In the free software community, the idea that non-free programs mistreat their users is familiar. Some of us refuse entirely to install proprietary software, and many others consider non-freedom a strike against the program. Many users are aware that this issue applies to the plug-ins that browsers offer to install, since they can be free or non-free.
Why the fuck does he keep pretending like the GNU philopsophy has a large following? "Some of us" "many others" "Many users". Ever wonder why everything about the GNU project is attributed to you RMS? Because that's the entire truth. You are the only fucking contributor.
If this faggot had his way, there would be no innovation in anything except through ``standards committees'' like W3C that spend years holding their cocks and then releasing bloated shit like XML Schema.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-22 23:06
He has a point.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-22 23:20
He has no cock.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-22 23:27
>>3
BSD-style licenses are not an evolutionarily stable strategy. In the long run, GPL is the freest option.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-22 23:36
>>7
GNU-style licenses do not make my company money. In the long run, a closed-source commercial package is the freest option.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-22 23:36
>>7
How so? I don't see any of the BSD operating systems becoming proprietary anytime soon.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-22 23:42
>>7
this license is freer than the GPL: Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that you grant this
same permission to anyone you distribute it to without any additional
restrictions.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-22 23:45
>>10
Well, we'll just redefine free until that's no longer true. It's the GNU/Linux way!
>>7
any license that takes more than 1 minute to read is not a free software license.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-22 23:50
>>10
This license is freer: Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted
to anyone.
>>2
Did you know that the FSF associate membership numbers are growing at a steady rate every year? I would postulate that this growth rate also applies to the number of people who agree with RMS (about his philosophy to software freedom) and are not associate members. The numbers may be an insignificant percentage compared to the people that don't agree with him (>99%:1%), but I would contend that the number is high enough to make the qualifier of "many" to be accurate.
>>8
You are a failure at business, sales and marketing if you cannot make money with free software. My small computer software company (2 y.o.) caters to small-mid size businesses in Australia. My business gets us (the employees) enough revenue and profit to do well enough through this recession. In all of my business affairs, I have never once subjected anybody out of their right to tinker and share the software I convey to them.
>>11
When we refer to freedom in software, we are talking about the right to sovereignty and the right to live as an upstanding citizen. When we accept accept proprietary software, we lose our right to either one of these freedoms and so, proprietary software isn't acceptable for us that value freedom. Liberally licensed free software is acceptable as is but it also has the danger of being forked and transformed into proprietary software.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 0:47
Javascript specification is open and free for anyone to implement
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 0:50
>>16
He is referring to the upstream BSD systems and not the downstream BSD systems. The upstream BSD systems will always remain free.
When we accept accept proprietary software, we lose our right to either one of these freedoms and so, proprietary software isn't acceptable for us that value freedom. Liberally licensed free software is acceptable as is but it also has the danger of being forked and transformed into proprietary software.
"proprietary software is bad! free software is good, but allows proprietary forks! let's make our own proprietary license, call it free, and spam it all over the internet until everyone accepts our twisted definition of free!"
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 0:53
>>18
It's not the specification that's the problem, there are free JS implementations around. The point is about educating people about software that seems to have freedom but are actually proprietary software. Many programs written in Javascript are proprietary software by virtue of not granting the recipient of the software their free software rights.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 0:54
>>20
Please learn to comprehend. When we refer to freedom in software, we are talking about the right to sovereignty and the right to live as an upstanding citizen.
>>22
well then respect other people's sovereignty and right to live as upstanding citizens instead of spamming them until they acquiesce to your dishonest redefinition of common words.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 1:05
>>23
My company does more than just consultation. The services we have successfully provided include: software consultation, guarantees and warantees to free software, software modification, and systems analysis and design.
My big ticket services are the software guarantees and warantees: my customers pay me big money to guarantee that my software works as intended.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 1:13
>>24
The point is that in order for a citizen to have freedom:
1. The citizen must have their right to sovereignty
2. The citizen must have their right to live as an upstanding citizen
When upstanding citizens choose to accept proprietary software:
1. The citizen relinquishes their right to sovereignty to the master of the proprietary software
2. The citizen relinquishes their right to live as an upstanding citizen to the master of the proprietary software.
We define free software in such a way as to allow users their freedom. We define proprietary software in such a ways as to let users know that they don't have freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 1:33
>>26
when you redefine words like that you take away people's sovereignty without their consent, which is even worse. stop doing that.
