First, it's typical to capitalize all the letters of an acronym, hence GNU which stands for "GNU's Not Unix" (a recursive acronym). And there are multiple GNU licenses--the three most commonly used GNU licenses are the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, and the GNU Free Documentation License.
Your correction about the freedom of works in the PD is only partially right. In some countries, a work's entry into the PD has been temporary--the copyright on Joyce's "Ulysses" expired and then the work re-entered copyright (at least in Ireland) not long ago. The copyright holder, Stephen Joyce, the author's grandson, threatened some people from reading it aloud this past Bloomsday.
Also, the PD does nothing to ensure that derivative works will remain free. Ensuring the freedom of derivative works was a goal from the outset of the GNU project ("GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free."). The GPL was written, in part, to reach this goal. You say the GNU Manifesto illustrates the desire to abolish "property rights over computer source code" but you cite no specifics. I'm to assume that the abolition of this would be harmful and that I'm to think ill of the GNU Manifesto because of this, yet you don't say why.
I believe that patent policy should be decided with an eye toward what its goal is and how it affects the population it restricts. I also think that patents affect different fields differently. Patents might be a sensible thing as an industrial regulation for automobiles, for example. But RMS makes a compelling argument that software patents do not serve the interest of fostering innovation in computer software and software patents pose a serious threat to all computer users.
Finally, according to the Free Software Foundation, it is not an excercise of freedom to restrict the rights of others. This is properly called excercising a power, not a freedom.
I'm not convinced that you have taken in the FSF's arguments, so therefore I'm not convinced of the validity of your rebuttal. I suggest that you not take my word for anything the FSF stands for. I think that you should write to RMS and then share with us the exact e-mail you sent and his exact response. I would be interested to read what he has to say to your points.
That's absolutely not the goal of the Gnu project. The Gnu project's goal is the abolition of property rights over computer software source code. Freedom has nothing to do with it. In fact, the Gnu advocates require -- or try to require, anyway --people to release software only under a restrictive license that prohibits whole classes of reuse, rather than simply contributing it to the public domain.
RMS, who started the GNU project, would disagree with you. In a recent interview with Jeremy Andrews of KernelTrap.org, RMS was quite clear that "freedom is the main goal" for free software. RMS wants to give as many people software freedom as possible. But it's clear that you're not questioning that, you're really challenging the notion of freedom as though anything short of absolute freedom is insufficient.
Placing a program in the public domain does make that program free software, but it "doesn't protect the freedom of all users. It allows middlemen to make the software proprietary, which means they distribute the software to others but without the freedom." (quoted from an interview with Federico Biancuzzi where he was referring to the new BSD license, but the same thing applies to software in the public domain). RMS isn't just thinking about the freedom of the users of the program, but the freedom of the users of derivative works as well. We can't have all possible freedoms, some of them conflict. So we have to make a choice between which freedoms we want to preserve and which freedoms we're willing to trade away. The FSF describes this situation with regard to the GPL and to driving (which I've summarized elsewhere on this site).
Placing software in the public domain is insufficient if one argues from the angle of absolutism because, in some countries, computer programming is regulated by patent law as well. A public domain program may have implemented a patented idea, ironically restricting what people are allowed to do with that program.
Finally, there is no requirement to "release software only under a restrictive license" (you're undoubtedly talking about the GNU General Public License), because the GPL doesn't compel distribution of verbatim or modified programs. Distributing complete source code to the GPL-covered program only kicks in for those who distribute the covered program. Compared to the default of copyright (which is to say "no" to virtually everything it regulates), the GPL is quite permissive. The GPL grants rights copyright otherwise withheld by default. Those who advocate for free software recognize a variety of free software licenses and placing the work in the public domain as ways to increase user's freedom. The question is who's freedom is being increased and can we do more to increase other user's freedom too.
Has anyone tried hiring a MacOS X developer or consultant to port OO.org to MacOS X? It seems like a native OO.org isn't really desired if all people do is complain that a nativa MacOS X OO.o doesn't exist and someone else won't do the work for free. Perhaps a bunch of MacOS X users would be willing to chip in US$20 to pay for something that can get the ball rolling.
License confusion does not inspire confidence.
on
Xfce 4.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"Various parts of Xfld are covered by so many different licenses, we can't possibly keep them all straight."
