Thomas Bushnell is no longer Hurd maintainer
RMS has now 'dismissed' me as Hurd maintainer because I have publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU maintainer must support and speak in favor of GNU policies." (Thanks to David MartÃnez Moreno)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 17:41 UTC (Wed)
by havoc (guest, #2261)
[Link] (59 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:28 UTC (Wed)
by piman (guest, #8957)
[Link] (45 responses)
The problem here is that RMS has published a license with non-free terms, and is (for unknown reasons) vehemently defending it.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:37 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (43 responses)
The problem is that Thomas represents stuff that contradicts GNU policy. RMS defends the GFDL because it gives users all of the *useful* freedoms they need. The GPL also restricts certain actions, but only non-useful actions. Being a GNU maintainer has very little to do with being a developer. The maintainer is the public representative for a project. Thomas hasn't worked on the Hurd for about two year. Marcus Brinkman is the lead developer.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:53 UTC (Wed)
by rjamestaylor (guest, #339)
[Link] (30 responses)
Please rename the GFDL the GNU Shared Documentation LicenseTM. That way we can clearly distinguish the More Free from the merely free. Unbelieveable.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:26 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (29 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:36 UTC (Wed)
by emkey (guest, #144)
[Link]
Why? What are the pros and cons of such a stance?
Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:48 UTC (Wed)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 22:01 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
I didn't want to include the whole Roosevelt quote in my comment, but the intended point was that one mistake doesn't change that he's been busting his ass for twenty years to give us freedom.
Posted Nov 20, 2003 20:17 UTC (Thu)
by bex (guest, #16960)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 20, 2003 23:57 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:29 UTC (Thu)
by jhardin (guest, #3297)
[Link] (23 responses)
Please bear in mind that Linux will *never* take the desktop away from Microsoft without proprietary applications. My company makes a proprietary vertical-market application suite that runs on Linux. The crossplatform development environment we're using for our next generation GUI product is commercial and proprietary (and no, changing it is not an option). The vendor of that development environment has just discontinued their Linux port of it due in part to hostility from the Linux community and the unwillingness of the Linux community to work with them to solve the problems they were having. *poof*, our plans to ship our next-generation product on Linux have perforce been abandoned, and we will only be shipping a Windows version. This makes it impossible for us to offer, for example, a Linux-based user workstation with our product, Open Office, Evolution, and Mozilla as an inexpensive option for our clients. This sort of thing makes us *all* poorer.
Posted Nov 20, 2003 3:47 UTC (Thu)
by nd (guest, #15578)
[Link] (8 responses)
Rightfully so! Why pollute GNU/Linux with proprietary trash? Don't you > Linux will *never* take the desktop away from Microsoft without proprietary applications Oh, yes, it will. ... as soon as the trash makers like you go out of their miserable business. Good luck with Windows, kiddy.
Posted Nov 20, 2003 20:28 UTC (Thu)
by bex (guest, #16960)
[Link]
Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:19 UTC (Thu)
by argent (guest, #17054)
[Link] (1 responses)
Until you're running it on an open source processor built in garage FABs with open source VHDL tools and open source BIOS and... well, until Vernor Vinge's "Ungoverned" future history comes to pass, it's proprietary trash you're running Linux (with or without a GNU userland) on, and it's proprietary trash that's driving the demand that makes fast bitty boxes so cheap that you can afford the luxury of contempt for it. Right now... Right now I'm feeling I've stepped into the middle of Eric Flint's "Belisarius" saga, with Richard Stallman playing the part of Link and/or Great Lady Holi, while the mongrel Romans with their impure blood nibble them to death... After all... right now the most popular even /partly/ open-source desktop operating system is running on that horrible proprietary hardware that Stallman used to bitterly complain about, with a proprietary GUI and API on top... and it's the proprietary GUI and API and the proprietary apps that run on it that sell Mac OS X to most people, not the fact that Darwin is BSD at the core... Mongrel! Impure! Unclean! Oh the horror! Oh the embarassment! All die...
Posted Nov 21, 2003 0:05 UTC (Fri)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
This is the "If I can't be perfect, I won't even try" argument. It's a great excuse to do nothing, for people that are looking for such an excuse. > ... (I can't find a point in the rest of your comment)
Posted Nov 21, 2003 16:25 UTC (Fri)
by jhardin (guest, #3297)
[Link] (4 responses)
Because there are not good Open Source solutions for all problem domains. >> Linux will *never* take the desktop away from Microsoft So you're saying that a vendor of a proprietary application package who wants very much to be able to provide that package on a Linux desktop is *bad* for Linux on the desktop? When, if we were able to provide our application on a Linux desktop, we would be able to offer a Linux user workstation to our clients as a product, thus increasing the adoption of Linux on the desktop by opening it to a market where it would otherwise not be an option? > Good luck with Windows, kiddy. Sadly we have no other alternative. We *love* Linux and would dearly love to be able to ship our application package on it. We can't. I am just saying that hostility towards proprietary applications that run on Linux is going to hinder adoption of Linux on the desktop. Can you rationally (e.g. without name calling and dogmatic blindness) argue that I am incorrect?
Posted Nov 21, 2003 22:26 UTC (Fri)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (3 responses)
Of course. Here's the root of your mistake: > ...thus increasing the adoption of Linux... You are starting from the incorrect assumtion that our goal is simple popularity. "adoption of Linux" is not the goal (adoption of GNU/Linux is also not the goal). The goal is to allow people to use a computer in freedom. It's not important which Free Software operating system is the most popular. GNU/Linux is probably our best bet though, because it's freedom is mostly protected with copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. If you can convince your company to release it's software under the GNU GPL, it would be a great contribution. You say that relicensing is not possible? Many great men have done what people previously said was impossible.
Posted Nov 21, 2003 23:54 UTC (Fri)
by jhardin (guest, #3297)
[Link]
Granted. Okay, we're not arguing the same argument, then. Pax. It seems nd's meds are a bit off.
Posted Aug 22, 2021 23:35 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
> You are starting from the incorrect assumtion that our goal is simple popularity.
Less of the "our", please.
If the computer is not USEFUL, it is worthless.
And until the fanatics are prepared to PAY out of THEIR OWN pockets to give away all this *useful* software that people need/want, they need to accept that other people need the FREEDOM to CHOOSE TO PAY.
