> Free Software mandates returning > changes to the community, with NO > distinction made between > corporation/person, profit/nonprofit.
You're confusing two concepts here: free software and copyleft. The BSD, X, GPL, and NPL, for example, are all free software licenses, in particular, satisfying the Debian Free Software Guidelines. OTOH, BSD, X, and NPL are not copyleft, which requires that changes be released back to the community.
"Free software" refers to the freedom that is guaranteed to the recipient of the source: that he is legally able to redistribute the source and binaries under the given terms. It does not specify precisely what those terms are, though certain guidelines must be followed. See the Debian FSG for more information, or check the FSF's site.
IMO, software isn't truly "free" unless it is copyleft; otherwise, it can be chained again. This, however, is not the technical definition associated with free software. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
The GPL protects the free software community by disallowing proprietary interests to co-opt our efforts through incorporating them into closed software.
Long live the GPL! That's all there is to say. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I was actually picking on ESR, not you, but I guess I didn't make that clear enough.
There are lots of people that have earned my respect through their actions and maturity, and their understanding of the issues of the free software community. Your move away from the OSI and back to the core of free software community made a lot of people like me very happy. IMO, Eric doesn't "get it," or rather, he "gets" a different view than I do.
Free software is about ultimately freedom, not being able to see source code. Opening the source is but one component. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Apple is no better than MS. If Steve Jobs could, he'd become the new Bill Gates with his plump-and-juicy Apple army replacing Gates' drones. The effect is the same for us: no freedom. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Therefore, Bruce is ipso facto correct and Eric Raymond is ipso facto wrong.
However, I will disregard the trademark issue for a moment and say that, through my own careful reading of the APSL and subsequent perusal of the areas OSI outlined in their response to Bruce, I agree with Bruce's view. Plus, it's better to be safe than sorry. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I'm currently trying to coordinate a development effort for a new free protocol. Please send an email with "subscribe freecddb-developer " in the body to "majordomo@bigred.lcs.mit.edu" if you are interested in development. Do not send subscription requests to the list, as majordomo will bounce them. (In fact, majordomo seems to stupidly bounce any message containing \bsubscribe\b. Duh.)
And no quips about majordomo being non-free, either... =) -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Not enough caffeine this morning. D'OH! Naturally this kind of mistake would occur when I was bitching at others to post correctly about licensing issues. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
All you idiots who are surprised at this should not have been mocking me when I was talking about freedom on the Qt thread. While that problem appears to have been solved (even if I still don't like the QPL), the fact remains that we should get guarantees of freedom before supporting a basic protocol or library.
The GPL, LGPL, QPL, NPL, MPL, X, and BSD licenses are examples of licenses guaranteeing freedom. The GPL, additionally, is copyleft, so freedom is forced. If you don't understand the differences between these licenses, READ THEM instead of posting ignorant comments.
A new free CDDB-like format should be developed, and a standard library under LGPL (or some other non-viral license) should be distributed making it extremely easy for current CD player authors to replace their current CDDB support with a new format.
When will these companies realize that this "bait-and-switch" tactic just isn't going to work in the software community? We'll just go to something else. Of course, what would be nice is if we didn't start using their crap in the first place, unless freedom was guaranteed.
Incidentally, isn't mandating exclusive-use agreements illegal under trust laws? I honestly don't know, so it would be helpful if someone with greater legal knowledge in this area could respond...
Okay, so here are some defined goals as to what we need:
A new CDDB-like format (hey, maybe even make it BETTER!) created under a free-use license. Let's call is BDDC for the moment.
A BDDC library licensed under some non-viral license like LGPL or X or BSD.
A PR machine to notify both the current CDDB servers (who are now going apeshit) and CD player manufacturers/authors of the new format and its guaranteed freedom. A task force to identify possible new CDDB server locations would be great.