They have an obligation to do exactly that--keep the licensing straight--so they aren't distributing something they don't have a license to distribute. Perhaps it is time to comb the distribution and make sure the licensing is correct.
I think you're confusing different goals. The GNU project's goal isn't innovation or being there first, it's software freedom. Apple and Microsoft don't share that goal and, to differing degrees but both in large measure, they don't deliver that goal. So comparing GNOME (which is part of the GNU project) and a proprietor's work is bound to lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
One of the major failings of Pages by Pages for NEXTSTEP was that you had to go back to the Pages company to purchase a new document template. Not only was the software non-free (in the sense of software freedom), but only Pages had the software to do this job. Is Apple keeping this going too?
In any event, I don't see how porting or updating Pages is a benefit of Apple purchasing NeXT. As I recall, Pages was just another third-party developer, not a part of NeXT. Hence, NeXT didn't hold the copyright to Pages.
This made me think that Apple's Pages is just similarly named to Pages by Pages, but not at all an update of the code.
And at least some of the Neuros devices play Ogg Vorbis files. For a while, Neuros was distributing the firmware to their devices at open.neurosaudio.com. They say:
Due to a potential licensing conflict with one of our vendors,we have temporarily suspended downloads of the Neuros firmware source code.
We expect to have this resolved shortly, please check back on open.neurosaudio.com for further updates.
They are still distributing specs for the hardware and source code for some supporting applications.
Many other posters have discussed the scant coverage of lossy encoding.
There is a distinction between Ogg and Vorbis that is lost in the summary (and much of the discussion). Ogg is a container format which can hold many other kinds of data (video like Theora, audio like Vorbis, and lyrics in a format which is being worked on, just to name a few) including combinations of data encoded with various codecs. So the lossy encoding in question is Vorbis, not Ogg.
Just because a program can understand the container does not mean that a user running that program can play the encoded performance. One should recognize this distinction so one can begin to understand what is going on with Ogg FLAC and Ogg Speex files. These files are not common, but we're better off understanding how things interrelate, even in a broad sense, not just memorizing a bunch of filename dot extensions.
All of the ccmixter.org links are returning SQL errors--definately a server-side problem. Are there mirrors of these audio files? It would be best if there were Ogg Vorbis copies of these audio tracks elsewhere.
Then what really needs to be modded down is the English language for placing such disparate concepts under the same word--free. If we were writing in any other language, it's quite likely we'd use different words for these concepts (French's "libre" versus "gratuit", for example). Brad Kuhn introduces this concept early in his talks by saying "The English language has a bug" and he's right.
Slightly offtopic: one entertaining side effect of English's overloading is found in Eben Moglen's speeches where he uses "free" to mean either freedom or zero price (but he never mixes the two up) and he leaves it up to you to recognize the difference.
Proprietary code is by definition non-free; I don't have the freedoms of free software with the Stuffit JPEG compressor. Even if I could figure out the compression scheme, I could not implement it because it is soon to be patented (and I'm making the reasonable infererence that a proprietor who seeks a patent isn't going to license their patent in a way that is compatible with free software).
Archivists who compress their stored data are more likely to be aware of the Dualabs problem and thus more likely to reject non-free compression and archiving strategies.
I don't send a lot of photos via e-mail, but if I did this compression savings is still trivial. I have an inexpensive hoster with lots of bandwidth and storage space. I send URLs and let the people retreive the data on their schedule. I also don't just send JPEGs. Most of the time what I send are Ogg Vorbis files (because I'm in radio) and occasionally PDFs. This compression scheme offers nothing for non-JPEG files.
Nickel and dime games refer to saving $0.10 or so on a blank CD-R (packing slightly less than a third more JPEG images onto 1 CD with the new compression program). I might use a CD-R for short-term storage (like passing a friend a copy of something I can share). I don't object to paying for things that will let me retreive the data later, so I wouldn't archive to CD-R, I'd use a hard disk and some other large-logical-sized medium so I can record data I can directly load into free software programs. Storage is cheap nowadays. A 500GB HD is on the way and it will probably drive down the price of the 300GB drives on the market now. It's foolish to get a space savings at the cost of dealing with proprietary compression programs that might not work for the system one uses a decade from now (even if you're using Microsoft Windows you know that 10 year old DOS programs won't run perfectly on Windows XP + all the updates).
