy Works of Saint IGNUtius, try finding out what the definition of Free Software really is.
The Free Software definition, as stated by RMS on that very same site lists four very simple and broad criteria. The Open Source Definition, which derives from the Debian Social Contract, is a clarification of the same. Any software that meets the Open Source Definition must also meet the Free Software definition. That's because every one of the FSD points are covered in the OSD.
"people within the Free Software Movement believe that it is correct not to restrict the freedom of individuals by licensing software in such a fashon that restricts their freedom to learn and share."
No one's freedom to share is being restricted by closed source. You can only share what is your own. No one is stopping you from sharing your own software. But you have no right to share someone else's software anymore than you have the right to enter someone's house without permission and share their food with the hungry.
Copyrights and software ownership is a separate topic so long as RMS and the Free Software community as a whole continue to copyright their works.
No one is enslaved, subjugated or dominated by closed source software. This is a blatant falsehood perpetuated by those wishing only to control the manner of software distribution. Freedom does not mean you can reach beyond your personal domain and intervene in someone else's life. Yet this is precisely what RMS proposes in the name of freedom. His ideas of freedom include restricting the rights of free speech and free press for software developers.
Yea right, like "free as in speech" is any more accurate. Thinking for yourself is not defined as having RMS do it for you...
"The easiest solution is simply to use "source" as what is unrestricted instead of software."
Then why not call all of this stuff "Open Source"? Oh wait, they already do...
Open may mean everything and nothing when applied to software, but when applied to source code, it's much easier to understand. There's less confusion with "Open Source" than "Free Software". Sure, one can confuse "Open" with OpenWindows, the Open Group, and other closed source stuff, but at the same time one can easily confuse "Free" with freeware or even free speech.
From Timothy's treatise:
"...a division of Teradyne made in an effort to orient themselves correctly with Free software tools they wanted to use."
I have always despised political correctness. It is a lame substitute for intelligent thought. What the fig is the word "correctly" doing in the above sentence? Is this some sort of Free Software Feng Shui? The last things Open Source needs are self-appointed P.C. Police. And only utter hypocracy will result when people attempt to link Free Software with mandatory thought and behavior.
I don't know how much business Caldera is getting, but I know for an absolute fact taht Redhat is not getting all the business.
SuSE is still going gangbusters, Mandrake keeps making Redhat look behind them, Corel is due out with v2 real soon, Slack just came out with v7.1, ad infinitum. On the non-Linux side, the FreeBSD camp is starting to get some serious attention.
This is not the Windows world. People won't run a particular distribution just because everyone else is. Once you've had a taste of free choice, you won't go back. Most of us don't give a rip what distro our neighbor is using.
The safe way to upgrade ANY system is to delete and reinstall. Unless of course you are a Good Little Citizen(tm) and did everything the distro's CEO told you to do.
The distribution does not know YOU. They don't know what software you installed outside of the package system. They don't know what configuration files you edited by hand. They don't know that package A is still needed by you even though it is deprecated in the upgrade.
Besides which, I've never found a distribution that upgraded without problems. With delete and install you have no problems.
I don't think that deserved a flame
Well, you did say *GNU* which in the context of BSD is guaranteed to push people's hot buttons. If you were concerned about FreeBSD changing some of their old tried-and-true utilities, then you should have said so. But when you say that FreeBSD is dumping BSD stuff for GNU stuff, you deserved all the flamage you got. I mean, you don't call the Pope a Mormon and then expect to get away with it!
That's not the point. Try being a user. When I type in "more" I want to see "more" behavior.
"Will UNIX developers want to port their applications to an operating system that costs more in hardware and OS software both?"
Come on and get a clue! As RMS is so fond of telling everyone who will listen (or who won't for that matter), free software is not about price! If he was interested in no-cost instead of open source, he would have founded the Freewarez Foundation.
And if you look at commerical Unix systems, you'll find with only a few exceptions, that they all cost much more than Apple, both for the hardware and the software.
Who gives a rip what a Macintosh costs? If you're a commercial developer, go out and buy one or lose that market! If you can't afford a single Macintosh to use for porting, maybe it's time to rethink your whole business model from the ground up. I've lived so long with developers telling me I have to upgrade my hardware in order to use their software that I just don't have sympathy for this complaint of theirs.
Just consider me a cross between Grima Wormtongue and Biff from BTTF :-)
You are happy because of the freedom you have with Linux or because AT&T decided to give you Plan 9?
I am happy that AT&T has the freedom to release Plan 9 under any license they want. I am happy that RMS has not achieved his goal of eliminating individual liberty.