If you want to run a public FTP mirror of the GNOME FTP site, please send us the URL to the mirror and the adminstrative contact address for the mirror, and we'll be happy to add you to our
mirror database and provide you with the required password.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
Sure, but he didn't say that it appeared in ALL of the utilities' source code, just that it popped up a lot. Therefore the GNU qualifier is incorrect, since grammatically it assumes that ALL of the utilities he looked at were GNU utilities, which is not known.
I wrote "a GNU utilit_y_", not GNU utilit_ies_.
You must have a strong wish to criticize the GNU Project and RMS, if you will criticize _me_ for things you only imagine that I wrote.
If RMS' name was in the source code for at least one of those utilities, that the original poster called "Linux utilties", at least one of them is a GNU utility.
The overall Linux system is a product of the work of whoever puts it together, i.e. RedHat Linux. The code was written by hundreds of people, but it was put together in usable form by the wonderful people at Redhat. THEY are the ones that decide what their product is called, and they have chosen to call it RedHat Linux. Anything else you call it is simply wrong.
Why is it wrong to give credit to the authors, who in the aegis of the GNU Project, wrote large parts of the system?
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
So how the hell do you know if he meant a GNU command line utility or a Linux command line util?
From the original post:
Taking a beginning C course last semester, I looked at some source for some linux command line utils. It was amazing how many places RMS showed up.
If RMS' name showed up, it probably was a GNU command line utility.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
I looked at some source for some linux command line utils.
You probably mean a GNU command line utility. Linux is the kernel, some of us prefer to call the whole system GNU/Linux.
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''
Free software, like GTK+ and GNOME, need free documentations.
Havoc Pennington's GTK+/Gnome Application Development covers a whole range of GTK+/GNOME features, packed with example code. Since the GNOME API reference documentation can be quite hairy for the beginning GNOMEr, HP's book is hopefully closing this gap.
Havoc Pennington, the author, should be known to a lot of people in the Free Software community. He has been working on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, programming with GTK+ for several years, and has become a very active Gnome developer. He is responsible for creating many components of the Gnome libraries as well as contributing several free software programs to the GNOME project. He also writes the weekly GNOME Summary, helps people on the GNOME mailinglists, and was recently hired by Red Hat, to focus on GNOME at the Red Hat Advanced Developments Labs.
The easiest way to get it is probably to order it in paperback.
This issue has been known for quite a while. These patents make it impossible to have free software to generate proper GIFs. See www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html for an explanation.
All of our work on the Linux kernel front is released under the GPL (GNU General Public License.)
Sharing kernel changes is legally required by the GPL, but I wish SGI volunteerly will support and give some credit to the GNU project, if they will use GNU components in their distribution.
What really bugs me about this is whole thing is that these companies (prompted by the DA) are claiming that by looking at their source code, Mitnick caused them damadges equal to the development cost of the software. Unfortunately, the judge seems to be too clueless to know any better. How frightening.
If you do a little digging, you will find that Sun's claims against Mitnick carry no weight at all. They claimed $80 million in damages based on mitnick having solaris source code. If you go to their web site (http://wwwwswest2.sun.com/edu/programs. html) you will find the following:
Sun firmly believes that students and teachers need access to source code to enhance their technology learning experience. Source code is available for qualified educational institutions.
At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.
He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)
People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?
He did not miss the usual point associated with the term ``open source.'' That point says nothing about freedom, it says only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it will make for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling for other reasons to carry out this approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.
The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.
Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. The GNU project will stick to the term ``free software'', and I hope that you will too.
The discussion and advocacy of open-source development in this paper should not be construed as a case that closed-source development is intrinsically wrong, nor as a brief against intellectual-property rights in software, nor as an altruistic appeal to `share'. While these arguments are still beloved of a vocal minority in the open-source development community, experience since [CatB] has made it clear that they are unnecessary.
Do you find it hard to commit yourself to your own ideas, Eric?
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to run a public FTP mirror of the GNOME FTP site, please send us the URL to the mirror and the adminstrative contact address for the mirror, and we'll be happy to add you to our mirror database and provide you with the required password.
Thanks,
The GNOME system administration team
If you're a desktop user, checkout the GNOME User Interface Improvement Project.
Havoc Pennington (hp@redhat.com) Daniel Veillard (daniel.veillard@w3.org)
Comma Separated Values.
I wrote "a GNU utilit_y_", not GNU utilit_ies_.
You must have a strong wish to criticize the GNU Project and RMS, if you will criticize _me_ for things you only imagine that I wrote.
If RMS' name was in the source code for at least one of those utilities, that the original poster called "Linux utilties", at least one of them is a GNU utility.
Why is it wrong to give credit to the authors, who in the aegis of the GNU Project, wrote large parts of the system?
If RMS' name showed up, it probably was a GNU command line utility.
I reposted some of the photos at http://gphoto.org/fsf-award99/
It's nothing to do with RedHat's distribution. The problem is that IBM does not give out the specs.
This also affects Debian GNU/Linux, and other distributions.
The subways also experience problems.
I sat at the computer lab, as the power went out today, at 15:13, and left a server down.
Probably just a coincidence..?
Free software, like GTK+ and GNOME, need free documentations.
Havoc Pennington's GTK+/Gnome Application Development covers a whole range of GTK+/GNOME features, packed with example code. Since the GNOME API reference documentation can be quite hairy for the beginning GNOMEr, HP's book is hopefully closing this gap.
Havoc Pennington, the author, should be known to a lot of people in the Free Software community. He has been working on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, programming with GTK+ for several years, and has become a very active Gnome developer. He is responsible for creating many components of the Gnome libraries as well as contributing several free software programs to the GNOME project. He also writes the weekly GNOME Summary, helps people on the GNOME mailinglists, and was recently hired by Red Hat, to focus on GNOME at the Red Hat Advanced Developments Labs.
The easiest way to get it is probably to order it in paperback.
Read the QPL icense in question yourself and figure out what's going on if you code QT apps.
I prefer GTK+, which is free (LGPL) on all platforms.
This issue has been known for quite a while. These patents make it impossible to have free software to generate proper GIFs. See www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html for an explanation.
Cool indeed, I have the 560X 233MMX machine. :-)
...or "Open Source is not equivalent with free software".
Sharing kernel changes is legally required by the GPL, but I wish SGI volunteerly will support and give some credit to the GNU project, if they will use GNU components in their distribution.
If you do a little digging, you will find that Sun's claims against Mitnick carry no weight at all. They claimed $80 million in damages based on mitnick having solaris source code. If you go to their web site (http://wwwwswest2.sun.com/edu/programs. html) you will find the following:
Even if you don't qualify for the gratis source code, You can get it for $100 - details at http://wwwwswest2.sun.com/edu/sol aris/source.html If ever there was a smoking gun, you're puffing it.
rms describes Oracle's ``Open Source'' strategy in
http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html:
Microsoft is doing something that is bad for software users: making software proprietary.
It's just a waste of time to security audit and help Microsoft to improve any non-free software.
No luck for non-US residents like me:
In appreciation of your contribution to the open source community, Red Hat is pleased to offer you this personal, non-transferable, opportunity.
Plus, he'll release his free book on GTK+/GNOME Programming in August!
I'd better rush and pre-order it. :)
Do you find it hard to commit yourself to your own ideas, Eric?
In many non-free software companies, people don't work on internal "open source" projects at all.
A lot of proprietary software is actually written by people, who don't know a thing about the other parts or hacks that their code collegues work on.
Go and read your own response.