Given that the software is likely to be proprietary and the algorithm will be patented, it becomes completely useless to me and it is completely unsuitable for archiving anything (smart people don't play nickel and dime games with archives and backups).
Maybe if computers were a lot faster and the compression worked on any array of pixels, not just those that have undergone the lossy transformation of JPEG compression. But even then, it would have to do better than what PNG can do in terms of all the other things PNG does and no patented format will beat PNG at its game.
In theory what you say sounds nice, but in practice I genuinely can't recall a situation where a little more compression would have allowed me to send all the photos I wanted to via e-mail. But the reasons I mentioned at the top of this post are more important reasons why this should be rejected out of hand.
What meager benefits this affords are far outweighed by the costs. I don't see this going anywhere, and for very good reason.
Making GNOME look like MacOS X doesn't make sense to me when clearly the focus of the journal is GNOME (hence the name "The GNOME Journal"). The CD/DVD burning article makes it look like this is focusing on MacOS X (or a slightly not-quite-right MacOS X look and feel).
Hence, I suggest using a theme that comes with GNOME by default (something everyone is likely to have) or picking a popular GNOME theme that doesn't try to make it look like something it is not.
And if it is, it probably won't qualify as free software. I'm guessing that if this new word processor offers MS Word compatibility, it is either building on OpenOffice.org's MS Word import/export software, or building on something licensed from Microsoft. The latter promises 100% compatibility and that's not necessarily a good thing--no chance to inspect the rest of the program to make sure it's only doing what you want it to do, one must wait for Apple or Microsoft to make the software more secure (don't blindly execute all MS Word macros because some might implement backdoors, viruses, trojan horses, etc.).
Thanks, what I saw at the download page was just a binary for my OS and some documentation. I must have missed the link to download source code under a free software license.
Linus was humble in that he didn't claim his project was the greatest most important achievement in the history of man-kind and that you simply MUST contribute to his project otherwise you're a toad.
Who claimed he said that? Has anyone said this about their work?
Most people don't go around saying that and most people are not called humble. I think you're exaggerating to make a false claim.
On their download page, PeerCast claims that their program has "No adware/spyware". How can I verify this without complete source code to the program? If I learn that the claim is a lie, how can I change the program to do what I want without source code under a license that lets me modify it? If I want to distribute my improved version to help others, how can I do this without source code under a license that lets me distribute my derivative?
This is one way people acquire backdoors, spyware, adware, and all the other software people don't want.
I actually miss the early Dejanews interface and search capabilities. It had some arcane limitations, but it was more expressive than what I can do with Google.
And I don't see evidence that people have largely learned the lesson from when Dejanews went away and Google had not yet brought up Deja's database -- the lesson being that Usenet is of value and Usenet article collections need to be mirrored and kept up to date by multiple independent administrators. Placing all of those metaphorical eggs in one basket is very risky. Doubly ironic when one considers that decentralization is one of the hallmarks of netnews. With all the bright people thinking up ways to host mirrors of files in varied places in P2P networks, I would have imagined someone would have done so for Usenet articles by now.
Is it meek or deferential to name the entire kernel after himself? Even he thought that would tag him as an egomaniac. Genuinely thankful for others contributions, sure, but I would not say humble.
I challenge anyone else who defends the status quo to show me some innovative new titles from the major developers.
Reading this reminded me of some comments I've seen in discussions about free software. Often, the discussion is framed from the perspective of the open source movement and the values that movement promotes, which are not the same as those of the free software movement. As a result, people frame the debate as if we can have either innovative software or free software, or that software freedom isn't worth pursuing because there is insufficient innovation. RMS addressed this in a recent interview: (emphasis mine)
Jeremy Andrews: I have read that the free software model tends to imitate existing software, rather than blaze new trails and developing completely new technologies.
Richard Stallman: To speak of a free software "model" is somewhat misleading. The open source movement speaks of a "development model", but our concern is for the user's freedom, not how the program is developed.
Free software doesn't always imitate, but often it does. There's a good reason for this: freedom is the main goal, and innovation is secondary.