If anyone wants to discuss this with me personally, remove the SPAM from my email address (krose@Stheory.Plcs.Amit.Medu). Things like this really piss me off, and they should piss you off too. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I have not seen every Kubrick film, but every single one of those I have seen (Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Spartacus, and Full Metal Jacket) has been truly excellent. He was a genius, and it will be impossible to replace his style.
I think it's time for a rerun of Dr. Strangelove, just for old time's sake. First Akira Kurosawa; now this. What's up with all the dying? -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free," he said. "Without a long-term technical road map, without multimillion-dollar test labs, someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
It sounds an awful lot like
And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow, Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?" "It came without ribbons! It came without tags!" "It came without packages, boxes or bags!"
He just doesn't get it! We don't want monetary compensation, because we feel we're already being paid enough in our other jobs. If anything, we want recognition and respect. It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy... -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Why is warning people about such a distinct possibility being a fool? Do you have any idea how many people are going to scream "I told you so!" when TrollTech pulls the plug on the QPL, and all the KDE developers come running to the former Harmony developers and beg them to restart work? I'm not going to do that; rather, I'm going to warn people in advance so they aren't caught by TT unawares.
Okay, so you're thinking: "What's the worst that can happen when TT pulls the plug? So, we all go back to using WindowMaker or FVWM2 or whatever, and life goes on."
Wrong.
Consider all the people who are adversely affected by such a move: the KDE developers, who spent countless hours writing software for a toolkit they knew wasn't free; the users of the various KDE-centered distributions, who suddenly have to learn something else new; and the businesses who find that they have to spend time and money converting their systems and retraining their employees. Now, who's being the fool?
One QT is released under the QPL, this all becomes moot, because it'll already be free, and TT can't take it back. Until then, however, we should consider the possibility that the reason why TT is stalling is not a good one. This is not paranoia; this is realizing what "freedom" means and trying to protect it by not trusting those who don't openly embrace it.
Do not underestimate the value of freedom. Linux was built on freedom: the freedom to use, copy, modify, and distribute the software as you see fit, with very few restrictions. If you don't see a problem with TT's stalling in releasing a version of QT under the QPL (why not release QT 1.x under QPL? Huh?) then I argue that you do not understand a very fundamental point about Linux development and why it has prospered as it has. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Well, culling out the poseurs from the true free-believers is somewhat akin to testing witches. Everyone is exposed to my rantings, whether they are guilty or not. =)
That said, I am glad that KDE exists if just because it gave the free software community a kick in the ass to get a truly free graphical user interface started. Sure, I don't like KDE for the still-as-yet-unresolved Qt licensing issues; but I also think it just looks like crap.
But, in the end of the day, to each his own...
At this point, I'm just confident that GNOME will win out. As a Debian user, this is the one time I am glad that RedHat has the muscle it does. RedHat's support will more than make up for KDE's head start. Additionally, in a few months, maturity will be a non-issue, and the greater number of killer apps for GTK (the GIMP, Gnumeric, whatever you consider important) combined with RedHat's support will starve KDE.
If this sounds hostile or confrontational, keep in mind that AS I SAID a few weeks ago, I will embrace the KDE developers and users as brothers once Qt goes free. It still isn't. I'm waiting, TrollTech...
Ye believers: Keep the faith! -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Configuring it by hand is a bear, but if you use e-conf and others' themes, it's great. I'm using the BrushedMetal theme in E and the analagous one in gtk and my desktop looks awesome. This for only about 5 minutes of configuration. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
E isn't completely bug-free, but even Raster emphasizes that it's beta software (although he does try to stress its stability, also). Before starting to use it again in February, my last try was back in October or so, when it seemed really unstable and remarkably slow. Now, however, it's quite fast and very stable.
