Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Fact checking (Score 1) 345 345

The FSF does not include those qualifiers. Their statements as written are misleading.

For example "regulating every use of movies downloaded from iTunes" clearly is meant to imply "all movies". If they said "regulated every use of some movies.." that would be better. Even better would be to put the onus where it belongs, "allowing the system to implement the regulations publishers request on the use of movies allowing for either/both/neither of time locks & machines locks ". You see the difference?

As for the FSF being right on software they aren't right they don't include the qualifiers.

Their statements are simply false.

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 345 345

You state that without anything to back it up. I'm using the standard X11 that comes with Debian just fine,

Well yeah of course you are. It isn't 1993. Back then you wouldn't have been. The X11 was a disaster. 2015 is not the early 1990s. As I mentioned XFree86 became the standard well over a dozen years ago.

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 345 345

You started out saying, "systems that were once free become in practice proprietary and unfree even though there is some free almost worthless version hanging out under the BSD license". Yet it served Linux fine for over 20 years, while most of the commercial Unix's died out. Your point is invalid.

Are you that dishonest or just stupid? X Windows is invented in 1984. X11 comes out in 1987 and at that point commercial Xs are viable and introducing all sorts of cool features many of which are still not in XFree86. XFree86 starts in 1991 because the BSD licensed version of X is worthless. Linuxes are using commercial Xs mostly. XFree86 doesn't become really usable until 1995 or 1996 and even then it is just providing the basics still well behind the commercial X's. Your 20 year time period starts with an XFree86 that is nowhere near what SUN or SGI have and by then the the UNIX workstation market is on the decline. Linux misses the conversion and that instead goes to Windows NT. And the reason for that failure of X is the BSD license allowing commercial Xs not to share back. It isn't until the early 2000s that Linuxs have caught up with where the commercial UNIXes were in the early 1990s. The BSD version of X11 didn't serve Linux it crippled it.

Stop posting stupidity. Deal with the reality of the world. And if you don't know it, look it up.

You seem to think because a proprietary fork exists that counts as a failure.

No a proprietary fork that becomes the norm is a failure. That's the definition. That's what you are debating that BSD protects free software and keeps it free.

As for Apache if the value adds on top of Apache are proprietary than Apache is not thriving.

Comment Re:What do you suggest people USE, as opposed to.. (Score 1) 345 345

Well that's the question which is his objective. Having a non-proprietery operating system for mobile (Android with something playing the role of Google Play) on other people's hardware with no DRM doesn't require the FSF to get into the hardware business. Obviously they can create a phone using Replicant. And let's assume they can hit volumes of around 200k per 6mo which is about where they need to be to be not losing money. What does that buy them? It does nothing to change culture.

As far as I'm concerned RMS has always aimed for more mainstream not just hobbyist usage. That's why for example the GNU project tackled COBOL so early while doing other hacker friendly stuff later. He wanted GNU to be mainstream (not that the COBOL helped but the attitude of aiming for mainstream did). A Replicant based obscure phone that under a million people use does almost nothing for the cause of freedom.

Comment Re:No License, no copyright? (Score 1) 345 345

I'm not sure if he is going to answer but if you don't explicitly waive copyright then you retain it. Releasing software to GitHub with no copyright notice means the original author retains all rights. No one else has a right to use it excluding exceptions to copyright law like fair use...

Comment Re:What do you suggest people USE, as opposed to.. (Score 1) 345 345

I think you are missing my point. The FSF could run the enterprise server with different policies and allow people to point their iPads and iPhones to it. They don't have to create anything. They don't have to change Apple's behaviors. They just need to use the features that Apple already provides to do most of what they want. Obviously the FSF can't overcome Apple's billions in R&D. They can't produce a better tablet. But they can follow simple directions and setup their own app store with their own policies that phones could choose to register against.

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 345 345

The system for Linux was from XFree86 which came after the work in the 1980s. Which I explained several times. The fact that 20 years ago it was so far behind and that many people were using commercial X's for Linux is the evidence of how badly the BSD model had failed.

As for OpenSSH has had many similar failures. Apache itself so far has mostly been cooperative and collaborative. At the same time the extensions into app servers like Tomcat have forked over into proprietary products. So in this case the ecosystem doesn't work.

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 345 345

But ultimately we have X.Org and all those old UNIX systems pretty much died out.

Ultimately they did. XFree86 outcompeted them. But the years in between were lost. The damage it did to free systems may not have been fixable. Those lost years were the period when Microsoft got their desktop model more unified with XP. A key reason why Linux on the desktop didn't happen. And of course the tremendous number of features which even now 25-30 years later are not part of X11 can't be magically added. X is precisely the kind of disaster that the GPL people talk about. It is the original example of total license failure from a free software perspective.

To the contrary there are a lot of hugely popular examples of success: Docker, OpenStack, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, Apache webserver, Hadoop, WebKit, zlib, postgres, OpenLDAP, Ruby, Clang, X.Org, etc.

I don't know that those are all successes. Hadoop has tons of proprietary extensions that aren't making it into the open product. Hadoop would have been experiencing what X experienced, except that Hortonworks has done such a good job of keeping the open source product viable while MapR. Revolution and Cloudera have been forking away. OpenSSL/OpenSSH have had proprietary extensions which aren't in the open product. Postgres has proprietary extensions. OpenLDAP, Ruby both do. I don't know about Clang.

  Docker, OpenStack, etc... are new. They are with their original creators.

So here we have your list. And virtually every example demonstrates the failure of the BSD licensing model. That's the problem a long proven track record of failure. Webkit may be the only success on that list where the open product is as good as the closed ones. Now in most cases the open product is still usable from your list, but you picked your list so that this would be true. There are may examples where that isn't true.

Comment Re:Fact checking (Score 1) 345 345

Compare that to download from anywhere & install, which is the way with FSF software

True, but provisioning files are a security feature. It is one of the many reasons that virus are much more difficult to create for iOS. If you can sign your own software that makes software installation more difficult.

Now yes, you can get some agreement with Apple if you are big, successful, and/or have cash

This is not some mystery. You pay a nominal fee and you can run your own server replacing some of the functionality. Many of the MDM's include the enterprise SDK and some are sold on a per device per month basis.

Of course they mean DOWNLOAD from the Apple iTunes cloud services. Go try and play that video on your GNU/Linux box.

I can play non-DRMed content that I buy from the Apple ITunes services fine on a GNU/Linux box. I can also stream / share that content to a GNU/Linux box even if it is DRMed (obviously there needs to be a Mac in the loop somewhere). So even that description is not accurate. The problem isn't the store the problem is the DRM. The publisher determines if they want Apple to apply DRM or not, that's not Apple doing anything but enabling the choice for publishers. Some movies don't have DRM. It is reasonable to object to them enabling this. It is reasonable to object to the publishers choosing this. It is simply false to claim that Apple is regulating every use of every movie.

The Apple software distribution model prevents John Smith from releasing software for iOS without getting approval from Apple in any feasible way.

That's still not true you still need to weaken it one more step. The iOS software distribution model prevents John Smith from releasing non-enterprise software for iOS without getting approval from Apple in any feasible way. Microstrategy which AFAIK sells more iOS software than anyone else in the world has very little of their product in the App store. They just don't sell on a $2.99 basis to individuals.

Another way of saying this is that Apple provides a regulated consumer ecosystem. One can certainly argue the advantages and disadvantages of a regulated consumer ecosystem vs. a fully open one. But mischaracterizing and misdescribing Apple's policies and technology do not aide that conversation. Anyway you cut it the FSF is either being incredibly sloppy or dishonest in their critique and that deserves criticism.

Again if the FSF doesn't like Apple's policies why not run their own enterprise SDK and allow people to point to their systems instead of Apple's? Apple fully supports this. They don't need to do anything tricky here.

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 345 345

OpenSSH? Apache? X11? Those are all licensed under BSD-style licenses and not GPL, and they are still widely used today, moreso than any proprietary version.

X11 was the typical example of BSD failure. X11 had an MIT license, got taken in by proprietary vendors who had their own X's all with cool features, most of which are still not in the X11 on Linux. There was no free usable X for Unixes for years. Essentially the XFree86 people had to start from scratch and this took years. Eventually XFree86 became the standard X, but only after the entire X model was outdated. The result of the BSD license was a disaster for free software one of the worst free software disasters ever.

Comment Re:Fact checking (Score 1) 345 345

I'd disagree. We know that lots of companies do run their own app stores, so it most certainly is practical for them to distribute their own software to literally millions of their users. It is practical. I actually think it would be practical for the FSF for example to run their own solution.

As for installing your own software... for someone capable of building iOS software the developer route is quite practical. It isn't practical for 3rd party distribution but that's a very difficult claim. If the FSF said something like, "there is no practical way for developers to sell software to non-corporate users outside the Apple store" that would be fair. But that's a far weaker claim than what they are saying.

And that's my point. At a certain point refuting an exaggeration isn't just nitpicking but rather the claim is simple false.

Comment Re:What do you suggest people USE, as opposed to.. (Score 1) 345 345

Their issue with JavaScript is effectively non-free JavaScript not so much the language itself. They are right now educated about JavaScript, how best to use it, so need for a replacement.

I think for the iPad Stallman would want Apple to open it more. From what I can figure essentially what he wants is some of the features in the enterprise SDK, which Apple distributes at below their cost. I attribute FSF's position on iOS to ignorance and principle and it is hard to distinguish. The FSF simply says too much that is just false when it comes to Apple for me to figure out what they want. Plus I've told them this and they've kept it up, so at this point they are lying not mistaken.

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?