Our goal is to develop free software so that we can use computers exclusively with free software. In 1984, we started with nearly zero (we had TeX, nothing else). We had a lot of catching up to do, so we have done it. Even if GNU/Linux had no technical innovations compared with Unix, it would be completely superior because it respects your freedom as Unix does not.
He's not "using double standards". He recognizes that not every kind of work requires the same freedoms. We currently have a copyright regime where different kinds of works have different levels of copyright power.
RMS once proposed a system of reduced copyright powers that would work better for readers/viewers/listeners/etc. (since American copyright is ultimately aimed at benefitting readers, not publishers or authors). He framed his system on the kind of work something is--what function does it perform--under which all works may be copied verbatim and distributed non-commercially. Functional works, one class of work, may also be modified. Works which express people's thoughts is another class of work. These works only need to be copied, as changing them runs the risk of misrepresenting the ideas the author was trying to convey (perhaps this is closer to something you'd find amenable). The third class are aesthetic works which are works where the most important thing is "just the sensation of looking at the work" and this class has no easy answers. You can read the transcript of his talk or listen to it online.
It also assumes that people care how the software works and are willing and able to modify it.
No, what RMS is getting at does not assume this, it means appreciating that what we've got now came from pursuing these freedoms and not giving up on them in spite of technical limitations. If we all moved in the direction of focusing on technical innovation instead of freedom, we would not be able to maintain software freedom. We would drop free software, perhaps pick up the philosophy of the open source movement (which champions technical efficiency not software freedom) and then, ultimately, drop that too whenever a proprietor offered some technical advantage that software failed to deliver. Business gets behind "open source" because the term invites users to have warm fuzzy feelings and think that they are being nice, even if they're not offering software freedom (as some open source licenses do not offer software freedom). The open source movement got its start from the groundwork laid down by the free software movement.
Most car drivers aren't auto mechanics, but they benefit greatly from having a wealth of competing mechanics to choose from when their car doesn't do what it is supposed to do. That same principle applies here. Nationally, the US benefitted from a country of car tinkerers who later entered the military and used their technical smarts acquired in their garages to fight a world war. You, as a user who does not program, do not benefit when the details are kept from you as proprietary software keeps its real operation from users, because those operational details are also denied those who are more technically capable than you which means you cannot benefit from their wisdom, their bug fixes, and the improvements they write.
Most people aren't programmers, but most can do something well. Perhaps you can draw, compose music, write documentation, help debug by providing detailed reports of bugs, or something else. Many programs need skills programmers don't have, skills you might posess. You don't have to be a programmer to help improve the program in dramatic ways (easily understood documentation for novices is particularly needed). You will end up leveraging the freedoms of free software to provide this contribution because you will end up discussing something with someone who knows the program by studying its source code and sharing improvements.
[...] there is virtually no enforcement of these terms in the non-business portion of the software world.
Not too long ago Slashdot readers read of drug bust-style raids on people who copy DVDs without license. In another thread on Slashdot's front page right now, software copyright holders (particularly proprietary software copyright holders) are complaining that the DMCA doesn't give them enough power to bust the people illicitly sharing copies of their software. ISPs aren't withholding names because they're defending our privacy. They don't want to do the work it would take to meet all of the requests that would go to them. It seems to me as if it is a matter of time before more people get busted similarly for illicit distribution of software.
If I give my (fictional) copy of Microsoft Office to my friend, the FBI will not show up at my door to arrest me -- or at least I can find no evidence to suggest that this has happened to anyone.
"The reason I'm completely against the copying and sharing of proprietary software without license is not because I think it's unethical, but because I think it hides the real harm that proprietary software licenses cause; because if yo
He wants to try to save the world also on topics where he is no genius. Look at the lengths he goes on about outsourcing in this interview, even as it is quite unrelated to Free Software.
Since when should geniuses only work on that area in which they express their genius abilities? Also, RMS is upfront about what free software won't do. After explaining the way in which businesses turn the Phillipine 2-year exemption from labor into a perpetual exemption by closing up shop and establishing a new business every 2 years, RMS is asked: (emphasis mine)
JA: How does free software address this?