You still get occasional crashes, but the blatant bugs have all been fixed. I'm still running the Feb 16 snap, so I'm not sure what's happened since then. Check out the changelogs. (www.enlightenment.org) -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
To all others who would try to hype interfaces based on proprietary libraries and in doing so try to make us stray from our quest for a Free OS, I say we should all sing along:
"They can try to bind our arms, But they cannot chain our minds or hearts! We will keep the faith inside our souls And never let it go. We are forever free." - Stratovarius, Forever Free
I had to read that twice when I first saw it. Read it again. It's pretty clear that the author was saying the license was new back when RMS started the FSF, which it was. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
> The fact that I have access to the Linux > source code makes no difference to me.
You are a fool if you think this. The fact that you do not personally hack the kernel does not imply that having access to it means nothing to you. If Linux weren't free software, I'd say it would be considerably less complete and (sorry Linus) considerably more buggy. And you therefore probably wouldn't be running it.
Try to think about what you're saying before you say it, people. -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Well, whatever het name is, s/he/it's cooler looking. =) I haven't spent a lot of time investigating FreeBSD specifically, so a lot of what I've picked up is probably wrong.
So, could you be helpful and tell us what s/he/it is called? -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
As much as I love copyleft and despise the advertising clause of the BSD license, even I as a tried-and-true, 4 1/2 year Linux lover have to say that I think Chuck is a much cooler looking mascot than Tux.
Tux is "cute;" Chuck kicks ass.
However, given the choice between Linux and *BSD, I'll pick Linux any day of the week. Better hardware support and a better license. However, were Linux not to exist, I'll dump some of my weird hardware and run FreeBSD long before I switched to NT.
(NT is a registered trademark of Northern Telecom.) -- Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I don't want to have all these great "free" programs linked to a non-free library that might suddenly require me to pay TrollTech money. Then, we're right back in the crappy situation that forced the creation of LessTif.
I'm not opposed to Qt's feature set, or the fact that it's in C++ (which I consider an advantage, to be honest), or anything technical about it, although I do like GTK+'s structure and theme handling much better. What I do oppose about Qt is the license. I will not develop for, nor will I support or advocate, a toolkit that is not Free Software, and for VERY practical reasons!
We've been down this path once before, people; let's not do it again...
Slashdot Mirror
> Free Software mandates returning
> changes to the community, with NO
> distinction made between
> corporation/person, profit/nonprofit.
You're confusing two concepts here: free software and copyleft. The BSD, X, GPL, and NPL, for example, are all free software licenses, in particular, satisfying the Debian Free Software Guidelines. OTOH, BSD, X, and NPL are not copyleft, which requires that changes be released back to the community.
"Free software" refers to the freedom that is guaranteed to the recipient of the source: that he is legally able to redistribute the source and binaries under the given terms. It does not specify precisely what those terms are, though certain guidelines must be followed. See the Debian FSG for more information, or check the FSF's site.
IMO, software isn't truly "free" unless it is copyleft; otherwise, it can be chained again. This, however, is not the technical definition associated with free software.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
The GPL protects the free software community by disallowing proprietary interests to co-opt our efforts through incorporating them into closed software.
Long live the GPL! That's all there is to say.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I was actually picking on ESR, not you, but I guess I didn't make that clear enough.
There are lots of people that have earned my respect through their actions and maturity, and their understanding of the issues of the free software community. Your move away from the OSI and back to the core of free software community made a lot of people like me very happy. IMO, Eric doesn't "get it," or rather, he "gets" a different view than I do.
Free software is about ultimately freedom, not being able to see source code. Opening the source is but one component.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Apple is no better than MS. If Steve Jobs could, he'd become the new Bill Gates with his plump-and-juicy Apple army replacing Gates' drones. The effect is the same for us: no freedom.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I still see a lot of light and heat being released, but no code being produced. Funny, that. =)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
SPI owns the Open Source trademark.
Therefore, Bruce is ipso facto correct and Eric Raymond is ipso facto wrong.
However, I will disregard the trademark issue for a moment and say that, through my own careful reading of the APSL and subsequent perusal of the areas OSI outlined in their response to Bruce, I agree with Bruce's view. Plus, it's better to be safe than sorry.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
...as those are © the respective authors. They can own a copyright to the anthology of titles, but considering it was a community submission effort that created it, and there was no restrictive license during most of its lifetime, I really doubt it would stand up in court.