The reality the fanatics are incapable of accepting is that MUCH software is used by people who cannot write it for themselves. If they are denied the FREEDOM to pay for it, then it will never be written! What's that saying? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". Your freedom does not extend to telling ME what to do with MY money. And it's that fanaticism that will *doom* linux, if the fanatics don't stop ruining things for everyone, themselves included.
The four freedoms may be a brilliant idea (I think they are). But until you can accept that - for many people - they are WORTHLESS, you simply come across as the nutcase you are.
Cheers.
Posted Aug 22, 2021 23:36 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Let's change that slightly.
"The goal is to allow people to use a computer."
Cheers,
Posted Nov 20, 2003 5:03 UTC (Thu)
by XERC (guest, #14626)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Nov 21, 2003 16:12 UTC (Fri)
by jhardin (guest, #3297)
[Link] (3 responses)
We're not asking you (or our clients) to contribute to our product. Many of our clients are not technically capable of contributing to the product - they just want a tool that helps them efficiently and profitably run their businesses, and, indeed, *don't want* to know all the nitty gritty details. We provide this to them. > I'm afraid, that You have to own me as a slave, LITERALLY, to have me I am very familiar with it. I am a kernel contributor (2.0 and 2.2 at least). I believe in it fully, but I also do not believe it is the solution to *all* sitations or the proper license for all possible code. I deeply hope that Linux will be able to take a large portion of the desktop market. But I do not believe that it is possible to do this in a "completely free" environment, except in the simplest of cases. For example, can you recommend to me a good open source U.S. Income Tax package? That's the only reason I still run Windows at home. I believe the hostility to proprietary *applications* is unfounded, and interferes with the adoption of Linux as a desktop environment.
Posted Nov 21, 2003 19:58 UTC (Fri)
by XERC (guest, #14626)
[Link]
By keeping the software closed and proprietary, it's possible to support our clients in regions, which have software patents(USA,Japan). The problem is, that thow we don't violate the GPL or any other humain license, the patent system is such a mess, that practically it's impossible to make a program, that doesn't violate any patents. I relly don't understand, how does anyone ever dare to do any free software development in the U.S.A. and put it on the server, which located in the U.S.A. If the software is closed and proprietary, nobody ever knows(and thanks to the "nice" patent system, we as the developers don't know eather) if we have violated any software patents or not. If there's no direct proof or code to watch, nobody can't blame us in almost anything, because they can't prove it and we are not obligated to show the code, just like the SCO is bullying with the legal system. So I guess, that one of the reasons, why some type of software is not GPL'd, but is kept closed and propritary, is the existance of software patents. Now, that was a clear example, where the patents support industrial sicrecy. Who knows, may be if we could GPL our work, someone, who's writing something similar, could benefit from our software eather by code or by some nice, simple, idea. We could defenately benefit from other people's work instead of reinventing the weel. So, no wonder that most of the REAL INNOVATION is in the FREE SOFTWARE(GPL'd software). Let's all graduate the U.$.A.'s and Japan's patent systems for "supporting innovation"!!!!
Posted Nov 23, 2003 11:01 UTC (Sun)
by caf (guest, #7566)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you mean Personal U.S. Income Tax package, a cross-platform solution
Posted Aug 22, 2021 23:42 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
The question wasn't "how do I run a tax package on Linux", it was "Can you recomment a Free or Open Source package".
That's the point.If people are denied the FREEDOM TO PAY, then they will be DENIED THE SOFTWARE because no-one will take the financial and legal risk of writing it. Plus nobody will be willing to use it if they do, because they don't have the assurance that the software will remain usable next year ...
Cheers,
Posted Nov 20, 2003 6:41 UTC (Thu)
by DAldredge (guest, #17015)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 21, 2003 16:29 UTC (Fri)
by jhardin (guest, #3297)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 23, 2003 0:59 UTC (Sun)
by DAldredge (guest, #17015)
[Link]
Posted Nov 20, 2003 12:53 UTC (Thu)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (3 responses)
That said, I don't understand how you can build your business on top of a software package that a) does not have a serious support policy; and b) forces you into a specific market, and out of a possibly very profitable one. Maybe you are just trolling here.
However, as I have said before on this forum, I do think it is true that part of the "community" reacts like a raging bull on a red flag, if there is only the slightest mention of anything proprietary. Unfortunately this notion is more or less confirmed, right above.
I cannot see how shouting angrily at the top of your lungs does our cause any good. You really do not have to be the Kissinger of Linux diplomacy to throw together a slightly more civil response.
Posted Nov 20, 2003 13:51 UTC (Thu)
by lacostej (guest, #2760)
[Link] (2 responses)
As a side note, that's what most free software packages give you. No serious support policy, force you into a specific market. yes there can be a stong community behing it, even companies, but if you build your business directly on top of it, you still don't have any agreement signed and you're on the front line.
Posted Nov 20, 2003 16:15 UTC (Thu)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link]
Community support is a bonus, it is not a replacement for the kind of support you have probably grown accustomed to with respect to proprietary software (you know, the kind that compares memory to gasoline). It is certainly not a right. The mere fact that I choose to distribute my software under a GPL license does not imply that you are entitled to any kind of support from me or anyone else.
If support matters to you, you choose software that is supported. For some shops, this means uncle Ernie will have to be consulted, other companies will be turning to IBM, RedHat or one of the many other companies that sell support as a product. Your suggestion that free software and signed agreements do not play nicely together strikes me as odd.
Plus, with free software you have the possibility to take matters into your own hands, something that is much harder -- if not impossible -- to do with prorietary software.
In other words, the whole spectrum of support is available to you, at least in principle.
(By the way, the popularity of some Google groups and other forums should tell you something about your average level of support for proprietary software.)
Posted Nov 21, 2003 20:25 UTC (Fri)
by XERC (guest, #14626)
[Link]
* a fixed sum for routine maintainence, * additional fee for overhours and new hardware. Now that's an exact example, how Linux is maintained, but one of the differences between Linux and Windows is, that in case of Linux, the maintainer is relly able to fix the problem by modifying the code, but in case of proprietary, closed, software, by itself the maintainer can only try to cure the symptoms, not the cause. Think of any virus as a security hole. Now, shouldn't security holes BE FIXED AND REMOVED instead of using a symptoms preventers, such as "antivirus software"???
Posted Nov 20, 2003 18:09 UTC (Thu)
by kasperd (guest, #11842)
[Link] (1 responses)
Which is one of the major drawbacks of proprietary software. If your development environment had been free software, you would never have faced the problem you are facing now.
Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:29 UTC (Thu)
by argent (guest, #17054)
[Link]
Finish the sentence. "... unless you don't have the skills or resources to pick up the traces after the community abandoned that particular product." I see they're trying to resurrect TenDRA. Jolly good. Maybe they'll shorten the trail of abandoned free software products by a step or two. And even if the development environment had been proprietary, you could have kept going if you had the source code in escrow, as many people with safety critical projects still demand. It all comes down to the resources you have to divert to each particular component of your requirements... and those resources may well include money and "pull" as well as developer time.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:55 UTC (Wed)
by sphealey (guest, #1028)
[Link] (3 responses)
sPh
Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:30 UTC (Wed)
by guan (subscriber, #13326)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:36 UTC (Wed)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
My reading of the GPL is that as soon as I modify a GPL'd product and then distribute my modified binary, I must also make the modifications available to the recipients. Thus, I become a developer just by making the binary available to others. If I eat a meal, I'm a diner. As soon as I cook the meal, I'm a cook. That seems to be all it takes. Cooks have recipes, and Richard loves that metaphor. So there you have it. How is the GFDL going to restrict me, as a user who made a change to the documented program, and wants to distribute my changes in documentation as well as source code?
Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:30 UTC (Thu)
by Ross (guest, #4065)
[Link]
Maybe I'm wrong. But to me the GFDL does not preserve all useful rights. I wouldn't care about it if the license was not coming from the FSF. The
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:57 UTC (Wed)
by v-i (guest, #16996)
[Link]
Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:45 UTC (Wed)
by piman (guest, #8957)
[Link] (3 responses)
What fact did I say that was wrong? > The problem is that Thomas represents stuff that contradicts GNU policy. Thomas does not "represent" stuff that contridicts GNU policy, any more than a whole person represents any particular ideology. I have seen Thomas speak out very eloquently against the GNU FDL, but I have seen many other people do so, as well. There is nothing about Thomas's inherent being, or anyone else's, that is anti-GNU. If Debian "dismissed" developers every time that they disagreed with the project or policy, there would be very few developers. In Debian's case, we have the mailing lists to publicly debate issues, the Technical Committee for a "final" decision, and an election process if things get horribly messed up. On the other hand, the only voice coming out of the GNU project is RMS, and he also seems to be the one who makes all the decisions. (From your later post...) > But remember that you're only hearing one side of this story. This is not a problem if an organization conducts its business in the open, as most Free Software and Open Source organizations do. > Stallman just does his best. On this issue, I'm not happy with his best, but lets not all point out where the strongman stumbled. Do you really mean this? Because RMS has done good things in the past, we should not criticize him now? Sorry, but I care about free software. While I acknowledge that RMS is human and makes mistakes, that doesn't mean those mistakes don't need to be fixed.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:27 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
There were many speculative comments flying around. This of course was not helped by the incorrect title to this article. Thomas has not been removed from development. He has had the title of "maintainer" taken from him. This is a fairly meaningless title anyway, nothing like the Debian "developer" title. (But I don't agree with Richards reasons for removing it.) Yes, we should point out where Stallman makes mistakes, but too many (other) people take too much pride in being able to point out a flaw in this man. > > But remember that you're only hearing one side of this story This started as a private conversation between RMS and Thomas. I think it's okay for people to have private conversations. (Thomas then posted the conclusion to a private mailing list for discussion, and a member of that list posted it to a public list, and a member of the public list posted it to LWN, and LWN published it without checking the details)
Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:36 UTC (Thu)
by Ross (guest, #4065)
[Link] (1 responses)
"Thomas Bushnell is no longer Hurd maintainer" How is that incorrect or misleading? As for the body, I suppose it could be wrong that he is no longer the
Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:40 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
The old title was "Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development."
Posted Nov 20, 2003 10:08 UTC (Thu)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link] (1 responses)
Who are to define which of my freedoms are "useful" ?
Posted Nov 21, 2003 0:31 UTC (Fri)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
With the GFDL, RMS tried to create an implementation of copyleft that is suitable for books. In doing this, he had to figure out what the important freedoms are, and what restrictions are required to protect these important freedoms. In my opinion, he did not get the balance right, he put too many protection clauses into the license. Unfortunately, my first comment was rushed, and touched too many topics to explain each fully. I hope this clears up what I meant by "useful freedoms" (more accurately, "important freedoms").
Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:30 UTC (Thu)
by srivasta (guest, #7075)
[Link]
I beg to differ. I do not think that the GFDL gives users all of the useful freedoms they need; the draft Debian position statement attempts to demonstrate why, and makes a stab of defining such useful freedoms.
Posted Aug 22, 2021 21:24 UTC (Sun)
by rodgerd (guest, #58896)
[Link]
The GFDL is the only meaningful leverage that rms has over GNU projects.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:44 UTC (Wed)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link] (4 responses)
So, it is a vehicle that can be used most efficiently to achieve a single-minded purpose, not distracted of blurred by any other influence. By taking a clear-cut, no-compromise stance on many issues, the FSF has achieved a lot in the past. Very useful indeed. However, in cases like the present, the FSF can turn into a machine that wreaks destruction (although maybe minor in the big picture) among its core of supporters (it appears). Not so excellent. I sure am glad that the FSF is in charge of fundamentalist ideology, but Linus is in charge of making the one thing (Linux kernel) that must actually work. Ultimately, no element of democracy there either, but at least that benevolent dictator puts pragmatism first (which is why Linux works today, whereas Hurd, at this juncture, is problematic).
Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:00 UTC (Wed)
by piman (guest, #8957)
[Link] (3 responses)
Yes, because /bin/sh, /bin/ls, /usr/bin/gcc, and so on, don't need to actually work...
Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:37 UTC (Wed)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link]
Anything that I have ever read about Hurd seems to me (2) is a problem. It's Linux's great strength that there is no outright ideological overhead - feels much more welcoming.
Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:36 UTC (Thu)
by argent (guest, #17054)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you're running a Linux system, you must have a dozen alternatives for /bin/sh, more /bin/ls variants than you can shake a stick at, and the only reason you can't find an alternative to GCC is because GCC is a leveraged monopoly... the alternatives like TenDRA can't compete because there's such a high API barrier to entry for any compiler that isn't compatible with GCC's "embraced and extended" version of C.
Posted Nov 22, 2003 11:36 UTC (Sat)
by dvdeug (guest, #10998)
[Link]
the alternatives like TenDRA can't compete because there's such a high API barrier to entry for any compiler that isn't compatible with GCC's "embraced and extended" version of C. Then why doesn't *BSD use it? It's not the extensions to C that make GCC far and away the most used Free C compiler. It's also ported to many more systems then TenDRA is and is heavily tested with real world C code instead of just for ANSI C correctness. It's a big deal to make a C compiler, and there's no reason not to use GCC unless your output system is tiny or very odd or if your hosting system is tiny.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:49 UTC (Wed)
by steven97 (guest, #2702)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:59 UTC (Wed)
by trutkin (guest, #3919)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:38 UTC (Thu)
by argent (guest, #17054)
[Link]
OK, what has he done for me ever? :)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:36 UTC (Wed)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (3 responses)
Is Socrates a _has_been? Mohammed? Jesus? Buddha? I'm waiting to hear Stallman's side of the story, but meanwhile, I cannot stand by and watch name-calling without objecting. I hold RMS in the highest regard. I can still do that, even if he's a human being who makes mistakes just like all the rest of us. And until I hear his point of view on this, I can only opine, and leave it at that.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 22:40 UTC (Wed)
by steven97 (guest, #2702)
[Link] (2 responses)
Is Newton a has-been? Not really. But surely in his time people must
have felt he was, because from all the honory chairs and influential
positions he held, he was blocking the creativity and freedom of other
scientists of his era. Socrates is certainly a has-been, no doubt about it, he is dead.
But his philosophy is not. He is more like a pillar supporting almost
any western philosophy of the past two and a half millenium. But he
never let his personal interest change his own philosophy (or he wouldn't
have drunk the poison and instead have flead to Macedonia ;-). Religious figures, well, that's debatable... But, again, their
philosophies are most definitely not dead. These religions don't need
these men alive and kicking to continue to exist. RMS on the other hand has changed his philosophy. First he preached
freedom and everything was good. Then he didn't like the way people were
using their freedom, so he took some if it away again. And _that_ is why
I think he is a has-been. Not his original philosophy of Free Software,
definitely not. But the man should stop being a blocker of his own
ideals. RMS should let go the community that he claims to have created, that
supports and builds on his ideas and opinions. Instead, he dismisses the
people who disagree with him. Much like Newton.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 23:02 UTC (Wed)
by tomsi (subscriber, #2306)
[Link]
But he never let his personal interest change his own philosophy (or he wouldn't have drunk the poison and instead have flead to Macedonia ;-). What you say here about Socrates, but that is also how I have percieved Not that I like the sound of this variant of a licence. Tom
Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:25 UTC (Thu)
by gerv (guest, #3376)
[Link]
These religions don't need these men alive and kicking to continue to exist. Actually, Christianity is predicated on the fact that Jesus is alive today. If he were not, as Paul points out in his first letter to the Corinthians, the whole thing would be a waste of time. "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Cor 15:17, NIV). Jesus resurrection is key, because it proves he is God.
Posted Nov 20, 2003 20:41 UTC (Thu)
by bex (guest, #16960)
[Link]
Posted Nov 19, 2003 17:50 UTC (Wed)
by libra (guest, #2515)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:36 UTC (Wed)
by piman (guest, #8957)
[Link]
The GNU GPL v2 is written in a general, surprisingly non-technical manner, that preserves freedom in the face of drastically changing copyright law. The GNU FDL, specifying particular technologies in its terms, is not (it has other problems, as well). If this is the face of version 3 of the GPL, I'll stick with what I've got, thanks.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 17:59 UTC (Wed)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
With SCO officials running around lambasting the GPL and the Free Software Foundation, I would think Richard would be a bit more careful what dirty laundry gets aired. People are going to know that a major focal point of his UNIX replacement has left. I sure hope RMS has something prepared for the press. If I were him, I'd also seriously consider some fence-mending.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:04 UTC (Wed)
by cpeterso (guest, #305)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:56 UTC (Thu)
by wolfrider (guest, #3105)
[Link] (9 responses)
Seriously, with *BSD and Linux, could somebody please tell me why the HURD is relevant? I can't see any businesses adopting it when we already have free software that works. (Yes, I see the Linux-ish irony here.)
Posted Nov 20, 2003 20:48 UTC (Thu)
by bex (guest, #16960)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:41 UTC (Thu)
by argent (guest, #17054)
[Link] (6 responses)
If you want a microkernel OS, there's Lites, there's Darwin/OSX... and I suspect DragonflyBSD will get to production quality before Hurd as well.
Posted Nov 21, 2003 14:29 UTC (Fri)
by MLKahnt (guest, #6642)
[Link]
That said, I suspect that the HURD could also be an example that Theory always runs faster than Code - to implement the concepts and structures of the HURD, sufficient overhead is essential that the resulting system is not comparably paced to a monolithic kernel. The HURD has been implemented with the GNU Mach kernel - my understanding being that it is effectively comparable to the kernel at the core of Darwin and NeXTStep, but while it was sufficiently fast enough for them with their monolithic support packages, it is only capable of "Proof of Concept" performance for the HURD. Now, the as yet still under development L4 kernel is seen as the "next great hope" to make performance improvements to make the HURD viable. The need to switch between processes and in and out of system mode is that the architecture implies, however, does impact the potential performance. My experience of the HURD is that, unlike most other systems where you have the kernel, and the systems (libc, X11, GNU, etc.) being ported to it, everything is being reworked to the concepts of the HURD's design - largely all at once without sufficient minds and bodies available for the scale of such a project on a timely basis. While the concepts stay relatively stable, the microkernel(s), libraries and other parts are changing and are regularly needing to be re-ported, while certain obvious problems that would not have been left unaddressed this long on other production o/s platforms continue to linger. With that arises an impression among some of lack of progress, and yes, net progress is difficult to attain in the HURD's current context. I have argued that possibly what is needed is to focus on the core, and leave the niceties (eg. X11) until a viable base platform is ready, but let's be honest - in any volunteer project, the code produced is what interests and intrigues the programmer writing it, or is absolutely necessary to make the code he or she wants to implement work.