Richard Stallman: Free software doesn't address this. Free software addresses the issue of how computer users can have freedom to cooperate and to control their own computers. This is the larger issue that becomes relevant when you start talking about "How are people going to have jobs that pay them decently?" The answer is: in the world of the low wage treaties, they're not going to.
It's inconsistent and future to subject millions of people to the loss of freedom that non-free software imposes, just so that a tiny segment of society will have better paying jobs, when we're ignoring all the rest of society with their lousy jobs.
If you want to start doing something about that problem, do it at the right level, which is the level of the power balance between corporations and countries. Corporations are too powerful now. We have to knock them down. I don't believe in abolishing business or even in abolishing corporations, but we've got to make sure that no corporation is powerful enough that it can say to all the countries in the world, "I'll punish any country that doesn't obey."
That is the way it works now. And it was deliberately set up by people such as Reagan, and Clinton, and Bush and Bush.
It sounds to me like he realizes the limitations of free software and is quick to answer as such. If you listen to his speeches, you'll also hear him respond that if he knew a way to help get corporate money out of political campaigns, he would work on that and nothing would make him more proud. This too is not a problem free software can solve alone, perhaps playing a minor role in making such a thing happen, but it is critical that we work on this when we consider the amount of power that comes with campaign donations and how much more money multinational corporations have to put into campaigns than most ordinary people.
This thread won't be of much help to you because it chiefly concerns the free software movement, not the open source movement. There is a difference. If you're interested to learn more about the free software movement, you should consult the philosophy directory on gnu.org as the interview pointed to.
Slashdot Mirror
First, it's typical to capitalize all the letters of an acronym, hence GNU which stands for "GNU's Not Unix" (a recursive acronym). And there are multiple GNU licenses--the three most commonly used GNU licenses are the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, and the GNU Free Documentation License.
Your correction about the freedom of works in the PD is only partially right. In some countries, a work's entry into the PD has been temporary--the copyright on Joyce's "Ulysses" expired and then the work re-entered copyright (at least in Ireland) not long ago. The copyright holder, Stephen Joyce, the author's grandson, threatened some people from reading it aloud this past Bloomsday.
Also, the PD does nothing to ensure that derivative works will remain free. Ensuring the freedom of derivative works was a goal from the outset of the GNU project ("GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free."). The GPL was written, in part, to reach this goal. You say the GNU Manifesto illustrates the desire to abolish "property rights over computer source code" but you cite no specifics. I'm to assume that the abolition of this would be harmful and that I'm to think ill of the GNU Manifesto because of this, yet you don't say why.
I believe that patent policy should be decided with an eye toward what its goal is and how it affects the population it restricts. I also think that patents affect different fields differently. Patents might be a sensible thing as an industrial regulation for automobiles, for example. But RMS makes a compelling argument that software patents do not serve the interest of fostering innovation in computer software and software patents pose a serious threat to all computer users.
Finally, according to the Free Software Foundation, it is not an excercise of freedom to restrict the rights of others. This is properly called excercising a power, not a freedom.
I'm not convinced that you have taken in the FSF's arguments, so therefore I'm not convinced of the validity of your rebuttal. I suggest that you not take my word for anything the FSF stands for. I think that you should write to RMS and then share with us the exact e-mail you sent and his exact response. I would be interested to read what he has to say to your points.
RMS, who started the GNU project, would disagree with you. In a recent interview with Jeremy Andrews of KernelTrap.org, RMS was quite clear that "freedom is the main goal" for free software. RMS wants to give as many people software freedom as possible. But it's clear that you're not questioning that, you're really challenging the notion of freedom as though anything short of absolute freedom is insufficient.
Placing a program in the public domain does make that program free software, but it "doesn't protect the freedom of all users. It allows middlemen to make the software proprietary, which means they distribute the software to others but without the freedom." (quoted from an interview with Federico Biancuzzi where he was referring to the new BSD license, but the same thing applies to software in the public domain). RMS isn't just thinking about the freedom of the users of the program, but the freedom of the users of derivative works as well. We can't have all possible freedoms, some of them conflict. So we have to make a choice between which freedoms we want to preserve and which freedoms we're willing to trade away. The FSF describes this situation with regard to the GPL and to driving (which I've summarized elsewhere on this site).