I'm currently trying to coordinate a development effort for a new free protocol. Please send an email with "subscribe freecddb-developer " in the body to "majordomo@bigred.lcs.mit.edu" if you are interested in development. Do not send subscription requests to the list, as majordomo will bounce them. (In fact, majordomo seems to stupidly bounce any message containing \bsubscribe\b. Duh.)
And no quips about majordomo being non-free, either... =)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Two lists have been created:
freecddb-developer and freecddb-announce
@bigred.lcs.mit.edu. Send mail to majordomo@bigred.lcs.mit.edu with "subscribe " in the body.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
\{*GPL\}\subseteq copyleft, not viral.
Not enough caffeine this morning. D'OH! Naturally this kind of mistake would occur when I was bitching at others to post correctly about licensing issues.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
..
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
The GPL, LGPL, QPL, NPL, MPL, X, and BSD licenses are examples of licenses guaranteeing freedom. The GPL, additionally, is copyleft, so freedom is forced. If you don't understand the differences between these licenses, READ THEM instead of posting ignorant comments.
A new free CDDB-like format should be developed, and a standard library under LGPL (or some other non-viral license) should be distributed making it extremely easy for current CD player authors to replace their current CDDB support with a new format.
When will these companies realize that this "bait-and-switch" tactic just isn't going to work in the software community? We'll just go to something else. Of course, what would be nice is if we didn't start using their crap in the first place, unless freedom was guaranteed.
Incidentally, isn't mandating exclusive-use agreements illegal under trust laws? I honestly don't know, so it would be helpful if someone with greater legal knowledge in this area could respond...
Okay, so here are some defined goals as to what we need:
If anyone wants to discuss this with me personally, remove the SPAM from my email address (krose@Stheory.Plcs.Amit.Medu). Things like this really piss me off, and they should piss you off too.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I have not seen every Kubrick film, but every single one of those I have seen (Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Spartacus, and Full Metal Jacket) has been truly excellent. He was a genius, and it will be impossible to replace his style.
I think it's time for a rerun of Dr. Strangelove, just for old time's sake. First Akira Kurosawa; now this. What's up with all the dying?
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Why is warning people about such a distinct possibility being a fool? Do you have any idea how many people are going to scream "I told you so!" when TrollTech pulls the plug on the QPL, and all the KDE developers come running to the former Harmony developers and beg them to restart work? I'm not going to do that; rather, I'm going to warn people in advance so they aren't caught by TT unawares.
Okay, so you're thinking: "What's the worst that can happen when TT pulls the plug? So, we all go back to using WindowMaker or FVWM2 or whatever, and life goes on."
Wrong.
Consider all the people who are adversely affected by such a move: the KDE developers, who spent countless hours writing software for a toolkit they knew wasn't free; the users of the various KDE-centered distributions, who suddenly have to learn something else new; and the businesses who find that they have to spend time and money converting their systems and retraining their employees. Now, who's being the fool?
One QT is released under the QPL, this all becomes moot, because it'll already be free, and TT can't take it back. Until then, however, we should consider the possibility that the reason why TT is stalling is not a good one. This is not paranoia; this is realizing what "freedom" means and trying to protect it by not trusting those who don't openly embrace it.
Do not underestimate the value of freedom. Linux was built on freedom: the freedom to use, copy, modify, and distribute the software as you see fit, with very few restrictions. If you don't see a problem with TT's stalling in releasing a version of QT under the QPL (why not release QT 1.x under QPL? Huh?) then I argue that you do not understand a very fundamental point about Linux development and why it has prospered as it has.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
HAS THE CVS CODE BEEN RELEASED UNDER QPL?
Do not say ANYTHING else until you have answered THAT QUESTION.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
IF and WHEN Qt 2.0 is released under the QPL, I'll shut the hell up about it.