>>27
Please teach me so I would understand your point. We define that citizens have freedom when they have all the following rights.
Freedom 0: The right to run software as the user wishes
Freedom 1: The right to tinker with software as the user wishes
Freedom 2: The right to be a good citizen (share unmodified copies of software)
Freedom 3: The right to contribute to the community (share modified copies of software)
Please teach me how this definition takes away a person's sovereignty.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 1:48
>>28
So I'm high right now. Forgive me for messing that up.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 1:49
>>24 Richard M. Stallman doesn't make "dishonest redefinition of common words" as you claim, attacking him personally rather than focusing on his message (a typical behavior of proprietary software shills claiming to be "BSD fans"). He only chooses to avoid confusing words and phrases, but it's only an exercise in clarity meant to better his literary style; and to make the truth more self-obvious for the, shall we say, less ``bright'' among yourselves. Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for details.
>>31
So you think making people stupid is a good thing?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 1:59
>>32
What does that mean? According to this definition, a user is free when they have ALL four liberties. There isn't anything in this definiton that doesn't allow people to share modified copies of software under free licenses.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 1:59
>>33
People are inherently stupid. How could proprietary software be so prevalent otherwise?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 1:59
>>33
Please explain yourself so that we understand what you mean.
>>35
So making them more stupid and shoving ``free" proprietary software down their throats is going to make things better?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:04
>>35
While people are inherently stupid, stupidity doesn't explain why proprietary software is prevalent. Proprietary software is prevalent because people are ignorant of it or people are amoral about the issues of freedom. Think of Linus Torvalds, this person isn't stupid and yet, he doesn't care for politics. Come to think of, it is pretty stupid to disregard and ignore the current political situation.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:05
>>34
that definition doesn't guarantee them the right to share modified copies under free licenses. that's the thing that makes the GPL a proprietary license and not a real free license.
see >>10 for an example of a real free copyleft license.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:08
Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management”, “Digital Restrictions Malware”, and “digital handcuffs”.
How is that not a dishonest redefinition?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:15
>>40 that definition doesn't guarantee them the right to share modified copies under free licenses.
Now you're just restating the exact same thing in >>32. What does this mean.
that's the thing that makes the GPL a proprietary license and not a real free license.
I would accept this if I agreed with the previous premise. I don't understand the previous premise and until I understand, I cannot accept this to be correct.
see >>10 for an example of a real free copyleft license.
Under the RMS definition, >>10's terms are acceptable as giving users their freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:19
>>41
The logic here is:
1. Someone thinks up a label. Ex: Digital Rights Management
2. Someone else thinks up another label that happens to share some characteristics. Ex: Acronym, Digital Restriction Malware
3. This new term is a reference to the original term
4. Forget about the fact that the new term is also accurate from 2's point of view
5. Dishonesty!!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:19
Now you're just restating the exact same thing in >>32. What does this mean.
it means that users can't share modified versions of GPL'd software under the license in >>10.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:31
>>44
I think I have an idea of what you're getting at but I still don't understand. Are you saying this.
1. Foo publishes the GPL software Bar
2. Baz modifies Bar
3. Baz shares Bar with Qux
4. Baz is now obligated to share the source code and a certain set of rights together with Bar.
5. Baz cannot share Bar under >>10's license
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:34
5. Dishonesty!!
Your hypocrisy is staggering. Are you a troll?
Did you know that Sony would bundle rootkits on non-free music audio CDs? A rootkit is a cracker tool (please do not confuse ``cracker'' with ``hacker'', the latter having no negative connotations, as it only means ``someone who enjoys playful cleverness—not necessarily with computers'',) in other words -- malware. Would you call pointing a weapon at someone to gain compliance ``managing'' them? I would call that enslaving them. And what this malware was for? Definitely not to give you the freedom to exercise any rights -- in fact, it was meant to restrict them.
So the issue is very clear. ``DRM'' has always meant Digital Restrictions Malware. Only the vendors of digital restrictions (and those astroturfing for them, I guess) claim that this acronym means something else. They are the ones who are guilty of making a dishonest redefinition: those digital slavers have the gall to claim that they manage your rights while they take them away!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:37
>>46
I don't want to be hypocritical, I just don't understand the logic.
You can't share the software without including 34 FUCKING KILOBYTES of restrictions.
You can't share the code in binary form without also sharing the source code.
You can't combine the code with code written under any free license and distribute the result under a free license.
For a "free" license, the GPL sure does take away a lot of freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:49
34 FUCKING KILOBYTES
It would take 205603 hits on s3 to cost you ONE US DOLLAR of bandwidth. Grow up a little. "Free" is not about price.
>>51
34 KB is quite a bit when you're trying to fit a whole operating system into 1MB of flash ROM.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:58
>>52
Are you saying that you can't even spare 3.3% of your space for something as fundamental as freedom? I can only pity you.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:00
You can't share the software without including 34 FUCKING KILOBYTES of restrictions.
Are you living in the 1970's? Here in 2009, we can afford to attach 34 kilobytes of text together with programs that weigh more than 1 megabyte.
You can't share the code in binary form without also sharing the source code.
Yes. This is a requirement so the recipient of the software will also have their right to tinker (freedom 1). With relation to software, this means the user must have the right to access the program's source code. Freedom 1 is related to the right to sovereignty; without it, a citizen cannot remain sovereign.
You can't combine the code with code written under any free license and distribute the result under a free license.
So people are forbidden to combine GPL software with free software? According the RMS's definition of free software, the GPL is free software.
For a "free" license, the GPL sure does take away a lot of freedom.
What does this mean? Explicitly state which liberties are taken away.
Yes. This is a requirement so the recipient of the software will also have their right to tinker (freedom 1). With relation to software, this means the user must have the right to access the program's source code. Freedom 1 is related to the right to sovereignty; without it, a citizen cannot remain sovereign. >>10's license manages to let people keep that right without making this restriction.
What does this mean? Explicitly state which liberties are taken away.
Freedoms 2 and 3 are severely restricted, but not taken away entirely. Just like with many other proprietary licenses.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:22
look at how big your kernel is. 34KB is a lot more than 3.3% of the space left after you put a very stripped down kernel onto that flash ROM.
So embedding a copy of the GPL text into a limited space ROM chip is the only way to fulfill that part of the GPL. Let's just stop everything guys, it's obvious this problem cannot be fixed.
>>10's license manages to let people keep that right without making this restriction.
Yes it does.
Freedoms 2 and 3 are severely restricted, but not taken away entirely. Just like with many other proprietary licenses.
So they're restricted. Now what? Users of GPL software still have their right to freedom 2; users of GPL software can still live as upstanding citizens as they are allowed to share unmodified software as they wish. Users of GPL software still have their right to freedom 3; users of GPL software can still contribute to their community as they wish. So what's the problem?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:26
>>58
With a proprietary license you wouldn't even be able to have any of those freedoms. I do find the GPL to be a little restrictive in some aspects, and I'd probably advocate a license more like >>10 but I'd rather use a program under the GNU GPL than under a proprietary license.
So embedding a copy of the GPL text into a limited space ROM chip is the only way to fulfill that part of the GPL. Let's just stop everything guys, it's obvious this problem cannot be fixed.
well, it's better than charging people $0.10 more for a piece of paper with the license on it, or even more than that for another ROM chip or a bigger one.
Users of GPL software still have their right to freedom 3; users of GPL software can still contribute to their community as they wish. So what's the problem?
the problem is that they can't contribute to their community as they wish.
>>60
GNU GPL is a proprietary license, just like CDDL, MPL, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:29
>>62
You keep saying it's proprietary, but I don't think you know what that word really means.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:31
Actually, you might be running non-free programs. You shouldn't run them.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:41
>>61
So you'd rather cut costs by avoiding GPL code* (which is often available at low cost) over hiring development time to reimplement the GPL program or licensing a similar proprietary program. GREAT LOGIC THERE!!!
*Assuming the only free version is available under the GPL
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:46
the problem is that they can't contribute to their community as they wish.
Sorry, my intent was this: users of GPL software are still allowed to contribute to their community when they wish. To distribute proprietary software isn't contributing to a community.
*Assuming the only free version is available under the GPL
fortunately this isn't the case.
To distribute proprietary software isn't contributing to a community.
software isn't proprietary just because it comes without source code. people modify software all the time without source code, and there are licenses, like >>10, which explicitly allow this.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 4:04
*Assuming the only free version is available under the GPL
This is a contradiction. To be free, they must be available under the GPL.
software isn't proprietary just because it comes without source code. people modify software all the time without source code
It takes an unnessary amount of effort to make meaningful changes to binary code. Users need source code in order to practise freedom 1 in a meaningful way.
Proprietary software is non-free by virtue of not granting enough rights to practise all four essential freedoms.
>>69
Think of two independantly developed and functinally comparative programs. One of these programs are free software licensed under the GPL and the other one under a non-GPL free licence.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 4:48
GPL is fucking retarded, look at the users of free software, unless you plan to contribute (tinker with the code) you won't even want the goddamn source code, not to mention contributing simply means working for free for a business who would make money off your contributions anyway. Most end users don't give a shit about the freedoms Stallman trump so much, they just want software thats free as in free beer, fuck freedom.
ITT dipshits who don't actually know what the GPL says and don't understand evolutionarily stable strategies.
Anti-free-software faggotry is getting old, guys.
IHBT
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 4:57
>>71
Wrong. Users only need the authority to tinker with code. If the user has authority, the user can find a friend or hire a skilled person to tinker with the code.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:02
>>72
And better yet, it doesn't even have to be licensed under the GPL to be free software. Using the MIT or BSD license is just as good. They're compatible with the GNU GPL anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:05
Jesus Fucking Christ. RMS should be shot.
Hey, somebody tell him TTF/OTF fonts have embedded hinting programs. YOUR FONT RENDERING LIBRARY MIGHT BE RUNNING NON-FREE PROGRAMS! Oh God. Some video players can play embedded fonts, and most browsers are quickly gaining support for it. Not to mention PDF documents!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:07
Your computer DSPs and microcontrollers might be running non-free programs!
Your watch might be running non-free programs!
Your home appliances might be running non-free programs!
The traffic lights you abide by might be running non-free programs! Heck, your CAR might be running non-free programs!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:07
It takes an unnessary amount of effort to make meaningful changes to binary code. Users need source code in order to practise freedom 1 in a meaningful way.
tell that to the people who use www.menuetos.org
Google Docs downloads into your machine a Javascript program which measures half a megabyte, in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long.
It's not so much obfuscation as it is efficiency. Some OSS retarded fanatics could learn a thing or two about that. The HTML that Google servers isn't exactly full of whitespace either.
But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original. Current free browsers do not offer a facility to run your own modified version instead of the one delivered in the page.
This guy hasn't got half a clue (thankfully he admits this is an outright lie later on).
A free replacement for Silverlight would hardly be of use in the free world without free replacement codecs.
What does this lunatic want? OSS implementations of the codecs? These exist already. Patent-free kool-aid? Good luck with that, and not just with the codecs!
Our proposal is to consider a Javascript program nontrivial if it defines methods and either loads an external script or is loaded as one, or if it makes an AJAX request.
"Expand images inline" considered harmful and highly nontrivial. Factorizing 4096-bit RSA keys considered trivial.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:21
>>77
Menuetos code is designed in such a way to be readable to any student of the craft and it also includes commentary. Source code that has been translated into binary code do not have the same luxuries. Also, >>70 is intended to be a general statement; you will always find exceptions to general statements.
Your computer DSPs and microcontrollers might be running non-free programs!
Your watch might be running non-free programs!
Your home appliances might be running non-free programs!
Your PostScript viewer/printer might be running non-free programs! Heck, your CAR might be running non-free programs!
This is all correct. There are instances when these things contain non-free programs.
The traffic lights you abide by might be running non-free programs!
This situation only applies to the traffic authority. It is a very situation
>>85 Menuetos code is designed in such a way to be readable to any student of the craft and it also includes commentary. Source code that has been translated into binary code do not have the same luxuries.
machine code is machine code. also, the 64-bit version doesn't have source available but is still not very hard to modify.
It is a very situation
lrn2english
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:30
;/*
; * Microsoft Confidential
; * Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 1991
; * All Rights Reserved.
; */
/* convert an arbitrary based number to an integer */
#include <ctype.h>
#include "tools.h"
/* p points to characters, return -1 if no good characters found
* and base is 2 <= base <= 16
*/
int ntoi (p, base)
char *p;
int base;
{
register int i, c;
flagType fFound;
if (base < 2 || base > 16)
return -1;
i = 0;
fFound = FALSE;
while (c = *p++) {
c = tolower (c);
if (!isxdigit (c))
break;
if (c <= '9')
c -= '0';
else
c -= 'a'-10;
if (c >= base)
break;
i = i * base + c;
fFound = TRUE;
}
if (fFound)
return i;
else
return -1;
}
Does RMS Matthew Stallman realize that when he uses e.g. Google Docs, these 1.5 megabytes of javascript are not the ONLY non-free code that gets involved in providing the desired functionality?
Will we live up to see how he will redefine ``freedom'' again to try and force Google into releasing that other code as well? Like, merge AGPL into GPL?
So it's OK if the non-free code doesn't run in your machine?
So, plain HTML pages served by ISS are OK?
What about internet search providers?
What about... say... a remote terminal session?
Would these... people be happy with a dumb terminal, with all the proprietary evil code running away from them, just offering them the services but no code to run locally?
>>90-92
You seem desperate to score cheap points. Are you naturally insecure or do you just realise you aren't going to win this argument otherwise?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 6:19
>>86
Like I said, it's not hard to find exceptions to the general situation. The issue of source code availability with MenuetOS is irrelevant because the binary program and the original source code are one and the same. That doesn't change the fact that the general statement still stands: it takes an unnecessary amount of effort to make meaningful changes to binary code as compared to the source code version; users must have authority to the source to practise freedom 1.
>>93
You are confused about the issues that RMS is referring to.
1. HTML is a language used to describe a special type of document, the hypertext document. HTML is not used to conjure the spirits of the computer.
2. Whatever a person does on their own system is their own problem. If someone serves a web page using IIS, they're the one choosing to give up their freedom, not you. It would be your problem when you run IIS on YOUR computer.
3. Whatever a company (or individual) providing online services does on their own systems is their own business. When you access their system, you aren't going to have the same rights as accessing your own computer system.
4. Remote terminal sessions are the same thing. If the remote session isn't your machine, it isn't your problem to what software they run.
5. RMS actually cautions people who cares for their freedom to only rely on free software and not on online services provided by external entities.
>>96 the binary program and the original source code are one and the same
No they aren't. The binary has no comments. I shudder to think that anyone would make an entire OS in assembly language with nary a comment in the code. Additionally, even ASM can make use of primitive macros to make the code more meaningful, more maintainable, and easier to read, understand, and modify. The object files offer none of this.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 8:23
>>100
Therefore it makes sense to use LISP-processor, since
1) list representing LISP program could be decompiled back in s-exprs and prettyprinted
2) everyone formats their code using prettyprinter
3) no one writes any comments, rather writing clear and selfdocumenting code, so
4) we got a a true bijection!
Needless to mention, LISP-processor would have free microcode.
/thread
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 9:14
>>100
Therefore it makes sense to use Python-processor, since
1) .pyc representing Python program could be decompiled back in blocks and prettyprinted
2) everyone is forced to indent their code
3) no one writes any comments, rather writing clear and properly indented code, so
4) we got a true bijection!
Needless to mention, Python-processor would have free microcode.
>>101
While having access to a LISP processor is a good thing, it won't change the fact that users still need the right to share with their neighbours when they wish (freedom 2) and the right to contribute to their community when they wish (freedom 3).
javascript:while(1){alert("I SUCK COCKS")} // @licstart Copyright (C) 2009 Anonymous - The Javascript code in this bookmarklet is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The code is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>;. @licend
>>109
Good god, you could fit the entire ISC license in that piece of legal boilerplate. The FSF is so damn bureaucratic that had they existed at the time of his ascent, RMS would have written Emacs entirely in Java and XML.
public static void main(String[] *argys)
{
Emacs emacs = new Emacs();
}
}
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 18:13
>>118
I see no design patterns. You have let me down, Richard.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 18:31
Just a thought while you whine about stupid crap like non-``free'' FrozenScripts:
Most CPU's/hardware design in your computer isn't free, but it's not much different from software. That Intel or AMD CPU you may use at home doesn't come with verilog or VHDL prototypes, nor does it come with free cell libraries(I'm not even saying GPL'ed here, I'm saying they're not disclosed at all, and are probably thought of as trade secrets! In cases you even get interfaces to them, it's very rare to get the full thing) , nor hand-optimized custom cell design. Same applies to those GPU chips, and maybe that NIC and so on. What about generic schematics for your mobo, is that open source? Is that ``free''. Most of these are not very different from software nowadays, you can think of what you own in your home or workplace as a compiled then mass-printed copy, and yet almost all that is ESSENTIAL for your beloved ``free'' software to to run is not in the least free.
There are exceptions to this, for example Sun actually published the source code of one of their high end server CPUs, it's an interesting read, but the fact still remains that a lot of what some people dismiss as hardware is nothing more than compiling special software with a physical target ( ex. ASIC chip ), other targets could be sequential simulation or a programmable FPGA(and similar), or even a quick compile-to-c simulation.
I'm not an advocate against or for GPL-based ``free'' software, but people should look around them and see that rms' dream of 100% ``free'' platform is far far from being practical without giving up lot of other rights.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 19:06
>>120
But don't you know that the software wants to be free?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 19:09
>>120
I'll have you know that I'm posting on an Arduino.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 19:44
Fuck it, let's all use Flash
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 23:36
>>123
Let's all use Flash, Facebook and Vista in order to be free, good citizens
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 23:48
Fuck it, let's all use Silverlight
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-24 0:01
>>120
I use only 100% natural, free-to-hax hardware and software.
--
Posted from my anus
Name:
Estanislao Martínez (203477)2009-03-24 0:41
on Monday March 23, @01:54PM (#27301223)
The problem with that logic is that Stallman missed a huge point. If, from his example you're using Google Docs, even if the JavaScript is "freed" using his new standard with stylized comments and the @source directive - you are still accessing non-free server software (the Google web servers) that responds to the AJAX requests. Not only that, but your browser is also making a call to the Google Ad server, which also has non-free software. You might also argue that its being served by a modified version of MySQL thats non-free, and perhaps even the firewall and the proxy that its passing through is a custom version written by Google Engineers (likely.)
There are two problems I can perceive with your argument, though:
1. It is still potentially very useful to you to be able to modify the software that runs on your computer, and to share these modifications with other people. This is one of the major points of the GPL.
2. You're describing here a system with three kinds of compoments: (a) client software, (b) server software, (c) server data. It's much harder to argue that (b) should be free software, especially if it's in-house Google software that we're talking about, not distributed outside the company. And (c) is not software at all, so the argument doesn't apply. Should the GPL have clauses that forbid, say, a GPL-licensed web browser from being able to connect to a web server running a non-free http server? What if it's a free http server connected to a non-free database? What if the http server and database are free software, but the people who operate the server don't allow you to download all of their data in bulk and serve it yourself?
You have to draw a line somewhere here, and drawing the line between (a) and (b) seems reasonable.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-24 0:47
MOD PARENT UP (NT)
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-24 1:43
>>120
Hardware is different to software in the fact that it is not trivial to modify hardware when it is built. The only practical way to extend existing hardware functionality is to make use of hardware interfaces. Software is different as software is just a collection of spells designed to conjure the spirits of the computer. What we demand from hardware vendors are adequate technical documentation - we only need enough documentation that allows us to conjure the computer's spirits.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-24 2:48
>>127 Google using a modified version of MySQL
...
Ok, enough is enough. You have just angered an expert programmer. First of all, half of you probably can't even recite the GNU lesser license, let alone the GPL. I've been working on the GNU project for over twenty years, I was coding when most of you were sucking on you're mother's teet.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-24 5:12
>>133
20 years?
.......are you the stallman?
oh, wait, my mistake; stallman hasn't done anything useful since the 80's
>>134
Twenty years ago was the '80s. I don't think it was ever the ``80's'', though.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-24 6:56
>>129
| Hardware is different to software in the fact that it is not trivial to modify hardware when it is built.
I detect an EXPERT HACKER who considers modifying binaries trivial.
>>138
Actually I do consider modifying binaries trivial, and sometimes i find myself just patching an executable live because I'm too lazy to recompile it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-29 7:05
>>144
The point is that it takes an unnecessary amount of effort to make meaningful changes to binaries. Flipping some bits here and there doesn't count. How happy would you be if you tried to modify the Linux x86 binary (the kernel and the drivers) to work on an ARM system?
>>145
You're talking about binary translation or emulation when you say ``modify the Linux x86 binary (the kernel and the drivers) to work on an ARM'', that is not binary modification (such as changing some minor functionality or extending a function or adding some hooks), but complete translation to another instruction set. Binary translation is possible, but it's usually done automatically, and translated binaries tend to run much slower if the instruction sets are too different. In some cases direct binary translation is not even possible due to self-modifying code ( or being unable to tell code from data ), in which case one has to do a form of dynamic recompilation.
>>147
The point is about making changes to the binary. I would like to know where one would find such program (free or non-free) that would let me translate a binary for one architecture to work onto another architecture as this is new to me.
How about trying to modify a copy of the Sims to replace DirectX and make use OpenGL, GLUT, OpenAL and GLibC AND porting the game to run on my Sparc machine? How much time and effort would that cost if you didn't have the source?