Posted Nov 23, 2003 17:30 UTC (Sun)
by bex (guest, #16960)
[Link]
Posted Aug 22, 2021 21:20 UTC (Sun)
by daemonspudguy (guest, #153843)
[Link] (3 responses)
I'm from 18 years into the future and that is exactly what happened.
Posted Aug 23, 2021 0:39 UTC (Mon)
by pebolle (guest, #35204)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Aug 23, 2021 3:57 UTC (Mon)
by rodgerd (guest, #58896)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 24, 2021 23:50 UTC (Tue)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Never try to make sense of inexplicable behaviour on the internet, for that way lies madness.
Posted Aug 22, 2021 21:34 UTC (Sun)
by rodgerd (guest, #58896)
[Link]
Free software is relevant so long as people care to work on it. Not everything has to be "big and professional" for it to bring joy, and not everything needs to be useful.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:13 UTC (Wed)
by trutkin (guest, #3919)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:18 UTC (Wed)
by lolando (guest, #7139)
[Link] (3 responses)
Yeah. The simple way to do that would be to just drop the "GNU" part in all instances of "Debian GNU/Hurd". It's not like GNU were developed outside of Debian anyway.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:17 UTC (Wed)
by dd9jn (✭ supporter ✭, #4459)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 23:00 UTC (Wed)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:45 UTC (Thu)
by argent (guest, #17054)
[Link]
Buddy, it didn't *turn* proprietary. It's always been an open system, but it didn't start out open source. GNU's not UNIX for a lot of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with the license and everything to do with the OS design. And as far as the OS design is concerned, Linux is more a traditional "UNIX" than a lot of the systems that are currently running real live honest-to-Ritchie Bell Labs code, including the OS running on Dennis Ritchie's desktop right now.
Posted Aug 22, 2021 21:36 UTC (Sun)
by rodgerd (guest, #58896)
[Link]
Which takes us back to the point: the GDFL is proprietary.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:01 UTC (Wed)
by jnelson (guest, #6693)
[Link] (2 responses)
Example: http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-prog While registration may be free, it doesn't seem to jive with my idea of "completely free and open". Then again, apparently discussion is not completely "free and open", either.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:15 UTC (Wed)
by skvidal (guest, #3094)
[Link]
I do that all the time to cut down on crap spam. Anyone can subscribe to the list, disable mail delivery and view the archives all they want. I don't think it is a crazy or inhibiting term.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:40 UTC (Wed)
by dd9jn (✭ supporter ✭, #4459)
[Link]
Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:12 UTC (Wed)
by set (guest, #4788)
[Link]
Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:24 UTC (Wed)
by teo (guest, #14575)
[Link]
It's really sad that he can kick out whoever he wants.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:06 UTC (Wed)
by amk (subscriber, #19)
[Link] (4 responses)
The FDL HOWTO at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html says "First of all, keep in mind that a section that treats technical material cannot be invariant. Only a secondary section can be invariant, and a technical section is not a secondary section." Another page at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.html, says "The idea of invariant sections is that they give you a way to express nontechnical personal opinions about the topic. The classical example of an invariant nontechnical section in a free manual is the GNU Manifesto ..." In other words, if you put opinions into a technical document, the GFDL can be used to prevent people from editing your opinions. A second purpose is to add cover texts that can't be removed, so if you put "Free Manuals Inc. paid Alyssa P. Hacker to write this manual and asks for your support through buying the Free Manuals edition", someone else can't remove this sentence from *their* printed edition. Purpose #1 doesn't seem to be of very wide usefulness. The only application I've seen containing personal opinions is GNU Emacs and its inclusion of the GNU Manifesto; I can't think of a second example. (I suppose the note in the Perl README about "pleasing my Maker" counts, but it's just a single line.) Purpose #2 seems more generally useful, but only for publishers commissioning texts. It doesn't seem very helpful for software authors, who probably aren't going to be publishing and distributing their documentation; I suppose they could require the URL of the free version of the software be included?
Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:13 UTC (Wed)
by lolando (guest, #7139)
[Link] (3 responses)
Yeah. I hope they're not boasting about freedom of speech on that point... No. The limited number of opaque copies clause is dubious enough, but the no-DRM-allowed-at-all, no-SSL, no-SSH, no-encryption clause is a killer.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:22 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 22:11 UTC (Wed)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link]
If we some day have a successor to DVD with inherent support for DRM or just encrtyption, it may be impossible to use it for distributing free software because of the documentation. This is extremely unpractical and goes against the goals of free software. Free software is not a religion, and it should be free even on "non-kosher" media, just like it's OK to use it on non-free OSes or to make profit from it.
I believe that the losers in this situation are GNU/Hurd, FSF, RMS and most importantly the documentation of all GNU projects. We should encourage developers to document their works, and this license row does exactly the opposite.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 23:11 UTC (Wed)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
On the other hand it is though to summary the concerns of the debian-legal
Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:06 UTC (Wed)
by dd9jn (✭ supporter ✭, #4459)
[Link] (7 responses)
I am sorry for Thomas that the Free Software Foundation with a "free" like in "free speech" revokes the trust in him after he excercised just that right. Maybe that is a common practice in the U.S. now :-(.
Werner <wk@gnupg.org>
Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:36 UTC (Wed)
by jeroen (guest, #12372)
[Link] (6 responses)
And not all GNU documentation is under the GFDL either, for example the grub manual is under a very simple copyleft license.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 22:27 UTC (Wed)
by v-i (guest, #16996)
[Link] (2 responses)
Wrong. That's the whole point of the copyright assignment: the copyright holder is no longer the author but the entity receiving the rights. The only rights the original author will subsequently have are the same that everyone else will have: those given by a license (GPL, GFDL, etc.). Slightly off-topic: of course, not all jurisdictions recognize signing away all rights. In some countries, for instance, the right to be recognized as the original author cannot be taken away, even if all redistribution rights are transferred.
Posted Nov 19, 2003 22:44 UTC (Wed)
by steven97 (guest, #2702)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 20, 2003 8:20 UTC (Thu)
by dd9jn (✭ supporter ✭, #4459)
[Link]
Posted Nov 19, 2003 22:35 UTC (Wed)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 19, 2003 23:13 UTC (Wed)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:52 UTC (Thu)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link]
The software can break if you "rephrase" it, and it takes major efforts to make it work again. On the other hand, retelling the documentation would not break it, while being legal (provided you don't follow the original too closely). Thus the incentive to use the work of others in not as strong for the text as it is for the code. Besides, even non-free documentation for free software would help users of free software and promote it. But it should not be packaged with the software and limit the ways in which the software can be distributed.
Posted Nov 21, 2003 11:15 UTC (Fri)
by Floyd (guest, #17070)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you are a good programmer, sell your work, don't waste your time with this GPL regligion bullshit.
Posted Nov 21, 2003 17:11 UTC (Fri)
by vijaykumar (guest, #17082)
[Link]
That's one thing that really scares me about RMS. I hold him in the highest esteem and respect him on so many levels, but the GPL and Free Software are his religion, and he is absolutely intolerant on that subject.
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas didn't speak out against the GNU GPL, or against Free Software. He spoke out against the GNU FDL, which is not a Free Software license (by RMS's own admission). He is not the only Free Software advocate to do so, nor is he the only GNU project member.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
I'm on Thomas's side, but lets get our facts straight.Before this gets out of hand...
I'm seeing Animal Farm played out before my eyes: "useful freedoms," indeed. Is this the one and same Free Software Advocate extraordinaire coriordan whose faithfulness to Freedom leads him to argue passionately against developing Free applications for non-Free Operating Systems? Or has Enderle hijaaed his account and used it to promote the Microsoftian view of Freedom -- that which I think you should have and no more.After you tip your hand...
I don't think the GFDL is a good license ...and I'm a GNU maintainer, and I haven't been dismissed.After you tip your hand...
But remember that you're only hearing one side of this story. "Useful freedoms" is a subjective term, there can be no single definition, Stallman just does his best. On this issue, I'm not happy with his best, but lets not all point out where the strongman stumbled.
There's nothing wrong with Free Software being developed for proprietary operating systems. It's proprietary software for Free operating systems that I have issue with.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strongman stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,...
--Theodore Roosevelt
(a web search will find the rest of that quote)
" It's proprietary software for Free operating systems that I have issue with."After you tip your hand...
> but lets not all point out where the strongman stumbled. After you tip your hand...
And why not, sirrah? That seems to be a not unreasonable description of your common attitude
when posting here on such topics, IMHO...
hmmm, I was trying to highlight the suddenly-righteous *tone* of some people that point out his failings.After you tip your hand...
isn't pointing out errors or sometimes a way to do something better what open source development is about? If no-one bothered to try and make things better then it wouldn't get much better. I'm not attacking anyone here, just pointing something out.
After you tip your hand...
(My previous post was meant to be the answer to this question, so I mustn't have been clear again)After you tip your hand...
I agree with what you say. We must point out problems, acknowledge them, think of solutions, implement solutions, etc. But ten people just jumping up and down saying "Ha! see, stallman made a mistake", is no good.
> It's proprietary software for Free operating systems that I have issue with.After you tip your hand...
> This makes it impossible for us to offer...After you tip your hand...
understand, we don't want you here, "and no, changing this is not an option".
stop being an elitest. I say let people lisence their software as they wish. If you don't want it don't get it. As long as everyone has a choice it should be ok. There are so many opensource developers out there that it's likely you'll end up seeing an open version or clone of the closed source software anyway. Let developers do whatthey want with their work and stop trying to get the world to see it your way.After you tip your hand...
Yes, I think the open source model is much better than closed and I don't use propriety/closed software when I don't have to, but it's nice to have that as my choice and not forced.
"Why pollute GNU/Linux with proprietary trash?"After you tip your hand...
> Until you're running it on an open source processorAfter you tip your hand...
> Why pollute GNU/Linux with proprietary trash?After you tip your hand...
>> without proprietary applications
>
> Oh, yes, it will. ... as soon as the trash makers like you
> go out of their miserable business.
> Can you rationally ... argue that I am incorrect?After you tip your hand...
> You are starting from the incorrect assumtion that our goalAfter you tip your hand...
> is simple popularity.
...
> The goal is to allow people to use a computer in freedom.
After you tip your hand...
Wol
After you tip your hand...
Wol
Oh, I'm "so motivated" to contribute to Your aplication, when I even don't have access to the product, eather because I can't afford to pay the license price or I don't want to sign the NDA or I just don't want to take the risk of being sued because of breaking the NDA or the software company finds some other rediculous excuse for sueing me.
After you tip your hand...
I'm a fraid, that You have to own me as a slave, LITERALLY, to have me contribute to your system withought giving anything back. I don't want to be
unpolite or unsocial, but please acquaint Yourself with the GNU philosophy, which is found in the GPL.
In addition to the free software's philosophy, please try to accept the following sentance:
"Business models should HELP THE HUMAN GENERATION TO ENJOY
AS GOOD LIFE AS THE CURRENT KNOLEDGE AND RESOUCES OF THE HUMAN GENERATION PERMIT TO ENJOY, and therefore:
* THE BUSINESS MODELS SHOULD ACCELERATE THE CREATION OF GOOD, INNOVATIVE,
TECHNOLOGIES AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT KNOLEDGE AND RESOUCES OF THE HUMAN
GENERATION PERMIT TO ACCELERATE,
* PRODUCE THE KNOWLEDGE AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT KNOLEDGE AND RESOUCES
OF THE HUMAN GENERATION PERMIT TO PRODUCE,
* CONTRIBUTE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE BEST TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH ARE KNOWN
TO THE HUMAN GENERATION, AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT KNOLEDGE AND RESOUCES OF
THE HUMAN GENERATION PERMIT TO CONTRIBUTE.
Now, how do the restrictions on the use of "copying technology",
restrictions on the use of "modifying technology" and the restrictions
on the use of "distribution technology" comply with the prestated statement??? I guess that the Linux community works for the good of the whole human generation and naturally we don't like the partys, who instead
of giving a hand, just consume our work and at the same time try to
throw log's int to our spokes.
> Oh, I'm "so motivated" to contribute to Your aplication,After you tip your hand...
> contribute to your system withought giving anything back. I don't want to
> be unpolite or unsocial, but please acquaint Yourself with the GNU
> philosophy, which is found in the GPL.
OK, I'm sorry. May be I overreacted a little, but I still think, that the idea in my previous posting still holds and has a point. Well, actually, to be really honest, my job is also proprietary, closed source, software development. The software is actually a support software for a pretty special hardware and I think, that from innovation's point of view and from the view of considering the client's needs, my employer digs a grave for itself by keeping the software closed and proprietary, BUT, there is one huge advantage of keeping things closed and proprietary.After you tip your hand...
> For example, can you recommend to me a good open source U.S. Income TaxAfter you tip your hand...
> package? That's the only reason I still run Windows at home.
I've found is to access the web-based version of a well known package
using Mozilla. No more need for Windows, and it sidesteps the ritual
of installing each year's package (plus updates) on your own box.
After you tip your hand...
Wol
What crossplatform dev env are you talking about?
After you tip your hand...
Borland Delphi / Kylix.
After you tip your hand...
Having used Kylix Pro/Dev 1 / 2 / 3 I can tell you why few copies were bought. It didn't work correctly and Borland didn't release patches/fixes for most of the bugs that were found. Their method of bug fixing was to up the version number and charge for the upgrade.
After you tip your hand...
Even as a free software developer you have no rights whatsoever regarding community support. If you don't understand how the process works, and how you can benefit from it, don't complain when things don't turn out the way you planned or expected. Instead, you could consider investing a bit of time and money, like you would have probably done in any other case. By now, you look like a clown if you do not understand the meaning of "free" in free software.
After you tip your hand...
"That said, I don't understand how you can build your business on top of a software package that a) does not have a serious support policy; and b) forces you into a specific market, and out of a possibly very profitable one. Maybe you are just trolling here."After you tip your hand...
You seem to be making the same mistakes as the original poster.
After you tip your hand...
An example from real life: in my stepfather's office, windows is used on workstations, but linux is used as a gateway and a file server. Both, the workstations and the linux server are maintained by a local IT company, which sends a monthly bill, which consists of the following:After you tip your hand...
> The vendor of that development environment has just discontinued their Linux portAfter you tip your hand...
"If your development environment had been free software, you would never have faced the problem you are facing now."After you tip your hand...
Before this gets out of hand...
RMS defends the GFDL because it gives users all of the *useful* freedoms they need. The GPL also restricts certain actions, but only non-useful actions.
Interesting. Could you please direct me to the list of useful vs. non-useful freedoms? I would be interested in reading it. I would also be curious to know how such a list was developed.
No, I can't, but I can point out freedoms that are useful to developers but not to users. For
example the freedom to distribute modified versions of a work.
I think the keyword is users.
Before this gets out of hand...
And I become a developer how?Before this gets out of hand...
Stop. I thought that the GNU project considered all users as potentialBefore this gets out of hand...
programmers and that was the reason behind the GPL. That nobody could
restricted from acting as a developer and forced to act as a mere
consumer of goods.
problem is that it is being touted as a complimentary license to the GPL
to use on documentation for Free Software projects. But that makes the
documentation considerably less free than the software it describes.
Before this gets out of hand...
RMS defends the GFDL because it gives users all of the *useful* freedoms they need. The GPL also restricts certain actions, but only non-useful actions.
You didn't differentiate between the GPL and the GFDL with this comment: you're saying both restrict only non-useful actions. Thomas Bushnell says "It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever." To me, that certainly looks like an useful freedom to have.
> I'm on Thomas's side, but lets get our facts straight.Before this gets out of hand...
Sorry, I've confused the thread with my comment. I was trying to address multiple comments in a rush as my dinner was getting cold :-)Before this gets out of hand...
The title of this article is currently:Before this gets out of hand...
architect of the project. If that's incorrect please say so clearly and
I'm sure the LWN editors will correct it.
I did change the title, mostly because I thought the new one fit better into the weekly edition, which will be out shortly. That was probably a mistake; we try to avoid substantive changes after we put something up.
Before this gets out of hand...
It seems to me, that it would indeed be "useful" to be allowed to say include the description of a single function from the Emacs-manual in some other program or document without having to include kilobytes and kilobytes of "invariant sections".Before this gets out of hand...
("important freedoms" would have been a more accurate phrase)"useful freedoms"
Public domain is free. But this includes the freedom to abuse. So RMS invented the concept of copyleft which gives people the important freedoms, but takes away the freedom to abuse. With Eben Moglen, he drafted the GPL which is an implementation of copyleft that can be used for software.Before this gets out of hand...
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
This is the strength and the bane of the FSF: It has no visible (to me, at least) element of community or democracy in its decisions - ultimately, RMS seems to decide.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
> Linus is in charge of making the one thing (Linux kernel) that must actually work.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
I know. But if your hardware is not supported by the kernel, you are out. As much as I never "use" the kernel, I do appreciate (very much) the level of out-of-the-box support that Linux now offers. And that is supposed to read Linux. I am also really grateful for Gnu et al. I'd be stuck without them. But I could run ls on Windows (Cygwin) if I wanted to.ls, sh and friends
(1) great stuff, if it ever works (whether "better" than Linux or not I don't care, but having another fully independent free alternative would be great)
(2) ideological management - top-down design both in terms of architecture, and target.
"Yes, because /bin/sh, /bin/ls, /usr/bin/gcc, and so on, don't need to actually work..."Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
I actually do not hold RMS in the highest esteem at all. People always Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
tell me about the great things he _has_ done, and _has_ achieved. Well,
as far as I'm concerned he is now a _has_been_. He is always ranting
about how he built a GNU community, but the fact is that many people
don't give a sheit about GNU, they just love programming and GNU happens
to be always in need of help. RMS is a zealot with his strange
philosophy of having free software with non-free documentation (even RMS
admits that). If he thinks he wins if he scares or even sends away his
best contributors because these people use their right ot Free (!)
speach, then he reallY, _really_ sucks even more than I thought until a
few minutes ago.
"What's he done for me lately" isn't a very gracious way to go about this.
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
`` "What's he done for me lately" isn't a very gracious way to go about this. ''Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
There are people who have been on this Earth and are here no longer who have brought about fundamental changes in human thought.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Sorry if I sound like a troll:Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
RMS.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
I'm not likely to ask for the mans autograph if i see him but he's done some good stuff for free software and has _maintained_ what he has done. GNU could have been set up and then flopped because he couldn't be bothered anymore. The GPL is still being used even now. That means that what he _did_ is still happening today. I don't, however, like the way he mixes a purely political message with the software. Extream views can destroy good ideas and the FSF and GNU _have_ good ideas.
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
I hope we will see the new version of the GPL, or at least a draft, not too late now.What about next version of GPL ?
I would really like to know how things can evolve, also thinking to the new challenges that are open by SCO, DRM, IP, DMCA and so on...
So far what is happening here does not help me making an opinion.
A new version of the GPL is not really needed to solve any of those problems (unless version 2 is found to be invalid in court, which I doubt). The GPL works around DRM and the DMCA by defining source to be in the "the preferred form for making modifications". If a form is locked up in DRM, it's clearly not the preferred form for modification.What about next version of GPL ?
So, RMS'd kill his own project because the chief architect of the most important (and still not well-accepted) component dissents against documentation policy?Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Maybe GNU will finally focus their energy on Linux and jettison the dead weight of HURD.
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Not to be too harsh, but HURD has struck me as kind of like Duke Nukem Forever - interesting to talk about, something of a running joke, and after a point... ultimately unnecessary.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
it's another option. It might turn out to be better than BSD and Linux. It'll be interesting to see where it goes and maybe it'll be useful for some people.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
I know that lots of options can get confusing but there arn't that many so the HURD won't hurt as an addition.
"it's another option. It might turn out to be better than BSD and Linux. "Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
There are debates about how "microkernel" Darwin/OSX is due to a significant layer of monolithic code sitting on top of Mach.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Perhaps but the point I was trying to make was that new products may well have new ideas or different takes on a goal so it can't really hurt to have the HURD out there to play with. It's interesting. It might turn out to be nothing new or even useful, but it'll still be interesting.
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
He could always fork it, if he wanted to.
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
> He could always fork it, if he wanted to.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Remember that GNU stands for GNUs Not Unix to name the fact that once Unix turned proprietary. As such GNU is a good name for a free operating system - whether it is endorsed by the FSF or not. Hopefully not too much documentation for The Hurd has been released under the GFDL.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
You can always pretend that Linux stand for "Linux Is Not UniX" :)Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
"Remember that GNU stands for GNUs Not Unix to name the fact that once Unix turned proprietary."Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
What I'd like to know is why the *archives* to various mailing lists are closed to the general public.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
well often time lists are closed simply to hamper spam address culling.Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
Most projects have private lists to talk about things which should not end up in large discussions, for security reasons and for political reasons (i.e. the "enemy" should not know how you are preparing)
Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
There seems to be a lot of histrionics here, seemingly based uponThomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development
one disaffected persons post. I would appreciate it if LWN could
do their magic and paint this picture a little more completely...
So RMS can dismiss anybody of any project?.Dictatorship?
I'm not quite sure what problem the GFDL is solving with its introduction of invariant sections in the first place. It doesn't seem widely useful to developers, so it's a pity that RMS is so vehement about it.Why the GFDL?
Is the GFDL DFSG-free if there are cover texts, but no invariant sections?
> In other words, if you put opinions into a technical document, the GFDL canWhy the GFDL?
> be used to prevent people from editing your opinions.
> Is the GFDL DFSG-free if there are cover texts, but no invariant sections?
Debians positional statement is hereWhy the GFDL?
(you might want to turn off style sheets)
I used to think that GFDL is free enough for Debian and other distibutions but not free enough to be used or endorsed by FSF. Unfortunately, it appears that GFDL is not free at all. What's worse, it can impose certain limitations on the distribution even without any modifications to any documentation under GFDL.
Thank you for the link!
This is a *draft* position statement. It has not been even proposed for votes, so it only represent the opinions of the people cited and not of Debian.Why the GFDL?
mailing list correctly.
A major problem with the GFDL is, that GNU maintainers are more or less forced to put any documentation under it. I did this in the past for my GNU software and even non-GNU stuff, trusting that RMS does the Right Thing.
Meanwhile I realized the problems (even when not using invariant sections) and I wish that I could change the docs back to the GPL. Given that I assigned most of my work to the FSF, this might not happen any time soon.
We are forced to use the GFDL
You still keep all your rights under the copyright assignment contract of the FSF, right? So you could release it under another license. Of course it's more difficult if multiple people have contributed.We are forced to use the GFDL
We are forced to use the GFDL
You still keep all your rights under the copyright assignment contract of the FSF, right?
Actually he is half-right. If you sign an FSF copyright assignment, you We are forced to use the GFDL
are still explicitly allowed to re-license your own contributions (and
_only_ your own, of course) under a license of your choice.
Correct, my contracts say that I can do this 30 days after having noticed the FSF. However, I am not the only author and I might risk my maintainership status ;-)
We are forced to use the GFDL
This is the copyright notice for the GNU GRUB manual
Copyright (c) 1999,2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of
this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice
are preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to process this file through TeX and print the
results, provided the printed document carries a copying permission
notice identical to this one except for the removal of this paragraph
(this paragraph not being relevant to the printed manual).
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided also that
the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a
permission notice identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual
into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions.
Aha. So if I print the manual and leave that one paragraph away, I am then permitted to type the text verbatim (and by hand) into MS Word and distribute it henceforth?
This is the copyright notice for the GNU GRUB manual
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know and I don't care. I do care that the documentation doesn't impose limitations in addition to those contained in the license for the software. I believe the documentation should be under a license at least as liberal as the software. Even the BSD license (without the advrertizing clause) or public domain would be fine (maybe with some corrections or clarifications) because the risk of misappropriation of the documentation is not as great as it is for the software.This is the copyright notice for the GNU GRUB manual
GPL sucks, Stallmann sucks
Stop working for free for an idiot like stallman.
Do you work for Microsoft?
GPL sucks, Stallmann sucks