It hasn't yet, so I will feel free to share my warnings with others.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Well, culling out the poseurs from the true free-believers is somewhat akin to testing witches. Everyone is exposed to my rantings, whether they are guilty or not. =)
That said, I am glad that KDE exists if just because it gave the free software community a kick in the ass to get a truly free graphical user interface started. Sure, I don't like KDE for the still-as-yet-unresolved Qt licensing issues; but I also think it just looks like crap.
But, in the end of the day, to each his own...
At this point, I'm just confident that GNOME will win out. As a Debian user, this is the one time I am glad that RedHat has the muscle it does. RedHat's support will more than make up for KDE's head start. Additionally, in a few months, maturity will be a non-issue, and the greater number of killer apps for GTK (the GIMP, Gnumeric, whatever you consider important) combined with RedHat's support will starve KDE.
If this sounds hostile or confrontational, keep in mind that AS I SAID a few weeks ago, I will embrace the KDE developers and users as brothers once Qt goes free. It still isn't. I'm waiting, TrollTech...
Ye believers: Keep the faith!
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Configuring it by hand is a bear, but if you use e-conf and others' themes, it's great. I'm using the BrushedMetal theme in E and the analagous one in gtk and my desktop looks awesome. This for only about 5 minutes of configuration.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
E isn't completely bug-free, but even Raster emphasizes that it's beta software (although he does try to stress its stability, also). Before starting to use it again in February, my last try was back in October or so, when it seemed really unstable and remarkably slow. Now, however, it's quite fast and very stable.
You still get occasional crashes, but the blatant bugs have all been fixed. I'm still running the Feb 16 snap, so I'm not sure what's happened since then. Check out the changelogs. (www.enlightenment.org)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
To all others who would try to hype interfaces based on proprietary libraries and in doing so try to make us stray from our quest for a Free OS, I say we should all sing along:
"They can try to bind our arms,
But they cannot chain our minds or hearts!
We will keep the faith inside our souls
And never let it go.
We are forever free."
- Stratovarius, Forever Free
GO GNOME! GO LINUX! WORLD DOMINATION!!!!!!!!
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
> copyleft" (is not a "new" kind of license)
I had to read that twice when I first saw it. Read it again. It's pretty clear that the author was saying the license was new back when RMS started the FSF, which it was.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
> The fact that I have access to the Linux
> source code makes no difference to me.
You are a fool if you think this. The fact that you do not personally hack the kernel does not imply that having access to it means nothing to you. If Linux weren't free software, I'd say it would be considerably less complete and (sorry Linus) considerably more buggy. And you therefore probably wouldn't be running it.
Try to think about what you're saying before you say it, people.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Well, whatever het name is, s/he/it's cooler looking. =) I haven't spent a lot of time investigating FreeBSD specifically, so a lot of what I've picked up is probably wrong.
So, could you be helpful and tell us what s/he/it is called?
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
As much as I love copyleft and despise the advertising clause of the BSD license, even I as a tried-and-true, 4 1/2 year Linux lover have to say that I think Chuck is a much cooler looking mascot than Tux.
Tux is "cute;" Chuck kicks ass.
However, given the choice between Linux and *BSD, I'll pick Linux any day of the week. Better hardware support and a better license. However, were Linux not to exist, I'll dump some of my weird hardware and run FreeBSD long before I switched to NT.
(NT is a registered trademark of Northern Telecom.)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
I don't want to have all these great "free" programs linked to a non-free library that might suddenly require me to pay TrollTech money. Then, we're right back in the crappy situation that forced the creation of LessTif.
I'm not opposed to Qt's feature set, or the fact that it's in C++ (which I consider an advantage, to be honest), or anything technical about it, although I do like GTK+'s structure and theme handling much better. What I do oppose about Qt is the license. I will not develop for, nor will I support or advocate, a toolkit that is not Free Software, and for VERY practical reasons!
We've been down this path once before, people; let's not do it again...
Kyle
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS