GNOME was using the 1.1.x versions of GTK+ at the time, I think, because GTK+ 1.0 wasn't complete enough for their needs. Not sure of the details though.
RSI stands for "Repetitive Stress Injury." Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common example of RSI, and the one the above poster was probably thinking about.
"I think a lot of effort is being misdirected into making flashy looking UIs. A UI should certainly look nice, but what do 3-d, "skinnable" apps, giant icons and superfluous animation add to the usability of computer technology?"
I think this sort of stuff falls under the category of "fun." Why do people add stripes to the sides of their cars? Why do people put posters on their walls? Skins on apps and WMs aren't much different. Some people like to make the things they work with a little prettier, a little crazier, a little bit different. I'd say it's part of being human.
It doesn't seem like it's a big secret that XFree86 4.0 was bleeding-edge. I knew it from reading the release notes. Why complain about the rawness of the release when the XFree guys stated quite plainly that it was tender code?
. . . it's easier for everyone if Troll Tech does the changes. If Troll Tech changes the QPL, then the change propagates to every user of the QPL'd Qt, not just KDE. This also means that hundreds of contributors to KDE don't have to be contacted to get KDE licensed under a GPL+Qt exception.
Troll Tech's business model is basically that Qt is free for free software ("free" in the "free speech" sense), but if you want to make proprietary software with it, you pay Troll Tech. If you are serious about making proprietary software, and you don't have the money to pay Troll Tech, then I suggest that you use another toolkit that is free even for proprietary use, such as a toolkit under either the LGPL or a BSD-ish license.
"I mean... honestly... I think that we're going to find that *quality* is motivated by money."
Except that turns out not to be the case. Take the much overused example of Microsoft (Please.) Microsoft has a lot of money, yet their software is just adequate. Not great, not well-thought out, but adequate, "good enough." Take something like Linux. Linux has shown itself to be quite robust, and while the creators and distributors aren't paupers, they aren't rolling in money either. There is obviously not a nice, neat correlation between money and quality.
Money at times may be linked to quality if it is necessary to spend the money to get the materials, equipment, etc. to get the job done right. For example, if you are going to create an OS that can scale from 1 to 64 CPUs, somebody is going to have to spend the money to get a machine with 64 CPUs.
From what I've observed from the sidelines, though, is that pride is more of a motivator than money. If the corporate culture says "good enough" is OK, then that corporation will ship out merely adequate, or even less than adequate, products. If the corporate culture says "good enough" isn't, then the products shipped will tend to be of pretty high quality.
>>"Whether Qt is a "system library" or not is >> pretty questionable, and in any case it would >> be distributed on the same CD as KDE"
"Wait! This is either a double standard or an artful dodge...
"Stop mixing and matching clauses to fit your theory. Way before the "exception" clause, there is section 2, which specifically disassociated the GPL from software distributed aggregate to the Program."
The clause you are referring to just means that just because some other software is distributed on the same CD, tape, hard drive, etc. as some GPL'd software doesn't make that other software GPL'd.
What I was referring to was the so-called "system library" exception, which only counts if the "system library" is not distributed with the GPL'd software itself. So if both Qt and KDE are on the same CD, then the system library exception doesn't kick in.
Be careful here. First you say "Linking to Qt is no violation of the GPL!" and you quote RMS's post. Look carefully at the post though.
--------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: proposal of a paragraph of GPL v.3 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:43:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Richard Stallman
Debian seems to state that it might be a violation of plain, unmodifi= ed GPL to link against Qt.
*That is true.*[emphasis mine]
It looks to me that RMS is conceding that technically that linking GPL'd apps to Qt *is* a violation of the GPL, but argues that since the obvious intent of KDE is to have KDE linked to Qt, that constitutes an implicit exception to the GPL, and so distributing KDE is not illegal.
I suspect that intention can get hinky, though. While it may be good enough for individuals, organizations might not be too trusting of something not in writing. Also, the issue of pieces of GPL'd code being incorporated into a KDE app really makes things sticky, since the author of the piece of that GPL'd code may not have given permission, implicit or otherwise, to have that code become part of an app linked to Qt.
Also, linking a GPL'd program to the LGPL'd glibc is not illegal, period, because the LGPL does not have restrictions that the GPL does not have. It is also not illegal to link a GPL'd program to, say, Solaris's proprietary libc, because it is a system library and not distributed with the GPL'd program.
"OK, so Cygwin (mostly GPLed software ported to Win32) is illegal."
Incorrect. Cygwin would be built on top of MFC, which are certainly system libraries and are not distributed with Cygwin but with Windows itself. This is the "system library" exception to the GPL, and it is what allows GPL'd libraries to be ported to proprietary OSs.
Whether Qt is a "system library" or not is pretty questionable, and in any case it would be distributed on the same CD as KDE so the system library exception wouldn't likely apply anyway.
"Anyhow, stop reading this right now and go check out EFM from CVS."
Dang, I've tried to, multiple times. I can't even log in. The CVS server is apparently swamped. I wish Raster or somebody would put up daily snaps or something. Oh, well. Maybe later.
Judging from the screenshots and the buzz, EFM's functionality does seem to take the "less is more" approach, though, and I'm looking forward to when I *can* actually access it.
"I read up about the various offerings; the one I selected was Debian, because of its non-commercial ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and adamantly Free nature."
Careful here. Do you mean "non-commercial" or "non-proprietary"? "Commercial" software is software that is bought or sold. "Proprietary" software is software that has restrictions on its use and/or distribution.
Free software *can* be bought and sold, which means that even free software can be "commercial" software. In fact, in the Debian Free Software Guidelines, it says that "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from *selling* or giving away the software . . . "[emphasis mine] The difference, of course, between buying free software and proprietary software is that you can pass free software around and share it, or modify it if you have the skill to do so. You can't legally do that with a copy of proprietary software, except under conditions such as NDA, restriction to non-commercial or private use, etc.
This is why free software is said to be free as in speech, not necessarily as in beer.
"What exactly are KDE and Gnome? Are they a combination of the GUI toolkit and a collection of programs like the toolbar and Gnumeric and such?"
Pretty close. KDE and GNOME are desktop environments, which basically are a toolbar + a file manager + session management + some utilities. They also come with frameworks for writing applications, which is a GUI toolkit plus other provisions like component models and such. I would classify Gnumeric as an app written with the GNOME application framework rather than as a part of the desktop environment proper. One does not need to be running the desktop environment to use an app written for either the GNOME or KDE application framework. It is sufficient to just have the application framework installed, which for GNOME is gnome-libs, and for KDE is kdelibs and kdesupport.
"Where do they stand in relation to X itself and a window manager?"
Window managers provide the functionality needed to move, resize, close, iconify etc. windows, and they typically do this by decorating windows with titlebars. Window managers and desktop environments run on top of X. KDE includes its own official window manager. GNOME is intended to be runnable with any window manager, although a window manager that is GNOME-compliant is necessary to use features like the GNOME pager or tasklist. GNOME 1.2 comes bundled with the window manager Sawfish, which is the "unofficially official":) window manager of GNOME.
KDE is far more of a package deal than GNOME. The different pieces of the KDE desktop are far more interdependent than the pieces of the GNOME desktop. For example, I can run the GNOME panel without gmc, the GNOME file manager, but I can't run kpanel without kfm, the KDE file manager. I can't really run kwm, the KDE window manager, by itself either. I need kpanel to 1) provide a dialog for changing the number of virtual desktops and 2) to provide a taskbar or a window list, so that iconified apps can be deiconified. However, I can definitely run a GNOME-compliant window manager all by itself, even Sawfish. This difference between KDE and GNOME is not particularly positive or negative if one is using all the parts of the desktop; it's just a difference.
GNOME is more malleable than KDE in terms of look and feel. I can have a GNOME panel that acts sort of like a Window Maker dock. I can have more than one panel. I can configure what parts of the right-click panel menus are submenus or main menus or are absent at all. GNOME is sort of window manager independent as well, although Sawfish realistically speaking is the unofficial window manager of GNOME. KDE isn't quite as flexible. I can only have one kpanel, and kpanel is always stretched out along an edge of the screen; I can't make it like a Window Maker-style dock. kpanel in KDE 1.x always has the K-menu, CDE-style pager, screen-lock and logout button; they cannot be removed. The KDE 2 panel, called kicker, is a bit more malleable. The tasklist and pager are applets as they are for GNOME, although as with kpanel, kicker is always stretched out along an edge of the screen, and I can't make it like a Window Maker-style dock. For most practical purposes, KDE is not window manager independent. KDE can be used with window managers other than kwm, but the results are kind of funky. The window manager and kpanel may not agree on how many virtual desktops there are, and maximized windows may maximize as if kpanel weren't there. The window manager independance is mostly a nonissue, since one can easily use the window manager bundled with the desktop, whether it's Sawfish for GNOME or KDE's kwm. Malleability of the desktop is more a bonus than a necessity. KDE with the default setup just plain isn't that difficult to work with.
I would say kfm is slightly easier to use than gmc. If I drag an icon in kfm, when I drop it, I *always* get the "Copy, Move, or Link" popup menu. This means that to do most file shuffling in kfm, I only have to remember one thing--dragging and dropping, and the popup menu does the rest. In gmc, to get the "Copy, Move, Link" menu, I have to hold down the middle-mouse button while dragging. Dragging and dropping with the left-mouse button always moves files and icons. This is a bit more complicated. I can associate an arbitrary number of apps with a single mimetype (file type) in kfm, default app for the mimetype that gets launched when I click on the icon, as well as apps that appear in a right-click popup menu. In gmc, I can only associate a max of three apps to a mimetype. Adding a new mimetype and associating apps with it is easier in gmc than in kfm, though. In gmc, there is a nice, neat dialog for handling such things, while in kfm, I have to create a.kdelnk file for the mimetype, go to the.kdelnk files for the apps and associate the mimetype with the app for each.kdelnk, and then go back to the mimetype.kdelnk file to choose the default app to go with the mimetype.
Keybindings are easy to configure in KDE, while the ease with which keybindings for GNOME can be made depends on the GUI config tool for the window manager used with GNOME.
Stability used to be a major problem for GNOME, but from October GNOME onward, it's been pretty reliable.
Which one is better? If customizability is really important to you, then GNOME is definitely the better choice overall. If you just want a workhorse that is simple to configure and by and large is trouble-free, KDE is the better choice, IMHO.
"Without low-level compatibility like that, it becomes impossible for apps from one side, to run in the other's enviroment"
Actually, the WM-SPEC is for window managers, not apps in general. The point of WM-SPEC is to kill two birds with one stone; instead of a separate set of window manager hints for KDE and a separate set for GNOME, one set of window manager hints--the WM-SPEC--covers *both* KDE- and GNOME-compliance.
Most apps, though, don't care what the window manager hints are, so the WM-SPEC won't affect them one way or the other.
"While they are messing aound[sic] with retarded RPM format, . .."
What, pray tell, is so retarded about RPMs? They make uninstalling easy, and they help keep track of what depends on what and even if parts of one package will clobber another package. I've found RPMs to be quite useful, thankyouverymuch.
>>You fell for his redefinition of terms techniques.
> Not really. First, he includes "source code > available" in his definition; this is a core and > important point which differentiates his > definition from "free beer".
Actually, what you fell for was that at the beginning of the article he defines "free" in the "free speech" sense that RMS uses, only to revert to the "free beer" sense in the rest of the article.
"Yes, the GPL supposedly permits you to sell software, but it doesn't really."
There are two different issues that I think you've confused. One, whether the GPL permits selling free software. Two, whether selling GPL'd software is practical. RMS has stated before quite clearly that he is not opposed to selling copies of software. The FSF once sold tapes of Emacs. You can call RMS to task for thinking that selling free software can be a practical enterprise, but calling him to task for being against selling software altogether is a misrepresentation.
I'd take a read through Galatians. In it, one finds that the "Law", the Old Covenant, is no more. There is no official Sabbath anymore, although having a day of rest is still desirable.
You mean throwing out the old crufty architecture and rewriting from scratch isn't "something new and different?" Think about it. A beta of a product that's an incremental change from the older version of the product is going to tend to be less buggy than a "beta" of a total rewrite. The fewer changes that are made, the fewer *new* things that can go wrong.
AFAIK, I don't think that Mozilla's even gotten to beta yet, at least not as far as Mozilla's developers are concerned.
"George Lucas being a class-A prude, there is NO sex in the Star Wars universe -- straight, gay, or even imaginary"
AFAIK, the reason there's "NO sex" in the Star Wars universe is that Lucas was trying to emulate the style of old movie serials, albeit with *much* better special effects.
"If the authors have the right to pull the GPL, then wouldn't they have right to make previously free code closed source?"
Not quite. Whatever *new* copies the author of the code puts out could be put under a proprietary license by the author, but the copies of code that have already been GPL'd are still GPL'd.
I noticed that StarMath in 5.1 was fairly anemic. There wasn't a way to align equations without resorting to crocks. There also was a lack of bold Greek symbols, which are pretty much necessary for displaying vectors denoted by Greek letters, i.e. angular velocity, torque. (Actually, the only word processor-like thing that got bold Greek letters right was LyX--for obvious reasons.) Have those problems been fixed?
Slashdot Mirror
GNOME was using the 1.1.x versions of GTK+ at the time, I think, because GTK+ 1.0 wasn't complete enough for their needs. Not sure of the details though.
RSI stands for "Repetitive Stress Injury." Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common example of RSI, and the one the above poster was probably thinking about.
"I think a lot of effort is being misdirected into making flashy looking UIs. A UI should certainly look nice, but what do 3-d, "skinnable" apps, giant icons and superfluous animation add to the usability of computer technology?"
I think this sort of stuff falls under the category of "fun." Why do people add stripes to the sides of their cars? Why do people put posters on their walls? Skins on apps and WMs aren't much different. Some people like to make the things they work with a little prettier, a little crazier, a little bit different. I'd say it's part of being human.
FWIW, there's the IReX theme for Enlightenment.
It doesn't seem like it's a big secret that XFree86 4.0 was bleeding-edge. I knew it from reading the release notes. Why complain about the rawness of the release when the XFree guys stated quite plainly that it was tender code?
. . . it's easier for everyone if Troll Tech does the changes. If Troll Tech changes the QPL, then the change propagates to every user of the QPL'd Qt, not just KDE. This also means that hundreds of contributors to KDE don't have to be contacted to get KDE licensed under a GPL+Qt exception.
Troll Tech's business model is basically that Qt is free for free software ("free" in the "free speech" sense), but if you want to make proprietary software with it, you pay Troll Tech. If you are serious about making proprietary software, and you don't have the money to pay Troll Tech, then I suggest that you use another toolkit that is free even for proprietary use, such as a toolkit under either the LGPL or a BSD-ish license.
"I mean... honestly... I think that we're going to find that *quality* is motivated by money."
Except that turns out not to be the case. Take the much overused example of Microsoft (Please.) Microsoft has a lot of money, yet their software is just adequate. Not great, not well-thought out, but adequate, "good enough." Take something like Linux. Linux has shown itself to be quite robust, and while the creators and distributors aren't paupers, they aren't rolling in money either. There is obviously not a nice, neat correlation between money and quality.
Money at times may be linked to quality if it is necessary to spend the money to get the materials, equipment, etc. to get the job done right. For example, if you are going to create an OS that can scale from 1 to 64 CPUs, somebody is going to have to spend the money to get a machine with 64 CPUs.
From what I've observed from the sidelines, though, is that pride is more of a motivator than money. If the corporate culture says "good enough" is OK, then that corporation will ship out merely adequate, or even less than adequate, products. If the corporate culture says "good enough" isn't, then the products shipped will tend to be of pretty high quality.
>>"Whether Qt is a "system library" or not is
>> pretty questionable, and in any case it would
>> be distributed on the same CD as KDE"
"Wait! This is either a double standard or an
artful dodge...
"Stop mixing and matching clauses to fit your theory. Way before the "exception" clause, there is section 2, which specifically disassociated the GPL from software distributed aggregate to the Program."
The clause you are referring to just means that just because some other software is distributed on the same CD, tape, hard drive, etc. as some GPL'd software doesn't make that other software GPL'd.
What I was referring to was the so-called "system library" exception, which only counts if the "system library" is not distributed with the GPL'd software itself. So if both Qt and KDE are on the same CD, then the system library exception doesn't kick in.
Be careful here. First you say "Linking to Qt is no violation of the GPL!" and you quote RMS's post. Look carefully at the post though.
--------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: proposal of a paragraph of GPL v.3
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:43:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: Richard Stallman
Debian seems to state that it might be a violation of plain, unmodifi=
ed
GPL to link against Qt.
*That is true.*[emphasis mine]
It looks to me that RMS is conceding that technically that linking GPL'd apps to Qt *is* a violation of the GPL, but argues that since the obvious intent of KDE is to have KDE linked to Qt, that constitutes an implicit exception to the GPL, and so distributing KDE is not illegal.
I suspect that intention can get hinky, though. While it may be good enough for individuals, organizations might not be too trusting of something not in writing. Also, the issue of pieces of GPL'd code being incorporated into a KDE app really makes things sticky, since the author of the piece of that GPL'd code may not have given permission, implicit or otherwise, to have that code become part of an app linked to Qt.
Also, linking a GPL'd program to the LGPL'd glibc is not illegal, period, because the LGPL does not have restrictions that the GPL does not have. It is also not illegal to link a GPL'd program to, say, Solaris's proprietary libc, because it is a system library and not distributed with the GPL'd program.
I think he's talking about something like kghostview, which would be based on gv, which is GPL'd but not specifically meant for KDE.
"and it is what allows GPL'd libraries to be
^^^^^^^^^
ported to proprietary OSs."
I mean "programs," not "libraries." Should've previewed before posting.
"OK, so Cygwin (mostly GPLed software ported to Win32) is illegal."
Incorrect. Cygwin would be built on top of MFC, which are certainly system libraries and are not distributed with Cygwin but with Windows itself. This is the "system library" exception to the GPL, and it is what allows GPL'd libraries to be ported to proprietary OSs.
Whether Qt is a "system library" or not is pretty questionable, and in any case it would be distributed on the same CD as KDE so the system library exception wouldn't likely apply anyway.
"Anyhow, stop reading this right now and go check out EFM from CVS."
Dang, I've tried to, multiple times. I can't even log in. The CVS server is apparently swamped. I wish Raster or somebody would put up daily snaps or something. Oh, well. Maybe later.
Judging from the screenshots and the buzz, EFM's functionality does seem to take the "less is more" approach, though, and I'm looking forward to when I *can* actually access it.
"I read up about the various offerings; the one I selected was Debian, because of its
non-commercial
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and adamantly Free nature."
Careful here. Do you mean "non-commercial" or "non-proprietary"? "Commercial" software is software that is bought or sold. "Proprietary" software is software that has restrictions on its use and/or distribution.
Free software *can* be bought and sold, which means that even free software can be "commercial" software. In fact, in the Debian Free Software Guidelines, it says that "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from *selling* or giving away the software . . . "[emphasis mine] The difference, of course, between buying free software and proprietary software is that you can pass free software around and share it, or modify it if you have the skill to do so. You can't legally do that with a copy of proprietary software, except under conditions such as NDA, restriction to non-commercial or private use, etc.
This is why free software is said to be free as in speech, not necessarily as in beer.
"What exactly are KDE and Gnome? Are they a combination of the GUI toolkit and a collection of programs like the toolbar and Gnumeric and such?"
:) window manager of GNOME.
.kdelnk file for the mimetype, go to the .kdelnk files for the apps and associate the mimetype with the app for each .kdelnk, and then go back to the mimetype .kdelnk file to choose the default app to go with the mimetype.
Pretty close. KDE and GNOME are desktop environments, which basically are a toolbar + a file manager + session management + some utilities. They also come with frameworks for writing applications, which is a GUI toolkit plus other provisions like component models and such. I would classify Gnumeric as an app written with the GNOME application framework rather than as a part of the desktop environment proper. One does not need to be running the desktop environment to use an app written for either the GNOME or KDE application framework. It is sufficient to just have the application framework installed, which for GNOME is gnome-libs, and for KDE is kdelibs and kdesupport.
"Where do they stand in relation to X itself and a window manager?"
Window managers provide the functionality needed to move, resize, close, iconify etc. windows, and they typically do this by decorating windows with titlebars. Window managers and desktop environments run on top of X. KDE includes its own official window manager. GNOME is intended to be runnable with any window manager, although a window manager that is GNOME-compliant is necessary to use features like the GNOME pager or tasklist. GNOME 1.2 comes bundled with the window manager Sawfish, which is the "unofficially official"
KDE is far more of a package deal than GNOME. The different pieces of the KDE desktop are far more interdependent than the pieces of the GNOME desktop. For example, I can run the GNOME panel without gmc, the GNOME file manager, but I can't run kpanel without kfm, the KDE file manager. I can't really run kwm, the KDE window manager, by itself either. I need kpanel to 1) provide a dialog for changing the number of virtual desktops and 2) to provide a taskbar or a window list, so that iconified apps can be deiconified. However, I can definitely run a GNOME-compliant window manager all by itself, even Sawfish. This difference between KDE and GNOME is not particularly positive or negative if one is using all the parts of the desktop; it's just a difference.
GNOME is more malleable than KDE in terms of look and feel. I can have a GNOME panel that acts sort of like a Window Maker dock. I can have more than one panel. I can configure what parts of the right-click panel menus are submenus or main menus or are absent at all. GNOME is sort of window manager independent as well, although Sawfish realistically speaking is the unofficial window manager of GNOME. KDE isn't quite as flexible. I can only have one kpanel, and kpanel is always stretched out along an edge of the screen; I can't make it like a Window Maker-style dock. kpanel in KDE 1.x always has the K-menu, CDE-style pager, screen-lock and logout button; they cannot be removed. The KDE 2 panel, called kicker, is a bit more malleable. The tasklist and pager are applets as they are for GNOME, although as with kpanel, kicker is always stretched out along an edge of the screen, and I can't make it like a Window Maker-style dock. For most practical purposes, KDE is not window manager independent. KDE can be used with window managers other than kwm, but the results are kind of funky. The window manager and kpanel may not agree on how many virtual desktops there are, and maximized windows may maximize as if kpanel weren't there. The window manager independance is mostly a nonissue, since one can easily use the window manager bundled with the desktop, whether it's Sawfish for GNOME or KDE's kwm. Malleability of the desktop is more a bonus than a necessity. KDE with the default setup just plain isn't that difficult to work with.
I would say kfm is slightly easier to use than gmc. If I drag an icon in kfm, when I drop it, I *always* get the "Copy, Move, or Link" popup menu. This means that to do most file shuffling in kfm, I only have to remember one thing--dragging and dropping, and the popup menu does the rest. In gmc, to get the "Copy, Move, Link" menu, I have to hold down the middle-mouse button while dragging. Dragging and dropping with the left-mouse button always moves files and icons. This is a bit more complicated. I can associate an arbitrary number of apps with a single mimetype (file type) in kfm, default app for the mimetype that gets launched when I click on the icon, as well as apps that appear in a right-click popup menu. In gmc, I can only associate a max of three apps to a mimetype. Adding a new mimetype and associating apps with it is easier in gmc than in kfm, though. In gmc, there is a nice, neat dialog for handling such things, while in kfm, I have to create a
Keybindings are easy to configure in KDE, while the ease with which keybindings for GNOME can be made depends on the GUI config tool for the window manager used with GNOME.
Stability used to be a major problem for GNOME, but from October GNOME onward, it's been pretty reliable.
Which one is better? If customizability is really important to you, then GNOME is definitely the better choice overall. If you just want a workhorse that is simple to configure and by and large is trouble-free, KDE is the better choice, IMHO.
"Without low-level compatibility like that, it becomes impossible for apps from one side, to run in the other's enviroment"
Actually, the WM-SPEC is for window managers, not apps in general. The point of WM-SPEC is to kill two birds with one stone; instead of a separate set of window manager hints for KDE and a separate set for GNOME, one set of window manager hints--the WM-SPEC--covers *both* KDE- and GNOME-compliance.
Most apps, though, don't care what the window manager hints are, so the WM-SPEC won't affect them one way or the other.
"While they are messing aound[sic] with retarded RPM format, . . ."
What, pray tell, is so retarded about RPMs? They make uninstalling easy, and they help keep track of what depends on what and even if parts of one package will clobber another package. I've found RPMs to be quite useful, thankyouverymuch.
>>You fell for his redefinition of terms techniques.
> Not really. First, he includes "source code
> available" in his definition; this is a core and
> important point which differentiates his
> definition from "free beer".
Actually, what you fell for was that at the beginning of the article he defines "free" in the "free speech" sense that RMS uses, only to revert to the "free beer" sense in the rest of the article.
"Yes, the GPL supposedly permits you to sell software, but it doesn't really."
There are two different issues that I think you've confused. One, whether the GPL permits selling free software. Two, whether selling GPL'd software is practical. RMS has stated before quite clearly that he is not opposed to selling copies of software. The FSF once sold tapes of Emacs. You can call RMS to task for thinking that selling free software can be a practical enterprise, but calling him to task for being against selling software altogether is a misrepresentation.
I'd take a read through Galatians. In it, one finds that the "Law", the Old Covenant, is no more. There is no official Sabbath anymore, although having a day of rest is still desirable.
> It would be nice to see IBM open-source-ify OS/2...
I don't think they can. The code for OS/2 isn't all theirs, AFAIK. I believe a fair amount of it belongs to Microsoft.
You mean throwing out the old crufty architecture and rewriting from scratch isn't "something new and different?" Think about it. A beta of a product that's an incremental change from the older version of the product is going to tend to be less buggy than a "beta" of a total rewrite. The fewer changes that are made, the fewer *new* things that can go wrong.
AFAIK, I don't think that Mozilla's even gotten to beta yet, at least not as far as Mozilla's developers are concerned.
"George Lucas being a class-A prude, there is NO sex in the Star Wars universe -- straight, gay, or even imaginary"
AFAIK, the reason there's "NO sex" in the Star Wars universe is that Lucas was trying to emulate the style of old movie serials, albeit with *much* better special effects.
"If the authors have the right to pull the GPL, then wouldn't they have right to make previously free code closed source?"
Not quite. Whatever *new* copies the author of the code puts out could be put under a proprietary license by the author, but the copies of code that have already been GPL'd are still GPL'd.
I noticed that StarMath in 5.1 was fairly anemic. There wasn't a way to align equations without resorting to crocks. There also was a lack of bold Greek symbols, which are pretty much necessary for displaying vectors denoted by Greek letters, i.e. angular velocity, torque. (Actually, the only word processor-like thing that got bold Greek letters right was LyX--for obvious reasons.) Have those problems been fixed?