Placing software in the public domain is insufficient if one argues from the angle of absolutism because, in some countries, computer programming is regulated by patent law as well. A public domain program may have implemented a patented idea, ironically restricting what people are allowed to do with that program.
Finally, there is no requirement to "release software only under a restrictive license" (you're undoubtedly talking about the GNU General Public License), because the GPL doesn't compel distribution of verbatim or modified programs. Distributing complete source code to the GPL-covered program only kicks in for those who distribute the covered program. Compared to the default of copyright (which is to say "no" to virtually everything it regulates), the GPL is quite permissive. The GPL grants rights copyright otherwise withheld by default. Those who advocate for free software recognize a variety of free software licenses and placing the work in the public domain as ways to increase user's freedom. The question is who's freedom is being increased and can we do more to increase other user's freedom too.
Has anyone tried hiring a MacOS X developer or consultant to port OO.org to MacOS X? It seems like a native OO.org isn't really desired if all people do is complain that a nativa MacOS X OO.o doesn't exist and someone else won't do the work for free. Perhaps a bunch of MacOS X users would be willing to chip in US$20 to pay for something that can get the ball rolling.
From the download page of the Xfld.org website:
They have an obligation to do exactly that--keep the licensing straight--so they aren't distributing something they don't have a license to distribute. Perhaps it is time to comb the distribution and make sure the licensing is correct.
I think you're confusing different goals. The GNU project's goal isn't innovation or being there first, it's software freedom. Apple and Microsoft don't share that goal and, to differing degrees but both in large measure, they don't deliver that goal. So comparing GNOME (which is part of the GNU project) and a proprietor's work is bound to lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
One of the major failings of Pages by Pages for NEXTSTEP was that you had to go back to the Pages company to purchase a new document template. Not only was the software non-free (in the sense of software freedom), but only Pages had the software to do this job. Is Apple keeping this going too?
In any event, I don't see how porting or updating Pages is a benefit of Apple purchasing NeXT. As I recall, Pages was just another third-party developer, not a part of NeXT. Hence, NeXT didn't hold the copyright to Pages.
This made me think that Apple's Pages is just similarly named to Pages by Pages, but not at all an update of the code.
And at least some of the Neuros devices play Ogg Vorbis files. For a while, Neuros was distributing the firmware to their devices at open.neurosaudio.com. They say:
They are still distributing specs for the hardware and source code for some supporting applications.
Many other posters have discussed the scant coverage of lossy encoding.
There is a distinction between Ogg and Vorbis that is lost in the summary (and much of the discussion). Ogg is a container format which can hold many other kinds of data (video like Theora, audio like Vorbis, and lyrics in a format which is being worked on, just to name a few) including combinations of data encoded with various codecs. So the lossy encoding in question is Vorbis, not Ogg.
Just because a program can understand the container does not mean that a user running that program can play the encoded performance. One should recognize this distinction so one can begin to understand what is going on with Ogg FLAC and Ogg Speex files. These files are not common, but we're better off understanding how things interrelate, even in a broad sense, not just memorizing a bunch of filename dot extensions.
All of the ccmixter.org links are returning SQL errors--definately a server-side problem. Are there mirrors of these audio files? It would be best if there were Ogg Vorbis copies of these audio tracks elsewhere.
Then what really needs to be modded down is the English language for placing such disparate concepts under the same word--free. If we were writing in any other language, it's quite likely we'd use different words for these concepts (French's "libre" versus "gratuit", for example). Brad Kuhn introduces this concept early in his talks by saying "The English language has a bug" and he's right.
Slightly offtopic: one entertaining side effect of English's overloading is found in Eben Moglen's speeches where he uses "free" to mean either freedom or zero price (but he never mixes the two up) and he leaves it up to you to recognize the difference.
Proprietary code is by definition non-free; I don't have the freedoms of free software with the Stuffit JPEG compressor. Even if I could figure out the compression scheme, I could not implement it because it is soon to be patented (and I'm making the reasonable infererence that a proprietor who seeks a patent isn't going to license their patent in a way that is compatible with free software).
Archivists who compress their stored data are more likely to be aware of the Dualabs problem and thus more likely to reject non-free compression and archiving strategies.
I don't send a lot of photos via e-mail, but if I did this compression savings is still trivial. I have an inexpensive hoster with lots of bandwidth and storage space. I send URLs and let the people retreive the data on their schedule. I also don't just send JPEGs. Most of the time what I send are Ogg Vorbis files (because I'm in radio) and occasionally PDFs. This compression scheme offers nothing for non-JPEG files.
Nickel and dime games refer to saving $0.10 or so on a blank CD-R (packing slightly less than a third more JPEG images onto 1 CD with the new compression program). I might use a CD-R for short-term storage (like passing a friend a copy of something I can share). I don't object to paying for things that will let me retreive the data later, so I wouldn't archive to CD-R, I'd use a hard disk and some other large-logical-sized medium so I can record data I can directly load into free software programs. Storage is cheap nowadays. A 500GB HD is on the way and it will probably drive down the price of the 300GB drives on the market now. It's foolish to get a space savings at the cost of dealing with proprietary compression programs that might not work for the system one uses a decade from now (even if you're using Microsoft Windows you know that 10 year old DOS programs won't run perfectly on Windows XP + all the updates).
Given that the software is likely to be proprietary and the algorithm will be patented, it becomes completely useless to me and it is completely unsuitable for archiving anything (smart people don't play nickel and dime games with archives and backups).
Maybe if computers were a lot faster and the compression worked on any array of pixels, not just those that have undergone the lossy transformation of JPEG compression. But even then, it would have to do better than what PNG can do in terms of all the other things PNG does and no patented format will beat PNG at its game.
In theory what you say sounds nice, but in practice I genuinely can't recall a situation where a little more compression would have allowed me to send all the photos I wanted to via e-mail. But the reasons I mentioned at the top of this post are more important reasons why this should be rejected out of hand.
What meager benefits this affords are far outweighed by the costs. I don't see this going anywhere, and for very good reason.
I should have been more clear: I'm talking about the screenshots used in the articles.
Making GNOME look like MacOS X doesn't make sense to me when clearly the focus of the journal is GNOME (hence the name "The GNOME Journal"). The CD/DVD burning article makes it look like this is focusing on MacOS X (or a slightly not-quite-right MacOS X look and feel).
Hence, I suggest using a theme that comes with GNOME by default (something everyone is likely to have) or picking a popular GNOME theme that doesn't try to make it look like something it is not.
And if it is, it probably won't qualify as free software. I'm guessing that if this new word processor offers MS Word compatibility, it is either building on OpenOffice.org's MS Word import/export software, or building on something licensed from Microsoft. The latter promises 100% compatibility and that's not necessarily a good thing--no chance to inspect the rest of the program to make sure it's only doing what you want it to do, one must wait for Apple or Microsoft to make the software more secure (don't blindly execute all MS Word macros because some might implement backdoors, viruses, trojan horses, etc.).
Thanks, what I saw at the download page was just a binary for my OS and some documentation. I must have missed the link to download source code under a free software license.
Who claimed he said that? Has anyone said this about their work?
Most people don't go around saying that and most people are not called humble. I think you're exaggerating to make a false claim.
On their download page, PeerCast claims that their program has "No adware/spyware". How can I verify this without complete source code to the program? If I learn that the claim is a lie, how can I change the program to do what I want without source code under a license that lets me modify it? If I want to distribute my improved version to help others, how can I do this without source code under a license that lets me distribute my derivative?
This is one way people acquire backdoors, spyware, adware, and all the other software people don't want.
I actually miss the early Dejanews interface and search capabilities. It had some arcane limitations, but it was more expressive than what I can do with Google.
And I don't see evidence that people have largely learned the lesson from when Dejanews went away and Google had not yet brought up Deja's database -- the lesson being that Usenet is of value and Usenet article collections need to be mirrored and kept up to date by multiple independent administrators. Placing all of those metaphorical eggs in one basket is very risky. Doubly ironic when one considers that decentralization is one of the hallmarks of netnews. With all the bright people thinking up ways to host mirrors of files in varied places in P2P networks, I would have imagined someone would have done so for Usenet articles by now.
Is it meek or deferential to name the entire kernel after himself? Even he thought that would tag him as an egomaniac. Genuinely thankful for others contributions, sure, but I would not say humble.
The article says:
Reading this reminded me of some comments I've seen in discussions about free software. Often, the discussion is framed from the perspective of the open source movement and the values that movement promotes, which are not the same as those of the free software movement. As a result, people frame the debate as if we can have either innovative software or free software, or that software freedom isn't worth pursuing because there is insufficient innovation. RMS addressed this in a recent interview: (emphasis mine)
He's not "using double standards". He recognizes that not every kind of work requires the same freedoms. We currently have a copyright regime where different kinds of works have different levels of copyright power.
RMS once proposed a system of reduced copyright powers that would work better for readers/viewers/listeners/etc. (since American copyright is ultimately aimed at benefitting readers, not publishers or authors). He framed his system on the kind of work something is--what function does it perform--under which all works may be copied verbatim and distributed non-commercially. Functional works, one class of work, may also be modified. Works which express people's thoughts is another class of work. These works only need to be copied, as changing them runs the risk of misrepresenting the ideas the author was trying to convey (perhaps this is closer to something you'd find amenable). The third class are aesthetic works which are works where the most important thing is "just the sensation of looking at the work" and this class has no easy answers. You can read the transcript of his talk or listen to it online.
From the essay:
No, what RMS is getting at does not assume this, it means appreciating that what we've got now came from pursuing these freedoms and not giving up on them in spite of technical limitations. If we all moved in the direction of focusing on technical innovation instead of freedom, we would not be able to maintain software freedom. We would drop free software, perhaps pick up the philosophy of the open source movement (which champions technical efficiency not software freedom) and then, ultimately, drop that too whenever a proprietor offered some technical advantage that software failed to deliver. Business gets behind "open source" because the term invites users to have warm fuzzy feelings and think that they are being nice, even if they're not offering software freedom (as some open source licenses do not offer software freedom). The open source movement got its start from the groundwork laid down by the free software movement.
Most car drivers aren't auto mechanics, but they benefit greatly from having a wealth of competing mechanics to choose from when their car doesn't do what it is supposed to do. That same principle applies here. Nationally, the US benefitted from a country of car tinkerers who later entered the military and used their technical smarts acquired in their garages to fight a world war. You, as a user who does not program, do not benefit when the details are kept from you as proprietary software keeps its real operation from users, because those operational details are also denied those who are more technically capable than you which means you cannot benefit from their wisdom, their bug fixes, and the improvements they write.
Most people aren't programmers, but most can do something well. Perhaps you can draw, compose music, write documentation, help debug by providing detailed reports of bugs, or something else. Many programs need skills programmers don't have, skills you might posess. You don't have to be a programmer to help improve the program in dramatic ways (easily understood documentation for novices is particularly needed). You will end up leveraging the freedoms of free software to provide this contribution because you will end up discussing something with someone who knows the program by studying its source code and sharing improvements.
Not too long ago Slashdot readers read of drug bust-style raids on people who copy DVDs without license. In another thread on Slashdot's front page right now, software copyright holders (particularly proprietary software copyright holders) are complaining that the DMCA doesn't give them enough power to bust the people illicitly sharing copies of their software. ISPs aren't withholding names because they're defending our privacy. They don't want to do the work it would take to meet all of the requests that would go to them. It seems to me as if it is a matter of time before more people get busted similarly for illicit distribution of software.
Brad Kuhn of the Free Software Foundation addressed this point in his talk to the University of Illinois last year: (skip to 1h42m22s)
Since when should geniuses only work on that area in which they express their genius abilities? Also, RMS is upfront about what free software won't do. After explaining the way in which businesses turn the Phillipine 2-year exemption from labor into a perpetual exemption by closing up shop and establishing a new business every 2 years, RMS is asked: (emphasis mine)
It sounds to me like he realizes the limitations of free software and is quick to answer as such. If you listen to his speeches, you'll also hear him respond that if he knew a way to help get corporate money out of political campaigns, he would work on that and nothing would make him more proud. This too is not a problem free software can solve alone, perhaps playing a minor role in making such a thing happen, but it is critical that we work on this when we consider the amount of power that comes with campaign donations and how much more money multinational corporations have to put into campaigns than most ordinary people.
This thread won't be of much help to you because it chiefly concerns the free software movement, not the open source movement. There is a difference. If you're interested to learn more about the free software movement, you should consult the philosophy directory on gnu.org as the interview pointed to.